Jump to content

I Wonder What Was So Bad About The Name


unclerojelio

Recommended Posts

"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.

You know what? You're right. There is absolutely no dissent here in Texas, it's all a bunch of sheep who have been brainwashed by Grajek and myself into doing things that they wouldn't otherwise do. Texans are SO easy to lead into a mob. They have no minds of their own and you watch, they'll all come to their senses in the morning if you just keep telling them there's no problem, that everything's fine.

 

As for "gone away," Consider this my request for Groundspeak to please cancel my geocaching.com account.

Link to comment
Is anyone getting hungry with all these food analogies? B) Besides you're telling Texans that Taco Bell is a best place to get tacos?

Hilarious :) It's like the Old El Paso commercial where the cowboy reads the label on the hot sauce and announces it was made in New York City. B)NEW YORK CITY? ;) Frankly, I don't and wouldn't eat at any of the places mentioned, but I have nothing against anyone who would. B)

Link to comment

I would think that we could get rid of some of the angst by allowing an area to nominate candidates. Require that all nominatioons have to be accompanied by an explanation (ie, what has geocacherx done for the sport, why should geocacherx be considered, what makes this person a good reviewer)... The top however many people could be considered by gc.

 

This way, no, these people aren't having the final say, but they are giving their input, and then tptb can decide on who has the qualities/merits that they're looking for.

 

I, too, agree that texas should have multiple people. I also think that canada should have three or four. I don't think that a volunteer should have so much to do on his or her own that they have to plan their lives around doing it. So what if volume only says one person can do it. We should have people that know the area - whatever area that is - that live in the area, that understand terrain issues.

 

You need to decide if we have guidelines or rules. By definition, a guideline is a basis, but not set in stone. If cacher4 hides a cache at the top of a cliff with a two mile down straight drop and cacher5gfjd comes along and hides one in a cave at the bottom, all your cords show is that they are 4 feet apart, it doesn't tell you that the elevation change makes them two miles from one another. The 528 rule doesn't work for every instance.

 

One of the issues is a serial cache. Going by the information that one cacher has provided, it does seem like the series mentioned in this thread was denied for no reason. If the issue really was that it was a series and not the 528 rule, then why is the approver denying these caches? Quite a few people have series out that have bonus caches at the end. I've been told I could place one by my reviewer. So why not in Texas?

 

I also agree with their complaint about where Texas goes in the forum. I think that Texas is so large that it needs to be in a group by itself. Somebody said in one post that the sheer time it would take to move posts...Well, you don't have to do that. Just start a new forum, move anything active - which was nill last time I checked - and then let them start fresh.

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?)

I think you can see in the by the passion in our posts that deep down we do care about geocaching.com. Otherwise none of this would be happening. Not withstanding when provoked we will fight, it's something they put in the water down here I think B) .

Link to comment
Is anyone getting hungry with all these food analogies?  B) Besides you're telling Texans that Taco Bell is a best place to get tacos?

Hilarious :) It's like the Old El Paso commercial where the cowboy reads the label on the hot sauce and announces it was made in New York City. B)NEW YORK CITY? ;) Frankly, I don't and wouldn't eat at any of the places mentioned, but I have nothing against anyone who would. B)

Totally OT but I just have to post this in response to the quote above:

 

When I lived in Houston I had a great friend (a native Texan) who used to eat Taco Bell ALL the time. ALL the time. When asked why he liked Taco Bell so much, his answer was always the same, and in the same matter-of-fact monotone: "It makes a turd."

 

Funny story, and yet it also seems oddly pertinent here if you're a twisted thinker like I am sometimes.

 

-Dave R.

Edited by drat19
Link to comment

I agree with Waasup completely. While some are talking succession, I think many more of us would simply like to address the issue we have here and now and move on. Thus far, I have not seen anything in this thread that indicates the acknowledgement of a problem. The fact that this thread exists. The fact that there have been 15 post on an archive cache in the last 12 hours should be an indication of a problem. The fact is we have a problem. We are asking for your (Groundspeak) help with this problem. Can you help us? Are you willing to help us?

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.

Yes, I did qualify it. Why? Because in a start up arena like this you either adapt or die. Could gc.com very well be number one in a few years? Sure, but not with the policies you have in place right now.

 

If you want to set policies that people don't like that is your right, but don't expect them to like it--especially when there isn't a better place to go.

 

Most of us only want a reasonable, fair, well-functioning place to list our caches, and feel like our input is appreciated and some things actually get done in a timely manner. It's not about the gee-whiz stuff--though it is nice, it's not what is most important.

 

I know I'm still waiting on the option of getting only the "caches that have have any log in the past 7 days" that you, yourself, said is a good workable idea. You've added stuff to the PQ page between then and now, so I know you've been in there tinkering, but still nothing. This is but one example of the symptoms that folks are complaining about, yet you brush them aside.

 

Reflect on this, if it weren't for the fact this site has the vast majority of the listing, do you think people would be here complaining about approvers or policy? I'd hazard, that would be an unequivocal, "no." They would just quietly go elsewhere and you would think everything is hunky-dory.

 

Just the fact that it's gotten to the point that even having the largest database isn't holding folks here should tell you something.

 

EDIT: changes. Yes, I found the post. (Note: though it looks like my wife writing that post, this was back when I was using that account, too)

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
Mopar wrote:

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 ...

Feel free to Markwell we on that point. I must have missed how it was shown "not to be true". B)
Link to comment

Okay, I'll chime in. I know little to nothing about the current situation in Texas, but when has that stopped me...

 

As I read it, I see two primary complaints.

 

1. The approver was not chosen by the people whose caches are being affected.

 

True. This is not a democracy. There was no balloting process. But when I hire someone at my workplace, I don't ask my customers whom I should hire. As the manager, it's my decision. I wouldn't want to be told who is most qualified to work under me. The bottom line is, it's ultimately Jeremy's decision--good or bad--as to who is most appropriate to be an approver.

 

That said, the local organizations do in fact have a say in it. Again, every single person and every single local group might not be polled...but I'd be surprised to hear anyone at Groundspeak refute the prospect that someone actively participating in the local organizations and living in the local area is the best person to choose. It's just obvious. However, when GC.com decided to add another approver to accomodate the heavy load of caches in my area, they worked with our local organization to identify the most appropriate candidates. Fortunately for us, the person they picked has been outstanding.

 

Considering that the number of active cachers and hidden caches continues to increase, I don't quite buy the argument that GC.com isn't listening to its customers. I strongly believe that these complaints deserve discussion--but were there some sort of gross mismanagement that truly impacted the ability of people to enjoy this game, we'd see just the opposite trend. The numbers don't lie.

 

2. The rules being applied are vague and arbitrary.

 

I happen to be on friendly terms with more than one of the approvers. The complaints that have been lodged here are exactly the ones that the approvers I know have been asked to enforce as well. Make your series of closely clustered caches a multi-cache. Two-week minimum for event caches (which have to be held at a single place). Those aren't Prime Approver's arbitrary decisions--they're what I would expect any approver would be obligated to ask, regardless of whether they think it's an appropriate rule or not.

 

However, given the PERCEPTION that these are arbitrary rules, I would suggest that Jeremy and his colleagues consider expanding the description of the cache placement guidelines posted on this website to include the finer details about what is an appropriate cache or not.

 

For example, re: event caches--the guideline is that they shouldn't be posted until less than 3 months before the event. I didn't know that until a friend of mine submitted an event cache 5 months beforehand (the website allowed it, so it's fine--right?) and had it promptly archived.

 

I certainly accept the guideline, but it caused extra work for both my friend and the approver to straighten things out. By being more up front about this, it would have saved a small amount of time. Multiply that small amount of time by all of the caches that meet the posted guidelines but still fall under the "unposted" rules, and you'll have considerably less burdened approvers and in general more understanding cache hiders.

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.

And I guess any reference to your ' thousand year....reign?'

would be considered out of line? B)

Link to comment
Mopar wrote:

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 ...

Feel free to Markwell we on that point. I must have missed how it was shown "not to be true". B)

Back on page one, but I'll post it again:

This thread from right around the time you joined, predates any mention of the selector, and actually points back to an even earlier thread, that if memory serves me correct (don't have time right now to track the new link again) even predates your joining gc.com. I know Scooter's use of those icons on his cache pages dates back to 2001.

Then there is the post from Jeremy in this thread where he mentions that he already told you that they would be giving credit to you and the other people that helped develop the idea.

Link to comment
In spite of my track record on trying I'm completely convinced that the forums are about the worst place possible to actually try and solve anything at all except technical issues with GPS's and software.

 

True, I wonder if people actually read other people's posts before responding to them. They seem to read what they want to read and respond to that.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Back on page one, but I'll post it again:

This thread from right around the time you joined, predates any mention of the selector, and actually points back to an even earlier thread, that if memory serves me correct (don't have time right now to track the new link again) even predates  your joining gc.com. I know Scooter's use of those icons on his cache pages dates back to 2001.

I'm sure though, that most people who used "The Selector" didn't feel that the discussion of the rather obvious feature of cache attributes negated the utility of the thing during the intervening couple of years.

 

Thanks Mopar! That really helps argue my point about the rather slow pace of change on the site!

Link to comment

Well the way it looks to me now is that everyone is once again at each others throats. But I did notice that PA is not a part of this discussion. If people were flaming me on the forums and on a cache I would sure like to know why and how i could fix it before people get burnt out on caching because of something I did.

Link to comment
Well the way it looks to me now is that everyone is once again at each others throats. But I did notice that PA is not a part of this discussion. If people were flaming me on the forums and on a cache I would sure like to know why and how i could fix it before people get burnt out on caching because of something I did.

You may have missed this post from Hydee a bit earlier on in this thread. Hydee is the Groundspeak employee responsible for the volunteer group. She said that Prime Approver had brought these issues to her attention yesterday... in other words, self-reporting the issue. He knows about it. I try to do the same thing when my actions as a reviewer are called into question. We trust Hydee to examine all sides of the issue fairly, and to back us up when we are right and to let us know when we are wrong. We should let her go through that process for the caches and actions that have been called into question here.

Link to comment

I don't think so I mean from the beginning there was talk of Texas Geocaching seceding and even though I know it wouldn't happen it was the attitude of the people who said it that gave me the impression. The cache page is also full of cynical remarks and not very many constructive remarks to even out this discussion. That is just my oppinion and you don't have to agree if you don't want to though.

Link to comment
Well the way it looks to me now is that everyone is once again at each others throats.  But I did notice that PA is not a part of this discussion.  If people were flaming me on the forums and on a cache I would sure like to know why and how i could fix it before people get burnt out on caching because of something I did.

You may have missed this post from Hydee a bit earlier on in this thread. Hydee is the Groundspeak employee responsible for the volunteer group. She said that Prime Approver had brought these issues to her attention yesterday... in other words, self-reporting the issue. He knows about it. I try to do the same thing when my actions as a reviewer are called into question. We trust Hydee to examine all sides of the issue fairly, and to back us up when we are right and to let us know when we are wrong. We should let her go through that process for the caches and actions that have been called into question here.

Sorry I did miss it, and I figured from the lack of input from the approver that he/she was not aware of the situation.

Link to comment
I'm sure though, that most people who used "The Selector" didn't feel that the discussion of the rather obvious feature of cache attributes negated the utility of the thing during the intervening couple of years.

I don't think anyone was dismissing the selector as being unhelpful either. Maybe I missed it somewhere.

 

That really helps argue my point about the rather slow pace of change on the site!

 

That is certainly your opinion. As an activity matures and increases inpopularity, the rapid pace of changes is diminished somewhat. Also more careful thought has to be made to make sure new features are implemented correctly, not quickly. Much like the quantity over quality arguments about cache placement.

 

The selector generates html for cache listings. The cache attributes feature is a comprehensive enhancement to the web site including database modification and programming to make it work. The exponential traffic this site receives requires forethought before implementing new features. Most of this year has unfortunately been spent increasing the response times of the site so any new implementation has to keep this in mind as well.

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment

You may have missed this post from Hydee a bit earlier on in this thread. Hydee is the Groundspeak employee responsible for the volunteer group. She said that Prime Approver had brought these issues to her attention yesterday... in other words, self-reporting the issue. He knows about it. I try to do the same thing when my actions as a reviewer are called into question. We trust Hydee to examine all sides of the issue fairly, and to back us up when we are right and to let us know when we are wrong. We should let her go through that process for the caches and actions that have been called into question here.

I saw Hydee's reply and was grateful she took the time to do so. My concern with this process is that you all work for Hydee, and you all work with each other. It is human nature that when given the option of supporting a coworker or supporting a total stranger, the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the co worker. I support my co workers as I am sure you support yours. While I am willing to give Hydee the chance to see how this escalation process work, I am also very confident I know what the outcome will be. Also, this isn't about my cache, it is about all the caches that have rejected by Prime Approver in the time since 9key left. I have 7 caches ready to put out and one already sitting out, but there is no point to sending in requests for approval. How can we follow the rules, when the rules are undocumented and change on a daily basis? My cache violated none of the documented rules pertaining to placing a cache, but it was rejected. I know of numerous others who have run into the same problem. With Will there was a level of flexibility that simply doesn't exist anymore.

 

As I stated earlier in this thread, I didn't get the answer I wanted, but I got the answer I expected.

Link to comment
The exponential traffic this site receives requires forethought before implementing new features.

I can't pass this up. That's funny. B);)

Yeah. You caught me on exaggeration. However, doubling each year requires phenomenal horsepower. And it gets worse every time it doubles.

 

(edit: ack spelling. Too many egg nog lattes)

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment
While I am willing to give Hydee the chance to see how this escalation process work, I am also very confident I know what the outcome will be.

I'd hardly say that's an open minded statement.

 

I expect that unless the offended Texans get the exact answer they want - they're not going to be happy. I don't see compromise as a likely outcome with some of the attitudes I'm seeing.

 

Also, this isn't about my cache, it is about all the caches that have rejected by Prime Approver in the time since 9key left. I have 7 caches ready to put out and one already sitting out, but there is no point to sending in requests for approval. How can we follow the rules, when the rules are undocumented and change on a daily basis? My cache violated none of the documented rules pertaining to placing a cache, but it was rejected. I know of numerous others who have run into the same problem. With Will there was a level of flexibility that simply doesn't exist anymore.

 

I have said time and time again that Geocaching.com does a terrible job in communicating changes in the website, new additions to the website, and some of the "accepted" details of the Guidelines. The guidelines haven't been officially changed in over a year but I know that some of the specifics have changed. These changes have NOT been documented.

 

There are dozens of guideline-details that only Groundspeak Forums users are aware of that the average geocacher is NOT. I think it's fairly well accepted that most geocachers don't read the GC.com forums (I have seen much higher participation on state/local forums, however). There are also some things that even most of the forum regulars don't know.

 

I think this is the HEART of this "problem". Forget the cache in question, forget the Selector - this is about a lack of communication. And while I'm sure that a local approver would be a good idea for ANY state - I don't think that's the problem here.

 

It's also a fact that some of the approvers lack the skills to communicate with people that others (for example, KA is great, imho) have. We have had some problems with lack of communication and the perception that approver makes decisions on a whim (because the rules of thumb that approvers use are not posted where geocachers can see them).

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
I think this is the HEART of this "problem". Forget the cache in question, forget the Selector - this is about a lack of communication. And while I'm sure that a local approver would be a good idea for ANY state - I don't think that's the problem here.

 

It's also a fact that some of the approvers lack the skills to communicate with people that others (for example, KA is great, imho) have. We have had some problems with lack of communication and the perception that approver makes decisions on a whim (because the rules of thumb that approvers use are not posted where geocachers can see them).

 

southdeltan

Lack of communication is the heart of most problems. It happens all the time in every business. So are we using Metric or English measurements today?

 

The approvers are volunteers and they try their best when doing this unpaid work in the free time. They are 99.9% perfect, and I can accept their 0.1% that isn't perfect. When all the approvers are cube rats at the Groundspeak offices, then I will expect 100% perfection.

Link to comment
I think this is the HEART of this "problem".  Forget the cache in question, forget the Selector - this is about a lack of communication.  And while I'm sure that a local approver would be a good idea for ANY state - I don't think that's the problem here.

 

It's also a fact that some of the approvers lack the skills to communicate with people that others (for example, KA is great, imho) have.  We have had some problems with lack of communication and the perception that approver makes decisions on a whim (because the rules of thumb that approvers use are not posted where geocachers can see them).

 

southdeltan

Lack of communication is the heart of most problems. It happens all the time in every business. So are we using Metric or English measurements today?

 

The approvers are volunteers and they try their best when doing this unpaid work in the free time. They are 99.9% perfect, and I can accept their 0.1% that isn't perfect. When all the approvers are cube rats at the Groundspeak offices, then I will expect 100% perfection.

Bears don't fit in cubes

Link to comment
I saw Hydee's reply and was grateful she took the time to do so. My concern with this process is that you all work for Hydee, and you all work with each other. It is human nature that when given the option of supporting a coworker or supporting a total stranger, the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the co worker. I support my co workers as I am sure you support yours. While I am willing to give Hydee the chance to see how this escalation process work, I am also very confident I know what the outcome will be. Also, this isn't about my cache, it is about all the caches that have rejected by Prime Approver in the time since 9key left. I have 7 caches ready to put out and one already sitting out, but there is no point to sending in requests for approval. How can we follow the rules, when the rules are undocumented and change on a daily basis? My cache violated none of the documented rules pertaining to placing a cache, but it was rejected. I know of numerous others who have run into the same problem. With Will there was a level of flexibility that simply doesn't exist anymore.

 

As I stated earlier in this thread, I didn't get the answer I wanted, but I got the answer I expected.

Outlaw,

 

Trust me, Hydee does not always agree with the actions taken by one of the volunteers. I have personally felt her wrath when myself and a few others stepped over the line and it was made *very* clear how we should have behaved ourselves. I am sure that other reviewers will agree with me on this.

 

I will also ask you to trust me when I say that on the occasions when one reviewer or a minority of reviewers are not doing something the way that the rest of us are doing it, we do not mince words over in our reviewer forum to make it clear what we ought to be doing. Assume that the reviewer for Slobbovia doesn't believe in Rule X, and regularly lists caches that violate Rule X. Eventually the rest of us will have examples from Slobbovia thrown in our face when we archive caches that violate Rule X, and we will make our displeasure known to the Slobbovian reviewer. His inconsistency makes it harder for the rest of us to do our jobs.

 

Offhand I cannot recall a single instance where Prime Approver has found himself in the position of being the "reviewer for Slobbovia."

Link to comment
Offhand I cannot recall a single instance where Prime Approver has found himself in the position of being the "reviewer for Slobbovia."

Personally, I have had no problems with PA, but if you will recall the complaints, they are mostly about cache requests being denied. Thus, no approved caches to be thrown in your faces.

No disagreement on the logic, just pointing out a flaw in the comparison.

Link to comment

Also, this isn't about my cache, it is about all the caches that have rejected by Prime Approver in the time since 9key left. I have 7 caches ready to put out and one already sitting out, but there is no point to sending in requests for approval. How can we follow the rules, when the rules are undocumented and change on a daily basis? My cache violated none of the documented rules pertaining to placing a cache, but it was rejected. I know of numerous others who have run into the same problem. With Will there was a level of flexibility that simply doesn't exist anymore.

 

I have said time and time again that Geocaching.com does a terrible job in communicating changes in the website, new additions to the website, and some of the "accepted" details of the Guidelines. The guidelines haven't been officially changed in over a year but I know that some of the specifics have changed. These changes have NOT been documented.

 

There are dozens of guideline-details that only Groundspeak Forums users are aware of that the average geocacher is NOT. I think it's fairly well accepted that most geocachers don't read the GC.com forums (I have seen much higher participation on state/local forums, however). There are also some things that even most of the forum regulars don't know.

 

I think this is the HEART of this "problem". Forget the cache in question, forget the Selector - this is about a lack of communication. And while I'm sure that a local approver would be a good idea for ANY state - I don't think that's the problem here.

 

It's also a fact that some of the approvers lack the skills to communicate with people that others (for example, KA is great, imho) have. We have had some problems with lack of communication and the perception that approver makes decisions on a whim (because the rules of thumb that approvers use are not posted where geocachers can see them).

 

southdeltan

As has been noted, the published guidelines for listing a cache have not changed in more than a year. They do not change "daily."

 

It is true that there are some interpretations of certain details in the guidelines that are followed by the reviewers but which have not found their way into the official text. I wouldn't say "dozens" as that would imply there are at least 24 of them. I've gone through the guidelines, and I'm hard-pressed to come up with ten. Examples include giving adequate notice before posting an event cache... not the night before the event.... and not posting a typical event cache more than three months prior to the date of the event. The guidelines also don't mention earthcaches or the new "small" cache size, but life goes on.

 

When enough tweaks and changes have accumulated, it is useful to update the guidelines and then announce the update to the community, as was done in November of 2003. I will leave it to Hydee and Jeremy to determine whether the time is ripe for another guidelines update.

 

Finally, while I appreciate Southdeltan's kind words about my communications skills, I will be the first to point out that not everyone shares his high opinion. Whether I am labeled as an evil Grinch for not allowing a Toys for Tots solicitation that violates the "Caches that Solicit" guideline, or labeled as "Keystone Banninator" for closing some forum threads last week, I receive my fair share of criticism like everyone else. This week is apparently Prime Approver's turn in the hot seat. It is part of the nature of the job, and we do the best we can.

Link to comment
The selector generates html for cache listings. The cache attributes feature is a comprehensive enhancement to the web site including database modification and programming to make it work. The exponential traffic this site receives requires forethought before implementing new features. Most of this year has unfortunately been spent increasing the response times of the site so any new implementation has to keep this in mind as well.

OK, I did take kind of a cheap shot there - I'm sorry about that - it was unfair. I am sympathetic that some of the perceived problems here are the result of Groundspeak being a victim of it's own success. I know y'all aren't microsoft and respect that there are limits to what can realistically be done within a time-frame. And I definitely do not intend to demean what you have accomplished with this site.

 

Look, let me try to state this as simply as I can. First of all, I bear no ill will towards you, prime approver, nor anyone else associated with Groundspeak. I am sure that much of what happened was mostly beyond your control, at least at first. We've been having a debate over the facts around all this. What I think you are failing to understand is that the facts are a lot less important at this point than people's perceptions. I freely admit that some of these perceptions started becaue of miscommunications, and that likely these are somewhat unfair. None of that matters to people who are upset, as I believe quite a few of us are. So here's what I believe are some (but probably not all) of the common perceptions of the folks who are complaining:

1. Perception: TPTB come across as being a tad arrogant and high-handed.

2. Perception: For whatever reason, gc.com completely walked over 9key over the selector, and only half-heartedly acknowledged their mistake long after the fact. 9key did a lot for the game and this site here, or at least that's OUR perception, so if he is treated badly by TPTB, then what chance do the rest of us have? Perception #1 really reinforces this - some of us find it easy to believe that you *don't* care about people who try to support the site and the game, and are astonished by this.

3. Perception: The rules change arbitrarily, and to some extent at the whim of the approver. Many of the more recent changes are not perceived as increasing the "fun" in the game.

4. Perception: Easy, ill-conceived, thoughtless caches are favored under the rules. You can find more of these (if you care about the find count), and if one isn't approved, big deal - you've got a dozen more where those came from. More complex hides are liable to run into approval issues. (And not be found frequently anyway.)

5. Perception: As a result of #4, the quality of the game has decreased over the past year.

6. Perception: PA is being unfair or unreasonable in his application of the rules.

 

There's probably more of these perceptions - there are some very angry people, and I don't believe this really isn't over any one issue, it's about a package of unresolved issues.

 

You may feel that none of these perceptions have any basis in reality and that they are all completely unfair and unfounded. That's fine - many of them actually MAY BE - but arguing that is unlikely to change the minds of the people who have them. All I can humbly suggest is that you try to find ways to prove them wrong by your actions.

 

I really don't mean to be hateful here - in all fairness I believe that most of these issues are the results of mutual misunderstandings. It's a PR problem - business have these all the time - sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly. I believe you are having one now. Good luck - and I do mean that sincerely, these things can be difficult to control.

 

edit: forgot one, and a biggie with some. I don't personally see it that way, but I've heard lots of folks express it.

Edited by Mr.Benchmark
Link to comment
Offhand I cannot recall a single instance where Prime Approver has found himself in the position of being the "reviewer for Slobbovia."

Personally, I have had no problems with PA, but if you will recall the complaints, they are mostly about cache requests being denied. Thus, no approved caches to be thrown in your faces.

No disagreement on the logic, just pointing out a flaw in the comparison.

In large part, we rely on the forums as feedback for caches that are not listed. Each of the specific issues mentioned in this thread has been the subject of numerous forum threads: event listing guidelines, the proximity rule and cache saturation, "series" of caches vs. multicaches, and so forth.

 

Also, when we receive negative feedback from the owner of an archived cache after what we thought to be the right result under the guidelines, the volunteer reviewers will often do a "reality check" and post the cache in the reviewer forum for discussion. "The owner is upset. Did I do the right thing?" These conversations occur day-in and day-out. It is how we do our best to stay on the same page.

Link to comment
I have said time and time again that Geocaching.com does a terrible job in communicating changes in the website, new additions to the website,

 

There is a thread at the top of the general forum that details changes. Changes are also mentioned in the e-mail that delivers the weekly cache notification. I really can't see what more they can do short of having Jeremy give us a call.

 

There are dozens of guideline-details that only Groundspeak Forums users are aware of that the average geocacher is NOT.

 

I agree with this in part. It seems that the vast majority of the misunderstandings come because people fail to read the guidlines, even though they check a box saying they did before submitting their cache. We've all seen threads started by someone complaining about a denied cache that was in clear violation of the guidleines.

 

But I also agree that there are some guidelines that seem come out of nowhere and some that are open to interpretation and applied unevenly among the approvers. This is bound to happen because each of the approvers is an individual with his own ideas and prejudices. They are expected to set these aside, but as humans, that's not always possible. There are also regional differences that come into play

 

One problem might be that there is no centrailized training program (at least that I'm aware of) for the approvers. I don't expect TBTB to fly new approvers out to Seattle for a week of seminars and lattes (though I'm sure the approvers wouldn't mind), but perhaps if there was something developed that would get them all on the same page of the playbook, that would go a long way.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
As has been noted, the published guidelines for listing a cache have not changed in more than a year. They do not change "daily."

 

It is true that there are some interpretations of certain details in the guidelines that are followed by the reviewers but which have not found their way into the official text. I wouldn't say "dozens" as that would imply there are at least 24 of them. I've gone through the guidelines, and I'm hard-pressed to come up with ten. Examples include giving adequate notice before posting an event cache... not the night before the event.... and not posting a typical event cache more than three months prior to the date of the event. The guidelines also don't mention earthcaches or the new "small" cache size, but life goes on.

 

When enough tweaks and changes have accumulated, it is useful to update the guidelines and then announce the update to the community, as was done in November of 2003. I will leave it to Hydee and Jeremy to determine whether the time is ripe for another guidelines update.

I never said they'd been changed daily (at least I don't think I did) B);)

 

I think you're missing my point.

 

If there is ONE thing that is important enough that it prevents a cache from being listed, and the approvers know about that thing - then EVERYBODY should know about it.

 

It's not that hard to update the Guidelines page. Changes and additions HAVE been made and they haven't been documented.

 

I could probably come up with a few more things you didn't think of but it doesn't matter if there's 1 or 24 or more - 1 undocument guideline or guideline-detail is 1 too many.

 

sd

Link to comment

But I also agree that there are some guidelines that seem come out of nowhere and some that are open to interpretation and applied unevenly among the approvers. This is bound to happen because each of the approvers is an individual with his own ideas and prejudices. They are expected to set these aside, but as humans, that's not always possible. There are also regional differences that come into play

 

One problem might be that there is no centrailized training program (at least that I'm aware of) for the approvers. I don't expect TBTB to fly new approvers out to Seattle for a week of seminars and lattes (though I'm sure the approvers wouldn't mind), but perhaps if there was something developed that would get them all on the same page of the playbook, that would go a long way.

No offense to anyone that lives in Seattle...but the weather sucks out there. I don't know why the approvers would want to go there for training.

 

As Brian has pointed out...the approvers are human, and as humans they will make mistakes. Overall I don't think that anyone could argue that they do a great job. As Jeremy pointed out there is a mob mentallity in here. What strikes me funny is that you can't wait to jump on one precieved mistake, but at the same time you ignore or take for graned the hundereds of right things they do right.

 

Why is that?

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
I have said time and time again that Geocaching.com does a terrible job in communicating changes in the website, new additions to the website,

 

There is a thread at the top of the general forum that details changes. Changes are also mentioned in the e-mail that delivers the weekly cache notification. I really can't see what more they can do short of having Jeremy give us a call.

 

Come on Briansnat - you know just as well as I do that a large number (My estimates are a majority, but that really doesn't count for much) of geocachers don't read the forums. I don't recall seeing a disclaimer on the main site that said "Changes and Rules additions will be announced in the forums".

 

Also, not all geocachers get the new cache notifications, some are eaten by spam blockers, and many are ignored after a while (not an excuse... but it happens).

 

New additons and/or changes to the website (Technical and policy) could be announced on the "My Cache Page" in conjunction with the ways they're already announced. Some changes are important enough to warrant being placed on the GC.com front (main) page.

 

There's also the fact that they don't always announce changes, even in the forums.

 

There are dozens of guideline-details that only Groundspeak Forums users are aware of that the average geocacher is NOT.

 

I agree with this in part. It seems that the vast majority of the misunderstandings come because people fail to read the guidlines, even though they check a box saying they did before submitting their cache. We've all seen threads started by someone complaining about a denied cache that was in clear violation of the guidleines.

 

But I also agree that there are some guidelines that seem come out of nowhere and some that are open to interpretation and applied unevenly among the approvers. This is bound to happen because each of the approvers is an individual with his own ideas and prejudices. They are expected to set these aside, but as humans, that's not always possible. There are also regional differences that come into play

 

One problem might be that there is no centrailized training program (at least that I'm aware of) for the approvers. I don't expect TBTB to fly new approvers out to Seattle for a week of seminars and lattes (though I'm sure the approvers wouldn't mind), but perhaps if there was something developed that would get them all on the same page of the playbook, that would go a long way.

 

I do understand there are regional variations - I'm not sure how much that affects things but I do agree that the guidelines are not always interpreted the same by different approvers.

 

I'd hate to suggest something that would make cache approval longer (TNGeocacher usually approves caches within hours) but if the problem continues to grow - perhaps the future will see the requirement of having 2 approvers approve a cache. I doubt it, and I'd hate to see the need - but there needs to be more consistancy.

 

I think a big problem is, as you say - some of the guidelines seem to come out of nowhere.

 

sd

Link to comment

.

As Jeremy pointed out there is a mob mentallity in here. What strikes me funny is that you can't wait to jump on one precieved mistake, but at the same time you ignore or take for graned the hundereds of right things they do right.

 

It seems that when people have a problem with an approver they seem to sit on it and bitch a bit, but take it, then suddenly all hell breaks loose. If PA is so horrible, how is it that there was so little mention of it until today? I'm in these forums a lot and I also visit some of the regional and local forums on occasion, and if there is a problem with an approver you know it.

Link to comment
Offhand I cannot recall a single instance where Prime Approver has found himself in the position of being the "reviewer for Slobbovia."

Just how many countries are involved in geocaching? B)

 

No offense to anyone that lives in Seattle...but the weather sucks out there.

It's not any better in places like Phoenix (120° summers), Florida (Hurricanes), the Midwest (tornadoes), the South (humidity), etc, etc... every place has some undesirable thing about it.

Link to comment
Why is that?

I really love when this argument is raised. B)

 

Employees of a company is expected to do hundreds of things correctly everyday. Why is that? Because it is expected of them. Why comment about what you are expecting from them? You comment when they go beyond expectations.

 

Let them do one thing wrong and sure there will be something said. Why is that? Because you need to correct the problem.

 

Just because the volunteers aren't getting paid doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for mistakes or unacceptable behavior.

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