Jump to content

I Wonder What Was So Bad About The Name


unclerojelio

Recommended Posts

I would ask that you don't post specific cases here about why your cache wasn't approved. This is not a witch hunt. If you have a particular question about cache listing guidelines, please post them in a separate topic.

 

I understand if you want to post it here but it ends up muddying an existing topic when other topics are thrown into the mix.

Link to comment
Hi Jeremy, Thanks for listening. Julie suggested I tell you about the experience I had with trying to get a series of caches approved. To understand this a little better, it may be helpful to look at this cache GCE62A.

 

This cache was the first in a series I was planning to put out. When completed, it was going to be a 4 part progressive cache series where you got the start point for #2 by finding the finish point of #1 and so on until you reached the final container. At each container you would get another part of the story which prepared you for the next cache. The web pages would contain "Teasers" to get you to want to go and do the series. a little piece of the story, but not the level of detail you would get at the cache containers. To make the story work, the final cache (JQ4) would need to be fairly close to the final location of JQ1. Not right on top of it, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 250-300 feet. I know that there is a guideline stating that caches can't be placed within .1 miles of each other, and even though the caches in question were both mine and were close by design, I suspected this would be my sticking point.

In advance of placing the remaining cache, I decided to email this information to Prime Approver. I figured if he flat would not allow the proximity, I could move them farther apart. His reply was that he would not approve them anyway because progressive caches are not allowed. I don't recall seeing this in the rules anywhere. It was pretty disappointing to have put this much effort to create a cache that would be fun to do and have it get rejected for a rule that as far as I can tell doesn't exist. My questions to you are, is there such a rule? and if so, is it documented anywhere?

 

Thanks again for your time,

Wayne.

Please read the "Cache Saturation" section of the geocache listing guidelines:

 

Cache Saturation

 

The approvers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. 

 

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the site approvers may strongly encourage you to create a multi-cache.

 

Please focus especially on the last sentence. I don't have access to the e-mails you exchanged with the volunteer reviewer, but what you describe sure sounds a lot like a multicache. If the steps are in close proximity, we are supposed to enforce the quoted guideline by strongly encouraging the owner to create a multi-cache.

 

EDIT: Sorry, Jeremy, I was researching and responding to this cache submission complaint while you were posting. Feel free to delete my post or to ask me to split the original post and this response into a new thread.

Edited by Keystone Approver
Link to comment
I'm saying you added #3 and #4 but really you're part of it over #1 and #2. But two points really needed more to fill out the protest. Whether your other points are valid or not is not the point.

I know you'd like to believe this, because it would be comforting to think that this was all about people getting riled up over a regrettable misunderstanding with our good friend 9key, coupled with misunderstandings with our good friend, Prime Approver. And to be sure, that's part of it. I can't speak for anyone else, but really, my biggest frustration is over the value system in place here.

 

I'd say more about this but I have little confidence that anyone will listen anyway. Sorry if that is completely unfair on my part, but it's honestly how I feel. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

KA, he said he was willing to bend on the proximity of the stages. I think his issue was more with this:

 

His reply was that he would not approve them anyway because progressive caches are not allowed. I don't recall seeing this in the rules anywhere. It was pretty disappointing to have put this much effort to create a cache that would be fun to do and have it get rejected for a rule that as far as I can tell doesn't exist. My questions to you are, is there such a rule? and if so, is it documented anywhere?

 

Link to comment

Jeremy, my bike riding event was GCKQWK. You can see the discussion I was having with our approver.

 

Originally, the cache page described how we would practice our "route" function in the GPS by riding our bikes to find one of my caches. I was told that "going geocaching is not an event". I changed the notes to remove the caching and resubmitted. You will be able to see the conversation that followed in the approver notes.

Link to comment

I started the protest cache for the sole purpose of bringing attention to the fact that one of your approvers has made it very unpleasant to participate on GC.com anymore. The guidelines he imposes are suspect at best and appears to be on a power trip. I have heard from and have seen more than 5 caches that have not been approved for insane reasons. No one GC.com will respond to people in CenTex and no action to rectify the situation seems to be in the process. I use to enjoy the site and even though 9Key was not my favorite approver I had respect for him and he at least took the time to explain reasons why a cache was archived and in some instances not approved.

 

That is not the case with Prime Approver. He has no knowledge of the area and seems to pull reasons out of thin air as to why a cache is not approved or archived.

 

My sole purpose was to draw attention to this fact and the fact that many paying members feel left out of the decision process they are paying for. Call it what you want and criticize it all you want but it looks like to me the goal was accomplished. Many feel the way we do and from a business standpoint that needs to be addressed.

 

I hope this opens a real dialog on this issue and some resolution can be agreed upon. No in Centex is unwilling to give and discuss this rationally and we welcome the chance to be a bigger part of this site if given the chance.

 

We wanted to heard and it looks like we and other parts of the country are.

 

Thanks

Grajek

Link to comment
Jeremy, you can even call us a mob (which only proves that you really do not understand Texans at all).

 

There is a mob mentality going on here, if you care to look at the logs in the archived cache listing. You don't have to be a Texan to figure that out.

 

It will not make the issue go away.  You, Groundspeak, have very dissatisfied customers here.  Deal with the issue instead of telling us we're not really dissatisfied, or we will go away.

 

Actually we are trying to figure out what is going on. This very thread existence makes the point. You have to determine what the issue is before you can address it.

 

Actually some of us have gone away.  My missing $30 membership fee may not hurt much but there are many others down here who are not renewing.  And terracaching.com is swelling with the ranks of disgruntled Texans looking for more say in who does their approving.

 

"The leagues are gathering to bring on the demise of you." This is a very persuasive argument. Thanks.

 

You're still here, so "gone away" means stopping your financial support but continuing to rattle the cage of suppression, I suppose.

 

The issue then and today is that we have no say in who is approving our caches, and we have no way to recall them if we feel (then as now) that their decisions are capricious and arbitrary.

 

The orgs usually nominate their local approvers. PA was hand-picked by 9Key. If you have issues with an approver you email the web site so we're aware of it. Hydee works with the orgs to make sure they have good representation on reviewing local caches.

Link to comment

"I would ask that you don't post specific cases here about why your cache wasn't approved. This is not a witch hunt. If you have a particular question about cache listing guidelines, please post them in a separate topic.

 

I understand if you want to post it here but it ends up muddying an existing topic when other topics are thrown into the mix. "

 

If not here then where. This is one of our complaints. It seems we are always being told to take it somewhere else. Come on, Please?????

Link to comment

The issue then and today is that we have no say in who is approving our caches, and we have no way to recall them if we feel (then as now) that their decisions are capricious and arbitrary. We want local and elected approvers, subject to recall vote.

If I owned a business, I'm not sure I'd want my customers to have the power to pick and choose who my supervisors are and what services they'll provide.

 

I'd certainly want to listen to my customers, and make my decisions based on their feedback but thats a far cry from giving them control over my business.

 

What you're describing sounds more like a coop or a union, which gc.com is neither.

 

There are other listing sites out there, and they may serve their purpose. I am a member of a few of them, and I'll probably even list some caches there as well.

 

I also eat at both Taco Bell and McDonalds, but I don't boycott McDonalds because they don't serve tacos. When I'm in the mood for a burrito, I go to Taco Bell......not Burger King.

Link to comment

While I agree, the cache series may sound a little like a multi cache, it is not the case. JQ1 is already a multi. JQ2 is also a multi and in a totally different park some 5 miles from JQ1. JQ3 is in the same park as JQ 2 and is a puzzle solve, and JQ 4 is just a regular (bonus) type cache. To combine these into a multi would lead to a 23 part multicache with 3 different puzzle combinations to solve.

 

Hope this clerifys this for you,

Thanks,

Wayne

Link to comment
If not here then where. This is one of our complaints. It seems we are always being told to take it somewhere else. Come on, Please?????

You see that "new topic" button in the forums? Use it. I didn't say to take it somewhere else. I said to make a new topic with your particular issue and don't make this thread try and debate n+1 topics.

Link to comment

This is getting too funny. If I follow this right Texas has an issue with Groundspeak.

First, the issue was "they archived a cache with a non-offensive name". When it was pointed out the name had been changed to something totally offensive which is what triggered the archive, the issue changed to "We're mad cause they stole the selector from 9key and didn't even give him credit". When it was shown that wasn't true, the issue changed again to "Prime Approver sucks, we never had any problems before he came along". Wait, that wasn't really true either, so now the issue is "we want to be able to tell Groundspeak how to run their company and decide what caches we list and what guidelines to follow for ourselves". Wow, that's a far cry from "what's so bad about the name Horny Toad"!

Contrary to popular belief, I don't always agree with the way Jeremy and company run their website. But you know what? It's their website, and I do defend their right to run it as they see fit (as long as it's legal), just like I would defend anyone else's right to legally run their own website or company the way THEY want to. If I don't like the way Walmart does business, I go to Target. If I don't like the way Ford builds cars I buy a Dodge. If I am that unhappy with gc.com I would stop using it and go elsewhere.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

There are really 2 major issues that need addressed in Texas as approvers go and they both relate to the rapid growth of caching in Texas, the size of the area, and the diversity of the population (in every way) and geogrpahy.

 

By our own admission, the Austin area (commonly referred to as Central Texas or CenTex) is just plain weird. There is a diverse bunch of people here, many of whom are smart, clever, and creative. This area also sports a lot of different terrain that many visitors find surprising. We have flat scrub land as many would expect, but we also have hills, canyons, and much more. All this means that someone with some knowledge of the people and the area is needed to be an approver here. Just going by maps, aerial photos, and "guidelines" isn't enough. My proposal is that this be addressed in 5 ways....

 

1. Take another look at the approval process especially focusing on (1) the guidelines - either use the guidelines as just that - guidelines - or make them hard and fast rules and; (2) creating an appeals process for unapproved caches.

 

2. Legitimately investigate the complaints about Prime Approver. I have had no problems with him personally, but there is obviously something going on and it should be checked out.

 

3. Give Texas 3 approvers by first dividing the state between east and west at about long. W99.25.000. The area to the east of that line gets divided north/south at about lat N31.25.000. Each of these areas gets their own approver. This would address the size, diversity, and growth aspects.

 

4. (This may already be in place - I don't know) Make it a hard policy that all approvers must reside in, and have an extensive caching history in, the area they are approving for. If they move to a new area, then they can't be approvers any more simply because they do not know that area and it's caching community.

 

5. Put in an approver grievance process that includes an ability for area cachers to have input into whether an approver should be retired. Slamming around accusations in a forum is not really the best way to do this.

 

Howard

 

Edited for legibility and type-o's and spelling boo-boos.

Edited by Semper Questio
Link to comment
There are really 2 major issues that need addressed in Texas as approvers go and they both relate to the rapid growth of caching in Texas, the size of the area, and the diversity of the population (in every way) and geogrpahy.

 

By our own admission, the Austin area (commonly referred to as Central Texas or CenTex) is just plain weird. There is a diverse bunch of people here, many of whom are smart, clever, and creative. This area also sports a lot of different terrain that many visitors find surprising. We have flat scrub land as many would expect, but we laso have hills, canyons, and much more. All this means that somene with some knowledge of the people and the area is needed to be an approver here. Just going by maps, aeial photos, and "guidelines" isn't enough. My proposal is that this be addressed in 5 ways....

 

1. Take another look at the approval process especially focusing on (1) the guidelines - either use the guidelines as just that - guidelines - or make them hard and fast rules and; (2) creating an appeals process for unapproved caches.

2. Legitimately investigate the complaints about Prime Approver. I have had no problems with him personally, but there is obviously something going on and it should be checked out.

3. Give Texas 3 approvers by first dividing the state between east and west at about long. W99.25.000. The area to the east of that line gets divided north/south at about lat N31.25.000. Each of these areas gets their own approver. This would address the size, diversity, and growth aspects.

4. (This may already be in place - I don't know) Make it a hard policy that all approvers must reside in, and have an extensive caching history in, the area they are approving for. If they move to a new area, then they can't be approvers any more simply because they do not know that area and it's caching community.

5. Put in an approver grievance process that includes an ability for area cachers to have input into whether an approver should be retired. Slamming around accusations in a forum is not really the best way to do this.

 

Howard

And this boys and girls is the proper way to gripe. Neat, concise, without inflammatory remarks. He even offers possible soutions in his gripe.

 

5 points Semper

Link to comment

If I owned a business, I'm not sure I'd want my customers to have the power to pick and choose who my supervisors are and what services they'll provide.

 

If you owned a business, you would definitely listen to your customers' complaints, and if they had merit, or even the perception of merit, you would counsel your supervisors about service to external customers and the importance of perception. If your supervisors did not respond, you would discipline or even replace them.

 

As far as services provided, I hope you would respond to the desires of your customers regarding services.

 

Perception is often reality. My myopic perception is one of customers that are frustrated with a lack of responsiveness. I think that has changed today.

 

My $.02 worth, and you paid too much.

 

Randell

Link to comment
The orgs usually nominate their local approvers.

Interesting. The Missoula Organization of Geocachers never even knew that we had nominated a new approver! I guess we fell through the cracks then, much in the same way our request for Yellow Jeep TB's was completely ignored. I did get a incident number, but none of my attempts to follow up were recognized or responded to.

Link to comment

GCM1CK - The Hugh Jazz Cache by Jazz Fan

 

"A cache dedicated to that classic Jazz trumpeter, Hugh Masekela. [bio information on the trumpeter irrevelvant and therefore omitted]"

 

Cache was a 24-gallon rubbermaid action packer. It was pretty heavy and I had to use a dolly to wheel it out into the forest. There was a particular depression in the forest floor surrounded by large fallen trees that was perfect for hiding this behemoth. The cache box had been sitting in this same spot as the final for the puzzle cache "School Daze Match Game," but I archived that one because I wanted more people to find the big container and trade swag. It was the biggest cache in Austin.

 

480 feet away, there was another cache of mine, "It Sneaks up on You Too" a pair of huge tennis shoes hanging from a tree, a cache container in one and a logbook in the other. In this part of Texas, it's rare to find a clear spot in the thick cedar forest where you can hang a pair of shoes and not have them tangled up in the branches of surrounding trees.

 

Anyway, GCM1CK was disapproved because it violated the 528 foot guideline. Nevermind that there was an impassible cedar forest between the two caches, and that it was highly unlikely that anyone would confuse one for the other while searching.

 

When I stated that the guideline was a guideline and that this cache had actually been there for some time as the final for a previous puzzle cache, this was the reply:

 

"If I make an exception for you, then the next guy will want an exception also. So will the next guy. And on and on until the guidelines are completely useless."

Link to comment

If I owned a business, I'm not sure I'd want my customers to have the power to pick and choose who my supervisors are and what services they'll provide. 

 

If you owned a business, you would definitely listen to your customers' complaints, and if they had merit, or even the perception of merit, you would counsel your supervisors about service to external customers and the importance of perception. If your supervisors did not respond, you would discipline or even replace them.

 

As far as services provided, I hope you would respond to the desires of your customers regarding services.

 

Perception is often reality. My myopic perception is one of customers that are frustrated with a lack of responsiveness. I think that has changed today.

 

My $.02 worth, and you paid too much.

 

Randell

You are correct, and I agree completely. I still would not allow my customers to hire and have the power to fire my employees.

Link to comment
You are correct, and I agree completely. I still would not allow my customers to hire and have the power to fire my employees.

It's true that the customer isn't always right. And it's also true that some customers are just more trouble than they are worth.

 

However, can't the customer even occasionally be right?

Link to comment
I started the protest cache for the sole purpose of bringing attention to the fact that one of your approvers has made it very unpleasant to participate on GC.com anymore.

Very interesting thread.

 

Looking over the cache that started this uproar. Since the title has been removed and the cache archived my opinion.

 

1. Looks like it was kiss my toad or something similar.. so yep should have been rejected.

2. In the body of the archived cache; the originator was flaming an approver.. so yep should have been rejected.

 

On both of those reasons especially together yep rejected. And in my opinion should never have even been approved at any level, let alone show up as an approved cache to begin with.

 

Thankfully I dont live in Texas, whatever the problems are down there. But seems like communications somewhere have failed.

 

I am thrilled that geocaching.com for the most part provides a great game/sport/hobby whatever you wanna call it.

Link to comment
1. Take another look at the approval process especially focusing on (1) the guidelines - either use the guidelines as just that - guidelines - or make them hard and fast rules and; (2) creating an appeals process for unapproved caches.

 

As the sport evolves the guidelines evolve. The majority of the time there is not an issue with the guidelines or the reviewers. Considering the amount of caches submitted vs. the amount of complaints or complaint threads.

 

There is an appeal process written at the top of the guidelines page.

 

2. Legitimately investigate the complaints about Prime Approver. I have had no problems with him personally, but there is obviously something going on and it should be checked out.

 

This is my responsibility, the complaints were brought to my attention by Prime Approver yesterday and I will continue to investigate what is going on.

 

3. Give Texas 3 approvers by first dividing the state between east and west at about long. W99.25.000. The area to the east of that line gets divided north/south at about lat N31.25.000. Each of these areas gets their own approver. This would address the size, diversity, and growth aspects.

 

Three reviewers is not necessary considering the volume of caches submitted. When Texas was reduced to one reviewer both the current reviewer and the resigning reviewer agreed that the volume did not dictate for me to replace him at this time.

 

4. (This may already be in place - I don't know) Make it a hard policy that all approvers must reside in, and have an extensive caching history in, the area they are approving for. If they move to a new area, then they can't be approvers any more simply because they do not know that area and it's caching community

 

The reviewers are chosen by the review team, they are nominated discussed and must be agreed upon. They must know understand and be very involved in the game. As a new reviewer is needed to cover an area we look for a local that is active. They agree to follow the guidelines and try to treat each cache fairly.

 

To go and add a new reviewer for each city that asks for one is over kill. In many cases some approvers deal with only a few caches a week.

 

5. Put in an approver grievance process that includes an ability for area cachers to have input into whether an approver should be retired. Slamming around accusations in a forum is not really the best way to do this.

 

You may email approvers@Groundspeak.com at any time.

Link to comment

You are correct, and I agree completely. I still would not allow my customers to hire and have the power to fire my employees.

In general, I would agree. However, I liken this situation to a volunteer organization, such as a volunteer fire department. Many times, the line officers are in fact hired and fired by the masses (via elections).

 

Managing volunteer organizations is quite different than a pure corporation. Directors of VFD's, the Salvation Army, etc. would tell you that personnel management is approached in an alternative manner that keeps the volunteers motivated and involved.

 

R

Link to comment
You are correct, and I agree completely.  I still would not allow my customers to hire and have the power to fire my employees.

It's true that the customer isn't always right. And it's also true that some customers are just more trouble than they are worth.

 

However, can't the customer even occasionally be right?

If they were a regular customer and the worker did something that would cause the business bad relations then the customer would be right in bringing this to the owners attention, IMHO.

 

Roadway57

Link to comment

While I agree that you shouldn't allow a customer to hire or fire an employee, if the actions of that employee are causing you to lose business, you would be forced to take some kind of action. Is that not a fair statement? If you answer yes, you are in essence letting your customers dictate to you who should be fired. If you answered no, you probably won't be in business long. I have nothing personal against Prime Approver, in fact, I have only met him once briefly and he seemed like a nice person. His actions as an approver are draining the enjoyment out of the game here. As an employee, he is costing this site business.

 

I can say that I disagreed with what Grajek did to his page, but his action was born of the frustration of being stuck in a situation he had no control over. If you look at that page, you will find many others throughout the state are having similar problems. In this case, it's not just us.

Link to comment
I also eat at both Taco Bell and McDonalds, but I don't boycott McDonalds because they don't serve tacos.

 

But what would you do if the peron at the counter of McDonalds told you that you MUST eat his hamburgers with peanut butter on them or no burger for you? My guess is you would stop eating at McDonalds. That's what our counter person is doing to us. Remember that great episode on Seinfeld? The Soup Nazi? Even though all the customers loved his product and were willing to pay for it, if someone did something he disliked in the least it was, "No Soup for You!". Well, we are tired of hearing, "No Cache for You!". Now if McDonalds' management fired that unweilding employee, you might go back. I stress the word MIGHT because we've all been pissed off enough buy some business that we've never went back to patronize them.

 

If I don't like the way Walmart does business, I go to Target. If I don't like the way Ford builds cars I buy a Dodge.

 

Let's be honest here. This isn't Walmart vs. Target. In this game there has primarily been ONLY a Walmart. If this Walmart doesn't stop alienating its clientele, there will soon be a "Target".

 

If I am that unhappy with gc.com I would stop using it and go elsewhere

 

That's exactly what's happening.

Link to comment
This is getting too funny. If I follow this right Texas has an issue with Groundspeak.

First, the issue was "they archived a cache with a non-offensive name". When it was pointed out the name had been changed to something totally offensive which is what triggered the archive, the issue changed to "We're mad cause they stole the selector from 9key and didn't even give him credit". When it was shown that wasn't true, the issue changed again to "Prime Approver sucks, we never had any problems before he came along". Wait, that wasn't really true either, so now the issue is "we want to be able to tell Groundspeak how to run their company and decide what caches we list and what guidelines to follow for ourselves". Wow, that's a far cry from "what's so bad about the name Horny Toad"!

Contrary to popular belief, I don't always agree with the way Jeremy and company run their website. But you know what? It's their website, and I do defend their right to run it as they see fit (as long as it's legal), just like I would defend anyone else's right to legally run their own website or company the way THEY want to. If I don't like the way Walmart does business, I go to Target. If I don't like the way Ford builds cars I buy a Dodge. If I am that unhappy with gc.com I would stop using it and go elsewhere.

My cache has nothing to do with it. I fully excepted my cache to taken off line as soon as someone broke out the Spanish book. I started the protest cache for the reasons listed on the protest cache page. I and no one really has a problem with the name of my cache being changed at all. It was excepted.

Link to comment
You may email approvers@Groundspeak.com at any time.

 

Hydee, Thank you for your reply. Emailing this site gains us what? What happens? Who reviews these? What percentage of escalations are overturned? I strongly suspect I know the answers to all of these, but I would like to be sure.

Link to comment

If they were a regular customer and the worker did something that would cause the business bad relations then the customer would be right in bringing this to the owners attention, IMHO.

 

Roadway57

Yup, but in this case at least one of the complaints seems to be (I dunno, I can't keep track of the actual complaint for this hour) is that the worker is doing exactly the job the owner asked him to do. If you want burgers, don't go to Taco Bell and complain to the manager that the guy behind the counter won't sell you one. The manager already knows he doesn't sell burgers. Stop whining and cross the street to Burger King where they will be happy to sell you a burger. Why all the angst?

Link to comment
While I agree, the cache series may sound a little like a multi cache, it is not the case. JQ1 is already a multi. JQ2 is also a multi and in a totally different park some 5 miles from JQ1. JQ3 is in the same park as JQ 2 and is a puzzle solve, and JQ 4 is just a regular (bonus) type cache. To combine these into a multi would lead to a 23 part multicache with 3 different puzzle combinations to solve.

 

Hope this clerifys this for you,

Thanks,

Wayne

More to the point, if you'd wanted it to be a multi, you'd have made it one.

 

Also, the system discriminates against caches such as these. A multicache will be found less frequently than a traditional. A complex multicache is likely to be found only a handful of times. Simple, traditional caches are favored because the easiest cache scores the same "1 find" as a harder cache. You can rail all you want about how "It shouldn't be about the numbers", but clearly for many it is. (In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this either - lots of games have some kind of scoring system.) In my opinion, forcing a series of proximate caches to be a multi is an attempt to fight against the trend of hiding large numbers of simple traditional caches in a highly saturated manner. In my opinion, it would be a lot more productive to address the root cause of the problem - namely that some (not all to be sure) people want a little healthy competition in the game. Right now, they only way you can compete on this site is by comparing your find count, and FTF's. And right now, if you want lots of smileys, the way to go about getting them is to abuse the equality of the find, and abuse it badly. (By the way, this isn't my primary motivation in caching! But the pursuit of this by others risks messing things up for everybody else, in my opinion.)

Link to comment

"This is getting too funny. If I follow this right Texas has an issue with Groundspeak.

First, the issue was "they archived a cache with a non-offensive name". When it was pointed out the name had been changed to something totally offensive which is what triggered the archive, the issue changed to "We're mad cause they stole the selector from 9key and didn't even give him credit". When it was shown that wasn't true, the issue changed again to "Prime Approver sucks, we never had any problems before he came along". Wait, that wasn't really true either, so now the issue is "we want to be able to tell Groundspeak how to run their company and decide what caches we list and what guidelines to follow for ourselves". Wow, that's a far cry from "what's so bad about the name Horny Toad"!

"

 

With all due respect Mopar your missing the whole point. It has nothing at all with my cache page (Name change, archived unlisted....). My cache page came way after as a protest. Please do not get the facts distorted, weather on purpose or accident. I will give ya the benefit of the doubt and say it is an over site on your part and not an attempt to belittle the paying members gripes.

Link to comment
1. Take another look at the approval process...

 

As the sport evolves the guidelines evolve. The majority of the time there is not an issue with the guidelines or the reviewers. Considering the amount of caches submitted vs. the amount of complaints or complaint threads.

 

There is an appeal process written at the top of the guidelines page.

 

This sounds fine except to say that reviewers need to keep in mind there is a difference between "guidelines" and "rules". Besides, the appeal process basically just says to talk to your approver and if that doesn't work than go to the forums. If the community likes your idea, then it MAY be reconsidered. Not really much of an appeals process.

 

2. Legitimately investigate the complaints about Prime Approver...

 

This is my responsibility, the complaints were brought to my attention by Prime Approver yesterday and I will continue to investigate what is going on.

 

That is good to hear. It seems some of this has been brewing for a while. It would be good to get some feedback (at least in our local group) from yourself or PA on how this got this far and how things may change.

 

3. Give Texas 3 approvers...

 

Three reviewers is not necessary considering the volume of caches submitted. When Texas was reduced to one reviewer both the current reviewer and the resigning reviewer agreed that the volume did not dictate for me to replace him at this time.

 

I understand what you are saying but it seems to me this issue has come up not because of volume but because of diversity of people and environments. It seems that PA doesn't know this area or these people all that well and another reviewer from this area would alleviate much of that.

 

4. ... Make it a hard policy that all approvers must ...

 

The reviewers are chosen by the review team, they are nominated discussed and must be agreed upon. They must know understand and be very involved in the game. As a new reviewer is needed to cover an area we look for a local that is active. They agree to follow the guidelines and try to treat each cache fairly.

 

That sounds great, but the last line is what I think is at issue in this thread and goes back to the PA issue. Is each cache being treated fairly according to the guidelines or are the guidlelines being applied across the board as hard rules? IMHO what is being asked for is that PA consider each cache on it's own merits, following the guidelines as closely as possible, but making some allowances for creativity, terrain, etc. After all, the guidelines themselves state

 

"These are listing guidelines only."

 

and

 

"The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and approvers are always interested in new ideas."

 

Previous comments seem to indicate a conflict with both of these statements.

 

To go and add a new reviewer for each city that asks for one is over kill. In many cases some approvers deal with only a few caches a week.

 

I don't believe a new reviewer for each city was ever requested.

 

5. Put in an approver grievance process...

 

You may email approvers@Groundspeak.com at any time.

 

And what happens from there?

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Howard

Edited by Semper Questio
Link to comment
My cache has nothing to do with it. I fully excepted my cache to taken off line as soon as someone broke out the Spanish book. I started the protest cache for the reasons listed on the protest cache page. I and no one really has a problem with the name of my cache being changed at all. It was excepted.

See, that's whats to darn funny! You say your cache has nothing to do with this thread, yet the very thread itself is titled "I wonder What Was So Bad About The Name" which continues into the original post:

of this cache that the admins saw fit to change it?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ec-1f4d52f8c2e3

 

B)

 

Supposedly, this thread is supposed to be about what is wrong with the name of your cache and why it was changed. I think by now everyone knows that what was wrong is the title was changed from the original (and still cached on google) name to something so offensive that you admit you knew it would be taken off line for that reason. The reason it was so offensive is the reason it was changed. So.... if that's really not what this thread is about, you can understand why people are confused.

Link to comment
Yup, but in this case at least one of the complaints seems to be (I dunno, I can't keep track of the actual complaint for this hour) is that the worker is doing exactly the job the owner asked him to do. If you want burgers, don't go to Taco Bell and complain to the manager that the guy behind the counter won't sell you one. The manager already knows he doesn't sell burgers. Stop whining and cross the street to Burger King where they will be happy to sell you a burger. Why all the angst?

Your analogy makes no sense to me, Mopar. gc.com more or less has a monopoly over cache listings. You know this perfectly well. Pretending like the other listing services are in any way real competition for this site is just not reality.

 

But that isn't the point of your post anyway - the point is to tell us to shut up. This type of post is precisely why I have very, very little confidence that anyone here will really listen. I'm not saying y'all have to just roll over and do everything we might wish - I'm saying that the degree of denial here is such that you'll not listen to a word any of us are saying. Your own post admits as much.

Link to comment
(I dunno, I can't keep track of the actual complaint for this hour)

That's mainly because, in your desire to belittle the feelings of more than just a few cachers, you've acted as if these reasons have changed. The complaints listed were ALL reasons for the fireworks, in the first place. They've been brewing for a while, it simply took a few posts to get them out on the table.

 

Stop whining and cross the street to Burger King where they will be happy to sell you a burger. Why all the angst?

 

Because there is no Burger King. There are a couple of Burger Huts and while their selection and customer service is better, they can only serve a few burgers a month.

Link to comment

Someone from Groundspeak will reply, in most cases if it is an issue regarding a reviewer I will reply.

 

Each email is looked at case by case and many different things come from them.

 

I work daily with the reviewers to try to ensure that most of their decisions reflect Groundspeak beliefs. At times we all make mistakes. I make mistakes, the reviewers make mistakes, the company makes mistakes, and the community makes mistakes. We try to learn from the issues that are reoccurring and make changes accordingly.

Link to comment
Yup, but in this case at least one of the complaints seems to be (I dunno, I can't keep track of the actual complaint for this hour) is that the worker is doing exactly the job the owner asked him to do. If you want burgers, don't go to Taco Bell and complain to the manager that the guy behind the counter won't sell you one. The manager already knows he doesn't sell burgers. Stop whining and cross the street to Burger King where they will be happy to sell you a burger. Why all the angst?

Your analogy makes no sense to me, Mopar. gc.com more or less has a monopoly over cache listings. You know this perfectly well. Pretending like the other listing services are in any way real competition for this site is just not reality.

 

But that isn't the point of your post anyway - the point is to tell us to shut up. This type of post is precisely why I have very, very little confidence that anyone here will really listen. I'm not saying y'all have to just roll over and do everything we might wish - I'm saying that the degree of denial here is such that you'll not listen to a word any of us are saying. Your own post admits as much.

Because there is no Burger King. There are a couple of Burger Huts and while their selection and customer service is better, they can only serve a few burgers a month.

 

BINGO! You guys are getting it! There is in fact a Burger King, and a McDonalds across the street. The fact that so few people eat there should tell you about how MOST people feel about the food at Taco Bell. They like the idea they can get a Burger if they want, but they don't want one. They want a Taco. They want a burrito. They think Taco Bell has way better food then across the street, so they don't feel the need to cross the street. That's not to say someone else is wrong for not liking tacos. Like what you like. Just don't make it sound like the rest of us don't like tacos. If we want burgers, we all know where to find them. I'm sure Taco Bell knows they can't please everyone. The fact that so many eat lunch here at Taco Bell instead of Burger King should tell them they are doing a great job at making the largest possible percentage of people happy customers.

Link to comment
The approvers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

 

Please note the words; RULE OF THUMB, ARBITRARY and GUIDLINES. No such thing anymore. They have all become LAWS and if you infringe upon them in the least, it's NO CACHE FOR YOU!

Link to comment

If I owned a business, I'm not sure I'd want my customers to have the power to pick and choose who my supervisors are and what services they'll provide. 

 

If you owned a business, you would definitely listen to your customers' complaints, and if they had merit, or even the perception of merit, you would counsel your supervisors about service to external customers and the importance of perception. If your supervisors did not respond, you would discipline or even replace them.

 

As far as services provided, I hope you would respond to the desires of your customers regarding services.

 

Perception is often reality. My myopic perception is one of customers that are frustrated with a lack of responsiveness. I think that has changed today.

 

My $.02 worth, and you paid too much.

 

Randell

You are correct, and I agree completely. I still would not allow my customers to hire and have the power to fire my employees.

Happens all the time in the business world. Go to any major LLC or Accounting firm. Anyone woul has spent time working for a company like that or for that matter any fortune 500 company knows customers make those descions all the time. Put a high school dropout with no skills what so ever in charge of a major account and see if the customer gets a say in who works for you or not.

 

B)

Link to comment
This is getting too funny. If I follow this right Texas has an issue with Groundspeak.

First, the issue was "they archived a cache with a non-offensive name". When it was pointed out the name had been changed to something totally offensive which is what triggered the archive, the issue changed to "We're mad cause they stole the selector from 9key and didn't even give him credit". When it was shown that wasn't true, the issue changed again to "Prime Approver sucks, we never had any problems before he came along". Wait, that wasn't really true either, so now the issue is "we want to be able to tell Groundspeak how to run their company and decide what caches we list and what guidelines to follow for ourselves". Wow, that's a far cry from "what's so bad about the name Horny Toad"!

Contrary to popular belief, I don't always agree with the way Jeremy and company run their website. But you know what? It's their website, and I do defend their right to run it as they see fit (as long as it's legal), just like I would defend anyone else's right to legally run their own website or company the way THEY want to. If I don't like the way Walmart does business, I go to Target. If I don't like the way Ford builds cars I buy a Dodge. If I am that unhappy with gc.com I would stop using it and go elsewhere.

Agreed Mopar. This is how im seeing this all play out myself. Yes there are probably legitmate complaints that need to be addressed, but Jeremy/Groundspeak sure isnt out to ruin the fun for Texas. There is no way to make everyone happy but i can guarantee you that they are gonna try to satisfy as many customers as they can, even us Texas based customers!

 

By the way, this will probably get me blackballed but i'll say it anyway. I wasnt born in Texas but ive lived here most of my life and consider myself a Texan. Please stop saying saying that Texans (sounds like you mean all of us) are disgusted with GC.com. Not all of us are!!!

Link to comment
The orgs usually nominate their local approvers. PA was hand-picked by 9Key. If you have issues with an approver you email the web site so we're aware of it. Hydee works with the orgs to make sure they have good representation on reviewing local caches.

 

MY A&%, THE ORGS USUALLY NOMINATE THEIR LOCAL APPROVERS!! The people in the orgs WHOM YOU TRUST TO CHOOSE POLITICALLY CORRECTLY nominate their local approvers. I've never seen anything openly democratic or even any discussion about who should be an approver in Texas on TXGA. 9key has, since PA became an approver, expressed distress with regard to some of his decisions, but how could he say something to you without losing face and/or facing retribution? I'm sure you are relieved he is no longer in your way.

 

I wish someone would put a comprehensive reason for why this protest is happening. Kind of like standing around an intersection with blank protest signs.

 

3. Some feel the pace of change at this site is very slow.

4. Some feel the value system implicitly promoted here, which rewards quantity over quality leaves a lot to be desired.

I addressed the 1st and 2nd point. The 3rd and 4th just seem to be filler items.

 

We have a few locals in Texas who use methods to get attention that are perceived (even by myself) as inappropriate , but that doesn't illegitimize the complaints. I've seen plenty of requests for more detailed guidelines for all types of caches, yet they don't appear. I've seen plenty of requests for reinstatement of virtual and locationless caches, even in a separate listing if necessary, yet that doesn't happen.

 

Are the priorities for system development and geocaching guidelines listed somewhere, and are customer wants weighted into the priority system? How are we supposed to know if and when any of these desires are being acted upon? Have we no way of knowing what our $30 per year is being spent upon? This entire thing boils down to wondering/doubting whether we're getting our money's worth, now or in the future.

 

Now my latest specific beef: I set up a "meet and greet" event when we had some Dallas folks coming down to cache the Austin area, so we could get to meet them, and I was told that "last-minute" events were not acceptable: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...4c-1507c324e6d3 Once again, I'll point out here that there are no published guidelines for event caches. So from whence, besides PA's convoluted interpretation of your wishes, did this come?

 

If geocachers find that they will be in the same place at the same time, is that not good enough? If geocachers find that they have interests in common that compliment their geocaching, does that mean they can't do them concurrently at an event (witness the biking event and others such as kayaking/rafting and/or camping)?

 

Jeremy, I suggest that the infrastructure you have in place is not big enough to let you know the important undercurrents that are happening all over the world in this monster you've developed. These boards are avoided by some because they are certain that any complaints against the Company and/or TPTB will be censored. They are avoided by others because they are just too dang big. I quit visiting because I'm simply too busy with my local group and my private life; I just can't make looking for the latest Groundspeak news one of my priorities. If you don't develop a method to glean feedback from non-Groundspeak forums and mailing lists, IMHO you will never really have your finger on the pulse of your customers.

 

I say, until there are guidelines, if several geocachers want to get together and call it an event, nobody should stand in their way. If you don't have time to develop guidelines, why are approvers allowed to develop them in gc.com's absense? I would suggest that you appoint a committee to canvass the populus and work up something for you, but many would not trust any group you select because you are so insulated from the geocaching communities that thrive outside of Groundspeak.

 

I came here due to a specific request from one of my close geocaching friends, but I have too many things going on to say I'll be back soon or often to see what is said. Maybe I will hear something through the grapevine. I was on TV promoting this sport again this week, and the only website that was mentioned was yours. If I could change that, I would. You have a stranglehold on the market, but the geocacher's collective neck is getting stronger. Continue to live in the insular cocoon you've created, and you may be surprised to find your grip has slipped and someone else has eaten a piece of your pie.

Link to comment

Mopar, you just don't get it. Did you read my post from 10:45? Nevermind, don't take it personally but trying to get you to understand our situation is like trying to get a cache approved in central Texas. Waste of time to even attempt it. I'm tired of battling autonomy and ignorance, geocaching was meant to be more fun than hitting your head against the wall. Yes, I'm tired of burgers so I go think I'll go find another hobby. Someone wake me up after the sheep have all been led to slaughter. Perhaps by then someone will have seen the light.

Link to comment
If I owned a business, I'm not sure I'd want my customers to have the power to pick and choose who my supervisors are and what services they'll provide.

Having spent a few years handling customer dissatisfaction issues for a local branch of a Fortune 100 company, I can say with some confdence that customers do have the power to choose who they work with when dealing with a vendor or service supplier. Sales and service reps are replaced at the request of a customer all the time. It's only good business to ensure that your customers are happy and that you deliver the products and services that they demand. In my experience, the major exceptions you see to these sorts of customer satisfaction policies is when dealing with near-monopolies where the risk of losing a dissatisfied customer is minimal.

 

GC enjoys a near-monopoly today and their level of customer service reflects that. I wonder how their attitudes and policies will change if and when that monopoly is seriously threatened?

Link to comment
The fact that so many eat lunch here at Taco Bell instead of Burger King should tell them they are doing a great job at making the largest possible percentage of people happy customers.

That doesn't make their tacos taste any better or mean that they actually give a flying crap about the people who eat them.

Link to comment
If I owned a business, I'm not sure I'd want my customers to have the power to pick and choose who my supervisors are and what services they'll provide.

Having spent a few years handling customer dissatisfaction issues for a local branch of a Fortune 100 company, I can say with some confdence that customers do have the power to choose who they work with when dealing with a vendor or service supplier. Sales and service reps are replaced at the request of a customer all the time. It's only good business to ensure that your customers are happy and that you deliver the products and services that they demand. In my experience, the major exceptions you see to these sorts of customer satisfaction policies is when dealing with near-monopolies where the risk of losing a dissatisfied customer is minimal.

 

GC enjoys a near-monopoly today and their level of customer service reflects that. I wonder how their attitudes and policies will change if and when that monopoly is seriously threatened?

Hear, Hear That's the service industry's golden rule: He who holds the gold makes the rules!

Link to comment
At times we all make mistakes. I make mistakes, the reviewers make mistakes, the company makes mistakes, and the community makes mistakes. We try to learn from the issues that are reoccurring and make changes accordingly.

Wow, this is groundbreaking. I just got a good feeling from reading this. Hope everythings works out well. B)

Link to comment

This food analogy is so far out of whack it is unreal. Niether gc.com, nv.com, or tc.com produce caches. They only serve them up. The caches are produced by the customers. There's not much difference between the caches from one to another. (Except there seems to be a higher average quality at tc.com because they is what they are striving for.)

 

Gc.com has a headstart and a critical mass advantage over the other sites. Give it a few years and then report back which site is the best one--I can gaurantee it won't be gc.com in it's present form. I'm not talking about gee-whiz junk, either. Policy and basic function is what is most important. Gc.com's lead is diminishing greatly on these two important aspects.

Link to comment

You know what? This is a well-run, conscientious site. It is far and beyond better than anything else out there right now. If there's a serious problem with an approver, you can always direct a petition to contactatgeocaching.com Every time I've had a question, or an incident to report, I've gotten a timely, polite answer without the need for insurrection. TPTB are not unreasonable fascists--speaking from my experience, they are really good eggs. So put away the torches and the pitchforks and have a dialog that doesn't nuke the forums. Chill, people, and quit talking about secession--for the most part, we're a happy, good community with lots to offer.

 

(Ummm... how many feet do I see?)

Edited by prettynwitty
Link to comment
The fact that so many eat lunch here at Taco Bell instead of Burger King should tell them they are doing a great job at making the largest possible percentage of people happy customers.

That doesn't make their tacos taste any better or mean that they actually give a flying crap about the people who eat them.

Is anyone getting hungry with all these food analogies? ;) Besides you're telling Texans that Taco Bell is a best place to get tacos? Come visit San Antonio and I'll show you were to get real tacos B) (literally not figuratively).

Link to comment
Gc.com has a headstart and a critical mass advantage over the other sites. Give it a few years and then report back which site is the best one--I can gaurantee it won't be gc.com in it's present form.

I like how you qualified this projection. "In its present form." 3 years ago seems like millenia. And 5 years ago I was hand entering cache listings for people because there was no "new cache" form.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...