Jump to content

HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED "APPROVER DISPARITY"?


PULASKI
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Greetings!

 

This will probably stir up a hornets nest....

 

First, let me say I am not whining about my caches that werent approved. I didnt start the hobby, I dont run the server and I am not paying anything to cache so its completely Jeremy and Company's right to do what they want. I recognize that.

 

Second, I am a fan of locationless or virtual caches when they have interesting or educational value. I also think they can be a great way for persons with disabilities to enjoy this hobby. I am not ashamed of my like of locationless caches.

 

Personally, I would rather score an interesting virtual cache that causes me to think, learn something or go somewhere I wouldnt have normally gone than to wander a few hundred yards into a park or woods to find what often turns out to be a poorly planned box of junk.

 

Recently I have had the following virtuals shot down:

* SEARCHLITE CACHE - find a searchlight that is shining into the night sky and photo. Many of these are WWII surplus and my cache included research on them that took several hours to complete.

* GEO WASHINGTON SLEPT HERE - Virtual c. taking you to a plaque commemorating a location where General W slept. Includes nearby Civil War cannons and a statue of a CW General and his dog

*READING PA WEBCAM- admittedly fairly far away but no farther than many other cams and it included a second photo for verification

Etc Etc Etc

 

One of the denials included an eloquent line to the affect of "virtual caches must be so unique and noteworthy that people want to travel to see them and photos of the location could make it into a cofeetable book"

 

My issue is that I have seem EXTREMELY unpredictable standards being used for accepting or denying a cache.

 

Recently a virtual cache was approved along a major Interstate highway. The answer is to report that it was several 25ft tall outlines of a beer bottles painted ON A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ( beer distributor ). Not only is this cache doable from the highway at 75mph but its an ad for a business.

 

But it was approved in February2003 - long after the supposedly stricter guidelines were put in place. This isnt an isolated case either.

 

So my question is - has anyone else faced what they feel is a disparity in cache approval? Had an interesting cache turned down? Known of a really boring or commercial c. that was recently OK'd?

 

Sending this partly because I am curious and partly because I like stirring up trouble!

 

Thanks.

Sincerely,

PULASKI

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Pulaski:

Greetings!

So my question is - has anyone else faced what they feel is a disparity in cache approval? Had an interesting cache turned down? Known of a really boring or commercial c. that was recently OK'd?

 

Sending this partly because I am curious and partly because I like stirring up trouble!

 

Thanks.

Sincerely,

PULASKI


 

Nope! I think they do a fine job!

 

Salvelinus

 

goldfish.gif

"The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Life is a whole and good and evil must be accepted together"

 

Ralph Abele

Link to comment

quote:
My issue is that I have seem EXTREMELY unpredictable standards being used for accepting or denying a cache.

 

There have been several cases where this has happened. One approver denying while yet another approving an almost identical type cache. Had one such situation myself a few months back, but I think that it has been brought to everyone's attention and that maybe some more basic standards will be put in place to help with this disparity. Keep in mind that basics are ok, but we sure dont want to make too many hard and fast rules. Im thinking that having too many would sure hamper the number of creative and well thought out caches that we all have seen!

 

What it comes down to is that its alot of work and i think the People that volunteer their time for our hobby do a pretty goooooooood job!!! icon_smile.gif

 

BTW, that virtual that you mentioned does sound commercial and to me, not all that interesting. On the other hand, i havnt looked at the cache page so i may be missing something. icon_confused.gif

Link to comment

I think the approvers do a great job and give them credit for putting up with all the whining they must deal with every day.

 

Of course there is going to be disparity. The approvers are individuals who are given a set of guidelines to follow. Because they are individuals it is unlikely that each approver will interpet the guidelines in exactly the same way.

 

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

Link to comment

There's a moratorium on locationless caches, which your first two caches are described to be.

 

If you have an issue with a cache not being approved, copy and paste the cache info in the forums and allow a vote on the merits of the cache.

 

I think people in the forums are getting tired of admin bashing. If you have a direct issue with a cache, post it for a vote. If it isn't worth the effort to do so, it wasn't worth the effort to list it on the site.

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

I think people in the forums are getting tired of admin bashing. If you have a direct issue with a cache, post it for a vote. If it isn't worth the effort to do so, it wasn't worth the effort to list it on the site.


YEAH! How true, Jeremy!

Any ideas I have for non-conventional caches I run past a few admins first. None have ever complained about me wasting their time by asking first.

 

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

Link to comment

Who knows? You mention 3 examples, but only give us one explanation of a denial. And in that case you don't bother to indicate whether or not the denial refers to any of the cases mentioned. When I see a message like that, it appears that the poster is trying to manipulate the facts to support their side. While that may or may not be true, we're left to wonder why you didn't bother to give more information. After all, we're not able to examine unapproved caches, so we only have your information to go on. You're not going to win people over to your side by purposely leave out important information.

 

3608_2800.gif

Link to comment

I have not personally experienced any 'approver disparity'. From being active in the forums, however, I have taken part in discussions regarding individual caches. I have thus seen caches declined that, in my personal opinion, should have approved. I've also seen caches approved that I thought should have been declined. This certainly does not make me right and the admins wrong.

Link to comment

I myself, personally, LOVE Admin bashing... almost as much fun as trolling for Criminal alone (shut up Criminal!)

 

But, I wouldn't bash the Admins regarding this particular issue, they do an outstanding job on it.

 

Now, as far as the Admins dress and personal hygene habits ---

icon_wink.gificon_biggrin.gif

 

--majicman

Link to comment

I have not see any problems with the approvers only with cachers, let them do there jobs. When we look at a cache posted to the forums we are not usually ( some are )looking at the big picture that geocaching.com is trying to do to further the sport for everyone ………. JOE

 

Caching for Life or Divorce which ever comes first

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

There's a moratorium on locationless caches, which your first two caches are described to be.


 

Actually, the second one was described as a virt. Not disagreeing or anything, just pointing that out.

 

In general, I think the approvers do a great job. I certainly haven't heard of any problems from the cachers I hang out with; maybe that's because we're still placing normal caches and not trying to see what we can get away with.

 

warm.gif

Link to comment

I have a question.

 

If you think you have a cache that will draw fire, How hard is it to make a beta page of what you want to do and send it to whomever is listed on the majority of your cache pages as the approver?

 

Why not work behind the scenes and not take up a GC number until you have a valid cache to post?

 

I have had a lot of so-so cache ideas I have sent off as a beta page, got some good feed back, counter offered and worked with TPTB until I either worked out a cache or scrapped the whole idea.

 

A lot less headaches on both sides of the table that way. It take a little more of YOUR time but we all get the same amount of hours in a day, it just depends on what you want to do with them.

 

logscaler.

Link to comment

Greetings!

 

On the way back to the firehouse my cellphone rings and a friend says "look at the number of replies to your forum post inc the butt kissing"

 

I wasnt trying to bash the "volunteer approvers". I dont even read the forum most months so I was unaware of any previous rash of approver bashing.

 

Also, using the "the approvers are allllll volunteers" deal is a cop-out. There should be some standard (loose or not) that the approvers follow. Saying they can pick and choose is like saying volunteer firefighters dont have to train to the same standard as paid firefighters because they are vollies.

 

AND, my disapproved locationless cache(s) were all posted before the 2/9/03 "moratorium" ( which I didnt even know officially existed until I saw it today )

 

If I was a cacher in a wheelchair I would have serious issues with suspending locationless caches.

 

Thanks to those who posted so far. I needed a few good laughs.

 

Sincerely,

PULASKI icon_eek.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Pulaski:

If I was a cacher in a wheelchair I would have serious issues with suspending locationless caches.

 

Thanks to those who posted so far. I needed a few good laughs.

 

Sincerely,

PULASKI icon_eek.gif


FIRST: locationless caches were not suspended. New approvals were, temporarily. There are still 300+ locationless caches out there for you to log, last I checked.

WTF does being in a wheelchair have to do with locationless caches, anyway?

Not all locationless are doable in a wheelchair, and many virtual and physical caches ARE. I have one physical cache out there now that is, and have a multicache that should be in place in a few weeks that is %100 doable from a wheelchair.

 

That line of yours was the best laugh in this thread yet.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Pulaski:

Greetings!

 

I wasnt trying to bash the "volunteer approvers". I dont even read the forum most months so I was unaware of any previous rash of approver bashing.

 

If I was a cacher in a wheelchair I would have serious issues with suspending locationless caches.

 

Sincerely,

PULASKI icon_eek.gif


 

If your goal wasn't bashing, you may not have chosen the best approach, since it reads as such to a lot of us.

 

If your goal was to point out approved caches that shouldn't be, there's always the option of selecting the 'This Cache Should Be Archived' option on the cache page.

 

If you wish to advocate for more accessible caches, go for it (but you haven't really done so yet). I've had two accessible caches approved in the past few weeks, and there have been other recent hides in my area that also qualify. Perhaps locationless caches aren't as important to achieving this goal as you believe.

 

Ron/yumitori

Link to comment

What I don't understand is why is there a "moritorium" on virtual and/or locationless caches? So what if some people don't like vitrual / locationless / underwater / multi / caches in red plastic containers or whatever gets their goat?

 

If it encourages people to get off their butts, and go somewhere, see something new, and maybe learn something, then that is good.

 

What is that? We are running out of cache id numbers? Bullsh*t. Evne with four charactes (GCxxxx), there are 26 letters and 10 digits. That give us 36 * 36 * 36 * 36 unique numbers - 60.5 million caches. How long will it take TPTB to make the programming changes?

 

Surely there is enough maturity around to account for most people's taste in how they want to carry out their hobby.

Link to comment

Please explain "Troll" or "Trolling"

 

Instead of enlightening me on the terminology of those who sit, drooling, at their computers 24/7 -Jeremy makes the smart alecky "*cough* troll *cough*"

 

Seriously, I do not know what this means. I am not a forum "insider" or in his legions of approvers

 

Sincerely,

PULASKI

Link to comment

I think the approvers do a good job....of course I've never had one denied....I had to explain a few...but all passed inspection...so maybe I'm biased.

 

When it comes to locationless caches...I'm very biased. I don't believe they belong...but that's my opinion and another discussion. Virtual caches I can live with.

 

El Diablo

 

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

Link to comment

Pulaski, in my opinion, was just asking a fair and honest question and gave his opinion and posted his experience with the hobby. Do we not live in a free country where we have the right to ask. Don't make it a crime or make people feel bad for asking or stating their opinion.

 

Yes, sure the admins do a great job, we all apparently know that, and so do a number of us in supporting the hobby.

 

I've had experiences in placing a locationless cache that was not approved...And here is my story.

 

I was fairly new to caching and decided it would be fun to place a few, 2 of which were locationless caches.

 

One I made that was quick and minimal effort, and in my honest opinion, LAME and of no real interest to me...I honestly just did it for the sake of doing it...and I have considered archiving it, but people "say" they like it and had fun in their logs. The admins asked me something, I made a change and it was approved.

 

Then I wanted to make another locationless cache, which took a few weeks of planning and gathering some information, and that was of GREAT interest to me, as I intended to actually go and visit the locations found in the logs...One reason I wanted to do this, was because the information just was not available on the net, and that frustrated me. Anyways, I placed the cache and it was denied (coffee table book excuse, even though it WOULD be and is in in coffee table books). Ok fine I thought, but then I though of how to make it even better, so I changed it quite a bit and was sure that it would get approved now...but denied again. I asked the approver what was needed and what i could do to get it approved, and he basically didn't seem to want to provide any suggestions and simply stopped replying. Then I think i wrote Jeremy (or someone, I forget) about my proposed cache and atleast he gave me a good and acceptable answer and said that there would be some changes to these types of caches in the future...so I was very happy with his answer and thought, ok I just wait it out.

 

So I guess what doesn't/didn't make sense to me is that my lame cache that had no interest to me got approved and my well thought out one that did interest me, did not get approved. And then I see other LAME (sorry, just my opinion, no offense to the cache owner) caches like the one where you have to find a field stone wall not made with mortar that gets approved, which are all over the place and very common.

 

So I guess what I am saying is as follows:

1) There does need to be some "guidelines" for all caches, which we have.

2) These guidelines should be made available and be fairly consistent. Just so some people that place caches do not waste their time, like osme have.

3) I think it is great that the approvers are fair and if you do get a cache denied that you can post it in a message and see what others think....excellent guideline, but people odn't seem to take advantage of this.

4) Me personally I do not like locationless caches nor do I really like virtuals, but I will do them, just because they are there, but only if I have nothing else to do.

5) I like the caches where there is some kind of mental challenge, be it mathematical or solving some kind of puzzle.

6) I also feel that locationless caches should be truely "LOG ANYWHERE" and not resicted to something in a certain state or city, like many of them are.

7) I do like the fact that the admins are making it harder to list locationless and virtuals...

 

I would be curious to hear of other's successfully approved or denied locationlesses and virtuals.

 

I am glad I discovered caching as it has brought more meaning to my life.

 

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by res2100:

 

Pulaski, in my opinion, was just asking a fair and honest question and gave his opinion and posted his experience with the hobby. Do we not live in a free country where we have the right to ask. Don't make it a crime or make people feel bad for asking or stating their opinion.


Yeah, I might buy that, had he not ended his post with "Sending this partly because I am curious and partly because I like stirring up trouble!"

 

3608_2800.gif

Link to comment

For all of you out there that have nothing to offer than a negative attitude towards approvers, why don't you get off of your negative rearends and send an e-mail to Geocaching.com and offer your sincere services as being an approver?

 

You will gain a wealth of knowledge about people in general.

 

It will be a true learning experience for you.

 

You will have a set of rules and guidelines to follow, and you will be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

 

Come on! I dare you!

Edited by Keystone
removed bad formatting
Link to comment

remember there are rules and guidelines

 

if folks have an issue with THEIR cache, take it up with the approver directly...

 

why is this sooooooooooooooooooo freakin complicated?

 

only in the US would a geocacher take a website to court because their study on decaying bodies cache wasn't approved...

 

remember:

 

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

Link to comment

Well living in the same city with Fuzzy, what he says applies. People here are posting real caches, i recently posted what i believe is the first virtual in Fort Wayne, due to absolute lack of container space at such a cool location.

 

It wasnt until after i posted it, then i got bored and scanned the forum and ran into all this admin bashing. probly due to my quick skim, i was afraid my virt might not get approved, but it was. No problems at all.

 

Its all hype, and i dont see where this admin bashing is being motivated from. It seems to me, general common sense, or at least thinking over an idea for a cache will dispel any doubts or worries.

 

As far as im concerned, if its good it will make the cut.

 

[Episkipos Enos Shenk, KSC]

[http://enos.deviantart.com]

Link to comment

Seems like too many people like to use the phrase "admin baching"...to me that would actually be the case if something bad was said about an admin/approver, which in this thread it hasn't. People simply stated their opinions and examples, and I feel there is nothing wrong with that.

 

I think that Pulaski was joking in his first message when he said he is posting partly to cause trouble...lighten up people and don't take life so seriously. geocachign is a fun sport/hobby/activity. There is no winner or loser, just a lot of fun!

 

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

Link to comment

I had a cache not long ago that I posted while visiting family in Idaho.

 

Even though I felt it was a great cache, it was denied. After a few e-mails between the approver and myself, I convinced him that it was a good virtual cache and he went ahead and approved it. It has become a popular cache with some real historical significance.

 

My point in this is that you can always e-mail the person who did not approve it and plead the case of your cache, if the cache is worthwhile.

Link to comment

I'm all for NOT approving lame virts like the decomposing bird, etc.. But I think the major beef people have is getting a disaproval AFTER doing some or a lot of leg-work. I like the suggestion in this thread to beta it first, or pass it by the forums or cache approvers before you go all out. It might save you some grief.

 

I guess I have been lucky so far. I sometimes spend weeks setting up caches. If I was to get one disapproved without good reason after some major effort in laying it down, I'd probably want an explanation of some sort with an aim to 'make it approvable'.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment

At the risk of Jeremy using his administrative mind and calling me a troll as he did others I might add that no one said the mods are doing a bad job. Not a single person did. The question was basically "are all caches judged equally by all mods". Of course they aren't. Each mod is going to look at things differently. One might approve a virtual that another would not. They don't always agree with each other.

 

I was once a moderator on a website that did not allow profanity in the message base. Well some people love to curse. So some mods would look at the word Hell and think that's cursing, another would not. So of course we had people complaing about unequal treatment. We would try to all get on the same page and then the website owner would change a few things around and it would take awhile for us to catch up. More complaints. It's a normal thing I think unless you are just going to allow an anything goes type of environment.

 

Jeremy I might add that as the owner of the website I suggest you refrain from the name calling. Since this hobby started you've managed to chase away some of the original cachers. Now that we're big and booming I guess you might feel that you can do whatever you like.

 

You owe Pulaski an apology and I wonder if you're man enough to give it? I have my doubts.

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

Link to comment

I seem to recall reading somewhere here not long ago that if you want to appeal an approver's rejection, you should bring it to the forum for discussion. In fact, I believe it was Jeromy that submitted that suggestion. Now when Pulaski brings it up to the forum he's called a troll.

 

I'm fairly new to this and although I have enjoyed the activity, it would have been a lot more fun if I hadn't discovered the forum.

 

-- Its from aliens. I seen um. --

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by eahousley:

I seem to recall reading somewhere here not long ago that if you want to appeal an approver's rejection, you should bring it to the forum for discussion. In fact, I believe it was Jeromy that submitted that suggestion. Now when Pulaski brings it up to the forum he's called a troll.


 

Pulaski wasn't appealing any decisions. He was whining about how his caches got questioned but others he considered not as good got approved.

 

Appealing a decision is prefectly fine; whining about how "It's not fair!" is trolling.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team My Blue Heaven:

I had a cache not long ago that I posted while visiting family in Idaho.

 

Even though I felt it was a great cache, it was denied. After a few e-mails between the approver and myself, I convinced him that it was a good virtual cache and he went ahead and approved it. It has become a popular cache with some real historical significance.

 

My point in this is that you can always e-mail the person who did not approve it and plead the case of your cache, if the cache is worthwhile.


 

Thank you!

Link to comment

quote:

So my question is - has anyone else faced what they feel is a disparity in cache approval? Had an interesting cache turned down? Known of a really boring or commercial c. that was recently OK'd?
quote:

 

To answer your original question, I haven't but then I've never wanted to post a virtual.

 

quote:

Sending this partly because I am curious and partly because I like stirring up trouble!
quote:

 

That statement is why you're gonna find it hard to get a respectful answer here icon_eek.gif

Link to comment

Who are the cache cops Jomarac5?

 

Or are some people just paranoid?

 

Speaking of all the whimpers I read these days:

 

I don't think the disrespect shown to Jeremy directly or indirectly, (and from many directions) is going to assist in helping to move geocaching forward.

 

Oh sure, *opinions* are welcome.

 

And those with contributions to make to geocaching (and this site) are surely welcome.

 

There must be enough anti-Jeremy sentiment existing to warrant creation of an alternate website. All the best to those who wish to contribute to this massive effort.

 

And good luck.

 

canadazuuk

Link to comment

quote:
There must be enough anti-Jeremy sentiment existing to warrant creation of an alternate website. All the best to those who wish to contribute to this massive effort.

 

I know Jeremy and I don't see eye to eye on much, but I am a supporter of this site, I contribute money myself and have purchased many items through Groundspeak. I want this site to continue to be a success. I also think one way for that to succeed is for Jermey to stop his public relations campaign, he sucks at that.

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

Link to comment

quote:
Canadazuuk wrote:

Who are the cache cops Jomarac5?


They would be those who stifle the valid creativity of others in an activity that has not yet had opportunity to fully explore the possibilities.

 

They would be those who thrust their narrow views and opinions of what this activity should be upon everyone else -- even upon those that have expressed their enjoyment of all types of caches.

 

They would be those who pretend to know what is best for me and also for you.

-----

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...