Rude And Arrogant Approvers/reviewers

[+DoctorQ9]

Has anyone else had to deal with rude and arrogant approvers/reviewers of caches? I have emailed Groundspeak about the tone and abrasiveness of one reviewer, but received no answer -- I archived 3 geocaches just to avoid confrontations -- does anyone have some strategies to share (I don't want to create new geocaches until I know what to do)...

[+StarBrand]

No - All approvers I've dealt with are kind and courteous and easy to work with.

 

EDIT:spelling

Edited April 6, 2005 by StarBrand

[+Mopar]

Has anyone else had to deal with rude and arrogant approvers/reviewers of caches? I have emailed Groundspeak about the tone and abrasiveness of one reviewer, but received no answer -- I archived 3 geocaches just to avoid confrontations -- does anyone have some strategies to share (I don't want to create new geocaches until I know what to do)...

Maybe try hiding caches that meet the guidelines?

I looked at your archived caches.

One had several cachers post logs saying the cache was on private property and the owners had not given permission. The reviewer posted:

The last 2 logs raised concern about permission. What is the status of this cache. Either you need to obtain permission for the hide and post on the page the name of the person granting permission or retrieve the cache and archive it.

Doesn't sound rude to me.

Then there is the archive note for no apparent reason:

Rude Geocache Reviewers and volunteers have convinced me to stop geocaching...

Of course, there were finds after it was archived, so I guess you were somewhat rude by not picking up your trash.

Then there is the one you archived after months of cachers complaining about the wet log and crappy location. That one has finds too, so I guess you didnt pick up your crap there either.

Maybe he was being rude when he asked what the status was of the cache you had disabled for 4 months? Naw, that wasnt rude either.

3 1/2 months is beyond what can reasonably be considered ''temporarily disabled.'' Time to either replace this cache, or archive it to free the area for someone else to place a cache

Please point us to where someone other then yourself was rude and arrogant?

[Keystone]

Hello,

 

I've reviewed your four cache hides, which are usually the basis for discussions with site volunteers -- some of which don't turn out to the cache owner's liking.

 

I saw nothing out of the ordinary in the initial review and listing of any of the caches.

 

As for maintenance issues, I noted that a site volunteer had recently questioned this cache due to concerns expressed about permission. When campus security demands that the cache container be removed, I think it's entirely appropriate for the listing site to ask for a few more details about permission.

 

I next noted that a site volunteer had placed a maintenance note on this cache due to it having been temporarily disabled for well over three months. That's an excessively long time to attend to repairs on an urban cache less than ten miles from the owner's home.

 

I saw nothing unusual in the information contained in the cache pages, including the archived logs to which site volunteers have access. Perhaps there were other exchanges via e-mail?

 

In any event, your remedy for complaints about a site volunteer is spelled out in the cache listing guidelines (or in the forum guidelines, for complaints regarding forum moderators). You should write to the special e-mail address provided for this purpose: appeals at geocaching dot com.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

I have never had a rude experience -- quite the contrary.

 

I HAVE had caches that required further explaination for my rationalle in placing them -- in one case it was still denied and I accepted the result. In one case it was clarified to the satisfaction of the reviewer.

 

Additionally, I have THREE caches that are on the property of a Post Secondary institution. In this case, PRIOR to requesting the approval of the cahce, I contacted the Manager in charge of facilities and obtained an e-mail permitting the placement of caches in the area. I then noted that permission had been obtained in my cache submissions.

 

Reviewers seem to make decisions in the best interest of the game and my experiences have been nothing short of exceptional -- especially from a volunteer staff.

 

So, my answer to your question as to whether I have had rude reviewers is a big "no"

[+briansnat]

Has anyone else had to deal with rude and arrogant approvers/reviewers of caches? I have emailed Groundspeak about the tone and abrasiveness of one reviewer, but received no answer -- I archived 3 geocaches just to avoid confrontations -- does anyone have some strategies to share (I don't want to create new geocaches until I know what to do)...

Nope, they've all been extremely polite and helpful. To avioid confrontations, I follow the guidelines when placing a cache and if my cache has issues, I try to address them promptly.

[+Moose Mob]

Never had an issue here in Nevada.

[MapheadMike]

does anyone have some strategies to share (I don't want to create new geocaches until I know what to do)...

Of course, there were finds after it was archived, so I guess you were somewhat rude by not picking up your trash.

Then there is the one you archived after months of cachers complaining about the wet log and crappy location. That one has finds too, so I guess you didnt pick up your crap there either.

Strategy = Clean Up Your Geo-Litter

[+sbell111]

I've dealt with four or five of them. All went fine, nothing to report.

 

I'm not sure that KA pays enough attention to me, however. Its like I'm being ignored or something.

[+SilverMarc]

I thnk that since a portion of the responses made by the Admins are pre-written, there is no rudeness either implied nor actual.

 

I find it professional and diligent to see that an Admin has emailed a cache-owner of a languishing cache after a couple of months to "prod" him or her into action.

 

It's always a benefit if unwanted or unmanaged caches be subjected to scrutiny in a timely manner.

 

There really does have to be "refs" in this game, and the Admin's I've been in correspondence with have always been either very gracious, or simply "prewritten." Never an unkind word.

 

--Marc

April 6, 2005 @ 8:11 PM

N40° 46.565' W073° 58.756'

[+Birdsong-n-Bud]

The two approvers we've dealt with have been terrific. We've had to modify some caches to keep within guidelines, but that is par for the course, and it was never requested in a negative tone.

 

No complaints here.

[+jeff35080]

No problems here in Alabama aka The Heart of Dixie

[+Team Tecmage]

Has anyone else had to deal with rude and arrogant approvers/reviewers of caches? I have emailed Groundspeak about the tone and abrasiveness of one reviewer, but received no answer -- I archived 3 geocaches just to avoid confrontations -- does anyone have some strategies to share (I don't want to create new geocaches until I know what to do)...

No problems at all.

[+TeamK-9]

My approvere is incredibly friendly and has only once been even slightly rude to me.

 

And that was because I had been incredibly impatient waiting for a cache approval...

[+Milbank]

Nope, they've all been extremely polite and helpful.

 

Same here.

 

One of the first caches I placed did not get aproved.

Turns out I was in the wrong placing the cache were I did.

 

Had to make a 3 mile hike to go get it.

 

Kicked myself all the way there and all the way back for not reading the rules.

Edited April 7, 2005 by Milbank

[+ChileHead]

Nope. Always has been courteous, friendly and accomodating.

[Jeremy]

I think I'm the only arrogant and rude jerk. They're nice just so they can distance themselves from me.

[+TeamK-9]

I think I'm the only arrogant and rude jerk. They're nice just so they can distance themselves from me.

Well said...

 

[mufasa1023]

My local reviewer "Rusty" has always been fair, helpful, and friendly. Now the rest of those nutso reviewers I cannot speak for......

[+carleenp]

Several things should be kept in mind with cache listing:

 

(1) There are guidelines/rules about what can and cannot be listed and about maintenance. The reviewers have to follow them, so when they ask that you do, they are doing their job. Explaining why a cache cannot be listed or asking for information is not rude. It is their job.

 

(2) Think Golden Rule. If you send a person an angry or abusive response to something, it will not likely make your cache get listed easier. I would guess that normally a reviewer will continue to be polite under abuse, but if they break down and bite back a bit I can't really blame them. Imagine having a job where people freak out to you over minor things often. At some point you just might turn around and say "look just go read the rules already!" That would not be the best response, but is certainly understandable.

 

(3) Sometimes when you are annoyed the best thing to do is sit back and relax for a bit. In hindsight you might find that you over-reacted. That can prevent something like a sudden email or forum post that you might later look at in hindsight and be embarrased by or regret. The annonymity and immediacy of the internet makes it easy for people to get riled up and go overboard at times. Sometimes taking a step back and reflecting is good before acting.

 

(4) If after calm reflection, you sincerely think that you followed the rules and that there is a problem, write a polite email to the email address that Keystone Approver supplied.

[+Salvelinus]

I like my reviewer (KA)...I like him alot! And we've still never met.

 

Prompt, curtious and bends over backwards for ya! What more can you ask for?

 

Salvelinus

[+Sagefox]

Has anyone else had to deal with rude and arrogant approvers/reviewers of caches?

Remote Northern California checking in.

 

After 103 placements I have no approver rudeness to report from these quarters . Three additional caches were rejected but there was no rudeness anywhere to be found during those events. None of my caching friends have reported any rudeness to me.

 

During my three plus years of geocaching, however, there has been one heck of a lot of rudeness toward the volunteer approvers in these forums.

[+welch]

Has anyone else had to deal with rude and arrogant approvers/reviewers of caches? I have emailed Groundspeak about the tone and abrasiveness of one reviewer, but received no answer -- I archived 3 geocaches just to avoid confrontations -- does anyone have some strategies to share (I don't want to create new geocaches until I know what to do)...

actually those I have dealt with have been very nice

 

I suggest you go threw and read all the guidelines and FAQs and how-tos (and anything else that your agreeing to when submiting a cache here). I know its long and mostly boring, but it will give you a good base to work from. You'll have an idea of what wouldn't be approved and why, and you can avoid some problems from the start.

Figure out who the person that reviews caches in your area, and email them with details of what you want to do before you get too far along. So you won't waste your time on borderline caches that may not be approved. If your 'what if' is not approvable ask what could be done to make it work.

Also, say please and thank you!! Most of the reviewer give up large amounts of their free time to review cache submissions. Volunteering your time to be gripped at can't be that fun. If it seems like they're using a rude tone, be that much nicer to them , don't respond in kind.

[+TotemLake]

Notice it is usually the newbs that get it wrong with the accusatory tones and misconceptions?

 

There's a reason it's recommended they wait a year before hiding caches.

[+Team Cotati]

Notice it is usually the newbs that get it wrong with the accusatory tones and misconceptions?

 

There's a reason it's recommended they wait a year before hiding caches.

Who made that recommendation?

[+AtoZ]

Fruesterate YES. why my lack of understanding. Rude NO!!!! unless I was and I try not to be but even then they are great. I did find you tone some what caustic so if maybe you try to work it out by email then the problem would be resolved but post to the Forum isn't IMHO the way to go.

cheers

[+El Diablo]

Every now and then a thread like this pops up. If you do a search on the past threads and read them, you will find that the overwhelming majority fully support the Admin, Moderaters, and Approvers.

 

They all have established reputations of doing an outstanding job. Those reputations are well deserved.

 

El Diablo

[+flask]

my approver is the most bestest person in the WHOLE WORLD! he is invited to all my parties even though he never comes because he's from "away".

 

i once had a terse message from an approver (not my reglular guy. my regular guy is PERFECT.), but it could easily have been chalked up to a rough day for the approver, or that the cache in question was an idea i had while nursing a high fever.

 

i wish to stress that my approver does not pay me to say these things, and that i have no caches in the queue.

[+Ed & Julie]

I think the problem that that is feels personal.

 

When someone gets a note of rejection or clarification, one's first reaction is "what a jerk that reiewer is!"...especially from newer cachers. No one wan't to feel like there hide wasn't good enough.

 

As the cacher gains knowledge thru expierence, those notes are percieved as less of a problem and more of a learning tool.

 

I have never had a rudeness problem with my local reviewers, even though I don't see eye-to-eye on several issues with one of them.

 

Ed

 

(Did I mention that Northern California has the best Reviewers?!?!?)

[+Moose Mob]

I think I'm the only arrogant and rude jerk. They're nice just so they can distance themselves from me.

We are talking reviewerss. I believe this topic is schedule for next week, and I can't guarantee it will be so friendly.

 

Edit: terminology

Edited April 7, 2005 by Moose Mob

[+New England n00b]

I have not hidden any caches due to my inability to commit to maintaining them. However, when I have dealt with any volunteer reviewer, they have been very helpful. I was really bummed to write a couple of SBA logs, and communication form the VR was nothing but courteous. (gpsfun, for the record).

 

Some of the VR are also forum moderators, so I've seen that side as well. In spite of receiving some warnings for posting behaviour, even then there was no 'rude-idity'. the only time I can think of where temperatures rose (due to a huge misunderstanding on my part), the individual in question was very polite.

 

It's their sock puppets you have to watch out for!

[+puppymonster]

It's their sock puppets you have to watch out for!   

Naaaaaa... I'm just a harmless lovable little fuzzball.

[+TotemLake]

Notice it is usually the newbs that get it wrong with the accusatory tones and misconceptions?

 

There's a reason it's recommended they wait a year before hiding caches.

Who made that recommendation?

All the seasoned folks I speak with. Typically, newbies tend to misunderstand the intent of the reviewers' notes. They also tend to think they're above the guidelines and think they can get away with something. Then when they're caught, they misconstrue the intent and the tone and make themselves look like the victim when in truth, they open their mouths by posting here and tend to look like the back end of an animal instead of looking at the cause for concern and doing something constructive about it.

[+Team Cotati]

Notice it is usually the newbs that get it wrong with the accusatory tones and misconceptions?

 

There's a reason it's recommended they wait a year before hiding caches.

Who made that recommendation?

All the seasoned folks I speak with. Typically, newbies tend to misunderstand the intent of the reviewers' notes. They also tend to think they're above the guidelines and think they can get away with something. Then when they're caught, they misconstrue the intent and the tone and make themselves look like the victim when in truth, they open their mouths by posting here and tend to look like the back end of an animal instead of looking at the cause for concern and doing something constructive about it.

Just Beautiful.

[+TotemLake]

I'll qualify my statement to add

 

...or at least 100 finds under their belt. I know of a few newbs in our area that have created some wonderful hides. But they also learned how to hide by the experience of the finds... What to do and what not to do.

[Azaruk]

I've had two approvers/reviewers checking my caches for approval. Always courteous, helpful and willing to share their knowledge with me.

 

I certainly have no complaints.

 

As far as I am concerned, the approvers/reviewers are the unsung heroes of geocaching.

[+Sagefox]

There's a reason it's recommended they wait a year before hiding caches.

I would tie this recommendation to container caches found rather than using an arbitrary one year period.

 

20 container cache finds would give someone a good "rough" idea of what is going on. 50 and they'd have the hang of it.

 

A new guy around here has found 2 caches and placed 9. Two of the 9 were muggled within a week and most of the rest are likely not far behind. He places them with no cover, uses non-water resistant tins for containers and did not place most of the logbooks in ziplocks.

 

Wanted: Geocache Placer. Must have experience in finding caches.

[+New England n00b]

There's a reason it's recommended they wait a year before hiding caches.

I would tie this recommendation to container caches found rather than using an arbitrary one year period.

 

20 container cache finds would give someone a good "rough" idea of what is going on. 50 and they'd have the hang of it.

 

A new guy around here has found 2 caches and placed 9. Two of the 9 were muggled within a week and most of the rest are likely not far behind. He places them with no cover, uses non-water resistant tins for containers and did not place most of the logbooks in ziplocks.

 

Wanted: Geocache Placer. Must have experience in finding caches.

I am approaching 75 successful finds, and I learn something new everytime. When I get in a position to do a hide, I feel confident that observing other cachers hides will improve my own. I think if I had just jumped into it without (1) understanding (not reading - understanding) the guidelines, (2) visiting a number of sites and (3) checking the forums... well, they would not have been good hides on my part.

 

Puppymonster: Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, chaw this bone while I go a-running away... Good dog... GOOD dog... *sweats*

[+TheNomad]

Chiming in here - Crow T Robot (our approver) has always been respectful, even when I placed caches in inappropriate places. Doh!

 

Never seen a rude comment, e-mail or anything negative out of him.

 

That's my $0.02 anyway.

[+BigWhiteTruck]

I think I'm the only arrogant and rude jerk.

Certainly not the only one!!

 

I just have no power. . .

[+Moose Mob]

<snip>

I just have no power. . .

Have you considered getting a Dodge instead?

 

OK, we can get back on topic now.

[+Team Perks]

I think I'm the only arrogant and rude jerk.

Hey! I'm an arrogant and rude jerk too, thank you very much!!

 

(Which is exactly why I'm NOT an approver...)

 

I've had caches approved by four different admins and have had nothing but positive and reasonable interactions with each and every one of them. I've had the pleasure of going caching with a couple of them in the past, and they're all normal people just like us (well, like some of you guys...I'm an entirely different story altogether). My interactions with the admins in their roles as forum moderators have always been respectful and collegial as well.

 

As far as I'm concerned, you reap what you sow. Hide caches on private property without permission, or don't maintain your hides, and you're bound to have approvers coming around and saying things you aren't going to like...

[+Divine]

Has anyone else had to deal with rude and arrogant approvers/reviewers of caches?

I haven't.

[+Snoogans]

Has anyone else had to deal with rude and arrogant approvers/reviewers of caches? I have emailed Groundspeak about the tone and abrasiveness of one reviewer, but received no answer -- I archived 3 geocaches just to avoid confrontations -- does anyone have some strategies to share (I don't want to create new geocaches until I know what to do)...

Well, I like to keep my beefs offline while they are happening.

 

One look at your area and I'm pretty sure that I know who it is. My run in with him is almost a year old and it still ticks me off to think about it. He was soooo friggin' wrong that Hydee called me to personally apologize on behalf of Groundspeak. I can't fathom WHY he is still an approver.

 

All my future West coast hides will be on terracaching.com because of him.

 

Don't let one petty tyrant ruin the game for you. Just remove yourself from his reach. Hunt caches here and hide on other sites if that helps.

 

I've got one up on you. I know who he really is (nope. not sharing.) and I can't wait to meet him to find out if my statement that Ive never met a geocacher that I didn't like is true.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I a surprised I did not do all the caches listed as they are in a area I cache in.

That being said, I deal with the same approvers for all the caches I have and I have never had a problem dealing with them, we have not always agreed re. Virts. but that is not being rude or arrogant.

Edited April 7, 2005 by JohnnyVegas

[+LaPaglia]

Notice it is usually the newbs that get it wrong with the accusatory tones and misconceptions?

 

There's a reason it's recommended they wait a year before hiding caches.

Who made that recommendation?

All the seasoned folks I speak with. Typically, newbies tend to misunderstand the intent of the reviewers' notes. They also tend to think they're above the guidelines and think they can get away with something. Then when they're caught, they misconstrue the intent and the tone and make themselves look like the victim when in truth, they open their mouths by posting here and tend to look like the back end of an animal instead of looking at the cause for concern and doing something constructive about it.

For the record, the reviewers do not subscribe to this theory. I have recommended that a new cacher find a few caches first (2-3) but never anything like a year or 100 caches. But we are taking this thread off topic.

Edited April 7, 2005 by LaPaglia

[+sTeamTraen]

My approver (US East Coast) has agreed to get up at 0300 EST to approve 10 caches for an event (in France) so that they appear just when the event starts.

 

Oh wait, no, he hasn't. But he let me down very nicely

 

(In any case, as long as they aren't approved before the event starts, I don't mind if people have to wait a few hours to be able to log them - they should be caching until 6:30pm anyway!)

[+Tharagleb]

Rude and/or arrogant Reviewers: No

Rude and/or arrogant Posters: Yes (I am *not* talking about anyone in this tread, honest!)

 

Re: Finds/Time before first hide - I waited over a year and I was at 111 finds. When I first started caching I saw somewhere that you should have at least 20 finds before placing one. I decided to wait a while longer because I am slow to pick things up...

[+Mr. Fantastic]

I don't even know who approves caches in Illinois, but he/she rocks! I have only had problems that were my own doing. I thought I had marked all the caches already in the park, but I was too close to one. That was entirely my own fault and the approver was helpful in pointing that out.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

We have had caches approved by two different state reviewers (TN. and VA.) Both have been great to work with. When we were new at geocaching, I submitted a virtual for approval in TN. and it was not approved. This upset us and we thought we were being victums of some sort of discrimination. Our fault not the approver's. We really didn't understand the rules and the cache should not have been approved. Thank God for the approvers.