Why review every cache listing...

[+[MF]taz]

I was wondering why their is a requirement for ALL caches to be reviewed prior to publishing, from a QA point of view I usualy find that 100% inspection does not always guarantee good service.

 

Where I work whey assign suppliers with a grading and then the inspection critera is decided depending on the grading, sa a A1 supplier has very little inspection while a C supplier may be subjected to 100% dimensional check.

 

Why not work the same for placers of caches, so that an unproven cache setter will need to have their cache approved while a cacher that has proven that they are capable of setting caches within the guidlines has their caches auto publish, the reviewers could choose to change the ranking of the cachers appropriatly depending on how much help they feel their placer requires.

 

In some respects this may be alrady happening informaly by some reviewer, and they may already be deciding how much time they need to spend reviwing a users cache.

 

Some housekeeping will probably be required, but probably just as much as they are doing at the moment.

 

Hope this is of some help.

 

Lee

[+TeamGumbo]

While I agree that "100% inspection does not always guarantee good service" I fail to see how lowering that percentage will help (other than speeding up the publishing process, which thus far has not been an issue with me).

 

I suppose the fly in the ointment would be puzzle- and multi-caches, since the final coordinate(s) are not known.

[+joranda]

While I agree that "100% inspection does not always guarantee good service" I fail to see how lowering that percentage will help (other than speeding up the publishing process, which thus far has not been an issue with me).

 

I suppose the fly in the ointment would be puzzle- and multi-caches, since the final coordinate(s) are not known.

 

The review knows the final coords to puzzle and multi caches. They have to know if it is too close to caches that have already been published and they are not in areas that it shouldn't be.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Your analogy is not apt for geocaching. Each "supplier" here is unique.

 

In any case, the review process isn't about quality, it's about compliance to the listing guidelines. And even experienced cachers with many correctly placed caches can put their new hide 15 feet from the solution to a puzzle or the mid or endpoint of a long running multi.

[Keystone]

Not a week goes by for me where I don't catch an experienced cache hider who made an honest mistake, or overlooked an obscure corner of the listing guidelines, or was unaware of a recent change in the guidelines. I get lots of thank-you notes for saving these hiders from public embarrassment, as when their coordinates are in the middle of the ocean. You never know which cache will have such a slip-up.

 

Many reviewers choose to have a different volunteer review their caches. There is nothing like a "second pair of eyes."

[+WebChimp]

taz' date='Apr 25 2008, 01:11 AM' post='3444423']

I was wondering why their is a requirement for ALL caches to be reviewed prior to publishing

 

Because it makes good sense.

 

GC.Com has volunteer reviewers (i.e., they work for free) take a look at what we're submitting, and then privately point out our blunders. This way, the published caches are much better than they would be otherwise. The reviewer for our area checks our submissions pretty close, and this makes us check our own listings carefully before submitting them. I'd hate to think what the caches would look like around here without our reviewer keeping us straight.

[+gof1]

Many reviewers choose to have a different volunteer review their caches. There is nothing like a "second pair of eyes."

 

I'd have thought this would've been SOP. Not accusing anyone of bending any rules, but if I was a reviewer I'd want to be able to say "Hey, I have to submit my caches one page at a time, just like everyone else."

[+Moose Mob]

Many reviewers choose to have a different volunteer review their caches. There is nothing like a "second pair of eyes."

 

I'd have thought this would've been SOP. Not accusing anyone of bending any rules, but if I was a reviewer I'd want to be able to say "Hey, I have to submit my caches one page at a time, just like everyone else."

I don't ask others to review my caches since the local community does that pretty well. I don't have issues since I set my standards higher than I expect of others. While I may allow variances in the stautration guidlines for others, I ensure my own are further. (BTW: I have 2 caches that are 69 feet apart)

 

Back to the OP... we do catch exprienced cachers making mistakes. This is typically due to the fact that they found that cache 300 feet around the corner 6 years ago and forgot all about it.

[+TeamGumbo]

The review knows the final coords to puzzle and multi caches. They have to know if it is too close to caches that have already been published and they are not in areas that it shouldn't be.

 

That's exactly my point: if caches were published without a reviewer seeing it first, there is the chance that it would be too close to pre-existing puzzles and multis.

[+Renegade Knight]

taz' date='Apr 25 2008, 03:11 AM' post='3444423']

I was wondering why their is a requirement for ALL caches to be reviewed prior to publishing, from a QA point of view I usualy find that 100% inspection does not always guarantee good service.

 

Where I work whey assign suppliers with a grading and then the inspection critera is decided depending on the grading, sa a A1 supplier has very little inspection while a C supplier may be subjected to 100% dimensional check....

 

It's not a direct translation from the systems you are used to working with. At a minimum even if this site had ZERO guidelines and would publish every cache most would agree that a review should be done to make sure it's really a cache and not a Porn ad or Spam.

[+[MF]taz]

I was not proposing that no review was to take place just that some reviewers may want to relax their inspection criteria with cachers that they trust to place caches within the guidelines.

 

What value would be gained by making a cacher that has placed a lot of caches all within guidelines have to wait perhaps several days before their cache is published? (I don't put myself in that category)

 

By filtering out the caches that are most likely 99.9% within the guidelines it gives the reviewer a bit more time to spend working with cachers who need help with meeting / understanding the guidelines.

 

What I am assuming is that some reviewers may already be doing this (and why not) when they see a cache / event that has been sent from a trusted cacher they publish with only a minimum review. (so why do it at all)

 

Just some food for thought.

 

Enjoy the meal.

[+Prime Suspect]

taz' date='Apr 25 2008, 04:32 PM' post='3445555']

I was not proposing that no review was to take place just that some reviewers may want to relax their inspection criteria with cachers that they trust to place caches within the guidelines.

 

What value would be gained by making a cacher that has placed a lot of caches all within guidelines have to wait perhaps several days before their cache is published? (I don't put myself in that category)

 

By filtering out the caches that are most likely 99.9% within the guidelines it gives the reviewer a bit more time to spend working with cachers who need help with meeting / understanding the guidelines.

 

What I am assuming is that some reviewers may already be doing this (and why not) when they see a cache / event that has been sent from a trusted cacher they publish with only a minimum review. (so why do it at all)

 

Just some food for thought.

 

Enjoy the meal.

 

Just because someone has submitted a lot of caches doesn't give them magical powers. There's no way they could know that someone else submitted a cache an hour before them, which hasn't been published yet, and it only 25 feet away. They may not know that the nice field they found to put a cache is actually a restricted area because an endangered species of frog lives there. And they may not know that the cache they just placed is right next to a multi that starts 3 states away.

 

All this is mentioned in the responses above. Did you read them, or are you just choosing to ignore them?

[+nekom]

Perhaps because some of the guidelines are just too important not to be reviewed. The 150' from active railroad lines one, for example, could get cachers (and possibly Groundspeak) in a whole heap of trouble if it weren't followed.

[+wigglesworth]

The cache setter may be advertising the name of an eating establsihment!! So care must be taken!

Peter

[Earthdog Patrick]

The current system works well.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

taz' date='Apr 25 2008, 04:32 PM' post='3445555']

I was not proposing that no review was to take place just that some reviewers may want to relax their inspection criteria with cachers that they trust to place caches within the guidelines.

 

What value would be gained by making a cacher that has placed a lot of caches all within guidelines have to wait perhaps several days before their cache is published? (I don't put myself in that category)

 

As Reagan said... Trust, but verify.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Not a week goes by for me where I don't catch an experienced cache hider who made an honest mistake, or overlooked an obscure corner of the listing guidelines, or was unaware of a recent change in the guidelines. I get lots of thank-you notes for saving these hiders from public embarrassment, as when their coordinates are in the middle of the ocean. You never know which cache will have such a slip-up.

 

I agree with this completely. Even the most experienced cacher can make an error.

 

That's why I don't understand the following:

 

Many reviewers choose to have a different volunteer review their caches. There is nothing like a "second pair of eyes."

 

and I certainly don't understand this:

 

I don't ask others to review my caches since the local community does that pretty well. I don't have issues since I set my standards higher than I expect of others.

 

You mean the reviewers are not required to have their caches reviewed by another reviewer? If that's the case it certainly gives credibility to the OP's premise. (which I don't agree with, by the way) If the local community can review caches for one person, why not for other very experienced cachers?

 

If this is true:

Not a week goes by for me where I don't catch an experienced cache hider who made an honest mistake

it seems to reason that ALL caches should be independently checked by another set of eyes, regardless of experience level or title.

[+Renegade Knight]

taz' date='Apr 25 2008, 03:32 PM' post='3445555']

I was not proposing that no review was to take place just that some reviewers may want to relax their inspection criteria with cachers that they trust to place caches within the guidelines....

 

In that light it could work. How well? Hard to say. You have humans on both end of the QA/QC decsion. It would however reduce reviwer work load.

 

Consider, it's human nature to start doing some of this kind of thing anyway.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+TrailGators]

I was not proposing that no review was to take place just that some reviewers may want to relax their inspection criteria with cachers that they trust to place caches within the guidelines....

Consider, it's human nature to start doing some of this kind of thing anyway.

I agree. I bet they do that already.

[+El Diablo]

With hundreds of thousands caches published, I don't really see the concern that it might take a couple of days for a cache to be published. It's not like the cache area or the cache contents are going to expire soon.

 

I'd rather the Reviewers took their time and approved caches that are within the guidelines with no doubts in question. Apparently as some Reviewers have already pointed out, even seasoned cachers make mistakes when submitting caches.

 

I think the system works fine. If you change it you take a chance of doing damage that might not be easily undone.

 

Just my opinion.

 

El Diablo

[+WRASTRO]

The incredible, hard working reviewers we are fortunate enough to have for our game make the experience exponentially better for all of the rest of us who are out there finding and hiding caches. Without the reviewers I have no doubt there would be many, many more problems with property owners and land managers objecting to cache placements.