Approval Queue

[twjolson & Kay]

When submitting a new listing, how about having the number of listings ahead of you in the approval queue? That way you'll have a general idea how long you'll have to wait? Just an idea.

[+Markwell]

Found this relevant post from an approver...

 

Sounds like there's no real way of knowing exactly HOW many area in order in front of you.

[+Yamar]

When submitting a new listing, how about having the number of listings ahead of you in the approval queue? That way you'll have a general idea how long you'll have to wait? Just an idea.

It's not that easy, I'm afraid. If you read past forums you'll find that different caches take different amounts of work. The reviewers are quite busy and spend a lot of time reviewing caches and thus the process is far from just simply clicking a checkbox. The longer caches (multis for example) often take longer to approve because there is more work to be done to assure they're ok. The short answer is: be patient. The longer answer includes: give the reviewer as much information as you can in reviewer notes about things they may notice. EG, if it's near a rail-road track say it is and how far it is and put a warning in the description that cachers need not go anywhere near the tracks. Everything you can do to help them out in reviewing it will speed up your approval. And remember, they're volunteers!

[twjolson & Kay]

It would be harder then I originally thought, but I still think it might be worth the while, as long as it's not to terribly hard to set up.

[+Renegade Knight]

It would be harder then I originally thought, but I still think it might be worth the while, as long as it's not to terribly hard to set up.

If somehow they knew what approver handled what area they could do it. Even that isn't so simple.

[+fly46]

The problem is that it's not a black and white issue.

 

It's not like your cache comes into the queue and is assigned a pre-approval number and then say you're number 257 and the other ones get taken in order before you and nothing after you will be done before yours is.

 

The simple answer is that once a cache is in the queue, it will usually be either approved in 48 hours or less or you will hear from the reviewer who will either deny your cache or ask more questions. The listing guidelines give this timeframe.

 

To make your listing show up faster, include coords for every stage of the multi if there is one, describe the hiding area rather well, etc... The less questions they have to ask the quicker your cache will be approved.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The problem is that it's not a black and white issue.

 

It's not like your cache comes into the queue and is assigned a pre-approval number and then say you're number 257 and the other ones get taken in order before you and nothing after you will be done before yours is.

 

The simple answer is that once a cache is in the queue, it will usually be either approved in 48 hours or less or you will hear from the reviewer who will either deny your cache or ask more questions. The listing guidelines give this timeframe.

 

To make your listing show up faster, include coords for every stage of the multi if there is one, describe the hiding area rather well, etc... The less questions they have to ask the quicker your cache will be approved.

Where does it mention 48 hours in the guidelines?

[twjolson & Kay]

The problem is that it's not a black and white issue.

 

It's not like your cache comes into the queue and is assigned a pre-approval number and then say you're number 257 and the other ones get taken in order before you and nothing after you will be done before yours is. 

 

The simple answer is that once a cache is in the queue, it will usually be either approved in 48 hours or less or you will hear from the reviewer who will either deny your cache or ask more questions.  The listing guidelines give this timeframe. 

 

To make your listing show up faster, include coords for every stage of the multi if there is one, describe the hiding area rather well, etc...  The less questions they have to ask the quicker your cache will be approved.

Where does it mention 48 hours in the guidelines?

The guidlines say 36-72 hours, so 48 is kind of a happy medium.

 

@ fly46

I know it's not black and white, but I think it still would be worthwhile to have some sort of a system.

And from what I've read in the previous posts, and the links therein. Simply put, caches are put in order, and reviewed in order. Some caches though, multi's, incomplete info, etc. Can bump you back down. I don't know how a system like this would handle that, but initially they are put into a line-up.

I am not a expert programmer, nor do I know all the ins and outs of the gc.com system. But I think something like this might do good.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The problem is that it's not a black and white issue.

 

It's not like your cache comes into the queue and is assigned a pre-approval number and then say you're number 257 and the other ones get taken in order before you and nothing after you will be done before yours is. 

 

The simple answer is that once a cache is in the queue, it will usually be either approved in 48 hours or less or you will hear from the reviewer who will either deny your cache or ask more questions.  The listing guidelines give this timeframe. 

 

To make your listing show up faster, include coords for every stage of the multi if there is one, describe the hiding area rather well, etc...  The less questions they have to ask the quicker your cache will be approved.

Where does it mention 48 hours in the guidelines?

The guidlines say 36-72 hours, so 48 is kind of a happy medium.

Ok, where does it say 36?

 

It says 72 hours on this page, but the guidelines don't actually mention a timeframe.

[Keystone]

It would be harder then I originally thought, but I still think it might be worth the while, as long as it's not to terribly hard to set up.

If somehow they knew what approver handled what area they could do it. Even that isn't so simple.

RK has it right. A "your number in line is X" feature would have to be tied to a particular reviewer's queue, in order to be meaningful. But, the review queue is organized geographically, by country and by state or province, where applicable. And, to complicate matters, reviewers often share or split their territory within a country, state or province. People back each other up during vacations. Reviewer assignments change regularly as new members join the volunteer team.

 

A numbering system would lead to inaccurate conclusions like the following:

 

You are #1 in line for the State of West Virginia. Simple, right, since I'm the only reviewer for West Virginia? But you may be in for a three-day wait, if I've just trimmed the queue down to zero before taking off on a geocaching trip. Catch me when I return, and someone who's #8 in line will see their cache approved within hours, while #1 waited three days.

 

You are #26 in line for the State of Pennsylvania. Yikes! A long wait, right? Maybe not. Two reviewers share Pennsylvania, with temporary help from a third person. Assume I'm the slowpoke, and I have 20 caches to review on the Western side of the State. You could be sixth in line for the faster reviewer to the east of me.

 

You are #19 in line for the State of Ohio. Dang, that Keystone is really a slacker, isn't he? Well, what if 12 of those are caches that are just waiting to be listed in conjunction with this weekend's events, and four more are complex multicaches and puzzles? Your simple tupperware in the park could really be the second one out of those 19 to be listed.

 

Once again, if this proposal were adopted, Jeremy would need to program in the reviewer territories and keep that list accurate. For me, the programming would look like this:

 

IF STATE = Ohio
BUT NOT IF Latitude < N40.5° AND Longitude >W83.5°
OR IF STATE=Pennsylvania
BUT NOT IF Latitude < W78°
OR IF STATE = West Virginia
THEN Reviewer Queue = Keystone

[/b]

 

Repeat that for all the other reviewers, and update it weekly for changes.

[+LaPaglia]

It would be harder then I originally thought, but I still think it might be worth the while, as long as it's not to terribly hard to set up.

If somehow they knew what approver handled what area they could do it. Even that isn't so simple.

RK has it right. A "your number in line is X" feature would have to be tied to a particular reviewer's queue, in order to be meaningful. But, the review queue is organized geographically, by country and by state or province, where applicable. And, to complicate matters, reviewers often share or split their territory within a country, state or province. People back each other up during vacations. Reviewer assignments change regularly as new members join the volunteer team.

 

A numbering system would lead to inaccurate conclusions like the following:

 

You are #1 in line for the State of West Virginia. Simple, right, since I'm the only reviewer for West Virginia? But you may be in for a three-day wait, if I've just trimmed the queue down to zero before taking off on a geocaching trip. Catch me when I return, and someone who's #8 in line will see their cache approved within hours, while #1 waited three days.

 

You are #26 in line for the State of Pennsylvania. Yikes! A long wait, right? Maybe not. Two reviewers share Pennsylvania, with temporary help from a third person. Assume I'm the slowpoke, and I have 20 caches to review on the Western side of the State. You could be sixth in line for the faster reviewer to the east of me.

 

You are #19 in line for the State of Ohio. Dang, that Keystone is really a slacker, isn't he? Well, what if 12 of those are caches that are just waiting to be listed in conjunction with this weekend's events, and four more are complex multicaches and puzzles? Your simple tupperware in the park could really be the second one out of those 19 to be listed.

 

Once again, if this proposal were adopted, Jeremy would need to program in the reviewer territories and keep that list accurate. For me, the programming would look like this:

 

IF STATE = Ohio
BUT NOT IF Latitude < N40.5° AND Longitude >W83.5°
OR IF STATE=Pennsylvania
BUT NOT IF Latitude < W78°
OR IF STATE = West Virginia
THEN Reviewer Queue = Keystone

[/b]

 

Repeat that for all the other reviewers, and update it weekly for changes.

Weekly??????????????

 

I remember a recent flood and another power outage that required updating twice in the same week for two different reviewers.

 

The point is. ITS NOT EASY, no matter how you look at it. Not all good ideas can be implemented.

 

Sorry.