Frustrating Piecemeal Geocache Review Process

[+mickaxl]

First, don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the work the various geocaching volunteers do but I just had to report on my the process of getting my latest cache approved.

 

When first submitted it was rejected because it was too close to the final stage of a nearby puzzle cache. No problem there, a valid reason for rejection, as I would not have known where the final stage was and using my GSAK circles macro made it look like this was an open spot.

 

So I moved it a resubmitted the cache only to have it rejected because I was trying to make it a virtual. Ok so maybe on that one. It was a micro that needed a tweezers to retrieve the log and I know from past experience (my own) that not every one has one handy when they're caching. So on the log page I mentioned the need for a tweezers but also said that I would accept an emailed answer to a question that proved you were there - hence the virtual aspect I suppose. As I said, may have been valid.

 

Right then; remove that reference from the text and resubmit. Guess what? Rejection again. Looks like I was promoting a commercial business on the cache page. Well the cache was on the fence line I a golf course and I mentioned that it was a good one and, if you have the time and inclination, you should play a round while your here. Again I'll say maybe to that one but I've seen quite a few cache pages that mention and more overtly promote a business than this one did.

 

OK, one more edit and submission and now we wait - wonder what will happen this time.

 

But, and here finally is my point, all of those rejections could have been done based off the first submission. All alleged offenses were present in the original cache page that I submitted.

 

Why couldn't the review point them all out in one fell swoop rather than in this piecemeal fashion that frustrates me and probably the reviewer too - assuming it is the same volunteer each time?

[+bittsen]

First, don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the work the various geocaching volunteers do but I just had to report on my the process of getting my latest cache approved.

 

When first submitted it was rejected because it was too close to the final stage of a nearby puzzle cache. No problem there, a valid reason for rejection, as I would not have known where the final stage was and using my GSAK circles macro made it look like this was an open spot.

 

So I moved it a resubmitted the cache only to have it rejected because I was trying to make it a virtual. Ok so maybe on that one. It was a micro that needed a tweezers to retrieve the log and I know from past experience (my own) that not every one has one handy when they're caching. So on the log page I mentioned the need for a tweezers but also said that I would accept an emailed answer to a question that proved you were there - hence the virtual aspect I suppose. As I said, may have been valid.

 

Right then; remove that reference from the text and resubmit. Guess what? Rejection again. Looks like I was promoting a commercial business on the cache page. Well the cache was on the fence line I a golf course and I mentioned that it was a good one and, if you have the time and inclination, you should play a round while your here. Again I'll say maybe to that one but I've seen quite a few cache pages that mention and more overtly promote a business than this one did.

 

OK, one more edit and submission and now we wait - wonder what will happen this time.

 

But, and here finally is my point, all of those rejections could have been done based off the first submission. All alleged offenses were present in the original cache page that I submitted.

 

Why couldn't the review point them all out in one fell swoop rather than in this piecemeal fashion that frustrates me and probably the reviewer too - assuming it is the same volunteer each time?

 

I don't know your reviewer but I have much experience in reviewing processes outside of geocaching.

 

Some reviewers look and the first item they see for rejection is as far as they will look. Some reviewers will read and piecemeal the entire submission before sending back the rejection.

I had the same issue when I was submitting plans for the house I was building. On the third attempt, i asked the reviewer to go through the entire blueprint before I left. They didn't want to but their superior made them do it. (after all I would be spending 12,000 dollars). I fixed everything and they attempted to reject it again. I asked for a different reviewer and it went through on the first try.

 

So, bite your tongue and be parient. Ask and get answers. It's all you can do.

[jholly]

With the exception of the first, *ALL* of the other rejections would never occurred if you really read the guidelines for hiding a cache like you said you did. Three out of four are your fault.

 

Jim

[+StarBrand]

It wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that your reviewer works by going through either a literal or mental checklist. As soon as he/she saw a problem, checklist over and inform you of the result. Makes working through a variety of different cachers submissions go more smoothly. I am sure each uses a slightly different workflow/review process.

 

Hang in there - work with them. Review the guidelines and make sure you understand the tweaks made in recent years.

[knowschad]

I can understand your feelings of frustration, but I have to agree with the others that you only brought them upon yourself (all except the first rejection, that is) by either not knowing enough about, or by not paying enough attention to, the guidelines. Trust me... I'm sure your voluntary reviewer is also feeling equally frustrated by having to reject your submission for the forth time.

 

Keep trying... like anything else, it does get smoother with practice.

[Art Carnage]

Your first problem required a relocation of the cache. That pretty much makes all the other issues moot, since a new cache location usually will require a new or modified cache description. It would be pointless to bring up issues that may not exist once the cache is relocated.

[+palmetto]

As a reviewer, I try to mention all issues in the first review. However, as Art Carnage has mentioned, when the cache must be moved, it's possible that other issues will become moot.

 

Even as you complain about the piecemeal nature of the review, I can promise you that other cachers have complained about the reviewer "piling on" and "hammering me with the listing guidelines". It can be a no win situation when you're delivering bad news.

[glorkar]

One of my caches went back and forth 3 or 4 times as well. Mostly misunderstandings about the denial reasons. Mine was too close to another cache. I resubmitted with a justification. Denied. I moved the cache and changed the coords. Denied (forgot to change the final coords.) Got a new reviewer. He explained that I didn't change my final coords. Changes coords on cache page. Bingo.

 

Sometimes it just takes a little patience. If you are unclear on a specific reason that the cache was disabled, Shoot the reviewer a message and ask for clarification. You can always ask "hey, this is how I will change it, will that work?" If you are serious about placing the cache, just step back and take a breath. Clear your head and re-attack with a different perspective.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Why couldn't the review point them all out in one fell swoop rather than in this piecemeal fashion that frustrates me and probably the reviewer too - assuming it is the same volunteer each time?

 

If it were all there as you say, they could have given you all that info up front.

 

In my line of work we call it a "second bite of the apple' and it's has a huge time and money wasting effect. Alas some people are sequential in how they are programemd. Their program reads. "Scan, Find error, report, wait for solutin, continue scan, repeat, publish" You are asking, for "Scan, find error, continue scan repeat process, complete, compile errors, report, wait for solution, publish.

[+Renegade Knight]

Your first problem required a relocation of the cache. That pretty much makes all the other issues moot, since a new cache location usually will require a new or modified cache description. It would be pointless to bring up issues that may not exist once the cache is relocated.

 

That's an assumption. You could list all issues and if by chance some go away all the better. Forwarned is forarmed. You get a better result if you lay it all out.

[+Renegade Knight]

As a reviewer, I try to mention all issues in the first review. However, as Art Carnage has mentioned, when the cache must be moved, it's possible that other issues will become moot. ...

 

Well done. It is possible they will fix the problems with the move without you pointing them out, but because you told them about it they actually have the chance to fix them all.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

FWIW I've met a number of our Reviewers, and know others online, and to a person they all do the job because they want to get caches published.

 

No one among them takes pleasure in denying caches (Caveat: unless you have pissed them off first!) and, if your cache is guideline compliant it will be published.

 

If it's not compliant they will work with you to get it right (except, see above caveat).

 

If they read the listing, however, and see that you have not read or have paid no heed to the guidelines, you can pretty much bet that you have invoked the caveat.

[+mickaxl]

With the exception of the first, *ALL* of the other rejections would never occurred if you really read the guidelines for hiding a cache like you said you did. Three out of four are your fault.

 

Jim

I have read the guidelines and I believe that all but the first were a matter of interpretation and the reviewer has the last say on how to interpret so I'm not complaining about the interpretation.

 

Funny story on the 'virtual' point. I gave an alternative for those who had difficulty signing the log. As it turns out the first person who tried to get the log page out of the container broke the container - they did report that fact and have kindly replaced the container and some fun has been had on the cache log pages as a result. I had practiced myself over and over again to make sure it was accessible. But because the neck of the container was very small I thought to give the alternative.