Jump to content

I Wonder What Was So Bad About The Name


unclerojelio

Recommended Posts

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.

 

While I feel that this is being blown out of proportion and is a simple lack of communication - I agree with this post 100%.

 

Public perception is a very important thing. It doesn't really matter if it's correct or not - if people THINK it's how things are, for them that's how it is.

 

If a large number of people think that - (mob mentality or not) - then it is an issue.

 

With exception to the one about the Selector, I have heard all of those things from local geocachers. Granted, the approver mentioned wasn't Prime Approver, it was TNGeocacher. I don't agree that all of those things are true - but a lot of people think they are.

 

I think these perceptions, and any others people have, should be addressed.

 

Incidentally - I do think you've got a point there on #4. Anybody can rush out and hide dozens of quickly thrown together (and poorly done) caches - but something creative often gets shot down. It's just too easy to throw a strip of paper in a film cannister and throw it out anywhere - then list nothing more than "Have fun" on your cache page. I'm not saying that all "creative" caches should get approved but I wish there was a greater chance they would be approved.

 

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.

I'm in here as much as you, and I agree. I've never even heard of PA before today.

 

I have one other question for those out there that are complaining...What if all potential approvers read this thead? No one would want to be an approver. Where would we be then? Think about that.

 

There are some approvers that use seperate accounts just because of this type of bashing. I don't blame them. Actually Jeremy dosen't have enough money to make me put up with this BS.

 

These are people that for whatever reason agree to take on the responsibility, and obvisously the thankless job of trying to approve caches for their region. Instead of bitching about how you think they should do it....you should give thanks that they do it at all.

 

El Diablo

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.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

I think part of it goes to the fact that even though it's listed in the guidelines, many people don't know what to do if they have a problem (ie, email approvers @ gc.com).

 

I think many others beleive, and I don't always understand this, that since the approvers work for GC.com - GC.com will always agree with them and don't care what the average geocacher thinks. I think I also saw somebody say they didn't want to get blackballed (of course it was a Texan who was sticking up for GC.com). I've seen Jeremy post that people complain to them privately about things all the time because they don't want geocachers judging them.

 

Perhaps geocachers don't want to complain to GC.com ABOUT GC.com because they don't want GC.com to judge them?

 

---------

 

I do think that this was allowed to turn into a huge issue. I'd hope that every geocacher that has a problem with how an approver is doing his/her job will report it to approvers@gc.com. I'll bet that some of the people that are complaining that their caches (especially the ones in CenTex) didn't get approved haven't done this.

 

Please note I said some.

 

sd

Link to comment

I will post an unpleasant experience with GC to add fuel to the fire. Recently, I hid a cache at a San Antonio food bank. I added that to earn an extra smiley, the finder could post a picture of themselves making a donation. I got permission from the people at the food bank and they were really excited about it.

Now, I know that this is in violation of the GUIDELINES that state caches should not be placed where the finder is made to feel that they need to give a donation. I figured that the GUIDELINES were probably talking about coercing someone into making a donation for stem cell research or the Doomsday cult, or some equally political hot potato.

But FOOD? I mean, who would object to giving a can of food?

And besides, if they didn't want to donate anything, they could just find the regular cache and be done with it. That donation was strictly for an Xtra smiley face.

PA archived it and steered me to the GUIDELINE that said no caches asking for donations. I protested and he said, well, maybe GC can give you special permission. So I emailed them and asked permission and ......you guessed it. I heard absolutely nothing from them. So I gave up after a couple of weeks and told PA to just forget it.

Now that seems like bad PR for GC. Makes them seem like the Grinch or something, right?

Jana

Link to comment
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.

Yes. It is awful out here. Rains all the time. You don't want to visit. And you definitely don't want to move here. Ok California? B)

Link to comment
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.

There has been quite a bit of it mentioned over the months on our local Yahoo group.

Link to comment
I will post an unpleasant experience with GC to add fuel to the fire.  Recently, I hid a cache at a San Antonio food bank.  I added that to earn an extra smiley, the finder could post a picture of themselves making a donation. I got permission from the people at the food bank and they were really excited about it.

Now, I know that this is in violation of the GUIDELINES that state caches should not be placed where the finder is made to feel that they need to give a donation.  I figured that the GUIDELINES were probably talking about coercing someone into making a donation for stem cell research or the Doomsday cult, or some equally political hot potato.

But FOOD?  I mean, who would object to giving a can of food?

And besides, if they didn't want to donate anything, they could just find the regular cache and be done with it.  That donation was strictly for an Xtra smiley face.

PA archived it and steered me to the GUIDELINE that said no caches asking for donations.  I protested and he said, well, maybe GC can give you special permission.  So I emailed them and asked permission and ......you guessed it.  I heard absolutely nothing from them.  So I gave up after a couple of weeks and told PA to just forget it.

Now that seems like bad PR for GC.  Makes them seem like the Grinch or something, right?

Jana

This has been discussed before. Do a search for it and you will see that the topic has been run through the wringer. It's not gc.com's obligation to devote resources towards determining which charity is worthy, and which is not. REFER TO THE GUIDELINES--there's no reason for your cache to be an exception, or for you to bash your approver because it didn't pass the mustard.

 

This thread is turning into a hand-wringing thing that really is derailing from the original topic. Let up with the whining. TPTB are busy people and the approvers are volunteers stuck in a thankless position. If there's a problem with an approver, go through the appropriate channels.

Edited by Team Doggiewoggie
Link to comment
Perhaps geocachers don't want to complain to GC.com ABOUT GC.com because they don't want GC.com to judge them?

Perhaps, though there are plenty of advocates who could come forward for them if they asked, just like how I become an advocate for others when they need help.

 

If you complain in a vacuum no one can hear you.

Link to comment
I will post an unpleasant experience with GC to add fuel to the fire.  Recently, I hid a cache at a San Antonio food bank.  I added that to earn an extra smiley, the finder could post a picture of themselves making a donation. I got permission from the people at the food bank and they were really excited about it.

Now, I know that this is in violation of the GUIDELINES that state caches should not be placed where the finder is made to feel that they need to give a donation.  I figured that the GUIDELINES were probably talking about coercing someone into making a donation for stem cell research or the Doomsday cult, or some equally political hot potato.

But FOOD?  I mean, who would object to giving a can of food?

And besides, if they didn't want to donate anything, they could just find the regular cache and be done with it.  That donation was strictly for an Xtra smiley face.

PA archived it and steered me to the GUIDELINE that said no caches asking for donations.  I protested and he said, well, maybe GC can give you special permission.  So I emailed them and asked permission and ......you guessed it.  I heard absolutely nothing from them.  So I gave up after a couple of weeks and told PA to just forget it.

Now that seems like bad PR for GC.  Makes them seem like the Grinch or something, right?

Jana

As nice of a gesture it is to donate food, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Is it bad to donate food to a church? how about money? how about donating money to another cause? There are so many "what ifs" that the line is drawn at NO DONATIONS. That's because some people out there would feel pressured (real or imagined) to donate something. Some people don't attend church for just that reason: the collection plate is passed right in front of them.

 

Your cache is asking for a donation. The guidelines state

Commercial Caches / Caches that Solicit

 

For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, or social agendas may not be listed.

Donating food to a food bank, while a worthy cause to many, is a form of socialism

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Cache reviewers don't need to get involved in debating the merits of every social program that caches could be placed for, so the the line is drawn at "no" with some exceptions allowed.

Some exceptions can be made. In these rare situations, permission can be given by the Geocaching.com web site. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first.

 

 

Besides, your cache is asking for food. The Guidelines state

What shouldn't be in a cache?

Food items are ALWAYS a BAD IDEA.

B)
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.

I'm in here as much as you, and I agree. I've never even heard of PA before today.

 

I have one other question for those out there that are complaining...What if all potential approvers read this thead? No one would want to be an approver. Where would we be then? Think about that.

 

Look, not all of us want to air our grievances in the forums. I've not done this myself, until today, because I perceived that criticism of TPTB, their guidelines, etc., whether justified or not, is shouted down and belittled.

 

I will also say that I *completely* disagree with the personal attacks on PA. He is a nice guy, and this was the wrong thing to do. However, I will also tell you that this isn't just one or two malcontents bashing an approver. If you think that's all this is, I believe you are very much mistaken. I know a fair number of Texas geocachers who have stories about run-ins with PA. I know that some of that is bound to happen with any approver - sometimes hiders do boneheaded things or just make mistakes. However, the frequency of these incidents certainly seemed much higher with PA than with 9key. And the manner in which they were handled definitely seemed to anger local cachers far more than I ever witnessed with 9key.

 

Even if it turns out that PA was justified in 100% of his denials according to the guidelines, (which may actually be the case because he's quite knowledgeable,) still people perceive that they've been ill-treated by him. I'm not talking about new cachers, either, I'm talking about people that have been there and done that for quite a while. I know in my case, it was the manner in which he communicated with me more than the actual issue itself that bothered me.

 

BTW, I have great sympathy for the approvers - it has to really suck to have to tell people 'no' sometimes. So I'll tell you this - I do not blame PA in all of this. (Other than to perhaps wish he was more diplomatic.) You are quite correct to point out that he is a volunteer, as are all the other approvers. I certainly appreciate their efforts. There would be some spectacular problems without them, no doubt.

 

No, if I blame anyone for a problem, I blame Groundspeak. This is their business, and if there are problems, it is their responsibility to deal with them.

Link to comment
Perhaps geocachers don't want to complain to GC.com ABOUT GC.com because they don't want GC.com to judge them?

Perhaps, though there are plenty of advocates who could come forward for them if they asked, just like how I become an advocate for others when they need help.

 

If you complain in a vacuum no one can hear you.

if you complain in a vacuum, your lungs (and other internal stuff) will shoot out of your body in a paroxysm of explosive decompression...better to complain in a forest where nobody can hear you... B)

 

nfa-jamie

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
6. Perception: PA is being unfair or unreasonable in his application of the rules.

This perception obviously comes from the fact that the beloved ex-approver for Texas used to give blanket approvals to many caches that did not meet the guidelines. Now that someone is actually enforcing the guidelines in Texas, everyone gets upset. Go figure. B)

Link to comment
Perhaps geocachers don't want to complain to GC.com ABOUT GC.com because they don't want GC.com to judge them?

Perhaps, though there are plenty of advocates who could come forward for them if they asked, just like how I become an advocate for others when they need help.

 

If you complain in a vacuum no one can hear you.

You mean like this:

 

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.

 

There has been quite a bit of it mentioned over the months on our local Yahoo group.

 

I don't mean that as an attack - but if there's nobody on the Yahoo group that can do anything about the "problem" - why not email contact or approvers? I know that you're supposed to automatically get a confirmation email if you email contact - if that doesn't happen, you send another email.

 

If you get no reply, you email again. If you still don't get a reply - you mention the tracking/confirmation number in the forums and somebody checks on it.

 

--------------

 

BTW - can somebody point out the various pages that tell people to email approvers@ gc.com if they have a problem with an approver? I can't seem to find them. It doesn't seem to be listed on the guidelines - I think it actually says to start a thread about caches that push the envelope (or something like that).

 

I can't find an easy link to the Knowledge Base either (are you guys going to add that to the ABOUT GEOCACHING page??) so I can't check that. I'm too lazy to do a search... My point is - it's not in an obvious location...

 

sd

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.

Thank you for this post. It at least tells me there is a thought process going on and legitimate reasons for some policies. I am glad to see some critical thinking going on and an attempt to address some of the issues.

 

B)

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

This perception obviously comes from the fact that the beloved ex-approver for Texas used to give blanket approvals to many caches that did not meet the guidelines. Now that someone is actually enforcing the guidelines in Texas, everyone gets upset. Go figure. B)

Excellent - a sock puppet. How mature! If you want to take a cheap shot at someone, at least have the courage to do it under your own account! ;)

Link to comment
I can't find an easy link to the Knowledge Base either (are you guys going to add that to the ABOUT GEOCACHING page??) so I can't check that. I'm too lazy to do a search... My point is - it's not in an obvious location...

Good point. Most reviewers have basic email responses (form letters) for cache approvals, and I believe they have that email address available to post in their logs. But I'll check with Hydee to add them to try and standardize the logs with that info.

 

The only time you need it is for cache listing issues, so it doesn't have to be available somewhere all the time as long is it is available when it is needed.

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

This perception obviously comes from the fact that the beloved ex-approver for Texas used to give blanket approvals to many caches that did not meet the guidelines. Now that someone is actually enforcing the guidelines in Texas, everyone gets upset. Go figure. B)

UUmmmm. I can tell you 9Key was far from approving anything. I had many a cache denied by him. We had words and he always explained his reasons and suggested ways to get the cache out. I think your way off base on this one.

 

;)

Link to comment
I will post an unpleasant experience with GC to add fuel to the fire. Recently, I hid a cache at a San Antonio food bank. I added that to earn an extra smiley, the finder could post a picture of themselves making a donation. I got permission from the people at the food bank and they were really excited about it.

Now, I know that this is in violation of the GUIDELINES that state caches should not be placed where the finder is made to feel that they need to give a donation. I figured that the GUIDELINES were probably talking about coercing someone into making a donation for stem cell research or the Doomsday cult, or some equally political hot potato.

But FOOD? I mean, who would object to giving a can of food?

And besides, if they didn't want to donate anything, they could just find the regular cache and be done with it. That donation was strictly for an Xtra smiley face.

PA archived it and steered me to the GUIDELINE that said no caches asking for donations. I protested and he said, well, maybe GC can give you special permission. So I emailed them and asked permission and ......you guessed it. I heard absolutely nothing from them. So I gave up after a couple of weeks and told PA to just forget it.

Now that seems like bad PR for GC. Makes them seem like the Grinch or something, right?

Jana

The above "No Cache For You!" archive job has puzzled me for a week or so now. Can a gc.com "official" explain why once again, Prime has chosen to not see the above as a guideline but as a law? I mean give me a break... you can't give someone the option of donating a can of food for a starving person? If only the other approvers would speak the truth in these forums as opposed to kissing butt. Let's give it a try... how many of you would have archived a cache where helping out a starving person during the holidays was an option? If it's all of you then you're right, there's nothing at all wrong with Prime, it's your insane guidlines that aren't guidlines at all. If you would have APPROVED it then you see what we are saying. And don't tell me rules are rules, or any of that crappy attitude. Don't tell me that if you allow someone to place a cache that promotes helping out a starving soul it will lead to caches that assist terrorists' causes. That's why they are GUIDLINES! So you can choose NOT to approve the "donate to Bin Laden cache" but can approve the "can of beans for a hungry child cache". WAKE UP!

Edited by Essiar
Link to comment

I think many others beleive, and I don't always understand this, that since the approvers work for GC.com - GC.com will always agree with them and don't care what the average geocacher thinks.

Now you know as well as I, since you have been here awhile, that GC has reversed several decisions made by approvers.

 

I believe that GC has always gone out of it's way to make sure that the decisions made by approvers were the corredt ones.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Don't tell me that if you allow someone to place a cache that promotes helping out a starving soul it will lead to caches that assist terrorists' causes. That's why they are GUIDLINES! So you can choose NOT to approve the "donate to Bin Laden cache" but can approve the "can of beans for a hungry child cache". WAKE UP!

If you would have read my earlier post on this topic, you would have seen that it is not a cache reviewer's decision on "which" organization is appropriate to allow donations to. That would fall under the exception clause and the decision made by an employee of Groundspeak.

 

Some exceptions can be made. In these rare situations, permission can be given by the Geocaching.com web site. However, permission should be asked first before posting. If you are in doubt, ask first.
Link to comment

Wow this has to be one of the most heated/viewed/posted topics I have ever seen. 170 posts or so and almost 5,000 views in one day!

 

Thanks for the entertainment everyone, and before everyone jumps on my back, I know its not entertainment to those involved and I really hope there is some progress made by this topic.

 

Good Luck to all contestants

Link to comment
If you would have APPROVED it then you see what we are saying. And don't tell me rules are rules, or any of that crappy attitude. Don't tell me that if you allow someone to place a cache that promotes helping out a starving soul it will lead to caches that assist terrorists' causes. That's why they are GUIDLINES! So you can choose NOT to approve the "donate to Bin Laden cache" but can approve the "can of beans for a hungry child cache". WAKE UP!

Charity caches are not allowed because we don't make decisions on whether a charity is valid or not. If you want to raise awareness of a local food drive you can do so through your local organizations.

 

PA is just following the guidelines, which in this case is well defined and I personally treat as a rule. Don't blame PA for enforcing this rule. I'm the one who wrote it long ago. Blame me.

 

(Prepares for the invoking of Godwin's Law)

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment

I think many others beleive, and I don't always understand this, that since the approvers work for GC.com - GC.com will always agree with them and don't care what the average geocacher thinks.

Now you know as well as I, since you have been here awhile, that GC has reversed several decisions made by approvers.

 

I believe that GC has always gone out of it's way to make sure that the decisions made by approvers were the corredt ones.

 

El Diablo

I know this, reread my post:

 

I think many others believe[/color]

 

B)

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Good point. Most reviewers have basic email responses (form letters) for cache approvals, and I believe they have that email address available to post in their logs. But I'll check with Hydee to add them to try and standardize the logs with that info.

 

The only time you need it is for cache listing issues, so it doesn't have to be available somewhere all the time as long is it is available when it is needed.

 

I would think that the explanation about the approvers email should be on the Geocaching Listing Requirements/Guidelines page. It currently has this information:

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the approver and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines.  Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache.  If you have a novel type of cache that “pushes the envelope” to some degree, then it is best to contact your local approver and/or Geocaching.com before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and approvers are always interested in new ideas.  If, after exchanging emails with the approver, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, feel free to post a message in the General Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks.  If the majority believes that it should be posted, then Groundspeak administrators and approvers may review the listing and your cache may be unarchived. 

 

That's confusing. One visible place says to post a thread on the forums about the cache yet another says (if you think there's a problem with an approver) email the approvers@ address. I know they're not exactly the same but their dang close.

 

OT - Are there plans to put a link to the Knowledge Base on the "About Geocaching" page? Most geocachers probably don't know where that KB page is and it has some useful information. I'm sorry if I missed your comment about this.

 

sd

Link to comment
Now, I know that this is in violation of the GUIDELINES that state caches should not be placed where the finder is made to feel that they need to give a donation

 

Then he goes into a rant about a cache that he submitted though he knew was in violation of the guidelines. B)

 

It's not a matter of whether a charity is worthwhile. Yeah, feeding the hungry is a good thing, but everyone thinks their pet cause is worthwile. Should we put the admins in the position where they would have to research every charity to make sure its legit, then research it further to make sure it isn't controversial. We have enough issues with their approval of regular caches, which is their supposed area of expertise. Do we really want them to become arbiters of what charities are suitable and worthy?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
OT - Are there plans to put a link to the Knowledge Base on the "About Geocaching" page?  Most geocachers probably don't know where that KB page is and it has some useful information.  I'm sorry if I missed your comment about this.

You're right! Sorry about that. I updated the about page with that link.

Awesome.

 

I bet this won't be the only positive thing that will come out of this thread.

 

sd

Link to comment

SD,

I've read your post. We all agree that finding a way to challenge an approver isn't easy. I will bet a hiking staff that Jeremy makes it easier.

 

The bottom line however is that these instances are few and far between. The approvers and the admin do a great job.

 

Occassionally a approver or an admin will make a mistake.GC always makes that mistake right.

 

Remember when CO archived the plaque? They fixed that. Co admitted he was wrong...he is human you know. The point is that GC has always righted a wrong. They have also adjustd and grown to us the users.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
This perception obviously comes from the fact that the beloved ex-approver for Texas used to give blanket approvals to many caches that did not meet the guidelines.

I don't have a horse in this race, and certainly I'm not defending 9key, but in the interest of fairness, please post evidence to support your statement. If true, then I'll openly state my support for your comment.

 

R

Link to comment

Borrowing the words of Will Rogers, “I never met a man I didn’t like.”

 

Call it kissing up (you will anyway), but I have to say this applies to cache approvers, too. In a year and a half hanging out in these halls, I have dealt with (for a variety of reasons) many volunteers of Groundspeak.

 

Always, I have been treated fairly, and with respect. This is not to say that I am always in agreement; it is to say that I have been satisfied that each of these people have been professional dealing with me.

 

Given the nearly exponential growth of our hobby, and this website, it occurs to me that things are running pretty smoothly. It has already been isolated that communication is probably at the root of the problems mentioned in this in this thread.

 

Usually, when things go sour anywhere, (lack of) communication can be blamed. It is a two-way street; cross it with care.

 

Borrowing the words of Barry Manilow:

 

“…no I never met one that I didn't like

met the worst and met the best

somebody put me into the test

almost made me change my mind…” B)

Link to comment
SD,

I've read your post. We all agree that finding a way to challenge an approver isn't easy. I will bet a hiking staff that Jeremy makes it easier.

 

The bottom line however is that these instances are few and far between. The approvers and the admin do a great job.

 

Occassionally a approver or an admin will make a mistake.GC always makes that mistake right.

 

Remember when CO archived the plaque? They fixed that. Co admitted he was wrong...he is human you know. The point is that GC has always righted a wrong. They have also adjustd and grown to us the users.

 

El Diablo

I agree totally. B)

 

I also know that there are a lot of people out there that don't feel the same way that we do and they shouldn't be discounted.

 

Most of the time it's due to a lack of communication and/or understanding - and that leads to frustration and more discontent. There's not an easy solution but hopefully this particular situation will continue to be discussed.

 

I find it troubling that this hadn't been brought up before today but so many are willing to jump ship over it.

 

sd

Link to comment
Ya better start carvin' B) .

Actually we were talking here in the office today about a kind of "supreme court" to review particularly hazy cache listings that has its feet in both the black and white. This appeals process will make it easier to work through a listing issue.

 

Additionally we plan to offer an organizational forums that Groundspeak hosts where org leaders can raise issues to a forum that we do monitor. Well, Hydee will monitor but at least I'll be in the loop.

Link to comment
Additionally we plan to offer an organizational forums that Groundspeak hosts where org leaders can raise issues to a forum that we do monitor. Well, Hydee will monitor but at least I'll be in the loop.

 

But not every area has an organization and in the areas that do that do, the local organization doesn't neccessarily represent the majority of local geocachers.

Link to comment
SD,

I've read your post. We all agree that finding a way to challenge an approver isn't easy. I will bet a hiking  staff that Jeremy makes it easier.

 

The bottom line however is that these instances are few and far between. The approvers and the admin do a great job.

 

Occassionally a approver or an admin will make a mistake.GC always makes that mistake right.

 

Remember when CO archived the plaque? They fixed that. Co admitted he was wrong...he is human you know. The point is that GC has always righted a wrong. They have also adjustd and grown to us the users.

 

El Diablo

I agree totally. B)

 

I also know that there are a lot of people out there that don't feel the same way that we do and they shouldn't be discounted.

 

Most of the time it's due to a lack of communication and/or understanding - and that leads to frustration and more discontent. There's not an easy solution but hopefully this particular situation will continue to be discussed.

 

I find it troubling that this hadn't been brought up before today but so many are willing to jump ship over it.

 

sd

Thanks for your post SD.

 

I agree that communication is often the problem of misunderstanding. Perhaps this is something that the Admin will work on. I know that GC, the Adims and the Approvers work hard to give us the best. This isn't a perfect system, but it is one that is dedicated to providing the best.

 

It is very easy to to find fault in what is done, I just wish more would find good in what a lot of good people pour their free time in. All the approvers work hard to give us a good experience with no reward besides our rare thanks. I'll state that again...Our rare thanks!

 

Without these people working in the background we would have nothing. We Tend to dismiss all the hard work that these people put in to making our experiences a pleasant one.

 

We actually make it so hard that some hide behide sock puppet accounts. That's ashame. These people should be proud to publicly acclaim what they do for us. But it's the posts above that drive them into hiding. We as cachers should support them 100%.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Additionally we plan to offer an organizational forums that Groundspeak hosts where org leaders can raise issues to a forum that we do monitor. Well, Hydee will monitor but at least I'll be in the loop.

 

But not every area has an organization and in the areas that do that do, the local organization doesn't neccessarily represent the majority of local geocachers.

I'm sure they're aware of that. I don't want to get too far off-topic but from what I've read there will be ways for a group to become "recognized" by GC.com. IE, there will be some requirements to be involved. I don't think there's any indication that just because a group has a concern that it'll be addressed - much like the forums are - just because one geocacher has a problem doesn't mean they all do. I think it's a step in the right direction.

 

sd

Link to comment
Commercial Caches / Caches that Solicit

 

For example, caches perceived to be posted for religious, political, or social agendas may not be listed.

Ok, the if the food bank cache excluded the text about the extra smilie for photographing the donation would the cache be approved? Otherwise it's just like any other cache, right? Now if the cache page mentioned that the cache was placed with permission of the San Antonio City Food Bank. Would that still be OK? It would not be soliciting for donations just making the finder aware of what they are visiting.

 

BTW don't CITO events serve a "social agenda?"

Link to comment
Ok, the if the food bank cache excluded the text about the extra smilie for photographing the donation would the cache be approved? Otherwise it's just like any other cache, right?

No. It would not.

 

BTW don't CITO events serve a "social agenda?"

 

Yes. It certainly does. We created the CITO concept and can vouch for it.

Link to comment
Should we put the admins in the position where they would have to research every charity to make sure its legit, then research it further to make sure it isn't controversial. We have enough issues with their approval of regular caches, which is their supposed area of expertise. Do we really want them to become arbiters of what charities are suitable and worthy?

You're exactly right Brian, we shouldn't put them in that position.

Perhaps what this really comes down to is rules. Throughout history Texans haven't liked them much. I think that many of the cachers here are too free thinking to be told what is an appropriate cache to do and what isn't. Yes, to do, not to place. If I place a cache at an abortion clinic you have every right not to do it. If I put out a roving cache no one will twist your arm to retrieve it. If I post a virtual which is a sighting of a religious figure and you are an atheist, don't do it. If I post locationless caches and you hate them don't waste your time. If I want to place a cache that's 200 feet from another with a 180 foot river between them I should be able to make that reasonable decision. If I want to link my caches together in a progressive manner and not create a huge multi I should be able to decide that for myself. Etc., etc. Our Centex group is quite exceptional, heck we just had 30 of us work together to place a 40 leg cache, The MONSTER. We have the ability to govern ourselves. This is why I believe tc.com is so attractive to most of us and why an enourmous amount of us have switched over to that site. So in conclusion, perhaps there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with gc.com. Perhaps a great deal of us have just outgrown it and its rules that not only stifle our creativity but disallow us to think for ourselves. tc.com will allow us to place what we want and to hunt what we want. I guess in the end its all about freedom.

Link to comment
If I want to place a cache that's 200 feet from another with a 180 foot river between them I should be able to make that reasonable decision.

If I'm not mistaken - that cache WOULD be listed. The 0.1 mile rule has an exception for physical barriers/etc.

 

This is why I believe tc.com is so attractive to most of us and why an enourmous amount of us have switched over to that site.

 

What do you mean by "switched over".

 

sd

Link to comment
Ya better start carvin'  B) .

Actually we were talking here in the office today about a kind of "supreme court" to review particularly hazy cache listings that has its feet in both the black and white. This appeals process will make it easier to work through a listing issue.

 

Additionally we plan to offer an organizational forums that Groundspeak hosts where org leaders can raise issues to a forum that we do monitor. Well, Hydee will monitor but at least I'll be in the loop.

This is a great idea and perhaps a good thing that may have come from this thread. But who will deem the "hazy area caches" worthy of taking to the supreme court? The cacher attempting to place the hide who has been thwarted or the approver who will not allow the cache to be placed? Perhaps your supreme court could consist of approvers and a few "regular Joe Cachers" to even the playing field. Just food for thought as you play with this idea.

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