Feature: We Control When A Cache Gets Listed!

[+DocDiTTo]

Hows this for an idea...

 

reviewers often get requests to approve caches at a specific time, or not before a certain date, etc. This is usually done for event caches, or other special occasions. What if we had the option of setting a "Don't automaticaly post" flag for the cache, so the reviewer could review and approve the location, but the cache wouldn't get enabled for all to see until the cache owner "hits a button"? The owner would only be able to initially enable the cache, not hide it or change its status further.

 

Or, if the owner could enter a time & date when the cache is submitted, and the cache wouldn't get posted even if the reviewer approved it ahead of time until that specified time and date?

 

This would take a little work off the reviewer and would put more control into the hands of the users.

 

I'm assuming reviewers don't have a "timed approval" option to approve a cache then have it automatically posted at the right time - or maybe they do?

 

Anyway, this is something I'd find useful. Might make the reviewers lives easier too.

Edited August 19, 2005 by DocDiTTo

[+mini cacher]

Interesting. I could see this being very useful when setting up a series of caches that should go live at the same time. Each one could be approved on its own and when the whole series of caches is approved, the owner could set them all loose at the same time.

[+donbadabon]

Interesting.

 

However, there would have to be a time-limit imposed. We all know some folks would use this feature to 'squat' on a cache location to keep others from getting there first. They wouldn't even have to actually have a cache hidden, they could get the approval, and then months down the road finally decide to hide the actual cache.

[WH]

I could see this working if there was a time and date field that the cache owner fill in prior to submitting the cache that gives the date and time for the listing to be published. This way, the reviewer would know exactly when the cache would go live but wouldn't actually have to do anything. It would automatically get listed at the date and time provided by the cache owner.

[+ODragon]

I thought most reviewers would do this now assuming they got to it in time. I have placed a reviewer note that said something to the effect of "Please approve this cache on Friday night or Sat morning". She had no problem with that. (Given, she didn't look at the cache until Sunday but that wasn't her fault. She was away.)

[+DocDiTTo]

I thought most reviewers would do this now assuming they got to it in time. I have placed a reviewer note that said something to the effect of "Please approve this cache on Friday night or Sat morning". She had no problem with that. (Given, she didn't look at the cache until Sunday but that wasn't her fault. She was away.)

And this is exactly one reason why a time/date feature would be useful. If you could set the time/date up to, say, 30 days in advance, you could place your cache well ahead of time, submit it for approval, it could be approved but then not active until the date you specified, whether your reviewer was away or not at the time wouldn't be relevant. I know I've requested a couple caches to be approved on a specific day, but that all hinges on whether the approver is available on that day and remembers to do the approval. As someone earlier mentioned, a time limit could be established to prevent "squatting", say a month, since a lot of event caches are done that far in advance.

[+welch]

And this is exactly one reason why a time/date feature would be useful. If you could set the time/date up to, say, 30 days in advance, you could place your cache well ahead of time, submit it for approval, it could be approved but then not active until the date you specified, whether your reviewer was away or not at the time wouldn't be relevant. I know I've requested a couple caches to be approved on a specific day, but that all hinges on whether the approver is available on that day and remembers to do the approval. As someone earlier mentioned, a time limit could be established to prevent "squatting", say a month, since a lot of event caches are done that far in advance.

Why would you make me wait thirty days to find your cache?

[+DocDiTTo]

Why would you make me wait thirty days to find your cache? 

From my original post:

"reviewers often get requests to approve caches at a specific time, or not before a certain date, etc. This is usually done for event caches, or other special occasions."

[+caderoux]

And this is exactly one reason why a time/date feature would be useful.  If you could set the time/date up to, say, 30 days in advance, you could place your cache well ahead of time, submit it for approval, it could be approved but then not active until the date you specified, whether your reviewer was away or not at the time wouldn't be relevant.  I know I've requested a couple caches to be approved on a specific day, but that all hinges on whether the approver is available on that day and remembers to do the approval.  As someone earlier mentioned, a time limit could be established to prevent "squatting", say a month,  since a lot of event caches are done that far in advance.

Why would you make me wait thirty days to find your cache?

It could be a seasonal cache that you want timed to appear before Halloween or whatever. You want to do the work and make sure it will be approved in time but not too early. If you wait too late, the approver may not get to it.

 

Of course, you can already do all this via email with the approver - the suggestion is a way to free the approver from having to wait to approve it.

[ertyu]

There are ways around this. Get the cache approved, but don't post the correct co-ordinates/instructions till the date and time you want.

[+Prime Suspect]

This has been brought up a few times before, such as here and here.

 

As it stands now, if you want your approval delayed until a certain date, just add that info to a reviewer note when you submit the cache.

 

If this were automated, I think people would take advantage of it to "reserve" areas without actually putting out caches.

[+Lil Devil]

The current mechanism seems to work pretty well. I don't see the advantage in complicating it.