Jump to content

Do reviewers take into account the practices of the cacher before approval


Cindyj2

Recommended Posts

Was just wondering if reviewers take into account the practices of a chacher before they approve a new geocache?

 

Was looking for a cache yesterday and logged a dnf and a couple others have too and then I checked the cache owners past caches and they seem to have lots of needs maintenance issues and caches being archived. Granted they don't live in the same state anymore but I think these issues were there well before they moved. They seem like they put out caches and then when they are notified of a problem they don't do anything. Do reviewers take that into account?

 

In a situation where you move to another state what do you do with your caches if you know you do not have someone in that local area to take care of them? Do you just leave them their to rot or pick them up and archive them?

 

Was just wondering! I think my area has a great reviewer though so I don't want anybody thinking i'm saying anything bad about him. lol

 

Thanks

Link to comment

they put out caches and then when they are notified of a problem they don't do anything. Do reviewers take that into account?

No, not from what I've seen. It's up to the cachers to do the "Needs Maintenance" and following up with "Needs Archived" if the condition doesn't improve. The reviewers can't physically check on all those caches all the time.

 

You can "ignore" caches from a particular Cache Owner, once you notice they tend to drop & abandon. And, if you're moving, and can no longer maintain your caches, yes, you can pick them all up and archive. Or offer them to be adopted.

Link to comment

This is a really good topic. There's one user in my area named JACOB. he owns 2407 caches all over!!!!! He can't and doesnt maintain them. It's insanely frustrating. He should NOT be allowed to own all those caches since it's pretty much impossible to maintain that many. I wish there was a way to red flag a user. Yes, he's clearly a dedicated cacher, but this just doesnt seem right.

Plus, it seems as if he rates them with ridiculous standards. For example, if you need to stand on a chair, he would will rate them as a terrain of 4 1/2 stars????

GC1CRKE is a cache I was recently after that is a good example of this. If you read the logs, you can see how rediculous the difficulty ratings are.

Edited by Luckyplan
Link to comment

Feel free to post Needs Maintenance (NM) logs on any cache that needs some owner TLC and Needs Archived (NA) logs on any caches that you feel violate any aspect of the guidelines including any maintenance clauses. That said, a reviewers job is to fairly review a new cache for compliance with the guidelines on it own merits and not based on owner reputation or previous number of caches.

 

Now as to whether or not they should take owner reputation into consideration, I am not sure how anybody could come up with a universal definition that is workable in most situations and gives a clear thumbs up or down.

 

If a cacher is unable to continue to take care of any of thier caches, the caches should be adopted out to a new owner or retrieved from the field and archived.

Link to comment

Thanks guys and Thanks StarBrand as I didn't know what reviewers looked at and figured they were only able to focus on the cache at hand! lol

 

There's another cache in the area that i've been dying to go do with my son called Phooning for love but the cache and log have been wet for like 2 months and i'm starting to wonder if they are ever gonna get back out there to fix it. I even considered taking a notebook paper and putting it in a ziplock bag to help out but didn't know if i'd get in trouble for that. And sadly all the trackables have been stolen from this cache as well.

 

Thanks for the info!

Link to comment

Thanks guys and Thanks StarBrand as I didn't know what reviewers looked at and figured they were only able to focus on the cache at hand! lol

 

There's another cache in the area that i've been dying to go do with my son called Phooning for love but the cache and log have been wet for like 2 months and i'm starting to wonder if they are ever gonna get back out there to fix it. I even considered taking a notebook paper and putting it in a ziplock bag to help out but didn't know if i'd get in trouble for that. And sadly all the trackables have been stolen from this cache as well.

 

Thanks for the info!

 

My suggestion would be to take a replacement log and ziplock along when you find the cache. Once there, you can decide if the cache is worth helping in such a way. If it isn't, just sign a slip of paper to log the cache and add a Needs Maintenance when you log the cache online.

Link to comment

I think it would be kinda neat if they could make a restriction on being able to place a cache if you currently have too many needs maintenances on your caches and then say they'd have to go and fix those before they were able to place more caches. But maybe that would be to hard to do or cause too many issues. But would sure find out who was really dedicated to their caches.

 

There are so many caches in my area that have needs mainenance issues it seems and then I go to look at the cache page and nobody seems to have any complaints in their logs so i'm wondering what that's about too.

Link to comment
I think it would be kinda neat if they could make a restriction on being able to place a cache if you currently have too many needs maintenances on your caches and then say they'd have to go and fix those before they were able to place more caches. But maybe that would be to hard to do or cause too many issues. But would sure find out who was really dedicated to their caches.

 

That would work in theory, but probably not in reality. I own five caches. Let's say that in the past year, four of them had NM logs posted to them and I went out and fixed the issues. Not all cache owners realize that to clear a NM flag, they need to post an Owner Maintainance log. So, I fix the issues and post a note on the page saying all is fixed, but the flag remains. When I submit a new cache, the reviewer sees that 4 out of 5 of my caches need maintainance and denies my new cache. The back and forth between myself and the reviewer ensues and it ends up taking way longer, with way more headaches on both our parts to get a new cache published.

Link to comment

Thanks Bassanio! See these are things i'm still learning about. lol

 

Thanks you Printess Caroline! I/we will do that once it warms up again. It seems that after a week of 70 degree weather here in central IL winter has decided to come back for a second time this year. lol More fun for my son when it's a little warmer out.

Link to comment
There are so many caches in my area that have needs mainenance issues it seems and then I go to look at the cache page and nobody seems to have any complaints in their logs so i'm wondering what that's about too.

If the cache is basically as described on the cache page, and you can sign the kinda wet log, and if you enjoyed the spot and the hunt, sometimes that's all you could ask for. Post "log was a little moist" in your Found It log.

 

If the cache seems to be really headed downhill, trashy, soaked, broken, not so appealing in general, do your "Found It", then make a "Needs Maintenance" log mentioning the issues. I don't do that on every cache in town, if real junky tupperware caches seem to be the norm, but it's up to you. :rolleyes:

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

To get an idea from my long nine cache as my starting point there's like 8 caches that need maintenance.

 

One has me a bit baffled because people before one guy say that the cache container is broken and contents trashed and then one guy logs it and says he left a trackable and the same day the owner logs in and says they'll look at it when they get back from out of state. How can you leave a trackable when there's no container?

 

5 out of 8 of these don't seem to have any complaints so i'm wondeing why they are tagged as needs maintenance.

 

One is a virtual that doesn't seem to have an owner anymore sadly.

 

But in general there aren't usually that many in my area that usually need maintenance and they seemed to have popped up all over lately.

Link to comment

So you think that others are just not mentioning issues in their logs?

Definitely. People are far too timid.

 

Great idea btw about insisting that if there are "too many" NMs then the new cache shouldn't be published. I'd go further: there should be no outstanding NMs at the time the listing's approved. (Aiming to catch merely lazy COs, not those that are also dishonest in posting OM.)

Link to comment

So you think that others are just not mentioning issues in their logs?

Definitely. People are far too timid.

 

Great idea btw about insisting that if there are "too many" NMs then the new cache shouldn't be published. I'd go further: there should be no outstanding NMs at the time the listing's approved. (Aiming to catch merely lazy COs, not those that are also dishonest in posting OM.)

However, sometimes the NM and disable reason(s) cannot be fixed in the short term (construction, area closure, military service, prolonged illness, road conditions, weather, etc...) so you can't say "no outstanding NMs". The reviewers would need to actually read the pages and consider if/any reasons for the current status.

Link to comment

5 out of 8 of these don't seem to have any complaints so i'm wondeing why they are tagged as needs maintenance.

 

Sometimes CO just post a note when they do maintenance which doesn't clear the "needs maintenance" attribute. So the cache is ok but the needs maintenance attribute remains.

Link to comment

I think it would be kinda neat if they could make a restriction on being able to place a cache if you currently have too many needs maintenances on your caches and then say they'd have to go and fix those before they were able to place more caches.

If looking at the other hides by the same owner became part of the review process, be prepared to see the service goal for initial review change from three days to five days or more. With many frequent hiders having hundreds of hides for the reviewer to search through, this would be quite time consuming. By the way, some of those mega-hiders do an excellent job with maintenance. Other hiders cannot even maintain one cache.

 

So no, I don't think it would be kinda neat. Please deal with the maintenance issues separately.

Link to comment

Sorry Keystone. It's just that apparently one cacher that i've just ran into will have probably 10 geocaches they they've left to rot apparently in Ca and moved here to IL and well before they moved when their caches needed maintenance they ignored that and now they are here and placing a caches that I wonder if and when issues arise if they'll lift a finger to do it and there's no one to hold them accountable for leaving their caches to rot back in Ca.

Link to comment

Couldn't a computer program be made that sends an email to the would be cache owner to let them kow that they have to many maintenance logs open and that they need to get those cleared up before submitting a request for new cache placement. Don't see where that would get in the reviewers way at all seeing as he would not even get the request for a new cache till the owner had done what they were supposed to do.

 

Just an idea

Edited by Cindyj2
Link to comment

Well, Cindy welcome to the hobby. Probably one thing that will help you as you continue is that this is not a tightly run organization. It is basically a collection of individuals, some of whom volunteer their time to act as reviewers and moderators. It can be a bit anarchistic at times actually.

 

Since we allow human beings to participate you get a wide range of types. It is best just to shrug it off and enjoy the hobby the way you want to instead of looking at how to get more oversight. The ignore list is a very handy tool. If you don't want to be disturbed by a cacher's lack of maintenance just hit the ignore listing button and they will not show up in your queries again.

 

Looking to the future you will reach a point (if you let yourself) where you will be concerned about how travelers are handled and why they are not where they say they are and think about bringing it up in the forums.

 

As always the best solution is two martini's (margaritas in the summer) and a bourbon soaked, bone in, rare ribeye.

Link to comment

Some owners are very involved, others are active but don't care, others just leave the sport and forget about their caches. Reviewers can only review if the one cache follows the guidelines.

 

As others have suggested if it has not already been done log a NM. I usually give the owner some time to fix the issues. After awhile I log a Needs Archive. This lets the local reviewer know there is an issue. (S)He will disable the cache and usually give the CO 30 days. If the CO responds they may be given even more time. I have sometimes felt guilty hitting that NA log but it does help keep this game fun. If even 10% of the caches are not there it's no fun.

 

As far as a wet log, I won't let that stop me. They can be easily replaced. Now if the container is broken then I log a NM.

 

Here's the thing I have found a majority of the caches around me. Pretty much all of them that have been out for more than a year. So I don't pay attention to them, and thus I don't post many NM logs or NA logs. The new cachers are the ones that will run into them now.

Link to comment

Yeah. I do see that. Unfortunate, perhaps. Ummm... There's a CO who never does maintenance. But he hid a new cache (with coords a fair bit off.) Oh, well. (At least one CO like that is on my ignore list.) But, as Keystone points out, reviewing/publishing is about 'does this hide meet the guidelines?' Needs maintenance/NA is a different procedure. And it seems to work more efficiently as separate procedures.

Link to comment

I see that now Harry and glad to be learning more today as to how it does work so i'm glad I did ask. lol Wasn't sure what a reviewers job was for sure and deffinately didn't want to add more work for them.

 

When caches are archived do most owners then go out and get the remains of their caches so they don't become trash? Ugh I gotta not let this bother me. lol Thought it was a good idea for a program that would then not put more work on the reviewer though. lol

 

Was so hoping for that ftf yesterday and apparently so were a couple of others. lol And wondering if you put a cache out that the first three people couldn't find would you go check for it maybe? Or maybe email them and give them a hint? Or check the cords?

 

Think when I do hid my first cache i'm gonna go out to that site a few different times and check that I get the same cords before asking for the cache to be published. Do the reviewers actually go out to each cache site with the cords and check the cache? OMG they must be so busy!

Link to comment

It's all about the journey and exploring and sharing that with friends. I don't care about the swag, and use a gel pen which can mark almost anything that resembles a log.

I don't see any reason to give our reviewers more work. It would be nice if some prolific hiders would show more concern about maintaining existing hides before submitting new ones though.

Link to comment

I wasn't wanting anymore work for the reviewers either. And my suggestion of the computer program would not add any more work for a reviewer either.

 

My son is nine and we have a caching bag with some swag and a small first aid kit and many other things to help us out if we need them such as different kinds of pens. I'm a scrapbooker so we use acid free pens and some of those even write on slick surfaces too.

Link to comment

(1) When caches are archived do most owners then go out and get the remains of their caches so they don't become trash?

 

(2) And wondering if you put a cache out that the first three people couldn't find would you go check for it maybe? Or maybe email them and give them a hint? Or check the cords?

 

(3) Do the reviewers actually go out to each cache site with the cords and check the cache?

 

(1) Again that depends on the owner. I would say most caches are archived because they get stolen. There are others that are there and juts a pile of trash that get left behind.

 

(2) A good owner would, but it sounds like this owner may be the set it and forget it type. It may just be a hard find. But an email asking for a hint would never hurt.

 

(3) Nope. Some reviewers don't even live where they review. I know my current reviewer for SC also reviews caches for RI. All they do is look at the maps, and the information provided to see if it meets the guidelines. A lot of this is based on faith that the hider is following the guidelines.

 

BTW check out the feedback site. I know I've seen a couple suggestions similar to yours where some automated thing will email the owner about a NM attribute.

Link to comment

While we are on that subject, how do you ignore a CO? I know how to ignore certain caches, but still have not figured out how to ignore a cache owner?? We have one here whose coordinates are at least 50' off and some are more, so I just don't want to waste my time.

Edited by kwhart
Link to comment

I've had a goal that I wanted to try to find them all at some point so didn't really want to hide anyone or any caches. Was just gonna keep my eye on those I couldn't find and when I notice that someone else has found it then i'd try to get back to it pretty quick to actually make the find. Don't know if that's really a realistic goal but I had to weed so many out and then be left with a bunch of bad and hard caches to find all at once.

 

But this i'm gonna stick to and that's that we will always try hard to find the cache and if there's anything wrong with it i'll report that in the log always! And if we can't find it we'll log a DNF.

 

We had one cache where the log was totally full and people then had just been signing everywhere they could fit their name and a date so I said in the log online that the cache log was full. So why did the next guy not say the same thing? Do some people just not care enough to let the co's know this? Should I have logged a needs maintenance as well?

Link to comment

I've had a goal that I wanted to try to find them all at some point so didn't really want to hide anyone or any caches. Was just gonna keep my eye on those I couldn't find and when I notice that someone else has found it then i'd try to get back to it pretty quick to actually make the find. Don't know if that's really a realistic goal but I had to weed so many out and then be left with a bunch of bad and hard caches to find all at once.

 

But this i'm gonna stick to and that's that we will always try hard to find the cache and if there's anything wrong with it i'll report that in the log always! And if we can't find it we'll log a DNF.

 

We had one cache where the log was totally full and people then had just been signing everywhere they could fit their name and a date so I said in the log online that the cache log was full. So why did the next guy not say the same thing? Do some people just not care enough to let the co's know this? Should I have logged a needs maintenance as well?

 

If I found it problematic I would have logged a NM on the cache. If other people note the log is full or there are already existing NM's on the cache I don't feel the need to be a broken record and repeat what has already been said in other logs.

Link to comment

I wasn't wanting anymore work for the reviewers either. And my suggestion of the computer program would not add any more work for a reviewer either.

....

See post 14 - I don't think it is cut and dried as a simple denial if a cacher has some NM logs or disabled caches.

 

I know :( But I think a couple or those such as military and being sick would probably mean that they wouldn't be hiding anyway and I know it'd be hard tomake it cut and dry but if a person has a bunch of NM's they could then disable them or archive them. lol

 

Was just an idea.

Link to comment

 

If I found it problematic I would have logged a NM on the cache. If other people note the log is full or there are already existing NM's on the cache I don't feel the need to be a broken record and repeat what has already been said in other logs.

 

It was a lamp post hide and I think people will just start signing over others instead of saying anything probably. lol Just wondered why I noticed it and others did not. I mean heck why not say something? Oh well I was just trying to do the right thing and help out. No worries though. If it becomes a big deal maybe somebody else will finally step. But I tried.

Link to comment

It was a lamp post hide and I think people will just start signing over others instead of saying anything probably. lol Just wondered why I noticed it and others did not. I mean heck why not say something? Oh well I was just trying to do the right thing and help out. No worries though. If it becomes a big deal maybe somebody else will finally step. But I tried.

 

If there are other notes and NM logs noting the log on a cache being full I sign my name over it and am done with it. Frankly this is a fun hobby for me. Other people will do what they're going to do and a bunch will neglect their caches.

 

Eventually NAs are posted and the end comes for those caches. I don't put much thought into it past that.

Link to comment

I wasn't wanting anymore work for the reviewers either. And my suggestion of the computer program would not add any more work for a reviewer either.

....

See post 14 - I don't think it is cut and dried as a simple denial if a cacher has some NM logs or disabled caches.

 

I know :( But I think a couple or those such as military and being sick would probably mean that they wouldn't be hiding anyway and I know it'd be hard tomake it cut and dry but if a person has a bunch of NM's they could then disable them or archive them. lol

 

Was just an idea.

While I appreciate the idea (and I agree with the principle) - I was just trying to point out some of the flaws in it. Some more food for thought --- I have got NM logs on some of my caches for inane reasons such as "camera full", "no pencil", "cache surrounded by water" (nearby river was flooding), "poison ivy growing nearby" (nature) and my favorite "I couldn't find it - so I know its missing" (new find logs a day later). So just because it has a NM flag doesn't mean I need to run out and do something for the cache immediately or that it has an issue that should prevent me from hiding new ones.

Link to comment

It was a lamp post hide and I think people will just start signing over others instead of saying anything probably. lol Just wondered why I noticed it and others did not. I mean heck why not say something? Oh well I was just trying to do the right thing and help out. No worries though. If it becomes a big deal maybe somebody else will finally step. But I tried.

 

If there are other notes and NM logs noting the log on a cache being full I sign my name over it and am done with it. Frankly this is a fun hobby for me. Other people will do what they're going to do and a bunch will neglect their caches.

 

Eventually NAs are posted and the end comes for those caches. I don't put much thought into it past that.

 

Yep I agree! I guess unless it's really bad unsignable that'd be different. lol Not gonna give that one anymore thought either.

Link to comment

I wasn't wanting anymore work for the reviewers either. And my suggestion of the computer program would not add any more work for a reviewer either.

....

See post 14 - I don't think it is cut and dried as a simple denial if a cacher has some NM logs or disabled caches.

 

I know :( But I think a couple or those such as military and being sick would probably mean that they wouldn't be hiding anyway and I know it'd be hard tomake it cut and dry but if a person has a bunch of NM's they could then disable them or archive them. lol

 

Was just an idea.

While I appreciate the idea (and I agree with the principle) - I was just trying to point out some of the flaws in it. Some more food for thought --- I have got NM logs on some of my caches for inane reasons such as "camera full", "no pencil", "cache surrounded by water" (nearby river was flooding), "poison ivy growing nearby" (nature) and my favorite "I couldn't find it - so I know its missing" (new find logs a day later). So just because it has a NM flag doesn't mean I need to run out and do something for the cache immediately or that it has an issue that should prevent me from hiding new ones.

 

Totally understand ya there!

Link to comment

Couldn't a computer program be made that sends an email to the would be cache owner to let them kow that they have to many maintenance logs open and that they need to get those cleared up before submitting a request for new cache placement. Don't see where that would get in the reviewers way at all seeing as he would not even get the request for a new cache till the owner had done what they were supposed to do.

 

Just an idea

 

Sounds great in theory, but there is nothing to stop the lazy cacher from simply clearing all their NM flags before submitting their new one.

Link to comment

I've had a goal that I wanted to try to find them all at some point so didn't really want to hide anyone or any caches. Was just gonna keep my eye on those I couldn't find and when I notice that someone else has found it then i'd try to get back to it pretty quick to actually make the find. Don't know if that's really a realistic goal but I had to weed so many out and then be left with a bunch of bad and hard caches to find all at once.

 

But this i'm gonna stick to and that's that we will always try hard to find the cache and if there's anything wrong with it i'll report that in the log always! And if we can't find it we'll log a DNF.

 

We had one cache where the log was totally full and people then had just been signing everywhere they could fit their name and a date so I said in the log online that the cache log was full. So why did the next guy not say the same thing? Do some people just not care enough to let the co's know this? Should I have logged a needs maintenance as well?

 

If I found it problematic I would have logged a NM on the cache. If other people note the log is full or there are already existing NM's on the cache I don't feel the need to be a broken record and repeat what has already been said in other logs.

I do. Pocket Queries only show the last five (four?)logs. I'll repeat that the log is wet/full so that people planning their hunt will have the information.

Link to comment

The reviewers are only human. They may be familiar with some of the users in their area, especially old timers or ones they have personally met on the trail. But they could not possibly remember every one or their maintenance reputations. I imagine the PA/NJ reviewer probably recognizes Brian's name when he hides one, but I'd be surprised if he recognized mine. We as cache seekers likely look at fewer caches and probably remember a few names in our heads that we avoid or look twice at, one that comes to my mind had a string of caches that he published before actually placing the container.

 

In my experience, they treat every cache on its own merits.

 

 

Link to comment

My whole issue is that if someone owns 2407 caches (my example from above), and they rarely take care of them, they are making the game a lot less fun. They're taking up ground eliminating the possibility of someone responsible placing a well maintained cache. If this trend continues, there's going to be a dumb rusty altoid tin every 500 feet in the suburban areas. If I wanted to find trashy unmaintained caches on every street corner, I would go dumpster diving.

Link to comment

My whole issue is that if someone owns 2407 caches (my example from above), and they rarely take care of them, they are making the game a lot less fun. They're taking up ground eliminating the possibility of someone responsible placing a well maintained cache. If this trend continues, there's going to be a dumb rusty altoid tin every 500 feet in the suburban areas. If I wanted to find trashy unmaintained caches on every street corner, I would go dumpster diving.

 

Go through the process. If it needs maintenance, post the log. If nothing is done, post a Needs Archive.

 

I think if someone has 2407 caches and is not maintaining them, then post the NA.

 

BTW, I looked at that cacher's profile and got tired trying to find a problem cache. Perhaps people are afraid to post bad logs because he is popular in the area?

Link to comment

I for one wish they would just do away with the "Needs Maintenance" attribute. If I search for geocaches nearest to me I find that roughly 25% all have the "Need Maintenance" attribute. However, I'd say only 1 in 5 of these at best actually need anything done. The rest all had whatever was the problem fixed long ago, but the owner just does not know how do does not care to remove the attribute.

 

So what good does it do if it's not accurate. What is really should be called is, "Owner Doesn't Care" attribute. That would be more accurate in more cases.

 

As for reviewers takeing into account the practicesof a geocacher before approving past logs, I believe I have read that to have a cache approved you need to demonstrate the ability to maintain the cache. For instance, if you never have found a cache further than 10 miles from your home, the reviewer can ask further questions and perhaps deny a new placement request 100 miles away.

 

It's very easy to show all the caches someone has placed. You just go to their profile, and then click on "Geocaches" and then "All Geocache Hides" You get a list showing 20 at a time, and all that have the "NM" attribute are easy to see. It would be no problem for a reviewer to delay a cache publication if they see an alarming number of existing caches all "NM". I think that is showing a history of not being able to follow guidelines and I think reviewers should be denying placement of new caches in exactly this situation!

Link to comment

While we are on that subject, how do you ignore a CO?

As of now, there is no one button solution for this. As a premium member, you could play with macros in GSAK.

 

You can very easily filter out one cache owner in GSAK using the filters. Doing it with more than one would probably take a macro, or else filtering out all caches except those by owner #1, deleting those, then doing the same with owner #2 to the remainder. I don't dislike any other cache owner's caches enough to go through all that.

Link to comment

While we are on that subject, how do you ignore a CO?

As of now, there is no one button solution for this. As a premium member, you could play with macros in GSAK.

 

You can very easily filter out one cache owner in GSAK using the filters. Doing it with more than one would probably take a macro, or else filtering out all caches except those by owner #1, deleting those, then doing the same with owner #2 to the remainder. I don't dislike any other cache owner's caches enough to go through all that.

 

In the General Filter tab: Owner name - In List - CacherA;cacherB;cacherC will filter for those three cachers. You can then delete all caches in the filter and set the option to prevent them from being added back in on future imports.

Link to comment

It would be no problem for a reviewer to delay a cache publication if they see an alarming number of existing caches all "NM". I think that is showing a history of not being able to follow guidelines and I think reviewers should be denying placement of new caches in exactly this situation!

See post #17. Are you prepared for cache review times from submission to publication to double or triple?

 

Many of my frequent customers own hundreds of caches, and submit new ones in batches of 5 or 10 at a time. You're asking me to go through all their hides, study them for valid examples of maintenance neglect, and then engage in a debate about why the new cache can't be published.

 

Today I reviewed more than thirty caches. Among these were a batch of 11 that had zero listing guideline issues. It made me happy, and the owner happy, to publish them all at once on the same day they were submitted. Each cache took maybe two minutes to review, as there were no guideline issues.

 

What you are asking for would turn today's review of 30+ caches into something closer to a full time job. Each two minute review turns into a ten to thirty minute review if I have to look at all the owner's prior hides.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...