Reviewers attidues

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

Hi I am a newnie Premium member. Being new I am not the greatest at Hiding caches yet, so I make mistakes and get back a snotty review makes me wonder why i paid a premium. yes i realize reviewers are volunteers and have to deal with the same mistakes over and over but come on crappy attidude is not the way to go

[+Cardinal Red]

Hi I am a newnie Premium member. Being new I am not the greatest at Hiding caches yet, so I make mistakes and get back a snotty review makes me wonder why i paid a premium. yes i realize reviewers are volunteers and have to deal with the same mistakes over and over but come on crappy attidude is not the way to go

Most of us have excellent reviewer interaction. That doesn't mean you will always get the answer you want. Read the guidelines. Learn before you complain. Much more productive.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Sorry you had such an experience. I have gotten a note or two from a reviewer, but certainly nothing snippy or the like. In fact, I found them (the notes) to be extremely enlightening.

 

Without further info, I cannot comment further on your experience, only mine.

[+Ambrosia]

Well, this is kinda hard to comment on. What do you consider to be a snotty attitude?

 

All my dealings with my Reviewers has been positive. Even the ones where we disagreed.

[+thedeadpirate]

Dirty and sweaty, maybe. But I've never seen him snotty. Then again, I doubt I would see him when he's ailing.

[+Knight2000]

If we did it certainly wouldn't help to call them out. We have found that there is a lot of politics involved in caching.

[BCProspectors]

...I make mistakes and get back a snotty review makes me wonder why i paid a premium.

Are you saying you should get special treatment because you are a Premium Member? Because that's not how it works.

Edited June 5, 2010 by BCProspectors

[+narcissa]

Care to share any details? What do you mean by "snotty?" Are you sure you're not reading more into the message than is actually there?

 

Reviewers tend to keep their messages brief and concise, so you know exactly what the problem is. That doesn't mean they're being snotty.

[+ihorn]

I am new to caching also. The interaction I have had with my reviewer has been great. He has helped me out a lot in getting my first cache ready to place.

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

I placed a new cache near one that I forgot to disable because of work that will be going on in the general area over the summer. When I placed the second cache the co-ords were off and it was over the 582 feet rule and so it was approved. when i updated the coords it showed to close to the original, and i was called on it so fine. I disabled the original and re enabled the new one thinking this was good and no conflict. Then i get a review back sayiing I am not adhereing to the terms and guidlines and both will be archived if i dont move the new one. I posted a note on the original saying that i have it and that it was disabled so I figured the new one was good to go. again with the threat How do I get rid of the first one as i will morethan likely not be able to use the cache site after the work is done.

[+buttaskotch]

Disabling a cache is not archiving it, and therefore must adhere to the 500 foot rule.

You must archive one cache.

Where is the snotty remark? I don't see what is negative about reviewer notes, you were not adhering to guidleines which is fact. Am I missing something?

[drewmm]

Without knowing what your reviewer actually said, it's impossible for us to know his attitude.

 

Of course, us knowing his attitude is pretty much irrelevant. Reviewers, like all people, come in all types. If you think a reviewer is actually doing something wrong, you can go to Groundspeak (I believe?). But if you're just not the greatest of friends with them...deal with it.

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

Paying a premium helps to make the site better so no on the special treatment,But being a volunteer does not mean your special either just not paid. I plan on being more of a cache placer than a seeker and so as i get better at the hides I hope to be less of a pain in the reviewers asses and i do understand that they see the same mistakes over and over. we all are needed to make the community work and we need to respecth each other.

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

see my question was answered here in the forum I needed to archive it my self not just disable it whould that have been so hard.

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

and See I need typing lessons today too

[+bittsen]

Paying a premium helps to make the site better so no on the special treatment,But being a volunteer does not mean your special either just not paid. I plan on being more of a cache placer than a seeker and so as i get better at the hides I hope to be less of a pain in the reviewers asses and i do understand that they see the same mistakes over and over. we all are needed to make the community work and we need to respecth each other.

 

Please don't place caches just because you can. People who place more than they find don't usually have very interesting caches. Micro spew is boring.

[+briansnat]

I placed a new cache near one that I forgot to disable because of work that will be going on in the general area over the summer. When I placed the second cache the co-ords were off and it was over the 582 feet rule and so it was approved. when i updated the coords it showed to close to the original, and i was called on it so fine. I disabled the original and re enabled the new one thinking this was good and no conflict. Then i get a review back sayiing I am not adhereing to the terms and guidlines and both will be archived if i dont move the new one. I posted a note on the original saying that i have it and that it was disabled so I figured the new one was good to go. again with the threat How do I get rid of the first one as i will morethan likely not be able to use the cache site after the work is done.

 

You disabled the conflicting cache. Disabled caches are considered active when checking for conflicts. You need to archive it.

 

As I see it, the reviewer note to you was professional, courteous and to the point Nothing snotty about it at all.

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

again thats all the explanation I would have needed ,archive the original not disable it as i did not understand that disables were still active. work with me don't threaten to archive both. we don't hide you don't get to seek.

[Keystone]

I've looked at the reviewer notes on all of your cache submissions and I see nothing but courteous, professional notes. Yes, they are all form letters, but I am not seeing any attitude from that side of the two-way communication channel.

[+Misha]

I would think being a reviewer would suck at times. They have to deal with people who are focused at one result "getting there page published now." They may come across as sharp edged, but it is likely that they are very busy volunteers, YES, I said they are unpaid and they keep going with our ridicule and criticisms. Yes I have been less nice to them than I should have been.

 

Therefore, I now relax and let my sites be published on their schedule and by their criteria as GC warrants.

 

Please take it easy on them, they are there for us.

 

Misha

Edited June 5, 2010 by Misha

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

Hello fellow geocacher, as one of the volunteer reviewers my role is to help you through the rest of the review process to get your new listing published on the geocaching website.

During the review of your new listing it was noted that there are no descriptions. Is this listing finished?

 

The best method to address the above is to either correct it or outline your response in a Reviewer Note. Once resolved, please click the word "Enable" on your cache page. This can be found under the banner of NAVIGATION in the far right column. This action will allow us to see your geocache listing for further review.

 

Good review helpful gives direction This is reviewer Cache drone

 

You have read and agreed to the guidelines of maintaining your listings and meeting the 161m proximity. This cache is disabled until the guideline is meet if you enable it again, it will be archived.

Not so great .

Reviewer is Cacheviewer No mention of how i keep going wrong and how to correct it. Surprisingly The first review of the conflict was professional and helpful by the same reviewer

[+Packanack]

Amazingly , awhile back I learned that I was not infallible--I know it was a shock to me too-

-but around that time I also learned that not all criticism, suggestion or advice was misdirected, life improved after that. I found that there are actually people on the earth who are helpful, knowledgable,kind and social. My reviewers have alway fallen into that category. I hope I can emulate some of the people who fall into those categories. Our locals seem to be friendly and helpful--I don't know maybe it is because we cultivate that here in NJ.

[+Touchstone]

Hello fellow geocacher, as one of the volunteer reviewers my role is to help you through the rest of the review process to get your new listing published on the geocaching website.

During the review of your new listing it was noted that there are no descriptions. Is this listing finished?

 

The best method to address the above is to either correct it or outline your response in a Reviewer Note. Once resolved, please click the word "Enable" on your cache page. This can be found under the banner of NAVIGATION in the far right column. This action will allow us to see your geocache listing for further review.

 

Good review helpful gives direction This is reviewer Cache drone

 

You have read and agreed to the guidelines of maintaining your listings and meeting the 161m proximity. This cache is disabled until the guideline is meet if you enable it again, it will be archived.

Not so great .

Reviewer is Cacheviewer No mention of how i keep going wrong and how to correct it. Surprisingly The first review of the conflict was professional and helpful by the same reviewer

 

Sounds like a simple misunderstanding to me. The first Note you quoted sounds like many of the similar form letters that have been shared here on the Forums. The second one sounds a bit more succint and to the point. In both instances the message is fairly staightforward: Conform to the spirit of the Guidelines.

 

I'm assuming that the second Note is meant to target a more experienced cacher, and therefore is shorter and to the point. That was obviously a mistake on the Reviewers part

[+edscott]

The cache map in your area looks like a pile of bricks from a fallen house. Bet if you explore a new area a bit off the road that peaky 528 foot rule problem will vaporize.

[+thedeadpirate]

You have read and agreed to the guidelines of maintaining your listings and meeting the 161m proximity. This cache is disabled until the guideline is meet if you enable it again, it will be archived.

Not so great .

Reviewer is Cacheviewer No mention of how i keep going wrong and how to correct it. Surprisingly The first review of the conflict was professional and helpful by the same reviewer

 

He probably made the mistake of assuming that when you checked those 2 boxes stating that you had read the guidelines that you actually read and understood them.

 

It's a common mistake.

[+bittsen]

He probably made the mistake of assuming that when you checked those 2 boxes stating that you had read the guidelines that you actually read and understood them.

 

It's a common mistake.

 

OH!! SNAP!!!

[+ngrrfan]

I'd bet money that my local reviewer sees one of my submissions and he/she cringes and thinks..."oh god.... here we go again. this guy is such a dunce."

 

Well, I try to get it right the first time, honest I do, but sometimes I am the dunce. My local reviewer has worked very patiently with me to get a cache published and is always ready to offer advice.

[4wheelin_fool]

Caches are only intended to be disabled for a few weeks to a month at most. Your reviewer gave you the standard copy and paste response to what you did. Perhaps your behaviour is what is at issue here. The title of the thread with the word "snotty" seems to indicate who is not being fair. The reviewers are just voluteers who do it because they care about the game. They are neither paid, or will treat you any differently than a regular member.

 

If there was a thread in the reviewer forums titled "Snotty Cache Owners" directed at you, wouldn't you think it was a little off the wall?

[+webscouter.]

It looks to me like you were sent a form letter response. Because they have to apply to many different scenarios they can sometimes sound curt.

 

It wasn't meant to be snide or condescending, just to the point.

 

Please take it in that light.

[knowschad]

You have read and agreed to the guidelines of maintaining your listings and meeting the 161m proximity. This cache is disabled until the guideline is meet if you enable it again, it will be archived.

Not so great .

Reviewer is Cacheviewer No mention of how i keep going wrong and how to correct it. Surprisingly The first review of the conflict was professional and helpful by the same reviewer

 

He probably made the mistake of assuming that when you checked those 2 boxes stating that you had read the guidelines that you actually read and understood them.

 

It's a common mistake.

 

This sounds more to me like a case of the OP not understanding the difference between disabling a cache and archiving a cache... that is also a common mistake among new cachers.

[+drfred]

Lots of newbies don't understand the rules fully - hey, I didn't and mistakenly archived a cache I wanted to check on back about 7 years ago...the reviewer took pity on me and reactivated it.

 

Anyway, I think one issue that keeps coming up here in the forums is related to the tone of the form messages. I've been using the web since before it was the web - and e-mail even before that - and have recognized the danger of the lack of context and body language.

 

1) GC should make their form messages more user friendly by making them nicer and less likely to be misconstrued. So put in possibly a few phrases such as... "we greatly appreciate your placement of a cache, but..." "your cache placement may be perfectly acceptable, but the information that was provided does not make your intent clear..." or even "although your idea of a cache may be acceptable to a perfect nut-job, we..."

 

2) Reviewers need to be more understanding of newcomers and be friendly, see #1

[+riviouveur]

1) GC should make their form messages more user friendly by making them nicer and less likely to be misconstrued. So put in possibly a few phrases such as... "we greatly appreciate your placement of a cache, but..." "your cache placement may be perfectly acceptable, but the information that was provided does not make your intent clear..." or even "although your idea of a cache may be acceptable to a perfect nut-job, we..."

Groundspeak does not provide form messages to reviewers. We exchange ideas - for example, phrases which seem to get a point across succinctly - but most reviewers adapt their messages to their territory and their caching public.

 

For what it's worth, my standard messages start with (the French equivalent of) "Thanks for submitting your cache. If this note looks like it's been glued together from standard parts, that's because it has, so please forgive me if not every word matches your exact situation."

[+Tequila]

Love the description you put on this cache:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...937da&log=y

[+drfred]

Groundspeak does not provide form messages to reviewers. We exchange ideas - for example, phrases which seem to get a point across succinctly - but most reviewers adapt their messages to their territory and their caching public.

 

Good to know. My point is now doubly poignant. Reviewers need some guidance as to how to deal with newbies that don't know better....

[+narcissa]

I know both of the reviewers involved here, and they are both far from being snotty. They're hard-working, dedicated reviewers. There's nothing "snotty" about the reviewer notes - they're clear about what the conflict is. You repeatedly tried to publish a cache that was too close to an active cache. It's your responsibility to learn how to use the site and understand the guidelines.

[+narcissa]

Groundspeak does not provide form messages to reviewers. We exchange ideas - for example, phrases which seem to get a point across succinctly - but most reviewers adapt their messages to their territory and their caching public.

 

Good to know. My point is now doubly poignant. Reviewers need some guidance as to how to deal with newbies that don't know better....

 

In addition to the workload they already have, they should have to handhold n00bs who can't be bothered to read the guidelines or learn how to use the site?

[+thedeadpirate]

You have read and agreed to the guidelines of maintaining your listings and meeting the 161m proximity. This cache is disabled until the guideline is meet if you enable it again, it will be archived.

Not so great .

Reviewer is Cacheviewer No mention of how i keep going wrong and how to correct it. Surprisingly The first review of the conflict was professional and helpful by the same reviewer

He probably made the mistake of assuming that when you checked those 2 boxes stating that you had read the guidelines that you actually read and understood them.

 

It's a common mistake.

This sounds more to me like a case of the OP not understanding the difference between disabling a cache and archiving a cache... that is also a common mistake among new cachers.

The problem here is 2 fold.

 

1) The OP did not understand the difference between disabling and archiving.

 

2) Instead of asking the reviewer what should be done to remedy the situation, the OP decided to come to the forums in front of all other cachers and call the reviewer snotty.

 

Actually, it's 3 fold.

 

3) After getting the information the OP needed from the forums, the OP continued to reiterate his/her opinion that the reviewer was snotty rather than apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and say you made a mistake. It happens to everyone.

[knowschad]

You have read and agreed to the guidelines of maintaining your listings and meeting the 161m proximity. This cache is disabled until the guideline is meet if you enable it again, it will be archived.

Not so great .

Reviewer is Cacheviewer No mention of how i keep going wrong and how to correct it. Surprisingly The first review of the conflict was professional and helpful by the same reviewer

He probably made the mistake of assuming that when you checked those 2 boxes stating that you had read the guidelines that you actually read and understood them.

 

It's a common mistake.

This sounds more to me like a case of the OP not understanding the difference between disabling a cache and archiving a cache... that is also a common mistake among new cachers.

The problem here is 2 fold.

 

1) The OP did not understand the difference between disabling and archiving.

 

2) Instead of asking the reviewer what should be done to remedy the situation, the OP decided to come to the forums in front of all other cachers and call the reviewer snotty.

 

Actually, it's 3 fold.

 

3) After getting the information the OP needed from the forums, the OP continued to reiterate his/her opinion that the reviewer was snotty rather than apologize for the misunderstanding.

 

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and say you made a mistake. It happens to everyone.

Gotta agree with you on all points.

[Keystone]

Groundspeak does not provide form messages to reviewers. We exchange ideas - for example, phrases which seem to get a point across succinctly - but most reviewers adapt their messages to their territory and their caching public.

 

Good to know. My point is now doubly poignant. Reviewers need some guidance as to how to deal with newbies that don't know better....

There are a number of processes in place to make sure this happens.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Groundspeak does not provide form messages to reviewers. We exchange ideas - for example, phrases which seem to get a point across succinctly - but most reviewers adapt their messages to their territory and their caching public.

 

Good to know. My point is now doubly poignant. Reviewers need some guidance as to how to deal with newbies that don't know better....

 

In addition to the workload they already have, they should have to handhold n00bs who can't be bothered to read the guidelines or learn how to use the site?

Yes. That's their job. In fact helping cachers get caches published is their only job. Anything they do beyond that is a personal choice.

Edited June 6, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

well it seems that I have stirred up a bit of a tempest Thats good because we all learn new things. I can see why some remain lurkers. I did admit that i did not know that a disable does not take the cache out of play. As for the volunteer thread I volunteer at a special needs school every weekday morning after i finish Night shift for an hour I do this because I like the work i do and get satisfaction from it and do not get paid.As a vollunteer you take new not so new and experienced. I did not diss both rewiewers One was great and the second well i did not like the tone but thats me and i did learn my mistake after one of you on the forum corrected me

[+TeamAO]

If we did it certainly wouldn't help to call them out. We have found that there is a lot of politics involved in caching.

 

I haven't geocached in a while. But, if I remember anything other than being in the woods a lot was how baffling the politics surrounding this game is sometimes.

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

He probably made the mistake of assuming that when you checked those 2 boxes stating that you had read the guidelines that you actually read and understood them.

 

It's a common mistake.

 

OH!! SNAP!!!

ok Joy Turner

[+J the Goat]

Hello fellow geocacher, as one of the volunteer reviewers my role is to help you through the rest of the review process to get your new listing published on the geocaching website.

During the review of your new listing it was noted that there are no descriptions. Is this listing finished?

 

The best method to address the above is to either correct it or outline your response in a Reviewer Note. Once resolved, please click the word "Enable" on your cache page. This can be found under the banner of NAVIGATION in the far right column. This action will allow us to see your geocache listing for further review.

 

Good review helpful gives direction This is reviewer Cache drone

 

You have read and agreed to the guidelines of maintaining your listings and meeting the 161m proximity. This cache is disabled until the guideline is meet if you enable it again, it will be archived.

Not so great .

Reviewer is Cacheviewer No mention of how i keep going wrong and how to correct it. Surprisingly The first review of the conflict was professional and helpful by the same reviewer

 

Bolding is mine. Are you really making this big of a stink over a cache that seems to be such a high quality cache that there's no description?

 

Please don't just throw out some little container because you can. Put a little thought into the container and the cache page.

 

If you aren't going to put in the energy, why should those who are going to find your hide?

[+bittsen]

Bolding is mine. Are you really making this big of a stink over a cache that seems to be such a high quality cache that there's no description?

 

Please don't just throw out some little container because you can. Put a little thought into the container and the cache page.

 

If you aren't going to put in the energy, why should those who are going to find your hide?

 

I don't think anything we say will make a difference.

I just looked and the latest cache appears to be a rock in a rock pile and the hint is a non hint.

 

Oh well, I don't worry too much. I won't be caching in that area any time soon.

[+J the Goat]

Bolding is mine. Are you really making this big of a stink over a cache that seems to be such a high quality cache that there's no description?

 

Please don't just throw out some little container because you can. Put a little thought into the container and the cache page.

 

If you aren't going to put in the energy, why should those who are going to find your hide?

 

I don't think anything we say will make a difference.

I just looked and the latest cache appears to be a rock in a rock pile and the hint is a non hint.

 

Oh well, I don't worry too much. I won't be caching in that area any time soon.

 

Unbelievable...

 

I think I'm spoiled. While we don't have many cachers in these parts, we don't have ANY that pull this garbage. All hides are perfect? Nope, but few if any I would call junk.

[jholly]

well it seems that I have stirred up a bit of a tempest Thats good because we all learn new things. I can see why some remain lurkers. I did admit that i did not know that a disable does not take the cache out of play.

<snip?

 

The easiest way see that does not take a cache out of place is to look at the google search maps. They are still there, i.e., they are still in play.

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

Bolding is mine. Are you really making this big of a stink over a cache that seems to be such a high quality cache that there's no description?

 

Please don't just throw out some little container because you can. Put a little thought into the container and the cache page.

 

If you aren't going to put in the energy, why should those who are going to find your hide?

 

I don't think anything we say will make a difference.

I just looked and the latest cache appears to be a rock in a rock pile and the hint is a non hint.

 

Oh well, I don't worry too much. I won't be caching in that area any time soon.

This is an Historic mining town celebrating 100 years of gold finds in the area so what does not turn your crank may well for others living in this area .Rocky areas abound and are utilized by cachers here and i see you still are a premium member after asking why you should be one after your membership expired. as for making a stink it was not over the cache but over what i considered attitude But now that I have been enlightend by you Forum dwellers i now know that form letters are used .Holy anal retention Batman

[+TEEBEE&JAY]

I now consider myself chasened and will go gentle into that good night Hello Lurker land

[+wimseyguy]

So why doesn't your cache page celebrate that history and anniversary celebration? I would love to find a cache in an area that is rich with history.

Especially when there are so many caches to choose from in that area. I may need to choose which ones I want to seek.

 

You want me to come find your cache, appreciate that history, and maybe learn something about your region? Tell me something on your cache page instead of 'under a rock'/'micro'/I hide them you come find them'.

Sheesh, what an overblown sense of entitlement.

 

The more you post, the more we know where the attitude lies.

Edited June 6, 2010 by wimseyguy