question about reviewers

[ashnikes]

the two i have encountered in my home radius, both have like 50 some odd finds, which is weird to me, because only having 50 finds seems like a small number to have under your belt as a reviewer.

 

Although, both are premium members, and both are supiriorly knoladgeable on the subject matter, and both have been extremely wonderful to me, and informative on placing my cache, as well as patient.

 

Im just curious why the small find count? Maybe they dont list their finds? Do your local reviewers have a small finds count as well? This then makes me wonder what then is considered by Groundspeak to be an acceptable guideline for applicants who want to become reviewers...

 

***note i am not requesting reviewer status, i would do a horrible job at it, im just curious because it appears your finds number means little to Groundspeak if you want to become a volunteer reviewer. SO what then does greoundspeak require of you? i imagine you have to at least be a premium member, and have had to of read the guidelines more than once, but what are the rules after that?

 

*****Note to the two local reviewers of mine who i have dealt with, i am in no way making fun of your small finds count, nor am i bashing you for it, it just came across as strange to me you have such a small number of finds, and yet you control all the hides in this area (a number well over 50).

Edited June 19, 2010 by ashnikes

[+FamilyDNA]

The local reviewers I know have a much higher find count than their reviewer profile shows - they find caches under a different name.

[+drfred]

Holy schinkes! Just have to say that every time I see your name...

 

Anyway, many reviewers cache under a different name. I'm not sure I support the idea of sock puppet reviewers, although the arguments can be made either way, (and have been done so)

 

So, anyone watching the world cup?

[Keystone]

Each reviewer will have a different practice.

 

Some review under the same account as their player name. Look at mtn-man's find count.

 

Most have separate accounts. Of those, some reviewers have zero finds, preferring to keep all their personal geocaching history on their player account. Some reviewers will log events or other caches relating in some way to their volunteer work. For example, the only cache I've logged under my reviewer account is Groundspeak Headquarters, though I have more than 4500 finds on my player account.

 

And, of course, many reviewers are dogs.

[ashnikes]

ah... that explains it,

it also makes sense, as some people have serious issues with their reviewers, ive seen some posts in the little time ive been reading the forums from angry cache owners, upset over their reviewers decisions.... this would keep their reviewers names cleaner to an extent, and allow them to play the game semi-anonymously, or at least without any inside drama from those angry cache owners. It would also allow them to find those caches they were worried over anonymously, and to come back and question the cache owner as an outsider, not a reviewer. This makes much more sense now.

 

I have not had any issues with either of the two of mine, although im sure they get annoyed at me, they are always very nice when responding to me. I was just wondering about the low finds count.

[+Telecacher]

The two reviewers who have published caches for me in SoCal both have 0 finds. I just suspected they use a separate account.

 

Side note: Strangely haven't ever gotten a written reponse to reviewer notes/questions, and suspect they might not speak english.

 

<shrug>

[Keystone]

Strangely haven't ever gotten a written reponse to reviewer notes/questions, and suspect they might not speak english.

 

<shrug>

And, of course, many reviewers are dogs.

[+Cardinal Red]

ah... that explains it,

it also makes sense, as some people have serious issues with their reviewers, ive seen some posts in the little time ive been reading the forums from angry cache owners, upset over their reviewers decisions.... this would keep their reviewers names cleaner to an extent, and allow them to play the game semi-anonymously, or at least without any inside drama from those angry cache owners. It would also allow them to find those caches they were worried over anonymously, and to come back and question the cache owner as an outsider, not a reviewer. This makes much more sense now.

 

I have not had any issues with either of the two of mine, although im sure they get annoyed at me, they are always very nice when responding to me. I was just wondering about the low finds count.

Our local Reviewer is not hiding behind the Reviewer name. Most of us know who they are/were. They generally have not made the connection between their Player name and their Reviewer name known to a national audience, but if you are at all socially active in local caching and events you stand a good chance to meet the Reviewer sooner or later. I suspect that is the case in the great majority of Review areas. I know we have had differences of opinion with our Reviewer, but I would hope it will never elevate to "serious issues". Our Reviewer is very experienced (high find count), and is always a welcome addition to any cache hunt or event.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Cardinal Red

[+clan_Barron]

the two i have encountered in my home radius, both have like 50 some odd finds, which is weird to me, because only having 50 finds seems like a small number to have under your belt as a reviewer.

 

Although, both are premium members, and both are supiriorly knoladgeable on the subject matter, and both have been extremely wonderful to me, and informative on placing my cache, as well as patient.

 

Im just curious why the small find count? Maybe they dont list their finds? Do your local reviewers have a small finds count as well? This then makes me wonder what then is considered by Groundspeak to be an acceptable guideline for applicants who want to become reviewers...

 

***note i am not requesting reviewer status, i would do a horrible job at it, im just curious because it appears your finds number means little to Groundspeak if you want to become a volunteer reviewer. SO what then does greoundspeak require of you? i imagine you have to at least be a premium member, and have had to of read the guidelines more than once, but what are the rules after that?

 

*****Note to the two local reviewers of mine who i have dealt with, i am in no way making fun of your small finds count, nor am i bashing you for it, it just came across as strange to me you have such a small number of finds, and yet you control all the hides in this area (a number well over 50).

 

Being from Florida, I have the same reviewers as you and trust me they have way more finds than you might think. I believe that I have personally met all but one of the 5 regular Florida reviewers at one time or another and have cached with several of them on more than one occasional. They are all great people who have been caching for years with many fine hides under their belts to go with their many finds. In fact, I have met many approvers from all over the US in person over the years while attending GeoWoodstock (and other events) and I've got to say that I've not met one yet who wasn't a genuine nice person. (Just my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary).

Edited June 19, 2010 by clan_Barron

[+ihorn]

The two reviewers who have published caches for me in SoCal both have 0 finds. I just suspected they use a separate account.

 

Side note: Strangely haven't ever gotten a written reponse to reviewer notes/questions, and suspect they might not speak english.

 

<shrug>

 

I am sorry you havent gotten a written response from the reviewers in SoCal. I have not had any issue in talking to them at all. Who are you trying to contact and not getting a response?

[+wimseyguy]

Strangely haven't ever gotten a written reponse to reviewer notes/questions, and suspect they might not speak english.

 

<shrug>

And, of course, many reviewers are dogs.

I've heard a rumor that some of the dogs have been outsourced to India and/or Bangladesh. That might explain the language barrier issue.

[+Telecacher]

The two reviewers who have published caches for me in SoCal both have 0 finds. I just suspected they use a separate account.

 

Side note: Strangely haven't ever gotten a written reponse to reviewer notes/questions, and suspect they might not speak english.

 

<shrug>

 

I am sorry you havent gotten a written response from the reviewers in SoCal. I have not had any issue in talking to them at all. Who are you trying to contact and not getting a response?

 

I'd rather not mention names here. But if you are placing caches in SoCal (LA and OC areas) you know who they are.

[+mchaos]

I heard it on the grape vine that it is a conspiracy hatch by Groundspeak to enlist reviewers who are actually not experienced for an objective view on the cache, and to make the hunt more challenging....

 

No not really

 

It makes sense to me that to become a reviewer you probably have to have quite a bit of experience first, which means caching for some time before becoming a reviewer.

 

Once you become a reviewer, you need a reviewer account. There for you will have 2 accounts.

 

I am sure that reviewers with a large amount of finds on there reviewer account probably stopped using their normal account after, and reviewers who have little finds on their name or none, wanted to keep going with their original name because of the find count already acquired.

[+ihorn]

The two reviewers who have published caches for me in SoCal both have 0 finds. I just suspected they use a separate account.

 

Side note: Strangely haven't ever gotten a written reponse to reviewer notes/questions, and suspect they might not speak english.

 

<shrug>

 

I am sorry you havent gotten a written response from the reviewers in SoCal. I have not had any issue in talking to them at all. Who are you trying to contact and not getting a response?

 

I'd rather not mention names here. But if you are placing caches in SoCal (LA and OC areas) you know who they are.

 

I know who they are then. If you email K(you know who) then you shouldnt have a problem. I always receive replys to my emails to him.

[+buttaskotch]

Ever stop to consider that perhaps they have found thousands more but may have stopped logging online, due to the sheer number of "numbers" gamers?

I have seen many a cacher do that so they can play on their own terms without others watching their every move. ***Pls note I do not know these particular reviewers, only discussing other player motivations***

[knowschad]

I hope that you didn't really buy into any of those other stories, ashnikes. The truth of the matter is... they don't want reviewers that know how to find caches. Yeah, they have screwed up a few times, but as you noted, even those few don't have many finds.

 

Why would they want to do this?, you might ask. Well, think about it for a minute. If the reviewers were real cachers (meaning they had really found some caches), do you really think that they would publish some of the hides that they do? You and I, being somewhat experienced in the art of finding caches, can take one look at the birdseye view of a site and know instantly that it is an LPC or other sort of lame cache.

 

Your typical reviewer, on the other hand, is boggled by the hide. "Huh! Must be a good one. Nothing there but a lamp post in the middle of the parking lot! Wonder where they hid it, anyway?". Yeah you and I would know, and immediately reject publication. But reviewers just say "HUH!!" and hit the button.

 

So, there's your answer. Groundspeak needs naive reviewers to keep this site going. That's its dirty little secret. Experienced reviewers ruin it for everyone.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

The two reviewers who have published caches for me in SoCal both have 0 finds. I just suspected they use a separate account.

 

Side note: Strangely haven't ever gotten a written reponse to reviewer notes/questions, and suspect they might not speak english.

<shrug>

I am sorry you havent gotten a written response from the reviewers in SoCal. I have not had any issue in talking to them at all. Who are you trying to contact and not getting a response?

 

I'd rather not mention names here. But if you are placing caches in SoCal (LA and OC areas) you know who they are.

 

From the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines .... http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

If you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an email with complete details, waypoint name (GC*****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

it also makes sense, as some people have serious issues with their reviewers, ive seen some posts in the little time ive been reading the forums from angry cache owners, upset over their reviewers decisions...

What you read about and what reality is, are two different things.

 

Of the thousands of active cachers placing geocaches, not many have 'problems' with reviewers.

The few that may have a problem, most always make sure others hear about it.

 

Outside of that -- if that person posting the "problem" accurately relates the details of that problem (for some reason, certain details are most always omitted, only coming to light much further down in the discussions), it usually isn't a problem with the reviewer, it's usually a problem with what they are trying to do to place a cache.

 

From what I have seen it is often a case of the CO trying to "bend the guidelines", going "outside of the envelope" or just plain not understanding the do's & don'ts of cache placement.

 

Reading and understanding the guidelines goes a long ways towards making cache placements quick and easy. Not understanding runs into "problems", as you put it.

[+briansnat]

The two reviewers who have published caches for me in SoCal both have 0 finds. I just suspected they use a separate account.

 

Side note: Strangely haven't ever gotten a written reponse to reviewer notes/questions, and suspect they might not speak english.

 

<shrug>

 

I am sorry you havent gotten a written response from the reviewers in SoCal. I have not had any issue in talking to them at all. Who are you trying to contact and not getting a response?

 

I'd rather not mention names here. But if you are placing caches in SoCal (LA and OC areas) you know who they are.

 

If you are replying to emails that stem from reviewer notes, they will never see your reply. You need to either contact them directly through their profile, or if the issue is with a specific cache that is under review, you can post a note on the cache page.

[ashnikes]

I hope that you didn't really buy into any of those other stories, ashnikes. The truth of the matter is... they don't want reviewers that know how to find caches. Yeah, they have screwed up a few times, but as you noted, even those few don't have many finds.

 

Why would they want to do this?, you might ask. Well, think about it for a minute. If the reviewers were real cachers (meaning they had really found some caches), do you really think that they would publish some of the hides that they do? You and I, being somewhat experienced in the art of finding caches, can take one look at the birdseye view of a site and know instantly that it is an LPC or other sort of lame cache.

 

Your typical reviewer, on the other hand, is boggled by the hide. "Huh! Must be a good one. Nothing there but a lamp post in the middle of the parking lot! Wonder where they hid it, anyway?". Yeah you and I would know, and immediately reject publication. But reviewers just say "HUH!!" and hit the button.

 

So, there's your answer. Groundspeak needs naive reviewers to keep this site going. That's its dirty little secret. Experienced reviewers ruin it for everyone.

 

bwahahahahaha i usually dont agree (because its usually bashing me in some way) your posts, but this one, bashing me or not, was pretty darn funny.