Sapience Trek

If I reviewed your cache, I would have said the same thing as the reviewer that did. Pretty much any time you talk about the nearby business, especially when using adjectives such as "favorite", it become an endorsement. People who find your cache will see the nearby business, and can decide on their own whether to enter the business. What does the location, or what they serve, or whether you have marked it as a favorite have to do with the cache? Focus on the cache, the hide, and the commercial free aspects of the location and you'll be fine. Note: I do review in New York, but typically don't review in that part of the state.

Not quite. You may be too close to an intermediate stage of a puzzle or multi, and the information you see at submission time only shows you proximity to public waypoints of caches. There are all sorts of policies that vary by area. I deal with town and village policies, county permits, state park permits, lands requiring permission from wildlife directors in WMA lands, state lands off limits such as historical sites, national wildlife areas, lands marked off limits due to private land owner or land manager issues, caches on or near school property, caches on what is obviously private property, etc ... Once it's been reviewed and meets guidelines, well yeah. I've always thought that the number of reviewers should be as minimal as possible that can keep up with demand. There are peaks and valleys of cache submissions. Some days I'll have dozens of new ones, other days nothing. It all averages out. The problem with adding too many reviewers is consistency. As you add more, you increase the possibilities of inconsistent guideline application. We already see this today, as reviewers are human (other than the few that are dogs) and some guidelines are somewhat subjective. Getting everybody on the same page for application of guidelines isn't always easy, and it's difficult to write a guideline that is black and white. As far as I know, the number of reviewers today seems to meet the demand. There are times when your cache might take a week to review, but I think most of the time it's much less.

No, membership status has no bearing in the review. It's 5 years later, many more caches to review, and sometimes it takes longer. Sometimes it doesn't, it depends on the number of caches and your reviewer's schedule.

Duplicate thread of what OP posted before. You may continue your discussion there if you'd like. This is not appropriate for the getting started forum. Closing topic.

There is no official credit for FTF.

Anywhere from a few minutes to a week. Usually somewhere inbetween. Both yours are in the queue, so I'm sure your reviewer will be back to you soon. But: - your cache on the active RR tracks will almost certainly not be publishable - your other cache shows up as being in Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu, China, which appears to be a typo in your coordinates

Looks like HQ locked the account.

Woof

People are responsible for their own actions. Or should be.

Your cache has not been submitted for review. Please go to your cache page and click the button to submit for review. Your reviewer is New York Admin

I'd like to take a moment to explain canned responses. Yes, many/most reviewers do use canned responses for many different situations. I currently have 85 canned responses for things like proximity, permission, commercial and many more. So why do we do this? Why do we not take the extra time to make a personalized response to every issue? I know when I email customer support at a company, I often dread getting a canned response. Often it seems like the response applies about 10% to my situation, and they didn't spend enough time trying to resolve my issue. I hope people don't feel that about the reviewers. But some of the reasons I'd like to give for canned responses vs personalized: Consistency - When reviewing dozens or hundreds of caches each week, we try and be as consistent as possible in our review. By consistent I'm mostly speaking of consistency within my region, not country or world wide, as there are different land policies all over. Having a form helps me make sure I'm treating everybody the same - caches I know, cachers I don't know, and cachers new to the game. Completeness - It's easy to forget a detail when there is an issue with a cache. If there is a proximity problem, I need to make sure I reference the cache or caches there are problems with, the distance that is a problem (unless it's a mystery/multi where I usually don't give distance). If it's a problem with land policy, I need to give the relevant information about contacts, permits, policies, etc. If I didn't use a form, I can guarantee my failing memory would forget something all the time! Time - Of course, clicking a template and filling in a few details is a lot quicker than hand typing each reviewer note.

You can't log a find until you have both accomplished the challenge, and found the physical cache. But once you have done both, you can log the find online. The date one uses is not really relevant and I know some cachers use the date they found the physical cache, some use the date they completed the challenge. Either one may occur before the other.

You can't.

A cache > 1000 miles from your home coordinates with no maintenance plan. A cache that requires a permit per land manager requirements. Caches too close to waypoints of other caches. A cache too close to active RR tracks. What has CTReviewer been hard on other than trying to help you understand the guidelines for cache placement?

You can't. Please note - any talk of hacking or using the site against the terms of use will result in this thread being closed.

I can see them all. But unless you are an unpaid slave to the frog, you can't unless they are listed elsewhere first.

There were no details about the cache that was denied, so it's hard for anybody here (even reviewers) to offer any help. Reviewers like nothing more than to see a new cache listing and being able to click the big green publish button without any sort of kick back - really, we like new caches too! What was the problem with your daughter's cache that was given? If you posted any details about the cache or account, I'm sure some of us here would love to help clear up any misunderstanding you might have on the reason the cache couldn't be published.

As Keystone has said, there don't seem to be any caches associated with your account, so I assume your concern was with a friend's account? Without any details, a generic reviewer complaint thread like this isn't very useful. There could be dozens of reasons a cache may be denied. If it isn't your cache, then anything you heard from the cache owner may be missing some information or details, as I've seen happen in the forums here hundreds of times. Please realize that in order to provide consistency and efficient customer service, most reviewers will use templates for a number of different placement problems. If you feel you were given a form letter, chances are you were. I have about a hundred form responses that I customize for each situation as needed. It allows me to be pretty consistent and complete in my reviews, though sometimes people don't like the form letter response, and perhaps this is what you meant by rudely denied?

The event organizers have no say on where you must stay, if you are staying at all. As stated earlier, if you are physically in attendance it doesn't matter if you were there 30 seconds or all day. You don't have to participate in all the activities (or any!) to be able to log an attend. Though of course you probably would want to!

Not sure I understand the English translation I got, but caches don't generally have altitude defined unless it's in the description itself.

Where did you find this code? On what?

If it's just the numbers that are bugging you then find another old archive cache that you've logged and log it again which will add 1 to your stats. Otherwise I think you'll just have to accept the way it is. Doing that of course would screw up your numbers on this site, and project-gc would then report that you've logged a cache a couple times. The number of times a cache is published, found, then retracted is really pretty low, so I'd be surprised if anybody had more than a few total problem caches. Because retracted caches aren't really a big problem, spending engineering resources doesn't seem likely.

Hi - I'm assuming that you have received the note placed on your cache by your reviewer today asking for more information. Please read and respond to that note and hopefully your cache will be published soon!

Yup. Use the website: - go to https://www.geocaching.com/ - login - click Play at the top - select Hide a geocache - take the quiz if you can (your account is new, but you say you've done this before, so I don't know what you know) - click the green "Create a new geocache" button and follow the instructions Personally I hope Groundspeak never puts in the ability to hide using the app, as this would likely lead to very minimal cache write ups and less verification that the coordinates are correct using google maps.

Geocaches are not reviewed with safety in mind. The questions asked do not make a cache "safe" to find. Mostly they are about complying with land manager requests and Groundspeak's own guidelines.