Approving admins??

[+Logscaler and Red]

Hey people.

 

Stand back and look this over again.

 

One geocaching approver per geocache. Right?

 

One person from geocaching.com said "okay, a valid cache" and put their stamp of approval on it. Yours, mine or their own. It does not matter.

 

Now look at how many people will/could be going to said cache. How long would it take before the e-mails started flying to geocaching.com if something is outside the guidelines (rule’s) with this cache? How long before a topic is posted to the forums about the cache?

 

We, the cache hunters, are in reality the cache approvers. If the cache hunters like the

cache, they will post nice comments and encourage other to hunt it, thus giving their

approval.

 

Geocaching.com said “this cache falls in the guidelines” and let it out.

 

BUT, If it is to stay out and live is up to the cache hunters. Period. And it does not

matter who’s cache it is.

 

Myself, I would have no problem with the administrators posting their own caches.

 

What would you want them to do?

 

Some have already claimed a “rubber stamp” would be put on any administrators caches

by other administrator people. So they are saying they do not trust the administrators.

 

Their choice.

 

Myself, I take a person to their word until they have proven that my trust is misplaced. Then I deal with it but not until.

 

Would you really expect Jeremy to have to sit and go through all the administrators cache request? Would you rather have a committee that oversees administrators caches? Or would you be wanting to ban administrators from placing caches?

 

If you are going to post a “perceived problem” as a forum topic, please have a solution in

mind.

 

And a final thought on this whole thread is that someone is just trying to stir up trouble.

 

logscaler.

 

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

[+woodsters]

Yes the doctor/approver synopsis is getting stretched. But it goes the same across just about anywhere. People are put into positions. Should people who are in positions to "regulate", be able to regulate themselves? I'm sure there are many other perks that the approvers have that we don't know about. But when it comes to something of immediate interest, approving since they are approvers, then it's a conflict of interest.

 

Of course people are going to gripe about their caches if something is wrong. That's a no brainer. I don't think it has really anything to do technically, but just a more of the "matter of the fact".

 

I agree that it does sound like someone(thread starter) trying to start something up and if they have something they are relating the thread to, then either spit it out or say that you are speaking in general. As someone asked, how do they know that an approver, approved their own cache?

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

[Keystone]

Could one of the other admins please tell me about all the "many other perks that the approvers have?" 'Cause I don't know about them either. Maybe it's just because I've only been an approver for six months or so.

 

The only thing close to a "perk" is that my approver account has premium member status (so that I can review Members Only Cache submissions). Five more Pocket Queries... which I use to keep a complete list of all the caches in the territory where I'm an approver.

 

Also the approvers are sometimes asked to be the guinea pigs to test new site features, so that we can report bugs and suggest improvements. So, yeah, I've had access to the new maps for awhile, but at the price of helping to test and improve them. Perk?

 

There's no discount on t-shirts.

No free travel bugs.

No expense reimbursement for driving 100 miles to meet with a park manager.

No salary.

 

We lose the right to compete for First to Find. Some of us lose our "approver's anonymity" even if against our wishes. We lose, to some extent, our ability to voice opinions in the forums that may differ from Groundspeak's official position, because we are rightly viewed as representatives of Groundspeak. Everything we do in geocaching is held to a higher standard, as demonstrated by this thread. That's fine, too.

 

I do this job because I love geocaching and want to give something back to it. When I was asked, I said yes. I don't do it for the perks.

 

Don't make me stop this car!

[+woodsters]

LOL Keystone, watch out and you might talk yourself out of being an approver...or some other approvers.

 

I never really considered what ever extra the approvers got. I think it is expected. Just as a premium member gets a couple of extras, but not many. My standing is in the process. When an approver is placing a cache, they are wearing their cacher hat. I would think that they are treated just as a cacher. Just as Jeremy stated in another post about him posting. He expects the moderators to moderate him if he goes astray in the forum.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

[+mtn-man]

quote:

---

Originally posted by logscaler:

Hey people.

 

Stand back and look this over again.

 

One geocaching approver per geocache. Right?

 

One person from geocaching.com said "okay, a valid cache" and put their stamp of approval on it. Yours, mine or their own. It does not matter.

 

Now look at how many people will/could be going to said cache. How long would it take before the e-mails started flying to geocaching.com if something is outside the guidelines (rule’s) with this cache? How long before a topic is posted to the forums about the cache?

 

We, the cache hunters, are in reality the cache approvers. If the cache hunters like the

cache, they will post nice comments and encourage other to hunt it, thus giving their

approval.

<snip>

---

Well said. Woodsters, that is the core right there. I'm sure you would be happy to point out any problem with any cache I place.

 

I guess for a perk I get a free premium membership... oh, wait... no, I paid for that.

 

I do get freely verbally abused in emails sometimes... oh, wait... that's not really a perk is it.

 

I get beaten up in the forums from time to time... oh, wait... that's not too good either huh.

 

Let me think. Hmmmmm.

 

 

Now that you mention it, I should quit I guess.

 

Naa, the vast majority of cachers are happy so I get enough reward from that. Maybe I'll keep going for a while.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

[+RomadPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

When I was in the Air Force, hmmm can't think of a perk there. Well writing speeding tickets to colonels was a nice thing to do

---

 

I thought such perks were among the primary reasons people volunteered for the armed forces during the past couple of decades.

 

Back on topic ... every club has its perks, including the admins "Good Ol' Boys" club. As several of the admins have stated, they undoubtedly are more familiar with the rules and guidelines than are we proletariats, and would never, ever flaunt them. So I see no problem with admins approving their own or their associates caches.

 

But the issue of "is there a conflict of interest" does bring a favorite scene from a Gilbert and Sullivan Operetta to mind:

 

_Geocaching community: What? Never?

 

Admins: No! Never!

 

Geocaching community: What! Never?

 

Admins: Welllll .... Hardly Ever! _

---

 

As far as approving your own caches, In the air force I conducted evaluations on people, it was my primary job for several years, I know the regs better than a vast majority of the people doing the job, BUT, I got evaluated by others every year. No matter how well you know the rules, you can get complacent when evaluating yourself. People are never as thorough or critical on themselves.

 

Disclaimer... This is not an attack on the outstanding job done by the admins/approvers at GC.com. I think that if someone else approves your cache, the APPEARANCE of an impropriety is removed!

[+trippy1976]

quote:

---

Originally posted by umc:I'm sure you will find plenty of people on here who place caches according to the guidelines and don't have to "go through the rings" that you are speaking of.

 

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

---

 

It's true. Anyone who places a cache according to the guidelines has no hoops to jump through. A vast majority of caches go through no questions asked.

 

Therefore, since all admins should be trusted to follow the guidelines since they are monitoring submissions for the same... I think they should be allowed to approve their own.

 

Those that have to continually "jump through hoops" should ask themselves if it's the system or themselves...

 

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Assimilating golf balls - one geocache at a time.

[+PSUPAUL]

Wow, talk about discussing something without any merit. As stated endlessly, if hthey approve something that they should not have an endless number of people will jump on them. Let them alone, they do a good job!

 

Besides this isn't rocket science or a life or death decision.

 

PSUPAUL of

Team Geo-Remdation

[+The Two Navigators]

Question Authority Before Authority Questions You.

[+Renegade Knight]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Team Geo-Remdation:

Wow, talk about discussing something without any merit. As stated endlessly, if hthey approve something that they should not have an endless number of people will jump on them. Let them alone, they do a good job!

 

Besides this isn't rocket science or a life or death decision.

 

PSUPAUL of

Team Geo-Remdation

---

 

The discussion isn't about whether approvers do a good job or not. As Romad Pilot put it the Appearance of an impropriety is removed if approvers in turn had their own caches approved by someone other than themselves.

 

People who are defending and applauding the efforts of the admins are only preaching to the choir. The problem seems to be that the system wasn't set up with this simple control to begin with and now it's a "Perk".

 

Still it was pointed out that the decison has been made that approvers can approve their own caches. The appearance of impropriety will remain in some members eyes and eventually the Perk will be abused and it will end.

[Keystone]

Stating that "eventually the perk will be abused" is disrespectful. You are assuming that a behavior will occur, without stating a factual basis.

 

Please, someone, post links to caches owned by admins which do not meet the guidelines and requirements for cache placements that were in effect at the time of the placement.

 

Don't make me stop this car!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I think the current system of checks and balances works just fine. If I find an inappropriate cache, I will post a 'this cache should be archived' log. It doesn't matter if the hider is an admin or not. If I am unhappy with the response I get from that log, I can email contact@Groundspeak.com and address my complaints to Jeremy. It's his website, so he has final say on what happens here.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

[+mtn-man]

Maybe part of it would be the personal embarrasement if I did make a cache that had to be archived because it did not meet the guidelines. My fellow approvers would not let me live it down I'm sure.

 

Beleive me, there are plenty of "should be archived" cache notifications. Caches are noted with that notification for a wide variety of reasons. The run the gamut from caches that are gone to caches that break location or GC.com guidelines. There are plenty of cachers that will jump on the "should be archived" notice to alert the site about a bad cache. I guess a couple of you are complaining about no checks an balances if an approver approves their own cache. There are over 100,000 people out there checking caches. As has been stated, the cachers are the final approvers of every cache. There is a possibility of an approver "rubber-stamping" their own cache when placed on NPS property. But "should be archived" notes are reviewed by about 5 different admins right now so it would not slip though.

 

I think this is a non-issue.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason

[umc]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

People who are defending and applauding the efforts of the admins are only preaching to the choir. The problem seems to be that the system wasn't set up with this simple control to begin with and now it's a "Perk".

---

 

The problem is that there isn't one with the exception of the fact that you are trying to create one. Enough already.

 

__________________________

Caching with a clue....

[+BlueDeuce]

Where's Stella Johnson when you need her?

[+Renegade Knight]

Disrespectfull? You have to stretch to get that Keystone. The problem here isn't that I've suggested that there are bad approvers, its the admins taking it personaly instead of debating the merit of a policy.

 

You are in effect saying "I'm insulted because I would not abuse this perk and for you to suggest that it will be abused eventually is a personal attack." Like I said, I'll vouch for all the approvers and admins I've met or worked with. It changes nothing about that it will get abused at some point. Perhas not by the next approver who serves or the one after that. But eventually.

 

Lets change angles. What test can I take to approve my own cache? Surely people who prove they know the rules should be able to certify they are more knowledgeable than the average geocacher and thus approve their own cache. For you to imply that I or any other uber certified geocacher would break the rules would be disrespectful.

 

If you tell me this is too much because eventually it will get abused, stop and check the logic because I agree. I just apply it across the board. Not just to us plebes.

[+Greenback]

As far as I'm concerned the admins can place whatever cache they like, they spend a lot of time approving caches for free so they should have some sort of bonus. Either that or they should be required to follow the same rules as everyone else and an admin besides themselves should give their caches the once over.

[+canadazuuk]

Sometimes I wonder if I post to a topic just to hear myself talking. Today is one of those days.

[+Bloencustoms]

quote:

---

Lets change angles. What test can I take to approve my own cache? Surely people who prove they know the rules should be able to certify they are more knowledgeable than the average geocacher and thus approve their own cache.

---

 

I sincerely hope this is only for the sake of discussion. The last thing we need is a distinction between "average", and "uber" cachers. Imagine the snobbery that would result.

 

(I'm not calling RK a snob.)

 

If something like this were implemented, it would be impossible to test every cacher who wanted to approve their own caches.

If you want to approve your own caches, volunteer to become an approver. Along with the "perks", you get the responsibility of approving a lot of other caches as well. Doesn't sound as fun anymore, does it?

[Bryan]

The approvers are held accountable for everything they do as admins or moderators. They are accountable to themselves, to each other, to Groundspeak and to the Community.

 

Groundspeak is comfortable with approvers approving their own caches and has provided them with the ability to do so.

 

If you find a cache, whether approver placed or otherwise, and have a problem with it, please let us know. We will address it with the cache owner.

 

Rothstafari

Groundspeak

[+Mopar]

Doesn't anyone but umc and me recognize a troll when they see one? I can't see who approved mtn-man's caches, and I can't see who approved mcdoodles caches, so how the hell does he (or anyone else) know who approved his local approver's caches?

 

"This is gc.com, love it or leave it "

[+Bilder]

So how about them Seattle Seahawks?

 

Think they will make the playoffs this year?

 

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

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

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

[+Confucius' Cat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtn-man:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bo Peep & The Sheep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtn-man:. I personally do not approve mine since I want someone to check my grammer and spelling.

---

 

Good thing too.

 

BAAAD! BAAAAD!!!!

 

A BAAAD Ancestor is Good to Find!!!!

http://blacksheep.rootsweb.com/

Somebody *FINALLY* caught it! Hahaha!!!

(Uh, it is "grammar".)

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/19490_2600.gif

---

 

Never really got to know my grammer. She died when I was very young.

 

"Freedom is a two-way street."

GDAE, Dave

[+canadazuuk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mopar:

 

Doesn't anyone but umc and me recognize a troll when they see one?

---

 

I did wonder the same thing when I saw the thread long before I first posted to it.

 

So how does this user know who approves ANY caches?

[+El Diablo]

R.H.I.P...the military guys will know what that means.

 

El Diablo

 

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

http://www.geo-hikingstick.com

[+Mcdoodles & Family]

As this was my first post, please do not think that I was just trying to stir something up.

 

Truthfully, I was mistaken. I didn't realize that I could not see who approved another persons cache before I posted this thread.

I simply looked up known approver’s caches. I could not see who approved the caches and assumed (yes, I know A** out of U and ME) that they had been approving their own caches. It seems that I have opened a can of worms.

 

There was never really a beef about anything, I realized that one approver had a few caches that would have only one or two visits and then are archived. I really just had a simple question about the way the system works. I got my answer.

 

As far as posting a thread without a solution, I never knew there was a problem.

 

I will now after reading so many posts suggest that everyone should have to get their caches approved by someone else. This only helps to ensure that everyone is being held to the same standards. Most companies and even the government do not allow self-regulation, not even as a perk. How many successful businesses have fallen because of a lack of checks and balances?

 

I guess what I'm saying is the fact that there are this many passionate posts should indicate that this issue might need further investigation.

 

The rule is as it is for now. Approvers can and will approve their own caches. I do applaud those of you who seek advice or approval from others before a cache is placed.

 

I have a lot of respect for those of you who give up your time and energy and volunteer to approve the caches. You help to provide my family with hours of fun. My husband, son and I'm sure the baby on the way will continue to enjoy what you help to approve. Thank You!

 

I am sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

[+Breaktrack]

Wow. For a first post you really came up with a doozy, I'll tell ya.

 

Feathers? We don't need no stinking feathers!!!

 

"Afghanistan was a battle. Iraq was a battle. The war goes on."