Okay, What now?

[Slider & Smurf]

A few posters have mentioned that the majority of Aussie cachers aren't aware gc.com.au or the forum even exists...
<p>
Should we also do something to try and promote these resources in the wider caching community?
<p>
There was a bit of a 'push' some time ago on the forum side (when it was cut over to gc.com.au?? Can't remember!!) resulting in a few teams putting links to the forum on their cache pages. Teams who frequented gc.com would then see the link, and may be encouraged to click and find out what the locals were doing. A few 'regulars' also keep a thread alive in the gc.com forum 'Australian' section promoting the existance of the .au sites.
<p>
However - from the .au forum pages, it's not immediately obvious that a separate 'listing' site exists. If you click on the logo you're ported across, but even that's not really emphasised. Perhaps the use of a 'front page' (eg. "forums this way, listings that way") might make things a little clearer for less technically-minded cachers that might stumble across these pages.
<p>
If we're keen on making this a site that meets the needs of all Aussie cachers, then we need a way to let them know we're here! If a few more teams reading this thread amended their cache listings to include a link, that would be a start - open to further suggestions, of course .

[caughtatwork]

I think approvers are a necessary evil (take that the right way). Every now and then we all have brain farts and do something that when pointed out makes you slap your head and go, now why did I do that? I know I've done at least one.

The approval process means that there is another level of sanity instatiated before the cache is approved.

While this is frustrating for the cache hider, it does mean that safety is considered as part of the approver criteria. Side note: If approvers have criteria then there are at least guidelines, if not rules. Didn't we just have a barney about this?

So you can see that I'm in two minds.
Approvers -> Evil -> Follow the rules -> Disallow cache -> Big Barney.
No Approvers -> Good -> No Rules -> Caches goes live -> Cacher arrested for being somewhere / doing something in a stupid area.

I know there has been a couple of suggestions about 'peer approval' to wit I understand that if a cache sucks then the 'peer approval' could mean that the cache gets recommended for archiving. So now instead of having one approver approve, we need to make enough of the community happy to keep the cache. This could lead to rebellion as some cachers voice differing opinions as to whether a cache is good/bad and should stay/go.

Infinite recursive can of worms in all of this.

I suppose my point / question is that as there are now approvers, what guidelines / rules will be used and how flexible are those guidelines / rules and does the power of precedent work in this scenario?

Is there a viable alternative to approvers which works a great % of the time (> 80% < 100%)?

[Mix]

How I am looking at all this, to determine how I go forward.
<br><br>
1. Choice is all this is about. Everyone will now have more choice. You may choose the stay with one site, change to another or use both (or more) sites.<br> <br>
2. Those who wish to go with one site should not seek to deny others the choice not to. Besides being a futile exercise itÂ’s also disingenuous.<br><br>
3. We teachers have a system called ‘Choice TheoryÂ’ the first principle of this is “the only persons whose choices you can control are your ownÂâ€

[EcoTeam]

I think approvers are a necessary evil (take that the right way). Every now and then we all have brain farts and do something that when pointed out makes you slap your head and go, now why did I do that? I know I've done at least one.

The approval process means that there is another level of sanity instatiated before the cache is approved.

While this is frustrating for the cache hider, it does mean that safety is considered as part of the approver criteria. Side note: If approvers have criteria then there are at least guidelines, if not rules. Didn't we just have a barney about this?

So you can see that I'm in two minds.
Approvers -> Evil -> Follow the rules -> Disallow cache -> Big Barney.
No Approvers -> Good -> No Rules -> Caches goes live -> Cacher arrested for being somewhere / doing something in a stupid area.

I know there has been a couple of suggestions about 'peer approval' to wit I understand that if a cache sucks then the 'peer approval' could mean that the cache gets recommended for archiving. So now instead of having one approver approve, we need to make enough of the community happy to keep the cache. This could lead to rebellion as some cachers voice differing opinions as to whether a cache is good/bad and should stay/go.

Infinite recursive can of worms in all of this.

I suppose my point / question is that as there are now approvers, what guidelines / rules will be used and how flexible are those guidelines / rules and does the power of precedent work in this scenario?

Is there a viable alternative to approvers which works a great % of the time (> 80% < 100%)?

If I want rules I'll list with GC.com

The whole point is to allow caches that are politically incorrect, unsafe, break some lame law or legislation etc.

Approvers won't work, they can't work, it will be little different to GC.com. Either have approvers and clearly defined guidelines (like GC.com) or have no restrictions or approvers at all.

Going half way with local approvers who will bend the rules a lot more for local conditions offers very little over GC.com. Don't anyone kid themslves, in the long run the guidelines will get tighter and tigher, just like GC.com.

Will the new approvers on GCA approve a cache in a National Park next to a terrorist target on the edge of a cliff with encouraged swaps like Booze, a pocket knife, smokes, food and xxx magazines?
If not, you have nothing more than censorship and GC.com do you not?
Where do you draw the line?
Some people might like placing caches like that, and some people might like finding caches like that. Were do they stand?

EcoDave

[TEAM LANDCRUISER]

<font color="blue"><font face="verdana"><b>Interesting conundrum isn't it caughtatwork <p>As you may or may not have seen from the RSS feeds, discussions are going on about these guidelines in the reviewers forum ... although I thought it would have been discussed by the community and not a select few.<p>I was originally a big fan of the Oz listing site but it seems it's just following a familar plan with different chiefs <p>When the self review was dropped I dropped to a 90% supporter ... then the guideline discussions went behind closed doors ... 50% I'm wavering ....

[caughtatwork]

Will the new approvers on GCA approve a cache in a National Park next to a terrorist target on the edge of a cliff with encouraged swaps like Booze, a pocket knife, smokes, food and xxx magazines?
If not, you have nothing more than censorship and GC.com do you not?
Where do you draw the line?
Some people might like placing caches like that, and some people might like finding caches like that. Were do they stand?
EcoDave

I agree.
If there are approvers there are rules.
If there aren't then there aren't.

Given that GCA now has approvers, do we have rules and if so what are they and do we want rules?

As the site it owned by i! they can have rules and there's nothing we can do about it except start another site that has no rules.

This is not to say that I don't admine i! for all of the effort (cost and bandwidth) that we use for free. It's just that if we are to use GCA as an alternative and i! don't like the GC rules, then what rules will GCA have and, as has been said, will they get tighter and tighter until we all have another barney.

I'm confusing myself.

I like the no rules, but I also like the rules.

I think I'll go to bed now.

[swampgecko]

To quote Sir Winston Churhill

"You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.... "

Ok that was my fault, If you want to hang anyone it will be me..... I asked for that forum so we could thrash out ideas, then put them all forward to the rest of you, get your input and finalise it all. Ideas people...


Sorry if that has upset people. Thanks for making me realise that my efforts are in vain, people will not be happy no matter what the effort you put in.

[EcoTeam]

I'm confusing myself.

I like the no rules, but I also like the rules.

I think I'll go to bed now.

Me too, my head hurts

EcoDave

[Lt. Sniper]

I didnÂ’t want to get back into this arena

WhatÂ’s the point in having approvers?

If I knew a cache was going to get you arrested I wouldnÂ’t plant one to start with, no one's honestly that stupid.

Everyone knows what to expected in terms of whatÂ’s acceptable and whatÂ’s not. I saw one positive in this new Australian system because it allowed me to list my cache straight away and not have to wait 2 days like it has been on GC.com (I know the approvers have lives outside of Geocaching, I cant ask for a miracle)

Alex
aka Lt. Sniper

[EcoTeam]

To quote Sir Winston Churhill

"You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.... "

Sorry if that has upset people. Thanks for making me realise that my efforts are in vain, people will not be happy no matter what the effort you put in.

To quote Arthur Fonzarelli - Correctamundo!
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/sounds/correctamundo.wav

EcoDave

[riblit]

There seem to be a lot of wasted bandwidth with all the guessing going on. Instead of everyone working themselves into a lather. Sit back, grab a coldie and wait until the programming gets done.

[riblit]

I didnÂ’t want to get back into this arena

WhatÂ’s the point in having approvers?

If I knew a cache was going to get you arrested I wouldnÂ’t plant one to start with, no one's honestly that stupid.

Everyone knows what to expected in terms of whatÂ’s acceptable and whatÂ’s not. I saw one positive in this new Australian system because it allowed me to list my cache straight away and not have to wait 2 days like it has been on GC.com (I know the approvers have lives outside of Geocaching, I cant ask for a miracle)

Alex
aka Lt. Sniper

Some people are impatient ....

This question was brought up some time ago (It may have been before you joined this forum). People said they wanted reviewers as a sanity check, thinks like checking coords so caches aren't floating in bass straight, checking you haven't inadvertinly placed a cache on top of one you haven't yet found. Letting someone know a piece of paper stuck in a rock wall isn't a cache . Gives you someone to yell at when you don't like a listing.

[TEAM LANDCRUISER]

To quote Sir Winston Churhill

"You can please all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.... "

Ok that was my fault, If you want to hang anyone it will be me..... I asked for that forum so we could thrash out ideas, then put them all forward to the rest of you, get your input and finalise it all. Ideas people...


Sorry if that has upset people. Thanks for making me realise that my efforts are in vain, people will not be happy no matter what the effort you put in.

<font color="blue"><font face="verdana"><b><p>I don't think your upsetting anyone Swampy. But look at it from 'our' (those not in the know) perspective for a second we are discussing going from one site with rules controlled by a select few to another site with rules controlled by a select few. I really don't see the reason for changing if those are the options. The original idea from I! as
I understood it (and this is going back awhile now) was a site run by input from the community. Now we have reviewers there is no doubt wether or not you had an exclusive forum ... you all have email/icq or something similar so it goes undercover. It just 'appears' to me anyway that we are starting another Keystone / Hydee group and things will deteriorate / snowball from there to where we are now at GC.com<p>Am I'm looking at this in the wrong light? possibly?<p>Agreed Riblit it's all speculation but it does appear from the outside at least to have familiar overtones <p>I'll grab another beer now ... you want one?

[Aushiker]

... wait until the programming gets done.

<p>
Edit out my posting .... decided I need to move on.
<p>
Cheers
<br>Andrew

[leek]

What now???

Dunno... not sure... but I just archived almost 20 caches from the geocaching.com site...

Personally, I can no longer tolerate the extremely restrictive policies and censorship as employed on the geocaching.com site... (despite the genuine best efforts of our local approvers)...

I have cancelled my premium membership and asked them to donate the residue to a tsunami victim charity of their choice (see how trusting I am)...

The details of my caches will be transferred to geocaching.com.au, but also in due course to other international sites such as terracaching, navicache and any other reasonable sites I discover.

I may still search for caches that appear on geocaching.com from time to time, but will probably give priority to caches that appear on gc.com.au and other sites...

I will not be posting a cache to geocaching.com again.

This is my choice... and everyone else is entitled to theirs...

While the cache listings may be split from now on, we shouldn't be trying to split our community... I would like to see an end to some of the critical divisive posts that have appeared here recently...

Cheers,
Leek...