getting caches reviewed and approved

[+gr8johnson]

I just submitted my first cache hiding. How long does it take to get it reviewed and then approved typically? I am just wondering. Thanks.

[+lrosell]

I just submitted my first cache hiding. How long does it take to get it reviewed and then approved typically? I am just wondering. Thanks.

 

Anything from a couple of hours to a couple of days, depending on cache and how much info you gave the reviewer. Check in on the cache from time to time to see if the reviewer posted any notes or concerns about it.

[+ZSandmann]

The Guidelines state 72 hours is a good estimate, but remember volunteer reviewers have jobs and lives outside Geocaching so it could be more, or it could be less. Also, remember this is the 4th of July vacation week and your reviewer may be shooting roman candles at their family members somewhere... (what? did I say that out loud, I would never do that)

[Keystone]

I ask everyone to remember that it's a holiday week in the U.S. Many reviewers will be enjoying geocaching vacations. I know that I will! That, combined with traditionally heavy cache hiding volume on a holiday weekend, means that cache reviews may be slower than usual in some areas.

 

Your cache is properly awaiting review in the queue for the Michigan reviewers, who have earned a reputation for being prompt.

 

Please note that caches are not "approved." They are "published" if they meet the site's listing guidelines. It's an important distinction.

[+gvsu4msu]

I just submitted my first cache hiding. How long does it take to get it reviewed and then approved typically? I am just wondering. Thanks.

 

Yes it is true that our reviewers in MI spoil us with quick publications. Have no fear, your cache will be published soon enough. They are allowed by rule the 72 hours.

 

Congrats on setting out your first hide. As an owner, one of the joys of hiding is reading the logs geocachers leave for you.

[+Headhardhat]

Usually 24 to 36 hours is normal for my area. Keep in mind there are a bunch of guidelines that have to be followed and if you are new (or sometimes not so new) they may have an issue that has to be addressed. So I highly recommend you check for reviewer notes every half a day or so. I have also noticed patterns to when the reviewers for my area do their publishing. That also will help as you do more.

[+gr8johnson]

I can always count on a quick response from this forum. So let me get this straight, publishing my cache is not the reviewers number one priority? Well thats rude. I will see what I can do about that. well I followed the guidelines. I do not think any one will die trying to find this cache. Thats the guide line right? Oh, those other guide lines. uuuh, got to go check something. Bye.

 

 

I totally forgot about the holiday.

Edited July 1, 2008 by gr8johnson

[+briansnat]

I just submitted my first cache hiding. How long does it take to get it reviewed and then approved typically? I am just wondering. Thanks.

 

Things you can do to speed up the review process:

 

1. Read the guidelines. I mean really read them, don't just skim through. Submitting a cache that conforms to the guidelines will certainly speed up publishing.

 

2. After you submit your cache, check the the "nearest caches" link to make sure another cache didn't sneak in within .1 mile of your cache location since you last checked.

 

3. If you see a multi or puzzle cache within a mile or two of your planned cache, either try to find each stage of that cache, or check with your reviewer ahead of time to make sure your location is clear of any stage of the other cache

 

4. Click on the some of the map links on your cache page and you'll see what your reviewer sees. Perhaps you hid your cache on a bike trail, but the map still shows RR tracks there. Or maybe the park where you hid your cache was a former military base and the map still shows the military base. Things like this will hold up publishing until you work them out with the reviewer, so if you see anything like this make sure you explain everything ahead of time in a note to reviewer.

 

5. If your cache violates a guideline, explain in a note to reviewer why an exception should be granted. For example if you are placing a cache 300 miles from home, the reviewer might flag that as a vacation cache. But if you explain in a note to reviewer that your parents live there and you visit them every month and your dad is also a geocacher, who will watch the cache for you, then you have a better chance of getting it published without delay. Or if the cache is in an area that is usually off limits, like NPS land, or by a government building, but you have permission from someone in authority to place it there, mention that in a note to reviewer.

 

6. Double check your coordinates by clicking on one of the map links. Make sure the map shows the cache to be where you placed it.

[+mtn-man]

7. Milkbones.

[Keystone]

4. Click on the some of the map links on your cache page and you'll see what your reviewer sees. Perhaps you hid your cache on a bike trail, but the map still shows RR tracks there. Or maybe the park where you hid your cache was a former military base and the map still shows the military base. Things like this will hold up publishing until you work them out with the reviewer, so if you see anything like this make sure you explain everything ahead of time in a note to reviewer.

The cache owner did a nice job on this count, noting for the reviewer that the maps show the area as a golf course, but then explaining that it's been converted into a brand new park. I wouldn't publish a cache in the middle of the 8th fairway, but a new park ROCKS.

[+gr8johnson]

Wow! That was so fast. It is like being famous now. My cache is already published. Thanks to the reviewers. you rock. I can't wait to see the response. This park is just great. After I get some feedback and find some good spots I will place some more. Thanks every one. Here is the listing if you want to check it out, GC1DQG8. Maybe there are some things that I could improve upon when listing.

[+osubrownsfan]

The cache owner did a nice job on this count, noting for the reviewer that the maps show the area as a golf course, but then explaining that it's been converted into a brand new park. I wouldn't publish a cache in the middle of the 8th fairway, but a new park ROCKS.

 

but what about one at the 19th hole ??

[+gvsu4msu]

Here is the first log on that cache:

 

FTF!!!

What makes a great cache?

 

Sometimes it's the container, sometimes it's the hunt, and sometimes it's the location. And it's the LOCATION that makes this a great cache!

 

How can I describe this park? How about Shock & Awe! It was almost a spiritual experience driving past the huge fountain and through the wrought iron gates. The place was beautiful, almost mystical. Why, the restrooms were even air conditioned ... in a park!

 

Look here for just a little of what this place has to offer.

(ridiculously slow link) (visit link)

 

Thanks for the GREAT cache!

 

Congratulations on a great job on your first cache.

[+FireRef]

I ask everyone to remember that it's a holiday week in the U.S. Many reviewers will be enjoying geocaching vacations. I know that I will! That, combined with traditionally heavy cache hiding volume on a holiday weekend, means that cache reviews may be slower than usual in some areas.

 

Your cache is properly awaiting review in the queue for the Michigan reviewers, who have earned a reputation for being prompt.

 

Please note that caches are not "approved." They are "published" if they meet the site's listing guidelines. It's an important distinction.

 

If they are not approved by the reviewer, they do not get published - What exactly is the important distinction I am missing?

[+WRASTRO]

Here is the first log on that cache:

 

FTF!!!

What makes a great cache?

 

Sometimes it's the container, sometimes it's the hunt, and sometimes it's the location. And it's the LOCATION that makes this a great cache!

 

How can I describe this park? How about Shock & Awe! It was almost a spiritual experience driving past the huge fountain and through the wrought iron gates. The place was beautiful, almost mystical. Why, the restrooms were even air conditioned ... in a park!

 

Look here for just a little of what this place has to offer.

(ridiculously slow link) (visit link)

 

Thanks for the GREAT cache!

 

Congratulations on a great job on your first cache.

Yep, that is a great log. Unfortunately it probably won't be long before someone logs. TFTC. Took the fountain. Left used golf ball.

[+paleolith]

6. Double check your coordinates by clicking on one of the map links. Make sure the map shows the cache to be where you placed it.

And since the Google Map won't show the location of your new cache (it being unpublished), copy the coords, go to maps.google.com, and paste the coordinates into the search box. Zoom the map to maximum, switch to satellite, zoom in to maximum. At this point, Google is giving you enough detail that you can often tell if your coords are off by even .001'. (Vegetative cover preventing you from seeing the actual hiding spot obviously increases the error.) Presumably you remember the location well enough to see if you got it in the right place.

 

Edward

[+NYPaddleCacher]

6. Double check your coordinates by clicking on one of the map links. Make sure the map shows the cache to be where you placed it.

And since the Google Map won't show the location of your new cache (it being unpublished), copy the coords, go to maps.google.com, and paste the coordinates into the search box. Zoom the map to maximum, switch to satellite, zoom in to maximum. At this point, Google is giving you enough detail that you can often tell if your coords are off by even .001'. (Vegetative cover preventing you from seeing the actual hiding spot obviously increases the error.) Presumably you remember the location well enough to see if you got it in the right place.

 

Edward

 

I have often found that the satellite view on google maps doesn't always provide a resolution high enough to see much detail about a location. There are however alternatives.

 

Awhile back I solved a really difficult puzzle cache located about 700 miles from home (so I wasn't familiar with the area). I solved the puzzle primarily just to see if I could do it. Once I got a set of coordinates I put them into Google maps as described above and located the nearest street. Then I went to maps.live.com and entered that street into the search box and zoomed into the same area that google maps was showing. Then I switched to the "Birds Eye View" and zoomed in as far as it would go. One of the first finders of the cache had posted a photo with the cache container while standing in front of a fence with some graffiti written on it. By changing the orientation of the birds eye view in maps.live.com I could see the same fence with the same graffiti pattern on it and I knew I had the right coordinates.

[Keystone]

Here is the listing if you want to check it out, GC1DQG8. Maybe there are some things that I could improve upon when listing.

My only comment is to make sure that the cache is wheelchair accessible when you rate it one star for terrain. (This is not a listing guideline requirement, but some reviewers choose voluntarily to point out the issue before pressing the "publish" button.)

 

What a happy thread! Keep enjoying the logs. It will inspire you to hide more.

[+mtn-man]

Yep, that is a great log. Unfortunately it probably won't be long before someone logs. TFTC. Took the fountain. Left used golf ball.

[+baloo&bd]

If they are not approved by the reviewer, they do not get published - What exactly is the important distinction I am missing?

 

The poster meant that the term "Approved" implies an endorsement, however you already knew that.

[+FireRef]

If they are not approved by the reviewer, they do not get published - What exactly is the important distinction I am missing?

 

The poster meant that the term "Approved" implies an endorsement, however you already knew that.

 

I'm glad someone selected you to speak both for the original poster and myself.

 

I believe "approved" means it meets the guidelines, not that there is any endorsement.

 

I was looking for a simple explanation by the reviewer/moderator who stated that there was a significant difference, as to what that difference is. The question has, to the best of my knowledge, not been answered.

Edited July 7, 2008 by FireRef

[+tozainamboku]

If they are not approved by the reviewer, they do not get published - What exactly is the important distinction I am missing?

 

The poster meant that the term "Approved" implies an endorsement, however you already knew that.

 

I'm glad someone selected you to speak both for the original poster and myself.

 

I believe "approved" means it meets the guidelines, not that there is any endorsement.

 

I was looking for a simple explanation by the reviewer/moderator who stated that there was a significant difference, as to what that difference is. The question has, to the best of my knowledge, not been answered.

All I know is that the reviewer/moderator who stated that there is an important distinction between caches being "approved" and caches being published if they meet the site's listing guideline used to be known as KeystoneApprover. I suspect the distinction has something to do with the name change. Edited July 7, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... The question has, to the best of my knowledge, not been answered.

Sure it has, you just didn't like the answer!

[+FireRef]

... The question has, to the best of my knowledge, not been answered.

Sure it has, you just didn't like the answer!

 

Since you so clearly pointed out that it has been answered, could you clearly point out the post where it has been clearly answered, as I do not see this nearly as clearly as you do?

[+Bad_CRC]

If you had a reviewer as good as surfer joe, our reviewer for MN, your cache would be approved before you finish planning it.

 

He's just that good.

[+baloo&bd]

I'm glad someone selected you to speak both for the original poster and myself.

 

No problem.

 

Back to the thread OP. I see that your cache got listed and the finds are starting to pile up. Not sure if I should say welcome to the club or sorry for the new addiction.

Edited July 7, 2008 by baloo&bd

[+ArcherDragoon]

... The question has, to the best of my knowledge, not been answered.

Sure it has, you just didn't like the answer!

 

Since you so clearly pointed out that it has been answered, could you clearly point out the post where it has been clearly answered, as I do not see this nearly as clearly as you do?

Ah, but it has...

 

"Approved" or "Not Approved" implies some sort of endorsement…or, at the very least, some level of endorsement. Whether a reviewer approves or disapproves of a cache (though, this is slightly different when talking at an individual level)…they have to compare the cache to the guidelines of gc.com…if it fits, the cache is listed (thus “Published”). I would bet there are plenty of caches out there that reviewers may not “approve of” (again, individual level) but are published because they meet the guidelines of gc.com for being listed on the site. Sure…it may just be semantics…but it is the world we live in.

 

For gc.com to "Approve" caches...would imply Groundspeak somehow...at some level endorsed said caches...I know this has been and most likely will be debated again...gc.com is merely a listing service...to "Approve" a cache would imply something more then a listing service...also...may imply some sort of legal things that Groundspeak would not and should not be held liable for...

 

Recall: You seek caches at your own risk and assume all responsibilities related to such activities!!! (not the exact wording...but good summary)

 

If I am wrong…go ahead and correct me…I have no fears of being proven wrong. We make mistakes to learn, I have merely stated my understanding of “why”…

Edited July 7, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

[+Lil Devil]

ArcherDragoon pretty much nailed it.

[+FireRef]

I very much appreciate a concise, well explained explanation of the issue. Why the person who stated it couldn't answer, I'm not sure, but thank you.

[Keystone]

Why the person who stated it couldn't answer, I'm not sure, but thank you.

Go back and re-read my first post to this thread. No, not the sentence that you seized upon to derail the thread.... but rather, the first part. The part about how I'd be enjoying a nice Fourth of July vacation. I did just that. I am not obligated to interrupt my vacation in order to answer your every forum post. That's especially true when the community is there to provide accurate and timely responses.

 

It's a joy to be back in the forums, though.

[GOF and Bacall]

To the OP -

Pretty darn cool getting the first logs on your first cache ain't it? I still feel that worry and doubt when waiting for a cache to be published then found. Those first logs can set the tone for the life of the cache.

 

To the side topic -

Start your own dang thread!