Cache Publication time

[+T A G]

I submitted a cache last thursday and still waiting for publication, five days a bit excessive I think.

 

Is there a problem somewhere?

[+uk89camaro]

I submitted a cache last thursday and still waiting for publication, five days a bit excessive I think.

 

Is there a problem somewhere?

 

Have patience my friend. This happens from time to time. I certainly felt spoilt when I went through a period of getting caches published the very same evening, sometimes within a few hours, it kinda felt odd the first time I had to wait a whole 36 hours!

 

Without any inside knowledge, they are volunteer reviewers who I guess sometimes have real life to deal with, or take a few days off.

 

Normal service will be resumed at some point.

[Deceangi]

No problem just the UK Reviewers facing a massive massive increase in No's submitted. Off course personally I could always try and increase the 5 to 6 hours per day I put in. :yikes. [unpaid at that]

 

To give you a idea of the sort of increase, 3 years ago the sort of level I saw on a manic Saturday or Sunday [which was then the busiest days of the week] does not now come close to the sort of No's waiting for us everyday, we're facing a daily increase of around 400% [that's every day and not just a manic single day of the week] compared to those manic days!

 

We are turning around the queue as fast as humanly possible, if there are issues with a cache. You will be informed of them via a Reviewer note to the cache.

 

Oh and add in one member of the team, away with no or extremely limited net access, as he's on a training course.

 

Deci

 

oh and I didn't do any reviewing yesterday due to keep have to talk to the big white telephone.

[markandlynn]

Last weeks of the school holidays major holiday period.

[+T A G]

No problem just the UK Reviewers facing a massive massive increase in No's submitted. Off course personally I could always try and increase the 5 to 6 hours per day I put in. :yikes. [unpaid at that]

 

To give you a idea of the sort of increase, 3 years ago the sort of level I saw on a manic Saturday or Sunday [which was then the busiest days of the week] does not now come close to the sort of No's waiting for us everyday, we're facing a daily increase of around 400% [that's every day and not just a manic single day of the week] compared to those manic days!

 

We are turning around the queue as fast as humanly possible, if there are issues with a cache. You will be informed of them via a Reviewer note to the cache.

 

Oh and add in one member of the team, away with no or extremely limited net access, as he's on a training course.

 

Deci

 

oh and I didn't do any reviewing yesterday due to keep have to talk to the big white telephone.

[+T A G]

No problem just the UK Reviewers facing a massive massive increase in No's submitted. Off course personally I could always try and increase the 5 to 6 hours per day I put in. :yikes. [unpaid at that]

 

To give you a idea of the sort of increase, 3 years ago the sort of level I saw on a manic Saturday or Sunday [which was then the busiest days of the week] does not now come close to the sort of No's waiting for us everyday, we're facing a daily increase of around 400% [that's every day and not just a manic single day of the week] compared to those manic days!

 

We are turning around the queue as fast as humanly possible, if there are issues with a cache. You will be informed of them via a Reviewer note to the cache.

 

Oh and add in one member of the team, away with no or extremely limited net access, as he's on a training course.

 

Deci

 

oh and I didn't do any reviewing yesterday due to keep have to talk to the big white telephone.

Thanks Deci,

 

keep at it :-)

 

Sounds like you need more help, how do you become a reviewer?

[+uk89camaro]

Thanks Deci,

 

keep at it :-)

 

Sounds like you need more help, how do you become a reviewer?

 

 

[Deceangi]

The local Reviewers decide that the workload justifies the need for another colleague to share the workload. They Identify possible candidates, looking for someone who has shown a good knowledge and understanding of the Guidelines. Who has shown the ability to work with others, has a good track record on both cache placements and finds [not necessarily in the thousands but not someone with a very low No of finds]. Has not made posts in any of the geocaching forums which could be of concern.

 

Once a person is identified, the local Reviewers will then submit the persons name to Groundspeak for their consideration. if Groundspeak decide that the person is suitable, They are then taken to the Reviewer Community for their opinion of the person. If this stage is passed successfully, Groundspeak will then make a final consideration, before providing either a yes or a no. If it's a yes, it's at this point that one of the local Reviewers will make contact with the selected person. And ask them to join the Reviewer Team. Not everyone accepts when asked, for variety of reasons.

 

Deceangi

[+maxkim]

Deci

 

oh and I didn't do any reviewing yesterday due to keep have to talk to the big white telephone.

Hope you are OK now??? MaxKim

[Deceangi]

Deci

 

oh and I didn't do any reviewing yesterday due to keep have to talk to the big white telephone.

Hope you are OK now??? MaxKim

 

I am now thank you back to my usual decrepit heap instead of a total train wreck [thats the polite version of how my teenage daughter described me ]

 

Deci

[+Delta68]

Personally, I think the time has come for Groundspeak to start charging for listing caches.

 

A small listing fee would:

- reduce the workload of our wonderful reviewers

- improve the quality of caches being placed

- prevent owners archiving caches on a whim

 

 

 

 

Mark

[+JustAlan]

Personally, I think the time has come for Groundspeak to start charging for listing caches.

 

A small listing fee would:

- reduce the workload of our wonderful reviewers

- improve the quality of caches being placed

- prevent owners archiving caches on a whim

Mark

 

But what level would you set the fees at, and in what currency?

 

The end result may be to drive people to the other cache listing sites.

[+Fuchsiamagic]

Personally, I think the time has come for Groundspeak to start charging for listing caches.

 

Personally, I think you should have to be a fully paid-up Premium Member to be able to list a new cache. I've always been surprised that just about anybody can list one. That would also get rid of the micro-in-the-hedge brigade.

[+Kryten]

There should also be an inverse size/fee ratio

 

Ammo can = $1

Standard box $3

Small box = $5

Micro $1000

Nano $5000

[Neath Worthies]

From what Deci describes I think the load on our local volunteers is beyong being reasonable. I suspect it's probably similar in other parts of the world where caching is popular so I question the whole business model under which Groundspeak operates.

 

This is a commercial company, taking paid subscriptions, advertising, selling branded goods and agreeing sponsorship deals. It has a professional executive and several full time, paid employees. All quite proper things for any commercial company. However it relies totally for its main product (cache listings) on the goodwill of unpaid volunteers. It has a company ethos which it expects all volunteer reviewers to follow wherever they happen to be in the world but no real way of enforcing it except by expecting the volunteers to do as they are told. We know what happens when they don't!

 

I would maintain that this model is fine for a small group of enthusiasts and a start up company but Geocaching.com/Groundspeak has gone way beyond that now. I suggest that if reviewers are carrying such a load as Deci describes then they ought to do the job full time and get paid a proper salary. That would also have the benefit to Groundspeak on them being able to insist that the company's guidelines are adhered to as a condition of employment.

 

In case anyone isn't clear, I am NOT criticising our volunteer reviewers, who do a sterling job, rather I'm questioning the way they are expected to operate.

 

The downside - well it would cost money which would have to be found from its customers i.e. us. Up to now we have largely enjoyed a free ride but this cannot continue. The time is rapidly approaching when we are going to have to pay to use the services of Groundspeak. There will be those who are not willing to pay so I guess they will migrate to other, volunteer based, listing sites or will give up. Sad but a fact of life.

[+drdick&vick]

There should also be an inverse size/fee ratio

 

Ammo can = $1

Standard box $3

Small box = $5

Micro $1000

Nano $5000

 

And then the moans will strat " Oh dear, there are no new caches for us to go and find, WHY??"

 

If you don't like a certain kind of cache then do like this cacher

We are going to Swindon this weekend and will be caching, my daughter loves swapping stuff in and out so I have two pocket queries, one with and one without micros. We are really looking forward to it.

 

That way you can leave the game alone and let the rest of us play it in whichever way we prefer.

 

We personally don't mind whether we find Micros, Nanos, small/medium traditionals ore even the odd ammo box (as long as it is not rusty and leaking). If the description describes it as an 'x type' in an 'y type location' and that does not suit us we simply 'use the human filter' and just dont go and look for it. I think that is call personal choice, something we all have or should be entitled to and if you have your way and eventually remove the chances of new micros/nanos be hidden then you remove that entitlement from us.

Been a few dictatorships that have wanted to do that if I recall but surely something that is simply a game (for the want of a better name) has no place for that kind of restrictions instead of the players simply using personal choice as to how they play.

[+keehotee]

 

This is a commercial company, taking paid subscriptions, advertising, selling branded goods and agreeing sponsorship deals. It has a professional executive and several full time, paid employees. All quite proper things for any commercial company. However it relies totally for its main product (cache listings) on the goodwill of unpaid volunteers. It has a company ethos which it expects all volunteer reviewers to follow wherever they happen to be in the world but no real way of enforcing it except by expecting the volunteers to do as they are told. We know what happens when they don't!

 

I would maintain that this model is fine for a small group of enthusiasts and a start up company but Geocaching.com/Groundspeak has gone way beyond that now. I suggest that if reviewers are carrying such a load as Deci describes then they ought to do the job full time and get paid a proper salary. That would also have the benefit to Groundspeak on them being able to insist that the company's guidelines are adhered to as a condition of employment.

 

In case anyone isn't clear, I am NOT criticising our volunteer reviewers, who do a sterling job, rather I'm questioning the way they are expected to operate.

 

 

Does sound remarkably like ..

 

The Church (any church - take your pick)

The Boy Scout movement

A school governing body

 

..all of which have been operating using that same business model for quite a while.

 

I don't think anybody would question the amount of work the reviewers do - and the more of them we get, and the more help they get, the better in my opinion. But Groundspeak's guidelines are just that - guidelines. How do you rigidly enforce a guideline?? Or would you rather see a set of strict rules with no leeway whatsoever?

[Neath Worthies]

Does sound remarkably like ..

 

The Church (any church - take your pick)

The Boy Scout movement

A school governing body

 

..all of which have been operating using that same business model for quite a while.

But none of those are commercial businesses. All of them are driven by people whose motive is "doing the right thing". Very laudable, indeed I've been involved with two of them myself, but making money is not their prime motive. Groundspeak is a business.

[+HouseOfDragons]

The time is rapidly approaching when we are going to have to pay to use the services of Groundspeak.

 

Those of us with a premium membership already are paying.

[+Team NarrowBoat]

It would also help speed things up if all reviewers worked form the same book of guidelines.

as some want this and others don't so I stopped adding caches now as the rules are never the same for all..

 

good hunting