Cache Approvals

[cryptkeepers]

HI all.

 

i was just wondering if there has been any changes in the way the newly placed caches are being approved or not? because we have had a new cache in que now for about a week and havent heard anything on it or anything about an update on the status of it, is there anyone else thats haveing these problesm with the waiting period for there newly placed caches to be approved?

 

cryptkeepers

[Keystone]

Hello,

 

Your name is familiar to me as someone who hides caches in my review territory. Sorry about the delay. I tried checking on your hidden caches just now, but the server timed out. If you have written me an e-mail about a cache, please post the same answer as a "note to reviewer" on the cache page, and I will check again later. I am in the process of switching over from a system that asked people to e-mail me about caches with listing issues, and instead to have them post reviewer notes. The reason for this is that I do not have access to my reviewer e-mail account during the work day, and the site performance has been poor during evenings and weekends, making it difficult to get reviewer work done at home.

 

Recent efforts by Groundspeak to improve website performance have concentrated on the features used by the majority of the user population, which makes good sense. But the reviewer section of the site is performing miserably. I had budgeted six hours yesterday to get caught up, and by 1:00 a.m. I had only gotten through 2/3 of the new caches from the weekend, and next to none of the caches "on hold." It took an average of ten attempts to even pull up the list of new caches, and an average of three page loads for each step of the 25 caches I was able to process. (Any cache with an issue requires a minimum of three page requests to GC.com).

 

Hopefully, additional website performance improvements and the change I've made in my process for cache reviews will assist in reducing the waiting time to get a cache published after issues are resolved. Thanks again for your patience.

[Keystone]

Since my prior post, I've tried several times to access the OP's cache. There are a couple of ways to do this. One is to pull up the member profile page and click on the link to their list of hidden caches. For site volunteers, this list will include caches that have not been published. I keep getting this error message:

 

Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.

 

Another method is to go the "review queue" where all of the pending cache submissions can be sorted according to country and state, and whether they are new or "on hold." When I try to access the queue, I see this:

 

Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.

 

A third method is to search for a specific cache by its GC number, but I do not know the number for the OP's cache.

 

I see a pattern here, and it's not any fun for me. When the website is functioning properly, the overwhelming majority of caches in my territory are decisioned between 0 and 72 hours after submission. Having spent another half hour on this, I am going to walk away from it, work at my paying job, and try again later.

[+gpsfun]

I decided to have a go at the issue; regrettably, I have encountered the same results that Keystone reported.

 

There does seem to be a potential pattern in that queries that will produce a longer list of results (e.g., all of the caches you own) seem to time out more frequently than queries that search for a single cache. It might help Keystone if the OP could include the GC???? waypoint number in this thread, but then again it may not. It is probably worth a try.

 

It is always a good idea to include the GC???? in any correspondence with a reviewer. We may like to think that our doctors remember our blood pressure reading from one visit to the next, but it ain't so - they have to look it up. It's the same when we are asked a question about a cache.

 

Hope this helps.

[+Lord Stirling]

I gave it a shot. Things were working a bit better. Everything looked fine from what I can tell, so its online.