Search the Community

Most reviewers are happy to help you with "coord checks." We would rather deliver surprising news *before* you hike all over the forest to construct your elaborate multicache or evil puzzle. Your reviewer is mtn-man and I do not know his exact preferences about dealing with these requests (other than he prefers being bribed with milkbones rather than PayPal transfers). Generally, however, many reviewers find it easiest if you do the following: 1. Set up a cache page, clearly marked as a "TEST" page or "COORD CHECK" page within the title, so we don't accidentally publish it. 2. If a multicache, include all the waypoints you'd like for us to check, using the Additional Waypoints tool. 3. Explain what you're asking for, using the cache description and a reviewer note. Again, say that you just want the coords checked. Tell this to your reviewer twice and they will be sure to understand it. (Remember, many reviewers are dogs.) 4. Your reviewer will respond to give you the "all clear" and then your page will hold the spot(s) for a reasonable time while you place the cache. Or, if there is an issue, the reviewer will point this out. ("You need to relocate stage three because it's less than 300 feet from a puzzle cache you haven't solved yet.") 5. Edit your page and re-submit when ready for actual review. (Remember, only the coordinates were reviewed in the preliminary check - don't be surprised if there are other issues noted.) Most reviewers find this method more efficient than receiving the coordinates in an email. We then need to input them into the database in order to run the check. It helps us if you do that work yourself by setting up a cache page.

Please don't feel badly about your misunderstanding reviewer accounts. It happens so often that I've included an explanation about it on my profile page. You can click on my name, "Keystone," to the left above my avatar picture to go see a reviewer profile. Many other reviewers include similar explanations on their profile. Well, except for the dogs. Many reviewers are dogs.

Sometimes mistakes happen, and caches get retracted. The very existence of the "retract listing" log type is an homage to the fact that volunteer cache reviewers are human. Well, except for the ones that are not. Many reviewers are dogs.

The posted false coordinates for puzzle caches are generally going to be less than two miles from the actual puzzle location. So, if you are thinking about hiding a cache in Park X, pick a spot in the center of the park and do a nearest caches search on those coordinates, going out about 2.5 miles. If there are any mystery/unknown caches in that radius which you haven't found, then you are rolling the dice by hiding a cache without first finding the nearby puzzle. For multicaches, a fair percentage of them will start and end in the same general area, so a 2.5 mile radius search should work for them too, in the vast majority of cases. If there are tons of puzzles in the area and you can't solve them, write in advance to your reviewer with your proposed coordinates and ask for a preclearance on waypoint conflicts from him, her or it (many reviewers are dogs). You can also ask for help from the owner of a nearby puzzle or multicache. "Hi, I found a perfect spot for an ammo box in Memorial Park, and I wanted to make sure it didn't conflict with any stages of your multicache. Here are coords for the general area on the east side of the park near the pond...."

Many of the best reviewers are dogs. Dogs cannot be influenced by flattery or bribes over the internet. In the flesh, yes - most dogs are suckers for a friendly, "good boy!" (and milkbone). Human reviewers are more subject to over-the-net influences, fulsome praise (and Paypal). Reviewing being an internet job, dogs have just shown themselves to be more reliable. I expect the remaining human reviewers will be phased out over time.* *I confess, I have many unmet expectations. For example...where's the Kenyan money I've been promised? when is Vinny going to send the Secrets of Successful Pro Geocachers (only $19.95?) . .

We're called "volunteer cache reviewers." I thank BrianSnat for linking you to the explanation of how to become a reviewer. Yes. Many reviewers are dogs. We divide the world up geographically for the most part. One or more reviewers will be responsible for a particular country or state. We make judgements based on logs to the cache page and any e-mail reports. If the cache is in place, it is a simple matter to re-enable it. Cache names must be family-friendly and non-commercial, among other things. If the name of a cache violates the listing guidelines, the reviewer will ask the cache owner to select a different name.

The first time I read that, I was mentally picturing walking Addy on KBI's lawn (that's her picture to the left) when I read the Keystone's window bit so I accidentally omitted the "k" from "peek". And Keystone is such a nice moderator. Who'd want to peek in his/her/it's window? Many reviewers are dogs. I regard someone peeing on my window as just saying "hello, I was in the neighborhood and wanted to let you know I stopped by." Oh, and I charge $20. Sioneva has my PayPal info.

The moderating team in the "Geocaching Topics" forum does not get paid to go find geocaches. We did, however, demand a large sum of money from Groundspeak -- most of which comes from Platinum Membership sales -- because we have to read all of Vinny's posts. Quiggle gets a double share of the payments, since he/she/it (many reviewers are dogs) is Vinny's local cache reviewer. It is only fair. Mainly I spend my portion on trips to Las Vegas.

Whether he/she/it (many reviewers are dogs) chooses to volunteer extra time for existing cache maintenance issues is entirely up to him/her/it. With that said, it would appear that the local clubs should carry the greater part of the burden of regulating and overseeing what become problems of geolitter.

Keeping up with maintenance issues is an entirely optional job for volunteer cache reviewers. Many choose to sweep through disabled caches that have been "temporarily" down for too long. It's pretty easy to do that by running a pocket query for the country or state which returns only disabled caches. Some choose to also look for caches with "needs maintenance" attributes. (Remember, reviewers are not notified when these are logged.) Usually it takes multiple pocket queries for this, and the process is error-prone. These "sweeps" would be less frequent. My last NM sweep was in December 2007. (New cache reviews slow way down for me in the winter months.) Still fewer reviewers sweep through for caches which OUGHT to be disabled or archived, but simply have a bunch of DNF logs and no finds for a long time. I've just started one of those sweeps, which I'll work on for an hour here and an hour there throughout the winter months. At the same time, I'm moving clearly missing trackables out of the cache page inventory and into an "unknown location." If someone is troubled about a cache, and the owner is not responsive to requests, then log a "needs archived." This sends a notice to the responsible reviewer. Responding to these requests is a higher obligation than the voluntary tasks outlined above. Some reviewers rely quite heavily on these logs as the primary means of alerting them to problem caches. So, from the above accounts, POFE is doing a superb job in reviewing caches - which is a *reviewer's* primary role. Whether he/she/it (many reviewers are dogs) chooses to volunteer extra time for existing cache maintenance issues is entirely up to him/her/it.

Please see this article in the Groundspeak Knowledgebase. You'll note that the service standard for volunteers is to provide an initial review within three days. You should press the panic button after a week, and write to Groundspeak. I confirmed that your caches are properly awaiting review in the Montana cache queue. So, there's no need to double-check anything on your end. Sometimes life gets in the way. Maybe the Montana reviewer went on a roadtrip last weekend. Maybe he/she/it (many reviewers are dogs) are having life issues. Me, I'm getting by with a space heater until my new furnace is installed next Monday. Brrrr! But, I am still trying to keep up with new cache reviews. Thanks for your patience, and thanks for hiding caches!

Write to your reviewer and ask him or her or it (many reviewers are dogs) to "pre-clear" the general coordinates you have in mind, BEFORE placing a cache in an area where you're seeing lots of puzzles nearby. I even have a form letter for these inquiries.

I agree much with Brian, although I am not at all sure what the OP was trying to say. There is a cacher going around scouring the cache pages looking for Pocket Caches(PC's) and then telling a moderator(or reviewer) and getting them to act. Sicking them on it (eg. sick 'em fido)(not infering mods and reviewers are dogs) Once again, your information is (1) inaccurate and (2) out of date. Forum moderators have no power over geocaches. And reviewers typically do not take action outside their own territory except in cases of emergency or when asked to help out as a backup. The pocket caches were archived by Groundspeak. Groundspeak is now offering affected cache owners the opportunity to restore their caches in one of two ways, by either creating a new cache (if there was a permanent cache with coordinates) or by unarchiving the old cache and cleaning up the pocket cache finds. So your information is also a week out of date in terms of Groundspeak's approach to this issue. Affected cache owners should contact their volunteer cache reviewer if they wish to explore the above alternatives. Thank you Keystone. One of my issues has been addressed. As far as who was doing the actual archiving I didn't know the exact position but I new one person had to tell on them first. That is my chief concern. not who, or why, but how.

I agree much with Brian, although I am not at all sure what the OP was trying to say. There is a cacher going around scouring the cache pages looking for Pocket Caches(PC's) and then telling a moderator(or reviewer) and getting them to act. Sicking them on it (eg. sick 'em fido)(not infering mods and reviewers are dogs) Once again, your information is (1) inaccurate and (2) out of date. Forum moderators have no power over geocaches. And reviewers typically do not take action outside their own territory except in cases of emergency or when asked to help out as a backup. The pocket caches were archived by Groundspeak. Groundspeak is now offering affected cache owners the opportunity to restore their caches in one of two ways, by either creating a new cache (if there was a permanent cache with coordinates) or by unarchiving the old cache and cleaning up the pocket cache finds. So your information is also a week out of date in terms of Groundspeak's approach to this issue. Affected cache owners should contact their volunteer cache reviewer if they wish to explore the above alternatives.

I agree much with Brian, although I am not at all sure what the OP was trying to say. There is a cacher going around scouring the cache pages looking for Pocket Caches(PC's) and then telling a moderator(or reviewer) and getting them to act. Sicking them on it (eg. sick 'em fido)(not infering mods and reviewers are dogs)