How Do You Become A Reviewer For Geocaching.com?

July 11, 2005

Does anyone know how you become a reviewer for geocaching.com? I am intrested in doing some work like that.

1.5k · July 11, 2005

Does anyone know how you become a reviewer for geocaching.com? I am intrested in doing some work like that.

You might start by reading the FAQ pinned to the top of the getting started forum:

How do I become a volunteer cache reviewer?

Geocaching.com asks geocachers to become volunteer cache reviewers based on an identified need in the local area. Qualifications include experience level (most volunteers have hidden dozens of caches and found hundreds or thousands), reputation within the local geocaching community, involvement with any local geocaching organizations, demonstrated ability to work with land managers, communications skills, and knowledge of the geocache listing guidelines.

The best thing you can do if you'd like to become a cache reviewer is to work on each of the qualifications described above. Then, when you least expect it, you might be asked!

9.4k · July 11, 2005

Does anyone know how you become a reviewer for geocaching.com? I am intrested in doing some work like that.

Why would you want to volunteer for a job when you haven't been around long enough to know what the job entails? (Your join date is just last month)

July 11, 2005

Does anyone know how you become a reviewer for geocaching.com? I am intrested in doing some work like that.

You must surely hate yourself to voluntarily inflict such serious pain upon your person!

1.3k · July 11, 2005

This topic comes up in a thread every few weeks it seems. This post by Keystone sums it up pretty well.

The main thing is you don't ask, you are asked.

7.3k · July 11, 2005

The main thing is you don't ask, you are asked.

Kinda like in that movie, "The Skulls"?

1.8k · July 11, 2005

Didn't like that movie much, nor the sequel. But I like our reviewers, and I have a frog skull on my antenna.

9.5k · July 11, 2005

If you want the office, it's likely you'll never get it. You'll want to be seen kicking and screaming as you're dragged to it.

38.2k · July 11, 2005

If you want the office, it's likely you'll never get it. You'll want to be seen kicking and screaming as you're dragged to it.

As I've often said, if you want to be a reviewer, you're too dumb to be one.

Edited July 11, 2005 by briansnat

2.3k · July 11, 2005

As I've often said, if you want to be a reviewer, you're too dumb to be one.

July 11, 2005

As I've often said, if you want to be a reviewer, you're too dumb to be one.

Or too powerhungry and manipulative

July 11, 2005

The best way to become a Reviewer is to pretend like you have no interest in being one, whatsoever. :blink:

July 11, 2005

I guess the better question is, if you're not already one, why would you want to become one? :lol:

Having seen what they get put through on the pages, I'm pretty sure it is not for the weak of stomach. :blink:

1.4k · July 11, 2005

If you want the office, it's likely you'll never get it. You'll want to be seen kicking and screaming as you're dragged to it.

Actually it's more like Shock and Awe. They shock you with the offer before you come to your senses you realize that you've become an endentured servant of the frog. Then you all you hear from people who used to be your friends is "Awe, that's too bad, you used to be such a nice person". :blink:

22k · July 11, 2005

Requirements:

Courage – Having the determination to do the right thing even when others don't; the strength to follow your conscience rather than the crowd. Attempting difficult things that are worthwhile.

Good Judgment – Choosing worthy goals and setting proper priorities. Thinking through the consequences of your actions. Basing decisions on practical wisdom and good sense.

Integrity – Having the inner strength to be truthful, trustworthy, and honest in all things. Acting justly and honorably.

Kindness – Being considerate, courteous, helpful, and understanding of others. Showing care, compassion, friendship, and generosity. Treating others as you would like to be treated.

Perseverance – Being persistent in pursuit of worthy objectives in spite of difficulty, opposition, or discouragement. Exhibiting patience and having the fortitude to try again when confronted with delays, mistakes, or failures.

Respect – Showing high regard for authority, for other people, for self, for property, and for country. Understanding that all people have value as human beings.

Responsibility – Being dependable in carrying out obligations and duties. Showing reliability and consistency in words and conduct. Being accountable for your own actions. Being committed to active involvement in your community.

Self-discipline – Demonstrating hard work and commitment to purpose. Regulating yourself for improvement and refraining from inappropriate behaviors. Being in proper control of your words, actions, impulses, and desires. Choosing abstinence from premarital sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful substances and behaviors. Doing your best in all situations.

Unfortunately these requirements just went into place on July 1st

(Let's see if I ever get another cache approved.)

3.9k · July 11, 2005

They offered me the job as Moderator in the Pogo Pogo regional forum. :blink: Since I can't find it...I figured I was too stupid to moderate it.

El Diablo

July 11, 2005

On Saturday, "Mr. Trippy" and some reviewing cohorts will be answering questions from the Geocaching Community at large as part of the 2005 Midwest GeoBash. It will be moderated by Cybret and used for a Geocacher-U informational piece. I hear that there is going to be a sneek peek at a real Review Queue and a game of "What's Wrong With This Cache?"

I wonder if this question will come up at all? One question that won't come up is "How do I get a WJTB?"

Join us, won't you?

July 12, 2005

Asking to be a reviewer seems to be a bit of taboo around here, but I do think GC.com could be more proactive in getting reviewers in areas that don't really have any. For example, all three of the caches I've hidden have been approved by mtn-man, who lives almost on the opposite corner of the continent - 2,300 miles away. Now, don't get me wrong, mtn-man is great reviewer and I really appreciate his efforts - but I bet the turnaround time could be MUCH quicker if we got a reviewer or two in this area. Right now it's at least 72 hours (which is the target timeframe) before most caches up here get listed (to my knowledge).

It doesn't bother me that much - I don't mind waiting for my cache to get approved - but it would definitely be great if we got another reviewer up here. I'm not just saying this out of selfishness, either. Reviewers have a tough job, and it seems logical that if you have more reviewers, each individual reviewer doesn't have as much work to do... so let's get some more!

(Edit: Of course, I realize that it's not as easy as selecting somebody at random - it needs to be someone with a good knowledge of the guidlines and taboos, and somebody who's willing to do it.)

Edited July 12, 2005 by Tidalflame

July 12, 2005

Asking to be a reviewer seems to be a bit of taboo around here, but I do think GC.com could be more proactive in getting reviewers in areas that don't really have any. For example, all three of the caches I've hidden have been approved by mtn-man, who lives almost on the opposite corner of the continent - 2,300 miles away. Now, don't get me wrong, mtn-man is great reviewer and I really appreciate his efforts - but I bet the turnaround time could be MUCH quicker if we got a reviewer or two in this area. Right now it's at least 72 hours (which is the target timeframe) before most caches up here get listed (to my knowledge).

It doesn't bother me that much - I don't mind waiting for my cache to get approved - but it would definitely be great if we got another reviewer up here. I'm not just saying this out of selfishness, either. Reviewers have a tough job, and it seems logical that if you have more reviewers, each individual reviewer doesn't have as much work to do... so let's get some more!

(Edit: Of course, I realize that it's not as easy as selecting somebody at random - it needs to be someone with a good knowledge of the guidlines and taboos, and somebody who's willing to do it.)

A question arises.

Do we wish for quality or merely more quantity.

As a person who is still hung up on the virtual question I really would hate to see more muddy water before this is settled.

One scenario that always occers in teamwork is one teammember doing something incredible stupid and the others covering.

I am not suggesting that has happened.

I say the reviewers and moderaters are doing an excellant job with their resources.

Let them continue without cheap shots.

1.5k · July 12, 2005

The first rule of geocaching.com reviewer club is you do not talk about geocaching.com reviewer club.

The second rule: There is no geocaching.com reviewer club

3.1k · July 12, 2005

Are you rich?

1.5k · July 12, 2005

Are you rich?

the third rule: all bribes must go through me first...JK JK JK JK

July 13, 2005

Reviewer qualities

1: Severely masochistic

2: Loners (cause they are about to be)

3: No family (as they are about to lose theirs)

Who wants to be a reviewer now?

6.5k · July 13, 2005

Asking to be a reviewer seems to be a bit of taboo around here, but I do think GC.com could be more proactive in getting reviewers in areas that don't really have any. For example, all three of the caches I've hidden have been approved by mtn-man, who lives almost on the opposite corner of the continent - 2,300 miles away. Now, don't get me wrong, mtn-man is great reviewer and I really appreciate his efforts - but I bet the turnaround time could be MUCH quicker if we got a reviewer or two in this area. Right now it's at least 72 hours (which is the target timeframe) before most caches up here get listed (to my knowledge).

It doesn't bother me that much - I don't mind waiting for my cache to get approved - but it would definitely be great if we got another reviewer up here. I'm not just saying this out of selfishness, either. Reviewers have a tough job, and it seems logical that if you have more reviewers, each individual reviewer doesn't have as much work to do... so let's get some more!

(Edit: Of course, I realize that it's not as easy as selecting somebody at random - it needs to be someone with a good knowledge of the guidlines and taboos, and somebody who's willing to do it.)

Ahh, so do you think that the reviewers actually visit each cache listing in person before they give them the thumbs up? :blink: Sheesh, I'd like to get in on that frequent flyer action then. You must have missed this part in the FAQ's when you joined up:

Does Geocaching.com (or a volunteer) physically check the cache before approving it?

We wish! We'd love to head out to all those countries and states to check on each and every cache to ensure that they are placed properly. Based on the growth of the sport, however, this would be impossible. If you're not sure about a cache, wait for someone else to check on it and report back to the site.

Before a cache is posted, volunteers check the page for inaccuracies, bad coordinates, and appropriateness before posting the cache to the site.

So um, you think that the internet flows faster over shorter distances, and when it doesn't have to cross international boundaries?

July 13, 2005

Ahh, so do you think that the reviewers actually visit each cache listing in person before they give them the thumbs up? Sheesh, I'd like to get in on that frequent flyer action then. You must have missed this part in the FAQ's when you joined up:

Where did I imply that? I don't know how Geocaching's review system works, but my logic is that since reviewers are designated partly based on the area they live in, unapproved caches are listed in order of distance from the reviewer's home coordinates. So they work outward from where they live, so to speak. For all I know, it could be completely random, but then how do you explain the fact that some places have a much shorter average turnaround time than others?

So um, you think that the internet flows faster over shorter distances, and when it doesn't have to cross international boundaries?

Not that it would make any difference to the reviewing process, but yes, actually - latency does depend on the distance the signal has to travel. Even light can only travel so fast; electricity is no different. Of course, the delay is in the order of milliseconds, not hours, and thus has no effect on the reviewing process (as I said), but since you seem to be implying that I'm stupid, you could at least be factually correct about it.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Tidalflame

July 13, 2005

So um, you think that the internet flows faster over shorter distances, and when it doesn't have to cross international boundaries?

I thought all internet traffic crossing into the States had to be stripped, searched and fingerprinted?

Edited July 14, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

21.9k · July 13, 2005

Tidalflame, your logic is entirely faulty. The reviewer section of the site is organized quite differently and it has no relation to the reviewer's location. The queue of pending caches is organized geographically. I select "Ohio" from a pulldown menu and I'm taken to the screen of just the pending cache submissions in Ohio. It is two more mouseclicks to get to British Columbia from there.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Keystone

9.4k · July 13, 2005

For all I know, it could be completely random, but then how do you explain the fact that some places have a much shorter average turnaround time than others?

They're volunteers with different time tables and availability?

July 14, 2005

Tidalflame, your logic is entirely faulty. The reviewer section of the site is organized quite differently and it has no relation to the reviewer's location. The queue of pending caches is organized geographically. I select "Ohio" from a pulldown menu and I'm taken to the screen of just the pending cache submissions in Ohio. It is two more mouseclicks to get to British Columbia from there.

Ah, well, okay. But do you not prioritize Ohio caches over caches in British Columbia, since you are the approver for Central/Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia? My understanding was that approvers prioritized caches in their local areas over other areas, and it would seem that I was correct, although I was wrong about the technical aspect.

They're volunteers with different time tables and availability?

Yeah, but my meaning was that if you live in an area that has a reviewer who is specifically designated for that area, your caches are more likely to be approved faster. I'm speaking mostly of my own experience, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

On another note, it's really probably more trouble than it's worth, but making the system more transparent (ie. giving us a better idea of what exactly the reviewing process is) might make some placate some people. I'm sure there are much more pressing issues at hand for you guys, but it might not be a bad idea if anyone was looking for something to do.

Edited July 14, 2005 by Tidalflame

21.9k · July 14, 2005

Tidalflame, your logic is entirely faulty. The reviewer section of the site is organized quite differently and it has no relation to the reviewer's location. The queue of pending caches is organized geographically. I select "Ohio" from a pulldown menu and I'm taken to the screen of just the pending cache submissions in Ohio. It is two more mouseclicks to get to British Columbia from there.

Ah, well, okay. But do you not prioritize Ohio caches over caches in British Columbia, since you are the approver for Central/Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, and West Virginia? My understanding was that approvers prioritized caches in their local areas over other areas, and it would seem that I was correct, although I was wrong about the technical aspect.

You are incorrect again, in two respects. First, if a reviewer has lots of caches in lots of different areas, the reviewer must make an effort to follow a first-come, first-served policy. We do favor traditional caches or those with no issues, which can quickly be listed. Caches for which the review is time-consuming, like a ten stage multicache, can be looked at a bit later on. I cannot prioritize Western Pennsylvania higher because I live here, if there are earlier caches in Charleston West Virginia, a place I've never visited but for which I have reviewer responsibility.

Second, just as I am responsible for places like Toledo and Charleston where I've never found a geocache, mtn-man has responsibility for British Columbia -- not me. It *is* part of his assigned duties. And he is absolutely the best person for the job. He is one of the most senior, experienced reviewers on our team.

They're volunteers with different time tables and availability?

Yeah, but my meaning was that if you live in an area that has a reviewer who is specifically designated for that area, your caches are more likely to be approved faster. I'm speaking mostly of my own experience, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. Ask the guys in Toledo and they'll say I'm usually pretty good but sometimes get behind. Ask the guys in Pittsburgh and they'll say the same thing. There are some reviewers who are generally faster than me, and some who are generally slower. I would rather have a slow reviewer who is reasonable and will work with a cache owner over the course of four days to resolve an issue, than to have someone who clicks on the archive button ten minutes after a cache is submitted.

On another note, it's really probably more trouble than it's worth, but making the system more transparent (ie. giving us a better idea of what exactly the reviewing process is) might make some placate some people. I'm sure there are much more pressing issues at hand for you guys, but it might not be a bad idea if anyone was looking for something to do.

I've written many forum posts describing aspects of the review process in a lot of detail. I know I've specifically described how the review queue is organized by country and state, and that was the first mistaken assumption you made. This weekend I am participating in a panel discussion on the review process at an event I'm attending.

The volunteer team is happy to respond to reasonable questions about the cache review process.

July 14, 2005

I've written many forum posts describing aspects of the review process in a lot of detail. I know I've specifically described how the review queue is organized by country and state, and that was the first mistaken assumption you made. This weekend I am participating in a panel discussion on the review process at an event I'm attending.

My suggestion, then, is to copy this onto the main site, perhaps in the FAQ. I'm sure lots of people would appreciate it, and it could probably save you some typing next time this comes up.

21.9k · July 14, 2005

Way ahead of you again. This weekend's presentation is expected to turn into a written publication about the cache review process. Not saying where :blink: but it won't be housed on Geocaching.com. There's enough basic info. on the cache review process available on the site, IMHO, and I'd rather have Jeremy concentrating on programming new features than on posting my long-winded essays. For those curious for more details, they'll be accessible via this article.

How Do You Become A Reviewer For Geocaching.com?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation