Jump to content

Did You Get Your Approver - Or Not?


klaus23

Recommended Posts

I'm Klaus23 from Ireland.

 

The community here is currently in discussion to establish if there are wants and needs for dedicated, Irish-resident approvers/moderators - ideally two candidates, one based within the Republic of Ireland and another within Northern Ireland (still under British jurisdiction) - but with both interacting, and treating the island of Ireland as a geographical entity.

 

Ireland (north and south) is currently moderated by two administrators based in Britain. I am not calling their performance into question, as they have done a superb job. There is just a growing feeling that members within our community that a locally based and focused admin might be better.

 

I am looking to hear from communities worldwide who may have proceeded in a similar manner such as we would be hoping to do in the future.

 

Ideally, you would have had a small community in your state/country to begin, followed by a growing but focused community, with the establishment of an association/forum group/local website, and then would have approached Groundspeak and made a representation on why you felt that the community in your area wanted or needed a dedicated approver.

 

I would be interested to hear from you.

 

If you do not want to air your views in this thread, please feel free to e-mail me through my profile. I also have MSN IM (listed on my profile) should you wish to use that medium. Please e-mail me first through my profile to advise you have added me as a contact.

 

Also, this thread is not a venue for anti-Groundspeak/current approver/The Frog/whatever else diatribe. I am looking for mature and focused discussion. If you have had negative experiences and are posting in response to this thread please be concise and importantly... caaaalm :o

Edited by klaus23
Link to comment

I guess this is something new. I didn't know the customers got to decide when a company hires new employees; and who they hire.

 

All the threads here I've seen about new reviewers say when Groundspeak feels they need a new reviewer they will pick someone.

Link to comment

I think where you are headed is where things need to be. The only question is how to interface the listing sites with the approvers that local organizations would like to see.

 

Some problems and pitfalls. First if the approver proves to be unable to do the job the listing site (and local group) needs to be able to remove them from the job.

 

Next if the local organization falls out of favor and another one is created which one is legitmate? Will approvers be willing to work for all lisitng sites or just the one they like?

 

There are other issues but those are a start for discussions sake.

Link to comment
Some problems and pitfalls. First if the approver proves to be unable to do the job the listing site (and local group) needs to be able to remove them from the job.

 

 

I guess if discussions were opened with Groundspeak the community would propose a candidate which would have to be agreed upon by the powers that be. Or in reverse, Groundspeak (or the current admins) highlight a person who they feel could carry out the task. If both parties cannot agree on a suitable candidate, the discussion would unfortunately have to be shelved until such a person can be found.

 

Next if the local organization falls out of favor and another one is created which one is legitmate?  Will approvers be willing to work for all lisitng sites or just the one they like?

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean but I'll interpret the point and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

The current local organisation is a group that evolved from a mailing list into a website and fully fledged forums. Most of the current members of this forum are active cachers based in Ireland and represent, at an estimate, 60% of the community. The other active cachers are aware of the forums and the site but, as they are free to do, keep themselves to themselves.

 

I would dare to say that Ireland is too small to sustain another local focus group, but let's assume that two admins were elected after discussion with Groundspeak. A split develops between the current site and a group set up another focus group/seperate website. At this point, should they have objections to the elected admins it would have to go through Groundspeak, as these things currently do.

 

There is, at present, no alternative cache listing site for Ireland, and there are no caches in the county listed on Navicache or Terracaching, or any other sites that I am aware of.

Link to comment
Can someone else add something more constructive and importantly, directly relevant to the questions I have posed. (referring to Mopar)

Helpful link

 

Volunteer cache reviewers (the PC term for "approvers") are added when needed, as demonstrated by a long-term trend of lots of new caches being hidden. We don't staff for the peaks or the valleys, but for the average. So, sometimes you'll see delays, like around holidays and after weekends with good weather. Other times you'll see the new caches listed within 24 hours.

 

Helpful link

Reviewers cover territory based on the volume of caches hidden. It would make no sense for North Dakota or Bolivia to have dedicated cache reviewers, because not very many caches are hidden there each week. When geocaching activity in a particular area gets busy enough, whoever is covering approvals will holler for help and, as a long term solution, a new volunteer will be brought on board.

First the need is identified. "Hey! There are so many new caches popping up in Peru that I can't deal with the volume. People are complaining about the delays in getting their caches listed."

 

If the problem cannot be addressed among the existing group of volunteers, then Hydee will coordinate the selection process for a new reviewer. She asks for ideas from the other reviewers about candidates. We discuss the merits of each candidate: their record of hides and finds, their helpfulness in the forums, involvement in any regional geocaching association or in dealings with land managers, etc. Eventually we reach a consensus. The new candidate is then invited to join the frog clan, after one last step.

 

I'm not saying your idea is good or bad; I'm saying as far as I know that's not how things are done here. You don't get to decide you need a new reviewer and who you want. Groundspeak does.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

There's been a grand total of 45 caches submitted thus far in 2005 for all of Ireland. Most reviewers handle that many in an average WEEK, and in some places, 45 caches is called "Monday."

 

Based solely on volume, I am not sure I see the issue here, especially as you say you're getting good service from the very capable volunteers based just across the Irish Sea.

 

I won't comment on anything other than volume of caches, a statistic readily available, as I know nothing of the local situation in Ireland, land manager relations, and so forth. All's I know is that I'd like to return someday to the land of my ancestors and FIND those caches, regardless of which volunteer reviews them! My last trip to Ireland was just before geocaching was born.

Link to comment

Look, I've done my homework already and have done searches before posting this and yes, I have read those threads.

 

Without wanting to get too specific, there is a quote from someone in the first linked thread that reads:

 

he approvers are volunteers who have a lot of knowledge about caching and any special regulations in their area

 

What if the approvers in my area had no knowledge of specialist regulations in my country as they live and cache in a different one, had no contact whatsoever with local heritage/environmental/government bodies and organisations in my country?

 

AND

 

had also approval rights over an area where a situation akin to civil war existed up to 1994 and where tensions are still bubbling. Cache placement in parts of Northern Ireland could be very sensitive indeed, and the authorisations are best left to a local person aware of local sensitivites.

 

(edited for clarification - the above point is not the main issue at hand. It is one of several which I chose to highlight)

Edited by klaus23
Link to comment

Forgive Mopar. He means well, he's just grumpy :o

 

He is correct. Groundspeak makes these decisions. It is a private listing company. However, due to the unique nature of geocaching, it seems that locals would have more say than they do. Of course, locals have plenty of say - they just don't get to select approvers.

 

There are several sides to the arguement:

 

1) a local will know more about the local caching scene. I agree this is probably true in many cases but not every case.

 

2) Locals should be approvers. An approver should come from outside of an area so everybody in the area has a "fair" chance at finding the caches. Approvers might cheat if they approved a cache in their area (especially multi and/or puzzle types).

 

3) Groundspeak is a company and will do what is in the best interest of the game (and consequently their finances). They know what they're doing - be patient and they'll take care of it.

 

If there's a legitimate need for more approvers, Groundspeak will add more. They just might not be the people you think they should be. This of course has caused a bit of friction among regions and Groundspeak in the past. I'm sure it will continue to do so. It does seem that for the most part the way they are currently doing things has been successful in most (if not all) situations.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
There's been a grand total of 45 caches submitted thus far in 2005 for all of Ireland. Most reviewers handle that many in an average WEEK, and in some places, 45 caches is called "Monday."

 

Based solely on volume, I am not sure I see the issue here, especially as you say you're getting good service from the very capable volunteers based just across the Irish Sea.

I appreciate your position on the volume aspect. You're right, there's not a lot happening compared to other locations on the planet. I also appreciate that this is the only information that you have to hand and that this criteria (volume) is used in many areas as a factor in determining that another approver is needed.

 

But there are other reasons why some of us feel that a local approver is needed and why we would, in the future and after internal discussions and discussions with the admins in Britain, like to have a formal discussion with Groundspeak on the matter.

 

Again, I highlight that this is not an attempt to underline the status quo, and I am really looking for experiences that people had in this situation previously. The thread is not meant to be following a "we're looking for an approver" agenda.

Link to comment
But there are other reasons why some of us feel that a local approver is needed and why we would, in the future and after internal discussions and discussions with the admins in Britain, like to have a formal discussion with Groundspeak on the matter.

Based on this - I would say the "General Forum" is not the place for this thread. The "Geocaching.com Website" might be more appropriate - but I feel that if this is something that British GC.com approvers have discussed with locals in your area - and are in agreement with you - this should be handled internally.

 

Emailing Hydee and/or contact@ would probably be a better way to go about this. You're VERY likely to see people start arguing the sides of the problems that are the causes of the "problems" in your country. (No offense meant).

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
Based on this - I would say the "General Forum" is not the place for this thread.  The "Geocaching.com Website" might be more appropriate - but I feel that if this is something that British GC.com approvers have discussed with locals in your area - and are in agreement with you - this should be handled internally.

 

Hang on... this is not what is being discussed here. I am looking to hear from people who have already gone through this process - and not looking to go through it just yet.

 

We (I initially, then another community member) approached the British approvers but were rebuffed. However, my initial approach was a simple query rejected on volume levels, and the second ended in semantics and dissection of individual caches, and neither were very productive.

 

Emailing Hydee and/or contact@ would probably be a better way to go about this

 

Which will be done, in time.

 

You're VERY likely to see people start arguing the sides of the problems that are the causes of the "problems" in your country. (No offense meant).

 

I know what you mean, and I am not going to encourage discussion on the matter, and hope others do not follow this path. However, a reason I chose to post here was because this area of the forums are frequented by US cachers who's immediate focus on the issue I am highlighting would not be political.

Link to comment
Based on this - I would say the "General Forum" is not the place for this thread.  The "Geocaching.com Website" might be more appropriate - but I feel that if this is something that British GC.com approvers have discussed with locals in your area - and are in agreement with you - this should be handled internally.

 

Hang on... this is not what is being discussed here. I am looking to hear from people who have already gone through this process - and not looking to go through it just yet.

I don't think you are going to find the answers you want here.

Since to the best of my knowledge Groundspeak doesn't add reviewers in the manner and for the reasons you suggest; I don't think there is anyone that can relate the experience you want to hear about.

Link to comment
Based on this - I would say the "General Forum" is not the place for this thread.  The "Geocaching.com Website" might be more appropriate - but I feel that if this is something that British GC.com approvers have discussed with locals in your area - and are in agreement with you - this should be handled internally.

 

Hang on... this is not what is being discussed here. I am looking to hear from people who have already gone through this process - and not looking to go through it just yet.

I don't think you are going to find the answers you want here.

Since to the best of my knowledge Groundspeak doesn't add reviewers in the manner and for the reasons you suggest; I don't think there is anyone that can relate the experience you want to hear about.

The local approver discussion does come up in the forums every now and then. It's a good topic, and while it might be worth discussing it in other forums on other listing sites, if you want feedback, this forum is king.

Link to comment
Based on this - I would say the "General Forum" is not the place for this thread.  The "Geocaching.com Website" might be more appropriate - but I feel that if this is something that British GC.com approvers have discussed with locals in your area - and are in agreement with you - this should be handled internally.

 

Hang on... this is not what is being discussed here. I am looking to hear from people who have already gone through this process - and not looking to go through it just yet.

 

We (I initially, then another community member) approached the British approvers but were rebuffed. However, my initial approach was a simple query rejected on volume levels, and the second ended in semantics and dissection of individual caches, and neither were very productive.

I realized that after I posted, but was too lazy to go back and edit my post before people replied. As far as I know, there have NOT been any people who have selected their approver.

 

Of course, after reading this furthur - you intitially asked on volume. If the second issue was THE issue, why not approach on that? It seems like you just want another approver, while that may not be the case.

 

[
You're VERY likely to see people start arguing the sides of the problems that are the causes of the "problems" in your country. (No offense meant).

 

I know what you mean, and I am not going to encourage discussion on the matter, and hope others do not follow this path. However, a reason I chose to post here was because this area of the forums are frequented by US cachers who's immediate focus on the issue I am highlighting would not be political.

 

Apparantly you do not know Americans that well. Just because people don't live in your area (or even your country) doesn't mean this won't become polarized. Trust me on this.

 

sd

Link to comment

I looked back a little further then KA. There have been 107 new caches in the past YEAR. Many US states get that many new caches during a nice weekend. I think it's safe to say the UK reviewers can handle the volume of reviewing 1 cache a week apiece. So workload isn't an issue. That brings us to your other points from earlier in the thread:

What if the approvers in my area had no knowledge of specialist regulations in my country as they live and cache in a different one, had no contact whatsoever with local heritage/environmental/government bodies and organizations in my country?

First; is this actually the case?

Second; so what? As is often pointed out, GC.com is just the listing service. It is the approver's job to make sure that caches listed here meet GC.com guidelines. It isn't the approver's job to be an advocate for geocaching. It isn't their job to negotiate agreements with land managers. The fact that many approvers do just that; is quite admirable and another sign of their love of the game and their willingness to help other cachers. Since there is a local organization, THEY are the ones who should be doing all the work with the local heritage/environmental/government bodies and organizations in your country, and leave the cache reviews to the 2 people that are supposed to handle it.

No matter how good a local reviewer might be, he's not going to visit every cache first. He's going to check the coords on the maps, same as a reviewer in the UK or the US would do.

 

had also approval rights over an area where a situation akin to civil war existed up to 1994 and where tensions are still bubbling. Cache placement in parts of Northern Ireland could be very sensitive indeed, and the authorisations are best left to a local person aware of local sensitivites.

This might come across as insensitive; but... SO? The reviewers are not supposed to judge a cache based on feelings and taste; if that was the case there are thousands of caches here that would not have been approved. The reviewer is supposed to look at the cache in light of the GC.com guidelines and local law; he isn't supposed to only list what he personally thinks is a "good" cache.

Caches that meet the guidelines and local laws SHOULD be listed, no matter if someone might be offended. That's where the local org and peer pressure come in. If enough people complain they don't like the location, even if it is a "legal" spot for a cache, then they can pressure the owner to archive it.

Something just like that happened recently in Canada, and the system worked fine. The locals found the location offensive, and convinced the cache owner to remove the cache. That's how it should work.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

Apart from Mopar, who A - advocates that I will not be able to find the answers I am looking for 'here' and then B - proceeds to lecture me on what he thinks anyway (with considerable bias towards the powers that be), can anyone add something more constructive to this.

 

I'm sick of people's only argument being "that's the way it is, like it or not".

 

This topic is moving off-topic but there has been some valuable insights from people.

 

I'll leave the thread open to see how things go.

 

edited for spelling

Edited by klaus23
Link to comment
Apart from Mopar, who a) advocates that I will not be able to find the answers I am looking for 'here' and then :o proceeds to lecture me on what he thinks anyway (with considerable bias towards the powers that be), can anyone add something more constructive to this.

 

I'm sick of people's only argument being "that's the way it is, like it or not".

"Like it or not" is a valid argument, especially when dealing with a private entity such as GC.com. If you don't like the way they do things, your choices are to learn to accept it, or find someplace else. Why is that concept so hard?

I'm sure if you owned a company that was many times more successful then competing companies and someone didn't like the way you ran it you would tell them to get stuffed. I sure would.

Link to comment
  As far as I know, there have NOT been any people who have selected their approver.

 

Do you know if any people were ever able to make a valid case for a dedicated approver in their area? The selection process would take place after such a need was identified.

 

Of course, after reading this furthur - you intitially asked on volume.  If the second issue was THE issue, why not approach on that?  It seems like you just want another approver, while that may not be the case.

 

I never mentioned volume, that was added to the discussion by Keystone Approver.

 

The second issue I mentioned is one of a growing list. It was just used as a random example.

 

I don't just want another approver. There has been rational discussion on this amongst people in Ireland. It hasn't been for irrational reasons, the conversation has developed out of Irish geocaching.com members' concern for the game on their island.

This has nothing to do with autonomy or personal gain, and everything to do with the best interests of geocaching in Ireland.

 

One of the things Mopar mentioned was local laws. How can a moderator/approver be aware of local laws when they do not live in the country where these apply?

Link to comment

Okay, here's my argument.

 

I think that you have a valid basis for your argument. Here in the US, reviewers are chosen based on where they live and the area they need to cover so that they're familliar with the area. However, many times they'll cover numerous states. It's not that much different from covering the next country over when you're somewhere like Europe.

 

I don't, however, think that 107 caches in a year is even remotely enough basis to warrant two new reviewers. If the volume of caches (England or Ireland) picks up, then I would say by all means to go and request people be added.

 

At that time, you'd fire off that email to Hydee. You're welcome to suggest people for the positions, but chances are that they're going to decide based on what GC sees as good merit for a reviewer and not just take your suggestion.

Link to comment
"Like it or not" is a valid argument, especially when dealing with a private entity such as GC.com. If you don't like the way they do things, your choices are to learn to accept it, or find someplace else. Why is that concept so hard?

 

You're not listening at all, you're not reading my posts, you suffer from considerable bias and you're chastising me.

 

To date, I/we have not even started talking to gc.com about this. When this happens, we will not be speaking to you, and you will not be replying to our submission, so go and ask yourself what your flaming is trying to achieve.

 

In this thread, I have not criticised Groundspeak/Geocaching.com. I have not openly spoken about the vast majority of issues we are hoping to address. So that leaves you (without stating the obvious facts of a - you don't live on this side of the Atlantic and b - you only know 1% of the whole story) about as well-informed as Hans Blix.

 

Acceptance is one thing - but this will come once this has been discussed openly with TPTB. In YOUR opinion this is hopeless. I believe that to be nonsense.

 

I'm sure if you owned a company that was many times more successful then competing companies and someone didn't like the way you ran it you would tell them to get stuffed. I sure would.

 

Without wishing to open a book on Business Management, perhaps that's the way you would do things. In places where I have worked (and managed), contributions and suggestions from employees were not only welcomed, they were rewarded.

 

The reverse psychology is - would you work for a company where nobody listened to you. No, you would not.

 

Why not take off the blinkers and actually focus what I am trying to discuss here. I have taken note of your opinion - and repeating oneself does not make you correct.

Link to comment

One of the things Mopar mentioned was local laws. How can a moderator/approver be aware of local laws when they do not live in the country where these apply?

How does anyone know?

I understand you have the most finds in Ireland, so you are arguably the most experienced Irish geocacher in the world. Can you tell me with certainty you know every local law? Have you visited every park and piece of public land in Ireland? Have you visited every piece of ground in the country tracked down the owner and commited that owner's geocaching policy to memory? If you were the cache approver for Ireland, how would YOU know the laws, policies and guidelines?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, couldn't you, the Irish cache approver, apply those same methods to the UK, or France for instance?

Link to comment
ideally two candidates, one based within the Republic of Ireland and another within Northern Ireland (still under British jurisdiction) - but with both interacting, and treating the island of Ireland as a geographical entity.

 

No, this is not a question of politics. Absolutely not.

 

sorry, I read the original post quickly and didnt catch the part about treating Ireland as a whole.....i thought it quite dubious to seperate the reviewers into north ireland and south as they are kinda disproportionate..... :o

Link to comment
To date, I/we have not even started talking to gc.com about this. When this happens, we will not be speaking to you, and you will not be replying to our submission, so go and ask yourself what your flaming is trying to achieve.

 

And telling us that we're jackasses helps you how?

 

You weren't getting flamed.

If you read the posts you'll see that someone said this comes up once every few months, so it's an important discussion.

 

With that said, I don't get what your issue is when we say GC decides on their own when and where a new reviewer is needed. That was stated to you long ago, so beating this thread like a dead horse until we say exactly what you want to hear isn't very productive.

 

Here's an idea. You tell us what you want to hear, and then we'll tell it back to you so you can hear it. :o

Link to comment
I don't, however, think that 107 caches in a year is even remotely enough basis to warrant two new reviewers.  If the volume of caches (England or Ireland) picks up, then I would say by all means to go and request people be added. 

 

I'll quote myself:

 

I never mentioned volume, that was added to the discussion by Keystone Approver.

 

I appreciate your position on the volume aspect. You're right, there's not a lot happening compared to other locations on the planet. I also appreciate that this is the only information that you have to hand and that this criteria (volume) is used in many areas as a factor in determining that another approver is needed.

 

But there are other reasons why some of us feel that a local approver is needed (snip)

Link to comment
Can someone else add something more constructive and importantly, directly relevant to the questions I have posed. (referring to Mopar)

If I'm more then a little defensive, it's because you started with the flames right off.

The OP asked about how to choose your own reviewers and put them in power; my reply was it historically hasn't worked like that. Cant' get much more directly relevant then that.

 

Just as an aside, please don't presume to guess how much I know and understand about the UK and Ireland; you might be surprised how much I understand. The point is how much of that REALLY relates to approving geocaches.

Link to comment

Here's an idea.  You tell us what you want to hear, and then we'll tell it back to you so you can hear it.  :o

How about you read the post that started this whole thread. Does that apply to you or people in your area?

 

Thought not.

 

And Mopar...Mopar... (*sigh*)

 

This is not a coup-d'etat. I, personally, am not trying to become the Irish approver.

Link to comment
maybe there is something deeper going on here.....maybe its an israeli/palestinian kinda thing that we americans are unable to fully comprehend?!?

No, this is not a question of politics. Absolutely not.

Klaus is obviously too prudent to mention that by far most of the british citizens are not able to speak or understand the Irish language (which might be seen as a major prerequisite for reviewing a cache in that language).

 

BS/2

 

P.S.: by the way (yes Klaus, I am aware of the fact that you didn't want to hear about it, but it has to be said anyway):

We here in Austria are very happy with Erik!

Link to comment

We add reviewers on an "as needed" basis. In other words show me a need and we will discuss adding reviewers.

 

In most cases Keystone is correct the need is based on number of caches reviewed, and how labor intensive the review process is in that specific region. I have added reviewers for other reasons, but those are each on a case by case basis.

Link to comment
Klaus is obviously too prudent to mention that by far most of the british citizens are not able to speak or understand the Irish language (which might be seen as a major prerequisite for reviewing a cache in that language).

 

The Irish language (or Irish-Gaelic) is spoken fluently by less than 7% of the population.

There is also Ulster-Scots, which is recognised as a language and is spoken by less than 2% of the people on the island. To date there is not a single cache page written in the either language in Ireland.

 

Language, I'm afraid, does not enter into the discussion.

Link to comment

This is what I was hoping to hear. Cheers Hydee.

 

'We' do expect to make a case at an undetermined point in the future.

 

The point of this thread was to see if anyone had been in the situation that 'we' feel we are in, where a community feels the need for a local approver. I do realise that in US terms, Ireland is not exactly busy in cache volume, and that this is the prime reason for adding an approver.

 

Since I now have a response from two people at Groundspeak, I am still hoping to speak to someone who has been in this situation before, to see if we even have a solid case to make.

Link to comment

Here's an idea.  You tell us what you want to hear, and then we'll tell it back to you so you can hear it.  :o

How about you read the post that started this whole thread. Does that apply to you or people in your area?

 

Thought not.

 

And Mopar...Mopar... (*sigh*)

 

This is not a coup-d'etat. I, personally, am not trying to become the Irish approver.

I read the entire post, thank you.

And you said that you wanted to add a reviewer and what was the process for that. We answered, you flamed us.

 

Perhaps you're the one that needs to get a clue as to what's going on in this thread.

 

And, Oh, Look, Here's Hydee to tell us that it's based on volume of caches - just like you've been told by at least two of us already.

Link to comment
This is not a coup-d'etat. I, personally, am not trying to become the Irish approver.

I did't say you were. I said you would appear to be the best choice for one based on experience, so as the most experienced cacher in Ireland, how would you know who was responsible for managing the lands and the applicable laws for the entire country?

If you have an answer, couldnt someone in a nearby countryuse the same method?

If you don't have an answer to the question, as the best qualified person in the country to answer, how do you expect anyone else to do better?

 

Volume isn't the issue.

Language isn't the issue.

Please, I'm being serious here, help us to understand why you feel Ireland cachers are not being served well under the current reviewers.

Is there a complex system of goverment permits required to hide a cache (like in some states in the US) that the current reviewers dont follow?

Are they approving illegal caches?

Are they showing bias against Irish cachers?

What's the issue that's so huge you need 2 more people to handle?

I truly do not see it.

Link to comment

The OP asked about how to choose your own reviewers and put them in power; my reply was it historically hasn't worked like that. Cant' get much more directly relevant then that.

 

I have added reviewers for other reasons, but those are each on a case by case basis.

 

You're right. You really can't get more directly relevant than that.

Link to comment
This is what I was hoping to hear. Cheers Hydee.

 

'We' do expect to make a case at an undetermined point in the future.

 

The point of this thread was to see if anyone had been in the situation that 'we' feel we are in, where a community feels the need for a local approver. I do realise that in US terms, Ireland is not exactly busy in cache volume, and that this is the prime reason for adding an approver.

 

Since I now have a response from two people at Groundspeak, I am still hoping to speak to someone who has been in this situation before, to see if we even have a solid case to make.

Oh My God.

 

This is what you've been told by three of us at least this whole thread. :o

 

Apparently even though the suggestion to talk to Hydee was turned down (Mopar suggested that to you, I believe), she's the only person you're going to listen to, even though we already said what she did.

 

Good to know you came into the forums for forum opinion and then decided it wasn't worth crap. ;)

Link to comment
One of the things Mopar mentioned was local laws. How can a moderator/approver be aware of local laws when they do not live in the country where these apply?

You, as a member of the local caching community, should make sure your reviewers are aware of any local law or regulations.

 

My suggestion is that you set up a dialog with your current reviewer about all your concerns. You may find out that they are more familiar with the local laws then you think. If, after your discussions, the current reviewers feel that a dedicated Irish reviewer would be a benefit to the community they will bring the subject up to Groundspeak.

Link to comment
One of the things Mopar mentioned was local laws. How can a moderator/approver be aware of local laws when they do not live in the country where these apply?

You, as a member of the local caching community, should make sure your reviewers are aware of any local law or regulations.

 

My suggestion is that you set up a dialog with your current reviewer about all your concerns. You may find out that they are more familiar with the local laws then you think. If, after your discussions, the current reviewers feel that a dedicated Irish reviewer would be a benefit to the community they will bring the subject up to Groundspeak.

He did that, didn't like the answer he got there either I guess.

We (I initially, then another community member) approached the British approvers but were rebuffed. However, my initial approach was a simple query rejected on volume levels, and the second ended in semantics and dissection of individual caches, and neither were very productive.

I'll assume by not productive he means he didn't get 2 new Irish reviewers.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

 

Volume isn't the issue.

Language isn't the issue.

Please, I'm being serious here, help us to understand why you feel Ireland cachers are not being served well under the current reviewers.

Is there a complex system of goverment permits required to hide a cache (like in some states in the US) that the current reviewers dont follow?

Are they approving illegal caches?

Are they showing bias against Irish cachers?

What's the issue that's so huge you need 2 more people to handle?

I truly do not see it.

Curiosity really is getting the better of you.

With all due respect, I cannot discuss specifics here.

 

This is out of repect and consideration for the members of my community with whom I am discussing this (in a closed forum, before you go looking). It is also out of respect for the UK Admins who I am not, under no circumstances, going to undermine in public.

 

It is also due to the fact that none of it has anything whatsoever to do with you.

 

Also, one of my friends from the Irish forums tested the water on one of these "general" forums by seeking advice about one specific issue we are hoping to address. The thread descended into nonsensical drivel before producing one, single authoritative answer.

 

Which is why all of this will not be discussed in public.

Link to comment
He did that, didn't like the answer he got there either I guess.

 

How can you comment on this when you have no idea what has happened? You're assuming I have a major issue when I don't.

 

As I said, two very minor discussions were had with the two UK admins. When I said non-productive, I mean that we never got to the meaningful dialogue stage. By that I mean that we did not put a solid case together, and thus a constructive discussion could never take place.

 

That's what I mean by non-productive.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...