Log Of The Reviewer Published

August 1, 2005

hi geocachers

i´m from germany i´ve made today a new cache

after reviewing i had a log entry from the reviewer and the log is "published"

and i can´t delete this log this is very annoying cause earlyer that time it wasn´t so . so what do you think about this ?

Please post me your Opinion

monkfisch

9.1k · August 1, 2005

The new "published" log type was added so that the "instant new cache notification" feature would work. The "published" log triggers an e-mail message to everyone within 50 miles of the new cache who has set up a notification request, so that they will know about your new cache. So, this log helps get more people to visit your cache!

It also helps for everyone to know the name of the Geocaching.com volunteer who published a cache. That way, if there is ever a problem with the cache, they will know someone to write to if the owner does not respond.

You can read more about the instant notification feature over in the Geocaching.com forum.

1.2k · August 1, 2005

The "published" log triggers an e-mail message to everyone within 50 miles of the new cache who has set up a notification request, so that they will know about your new cache.

If you make a special request via a reviewer note is it still possible to get a cache approved the old fashioned way? Not all of us want our caches advertised like that.

22k · August 1, 2005

The "published" log triggers an e-mail message to everyone within 50 miles of the new cache who has set up a notification request, so that they will know about your new cache.

If you make a special request via a reviewer note is it still possible to get a cache approved the old fashioned way? Not all of us want our caches advertised like that.

you don't want people to know you have a cache? :rolleyes:

August 1, 2005

Forgive my astonishment, but why the heck not?

38.2k · August 1, 2005

The "published" log triggers an e-mail message to everyone within 50 miles of the new cache who has set up a notification request, so that they will know about your new cache.

If you make a special request via a reviewer note is it still possible to get a cache approved the old fashioned way? Not all of us want our caches advertised like that.

you don't want people to know you have a cache?

I thought the entire point of this was for people to know about your cache. What's the difference if they get a weekly notification, or an instant one?

9.1k · August 1, 2005

If you don't want it widely known that you've hidden a cache, you can always list it on Navicache. :rolleyes:

1.2k · August 1, 2005

People will see it's listed on their own, and the thought of first to find addicts getting an extra advantage doesn't sit well with me.

38.2k · August 1, 2005

People will see it's listed on their own, and the thought of first to find addicts getting an extra advantage doesn't sit well with me.

Actually it will even the playing field. The people who aren't willing to check the website every 15 minutes the way the FTF hounds do will now get a notification and have an equal chance at a FTF.

August 1, 2005

I don't get it. What advantage do the first to find addicts specifically get that others can't because of this?

9.1k · August 1, 2005

People will see it's listed on their own, and the thought of first to find addicts getting an extra advantage doesn't sit well with me.

Actually it will even the playing field. The people who aren't willing to check the website every 15 minutes the way the FTF hounds do will now get a notification and have an equal chance at a FTF.

... if they pay $3.00 a month or $30 per year.

1.2k · August 1, 2005

Actually it will even the playing field. The people who aren't willing to check the website every 15 minutes the way the FTF hounds do will now get a notification and have an equal chance at a FTF.

That's true, I guess I didn't think of it that way.

August 1, 2005

If you don't want it widely known that you've hidden a cache, you can always list it on Navicache.

:anibad:

Good answer!

August 1, 2005

People will see it's listed on their own, and the thought of first to find addicts getting an extra advantage doesn't sit well with me.

Actually it will even the playing field. The people who aren't willing to check the website every 15 minutes the way the FTF hounds do will now get a notification and have an equal chance at a FTF.

... if they pay $3.00 a month or $30 per year.

And if they don't then they should.

24.7k · August 1, 2005

hi geocachers
i´m from germany i´ve made today a new cache

after reviewing i had a log entry from the reviewer and the log is "published"

and i can´t delete this log this is very annoying cause earlyer that time it wasn´t so . so what do you think about this ?

Please post me your Opinion

monkfisch

If I understand this right there is now a special reviewer log type that's visible on the cache page when the cache is approved?

6.5k · August 1, 2005

If I understand this right there is now a special reviewer log type that's visible on the cache page when the cache is approved?

Yea, look at the first log on a new cache.

Lep:
It also helps for everyone to know the name of the Geocaching.com volunteer who published a cache. That way, if there is ever a problem with the cache, they will know someone to write to if the owner does not respond.

Now that will be useful! :rolleyes:

9.1k · August 1, 2005

Look at any brand new cache page (published since last Thursday evening). On the first day of log entries there will be an automatically generated one-line log that says "Published" and it will indicate the name of the Reviewer who looked at and listed the cache. This is different than a "Reviewer Note."

August 1, 2005

Now all they have to do is change the field next to the reviewer name from "number found" to "number approved," and we'll see caches get approved even faster as the reviewers compete. :rolleyes:

1.8k · August 1, 2005

Now all they have to do is change the field next to the reviewer name from "number found" to "number approved," and we'll see caches get approved even faster as the reviewers compete.

Except for our "it's not about the numbers" approvers, who will delete all their approvals and start posting notes instead.

August 2, 2005

Now all they have to do is change the field next to the reviewer name from "number found" to "number approved," and we'll see caches get approved even faster as the reviewers compete.

Except for our "it's not about the numbers" approvers, who will delete all their approvals and start posting notes instead.

Don't give them any ideas!

August 2, 2005

I take this position on the subject. I think it is a waste of a log entry.

Two reasons for it have been presented, here and elsewhere, but I think they are not that valid.

Reason 1: They are needed for the new notification system work.

Why is that? Why does it have to be triggered by a log entry rather than some sort of admin backend that I'll assume the reviewer use? Why can't it be triggered by what ever they did before to mark a cache as approved? Some thing had to happen in the background when the cache was approved... why not ship off the notification at the same time?

Reason 2: Now everyone knows who approved it.

Hmmm... why not just make that info that was already visible to cache owners on their cache pages available to everyone? there was already a small "Approved by" text at the bottom of the caches you own. A simple change in the web page logic should have been able to just put it there regardless of who was viewing the page.

Now, I still think it is a waste of a log entry. But that is just my opinion.

1.8k · August 2, 2005

I think it is a waste of a log entry.

I didn't know we only had a quota of a certain number of logs per cache...? Huh. In that case, I'd better start rationing now! Hear ye: All logs under three paragraphs in length shall henceforth be deleted from my caches! :rolleyes:

24.7k · August 2, 2005

...Yea, look at the first log on a new cache....

Thanks. Now I know I don't like them. That note is what they should all look like if they have to post a note now to approve a cache. Hopefully they can post the note then archive it.

August 2, 2005

I think it is a waste of a log entry.

I didn't know we only had a quota of a certain number of logs per cache...? Huh. In that case, I'd better start rationing now! Hear ye: All logs under three paragraphs in length shall henceforth be deleted from my caches!

Who said anything about a quota. But the log still shows up in gpx files until there are more than five legit logs... but then it doesn't even show on the cache page by default. so.. seems like a waste when the same info was already available if they had just turned it on rather than adding a new special log entry.

And go ahead and delete logs from your caches... you still won't be able to delete the "Published" one.

2.3k · August 2, 2005

...Yea, look at the first log on a new cache....

Thanks. Now I know I don't like them. That note is what they should all look like if they have to post a note now to approve a cache. Hopefully they can post the note then archive it.

That would be twice the work. Its just a note. What dont you like about it?

24.7k · August 2, 2005

...That would be twice the work. Its just a note. What dont you like about it?

Twice the work is having to post a note to begin with instead of clicking an "Approved" button.

What I don't like about it is that it has nothing to do with the cache. It's now a splash screen for the approval. It's soapbox platform that some wont' be able to resist (and regular notes have already been used as such). Depending on the note and the cache it can take away from the atmoshpher the cache owner spent a lot of time and effort creating.

I'd rather the first log was the first cacher. FTL shouldn't be First to log after approver. FTLAP. If this method is used it should be invisible like standard approver notes.

21.9k · August 2, 2005

The note is automatically added; it is not manually entered by the Reviewer. Each and every one of them starts with the same automatically generated text: the single word "Published." (For a little while last Thursday, they were blank.) Also the note isn't added instantaneously. Once I press the "publish" button, I am finished with the cache and I move on to the next one, and the note is added at some point by the system. It would be inconvenient to return to the cache at a later time to remove the automatically generated note. I'm not sure I'm even able to do that, and I don't want to mess with anyone else's cache to test this.

Back to generating some more "published" notes. There's a doozy of a puzzle cache brewing someplace in Ohio. :lol:

2.3k · August 2, 2005

Id have to approve the cache. wait for the note to appear, then is possible Id have to delete it. That will slow things down. Don't fear change. Its not going to mess with the aesthetics of the cache page.

9.2k · August 2, 2005

It's soapbox platform that some wont' be able to resist (and regular notes have already been used as such). Depending on the note and the cache it can take away from the atmoshpher the cache owner spent a lot of time and effort creating.

<_< huh? :lol:

If you haven't noticed, they're all exactly the same. The single word Published. That's it. Obviously, it's an automatted process. How's it going to be a soapbox?

24.7k · August 2, 2005

... huh?

If you haven't noticed, they're all exactly the same. The single word Published. That's it. Obviously, it's an automatted process. How's it going to be a soapbox?

In the past approvers have posted notes. If all you can do is say "Published" then this can't be used that way and the standard note would need to be used. In all honesty it's been some time since I've seen approvers do that with the note.

2.3k · August 2, 2005

... huh?

If you haven't noticed, they're all exactly the same. The single word Published. That's it. Obviously, it's an automatted process. How's it going to be a soapbox?

In the past approvers have posted notes. If all you can do is say "Published" then this can't be used that way and the standard note would need to be used. In all honesty it's been some time since I've seen approvers do that with the note.

Its totally automated. the reviewers don't do anything. We hit the list button on the cache and the system puts the note on the cache. By the time it gets there I'm on the next Cache to be reviewed.

Its not a plot or a soapbox.

August 2, 2005

Everyone keeps saying why its no big deal its there... but no one is saying why it needs to be there in the first place. We've already been told that it doesn't even happen right away. The system puts it in shortly after approval. So something must trigger THAT to happen. Why can't that just trigger the things that the "Published" note triggers without actually putting the note there? I am just not getting. Quit telling us not to worry about it and try telling us why we need to love it and won't be able to live without it.... um... please. :lol:

thank you.

3.8k · August 2, 2005

Everyone keeps saying why its no big deal its there... but no one is saying why it needs to be there in the first place. We've already been told that it doesn't even happen right away. The system puts it in shortly after approval. So something must trigger THAT to happen. Why can't that just trigger the things that the "Published" note triggers without actually putting the note there? I am just not getting. Quit telling us not to worry about it and try telling us why we need to love it and won't be able to live without it.... um... please.

thank you.

The note is there for the new Insta-notify system to work. When the log type "Published" gets sent through the system, the Insta-notify sees it and sends out the appropriate emails.

Someone mentioned the 5 log quote on a GPX file (pocket query) but when a cache is brand new, there's not a lot of logs anyway and it won't be long before that published note drops off the page).

If you're looking for reasons why it shouldn't be there, can you provide any? I can't.

38.2k · August 2, 2005

If they made the note deletable by the owner than owners who don't like it can delete it and those who don't give a clam's patootie can leave it.

Edited August 2, 2005 by briansnat

August 2, 2005

Its totally automated. the reviewers don't do anything. We hit the list button on the cache and the system puts the note on the cache.

Great. Then it should be no problem also making it auto-delete. The "published" log makes the feature appear to have been created fast and dirty.

August 2, 2005

... huh?

If you haven't noticed, they're all exactly the same. The single word Published. That's it. Obviously, it's an automatted process. How's it going to be a soapbox?

In the past approvers have posted notes. If all you can do is say "Published" then this can't be used that way and the standard note would need to be used. In all honesty it's been some time since I've seen approvers do that with the note.

Its totally automated. the reviewers don't do anything. We hit the list button on the cache and the system puts the note on the cache. By the time it gets there I'm on the next Cache to be reviewed.

Its not a plot or a soapbox.

It is automated and they all look the same. So all caches start with the same log message. Hmmm ... I must have missed something ... what was the purpose of that log message? Or is it more a wart caused by some rather kludgy implementation of the notification mechanism?

Note: I have no clue how the notification itself is triggered. So I don't claim that it is implemented kludgy. But for a software engineer like me that sort of automated message containing literally zero usefull information looks and smells very much like a workaround for some other problem. Maybe ... hehe ... adding another note containing just the word Published will cause the system to send out another round of notifications?

Jan

21.9k · August 2, 2005

At this time, I am moving the thread to the Geocaching.com forum, because several posts are taking issue with the way the instant notification feature has been programmed to key off of the various log types, like "published." Perhaps Jeremy can provide a clearer explanation than the ones already provided.

2k · August 2, 2005

Like anything new, "published" looks funny.

But it has some nice characteristics, even if the underlying reason was for notifications.

We know who approved the listing.

We know when the listing was approved.

Edited August 2, 2005 by beejay&esskay

3.5k · August 2, 2005

Y'know they say you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people all the time....are all those people now Geocachers?

Or are they just people who just sit and type to the forums all night?

I don't pretend to understand how database junk works, but the use of a note to trigger the notification rather than a system that sits and queries the database 24/7 just makes sense. Maybe there's a better way, but I'm absolutely sure there is a far worse way too.

Here's an idea: if you don't like it, stop scrolling all the way down! That'll make you feel much better. :lol:

Bret

August 2, 2005

Y'know they say you can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people all the time....are all those people now Geocachers?

Or are they just people who just sit and type to the forums all night?

I don't pretend to understand how database junk works, but the use of a note to trigger the notification rather than a system that sits and queries the database 24/7 just makes sense. Maybe there's a better way, but I'm absolutely sure there is a far worse way too.

Here's an idea: if you don't like it, stop scrolling all the way down! That'll make you feel much better.

Bret

But, of course, you can also please some of the people all of the time, and dang, do they get their panties in a bunch if you aren't as easy to please as they are. :lol: <_< :unsure:

Edited August 2, 2005 by Yankees Win!

August 2, 2005

We've already been told that it doesn't even happen right away. The system puts it in shortly after approval. So something must trigger THAT to happen. Why can't that just trigger the things that the "Published" note triggers without actually putting the note there?

I don't like to repeat myself so I'll just quote myself. I've yet to see this answered but people continue to claim the "Published" note is needed to trigger the new notification system. If that is true then it does look like it was hastily implemented. It does not appear that the system(s) are working together the way they should.

Also, it should not be there because it does not need to be there. Unless another reason is given as to why it needs to be there.

Also, it offers no more useful info than was already available to the cahce owner on the cache page. They could have very easily made that info available to everyone on the cache page with out a note.

Edited August 2, 2005 by mini cacher

9.1k · August 2, 2005

The "published" log triggers the notification. That is a fact, not a claim. The fact that you keep repeating yourself does not change anything about that fact.

Whether the feature was "hastily implemented" is an opinion. I know that TPTB have been working on this feature off and on for a very long time. Given the size and complexity of the database and the e-mail traffic, I am assuming that care was taken to optimize the new feature's performance. I'm not the programmer, however, so I am glad that this topic is now in the forum that is monitored by TPTB, should they choose to respond further.

August 2, 2005

We've already been told that it doesn't even happen right away. The system puts it in shortly after approval. So something must trigger THAT to happen. Why can't that just trigger the things that the "Published" note triggers without actually putting the note there?

I don't like to repeat myself so I'll just quote myself. I've yet to see this answered but people continue to claim the "Published" note is needed to trigger the new notification system. If that is true then it does look like it was hastily implemented. It does not appear that the system(s) are working together the way they should.

Also, it should not be there because it does not need to be there. Unless another reason is given as to why it needs to be there.

Also, it offers no more useful info than was already available to the cahce owner on the cache page. They could have very easily made that info available to everyone on the cache page with out a note.

It may very well happen right away (transaction inserted into database), but simply that the page is not regenerated to show it (just like find counts on finders aren't updated until someone adds a new log).

You can already see this sometimes when you add a cache to my watch list, but when you return to the cache, the button still has the add to watch list text instead of remove from watch list.

And yes, I do have my browser set to "Every Time".

Regardless, arguing about not having "Published" is about as silly as not having the disabled and enabled logs - those are also very useful in showing what happened and when. The published log does give information not available elsewhere on the page.

With regard to implementation, it would seem that the transactional implementation is the correct one. Whether you should see (perhaps optionally) these transactions might be a matter for discussion.

24.7k · August 2, 2005

...It is automated and they all look the same. So all caches start with the same log message. Hmmm ... I must have missed something ... what was the purpose of that log message? Or is it more a wart...

I think wart sums it up quite nicely. It has as much place on my future caches as debates that belong in the forums do. I'd delete both and not loose sleep on either.

Since it's automatic someone else pointed out that it could be automaticly archived after the notice is triggered. I'm assuming it makes something easier than it used to be or it would not be there.

For the most part while not a lot people really care it's there, I don't think anyone would stand in line to get their own Published log either. That is unless you can get your own custom Icon for it on your stats page. :lol:

Edited August 2, 2005 by Renegade Knight

9.2k · August 2, 2005

But for a software engineer like me that sort of automated message containing literally zero usefull information looks and smells very much like a workaround for some other problem.

I wouldn't say that it contains no useful information. No where on a cache page can you find out on what day a cache become active. Now that information is available.

3.9k · August 2, 2005

This is a useful wart.

Having the name of which reviewer is helpful also. I have seen where a cache was placed on private property and the cachers were able to quickly let the reviewer know and get the situation under control.

As an additional note (not related to the Published log). When I run my PQ in preperation for a cache run, I get notified of a temp disabled cache in the area I am headed to. It helps to know a cahce is gone before I go, or notification of an enabled cache will save the frustration of getting home and finding that there is a cache I missed in that area.

So, IMHO, the benifits outweigh the inconveniences.

I like notify, I like it a lot.

August 2, 2005

Processing steps:

1) Wait for new log ...

2) Prepare email based on log type

3) Find out what users want notification of that log type at those coords.

4) Send them that email.

5) Go to step 1

[Or something like that anyway...]

Simple, elegant and works.

Good job!

2.1k · August 2, 2005

It does have this icky feeling of "lame" when I saw the cache page with it on it.

What's worse is that it's not even the first log on the page quoted above...so now you get this wierd "I logged it before it was published" feeling about the first two logs on that cache.

I don't understand why it needs to be visible even if it is needed for things to be viable.

There are reviewer notes and hider comments that disappear once a cache goes live. There's probably a ton of things going on behind the curtain for each and every feature, but we don't have to see them.

This just feels like the wizard's left his State Fair bag hanging out under his curtain and we don't even need Toto to do the rest for us.

2.1k · August 2, 2005

Having the name of which reviewer is helpful also. I have seen where a cache was placed on private property and the cachers were able to quickly let the reviewer know and get the situation under control.

That was already available. It is called an SBA log.

August 2, 2005

Having the name of which reviewer is helpful also. I have seen where a cache was placed on private property and the cachers were able to quickly let the reviewer know and get the situation under control.

That was already available. It is called an SBA log.

That does work most of the time. In this case I was filling in for a reviewer on vacation, so I would not get the SBA notification for her state. Also, folks do not always post SBA logs. In this case there were 3 notes posted, no SBA, and an e-mail to myself and the owner.

Log Of The Reviewer Published

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

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