Jump to content

Need More reviewers


Recommended Posts

Posted

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. :lol:

 

Hmmn. As long as we are talking about rumors. What about the one that says you are ST? In your alter ego that is. :anibad:

Posted

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.

 

Im seriously not worried about a cache that has been disabled for only 30 days, not even worried if has been disabled for 60 days. It's when it starts to be, or allready has been 90 days and NOT a single word from the CO on what the status should be that I think something should be done. Or in some cases... where 90 days have gone by, and even the CO hasn't LOGGED on to GC.com at all either. IMHO I call that an abandoned cache.

 

The other issue is of course caches that have NOT yet be disabled as well. Again... 30 days is a little short. 90 days on the other hand IMHO is more than enough time to have disabled the cache, posted a note &/or archived it, if not even have fixed the darn thing.

 

I honestly have no idea, nor information on how many reviewers Texas actually has. The only information regarding that is based on the posts in this thread. But if indeed Texas does only have 1 reviewer. I don't care how good he/she is.... They still need another. As a backup, for when the current reviewer needs extra help, takes vacation, has family emergencies, or even gets sick and is unable to perform the duties of his "office" lol.

 

TGC

Posted

 

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. :lol:

 

Cool! Go for it. Would love to know what kind of response you get back from gc.com. Just for laughs.

 

TGC

Posted (edited)

The reviewer team at Groundspeak has been outsourced to India. You didnt know this? Groundspeak is trying to save money in the area of reviewing. Indians work for roughly 1/3 less than what the American reviewers worked for. They take less smoke breaks, and have the least experience in American idiosyncrasies, making them prime real estate for an agendaless geocaching community.

Edited by johnsingleton1974
Posted

The reviewer team at Groundspeak has been outsourced to India. You didnt know this? Groundspeak is trying to save money in the area of reviewing. Indians work for roughly 1/3 less than what the American reviewers worked for. They take less smoke breaks, and have the least experience in American idiosyncrasies, making them prime real estate for an agendaless geocaching community.

Poor post. Must be the weekend. :ph34r:

Posted (edited)

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.

Here in Washington state, we are spoiled by having FIVE reviewers.

Edited by hydnsek
Posted
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.

Not really. Maybe each of those 4 reviewers in Ontario is only able to review for, at most, 1 hour per day. While the 1 reviewer in Texas is able and willing to review for 4 hours per day.

 

I pulled those timeframes out of the air, but I think you get my point. It's not about number of reviewers, but about how much time needs to be spent.

Posted
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.

Not really. Maybe each of those 4 reviewers in Ontario is only able to review for, at most, 1 hour per day. While the 1 reviewer in Texas is able and willing to review for 4 hours per day.

 

I pulled those timeframes out of the air, but I think you get my point. It's not about number of reviewers, but about how much time needs to be spent.

 

Groundspeak claims to have a service goal of 72 hours, which obviously can't be met at times, but is it being met at all in Texas? I see a lot of complaints about reviewer delays from Texas geocachers - it's a forum cliche at this point.

 

All of Ontario's reviewers seem to be very active and very busy, so I really don't think it's a matter of the same amount of time/commitment being spread out over several people. It's rare to wait 72 hours to hear from a reviewer about a new cache. Occasionally we even get guest reviewers to help cover when the regular reviewers can't keep up.

Posted

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.

 

Four for Ontario, but one of them handles other provinces as well.

 

Ottawa is directly adjacent to Quebec, so in our area we have the possibility of dealing with three additional reviewers from that province, depending on where we hide our caches. Population-wise, Quebec and Ontario together have close to the same number of people as Texas... and seven reviewers.

Posted
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.

Not really. Maybe each of those 4 reviewers in Ontario is only able to review for, at most, 1 hour per day. While the 1 reviewer in Texas is able and willing to review for 4 hours per day.

 

I pulled those timeframes out of the air, but I think you get my point. It's not about number of reviewers, but about how much time needs to be spent.

 

Groundspeak claims to have a service goal of 72 hours, which obviously can't be met at times, but is it being met at all in Texas? I see a lot of complaints about reviewer delays from Texas geocachers - it's a forum cliche at this point.

 

All of Ontario's reviewers seem to be very active and very busy, so I really don't think it's a matter of the same amount of time/commitment being spread out over several people. It's rare to wait 72 hours to hear from a reviewer about a new cache. Occasionally we even get guest reviewers to help cover when the regular reviewers can't keep up.

I don't think I've ever had a cache listing go over the 3 day limit from Prime Reviewer. He's very consistent right at the third day. I've had a couple publish the same day.

Posted
If Texas only has 1 Reviewer, I would say they need more.

That does seem a bit odd. If you look at states by size, there are 21 that are bigger than Florida, and we've got 3 reviewers.

I did here Texas was promoting a new State Slogan: "Texas: Half the size of Alaska" :P:lol:

Posted (edited)

Here is the latest info that we found out.

 

Some of which came directly as a response from someone at geocaching.com when we did a "Contact Geocaching" form.

 

We were told by this person the following first before contacting them.

 

1. If you believe a cache should be archived, or needs other reviewer attention, please post an N/A log.

If after 7 days the CO or Reviewer has not corrected the problem, or the reviewer has not posted a log note in the cache.

Then we are to contact them, with the GC number.

 

2. If their is a reviewer 30 day notice allready posted, & it has been 7 days past the 30 day notice. (Ie 37 days from reviewer posting log note)

Then we can contact them giving them the GC number.

 

This person said that they would add the GC number to the list for the reviewer for review. The other interesting note though was that they said that the reviewers usually process/review N/A logs in batches. Usually around once a month.

 

This raised the question to myself & my husband about contacting geocaching.com 7 days after a NA log was posted. We sent another email asking about this, but have not received a reply back yet on this question. It is super bowl weekend, so we don't expect a reply on this question for another few days. Still too early.

 

Just thought we would post this info as a FYI

 

WNT

 

P.S. We did ask how many reviewers are in Texas on the last email. We will see if they answer that question or not.

Edited by WildNTexas
Posted

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).

 

I think I'll give that a try.

Posted

If I know of a cache that has been disabled since november. There are no posts since it was disabled. Should I post a NA or a note?

 

Not sure. I once asked for status on a 15 month old Disabled cache and was told by the owner to 'mind my own knitt'n'. Most NA's are ignored for months on end.

Posted

If I know of a cache that has been disabled since november. There are no posts since it was disabled. Should I post a NA or a note?

 

Personally I would say that it is up to you. Do you feel that the CO has abandoned this cache? Whats the reason this cache is disabled?

Prior to it being disabled, were there a bunch of DNF's logged? When was it last "Found".

 

If there were a bunch of DNF's and it hasn't been found in over 6 months, as well as being disabled for 3, then I would post a NA log.

If their aren't any DNF's logged And it's last found was also in say Sept, oct, or Nov. Then I might just post a note and see what happens. If it goes another 30 days without any new logs, then I would log a NA. That JMHO though.

 

WNT

Posted

If I know of a cache that has been disabled since november. There are no posts since it was disabled. Should I post a NA or a note?

 

Not sure. I once asked for status on a 15 month old Disabled cache and was told by the owner to 'mind my own knitt'n'. Most NA's are ignored for months on end.

 

If a CO did that to me or my husband. We would post a NA log & wait. Then if needed use the "Contact geocaching.com" form. Especailly if the CO deletes the NA log, or the NA goes longer than 30 days without a response.

 

WNT

Posted

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. :ph34r:

Not completely true. I don't always wear sunglasses. :anibad:

But do you wear your sunglasses at night? that is the question.

 

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. <_<

I miss Colorado :(

 

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.

Not really. Maybe each of those 4 reviewers in Ontario is only able to review for, at most, 1 hour per day. While the 1 reviewer in Texas is able and willing to review for 4 hours per day.

 

I pulled those timeframes out of the air, but I think you get my point. It's not about number of reviewers, but about how much time needs to be spent.

 

Groundspeak claims to have a service goal of 72 hours, which obviously can't be met at times, but is it being met at all in Texas? I see a lot of complaints about reviewer delays from Texas geocachers - it's a forum cliche at this point.

 

All of Ontario's reviewers seem to be very active and very busy, so I really don't think it's a matter of the same amount of time/commitment being spread out over several people. It's rare to wait 72 hours to hear from a reviewer about a new cache. Occasionally we even get guest reviewers to help cover when the regular reviewers can't keep up.

I don't think I've ever had a cache listing go over the 3 day limit from Prime Reviewer. He's very consistent right at the third day. I've had a couple publish the same day.

I am a newly arrived Texan, Midland County caches seem to take about four days, which I think is reasonable. I have been spoiled by Mtn-Mans tuesday/thursday/sunday publishing for several years now :D but I think three or four days is very good for one Reviewer covering a state the size of Texas.

 

That said, would another Reviewer benefit the process? Perhaps, it would just depend on the individual. Would I want to be that individual, not on your life, I like finding geocaches. :P Next time you see your local Reviewer at an event (even if they are wearing a smelly frog suit) give them a hearty hand shake and a thank you.

Posted

That's because the owner acted before the reviewer had time. He also sent an e-mail talking about how he tried archiveing it, but couldn't find out how. Maybe I'll try another cache.

Posted

That's because the owner acted before the reviewer had time. He also sent an e-mail talking about how he tried archiveing it, but couldn't find out how. Maybe I'll try another cache.

Maybe you shouldn't be trolling around looking for problems in distant areas. If you have a concern about a geocache in your local area, by all means, contact the owner, log a "Needs Maintenance" or (if all else fails), log a "Needs Archived." I do want to strongly discourage you from "testing the system" in this random manner, however.

Posted

That's because the owner acted before the reviewer had time. He also sent an e-mail talking about how he tried archiveing it, but couldn't find out how. Maybe I'll try another cache.

Maybe you shouldn't be trolling around looking for problems in distant areas. If you have a concern about a geocache in your local area, by all means, contact the owner, log a "Needs Maintenance" or (if all else fails), log a "Needs Archived." I do want to strongly discourage you from "testing the system" in this random manner, however.

 

I was just trying to help out a bit. I really had no idea, and that's why I asked for a kind reminder if it was a bad idea. It was, so it won't be done again. Sorry. :(

Posted

That's because the owner acted before the reviewer had time. He also sent an e-mail talking about how he tried archiveing it, but couldn't find out how. Maybe I'll try another cache.

Maybe you shouldn't be trolling around looking for problems in distant areas. If you have a concern about a geocache in your local area, by all means, contact the owner, log a "Needs Maintenance" or (if all else fails), log a "Needs Archived." I do want to strongly discourage you from "testing the system" in this random manner, however.

 

I was just trying to help out a bit. I really had no idea, and that's why I asked for a kind reminder if it was a bad idea. It was, so it won't be done again. Sorry. :(

Don't sweat it. That's how it goes in the forums.

Posted (edited)

I posted one vigilante log as an experiment. it can be found at http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?ID=1859335 . We'll see how the reviewer takes care of it as an offical answer.

 

Well, when I checked the cache in question, it looks like the CO archived the cache in question the same day that you logged the NA log. It didn't even take a reviewer to intervene.

 

Although I do find it interesting when the reviewer left their log, & the fact that neither th CO or the reviewer took any action until you logged another NA log on that cache.

 

WNT

 

P.S. I responded before I finsihed reading the thread & thus seeing that you knew what I allready said above.

Edited by WildNTexas
Posted

Primarily, we want to encourage cache owners to act on Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived logs on their cache pages. When cache owners are no longer active, or have not taken any action to maintain their own cache for some time, our Volunteer Reviewers can help by stepping in. All Needs Archived logs generate an email notification which is directed to the local reviewers. (Please note that Needs Maintenance logs do not generate a notification to local reviewers.)

 

Most reviewers action these notifications monthly, or even every two or three months. Regardless of the time frame, this is a big job in most regions. We ask our users to please be mindful that our volunteers' main focus and responsibility is reviewing and publishing caches. We are grateful for their work on caches that have been reported as 'Needs Archived", as it is an additional task to their core volunteering duties.

Posted

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?

Texas is larger than many countries.
Posted
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?
NY's reviewers (we have two) seem to check/archive disabled caches about once a month. Caches that aren't disabled, I don't know that they have any kind of regular check.
Posted

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?

Texas is larger than many countries.

I'm quite aware of that. :rolleyes:

Posted

Primarily, we want to encourage cache owners to act on Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived logs on their cache pages. When cache owners are no longer active, or have not taken any action to maintain their own cache for some time, our Volunteer Reviewers can help by stepping in. All Needs Archived logs generate an email notification which is directed to the local reviewers. (Please note that Needs Maintenance logs do not generate a notification to local reviewers.)

 

Most reviewers action these notifications monthly, or even every two or three months. Regardless of the time frame, this is a big job in most regions. We ask our users to please be mindful that our volunteers' main focus and responsibility is reviewing and publishing caches. We are grateful for their work on caches that have been reported as 'Needs Archived", as it is an additional task to their core volunteering duties.

Looks like this reinforces the point that we need more Reviewers if the corps we have cannot get to NA logs in a timely fashion.

 

I would think that NA logs should be the highest priority as these are likely to be where permission and landowner issues will be communicated. Putting the listing of new caches above taking care of NA logs on existing caches should probably be reversed.

 

Maybe have one Reviewer who does nothing but follow up on NA logs and have all of them forward to him/her instead of to the local Reviewer.

Posted

Maybe what is needed is to rebrand the current "Reviewers" to "Publishers" and create a corps of "Status Reviewers" or some other such thing whose sole job is to look for problem caches and respond to NA logs. Give them tools to look for caches with old NM logs, a string of DNF's, or those disabled for a long period of time. In each case they post a warning note on the cache giving 30 days to respond or fix. In 30 days they archive the caches for which there has been no response or resolution. The current Reviewer corps could back them up on grey areas or disputes.

Posted

The reviewer team at Groundspeak has been outsourced to India. You didnt know this? Groundspeak is trying to save money in the area of reviewing. Indians work for roughly 1/3 less than what the American reviewers worked for. They take less smoke breaks, and have the least experience in American idiosyncrasies, making them prime real estate for an agendaless geocaching community.

 

It'd be a darn miracle if just ONE thread could stay on topic and only have serious, meaningful, responses, WITHOUT spite or other moronic responses.

Posted

Maybe what is needed is to rebrand the current "Reviewers" to "Publishers" and create a corps of "Status Reviewers" or some other such thing whose sole job is to look for problem caches and respond to NA logs. Give them tools to look for caches with old NM logs, a string of DNF's, or those disabled for a long period of time. In each case they post a warning note on the cache giving 30 days to respond or fix. In 30 days they archive the caches for which there has been no response or resolution. The current Reviewer corps could back them up on grey areas or disputes.

 

That is an excellent idea. I could see that being very useful and make things easier on the reviewers as well!

Posted

Maybe what is needed is to rebrand the current "Reviewers" to "Publishers" and create a corps of "Status Reviewers" or some other such thing whose sole job is to look for problem caches and respond to NA logs. Give them tools to look for caches with old NM logs, a string of DNF's, or those disabled for a long period of time. In each case they post a warning note on the cache giving 30 days to respond or fix. In 30 days they archive the caches for which there has been no response or resolution. The current Reviewer corps could back them up on grey areas or disputes.

 

That is an excellent idea. I could see that being very useful and make things easier on the reviewers as well!

 

I am duly humbled to have been lauded by the Blue Bow. I'M NOT WORHTY!!!! :laughing:

Posted (edited)

I always heard that the general rule is if you ever ask to be one, you're off the list. I appreciate the reviewers I have had and the one I have now. We have had a rough time of caching here in SC. I let mine know that anytime he needs a hand, I'm there! That got tested once, we had to pull caches out of an area that a land manager was fuming over. It's a weird feeling pulling other folks caches. Just don't seem right.

 

But WHY would you want the job? Excuse me, VOLUNTEER position. I would think it would be a great thing to do if I was retired and getting a good pension/retirement check. Other than that I just don't know. :unsure:

Edited by Freekacher
Posted

Maybe what is needed is to rebrand the current "Reviewers" to "Publishers" and create a corps of "Status Reviewers" or some other such thing whose sole job is to look for problem caches and respond to NA logs. Give them tools to look for caches with old NM logs, a string of DNF's, or those disabled for a long period of time. In each case they post a warning note on the cache giving 30 days to respond or fix. In 30 days they archive the caches for which there has been no response or resolution. The current Reviewer corps could back them up on grey areas or disputes.

 

That is an excellent idea. I could see that being very useful and make things easier on the reviewers as well!

 

I am duly humbled to have been lauded by the Blue Bow. I'M NOT WORHTY!!!! :laughing:

:D Is this something that would be good to put on the feedback site? You should!

Posted (edited)

Primarily, we want to encourage cache owners to act on Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived logs on their cache pages. When cache owners are no longer active, or have not taken any action to maintain their own cache for some time, our Volunteer Reviewers can help by stepping in. All Needs Archived logs generate an email notification which is directed to the local reviewers. (Please note that Needs Maintenance logs do not generate a notification to local reviewers.)

 

Most reviewers action these notifications monthly, or even every two or three months. Regardless of the time frame, this is a big job in most regions. We ask our users to please be mindful that our volunteers' main focus and responsibility is reviewing and publishing caches. We are grateful for their work on caches that have been reported as 'Needs Archived", as it is an additional task to their core volunteering duties.

Looks like this reinforces the point that we need more Reviewers if the corps we have cannot get to NA logs in a timely fashion.

 

I would think that NA logs should be the highest priority as these are likely to be where permission and landowner issues will be communicated. Putting the listing of new caches above taking care of NA logs on existing caches should probably be reversed.

 

Maybe have one Reviewer who does nothing but follow up on NA logs and have all of them forward to him/her instead of to the local Reviewer.

I suspect that the reviewers immediately address NA logs that contain permission, trespassing, and property ownership per the guidelines. It's just the routine "this cache isn't being maintained, has a year's worth of DNF's. and I am tired of seeing it in my search results" ones that might take longer to get around to for some reviewers.

Edited by wimseyguy
Posted (edited)

Maybe what is needed is to rebrand the current "Reviewers" to "Publishers" and create a corps of "Status Reviewers" or some other such thing whose sole job is to look for problem caches and respond to NA logs. Give them tools to look for caches with old NM logs, a string of DNF's, or those disabled for a long period of time. In each case they post a warning note on the cache giving 30 days to respond or fix. In 30 days they archive the caches for which there has been no response or resolution. The current Reviewer corps could back them up on grey areas or disputes.

 

That is an excellent idea. I could see that being very useful and make things easier on the reviewers as well!

 

I am duly humbled to have been lauded by the Blue Bow. I'M NOT WORHTY!!!! :laughing:

:D Is this something that would be good to put on the feedback site? You should!

 

As the Blue Bow speaketh, so let it be done: Feedback Link

Edited by Semper Questio
Posted (edited)

I always heard that the general rule is if you ever ask to be one, you're off the list. I appreciate the reviewers I have had and the one I have now. We have had a rough time of caching here in SC. I let mine know that anytime he needs a hand, I'm there! That got tested once, we had to pull caches out of an area that a land manager was fuming over. It's a weird feeling pulling other folks caches. Just don't seem right.

 

But WHY would you want the job? Excuse me, VOLUNTEER position. I would think it would be a great thing to do if I was retired and getting a good pension/retirement check. Other than that I just don't know. :unsure:

That doesn't make sense. It seems that GS would want people who actually want the job by asking for it. Obviously, the current reviewers want the job. I find it hard to believe they are subjecting themselves to misery due to altruism.

 

Personally, I wouldn't want it. Kudos to those that do it. It appears to be alot of hard work for no pay and a major time killer.

Edited by TerraViators
Posted

I am duly humbled to have been lauded by the Blue Bow. I'M NOT WORHTY!!!! :laughing:

You have been recognized by The Blue Bow.

At this point there are only two trains of thought.

 

1 ) The Blue Bow deems you as worthy, therefor you are.

or

2 ) The Blue Bow is wrong.

 

Do you really want to suggest The Blue Bow might be wrong? Really? :ph34r:

Posted

I am duly humbled to have been lauded by the Blue Bow. I'M NOT WORHTY!!!! :laughing:

You have been recognized by The Blue Bow.

At this point there are only two trains of thought.

 

1 ) The Blue Bow deems you as worthy, therefor you are.

or

2 ) The Blue Bow is wrong.

 

Do you really want to suggest The Blue Bow might be wrong? Really? :ph34r:

 

Good point! Please forgive me, oh Bow of Blue Hue. :yikes:

Posted

As the Blue Bow speaketh, so let it be done: Feedback Link

 

You all...sorry, forgot we were talking about texas...Y'all might want to go to the feedback link. There is more to this that one of the reviewers posted.

 

I didn't know... I still think it's a good idea overall, but I sure didn't mean to malign the reviewer!

Posted

Primarily, we want to encourage cache owners to act on Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived logs on their cache pages. When cache owners are no longer active, or have not taken any action to maintain their own cache for some time, our Volunteer Reviewers can help by stepping in. All Needs Archived logs generate an email notification which is directed to the local reviewers. (Please note that Needs Maintenance logs do not generate a notification to local reviewers.)

 

Most reviewers action these notifications monthly, or even every two or three months. Regardless of the time frame, this is a big job in most regions. We ask our users to please be mindful that our volunteers' main focus and responsibility is reviewing and publishing caches. We are grateful for their work on caches that have been reported as 'Needs Archived", as it is an additional task to their core volunteering duties.

Looks like this reinforces the point that we need more Reviewers if the corps we have cannot get to NA logs in a timely fashion.

 

I would think that NA logs should be the highest priority as these are likely to be where permission and landowner issues will be communicated. Putting the listing of new caches above taking care of NA logs on existing caches should probably be reversed.

 

Maybe have one Reviewer who does nothing but follow up on NA logs and have all of them forward to him/her instead of to the local Reviewer.

I suspect that the reviewers immediately address NA logs that contain permission, trespassing, and property ownership per the guidelines. It's just the routine "this cache isn't being maintained, has a year's worth of DNF's. and I am tired of seeing it in my search results" ones that might take longer to get around to for some reviewers.

Correct - in most cases, the true emergencies are actioned quite quickly. I am notified on my cellphone whenever a "Needs Archived" log is filed in my territory. Maybe one in ten requires immediate action. Maybe five in ten calls for disabling the cache and asking the owner to address the problem. When Sandy mentioned the once per month or two months timeline, she may have been referring to the "cleanup days" that many reviewers dedicate to archiving those caches where reminder notes were left four to eight weeks earlier.

 

The other four out of ten? It's a mix of incorrect log choices, "I can't find it, so it must be missing" logs, "joke" logs and retaliatory logs between cachers having a dispute. Those last two types, I analogize to pulling the fire alarm just for the thrill of interrupting the school day.

Posted

Maybe what is needed is to rebrand the current "Reviewers" to "Publishers" and create a corps of "Status Reviewers" or some other such thing whose sole job is to look for problem caches and respond to NA logs. Give them tools to look for caches with old NM logs, a string of DNF's, or those disabled for a long period of time. In each case they post a warning note on the cache giving 30 days to respond or fix. In 30 days they archive the caches for which there has been no response or resolution. The current Reviewer corps could back them up on grey areas or disputes.

 

That is an excellent idea. I could see that being very useful and make things easier on the reviewers as well!

 

I am duly humbled to have been lauded by the Blue Bow. I'M NOT WORHTY!!!! :laughing:

:D Is this something that would be good to put on the feedback site? You should!

 

As the Blue Bow speaketh, so let it be done: Feedback Link

Thanks for your concern. Please know that any reviewer who feels they need help with keeping after cache maintenance issues is welcome to ask for help under protocols established by the reviewer group.

Posted

Correct - in most cases, the true emergencies are actioned quite quickly. I am notified on my cellphone whenever a "Needs Archived" log is filed in my territory. Maybe one in ten requires immediate action. Maybe five in ten calls for disabling the cache and asking the owner to address the problem. When Sandy mentioned the once per month or two months timeline, she may have been referring to the "cleanup days" that many reviewers dedicate to archiving those caches where reminder notes were left four to eight weeks earlier.

 

The other four out of ten? It's a mix of incorrect log choices, "I can't find it, so it must be missing" logs, "joke" logs and retaliatory logs between cachers having a dispute. Those last two types, I analogize to pulling the fire alarm just for the thrill of interrupting the school day.

 

And it is weeding through all this static that I think the reviewers could use the most help with. Don't get me wrong. I have no beef with any reviewer and Prime has always done right by me. But....

 

Thanks for your concern. Please know that any reviewer who feels they need help with keeping after cache maintenance issues is welcome to ask for help under protocols established by the reviewer group.

 

As you probably recall, we had this same answer back during the troubles that came up out of Texas a few years ago. Things have been fine as far as I can tell so the point is not, in my mind, to campaign for another reviewer for Texas, but to find a way to make all reviewer's lives a bit easier.

 

It has been said time and again that the reviewer's top priority is to review and publish new listings. That's fine and most likely as it should be. Also, Prime mentioned on Feedback a problem with something of a vigilante. I don't deny that such an issue exists. However, that is not the sole issue. For instance, I pull about 750-800 caches via PQs about every week. Of those I have to winnow out about 20 or more caches that seem to have some kind of questionable status - several DNFs or NMs or CO contacts with CO response, old NMs, etc. Plus I have a bookmark list of caches I have ignored for questionable status that has about 20 caches listed. This does not count the caches that have been disabled with no owner action or comment for a long period of time.

 

OK, so this is not a huge ratio like 40 or even 20%. But still, more of these seem to pop up all the time and becomes a growing and, at times, frustrating, problem. And that is just my little home circle (we have a lot of caches here so that is, in fact, a fairly small circle). Multiply that across the globe, especially in cache-rich areas, and it is pretty easy to see how riding herd on this could be overwhelming for an already busy volunteer corps.

 

So I've gone way over my $.02 budget and I'll drop it from here out. I just wanted to clarify my position on all this.

Posted

I too run PQ's on a regular basis when I am caching in an area. I too see caches with multiple DNF's. I don't think it is the reviewer teams responsibility to be chasing after these neglected and possibly abandoned listings. We are supposed to be a self-policing community.

 

If you see one that isn't being properly cared for and it's on your way, stop and give a cursory look before posting a NA to bring it to the reviewer's attention. If it's not on your way, then it isn't bothering you. At least that is how I handle these.

Posted

We (My husband & I) do not know who the "prime reviewer" was refering to in the suggestion forum that "Semper" created.

 

Because my husband & I seem to be the ones asking for something to be done in regards to improving the current condition of trying to get caches that are in need of reviewer attention reviewed & offering many different suggestions to find a solution to that. We aren't or wouldn't be surprised if some people here thought it was us that the Prime Reviewer was refering too.

 

In my husbands defense. Neither I nor my husband has been contacted by the reviewer that made the comment in the suggestion forum. Therefore we "Assume" that he must be refering to someone else.

 

Second... All of the caches my husband has logged NA logs on are mostly all caches that have allready been disabled, & have been disabled for a period of 90 days or longer, & also have no recent logs posted by the CO. Many of those even have CO's that have not logged onto geocaching.com in 6 months or longer. Some of those caches even have reviewer 30 day notice logs on them older than 60 days as well. As far as those caches that aren't disabled that my husband or I have logged NA logs on. They all have multiple DNF's logged by multiple different geocachers, & have not been found in 6 months or in most cases have not been found in a year.

 

The prime reviewer also stated that he/she didn't beleive the person posting these logs ever actually looked for the cache at all then logged a NA log. Well all of the caches that haven't been disabled & were marked as available to look for, I can attest that my husband & I looked for those caches on multiple occasions. Besides that how would a CO or a Reviewer ever know if you did or didn't honestly look for the cache in the first place? What logical reason would anyone have for wanting a cache to be fixed or archived & not look for it? We cache for the numbers, so all we want is the cache to be there for us to find. Posting unnessary NA logs is pointless.

 

As quoted by Sandy in post #78....

 

"Most reviewers action these notifications monthly, or even every two or three months."

 

This is what my husband & I find UNSATISFACTORY.... It should NOT take 2 or 3 months for a reviewer to review a cache that needs the reviewers attention. If this is in fact the case. Then by groundspeaks OWN admission they need more reviewers.

 

So which rasies the following question....

 

Why is Groundspeak/geocaching.com so reluctant to add more reviewers? They are volunteer, they don't get paid. Since they aren't paid what reason is there for Groundspeak/geocaching.com NOT have for adding more reviewers????????? As they say their current reviewers are so busy publishing caches that they AREN'T even able to get to reviewing those caches that need attention but only once every 2 or 3 months???

 

It just honestly doesn't make any logical sense to my husband or to myself.

 

We are CO's. I currently only have 6 caches, but will be publishing more soon. That is as soon as my husband finishes making me some more to place. He has about 151 or so now. We strive very hard to to keep them up & running & getting them running again as quickly as possible. Seriously, whats the point of putting out a cache for people to find & getting the enjoyment of seeing who searches for etc... if your not going to maintain it?

 

We both think that "Sempers" idea for two levels of reviewers is a good one. One set dedicated to reviewing problem caches & the other for publishing the new caches. We honestly admit that the solution he gave is much better than any of the solutions my husband or I have thought up.

 

As we have read through some of the comments made in this thread & others. It is obvious to us that somethign is going on in Texas. We do not know what the issue was the last time that several posters have mentioned. But we do think this is an issue here in Texas that DOES need to be resolved.

 

Now... in case their are some people that might think we said something that we didn't. I want to say this.

 

We do understand that the reviewers are voluntary. We do understand & do beleive that they are doing the best that they can do with the time they have available to them. We are NOT "Dis-ing" or "Digging" at any of the reviewers, nor complaining that any of the reviewers are unfair in how they publish caches or review those caches that need attention, we are not complaining about the time it takes to publish a cache. We are not complaining about any reviewer in particular, including the Texas reviewer.

 

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.

 

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

 

WNT

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...