Rude And Arrogant Approvers/reviewers

1.6k · April 7, 2005

We have caches in Canada and Indiana , as we have homes in each place , we have only had to explain that to the respective approvers ( which is totally understandable) . We have only ever had an cache not approved because it was a Virtual (which the approver was only trying to follow the guidlines)

Approvers are not arrogant , they are in most cases cachers whom by the kindness of their hearts are donating a lot of time to the cause . I can only imagine how hard and thankless a job that can be .

Star

3.9k · April 7, 2005

Never had a problem with the 3 or 4 approvers I've had to deal with. Even when I try to stretch the guidelines a bit, (I've been known to do that) there is always great, respectful communications with them.

Edited April 7, 2005 by JMBella

April 7, 2005

14 Placements and Southern Cal Admin has always been courtious, helpful and prompt.

Note to Approvers: Please remember this glowing endorsement when it comes time to approve our future caches.

2.5k · April 7, 2005

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

Yeah, well, I met him once and he was a j........ er... umm... jolly person?

Seriously, to the OP, all the rudeness, totally you. I once complained about my reviewer. Turns out he's now one of my best friends.

April 7, 2005

My approver here in Sweden is very polite and likable. He turned down one of my caches for good reasons, I hadn't followed the guidelines and he told me so matter-of-factly, just like yours did. Live with it.

And be happy there are people who are taking this seriously enough to dedicate so much of their time to maintain geocaching high standards.

April 7, 2005

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

Mmmmmm... milkbone.

Hey, where did that cat go?!

5.7k · April 7, 2005

I like all of the California approvers. They are cool. If I wasn't married and they weren't male, I'd date them for sure...

--Marky

7.2k · April 7, 2005

I like all of the California approvers. They are cool. If I wasn't married and they weren't male, I'd date them for sure...

--Marky

I thought you were married to one of the reviewers?

April 7, 2005

Most all the approvers are courteous but there are some notable exceptions.

I stopped hiding caches for almost a year due to rudeness, arrogance and unfounded accusations directed at me.

When I expressed I was offended by the accusations and pointed out they were unfounded--there was no apology except, "sorry you missunderstood". Believe me, 'twas quite clear to myself and others I privately shared with.

Prior to that, all the approvers were delightful and courteous!

The second memorable instance was the response from "contact@geocaching.com", which not only was rude, but their interactions with a local land trust brought about the first instance of risking a geocaching ban in CT.

It took a couple meetings to overcome that bad PR.

For the record, it was a couple years before such things occurred to me and I was quite experienced at that point.

I have spoken with others locally who no longer hide for the same reason. When it's a chore/unpleasant to interact, why subject yourself to such? (In fact, there was an overall drop in new hides in CT at that time--ironic as Spring is usually when they increase rather than decrease!)

Unfortunately, there's no accountability for those who hide behind fake names and any feedback dissappears into that black hole known as "contact@geocaching.com".

Fortunately, the actions of the few are far outweighed by the many fabulous VOLUNTEER reviewers that take their time to aid the site.

I'm afraid it's beyond the capabilities of the organization to instill courtesy in their volunteers however and new cachers quickly have their expectations adjusted.

I believe many are afraid to speak out (since they don't read the forums and don't want their approver potentially being vindictive).

I myself only heard about this thread 'cause another cacher saw it and immediately thought to call me!

Randy

April 7, 2005

Like KK & M I have worked with the TN and VA approvers. I appreciate them giving their time to help better the game. At times disagree with them but I'm sure they have guidelines to follow just as we have them to follow when we place a cache. I also get frustrated when I don't get a cache approved yet someone else places one within 75' of my original location with no hassels. I will take the smiley to cache maintnance anyday though.

9.5k · April 7, 2005

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.

I never implied the reviewers subscribe to it. Based on a PM I received, let me make it clear it was a personal conversation I had. There is nothing on the thread to point at.

April 7, 2005

Another of my thoughts. I don't feel approvers should be able to approve caches in their areas. They should approve them in other areas where they can't be accused of having favorites. Why not have all caches go into a central place, like a que, and the team of volunteers works thru those caches? Then there's no accusations of "the approver doesn't like me" among various other excuses not to hide.

April 7, 2005

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.

Because he works for cheap?

1.5k · April 7, 2005

Another of my thoughts. I don't feel approvers should be able to approve caches in their areas. They should approve them in other areas where they can't be accused of having favorites. Why not have all caches go into a central place, like a que, and the team of volunteers works thru those caches? Then there's no accusations of "the approver doesn't like me" among various other excuses not to hide.

Ah, but who better to know the ins, outs, and particulars of an area than somebody who caches in that area? I'd certainly prefer to have somebody local to central oregon doing approvals for this area (although the oregon approvers are top notch!) locals just know the area better, whats appropriate and what isn't. Its a diverse world we live in, and there are a LOT of differences.

9.4k · April 7, 2005

I don't feel approvers should be able to approve caches in their areas. They should approve them in other areas where they can't be accused of having favorites.

Many reviewers would find this insulting.

22.1k · April 7, 2005

Another of my thoughts. I don't feel approvers should be able to approve caches in their areas. They should approve them in other areas where they can't be accused of having favorites. Why not have all caches go into a central place, like a que, and the team of volunteers works thru those caches? Then there's no accusations of "the approver doesn't like me" among various other excuses not to hide.

There is another vocal group who complain frequently that their volunteer reviewer lives hundreds of miles away, and cannot possibly be attuned to all the local issues, land manager regulations and so forth. I say we put those folks in a room with the "local cache reviewing is unfair" folks and have a cage match.

The volunteers operate under a set of ethical standards, including things like not using the inside information that we obtain during the review process, not playing favorites, etc. There have been many topics about this.

Friendships have been lost when volunteers have had to apply the guidelines to reject a cache submission. Personally, if anything I am much tougher on enforcing the guidelines when a caching buddy submits a questionable cache. If I cut him a break on, say, the 528 foot guideline, and say "no" to the next guy with a cache 450 feet from another one, I might reasonably expect a complaint about favoritism. Often, to avoid this issue, when a friend submits a cache the reviewer will ask one of the other volunteers to handle the review or provide a second opinion.

April 7, 2005

Of all of the postings, the one from MOPAR demonstrates the attitude that I received from my Reviewer. In response to the admin postings that MOPAR chose to make public, here are my responses:

I did receive permission from the landowners. For a considerable period of time, the logs show that many Geocachers visited this cache and enjoyed it. I was even working one day when I spotted a group, and I came down and had a great visit. Another group had a friendly visit from our Security Chief (who knew about the cache) and they turned him into a Geocacher! What happened was -- our building owner sold to a new holding company who changed security policies without notifying tenants. After the New Year of 2005, the new security force (a new Contractor) began hassling geocachers. Once I arrived back in town (I travel quite a bit), I went to retrieve the cache, but a good Samaritan geocacher had already pulled it for me.

The geocache with the wet log? That was a magnetic keyholder located along a hiking trail not accessible by road. We had winter storms in Northern California that simply overwhelmed the seal on the keyholder.

My point is this -- there are humans behind every geocache. Some of us are not Professionals at this -- we just want to join in the fun and provide additional caches for others to enjoy. If MOPAR and others like him show no understanding or compassion for the occasional Geocacher (and use snide and derogatory language in their communications), then the fun is gone and participation will suffer.

Is this what the Geocaching community really wants?

6.4k · April 7, 2005

Of all of the postings, the one from MOPAR demonstrates the attitude that I received from my Reviewer. In response to the admin postings that MOPAR chose to make public, here are my responses:

I did receive permission from the landowners. For a considerable period of time, the logs show that many Geocachers visited this cache and enjoyed it. I was even working one day when I spotted a group, and I came down and had a great visit. Another group had a friendly visit from our Security Chief (who knew about the cache) and they turned him into a Geocacher! What happened was -- our building owner sold to a new holding company who changed security policies without notifying tenants. After the New Year of 2005, the new security force (a new Contractor) began hassling geocachers. Once I arrived back in town (I travel quite a bit), I went to retrieve the cache, but a good Samaritan geocacher had already pulled it for me.

The geocache with the wet log? That was a magnetic keyholder located along a hiking trail not accessible by road. We had winter storms in Northern California that simply overwhelmed the seal on the keyholder.

My point is this -- there are humans behind every geocache. Some of us are not Professionals at this -- we just want to join in the fun and provide additional caches for others to enjoy. If MOPAR and others like him show no understanding or compassion for the occasional Geocacher (and use snide and derogatory language in their communications), then the fun is gone and participation will suffer.

Is this what the Geocaching community really wants?

Wow, 2 pages of responses saying you were wrong, and you pick me! I guess I should play the lotto too. I didn't "make anything public", the reviewer's posts are viewable to all of us just by looking at your cache hides. I didn't see one person in this thread who thought your reviewer's posts were rude, arrogant, or out of line, but several people including myself thought you however were all three.

I think this community has GREAT understanding and compassion for all levels of cachers. What most of us don't have much patience for is people who act like 5yr olds when they get caught doing something wrong by trying to blame someone else.

22.1k · April 7, 2005

I posted pretty much the same post that Mopar did, only with what I hope you found to be a more courteous tone. We were writing our posts at the same time and I did not see his before I posted mine. I would agree with you that a site volunteer, acting in his or her official capacity, ought to be courteous in their dealings with cache owners -- the people who make the sport possible. This is true at least up until the point when the cache owner becomes less than courteous, and hopefully even after that.

I still don't see anything discourteous in the notes left on your cache pages. Were there other exchanges in addition to what's publicly available?

It helps for the reviewer to hear the owner's explanation, like you've just provided. Had this occurred in my review territory, I would have accepted your explanation about the change in security companies... but I still would have posted a similar note like the one left on your page. Once I heard your explanation I would have asked you to post that same information to the cache page. For the cache that was disabled for too long, the reviewer posted a reminder note similar to the ones that I post. You archived your cache in response to that note, it appears. Had you instead posted an explanation that weather conditions prevented access to the cache for repairs, that would've bought you time until the weather improved.

EDIT: Once again, I've posted in parallel to Mopar's post! Proving that he is not my sock puppet.

Edited April 7, 2005 by Keystone Approver

6.4k · April 7, 2005

Obviously, KA and the other reviewers have much more patience for temper tantrums then I do!

22.1k · April 7, 2005

Kevlar flak jackets, Mopar. It's in the forum guidelines. You can look it up.

April 7, 2005

I don't know about rude or arrogant but I've heard tale that my local approver has been brandishing a "legalistic cudgel".

I'm not sure what that is but I'm very afraid.

5.7k · April 8, 2005

Obviously, KA and the other reviewers have much more patience for temper tantrums then I do!

Than.

6.5k · April 8, 2005

Obviously, KA and the other reviewers have much more patience for temper tantrums then I do!

Than.

Put down the red marker.... your monitor is getting dirty

2k · April 8, 2005

I think that it would serve the community well if we placed ourselves in the position of the Approvers. They seem, in my opinion, to have one primary concern: ensure that the cache meets the guidelines of their website.

That stated, they will flag situations where this is not the case: National Parks, near railroad tracks, non-maintained caches. An intelligent cacher will explain concerns such as these prior to placement or upon request.

Although I have seen many contrary opinions -- I hesitate to call myself a "customer" of Groundspeak. I have never been charged to hide or seek a cache. I have provided minimal economic support (Premium membership)

It would also serve us well to remember that this hobby began with someone posting a coordinate for some friends and then having them seek it. The fact that Groundspeak has chosen to let thousands use their site to accomondate this and that they have developed guidelines to support this deserves our gratitute. Are they making money? Who cares? I personally hope they are at least making enough to maintain their service and their interest. We can always resort back to sending e-mails to friends -- I enjoy the community of strangers that have visited my caches.

As for rudeness etc -- evidence would indicate it is not the norm or even the occasional situation, but rather the perception of a few malcontents that are unwilling or unable to accept the negative consequences of their negative actions.

IMHO, of course.

April 8, 2005

I have been very happy with the reviewers and appreciative of their volunteer efforts. The reviewer's communications were always professional and timely. The only time I did not get an approval was for a virtual but I found a way to hide a micro there instead and I am glad I did it's one of my favorite hides.

Three cheers for all you reviewers out there!

Hip hip horay!

April 8, 2005

Approvers, as a hole, are a bunch of no good so and so's. bunch of crazy coots.

Edited April 8, 2005 by dboggny

April 8, 2005

Well, time for Florida to speak up. We have 2 approvers here. Both have been deliberate in reviewing caches and both do a great job. One of them even wrote my then 7 y.o. daughter at her level explaining how to best do hides.I knnow I don't agree with that one year bit, as we are about to hit 1 year., and if we had waited, there would be 119 fewer hides between us and our daughter. Try to remember that your approvers are underpaid, and we like to keep them overworked here in Florida. As far as private property goes, we do our best to get permission and post on the cache site that we have owners permission. Sometimes the manager helps determine the best location for the cache. An example of this is one of my daughter's "Favorite Places" series. AKFP #9:We're gonna rock on through electric avenue Hey, if a 7 year old (8 y.o. for three days now, darn birthdays keeping me off track) can plant 44 caches in her first year of caching without any complaints from reviewers, (a little controversy over her event by some fellow cachers, but reviewers were fine) it can't be that hard to deal with reviewers. (And yes, they are her caches. She places and names them all herself. I just drive her around.)

April 8, 2005

Editted for idiocy by WR.

Edited April 8, 2005 by BlackstoneVal

April 8, 2005

Approvers, as a hole, are a bunch of no good so and so's. bunch of crazy coots.

"Freudian Slips" are always amusing.

22.1k · April 8, 2005

Approvers, as a hole, are a bunch of no good so and so's. bunch of crazy coots.

"Freudian Slips" are always amusing.

Everyone knows that cops can't spell -- they're crazy coots. It is why they had to change the spelling from "doughnut" to "donut."

7.2k · April 8, 2005

Approvers, as a hole, are a bunch of no good so and so's. bunch of crazy coots.

"Freudian Slips" are always amusing.

Everyone knows that cops can't spell -- they're crazy coots. It is why they had to change the spelling from "doughnut" to "donut."

Knowing dboggny all too well, I know that was not a misteak.

Hmmm... speaking of steak, I wonder if that bet is still on?

1.2k · April 8, 2005

I read the archive note on the original poster's cache page. No verbal abuse, no insult words... just a polite and direct dealing with the issue at hand. Where is the rudeness?

22.1k · April 8, 2005

I don't know about rude or arrogant but I've heard tale that my local approver has been brandishing a "legalistic cudgel".

I'm not sure what that is but I'm very afraid.

Here is an action shot, showing Keystone archiving a cache that was hidden under a bridge on a four lane limited access highway:

Now you know what a legalistic cudgel looks like. Note the money shaken loose by my actions. The money is enough to either (1) pay me to get the cache listed anyways, or (2) buy a premium membership at another listing site.

24.7k · April 8, 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)...

Every reviewer has a different personality. Some peple just rub other people wrong though they may be kittens for everone else. Reviewers are no different. On some arrogance bleeds through their comments, and on others it's not so much arrogance as so they have spoken so it is. Some are very professional, and some friendly, while others have the gift of diplomacy. Approvers have a style of operation and favor certain caches over others due to their own tastes. What one would approve another may not. They all try to enforce the same guidelines, but sometimes which way to split the hair of a rule changes.

Chalk it up to real life. It's no different when I go to work. The first rule is that it's easier to ask up front for anything out of the ordinary than to fight for it when the answer is "no can do". This method works best for when someone has real authority over something you want. In this case approvals for listing your cache on this site.

One last rule. If you have the same problem with all the reviewers, then the problem is you. That can be a hard pill to swallow but it lets you work to solve the problem.

Edited April 8, 2005 by Renegade Knight

1.8k · April 8, 2005

I read the archive note on the original poster's cache page. No verbal abuse, no insult words... just a polite and direct dealing with the issue at hand. Where is the rudeness?

Some people confuss rejection with rudeness. Yes, there can be rude rejection, however, most of us are not seeing it in this case...

April 8, 2005

One last rule. If you have the same problem with all the reviewers, then the problem is you. That can be a hard pill to swallow but it lets you work to solve the problem.

Though that may sometimes be true, it is not "a given" and is therefore not "a rule." It must be "a guideline." And we all know how much unnecessary trouble mere guidelines cause.

April 8, 2005

Hmmm... speaking of steak, I wonder if that bet is still on?

it was not done intentionally, but when i read it, i figured just leave well enough alone. the whole post was meant as a joke. as far as the bet goes, i believe i have won the bet, the other party to the bet disagrees so i think the bet is off. i am basing this on the fact that we agreed that once the new site was up, if locationless were not back, i would win. he disagrees. so it goes.

Edited April 8, 2005 by dboggny

April 8, 2005

Here is an action shot, showing Keystone archiving a cache that was hidden under a bridge on a four lane limited access highway:

Now you know what a legalistic cudgel looks like. Note the money shaken loose by my actions. The money is enough to either (1) pay me to get the cache listed anyways, or (2) buy a premium membership at another listing site.

this picture reminds me of the old saying about lawyers....

Q: what do you say to a lawyer with an IQ of 50?

A: "Good morning, your Honor."

Edited April 8, 2005 by dboggny

22.1k · April 8, 2005

Danny, I think that you and mtn-man should invite me to NYC for that steak dinner. Then you can convince me that I am the one who ought to pay for the dinners. It should be pretty easy, given that I have an IQ of 50.

April 8, 2005

Danny, I think that you and mtn-man should invite me to NYC for that steak dinner. Then you can convince me that I am the one who ought to pay for the dinners. It should be pretty easy, given that I have an IQ of 50.

did you get promoted/appointed/elected?

what kind of judge are you? judge dred?

anytime people want to visit us in NYC for steak and Central Park night caching, we'd love to you all.

10.1k · April 8, 2005

anytime people want to visit us in NYC for steak and Central Park night caching, we'd love to you all.

We've done most of the Central park caches. It's the ones in the outer boroughs that are going to kill us. Those Lesser Known Historical Sites...

April 9, 2005

In Montana, we have had issues with the approver that were deemed 'unfounded' by TPTB. Several of us requested access to alternate approver, but that request was never acknowledged. Since most of the issue seems to be that we just don't get along socially with the local gc.com approver, nor do we trust him, that seemed like the most harmless way to circumvent the issue. I personally haven't had any conflicts recently, since I avoid the local forums, and haven't posted any caches lately.

I support having local approvers for most geocaches. If the offset coords for any kind of offset cache must be given up front, and the cache looks like one the approver would like to hunt, I would recommend that they ask another approver to take that one. It seems like that would help keep the laundry clean. In another thread, Keystone Approver indicated that was common practice amongst several other approvers. I think it just makes sense, and keeps it fun for everyone. Since I haven't posted any GC.com caches lately, I don't know if the local approver has changed his methods.

I do appreciate the honest, hard work that is done by the volunteers. I am not posting out of any wish to befoul anyone, but help support a solution that can improve things. I am planning to post some more cross-listings in the near future, that will be offset caches. I am hoping that the process has improved (assuming I don't get banned!).

April 9, 2005

In Montana, we have had issues with the approver that were deemed 'unfounded' by TPTB. Several of us requested access to alternate approver, but that request was never acknowledged. Since most of the issue seems to be that we just don't get along socially with the local gc.com approver, nor do we trust him, that seemed like the most harmless way to circumvent the issue. I personally haven't had any conflicts recently, since I avoid the local forums, and haven't posted any caches lately.

I support having local approvers for most geocaches. If the offset coords for any kind of offset cache must be given up front, and the cache looks like one the approver would like to hunt, I would recommend that they ask another approver to take that one. It seems like that would help keep the laundry clean. In another thread, Keystone Approver indicated that was common practice amongst several other approvers. I think it just makes sense, and keeps it fun for everyone. Since I haven't posted any GC.com caches lately, I don't know if the local approver has changed his methods.

I do appreciate the honest, hard work that is done by the volunteers. I am not posting out of any wish to befoul anyone, but help support a solution that can improve things. I am planning to post some more cross-listings in the near future, that will be offset caches. I am hoping that the process has improved (assuming I don't get banned!).

I'm in agreement with OConnellz on this one. However, before I continue I'd like to acknowledge two approvers that I've worked with who deserve huge kudos. Both mtn-man and Moun10bike have proven again and again to be friendly, intelligent, reasonable and responsive. They are wonderful examples of what an approver *should* be! Thanks to both of them!

Sadly, our local Western Montana approver is not like them. He has repeatedly proven himself to be grossly inflexible, unreasonable, abrasive and often behaves in ways that give a huge impression of favoritism and even dishonesty. He is *THE* reason why I stopped placing caches to be listed here.

April 9, 2005

I am not posting out of any wish to befoul anyone, but help support a solution that can improve things. I am planning to post some more cross-listings in the near future, that will be offset caches. I am hoping that the process has improved (assuming I don't get banned!).

No cache for you. Back of the line.

April 9, 2005

Edited April 9, 2005 by dboggny

April 9, 2005

I'd like to acknowledge two approvers that I've worked with who deserve huge kudos. Both mtn-man and Moun10bike have proven again and again to be friendly, intelligent, reasonable and responsive. They are wonderful examples of what an approver *should* be! Thanks to both of them!

Yoips! I did neglect to mention that those two have been great to deal with both in an approver position, as representatves of Geocaching.com, and in other situations.

The issues that I have with our approver are mostly outside that position, but relate to the duplicity that he demonstrates with regard to it. I really don't want to start a flame war, nor do I want to dredge up old issues. This topic came to my attention, and I felt that I could offer that we here in Montana have experienced both sides of the coin. I also wanted to bring up the possibilty of allowing that alternate route to approval, if someone felt they were getting short changed by not having any other option.

I really want to see this system be the best for everyone playing. The current system doesn't have any way to handle that, other than to appeal the initial approver's decision.

3.8k · April 9, 2005

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

Wow! I thought I was the only one who felt that way; I hate all the approvers, especially my own, Mountain Climber. His arrogance is untolerable. I have actually met a number of approvers and they all have bad breath (that's downright rude). Puppymonster is the worst; I'm not sure what he eats.

7.2k · April 9, 2005

Puppymonster is the worst; I'm not sure what he eats.

Milkbones, Dentabones, Greenies, Pedigree Joint Care tabs, Nutro Natural Choice High Energy kibbles, celery, carrots, celery, cucumbers, celery, steak scraps, mashed potatoes, peas, corn, celery, lemons, limes, pineapple, celery, chew toys, those rope knot things, ice and celery. On occasion he eats cat food, but only when he is sneaky and goes under the rope into the kitchen.

Oh, and he likes celery too.

Sometimes we give him lemons before he reviews caches and before he posts in the forums.

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

Rude And Arrogant Approvers/reviewers

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation