8 Days And Counting For Approval

[FFed]

It's now been 8 days since I submitted my cache for approval. Each time I do this the approval process takes longer and longer.

I think it's time they started getting more volunteers since they seem to have too many to approve and not enough people.

[+budd-rdc]

Not sure if recruiting more volunteer reviewers in a rush is a good idea, since I suspect they need to have a certain mindset to do their thankless job well. I'm going to do my part and be more picky about when and where I hide my caches, since we can't give them a meaningful pay increase (20% raise of $0 is still $0)

 

In the meantime, I'll just exercise my patience. Time can pass quickly if you go outdoors while waiting for a cache to be listed.

[Keystone]

In fact, the volunteer team has added more volunteers in Canada over the past year. The Quebec geocachers seem particularly happy to have a bilingual reviewer. The new western Canada reviewer is getting up to speed. We think it's great that the volume of cache hides in Canada is steadily on the rise.

 

I am sure that your cache will be reviewed soon. In the meantime, it might expedite matters if you added a "Note to Reviewer" explaining your maintenance plan for a cache hidden 450 miles from your home coordinates.

[FFed]

In fact, the volunteer team has added more volunteers in Canada over the past year. The Quebec geocachers seem particularly happy to have a bilingual reviewer. The new western Canada reviewer is getting up to speed. We think it's great that the volume of cache hides in Canada is steadily on the rise.

 

I am sure that your cache will be reviewed soon. In the meantime, it might expedite matters if you added a "Note to Reviewer" explaining your maintenance plan for a cache hidden 450 miles from your home coordinates.

 

More volunteers yet the wait gets longer. Maybe they should add more since it seems they waited too long to add some and now they are falling behind.

 

So if I tell him/her that the people I hid the cache with are taking care of it, that will speed things up? So that's the hold up.

[Keystone]

I do not know the particulars for cache reviews in your part of Canada right now, but I can help you with the listing guidelines to ensure a smoother review.

 

When you hide a cache at a great distance from home, but you've made arrangements for someone to help look after it, it's a good idea to mention the maintenance arrangements both as part of the cache description AND in a "note to reviewer." See this section of the Cache Listing Requirements/ Guidelines: "If you have special circumstances, please describe these on your cache page or in a note to the reviewer. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page."

[+Frodo13]

I am sure you have sent a email to the reviewer in question asking about your pending approval, but why did you choose to put the comment on the public forum? As you, and others, have stated the reviewers are VOLUNTEERS. Its seems to me that by putting your comments on this fourm you just might slow down their progress. I know for me when I volunteer on a project the last thing I want someone to do is to criticize how fast I am working. Take a breath go to your happy place and send the reviewer a note asking if their might be a problem with the cache you submitted or if they simply had other commitments that kept them from getting to their volunteer work.

[+erik88l-r]

I do not know the particulars for cache reviews in your part of Canada right now, but I can help you with the listing guidelines to ensure a smoother review.

 

When you hide a cache at a great distance from home, but you've made arrangements for someone to help look after it, it's a good idea to mention the maintenance arrangements both as part of the cache description AND in a "note to reviewer." See this section of the Cache Listing Requirements/ Guidelines: "If you have special circumstances, please describe these on your cache page or in a note to the reviewer. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page."

 

Like Keystone, I am a cache reviewer, albeit also not covering Canada. As a courtesy to the OP I checked his cache listing and still find no note detailing how the cache will be maintained 450+ miles from home. Not to beat a dead horse, but when your cache reviewer does review the cache he will likely put it on hold pending an answer to the obvious question. Why not be proactive as Keystone suggested?

 

erik - geocaching.com adminion

[+Team Cotati]

I do not know the particulars for cache reviews in your part of Canada right now, but I can help you with the listing guidelines to ensure a smoother review.

 

When you hide a cache at a great distance from home, but you've made arrangements for someone to help look after it, it's a good idea to mention the maintenance arrangements both as part of the cache description AND in a "note to reviewer." See this section of the Cache Listing Requirements/ Guidelines: "If you have special circumstances, please describe these on your cache page or in a note to the reviewer. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page."

 

Like Keystone, I am a cache reviewer, albeit also not covering Canada. As a courtesy to the OP I checked his cache listing and still find no note detailing how the cache will be maintained 450+ miles from home. Not to beat a dead horse, but when your cache reviewer does review the cache he will likely put it on hold pending an answer to the obvious question. Why not be proactive as Keystone suggested?

 

erik - geocaching.com adminion

 

Do we suppose that the volunteer reviewer will be 'proactive' and let the OP know that additional info is requested?

Edited May 7, 2006 by Team Cotati

[Keystone]

Do we suppose that the volunteer reviewer will be 'proactive' and let the OP know that additional info is requested?

Ummm, I thought that's what we were doing by posting to this thread???

 

The need for the additional information is spelled out right in the guidelines.

 

The website also explains that, if it's been 72 hours and your cache still hasn't received an initial review, the best thing to do is to send an e-mail to the contact address.

[+Team Cotati]

Well FFed there you have it. It looks as though you are just going to have to send a message to your volunteer reviewer in order to get your submission off hold and making forward progress once again. Good luck and happy caching.

Edited May 7, 2006 by Team Cotati

[+TeamGuisinger]

I just love Keystone. He's always the voice of logic.

 

I know everyone reads the guidelines when they create an account. It's a very good idea to review those guidelines after you have found a few and before you hide any. It's easy to forget things that didn't seem important when you originally signed up. The quickest way to get a cache listed to to make sure it adheres to the rules the first time you submit it.

 

I agree that eight days is a long wait. In your situation I would send a friendly note to make sure that the cache had not been overlooked. Something along the lines of..."I realize that you are extremely busy with all of your VOLUNTEER work. I just wanted to verify that you have GC*** on your to do list. It has been 8 days and I was starting to wonder if it didn't get lost in the shuffle. Thanks for your time!" I don't know if those emails bother the reviewers but I always get an answer.

 

On a positive note - If it's taking your reviewer that long there must be a ton of new caches in your area. Hmmm...wonder what you could occupy yourself with while you wait?????

[+Vertumnis]

After seeing Keystone’s post about 450 miles from your home coord’s, it makes me ask, “Where’s your common sense?”

Lets say someone 450 miles from your caching area wants to place a cache near their house. You may now have taken away their spot.

What if you found a great spot, close to your home, to place a cache and then found out that someone in California had already placed one there!

 

The reviewers could take 30 minutes to publish - yours here, and theirs there - instead of 8 days trying to figure out - why yours is there and theirs is here.

 

Yes, there could be extenuating circumstances. It could be a great cache. You could have a good reason for doing it that way. If that’s the case, then you didn’t give enough explanation and reasoning to the reviewer to move things along in a timely manner.

 

Why do reviewers take so long to publish a cache? Ahh, you ?

[+Mopar]

Is it possible your reviewer HAS been emailing you about your cache for 8 days and his email is getting caught in a spam filter?

[+geojackasses]

I placed a cache on April 30th and still no response from reviewer. where is this email link to the reviewer. I can't find it anywhere

[+Goldenhawk]

Is it possible your reviewer HAS been emailing you about your cache for 8 days and his email is getting caught in a spam filter?

The reviewer's comments still would appear in the cache logs. I don't think reviewers typically send a direct email query. If there's a comment or question, it will be on the listing.

[Keystone]

I placed a cache on April 30th and still no response from reviewer. where is this email link to the reviewer. I can't find it anywhere

The reviewer for British Columbia got a bit behind, due to scheduling pressures from his paying job. I see he is getting caught up now. As volunteers, this happens to all of us from time to time. The community's patience during these periods is much appreciated.

 

The cache hidden by geojackasses has been published and found already.

The cache hidden by the OP has been archived because no explanation was provided to the reviewer about how the cache complied with the guideline about caches placed on vacation or beyond the owner's "maintainable distance."

 

The service standard for an initial review of a cache submission is 72 hours, as stated on the hide and seek a cache page. If you find yourself waiting significantly longer than that, the best thing to do is to contact Groundspeak. Unless alerted to the issue, Groundspeak won't know to arrange help for the reviewer who is having difficulties keeping up with the pace of new cache submissions during an especially busy period. We have backup plans for these situations. As of last evening, no British Columbia cachers had written to the contact address about this.

 

Finally, there are some tips to follow to make sure that your cache is properly awaiting review in the queue of pending caches:

If it has been 72 hours and your cache is not listed more information may be found on the Groundspeak Help Page.

[+gof1]

Twice I have experienced delays in cache approval.

Both times the problem was lack of adequate communication on MY part.

Should you (you=anyone) have a problem with the approval process the first thing to do is contact the reviewer involved. The key is communication.

And do try to remember that these people are Volunteers, they have lives outside of reviewing our caches.

I get so tired of listening to gripes about my reviewer won't let me get away with this or my reviewer is holding up my cache that. Truth is that it is almost always our faults.

Ok, go ahead, hit me with it. I have said my piece and I am sticking to it!

[guitarfreak7]

That's not the case with me. I reported a cache yesterday and I just got it approved today. Last time it took 3 days. Maybe you should submit it again.

[+headybrew]

I'm not disputing the archival of the OP's cache due to the distance rule, but I do think that if a reviewer is going to archive a cache, they should have at least one volley of communication with the hider first to give them a chance to address something that they didn't realize was an issue.

 

The first cache I tried to place on GC was archived with no communication from the reviewer. Had he asked, I could have given him the info necessary so that he would have seen that the cache definately did not break the rule he said it did.

 

But cie le vie... (however you spell that...)

 

My next GC hide generated a question or two from the reviewer. We discussed and then the cache languished for a looooong time. I gave up on it, because of my first experience, then suddenly it was approved! I had DNF notes before I even realized that I'd given up too soon.

 

On a tangent just to keep the story complete ----> There were some problems with the cache that I did not anticipate, which led me to archive it. So even though it did meet the guidelines, I learned a lesson about how few people will thoroughly read the cache page before seeking... They were taking a route across private property. I would have done well to listen to the reviewer's concerns, rather than talk him into approving it.

 

So it goes both ways I guess.

[+welch]

I'm not disputing the archival of the OP's cache due to the distance rule, but I do think that if a reviewer is going to archive a cache, they should have at least one volley of communication with the hider first to give them a chance to address something that they didn't realize was an issue.

...

Its easier (for the reviewer) to archive first, and ask questions later. If noone responds the cache stays archived, if someone does fix/explain the problem it can be found and listed. Just leaving them in limbo apperently clutters the approval 'quece' (or whatever its called).

Besides it's assume when you submit a cache, that you have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. From complains in the forums it seems the vast majority of delays and problems could have been avoided if the person submitting the cache had read the guidelines and went threw a checklist* for themselves. Then they could have fixed the problem, or explain why it shouldn't be a problem, before there was a delay.

*for example:

Does my cache type match its description?(if it has many stages its not a traditional)

Is my cache at least .10 miles from all other caches? (are there multi caches within a couple miles and have I found them to be sure they're also .10 away?)

If I'm submiting a multi have I listed the locations of all the parts someplace the reviewer will see it?

If I plot the cache's coords on a street map does it show up as being near RR tracks, next to a school, or in the middle of a highway?

If I plot on an aerial does it look like its in a parking lot when my description and hint indicate the cache is in a forest (or something vastly different)?

Does the area the cache is in require any sort of permission? (if descriptions of other caches in the area meantion 'permit' or 'permission' this is a good tip off) If yes, do I have it? and have I stated this some where the reviewer will see it?

Does my cache description break any rules (swearing, commerial)?

Do the contents of the cache break any rules (knives, etc)?

Can I think of any other problems or concerns the reviewer will have that I should address now?

[+headybrew]

I'm not disputing the archival of the OP's cache due to the distance rule, but I do think that if a reviewer is going to archive a cache, they should have at least one volley of communication with the hider first to give them a chance to address something that they didn't realize was an issue.

...

Its easier (for the reviewer) to archive first, and ask questions later. If noone responds the cache stays archived, if someone does fix/explain the problem it can be found and listed. Just leaving them in limbo apperently clutters the approval 'quece' (or whatever its called).

Besides it's assume when you submit a cache, that you have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. From complains in the forums it seems the vast majority of delays and problems could have been avoided if the person submitting the cache had read the guidelines and went threw a checklist* for themselves. Then they could have fixed the problem, or explain why it shouldn't be a problem, before there was a delay.

*for example:

Does my cache type match its description?(if it has many stages its not a traditional)

Is my cache at least .10 miles from all other caches? (are there multi caches within a couple miles and have I found them to be sure they're also .10 away?)

If I'm submiting a multi have I listed the locations of all the parts someplace the reviewer will see it?

If I plot the cache's coords on a street map does it show up as being near RR tracks, next to a school, or in the middle of a highway?

If I plot on an aerial does it look like its in a parking lot when my description and hint indicate the cache is in a forest (or something vastly different)?

Does the area the cache is in require any sort of permission? (if descriptions of other caches in the area meantion 'permit' or 'permission' this is a good tip off) If yes, do I have it? and have I stated this some where the reviewer will see it?

Does my cache description break any rules (swearing, commerial)?

Do the contents of the cache break any rules (knives, etc)?

Can I think of any other problems or concerns the reviewer will have that I should address now?

 

Yup. That sounds very reasonable. In my case, the cache met all the guidelines as far as I can tell. It was archived with a note that said it was on a military base. That is just simply not true. It was *near* a military base, but it was most decidedly on publicly accessible property. It was a state park, which had other caches in it already. (of course, as the guidelines say, other caches nearby don't set a precident, or something like that.) I believe it was a simple mistake on the reviewer's part. Perhaps he checked a map that showed the border in-accurately. I wrote an email, (diplomatically worded), and then another email some time later. I never recieved a response. So I gave up.

 

This is all water under the bridge now, and I'm not upset or anything. But I just think the reviewers should make a habit of *always* exchanging at least one communication with the hider before archiving.

[Team Misguided]

Its easier (for the reviewer) to archive first, and ask questions later. If noone responds the cache stays archived, if someone does fix/explain the problem it can be found and listed. Just leaving them in limbo apperently clutters the approval 'quece' (or whatever its called).

Besides it's assume when you submit a cache, that you have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache. From complains in the forums it seems the vast majority of delays and problems could have been avoided if the person submitting the cache had read the guidelines and went threw a checklist* for themselves. Then they could have fixed the problem, or explain why it shouldn't be a problem, before there was a delay.

*for example:

Does my cache type match its description?(if it has many stages its not a traditional)

Is my cache at least .10 miles from all other caches? (are there multi caches within a couple miles and have I found them to be sure they're also .10 away?)

If I'm submiting a multi have I listed the locations of all the parts someplace the reviewer will see it?

If I plot the cache's coords on a street map does it show up as being near RR tracks, next to a school, or in the middle of a highway?

If I plot on an aerial does it look like its in a parking lot when my description and hint indicate the cache is in a forest (or something vastly different)?

Does the area the cache is in require any sort of permission? (if descriptions of other caches in the area meantion 'permit' or 'permission' this is a good tip off) If yes, do I have it? and have I stated this some where the reviewer will see it?

Does my cache description break any rules (swearing, commerial)?

Do the contents of the cache break any rules (knives, etc)?

Can I think of any other problems or concerns the reviewer will have that I should address now?

 

I've just got to say that I wish everyone had that check list and used it for each cache they submitted. That would sure make the review process go much quicker.

Edited May 10, 2006 by Team Misguided

[+Prime Suspect]

I'd add:

Will I be able to make repairs on the cache in a timely manner?

[+JakeBond]

maybe you just have a slower reviewer, or a reviewer who went on vacation. they're people too...

 

try emailing them and actually asking them this question. I bet he/she'll be able to explain a bit better than us!