Order In Which Caches Are Reviewed

[+Nekkar]

What is the order in which caches are reviewed?

 

I think I read somewhere in the forums that if you edit a cache page waiting to be reviewed, it goes back of the queue. Is this true or not?

 

Oh, and I did do a search, and unless I didn’t phrase it correctly, I didn’t get much results.

[Keystone]

Not true, but it's a rumor that I've heard before.

 

Caches are listed in the review queue chronologically, according to the GC number assigned when the page is first submitted. Then the reviewers divide them geographically. So I will see the oldest unpublished cache in Pennsylvania at the top of my queue, regardless of how many times the owner has edited the cache page.

 

Now, the order in which they're reviewed can be more complicated, but that is the order in which the caches are displayed. I may pick an "easy" cache from further down in the list and get it published first, if the two oldest caches are a nine-stage multicache and a puzzle cache very nearby a national park.

 

I hope that this is helpful.

[+Nekkar]

Thank you Keystone for answering my question so fast.

That's all I need to know. Topic can be closed.

 

Now a personal note.

I lurk in the forums quite a bit, and have learned a great deal. And I just want to say that I appreciate the level headed intelligent information, and advice that keystone offers. In so many cases I've seen subjects go so far off topic that the original topic is nearly forgotten. Keystone is usually there to re-direct the conversation back to the subject of the original poster, and if he can't, then there's a good reason the topic should be closed.

 

Thanks again.

[+Nekkar]

Ok, one more quick question.

 

What would happen if the reviewer were to review, and approve the cache while I was in the process of making a change to the cache page?

I suppose the last saved page on the GC server would be the one approved.

 

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I’m guessing that would that be correct?

[Mustcache]

a puzzle cache very nearby a national park.

 

Hiya Keystone,

 

While you're not my reviewer, I'm curious what you say about the puzzle cache. If the cache owner tells you the actual coordinates in a reviewer note, why would a puzzle cache take any more time to review? I hope your not trying to solve the puzzle!

 

Thanks for your volunteer work!

[+garri]

ups, sorry

Edited October 15, 2005 by garri

[+dkwolf]

a puzzle cache very nearby a national park.

 

Hiya Keystone,

 

While you're not my reviewer, I'm curious what you say about the puzzle cache. If the cache owner tells you the actual coordinates in a reviewer note, why would a puzzle cache take any more time to review? I hope your not trying to solve the puzzle!

 

Thanks for your volunteer work!

Hiya. Not keystone here, but my guess on this subject is since it's a puzzle cache, even if the final location coords are listed in a reviewer note, it is necessary to solve the puzzle or verify that the puzzle does indeed lead searchers to the correct coordinates instead of someplace within the park. I believe because of this, sometimes a reviewer will pass off a cache to another reviewer outside of the area that will likely not hunt the cache in question.

[Keystone]

Ok, one more quick question.

 

What would happen if the reviewer were to review, and approve the cache while I was in the process of making a change to the cache page?

I suppose the last saved page on the GC server would be the one approved.

 

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I’m guessing that would that be correct?

First off, thank you for your kind words. I enjoy helping people like you with questions in the forums a whole lot more than I like having to lock threads.

 

Yes it is possible that your cache will be published while you are still working on it. If I see that it's obviously a work in progress, I'll skip it and come back later. (no description, nonsense text, copy/paste from another cache, etc.) But sometimes it still happens, as when the owner is still working on uploading images and refining html code. Some caches are published within *minutes* of entering the queue... it is all luck of the draw based on what times during the day the reviewer takes a break from their real job or family life to do their volunteer job.

 

The reviewer would be publishing the cache based on the last saved description. If you were editing the cache at the time to say "please ignore the no trespassing signs," then I would be mildly upset if I ever returned to your page. Material changes after publication can be a quick ticket to archiving a cache.

 

To guard against premature publication, temporarily disable your cache page by unchecking the "This cache is active" box on the edit page. This removes the cache from the review queue. When you are finished editing, check the box again and it goes back into the queue... AND in order of its GC number.

[Keystone]

a puzzle cache very nearby a national park.

 

Hiya Keystone,

 

While you're not my reviewer, I'm curious what you say about the puzzle cache. If the cache owner tells you the actual coordinates in a reviewer note, why would a puzzle cache take any more time to review? I hope your not trying to solve the puzzle!

 

Thanks for your volunteer work!

Hiya. Not keystone here, but my guess on this subject is since it's a puzzle cache, even if the final location coords are listed in a reviewer note, it is necessary to solve the puzzle or verify that the puzzle does indeed lead searchers to the correct coordinates instead of someplace within the park. I believe because of this, sometimes a reviewer will pass off a cache to another reviewer outside of the area that will likely not hunt the cache in question.

I don't actually solve any of the puzzles. Otherwise, there would BE no puzzles in my review territory because I suck at puzzles. All I look for is that the cache complies with the listing guidelines, including that it can be solved through information found on or derived from the cache page. If I see a cipher or mysterious graphic, I say "oh, a puzzle on the page" and I assume it's solvable. I then move on to the reviewer note where the actual coordinates are given to me. These need to be plugged in on a separate page and tested against nearby caches and viewed on maps and aerial photos. So, there are extra steps and puzzles take longer.

 

And you are right... reviewers often pass off the review for a good puzzle cache in their immediate local area, to someone on the other side of the country. We are geocachers too, and we don't want to spoil our own fun. While the coordinates for multicaches quickly fade out of memory, the "secret" for solving a puzzle cache tends to stick with you, once known.

[+ILReviewer]

If there are puzzle caches or multi-stage caches that are in close proximity to other caches or to out-of-bounds areas like National Parks and such, it takes longer for us to review each stage to make sure it complies with the rules. A four stage multi-cache (even if the hider provides a four sets of coordinates) would take me four times longer to review. Remember that each stage has to be a minimum distance from other caches, but not from other stages of the same cache.

 

When there are 30-40 caches to review in Illinois, if I've got a choice of doing that one cache and checking all of the coords, or using the same time to review 4 single stage caches, I'll bump the 4 single stage caches in front - just to serve as many people as possible.

 

Unless there's something particularly nasty with the cache, that bump to the later part of the queue at most would usually just mean a difference of about an hour.

[+Team Perks]

Caches are listed in the review queue chronologically, according to the GC number assigned when the page is first submitted.

...Which is exactly why my caches are always listed first, because the odds are that I got the idea and created the cache page months before I actually hid the cache and submitted it.

[+erik88l-r]

...Which is exactly why my caches are always listed first, because the odds are that I got the idea and created the cache page months before I actually hid the cache and submitted it.

 

Just to keep people like you guessing, I always review caches from the end of the approval queue, rather than the front.

 

Seriously, unlike some of the reviewers who cover only one state or country and can filter by that, I cover much of the world that does not yet have local approvers. I can't possibly filter by every country as there are so many, and most have no caches submitted on a regular basis. Instead I have to work off the whole list (currently at 34 pages since a weekend just ended) of caches. Since those at the beginning of the list have been there awhile (waiting for more info requested by the reviewer, for example) I can't waste time going through 30 pages if the new submissions added since I last looked are on the last 4 pages.

 

So I start at the end and work my way towards the front. That's why in my case those listed first get approved last, though it's generally only a difference of a few minutes.

 

~erik~

[+RoadRunner]

I hit mine pretty much randomly. Sometimes I will start at the bottom of the list, sometimes at the top. If I feel especially adventurous, I will hit a bunch in the middle.

[+globalgirl]

All most interesting, and I thank Keystone, ILAdmin and erik88l-r for taking (even more) volunteer time out of their lives (read: spare time when they could be gleefully grabbing boxes!) to better explain the reveiw process.

 

And while we're on the subject (of the mechanics of the cache review process) I've long wondered... I've heard that the interim wpts for multi caches as well as the true solution coordinates for puzzle caches - are not kept on file after a cache has been approved (i.e. there's no database for ALL cache wpts.) That the interim/puzzle solution wpts must be submitted and are checked for proximity to other caches initially of course, but... only the posted coordinates are thereafter saved in the database and used for proximity checks of future caches. Yes? No? Otherwise, how can some newly approved caches end up just 100 ft. from say... the final of a long-standing multi cache?

[Keystone]

In the "old days" many reviewers did not even ask to know the locations of intermediate and final waypoints; back then, it was enough to see that the cache was in Townsville Memorial Park, and there were no other caches there. Fast forward to late 2002/early 2003 -- Townsville Memorial Park now has six caches, and the reviewers started asking to know the other waypoints for new multicaches to make sure they didn't interfere. But there was no convenient way to save this information.

 

In November 2003 (if my memory is correct), Jeremy made sweeping improvements to the way that the reviewer portion of the website was organized. One of the changes was the introduction of the "note to reviewer" feature. This is where a cache owner should record the information about a puzzle or multicache. The note is deleted automatically when the cache is published, but the reviewers have the ability to go back and look at the archived log, where the information is saved.

 

Fast forward again to 2005. Townsville Memorial Park now has fifteen caches, including a multicache from 2002 and a puzzle cache from 2004. Someone submits a new cache. The reviewer can pull up the puzzle cache's actual location from the archived 2004 reviewer note, and make sure that the new cache isn't too close to it. But for the 2002 multicache, the information simply isn't available. There's also no automated way of knowing that the "Grand Tour of Townsville" multicache ends up in Townsville Memorial Park after starting 15 miles away. Typically a reviewer will only check against multi's and puzzles in the immediate area (a few miles or so).

 

Some reviewers have gotten around this problem by building personal databases containing all the multicache and puzzle waypoints. Most of us haven't. We have discussed adding a behind the scenes feature that would capture all the information from the archived reviewer notes and in effect create a vast online database that any reviewer can check against -- even a backup reviewer who is pinch hitting when the regular reviewer is on vacation and her personal database is not accessible.

 

Reviewers have wishlist items, too.

[Team Misguided]

All waypoints for multi-caches and puzzle caches submitted in the last year or so are hopefully stored in an archived reviewer note that the reviewers have access to. But those coordinates are not put into any kind of interactive database that we can use during cache reviews.

 

Take for example, a multi-cache that spanned several miles and had four stages in four different parks. If a new cache was submitted less than 528 feet the first stage of the multi-cache I would see it on the nearest cache list. That would prompt me to check the new cache in relationship to all the stages of the multi-cache. If, however, the new cache was near one of the other stages, the multi-cache might not show up on the nearest cache list. That depends on the cache density of the area. If there isn't any puzzles/multi-caches listed on the nearest cache list we usually go with what we see. This is how new caches will get listed too close to other cache end points.

 

We have identified this as a high priority item on our reviewer wish list and TPTB are looking into possible solutions.

 

**That darn Keystone, always jumps in and explains it so much better than I can!!

Edited October 17, 2005 by Team Misguided

[+The Jester]

All waypoints for multi-caches and puzzle caches submitted in the last year or so are hopefully stored in an archived reviewer note that the reviewers have access to. But those coordinates are not put into any kind of interactive database that we can use during cache reviews.

 

Take for example, a multi-cache that spanned several miles and had four stages in four different parks. If a new cache was submitted less than 528 feet the first stage of the multi-cache I would see it on the nearest cache list. That would prompt me to check the new cache in relationship to all the stages of the multi-cache. If, however, the new cache was near one of the other stages, the multi-cache might not show up on the nearest cache list. That depends on the cache density of the area. If there isn't any puzzles/multi-caches listed on the nearest cache list we usually go with what we see. This is how new caches will get listed too close to other cache end points.

 

We have identified this as a high priority item on our reviewer wish list and TPTB are looking into possible solutions.

 

**That darn Keystone, always jumps in and explains it so much better than I can!!

This explains why a new cache was placed directly on top of one of my waypoints of a 'long distance' multi. It was fun to be FTF on a small cache with my film can tucked right behind it (this has since been resolved).

 

Thanks for the explainations.

[+Wacka]

I thought they printed the pages out , threw them up in the air, and the order they landed was the order they were approved.

[Team Misguided]

I thought they printed the pages out , threw them up in the air, and the order they landed was the order they were approved.

We only do that on the third Tuesday of the month.

[+Quiggle]

I thought they printed the pages out , threw them up in the air, and the order they landed was the order they were approved.

Some of us are paperless.

 

[+Nekkar]

You know, I was going to close this topic a couple of days ago after Keystone's prompt reply. I'm glad I didn't.

Lots of good information here on the mysteries of the review process.

 

Thanks to all who've contributed.

[+Cache-tech]

I thought they printed the pages out , threw them up in the air, and the order they landed was the order they were approved.

Some of us are paperless.

 

I'm paperless also now, but I did try throwing my monitor in the air on the Third Tuesday of the month when I first went paperless, didn't work out that well.

[+Thrak]

A new series of caches was published in my area last night but I have a question about them. I did the 7 in the series that were published but it seems that there are actually 9 that are supposed to be in the series! At each of 8 caches you get a piece of info (a number) leading to a special final cache. At the 9th you get the "key" to combine the info into coordinates for the special cache.

 

Each cache had a Peanuts character in the name. The key uses the numbers from each of the other caches. My problem is that 2 of the caches in the series didn't get published when the other 7 got published so I am unable to finish the thing and get the special cache at the end.

 

I am wondering why a reviewer would publish only 7 out of 9 caches when they are all by the same person and all have the same type of name and all list specifically that they will combine to lead to the final prize. Can anybody give me insight into this?

 

The caches in question were planted by redvoodoo and are:

GCR130

GCR131

GCR133

GCR139

GCR13C

GCR13E

GCR13G

 

Please understand this isn't meant to be a whine or a complaint - it's merely a question.

Edited October 21, 2005 by thrak

[+Lil Devil]

never mind.

Edited October 21, 2005 by Lil Devil

[+Hemlock]

According to the reviewer notes, the 8th one had proximity issues, and the last was held because the 8th couldn't be published.

 

It looks like the proximity issue has been fixed, but the hider didn't make any notes, so I really have no idea. I'm sure the original reviewer will look at it soon and handle it.

[+Thrak]

THANK YOU!