Jump to content

Input from ALL on speeding up the NEW cache posts...


zukpirate
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I'm fairly new to the posting side of things, & I have read that it's done on a review basis.

 

What could / can be done to make this feature that is of for the better part of our "sport" the most important feature that makes it what it is, what can we do to make this feature something that happens as soon as we post up our new GeoCaches?

 

Seems like having to wait up to 3 days or for someone to approve them or be able to as I've heard, go out and score the FTF prize before the general members / etc... isn't right.

 

couldn't we just use a honor system between members or have a APPOINTED moderator that checks the replies from others that have gone out and verified the Caches?

 

------------------------------------------------------ something?

 

whats your answers / input on this topic?

Link to comment

Personally, I think the VOLUNTEER reviewers do a great job in getting the new posts out as soon as they can. Remember, this site is FREE. Is a three day wait really too much to ask? Incidentally, most of my caches (few as they may be) have been published within the first day.

Link to comment

The best way to speed up cache reviews is to be prepared with your cache hide and make sure it meets all the guidelines before you submit it. Put detailed reviewer notes on the page to explain anything to your reviewer that may need extra attention and be patient.

 

The site issues that make made logging finds difficult are ten times worse for reviewers. We have many more page loads per cache for each review so we tend to avoid reviewing during times when the site is real slow.

Link to comment

I don't know what the problem is, because I have had caches Approved less than 15 minutes after submitting the form stating the cache is "Active." Our volunteer Reviewer is fantastic. :laughing:

 

That would be great *(approved & posted in 15min) & I'm not saying whats working already isn't good or bad, I'm suggesting, what could be done to just allow members to post up instantly New caches?

 

maybe a members based rating, members who have already posted geo's & have a review or rating symbol / ? that would be something to go off of, after so many member approved good caches that have been found / verified, "just allow them to instantly post up their new geo's."

 

------------- :)

Link to comment

 

That would be great *(approved & posted in 15min) & I'm not saying whats working already isn't good or bad, I'm suggesting, what could be done to just allow members to post up instantly New caches?

 

maybe a members based rating, members who have already posted geo's & have a review or rating symbol / ? that would be something to go off of, after so many member approved good caches that have been found / verified, "just allow them to instantly post up their new geo's."

 

------------- :)

 

But that won't work, the cache approvers have to verify that the cache is being placed by a cacher who lives near it for cache maintainence and make sure it is far enough away from the next nearest cache. (you could place a cache within a few feet of the final location of a puzzle cache and not know it unless you've done the puzzle.)

Link to comment

The best way to speed up cache reviews is to be prepared with your cache hide and make sure it meets all the guidelines before you submit it. Put detailed reviewer notes on the page to explain anything to your reviewer that may need extra attention and be patient.

 

The site issues that make made logging finds difficult are ten times worse for reviewers. We have many more page loads per cache for each review so we tend to avoid reviewing during times when the site is real slow.

Always nice to hear from an "official" source. I never really appreciated what goes into the approval process. All I ever see is the publish messages, even when I placed my cache (since removed).

I'm sure there's a bit of work involved.

 

Thanks for your input, and your hard work! (that goes for all the reviewers/mods/volunteers)

Link to comment

I appreciate your thoughts and your desire to improve things. We have only submitted one cache so far, but it was reviewed and published in a reasonable amount of time. (Less than 24 hours.) Considering the reviewers are volunteers- thats ok. If we paid more and the reviewers were employees i might want it faster, but still 24 hours is pretty good.

couldn't we just use a honor system between members or have a APPOINTED moderator that checks the replies from others that have gone out and verified the Caches?

Hmmmm. We have the honor system in place now regarding trading up or trading even. It works sometimes, but the times that it doesnt work sours the whole situation for everyone. mad.gif

Link to comment

Seems like having to wait up to 3 days or for someone to approve them or be able to as I've heard, go out and score the FTF prize before the general members / etc... isn't right.

 

Good grief . . . I really have a hard time with this . . . I hope that this isn't really happening in your neck of the woods. It seems to me to be a real slap in the face to good people who, at least in this part of the world, do their best to make this game as fair as possible for as many cachers as possible. I have met most of the reviewers in this area (Washington State) and have found them to be thoughtful, fair and honest, which must be especially difficult at times when you take into consideration all of the garbage that tends to go along with the (sometimes thankless) job!

Link to comment

couldn't we just use a honor system between members or have a APPOINTED moderator that checks the replies from others that have gone out and verified the Caches?

 

Just checking your profile and confirmed what I suspected. You just recently put your first caches out for approval. I remember my first cache and I couldn't wait for it to get published. In fact, if you look at my first forum post, you'll see it's a complaint about how long it was taking to get it published. I know it can be difficult to wait, but the result of just opening up the process would be disastrous.

 

I feel your pain...

 

PS - When you publish your cache, put a nice note saying something like "You guys are doing a great job!".. And hope your reviewer didn't read this thread :)

Link to comment

I'm fairly new to the posting side of things, & I have read that it's done on a review basis.

 

What could / can be done to make this feature that is of for the better part of our "sport" the most important feature that makes it what it is, what can we do to make this feature something that happens as soon as we post up our new GeoCaches?

 

Seems like having to wait up to 3 days or for someone to approve them or be able to as I've heard, go out and score the FTF prize before the general members / etc... isn't right.

 

couldn't we just use a honor system between members or have a APPOINTED moderator that checks the replies from others that have gone out and verified the Caches?

 

------------------------------------------------------ something?

 

whats your answers / input on this topic?

Seems like all your new caches have been listed; and already disabled.

Seems like you didn't actually follow the guidelines for placing a cache.

Hmmmmm......

Maybe instead of doing away with the review process, they should do away with the ability to hide caches before you've even found one to know what they are supposed to be?

 

And I don't know WHERE you've heard they are delaying approval to go out and score the FTFs. I've met and cached with the person that reviewed your caches. Running out for FTF is about the furthest thing from their minds, and I'm sure all the locals there would agree with me.

Link to comment

I'm fairly new to the posting side of things, & I have read that it's done on a review basis.

 

What could / can be done to make this feature that is of for the better part of our "sport" the most important feature that makes it what it is, what can we do to make this feature something that happens as soon as we post up our new GeoCaches?

 

Seems like having to wait up to 3 days or for someone to approve them or be able to as I've heard, go out and score the FTF prize before the general members / etc... isn't right.

 

couldn't we just use a honor system between members or have a APPOINTED moderator that checks the replies from others that have gone out and verified the Caches?

 

------------------------------------------------------ something?

 

whats your answers / input on this topic?

Seems like all your new caches have been listed; and already disabled.

Seems like you didn't actually follow the guidelines for placing a cache.

Hmmmmm......

Maybe instead of doing away with the review process, they should do away with the ability to hide caches before you've even found one to know what they are supposed to be?

 

And I don't know WHERE you've heard they are delaying approval to go out and score the FTFs. I've met and cached with the person that reviewed your caches. Running out for FTF is about the furthest thing from their minds, and I'm sure all the locals there would agree with me.

Agreed. Newbies always seem to be fast to criticize and slow to be grateful when they themselves can't seem to follow simple instructions.

 

Reviewers are volunteers with lives of their own. Don't bash them or you will receive the ire of your peers in their defense.

 

An honor system isn't a reliable way of telling the cache is in a restricted area or not. That's what the review process is for. The less information you provide the reviewer for approval, the longer it will take. The closer to following the guidelines of cache placement, the quicker the process. Multi's and puzzles will always take longer as they need to be worked out to ensure each leg isn't violating the guidelines for placement.

 

The best advise you can follow is to have patience, provide the reviewer as much information as possible to your cache placement and provide them the appropriate time to do their job without harrassment or bashing and insertion of allegations to justify your impatience.

Link to comment

The people that review our caches are all volunteers and have lives of their own. There have been many times that I get busy with work and life and don't have the time to do something I should have. I am pretty sure that the reviewers are in the same position. They all have jobs and lives that may sometimes prevent them from reviewing caches right away. The easiest way to get a cache published quickly has already been mentioned a few times in this thread. The easier you make it for them the quicker it will be for your caches.

 

As for the assertion that they delay caches to get the FTF. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that they are forbidden from using behind the scenes knowledge they see while reviewing, in order to stop them from doing just that. It is an honor system and our reviewers have a lot more restrictions than the average cacher.

Link to comment

That would be great *(approved & posted in 15min) & I'm not saying whats working already isn't good or bad, I'm suggesting, what could be done to just allow members to post up instantly New caches?

 

That would be the fastest way to have geocaching banned in most areas and frowned upon by the local police/sheriff offices/government entities. A few poorly placed, i.e., too close to other caches/puzzle cache finals....placed in restricted areas...placed on private property without permission, etc.; that would be the quickest way to end this sport. Believe me, those things WOULD happen if this was an option.

 

The reviewers in this area (mine are the same as yours) are absolutely ethical in their process. That's the first I've ever heard of anyone even thinking that they run for FTF's :laughing: - don't think so.

 

Having reviewers review caches after the fact - recipe for disaster.

 

Frankly, I'm REALLY cautious/suspicious/nervous about going out for caches placed by someone who has not found a significant number of caches...kinda scary to think of the kinds of things one could be set up for/what intent the cache owner has in mind. As a matter of fact, I think I'll make that a standing rule for myself - don't go for those.

Edited by Lizzy
Link to comment

wow...... this is like any other forum out there, a guy speaks his mind, & has the lynchmob attacking him... wow....

 

look, as for reporting my finds on here.... or not, that wasn't the point of my question, as for suggesting i'm a idiot or plan to hide a unsafe cache or anything of that nature is absurd, get off the high horse & put down the pitch fork,

 

I was asking, why it takes so long to get a Geo published.

 

As for the comments on my Geo's, they have all been good finds, unlike some I've found or read about, i've been doing this for awhile, just not taken part in the forums... mainly because of CRAP like this!

 

a guy ask's a question that has / had some relevance as to ways or ideas to make better something, & instead of giving input or idea, I get bashed on... WTF?

 

grow up & save the CRAP for some punk kid, which I'm not... I just was asking a question of all in opinionated form...

Link to comment

 

Frankly, I'm REALLY cautious/suspicious/nervous about going out for caches placed by someone who has not found a significant number of caches...kinda scary to think of the kinds of things one could be set up for/what intent the cache owner has in mind. As a matter of fact, I think I'll make that a standing rule for myself - don't go for those.

 

your a real work of art...

 

I guess I'd be cautious too, if I saw the world as the way you do. but I don't & that gives me the right to comment on your opinion, and admit you have every right to respond & answer as you did. too bad this is the response to *(in your eyes a NOO':laughing: members that ask Q's & receive a bashing w/ mild positive answers,

 

AS FOR THE FTF REVIEWERS, it was a story i read either on here somewheres in the forum or on another site, but it was logical & warranted for me to include that bit, as what is / would stop them from looking or being the FTF if they so deceided to go look?

 

--------- I'm just another guy w/ a GPS that wanted to go out and hide some Treasure, thought I'd ask a question and this is the response I recieve, *(good thing I got tough skin) whew!!

Link to comment

I just was asking a question of all in opinionated form...

 

You got exactly what you asked for. Where's the beef?

 

To paraphrase your quote... grow up & save the CRAP for some punk kid, which we're not...

 

NO, what I got was a elementry answer or a slight nudge to be pushed,

 

what happened to problem solving or soloutions?

 

why couldn't someone answer w/ a reasonable answer?

 

something like,

 

were working on a software program that would NOT allow members to post caches w/ in a certain distance, and notice the restricted areas in the cords.... etc...

 

were looking for more volunteer's? to help w/ reviews process... etc..

 

------------ anyhow, heres another log for the fire...

 

kill the thread or let it die, I see it's not of MY best intrest's around here to ask anything!

Link to comment

First of all, I don't understand why waiting 3 days is a big deal. Seems like a reasonable amount of time. In fact, I would think that 7 days would be reasonable.

 

The review system is in place for a reason. We need people to be part of the process. They are able to apply their considerable experience and skill to the process which is not necessarily a black and white ., cut-and-dried thing. They must apply judgment based upon their experience, the guidelines, and many other factors. It would be nearly impossible to create a software program that would be able to apply the necessary criteria to properly review a cache since every one is different.

 

People being part of the process is essential. And people (who are volunteers) have lives and other responsibilities. My reviewer is a workhouse. We get so many caches reviewed per week that it's astonishing to think that they are doing this without pay. I think that we should be thankful for what we have.

Link to comment

First of all, I don't understand why waiting 3 days is a big deal. Seems like a reasonable amount of time. In fact, I would think that 7 days would be reasonable.

 

The review system is in place for a reason. We need people to be part of the process. They are able to apply their considerable experience and skill to the process which is not necessarily a black and white ., cut-and-dried thing. They must apply judgment based upon their experience, the guidelines, and many other factors. It would be nearly impossible to create a software program that would be able to apply the necessary criteria to properly review a cache since every one is different.

 

People being part of the process is essential. And people (who are volunteers) have lives and other responsibilities. My reviewer is a workhouse. We get so many caches reviewed per week that it's astonishing to think that they are doing this without pay. I think that we should be thankful for what we have.

 

your statement reflects a intelligent answer,

 

but, as I started off by saying in the opening thread, what are some of the ways to make this most important part of the sport better?

 

not the poor chap of a reviewer who is over loaded w/ his own life / work / etc, and GOD BLESS HIM or HER for finding the time to review & ok, & place a Geo...

 

IMO, we should have people who do have the free time & experience to review & get these posted right away, that was more or less where my questions direction was aimed / headed.

 

I would like to state, I'm SORRY if some find me harsh or i come off the wrong way, Hey, I'm grateful & thankful for whats going on here... I just found it odd, having to wait or correspond in the manner that this takes, that alone gets a bit confusing... log's & etc...

 

I'm not here to ruffle feathers or re-shape anything, I was Just asking what other members thought of the process to get Geo's published on here.

 

now, calm down everyone... I'm slowly walking towards the back of the forum & shushhing up. thx.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

I just was asking a question of all in opinionated form...

 

You got exactly what you asked for. Where's the beef?

 

To paraphrase your quote... grow up & save the CRAP for some punk kid, which we're not...

 

NO, what I got was a elementry answer or a slight nudge to be pushed,

 

what happened to problem solving or soloutions?

 

why couldn't someone answer w/ a reasonable answer?

 

something like,

 

were working on a software program that would NOT allow members to post caches w/ in a certain distance, and notice the restricted areas in the cords.... etc...

 

were looking for more volunteer's? to help w/ reviews process... etc..

 

------------ anyhow, heres another log for the fire...

 

kill the thread or let it die, I see it's not of MY best intrest's around here to ask anything!

You can't reason with a program. You can reason with a reviewer. So a software program isn't a good answer.

 

There probably isn't much of a need for more reviewers in our area as they just recently added one to lighten the load. But you're still talking about volunteers doing the work and sometimes life happens and gets in the way. You need to be reasonable in your expectations for this. Three days is not an unreasonable timeframe.

 

Its okay to ask, but you have to accept some of the answers may not be what you seek. Sometimes No just means No.

Link to comment

wow...... this is like any other forum out there, a guy speaks his mind, & has the lynchmob attacking him... wow....

 

look, as for reporting my finds on here.... or not, that wasn't the point of my question, as for suggesting i'm a idiot or plan to hide a unsafe cache or anything of that nature is absurd, get off the high horse & put down the pitch fork,

 

I was asking, why it takes so long to get a Geo published.

 

As for the comments on my Geo's, they have all been good finds, unlike some I've found or read about, i've been doing this for awhile, just not taken part in the forums... mainly because of CRAP like this!

 

a guy ask's a question that has / had some relevance as to ways or ideas to make better something, & instead of giving input or idea, I get bashed on... WTF?

 

grow up & save the CRAP for some punk kid, which I'm not... I just was asking a question of all in opinionated form...

Perhaps it's the circumstances surrounding your caches and the way you worded your original post. Look at it from the audience's perspective: You come in and post an apparent complaint that it took three or more days to get your cache listed --along with making a comment that you suspect the reviewers are deliberately delaying the listing so they can go find it. We look at your caches and they are all three disabled. At least one of them doesn't have a logbook in the cache. The account you are posting from has no finds, so we have no idea whether you have any experience finding caches.

 

My thoughts went something like this

Gee, I had over 50 finds before I hid my first cache and the reviewer could see that. Even though it was my first cache, my reviewer listed it within about an hour of my submitting it. In fact, all of my caches have been reviewed and listed very quickly. One took a whole day, but the reviewer was working a lot that week at his paying job.

 

Oh, I see, the OP doesn't show any caches found, and their first cache listed is missing a logbook. Well, if I were the reviewer, I'd want to get in touch with them and make sure they understand how things are supposed to work.

 

Oh, I guess the new guy read that thread about the reviewer who did the puzzle cache. Hmmmm guess he didn't read the whole post where the cache owner came in to say that all was good with that cache and they had no problem with the way things went.

 

Golly, this guy sure does seem angry. I wonder if he was that testy when he responded to the reviewer's questions?

 

Should I tell him that we geocachers call those things "geocaches" or "caches" not "geos"?

 

***end of thought process summary****

 

Yeah, I really did go through that sort of thought process. You don't seem like you are being receptive to what people are saying and you do seem to be getting very upset with any response that isn't supporting your idea. There are very good reasons to have someone review cache placement. Most of those reasons have already been mentioned.

 

To review some:

 

There may be rules in certain places that a new cache may not know. Some parks for instance have specific rules.

There may be stages of caches nearby that would prevent the cache from being located in that spot. Multis and puzzle caches are good examples.

There may be a problem with the cache that needs to be addressed before it can be published (like not having a logbook in place). An experience cacher would know about the logbook, but newbies often don't. They also don't alwyas understand that there are places you cannot place a cache and thing syou cannot put in a cache.

 

All that said, I know it's hard to place a cache and then wait for it to be published, and very disappointing to have it take longer than usual. The good news is that once your reviewer knows you put out good caches and take care of them your turn around time will surely improve. I had one once that was submitted for review, published and found within 42 minutes.

Link to comment

I just was asking a question of all in opinionated form...

 

You got exactly what you asked for. Where's the beef?

 

To paraphrase your quote... grow up & save the CRAP for some punk kid, which we're not...

 

NO, what I got was a elementry answer or a slight nudge to be pushed,

 

what happened to problem solving or soloutions?

 

why couldn't someone answer w/ a reasonable answer?

 

something like,

 

were working on a software program that would NOT allow members to post caches w/ in a certain distance, and notice the restricted areas in the cords.... etc...

 

were looking for more volunteer's? to help w/ reviews process... etc..

 

------------ anyhow, heres another log for the fire...

 

kill the thread or let it die, I see it's not of MY best intrest's around here to ask anything!

You can't reason with a program. You can reason with a reviewer. So a software program isn't a good answer.

 

There probably isn't much of a need for more reviewers in our area as they just recently added one to lighten the load. But you're still talking about volunteers doing the work and sometimes life happens and gets in the way. You need to be reasonable in your expectations for this. Three days is not an unreasonable timeframe.

 

Its okay to ask, but you have to accept some of the answers may not be what you seek. Sometimes No just means No.

 

Point well taken. & understood...

 

I just wanted to see *(being asking this Q here) would get a response from others in other locations & see if the post times veried or were based on actual problems w/ the users posting thier caches... / etc. I think I acheived what "I" was asking, it's a work over-load for the reviewers. and based on the geo.

 

thx.

Link to comment

Waiting three days is not that long. In this day and age with everything so hectic and "rush-rush", we need to relax a little and let life actually pass us by instead of us passing life by. We have had no problems whatsoever in getting our caches published. Some took a few days, others took a few hours. It all depends on what the reviewer has going on in their lives. Give the reviewer a chance to do the job that they are being asked to do. Provide them with all the information that they need to quickly approve the cache hide you are trying to get published. The reviewer has to go through steps to make sure that the cache hide meets all the guidelines. Three days isn't a very long time. Perhaps submitting the cache page well in advance of when you "want" it published might just prove useful. The reviewers are doing a great job. Let them do it.

 

 

With regards to using the honor system: It wouldn't work. Logging caches properly isn't working all the time. Logging travel bug properly isn't working all the time. Etc. etc. The honor system won't work either because there are too many people who seem to assume that they are exempt from "honor".

Link to comment

wow...... this is like any other forum out there, a guy speaks his mind, & has the lynchmob attacking him... wow....

 

look, as for reporting my finds on here.... or not, that wasn't the point of my question, as for suggesting i'm a idiot or plan to hide a unsafe cache or anything of that nature is absurd, get off the high horse & put down the pitch fork,

 

I was asking, why it takes so long to get a Geo published.

 

As for the comments on my Geo's, they have all been good finds, unlike some I've found or read about, i've been doing this for awhile, just not taken part in the forums... mainly because of CRAP like this!

 

a guy ask's a question that has / had some relevance as to ways or ideas to make better something, & instead of giving input or idea, I get bashed on... WTF?

 

grow up & save the CRAP for some punk kid, which I'm not... I just was asking a question of all in opinionated form...

sorry, when your thread started with the words "Input from ALL...", I didn't know that you really mean "Input from ALL who agree with me and none others".

When you come in here and insinuate that your reviewer delayed publishing your caches so they could get FTF, you should expect those people who know better are going to speak up.

When it turns out you yourself couldn't follow the very rules you're asking the owners of this website to trust you on the honor system to abide by; well, you should pretty much expect to get slammed.

Link to comment
but, as I started off by saying in the opening thread, what are some of the ways to make this most important part of the sport better?

Unfortunately, your question starts with a faulty premise. That there is a need "make this ... part of the sport better." I don't think that you are going to find much consensus that the process is "broken" and needs to be fixed.

 

To me, quality is a greater concern and more important than quantity and speed in the process. I'm willing to wait the necessary amount of time to ensure that the cache is adequate reviewed. I would think that the forum would be BLASTED with uproar if people were allowed to post unreviewed cache that were in dangerous or other off-limits places. Imagine a cache placed on a railroad bridge because the hider thought that the place was cool.

 

IMO, we should have people who do have the free time & experience to review & get these posted right away, that was more or less where my questions direction was aimed / headed.

Again, quality over quantity. To me, there's no need to "get these posted right way." I think that people who thoroughly read and research the guidelines and posting criteria and properly plan their cache don't have any problems with getting their caches published quickly.

 

I would like to state, I'm SORRY if some find me harsh or i come off the wrong way, Hey, I'm grateful & thankful for whats going on here... I just found it odd, having to wait or correspond in the manner that this takes, that alone gets a bit confusing... log's & etc...

In my opinion, you came off as very harsh. Perhaps, if you had phrased your question in the frame of not understanding the approval process, you might have gotten different responses. But not wanting to wait the appropriate amount of time for approval is not, in my opinion, a legitimate gripe. Taking the time to fully understand the listing guidelines and process might have helped with some of your confusion.

Link to comment

Here's some input from a reviewer on speeding up cache postings. I generally check my queue morning and evening every day. Caches which meet the listing guidelines and have a nice hunk of information in the reviewer note (like county/property manager and permission) get published right now. Caches which don't have the additional waypoints in the waypoints tool, are called traditional when they're off-set multi, or have ALRs can't be listed until they're edited. Caches which appear to be or are in OFF LIMITS locations aren't going to published right away. Caches a long way from the cache owner's home coords or usual finds area aren't going to be listed right away.

Caches with various types of commercial plugs and agendas can't be listed until they're edited. All kinds of caches with saturation problems.....folks, even experienced hiders, just can't know where the stages of long distance multi caches and puzzle solutions are.

It's not unusual for me to actually publish less then half of the caches on queue on any given day. The rest require some more information exchange, or can't be listed at all. Some will eventually get published. Some won't.

Link to comment

wow...... this is like any other forum out there, a guy speaks his mind, & has the lynchmob attacking him... wow....

 

look, as for reporting my finds on here.... or not, that wasn't the point of my question, as for suggesting i'm a idiot or plan to hide a unsafe cache or anything of that nature is absurd, get off the high horse & put down the pitch fork,

 

I was asking, why it takes so long to get a Geo published.

 

As for the comments on my Geo's, they have all been good finds, unlike some I've found or read about, i've been doing this for awhile, just not taken part in the forums... mainly because of CRAP like this!

 

a guy ask's a question that has / had some relevance as to ways or ideas to make better something, & instead of giving input or idea, I get bashed on... WTF?

 

grow up & save the CRAP for some punk kid, which I'm not... I just was asking a question of all in opinionated form...

sorry, when your thread started with the words "Input from ALL...", I didn't know that you really mean "Input from ALL who agree with me and none others".

When you come in here and insinuate that your reviewer delayed publishing your caches so they could get FTF, you should expect those people who know better are going to speak up.

When it turns out you yourself couldn't follow the very rules you're asking the owners of this website to trust you on the honor system to abide by; well, you should pretty much expect to get slammed.

 

what rules didn't I follow?

 

are you not paying attention or know something i don't?

 

there was a scroll in my 1st Cache, rules stated - notebook / scroll / etc...

 

I understand the reasons of a reviewer, clearly - & welcome them... as for ME saying MY reviewer was / were able to go out & be the FTF - is putting words in my mouth, I read somewheres that indeed someone had done this & included that in my question, no wheres did I accuse my reviewer or lay blame on them for this act, I was mearly asking what others thought of or had any ideas of something to share to add input to this question i asked....

 

AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING WHATS IN PLACE NOW DOESN'T WORK OR DOES WORK, GET ON THE RIGHT PAGE, I hear everyone & again, I was not putting blame or cutting down the system that is in place currently, I'm sorry if others read me wrong or get the wrong meaning of what I was trying to get across.

 

I was asking if others thought, or had ideas on ways to make the posting of NEW CACHES better in some way? I got very confused just from trying to figure out the forum & how log's are used, vs PM's or emails.

I deleted stuff, and etc... I'm new - YES - I'm also a stubborn guy, but i also know how to APOLIGIZE.

 

I'm sorry to ALL that I may have offended, please except this as a sorry & I nevcer meant to get everyone all worked up or thrown into a pissing match or heated debate over anything. I was just curious as to how things worked & what could / can make them better.

 

thx.

Link to comment

Here is my 2 cents, You claim that the most important part of the game is "getting the caches published quickly." Or at least that is what it sounded like to me based on the premice of what can we do to speed this up. Are you really in danger of running out of caches to find?

 

To me, and obviously by my find to hide ratio, my opinion on what is most important is to find the caches and to enjoy the journey, and given that you seem to have the same reviewers as I do, there is no shortage in your area.

 

I guess overall as long as there are caches to find I wouldn't worry about the speed it takes. In all the time I have been caching it rarely takes more then a day or two unless there is a question and those are usually worked out easily if you keep your cool, (not implying anything, there are a lot of people who have blown thier stacks in the forums since the forums inception over petty details.)

Link to comment

Here is my 2 cents, You claim that the most important part of the game is "getting the caches published quickly." Or at least that is what it sounded like to me based on the premice of what can we do to speed this up. Are you really in danger of running out of caches to find?

 

To me, and obviously by my find to hide ratio, my opinion on what is most important is to find the caches and to enjoy the journey, and given that you seem to have the same reviewers as I do, there is no shortage in your area.

 

I guess overall as long as there are caches to find I wouldn't worry about the speed it takes. In all the time I have been caching it rarely takes more then a day or two unless there is a question and those are usually worked out easily if you keep your cool, (not implying anything, there are a lot of people who have blown thier stacks in the forums since the forums inception over petty details.)

 

thanks, I'm in no hurry... I guess i was somewhat confused as to how things work & why. most of this, has been very positive... and even though I'm admittedly a - POT STIRRING SOB - i have come away from this thread w/ very good info from the members. even a few reviewers as well.

 

I'm really in no hurry, i was admittedly confused as to how the back & forth scene went to get a cache posted, i'm used to pm's or emails... and the log system takes a bit getting acustomed to. i think everything is going to be alright from here on out. <_<

Link to comment

I'm really in no hurry, i was admittedly confused as to how the back & forth scene went to get a cache posted, i'm used to pm's or emails... and the log system takes a bit getting acustomed to. i think everything is going to be alright from here on out. <_<

 

I just want to clarify this point for everyone reading this thread. Many of the reviewers, myself included, like to keep as much of the communication regarding cache reviews in the cache logs as possible. This way there is always a record of the communications that can be accessed even after the logs are deleted prior to publication.

Edited by Team Misguided
Link to comment
thanks, I'm in no hurry... I guess i was somewhat confused as to how things work & why. most of this, has been very positive... and even though I'm admittedly a - POT STIRRING SOB - i have come away from this thread w/ very good info from the members. even a few reviewers as well.

 

I'm really in no hurry, i was admittedly confused as to how the back & forth scene went to get a cache posted, i'm used to pm's or emails... and the log system takes a bit getting acustomed to. i think everything is going to be alright from here on out. :D

Then your experience here was successful!! <_< That's excellent!

 

It sounds like you will take away some positive things from this and hopefully be able to apply them to the next situation you encounter.

 

Happy caching!

Link to comment

Here's some input from a reviewer on speeding up cache postings. I generally check my queue morning and evening every day. Caches which meet the listing guidelines and have a nice hunk of information in the reviewer note (like county/property manager and permission) get published right now. Caches which don't have the additional waypoints in the waypoints tool, are called traditional when they're off-set multi, or have ALRs can't be listed until they're edited. Caches which appear to be or are in OFF LIMITS locations aren't going to published right away. Caches a long way from the cache owner's home coords or usual finds area aren't going to be listed right away.

Caches with various types of commercial plugs and agendas can't be listed until they're edited. All kinds of caches with saturation problems.....folks, even experienced hiders, just can't know where the stages of long distance multi caches and puzzle solutions are.

It's not unusual for me to actually publish less then half of the caches on queue on any given day. The rest require some more information exchange, or can't be listed at all. Some will eventually get published. Some won't.

 

I'm not a reviewer; I don't know how the process really works ...but I'm wondering:

 

Would(n't) it be nice to have a quick snapshot of a lot of the data you're already looking at? Distance from home coordinates, distance to next closest cache, distance from additional waypoints to closest caches. And, honestly, I don't think it would be TOO hard - especially for US-based cachers and reviewers - to map out resHtricted areas and then reference that against the location of the main/child waypoint(s).

 

On the cache-hiding page there could easily be a few additional info boxes. Something along the lines of: Contact with property owner necessary [y/n]. If "y", ...was that done, who did the cacher contact, what is that person's contact information, etc.

 

This, again, could be referenced against a database of existing information.

 

The only thing I don't think *could* be done is a computer-based check of political/commerical information, although, again, it's not too hard to have something that green-light/red-lights a cache: We do it all the time with spam emails.

 

Hear me now: I am not complaining about the time it takes to get a cache published. A few extra days doesn't mean jack. However, I think some reviewers have a lot to review. A few extra tools might make their jobs easier - and those tools are basically database-based. So, I at least don't think it's inconceivable that those tools could exist.

 

The biggest drawback to more database-driven tools is that I suspect the existing database that power geocaching.com are already quite taxed as it is.

Link to comment

 

I'm not a reviewer; I don't know how the process really works ...but I'm wondering:

 

Would(n't) it be nice to have a quick snapshot of a lot of the data you're already looking at? Distance from home coordinates, distance to next closest cache, distance from additional waypoints to closest caches. And, honestly, I don't think it would be TOO hard - especially for US-based cachers and reviewers - to map out resHtricted areas and then reference that against the location of the main/child waypoint(s).

 

On the cache-hiding page there could easily be a few additional info boxes. Something along the lines of: Contact with property owner necessary [y/n]. If "y", ...was that done, who did the cacher contact, what is that person's contact information, etc.

 

This, again, could be referenced against a database of existing information.

 

The only thing I don't think *could* be done is a computer-based check of political/commerical information, although, again, it's not too hard to have something that green-light/red-lights a cache: We do it all the time with spam emails.

 

Hear me now: I am not complaining about the time it takes to get a cache published. A few extra days doesn't mean jack. However, I think some reviewers have a lot to review. A few extra tools might make their jobs easier - and those tools are basically database-based. So, I at least don't think it's inconceivable that those tools could exist.

 

The biggest drawback to more database-driven tools is that I suspect the existing database that power geocaching.com are already quite taxed as it is.

 

Distance from home coordinates, distance to next closest cache, distance from additional waypoints to closest caches.

Gives away MOC, puzzle and multi-caches if you haven't done them.

 

On the cache-hiding page there could easily be a few additional info boxes. Something along the lines of: Contact with property owner necessary [y/n]. If "y", ...was that done, who did the cacher contact, what is that person's contact information, etc.

Goes back to the unreliable honor system. It's too easy to lie about the things you haven't done, such as reading the TOS even though you're required to check the box every time you create or even edit a cache.

 

The only thing I don't think *could* be done is a computer-based check of political/commerical information, although, again, it's not too hard to have something that green-light/red-lights a cache: We do it all the time with spam emails.

It's easy to program certain political words into a filter. Based on my previous answers, the human equation is critical to ensure compliance to certain guidelines and waivers on others if certain criteria are met. The fuzzy logic required implies Artificial Intelligence; a programming expertise presumabely not yet acquired by Groundspeak. The AI would be required to have the ability to an interactive exchange of ideas to resolve the issues surroiunding a cache placement. Something a human can do naturally is going to cost tons of money to program in.

Link to comment

 

I'm not a reviewer; I don't know how the process really works ...but I'm wondering:

 

Would(n't) it be nice to have a quick snapshot of a lot of the data you're already looking at? Distance from home coordinates, distance to next closest cache, distance from additional waypoints to closest caches. And, honestly, I don't think it would be TOO hard - especially for US-based cachers and reviewers - to map out resHtricted areas and then reference that against the location of the main/child waypoint(s).

 

On the cache-hiding page there could easily be a few additional info boxes. Something along the lines of: Contact with property owner necessary [y/n]. If "y", ...was that done, who did the cacher contact, what is that person's contact information, etc.

 

This, again, could be referenced against a database of existing information.

 

The only thing I don't think *could* be done is a computer-based check of political/commerical information, although, again, it's not too hard to have something that green-light/red-lights a cache: We do it all the time with spam emails.

 

Hear me now: I am not complaining about the time it takes to get a cache published. A few extra days doesn't mean jack. However, I think some reviewers have a lot to review. A few extra tools might make their jobs easier - and those tools are basically database-based. So, I at least don't think it's inconceivable that those tools could exist.

 

The biggest drawback to more database-driven tools is that I suspect the existing database that power geocaching.com are already quite taxed as it is.

 

Distance from home coordinates, distance to next closest cache, distance from additional waypoints to closest caches.

Gives away MOC, puzzle and multi-caches if you haven't done them.

 

On the cache-hiding page there could easily be a few additional info boxes. Something along the lines of: Contact with property owner necessary [y/n]. If "y", ...was that done, who did the cacher contact, what is that person's contact information, etc.

Goes back to the unreliable honor system. It's too easy to lie about the things you haven't done, such as reading the TOS even though you're required to check the box every time you create or even edit a cache.

 

The only thing I don't think *could* be done is a computer-based check of political/commerical information, although, again, it's not too hard to have something that green-light/red-lights a cache: We do it all the time with spam emails.

It's easy to program certain political words into a filter. Based on my previous answers, the human equation is critical to ensure compliance to certain guidelines and waivers on others if certain criteria are met. The fuzzy logic required implies Artificial Intelligence; a programming expertise presumabely not yet acquired by Groundspeak. The AI would be required to have the ability to an interactive exchange of ideas to resolve the issues surroiunding a cache placement. Something a human can do naturally is going to cost tons of money to program in.

 

1. The coordinates would only be for the reviewers. They MUST have the final coordinates listed in the additional waypoints section, even if it's hidden to everyone else. If reviewers don't want the clues... don't be a reviewer. I, personally, have a mind like a sieve and so I could review AND still do puzzle caches. :)

 

2. True. But, as I said, this could easily be cross-referenced against a database available to reviewers. There is a lot of publically-owned land in the US, but it's not infinite. A database could be made and checked against.

 

3. Again, we do this with spam right now. But, for a person, this last one takes the least amount of time. It's easy to see if it's political or not and then to move on.

 

I am sure that it would NOT be difficult to put together a list of publically-owned lands, complete with "fairly accurate" coordinates ...in addition to military areas, railroads and so on. Modern map-making, with simple programs like gpsmapedit, is just not that difficult. Polish MP format stores areas, roads, etc in sets of coordinates - so then it's just a matching game: does the cache's coordinates or waypoints fall within any of the coordinates in the database?

 

Since the above item seems to be something that reviewers spend a lot of time on, they might as well quickly know whether or not it's on public or private land and, then, have another database for contact info for who manages that land.

 

Frankly, this information should have already been obtained and be available at this point for 80-90% of the places people put caches ...because all too often people put caches where other people have put caches. If the first cache required permission, then the contact info should have been noted and gathered. If no permission, simply note it for that area of land.

 

Am I wrong or am I right?

Edited by Exocet
Link to comment

 

I'm not a reviewer; I don't know how the process really works ...but I'm wondering:

 

Would(n't) it be nice to have a quick snapshot of a lot of the data you're already looking at? Distance from home coordinates, distance to next closest cache, distance from additional waypoints to closest caches. And, honestly, I don't think it would be TOO hard - especially for US-based cachers and reviewers - to map out resHtricted areas and then reference that against the location of the main/child waypoint(s).

 

On the cache-hiding page there could easily be a few additional info boxes. Something along the lines of: Contact with property owner necessary [y/n]. If "y", ...was that done, who did the cacher contact, what is that person's contact information, etc.

 

This, again, could be referenced against a database of existing information.

 

The only thing I don't think *could* be done is a computer-based check of political/commerical information, although, again, it's not too hard to have something that green-light/red-lights a cache: We do it all the time with spam emails.

 

Hear me now: I am not complaining about the time it takes to get a cache published. A few extra days doesn't mean jack. However, I think some reviewers have a lot to review. A few extra tools might make their jobs easier - and those tools are basically database-based. So, I at least don't think it's inconceivable that those tools could exist.

 

The biggest drawback to more database-driven tools is that I suspect the existing database that power geocaching.com are already quite taxed as it is.

 

Distance from home coordinates, distance to next closest cache, distance from additional waypoints to closest caches.

Gives away MOC, puzzle and multi-caches if you haven't done them.

 

On the cache-hiding page there could easily be a few additional info boxes. Something along the lines of: Contact with property owner necessary [y/n]. If "y", ...was that done, who did the cacher contact, what is that person's contact information, etc.

Goes back to the unreliable honor system. It's too easy to lie about the things you haven't done, such as reading the TOS even though you're required to check the box every time you create or even edit a cache.

 

The only thing I don't think *could* be done is a computer-based check of political/commerical information, although, again, it's not too hard to have something that green-light/red-lights a cache: We do it all the time with spam emails.

It's easy to program certain political words into a filter. Based on my previous answers, the human equation is critical to ensure compliance to certain guidelines and waivers on others if certain criteria are met. The fuzzy logic required implies Artificial Intelligence; a programming expertise presumabely not yet acquired by Groundspeak. The AI would be required to have the ability to an interactive exchange of ideas to resolve the issues surroiunding a cache placement. Something a human can do naturally is going to cost tons of money to program in.

 

1. The coordinates would only be for the reviewers. They MUST have the final coordinates listed in the additional waypoints section, even if it's hidden to everyone else. If reviewers don't want the clues... don't be a reviewer. I, personally, have a mind like a sieve and so I could review AND still do puzzle caches. :)

 

2. True. But, as I said, this could easily be cross-referenced against a database available to reviewers. There is a lot of publically-owned land in the US, but it's not infinite. A database could be made and checked against.

 

3. Again, we do this with spam right now. But, for a person, this last one takes the least amount of time. It's easy to see if it's political or not and then to move on.

 

I am sure that it would NOT be difficult to put together a list of publically-owned lands, complete with "fairly accurate" coordinates ...in addition to military areas, railroads and so on. Modern map-making, with simple programs like gpsmapedit, is just not that difficult. Polish MP format stores areas, roads, etc in sets of coordinates - so then it's just a matching game: does the cache's coordinates or waypoints fall within any of the coordinates in the database?

 

Since the above item seems to be something that reviewers spend a lot of time on, they might as well quickly know whether or not it's on public or private land and, then, have another database for contact info for who manages that land.

 

Frankly, this information should have already been obtained and be available at this point for 80-90% of the places people put caches ...because all too often people put caches where other people have put caches. If the first cache required permission, then the contact info should have been noted and gathered. If no permission, simply note it for that area of land.

 

Am I wrong or am I right?

Well for the reviewers this is already on hand. Your original post didn't make your direction clear. Based on the thrust of the thread, I took your post as made available to the user hiding the cache.

Link to comment

Is it? It would be nice, then, to make that information available to the geocaching community. The average person likely has no idea who manages their local BLM land or state park or whatever and it's probably not easy to find out who to contact either.

 

That all being said: If reviewers have this information available to them then it should be exceedingly simple to quickly say: based on location, this cache is ok. Cause it either is, it isn't or, decreasingly likely (as more caches are placed) ...the land the cache has been placed in isn't in the database or contact information is unknown/in progress.

 

Of course, this all makes the assumption that people actually contact land owners and reviewers actually check to see that that's been done. Honestly, I think in at least 90% of caches that is not the case - no contact with land owner (local, county, state, federal or private) or the checks aren't being done.

 

Why do I say this? Because I don't think it's possible to review and post as many caches as are reviewed and posted every day. Because that would require reviewers to check and make sure that the land owner HAS been contacted and, if not, to send it back to the cache creator and have them contact the owners.

 

What I believe is more likely is that the reviewers check and make sure it's not on wildlife refuge areas that are known to be no-cache zones and probably take a quick look in City Nav or the Magellan equivalent to see if it's near railroad tracks or a bridge and there you go.

 

I'm not slamming the reviewers. If anything I'm slamming the process or procedures but I'm not even doing that. Even when the rules are followed there will be the occasional bomb squad practice or scare or a cache will end up in a place it shouldn't. It's going to happen. What needs to be done is to ensure that the reviewers have access to as much information as possible in order to render their decision(s) and that there is a very clear, well-defined set of rules that are followed for cache placement.

Link to comment

As a cacher who lives very very close to the OP's location, I would just like to note that our local reviewers (there are 3) generally publish within the same day if you have all your ducks in a row. Quite often it happens within hours and even minutes to be really honest.

As its been noted already, making sure coords are good, no property issues, land managers consent, no conflicting caches, etc make for a fast approval.

 

Your not the first new cacher here in Oly to get hung up on placing something. Ask Rusty Hingpin/Fairymom how long it took to get "Where the Stars Live" series published. heheh. And they had quite a few finds (100+) and some hides already when they went through that situation. So it can be said that just going out and actually finding some caches does help, but the more experience the better. They knew that the series was being placed in questionable spots. They just thought they could cross the line a bit and our experienced reviewers held the line as they are suppose to. Not only were they to close to other caches, but also illegal places too. They would fix one thing, just to have the reviewer find another problem. This went on for weeks, but they worked through the frusteration and now have a great series published. And I bet they won't try to bend the rules again. :)

 

Peer review might have let some things slip and that would have caused several problems ultimately in that paticular case. I'm very happy with the system we have now. If it isn't broke, don't fix it.

 

Follow the 7-P code and things should work relatively quickly and pain free is my experience. :cry:

Link to comment

Want to speed up your listing/approval time? Here's some tips:

 

1) Don't place your cache on a weekend. That's when everyone else does, and the reviewer gets swamped.

2) Check, double check, and triple check to make sure it meets ALL of the guidelines.

3) Post any and ALL pertinent information in reviewer notes on the cache page.

4) Ease up on the caffine and go find some caches while you wait.

Link to comment

Just read - re-read and try to understand ALL of the guidelines and the review process should be a snap most of the time. Giving the reviewer all the needed info and a few pictures of the location can only aid to speed up the process.

 

Best ways I know of to get it in under 72 hours. My average is a lot less than 24 hours and as little 15 minutes in a few cases.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...