Need More reviewers

[+Ecylram]

As the suggestion of adding more reviewers...

 

Based on what I've seen, I suspect its not that easy to find and bring on someone who would be a quality reviewer. It's non-paying, the person needs to be unusually diplomatic, have a solid understanding of the guidelines, and be able to put up with a certain amount of abuse.

 

I've joked that Reviewers must be brain damaged, not because of their work ethic or skills, but because of the demands of the position. It's not a job most people would want to do, let alone do it well. I'm definitely grateful for the ones we have in our area.

 

My advice is to "let go" of what you can't control. If you get too caught up in minutia such as NA times on caches, geocaching will no longer be fun. It's obvious you care about the geocaching, just don't let your concern sap the joy out of the game.

[Keystone]

We just believe in our honest OPINION that the Texas reviewer needs help. If he/she isn't able to manage publishing all of the caches that come up in a month AND review those current caches that need reviewer attention. Then the reviewer needs help. It's just that simple.

If any reviewer feels they need assistance, there are established procedures for doing this. My original reviewer territory is now covered by six reviewers because of healthy cache growth. And, if a reviewer refuses to recognize that they're falling behind, Groundspeak can and will step in affirmatively to provide that help.

 

I've not read anything telling me that the cache publication schedule or the response to "needs archived" logs in your state are unacceptable. To the contrary, the Texas reviewer goes out of his way to be of assistance behind the scenes to his fellow reviewers. We would all flock to his aid immediately if he ever asked.

 

I think that your expectations about affirmatively policing disabled caches and caches with many DNF logs or NM logs are unrealistic. All of those tasks are primarily the community's job. The tasks are an optional task for a volunteer cache reviewer.

 

They aren't paid... so why NOT more reviewers?

 

WNT

The group has increased from around 25 when I started to more than 150 reviewers now. We're not shy about adding more when needed. The concern about adding too many is the work needed to keep us all on the same page. If there were 1500 reviewers, I can only imagine the number of threads about "reviewer inconsistency."

[WildNTexas]

We just believe in our honest OPINION that the Texas reviewer needs help. If he/she isn't able to manage publishing all of the caches that come up in a month AND review those current caches that need reviewer attention. Then the reviewer needs help. It's just that simple.

If any reviewer feels they need assistance, there are established procedures for doing this. My original reviewer territory is now covered by six reviewers because of healthy cache growth. And, if a reviewer refuses to recognize that they're falling behind, Groundspeak can and will step in affirmatively to provide that help.

 

I've not read anything telling me that the cache publication schedule or the response to "needs archived" logs in your state are unacceptable. To the contrary, the Texas reviewer goes out of his way to be of assistance behind the scenes to his fellow reviewers. We would all flock to his aid immediately if he ever asked.

 

I think that your expectations about affirmatively policing disabled caches and caches with many DNF logs or NM logs are unrealistic. All of those tasks are primarily the community's job. The tasks are an optional task for a volunteer cache reviewer.

 

You have not read anything that the NA logs in our state are unacceptalbe? Sorry this statement I find confusing. As a customer of geocaching.com my husband pays for a premium membership. Thus that makes him a paying customer of geocaching.com. As a customer he finds that the time it takes to get a response to a NA log is unacceptable. We view that the same way as if you ordered a pizza for delivery and you wanted it now but the pizza was delivered next week. I am sure you would find that unacceptable. Wouldn't you?

 

You said above that policing disabled caches, & caches with many DNF/NM logs were primarily the community's job. Ok... I am with you there. Not a problem. However keep in mind that we as community can only log NA logs, & email the CO. WE the community DON'T have the capability to ARCHIVE those caches where the CO has abandoned the cache, or refuses to fix the issues with their cache.

 

One other note when we do take that step. Some CO's view those who do as vigilante's, and as one "Prime Reviewer" commented in the suggestion forum that these NA logs were doing nothing but causing him/her problems. They shouldn't be. It isn't our fault that everytime an NA log is created that it emails the Prime Reviewer. Thats how Groundspeak programmed the system to work, that every NA creates an email. Guess that could be turned off so that NA logs don't create emails to the reivewers. Just like NM logs don't.

 

They aren't paid... so why NOT more reviewers?

 

WNT

The group has increased from around 25 when I started to more than 150 reviewers now. We're not shy about adding more when needed. The concern about adding too many is the work needed to keep us all on the same page. If there were 1500 reviewers, I can only imagine the number of threads about "reviewer inconsistency."

 

Now that actually makes perfect sense. Keeping 150 reviewers on the same page etc. is deffinatly alot easier than monitoring the actions of 1500 reviewers. Thats no different then in school systems. Much harder for a principal to monitor a school with 2000 students in it than 100. Which is why a school of 2000 has several assistant principals where as the school of 100 only has one.

 

Several of us in the suggestion forums suggested an automated system, thus you wouldn't have extra reviewers to monitor. Of course one of the biggest complaints it seems people are commenting about automated systems is how the automated system to could be bypassed. While this maybe true, it would require that a CO at least be active. There are many caches which are abandoned by people who no longer cache anymore. The automated system would take care of these rather quickly as those that have quit geocaching probably won't even notice their cache archived. Then there are always those people out there that really don't like anything automated, even things that have nothing to do with geocaching. They simply don't like much automation. My mother-in-law is like this. She doesn't even like cruise control on cars because she thinks that automates to much of the driving process & causes more rear end collisions.

 

Then again my husband & I believe in fully automating anything that can be automated. My father-in-law actually worked with DARPA inventing & developing the GPS System. The DOD (Department of Defense) wanted GPS as a way to automate their weapons guidance systems as well as other systems. If it was up to us though we beleive you could automate the entire reviewer system and not need human reviewers at all. A good AI program from DARPA would do a great job. We do realize though that the funds to purchase the needed hardware & software to automate the entire reviewer process is more than Groundspeak/geocaching.com could ever afford financially. So suggesting that Groundspeak take it to that level would be silly. Maybe the cost to automate the review process for caches that need reviewer attention is financially unfeasable due to the cost of needed hardware/firmware/software upgrades. Then again only Groundspeak could officially make those claims. Many suggestions that are made by parents of my students sometimes are financially unfeasable for the school to afford. When thats the case, we let the parents know this. Sometimes the PTA or booster club finds ways to make it happen. Sometimes they don't.

 

We personally dont' consider creating a NA log on a cache that NEEDS an NA log as increasing a reviewers work load, because in truth whether or not we log an NA dosen't change the fact that the cache in question needs reviewer attention.

 

Our personal opinion & policy in regards to DNF's, NM, & NA are this. One NA really should be changed to NRA or RAN (Needs Reviewer attention, Reviewer attention needed)because their are alot of caches that just need to be fixed &/or replaced. No reason to really archive them unless the CO doesn't make the needed repairs in a reasonable length of time.

 

DNF's If we put an honest effort into trying to find the cache container & we do not. Then we will log a DNF. If my husband & I are caching together for the day. Then only ONE of us will log the DNF. If their are factors that we believe that the cache has gone MIA then we will mention this in our DNF log. We normally won't log an NM for it. Sometimes there might be an exception.

 

NM's If we notice that cache is broken, or what we think might be an issue with the cache. Then we will log a NM to let the CO know what might be wrong with the cache. If the information needed to let the CO know what a problem is would be to much info & be a "spolier" then we will email them and let them know the additional details about what we found. IF my husband & I are caching together, then only ONE of us will log the NM log.

Normally we won't log a NM log for a cache we think is MIA. Exceptions do apply though.

 

NA logs We recently changed this, due to the fact that we made several attempts to find a cache & weren't able to find it. The cache hadn't been found in ages. We logged a DNF stating that, as well as a NM log on the next visit asking that the CO check on this cache. No logs were ever posted by the CO. We went and checked a third time. Still weren't able to find it. So we logged a NA log. Within 24 hours the NA log was deleted, we got an email from the CO saying they checked on it a week or so before we logged the NA log. We went back & found it. While the cache WAS there & it was OUR mistake for not finding it. Simply posting the DNF log & NM log asking for it to be checked on &/or a hint did not work. The CO said they checked on it, but never posted that fact. IT TOOK actually posting an NA log to get ANY response from the CO. He wasn't to pleased with us, but hey we weren't geting any response from him till we did place a NA log. NOW though... we will only log a NA log on any disabled cache that has been disabled for more than 90 days AND has not had any logs posted by the CO in that 90 days giving us an update to the disabled cache. We will also log NA logs for any cache we find that might be illegally placed (such as in a no trespassing area). We haven't found any of those yet. Thank goodness. As far as active caches go... we NOW will only log a NA log on any cache that has at least 5 other geocachers DNF logs, AND we have honestly tried to look for the cache ourselves... AND haven't been found in 6 months or more.

 

Since your a reviewer & moderator we have one more question for you if you don't mind. What should we do? Post NA logs on caches that have been disabled for 90 days or longer, & only post on NA per cache, not multiple NA logs per cache. On caches that are NOT disabled, just log DNF's & maybe NM logs? Tell us... in your opinion, when you would post what. If you need me to give you several examples. I can do that.

 

WNT

[WildNTexas]

As the suggestion of adding more reviewers...

My advice is to "let go" of what you can't control. If you get too caught up in minutia such as NA times on caches, geocaching will no longer be fun. It's obvious you care about the geocaching, just don't let your concern sap the joy out of the game.

 

However, there is NO JOY when you go to an area and a good majority of the caches are disabled... Go do a search on Little Elm Texas, 75068.

Center your search on N 33° 10.144 W 096° 53.748.

 

Now whats the ratio of active to inactive caches?

 

WNT

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't see how more reviewers would help. There appears to be one user that accounts for a large portion of the disabled listings. But more important there seems to be a lot of active caches out there to be found. Have you run out of caches to look for?

[+Ecylram]

As the suggestion of adding more reviewers...

My advice is to "let go" of what you can't control. If you get too caught up in minutia such as NA times on caches, geocaching will no longer be fun. It's obvious you care about the geocaching, just don't let your concern sap the joy out of the game.

 

However, there is NO JOY when you go to an area and a good majority of the caches are disabled... Go do a search on Little Elm Texas, 75068.

Center your search on N 33° 10.144 W 096° 53.748.

 

Now whats the ratio of active to inactive caches?

 

WNT

 

I agree, that is a lot of disabled caches. There also appears to be a bit more to the story as well...

 

Most of those disabled caches were by the same cacher. It appears that last fall he agreed to adopt a large number of caches of another cacher and, as they say...no good deed goes unpunished. Unfortunately, it appears the previous CO had a bunch of containers missing but didn't disable or archive them. When the current CO took over they started getting a bunch of DNF's and ended up disabling a significant number of caches that should have been disabled or archived by the previous CO. I'm guessing that CO didn't realize they were taking on that many problems. Those caches have been disabled about 3.5 months. It may be that the Reviewer is familiar with the history of that series and is giving the adopting CO a chance to get the series back on track.

 

My advice to you is still the same...let it go and ignore those caches. It isn't worth the aggravation. If a disabled cache is blocking a location where you'd like to place a cache, try contacting the area reviewer and explain the situation. They may be very open to archiving that disabled cache.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Ecylram

[+GeoGeeBee]

As a customer of geocaching.com my husband pays for a premium membership. Thus that makes him a paying customer of geocaching.com. As a customer he finds that the time it takes to get a response to a NA log is unacceptable. We view that the same way as if you ordered a pizza for delivery and you wanted it now but the pizza was delivered next week.

 

Your analogy is kind of silly. If I order a pizza, I'm hungry and I'm waiting to eat. If I create an "NA" log on a cache, I'm... well, I'm reporting a cache that needs attention. It isn't *my* cache. So if it takes the reviewer a couple of weeks to respond, how does that hurt me?

 

For that matter, I have no idea when, or if, the reviewer has responded to most of the NA logs that I have placed. Generally it goes like this: I seek a cache. I find a damaged container and a soggy log. When I go to log my experience on line, I see that there is a long string of logs mentioning the poor condition of the cache. I see that there have been several Needs Maintenance logs that have not been addressed. I post my NA and get on with my life.

 

What happens after that is really not my business.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Learning that Texas has only one reviewer is amazing! Considering how big Texas is! LOL How many does RI have?

 

Not even a whole one. But we love him just the same.

[+wimseyguy]

As the suggestion of adding more reviewers...

My advice is to "let go" of what you can't control. If you get too caught up in minutia such as NA times on caches, geocaching will no longer be fun. It's obvious you care about the geocaching, just don't let your concern sap the joy out of the game.

 

However, there is NO JOY when you go to an area and a good majority of the caches are disabled... Go do a search on Little Elm Texas, 75068.

Center your search on N 33° 10.144 W 096° 53.748.

 

Now whats the ratio of active to inactive caches?

 

WNT

 

OK, I've done as you have asked. Using that zip code in the search engine returned 4676 caches over 234 pages. The first two pages don't show any disabled listings at all. I counted 5 disabled in the first 5 pages/100 caches. I don't think 5% is an extreme percentage. I saw 14 in the next 5 pages/100 caches. And that still is only 5.2 miles from GZ for that zip code. So it seems you live in a very cache dense area, with plenty to search for?

 

As someone has already pointed out-it seems that daddyof5 may have taken on more than he realized with these adoptions. Have you offered to help him out? Are you willing to drive more than 5-10 miles to look for new caches?

 

Sorry, but I am not seeing a crises in the makings here.

[Keystone]

Indeed, there are only 1323 disabled geocaches in Texas out of 43300 total listings - about 3%. That percentage is consistent with other regions. I'm not seeing the problem.

[+sTeamTraen]

You have not read anything that the NA logs in our state are unacceptalbe? Sorry this statement I find confusing. As a customer of geocaching.com my husband pays for a premium membership. Thus that makes him a paying customer of geocaching.com. As a customer he finds that the time it takes to get a response to a NA log is unacceptable. We view that the same way as if you ordered a pizza for delivery and you wanted it now but the pizza was delivered next week. I am sure you would find that unacceptable. Wouldn't you?

The T&Cs for Premium Membership make it very clear that as a PM, what you get access to is a selection of enhanced site features. You do not get any form of priority treatment when it comes to your finds, cache placements, or NA logs. All players of the game are treated equally once they are out there playing.

 

In fact, with NA logs, the author of the log, whether PM or not, isn't entitled to anything, except a small murmur of gratitude from the community for bringing genuine problems to the attention of the cache owner and, in parallel, the reviewer. There is no implied service turnaround for responding to NA logs. If the reviewer determines that no further action is required, or if the reviewer is contacted privately by the cache owner to explain the issue and they agree on a timetable for it to be fixed, the author of the NA log has no right to know any of that. It's up to the CO to keep the watchers informed, if s/he so chooses.

[WildNTexas]

I don't see how more reviewers would help. There appears to be one user that accounts for a large portion of the disabled listings. But more important there seems to be a lot of active caches out there to be found. Have you run out of caches to look for?

 

My husband has alot more than I do. Yes, he is starting to run out of caches nearby to look for. It now usually requires a drive of anywhere from 5 to 10 miles or more to grab a cache. Some days when the weather is bad, like during Super Bowl week (We are in the Dallas area) getting out to drive 5 to 10 miles made it a bigger task. Even though he does have a 4x4 truck. He does cache for numbers as well as many other reasons. We do love the Historical Virtuals that are still around as an example.

 

So in terms of caches within 10 miles of home, they are on the virge of all being found.

 

WNT

[jholly]

I don't see how more reviewers would help. There appears to be one user that accounts for a large portion of the disabled listings. But more important there seems to be a lot of active caches out there to be found. Have you run out of caches to look for?

 

My husband has alot more than I do. Yes, he is starting to run out of caches nearby to look for. It now usually requires a drive of anywhere from 5 to 10 miles or more to grab a cache. Some days when the weather is bad, like during Super Bowl week (We are in the Dallas area) getting out to drive 5 to 10 miles made it a bigger task. Even though he does have a 4x4 truck. He does cache for numbers as well as many other reasons. We do love the Historical Virtuals that are still around as an example.

 

So in terms of caches within 10 miles of home, they are on the virge of all being found.

 

WNT

Some would be happy to drive only 5 miles. Many drive 20-50 miles to find a cache to find. That is the problem with a big find count, the blast zone just keeps getting bigger and bigger. So if these few that are disabled were to magically become viable and active caches, how long would it be before you again have to lament that you need to drive more than 10 miles?

[WildNTexas]

As the suggestion of adding more reviewers...

My advice is to "let go" of what you can't control. If you get too caught up in minutia such as NA times on caches, geocaching will no longer be fun. It's obvious you care about the geocaching, just don't let your concern sap the joy out of the game.

 

However, there is NO JOY when you go to an area and a good majority of the caches are disabled... Go do a search on Little Elm Texas, 75068.

Center your search on N 33° 10.144 W 096° 53.748.

 

Now whats the ratio of active to inactive caches?

 

WNT

 

I agree, that is a lot of disabled caches. There also appears to be a bit more to the story as well...

 

Most of those disabled caches were by the same cacher. It appears that last fall he agreed to adopt a large number of caches of another cacher and, as they say...no good deed goes unpunished. Unfortunately, it appears the previous CO had a bunch of containers missing but didn't disable or archive them. When the current CO took over they started getting a bunch of DNF's and ended up disabling a significant number of caches that should have been disabled or archived by the previous CO. I'm guessing that CO didn't realize they were taking on that many problems. Those caches have been disabled about 3.5 months. It may be that the Reviewer is familiar with the history of that series and is giving the adopting CO a chance to get the series back on track.

 

My advice to you is still the same...let it go and ignore those caches. It isn't worth the aggravation. If a disabled cache is blocking a location where you'd like to place a cache, try contacting the area reviewer and explain the situation. They may be very open to archiving that disabled cache.

 

Actually I just picked out an area that was close to us that is similar to a few other areas around us. I can give you a few more areas like that in the Dallas Fort-Worth Metroplex as well as a few outside the metroplex as well. We know the situation with the cacher who adopted the caches for the area that I gave you. We know why it is taking him a while to get those caches back up & running. If you look at a few of those caches, or even all of them. You will note that neither I nor my husband have logged NA logs on any of them either. Simply because we know him & we know the situation.

 

Neither I nor my husband have problems with a cache being disabled for longer than 90 days IF the CO will simply log and additional write note log saying that their are other issues going on. Since we know him, we know the issues. Although we have told him he should post a "note" log letting other cachers know that there are some special circumstances going on & there will be a delay. Why do we think the write note log important? It lets us know that the CO is still active, alive & well & that he hasn't forgotten about the cache. ON at least 4 caches my husband posted a NA log, the CO emailed him & told him they actually THOUGHT they had archived the cache instead of disabled status it was.

 

As far as placing a cache... My husband currently has 3 caches he is building & that will be placed at caches that need archiving. The reviewer has archived one of them allready, and posted the customary 30 day notice on the other two. The cache that has allready been archived for him to place the new cache would have been placed during super bowl week had it not been for the ice & snow here in Dallas. The Wildlife Preserve Park where he is going to place the cache has also been closed because of the mud from all the ice & snow. (The city closes the Preseve anytime its to muddy for the hikers, bikers, & horses). So like my husband & I both said. The reviewer does a FANTASTIC job when it comes to posting new caches.

 

My husband & I both know that if we want to place a cache that is nearby a cache with issues, that we can & that the reviewer will review the cache in question to allow a new cache to be placed.

 

Heres the thing though. Only about 10% maybe even as much as 15% (If even) of the geocaching community even read the forums. So there is probably a large group of cachers out there that have NO idea that they can place a new cache near a problem cache & have the reviewer review the problem cache to see if they can place their new cache there. We know... but do the cachers who never read the forums know?

 

WNT

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't see how more reviewers would help. There appears to be one user that accounts for a large portion of the disabled listings. But more important there seems to be a lot of active caches out there to be found. Have you run out of caches to look for?

 

My husband has alot more than I do. Yes, he is starting to run out of caches nearby to look for. It now usually requires a drive of anywhere from 5 to 10 miles or more to grab a cache. Some days when the weather is bad, like during Super Bowl week (We are in the Dallas area) getting out to drive 5 to 10 miles made it a bigger task. Even though he does have a 4x4 truck. He does cache for numbers as well as many other reasons. We do love the Historical Virtuals that are still around as an example.

 

So in terms of caches within 10 miles of home, they are on the virge of all being found.

 

WNT

Some would be happy to drive only 5 miles. Many drive 20-50 miles to find a cache to find. That is the problem with a big find count, the blast zone just keeps getting bigger and bigger. So if these few that are disabled were to magically become viable and active caches, how long would it be before you again have to lament that you need to drive more than 10 miles?

 

Hey! I was gonna say that. Are you reading my mind again? What did I tell you about that?

[GOF and Bacall]

As the suggestion of adding more reviewers...

My advice is to "let go" of what you can't control. If you get too caught up in minutia such as NA times on caches, geocaching will no longer be fun. It's obvious you care about the geocaching, just don't let your concern sap the joy out of the game.

 

However, there is NO JOY when you go to an area and a good majority of the caches are disabled... Go do a search on Little Elm Texas, 75068.

Center your search on N 33° 10.144 W 096° 53.748.

 

Now whats the ratio of active to inactive caches?

 

WNT

 

I agree, that is a lot of disabled caches. There also appears to be a bit more to the story as well...

 

Most of those disabled caches were by the same cacher. It appears that last fall he agreed to adopt a large number of caches of another cacher and, as they say...no good deed goes unpunished. Unfortunately, it appears the previous CO had a bunch of containers missing but didn't disable or archive them. When the current CO took over they started getting a bunch of DNF's and ended up disabling a significant number of caches that should have been disabled or archived by the previous CO. I'm guessing that CO didn't realize they were taking on that many problems. Those caches have been disabled about 3.5 months. It may be that the Reviewer is familiar with the history of that series and is giving the adopting CO a chance to get the series back on track.

 

My advice to you is still the same...let it go and ignore those caches. It isn't worth the aggravation. If a disabled cache is blocking a location where you'd like to place a cache, try contacting the area reviewer and explain the situation. They may be very open to archiving that disabled cache.

 

Actually I just picked out an area that was close to us that is similar to a few other areas around us. I can give you a few more areas like that in the Dallas Fort-Worth Metroplex as well as a few outside the metroplex as well. We know the situation with the cacher who adopted the caches for the area that I gave you. We know why it is taking him a while to get those caches back up & running. If you look at a few of those caches, or even all of them. You will note that neither I nor my husband have logged NA logs on any of them either. Simply because we know him & we know the situation.

 

Neither I nor my husband have problems with a cache being disabled for longer than 90 days IF the CO will simply log and additional write note log saying that their are other issues going on. Since we know him, we know the issues. Although we have told him he should post a "note" log letting other cachers know that there are some special circumstances going on & there will be a delay. Why do we think the write note log important? It lets us know that the CO is still active, alive & well & that he hasn't forgotten about the cache. ON at least 4 caches my husband posted a NA log, the CO emailed him & told him they actually THOUGHT they had archived the cache instead of disabled status it was.

 

As far as placing a cache... My husband currently has 3 caches he is building & that will be placed at caches that need archiving. The reviewer has archived one of them allready, and posted the customary 30 day notice on the other two. The cache that has allready been archived for him to place the new cache would have been placed during super bowl week had it not been for the ice & snow here in Dallas. The Wildlife Preserve Park where he is going to place the cache has also been closed because of the mud from all the ice & snow. (The city closes the Preseve anytime its to muddy for the hikers, bikers, & horses). So like my husband & I both said. The reviewer does a FANTASTIC job when it comes to posting new caches.

 

My husband & I both know that if we want to place a cache that is nearby a cache with issues, that we can & that the reviewer will review the cache in question to allow a new cache to be placed.

 

Heres the thing though. Only about 10% maybe even as much as 15% (If even) of the geocaching community even read the forums. So there is probably a large group of cachers out there that have NO idea that they can place a new cache near a problem cache & have the reviewer review the problem cache to see if they can place their new cache there. We know... but do the cachers who never read the forums know?

 

WNT

 

Is that what this is all about? You and your husband want to take over the spots? Just go find your own places to hide.

[WildNTexas]

Indeed, there are only 1323 disabled geocaches in Texas out of 43300 total listings - about 3%. That percentage is consistent with other regions. I'm not seeing the problem.

 

The issue isn't just with the disabled caches though. Did you forget about the caches that aren't disabled & need RA?

 

Sadly those are much harder to look for..

 

WNT

 

P.S. You didn't answer the question I asked you. Being that you are a reviewer & moderator. Correct??? What action would you like for us to take when we find cache that in our opinion needs reviewer attention?

 

In YOUR opinion. What factors do you think should exist to actually warrant an NA log. In regards to a post someone else posted. We don't log NA logs for caches that have a habitual issues with wet & soaked logs, broken containers, bad swag etc. For those issues we log NM logs. Along with our found logs. We believe NA logs should only be posted if a cache is illegally (Federal, state, local, or Groundspak) placed. Or those cachs that we feel need RA because the cache is MIA &/or disabled.

 

Yikes.. one more edit...

 

Keystone... You say there aren't that many disabled caches. Ok I am with you... Then if you don't consider that number to be very many, and even fewer of those are older than 90 days &/or have NA logs posted. Then by your own addmission, it shouldn't take very long for a reviewer to review thsoe caches then? You did say there weren't very many. So if they arent' very many it shouldn't take anytime at all for a reviewer to review them & take the appropriate action if needed.

Edited February 11, 2011 by WildNTexas

[WildNTexas]

I don't see how more reviewers would help. There appears to be one user that accounts for a large portion of the disabled listings. But more important there seems to be a lot of active caches out there to be found. Have you run out of caches to look for?

 

My husband has alot more than I do. Yes, he is starting to run out of caches nearby to look for. It now usually requires a drive of anywhere from 5 to 10 miles or more to grab a cache. Some days when the weather is bad, like during Super Bowl week (We are in the Dallas area) getting out to drive 5 to 10 miles made it a bigger task. Even though he does have a 4x4 truck. He does cache for numbers as well as many other reasons. We do love the Historical Virtuals that are still around as an example.

 

So in terms of caches within 10 miles of home, they are on the virge of all being found.

 

WNT

Some would be happy to drive only 5 miles. Many drive 20-50 miles to find a cache to find. That is the problem with a big find count, the blast zone just keeps getting bigger and bigger. So if these few that are disabled were to magically become viable and active caches, how long would it be before you again have to lament that you need to drive more than 10 miles?

 

Your absolutly correct. Once those caches that are fixed (disabled or not) become viable again. It would only take anywhere from a couple of weeks, to a month for them to all be found. Depending on weather of course. We, & especially him does drive many many miles to get caches. Look at his stats, we do have a significant number outside the DFW metroplex as well. 9 other states, & 1 non state. (DC). We are also slowly working on trying to get at least 3-5 caches in every county of Texas as well. Along with all of the current Virtuals that are still alive & well. With 254 counties in Texas & has big as Texas is, that isn't an easy chore to do. Not like RI. Heck DFW is bigger than the entire state of RI.

 

WNT

[+GeoGeeBee]

Indeed, there are only 1323 disabled geocaches in Texas out of 43300 total listings - about 3%. That percentage is consistent with other regions. I'm not seeing the problem.

 

The issue isn't just with the disabled caches though. Did you forget about the caches that aren't disabled & need RA?

 

Sadly those are much harder to look for..

 

WNT

 

Gosh, it sounds like you aren't having any fun in this game at all.

 

If I find myself playing a game that isn't any fun, I quit and do something I might actually enjoy.

[Pup Patrol]

I'm sorry, I don't understand where this arbitrary 30 days/90 days thing is coming from. It isn't a Groundspeak policy/guideline, is it? Perhaps different reviewers have different work methods, but I'm not sure that the 30 days/90 days thing is universally "standard".

 

Some times, a "cause" can become an obsession. Some times it's best just to take a few steps back, and focus on other things.

 

I see this happen in forums for other games/sports/hobbies. It's not just a geocaching thing.

 

Whenever I see long, wordy posts, I think to myself "that person is doing their utmost to justify their viewpoint, and feels it imperative to change other people's viewpoint, rather than just putting forth an idea or view, and accepting the fact that other people won't be of the same mindframe".

[WildNTexas]

As the suggestion of adding more reviewers...

My advice is to "let go" of what you can't control. If you get too caught up in minutia such as NA times on caches, geocaching will no longer be fun. It's obvious you care about the geocaching, just don't let your concern sap the joy out of the game.

 

However, there is NO JOY when you go to an area and a good majority of the caches are disabled... Go do a search on Little Elm Texas, 75068.

Center your search on N 33° 10.144 W 096° 53.748.

 

Now whats the ratio of active to inactive caches?

 

WNT

 

I agree, that is a lot of disabled caches. There also appears to be a bit more to the story as well...

 

Most of those disabled caches were by the same cacher. It appears that last fall he agreed to adopt a large number of caches of another cacher and, as they say...no good deed goes unpunished. Unfortunately, it appears the previous CO had a bunch of containers missing but didn't disable or archive them. When the current CO took over they started getting a bunch of DNF's and ended up disabling a significant number of caches that should have been disabled or archived by the previous CO. I'm guessing that CO didn't realize they were taking on that many problems. Those caches have been disabled about 3.5 months. It may be that the Reviewer is familiar with the history of that series and is giving the adopting CO a chance to get the series back on track.

 

My advice to you is still the same...let it go and ignore those caches. It isn't worth the aggravation. If a disabled cache is blocking a location where you'd like to place a cache, try contacting the area reviewer and explain the situation. They may be very open to archiving that disabled cache.

 

Actually I just picked out an area that was close to us that is similar to a few other areas around us. I can give you a few more areas like that in the Dallas Fort-Worth Metroplex as well as a few outside the metroplex as well. We know the situation with the cacher who adopted the caches for the area that I gave you. We know why it is taking him a while to get those caches back up & running. If you look at a few of those caches, or even all of them. You will note that neither I nor my husband have logged NA logs on any of them either. Simply because we know him & we know the situation.

 

Neither I nor my husband have problems with a cache being disabled for longer than 90 days IF the CO will simply log and additional write note log saying that their are other issues going on. Since we know him, we know the issues. Although we have told him he should post a "note" log letting other cachers know that there are some special circumstances going on & there will be a delay. Why do we think the write note log important? It lets us know that the CO is still active, alive & well & that he hasn't forgotten about the cache. ON at least 4 caches my husband posted a NA log, the CO emailed him & told him they actually THOUGHT they had archived the cache instead of disabled status it was.

 

As far as placing a cache... My husband currently has 3 caches he is building & that will be placed at caches that need archiving. The reviewer has archived one of them allready, and posted the customary 30 day notice on the other two. The cache that has allready been archived for him to place the new cache would have been placed during super bowl week had it not been for the ice & snow here in Dallas. The Wildlife Preserve Park where he is going to place the cache has also been closed because of the mud from all the ice & snow. (The city closes the Preseve anytime its to muddy for the hikers, bikers, & horses). So like my husband & I both said. The reviewer does a FANTASTIC job when it comes to posting new caches.

 

My husband & I both know that if we want to place a cache that is nearby a cache with issues, that we can & that the reviewer will review the cache in question to allow a new cache to be placed.

 

Heres the thing though. Only about 10% maybe even as much as 15% (If even) of the geocaching community even read the forums. So there is probably a large group of cachers out there that have NO idea that they can place a new cache near a problem cache & have the reviewer review the problem cache to see if they can place their new cache there. We know... but do the cachers who never read the forums know?

 

WNT

 

Is that what this is all about? You and your husband want to take over the spots? Just go find your own places to hide.

 

Nope, not in the least. We know if we want to place a cache near a cache that in our opinin has issues & should be archived then we will & ask the reviewer to review the cache in question. If he gets the CO to fix the problem. Then great we move our cache to a new location. This has happend once & we didn't have a problem with it. Another time we tried to place a cache, the reviewer looked at the cache in question & told us that it wasn't time for that cache to get a 30 day notice, or get archived yet. We waited a while longer the CO still did nothing. Eventually it was archived & the cache was published. If memory serves me correctly I think it was even my cache, not my husbands, that I had to wait the extra time for. Again not a problem.

 

Now as far as OTHER people, the ones that DON'T read the forums. We are here to try & help them, protect, or whatever. The voice of the silent crowd.

 

Oh & dont' speak up and say your part of the silent crowd.... If you speak up, your not silent & therefore not part of the silent crowd.

 

WNT

[WildNTexas]

I'm sorry, I don't understand where this arbitrary 30 days/90 days thing is coming from. It isn't a Groundspeak policy/guideline, is it? Perhaps different reviewers have different work methods, but I'm not sure that the 30 days/90 days thing is universally "standard".

 

Some times, a "cause" can become an obsession. Some times it's best just to take a few steps back, and focus on other things.

 

I see this happen in forums for other games/sports/hobbies. It's not just a geocaching thing.

 

Whenever I see long, wordy posts, I think to myself "that person is doing their utmost to justify their viewpoint, and feels it imperative to change other people's viewpoint, rather than just putting forth an idea or view, and accepting the fact that other people won't be of the same mindframe".

 

Think about this... if many people did that back in the 40's, 50's, & 60's, would people of coulour have ever gotten the freedoms that they have to do, the equality etc? What about MLK & others like him? He & others tried very hard to change the viewpoints of those people of the USA, He tried even harder to change the minds, & viewpoints of both white & coloured people of the south.

 

If he accepted that he couldn't change the mindframe of those who were in "power" in the south as well as the rest of the country. Would people of colour today be as "Free" now? Putting into the words of MLK. What about Rosa Parks sitting on the bus? Wasn't she trying to change the mindset of some people? Eventaully Her as well as MLK did in fact change the mindset of enough to get changes made.

 

In regards to the 30/90 day thing. It is policy as far as I can tell from guidelines & practices that I as well as others have witnessed. That a reviewer will give a customary 30 day notice for caches that they review that need CO intervention. In the customary notice they ask the CO to either fix the problem with a cache, OR contact the reviewer explaining any circumstances in regards to the cache in question. They must do either of those (or both) within 30 days from the time the 30 day notice log was posted to the cache.

 

As far as the 90 days thing goes. I as well as a few others from posts that my husband & I have read, as well as other cachers that we have spoken with. Do believe that 90 days is more than long enough for a disabled cache to get fixed & made active again, of course barring any special circumstances as sometimes there are always exceptions to the rule.

 

As far as how the world got stuck on normal 30/90 day time frames. Partly because 30 days is considered a month, 90 days is 3 months. In terms of legality & how our political system & legal system work. 30 day notices, 90 day time frames is what they use.

ie...If your renting an apartment & you want to move out, you are required to give a 30 day notice. If they want to end your rental agreement at the end of the contract they are required to give you a 30 day notice. In the courts alot of things (depending on local, state & federal laws) have 30 day or 90 day time spans to them.

 

Thats why as a general rule, barring the exceptions of course, most things in life that have a time span to them will many many times have 30 days or 90 days. Think of return policies at Best Buy, Radio Shack, & many other stores. Most (but not all) have 30 day return policies.

 

For us though it really isn't so much about 30/90 days. They are just good general guidelines. We don't have a problem with the exceptions. But we believe though that all exceptions geocaching or not. Should be delt with on a case by case basis. Simply because each exception is always different. Thats why it's an exception.

 

IMHO... one minute one reviewer/moderator says their are to many disabled caches that need reviewing & we can't get to them but once every 2 or 3 months. Then another says there aren't that many so whats the problem. More reviewers aren't needed cause the workload isn't to much to handle. Yet if that were really true then why would it take 2 or 3 months to review? By one moderators own admission that it can take that long.

 

So we wonder which is it. To many caches that need reviewing that it takes 2 or 3 months, or not so many? If not so many than why 2 or 3 months for a cache with a NA log to get reviewed?

 

WNT

Edited February 11, 2011 by WildNTexas

[Pup Patrol]

I'm sorry, I don't understand where this arbitrary 30 days/90 days thing is coming from. It isn't a Groundspeak policy/guideline, is it? Perhaps different reviewers have different work methods, but I'm not sure that the 30 days/90 days thing is universally "standard".

 

Some times, a "cause" can become an obsession. Some times it's best just to take a few steps back, and focus on other things.

 

I see this happen in forums for other games/sports/hobbies. It's not just a geocaching thing.

 

Whenever I see long, wordy posts, I think to myself "that person is doing their utmost to justify their viewpoint, and feels it imperative to change other people's viewpoint, rather than just putting forth an idea or view, and accepting the fact that other people won't be of the same mindframe".

 

Think about this... if many people did that back in the 40's, 50's, & 60's, would people of coulour have ever gotten the freedoms that they have to do, the equality etc? What about MLK & others like him? He & others tried very hard to change the viewpoints of those people of the USA, He tried even harder to change the minds, & viewpoints of both white & coloured people of the south.

 

If he accepted that he couldn't change the mindframe of those who were in "power" in the south as well as the rest of the country. Would people of colour today be as "Free" now? Putting into the words of MLK. What about Rosa Parks sitting on the bus? Wasn't she trying to change the mindset of some people? Eventaully Her as well as MLK did in fact change the mindset of enough to get changes made.

 

WNT

D

 

Quite honestly, I find that analogy offensive.

 

We're talking geocaching here...a game for grownups. It doesn't come anywhere close to Civil Rights.

 

Dial it back a bit, please. This is what I meant about letting something trivial become your obsession. Your arguments and analogies get out of touch with reality.

[Pup Patrol]

There's an app cartoon for that:

 

[GOF and Bacall]

I'm sorry, I don't understand where this arbitrary 30 days/90 days thing is coming from. It isn't a Groundspeak policy/guideline, is it? Perhaps different reviewers have different work methods, but I'm not sure that the 30 days/90 days thing is universally "standard".

 

Some times, a "cause" can become an obsession. Some times it's best just to take a few steps back, and focus on other things.

 

I see this happen in forums for other games/sports/hobbies. It's not just a geocaching thing.

 

Whenever I see long, wordy posts, I think to myself "that person is doing their utmost to justify their viewpoint, and feels it imperative to change other people's viewpoint, rather than just putting forth an idea or view, and accepting the fact that other people won't be of the same mindframe".

 

Think about this... if many people did that back in the 40's, 50's, & 60's, would people of coulour have ever gotten the freedoms that they have to do, the equality etc? What about MLK & others like him? He & others tried very hard to change the viewpoints of those people of the USA, He tried even harder to change the minds, & viewpoints of both white & coloured people of the south.

 

If he accepted that he couldn't change the mindframe of those who were in "power" in the south as well as the rest of the country. Would people of colour today be as "Free" now? Putting into the words of MLK. What about Rosa Parks sitting on the bus? Wasn't she trying to change the mindset of some people? Eventaully Her as well as MLK did in fact change the mindset of enough to get changes made.

 

WNT

D

 

This is geocaching and you aren't MLK. Get over yourself.

 

There are a few caches that aren't active. If you take away those of the person who's situation you said you understand there are way fewer. It appears that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[+wimseyguy]

Have we just witnessed the creation of King's to Godwin's law?

Civil Rights and geocaching are in similar dire straits because some don't speak up?

 

What's next; the regular forum participants who aren't agreeing with you are similar to klan members?

 

PUHLLLEZE! Most cachers don't bother coming into the forums for any number of reasons, but they don't need someone here to speak for their rights.

[WildNTexas]

I'm sorry, I don't understand where this arbitrary 30 days/90 days thing is coming from. It isn't a Groundspeak policy/guideline, is it? Perhaps different reviewers have different work methods, but I'm not sure that the 30 days/90 days thing is universally "standard".

 

Some times, a "cause" can become an obsession. Some times it's best just to take a few steps back, and focus on other things.

 

I see this happen in forums for other games/sports/hobbies. It's not just a geocaching thing.

 

Whenever I see long, wordy posts, I think to myself "that person is doing their utmost to justify their viewpoint, and feels it imperative to change other people's viewpoint, rather than just putting forth an idea or view, and accepting the fact that other people won't be of the same mindframe".

 

Think about this... if many people did that back in the 40's, 50's, & 60's, would people of coulour have ever gotten the freedoms that they have to do, the equality etc? What about MLK & others like him? He & others tried very hard to change the viewpoints of those people of the USA, He tried even harder to change the minds, & viewpoints of both white & coloured people of the south.

 

If he accepted that he couldn't change the mindframe of those who were in "power" in the south as well as the rest of the country. Would people of colour today be as "Free" now? Putting into the words of MLK. What about Rosa Parks sitting on the bus? Wasn't she trying to change the mindset of some people? Eventaully Her as well as MLK did in fact change the mindset of enough to get changes made.

 

WNT

D

 

This is geocaching and you aren't MLK. Get over yourself.

 

There are a few caches that aren't active. If you take away those of the person who's situation you said you understand there are way fewer. It appears that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

To an ant, a mole hill is pretty big. Just like what some consider a lame cache, others do not. At one time Pro Football wasn't taken very seriously. Look at it today. May other sports, hobbies weren't taken very serious in the beggining.

 

Now for me it honestly isn't as big a deal, I am fighting the fight for my husband. For him it is a big deal. Consider this. He has certain mental disabilites. The way geocaching works is something that is very good therapy as well as a good hobby for people with his types of issues to have. Not like playing footbal, or biking, or many other hobbies or sports.

 

So people like him take geocaching extremly seriously. That ISN'T going to change for people like him. If it could be changed, some doctor would win the Nobel piece prize for finding the cure that could change all people that are afflicted like him.

 

So while I am NOT MLK fighting for coloured people I am fighting the fight to gain more rights, & respect for those people that have true mental issues (that are recognized by the ADA).

 

So maybe YOU and I CAN get over and simply ignore and move on from problem caches. Some people with certain mental issues CAN NOT. So when a area has a significant number of caches with an issue (especially after you have allready found the viable caches) those that remain become a thorn in their side. Now my husband doesn't have a severe case of these mental issues, there are others that are not & alot more severe than my husband. So if it bugs him a little, its going to bug those that are more severe alot more.

 

Some of you may not take geocaching very seriously, thats fine. Thats your right. Thats what makes america great. I can tell you this. There are many many hobbies & sports that huge numbers of people take extremly seriously. Many millions if not billions of amatuer dollars are spent on many of these sports & hobbies each year. By amatuer I mean everyday people. Not counting the dollars that Jerry Jones spends on his hobby owning the Dallas Cowboys & building cool stadiums.

 

So geocaching being a hobby or sport... I just wonder how many dollars are actually spent on geocaching each year. Placing caches, as well those searching for them. Buying GPS devices, Smartphone apps, containers, etc. Since Groundspeak isn't IPO yet, I would be curious to see what kind of money Groundspeak pulls in each year as well. Obviously enough to have employees, build smartphone apps, & maintain their website. My husband & I gather a guess that people are spending at least 10 million a year on geocaching. In the last year of geocaching I know we have spent well over $5,000 (if not more) on this hobby & sport.

 

WNT

[+sTeamTraen]

Now for me it honestly isn't as big a deal, I am fighting the fight for my husband. For him it is a big deal. Consider this. He has certain mental disabilites. The way geocaching works is something that is very good therapy as well as a good hobby for people with his types of issues to have. Not like playing footbal, or biking, or many other hobbies or sports.

 

So people like him take geocaching extremly seriously. That ISN'T going to change for people like him. If it could be changed, some doctor would win the Nobel piece prize for finding the cure that could change all people that are afflicted like him.

 

So while I am NOT MLK fighting for coloured people I am fighting the fight to gain more rights, & respect for those people that have true mental issues (that are recognized by the ADA).

 

So maybe YOU and I CAN get over and simply ignore and move on from problem caches. Some people with certain mental issues CAN NOT. So when a area has a significant number of caches with an issue (especially after you have allready found the viable caches) those that remain become a thorn in their side. Now my husband doesn't have a severe case of these mental issues, there are others that are not & alot more severe than my husband. So if it bugs him a little, its going to bug those that are more severe alot more.

I'm sorry to hear that, and to the extent that you would like to receive them, you and your husband have my sympathies.

 

However, since you came into this thread, you have not been defending your husband's right to post, or explaining any limitations which he might have. You have, in fact, been arguing for exactly the same points of principle that he was, as if you believed him to be objectively right, on issues such as cache maintenance and reviewer reaction times. Perhaps you were doing this out of solidarity with him, but you might wish to consider if that really helps him. You now appear to be in the position of someone who is trying to dig themselves out of a hole, and that does neither you nor your husband any service.

[+Ecylram]

So people like him take geocaching extremly seriously. That ISN'T going to change for people like him. If it could be changed, some doctor would win the Nobel piece prize for finding the cure that could change all people that are afflicted like him.

 

Here's the thing...

 

You (nor I) have the ability to change other people's behavior. The only thing we really have control over is how we react to what other people say or do.

 

You cannot control your husband's reaction to things, nor do you have any control over what other cachers & reviewers do. To think otherwise is folly. A more successful course to take is to adapt to what world gives you. It's really the only option, and a happier one.

 

Your husband is a lucky man to have someone who cares as much about him as you do. I fear that your desire to change the outcomes for him will only have the affect of causing more discontent. I wish you well.

[+baloo&bd]

 

To an ant, a mole hill is pretty big. Just like what some consider a lame cache, others do not. At one time Pro Football wasn't taken very seriously. Look at it today. May other sports, hobbies weren't taken very serious in the beggining.

 

Now for me it honestly isn't as big a deal, I am fighting the fight for my husband. For him it is a big deal. Consider this. He has certain mental disabilites. The way geocaching works is something that is very good therapy as well as a good hobby for people with his types of issues to have. Not like playing footbal, or biking, or many other hobbies or sports.

 

So people like him take geocaching extremly seriously. That ISN'T going to change for people like him. If it could be changed, some doctor would win the Nobel piece prize for finding the cure that could change all people that are afflicted like him.

 

So while I am NOT MLK fighting for coloured people I am fighting the fight to gain more rights, & respect for those people that have true mental issues (that are recognized by the ADA).

 

So maybe YOU and I CAN get over and simply ignore and move on from problem caches. Some people with certain mental issues CAN NOT. So when a area has a significant number of caches with an issue (especially after you have allready found the viable caches) those that remain become a thorn in their side. Now my husband doesn't have a severe case of these mental issues, there are others that are not & alot more severe than my husband. So if it bugs him a little, its going to bug those that are more severe alot more.

 

Some of you may not take geocaching very seriously, thats fine. Thats your right. Thats what makes america great. I can tell you this. There are many many hobbies & sports that huge numbers of people take extremly seriously. Many millions if not billions of amatuer dollars are spent on many of these sports & hobbies each year. By amatuer I mean everyday people. Not counting the dollars that Jerry Jones spends on his hobby owning the Dallas Cowboys & building cool stadiums.

 

So geocaching being a hobby or sport... I just wonder how many dollars are actually spent on geocaching each year. Placing caches, as well those searching for them. Buying GPS devices, Smartphone apps, containers, etc. Since Groundspeak isn't IPO yet, I would be curious to see what kind of money Groundspeak pulls in each year as well. Obviously enough to have employees, build smartphone apps, & maintain their website. My husband & I gather a guess that people are spending at least 10 million a year on geocaching. In the last year of geocaching I know we have spent well over $5,000 (if not more) on this hobby & sport.

 

WNT

 

To be honest, as I read your posts and find out the rest of the story, any credibility your argument had is shot.

 

First, you present that there is a much bigger problem that other parts of the country. Others, point out that it might be one Co that might be skewing the numbers. You come back and say that CO issues are alright because you know them.

 

You gave coords and a GC# to use as center points as an example of the problem. Again it was pointed out that the area does not seem that bad and you counter with you just grab an area close an it is actually much worse elsewhere, yet your state does not apear to have issues with as high a percentage as some other states. The distance thing was a non-issue. I have 2 caches less than 11 miles from my house and only 30 or so in the area from 11 to 15 miles out and our numbers are not that high.

 

Somehow you managed to introduce a very offensive element by comparing your self to MLK and using what some consider a derogatory term. You defended yourself and continued to use the term.

 

Now after something like 3 or 4 pages worth of discussion and all points satisfactorily address, you offer a health issue as a reaso this needs to be dealt with. While we all may empathetic, there is absolutely nothing we can do and using it in this way, quite frankly, was also offensive.

 

Sorry, with a group this big giving priority to something that affects so few, or the least common denominator, just is not possible.

 

I really hope this thread gets locked. It has gone too far off track.

[texasavenger]

I really hope this thread gets locked. It has gone too far off track.

i really hope there caches are archived to. They are too selfish to own them.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I really hope this thread gets locked. It has gone too far off track.

IBTL!

[knowschad]

I really hope this thread gets locked. It has gone too far off track.

i really hope there caches are archived to. They are too selfish to own them.

 

 

IBTL!

Me, too. Is this Ringbone again, do you suppose?

Edited February 11, 2011 by knowschad

[+Semper Questio]

I really hope this thread gets locked. It has gone too far off track.

i really hope there caches are archived to. They are too selfish to own them.

[+edscott]

I don't see how more reviewers would help. There appears to be one user that accounts for a large portion of the disabled listings. But more important there seems to be a lot of active caches out there to be found. Have you run out of caches to look for?

 

My husband has alot more than I do. Yes, he is starting to run out of caches nearby to look for. It now usually requires a drive of anywhere from 5 to 10 miles or more to grab a cache. Some days when the weather is bad, like during Super Bowl week (We are in the Dallas area) getting out to drive 5 to 10 miles made it a bigger task. Even though he does have a 4x4 truck. He does cache for numbers as well as many other reasons. We do love the Historical Virtuals that are still around as an example.

 

So in terms of caches within 10 miles of home, they are on the virge of all being found.

 

WNT

 

There you are.. 5 or 10 miles is a problem? Now I understand your pizza delivery analogy a bit better. Should we send you some caches?

[+wimseyguy]

I really hope this thread gets locked. It has gone too far off track.

i really hope there caches are archived to. They are too selfish to own them.

So tell us how you feel about chindlen too.

[GOF and Bacall]

I'm sorry, I don't understand where this arbitrary 30 days/90 days thing is coming from. It isn't a Groundspeak policy/guideline, is it? Perhaps different reviewers have different work methods, but I'm not sure that the 30 days/90 days thing is universally "standard".

 

Some times, a "cause" can become an obsession. Some times it's best just to take a few steps back, and focus on other things.

 

I see this happen in forums for other games/sports/hobbies. It's not just a geocaching thing.

 

Whenever I see long, wordy posts, I think to myself "that person is doing their utmost to justify their viewpoint, and feels it imperative to change other people's viewpoint, rather than just putting forth an idea or view, and accepting the fact that other people won't be of the same mindframe".

 

Think about this... if many people did that back in the 40's, 50's, & 60's, would people of coulour have ever gotten the freedoms that they have to do, the equality etc? What about MLK & others like him? He & others tried very hard to change the viewpoints of those people of the USA, He tried even harder to change the minds, & viewpoints of both white & coloured people of the south.

 

If he accepted that he couldn't change the mindframe of those who were in "power" in the south as well as the rest of the country. Would people of colour today be as "Free" now? Putting into the words of MLK. What about Rosa Parks sitting on the bus? Wasn't she trying to change the mindset of some people? Eventaully Her as well as MLK did in fact change the mindset of enough to get changes made.

 

WNT

D

 

This is geocaching and you aren't MLK. Get over yourself.

 

There are a few caches that aren't active. If you take away those of the person who's situation you said you understand there are way fewer. It appears that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

To an ant, a mole hill is pretty big. Just like what some consider a lame cache, others do not. At one time Pro Football wasn't taken very seriously. Look at it today. May other sports, hobbies weren't taken very serious in the beggining.

 

Now for me it honestly isn't as big a deal, I am fighting the fight for my husband. For him it is a big deal. Consider this. He has certain mental disabilites. The way geocaching works is something that is very good therapy as well as a good hobby for people with his types of issues to have. Not like playing footbal, or biking, or many other hobbies or sports.

 

So people like him take geocaching extremly seriously. That ISN'T going to change for people like him. If it could be changed, some doctor would win the Nobel piece prize for finding the cure that could change all people that are afflicted like him.

 

So while I am NOT MLK fighting for coloured people I am fighting the fight to gain more rights, & respect for those people that have true mental issues (that are recognized by the ADA).

 

So maybe YOU and I CAN get over and simply ignore and move on from problem caches. Some people with certain mental issues CAN NOT. So when a area has a significant number of caches with an issue (especially after you have allready found the viable caches) those that remain become a thorn in their side. Now my husband doesn't have a severe case of these mental issues, there are others that are not & alot more severe than my husband. So if it bugs him a little, its going to bug those that are more severe alot more.

 

Some of you may not take geocaching very seriously, thats fine. Thats your right. Thats what makes america great. I can tell you this. There are many many hobbies & sports that huge numbers of people take extremly seriously. Many millions if not billions of amatuer dollars are spent on many of these sports & hobbies each year. By amatuer I mean everyday people. Not counting the dollars that Jerry Jones spends on his hobby owning the Dallas Cowboys & building cool stadiums.

 

So geocaching being a hobby or sport... I just wonder how many dollars are actually spent on geocaching each year. Placing caches, as well those searching for them. Buying GPS devices, Smartphone apps, containers, etc. Since Groundspeak isn't IPO yet, I would be curious to see what kind of money Groundspeak pulls in each year as well. Obviously enough to have employees, build smartphone apps, & maintain their website. My husband & I gather a guess that people are spending at least 10 million a year on geocaching. In the last year of geocaching I know we have spent well over $5,000 (if not more) on this hobby & sport.

 

WNT

 

If it is any consolation to you you do have my sympathy for your situation. I just don't think you are being realistic in this situation.

[+narcissa]

So maybe YOU and I CAN get over and simply ignore and move on from problem caches. Some people with certain mental issues CAN NOT.

 

There are plenty of people with various disabilities who geocache and participate in the geocaching forums without constantly making it into a big issue. It's not the reviewer's job to appease your husband's obsession with disabled caches.

[texasavenger]

Some people with certain mental issues CAN NOT.

whens mommy going to let her husband come out to play? your doing more damage to his image than he ever did.

[WildNTexas]

Now for me it honestly isn't as big a deal, I am fighting the fight for my husband. For him it is a big deal. Consider this. He has certain mental disabilites. The way geocaching works is something that is very good therapy as well as a good hobby for people with his types of issues to have. Not like playing footbal, or biking, or many other hobbies or sports.

 

So people like him take geocaching extremly seriously. That ISN'T going to change for people like him. If it could be changed, some doctor would win the Nobel piece prize for finding the cure that could change all people that are afflicted like him.

 

So while I am NOT MLK fighting for coloured people I am fighting the fight to gain more rights, & respect for those people that have true mental issues (that are recognized by the ADA).

 

So maybe YOU and I CAN get over and simply ignore and move on from problem caches. Some people with certain mental issues CAN NOT. So when a area has a significant number of caches with an issue (especially after you have allready found the viable caches) those that remain become a thorn in their side. Now my husband doesn't have a severe case of these mental issues, there are others that are not & alot more severe than my husband. So if it bugs him a little, its going to bug those that are more severe alot more.

I'm sorry to hear that, and to the extent that you would like to receive them, you and your husband have my sympathies.

 

However, since you came into this thread, you have not been defending your husband's right to post, or explaining any limitations which he might have. You have, in fact, been arguing for exactly the same points of principle that he was, as if you believed him to be objectively right, on issues such as cache maintenance and reviewer reaction times. Perhaps you were doing this out of solidarity with him, but you might wish to consider if that really helps him. You now appear to be in the position of someone who is trying to dig themselves out of a hole, and that does neither you nor your husband any service.

 

To respond to your comment I say this.

 

Yes, I do fight the fight out of solidarity. I do believe in some of the arguments that he has in regards to this issue. Keep in mind though that the thread was created by my husband. So I am here fighting his fight. It doesn't matter if I fully agree with all of his arguments for the issue or not.

 

As far as what really helps him, and others like him when it comes to geocaching is hard to tell. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But since I do know him better than any of you. I would like to think I would know best. My husband & I have discussed this issue with certain proffesionals in this area of expertise as well. Should those proffesionals suggest a course of action for me or him to take we would most certainly follow it.

 

Here is what we do wonder, & even Keystone the moderator/reviewer hasn't asked the simple question we asked. What course of action to THEY the moderators & reviewers want us to take to solve the issue of these problem caches quicker. It shouldn't matter if it is jsut one problem cache, or a 1000. Is that it doesn't make any logical sense why as geocachers any of you would not care about problem caches, Not care that reviewers are taking 2 or 3 months to intervene so that they the caches get either fixed or archived.

 

WE don't honestly understand why this is a big issue? If as you & others & even a couple of the moderators/reviewers say that their aren't very many caches that need reviewer attention. Then why don't they just get them reviewed then. That would probably, maybe shut us up. As we wouldn't have any grounds to stand on at all. If there aren't that many as you & the others have kept saying. Then why not get them reviewed? I can say this. That it would shut my hsuband up about it. Thats for sure.

 

Honestly, we have no desire to create additional work for the reviewers. Thats why we have always suggested that maybe the system should be automated. That would reduce reviewer work load. It woudln't be that hard to have a good system that would help automate the review process for disabled caches, or for caches with NA logs.

 

Are only desire is to get caches that need reviewer attention, tended to in a timely manner. Thats all. It shouldn't matter if the number of those caches in question is 1 or 1000. In fact the lower the number it is, the lsss excuse in our opinion Groundspeak has in the length of time it takes to get reviewed.

 

As far as my analogies are concerned. I will say this. I am sorry you don't understand our analogies. If they don't make much sense to you or to others. We can deal with that. We don't understand other peoples analogies most of the time either. As far as MLK goes. We/I NEVER meant any offense or disrepect to anyone, nor did I ever intend to say that I was MLK, or that I was like MLK. So if you or anyone else took offense to that. I/we offer our sincerest apologies. The point I/we were trying to make is simple, he was trying to change the mindset of people, and so were we. Nothing more, nothing less. Changing a mindset can be done. It isn't impossible. Just not allways easy.

 

He does take geocaching seriously, very seriously. As seriously as the owner of Groundspeak? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. People do take their hobbies seriously. It doesnt' matter if you agree that they should or shouldn't people do.

 

So obviously this is a lost cause. What we have begun to understand is truly that getting caches that need some type of intervention to take place isn't something that anyone really honestly cares about. Because we come from the belief if you care about something. You will do something about it. People only try to change the things around them that they care about. If you dont' care about something, your not going to put the time & effort into to change it, or to make it better.

 

Sorry it just doesn't make any logical sense to us. I accept that we have lost this issue, that this issue will remain. Getting him to understand & accept it will be something I have to deal with over time.

 

In case We/I have said anything offensive to anyone, or disrespectfull, I want to offer our/my apologies. At no time did either of us ever intentionally mean to be disrespectfull or offensive to anyone. So if either of us were. We are sincerely sorry for this. That was never our intention or desire. This includes any moderator, or reviewer as well.

 

Our only intention was to find a solution, any workable solution that would make the jobs easier for the reviewers & still improve the turn around time on getting caches that need intervention reviewed quicker.

 

We have now bow our heads in defeat & drop the issue.

 

WNT

[WildNTexas]

@KEYSTONE & Keystone only... (Or another moderator/reviewer)

 

We would like an answer to our question. We do realize that you probably have not had a chance to be able to answer the question since we posted it.

 

To clarify our question... as moderator, reviewer. The question was how do you want us to handle caches that we feel need reviwer attention? When in your opinion should a NA log be logged or not logged? (Other than because a cache is placed illegally)

 

What action do you wish us to take for caches that have NA logs that are a 90 days? 6 Months old, a YEAR old?

 

What action would you like us to take for caches that have the reviewer 30 day notice on them, and the 30 day notice is 90 days old, 6 months old, even a YEAR old?

 

Or do we do nothing?

 

WNT

Edited February 12, 2011 by WildNTexas

[Clan Riffster]

Whenever I see long, wordy posts, I think to myself "that person is doing their utmost to justify their viewpoint, and feels it imperative to change other people's viewpoint, rather than just putting forth an idea or view, and accepting the fact that other people won't be of the same mindframe".

The "Ding" we just heard was Pup Patrol hitting the nail squarely on its head.

 

i really hope there caches are archived to. They are too selfish to own them.

Hi Chef. Welcome back.

[Clan Riffster]

Our only intention was to find a solution

[knowschad]

Whenever I see long, wordy posts, I think to myself "that person is doing their utmost to justify their viewpoint, and feels it imperative to change other people's viewpoint, rather than just putting forth an idea or view, and accepting the fact that other people won't be of the same mindframe".

The "Ding" we just heard was Pup Patrol hitting the nail squarely on its head.

Ahhhh... so that's what I heard! Loud and clear.

 

i really hope there caches are archived to. They are too selfish to own them.

Hi Chef. Welcome back.

Ahhhh.... of course!

[Keystone]

@KEYSTONE & Keystone only...

This isn't how forums work.

 

::: Bows out of thread gracefully, wishing WildNTexas and everyone else a relaxing weekend :::

[+wimseyguy]

Suggestions on how to proceed with caches that may have multiple DNF's but aren't disabled were offered back in post #99. Either ignore them via the options in the PQ generator, or take a quick look for them and post a legit NA based on personal experience.

[+WRASTRO]

@KEYSTONE & Keystone only...

This isn't how forums work.

 

::: Bows out of thread gracefully, wishing WildNTexas and everyone else a relaxing weekend :::

You are a moderator for this thread. How can you bow out?

[Brad_W]

Sorry, wordy post alert!

 

This topic has taken huge excursions off the track and is being closed.

 

In answer to the predominant question - if someone believes that a reviewer is behaving inappropriately, including not acting when it seems that he or she should act, the appropriate course of action is to document the issue in an email addressed to appeals@geocaching.com With due respect to the geocaching community members participating in the forums, they can agree with someone's position, disagree with someone's position, disagree with someone's agreement or agree with someone's disagreement. Such a discussion might be informative or entertaining, but it is not going to result in changes to Groundspeak's volunteer deployments. An email to appeals will at least cause the people at Groundspeak who can act on the reported issue to examine it and determine what action might be appropriate, if any.

 

Volunteer reviewers have many responsibilities, and how each reviewer prioritizes his or her tasks is between the reviewer and Groundspeak. We do strive to do the initial review of newly submitted cache pages within three days whenever possible. Other than that, the other tasks have priorities which rise and fall in concert with myriad conditions. As stated earlier, certain cache issues rise promptly to the top of the priority list.

 

Actions that Groundspeak might take to increase or alter the alignment of volunteer reviewer resources are held confidential, as are personnel issues in any organization. We respect the privacy of our users, our volunteers and our employees. While we do tolerate some comments about individual volunteers in the forums, we expect all comments to be made in a respectful manner. Our tolerance level for disrespectful or abusive comments about our volunteers is quite low. If a comment cannot be expressed in a respectful manner, it should not be expressed at all. The expectation for respectfulness applies to comments about other community members as well.

 

This started off with the intent of being a one-liner so I had better stop before it gets any longer.

 

I hope you are all able to find or hide a few caches this weekend.

 

-Brad

Signal's Apprentice

 

Brad Webb

Groundspeak, Inc. - The Language of Location

home of: Geocaching, Waymarking, Wherigo

www.Groundspeak.com