What do reviewers do?

[+WestSideDaddy]

I mean other than graciously donate their valuable time to keep the rest of us happy, as a reviewer do they search out and find every cache posted to them for review, or is it mostly done with general local knowledge?

 

I'm not complaining (our local reviewer is awesome and must never sleep) but I'm just curious as I just posted my first geocache.

[+t4e]

Before a cache is published on the website, a volunteer will review the page for inaccuracies, bad coordinates, and compliance with these guidelines. The physical cache site is not verified.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

maybe one of them can answer your question in more detail

[+brslk]

They drink a lot of beer and make ashnikes life miserable.

 

*** they also do other good things.

[AZcachemeister]

The answer to your question depends largely on which reviewer is being discussed. (Some are better than others. Since they are human, this is not unexpected.)

At a minimum they will check your placement for proximity to other cache elements before going out to find caches under their 'regular' caching account.

 

It is very unlikely that a reviewer could *EVER* find all the caches they approved.

If they did, they would certainly have the most FTFs in their area!

[ashnikes]

They drink a lot of beer and make ashnikes life miserable.

 

*** they also do other good things.

 

+1

[+ventura_kids]

What a great question....and one I've asked many times.

(then I get a time out and realize ONE thing they do)

[+WestSideDaddy]

Before a cache is published on the website, a volunteer will review the page for inaccuracies, bad coordinates, and compliance with these guidelines. The physical cache site is not verified.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

maybe one of them can answer your question in more detail

 

Ohh... that felt a little like an RTFM... Honest, I did read the guidelines. I can't even claim I started skimming at that point It's the first bloody sentence. Can I retract for stupidity, or do some kind of penance? Maybe sharpen all the cache pencils for a month

[ashnikes]

reviewers make sure your caches you are trying to hide fit local, state, federal, international, and Groundspeak guidelines.

 

they tend to either actively hunt caches, sometimes under a separate account, for all sorts of reasons to include privacy, and gaining reviewer status much later than when they started, and generally have been caching for a very long time, and have seen just about every kind of cache there could ever be,

 

they patiently deal with cache hiders who throw tantrums much like myself, when we dont get our cache hides approved by them for all sorts of reasons, like not enough proof of permission to hide our caches someplace,

or the proximity rule which prevents geocachers from littering the planet with caches, on right after the next.

 

they have to study up on all those laws mentioned above, they have huge roledexes, or in some cases the internet, and will occasionally call the people you tell them gave you permission to hide your cache,

 

they essentially protect the game of geocaching by publishing or not publishing, (as well as archiving dead) caches from people who would either unintentionally or intentionally ruin it for the rest of us. and they do it within 3 days generally of you submitting your cache, reguardless of their often busy lives outside of geocaching.

 

did i miss anything?

Edited July 13, 2010 by ashnikes

[+RoyalRed]

Drink, throw darts to determine which cache is approved and bank the MILLIONS of dollars they receive for their services.

[+t4e]

Before a cache is published on the website, a volunteer will review the page for inaccuracies, bad coordinates, and compliance with these guidelines. The physical cache site is not verified.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

maybe one of them can answer your question in more detail

 

Ohh... that felt a little like an RTFM... Honest, I did read the guidelines. I can't even claim I started skimming at that point It's the first bloody sentence. Can I retract for stupidity, or do some kind of penance? Maybe sharpen all the cache pencils for a month

 

don't feel offended, the assumption is that 99% of the people do not RTFM...you are one of that select 1%

 

at least my reply had more useful stuff in it than some of the others

Edited July 13, 2010 by t4e

[+ventura_kids]

We have guidelines?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The cacher - Reviewer relationship

Edited July 13, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+t4e]

having just come across this members hide history (you need to read the logs on all to understand what i'm talking about) i think the reviewers should look at people's profile and their history with placing caches before publishing a new one from them

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...p;u=Tony-Wilson

Edited July 13, 2010 by t4e

[+The Blorenges]

having just come across this members hide history (you need to read the logs on all to understand what i'm talking about) i think the reviewers should look at people's profile and their history with placing caches before publishing a new one from them

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...p;u=Tony-Wilson

 

I read through the caches and logs while having breakfast.

 

Sigh.

 

One of the qualities required to be a reviewer is extreme patience.

 

MrsB

[+Mark+Karen]

Presumably if a reviewer publishes a cache in his local area he will then wait for a FTF to happen before going out to bag the cache themselves?

[Clan Riffster]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...p;u=Tony-Wilson

[+BulldogBlitz]

having just come across this members hide history (you need to read the logs on all to understand what i'm talking about) i think the reviewers should look at people's profile and their history with placing caches before publishing a new one from them

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...p;u=Tony-Wilson

 

you know what that tells me....

 

gotta be fast to his hides.

[+StarBrand]

I'm not sure who wrote this but it does sum up fairly well what a reviewer does in an average session:

 

Typically, when a reviewer logs on to GC.com to begin their work they will look at and work on caches that are in their que (new caches that have been submitted). They will work through this list - publishing some and sending emails to the others to address problems.

 

After that, then they will move on to caches that:

 

Have been previously submitted (new) and have had problems that are in the process of being worked out.

 

Have been requested by the owners to have the coords changed (over 528 ft).

 

Have been reported as "Needs Archive".

 

Have been reported by other cachers as having a problem.

 

Have been archived for various reasons and the owner is attempting to re-enable.

 

Or perhaps a cacher is submitting coordinates for the reviewer to check proximity to existing caches.

[+wimseyguy]

I mean other than graciously donate their valuable time to keep the rest of us happy, as a reviewer do they search out and find every cache posted to them for review, or is it mostly done with general local knowledge?

 

I'm not complaining (our local reviewer is awesome and must never sleep) but I'm just curious as I just posted my first geocache.

 

I heard that your reviewer is a doorknob.

 

What a great question....and one I've asked many times.

(then I get a time out and realize ONE thing they do)

You are mistaken, the moderators may have given you a time out from the forums, but the reviewers have not. Some reviewers are moderators, but wear a different hat for that task.

 

Some reviewers are dogs and just sit around eating milk bones and chasing the mailman.

[ashnikes]

although i complain about it a lot to people in the forums, i kindof like having a tough reviewer. BoJab is my local reviewer, and sometimes i interpret his reviewers notes as him giving me a hard time, hes really not, he is just making sure i am sticking to the guidelines, mentally and physically so my caches comply.

 

hes asked me all sorts of questions about why i was placing caches where i am, and what i think it will do to the sport, i appriciate the extra efforts he makes, more so now than when i am trying to publish my cache hides, but none the less,

 

in the begining though i hated his guts. cause he wouldnt publish my first hide

(course it was due to it being only like 54ft away from an already existing cache. but still, it was awesome!)

 

now, i try to ask him for advice, both before and during hides, and trying to get them published. he knows a boatload of stuff about this sport, and is always very professional, and prompt at reviewing, publishing, and archiving caches.

 

maybe ill meet him some day, and he will slap me around a bit, and ill call him names, and we will be good friends after that.

[jholly]

having just come across this members hide history (you need to read the logs on all to understand what i'm talking about) i think the reviewers should look at people's profile and their history with placing caches before publishing a new one from them

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...p;u=Tony-Wilson

 

Interesting reading. I feel for the reviewer, but if a cache submission meets the guideline requirements then they have to publish the cache regardless of past history. However I did notice the reviewers patience is getting a bit short with this hider.

[+t4e]

having just come across this members hide history (you need to read the logs on all to understand what i'm talking about) i think the reviewers should look at people's profile and their history with placing caches before publishing a new one from them

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...p;u=Tony-Wilson

 

you know what that tells me....

 

gotta be fast to his hides.

 

i'm not even sure that would work lol

 

the recurring issue is the bad coordinates, i mean extremely bad, hence the repeated messages from the reviewer that a proper GPS must be used to obtain coordinates

[+J the Goat]

having just come across this members hide history (you need to read the logs on all to understand what i'm talking about) i think the reviewers should look at people's profile and their history with placing caches before publishing a new one from them

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...p;u=Tony-Wilson

 

I think this is on topic, so I'll go for it here. With a "cacher" like this who very clearly makes no effort to, not only place their caches the right way but also doesn't follow the instructions repeated over and over by the reviewer, who also seems to just repeatedly drop junk that nobody can find, can the reviewer refuse to publish future caches based on prior history?

 

I know there's no WOW factor rule, but in reading these logs and lack of appropriate responses from the CO I don't think that's the issue at all.

 

I like the reviewer suggesting that the CO is using online maps to place the caches, and addressing the "history" of this users caches.

[+dfx]

I know there's no WOW factor rule, but in reading these logs and lack of appropriate responses from the CO I don't think that's the issue at all.

hmmm, maybe there should be a 'yuck' factor rule...

[+roziecakes]

It looks like that cache owner is a little kid... I wonder why his parents don't help him?

[+Lil Devil]

They're too busy smoking dope.

[jholly]

It looks like that cache owner is a little kid... I wonder why his parents don't help him?

Because they don't know what he is doing or where he is going on the internet?

[+wimseyguy]

As long as he stays out of the forums he's better off at geocaching.com than most other sites.

[+DragonsWest]

Reviewers show up at GWVIII and look at my name tag, do a face-palm, shake their head in sorrow and hand me a peace sign to wear around my neck. They then utter a few despairing remarks about my caches and all caches and wish for me to go forth and sin no more.

 

At least, if they happen to be Krypton.

[+Touchstone]

They're too busy smoking dope.

 

It's called "medicinal marijuana" these days, and I suspect it's prescribed to retain some shred of sanity