Rude Approver????

[+CO Admin]

The thread attacking me was closed before I could respond. It would be abusive of me to reopen it to respond so I shall do something I normally NEVER do. I am going to respond to an attack in the forums.

 

I am accused of being rude.

when they feel like getting to it it would get approved

 

My first e-mail to this cacher said:

From: CO Admin

To: **********

Sent: 7/8/2004 15:39:57

Subject: Re: [GEO] mscott998 contacting you from Geocaching.com

 

If it is a difficult cache why require additional proof. Should not signing the log be proof enough that the person has found the cache. I don't understand the need for additional proof?

CO Admin.

 

 

later that same day in response to an email from Mr Scott I sent:

Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:45:35 -0700 (PDT)

From: "CO Admin" <co_app@yahoo.com>  Add to Address Book

Subject: Re: [GEO] mscott998 contacting you from Geocaching.com

To: *************

 

   

Its ok to ask that they send the information. But you shouldn't deny the find just because they don't. If they sign the log book they deserve the find

 

two days later in response to a question regarding if the cache was going to be approved or not I replied:

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:33:51 -0700 (PDT)

From: "CO Admin" <co_app@yahoo.com>  Add to Address Book

Subject: Re: [GEO] mscott998 contacting you from Geocaching.com

To: *****************

 

   

In all likelihood this cache will be approved when I get the time to get back to it and look at it again. Things have been kind of busy around here the last few days.

CO Admin

 

On the 12Th I received this message from Mr Scott

you approved one of my caches that i posted last night with in 6 hours of posting and i have one that was posted on the 3rd of July that still hasn't been approved, the site says it should take no more than 72 hours for approval. if it is not goung to be approved, please let me know so i can go retrieve it.

 

                                                                                                                                                                    &nb sp;                                                                                      thanks  mscott998

 

I responded the same day with this. Please remember that with the number of caches we do in a week we normally don't remember the cache by your name alone and as you can tell from the email above there is no reference to which cache it is.

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:55:49 -0700 (PDT)

From: "CO Admin" <co_app@yahoo.com>  Add to Address Book

Subject: Re: geocache approval

To: *******************

 

   

Why don't you start by telling me the name and GC# of the cache that has not been approved so I may look it up.

 

I received the name of the cache later that day and responded with the following e-mail.

 

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:09:03 -0700 (PDT)

From: "CO Admin" <co_app@yahoo.com>  Add to Address Book

Subject: Re: geocache approval

To: ****************

 

   

On July 10th I sent you this reply.

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:33:51 -0700 (PDT)

From: "CO Admin" <co_app@yahoo.com>  Add to Address Book

Subject: Re: [GEO] mscott998 contacting you from Geocaching.com

To: **************

 

   

In all likelihood this cache will be approved when I get the time to get back to it and look at it again. Things have been kind of busy around here the last few days.

CO Admin

 

in the day and a half since I sent you that e-mail nothing about what I wrote you has changed. Things are a little hectic around here at the moment. I will get it it as soon as I can. The cache reviewers are all volunteers and as such have lives that sometime interfere with our ability's to approve caches. Please be patient It will get looked at.

Happy Geocaching

CO Admin

 

 

I just looked its 5:15 July 14th and comcast has been down for almost 18 hours(I hate dial up) and found the following from Mr. Scott.

 

From: "Michael Scott" <************>  Add to Address Book

To: coadmin@geocachingadmin.com

Subject: Re: geocache approval

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:53:04 -0700

 

   

?

 

Again no reference to the aforementioned cache. To keep all the facts on the table this is my original reviewers note on the cache page

July 7 by CO Admin (1 found)

If someone signs the log why do they have to e-mail you???

Thanks

CO Admin

NOTE: do not reply by leaving a note on this cache. I am not notified if a note is posted to this cache. In addition, do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the Geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail CO Admin from the log there or email me directly at CO_app@yahoo.com, (there is an underscore between CO and app CO_app) referencing the cache URL's, or waypoint numbers.

 

You will notice the request to include the GC # or URL from the cache in question.

 

I make it a point to be careful what I say in print. I would like someone it please show me where I was rude to Mr. Scott. Mr Scott said in the other thread

i contacted him on the 10th on the status and he was rude in the reply

. To be honest I do not see how my response to him was rude. In fact my response as indicated above, on July 10th was

In all likelihood this cache will be approved when I get the time to get back to it and look at it again. Things have been kind of busy around here the last few days.

CO Admin

 

On the 10th I said things were busy, On the 12th I used the word Hectic. Let me define Busy and hectic. (NOTE: I'm about to do something I never do and will not respond to questions about the following statements as they are personal and normally I don't mention them here, please respect that)

 

In the 7 days since I first looked at the cache. I have, been to the emergency room 3 times for my ill health, been taking care of a member of my family who has been sick. been to 5 doctors appointments for my self and 2 for my family member And still managed to approve 61 caches.

So as I mentioned it has been a little hectic around the house.

 

Mr. Scott, You have my personal apology if you felt you were being neglected or that I was rude. I will point out that I would like you to e-mail me showing me where I was rude so that I can be sure to not make that mistake again. It is now 5:29 am. As soon as I spell check this I will go and approve your cache. I am sorry that my approving one and not the other upset you I simply felt that you would have rather had at least one approved quickly instead of having to wait for both to be approved at the same time. If you feel that you can no longer depend on me to quickly handle your caching needs I can make arrangements to have another reviewer personally handle your caches.

 

Again My apologies Mr Scott.

Michael LaPaglia

CO Admin.

Edited July 14, 2004 by CO Admin

[+Mopar]

As always, there are 2 sides to every story.

This explains why the guy refused to post the "rude" emails.

Edited July 14, 2004 by Mopar

[+briansnat]

How could you be so incredibly rude to a fellow geocacher? Using words like "hectic" and asking him which cache he's referring to! Sheesh! You ought to be dragged out and beaten.

[thorin]

Hey CoAdmin. I'd say you've done your part (and then some). Sorry to hear of all the bad crap going on with you and your family. It's amazing that you've still managed to approve 61 caches over the last little while.

 

Is there another Admin that can help you out while you get your life back in order? IMHO you're doing an good job, a few people have voiced complaints like this lately and from the one sided stories we seem get here in the forums I have to admit (even without any personal experience/interaction) I was completely un-impressed and disappointed with what I was hearing and they were claiming (I shoulda known better). However if this is what you've actually been going through and putting up with then I say "Well done, and keep up the good work!"

 

Thorin

[Keystone]

I also frequently have to ask people which cache they are writing to me about. Just last week, when I was trying to catch up from being out of town on a caching trip, I got an answer saying that the waypoint was "WGS84." It added another 24 hours of delay. Please see this post in the FAQ thread on "what is a GC Number/waypoint" and PLEASE always identify the cache you're writing about. When a volunteer is dealing with dozens of caches at a time, an e-mail with a subject line of "new cache" is not helpful. About 75% of Keystone's e-mails are about new caches. Thanks!

 

Hey Michael - you be well, you hear?

[Tahosa and Sons]

Mike does his job a a volunteer and does it with all the problems he has in life. And I've planted a lot of them and Mike is always fair and honest.

 

Learn to be patient, asking to have a cache approved around a holiday is rude, don't you think the approvers need a holiday like the rest of us.

 

So Mt. Scott please grow up or go away. I think Mr. Scott needs to get away from the money themes in his caches and start using some cheese. He has already supplied enough whine.

[+Renegade Knight]

Ignoring anything else, why ask why on the additional proof? What constitutes a valid find is set by the cache owner. They have every right to require a photo of you standing on your head with pink bows on your feet. It won't be a popular cache but it's their perogative.

 

A log book (with almost 100% support from the community) is a rule that is set by this site and may nor may not have anything to do with the owners intent. It could very well be that the log book is the additional proof requried by the site and not what the theme of the cache is about.

 

What I'm getting at is that there is enough problems with the guidelines as they are and there is no need to go beyond them in most cases.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Pitiful.....just pitiful.....Come on, Pony Boy! What, won't they let ya take yer laptop into the ICU with you? Heck, they've got enough worthless medical stuff there like heart monitors, O2 monitors, BP monitors, End Tidal Volume monitors, respirators, etc.....don't ya think you could unplug at least one of those to make way for your laptop so you could keep approving caches? Sheesh! Barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways....you know what I mean?

 

Take care of yourself, Michael....the caches can wait.

[+BlueDeuce]

Ignoring anything else, why ask why on the additional proof?  What constitutes a valid find is set by the cache owner.  They have every right to require a photo of you standing on your head with pink bows on your feet.  It won't be a popular cache but it's their perogative.

 

A log book (with almost 100% support from the community) is a rule that is set by this site and may nor may not have anything to do with the owners intent.  It could very well be that the log book is the additional proof requried by the site and not what the theme of the cache is about.

 

What I'm getting at is that there is enough problems with the guidelines as they are and there is no need to go beyond them in most cases.

So not to slide off topic too far I’ll keep it short.

 

Why not ask? I would. It’s not that common of a requirement so there’s nothing wrong with asking why. If the hider stated “because that’s the way I want it”, I’m sure CO would have dropped the issue. Do we have to overly critical of everything?

 

 

Edit: changed one word

Edited July 14, 2004 by Elf Danach

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

edited

Edited July 14, 2004 by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite

[Swagger]

You have my personal apology if you felt you were being neglected or that I was rude.

Don't apologize - you did nothing wrong. Something like "It's unfortunate that you feel that I was being rude or neglecting you" would've been more appropriate, IMHO.

 

Don't let the turkeys get you down.

[Keystone]

Lazyboy, how you managed to turn CO Admin's response into an "attack" is beyond me. I read his post and it was a recitation of the facts, an apology to the geocacher for any inconvenience, and a statement that the cache has been listed.

 

The purpose of this topic is for CO Admin to explain his side of the story that played out in two pages of posts last evening before being closed by the topic originator. That is his right, if done in a respectful manner. Please limit responses to be on-topic to what CO Admin had to say. The reasons for the delay in listing the cache are not an issue -- it was questioned for the same reason that I or any other volunteer would question a cache, the question was resolved, and the cache has been listed.

 

The only attack I can see in this thread is one against CO Admin. Please, no more of them.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Why not ask? I would. It’s not that common of a requirement so there’s nothing wrong with asking why. If the hider stated “because that’s the way I want it”, I’m sure CO would have dropped the issue. Do we have to overly critical of everything?...

Often these turn into request changes for approval. I've heard of caches being turned down for being too easy because the spoiler photo is too obvious.

 

There is nothing wrong with the question as you you have pointed out. However if it's a non issue it should be asked after the approval "I've approved your cache, but out of curiosity, why the additional verification?"

[+The Commissar!]

How can you be so rude! Once I had a couple of caches that were taking a while to get approved and do you know what I did? I assumed my (wonderful) approver was on vacation and just patiently waited for her to live her life

 

Its a freaking Geocache, get a life to keep you busy while you wait!

 

Ok, I didn't think that was so rude...

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

There still lay the question on why the hangup over the additional proof? I have done many caches that require additional proof. Many cachers enjoy the virtuals still and since they aren't approved they basically do a virtual but add a logbook to make it legal.

 

I don't blame the cacher for complaining. He got raked over the coals for complaining but regardless of CO Admins personal problems and issues there doesn't seem to be a single reason he couldn't have approved the cache straight away, the first time he saw the submission.

[MOCKBA]

Mr. Scott, You have my personal apology if you felt you were being neglected or that I was rude.

This solves the specific issue between CO and MScott, I hope, and I have to side with the admin in that I don't see any rudeness in communication, but I see how forgetting a customer's request in the queue can irritate customers to the verge of unreasonable.

Hence a more general technical question:

What queue management tools are available to the approvers? Can they see their request queues sorted by date? User? Status (such as "waiting for user's response, possible violation of XXX guideline", or "waiting for user's response, no guidelines openly violated", or "waiting for consultations with other approvers"....)?

Are the queues perhaps unduly clogged with zombie requests (like maybe dozens of items which are in limbo for months) - this would preclude effective tracking and elimination of lagging requests?

[CoyoteRed]

What constitutes a valid find is set by the cache owner. They have every right to require a photo of you standing on your head with pink bows on your feet. It won't be a popular cache but it's their perogative.

Baloney!

 

A cache owner can't change time and space to dictate to the rest of the world if a particular person was able to find their cache and sign the log. I've not seen any manifestation or proof of such powers. The logbook is the universal and accepted way to prove one's visit. Additional and optional means can include others means be it a code word, found objects, photos, or a host others, but can't be required of the finder.

 

The owner's only duty is to make sure claims of finding their caches are accurate. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

They can ask for additional proof, but only as a favor to prevent them from having to go out and check the logbook.

 

To demand additional proof goes against the spirit of what the game is about and that is finding boxes in the wild with a GPS. It's not about jumping though hoops to be "allowed" to say you found their cache.

 

This notion of a cache owner can do anything they want is a defeatist view because the owner holds all of the power and can delete logs at will. This is wrong. It's time to stand up for your rights. If you want to say you found a cache and you can prove it, you should be able to. I don't care if an owner requires "a photo of you standing on your head with pink bows on your feet." You found it and you own that find. 'Nuff said.

 

As for the topic of this thread. I don't see any rudeness. But I have mention your defense on this issue makes the silences in some other issues deafening.

 

Just saying, is all.

[+CO Admin]

Thanks for all the replys. This thread is going off topic and altho I am not a moderator in this forum I am the thread originator so I am closing it.