+texasgrillchef Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I could be wrong on all of this... You won't hurt my feelings if you correct me. To all of the current reviewers if you read this. Thank you for all the hard work that you do put into geocaching as a reviewer. I can only imagine it's not always an easy task. As I understand it reviewers are volunteer. They aren't paid. I think they maybe get premium level membership but for the most part are unpaid. I also understand it that reviewers have an area that they are so called responsible for, or area that they cover. Looking through all of geocaching.com's website and information I didn't find much if anything on what geocaching.com wants of it's reviewers or what qualifications you need to have to become a reviewer. So I do contact geocaching.com for further information. All I got back IMHO was a very vague email. It listed some things, as need for reviewers in an area, how many caches I have found, placed etc... I may not qualify to be reviewer and if don't I am actually fine with that, I thought I was, but obviously I wasn't. No big deal, really. The thing was they didn't really say why I didn't qualify, or if it was because they didn't have a need in the area that I am in for reviewers. It would have been nice if they simply said I didn't qualify, or if they didn't have a need for more reviewers in our area. But so is life, I can deal. However... now on to the real issue at hand. One of the main reasons why I sought out information on what it takes to become a reviewer. The need in the Dallas - Fort Worth (North Texas) area for MORE reviewers. In this area there are about 200+ caches that NEED reviewer intervention/attention. Because volunteer reviewers have a life (as well as they should) outside of geocaching, many of these caches haven't received the attention they so desperately need! Why do these caches need reviewer intervention/attention? I will list these here. 1. Caches that they have given the typical reviewer "30 day notice" or be archived... but that noticed was posted 60 days or more ago. All have been disabled though. 2. Caches that the CO hasn't logged onto geocaching.com in 90 days or more, AND the cache has obvious issues that require CO intervention of some sort. Maybe because cache is MIA, or broken, or log missing etc. 98% of these caches will have multiple DNF's, as well "Need Maint" logs &/or even "Needs Archived" logs. Some of these caches are disabled, some haven't even been disabled yet. 3. Same as #2... yet the CO DOES log in regularly, is still finding caches and logging them, & even placing NEW caches, yet is ignoring caches they he/she has allready placed that are in need of desperate intervention/attention. I would say roughly 75% of these HAVEN'T even been disabled. But again those caches that have been disabled have been for more than 90 days WITHOUT even a note from the CO. Those that haven't been disabled, have had issues for 90 days or more as well. AS a whole I am refering to those caches that have obvious and major issues for at least the last 90 days, if not longer. Some of these are obviously IMHO abandoned. There is one cache that the CO hasn't logged into geocaching.com in over a year! The cache hasn't been disabeld & their are numerous DNF's, with the last time it was found was about 9 months ago. I will admit that I have a cache that has been disabled for more than 90 days. But I have posted monthly notes as to it's status. To let people & reviewers know that I haven't abandoned or forgot about this cache. The reason the cache has been disabled is because of contruction going on at & near the location. So again to the reviewers... On average how many reviewers are in an area? Do any of you know how many of you review the Dallas - Fort Worth area? Whats the best way to convey to geocaching.com that they may need more reviewers in our area? Or is this something I should shoot off an email to geocaching.com to request more reviewers for our area, or even to give them a list of the 200+ caches that need reviewer attention? How often do the reivewers randomly review disabled caches to even see if reviewer attention is required? What about caches that haven't been disabled? Does the "need Maint" logs, &/or the "needs Archived" logs send a flag, or flag the cache somehow alerting a reviewer that reviewer attention maybe needed? Honestly though... while some goecachers have a pet peeve about virtuals, or micros, or nano's, etc... my biggest pet peeve is caches that go way to long without any type of owner intervention/attention & haven't even been disabled yet! Followed by those that are disabled for way to long, WITHOUT any decent valid reasoning. How long is way to long for me? 90 days. IMHO one of the following should take place. Archive the cache, fix the cache, or leave a "note log" explaining any circumstances that are causing this cache to be disabled for longer than 90 days. Seriously... A simple "note log" should be the least that is required! How do the rest of you feel about caches that are abondoned, disabled for way to long or even caches disabled or not that obviously have needed some type of owner intervention/attention in the last 90 days or longer? TGC Link to comment
+Ike 13 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 1. Caches that they have given the typical reviewer "30 day notice" or be archived... but that noticed was posted 60 days or more ago. All have been disabled though. I'm sure they'll get around to those. At least they are disabled letting finders know to avoid them. You can post an additional Needs Archived log to remind the reviewer. 2. Caches that the CO hasn't logged onto geocaching.com in 90 days or more, AND the cache has obvious issues that require CO intervention of some sort. Maybe because cache is MIA, or broken, or log missing etc. 98% of these caches will have multiple DNF's, as well "Need Maint" logs &/or even "Needs Archived" logs. Some of these caches are disabled, some haven't even been disabled yet. If no NA log has been posted then the reviewer probably will not intervene. It is not their duty to sift through every cache (available and disabled) to find issues. Their duty is to publish new caches and take care of issues once they are pointed out. If the CO is inactive and there is an issue then you should post a NA log to alert the reviewer (and the CO). 3. Same as #2... yet the CO DOES log in regularly, is still finding caches and logging them, & even placing NEW caches, yet is ignoring caches they he/she has allready placed that are in need of desperate intervention/attention. I would say roughly 75% of these HAVEN'T even been disabled. But again those caches that have been disabled have been for more than 90 days WITHOUT even a note from the CO. Those that haven't been disabled, have had issues for 90 days or more as well. Some caches take more than 90 days to sort out. Yes a CO should be posting progress notes, but it is not required. Again if you feel that the cache is dead post a NA log. As you see reviewers almost always give the CO a month to sort out any issues How often do the reivewers randomly review disabled caches to even see if reviewer attention is required? What about caches that haven't been disabled? I don't know that they do. Those who do probably do so own their own. Does the "need Maint" logs, &/or the "needs Archived" logs send a flag, or flag the cache somehow alerting a reviewer that reviewer attention maybe needed? NM does not alert the reviewer just the CO. NA sends a note to the CO and the reviewer. Link to comment
+GeoGeeBee Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 One prime requirement for being a reviewer is that you have to be sane. Anyone who WANTS to be a reviewer is obviously insane. Therefore, by asking to be a reviewer, you have proven yourself unqualified. (NOTE: I am not a representative of Groundspeak and the above is pure speculation.) Now, as for all of those caches in your area that need to be archived: Grow a pair and post the NA log. In my experience, after an NA log is posted one of two things will happen: the reviewer will archive the cache, or the CO will get off his backside and go fix it. Either way is a win. My guess (and again, it's only a guess) is that the reviewers have enough to do without searching for caches that need to be archived. But they act promptly when a cacher cares enough to bring one to their attention. Link to comment
+Ike 13 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 BTW Some people don't like the cacher who posts NA logs but it is a necessary part of the game. I've found a majority of the caches in the area so I don't notice a lot of the caches that need help. Thankfully one of the newer cachers in the area has been really good about posting NA logs. Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 For those long-disabled caches, most of them are not blocking you from placing a new cache. Put your out there and submit the cache. Leave a note to the reviewer letting them know about the disabled cache nearby. It'll get taken care of and your cache will most likely be published (assuming you've followed the other guidelines). Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Looking through all of geocaching.com's website and information I didn't find much if anything on what geocaching.com wants of it's reviewers or what qualifications you need to have to become a reviewer. So I do contact geocaching.com for further information. All I got back IMHO was a very vague email. It listed some things, as need for reviewers in an area, how many caches I have found, placed etc... I may not qualify to be reviewer and if don't I am actually fine with that, I thought I was, but obviously I wasn't. No big deal, really. One thing that pretty much shoots some people down is comments like you have made in the past. The Reviewer isn't just anit-military, he is ANTI AMERICAN and a BIGOT! Link to comment
+narcissa Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 Wasn't the reviewer in Texas threatening to stop doing other important work for Groundspeak if they assigned a second reviewer to Texas? That's the prevailing rumour... Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I didn't read all of your post, way too long sorry. But the main thing I know about reviewers is that they are asked to be reviewers by Groundspeak after they been caching for a long time, shown that they are active cachers and that they show some level of insanity. With that said, I'm a big fan of HighCountryAdmin (even if that one time I emailed him instead of just posting an NM/NA log) and would not wish any ill on him- even if I think he's a bit insane for covering a large portion of the Four Corners. Link to comment
+hzoi Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 The sense I get is that it's like politics: those who seek to be a reviewer, shouldn't be one. We definitely could use more. If I was asked, I'd probably help out, but it would be a heck of a commitment. Link to comment
+Castle Mischief Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 I think if there's a real need for more reviewers, the first people that will ask for them will be the current reviewers. Link to comment
doshman Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 In my area, I will post an NA. That's the only way to get the reviewer to notice it (they get notification). My local reviewer is very good about disabling a cache and giving 30 days. Sometimes, it's longer than 30 days before it gets archived. If it is close to where I want to place a cache, I will post another NA or email the reviewer. Link to comment
+hzoi Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 One thing that pretty much shoots some people down is comments like you have made in the past. The Reviewer isn't just anit-military, he is ANTI AMERICAN and a BIGOT! Wow. That made for some entertaining reading. Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 (edited) One prime requirement for being a reviewer is that you have to be sane. Anyone who WANTS to be a reviewer is obviously insane. Therefore, by asking to be a reviewer, you have proven yourself unqualified. (NOTE: I am not a representative of Groundspeak and the above is pure speculation.) Now, as for all of those caches in your area that need to be archived: Grow a pair and post the NA log. In my experience, after an NA log is posted one of two things will happen: the reviewer will archive the cache, or the CO will get off his backside and go fix it. Either way is a win. My guess (and again, it's only a guess) is that the reviewers have enough to do without searching for caches that need to be archived. But they act promptly when a cacher cares enough to bring one to their attention. LOL your probably right about being a reviewer. If you want to be your insane and they don't want insane reviewers. Although I am sure some are! (j/k) Did you read points #1 & #2? an NA log has allready been issued. Should I reissue another NA log? I don't have a problem with that if thats what you and others suggest. TGC Edited January 14, 2011 by texasgrillchef Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 For those long-disabled caches, most of them are not blocking you from placing a new cache. Put your out there and submit the cache. Leave a note to the reviewer letting them know about the disabled cache nearby. It'll get taken care of and your cache will most likely be published (assuming you've followed the other guidelines). A very good suggestion that I hope other geocachers who want to place a cache in the area do. I must admit I have done that myself on a few caches that I have placed & that is exactly what happened. I think because it puts that disabled cache, or even not disabled but abandoned cache in priority to be dealt with. ie... the reviewer either has to get the CO to fix his cache, or it will be archived allowing the new cache placement. TGC Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 Looking through all of geocaching.com's website and information I didn't find much if anything on what geocaching.com wants of it's reviewers or what qualifications you need to have to become a reviewer. So I do contact geocaching.com for further information. All I got back IMHO was a very vague email. It listed some things, as need for reviewers in an area, how many caches I have found, placed etc... I may not qualify to be reviewer and if don't I am actually fine with that, I thought I was, but obviously I wasn't. No big deal, really. One thing that pretty much shoots some people down is comments like you have made in the past. The Reviewer isn't just anit-military, he is ANTI AMERICAN and a BIGOT! I think I have dealt with those issues. & that comment was ages ago, If you will also note my attitude has also changed a great deal since then as well. My complaint wasn't that I wasn't accepted as a reviewer because like I said isn't a big deal to me, & I just wanted to help. Just the way it was handled, or responded too imho wasn't very professional. This thread wasn't suppose to be about why I wasn't accepted as a reviewer. This thread was suppose to be about getting more reviewers for our area &/or how to get the 200+ caches either fixed &/or archived. Most of my questions were about HOW reviewers handle things, and what is the best way to have something done with those 200+ caches. Especially on those caches that have allready had reviewer attention but are way overdue for the reviewer to archive. I didn't know what the correct, and politically correct method was to bring those caches back to reviewer attention. TGC Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 The reviewers in my area are good and all it takes is a NA log to get them attention. They dont go looking for caches to close down. I am in an area where someone planted over 800 caches and they no longer cache and dont maintenance any of their caches. Yea, I get tired of posting NA logs all the time. Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 Wasn't the reviewer in Texas threatening to stop doing other important work for Groundspeak if they assigned a second reviewer to Texas? That's the prevailing rumour... Hmmm I haven't heard that rumour. But I wouldn't be surprised. The Texas Triangle is known as the 2nd silicon valley. Triangle being Dallas, San Antonio, Houston. So I wouldn't be surprised if the reviewer worked for one of the Tech companies here and was probably doing other work for Groundspeak as well. I do find it hard to beleive that anyone would give someone an ultimatum like that though, & that Groundspeak would go along with it. In which case, wouldn't that make this reviewer a non-volunteer then???? TGC Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 Ok so let me get this right... Since my desire is to handle getting this 200+ caches either fixed or archived as quickly as possible in the most politically correct way possible. In regards to item #1 where the reviewer has allready give his 30 day notice but it has been 60 days and in some cases even longer Is to issue another NA log? As for the rest of the 200+ that relate to items #2 and #3 issue NA logs on them as well? One last question... What period of time should be given for a CO to "Tend" to his cache once a NA log has been issued? As in I issue an NA log today, Does a reviewer give the CO time to fix the cache before the reviewer issues the typical 30 day notice? How much time does a reviewer normally give after a NA log before a reviewer will issue a 30 day notice? Obviously alot depends on the reasoning behind the the NA log. So some I am sure the reviewer will issue the notice immediately... But is that the norm? TGC Link to comment
+Trucker Lee Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 How did this thread go from "reviewer qualifications" to worrying about what else a reviewer may have going. Perhaps it is time to lock this issue. Keep in mind that a reviewer only knows of cache problems if a "needs archived" is posted. A "needs maintenance" only goes to the cache owner. If there is a cache the owner won't maintain, post the NA after several NM logs so the reviewer knows that the owner is ignoring the issue. When you write a NM log, put a picture with it so all can see. I will go on record that I feel the reviewer for Texas has done an admirable job. I believe that when the burden becomes too much, he would be the first to say so or that Groundspeak would on their own add reviewers or reconfigure the regions when the need arises. Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Your best bet is to log yet another NA note on these caches. You can then forward one of them to Groundspeak to the contact address and say that these are not being attended to. That is the best course of action for you at this point. I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. Link to comment
+ipodguy Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 If there is already a NA log on the cache and the reviewer has given the CO a 30 day grace period which has expired, there is no shame in posting a reviewer note or NA for the cache to alert the reviewer that the time has expired. You don't have to be a reviewer to police your local caches. It's not like you have a personal vendetta against the unresponsive CO's or anything. You're just helping the reviewer out and cleaning up your area. Other local cachers might even appreciate it. Something similar is happening in my area where 1 cacher placed a whole lot but is currently inactive. As they encounter problems, they slowly begin to thin out and open up areas for other hiders. Link to comment
knowschad Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 In regards to item #1 where the reviewer has allready give his 30 day notice but it has been 60 days and in some cases even longer Is to issue another NA log? Responding to #1: No... leave them alone. First, in some cases, the reviewer may have heard from some of those cache owners with good reasons why they can't fix up their caches right now. But aside from that, the reviewer knows his job and will take care of it as soon as he can. Nagging him is not going to win you any good will from him/her. From your section #2, you said that some have NA logs. Those are the only ones that you can fairly add to your list. The reviewer is not officially aware of them just because there are multiple DNFs, NM logs, etc. Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 (edited) How did this thread go from "reviewer qualifications" to worrying about what else a reviewer may have going. Perhaps it is time to lock this issue. Keep in mind that a reviewer only knows of cache problems if a "needs archived" is posted. A "needs maintenance" only goes to the cache owner. If there is a cache the owner won't maintain, post the NA after several NM logs so the reviewer knows that the owner is ignoring the issue. When you write a NM log, put a picture with it so all can see. I will go on record that I feel the reviewer for Texas has done an admirable job. I believe that when the burden becomes too much, he would be the first to say so or that Groundspeak would on their own add reviewers or reconfigure the regions when the need arises. Sorry for my mis-communications. This thread was NEVER meant to be about "reviewer qualifications". Sorry if you thought so. I did not know that a reviwer was not informed/notified of NM logs. I did not know they were informed of NA logs either. I had absolutely no idea HOW reviewers were notified of caches that needed reviewer attention. THAT was the main reason for my thread. To find out HOW they get notified, if they got notified at all & the best procedure for doing so. Under no circumstances did I EVER mean to imply that the Texas Reviewer(s) wasn't doing the job to the best of their ability. But as I realize and others have said many times that reviewers are volunteer positions & that they do have a life outside of geocaching. I simply beleive that when you have 200+ caches that need some type of reviewer intervention/attention, and where even SOME of the caches have allready HAD reviewer attention but now is even over their OWN 30 day limit. Im not talking but a few days or a week, but by 60 days, even 90 days on one. That just maybe the reviewer needs some help getting everything done. Also what about those caches that have had an NA log for 90 days? 6 months? 9months? A few of the 200+ caches have NA logs allready posted to them that are 90+ days old. A couple even 6 months, & 9 months old and STILL DON'T have any reviewer intervention or attention. Seriously I really do appreciate all the work that a reviewer does do. That they are in fact doing the best they can. That for the most part it's a thankless job & a very tough job. AS I come to think of it, I glad that I wasn't accepted to be a reviewer. But maybe in the DFW area, for at least a short period of time, that maybe they need some help???? This thread wasn't meant to be a complaint either. All I wanted to know was some basic information on the questions I had & what the best way to go about getting these 200+ caches fixed or archived as quickly as possible. TGC P.S. I have no complaints with the Texas Reviewer. I agree he has done a great job within the time frame has available to him & with the circumstances of his life. Being that this IS a volunteer job. I don't expect anyone to do more than they are capable of doing. However maybe he needs some temporary help? There is nothing wrong with asking for help when needed. Edited January 15, 2011 by texasgrillchef Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 One other note I would like to make... I care enough to try to do the right thing. So I came into the forums and started a thread to find out more information about HOW things are done & the best way to correct them. Seriously... How many geocachers out there actually READ the forums at all? How many simply hit the "Contact" Groundspeak button? Just saying... TGC Link to comment
+Ike 13 Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Don't assume that just because you see no public reviewer notes or communication that he/she has not been in contact with the CO. Like knowschad said the CO may have set up a plan with the reviewer. It would be nice if the CO put a note on the page to that affect but life happens. You can always post a note on caches that already have a NA asking for an update if you feel they have reached a certain limit. Link to comment
knowschad Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 One other note I would like to make... I care enough to try to do the right thing. I understand that, and I also want to add that I can see the difference in your attitude that you alluded to. You don't even sound like the same guy that I remember. Keep it up! Link to comment
+narcissa Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. It's a rumour that circulates. It is a little odd that a state like Texas only has one reviewer. Ontario has 4. Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. It's a rumour that circulates. It is a little odd that a state like Texas only has one reviewer. Ontario has 4. There are several countries that have to share a reviewer. Texas is only a state. Shouldn't those countries each get their own before we start adding reviewers for a state? Link to comment
+California66er Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Texas is only a state. Don't tell them that! Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 Don't assume that just because you see no public reviewer notes or communication that he/she has not been in contact with the CO. Like knowschad said the CO may have set up a plan with the reviewer. It would be nice if the CO put a note on the page to that affect but life happens. You can always post a note on caches that already have a NA asking for an update if you feel they have reached a certain limit. Thats good information to know. I guess I missed that when Knowschad said it. My bad. Maybe you know this... Since our cache logs are emailed to us. If a CO responds to the reviewer through a reply to the email, will it update the date in the profile that shows when a geocacher Last logged on geocaching.com? As in can the CO and reviewer have a conversation without the CO logging into geocaching.com. I ask this simply because some of the caches the owner hasn't logged into geocaching.com in a while. So just trying to figure out if that can be used as an indicator to any communication going on between the CO and reviewer. TGC Link to comment
+GeoGeeBee Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Texas is only a state. Don't tell them that! Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. It's a rumour that circulates. It is a little odd that a state like Texas only has one reviewer. Ontario has 4. Learning that Texas has only one reviewer is amazing! Considering how big Texas is! LOL How many does RI have? Trivia for ya... It is farther from Texarkana Texas to El Paso Texas then it is from Texarkanna to Chicago. More that 50% of the length of I-10 is in the state of Texas. (I-10 ends on the CA coast and Starts in on the East coast) The Square miles of the state of Texas is larger than 96% of all the COUNTRIES in the world. The so call GNP of the state of Texas is even larger than the GNP of Great Britain. TGC Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. It's a rumour that circulates. It is a little odd that a state like Texas only has one reviewer. Ontario has 4. There are several countries that have to share a reviewer. Texas is only a state. Shouldn't those countries each get their own before we start adding reviewers for a state? See previous trivia about Texas and it being larger than 96% of the countries in the world, as well as having a larger so called GNP than most of those countries & even a larger GNP than Great Britain (England) which is considered a Nuclear Super Power. For those of us who live in Texas... we for the most part consider ourselvs to be a country! (j/k) TGC Link to comment
+texasgrillchef Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 Texas is only a state. Don't tell them that! Really? Wer'e Just a state? dadgum All this time I thought we were still the "Republic of Texas" lol (Search google for 6 Flags over Texas, and Im not refering to the amusement park) TGC Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 The thing was they didn't really say why I didn't qualify Do you have a Puppy? If so, does your Puppy wear sunglasses? If you answer "No" to either of these, you are disqualified. The real reason Dallas is falling behind is because almost all the listed Reviewers are really just sock puppets of the notorious Puppy Monster. He is a very busy Puppy. Rumor has it, if you send him some Milk Bone treats, he'll expedite things for you. Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. It's a rumour that circulates. It is a little odd that a state like Texas only has one reviewer. Ontario has 4. There are several countries that have to share a reviewer. Texas is only a state. Shouldn't those countries each get their own before we start adding reviewers for a state? That kind of depends on the country. Excluding South Africa, I would guess that there are fewer caches (and geocachers) on the entire continent of Africa that any State in the US. Link to comment
+narcissa Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. It's a rumour that circulates. It is a little odd that a state like Texas only has one reviewer. Ontario has 4. There are several countries that have to share a reviewer. Texas is only a state. Shouldn't those countries each get their own before we start adding reviewers for a state? It depends on the demand. Some jurisdictions don't need a whole reviewer to themselves. Texas is a very large state where geocaching is popular. The province of Ontario, where I live, has four reviewers - and Texas has approx. 50% more people than we do. As for Texas "only" being a state, you may want to research defitions for the word "state." There's a reason they're called that, and not, say, provinces, or canons. It's akin to claiming that Austria in "only" a country. Link to comment
+addisonbr Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 There are several countries that have to share a reviewer. Texas is only a state. Shouldn't those countries each get their own before we start adding reviewers for a state? I believe Texas has more geocaches than all but three countries in the world - Germany, Canada and the UK. I might be wrong, but if I am it's not by much. Link to comment
+jon.hemlock.Chantal Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 There are several countries that have to share a reviewer. Texas is only a state. Shouldn't those countries each get their own before we start adding reviewers for a state? I believe Texas has more geocaches than all but three countries in the world - Germany, Canada and the UK. I might be wrong, but if I am it's not by much. But of course! Doesn't Texas have the most of everything? Link to comment
+wimseyguy Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 (edited) I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. It's a rumour that circulates. It is a little odd that a state like Texas only has one reviewer. Ontario has 4. Learning that Texas has only one reviewer is amazing! Considering how big Texas is! LOL How many does RI have? Trivia for ya... It is farther from Texarkana Texas to El Paso Texas then it is from Texarkanna to Chicago. More that 50% of the length of I-10 is in the state of Texas. (I-10 ends on the CA coast and Starts in on the East coast) The Square miles of the state of Texas is larger than 96% of all the COUNTRIES in the world. The so call GNP of the state of Texas is even larger than the GNP of Great Britain. TGC Those are nice numbers and stats, but the only one that really matters is 'does the reviewer for Texas feel he has enough time and energy to volunteer for the job?' When the answer becomes no, he/she/it (some reviewers are dogs) will ask for help. There are several countries that have to share a reviewer. Texas is only a state. Shouldn't those countries each get their own before we start adding reviewers for a state? I believe Texas has more geocaches than all but three countries in the world - Germany, Canada and the UK. I might be wrong, but if I am it's not by much. I think the USA has more geocaches that Texas too. Edited January 15, 2011 by wimseyguy Link to comment
+puppymonster Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 The thing was they didn't really say why I didn't qualify Do you have a Puppy? If so, does your Puppy wear sunglasses? If you answer "No" to either of these, you are disqualified. The real reason Dallas is falling behind is because almost all the listed Reviewers are really just sock puppets of the notorious Puppy Monster. He is a very busy Puppy. Rumor has it, if you send him some Milk Bone treats, he'll expedite things for you. Not completely true. I don't always wear sunglasses. Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The thing was they didn't really say why I didn't qualify Do you have a Puppy? If so, does your Puppy wear sunglasses? If you answer "No" to either of these, you are disqualified. The real reason Dallas is falling behind is because almost all the listed Reviewers are really just sock puppets of the notorious Puppy Monster. He is a very busy Puppy. Rumor has it, if you send him some Milk Bone treats, he'll expedite things for you. Not completely true. I don't always wear sunglasses. 'Cause it's winter. Link to comment
+puppymonster Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The thing was they didn't really say why I didn't qualify Do you have a Puppy? If so, does your Puppy wear sunglasses? If you answer "No" to either of these, you are disqualified. The real reason Dallas is falling behind is because almost all the listed Reviewers are really just sock puppets of the notorious Puppy Monster. He is a very busy Puppy. Rumor has it, if you send him some Milk Bone treats, he'll expedite things for you. Not completely true. I don't always wear sunglasses. 'Cause it's winter. Yep. And in true fashion where reviewers and moderators have real lives and like to go out and play too, mtn-man took me out for some more snow play today. Got to love having snow on the ground in Georgia for almost a week now! Boy did we have fun. Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Lol, I got an email that my post was quoted, and I was going to go into the thread and say that I needed pictures. Lo and behold, my desire was anticipated, as usual. Cutie puppymonster pic. The thing was they didn't really say why I didn't qualify Do you have a Puppy? If so, does your Puppy wear sunglasses? If you answer "No" to either of these, you are disqualified. The real reason Dallas is falling behind is because almost all the listed Reviewers are really just sock puppets of the notorious Puppy Monster. He is a very busy Puppy. Rumor has it, if you send him some Milk Bone treats, he'll expedite things for you. Not completely true. I don't always wear sunglasses. 'Cause it's winter. Yep. And in true fashion where reviewers and moderators have real lives and like to go out and play too, mtn-man took me out for some more snow play today. Got to love having snow on the ground in Georgia for almost a week now! Boy did we have fun. Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 More that 50% of the length of I-10 is in the state of Texas. (I-10 ends on the CA coast and Starts in on the East coast) You just like to think everything's bigger in Texas. Texas only has a little over a third of the total length of I-10. Texas alone contains more than a third of the interstate's entire length. El Paso' date=' on the Texas-New Mexico border, is 785 miles (1,260 km) from the western terminus of Interstate 10 in Santa Monica, California, making it closer to Los Angeles than it is to Orange, 857 miles (1,370 km) away. Likewise, Orange, on the Texas–Louisiana border, is only 789 miles (1,270 km) from the eastern terminus of Interstate 10 in Jacksonville, Florida.[/quote'] Link to comment
+TerraViators Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. It's a rumour that circulates. It is a little odd that a state like Texas only has one reviewer. Ontario has 4. Seriously, the entire state of Texas only has one Reviewer? That can't be right. No wonder so many NA logs have been ignored. There is no checks and balances in place? BTW, TexasGrillChef is, IMO, a good geocacher and person. Link to comment
+TerraViators Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Oh, BTW, the poster that stated Texas is just a state is correct. It just happens to be the best one. Waiting for the flames. Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Oh, BTW, the poster that stated Texas is just a state is correct. It just happens to be the best one. Waiting for the flames. That's fine. I'd like everyone to think Texas is the best state. That way they don't all move here and spoil my beloved Colorado. Too bad most of our immigrants are from Texas. Link to comment
+JL_HSTRE Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 1) Once a cache is Disabled, IMO it doesn't seem to me to be a big deal if it sits Disabled for more than 30 Days. It's good to have a Reviewer clear them out after awhile if no CO updates have been given. But unless you need it to be Archived because you want to place your own cache in the area it seems like something that doesn't need much worrying about. Disabled caches are clearly marked on the site as such and easily filtered out. 2) If Texas only has 1 Reviewer, I would say they need more. Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I wondered if nacissa's comment was some sort of joke frankly. I don't know where they heard that if that was a serious comment. I've never heard of anything like that. The TX reviewer does work on Greasemonkey script tools for fellow reviewers, but I am unaware of any work done directly for Groundspeak from what I know (but then again, I would not need to know really). He is owed many beers from the reviewer staff for his tremendous volunteer work and his efforts have made reviewing far better for me than those early days in 2002. It's a rumour that circulates. It is a little odd that a state like Texas only has one reviewer. Ontario has 4. Seriously, the entire state of Texas only has one Reviewer? That can't be right. No wonder so many NA logs have been ignored. There is no checks and balances in place? BTW, TexasGrillChef is, IMO, a good geocacher and person. Ontario only has 4? It seems like even more, but I'll take the word of the Ontario resident. Sure does make Texas having 1 reviewer sound rather odd as posted above. Personally, I think I will ask to become a reviewer, and see what kind of old quote a moderater would come up with to reinforce the denial. Plenty to choose from, I'm sure. Link to comment
Recommended Posts