Jump to content

Site Suggestions


Rabid Bunny

Recommended Posts

It seems that as of late there have been some communication issues between cachers, approvers, and GC.com. These are merely suggestions that may or may not be possible and/or wanted at this time.

 

1. PDF file of complete GC.com rules and guides

 

I'm not suggesting a revamping of the rules, there's a lot of great info on the website, but just a place to have them all in one spot. Even if you compiled all the info on the website, gave it a Table of Contents & Index it might be a nice resource to have. Acrobat is free and you could save the file onto your computer. Or send it to a friend who's interested in caching. It would also be an opportunity to add some new content, such as some information on approvers. Which leads me to my next point;

 

2. Content describing approver role and responsibilites

 

Again, not asking for major changes and I know that approvers are mentioned in the GC.com FAQ. But maybe some information like what to expect from approvers, how approvers can help you, & vice versa. Maybe even a breakdown of which approvers cover which areas just as an FYI. I know approvers are volunteers and selected by GC.com, which is fine, so they are representatives of GC.com. These guys/gals are the first line of defense so they act as customer service reps as well as technical help as far as caches are concerned. Clarification of what "powers" are granted to them by GC.com might help future situations from getting out of hand.

 

3. A list of caches that an approver has previously approved

 

I don't know the technical ramifications of this but would it be possible to add this list somewhere on an approvers user stats? The point of this would be to establish accountability for approvers which would create a public office sense of checks and balances. This would eliminate a feeling of favoritism if a disgruntled cacher could see that an approver was just being consistent when he/she didn't approve a cache for some reason.

 

While these suggestions may not be groundbreaking, I think they may help alleviate some confusions that are liable to pop up at times. And while I don't have problems with the approver in my area, I just thought these suggestions may help strengthen communications between GC.com and cachers. I know that that is important for any company, especially one that has created its community within the past few years.

 

Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks for the forum to voice my opinion.

Link to comment
This would eliminate a feeling of favoritism if a disgruntled cacher could see that an approver was just being consistent when he/she didn't approve a cache for some reason.

 

You're not going to know if something didn't get approved because you won't see listings that haven't been approved to know if there were any others like that.

Link to comment

I am totally in agreement that there needs to be a central page with all information concerning Groundspeak/GC.com rules/guidelines (Please, make sure that a PDF is only one option - I hate those things). Progress is being made to improve this. I also think more information that is "common knowledge" on the forums should be shared (including information about what approvers do) in that location.

 

However, your third suggestion (while probably not difficult to code from a DB standpoint) is unnecessary. There is already a method for contacting Groundspeak about caches that you feel aren't improved because of a problem with an approver.

 

Also - your previous arguement about similar caches is null due to this:

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. - This is taken from the 3rd paragraph of the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

Yeah, I see your point. But it seemed that lately some people have felt that getting a response has taken too long. I guess I suggested the third option as some means of giving cachers a way to feel more involved in the cache approving process without involving GC.com in every case. A situation can be handled in the community rather than the courts.

 

I guess the role of the approver can be looked at two ways.

 

One is as an appointed official by GC.com to act as a referee to make judgement calls on the rules for hiding caches. Any decision handed down by them is final call like it or not, unless someone appeals to the higher courts.

 

However, the approver can also be seen as a public office. Since there are members who pay for additional services a sense of taxation without representation is felt if enough of the payees feel as if they are not being heard when it comes to approving caches.

 

Either way GC.com has the final say. They've created rules that they see as important to hiding caches and expect their approvers to know these rules well enough to do a job. My suggestion was to put a system in place that would give cachers more information and involvement in caches that are hidden. And other than creating a "town hall" system that requires board members to vote on caches, I tried to think of a way that approvers would still have the same responsibilites while allowing cachers to feel more involved as well.

 

Ultimately I think this would create better cachers, which would result in better caches.

 

Anyway, I've probably stopped making sense at this point.

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