"reviewers" Or "approvers"

3.9k · January 22, 2006

Moderator's Note: This thread was split off from another thread started by unicyclist. To keep the other thread on topic, posts relating mainly to whether the site volunteers are "reviewers" or "approvers" have been split into this separate topic. You'll see quotes from the other thread, so sorry for any confusion.

I have always agreed with approvers so im not being negative.

A question for approvers.

What is the most common mistake that is made when placing a cache?

(ADD EXTRA QUESTIONS IF YOU LIKE)

Thanks for you work that you you do for free.

The MOST common mistake is calling the Reviewers, Approvers.

Seriously

Well this is something I ddn't know. I understand that they are reviewers, but don't they also approve the caches? I always thought the proper term was Approvers.

El Diablo

Edited January 22, 2006 by Keystone

2.3k · January 22, 2006

I have always agreed with approvers so im not being negative.

A question for approvers.

What is the most common mistake that is made when placing a cache?

(ADD EXTRA QUESTIONS IF YOU LIKE)

Thanks for you work that you you do for free.

The MOST common mistake is calling the Reviewers, Approvers.

Seriously

Well this is something I ddn't know. I understand that they are reviewers, but don't they also approve the caches? I always thought the proper term was Approvers.

El Diablo

Nope we "List caches" or "Publish" them. We do not approve them.

The name was clarified 2 years ago

we are Volunteer Cache Reviewers.

Edited January 22, 2006 by CO Admin

3.9k · January 22, 2006

[Nope we "List caches" or "Publish" not approve

The name was clarified 2 years ago

we are Volunteer Cache Reviewers.

Thanks for the clarification. Reviewers it is from now on!

Everyone support their Reviewers!

El Diablo

24.7k · January 22, 2006

[Nope we "List caches" or "Publish" not approve

The name was clarified 2 years ago

we are Volunteer Cache Reviewers.

Thanks for the clarification. Reviewers it is from now on!

Everyone support their Reviewers!

El Diablo

I looked up Reviewer. It said "See Approver".

Go figure.

2.5k · January 22, 2006

If you review caches, wouldn't you look at them after they are published? :lol:

Edited January 22, 2006 by Airmapper

3.9k · January 22, 2006

If you review caches, woulden't you look at them after they are published?

No.

We review the listing before it gets published. We let the community look at and review the cache itself.

9.4k · January 22, 2006

If you review caches, wouldn't you look at them after they are published?

Yes, when a cacher brings it to the reviewer's attention (SBA log, email, etc)

January 22, 2006

Please accept the fact that the proper term is "reviewers" rather than "approvers." It is not that big of a deal. If you would like to debate the difference between the two words, please open another thread. I will be happy to respond there.

Not to put too fine a point on it and go terribly OT, but it seems that the position is actually reviewer/approver, hence the following:

This cache has not been approved yet. Once it is approved, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

To review something you do not necessarily have to take action on it as it is more of a passive term.

You may move this to a new thread if you desire.

9.4k · January 22, 2006

Please accept the fact that the proper term is "reviewers" rather than "approvers." It is not that big of a deal. If you would like to debate the difference between the two words, please open another thread. I will be happy to respond there.

Not to put too fine a point on it and go terribly OT, but it seems that the position is actually reviewer/approver, hence the following:

This cache has not been approved yet. Once it is approved, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

To review something you do not necessarily have to take action on it as it is more of a passive term.

You may move this to a new thread if you desire.

The term "approve" was stricken since it give the impression that the reviewer approved of the cache. It may be semantics to some, but the term "reviewer" is far more accurate, since all they are doing is reviewing the cache listing for adherance to the guidelines, and not the cache itself.

9.4k · January 22, 2006

Admittedly there are still a lot of places where approve is listed but it will be changed. Reviewer is definitely more apt.

January 22, 2006

I guess they will review it but may not approve placement of the cache

3.9k · January 22, 2006

I guess I got it from Keystone Approver. I notice now now it's just Keystone.

El Diablo

January 22, 2006

I guess I got it from Keystone Approver. I notice now now it's just Keystone.

El Diablo

Keystone's email is still keystoneapprover@yahoo.com... on his profile anyway...

(this post is just to help stamp out the word 'approver' site-wide and in no way should be construed as a personal attack or angsty post in any way.)

3.9k · January 22, 2006

Please accept the fact that the proper term is "reviewers" rather than "approvers." It is not that big of a deal. If you would like to debate the difference between the two words, please open another thread. I will be happy to respond there.

Not to put too fine a point on it and go terribly OT, but it seems that the position is actually reviewer/approver, hence the following:

This cache has not been approved yet. Once it is approved, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

To review something you do not necessarily have to take action on it as it is more of a passive term.

You may move this to a new thread if you desire.

The term "approve" was stricken since it give the impression that the reviewer approved of the cache. It may be semantics to some, but the term "reviewer" is far more accurate, since all they are doing is reviewing the cache listing for adherance to the guidelines, and not the cache itself.

Not meaning to split hairs...but who actually approves the caches for publication?

El Diablo

21.9k · January 22, 2006

Not meaning to split hairs...but who actually approves the caches for publication?

El Diablo

The cache owner.

9.4k · January 22, 2006

Not meaning to split hairs...but who actually approves the caches for publication?

El Diablo

The cache owner.

Yep! The geocacher, by posting a listing, says "I [username] approve this cache."

3.9k · January 22, 2006

Spiliting hairs again. I submit a cache for publication, it is the reviewed by a "Reviewer". Is the "Reviwer" then not approving the cache?

LOl....not even sure why we are talking about this. Reviewers, or Apporvers...they are great!

El Diablo

9.4k · January 22, 2006

Spiliting hairs again. I submit a cache for publication, it is the reviewed by a "Reviewer". Is the "Reviwer" then not approving the cache?

They publish caches. A newspaper publishes an editorial but it doesn't mean they approve of it.

January 22, 2006

I believe there's a quote that applies here..

"A rose by any other name is still a rose."

Someone that "approves" the listing of a cache is still an approver, no matter what name you wish to call him/her.

3.9k · January 22, 2006

Point taken. I hope they don't approve of all the caches published.

From now on i'll call them Reviewers. Congratulations to you for putting together such a great team of "Reviewers"!

El Diablo

Edit for spelling.

Edited January 22, 2006 by El Diablo

9.4k · January 22, 2006

Someone that "approves" the listing of a cache is still an approver, no matter what name you wish to call him/her.

Lots of people disagree with you so I don't think it is as clear cut as that.

1.4k · January 22, 2006

Can a reviewer disable a cache? (tongue planted deep into cheek)

Edited January 22, 2006 by zoltig

January 22, 2006

I think this all comes down to one word "responsibilty".

3.9k · January 22, 2006

I think this all comes down to one word "responsibilty".

Yes, and they are a responsible group. However we can't call them "Responsibiliters" since it's not even a word. We'll have to stick to "Reviewers".

El Diablo

Edited January 22, 2006 by El Diablo

24.7k · January 22, 2006

In this case it doesn't matter what the approvers or TPTB think. My money is on the simple fact that you can use them interchangably in the forums and people know what you are talking about.

Approvers came into common usage long before someone thought to start correcting everone to use the term reviewer. There is a fair chance that the term approvers was used before reviewer in the forum. If the forum search feature worked that could be verified. It also wouldn't suprise me if the term approver was coined before the term reviewer to describe the same job.

Approvers approve caches. Reviewers publish listings. It's sixes unless you are a lawyer.

24.7k · January 22, 2006

Not meaning to split hairs...but who actually approves the caches for publication?

El Diablo

The cache owner.

Then why do I need a reviewer?

3.9k · January 22, 2006

Not meaning to split hairs...but who actually approves the caches for publication?

El Diablo

The cache owner.

Then why do I need a reviewer?

So you don't hide Library caches!

Back on topic. I can see why Groundspeak wants to move from "Approvers" to "Reviewers" Theyu just review the cache for publication, not approve of it.

I don't blame them. There are so many lame caches out there, I wouldn't appore of them either.

El Diablo

24.7k · January 22, 2006

...Back on topic. I can see why Groundspeak wants to move from "Approvers" to "Reviewers" Theyu just review the cache for publication, not approve of it....

Legally I see the reason as well. It's the same reason I will not give you an estimate. What I will give you is an opinion of probable cost. To which you would say "oh an estimate"...

January 22, 2006

Not meaning to split hairs...but who actually approves the caches for publication?

El Diablo

The cache owner.

Then why do I need a reviewer?

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...."

January 22, 2006

Our reviewer is also an approver.

Prime Approver, to be exact...

3.9k · January 22, 2006

If you put a bit more focus on the listing, and not the container, it makes a lot more sense.

3.9k · January 22, 2006

...Back on topic. I can see why Groundspeak wants to move from "Approvers" to "Reviewers" Theyu just review the cache for publication, not approve of it....

Legally I see the reason as well. It's the same reason I will not give you an estimate. What I will give you is an opinion of probable cost. To which you would say "oh an estimate"...

RK, once again you are looking for black helicopters.

El Diablo

January 22, 2006

wow, my head hurts. :lol:

GC.com has some good lawyers to help cover themselves in case of something bad happening.

Reviewer it is.

2.3k · January 22, 2006

They publish caches.

If they publish caches shouldn't they be called publishers? <_<

2.1k · January 22, 2006

Back on topic. I can see why Groundspeak wants to move from "Approvers" to "Reviewers" Theyu just review the cache for publication, not approve of it.

I agree with this statement. Reviewer is consistent with their primary mission of "listing" caches. Approver was a misnomer that might give someone the wrong impression of who is responsible for individual caches. Approver was not a good choice for the name of the reviewer function and it is being corrected now. Cache "owner" on the other hand is a good choice for the name of the cache placer.

7.2k · January 22, 2006

Neither "reviewer" nor "approver" fit their definitions unless you limit the definition to the listing being published. You'd have to visit the actual locations in order to either "review" or "approve" the actual cache.

If you consider an "approver" as "someone who approves" and use the term "approves" in the context of only the listing and the apt definition is "2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction" ~AHD Then the term absolutely fits.

However, the definition of "reviewer" does not imply any authority to publish the listing. The most common term of reviewer actually fits the cache finder as the log/feedback is a mini review. I wouldn't say a finder is also a critic because of the underlying fear of retaliation, though some do actually critique in a cache logs.

"Publisher" wouldn't work because Groundspeak is the publisher.

"Editor" is not right though some reviewers have suggested changes to cache pages. Does that mean the cache owner and the reviewer then share the copyright?

Actually, the term "moderator" as short for "Listing Moderator" would probably be a better term. It fits better into the legal and technical scheme if you consider the cache listing script as a specialized forum. Each cache owner is their own OP and the logs are responses to each OP.

In fact, you could use forum software to list caches if you wanted. It would be limited to text only and none of the specialized tools would be there. The point is listing a cache is very similar to writing your opening post.

While the term doesn't exactly fit as there is little debate or discussion in listing caches what we are really doing is talking to each other through our caches. We list a cache and others respond.

Another advantage is newbies should already be familiar with the term "moderator." An outsider might see the term "reviewer" as the rest of the world and wonder where to find the reviews the reviewer has written.

In short, (too late) if you had to choose between the two, "reviewer" is not the better term, that would have to be "approver."

Still, "reviewer" is what Groundspeak wants to call their cache moderators so that is what I'm going to call them.

January 22, 2006

Somehow, "The Golden Orb of Reviewal Happiness" just doesn't have the same ring to it: <_<

Profile for Prime Approver:

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=82...09-cf1af70fc628

January 22, 2006

How about "Reprover"... I like the way it sounds... can we call them reprovers, or would that be inappropriate. Although I also like "bob" its very general and covers everything.

Did you get your cache bob'd?

Yes, the reprover did bob my cache.

1.4k · January 22, 2006

I look at it this way the VCR's look at the information that I/we provide with the pending cache listing to see if it follows the current guidelines. They REVIEW the cache listing information to determine if the cache has been placed in accordance with the current listing guidelines.

January 22, 2006

I think this all comes down to one word "responsibilty".

Yes, and they are a responsible group. However we can't call them "Responsibiliters" since it's not even a word. We'll have to stick to "Reviewers".

El Diablo

El Diablo has just invented a new word! HUZZAHHH! <_<

Actually I think what they are saying is that the "reviewers" are more like newspaper Editors, they are checking for spelling, accuracy, and compliance with rules and regulations. They have no control over if the cache will stay or go, they are only making sure it fits the criteria to be "published" on the web site.

Am I correct in this thinking?

2.7k · January 22, 2006

Sounds like its near some RAIL tracks.

They Review Approve Its Listed.

And if we get it wrong then its simply DERAILED.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Tahosa and Sons

January 22, 2006

Why won't that darned horse, get up . . . kick it again!

Since reviewers CAN disapprove cache listings, can we call them disapprovers . . . the opposite of which is approver of the listing (NOT the cache).

Peculiar, if they can disapprove but can not approve, that they must be called reviewers that publish cache listings. A strange twist of semantics.

Thi is fun, keep it going!

January 22, 2006

Found another place where the "A" word is used, presented just FYI and without angst for TPTB to review:

"This is an automated message from Geocaching.com

This is a short note to let you know we have received the following cache for review:

[snip]

Listings are reviewed by volunteers. Normally it will be reviewed within 36-72 hours. In the meantime if you wish to edit your cache listing, you can use the above URL or use the waypoint name GCT486. You will need to login first in order to see your cache until it has been approved."

(emphasis mine.)

If I am the approver, why do I need to wait until it has been approved? I already approved it. So I propose that the last line of this message should change to "...until it has been published."

-mark

aka "Hugh Jazz"

Edited January 22, 2006 by Hugh Jazz

9.4k · January 22, 2006

Since reviewers CAN disapprove cache listings, can we call them disapprovers . . . the opposite of which is approver of the listing (NOT the cache).

They retract listings. There is no disapprove log type.

9.4k · January 22, 2006

Found another place where the "A" word is used, presented just FYI and without angst for TPTB to review:

Thanks. As I said before there are a few places where approve still needs to be changed to review. I'll actually have a patch shortly that fixes this.

1.3k · January 22, 2006

I review of the term approver.

No, wait.. I approve of the term reviewer. Nope, not interchangeable. <_<

2.7k · January 22, 2006

Approver insinuates that more was done to list the cache thean to just check it for spelling errors and glance at a map on the internet <_< . If I was new to Geocaching I could easliy make the mistake in thinking that approvers get approval from the land owner before listing my caches.

24.7k · January 22, 2006

...Back on topic. I can see why Groundspeak wants to move from "Approvers" to "Reviewers" Theyu just review the cache for publication, not approve of it....

Legally I see the reason as well. It's the same reason I will not give you an estimate. What I will give you is an opinion of probable cost. To which you would say "oh an estimate"...

RK, once again you are looking for black helicopters.

El Diablo

If you need help email me and I'll explain it.

24.7k · January 22, 2006

They publish caches.

If they publish caches shouldn't they be called publishers?

Or Listers.

January 22, 2006

Someone that "approves" the listing of a cache is still an approver, no matter what name you wish to call him/her.

Lots of people disagree with you so I don't think it is as clear cut as that.

Disagree if you like. But changing the name is very vogue and has been for a number of years. If you don't like how something sounds change the name. Still the same thing with a different name.

So! what does a "reviewer" do? He/she either approves the listing of a cache or he/she disapproves the listing of a cache, right?

I wonder how many other names we can come up with for the same activity.

"reviewers" Or "approvers"

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