Rude And Arrogant Approvers/reviewers

6.4k · April 9, 2005

I posted pretty much the same post that Mopar did, only with what I hope you found to be a more courteous tone.

Which sort of says it all didn't it?

The net affect of that example (the tactless attitude-laden one) is people are left with a bad taste in their mouth and don't want to participate. To quote another, "he's taken the fun out of it".

Since the approvers ARE the company's representatives...

If they were provided tools and encouraged to be courteous rather than rude and arrogant, helpful rather than critical, we might witness better hides, a less negative perception of Groundspeak, more willing volunteers, and fewer bannings/restrictions of geocaching.

It takes no more effort to be polite after all, it just takes a desire to do so and respect of others.

hth,

Randy

And that's the difference between KA's post and mine.

His post represents the company.

My post represents me.

Like it or not. For better or worse.

I guess if I was the guy reviewing Randy's caches the topic might have been about me.

Of course, if Randy is the guy reviewing my caches then I might have posted the same topic about him.

Luckily, the people who have reviewed my caches so far have not been rude or arrogant, if I've had any contact with them at all. But then I haven't placed a new one in awhile. I'm sure if I follow the guidelines I won't have a problem, no matter HOW rude and arrogant my local reviewer may be in person.

Edited April 9, 2005 by Mopar

April 9, 2005

All courteus.

This had been already said and provides no real info but...I wanted to rid of my 13 posts!

1.4k · April 9, 2005

Good day everyone. Being somewhat new to the game (2nd post) >100 finds and 4 hides, I decided to throw my hat into the game. I live in NWPA and stumbled across geocaching by accident. I have grown to enjoy geocaching; it is a valuable distraction for me. I have only dealt with Keystone Approver. I had to provide additional input for my very first hide, I got impatient and frustrated but I sat back and thought things over which gets me to my point. As far as I am concerned is your hide that important, does the area hold any specific importance, is it worthwhile or do you just want to hide a cache to hide a cache; clarification is the key. The approvers have a very difficult & time-consuming job that they conduct without any compensation. I try to do my part by providing as much information as possible about the cache that I am trying to hide. Put yourself in their position and think about how many emails they must receive and new hide requests that pop up, it can get overwhelming. Why make the job more difficult by pushing the limits - hey that fire is hot (you put your hand in the fire) boy I bet that hurts. Kind words go a long way. Thank you Keystone Approver for all your efforts for making geocaching an enjoyable activity. Hey if your cache is denied who cares it is not like the approver came to your house and kicked your dog, it's a game get over it and move along. Accept the rejection, re think your cache hide/location and try again. It’s in the past, let it go - follow through, scan and breathe.

Ian

April 11, 2005

My reviewer name says it all . . . huggy_ d1 (huggy, the one) - he's JUST so-o-o-o sweet & we just love him to bits!

Opps, now he's gonna get tough JUST to change his image - how do I delete this #@%&!?# entry - shucks! :laughing:

April 11, 2005

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 wouldn't say rude or abrasive, but I have been disappointed by their responses, or perhaps lack of them. My solution was just to give up. I have found caches, but have yet to officially hide one.

I believe that the sport is better for everyone if we all both hide and seek, but the apparent uneveness with which this is handled has discouraged at least me.

1.4k · April 11, 2005

but the apparent uneveness with which this is handled has discouraged at least me

Hmmm... do you have any evidence that things are being handled evenly? I have never experienced that and thus far I've hidden 42 caches and found almost 300.

7.2k · April 12, 2005

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 wouldn't say rude or abrasive, but I have been disappointed by their responses, or perhaps lack of them. My solution was just to give up. I have found caches, but have yet to officially hide one.

I believe that the sport is better for everyone if we all both hide and seek, but the apparent uneveness with which this is handled has discouraged at least me.

For the record, I looked at your submission that was not listed. It was a virtual where the target was for a common, widely used fighter plane in an air museum display area. There are thousands of aircraft on display across the globe so therefore they would not be unique. The aircraft itself was a widely used aircraft and over 5,000 were produced.

There are no notes other than the simple archive note. Because of the commonality of the target, the review would most likely have not been swayed since the guidelines are specific about things like this. I am sorry you felt you had a lack of communication, but any argument for that one would not have swayed me personally. Rather than unevenness, I would call it being consistent since a target of this type, a common aircraft, would not be listed by other reviewers either. It would take something more unusual.

Edited April 12, 2005 by mtn-man

April 19, 2005

The GA and TN approvers have been very fast (sometimes within 1 hour!! ) and courteous. On a couple of occasions they have requested more information or noted a typo, but in a straightforward way -- nothing 'rude'.

The 75-mile/100-mile guideline may cause problems in some cases; so far that has been amiably handled with the cooperation/scheming of local cachers.

Remember -- the approvers ARE volunteers, generally with full to-do plates and some even have family, jobs, etc beyond the geocaching!

It is all a 'work in progress'; changes will be made as necessary down the line... Keep on hunting and having fun meanwhile!

1.4k · April 21, 2005

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)...

I had a bad experience last year with a approver in WA. I made the mistake of saying what was on my mind (no profanity) and found myself being punished by a few Pre Madonna cache approvers and not having my cache approved (it was eventually approved a few weeks later). I was also threatened with having my memebrship deleted (by a certain geocacher, the person who invented the wheel). I have since then been labeled as a liar and untrustworhty. I now try to keep my mouth shut even when I get taunted with emails from the cache approver. Gotta love those guys! However there are many good approvers in other states.

April 21, 2005

5.3k · April 21, 2005

Primadonna, not "Pre Madonna"

Edited April 21, 2005 by Stunod

2.7k · April 21, 2005

Primadonna, not "Pre Madonna"

Wow... Pre Madonna? That makes the reviewer, like, over 2 millenia old... :laughing:

21.9k · April 21, 2005

I now try to keep my mouth shut...

Try harder, maybe?

You certainly present an interesting version of the facts.

1.2k · April 21, 2005

I now try to keep my mouth shut...

Try harder, maybe?

You certainly present an interesting version of the facts.

But But But.... you mean he might not be telling the whole story??????? There might be another side to this??????

Say it aint so Keystone, Say it aint so.

April 21, 2005

ROFLOL

1.8k · April 21, 2005

Well, I know that I certainly have trouble with my approver ( :laughing: ). Last week it took almost 24 hours to get two approved, and the two before that....I think it was a day and a half!!!! :rolleyes:

April 21, 2005

So far, I have had only one bad experience; I posted a micro cache that was hidden under two pieces of mulch at a mall entrance and the approver archived it because as they saw it, it was buried.

It was not, but I can see how it might have appeared to be buried.

Oh well.

Edited April 21, 2005 by rescue557

April 21, 2005

I have placed the first cache since the problems we had last year with the local approver, hoping that it goes much better than before. I figure, last year he was new at it, etc, etc. Starting over with a clean slate!

I haven't heard anything yet, but I did submit fairly late. (10 PM?)

April 21, 2005

I'm still venting over my recent hides so here it goes in here. I've swore I wouldn't hide in my home state of VA because of the approver. Recent hides over the weekend took 60 hours to be approved and with each approval came a note that made me feel I was being lectured. "Ammo cans should be marked or bomb squads could destroy the cache.....Placing caches .1 mile apart could make people see the trail as a power caching area....blah blah blah" There's no way to know if an ammo can is marked and I do have them clearly marked with a sticker that makes it appear as though it is a school project with Geocaching University, but I don't feel 5 caches on a 4 mile round trip hike constitues a power cache run. I've gotten other "lectures" saying I should move the container around in the park to reduce the possibility of muggling (I have many dnf's on some of my urban hides so if a muggle can find it without the coords, more power to them), I should paint the container (most of the time you won't see or even feel the container so paint won't help), the prize winner was "it is not an approved container" (I've not seen a list of official containers, maybe gc.com should sell the idea to a company to be the official geocaching container) I should do this or that. I think the approval time would be dramatically reduced if the approver didn't go thru his copy / paste list of UNnecessary info. Maybe it's just how I perceive the words on the screen and it's not meant to be how I see it, but it's very frustrating. It makes me wonder if the lack of caches in the approver's area is because they have also grown tired of the process.

20.7k · April 21, 2005

What's an approved container? :rolleyes:

1.2k · April 21, 2005

:rolleyes: Hey cudlecub,

I agree with you. We don't need a lecture. If something is really wrong, then the approver should point it out for correction. Let us all know when you find the"approved list of cache containers."

P.S. What's wrong with a power caching area? We need more of them.

38.2k · April 21, 2005

Primadonna, not "Pre Madonna"

Maybe he meant that the approver came before Madonna?

Recent hides over the weekend took 60 hours to be approved and with each approval came a note that made me feel I was being lectured. "Ammo cans should be marked or bomb squads could destroy the cache.....Placing caches .1 mile apart could make people see the trail as a power caching area....blah blah blah"

So you're taking offense because the approver gave you good advice.

3k · April 21, 2005

... the prize winner was "it is not an approved container" ...

I, too, am unaware of a published list of approved containers. What sort of container were you trying to use in that particular situation? :rolleyes:

1.3k · April 21, 2005

Maybe the "approved container" refers to a land managers requirements for a cache container. For example, in Maryland, caches in state parks require permits and those permits forbid the use of ammo boxes or any container that is not transparent. Link

Edit: Added link

Edited April 21, 2005 by Trinity's Crew

4.8k · April 21, 2005

There is no "approved container" requirement in general, although I know of quite a few parks that have specific requriements. At that point the reviewer would have to enforce the park's rules.

I also know that in some cases, reviewers will give general advice or suggestions. It doesn't mean they won't list the cache, but are noting something that has been an issue in the area for your information. The reviewer might do that with everyone or all caches in a certain area, etc. Don't take the extra info as a personal insult.

April 21, 2005

I was told by the approver had they known the "container" type I was hiding they would not have approved it. It was simply one of the log baggies that was reinforced with duct tape and placed under a bleachers. Later on I was told the approver had discussed this type of hide with others and if I was willing to do the maintnance they guess they would allow it. When you hide a cache don't you agree to do maintnance? It's my feeling that I am agreeing to do it and that's why I won't place a cache in an area I'm not going to have easy access to or that I don't frequent.

I figured I might as well just e-mail them and ask what the deal is. Here's a copy of the mail:

First I would like to start out thanking you for giving your time freely to approve caches in and around the area. I know we all have lives outside of geocaching and demands that are more important. Geocaching is something I started about 9 months ago and it has brought a lot of fun and adventure into my life and has allowed me to meet some great people. But the downside is that I don't know if there's a chip on a shoulder or maybe I am seeing things in a different way than they were meant to come across? But I really resent what I see as a lecture with hides I place in VA and have told myself over and over I will just go into TN to hide caches because I feel belittled with your e-mails that follow the approval. Would the approval time decrease if the form lectures aren't copied and pasted? Some of us feel that might speed things up. I know I'm not alone with these feeling as I've discussed this with others in and around the area, but I may be the only one that will bring the issue to light and try to figure out what the problem is. If it's burnout...give it up. Don't make us as bitter as we perceive you to be with the approving. If there's outside demands, could other approvers pitch in and help until life is stable once again? There's got to be something that can help.

9.4k · April 21, 2005

I was told by the approver had they known the "container" type I was hiding they would not have approved it. It was simply one of the log baggies that was reinforced with duct tape and placed under a bleachers. Later on I was told the approver had discussed this type of hide with others and if I was willing to do the maintnance they guess they would allow it. When you hide a cache don't you agree to do maintnance? It's my feeling that I am agreeing to do it and that's why I won't place a cache in an area I'm not going to have easy access to or that I don't frequent.

I figured I might as well just e-mail them and ask what the deal is. Here's a copy of the mail:

First I would like to start out thanking you for giving your time freely to approve caches in and around the area. I know we all have lives outside of geocaching and demands that are more important. Geocaching is something I started about 9 months ago and it has brought a lot of fun and adventure into my life and has allowed me to meet some great people. But the downside is that I don't know if there's a chip on a shoulder or maybe I am seeing things in a different way than they were meant to come across? But I really resent what I see as a lecture with hides I place in VA and have told myself over and over I will just go into TN to hide caches because I feel belittled with your e-mails that follow the approval. Would the approval time decrease if the form lectures aren't copied and pasted? Some of us feel that might speed things up. I know I'm not alone with these feeling as I've discussed this with others in and around the area, but I may be the only one that will bring the issue to light and try to figure out what the problem is. If it's burnout...give it up. Don't make us as bitter as we perceive you to be with the approving. If there's outside demands, could other approvers pitch in and help until life is stable once again? There's got to be something that can help.

You want to hide a cache in a baggie? :rolleyes:

How's that going to stay dry? The pencil you put in it will make the first hole. The spiral notebook will probably get snagged on it and tear more holes. There's something in the guidelines about cache permanence and lasting 3 months minimum. That's probably why you were turned down.

April 21, 2005

You want to hide a cache in a baggie?
How's that going to stay dry? The pencil you put in it will make the first hole. The spiral notebook will probably get snagged on it and tear more holes. There's something in the guidelines about cache permanence and lasting 3 months minimum. That's probably why you were turned down.

Well, he did say that the baggie was going to be reinforced with duct tape.

Maybe you need to watch more Red Green.

4.8k · April 21, 2005

I was told by the approver had they known the "container" type I was hiding they would not have approved it. It was simply one of the log baggies that was reinforced with duct tape and placed under a bleachers. Later on I was told the approver had discussed this type of hide with others and if I was willing to do the maintnance they guess they would allow it. When you hide a cache don't you agree to do maintnance? It's my feeling that I am agreeing to do it and that's why I won't place a cache in an area I'm not going to have easy access to or that I don't frequent.

Well.... Um.... Don't get angsty, but I think that makes for a pretty nasty container. In addition, yes, technically people agree to maintain a cache when they submit it, but guess what, many don't actually do it. Many also say they have read the guidelines and have not done so.

Around here, there were some of those duct taped baggie caches and they all fell apart and got wet real fast. I remember finding one only a few days after it was placed and it was already wet and the log was stuck to the duct tape. Other cachers had to maintain them for the owner. I would guess there have been similar problems elsewhere.

So basically the reviewer, who isn't going to know whether you will actually maintain the thing or not, was providing you with information about a concern and seeking some reassurance. You gave the reassurances and the cache was listed. I would do that to. It is nothing personal.

My feeling from this is that maybe you are reading what is helpful information and taking it as some sort of personal insult. I really don't think it was intended that way.

Edited April 21, 2005 by carleenp

April 21, 2005

I have never had any bad experiences with Approvers/Reviewers. I did try to place one cache that for one reason or another didn't meet guidelines and I was advised of the error. I found it very professional and curtious.

Lets keep in mind that these people are Volunteers and probably taking time away from the sport we all love to help administer it.

Thanks to the Reviewers, keep up the good work!

Joe

April 21, 2005

Micro BYOP, and log sheet onlyisn't that how most of what I call the lame urban hides are? The "reinforced" baggies were approved and have been in the field for nearly 2 months with no problems so far. Should there be probs with them they will be replaced or the container type changed. They are in places that provide them cover and I think if they become wet, there will be more than one ammo box that will be floating down the road that would be a river with the flooding it would take to reach the baggies.

4.8k · April 21, 2005

The point is that baggies have had problems across various areas. Because of that the reviewer provided information and sought assurances. That is not any sort of insult to you or a "chip on the shoulder." It is simply making sure things will be OK. It sounds like they are, which is great! But the reviewer has to ask etc. Again, I seriously doubt there was any ill intention from the reviewer, and think you might have somehow taken it personally when it would be a reply he or she would have to give with any baggie type container. That can happen easily on the internet where people can't see body language etc, and where it is easy to read things more personally.

3.9k · April 21, 2005

I have also heard of ammo cans being washed away by heavier than normal flooding and ending up in a lake. It was then discovered by a boater who opened it to find the contact info for the cacher and returned, very dry and intact. Baggies rip too easy. It could last a few months, but statistics would likely give it a half-life around 6 or 7 finds.

1.4k · April 21, 2005

I now try to keep my mouth shut...

Try harder, maybe?

You certainly present an interesting version of the facts.

Stay away from behind that curtain, I am the great and powerful Wizard of geocache approvers...

April 21, 2005

Posted on: Apr 8 2005

I really don't want to start a flame war, nor do I want to dredge up old issues.

Then perhaps you shouldn't post innuendo, gossip and lies.

Posted on: Apr 21 2005

I have placed the first cache since the problems we had last year with the local approver, hoping that it goes much better than before. I figure, last year he was new at it, etc, etc. Starting over with a clean slate!

So much for a clean slate.

The 'problem', as you recall, was that you placed a container too close to an established cache. When I archived it you became unhappy and wanted preferential treatment in violation of the guidelines. While exceptions can be made when there is a barrier such as an interstate highway, a river with no nearby bridges, cliffs and the like, these two caches in the same park were separated by nothing more than a grassy lawn.

If you or any other geocacher ever have any additional concerns, I am always available to address them via e-mail.

I haven't heard anything yet, but I did submit fairly late. (10 PM?)

According to the cache page, ' Posted: 4/20/2005 10:32 PM'. That's Pacific Daylight Saving Time, after many folks have retired for the evening.

No doubt folks are wondering why it has not yet been listed, a whole 12 hours later. I've posted this standard note to the page -

As is always the case with all puzzle and multicaches, I'll need the coordinates of all stages, including those of the final container.

Please post them in a reviewer's note to the cache page (it will be automatically deleted when the submission is listed). E-mail me via the link on my profile page when you have done so, and I'll be able to complete my review at that time.

Thanks!

MT Fellwalker

I look forward to your e-mail.

April 21, 2005

'angsty' - ???

LOL, that's a great word..... May I use it please?

9.4k · April 21, 2005

'angsty' - ???

LOL, that's a great word..... May I use it please?

Why not? I did :rolleyes:

April 21, 2005

I don't believe this topic is still active. Different strokes for ... etc etc. Someone being direct doesn't neccessarily make them rude and arrogant. Some might have the preception of professionalism in some of the responses I've seen.

... and we all have bad days.

Get some thick skin and get back on the trial of caches. :rolleyes:

4.8k · April 21, 2005

'angsty' - ???

LOL, that's a great word..... May I use it please?

Any word derived from "angst" is a good word. Use away with angstless joy! :rolleyes:

Edited April 21, 2005 by carleenp

April 21, 2005

'angsty' - ???

LOL, that's a great word..... May I use it please?

Any word derived from "angst" is a good word. Use away with angstless joy!

Even usernames?

6.5k · April 21, 2005

sniffsniff, mmm I smell sock. :rolleyes:

Funny sock, angstridden sock, but still sock...

PS Love the avatar, try a little more lip gloss for that reall pouty look.

4.8k · April 21, 2005

Ooh! There is the shiny sock again! :rolleyes:

April 21, 2005

angsty, angstier, angstiest..... LOL

9.4k · April 21, 2005

angsty, angstier, angstiest..... LOL

Don't forget "angstridden" :rolleyes:

Funny sock, angstridden sock, but still sock...

Edited April 21, 2005 by Team GPSaxophone

1.3k · April 21, 2005

My mom always told me that for respect to be earned it must first be given.

If you show your local reviewer the same level of respect that you want to receive from them, you will develop a great working relationship. I work in customer service, I have been on the receiving end of some very rude customers. I learned over time that the best way to deal with them was to be as polite as possible, even when I was not in the wrong. Once I gave the customer the respect he felt he deserved, I earned his respect and we can then work together to solve the problem.

Something I tell my son is that honesty is not optional.

All the volunteer reviewers want is for you to be honest with them. If they ask you a question or put your submission on hold, give them complete and honest answers. The more upfront and honest you are they more likely they are to trust you now and in the future.

April 21, 2005

I know that if I was a reviewer, I'd be baring my fangst a lot more than these volunteers do. Thanks, guys, for both your volunteer spirit and your patience.

Edited April 21, 2005 by Metaphor

38.2k · April 21, 2005

was told by the approver had they known the "container" type I was hiding they would not have approved it. It was simply one of the log baggies that was reinforced with duct tape and placed under a bleachers

Perhaps the approver was concerned that because you were too lazy to use a proper contianer, you'd be too lazy maintain the cache.

April 21, 2005

"fangst"!!! :rolleyes:

1.8k · April 21, 2005

"fangst"!!!

LOL!!! Yeah, did he mean 'fangs' or 'fu#@ing angst' ...

April 21, 2005

I meant "fangst."

Rude And Arrogant Approvers/reviewers

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment