Jump to content

Very Disappntned So Far With Reviewers


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

So far I have hidden two caches. On the first one, the reviewer decided incorrectly that it was on land supervised by the National Park Service, the reviewer could not find the e-mail thehy sent to me about this and after getting all the information backj to them, no response in week other thanthey had lot to do. Seems like they would have less to do if they used correct information, communicated clearly and kept up withthere ouwn notes.

 

Second one, the reviewer was more concerned about the fact that I have two homes rather than my commitment to follow the guideline for cache maintainence.

 

The repeat excuse is that they are voluteers.

 

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

Link to comment

Dunno what problem you had with this reviewer - but I have to say that with the caches I have placed, the review process has been a dialog - that is information requested and transmitted. After two experiences with a reviewer, it seems a little harsh to dadgum them all out of hand.

 

(note: where it says "dadgum" up there, I used a different word that I would not have thought objectionable - it is a homophone of "dam")

Edited by OHMIKY
Link to comment

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

If by "simply do virtual caches from now on" you mean you are only going to submit new virtual cache hides, I suspect you are in for even less fun.

Link to comment

I'm curious to know what kind of responses you expect by dragging your complaints in the forums. It seems like bad form when really it just seems like the reviewers are concerned enough about the overall impact of the hobby to go through these steps.

 

Your first cache looked like it was on NPS land, which is well known as having a ban on the activity, and your other cache looked like it was placed on vacation. They're common red flags and I applaud your local reviewer in taking the time to go the extra mile. If you choose to twist these concerns into an affront on your character, fine, but I sincerely doubt this was the case.

 

Next time you have a complaint, swing an email our way. It's more polite to work with people instead of blast them unfairly in the forums.

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment

Hi! I glanced at your profile and noticed that you signed up for geocaching 3 months ago, and have found several caches in that time period.

 

In your title you say "So Far". I would suggest that you give it a bit more time, find some more caches, and get a bit more established with geocaching before you try and place anymore caches.

 

In that time period, you will start to understand more what reviewers are looking for, and they will have a chance to get to know you a little more.

Link to comment

OH SURE! Another reviewer bashing thread and the moderators rush in to defend. We know whose side you're on. You guys are all just hogging up the GC helicopter so us other 'premium members' can't have a turn in it. :blink:

 

Seriously though, the reviewers are doing thier best to garauntee conformity with the GC guidline and use thier experience to ensure YOUR cache will be a success. Work with them because they are dedicating thier valuable time to helping us.

Link to comment

OH SURE! Another reviewer bashing thread and the moderators more inner circle of cachers click rush in to defend. We know whose side you're on. You guys are all just hogging up the GC helicopter so us other 'premium members' can't have a turn in it. :blink:

 

Seriously though, the reviewers are doing thier best to garauntee conformity with the GC guidline and use thier experience to ensure YOUR cache will be a success. Work with them because they are dedicating thier valuable time to helping us.

Fixed. :blink:

Link to comment

As for me and my state... well, we have dandy reviewers who do their best to be speedy, effective in communication, and very up-to-date on geocaching.com policies, land use issues etc. We Alaskans have improved the overall quality of our cache placements through the patient tutoring and encouragement of our cache reviewers. Beyond cache placements, our reviewers have given sage advice on everything from land manager interactions to how to develop a statewide caching organization.

 

IMHO, most interactions that aren't enjoyed on the cacher side of the cacher/reviewer interaction are related to not seeing the individual applied-for cache's flaws in respect to following geocaching.com's cache placement guidelines. I can't speak to issues relating to speed (our caches up here tend to be approved within 24 hours if there are no issues). Most cacher questions in our area regarding reviewer interactions show the cacher to be on the short side of the learning curve. Ignorance on the part of the cacher is by no means unforgivable here, as long as the cacher learns from the cache reviewer how to be more effective at hiding a cache that meets the geocaching.com guidelines! Sometimes those guidelines seem unnecessarily restrictive at first glance, but they've been developed through long experience to provide a better caching outcome for all cachers - not just the placer of the cache.

 

Long story short - because of their effectiveness, we like our reviewers up here. And no, they're not locals - they're from the far side

(of the contiguous United States, that is!)

Link to comment

...and I in no way see myself (or anyone else up here in the discontinguous 49th state) to be anywhere near the 'inner circle' of geocaching... whatever that may be. Just good 'ole boys & girls having fun the geocaching way! Besides, I'm a big fan of Thumper's mom's rule... the one that ends " ... don't say anything at all!"

Link to comment

It sounds to me like your friendly neighborhood reviewer was doing his/her best to keep you from violating the law and placing a cache on NPS land. Be sure to send them a heartfelt "thank you."

 

On the other hand, your friendly neighborhood cartographer probably deserves a good talking to for not making that map clearer!

 

Bret

Link to comment

OH SURE! Another reviewer bashing thread and the moderators more inner circle of cachers click rush in to defend. We know whose side you're on. You guys are all just hogging up the GC helicopter so us other 'premium members' can't have a turn in it. :P

 

Seriously though, the reviewers are doing thier best to garauntee conformity with the GC guidline and use thier experience to ensure YOUR cache will be a success. Work with them because they are dedicating thier valuable time to helping us.

Fixed. :ph34r:

 

CUUUUURRRRRRSSSSSEEEEEESSS!!! Foiled by the Clik Syndicate again :P

Link to comment

Lets see - the unpaid volunteer reviewers took time to work with you in addressing some very serious concerns and you got them worked out and the caches are now listed for others to enjoy.

 

What was the problem.......

 

Oh yea - All that didn't happen according to your schedule.

Link to comment

So far I have hidden two caches. On the first one, the reviewer decided incorrectly that it was on land supervised by the National Park Service, the reviewer could not find the e-mail thehy sent to me about this and after getting all the information backj to them, no response in week other thanthey had lot to do. Seems like they would have less to do if they used correct information, communicated clearly and kept up withthere ouwn notes.

 

Second one, the reviewer was more concerned about the fact that I have two homes rather than my commitment to follow the guideline for cache maintainence.

 

The repeat excuse is that they are voluteers.

 

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

 

Yes it is supposed to be fun.. so lighten up, communicate clearly with the reviewer giving him or her all he data that is needed for a good decision, and have fun. Reviewers concerns about caches are a result of the information supplied to them.

Link to comment

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

If by "simply do virtual caches from now on" you mean you are only going to submit new virtual cache hides, I suspect you are in for even less fun.

Link to comment

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

If by "simply do virtual caches from now on" you mean you are only going to submit new virtual cache hides, I suspect you are in for even less fun.

Link to comment

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

If by "simply do virtual caches from now on" you mean you are only going to submit new virtual cache hides, I suspect you are in for even less fun.

No thanks-no more Geocache-found a more fun way to do this. The "reviewer" does not know how to read maps or use GPS correctly and it is not my job to train them. I am not looking for another complicated hobby or one translated by passive-aggressive folks. I am going to leave them to it.

 

I have been using all types of maps for many years and I thought that G.P.S. would allow more people to find interesting places. But, this incompetent process truly is a bummer.

Link to comment

The coordinates for the OP's cache are N 40° 07.124 W 105° 45.654. Let's see if some folks with more map expertise can play armchair reviewer. This could be fun. Check it out in your favorite mapping software, and post your conclusion. Be sure to mention which map you checked. I checked MapQuest. Looked like NPS land to me!

Link to comment

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

If by "simply do virtual caches from now on" you mean you are only going to submit new virtual cache hides, I suspect you are in for even less fun.

Never mind..the OP wasn't going where I thought and I am not inclined to help them journey where they are headed.

Edited by Team Neos
Link to comment

No thanks-no more Geocache-found a more fun way to do this. The "reviewer" does not know how to read maps or use GPS correctly and it is not my job to train them. I am not looking for another complicated hobby or one translated by passive-aggressive folks. I am going to leave them to it.

 

I have been using all types of maps for many years and I thought that G.P.S. would allow more people to find interesting places. But, this incompetent process truly is a bummer.

 

ok - best of luck!

 

 

 

 

(Only about 2 on the geocide BTW) :P

Link to comment

Grade For My Reviewer(s) - A+

 

I recently hid my first caches and I was very pleased with the dialogue I had with the NCReviewer while waiting for them to be published. Being relatively new to the sport, the exchange enabled me to learn a great deal about the guidelines and expectations and will make my next hides even better.

Link to comment
But, this incompetent process truly is a bummer.

 

Hmmm, the process works just fine for hundreds of people every week. When the occasional malcontent happens along and complains about a process that works so well for so many, its obvious where the problem lies - and it ain't with the process.

Link to comment

Did I miss a memo or is this beat up your reviewer month cause I've seen more threads started in like the last 2 weeks then I have in a while.

 

For the record, I respect the job my reviewer does and from all my hides I tend to learn something useful that makes me a better cacher, which is how it is suppose to be.

 

If your going to come in here and pitch a fit and tell us one side of the story and leave out the part that actually shows the reviewer was right and did the job correctly, stick around to defend yourself at least.

 

Better yet, don't waste our time and just do what the bossman said, email Groundspeak directly.

Link to comment

The coordinates for the OP's cache are N 40° 07.124 W 105° 45.654. Let's see if some folks with more map expertise can play armchair reviewer. This could be fun. Check it out in your favorite mapping software, and post your conclusion. Be sure to mention which map you checked. I checked MapQuest. Looked like NPS land to me!

 

Delorme Street Atlas 2006 lists the cache as being in Arapaho National Forest.

Link to comment

The coordinates for the OP's cache are N 40° 07.124 W 105° 45.654. Let's see if some folks with more map expertise can play armchair reviewer. This could be fun. Check it out in your favorite mapping software, and post your conclusion. Be sure to mention which map you checked. I checked MapQuest. Looked like NPS land to me!

 

In Mapquest, I got the same thing as you. It looks like County Road 6 is within the Rocky Mountain National Park and the cache is well within the NPS boundaries.

 

However, if you put the coords into Google Maps, it looks like RMNP boundaries are well north of the cache location. It looks like the RMNP boundary ends about 4-5 miles north of the cache location.

 

What's even weirder is in MS S&T, depending your zoom level the cache is in or out of the NPS boundaries. When you zoom about halfway out, it appears the cache is within the borders. As you zoom on in though, it appears to be about 4-5 miles south of the RMNP border.

 

Now, this is where simple communication between hider and reviewer could have cleared things up. It's quite possible the OP was looking at Google Maps and the reviewer maybe in Mapquest. I definitely think it was prudent of the reviewer to double check this.

 

I think it makes much more sense to work these issues out maturely with your reviewer rather than come in here and try to bash them. This is not egregious at all.

 

4eb7b94a-23d7-4fbf-8596-fe5c5dc2c31f.jpg Google Maps

 

92174917-57f5-4cf1-b73f-668be89ac51a.jpg MapQuest

 

c44d49ea-d5b2-47eb-bb71-6c0abf406617.jpg MS S&T Zoom Mid Zoom

 

a840376b-4187-46fd-b2e7-229972342faa.jpg MS S&T Tighter Zoom

 

*edited to add map images*

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

Two Reviewer bashings in one week. Do I hear a third? Who will bid a 3rd Bashing on our beloved Reviewer? 3? Come on! Someone out there must have a 3rd bashing for the week? Surely you can muster enough of a sack to bash a brother! No? ... Okay, sold! 2 bashings this week. We're sold out. This auction is closed until next Monday. Y'all have a good week.

Link to comment

The coordinates for the OP's cache are N 40° 07.124 W 105° 45.654. Let's see if some folks with more map expertise can play armchair reviewer. This could be fun. Check it out in your favorite mapping software, and post your conclusion. Be sure to mention which map you checked. I checked MapQuest. Looked like NPS land to me!

I don't know how you reviewers do this. I spent about 30 minutes on this cache, and there's no way you can spend 30 minutes on every cache you review and still have a life.

 

My findings:

  • Google Maps: Not NPS Land
  • Yahoo Beta Maps: Not NPS Land
  • Mapquest: NPS Land
  • Ask.com Maps: Not NPS Land
  • ESRI Shapefile downloaded from the National Park Service here and viewed in ArcGIS: Not NPS Land
  • ESRI Shapefile downloaded here that is based on TIGER: ~100ft outside NPS Land (too close for comfort, and there's error in these maps, so I'd reject the cache)
  • USGS Topo on Microsoft TerraServer: Shadow Mountain National Recreation Area

And yes, I'm qualified to read maps. AS, BS, and MS degrees in geography. GIS mapping coordinator for a county government agency. National Map Corps volunteer.

 

geognerd's verdict: Cache listing rejected.

Edited by geognerd
Link to comment
In Mapquest, I got the same thing as you. It looks like County Road 6 is within the Rocky Mountain National Park and the cache is well within the NPS boundaries.

 

However, if you put the coords into Google Maps, it looks like RMNP boundaries are well north of the cache location. It looks like the RMNP boundary ends about 4-5 miles north of the cache location.

 

Topozone shows it to be Arapho National Recreation area. It appears that Mapquest map misidentifies Arapaho NRA as Rocky Mtn National Park.

 

Edit: Topozone also shows it as Shadow Mountain National Recreation Area. If you look at the 1:24K scale map it says its in Arapaho NRA. The 1:100K and 1:250K scale maps show it to be Shadow Mountain NRA.

 

No matter what, any reviewer worth his keyboard would stop to question this cache placement.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

If by "simply do virtual caches from now on" you mean you are only going to submit new virtual cache hides, I suspect you are in for even less fun.

No thanks-no more Geocache-found a more fun way to do this. The "reviewer" does not know how to read maps or use GPS correctly and it is not my job to train them. I am not looking for another complicated hobby or one translated by passive-aggressive folks. I am going to leave them to it.

 

I have been using all types of maps for many years and I thought that G.P.S. would allow more people to find interesting places. But, this incompetent process truly is a bummer.

I think the problem you're having is that you do not realize the reviewer is/was doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing. They're tasked with reading the cache desciption and making sure the cache as descibed falls withing the guidelines. They're supposed to map the coordinate and ensure that the location falls within the guidelines. They're expected to be able to screen out every bad rule breaking cache, while allowing the good ones to pass. And people want this done constantly, consistently, and quickly.

If he/she had allowed a cache to be listed that turned out to be in a NPS area w/o permission, they would have gotten chastised. Someone may have opened a thread complaining that This reviewer is doing a lousy job and shouldn't be allowed to oversee a houseplant let alone thousands of geocache listings.

If he/she had allowed a vacation cache, someone may have complained the reviewer was allowing others to dump garbage caches in their area. Or that this reviewer should have done a better job looking up the cachers 'home area'.

Its understandable that your a little annoyed this keeps happening to you, but you have to remember to not take it personally. But you have to admit the drawn conclusions were plausiable given the known info, right?

Link to comment

I can definitely see why a reviewer would deny it. With the strict policy the NPS has on geocaching, it's just too close to call.

 

In this case, I would say the burden of proof falls on the hider. It should be the hider's responsibility at this point to pull the topo maps that Briansnat refers to in order to show that the reviewer's map is misidentifying the area as NPS land. Of course, for all I know Arapho National Recreation area could be part of the NPS. That's why I'm not a reviewer. :P

Link to comment

After digging around for a while, I find that some of the maps show the cache as well into Rocky mountain National Park, some show it as being in Arapaho, and some show it as being in no park at all.

 

The cache is in the same spot on all the maps, but the park lines are very different from map to map. It all depends on what maps you look at.

 

After looking at the actual national parks maps and researching the area a little, I am inclined to think that it is actually outside the park, but this wasn't the way to handle the problem.

 

 

LOL! I am too slow.

Edited by Docapi
Link to comment
Of course, for all I know Arapho National Recreation area could be part of the NPS.

 

Nearly all NRAs are NPS land.

 

After looking into this a little further, I found that Shadow Mtn National Recreation area was deauthorized by the NPS and transferred to the US Forest Service in 1978.

 

So in the end, this cache placement is probably OK.

 

Still, there was enough doubt and conflicting information that this was not a slam dunk. The reviewer was on the ball by catching a possible violation. If the cache owner only worked with the reviewer, rather than stomp away and throw his childish tantrum, it all would have eventually worked itself out.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

So in the end, this cache placement is probably OK.

 

Still, there was enough doubt and conflicting information that this was not a slam dunk. The reviewer was on the ball by catching a possible violation. If the cache owner only worked with the reviewer, rather than stomp away and throw his childish tantrum, it all would have eventually worked itself out.

I guess there would still be the issue that the cache is in Colorado, and the OP's location listed over there on the left under his join date claims he lives in Hattiesburg, MS.

Link to comment

I should bring Tahosa in this thread as he is the penultimate source for Rocky Mtn caching. Lots of issues here...

 

One is the OP's 'home' is listed in Mississippi. Being from Alabama, living in Colorado for 3 years, and now being in Louisiana I can safely say Mississippi is far from Colorado :P If he has a second home that's fine, that's where talking to the reviewer comes in. Another issue is that I for one am uncertain how concrete ROMO's park boundaries are, but I know they just acquired a new chuck of land. Maybe some maps reflect the new boundary and some reflect the old. Again, talk to the reviewer.

 

I believe COAdmin would be the reviewer in question here. I have had good constructive conversations with him in the past, even when the cache placement didn't go my way.

 

Z

Link to comment
No thanks-no more Geocache-found a more fun way to do this. The "reviewer" does not know how to read maps or use GPS correctly and it is not my job to train them. I am not looking for another complicated hobby or one translated by passive-aggressive folks. I am going to leave them to it.

 

I have been using all types of maps for many years and I thought that G.P.S. would allow more people to find interesting places. But, this incompetent process truly is a bummer.

I'm very disapointed in this geocide. On first read through, I didn't even notice it. I generously give it a 1.

Link to comment

Did I miss a memo or is this beat up your reviewer month cause I've seen more threads started in like the last 2 weeks then I have in a while.

 

For the record, I respect the job my reviewer does and from all my hides I tend to learn something useful that makes me a better cacher, which is how it is suppose to be.

 

If your going to come in here and pitch a fit and tell us one side of the story and leave out the part that actually shows the reviewer was right and did the job correctly, stick around to defend yourself at least.

 

Better yet, don't waste our time and just do what the bossman said, email Groundspeak directly.

 

note to self: put geoholic28 on "who/whom we will bash next week list"

Link to comment

Did I miss a memo or is this beat up your reviewer month cause I've seen more threads started in like the last 2 weeks then I have in a while.

 

For the record, I respect the job my reviewer does and from all my hides I tend to learn something useful that makes me a better cacher, which is how it is suppose to be.

 

If your going to come in here and pitch a fit and tell us one side of the story and leave out the part that actually shows the reviewer was right and did the job correctly, stick around to defend yourself at least.

 

Better yet, don't waste our time and just do what the bossman said, email Groundspeak directly.

 

Personally, I've been very disappointed with my reviewer. He's given me absolutely no reason to complain in the forums. He worked with me in ensuring everything met with the guidelines, he made sure I posted the correct information for the type of cache I was listing, he ensured that I contacted the right people for the permissions I needed, and most of all he published the cache on the very day that I asked him to publish it. It is reviewers like this that take away the joy of posting 'reviewer bashing' threads here in the forums. I'm very... very, disappointed with my reviewer for depriving me of these pleasures. :laughing:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh... and by the way... thanks Quiggle for being such a great reviewer. It was good working with someone like you on my first cache, especially considering what it meant to me :laughing:

Link to comment

Some folks just don't understand that this website is not publicly owned and operated. It's a business that is owned and operated by some very smart and talented people. They've taken risks in getting the website up and running and they've invested a lot of time and money into keeping it successful.

 

There is NO reason that ANY cache HAS to be listed. If a cache listing has a chance of being bad for business, then they're correct to not list it. And a cache placed close enough to NPS land that it's difficult to tell if it's on it or not, is most definitely a risk to business.

 

Those of us that like the site and the game want to see it continue, so we're going to agree that the cache not be listed here. Very few of us are going to regret you stomping off and not playing anymore if that's the way you plan on playing in the future.

 

However, if you learn from this and hide quality caches in good locations, we'll all be happy to have you play along.

Link to comment
Personally, I've been very disappointed with my reviewer. He's given me absolutely no reason to complain in the forums. He worked with me in ensuring everything met with the guidelines, he made sure I posted the correct information for the type of cache I was listing, he ensured that I contacted the right people for the permissions I needed, and most of all he published the cache on the very day that I asked him to publish it. It is reviewers like this that take away the joy of posting 'reviewer bashing' threads here in the forums. I'm very... very, disappointed with my reviewer for depriving me of these pleasures. :laughing:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh... and by the way... thanks Quiggle for being such a great reviewer. It was good working with someone like you on my first cache, especially considering what it meant to me :laughing:

 

:laughing:

 

Thanks, BRTango!

Link to comment

I had an experience with a reviewer the other day that I want to share with you.

 

For whatever reason our main reviewer was absent (hope he was on a grand caching vacation), anyway, I had put up for review a few caches and one of them was a multicache a five parter. I had no idea that we had to make new waypoints on a new page now for those. I got an email from the sub reviewer letting me know this. I wrote back asking how and all that. She wrote back letting me know all the particulars right away. She gave me excellent on the spot help that I am most thankfull for. This was late at night when most folks are abed getting their beauty sleep and here she was, burning the midnight oil so we could go out the next day and have fun while she more than likely had to sleep. Our reviewers have garnered staunch supporters on this team.

Link to comment
No thanks-no more Geocache-found a more fun way to do this. The "reviewer" does not know how to read maps or use GPS correctly and it is not my job to train them. I am not looking for another complicated hobby or one translated by passive-aggressive folks. I am going to leave them to it.

 

I have been using all types of maps for many years and I thought that G.P.S. would allow more people to find interesting places. But, this incompetent process truly is a bummer.

I'm very disapointed in this geocide. On first read through, I didn't even notice it. I generously give it a 1.

 

I am seriously wondering if Podedwards found Waymarking.com :laughing:

Edited by Tharagleb
Link to comment

So far I have hidden two caches. On the first one, the reviewer decided incorrectly that it was on land supervised by the National Park Service, the reviewer could not find the e-mail thehy sent to me about this and after getting all the information backj to them, no response in week other thanthey had lot to do. Seems like they would have less to do if they used correct information, communicated clearly and kept up withthere ouwn notes.

 

Second one, the reviewer was more concerned about the fact that I have two homes rather than my commitment to follow the guideline for cache maintainence.

 

The repeat excuse is that they are voluteers.

 

Volunteers or not, this is not beingso much fun and I will simply do virtual caches fromnow on. This is supposed to be fun, right?

 

Yes it's supposed to be fun. Anyone who says that though is usually doing something to block their own fun. Based on what you have posted and how you said it, I don't think you are the kind of person who would be described as 'fair' in their dealings. Thus I'm inclined to comment that your people skils need work, and I'm willing to bet that you have been told that before. I flat out can't see an issue with your reviewers, their judgment, or how your cache was treated.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...