Requesting A Specific Approver.

[+Renegade Knight]

It's a slow day in the forums so here's a question I've been pondering.

 

Is there or should there be a way to request a specific approver? One you have come to respect, and enjoy working with?

 

To answer the obviouse questions.

 

1) No I'm not looking to do so right now.

2) No I don't have any caches up for approval.

3) No there is nothing up my sleeve.

4) No I'm not trying to work around the system.

5) No I'm not trying to get a cache unarchived.

6) Yes there is an implication that you might want to avoid working with one you don't like, don't respect, and clash with.

7) No #6 is not why I framed the question.

8) Why would you want to do this? Who better to work with on a cache you know there will be one or more issues with so you can address them before you list the cache?

 

Take the question at face value.

[+Milbank]

Seems to be more "no" to pick from then there are "yes".

 

I would have to say no.

 

"just say no"

[GeoWorms]

I really think the approval process should be about what is most convenient and comfortable for the approvers, not the hiders.

 

This would unbalance the workload, and punish the approvers who go out of their way to grit their teeth and remain polite, when an "Hey, bozo! Give me the coordinates to the final stage, or pull it out of the queue." would be more appropriate.

 

Also, I've noticed that several approvers do hand off the cache to another approver if there is bad blood between them and the person submitting it.

 

Finally, a West Coast approver doesn't know the local ground rules for Maine, and shouldn't be approving there.

 

I think my biggest problem with the idea is that it punishes the people who are doing the best job with polite speedy approvals, and rewards those who are providing poor customer service.

 

Just my $0.02.

Edit:typo

Edited August 9, 2004 by GeoWorms

[+bamageek]

I agree with GeoWorms. I used to work in Tech Support and I know what happens when you give out your direct line to customers; You get bogged down real quick!

 

The current process seems to work great at least here in Alabama. I think we've got two of the best approvers in the business here and both are great to work with.

 

Dave

[+sept1c_tank]

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.

I think if there is a specific approver you wish to contact, one with which you may already have a respectful relationship, you will already know how to contact that person. Requesting that person in order to do "official geocache business" is another matter.

 

Rather than "doing business" with a favorite approver, perhaps private, unofficial conversations with that approver could lubricate and expedite your efforts with another. Perhaps not.

 

At any rate, I see no good reason to be allowed to request a favorite geo-bureaucrat. The geo-bureaucracy works as well as any.

[+flask]

yes, i do go out of my way to work with a specifice approver. oh, wait, he's my local approver anyway... nevermind.

[+cacheKidds]

I think this is fine. I prefer to have my caches approved by erik and honeychile because they have always been really friendly and speedy. RK's reason number six seems like reason enough to me.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I think KA has a PayPal account for that sort of thing

[+Snoogans]

6) Yes there is an implication that you might want to avoid working with one you don't like, don't respect, and clash with.

This situation has actually happened to me.

 

I used the Contact@Groundspeak email to alert TPTP to the approver's appalling and inappropriate behavior.

 

It was handled to my satisfaction. I have no idea what actually happened on their end and I don't NEED to know.

 

I encourage anyone who thinks that they are being treated unfairly to use the proper channels to resolve an issue. Hashing differences with TPTB and their volunteers is counterproductive in the forums. Discretion is the better part of valor, or something like that.......

 

[+fly46]

Finally, a West Coast approver doesn't know the local ground rules for Maine, and shouldn't be approving there.

That's easy to fix... Add more approvers/make their areas overlap. For instance, one approver could work eastern ohio and western pa, another one could work all of PA, then another one could work eastern pa and western NY.. etc...

Then you could chose from a list of two or three approvers for your area (who's areas aren't exactly the same) and then we'd have the choice, but one cacher wouldn't (in theory, anyway) get totally covered with all the cache approvals, while others had hardly any.

Perhaps there'd also be a way to make it something like this

 

Chose Your Approver:

JoBobCacheMan [145 caches in queue]

FredTheApprover [29 caches in queue]

MissApproverChik [78 caches in queue]

 

So if you don't care about who does the approving, or you have a cache you want approved qucikly, you can chose someone and not bog down one cacher even more than he/she already is bogged.

[+CO Admin]

Finally, a West Coast approver doesn't know the local ground rules for Maine, and shouldn't be approving there.

That's easy to fix... Add more approvers/make their areas overlap. For instance, one approver could work eastern ohio and western pa, another one could work all of PA, then another one could work eastern pa and western NY.. etc...

Then you could chose from a list of two or three approvers for your area (who's areas aren't exactly the same) and then we'd have the choice, but one cacher wouldn't (in theory, anyway) get totally covered with all the cache approvals, while others had hardly any.

Perhaps there'd also be a way to make it something like this

 

Chose Your Approver:

JoBobCacheMan [145 caches in queue]

FredTheApprover [29 caches in queue]

MissApproverChik [78 caches in queue]

 

So if you don't care about who does the approving, or you have a cache you want approved qucikly, you can chose someone and not bog down one cacher even more than he/she already is bogged.

Nevermind

Edited August 9, 2004 by CO Admin

[+welch]

Is there or should there be a way to request a specific approver?

Not unless the one(s) you pick knows the area, otherwise the 'your local approver knows your area best' reasoning goes out the window.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

The only reason I can see for this might me a "Pre-Approval".

 

Some time ago I had a cache that I was going to place that I had a question on. I was setting up a webcam cache that would technically violate the proximity rule since there was a Micro Cache in the area.

 

I emailed one of my local approvers BEFORE setting up the cache, and he took a look at the situation and decided that it would be ok in this case.

 

I then submitted the cache and it was approved fairly quickly. I assume that the approver was looking for it to show up in the queue.

[Keystone]

I would take the time to respond to this topic, but I'm too busy reading all the topics where people are ranting about volunteers who step out of their territory to help out elsewhere.

 

After doing just that recently, there is no way in hell that I will ever again set foot outside of my assigned territory, unless I'm specifically asked by one of my colleagues to cover for them. It isn't worth the flames and hatemails.

 

Geocachers are a territorial bunch. It must have something to do with latitude and longitude.

[+Harrald]

I would hope that if an idea this........Ummmmmmm nevermind....was implemented that the approvers would be given the ability to choose what GC.com users they have to deal with.

[+Renegade Knight]

I would hope that if an idea this...was implemented that the approvers would be given the ability to choose what GC.com users they have to deal with.

One the tripe was cut out, that's a fair request. Approvers who can not objectivly handle a specific cacher should be allowed to request another appover who can better handle that personality type.

 

However the way opinion is running so far it not looking good for cache owners. However I suspect a certain amount of this allready goes on on the approver side. We lost an approver in part due to flack from a local. Someone else stepped in and filled the void.

[+Harrald]

Hmmmmmmmmm tripe? Maybe I should have used the words Juvenile, immature or childish? In the adult world we deal with people who we may not like on a regular basis. Instead of crying for another team member we learn how to work within the framework. It’s something you learn from dealing with people face to face instead of through a computer screen. It’s called being a mature member of a group.

[+Hemlock]

was implemented that the approvers would be given the ability to choose what GC.com users they have to deal with.

I can think of a few users who would never get a cache approved if that was the case

[+BlueDeuce]

Sinced you asked. No. You don't go sideways, always up.

[+flask]

well, here's the thing. if i'm just thinking about a concept, i often run it by my local approver. he lets me know what he thinks. i keep him posted. and here's the darndest thing: i get prompt turnarounds and really good service.

 

i have come to trust my approver's judgement. if i had a choice about approvers, i would still ask for this one. and sometimes you can get an approver to intercede for you, but it's probably not in anybody's best interests to attempt to play them off of each other.

 

and if i was an appover with a history of unpleasant interactions with a particular user, i'd run my dealings with that user by a more neutral approver before i hit the send button, just to check for professional demeanor and absence of grudge material.

[+Renegade Knight]

Hmmmmmmmmm tripe? Maybe I should have used the words Juvenile, immature or childish? In the adult world we deal with people who we may not like on a regular basis. Instead of crying for another team member we learn how to work within the framework. It’s something you learn from dealing with people face to face instead of through a computer screen. It’s called being a mature member of a group.

Excellent, I'll put you down for a "No you shouldn't be able to request another approver."

 

That's about what's left after you cut out all the assumptions that you made. It's a good rant. The kind made by people who don't know how to deal with people through a computer, especially when they don't expect to ever deal with them face to face. I'm fairly sure you can deal with people face to face. It seems like you would be surprised to learn that I prefer face to face.

 

Another cacher told me (thanks, you know who you are!) that if you stuck all the forum rebels and all the forum yanks in a room and didn't let them talk about geocaching you could not tell who is who. They are right. Odds are if we met at random we would get along.

 

It's a forum. Nothing more. Get over it. Discuss your opinion on the topics and not your misguided opinion of the members. Especially since you seem to believe we all belong to Team Geocaching and as adults interacting we can figure out how to get along.

[Keystone]

Just to clarify...

 

Harrald would be the big, brooding guy over in the corner of that room, with blood dripping from the corner of his mouth.

 

He's quite easy to spot.

[+Cache Viking]

This is a big assumption but I always thought if you submit a cache and get it denied, then you go through the process that other reviewers would step in at request of first reviewer for second opinion until it is again denied thus giving you more than one approver. Then after that you go wank & whine in the forums.

 

Then again I may be wrong since I have only had three approved and one required me to answer a question or two first.