General Reviewer Questions

[+Jeep_Dog]

I did a search, but didn't find a category a general question such as the one I am about to pose would fit. Hence, a "generic" category that is easy to find on the search engine. If it already exists, and my search prowess is not up to par, please forgive me.

 

Now, my question is: Are some cache hiders intrinsically deemed more trustworthy than others? For example, in a long que of caches awaiting approval, have some cache owners demonstrated consistency in abiding by the guidelines and obtaining land manager/owner permission, and thorough effort to maintain their caches, thus their caches get a slight "bump" in the que priority?

 

I have noticed that some cache owners' approval is lightening fast, on a somewhat consistent basis for their caches, than some of their comrades. No, this is not a "masked" question dealing with any of my caches, rather, just a general observation I have made.

 

I know this could be a can of worms to some folks, but it would seem a somewhat consistent trend. It would make sense for something like this to be practiced, and good in these forums since it may perhaps be yet another reminder to folks when they place their caches to ensure all the i letters dotted and t letters crossed, and all guidelines met; this thoroughness may also mean a quicker approval for a tried and proven cache owner.

 

The only other trends I have noticed, this one definately relating to my caches, is lenghty delays are caused by a cache "on the fringe" of the guidelines (rightly so!), and when ALL new caches have a bit of a delay to them (which I hope indicates that reviewers actually have a life, eg they are out geocaching, going to dinner, taking vacation, or -gasp- spending time with friends/family).

[+Moose Mob]

One would imagine that a trusted cacher would get through the scrutiny of a reviewer a bit quicker. As with our jobs, we tend to build a working relationship with the folks around us. We get to understand thier strengths and weaknesses and we learn what to look for. The reviewers are human also.

 

As far as a bit of an edge for a buddy? Probably. That's human too. It however does not mean that your traditional cache submitted Sunday sits until Friday, and the buddie's cache submitted Wedneday get published on Thursday. If this happens consistantly, then there is a problem.

 

Also, if you submit a complex multi puzzle, at the edge of a National Park, that can delay things.

[+Quiggle]

Jeep Dog,

 

You might find this recent thread helpful in answering your question.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Not to be contentious or anything like that, but, no, that thread, while quite enlightening, did not answer my question. I could perhaps infer from some different styles of reviewing that your lot was so kind to share that what I outlined occurs. For example, Keystone mentions hitting "easier" caches further down the que prior to puzzle/multi caches (and that sidebar created a flurry more activity) that take more time. This makes sense... yet in some cases the "easier" caches to approve could possibly be caches submitted by a consistent owner.

 

I appreciate your Markwell, since it did indeed enlighten me into other review aspects, and is a great note to when submitting puzzles to be quite thorough (which I took to heart prior to reading the thread).

[+GRANPA ALEX]

My friend spoke to a reviewer who stated that a cache from a certain cacher was automaticlly approved, without persusal because this hider was active, was reliable, played by the rules and was always did a good job - there were no complaints from other cachers and the reviewer had found many of the caches, as well.

 

One might note that experienced cachers often initially provide the data/information the reviewer needs to provide a quick approval . . . it might give the appearance of a favorable (& quick) response when it was actually only the result of a thorough submission.

 

On the other hand, though it was NOT stated . . . a relatively inactive hider who has had difficulties meeting guidelines or who has had complaints from other cahers would deserve a more intense evaluation for the benefit of the game and those who will seek the caches.

 

It only makes sense. A volunteer has only so much time and a lot of caches to review/approve/publish . . . one learns where the most & least effort is to be expended and acts accordingly - it is human nature, we all do this.

[+Moose Mob]

Jeep Dog,

 

I am hoping that your question was answered in the other two posts.

 

There will always be a little bit of a tendancy to review the cache when the person placing it has consistantly done so well withing the guidelines.

 

The pressing question here is whether you feel that you have been treated unfairly. Do your caches get looked at withing 3 days? If you feel you have been treated unfairly, then that will need to be addressed through Contact@geocaching.com.

[+Quiggle]

My point in showing you that thread is that each reviewer is different. Some may choose to publish a listing from a trusted friend faster than they would from an unknown hider. If one tends to hide at the edges of the guidelines, those caches will likely get a more thorough review than others.

 

Even trusted friends and longtime hiders make a mistake in hiding a cache, entering coordinates on the page, etc. so I would not think reviewers would just publish the cache without checking it. Your first post was right, however, that dotting your "i" and crossing your "t" are good habits since it saves some of the back-and-forth that may occur if it is not just a straight-forward hide.

 

Hope this post is more helpful to you than the last.

 

[+Jeep_Dog]

The pressing question here is whether you feel that you have been treated unfairly. Do your caches get looked at withing 3 days? If you feel you have been treated unfairly, then that will need to be addressed through Contact@geocaching.com.

No, I certainly do not. While some others in my area may have quite a bit of angst with our reviewer, I certainly believe the reviewer is doing a phenomenal job. With the exception of two caches (after my first placement), my caches generally are approved within hours. I find this very impressive.

 

Oh, for inquiring minds, of the two caches that are exceptions, one cache was within .10 of a virtual, and took a "whopping" 5 days to run the approval wickets (and the reviewer was on vacation, to boot, and regardless the reviewer posted the initial "sorry, not in guidelines" note within hours), the only other one not wihin hours is one currently in the que, and it has not hit 24 hours, which I would not comment on even if it went beyond 72 hours, since I see no trend for latency from my reviewer, which would indicate to me that there is probably good personal reason for the delay.

[+CO Admin]

I have a much simpler method.

 

I print out all the cache pages. draw a 6' dia circle on the ground. stand in the center and throw the pages in the air. all that land in the circle get listed that day. all that land outside the circle get put on hold . It has worked well for me and gets no complaints.

[+Quiggle]

You don't use the pinwheel like the rest of us?

 

[+Renegade Knight]

...all that land outside the circle get put on hold ...

So that's what happened.

[+Lord Stirling]

My friend spoke to a reviewer who stated that a cache from a certain cacher was automaticlly approved, without persusal because this hider was active, was reliable, played by the rules and was always did a good job - there were no complaints from other cachers and the reviewer had found many of the caches, as well.

 

I don't see caches from certain "trusted" cachers getting automatic approval. The reviewer still has to check to make sure there were no errors. What if the "trusted owner" made a mistake with the coordinates and his cache was showing up in the middle of the South China Sea? And nobody is perfect. Even veteran hiders who are familiar with the rules can screw up once in a while.

 

I do tend to give a little more scruitiny to a new hider than to one who has 150 hides and a good reputation for playing by the rules, but I do check both.

Edited October 19, 2005 by Joy Division

[+StarBrand]

...One might note that experienced cachers often initially provide the data/information the reviewer needs to provide a quick approval . . . it might give the appearance of a favorable (& quick) response when it was actually only the result of a thorough submission....

I tend to think that this statement may explain the observation much better than other reasons.

[Team Misguided]

...One might note that experienced cachers often initially provide the data/information the reviewer needs to provide a quick approval . . . it might give the appearance of a favorable (& quick) response when it was actually only the result of a thorough submission....

I tend to think that this statement may explain the observation much better than other reasons.

This has been my experience. Many of my locals are in the habit of disabling their cache listings when they create the page. This allows them to double check everything, play with formatting and add any helpful notes I may need in the review process. When they are sure the cache is ready to be looked at then they enable it.

 

These caches may seem to get listed more quickly but they get the same level of review as any other cache. The reason they seem to get listed quicker is that I don't have to look at the listing more than once.

[+briansnat]

...One might note that experienced cachers often initially provide the data/information the reviewer needs to provide a quick approval . . . it might give the appearance of a favorable (& quick) response when it was actually only the result of a thorough submission....

I tend to think that this statement may explain the observation much better than other reasons.

I'm sure that is part of it and also experienced hiders have probably had a few caches rejected and are more familiar with the rules because of it. They know what will fly and what won't. A newb is probably more likely to violate one of the guidelines.