Nomex

I'm not sure what to make of that

You are correct niraD. The first iteration of the Listing was rejected based on the latitude/longitude restriction. The CO adjusted the Listing on the second go round of the submission so that the latitude restriction was removed, and replaced with (I believe) a variety of geographic and political boundaries which was approved at the time. If memory serves me correctly, the CO was only able to come up with 7 cachers that passed the Checker. Maybe 3-4 of those were "local" (+/- 400 miles or so). Contrary to M 5's assertion, I did not "make up" this "rule". It predates the prohibition by several years. Seriously, if you can't find 10 cachers in a State of almost 40 million citizens, that sounds like the definition of a "Private Cache" to me.

Just a clarification, the concept was not prohibited. The CO was unable to find enough local cachers that had already completed it (e.g. local = the entire State)

Both your examples had post publication coordinate updates. Not great examples IMO.

Yes, I've been saving up all my precious Quatloo's from HQ so that I can upgrade the flux capacitor in my Tardis Thanks for the laugh bfj.

About 20 on this go around, with a PQ for Disabled and NM Attributes. The batch back in December was probably 3X that size. Most of those received no response from the CO's, so were Archived. A couple of people wrote back a week or two later with requests to Unarchive, after maintenance was performed. I'll readily admit that my usual PQ's kind of miss the Northern sections of the State where the OP is from, due to the large metropolitan and urban areas around SF and Sacramento that tend to consume most of my available time. The Health Score has been helping in some degree with this issue, as it helps pick up some of the areas that I might not otherwise capture in a PQ. My Watchlist typically hovers in the 300 range in a consistent fashion, with boosts to 500 or more when I do a Statewide sweep of Disabled Listings. Just an interesting aside.

This batch only involved Disabling. I typically give 30 days before Archiving. I think the majority of Reviewers do likewise. A previous batch back in December, provoked by this thread, were Archived in January.

Finished up a 50 mile radius in the OP's area. Hopefully that will improve the situation a bit.

Could be. Just finished up a 100 mile radius sweep around the OP's apparent Home Location for Disabled and Needs Maintenance log entries. Let me know if I missed anything.

I would if I felt it was an attempt to push some sort of agenda. Just some clarification on the Multi by the same name, I think it's important to point out that the Reviewer at the time (different than for your Virtual), had some concerns with the original write up. In your response, you appeared to argue your case effectively, and the Listing appears to have been Published without any changes. 8 years later, the same argument doesn't appear to have worked out so well. The fact that 2 Reviewers had concerns, should have alerted you that there might have been an issue.

Looking at the Archived log entry, it appears that you logged the Listing in questions twice. I can't tell if you deleted one previously or not, but it may have something to do with that. I would attempt to relog it and see what happens. There were two additional log deletions from the CO as well. One for providing answers to the ALR in the log and the other for a spoiler photo.

I would like to emphatically second this, and crush this rumor before it's unnatural birth.

Unless your local Reviewer has your Listing on a Watchlist, there is nothing in the actions you described that would alert a Reviewer that you've taken action on the Listing. I get this a fair amount actually. People will post a Note, thinking that I'll see the Note. I don't see any useful purpose in putting Listings I've Archived or that the CO has Archived voluntarily, on a Watchlist. As far as I'm concerned, final action has been taken and there's no reason to revisit the Listing (unless there's some logging abuse, but that's a subject for another thread....). At this time, there is no Log Queue, like what is generated for NA log types, for other log type entries (edit small correction...Coordinate Update log types also land in a Queue to review as well) . The only way to positively get a Reviewers attention, would be to contact them through their Profile.

Looks like the cache you found was associated with an Unpublished Listing that I had to reject because of a Proximity issue. Although I would not have been able to Publish the Listing because of the commercial aspects of the placement (i.e. inside a store). The cache owner hasn't logged in for about 5 years now, but from the Note on the page, it sounds like she either worked at the store or owned it. A little hard to tell. Appropriately enough, the Title of the Listing is "Rock -n- Roll"

To be honest, I wouldn't mind that at all. When I've made a mistake, I'm more than happy to admit it, and make any necessary corrections. When it's on the other party, well...usually the community sorts it out for me. Kind of a win-win in my opinion.

Can you please tell us if this set of practices is standard for all reviewers or just a personal discipline? Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder. Of the Reviewers that are taking part in this process, they tend to take one of two approaches: taking action before the email goes out, and ones that wait until after the email has gone out as an additional reminder/nudge. I tend to be in the former camp. My numbers tend to run 20%/80% percent compared to Palmetto's. I tend to scrutinize the logs a bit more, compared to an NA generated action. I take in to account "loneliness", or is it just a difficult cache to access or find (i.e. high Terrain and/or Difficulty). I also take into consideration how active the cache owner appears to be on the site. In general, I think I can say that utilization of the Health Score to take action has dramatically reduced the NA log types that I tend to see. The other aspect of the effect, is that the NA logs that I do see, tend to be less frustrated/aggressive sounding. Some of that may be just the auto text that is generated since the logging feature has been altered, but it still seems like a positive direction to me.

Ok, I'll chime in as a Reviewer and state neither . Since the combination to the lock is derived from a nearby feature, it's technically an offset and should be listed as a Multi. In all seriousness, work with your Reviewer. It's not the end of the world if it's published as a puzzle. As an aside, I've published many listings like this, that are intended as safe havens for trackables, and the ones with locks on them I could count on one hand. I don't know your neighborhood, but the lock seems a bit overkill to me.

Reply sent on your two submissions. Please respond on the Listing page and Enable your Listing to return it to the Review Queue. Thanks for your patience, Nomex Northern California Community Volunteer

Try it now. I compared the link to another Challenge I'm Reviewing just now, and noticed that the html was incomplete (aka broken). I copied the broken bit on to your page, and it appears to work now. Best of luck with your Challenge!

Looking at the NA list of notifications for your area, it would appear that there are a large number of seemingly bogus NA logs from a User account that has since been Locked by Groundspeak for spamming issues after several Reviewers (including myself) complained to HQ. It may take awhile for your local Reviewer to sift through the legitimate NA logs. Be patient and follow Keystone's advice on the best course of action.

The approximate co-ordinates are: 33°48'40.7"S 151°08'36.2"E -33.811311, 151.143386 There is a boardwalk along the river. The river is to the west and there is a cliff to the east. So it needs to be hidden close to the boardwalk. The planning map has pink circles to the north and south of these co-ordinates. I have just discovered that the one to the north is a Traditional Cache. But the one to the south is unknown. As mentioned above I could fit it in between the other 2 "caches" but this is a bit restrictive. Those coordinates are too close to an hidden Additional Waypoint associated with an active cache Listing. You might want to look for another spot, or talk with your Local Reviewer about other options, or where you might find an open spot in the area. Related Help Center article: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=199

The "access key" is an internal tracking number, in case you need to follow up with your request. Any correspondence you send to Groundspeak regarding the original issue should include that tracking number. That assures that the person assigned to your task receives your follow up emails. This is a very common mechanism to keep track of requests. In my day job, similar tracking numbers are generated by just about every vendor that we deal with when something breaks. The system gives full access to previous conversations, and saves a great deal of time so I don't have to repeat myself. It also assures that any Tech Support staff that is dispatched can keep track of customer issues, and assures that only one Support staff is in control of one issue. Coming up on a three day weekend, I would not expect an answer until early next week from a live person.

From the Guidelines (just because it's worth repeating): Just for the record, I do the same as they do in the UK. Whenever I see or it's suggested, that a cache is in a traffic control area like a roundabout, the first thing I do is zoom in on the map to see if there is a crosswalk or some other indication that pedestrians are allowed there. If not, I ask that the cache be moved to an area where cachers don't have to play dodge-car.

You find it. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6PQ64_the-forest I've got a better idea. How about you find this one, and measure off 528 feet and relocate your cache and resubmit it? https://coord.info/GC1F517

....and apparently you didn't read the Forum Guidelines either. ::sigh::