Why Is It So Hard To Get Some Caches Approved

[Scouter John]

Just looking over the post on the forms I have noticed the problems that people have getting caches approved. I have had problems getting caches approved, and haved tried my best to understand the guidelinse set out by the web site. But it is very hard sometimes to get caches approved when you have followed the guidelines and the approver is not very clear as to the problem or what could be done to make it more acceptable. Don't get me wrong on this I value the work the Approvers do for "NO PAY" but as a cacher I always check out my areas even before placing a cache to decide on what would be the best type of cache to place at that location. So I feel that having been to the location personaly I would have the best judgement as to what type of cache would work and not some one who is reading the caches on the site. I know that some of my caches have encouraged cachers to stop at areas that they wouldn't normaly. Caches have also gotten me to stop in areas I wouldn't have stoped at. That's what its all about right?

 

Another random thought.

If the guidelines are not very flexable they should be called rules.

 

"Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda. "

 

Time to get off my soap box

 

by for now

[+New England n00b]

So I feel that having been to the location personaly I would have the best judgement as to what type of cache would work and not some one who is reading the caches on the site.

 

While I understand your point, this fact can also work against you. The approver has to make absolutely sure that a cache meets the guidelines BECAUSE they can't visit every cache. Sure mistakes are made, but I'd prefer to err on the side of keeping geocaching areas open rather than have angry land managers lock us out of cool areas....

 

Some more thoughts can be found here.

Edited July 28, 2004 by New England n00b

[Team MJDJ]

by Noob:

Sure mistakes are made, but I'd prefer to err on the side of keeping geocaching areas open rather than have angry land managers lock us out of cool areas.

 

...but the so-called wilderness caches aren't likely to come under scrutiny by "land managers" and therefore should be subject to different "guidelines".

If we take my recently-denied cache for example, the Approver suggested that since it was so far outside my "area", I would eventually and inevitably abandon it and it would then become "litter". By the time the cache is submitted for approval, it has already been hidden...all the effort has been put into it.

By DENYING its approval, he most certainly GUARANTEED that it WILL turn into litter, in fact the moment it was denied, it became litter. It is there...I am here and nobody from this site will have the opportunity to seek it or log it because it isn't listed here. If I hadn't listed it on Navicache, it would remain there until my next trip to the area (mid August BTW), so what was accomplished?

Upon further reading of the "Guidelines" I failed to notice any mention of a magical 150 mile limit (which the approver alluded to...), in fact there is NO SPECIFIC distance mentioned...merely a note about the approver's discretion...therefore this particular guideline is subject to personal grudges or opinions and may or may not be valid reasons.

 

In the topic you linked to, Keystone Approver makes a worthy point; it's not always the Cacher who is the problem, and although honey DOES attract more flies than vinegar, who wants to attract flies?

Respect is not demanded and it certainly isn't an entitlement..and if I feel (rightly or wrongly) that I have been insulted by ANYONE, be they Approver, fellow cacher or co-worker...I am going to react to it! The best way to invoke respect is to offer a bit...to EXPECT it merely because you have been endowed with approval-powers is an insult to the members.

 

Back to your original topic Scouter John, MOST of my caches have been approved without question. It is only recently that I have been having trouble with the application of the guidelines. Certainly these rules are NOT set in stone and should be subject to closer review by LOCAL reviewers. I see nothing but potential problems if a reviewer in Texas is charged with approving caches in Saskatchewan...

[+Renegade Knight]

...as a cacher I always check out my areas even before placing a cache to decide on what would be the best type of cache to place at that location. So I feel that having been to the location personaly I would have the best judgement as to what type of cache would work and not some one who is reading the caches on the site...

Off Topic But Related:

 

In another thread in the great forum revolt of 2003 it was suggested that approvers not approve their own cache. Not because they were doing anything wrong but because we as cachers have our caches reviewed by others, and because it would remove the appearance of impropriety.

 

The defence as to why approvers should be able to approver their own caches sounded similar to what you say here.

 

Having said that: Approvers are absolutly needed and so are some of the rules in place. Other rules in place do nothing for geocaching but are this sites preference and so while it may clash with a viable cache that you know is ok, this site has opted for a different type of listing. That conflict will always remain as long as cahe owner visions and this sites vision are different.

 

As for the rules vs. guidelines, the line of flexability varies by approver. I've worked with enough to see the differences in personaltiy and how it impacts the guidlines and how they are enforced. I've got two caches with identical issues. One listed here with no problems and one listed on navicache because I couldn't get GC.com to approve it. My personal policy never changed. Nor did the viability of the cache. The better cache was actually the one denied here.

 

The long and short of it (after this long post) is that you can use your local knowledge to build a case as to why the cache should be listed if it doesn't meet a guideline. Approers do grant exceptions, and if you read the guidelines first and post your case in the approvers note section of your cache listing, I honestly think you get better consideration for an exception to the guidlines. Of course your milage may vary.

[+mtn-man]

by Noob:

Sure mistakes are made, but I'd prefer to err on the side of keeping geocaching areas open rather than have angry land managers lock us out of cool areas.

 

...but the so-called wilderness caches aren't likely to come under scrutiny by "land managers" and therefore should be subject to different "guidelines".

Actually, that is incorrect. They are indeed under scrutiny. In some areas they are under very strict guidelines and geocaches are banned in many wilderness areas. There is at least one National Park Service area that doesn't even allow virtual caches.

 

Here are some prime examples for areas that I review.

 

http://www.ggaonline.org/gadodont.html

http://www.ggaonline.org/guidelinesFS.html

 

http://www.mngca.org/hiding.php

http://www.superiornationalforest.org/recreation/geocaching/

[+Gorak]

I believe MJDJ was speaking about CANADA where virtually all of the wilderness is crown land and, unless it is being actively logged, publicly accessible. Public lands are managed much differently in Canada than they are in the US.

[+Cache-tech]

I believe MJDJ was speaking about CANADA where virtually all of the wilderness is crown land and, unless it is being actively logged, publicly accessible.  Public lands are managed much differently in Canada than they are in the US.

There are currently bans here in Canada also, I have 4 parks systems currently banning or creating very restrictive guidelines on Geocaching. Ontario Parks have Provincial Parks, Conservation preserves (public land owned by the province) and Algonquin Provincial Park which is huge, currently at this time Geocaching is Banned there. So far I have problems in 2 provinces, Ontario and Quebec at provincial and regional levels in both, the guidelines are in place to help insure we can still participate in this Hobby. I am happy there are no problems in BC, I would like to preserve this for as long as possible

 

(Edit: spelling)

Edited July 28, 2004 by cache-tech

[Team MJDJ]

by Noob:

Sure mistakes are made, but I'd prefer to err on the side of keeping geocaching areas open rather than have angry land managers lock us out of cool areas.

 

...but the so-called wilderness caches aren't likely to come under scrutiny by "land managers" and therefore should be subject to different "guidelines".

Actually, that is incorrect. They are indeed under scrutiny. In some areas they are under very strict guidelines and geocaches are banned in many wilderness areas. There is at least one National Park Service area that doesn't even allow virtual caches.

 

Here are some prime examples for areas that I review.

 

http://www.ggaonline.org/gadodont.html

http://www.ggaonline.org/guidelinesFS.html

 

http://www.mngca.org/hiding.php

http://www.superiornationalforest.org/recreation/geocaching/

Thankyou for your input Mtn-man, but as Gorak pointed out I was referring to CANADIAN (specifically BC) wilderness....as this IS a Canadian thread...but I suppose if the shoe fits!

 

Interesting to discover that to date, BC has no BANS on Geocaching...probably due to the population density...and yet another example as to why LOCAL Approvers should be reviewing LOCAL caches. Mtn-man's statement above further enforces this.

Perhaps TPTB could examine this situation?

[+Cache-tech]

Need I say it again, everyone is welcome in this Forum. We do have Local Cache Reviewers and I think it is very good that we can rely on our US counterparts when things get busy in the summer, especially during vacations and long weekend get aways. I have left on Friday and returned on Tuesday to find emails asking why a cache has not been listed yet which was submitted Friday night or Saturday, I like to get out caching too. I have helped out in other areas, I also have a test page which outlines current restrictions and bans where I mainly deal with. All it takes is 1 park manager or government official to view Geocaching as destructive and start having park staff removing caches when discovered. This has happened here in Canada, I have been told, "Geocaching seems like a fun, clean family oriented hobby, just don't do it here!"

[tlg]

Thankyou for your input Mtn-man, but as Gorak pointed out I was referring to CANADIAN (specifically BC) wilderness....as this IS a Canadian thread...but I suppose if the shoe fits!

 

Interesting to discover that to date, BC has no BANS on Geocaching...probably due to the population density...and yet another example as to why LOCAL Approvers should be reviewing LOCAL caches. Mtn-man's statement above further enforces this.

Perhaps TPTB could examine this situation?

Yeah, those georgia geocaching links really provided useful information for another country.

 

Which situation would you like TPTB to examine? The double standards that allow someone like mtn-man to shoot his mouth off without recourse or the situation of having reviewers looking at cache submissions from other countries?

 

I'd like to see them address both issues, but I highly doubt they will.

[+Cache-tech]

So are you saying I should not help out with US submissions if required? Also, it was not that long ago there there were no Canadian Reviewers at all.

Edited July 28, 2004 by cache-tech

[tlg]

So are you saying I should not help out with US submissions if required? Also, it was not that long ago there there were no Canadian Reviewers at all.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Cache hiders will just have to learn a little patience and/or Groundspeak may have to look for some more volunteers.

 

It was not that long ago that there weren't a whole lot of Canadian cachers. It was good to see they recognized the need for Canadian based reviewers, maybe it's time to add a couple more? We keep hearing how fast the hobby's growing, let's keep up with it.

 

While I'm at it, perhaps they should seperate the forum moderators from the cache reviewers? Not just different names for the same people but different people entirely.

[+Cache-tech]

Cache Reviewers have been added as needed, which is why I started Reviewing caches a year ago. Summer is busy here, there will always be weekends, vacations and work/personal related schedules to contend with. When required, other reviewers will be added, this hobby is growing fast and I have met a number of good people. Volunteering with cache reviews, working with the parks and moderating this forum is how I contribute along with my cacher contributions in finding/hiding caches.

 

As far as also being a Forum moderator, this forum generally does not need much moderating and don't seen a need for separate moderators at this time. Also not on topic of this thread so it is all that I will add to this.

 

(Edit: must check spelling before posting)

Edited July 28, 2004 by cache-tech

[tlg]

Cache Reviewers have been added as needed, which is why I started Reviewing caches a year ago. Summer is busy here, there will always be weekends, vacations and work/personal related schedules to contend with. When required, other reviewers will be added, this hobby is growing fast and I have met a number of good people. Volunteering with cache reviews, working with the parks and moderating this forum is how I contribute along with my cacher contributions in finding/hiding caches.

 

As far as also being a Forum moderator, this forum generally does not need much moderating and don't seen a need for separate moderators at this time. Also not on topic of this thread so it is all that I will add to this.

 

(Edit: must check spelling before posting)

I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me on my 'add some new local volunteers to help speed up the reviewing process and to help eliminate problems arising from reviewers being unfamiliar with the area' comment? It wouldn't hurt to have some more and it wouldn't be a problem if they were idle a lot of the time. Being procative can be a good thing.

 

OT: my forum moderating comment was meant to apply to all the forums, not just this one.

[+mtn-man]

Bringing this back on topic, I am illustrating why it is so hard to get some caches approved. Sorry, but I was only trying to help. I was showing example of areas that at one time allowed caches. They no longer do that. It is entirely possible that Canadians could have some areas banned at some point. Cache-tech has noted that this has in fact happened in Canada as well. These bans usually come without warning and are very difficult to overturn.

 

You should open your mind and try to learn from some of the mistakes made in other parts of the world. Cachers have placed caches without permission and it has upset landowners. This isn't just happening in America. It would be a shame to see restrictions in Canada grow beyond where they exist at this time.

 

Cache-tech, you are always welcome helping out in America. We don't have the same prejudices that some of the people in this topic have demonstrated.

 

By the way, there are forum moderators that are not reviewers.

[Team MJDJ]

I have suggested (at another forum) that perhaps each State, or Province could have its own group of reviewers who submit the caches to one "overseer" (for lack of a better word) who will then submit the APPROVED caches to GC.

 

I don't know why mtn-man continues to take what is said out-of-context...nobody is making comments about Americans or American Approvers in this thread.

Perhaps you could leave OTHER topics where they lay...

I'll be the first to admit that Approvers have a tough job, but we are trying to find ways to make it EASIER for them...if, as someone suggested this hobby IS growing "at a phenomenal rate" then it only makes sense to DIVERSIFY. One way to diversify is to change the number of approvers or the guidelines for approval. I think the former is a better choice.

 

(PS to whoever is responsible...Thank you for removing the "moderation"...it makes more sense to reply to threads in REAL-TIME)

Edited July 28, 2004 by Team MJDJ

[+mtn-man]

Which situation would you like TPTB to examine? The double standards that allow someone like mtn-man to shoot his mouth off without recourse or the situation of having reviewers looking at cache submissions from other countries?

I don't know why mtn-man continues to take what is said out-of-context...nobody  is making comments about Americans or American Approvers in this thread.

Perhaps you could leave OTHER topics where they lay...

Just posted as a clarification MJDJ.

 

 

I have suggested (at another forum) that perhaps each State, or Province could have its own group of reviewers who submit the caches to one "overseer" (for lack of a better word) who will then submit the APPROVED caches to GC.

I'm not being argumentative, but do you think Canadian cachers would wait for up to a week or more to have a cache posted? If it took this panel a few days and and then it took the overseer a few days and then it took the reviewer three days (say they all just happen to go out for a couple of days off for some caching or something), would cachers accept that?

 

You as a group could do that now if you wanted. Cachers that wanted to go through your system could post proposed caches on your boards and then if your group and the overseer approves them then they could be written up as a cache and submitted for review on the web site. I would not think that just because your group and your overseer OK'd the cache the the GC.com reviewer would have to rubber stamp it. If cachers don't want to go through all those steps, then they could just list a cache on GC.com like they do now.

 

(By the way, I don't see that happening anywhere else since the only place that seems to be asking for this is Western Canada. That's not intended as an insult or a slap. It's just a fact.)

[Team MJDJ]

...or the situation of having reviewers looking at cache submissions from other countries?

I remain, American Approvers were NOT mentioned.

 

I'm not being argumentative, but do you think Canadian cachers would wait for up to a week or more to have a cache posted?

Why not...it is not uncommon to wait UP TO a week to have caches approved. I personally have waited up to five days for one of mine...not a big deal, really. Why do you consider Canadian cachers to be so impatient? If this is true, perhaps it has to do with our intolerance for un-necessary bureaucracy...

 

I would not think that just because your group and your overseer OK'd the cache the the GC.com reviewer would have to rubber stamp it.

Well then that would defeat the point of this proposal, wouldn't it? I suggested this as an enhancement to GC. Have CANADIAN (BC, Albertan, Manitoban whatever) reviewers APPROVE the caches and list them @GC...not to simply look at them and submit them for approval!

 

By the way, I don't see that happening anywhere else since the only place that seems to be asking for this is Western Canada. That's not intended as an insult or a slap. It's just a fact.

Are you suggesting that we are visionaries?

Thanks, that's not a slap at all!

Edited July 28, 2004 by Team MJDJ

[+Cache-tech]

I don't think that adding layers to the review process is needed and sounds complicated. In the end the cache still needs to be within the Guidelines of this site to be listed here and see no reason a cache needs to be delayed any further then the current review process. At this time, I do not feel the need to add another cache reviewer for Canada as we usually do keep the cache queue empty and rarely over 20 waiting for review for the whole country at any one time.

[+mtn-man]

OK, we are getting somewhere. Stay with me. Thanks for giving me a discussion.

 

I'm not being argumentative, but do you think Canadian cachers would wait for up to a week or more to have a cache posted?

Why not...it is not uncommon to wait UP TO a week to have caches approved. I personally have waited up to five days for one of mine...not a big deal, really. Why do you consider Canadian cachers to be so impatient? If this is true, perhaps it has to do with our intolerance for un-necessary bureaucracy...

I would not think those delays would happen too often. They might, but I would see the process your suggest regularly taking at least three days or so.

 

I actually see it as adding more bureaucracy. You are actually adding more layers to the process.

 

I would not think that just because your group and your overseer OK'd the cache the the GC.com reviewer would have to rubber stamp it.

Well then that would defeat the point of this proposal, wouldn't it? I suggested this as an enhancement to GC. Have CANADIAN (BC, Albertan, Manitoban whatever) reviewers APPROVE the caches and list them @GC...not to simply look at them and submit them for approval!

You would have to remember that these final reviewers would be picked by GC.com. I can still see the same issues because they would have to still adhere to the guidelines for the site. If they don't, then they will be removed. As it is in the military, for example, you don't see lower ranking soldiers picking who is going to be the seargent. Upper level officers do. Upper level officers also discipline lower ranking officers, not the lower ranking soldiers. (In other word, the "inmates running the asylum" theory.)

[Team MJDJ]

I don't think that adding layers to the review process is needed and sounds complicated.  In the end the cache still needs to be within the Guidelines of this site to be listed here and see no reason a cache needs to be delayed any further then the current review process.  At this time, I do not feel the need to add another cache reviewer for Canada as we usually do keep the cache queue empty and rarely over 20 waiting for review for the whole country at any one time.

This wouldn't "add layers"...perhaps I'm not explaining it properly!

 

What I am suggesting is that INSTEAD of reviewers in Texas looking at caches in Ontario, that there be a group of volunteer reviewers IN ONTARIO who would be in charge of reviewing AND approving the caches in that Province. Likewise a group for BC, one for Georgia, one for Michigan, one for the Yukon, etc. These reviewers would be appointed by GC, just as they are now.

Each State/Province could break it down into Municipalities, electoral regions or what have you...as the need requires.

The guidelines would still apply (although that's topic for another thread) as per GC.

 

Instead of having a dozen or so reviewers for ALL of North America, there would be hundreds...thereby expediting the approval/denial process.

 

The fact that someone would suggest that Canadian cachers are impatient says to me that SOMETHING is needed to address REGIONAL needs, and what better way than with local approvers? This could eliminate the Nationality bias, the stereotyping, etc....

Edited July 28, 2004 by Team MJDJ

[+Cache-tech]

Trying to maintain hundreds of cache reviewers I think would be next to impossible and impractical, a cache is reviewed on a per cache basis against set guidelines. We get complaints of inconsistency now, I can only imagine if there were hundreds of reviewers. More problems would be created then solved.

[+Algonquin Bound]

Adding "Teams" of reviewers would further complicate the process, instead of simplifying it. In the current process, if there is a problem, question or discrepancy with a cache, it is my understanding that the approver will ask the cache submitter for further details or clarification, as the approver in the previous thread did of MJDJ. My response, instead of reacting in anger or feeling that I had been insulted, would be to politely reply, answering questions and clearing up discrepancies.

 

Having read all the posted correspondence in that previous thread, it seems to me that the only name-calling and personal grudge-holding going on was AT the approver, rather than FROM the approver. Why not look over the questions with objective eyes, assuming that the approver knows nothing about you personally and is simply trying to make sure that the cache is worthy of approval?

 

In our area, we had a cache placed by someone who has caches, literally, all over the world. At some point, he must have convinced someone that this was okay and that because he travels SO much, he could maintain them all. After months of DNFs and neither the cache owner, nor his local contact (if he had one), checking on it, the cache was finally archived.

 

If I fly to Los Angeles for a meeting every Monday, it would be reasonable for me to place a cache there, knowing that I could easily maintain it. However, it would be reasonable for the approver to question how I could maintain the cache, had I not told him that I fly there once a week. It would be irresponsible for him to approve it without asking me.

 

When submitting a cache, WE must bear in mind that the approver was not with us when we placed it, cannot see the plan to maintain it inside our minds and has likely never been in the area. He doesn't know that our cousin lives across the street and has agreed to check on our cache if there are problems, unless we tell him. ALL the information must be supplied by the submitter and if we err by omission, we need to clear up any questions.

 

So... as Scouter John said in his original post, "Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda." Just as we assume that anyone finding the cache will respect our request not to remove it, or pillage it, or destroy it, or steal the contents, or trade a nickel for the log book, we must assume that the approvers are also on our side. They are not perfect either, so I am sure some mistakes have been made, but I think they are, more often than not, honest mistakes.

 

As Scouter John also said, "...having been to the location personally I would have the best judgement as to what type of cache would work...". This MAY be true, but the approver cannot know that unless you make it clear to them. There might be situations where the approver DOES have a better handle on it than the submitter. I might not know, for example, that the City of Yellowknife (for whatever reason) has banned physical caches ONLY in the southern portion of Central Park. As responsible geocache-loving bureaucrats, however, they have notified the regional cache approver and he DOES know about this strange exception, so he will point this out to me, probably suggesting that I move my cache to the northern part of the park.

 

That's all. Cache-on!

Edited July 28, 2004 by Algonquin Bound

[+Sparky-Watts]

Trying to maintain hundreds of cache reviewers I think would be next to impossible and impractical, a cache is reviewed on a per cache basis against set guidelines. We get complaints of inconsistency now, I can only imagine if there were hundreds of reviewers. More problems would be created then solved.

I tend to agree with this. MJDJ, you're actually on to something that could be helpful, but I think you're steering it the wrong way. Perhaps if there is such a demand for caches to be reviewed by local cachers, your "board" of reviews could be of some help. If I am to understand you correctly, you want the "board" in your region made of locals, yet with full approver powers. You will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. Ok, I get that part. Now, with what CT just said, I can see where that could create a major problem. I'm guessing that not everyone in your area is going to be happy with the approver that GC.com selects (and yes, gc.com will have the final say in the selection, I don't see any way around that). So, now half of BC is happy with the system, but the other half is bucking the system, complaining about biases in the approval system. What's the answer then? How far will the expansion have to go before everyone is happy? An approver for each individual cacher? (Yes that's extreme, but I hope you get the point.)

 

Perhaps your local association could formulate a local advisory board that will review each cacher's submission (totally voluntary if the cacher wants them to review it), using gc.com's guidelines. If any immediate conflicts with the guidelines are noted, they can be addressed before the cache is actually submitted to gc.com. If there is a disagreement on the interpretation of the guidelines between the board and the cacher, they can have it reviewed by a local reviewer, one that is familiar with BC (this could be done by a system of simple emails between the board, the cacher, and the review board.)

 

Sure, that's going to make for a longer approval time, but in most cases, is an immediate approval necessary? (I know there are times when it may be, but generally not, right?) Perhaps that will prevent some of the hard feelings between cachers and approvers, and prevent ugly scenes like we've seen so many times in the forums between cachers and the approvers.

 

What do you think?

[+Renegade Knight]

Trying to maintain hundreds of cache reviewers I think would be next to impossible and impractical, a cache is reviewed on a per cache basis against set guidelines. We get complaints of inconsistency now, I can only imagine if there were hundreds of reviewers. More problems would be created then solved.

I don't see the workload shrinking and new reviewers will continue to be added. They in turn will end up dealing with more and more local rules imposed by local parks, state parks, provincial parks, national parks, non park land owner and so on.

 

The job will contiue to get more complex for some time and the hobby will continue to grow for some time.

 

Being able to deal with more and more approvers and being able to do it in such a way that it works isn't an option. It's a requirement. A 10 week delay listing a cache is not something cache owners are going to tolerate well.

[Team MJDJ]

My response, instead of reacting in anger or feeling that I had been insulted, would be to politely reply, answering questions and clearing up discrepancies.

I agree that I may have acted improperly by bringing this issue to the forums in the manner in which I did, but what you fail to realize is that UP TO THAT POINT, I had been dealing with the approver for almost a week, and despite my assurances, I was denied based on the actions of OTHER irresponsible cachers. The fact that others cachers (and another approver) saw nothing wrong with my submission suggests that this ISN'T a case of black and white!

 

Having read all the posted correspondence in that previous thread, it seems to me that the only name-calling and personal grudge-holding going on was AT the approver, rather than FROM the approver.

Again, you only saw the results of a week's worth of frustration...

 

If I fly to Los Angeles for a meeting every Monday, it would be reasonable for me to place a cache there, knowing that I could easily maintain it. However, it would

be reasonable for the approver to question how I could maintain the cache, had I not told him that I fly there once a week. It would be irresponsible for him to approve it without asking me.

These questions WERE asked, and I provided answers. The approver assumed that since I don't hunt for caches every time I'm in the area, this implies that I am NOT in the area...

 

...we must assume that the approvers are also on our side. They are not perfect either, so I am sure some mistakes have been made, but I think they are, more often than not, honest mistakes.

Which is easy to say from where you are sitting...you were not the one who spent a week trying to convince someone who deosn't know you, that your intentions ARE honourable and yet you are treated as irresponsible because of the actions of OTHERS.

I'll repeat that there is NOTHING in my history as a cacher that suggests I would NOT maintain this cache. It was done arbitrarily despite my assurances...why isn't my word good enough? If this judgement is righteous, why were my other TWO wilderness caches approved without question?

 

There might be situations where the approver DOES have a better handle on it than the submitter.

True, but this denial was done on the basis of a supposed "distance-limit" that, in fact, doesn't exist. Nowhere in the guidelines is there mention of a "150 mile limit".

 

If (as everyone has suggested) bringing LOCAL approvers into the picture isn't going to expedite the process...then I say that UNLESS the cacher in question has a HISTORY of abandoning long distance caches (and one cache isn't a "history" btw) then they should be subject to more scrutiny than someone who has shown a willingness and ability to maintain their caches.

This sort of variance can be applied to other guidelines as well...remember, this IS a game, there is no need for absolutes.

[Team MJDJ]

by Sparky:

If I am to understand you correctly, you want the "board" in your region made of locals, yet with full approver powers.

Correct. This way local caches could be approved by LOCAL reviewers who know the area and the restrictions (if any exist).

 

I'm guessing that not everyone in your area is going to be happy with the approver that GC.com selects (and yes, gc.com will have the final say in the selection, I don't see any way around that).

You can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time, but at least the Reviewer would be LOCAL and if s/he turns out to be a pain in the neck, GC would be getting e-mails from the locals! Nobody is suggesting that GC should be removed from the loop, but if this game is growing at the rate suggested, then you are going to need more approvers...no way around that either!

 

Perhaps your local association could formulate a local advisory board that will review each cacher's submission (totally voluntary if the cacher wants them to review it), using gc.com's guidelines.

But if they don't have the power to Approve them, it is a waste of time, energy and resources and becomes the "other level of bureaucracy" that nobody wants.

 

Perhaps that will prevent some of the hard feelings between cachers and approvers, and prevent ugly scenes like we've seen so many times in the forums between cachers and the approvers. What do you think?

I think anything that would minimize the conflicts and confrontations is a good thing and is always something worth reaching for. With the current setup however, I don't see this becoming a reality.

[Team MJDJ]

Trying to maintain hundreds of cache reviewers I think would be next to impossible and impractical, a cache is reviewed on a per cache basis against set guidelines.  We get complaints of inconsistency now, I can only imagine if there were hundreds of reviewers.  More problems would be created then solved.

But the "complaints of inconsistency" are caused by approvers who don't necessarily know the areas or the cachers involved.

I would liken this to Federal Governments dealing with municipal issues...a bureaucrat in Ottawa will have NO IDEA of the repercussions of his decisions on denying John Doe of BrokenStick, Saskatchwean a permit to build a chicken coop!

Bureaucrat simply sees figures and votes (or veto's) based on the numbers, he has no interest of the effect of his decision on the local economy or infrastructure.

 

Yeah...this is a bit of a reach as an example, but I'm sure that EVERYBODY at some point in time in their lives, has had to deal with either a Federal body, or the IRS, or Customs...all rule-quoting automatons, that have no appreciation of the individual. That is the point I am trying to make.

 

...now if John Doe had already built TWO coops and let them become public eye-sores or hazards, then I understand why he would be rejected on his third application!

[+Sparky-Watts]

 

Perhaps your local association could formulate a local advisory board that will review each cacher's submission (totally voluntary if the cacher wants them to review it), using gc.com's guidelines.

But if they don't have the power to Approve them, it is a waste of time, energy and resources and becomes the "other level of bureaucracy" that nobody wants.

 

Besides the fact that I don't really foresee anybody even using it if it's a voluntary thing.

[Team MJDJ]

Hey...I'd volunteer to be a reviewer.

 

Although this proposition may be less than appealing to some, I tend to believe and agree with the old adage about "judging a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes"...

 

Funny thing is, this goes BOTH ways!

[+Algonquin Bound]

MJDJ, thank you for such a measured and considered response to my post. I certainly respect that. I'm pleased that you chose not to retaliate.

 

Again, you only saw the results of a week's worth of frustration...

 

We could only respond to what you posted, so if there was more, we cannot respond to that.

 

What is perhaps most important here, is that you have shown that you can calmly respond to what you think are reasonable observations and objections. Why not use this approach on the approver? It seems to me that you might STILL stand a chance of having this very cache approved, by simply addressing the questions and concerns of the approver. Maybe just start from scratch and say, "What can I do to make this cache approval work for both of us?" Honestly, as a bystander with no vested interest in either party, his requests and questions (from what you posted) did not seem accusatory or unreasonable.

 

Yes, I am very often naive and far too optimistic, but sometimes, by acting that way, things work out for the best. Be positive, polite and respectful and usually you will get the same in return.

[Scouter John]

"Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda. "

 

Just a reminder

[+Renegade Knight]

"Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda. "

 

Just a reminder

Sex is fun too, but there sure are some complications at times.

[Team MJDJ]

MJDJ, thank you for such a measured and considered response to my post. I certainly respect that. I'm pleased that you chose not to retaliate.

I saw nothing in your post that warranted a "retaliation"...I'll be the first to admit I can be a bit of a hot-head, but my anger is usually the result of frustration.

Unfortunately, you were witness to the end result of a week's worth that had no end in sight. If I honestly thought that I could resolve this with more explanations, I would have done so. In his final remarks, he made it clear that this cache violated some unwritten law (that is left to the DISCRETION of the approver) and he wouldn't consider anything other than HIS WAY of rectifying it. You must remember that HE was the one that suggested that "some people lie to approvers" and then he denied my cache, implying that he thought I was lying. That's how I read it...

 

Yes, I am very often naive and far too optimistic, but sometimes, by acting that way, things work out for the best. Be positive, polite and respectful and usually you will get the same in return.

I agree, as is evident in this thread! But as I suggested in another area, respect isn't a birthright. My job involves dealing with the Public to a certain extent, and I have letters from average citizens commending my good manners and gracious behaviour...yeah, I know...I can hear several other posters puking as we speak, but it IS the truth. Even in the general populace, there are people who are still cantankerous, no matter how well you treat them.

 

by Scouter John:

"Geocaching is supposed to be a light, fun activity, not a platform for an agenda."

Well, that is the first time anyone has suggested that I have "an agenda", but I guess you're right...and that agenda was: To have fun by placing awesome caches in remote areas!

 

Alas, my agenda was over-ruled!

[Scouter John]

Hay I started this post. I did not say anyone had an agenda I was just quoting the web site as a reminder to every one this is to be fun so maybe we should all stop slagging each other in the forms.

 

Note to Renegade Knight:

 

Which is more fun geocaching or sex?

[+Couparangus]

Which is more fun geocaching or sex?

 

I had a few snappy comebacks but didn't know which one to use:

 

- Why not combine the hobbies?

- Geocaching is certainly less expensive

- I'm gonna have to put some thought into that one!

- Both offer rewards for successful navigation

 

 

Cheers!

C-A

[+Cache-tech]

We seem to be straying off topic, remember, family forum and all.

[+mtn-man]

Regarding an approver for every province, I wanted to give you some numbers.

 

This is a list of the number of caches submitted since July 1.

All I did was use the search function on the site.

Remember, I can see all caches, approved or archived.

Some of the numbers are obviously rounded off.

 

30 Louisiana (I work this)

220 Minnesota (I work this and I also work some other areas as well)

320 Texas (two reviewers)

330 Florida (one reviewer)

1000 California (three reviewers)

 

30 Alberta

110 British Columbia

3 Manitoba

60 New Brunswick

25 Newfoundland

1 Northwest Territories (last one before that was 9/26/03)

30 Nova Scotia

0 Nunavut (last one was 12/20/03)

150 Ontario

1 Prince Edward Island

24 Quebec

5 Saskatchewan

1 Yukon Territory

 

440 approximately, total for Canada for July as of today, two reviewers.

 

Based on the numbers, right now a cache reviewer is not needed in every province. Eventually those numbers will increase and new reviewers will be added on I'm sure. Only having a cache or two a day to review just doesn't warrant a single reviewer for a province. Currently the Canadian reviewers handle an average of 8 to 10 caches a day. Weekends are busier than weekdays for sure.

 

Thanks MJDJ for giving a good discussion a go.

It doesn't have to be all biting oneupmanship.

[Team MJDJ]

Based on the numbers, right now a cache reviewer is not needed in every province.

Interesting figures, I would have assumed the numbers to actually be much higher. Going by this, an approver in each Province is NOT required...at this time!

Having said that, I think it would be a good thing to get a few reviewers into "training mode" for the inevitable increase in numbers...doesn't hurt to "be prepared", and they could sub for holiday relief, etc.

 

Thanks MJDJ for giving a good discussion a go. It doesn't have to be all biting oneupmanship.

No it doesn't...

I am as capable as the next guy when it comes to having a decent, adult conversation. What I find irksome is the comments that get injected from participants who aren't really a part of the discussion.

But then again, if evverybody acted like adults, we wouldn't need moderators, would we?

[+Ambrosia]

What I find irksome is the comments that get injected from participants who aren't really a part of the discussion.

OK, I'll bite.

 

Who exactly isn't a part of the discussion?

[thorin]

What I find irksome is the comments that get injected from participants who aren't really a part of the discussion.

OK, I'll bite.

 

Who exactly isn't a part of the discussion?

Wow MJDJ why do you have such a hard time grasping "PUBLIC FORUM" everyone and anyone is part of the discussion if they so choose. Perhaps we should find you somewhere you can password protect a thread and invite only those people you'd like to be part of the discussion? Though I fail to see how that would accomplish anything useful for gc'ing as an activity or the gc'ing community.

 

Trying to maintain hundreds of cache reviewers I think would be next to impossible and impractical, a cache is reviewed on a per cache basis against set guidelines. We get complaints of inconsistency now, I can only imagine if there were hundreds of reviewers. More problems would be created then solved.

I agree, approvers should only be added as work load becomes impracticle for an approver in a certain area. Adding 10s or 100s of approvers at t a time to create teams or groups of approvers for every single province/state is not practicle. That would only cause further consistency problems in the approval process. Not to mention co-ordination of that number of people, training, and increased frequency of rollover.

 

Thorin

Edited July 29, 2004 by thorin

[Team MJDJ]

People...I UNDERSTAND that these are public forums!

 

Ambrosia, there is nobody CURRENTLY in this thread who is out of place. What I was referring to was the "other" thread that was inundated by "others"...does that make sense now?

Yes, this is a free country...but imagine that you are in a restaurant anf the people at the table next to you are talking; it is COMMON COURTESY to mind one's own business and stay out of their conversation.

It IS a public restaurant, after all, but most people wouldn't consider butting into someone else's conversation, would they? Yet Public Forums are a free for all?

Can you imagine the din if I went to EVERY THREAD in these forums and injected my 2 cents? I'd be "moderated" before the day was through!

 

No Thorin, I don't want a Private Channel...see above.

If someone came to this forum with a complaint, I wouldn't consider it my civic duty to rush to the defence of GC.com.

9 times out of 10, if someone has a beef, you let them vent and they eventually realize that they were wrong to spew the way they did and will leave with their tail between their legs. To have a half-dozen or so jump all over him/her only fuels the fire, and prolongs the argument.

As someone else pointed out: Two wrongs don't make a right!

Edited July 29, 2004 by Team MJDJ

[thorin]

People...I UNDERSTAND that these are public forums!

All evidence to the contrary.

 

Ambrosia, there is nobody CURRENTLY in this thread who is out of place. What I was referring to was the "other" thread that was inundated by "others"...does that make sense now?

No it doesn't make sense, other people were welcome to add their opinions to the other thread just like they are to this one. If you didn't want other people's input then you should have kept it between yourself, the approver, and approvers@gc.com.

 

Can you imagine the din if I went to EVERY THREAD in these forums and injected my 2 cents? I'd be "moderated" before the day was through!

No one cares if you post to every single active thread in a day if you have something on topic to add. Do you honestly think eryone here @ the gc.com forums is "targetting" your threads for "intrusion" or something........

 

Yes, this is a free country...but imagine that you are in a restaurant anf the people at the table next to you are talking; it is COMMON COURTESY to mind one's own business and stay out of their conversation.

It IS a public restaurant, after all, but most people wouldn't consider butting into someone else's conversation, would they?

You've never been in a restaurant and got the "I couldn't help but overhearing......"?

 

Yet Public Forums are a free for all?

Yes. It's exactly the same as usenet. And very much the same as IRC (only not realtime). It is "free" as in no charge and no limit on access and it is "for all" as in public.

 

Thorin

Edited July 29, 2004 by thorin

[+Couparangus]

440 approximately, total for Canada for July as of today, two reviewers.

 

Wow - this is a LOT of new caches!!!

I'm wondering if the rules are still too loose!?!

(okay, stop hitting me now!!)

 

But in all seriousness, perhaps we need to set an arbitrary minimum time that it will take a cacher to find a cache? Say 15 minutes on-foot from nearest trail access/parking lot if all goes well. I think some of these caches are just too easy to find. In establishing a minimum hunt time, this forces the hiding cacher to put more thought into the stash and, almost certainly, will increase the enjoyment of those seeking it.

 

Cheers!

Coupar-Angus

[thorin]

Though I like the idea of making things more interesting and somehow ensuring a good wilderness experience I think that would be next to impossible. 15 minutes for who? I walk about 10x faster then my 5 yr old neice, and maybe about 2x as fast as my nephew. What about wheelchair accessble caches? What about trails with multiple entrances? What about Urban caches?

 

Thorin

Edited July 29, 2004 by thorin

[Purple Fever]

Team MJDJ - Ummm... I believe I was one of those who 'injected his 2 cents' in the unfortunate thread that was locked... mainly to try and 'encourage peace and reason'. Even if I am not typing along with you, I am still part of the discussion, simply by reading it, and through my active involvement in geocaching.... as are many others. The main reason I contributed was because, as a geocacher I took offense to the tone and nastiness of the thread (and was actually embarrassed thinking of what people who are newer or less involved might think).

 

I understand that this is not the topic of the original thread, but I must say - you do not OWN any discussion here... you do not own any thread here... complaining about ANYONE participating in a thread here (no matter what stage the discussion is at) does not sit well with me... and any discussion that you participate in here might run more smoothly if you got off your high horse.

[+Sparky-Watts]

Can you imagine the din if I went to EVERY THREAD in these forums and injected my 2 cents? I'd be "moderated" before the day was through!

 

I've tried to remain on topic here, as I did in the other thread that brought so much angst (if I may borrow carleen's catch-word), but I must comment to this.

 

I do it all the time, and I've never been moderated for posting to nearly every forum, if not most of the threads, on this board, so long as I do so on topic.

 

That's all, I'm outta here!

[Team MJDJ]

All evidence to the contrary.

Starting to sound a bit "confrontational"...

I never stated that people were NOT allowed in a thread I started, I merely questioned the RELEVANCE of a cacher in Kansas (for instance) commenting on a Canadian issue, when they likely have no idea of the terrain, effort, distance, etc...

 

No it doesn't make sense, other people were welcome to add their opinions to the other thread just like they are to this one. If you didn't want other people's input then you should have kept it between yourself, the approver, and approvers@gc.com.

Case in point...the above comment was made specifically to Ambrosia, yet you found it necessary to answer it in his/her stead.

 

Do you honestly think eryone here @ the gc.com forums is "targetting" your threads for "intrusion" or something........

No, you probably came to this conclusion as you did on the FIRST item above. What I HAVE noticed though is that although people say they "welcome new ideas or comments" they don't necessarily mean it. Are you suggesting that the thread in question didn't turn into a swarming/pack-attack because I made some comments regarding what I preceived to be an injustice? Who had the nice big bull's-eye painted on their name?

 

You've never been in a restaurant and got the "I couldn't help but overhearing......"?

So what you're saying is that because people do this, it is acceptable behaviour?

When someone does that to me in a restaurant, I consider them to be rude, obnoxious, boorish, busy-bodies who don't have a life of their own, and I usually tell them so!

 

...but that's just MY opinion.

According to the argument you just made, DWI should be acceptable because it happens all the time!?

 

Yes. It's exactly the same as usenet. And very much the same as IRC (only not realtime). It is "free" as in no charge and no limit on access and it is "for all" as in public.

Then, as I see it, I am still FREE to complain about other people butting in where they don't belong, correct?

Thanks!

Or did you mean that others are "free" to do as they wish but I shouldn't be "free" to complain?

 

Purple,

I don't own a horse.

I agree that the thread was a bit nastier than it should have been, but what COULD HAVE been defused easily enough was exacerbated by individuals who had no vested interest in the topic at hand and were merely "stirring the pot"...some even offering to "make popcorn"!

MY original post was excessive, but if nobody had responded with baits and taunts, it would have died quickly, and I probably would have deleted it.

Sorry, but if I read a thread about some guy in Botswana complaining about a cache or a reviewer, there is NO WAY that I would try sticking my nose into the fray when I have no idea about:

a - The cacher's history

b - The reviewer's history

c - The cache itself

d - The country where it is hidden

e - The area it is hidden

f - Any special rules or variances that may apply.

 

But that's just "me"....

Edited July 29, 2004 by Team MJDJ

[+Couparangus]

Though I like the idea of making things more interesting and somehow ensuring a good wilderness experience I think that would be next to impossible. 15 minutes for who? I walk about 10x faster then my 5 yr old neice, and maybe about 2x as fast as my nephew. What about wheelchair accessble caches? What about trails with multiple entrances? What about Urban caches?

 

I wasn't thinking only of bushwhacking adventures here (although these are my personal favourites). One could certainly make an urban cache better than many of them are - and also maintain a wheeliechair accessibility too. When I was visiting London (UK) I did an urban series that takes you to several historical points of interest in the city. It has you enjoying some great views, a good climb and a bit of history about the areas you "find" - some off the beaten track of the average tourist. The cache creator put some thought and effort into this hide. I guess he/she could have more easily created a single cache at one of the points and left it at that, but it wouldn't have been nearly as good as the themed multi it is.

 

I agree that the timing has to be a little loose - but if based on a typical Geocacher you should be able to nail it down to the nearest five minutes.

 

Cheers!

Coupar-Angus

[Team MJDJ]

Ooops...an error was made in this post.

Edited July 29, 2004 by Team MJDJ