+Tafari Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 ... it would rather mean that other reviewers did a better job in that regard than you. Cezanne I'm sorry, but I can't follow your meanings. I do not sell anything as a success. I'm only happy, that this project is going forward. And I only said, that I have done what I could. not more and not less. I answered to imes posting, that this project will come to an solution in some days and that such an information is provided to the community as well. And that have nothing to do with the quality of any reviewer in the world. It may also not be a question of the respect to any community. Maybe there were other issues which brought us to the effect, that the Austrian Countries are implemented now. I feel happy about this will happen. And that joy is greater than any problems which were maybe in the past. Even when we wait for a long time. Link to comment
cezanne Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) I answered to imes posting, that this project will come to an solution in some days and that such an information is provided to the community as well. ime (and certainly also other Austrian geocachers) expected an announcement by a Groundspeak official (as an act of courtesy). I am quite sure that he was already aware of the announcement in your blog (your forum might not be a good link to provide as you propagate your own geocaching forum as a private forum where you act as a normal geocacher and not as a reviewer). Cezanne Edited July 28, 2009 by cezanne Link to comment
cezanne Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) And I only said, that I have done what I could. not more and not less. The key issue in that regard is that no one before in the thread has asked a question about your role in the process or has made any complaint about you. All the cachers that have requested the feature over the period of many years (not only in forum threads, also via direct communications with Groundspeak) have done what they could do (i.e., essentially not much which is not surprising as it only depends on Groundspeak what they decide to implement and when they decide to do so.) Cezanne Edited July 28, 2009 by cezanne Link to comment
+Tafari Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I answered to imes posting, that this project will come to an solution in some days and that such an information is provided to the community as well. ime (and certainly also other Austrian geocachers) expected an announcement by a Groundspeak official (as an act of courtesy). I am quite sure that he was already aware of the announcement in your blog (your forum might not be a good link to provide as you propagate your own geocaching forum as a private forum where you act as a normal geocacher and not as a reviewer). Cezanne Sorry, but please read carefully who announced the implementation in the Austiran countries in the Austrian geocaching forums. It was not mine. It was another volunteer reviewer of Groundspeak. This forums aren't private. They are available for any people who like to read it. And I only said, that I have done what I could. not more and not less. The key issue in that regard is that no one before in the thread has asked a question about your role in the process or has made any complaint about you. All the cachers that have requested the feature over the period of many years (not only in forum threads, also via direct communications with Groundspeak) have done what they could do (i.e., essentially not much which is not surprising as it only depends on Groundspeak what they decide to implement and when they decide to do so.) Cezanne So everything is fine, when everybody did what everybody could do. Link to comment
+MissJenn Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 This is now live: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?country_id=227 As I mentioned above, the Austrian reviewers have already been in contact with us and they were not at liberty to discuss things that had not yet gone out live to the public. Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Aw. I was enjoying the conversation between cezanne and Tafari. Now I'll have to go back to listening to this Austrian. I'm not too happy with him and would just as soon remove the state from my cache listings as a protest. At least I don't have to listen to this Austrian. Link to comment
cezanne Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 Sorry, but please read carefully who announced the implementation in the Austiran countries in the Austrian geocaching forums. It was not mine. I never claimed that it was you. The point I tried to made was just that the link *you* provided in this forum to the thread in your own forum cannot be regarded as official reviewer communication while your blog article might be seen as reviewer communication. Cezanne Link to comment
cezanne Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 (edited) As I mentioned above, the Austrian reviewers have already been in contact with us Since 2008 and not since 2004 when the first requests (not only via this forum) have been forwarded to Groundspeak. and they were not at liberty to discuss things that had not yet gone out live to the public. In my opinion, there is a difference between discussions and announcements. Moreover, one of the reviewers wrote quite detailled postings about this topic in his own geocaching forum already back in 2008. Anyhow this was not the point I was trying to make here. What ime and myself (and several other cachers) were missing was not an announcement by the Austrian reviewers, but by Groundspeak. To be more precise, actually I was not even expecting an announcement when exactly the states will be introduced, just a simple reply by Groundspeak at a place where every cacher registered at gc.com would be able to read it. Of course the issue now has become irrelevant since now the states are available and the active cachers will notice this change themselves. By the way, would it be possible to add the country information to the result page of cache searches? It would at least alleviate a bit the annoyance caused by the decision to use the German version of the province/state names. I would prefer Styria, Austria to Steiermark, Austria, but having only Steiermark there is really a big nuisance for me. For me geocaching is an international activity and I am not comfortable with the increasing tendency to use only the local languages (also in reviewer communications, reviewer notes etc) instead of English, the language of this site. Cezanne Edited July 29, 2009 by cezanne Link to comment
+BigFurryMonster Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 I would prefer Styria, Austria to Steiermark, Austria, but having only Steiermark there is really a big nuisance Agreed. There's already some places on the site where both Province/State and Country appear. Good! Now, it would be nice if this would be introduced in the cache search results too. Example: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...&submit4=Go current results: "Lets Dance" Bunkercache Nr. 1 by Trek006 (GC15CHT) Schleswig-Holstein ... B.C. BunkerHill by TEAM LIGHTNING (GC1GDCG) Wyoming preferred results: "Lets Dance" Bunkercache Nr. 1 by Trek006 (GC15CHT) Schleswig-Holstein, Germany ... B.C. BunkerHill by TEAM LIGHTNING (GC1GDCG) Wyoming, United States Link to comment
+tobsas Posted July 29, 2009 Author Share Posted July 29, 2009 Maybe Google can help you to stay up to date too? I'm not sure what do you wanted to tell by providing this link - as I read it, it's a hidden affront (if it's not a personal attack to suggest that the person addressed can't even use google) and shouldn't be used by a reviewer. Link to comment
+Chiroptera Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 as I read it, it's a hidden affront (if it's not a personal attack to suggest that the person addressed can't even use google) and shouldn't be used by a reviewer. well, as Austrian you are used to that... The real attack ist that one: Information for Austrian users is given in ...and the Austrian Geocaching Forums. See ... and here. Calling his privat forums (locked for a long time to cachers he didn't like and opened just some months ago for reading) "the Austrian Geocaching Forums" and ignoring the first Austrian Geocaching Forums with nearly twice as much users - that's an attack. I would really appreciate if Groundspeak does not allow its reviewers to post their preferred private links as long as they talk in the name of the community. Tafaris forums were meant as forums for a group of cachers willing to obey their admins and to exclude cachers the group didn't like. It was not meant as forums for the Austrian cacher-community. Maybe Tafari wants that to be changed but after years of hiding-policy I do not trust him. I am not offended by this kind of forums as long as nobody at Groundspeak calls it the representation of the Austrian Community. Link to comment
+Chiroptera Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 (edited) double post Edited July 30, 2009 by Chiroptera Link to comment
cezanne Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 and opened just some months ago for reading) "the Austrian Geocaching Forums" For the sake of completeness let me add that reading access to that forum is available only for a subset of the threads and not for the whole forum. For example, typically threads which start to get controversial, are shifted to the private area. Cezanne Link to comment
+MissJenn Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 This thread is about a Feature Enhancement request for "states" outside of the US. Your postings have meandered off-topic and should now please be redirected to a more appropriate place so that we can let this thread get back on-topic. Thanks! Link to comment
cezanne Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 (edited) so that we can let this thread get back on-topic. Let me try to come back to an aspect that seems to be on-topic from my point of view. If you think that the question posed below is off-topic as well, please let me know and please accept my apologies. Here comes my question: Why did Groundspeak decide to the use the local language of the respective country to name the provinces/states and not English? (I know that the local reviewers are asked for suggestions, but I feel that such a strategic decision should be made on a higher level.) At least an English translation could have been added in the selection list in parentheses. Cezanne Edited August 3, 2009 by cezanne Link to comment
+MissJenn Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Why did Groundspeak decide to the use the local language of the respective country to name the provinces/states and not English? In these matters, I rely on the local reviewers to give us proper guidance. The world is a very big and diverse place so we know that the people who are actually down on the ground will have a better idea of the right thing to do. I went with the list that was provided to me just as it was, without making any edits. Link to comment
cezanne Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Why did Groundspeak decide to the use the local language of the respective country to name the provinces/states and not English? In these matters, I rely on the local reviewers to give us proper guidance. The world is a very big and diverse place so we know that the people who are actually down on the ground will have a better idea of the right thing to do. I agree that the world is big and diverse. For that reason I think that it makes sense, however, to foster mutual understanding. In my opinion, an international geocaching site should support the international aspect of geocaching. I doubt that the reviewers have the international caching community in mind when suggesting local names for the provinces. I guess that there are good reasons that Groundspeak decided to use the English versions of the country names and not the locally used version, aren't there? If some local cachers cannot live with English names for the provinces, it might be a compromise to offer English translations in the selection list which shows up at the country search. I am convinced that it would be easy to find volunteers for every concerned country who could suggest correct English translations for the state/province names. Cezanne Link to comment
OpinioNate Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 As Jenn said, we relied on the information we received from the source we trusted that is local to the community. It is a secondary concern that people outside the region should have the province names in their own language when they are not generally going to be the primary users of that particular search tool. In any case, I would think someone visiting an area would know where they are, whether or not the city/province name was in their language. If it is found to be overly confusing to foreign users we can make other arrangements, like your suggestion of providing English versions alongside the mother tongue. I would prefer this need be demonstrated before time was spent on it, though. Link to comment
cezanne Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 (edited) As Jenn said, we relied on the information we received from the source we trusted that is local to the community. As I said, it is rather a matter of whether or not one thinks at an international scale. It is a secondary concern that people outside the region should have the province names in their own language when they are not generally going to be the primary users of that particular search tool. Living in Europe with its abundance of different languages, I would have never requested to offer the province names in all the possible languages. I thought, however, that English would be a reasonable compromise. Please note that English is not my mother tongue. I am using this language for my geocaching activities and also in these forums in order to communicate with people from different countries with many different native languages. Moreover, note that the names of the provinces do not only show up in the list provided by the search tool, but unfortunately, are also listed instead of the name of the country in the lists that results from search processes. So the decision to use local names has further side-effects. I already asked that at another place, but I will repeat the question again here: Can you imagine to add the country name to the result list? For example, listing this cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...7c-90d5e58bc803 as a cache from Nitriansky kraj, Slovakia and not just from Nitriansky kraj ? Such a change should not cause much work, I guess. Cezanne Edited August 4, 2009 by cezanne Link to comment
Recommended Posts