When is an answer not an answer?

[Simply Paul]

When it's an answer on the 'other place's' forum by a Groundspeak Lackey (the correct technical term, as approved by GS) to a cacher's question.

Is it just me or have straight answers to straight questions become a bit few and far between from GS? What have they got to hide? What are they protecting us from? If knowledge is power, I'm feeling pretty powerless. I've had the same experience via email in the last few months too, with various US/global/super Mods and/or Reviewers making several lines of text say absolutely nothing. Worthy of a politician, in fact.

Has anyone else detected this trend, and could perhaps post their favourite example of a non-answer response? :dunno:

I should point out that I think the UK Mods/Reviewers have generally been rather more open/clearer/helpful- even if I've not much liked the look of their responses, on occasion. :(

[Wadders]

When it's an answer on the 'other place's' forum by a Groundspeak Lackey (the correct technical term, as approved by GS) to a cacher's question.

Is it just me or have straight answers to straight questions become a bit few and far between from GS? What have they got to hide? What are they protecting us from? If knowledge is power, I'm feeling pretty powerless. I've had the same experience via email in the last few months too, with various US/global/super Mods and/or Reviewers making several lines of text say absolutely nothing. Worthy of a politician, in fact.

Has anyone else detected this trend, and could perhaps post their favourite example of a non-answer response? :dunno:

I should point out that I think the UK Mods/Reviewers have generally been rather more open/clearer/helpful- even if I've not much liked the look of their responses, on occasion. :(

Totally agree, with your sentiments, I find it downright rude!
But as everyone keeps telling us.......it's their forum:mad:
We are just customers that they don't give a s. h. 1. t about!:(

Honestly, if they were just a bit more forthcoming and open, perhaps some of the animosity would diminish:o

[The Hornet]

It would certainly seem to be the latest policy although I'm at a loss to know why. It always seemed to be that questions used to be answered, or at least commented upon. Not any more though.

Shame how things have developed over at GSP.

[Jaz666]

Perhaps they've been taking lessons from UK Polititians?

[fraggle69]

They voted a retarded cowboy in for 8 years, how can you expect them to give you a straight answer. That was Russel Brands words not mine...

[Dave from Glanton]

Has anyone else detected this trend, and could perhaps post their favourite example of a non-answer response? :dunno:


How about this from Michael?


The question was just brought to my attention. I do not read every thread in this forum. As I have stated before the best way to ask me a question is to email me through my profile. I check emails everyday. I do not check this forum every day.

In response to the question at hand. I gave all the detail I was able to give in my first post. I have no additional information that I can give out in response to the question.As I said in response to Alaisair's earlier comment within the thread which that came from "No reply I am afraid, but Michael does not know me and would have no reason to trust me more than anyone else I guess."


"No reason to trust you more than anyone else" == "you have as much right to receive a reply as any other member of the GC.com community"

So that would be no right at all then?

[Mrs Blorenge]

When I noticed on the Forum that Michael had not responded to the question, I contacted him and gave him the link to it as I assumed he hadn't seen it. He put up his response within 20 minutes...

You might not like his response but have you considered the possibility that either

a) He doesn't have any further details to give because someone else is dealing with this matter. (I'd guess MissJenn, as she was the one who archived the caches in London) or

b) He may know further details but GSP may have been asked to keep them confidential, for whatever reasons?

I think it's wrong to automatically assume that because someone asks a question then they have a right to a detailed answer.

[The Hornet]

I think it's wrong to automatically assume that because someone asks a question then they have a right to a detailed answer.
I agree 100% that no one has a right to a DETAILED answer.

However I do believe that it is only reasonable to expect that an question in a Groundspeak forum (which IS being closely monitored by Groundspeak at the moment), aimed at Groundspeak warrants the courtesy of at least a brief reply.

That happened in this case so I have no complaints in this example.

What does cause me frustration is the frequent lack of "official" communication elsewhere in the UK section of the Groundspeak forums, even when it is requested politely.

[Dave Gerrie]

When I noticed on the Forum that Michael had not responded to the question, I contacted him and gave him the link to it as I assumed he hadn't seen it. He put up his response within 20 minutes...

You might not like his response but have you considered the possibility that either

a) He doesn't have any further details to give because someone else is dealing with this matter. (I'd guess MissJenn, as she was the one who archived the caches in London) or

b) He may know further details but GSP may have been asked to keep them confidential, for whatever reasons?

I think it's wrong to automatically assume that because someone asks a question then they have a right to a detailed answer.

or c) GS are endeavouring to find out from the London authorities exactly what the situation is/was with those caches, and don't want to make any statements until they know what happened.

Incidentally, and interestingly, the three forcibly archived london caches were collected in by JT a few days later, and none had been tampered with - all in all, very odd!

Back to OP though, I do agree that there seems to be a lot more reticence on the part of GSP to provide any feedback (for want of a better word) even if it only amounts to an acknowledgement that we have asked a question! I'm an optimist though, and like to think this is because they are so busy feeding the hamsters, rather than part of a large anti UK conspiracy!

Dave

[Mrs Blorenge]

... I'm an optimist though, and like to think this is because they are so busy feeding the hamsters, rather than part of a large anti UK conspiracy!
Dave

I don't know about anybody else, but I've found that the recent batch of hamsters are just not cutting the mustard :mad: - Very poor quality. I have a feeling that someone's cutting corners and using those pigmy ones from Siberia.

[Edgemaster]

I don't know about anybody else, but I've found that the recent batch of hamsters are just not cutting the mustard :mad: - Very poor quality. I have a feeling that someone's cutting corners and using those pigmy ones from Siberia.
Yeah, they seem to keep dying in the middle of posting a message :(

[Simply Paul]

I wasn't thinking, specifically, of the London Situation. I suppose it really goes back to April and the Big Upheaval, if not before. I don't know why I'm whining about it here- it's not as if MissJenn is going to pop up and say, "I'm sorry we've seemed secretive and dismissive. We'll try to be more communicative and open in future". I suppose I was looking for reassurance that it wasn't a perception unique to me. Here's a small example which sticks in my mind from a while ago:

-- Copy of email sent to [GlobalSuperMod]--
Re: Mass London archives.

Hi [GlobalSuperMod]. As an owner of a London cache I'm rather concerned about these; can you be any more specific about what the issue is/was so I can consider whether I should leave my own cache active?

Thanks very much in advance.

Paul

Five days later they replied:

Paul,

No local authorities have contacted Groundspeak about your caches.
If you are concerned, please consider whether or not you have permission for your geocache(s).

Which didn't answer my question (I phrased it 'can you' so I suppose it did: 'No'), didn't give me additional information (if there had been a problem with my cache, I'm sure I'd already have been told about it), and rather put the spotlight on why I might be feeling 'guilty'(?). I was glad to have a response ready:

Thanks very much for coming back to me [GlobalSuperMod].
It's a virtual, so I didn't think permission was an issue, but I was worried about the situation anyway. As more news about it has come out since I sent my email to you I'm no longer as concerned.

Paul

I'm also waiting to hear back on some other issues, particularly regarding logs on my latest event. As it's on this weekend, my hopes of getting a response before it's been and gone aren't high. :(

[fraggle69]

just had a look at your event page and can see no sign of xxxxxxxx. (edited by myself) c I learn! Whats the score my monkey friend

The use of rot13 does not make it acceptable

[Simply Paul]

I don't want to go off topic here, but it's covered on the thread about it in the Events section of this forum. I would chase it up, but i) I don't like applying pressure to volunteers who give their time and effort for free and ii) I don't believe it to be a good use of my time; once you've emailed an official request for information, you shouldn't have to pursue it. I've already invested lots of my time and effort for free to set up the event and my expectations of GS are now so low I don't think spending more will produce a response worthy of the name. It's not a situation I'm impressed with, but there you go :(

[fraggle69]

Nuuu, fbqqvat pnpur cbyvpr ntnva! aru anu aru anu.

>Edited by Bill to remove inappropriate link<

[PopUpPirate]

I agree 100% that no one has a right to a DETAILED answer.

However I do believe that it is only reasonable to expect that an question in a Groundspeak forum (which IS being closely monitored by Groundspeak at the moment), aimed at Groundspeak warrants the courtesy of at least a brief reply.

That happened in this case so I have no complaints in this example.

What does cause me frustration is the frequent lack of "official" communication elsewhere in the UK section of the Groundspeak forums, even when it is requested politely.

Yet conversely, if you step out of line, that's dealt with rapido!

[Mongoose39uk]

[quote=fraggle69;21432]Nuuu, fbqqvat pnpur cbyvpr ntnva! aru anu aru anu.

>Edited by Bill to remove quoted link<


This one is borderline, please try and keep it family friendly

[The Hornet]

[QUOTE=fraggle69;21432]Nuuu, fbqqvat pnpur cbyvpr ntnva! aru anu aru anu.

>Edited by Bill to remove quoted link<
Charming! :ph34r: Maybe I'm getting old but I fail to see any musical merit in that recording (which I stopped after a short while). Thank you Tony for the warning.

[Mongoose39uk]

Charming! :ph34r: Maybe I'm getting old but I fail to see any musical merit in that recording (which I stopped after a short while). Thank you Tony for the warning.


Yes, I do feel a warning not to click that link if you are easily offended is needed. I am surprised You Tube have not hit the delete button. I was very tempted to delete it here.

Most people know I have a gutter mouth, I just don't see a need for it on here.

Over the last few weeks I have edited more posts by genuine geocachers than I have in the last two years. We did have a spate of sock accounts posting porn a good while ago, thankfully that has ceased.

A request to all, please don't push too far, we do not like moderating, do it yourselves before you hit the "submit" button.:)

[Bill D (wwh)]

I agree with Tony that that link was inappropriate here, and I've removed it from the post it was given in and the following posts that quoted it.

As Tony said, we prefer to avoid moderation, but some things just aren't acceptable.