Approvers Thoughts

[+unicyclist]

I have always agreed with approvers so im not being negative.

 

A question for approvers.

What is the most common mistake that is made when placing a cache?

(ADD EXTRA QUESTIONS IF YOU LIKE)

 

Thanks for you work that you you do for free.

[+CO Admin]

I have always agreed with approvers so im not being negative.

 

A question for approvers.

What is the most common mistake that is made when placing a cache?

(ADD EXTRA QUESTIONS IF YOU LIKE)

 

Thanks for you work that you you do for free.

The MOST common mistake is calling the Reviewers, Approvers.

 

Seriously

Edited January 22, 2006 by CO Admin

[Keystone]

Top Ten Tips for Cache Hiders

 

1. Read the listing guidelines.

2. After entering your cache report, double-check your coords, and look at the maps to be sure the coordinates match with the spot where you hid your cache.

3. Read the listing guidelines.

4. Learn about and follow any land manager regulations prior to hiding your cache.

5. Read the listing guidelines.

6. Follow the reviewer's contact instructions (e-mail, note on the page, etc.)

7. Read the listing guidelines.

8. Reference your cache name and number in all e-mails. Your reviewer receives e-mails about dozens of caches each week. A subject line of "My Cache" isn't helpful.

9. Read the listing guidelines.

10. Use the note to reviewer feature to anticipate guidelines questions ("yes there are railroad tracks showing on the maps, but this line was converted to a rails-to-trails in the 1980's").

[+unicyclist]

while reading my mind ignored 3 5 7 and 9 but i read #1

[+Moose Mob]

I tend to see proximity more often than any other issue. Then there are vacation caches.

 

Also, I tend to see folks forget to include the intermediate and final coordinates for the cache. And then vacation caches (especially in the Las Vegas area).

[Keystone]

This thread is asking for tips about common mistakes made by cache hiders. I think that is a great idea for a thread.

 

Please accept the fact that the proper term is "reviewers" rather than "approvers." It is not that big of a deal. If you would like to debate the difference between the two words, please open another thread. I will be happy to respond there.

 

Let's get this one back on topic. Hopefully some other site volunteers will chime in.

[+Beffums]

This thread is asking for tips about common mistakes made by cache hiders. I think that is a great idea for a thread.

 

Please accept the fact that the proper term is "reviewers" rather than "approvers." It is not that big of a deal. If you would like to debate the difference between the two words, please open another thread. I will be happy to respond there.

 

Let's get this one back on topic. Hopefully some other site volunteers will chime in.

I hope that this isn't taking this too far afield. But, if any reviewers could chime in -- could you also let us know if there are some errors that are only really common for specific TYPES of caches? (the obvious one is forgetting to give coords for all stages of a multi, but I'm just wondering, before I ever try to place anything beyond a traditional or a multi, if there's a major one for CITO's, or for Mystery caches, or for _____ that we chould be aware of before we try to place the cache).

 

if this is straying too far off topic, I apologize up front

[RockyMtnReviewer]

If you review caches, wouldn't you look at them after they are published?

Many reviewers, myself included, check up on caches that have been disabled for some time.

 

Disabling a cache is always meant to be a temporary measure, but sometimes things come up. Perhaps you don't have as much time as you used to or just plain forgot to repair your cache. That's ok, we understand. Inactive caches still show up on searches, and if the cache isn't going to be repaired in a timely manner, it is better to have it archived. You can have the cache reinstated later if it still meets the guidelines, or someone else can place a cache in the area.

 

The key here is communication. If I post a note asking why your cache has been disabled for 3 months and you don't respond, I will archive your cache. If you let me know what the problem is, I may be able to find someone that can help fix it. Communicate with me and I'll try to work with you.

 

RockyMtnReviewer

[RockyMtnReviewer]

This thread is asking for tips about common mistakes made by cache hiders.  I think that is a great idea for a thread.

 

Please accept the fact that the proper term is "reviewers" rather than "approvers." It is not that big of a deal.  If you would like to debate the difference between the two words, please open another thread. I will be happy to respond there.

 

Let's get this one back on topic.  Hopefully some other site volunteers will chime in.

I hope that this isn't taking this too far afield. But, if any reviewers could chime in -- could you also let us know if there are some errors that are only really common for specific TYPES of caches? (the obvious one is forgetting to give coords for all stages of a multi, but I'm just wondering, before I ever try to place anything beyond a traditional or a multi, if there's a major one for CITO's, or for Mystery caches, or for _____ that we chould be aware of before we try to place the cache).

 

if this is straying too far off topic, I apologize up front

With mystery/puzzle caches I frequently see the solution to the puzzle included, but not the actual cache coordinates. I do need to know the puzzle is solvable, but I don't have time to solve it while reviewing today's dozen other cache submissions...or tomorrow's.

 

The other thing I see with this type of cache is that the owner does not want to give any hints, so the bogus coordinates are 20 miles away. The guidelines say that the coordinates should be within a couple of miles of the actual cache. Why not use the parking coordinates? Your cache will show up close enough to the right area on a search, but won't give away the location of the cache.

 

With all types of caches, if you don't want to give a hint, leave it blank. There's nothing funny about searching high and low for a cache and then decrypting a bogus hint like, "You think I'd give a hint?"

 

Also, parking instructions should never be in the hint. Many cachers don't read the hint until they have reached the cache area. How are parking coordinates going to help then? "Gee, I could have parked closer..."

 

Speaking of proximity, how can you place a new cache 200 feet from one of your own caches and expect it to be published? I can understand if it is near stage 4 of a multicache you haven't done, but one of your own caches?

 

RockyMtnReviewer

[+unicyclist]

Ive noticed a few cordinates at the top were really parking cords. The cache cords were in the cache discription. PLEASE DONT DO THIS

[+budd-rdc]

Ive noticed a few cordinates at the top were really parking cords.  The cache cords were in the cache discription. PLEASE DONT DO THIS

One of my caches was listed with the parking coordinates (with the final coordinates in the description), since I wanted to make sure people didn't stop in the middle of the freeway to get to the cache. The reviewer caught this and changed it to a mystery/puzzle cache.

 

Later on, it got changed back to Traditional.

 

I guess the lesson is that I should have picked a better location. It's still active, but its future is uncertain.

[Team Misguided]

Thanks for starting this topic.

 

Keystone hit most of the main ones but I have to echo a few. The big one that causes a delay is not having all the coordinates for multi-caches & puzzles. With the addition of the Additional Waypoints feature this will hopefully get better. *hint*

 

Almost every other common error I see could be corrected by reviewing your cache page after you submit it. Take a look at everything on the page, make sure the description reads the way you want it to, look at the map on the page to make sure it is where you thought it should be. One very common coordinate mistake happens if you hide a cache near a confluence. If your normal caching grid is 47° by 122° and you happen to place a cache a bit farther east, it would be real easy to type 122 instead of 121.

 

Click on all the map links from your cache page, sometimes one map will show something that others don't. Zoom in an out levels as well, Mappoint for example doesn't show National Forest or Wilderness Areas until you zoom out a level. If anything comes up on the map that could delay your cache getting published put an explanation in a note to the Reviewer.

 

Click on the nearest caches link. Make sure it shows that the nearest cache is more than 1/10th of a mile from yours. Many times I hear back from cachers that they were sure their new cache was far enough away from the existing cache. But when the coordinates are entered it shows up too close. If there are multi-cache or puzzle caches in the area, you'll have to be at least 528ft away from any stages of those caches. You should be aware of those caches even if you haven't found them yet.

 

[PET PEEVE] My biggest Pet Peeve has little to do with the review process, but annoys the heck out of me as a cacher. Please check your spelling and grammar. We, as reviewers, don't modify the text of a cache page unless it is to fix a formatting problem. I feel the same about cache listings that are in ALL CAPS, makes my eyes hurt to read it. [/PET PEEVE]

 

When it comes right down to it, the more info you give the reviewer the better. A cache page that has been double checked by the owner and includes a detailed reviewer note that answers any questions I might have is usually a cache that I only have to look at once before I hit the publish button.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Team Misguided

[+sept1c_tank]

Communication is the key to all things successful, and as stated by Team Misguided, correct grammar and spelling will enhance a cache page for both reviewers and approvers (the caching community).

[+WalruZ]

Speaking as someone who has no problem getting caches aprroved, (not as a reviewer, which I ain't), I *always* leave at least one reviewer note with any cache describing...

 

land ownership where the cache is hidden

physical description of where the cache is hidden

how it's hidden

 

-- sometimes even why it's hidden, ie, why I put a cache there. I do this because I know my reviewers and I know they enjoy keeping up with what other members of their caching community are doing.

 

On occasion I have posted pictures of the hiding site to the reviewer note.

 

If it's a puzzle or multi I repeat this for initial, final and intermediate placements.

 

i also supply the name and GC # of the most proximate cache, as I can determine it, mostly just to show that I'm paying attention.

 

As far as I can tell, the reviewers see far more caches than they ever get a chance to persue. giving them information like this isn't "spoiling" the cache, it's more like "sharing" it.

 

------------------------------

 

As far as mistakes go, the most common mistakes I see coming out of the process are bad coordinates. I also see a fair number of stupid hides, but the apparently process for eliminating stupidity hasn't been worked out yet.

[+kbraband]

In addition to not listing coordinates for all the waypoints, which others have mentioned, a common mistake in Iowa is placing caches on DNR-managed land and not obtaining permission to do so (which the Iowa DNR requires).

[+IowaAdmin]

In addition to not listing coordinates for all the waypoints, which others have mentioned, a common mistake in Iowa is placing caches on DNR-managed land and not obtaining permission to do so (which the Iowa DNR requires).

Oops, I thought I was posting that post under my admin log-in. Now I am.

[Electric Mouse]

The most common issue I see is proximity, either because the owner forgot to load up a nearby cache and check or because they had not read the guidelines and was unaware of it. Sometimes multi-caches bumping up against each other happens, but I don't see too much of that, probably because of the more rural nature of my area.

 

The second most common is probably park permit issues. That makes sense since people might not be as aware of them. Forunately the parks here are pretty good about giving permits where needed, so fixing the problem is not too difficult in most cases.

 

Next is vacation caches, usually in the Black Hills of South Dakota. After that, caches near railroad tracks come up fairly often. I also have to ask for coordinates for multi-caches fairly often.

 

I also tend to see typos in coordinates quite a bit. Sometimes I catch that during the review. For example when a person states that a cache is in X city park and the map shows it in a rural field. Other times I miss it because my area includes a lot of rural land where the parks don't show on maps. Then, I normally get an email from the owner when the mistake is realized and I re-check and change the cordinates for them.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Electric Mouse

[Mr.Yuck]

In addition to not listing coordinates for all the waypoints, which others have mentioned, a common mistake in Iowa is placing caches on DNR-managed land and not obtaining permission to do so (which the Iowa DNR requires).

Oops, I thought I was posting that post under my admin log-in. Now I am.

I'm betting there are many reviewers who would hope to never make a similiar mistake

[Mr.Yuck]

Ive noticed a few cordinates at the top were really parking cords. The cache cords were in the cache discription. PLEASE DONT DO THIS

I've seen this twice in my area with the parking coords. Fortunately both archived . Why would a placer even think of doing that? One thing I don't think the approvers scrutinzie very much (from what I've seen) is the cache type. Example, something that in no way could be described as unknown/mystery cache getting listed as one. One local cache (which is just a micro with coords that take you to it) got approved as an unknown/mystery cache, the owner saying in the cache description "The mystery is in the cache container".

[Keystone]

One thing I don't think the approvers scrutinzie very much (from what I've seen) is the cache type. Example, something that in no way could be described as unknown/mystery cache getting listed as one. One local cache (which is just a micro with coords that take you to it) got approved as an unknown/mystery cache, the owner saying in the cache description "The mystery is in the cache container".

Nothing wrong with this. A cache container that requires some sort of a trick to open it can be listed as a Mystery/Unknown cache. Example: You need to figure out how to unlock or open the cache (the cache container itself is a puzzle), or special equipment is needed to retrieve the container.

 

If the "mystery" container is just a film canister, and that fact wasn't disclosed to the reviewer, then that is not a case of reviewer error in checking the cache type. Rather, it is a case of a cache owner with an unrealistically high opinion of his cache.

[+Markwell]

Ive noticed a few cordinates at the top were really parking cords. The cache cords were in the cache discription. PLEASE DONT DO THIS

I was asked by the forest preserve to do this on one of my caches - they didn't want people going through private property to get to the cache in the quickest way possible.

 

I wouldn't say don't do it - I would just expect it to be labelled as a multi.