That is a good suggestion, but the information could be misleading based upon the way in which reviewer duties are organized vs. the way that the review queue is organized. You have one cache pending in the Michigan queue, but what if there are separate reviewers for northern Michigan and southern Michigan? One could be all caught up, while the other was way behind. Or, if your reviewer also covered Minnesota and Wisconsin, knowing that you were #3 in line in Michigan wouldn't be very useful information if there were 35 older caches awaiting review in those other states. Or, if your cache was a ten-stage multicache, it would be misleading if you were told it was first in line, because the reviewer may skip to other, easier cache reviews before tackling the complex ones. (All of these are hypothetical examples of real life situations -- none are related to your cache.)
Note that you have a second cache that is NOT in the review queue because the box for "this cache is active" has been unchecked.
Thanks for your patience.
Thanks for the reply. I guess I didn't realy think that one through! Very good points you made about the que. I have the second cache unchecked because I was counting on learning something with the review process. Basicaly I didn't want to make a mistake twice. Thanks very much for explaining all of that for me and watching out for me on the second cache.
CaseyHeck