One Reviewer in Texas

I don't really like to read the Groundspeak geocaching forums much, but every once in a while I will look for topics that interest me.

Here is a topic that really makes me shake my head:

One Reviewer in Texas?

In it, the original poster wonders about the timeframe for getting caches approved. After finding out that the state of Texas only has one reviewer, he wonders out loud why this is - how it is possible for one person to review caches for such a big state in a timely manner.

I thought this was a fair question.

The first response is from my old pal Max Cacher, who doesn't answer the question but simply states "Volunteer Reviewers also have lives outside of caching, sometimes that does get in the way, but she is doing a great job for Texas".

Most of the rest of the posters, defend only having one reviewer by basically saying: "Look - your caches were approved, why are you complaining?"

Max Cacher attempts to moderate by prematurely posting: "Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, they should be treated fairly."

What he means (based on the context of this and other threads) is: "Don't question Groundspeak or its volunteer reviewers."

My understanding about becoming a volunteer reviewer is that Groundspeak uses the "don't call us, we will call you" approach. I guess it works for them. I'm not so sure it works for everyone else.

The OP mentions (in the 15th post) that "...I know how pointless it can be to get into an argument with someone in a position of "authority" on boards such as these, especially since I have been informed by people who have dealt with Groundspeak that it's better not to question their volunteers for risk of retribution." He is not the only one who feels that way. Searching the forums, one can find this same sentiment expressed by a few others. Most of them ended up being belittled by other posters. These belittlers didn't attempt to rationally discuss the issue, they simply took the opportunity to kiss up to Groundspeak for reasons that escape me.

Maybe someday somebody who works for Groundspeak will address the rationale for picking reviewers using the method they do.