Jump to content

Cache Site Publishing


Xantos10

Recommended Posts

I am not sure what everyone's experience is with getting their site published, but I have had the reviewer take up to a week before getting one published. They always tell me they are just volunteers and have other things to do; but what about the ones that take their time to place the caches. Do they think we get paid to do this? If the reivewers don't want to take the time to review the site and publish it in a timely manner, then quit doing it and let someone who likes the job. I had one cache that the reviewer sent me multiple emails stating why he did not have time to review my site. However, in the amount of time it took him to send all of the emails to me he could have reviewed several sites. I do realize there are some that are great reviewers; although, there are some who I don't think really enjoys doing their job. Since they are not getting paid to do this, why not just give it up?

 

Let me hear your good as well as your bad experiencies with cache reviewers.

Link to comment

When I first started this activity, we had an overworked long-distance reviewer that covered many areas of the country. It could take several days just to get a reply to an email to him. Any irregularities in a new placement could take weeks to get sorted out. Eventually, though, we got our own local reviewer, and now it isn't at all unusual to have the cache published within hours. But while we are very fortunate to have him, I don't wish to create false expectations.

Link to comment

That is kinda what I was wondering. Are reviewers normally local or do they cover vast areas? If they cover large areas, then I understand why it might take a little longer. But if they are local, then it should be quicker. I am sure there are local people who would assist in reviewing caches in most areas.

Link to comment

Your last published cache was submitted on 7/29 and published 8/1. You have 2 caches awaiting review that were submitted 7/31. It's now early morning 8/3. That is a little longer than usual but not exactly a week either. It might have been a busy weekend for cache submissions, your reviewer might have been away, he might have had to work overtime at his real job. There are lots of reasons that it could take more than the promised 72 hours.

 

By the way nano caches are micros and should be listed as such. They should not be listed a "other".

Link to comment

And where in the guidelines does it say that Nanos are to be listed as Micros. In fact, it says that Micros are the size of Film Canisters. I can fit five or more nanos in a film canister. I won't say that I overlooked that statement, but I would like you to show me where I missed it. If it is not there, then either a new size should be added or a section in the guidelines stating that Nanos are to be listed as Micors.

Link to comment
And where in the guidelines does it say that Nanos are to be listed as Micros. In fact, it says that Micros are the size of Film Canisters.

 

Actually it says (bolding is mine):

 

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

Link to comment

And where in the guidelines does it say that Nanos are to be listed as Micros. In fact, it says that Micros are the size of Film Canisters. I can fit five or more nanos in a film canister. I won't say that I overlooked that statement, but I would like you to show me where I missed it. If it is not there, then either a new size should be added or a section in the guidelines stating that Nanos are to be listed as Micors.

 

Wow, you really have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?

 

From the guidelines (which you claim to have read):

 

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

 

A nano is smaller than a 35mm film cannister. It holds less than 3 ounces or .1 liter. Therefore, by the above definition, it is a micro.

 

As frustrated as you are with your reviewer, I'm sure your reviewer is equally frustrated with you. Take a deep breath, read the guidelines, and take your reviewers advice. He's really trying to help you.

Link to comment

That is kinda what I was wondering. Are reviewers normally local or do they cover vast areas? If they cover large areas, then I understand why it might take a little longer. But if they are local, then it should be quicker. I am sure there are local people who would assist in reviewing caches in most areas.

 

Wow...You guys really got off track of this thread. If you read up a few lines, my question was concerning if reviewers were local or if they covered a huge area. I was trying to understand how many caches a reviewer might have to review. I would have expected the "Moderator" to have read the question and post a reply instead of the response that was given.

Link to comment

I am not sure what everyone's experience is with getting their site published, but I have had the reviewer take up to a week before getting one published. They always tell me they are just volunteers and have other things to do; but what about the ones that take their time to place the caches. Do they think we get paid to do this? If the reivewers don't want to take the time to review the site and publish it in a timely manner, then quit doing it and let someone who likes the job. I had one cache that the reviewer sent me multiple emails stating why he did not have time to review my site. However, in the amount of time it took him to send all of the emails to me he could have reviewed several sites. I do realize there are some that are great reviewers; although, there are some who I don't think really enjoys doing their job. Since they are not getting paid to do this, why not just give it up?

 

Let me hear your good as well as your bad experiencies with cache reviewers.

 

All three of the reviewers that have reviewed your caches in the past are local although one is no longer a reviewer but very much involved in geocaching. I've had number of my caches reviewed by two of those reviewers. I found them to be prompt and easy to work with. I have found I get quick and concise replies to my emails, I have never had them say they did not have time to review my submission. My cahes are generally reviewed quickly and published. I would like to think that the quick and pleasant interactions I have had is due to the fact I do read, understand and follow the guidelines. I know a couple personally and they are very dedicated individuals that really enjoy geocaching. Given the tone of your post I suspect you have not been responsive to the changes the reviewers want to make your caches compliant with the guidelines or there is some other factors you are not discussing that is relevant to your particular case.

 

By the way I am quite happy you insist on putting your nanos down as other. I have found nanos but generally don't look for them, especially if I am traveling. One of the factors I use to weed them out is when the container is listed as other. I appreciate CO's listing nanos as other.

Link to comment

That is kinda what I was wondering. Are reviewers normally local or do they cover vast areas? If they cover large areas, then I understand why it might take a little longer. But if they are local, then it should be quicker. I am sure there are local people who would assist in reviewing caches in most areas.

 

Wow...You guys really got off track of this thread. If you read up a few lines, my question was concerning if reviewers were local or if they covered a huge area. I was trying to understand how many caches a reviewer might have to review. I would have expected the "Moderator" to have read the question and post a reply instead of the response that was given.

 

Xantos,

 

In my initial reply to you, I paid special attention to your closing statement, "Let me hear your good as well as your bad experiencies with cache reviewers.", and taylored my response to that statement, even though I sensed that you had a different agenda when you made your post. I think the others are also sensing that agenda, but are responding to that instead. I think its pretty clear that you really wanted more than to know if reviewers were local, or covered larger regions.

 

Interrupting the Reviewer's Forum thread with your off-topic post didn't help matters, by the way.

Link to comment

That is kinda what I was wondering. Are reviewers normally local or do they cover vast areas? If they cover large areas, then I understand why it might take a little longer. But if they are local, then it should be quicker. I am sure there are local people who would assist in reviewing caches in most areas.

 

Wow...You guys really got off track of this thread. If you read up a few lines, my question was concerning if reviewers were local or if they covered a huge area. I was trying to understand how many caches a reviewer might have to review. I would have expected the "Moderator" to have read the question and post a reply instead of the response that was given.

 

I responded to your question and thought I'd add a little helpful hint. Sorry if it took your thread off track,

 

Anyway to answer your question, it depends. Most reviewers will be local. Some reviewers may cover multiple states (or even countries) if there aren't a lot of cache submissions from those places.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Thanks for all of your responses. As I said, I am new at placing caches and learning as I go. I have placed nine caches and had good experiences with some of them and what I would call a "not so good" experience with a couple of them. Understand me or not; Agree with me or not; we will all continue to play the game.

Link to comment

That is kinda what I was wondering. Are reviewers normally local or do they cover vast areas? If they cover large areas, then I understand why it might take a little longer. But if they are local, then it should be quicker. I am sure there are local people who would assist in reviewing caches in most areas.

 

Wow...You guys really got off track of this thread. If you read up a few lines, my question was concerning if reviewers were local or if they covered a huge area. I was trying to understand how many caches a reviewer might have to review. I would have expected the "Moderator" to have read the question and post a reply instead of the response that was given.

 

Groundspeak would prefer reviewers to be local but that isn't always possible. Obviously I can't comment on your reviewer as I'm not sure how big an area they cover. Maybe you should email them and ask. Sometimes reviewers have to cover vast areas and have their own lives to run. As you are already aware they are just volunteers.

 

Please also be aware that there are many people placing caches all clambering for their reviewer's attention. Be patient with them and try to make it as easy as pssible for them to publish your submissions as each one must be checked a variety of different ways against various resources to make sure it complies with the guidelines. You can make it easier for your reviewer to get through your submission by providing as much info about placement, permission etc as a reviewer note.

Link to comment

My local cache reviewers are the very salt of the earth. Only an occasional nudge or suggestion, when I forget to add Attributes or screw up my final for a puzzle. Whenever I have asked if a location is free I've heard back in a day or two.

 

Usually if I get my cache page together in good order my cache is published within 24 hours (and then found within a few hours of publishing.)

Link to comment

Wow, the sense of entitlement is strong in Xantos10. I'm sure his reviewers just love to see another cache of his in the queue :ph34r:

 

If I were a reviewer and Xantos10 was in my area, I'd probably ignore his caches because I don't get paid enough to deal with people like that.

 

Well its a good thing that you aren't a reviewer then. You obviously don't have the patience necessary for the job.

Link to comment

Thanks for all of your responses. As I said, I am new at placing caches and learning as I go. I have placed nine caches and had good experiences with some of them and what I would call a "not so good" experience with a couple of them. Understand me or not; Agree with me or not; we will all continue to play the game.

 

If you are new and learning as you go, why the angst at someone suggesting you list your cache size properly? There are some who do not want to look for micros or nanos. To list them as others so a fellow cacher cannot avoid them is just rude.

Do you have some other reason to list them as you do? I really doubt it.

 

(By the way, I do look for micros and nanos. I just think it is rude to try and trick someone who doesn't look for them into looking.)

Link to comment

Thanks for all of your responses. As I said, I am new at placing caches and learning as I go. I have placed nine caches and had good experiences with some of them and what I would call a "not so good" experience with a couple of them. Understand me or not; Agree with me or not; we will all continue to play the game.

 

If you are new and learning as you go, why the angst at someone suggesting you list your cache size properly? There are some who do not want to look for micros or nanos. To list them as others so a fellow cacher cannot avoid them is just rude.

Do you have some other reason to list them as you do? I really doubt it.

 

(By the way, I do look for micros and nanos. I just think it is rude to try and trick someone who doesn't look for them into looking.)

 

The name of the cache is Nano Mania. Now...do you think I am really trying to trick someone??? DUH....

Link to comment

Thanks for all of your responses. As I said, I am new at placing caches and learning as I go. I have placed nine caches and had good experiences with some of them and what I would call a "not so good" experience with a couple of them. Understand me or not; Agree with me or not; we will all continue to play the game.

 

If you are new and learning as you go, why the angst at someone suggesting you list your cache size properly? There are some who do not want to look for micros or nanos. To list them as others so a fellow cacher cannot avoid them is just rude.

Do you have some other reason to list them as you do? I really doubt it.

 

(By the way, I do look for micros and nanos. I just think it is rude to try and trick someone who doesn't look for them into looking.)

 

The name of the cache is Nano Mania. Now...do you think I am really trying to trick someone??? DUH....

 

Seriously... there's no reason to be rude. Folks have given you suggestions about how to list the size of your cache not to attack you, but to try to be helpful. I would take it to heart if I were you. I also would suggest that you list the cache as micro, regardless of the title; because it fits the guidelines better. Not because I think you are trying to trick anyone.

Link to comment

You have not volunteered to hide caches. You have chosen to be a geocacher who would like their caches listed at geocaching.com. There is a large difference. I do not think the word volunteer means what you think it means.

 

Looking at your hides, it seems that the first four nanos were published the day they were submitted, unless you edited the placed on date.

Number five was published two days after being submitted.

 

When you submitted these, you should have received a confirmation email that said "Listings are published by volunteers and you can usually expect this to be reviewed within 3 days."

 

Unless there are some hidden back stories that you are not being completely open about, it seems to me that you are getting perfectly decent service.

Link to comment

The name of the cache is Nano Mania. Now...do you think I am really trying to trick someone??? DUH....

I also would suggest that you list the cache as micro, regardless of the title; because it fits the guidelines better. Not because I think you are trying to trick anyone.

Not to mention that it will help people easily filter based on an attribute (the listed size) of the cache listing.

Edited by dakboy
Link to comment

Thanks for all of your responses. As I said, I am new at placing caches and learning as I go. I have placed nine caches and had good experiences with some of them and what I would call a "not so good" experience with a couple of them. Understand me or not; Agree with me or not; we will all continue to play the game.

 

If you are new and learning as you go, why the angst at someone suggesting you list your cache size properly? There are some who do not want to look for micros or nanos. To list them as others so a fellow cacher cannot avoid them is just rude.

Do you have some other reason to list them as you do? I really doubt it.

 

(By the way, I do look for micros and nanos. I just think it is rude to try and trick someone who doesn't look for them into looking.)

 

The name of the cache is Nano Mania. Now...do you think I am really trying to trick someone??? DUH....

 

I saw that before I posted, which leads me to wonder if the reason for listing as others is to prevent people from filtering out your cache.

Now you may not be trying to trick anyone, but if you list it as other, when it clearly is a nano, then what other reason is there?

 

I may be very wrong, but it seems to me the only reason in this case is to make it harder to filter out the micros and nanos. I know there are legitimate reasons to list a cache as other, and if your listing is for another reason then I apologize.

Link to comment

Thanks for all of your responses. As I said, I am new at placing caches and learning as I go. I have placed nine caches and had good experiences with some of them and what I would call a "not so good" experience with a couple of them. Understand me or not; Agree with me or not; we will all continue to play the game.

 

If you are new and learning as you go, why the angst at someone suggesting you list your cache size properly? There are some who do not want to look for micros or nanos. To list them as others so a fellow cacher cannot avoid them is just rude.

Do you have some other reason to list them as you do? I really doubt it.

 

(By the way, I do look for micros and nanos. I just think it is rude to try and trick someone who doesn't look for them into looking.)

 

The name of the cache is Nano Mania. Now...do you think I am really trying to trick someone??? DUH....

 

I saw that before I posted, which leads me to wonder if the reason for listing as others is to prevent people from filtering out your cache.

Now you may not be trying to trick anyone, but if you list it as other, when it clearly is a nano, then what other reason is there?

 

I may be very wrong, but it seems to me the only reason in this case is to make it harder to filter out the micros and nanos. I know there are legitimate reasons to list a cache as other, and if your listing is for another reason then I apologize.

 

Dude....this is the last response I plan on making to this thread. Understand that those were the first Nano containers that I have ever posted. Call it what you want, but I did not know how to list a Nano so I listed it as "other". I have five caches listed like this and none of the reviewers ever said anything about listing it as "Micro". Therefore I thought what I was doing was correct. All through your replies you try to imply that I had some other motive when I listed the Nano as "other", when in fact, that is the way I thought they were supposed to be listed. Get over it dude...it's only a game!!!!

Link to comment

Per Keystone's request, I have moved my response to the other thread.

 

I get tired of hearing the the Reviewers "volunteer" their time and we should respect that. The last time I looked, the people who placed caches and hunted caches "volunteered" their time also. It take all three for this game to exist. If a reviewer does not like what he has to do, then quit. If I did not like looking for caches then I would quit. It's not like the revenue for the reviewer is going to go down if he quits. He is a volunteer. So either do what you have volunteered for or let someone else do it. I am sure there are lots of people who would enjoy reviewing caches and would not complain they did not have time because they were volunteers!!!

 

This is really uncalled for. People who place and find caches are doing it for FUN, so of course it's voluntary. It's not the same as doing a job for free, which is what the volunteer reviewers are doing. It's probably hard work...

 

For several grueling years I was an auditor for a casino. I had to write my coworkers up when they did something wrong because the state required it. It was sometimes a painful process. Because of the reports I was forced to write, people that I liked, with children and families to feed, got fired. I had to correct everyone's paperwork and make sure that everyone did everything just so before we sent all our paperwork to the state. At that point, if something was wrong on any of that paperwork, even if it was someone else's work; the auditing department got the blame because we didn't catch it. I got PAID to do that and it was extremely stressful, and difficult. Note that I do not have this job anymore by choice.

 

I often think of the reviewers like auditors. They are essentially auditing your cache page to comply with the guidelines of Groundspeak, and have to deal with the same sort of customer service as I had to when I was an auditor. Granted, it's not as complicated as complying with the state, and people won't go to jail if they miscategorize their cache size or anything like that; but the same sorts of emotions come into play, and similar confrontational experiences.

 

The worst part about this, is that your reviewers are not late in reviewing your caches. The expected time delay is within 72 hours; sometimes it takes a little longer. This just really has rubbed me the wrong way; especially since I am someone who does a lot of volunteer work.

 

I make free websites for some non-profits throughout the year, which means hundreds of dollars of work put out for free. It's darn difficult to work a full-time job and also volunteer so much of my time. And I may be unhappy about it some of the time, but I still choose to volunteer because I find it rewarding. I'm sure this is true of your local reviewer. They may not always be able to jump straight to their computer and publish your cache in seconds; life may get in the way, but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be doing what they're doing.

 

Patience is a virtue, or so my mother always said.

Link to comment

Dude....this is the last response I plan on making to this thread. Understand that those were the first Nano containers that I have ever posted. Call it what you want, but I did not know how to list a Nano so I listed it as "other". I have five caches listed like this and none of the reviewers ever said anything about listing it as "Micro". Therefore I thought what I was doing was correct. All through your replies you try to imply that I had some other motive when I listed the Nano as "other", when in fact, that is the way I thought they were supposed to be listed. Get over it dude...it's only a game!!!!

Actually, the way you listed them was *not* wrong. The "Other" size is actually, "Other (See Description)", and the cache names certainly do provide a description. And there are a great many other hiders that have done what you have done, and we're not going to change them all by trying to get you to change yours.

 

However, you do see now that some people have a problem with listing nanos like that, and you should now understand why (I personally have no issue with micros of any size). If you feel their arguments are justified, cache size is one of the things that you can easily edit after publication.

Link to comment
Let me hear your good as well as your bad experiences with cache reviewers.

I've yet to have even a slightly bad experience with any reviewer. Even when I have been in the wrong, (which has happened a lot), the information I receive from the reviewers has always been courteous, professional and helpful. Perhaps that's because I didn't walk into this game with a chip on my shoulder? Nah. Probably not. I've seen folks with, (believe it or not), an even greater sense of entitlement that the one you are displaying, get treated in a fair and reasonable manner.

 

And where in the guidelines does it say that Nanos are to be listed as Micros. In fact, it says that Micros are the size of Film Canisters.

Actually, what it says regarding micros, is;

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller

Before you check the little box that says:

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

you should probably at least skim them over.

If you had, you would've known that Brian was right.

Nanos are micros.

 

...I did not know how to list a Nano so I listed it as "other".

That's Kewl. Thankfully, we have guidelines that help us with issues such as these.

That is, unless you want to argue that your nano is larger than a film can?

If it's smaller, (which I suspect), then the guidelines call it a micro.

Link to comment

Staying OT....

 

Given that the OP didn't understand that a nano should be classified as a micro it does suggest that a little tweak to the wording might assist more people to choose micro instead of other/unknown when listing a nano. I think lots of people might be experiencing the same confusion. Many times on the forum I've read that people apparently try and trick others into searching for their nano by not listing the size. I just dont believe that's true.

Link to comment

Staying OT....

 

Given that the OP didn't understand that a nano should be classified as a micro it does suggest that a little tweak to the wording might assist more people to choose micro instead of other/unknown when listing a nano. I think lots of people might be experiencing the same confusion. Many times on the forum I've read that people apparently try and trick others into searching for their nano by not listing the size. I just dont believe that's true.

 

It is OT, but I agree with you. There have been other threads on this topic, this is one.

I've found many nanos listed as other, and in almost all cases it says nano in the description. And some from from hiders who have several hundred hides over many years. I know a nano is smaller than a 35mm pot, so by definition it is a micro. But I see lots of caches who pick other as they see a nano as something different than a micro - so they pick other as "none of the above". Not because they are trying to fool anyone.

Link to comment
I just dont believe that's true.

Agreed. It's been my belief that the vast majority of folks who select something other than micro when picking the size listing for their cache do so for entirely innocent reasons. These reasons can include ignorance, as there are some few who can't quite grasp what the term "or smaller" means. It could also be a hint of peer pressure, a result of seeing how others have listed them over the years. It could even be as you suggest, as folks conclude that, since a search for a blinkie is significantly different than a search for a film can, the term "micro" just doesn't do justice to what the cache owner wants to present.

 

I simply can't believe that a majority of folks who select "other" do so maliciously, to trick folks who tweak their PQs.

Those of us who choose not to have micros included in our PQs can exclude other, and size not chosen, just as easily as micro.

Link to comment

You seem to have, as someone else mentioned, a major chip on your shoulder here.

 

I'd suggest you take a vacation, get out of town, go sit by a river somewhere and relax. Take in the scenery. Enjoy life. Look for other people's caches for a while.

 

If you are new to placing them, and as you say, you are learning as you go, one thing you need to learn is some respect for the volunteer reviewers and patience in getting your cache published.

 

This is summer. The reviewers in our area are probably out getting a little of this short summer that we're having here in WA. If they are out having fun on the weekends, they may not get to your cache until they get back.

 

I live just a few miles north of you.

 

My friend had a cache here (in the winter) published in 2 hours. It does happen, but as the guidelines mention, that can't be counted on as the standard.

 

Relax.

 

This game is supposed to be fun.

 

If hiding caches is causing you angst, then find caches for a while, or go take a swim in a lake.

 

Have fun. This is a short summer. Too short to be at home on your computer complaining about it.

 

Go get out of the house get some sun and relax a bit. It will all look better when you get home.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...