MnGCA

[Pear Head]

Part of my discussion with Taconite has revolved around the amount of time it takes to get a cache approved once it's submitted and also the amount of time it takes to carry on an email conversation with an approver if you need to about a questionable cache.

Now, I understand that approvers are volunteers. I'm not here to debate that. I'm also not here to debate the particular cache(s) that Taconite is referring to.

In other words, I appreciate mtn-man and the other approvers for the work that they have put into the sport, and am not attacking them in any such way.

That all being said:

[Kitch]

[Pear Head]

I had once heard somewhere that if you want to be an approver then they don't want you.

That being said, the job, in a limited form (such as MN only) would be acceptable to me.

Many of you may have noticed (most probably have not) that in the past week or so I've gone around and tried to check on a lot of caches in the state that have been listed as disabled for quite some time. I posted notes on most asking about their status, and posted should be archived on a few. So far I have received a few responses to my notes with people telling me that they intend to replace the container, etc, etc. That's great! I would (and do) encourage everyone to post that information on the cache page or in the logs though so that everyone knows it. Hopefully that will become a little more common since I think you can post it now when you disable/reenable a cache.

My goal isn't to eliminate a whole bunch of caches - it's to eliminate a whole bunch of listings for caches that will never be replaced. If the cache owner has intentions of replacing it soon then great!

I'll probably follow up in a few weeks with some should be archived notes for those that still aren't listed as active on gc.com and haven't responded...

In fact, this project is where I came upon all of Taconite's caches to begin with (I was using a PQ of disabled caches in my searches).

[Kitch]

ClayJar's scheduled chat is every Monday at 8:30 CST. For IRC users you can point your client to irc.slashnet.org port 6667, channel #Geocache


...SB..can you post the link for this.....

If you want UNOFFICIAL contact.....this is the best place to look or on the GC.com threads....

[Marsha and Silent Bob]

Geocaching.com isn't interested in anyone we suggested. Everyone here either has said something in the past that was negative towards them or just doesn't fit what they expect an approver to be.

The single person that might have been acceptable asked not to be an approver due to the time requirements and harassment they are faced with.

Personally? Even if I was allowed to be an approver (I haven't asked but we can assume I won't be suitable for my less than positive comments about them) I really don't know if I could deal with the drama.
_________________
Sad state of affairs.

[northtrekker]

.. if our play becomes our work, that is a drag!
geocaching is a great fun freetime outlet.

remind me to never seek to be a geocache approver!



~ntrek

[Kitch]

365 days a year.........

Its hard for others in this position to "step-in" and help...the person needs to know OUR state, city, county rules and laws.

I don't think its too much to ask for a few days......I'm 100% sure a local approver is not going to FIX issues with approval time.

[s4xton]

In terms of "official" contact with Groundspeak, There are a couple people over there that we talk with. They are not an organized bunch. There's a woman that has the "assoications" responsibilities of dealing with the various geocaching groups around the world, but I've only exchanged an e-mail once concerning something on the board. On the other hand, I've personally delt moreso with Nate Irish (the MnGCA board has his direct line). He's Jeremy Irish's brother. I can't say he's always been helpful. Things we have strongly suggested they deal with, they've come back and told us to deal with it.

I'm not a big fan of them, but they've rightfully have the monopoly right now, and as it was mentioned in another thread, there isn't currently a true viable alternative. I'm speaking personally here, and not on behalf of the MnGCA Board.

Silent Bob has unofficially been a liaison concerning talks with Groundspeak about a MN approver. There has not been an official MnGCA conversation with them about an MN approver, at least for this current Board. Silent Bob mentioned exactly what has been relayed in the past: They do not like anyone that has been critical of Groundspeak (which is absolutely retarded on their part).

I am not sure where the conversation is now, and I am not sure how serious Groundspeak ever was (or will be) about having a MN approver.

-Aaron

[rickrich]

Mtn-man is part time volunteer. 3 nights a week. We need a full time volunteer.

[Pear Head]

[rickrich]

I'd like several MN approvers and get rid of 12AM approvals. 12AM approvals let me be FTF more often. This is not fair to others.

[spinowner]

There have been comments made that imply approvers should be immune from criticism because they are volunteers. I disagree. Criticism of the quantity of work done is inappropriate (for lack of a better word), but I think it's valid and important to monitor the quality of work done and to point out and to question actions that adversely affect our caches. I'm sure all approvers have received unfair abuse, and it's easy to understand why one would not want to become an approver. But approvers still have to keep in mind that the reason for constructive criticism is that we cachers have the same goal that they should have--to make caching as good an experience as possible. It is truly a shame if the people at Groundspeak are so paranoid that they refuse to deal with someone solely because of past criticism of their organization.
_________________
Sig line? I don't need no stinking sig line!

[mtn-man]

[rickrich]

See today they approved some around 10:30AM. I was gone by then. Now don't save them up in batches and we have a winner.

[mtn-man]