Slow Review Process...

[+Sac D]

I've recently placed a new cache and submitted it for review. This will be my 15th hide, so I am quite familiar with the process and what to expect. Up until now, I have received prompt reviews, generally by the same individual with the exception of once or twice where another reviewer did the deed.

 

Anyway, this cache was submitted for review 5 days ago, and I sent a reminder yesterday morning. Still no review. Meanwhile, another cache was published by this reviewer last night, so I know its not an issue of vacation or illness, etc. Any suggestions how to proceed? Should I send another email to this reviewer? Or send one to the other reviewer I've dealt with in the past?

 

I mean, it's not a life or death circumstance here, but I would like to see this thing get activated, especially since it has a TB that literally has a key to another cache which others are seeking.

[+IV_Warrior]

I'm assuming you've checked the cache page to ensure there isn't a note from the reviewer seeking more information from you. You didn't mention any details like what kind of cache it is. A 30 stage multi is going to take a bit more time than a traditional cache where the nearest cache is 5 miles away.

 

I'd give it at least a couple more days before sending another e-mail to a reviewer.

[+Moose Mob]

The area is saturated and criss crossed with multi caches. It's hard to tell why it hasn't been looked at by the local reviewers. It is rare they leave anything sit that long, so I can only assume there is a reason.

[+palmetto]

I took a look at your unpublished cache. It's a puzzle cache multi, these guys do tend to go to the bottom of the review heap, as they're the most time consuming to check. I see you used the waypoints tool for your stage coords, a big help to the reviewer. On the other hand, your bogus coords are over 8 miles from your actual cache coords, a guidelines violation.

The reviewer has at least eyeballed the cache. I see no reviewer notes - you'd know about those if they'd been posted in any case. I expect you'll hear something, give it another day or so. Maybe send an email (to Hemlock); your reviewer note to the cache page dated July 15 doesn't get emailed to the reviewer, it's only seen if the cache page is re-opened.

[+Sac D]

I took a look at your unpublished cache. It's a puzzle cache multi, these guys do tend to go to the bottom of the review heap, as they're the most time consuming to check. I see you used the waypoints tool for your stage coords, a big help to the reviewer. On the other hand, your bogus coords are over 8 miles from your actual cache coords, a guidelines violation.

The reviewer has at least eyeballed the cache. I see no reviewer notes - you'd know about those if they'd been posted in any case. I expect you'll hear something, give it another day or so. Maybe send an email (to Hemlock); your reviewer note to the cache page dated July 15 doesn't get emailed to the reviewer, it's only seen if the cache page is re-opened.

 

Okay, thanks. I appreciate your expertise. I'm just wondering why I haven't at least received an email about this... but your explanation helps.

[dsherard]

I have noticed slow reviewing myself. The web page says they will be reviewed between 36 and 72 hours, I have had one out over a week now without any questions concerning it. I know you guys go on vacation and require some time off, but don't you have someone to cover for you? Is there a need for more reviewers? I am sure there are enough people enjoying the game that they would be happy to help if you would ask, set up some criteria or training for us to follow.

 

I took a look at your unpublished cache. It's a puzzle cache multi, these guys do tend to go to the bottom of the review heap, as they're the most time consuming to check. I see you used the waypoints tool for your stage coords, a big help to the reviewer. On the other hand, your bogus coords are over 8 miles from your actual cache coords, a guidelines violation.

The reviewer has at least eyeballed the cache. I see no reviewer notes - you'd know about those if they'd been posted in any case. I expect you'll hear something, give it another day or so. Maybe send an email (to Hemlock); your reviewer note to the cache page dated July 15 doesn't get emailed to the reviewer, it's only seen if the cache page is re-opened.

 

Okay, thanks. I appreciate your expertise. I'm just wondering why I haven't at least received an email about this... but your explanation helps.

[+Lord Stirling]

I have noticed slow reviewing myself. The web page says they will be reviewed between 36 and 72 hours, I have had one out over a week now without any questions concerning it. I know you guys go on vacation and require some time off, but don't you have someone to cover for you? Is there a need for more reviewers? I am sure there are enough people enjoying the game that they would be happy to help if you would ask, set up some criteria or training for us to follow.

 

 

A look at your profile shows 4 unpublished caches. 3 were submitted within the past 2 days. One was submitted earlier this month and has a question from the reviewer on the page. I can't if tell you responded to that or not because he asked for you to send him an e-mail. It also does not have the "Yes, this cache is currently active" box checked so it will not appear in the review queue. In other words your reviewer will not know its there until the box is checked.

[+mtn-man]

I have noticed slow reviewing myself. The web page says they will be reviewed between 36 and 72 hours, I have had one out over a week now without any questions concerning it. I know you guys go on vacation and require some time off, but don't you have someone to cover for you? Is there a need for more reviewers? I am sure there are enough people enjoying the game that they would be happy to help if you would ask, set up some criteria or training for us to follow.

 

 

A look at your profile shows 4 unpublished caches. 3 were submitted within the past 2 days. One was submitted earlier this month and has a question from the reviewer on the page. I can't if tell you responded to that or not because he asked for you to send him an e-mail. It also does not have the "Yes, this cache is currently active" box checked so it will not appear in the review queue. In other words your reviewer will not know its there until the box is checked.

Another part of the problem is not reading the guidelines. Within your caches there are multiple guideline problems. When we see multiple violations, we tend to move those to the back of the pack as well if we are busy, which I was this past weekend. People who read the guidelines and place caches correctly see their caches listed more smoothly.

 

All of your caches have been addressed by me tonight. Only one was listed. Hopefully you won't ignore the issues I brought up in a similar fashion to the one from a month ago. If you ever want to be a reviewer, you need to read and understand the guidelines carefully and totally. Now, I am off to log a few finds.

 

(Edited because my composition skills stink at 3 AM.)

Edited July 25, 2006 by mtn-man

[dsherard]

I am not sure which one you are referring to from a month ago, whenever I am told there are problems I try to correct them as quickly as I can. I have read the guidelines and I don't think that I have solicited (the only guideline issue I was informed of) anything more than caches: GCVZV5-stating grab some pizza, GCW8H3-I would have to pay an admission to find this one, GCW231-buy your groceries here or GCW2GE-eat here. I am not trying to be a butt-head but if I am way off base and totally confused it is because I see caches like these already out there.

[+briansnat]

I am not sure which one you are referring to from a month ago, whenever I am told there are problems I try to correct them as quickly as I can. I have read the guidelines and I don't think that I have solicited (the only guideline issue I was informed of) anything more than caches: GCVZV5-stating grab some pizza, GCW8H3-I would have to pay an admission to find this one, GCW231-buy your groceries here or GCW2GE-eat here. I am not trying to be a butt-head but if I am way off base and totally confused it is because I see caches like these already out there.

 

Two of those caches have no solicitation in them. One does and that may have been added post publishing because most reviewers would probably flag that. Paying an admission fee doesn't necessarily disallow caches. Many public parks require admission fees. If it was a "for profit" it probably would not be allowed, but not for profits like state parks, museums, ect.. are often OK.

[dsherard]

Using ad campaigns by major companys ("Let's go Krogering" and "Eat at Joe's") is not solicitation but me stating there are some good Mexican restaurants without mentioning a name is?

[Keystone]

Using ad campaigns by major companys ("Let's go Krogering" and "Eat at Joe's") is not solicitation but me stating there are some good Mexican restaurants without mentioning a name is?

Yep. That's right. You can remove the question mark from your post.

[dsherard]

Very well, I am just a tadpole in a bass pond. I will continue to give back to the game as best as I can but if I have issues you'll see me here. Isn't that what a forum is for?

[+New England n00b]

Very well, I am just a tadpole in a bass pond. I will continue to give back to the game as best as I can but if I have issues you'll see me here. Isn't that what a forum is for?

As an aside, the reason that you can't look to other caches that have done 'X' is that they may have been placed prior to a guideline change, the reviewer missed it, or it was edited into a cache page after it was published - allowing any of those to set precedence would eventually snowball into the destruction of the guidelines. It is nothing personal, just a means to keep the long-term integrity of the site intact.

 

And yep, these forums are indeed the place to bring issues for discussion when the cache appeals process does not go your way. Often, the tone of teh initial post will set the bar for the rest of the thread. Come in with respect, and the poster will get treated with respect... come in another manner... and they usually get what they give. That is not an assessment of your original post, just a general observation about other posters in the past.

 

Good luck with your caches, and happy caching!

 

EDIT: BTW - Tadpole is a forum moniker for someone who has less than 10 posts, nothing more. After 10 it becomes 'Geocacher'. These are just edits to teh already built-in forum software.

Edited July 26, 2006 by New England n00b

[+Old Cavendish]

I'm having trouble with a cache as well. I was asked to explain where the cache is placed in regards to some railroad tracks, how people are to find the cache, etc. I answered those questions and posted them on the page according to directions.

 

It is going on 20 days since I posted it, got a response from the reviewer, answered his questions and still nothing. I hate sounding like a jerk about it, but when he specifically said respond through reviewer notes and I haven't heard a thing, what am I supposed to do?

 

At first I chalked it up to the fact that he is only a volunteer and that he might be busy or have a family emergency. I'm cool with that. But I am seeing other caches approved in two or three days during my wait period, so I'm not sure what to think.

 

Any suggestions? Should I appeal it even though it hasn't been archived? I'm just wanting a response so I know how to proceed.

[+Old Cavendish]

I should note to Keystone that I don't want any 'tone' to be read into my posts here or on the cache page. I really want to make my cache a challenge and stay well within the rules of the game.

[Keystone]

Hello saabinmike,

 

I could archive your cache right now, due to violating the railroad guideline, and be well within the guidelines in doing so. Or, I can suggest changes to your cache page so that it can be published. I want to discuss those issues with the other reviewers, but I cannot do so right now. I will do that as soon as I am able to do so, and when time permits.

 

Take your pick.

[+fizzymagic]

I have never had any difficulty getting my caches approved quickly.

 

I try to include as much information about the placement as I can in a reviewer note when I first submit the cache. If the cache looks to be near railroad tracks, I explain the layout and why it won't be a problem. If the cache is in a park, I say how far off trail it is and what the area is like. If a fee is required, I include that information. If it's a puzzle or a multi, I make sure to include all the waypoints (which is much easier now with the Additional Waypoints option). If the cache is not obviously on public land, or in a park, I describe the location and what (if any) permission I obtained for it. If the cache requires using an external website, I detail that and describe how the process will work for the cacher.

 

The way I look at it, the more information the reviewer has, the more quickly he (or she) can approve the cache, and the easier his (or her) job will be. In addition, by proactively addressing any concerns, it is clear to the reviewer that you understand the guidelines and have considered any potential issues in your hide.

 

On the other hand, if you just submit the cache without any additional information, then the reviewer has to carefully check for any potential problems, and write you a note asking for further clarification if there is anything that doesn't seem quite right. If I were a reviewer, I would quite naturally assume that since you didn't mention the potential issues in your original submission, you very well might not have read the guidelines. And that would make me scrutinize your placement more carefully.

[+Lord Stirling]

Fizzymagic gives good advice. The more information you provide the reviewer the better. If its a multi or puzzle, provide the coordinates of all stages and the final cache. If its on a rails to trails pathway note this. The reviewer is likely to see the old RR tracks on the maps.

 

Which leads to another idea. After you've created your cache page take a look at the maps linked to on the page (Topozone, Google, Mapquest, etc...). You'll see what the reviewer sees. Things like RR tracks that are no longer be there, a school that has been closed for 10 years, a military base that was decomissioned and sold to the town 30 years ago. Many of these things still show up on maps and will lead to a delay. If you address them ahead of time it will speed things up. Put something like "The map shows the cache is on Smith Air Force Base, but the base was decomissioned in 1972 and sold to Jones County to be used as a park. Here is a link to an article _____ ". More is better than less.

 

And above all, read the guidelines. Don't just check the box saying you did, really read them. It would avoid 90 percent of the delays. People would be amazed by how many submissions we receive that say things like "The cache is on a school playground so please don't search for it during school hours", or "Be careful of trains when searching for this one".

 

Finally, check for nearby caches. I've seen submissions as near as 30 feet to an existing cache.

[+Quiggle]

The more information you provide the reviewer the better.

 

Agreed.

[ParentsofSAM]

Using ad campaigns by major companys ("Let's go Krogering" and "Eat at Joe's") is not solicitation but me stating there are some good Mexican restaurants without mentioning a name is?

Yep. That's right. You can remove the question mark from your post.

 

Hello saabinmike,

 

I could archive your cache right now, due to violating the railroad guideline, and be well within the guidelines in doing so. Or, I can suggest changes to your cache page so that it can be published. I want to discuss those issues with the other reviewers, but I cannot do so right now. I will do that as soon as I am able to do so, and when time permits.

 

Take your pick.

 

You know the tone of these 2 posts are not particularly friendly. I mean in the first example that is a legitimate question and he gets a snippy reply but a moderator/reviewer.

 

In the second example the poster and the reviewer may have history but the poster was not snippy in his post here but the response he gets is.....I am doing how I feel like doing it and you can wait and like it or I can just cancel the whole project. That is not very good customer service or friendly at all.

 

The tone of the posts of the moderator/reviewer do not match the tone of the posts.

 

I do not know what the situation is behind these 2 caches or what if any other contact the reivewers have had with these cachers. There may be bad history. But judging just on these posts the reveiwer in the one acting snippity.

 

I am not reviwer bashing.....I really like my reviewers and I think they give a lot of volunteer time and take a lot of unnecessary heat for stuff. I am going to hope that it is ok to point out a reviewer being unfriendly without being called a basher. They are human and make mistakes...so do I. I am not saying he is a bad reveiwer I just think the above 2 posts are kinda mean.

[+Old Cavendish]

The only reason I posted here was becasue I saw Keystone had posted so I thought he might see my post.

 

I understand that the reviewers are working for free and stuff comes up. No big deal. My concern was the time frame, I thought maybe I was missing something since I hadn't heard anything.

 

And there is no bad blood between me and Keystone.

 

At least that I know of. LOL!

[+theUMP]

Just a side note: remember when the forums crashed recently?

Well, the reviewer forums have yet to completely recover and, since that's where discussion of not-cut'n'dried caches takes place...

 

A polite email to the relevant reviewer is rarely a problem, and may uncover something simple like not having ticked the "this listing is active" box.

(I wish I had an American coin for every time _that's_ happened!)

 

Rgds,

Ian, theUMP.