Publish Reviewer Appeal Decisions?

[+TMBFamily]

I just had an idea. The way things work now the reviewers debate the rules in their private forum. What if we made it resemble the way the supreme court works?

 

If an issue comes up that the reviewers think needs to be considered then we have a short discussion where the aggreived parties make their cases. Right now this occurs between the reviewer and the cache owner. The reviewers still deliberate in private, but when they come to a decision the ruling is handed down for public display. It seems to me this would lead to a lot less whining in the forums because a reviewer could just point the ruling when an owner appeals a decision. Maybe there is something like this that new reviewers get to see. And maybe I'm just stupid and this exists somewhere on the site already. The FAQ doesn't quite make it: still too general in most cases, plus it's too hard to link to. I'm thinking the rulings would be in the "about" directory on geocaching.com. It doesn't need to muddle up the guidelines at all, but could be linked from there.

 

Yeah, I know another stupid idea that wants to be in the giant "to do" bin.

[+StarBrand]

I just had an idea. The way things work now the reviewers debate the rules in their private forum. What if we made it resemble the way the supreme court works?

 

If an issue comes up that the reviewers think needs to be considered then we have a short discussion where the aggreived parties make their cases. Right now this occurs between the reviewer and the cache owner. The reviewers still deliberate in private, but when they come to a decision the ruling is handed down for public display. It seems to me this would lead to a lot less whining in the forums because a reviewer could just point the ruling when an owner appeals a decision. Maybe there is something like this that new reviewers get to see. And maybe I'm just stupid and this exists somewhere on the site already. The FAQ doesn't quite make it: still too general in most cases, plus it's too hard to link to. I'm thinking the rulings would be in the "about" directory on geocaching.com. It doesn't need to muddle up the guidelines at all, but could be linked from there.

 

Yeah, I know another stupid idea that wants to be in the giant "to do" bin.

 

And soon the guidelines (and associated rulings) would resemble the federal tax code and require a degree in something to understand.....

[+TMBFamily]

 

And soon the guidelines (and associated rulings) would resemble the federal tax code and require a degree in something to understand.....

Yeah, it's a pipe dream I know. But the guidelines wouldn't be affected at all. It seems to me the reviewers must get tired of explaining the same things over and over again in the forums and in reviewer notes to disgruntled cache owners. Just trying to think of a way to help everyone out.

[+Renegade Knight]

 

And soon the guidelines (and associated rulings) would resemble the federal tax code and require a degree in something to understand.....

Yeah, it's a pipe dream I know. But the guidelines wouldn't be affected at all. It seems to me the reviewers must get tired of explaining the same things over and over again in the forums and in reviewer notes to disgruntled cache owners. Just trying to think of a way to help everyone out.

It's not a pipe dream. It's actually been mentioned by Jeremy. Perhaps not in your exact format. It's also in the plans for another site.

 

StarBrand is assuming that "geocourt" would make rules. They don't. They would just intrepret the guideliens, or find when the guidelines should have the flexibilit ythat make them guidelines instead of rules. Case law is a legal thing, not a geocaching thing.

[Keystone]

TMBFamily, that is a good question to ask, and I wonder if this might merit a separate thread? I can split it off for you if you'd like. If you agree, PM me or authorize this in a posted reply.

 

In the meantime here are some observations:

 

1. The vast majority of the caches that we debate in our Reviewer Forum are never debated here in the Groundspeak Forums. We are talking about a volume of several situations each and every day. Someone would have to take the time to turn a forum thread into a formal "opinion summary." That would be time consuming. It is better, perhaps, to just follow the current guidelines and ask questions if something is unclear.

 

2. Opinions get stale as the guidelines change and the game evolves. There are a lot of threads in the Reviewers' Forum about whether a virtual cache has "wow factor" and whether a webcam picture is too blurry. They are all irrelevant now. It is better, perhaps, to go with the current guidelines.

 

3. The results of our discussions in the Reviewer Forum are reflected here in the public forum on an ongoing basis through posts made by the site volunteers. If there is something new, we are happy to share that interpretation with everyone if it becomes a topic of discussion.

 

4. I worry that geocachers might be shy about exercising their appeal rights if they knew the results would be made public in a forum summary. Even if the name of the cache, the owner and the location weren't disclosed, someone in the cache owner's home area may say "Hey! They're talking about such and such a cache that just got listed here." Some folks are shy about the forums. We are able to resolve the vast majority of questions quietly, and often to the mutual satisfaction of the owner and the reviewer.

 

5. Many of the situations we discuss are very fact-specific and involve unusual ideas. If it was a cut and dried case, the reviewer wouldn't need to ask for a second opinion. Knowing about those one-off caches is of limited value since one cache doesn't serve as precedent for another -- there is very often a distinguishing difference.

 

6. In the Reviewer Forum, it is often necessary to discuss secret information about a cache. Suppose the issue was a creative hiding technique at stage 4 of a multicache. We then discuss the hiding technique. The cache owner won't want that information to be given away in a public summary.

 

7. No, the reviewers don't get tired of explaining the same thing over and over again. That is our job. Many of us use standardized form letters for the different issues that typically arise, which we then customize to fit the individual cache situation. The majority of questions are resolved on the basis of just one communication each way. Often it is just a matter of pointing out a guideline that was overlooked, and once the owner reads the guideline, they modify the cache to fit the guideline. We like offering suggestions that can help make that happen. We like to list new caches, we like it a lot.

[Keystone]

It's not a pipe dream. It's actually been mentioned by Jeremy. Perhaps not in your exact format. It's also in the plans for another site.

Yes, we are considering at least one alternative way to help the community understand and work within the listing guidelines. Thanks for reminding me of the prior discussions on that point.

[+TMBFamily]

TMBFamily, that is a good question to ask, and I wonder if this might merit a separate thread? I can split it off for you if you'd like. If you agree, PM me or authorize this in a posted reply.

 

That's fine with me if you think it's a good idea.

 

I certainly didn't mean to have you issue something for every decision. Just for those that end up clarifiying a guideline in general or a change in interpretation. If you have a form letter for a situation it might help interested parties to see it before they place the cache. I guess I'm really just talking about a formal place to put all of these instead of having to hunt in the forums.

[Keystone]

Thanks, TMBFamily. I think your idea will be discussed by more people in a new thread than if it stayed buried in a thread about cache saturation. So, I split it off into this new topic.

 

In your post just above this one, you describe a more specific version of your suggestion which is a bit closer to something we've been discussing.

 

Also I wanted to mention that a lot of our form letters mainly just quote the relevant guideline and provide a link to it, plus the reviewer's contact information and instructions on how to follow up. I don't know if they provide brilliant new insight.

[+LaPaglia]

TMBFamily, that is a good question to ask, and I wonder if this might merit a separate thread? I can split it off for you if you'd like.  If you agree, PM me or authorize this in a posted reply.

 

That's fine with me if you think it's a good idea.

 

I certainly didn't mean to have you issue something for every decision. Just for those that end up clarifiying a guideline in general or a change in interpretation. If you have a form letter for a situation it might help interested parties to see it before they place the cache. I guess I'm really just talking about a formal place to put all of these instead of having to hunt in the forums.

The main problem in something like that is the fact that we treat each cache on a Case by Case basis. So it might be hard to develop a form that would work. But the idea has some merit.

[Sadie]

Now thast this is a seperate thread...

 

Before going into the reasons that the guidlines are incomplete as to why the list of exceptions are not more eloabrate, should we first

 

My ideas on the main reasons caches are placed too close.

 

1) Cacher doesn't know the other cache was there.

- Premium member only cache nearby and cacher isn't premium member. That's understandable

- Part of a multi the cacher has not completed yet.

- Cacher did not check prior to placement.

 

2) Cacher knew the other cache was there

- forgot.

- didn't care. Guidelines are for other folks.

- thought it should be good enough.

 

What other reasons are there?

Cache is too close because the guidelines do not suffeciently elaborate on the conditions that allow it? I'm not sure about that one.

[+LaPaglia]

Now thast this is a seperate thread...

 

Before going into the reasons that the guidlines are incomplete as to why the list of exceptions are not more eloabrate, should we first

 

My ideas on the main reasons caches are placed too close.

 

1) Cacher doesn't know the other cache was there.

- Premium member only cache nearby and cacher isn't premium member. That's understandable

- Part of a multi the cacher has not completed yet.

- Cacher did not check prior to placement.

 

2) Cacher knew the other cache was there

- forgot.

- didn't care. Guidelines are for other folks.

- thought it should be good enough.

 

What other reasons are there?

Cache is too close because the guidelines do not suffeciently elaborate on the conditions that allow it? I'm not sure about that one.

Im sorry but I dont understand what point you are trying to make.

[Sadie]

- deleted quote -

Im sorry but I dont understand what point you are trying to make.

The reason this started is because a cacher did not have the cache approved because the guideline was "too vague". Based on the other thread, the cache was about 400 feet away.

 

I was listing the reasons why a cacher would place a cache near another cache. Am I wrong in the assumption that this is the reason this discussion started?

 

As I think about it, perhaps this debate should be over the use "arbitrary". It seems pretty common that folks misunderstand it's usage and it is constantly having to be explained.

 

If the guideline said "Although there is no specific technical reason for this distance, .10 mile (528 feet) does make a good seperation between caches to prevent saturation" or something like that.

[+LaPaglia]

- deleted quote -

Im sorry but I dont understand what point you are trying to make.

The reason this started is because a cacher did not have the cache approved because the guideline was "too vague". Based on the other thread, the cache was about 400 feet away.

 

I was listing the reasons why a cacher would place a cache near another cache. Am I wrong in the assumption that this is the reason this discussion started?

 

As I think about it, perhaps this debate should be over the use "arbitrary". It seems pretty common that folks misunderstand it's usage and it is constantly having to be explained.

 

If the guideline said "Although there is no specific technical reason for this distance, .10 mile (528 feet) does make a good seperation between caches to prevent saturation" or something like that.

Since it was split from the other thread it is no longer about any one thread. Thanks for clearing your post up for me.

[+Polgara]

I think this should have its own forum, where the only topics that could be posted are the ongoing appeals. People can post their views, and the reviewers can consider the opinions, some cachers can be very inventive, and might be able to offer suggestions to help a cache placement work out in the end.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

-Pol

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

That's not a bad idea Pol. I don't think it warrants much more than it's own forum. I just don't see the need for all the angst about caches being published. Just make whatever changes the reviewer requires and move on. Do we really need a "geocourt" and protracted "cases" that are to be debated? I see this as constant arguments about why I should be able to place my cache 400 feet from another, or why the 50 foot distance from the railroad tracks really seems a lot farther than that. Is it really that important?!?

 

Even if the reviewer was wrong (which I think happens WAY less than people complain about) big deal. He'll publish your next 10 and all will be right with the universe.

[+Moose Mob]

The concept is great, kind of like court TV except the audience gets to sound off.

[+TMBFamily]

I was hoping this might be a way to clear up other disagreements faster by having a history to look at. I didn't want to drag things out longer, but I do see the point. What I really thought we needed was a concentrated source of elaborations on the guidelines. The "court" thing just struck me because of the parallels with the reviewers as judges. Whether the "angst" is justified or not, it exists and this might be a way to let people move on faster if they see it's all been done before.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The thing is though, the reviewers aren't "judges". They can be reasoned with and will even suggest ways to get your cache to fit the guidelines so it can be approved. After all, reviewers are cachers too. They want more caches to hunt in their area.