Jump to content

VERY FRUSTRATED! Prime reviewer not publishing caches!


Recommended Posts

What is going on?!?!?!?! My caches are not getting posted and others that were hidden 3 days ago are. They are all by the same CO and there are at least 10 that I have already seen come through.

I sent in 24 caches on June 6th and they have yet to be published, it is part of a series that I have been doing.

This past weekend I went out and did 40 more and got them all written up and sent in the same day on the 12th. Still none of them have been posted.

 

I am so confused as to why it is taking so long for my caches to be published. The first 15 that came out took 10 days too. I thought I must be doing something wrong so in the next batch I posted a note to reviewer asking if I'm doing something wrong and if so to please let me know before I post the next batch so I could do them correctly so they don't take so long to get posted. I have had no reply still.

 

I cannot tell you how many caches I have requested be archived, as they are gone and I know for a fact the CO is no longer participating in geocaching. I put this information in my log to reviewer and its been over a year and still no action has been taken, not even a temporary disable waiting for response. I have even told the reviewer I would be happy to adopt the cache. Stillnothing.

Why cant we get more reviewers??!?!?!?!

I would love to volunteer!! I have the time, I work on computers, I'm willing!! How do we get something done?

Why do I pay for a service that uses volunteers to publish and review caches and it is not getting done???

 

It's time something changes!!! Is there another website that does the same thing? I'm tired of paying for something I'm not getting!!

 

Please someone help me understand the process and why Texas geocachers aren't getting the service we pay for??

Thanks for listening to me rant!! I'm just frustrated!! I have caches that have been hidden since Memorial Day weekend that have yet to be found because they haven't been posted.

 

Thanks,

DisciplesonMission

Link to comment

Wow.

 

"My reviewer isn't publishing my caches" angst.

 

Power Trails. (For the number of caches being talked about, that's what it sounds like...)

 

Posting SBAs on caches.

 

The "How do I become a Reviewer" question.

 

I'd call this the trifecta of forum angst, but it seems we've got a bonus topic...

 

In all seriousness, I'd imagine your reviewer is having to spend more time looking at your caches and it's just plain easier for them to "slip a few others past" while they finish reviewing yours. If I'm right about the PT, I bet they're getting them all ready so they can be published all at once, rather than have the FTF hounds have to make ten trips back to the same spot. Have you contacted your reviewer, other than with the note on one of the 64 caches you have written up? Maybe they haven't gotten to the one with a note yet. Can't stress enough: 64 caches? Gonna take some time. I bet if you ask the owners of the really big, successful PTs, they are in close communication with their reviewer during the process.

 

As to the rest, I'm sure someone's going to jump on you for a few different things, seriously, you've got enough angst to supply a couple more threads.

Link to comment

What is going on?!?!?!?! My caches are not getting posted and others that were hidden 3 days ago are. They are all by the same CO and there are at least 10 that I have already seen come through.

I sent in 24 caches on June 6th and they have yet to be published, it is part of a series that I have been doing.

This past weekend I went out and did 40 more and got them all written up and sent in the same day on the 12th. Still none of them have been posted.

 

I am so confused as to why it is taking so long for my caches to be published. The first 15 that came out took 10 days too. I thought I must be doing something wrong so in the next batch I posted a note to reviewer asking if I'm doing something wrong and if so to please let me know before I post the next batch so I could do them correctly so they don't take so long to get posted. I have had no reply still.

 

I cannot tell you how many caches I have requested be archived, as they are gone and I know for a fact the CO is no longer participating in geocaching. I put this information in my log to reviewer and its been over a year and still no action has been taken, not even a temporary disable waiting for response. I have even told the reviewer I would be happy to adopt the cache. Stillnothing.

Why cant we get more reviewers??!?!?!?!

I would love to volunteer!! I have the time, I work on computers, I'm willing!! How do we get something done?

Why do I pay for a service that uses volunteers to publish and review caches and it is not getting done???

 

It's time something changes!!! Is there another website that does the same thing? I'm tired of paying for something I'm not getting!!

 

Please someone help me understand the process and why Texas geocachers aren't getting the service we pay for??

Thanks for listening to me rant!! I'm just frustrated!! I have caches that have been hidden since Memorial Day weekend that have yet to be found because they haven't been posted.

 

Thanks,

DisciplesonMission

What is a "Prime reviewer"? :unsure:

Link to comment

Wow.

 

"My reviewer isn't publishing my caches" angst.

 

Power Trails. (For the number of caches being talked about, that's what it sounds like...)

 

Posting SBAs on caches.

 

The "How do I become a Reviewer" question.

 

I'd call this the trifecta of forum angst, but it seems we've got a bonus topic...

 

In all seriousness, I'd imagine your reviewer is having to spend more time looking at your caches and it's just plain easier for them to "slip a few others past" while they finish reviewing yours. If I'm right about the PT, I bet they're getting them all ready so they can be published all at once, rather than have the FTF hounds have to make ten trips back to the same spot. Have you contacted your reviewer, other than with the note on one of the 64 caches you have written up? Maybe they haven't gotten to the one with a note yet. Can't stress enough: 64 caches? Gonna take some time. I bet if you ask the owners of the really big, successful PTs, they are in close communication with their reviewer during the process.

 

As to the rest, I'm sure someone's going to jump on you for a few different things, seriously, you've got enough angst to supply a couple more threads.

Link to comment

Just a quick question - have you checked to see if the reviewer did reply and somehow it got sent to your spam folder? Hey, it happens.

 

As to the rest - wow.

Excellent point! I recently installed McAfee Anti-Virus and called Carnival Cruise Lines several times requesting my cruise confirmation. They said they e-mailed it. I e-mailed myself as a test and it showed up right away, no problem. I then noticed a new McAfee Anti Spam folder which contained my confirmations...doh!!

Link to comment

The guidelines say that, if you are submitting a large batch of caches with the expectation that they be published all at once, you should allow a minimum of ten days advance notice. That way, the reviewer can handle their regular workload while also chipping away at the "bump" of extra caches in their queue. If the reviewer looked at a series of 25 right away, then cache owners who are only submitting one or two caches would be disappointed.

 

I will go peek at your submissions but I am guessing that this is the guideline at issue.

Link to comment

The guidelines say that, if you are submitting a large batch of caches with the expectation that they be published all at once, you should allow a minimum of ten days advance notice. That way, the reviewer can handle their regular workload while also chipping away at the "bump" of extra caches in their queue. If the reviewer looked at a series of 25 right away, then cache owners who are only submitting one or two caches would be disappointed.

 

I will go peek at your submissions but I am guessing that this is the guideline at issue.

 

Makes sense!

Link to comment

 

 

Wow.

 

"My reviewer isn't publishing my caches" angst.

 

Power Trails. (For the number of caches being talked about, that's what it sounds like...)

 

Posting SBAs on caches.

 

The "How do I become a Reviewer" question.

 

I'd call this the trifecta of forum angst, but it seems we've got a bonus topic...

 

In all seriousness, I'd imagine your reviewer is having to spend more time looking at your caches and it's just plain easier for them to "slip a few others past" while they finish reviewing yours. If I'm right about the PT, I bet they're getting them all ready so they can be published all at once, rather than have the FTF hounds have to make ten trips back to the same spot. Have you contacted your reviewer, other than with the note on one of the 64 caches you have written up? Maybe they haven't gotten to the one with a note yet. Can't stress enough: 64 caches? Gonna take some time. I bet if you ask the owners of the really big, successful PTs, they are in close communication with their reviewer during the process.

 

As to the rest, I'm sure someone's going to jump on you for a few different things, seriously, you've got enough angst to supply a couple more threads.

 

Sorry for miscommunication, I put the note to reviewer on every cache I submitted so he didn't miss the note.

The ones I have seen coming through appear to be "power trails" as there is one for every county in Texas.

 

As for being in close communication with my reviewer, please tell me how I can go about that process? I'd love to be able to contact him, I thought posting a reviewers note was the process.

 

I'm sorry that I must have offended you with my post, that was not my intention. I'm really just frustrated about these things. I really enjoy geocaching and I'm one of those Type A personalities, so I tend to expect rules and guidelines to be followed. I try to follow them if I know what they are.

 

I know I am not the first, nor will I be the last person to say that Texas needs some more volunteers, I've heard it in the forums and I've heard it on Facebook and meetings,etc. If people don't speak up when there are problems then problems never get taken care of!!

 

I saw what happened to the last person who tried to speak up about needing more reviewers and frankly, I felt she was treated unfairly, very unfairly!! However, knowing how unkind people were to her, I still chose to post, knowing that I too would probably get some heat, but this is not the first time I have taken heat for saying something that needs to be said.

 

I know the volunteers work hard!! I have volunteered for many things, in fact I'm willing to walk in a reviewers shoes by being a volunteer.

 

Please just tell me what the process is to go about getting more reviewers?

 

Can we get a sort of petition going? Would that be permitted? Just so the powers who are in control of that can see how many people feel that there is a need for more reviewers? These are just simple questions that I don't know how to go about finding the answers to, so I'm seeking them. Please do not blast me!

Thanks

Link to comment
I sent in 24 caches on June 6th and they have yet to be published, it is part of a series that I have been doing.

 

This past weekend I went out and did 40 more and got them all written up and sent in the same day on the 12th. Still none of them have been posted.

 

That is an awful lot of caches to want reviewed within the "normal" 72-hour time.

 

And that is just for "initial review"...72 hours is not the time span in which to expect caches to be published.

Link to comment

The guidelines say that, if you are submitting a large batch of caches with the expectation that they be published all at once, you should allow a minimum of ten days advance notice. That way, the reviewer can handle their regular workload while also chipping away at the "bump" of extra caches in their queue. If the reviewer looked at a series of 25 right away, then cache owners who are only submitting one or two caches would be disappointed.

 

I will go peek at your submissions but I am guessing that this is the guideline at issue.

Link to comment

As Keystone pointed out, a large number of caches placed at one time is mentioned in the Guidelines:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307

 

6. Placing a large number of geocaches to be published on the same date requires advance planning. Submit all of the cache pages at least ten days in advance of the release date. Leave a Note to Reviewer on the cache pages requesting that the caches be published on the date specified. Reviewers will strive to accommodate reasonable requests.

Caches placed in connection with an event must be left in place after the event. See "Geocache Permanence" above.

Link to comment

I did post specifically that it was okay to go ahead an post the caches as there was no need to hold them and post them all at once.

I wonder if there might be a way that large batches of caches could somehow be routed to a few designated reviewers that focused only on the "power Trails. Maybe all the Needs Archiving could be directed to designated reviewers, etc. Would that possibly help the reviewers any? I wouldn't mind helping with just checking on needs archiving or needs maintenance or disabled caches. I would love to help, I would enjoy having something else to do to keep me occupied. I'm a recent empty nester! :0)

 

Thanks for looking at them!

Link to comment

I looked at the OP's pending caches. There are dozens of consecutively numbered caches in a series the OP is developing, beginning with a batch submitted on June 6th. I noted, however, that two caches hidden by the OP on June 6 have been published. They are NOT part of the series. So, as I suspected, the reviewer is dealing with the series under the ten day guideline while processing individual submissions under the three day service goal.

 

In the OP's defense, I noticed that the series submissions I looked at said, in a reviewer note, that it was OK to release the series a few caches at a time. This would spread out the workload. In my review territory, this would be uncommon: most series hiders ask me to hold all umpty-seven caches until they are all ready for publication.

 

It would be worthwhile to email the reviewer through the GC.com email system, calling attention to the fact that the series does not need to be published all at once.

 

The OP could also write to Groundspeak, indicating in the ticket submission or email subject that the message is intended for the Volunteer Program. The Lackeys who coordinate the work of the volunteer cache reviewers can look at the situation and make a determination about what's appropriate.

Link to comment

I looked at the OP's pending caches. There are dozens of consecutively numbered caches in a series the OP is developing, beginning with a batch submitted on June 6th. I noted, however, that two caches hidden by the OP on June 6 have been published. They are NOT part of the series. So, as I suspected, the reviewer is dealing with the series under the ten day guideline while processing individual submissions under the three day service goal.

 

In the OP's defense, I noticed that the series submissions I looked at said, in a reviewer note, that it was OK to release the series a few caches at a time. This would spread out the workload. In my review territory, this would be uncommon: most series hiders ask me to hold all umpty-seven caches until they are all ready for publication.

 

It would be worthwhile to email the reviewer through the GC.com email system, calling attention to the fact that the series does not need to be published all at once.

 

The OP could also write to Groundspeak, indicating in the ticket submission or email subject that the message is intended for the Volunteer Program. The Lackeys who coordinate the work of the volunteer cache reviewers can look at the situation and make a determination about what's appropriate.

 

Thanks Keystone for looking.

I feel confident that the reviewer is trying to be helpful, and I understand that most people want to wait and have them all posted at once, however, when I originally began the series, I had no idea how big it would get and how fast I could get them posted. I did note in the description that I would be adding to the series as I found more sites. This is why I did not feel like I needed to hold off on waiting and posting them all at once.

I tried to do exactly what the guidelines told me to do as I understood them. I am a teacher and I hate it when people try to go around the rules, so I truly did try.

Thanks for the advice and I will try it.

 

I appreciate your kindness. :0)

Link to comment

Holy hell! You submitted 64 caches in under a week. No wonder it took PR so long to get to the three caches that I submitted. :blink:

 

I also designed and created 64 different caches, went and searched out 64 good spots to place them, hid them, logged their coordinates, averaged the cords a minimum of 50 times for accuracy, took notes about the caches and sites, came back to my house, entered all of them into my Google Earth(so I can visually check each of the coordinates and keep records of my caches), wrote up all 64 caches with a reviewer note on each one, and submitted them in the same day. Yes, it was a lot of caches in one day, but I also did a lot of work. They are all different, no two caches are the same. I worked hard and I'm looking forward to seeing the excitement of the people who are going to find them.

How is my submitting 64 in one day any different than 20 different people submitting 3 each in one day. If 64 people get in line ahead of you at the movie theater would it be fair to sell you a ticket before the 64 in front of you get one? No it wouldn't, if they got in line first, then they should get service first! I did request that they not be held and submitted all at once, but rather as he came to them. I understand the need for more time to post the massive amount of caches, but it has been 11 days.(Actually only 22 of them have been 11 days, the other 40(he did publish 2 of them last weekend)have only been waiting 5 days.

Link to comment

One question the OP asked still hasn't been addressed: The nice, small state of Florida has 4 Reviewers. Why in Gaia's name does a state the size of Texas only have one? It can't be for lack of willing bodies. There's not a week goes by when someone mentions they'd like the job. It can't be because Groundspeak thinks one is enough. How many Texas Reviewer complaints do we see in here as opposed to Georgia complaints, Montana complaints, etc? Can't help but wonder what the real reason is. Does PR have Signal's cousin locked away in a cellar somewhere, with threats to cook his legs if another Reviewer shows up? I know some frogs are territorial, but are Reviewers the same way? Inquiring minds want to know. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I'd just like to know what the process is for us to go about getting it changed.

There is a huge need! It's not like we're complaining but not willing to help do the job, we're willing!!

I'd be willing to be in charge of all the mass listings, or just the need archiving. I'm willing to help with some of the load, as many others are. I'll even pay y'all $30.00 a year to let me help! ;)

Link to comment

One question the OP asked still hasn't been addressed: The nice, small state of Florida has 4 Reviewers. Why in Gaia's name does a state the size of Texas only have one? It can't be for lack of willing bodies. There's not a week goes by when someone mentions they'd like the job. It can't be because Groundspeak thinks one is enough. How many Texas Reviewer complaints do we see in here as opposed to Georgia complaints, Montana complaints, etc? Can't help but wonder what the real reason is. Does PR have Signal's cousin locked away in a cellar somewhere, with threats to cook his legs if another Reviewer shows up? I know some frogs are territorial, but are Reviewers the same way? Inquiring minds want to know. :ph34r:

I saw in a thread once where a Texas reviewer threatened to quit if another reviewer was allowed in the State. I just thought that was a joke, but now I question it. You know that reviewer has to be in the "inner circle" of Groundspeak. From the looks of his reviewer page I would dare to guess that he is the Cult Leader of the Frogs. :anitongue:

Link to comment

What is going on?!?!?!?! My caches are not getting posted and others that were hidden 3 days ago are. They are all by the same CO and there are at least 10 that I have already seen come through.

I sent in 24 caches on June 6th and they have yet to be published, it is part of a series that I have been doing.

This past weekend I went out and did 40 more and got them all written up and sent in the same day on the 12th. Still none of them have been posted.

 

I am so confused as to why it is taking so long for my caches to be published. The first 15 that came out took 10 days too. I thought I must be doing something wrong so in the next batch I posted a note to reviewer asking if I'm doing something wrong and if so to please let me know before I post the next batch so I could do them correctly so they don't take so long to get posted. I have had no reply still.

 

I cannot tell you how many caches I have requested be archived, as they are gone and I know for a fact the CO is no longer participating in geocaching. I put this information in my log to reviewer and its been over a year and still no action has been taken, not even a temporary disable waiting for response. I have even told the reviewer I would be happy to adopt the cache. Stillnothing.

Why cant we get more reviewers??!?!?!?!

I would love to volunteer!! I have the time, I work on computers, I'm willing!! How do we get something done?

Why do I pay for a service that uses volunteers to publish and review caches and it is not getting done???

 

It's time something changes!!! Is there another website that does the same thing? I'm tired of paying for something I'm not getting!!

 

Please someone help me understand the process and why Texas geocachers aren't getting the service we pay for??

Thanks for listening to me rant!! I'm just frustrated!! I have caches that have been hidden since Memorial Day weekend that have yet to be found because they haven't been posted.

 

Thanks,

DisciplesonMission

tl;dr

Link to comment

One question the OP asked still hasn't been addressed: The nice, small state of Florida has 4 Reviewers. Why in Gaia's name does a state the size of Texas only have one? It can't be for lack of willing bodies. There's not a week goes by when someone mentions they'd like the job. It can't be because Groundspeak thinks one is enough. How many Texas Reviewer complaints do we see in here as opposed to Georgia complaints, Montana complaints, etc? Can't help but wonder what the real reason is. Does PR have Signal's cousin locked away in a cellar somewhere, with threats to cook his legs if another Reviewer shows up? I know some frogs are territorial, but are Reviewers the same way? Inquiring minds want to know. :ph34r:

I saw in a thread once where a Texas reviewer threatened to quit if another reviewer was allowed in the State. I just thought that was a joke, but now I question it. You know that reviewer has to be in the "inner circle" of Groundspeak. From the looks of his reviewer page I would dare to guess that he is the Cult Leader of the Frogs. :anitongue:

 

I have seen that, but only as a rumor in these forums during "Texas needs more reviewers" threads. I do know there is a well-known Texas cacher who hasn't posted here in ages who has said he used to be a reviewer. No names, but I think he invented cache page icons or something. :lol:

Link to comment

One question the OP asked still hasn't been addressed: The nice, small state of Florida has 4 Reviewers. Why in Gaia's name does a state the size of Texas only have one? It can't be for lack of willing bodies. There's not a week goes by when someone mentions they'd like the job. It can't be because Groundspeak thinks one is enough. How many Texas Reviewer complaints do we see in here as opposed to Georgia complaints, Montana complaints, etc? Can't help but wonder what the real reason is. Does PR have Signal's cousin locked away in a cellar somewhere, with threats to cook his legs if another Reviewer shows up? I know some frogs are territorial, but are Reviewers the same way? Inquiring minds want to know. :ph34r:

I saw in a thread once where a Texas reviewer threatened to quit if another reviewer was allowed in the State. I just thought that was a joke, but now I question it. You know that reviewer has to be in the "inner circle" of Groundspeak. From the looks of his reviewer page I would dare to guess that he is the Cult Leader of the Frogs. :anitongue:

 

As I recall, the last time the Texas Reviewer came up Keystone took at look at his 'backlog' and noted it was in line with other areas that have more reviewers.

 

I suspect much of the kvetching is little more than idle gossip that gets passed back and forth among a small group of vocal cachers.

Link to comment

The question about how to become a reviewer has still gone unanswered and I am far from knowing for sure but I think my speculations might be accurate.

 

I would think you would need to be in the inner circle of the local caching community. TPTB are not going to let just anyone that says they'll voulnteer do it. They have to know what kind of cacher you are, that you'll stay committed, that you truley care about the sport, that you have thick skin and are not going to fly off the handle at irrate, irrational, uptight geocachers (like me) that complain when they don't get their caches published right away or take exception to guideline violations. They have to know that you are not going to take your own personal caching philosophy as gospil and not publish caches that are reasonable and within the guidlines. In short, you've got to be in the caching clique.

 

If you really want to be a volunteer my advice would be to join a local caching club. Here we have the Washington State Geocaching Association. I can say for certain that most of the current and former reviewers in our area have come from that organiztion, most have been officers of that club at one time or another. If there is a similar organization in your area join it and get known. Invovle yourself in local events, hold them yourself, attend others but I think beyond that, be nice, and also be liked. I'm not sayin gyou are neither of those things but I am sure it is an important trait. I know who a couple of the reviewers are around here, and for the most part they are all well liked and respected geocachers that have been at the game for a long time.

Link to comment

 

As for being in close communication with my reviewer, please tell me how I can go about that process? I'd love to be able to contact him, I thought posting a reviewers note was the process.

 

 

you can contact them the same way you would contact any other member, through their profile, the link has been posted somewhere above but here it is again

 

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=82dbf47d-7961-48e1-8309-cf1af70fc628

Link to comment

One question the OP asked still hasn't been addressed: The nice, small state of Florida has 4 Reviewers. Why in Gaia's name does a state the size of Texas only have one? It can't be for lack of willing bodies. There's not a week goes by when someone mentions they'd like the job. It can't be because Groundspeak thinks one is enough. How many Texas Reviewer complaints do we see in here as opposed to Georgia complaints, Montana complaints, etc? Can't help but wonder what the real reason is. Does PR have Signal's cousin locked away in a cellar somewhere, with threats to cook his legs if another Reviewer shows up? I know some frogs are territorial, but are Reviewers the same way? Inquiring minds want to know. :ph34r:

I saw in a thread once where a Texas reviewer threatened to quit if another reviewer was allowed in the State. I just thought that was a joke, but now I question it. You know that reviewer has to be in the "inner circle" of Groundspeak. From the looks of his reviewer page I would dare to guess that he is the Cult Leader of the Frogs. :anitongue:

 

As I recall, the last time the Texas Reviewer came up Keystone took at look at his 'backlog' and noted it was in line with other areas that have more reviewers.

 

I suspect much of the kvetching is little more than idle gossip that gets passed back and forth among a small group of vocal cachers.

 

This single reviewer for Texas issue has come up time and again. Yes, there have been (some will say there are some ongoing, sometimes personal) issues. No, I won't go into them here. Personally, I have had no problems at all with PR.

 

Ultimately, the answer we have gotten over the years is that if our reviewer needs help temporarily, he will ask reviewers from other territories to pitch in. We were also told that there will be no new reviewers assigned to Texas unless and until our reviewer tells Groundspeak that he needs full time help reviewing caches. So whether or not we need more reviewers is up to our sole reviewer. End of story (as I know it).

 

The details of becoming a reviewer are listed elsewhere, but essentially (again, as I understand it), is that Groundspeak will take nominations from current reviewers and ask someone to be a reviewer. At-large volunteers are neither solicited nor accepted. You come to Groundspeak's attention for being a reviewer by being an active cacher (both hides and finds) and by being heavily involved in the local caching community and working with local officials.

 

Someone else, please clarify and/or correct any of this as you thing it needs. Perhaps a Markwell to the 'becoming a reviewer' topic.

Link to comment

The details of becoming a reviewer are listed elsewhere,

 

Someone else, please clarify and/or correct any of this as you thing it needs. Perhaps a Markwell to the 'becoming a reviewer' topic.

 

A good understanding of the Guidelines might be a requirement, no?

 

I think the article in the Knowledge Books is pretty clear, as Bear and Ragged pointed out in his succinct post above, which consists of a simple-to-click-link:

 

Link to comment

And, of course, we all know there's no better way to influence someone we depend on than going into a forum and criticizing him/her for not living up to our over-inflated expectations. :ph34r: Of course, I'm sure that that would have no effect of the process.

I used to have a reviewer who reviewed caches 'every Thursday'. If s/he had a question such as 'Do you really want to hide such an obtuse cache?' (Answer "yes".) I knew it wouldn't be published until the next Thursday. Oh, well. Not a biggie. I may be a grumpy dolphin. But I'm not that demanding.

So, my question concerns your sense of 'entitlement'. And that is what you are presenting here 'entitlement'.

Chill out. Go find some caches. Say "Oh, well." Enjoy yourself. What difference does a week or two make? Why are you so insistent? It's not the end of the world!

Link to comment

And, of course, we all know there's no better way to influence someone we depend on than going into a forum and criticizing him/her for not living up to our over-inflated expectations. :ph34r: Of course, I'm sure that that would have no effect of the process.

I used to have a reviewer who reviewed caches 'every Thursday'. If s/he had a question such as 'Do you really want to hide such an obtuse cache?' (Answer "yes".) I knew it wouldn't be published until the next Thursday. Oh, well. Not a biggie. I may be a grumpy dolphin. But I'm not that demanding.

So, my question concerns your sense of 'entitlement'. And that is what you are presenting here 'entitlement'.

Chill out. Go find some caches. Say "Oh, well." Enjoy yourself. What difference does a week or two make? Why are you so insistent? It's not the end of the world!

No, you are right it is not the end of the world, but if I did all the work, why should my caches be put off and someone elses put out ahead of mine?

I understand that he is a volunteer, but why should we have to walk on egg shells for our Texas reviewer? I appreciate that he is willing to do it, but why is he not willing to accept help? If it is taking nearly 2 weeks to post some caches, its time for him to have some help.

I would bet that you could find 1000's of people in Texas that would agree that Texas needs more reviewers!! Why should the largest state besides Alaska not have more than one reviewer? I followed all the guidelines, I did all the work, I did my part why shouldn't my caches be published? Why did the guy who hide 35 caches on June 14 get all his caches published on June 16th? Explain that one to me! I'm not one of those people who think I am entitled to things, but I am someone who will stand up and say something when I thing something is not fair.

Those people are the ones who help changes to get made. It wasn't the silent ones who sat back and never said a word about the injustices of this country that helped get the changes in this country, it was the few brave and bold ones!! I knew I would get flack from a few jerks, but it was something that I was willing to endure. However, I will think you for your opinion.

Have a good day!

Link to comment

Barring a nearly unheard of intervention by GS, there is only one "standard" way that a new reviewer would get added in Texas.

 

Prime Reviewer would have to ask for help.

 

The Texas caches tried a sorta revolt several years ago. It got them nowhere. I was at an event near Austin once, and this whole discussion came up. The TX cachers knew who I was, and where I'm from, so they asked me what I think.

 

I told them this:

 

Screaming at Groundspeak isn't going to help. Contacting the Lackey that oversees the Reviewers isn't going to help. Calling that Lacky names (yes, that had started) sure wasn't going to help.

 

Those folks wanted me to tell them who that Lackey is, so they could flood that e-mail address. I didn't do that,m either.

 

Bottom line, if PR doesn't ask, not much is gonna happen.

Link to comment

And, of course, we all know there's no better way to influence someone we depend on than going into a forum and criticizing him/her for not living up to our over-inflated expectations. :ph34r: Of course, I'm sure that that would have no effect of the process.

I used to have a reviewer who reviewed caches 'every Thursday'. If s/he had a question such as 'Do you really want to hide such an obtuse cache?' (Answer "yes".) I knew it wouldn't be published until the next Thursday. Oh, well. Not a biggie. I may be a grumpy dolphin. But I'm not that demanding.

So, my question concerns your sense of 'entitlement'. And that is what you are presenting here 'entitlement'.

Chill out. Go find some caches. Say "Oh, well." Enjoy yourself. What difference does a week or two make? Why are you so insistent? It's not the end of the world!

No, you are right it is not the end of the world, but if I did all the work, why should my caches be put off and someone elses put out ahead of mine?

I understand that he is a volunteer, but why should we have to walk on egg shells for our Texas reviewer? I appreciate that he is willing to do it, but why is he not willing to accept help? If it is taking nearly 2 weeks to post some caches, its time for him to have some help.

I would bet that you could find 1000's of people in Texas that would agree that Texas needs more reviewers!! Why should the largest state besides Alaska not have more than one reviewer? I followed all the guidelines, I did all the work, I did my part why shouldn't my caches be published? Why did the guy who hide 35 caches on June 14 get all his caches published on June 16th? Explain that one to me! I'm not one of those people who think I am entitled to things, but I am someone who will stand up and say something when I thing something is not fair.

Those people are the ones who help changes to get made. It wasn't the silent ones who sat back and never said a word about the injustices of this country that helped get the changes in this country, it was the few brave and bold ones!! I knew I would get flack from a few jerks, but it was something that I was willing to endure. However, I will think you for your opinion.

Have a good day!

I don't know how much of Texas is desert, but PA has two reviewers, and it's not nearly half the size of Texas.

Link to comment

Barring a nearly unheard of intervention by GS, there is only one "standard" way that a new reviewer would get added in Texas.

 

Prime Reviewer would have to ask for help.

 

The Texas caches tried a sorta revolt several years ago. It got them nowhere. I was at an event near Austin once, and this whole discussion came up. The TX cachers knew who I was, and where I'm from, so they asked me what I think.

 

I told them this:

 

Screaming at Groundspeak isn't going to help. Contacting the Lackey that oversees the Reviewers isn't going to help. Calling that Lacky names (yes, that had started) sure wasn't going to help.

 

Those folks wanted me to tell them who that Lackey is, so they could flood that e-mail address. I didn't do that,m either.

 

Bottom line, if PR doesn't ask, not much is gonna happen.

 

From what I've seen, reviewers recommend reviewers. I've seen the Province of Ontario go from 3 reviewers for all of the entire Country of Canada (one of whom didn't even live there), to 5 in Ontario alone in the last 4 years. I suppose if a reviewer doesn't recommend anyone to be a new reviewer, there will be no new reviewers. :blink:

Link to comment

Barring a nearly unheard of intervention by GS, there is only one "standard" way that a new reviewer would get added in Texas.

 

Prime Reviewer would have to ask for help.

 

The Texas caches tried a sorta revolt several years ago. It got them nowhere. I was at an event near Austin once, and this whole discussion came up. The TX cachers knew who I was, and where I'm from, so they asked me what I think.

 

I told them this:

 

Screaming at Groundspeak isn't going to help. Contacting the Lackey that oversees the Reviewers isn't going to help. Calling that Lacky names (yes, that had started) sure wasn't going to help.

 

Those folks wanted me to tell them who that Lackey is, so they could flood that e-mail address. I didn't do that,m either.

 

Bottom line, if PR doesn't ask, not much is gonna happen.

 

From what I've seen, reviewers recommend reviewers. I've seen the Province of Ontario go from 3 reviewers for all of the entire Country of Canada (one of whom didn't even live there), to 5 in Ontario alone in the last 4 years. I suppose if a reviewer doesn't recommend anyone to be a new reviewer, there will be no new reviewers. :blink:

 

And I doubt that he's too interested in doing that, either.

Link to comment

Barring a nearly unheard of intervention by GS, there is only one "standard" way that a new reviewer would get added in Texas.

 

Prime Reviewer would have to ask for help.

 

The Texas caches tried a sorta revolt several years ago. It got them nowhere. I was at an event near Austin once, and this whole discussion came up. The TX cachers knew who I was, and where I'm from, so they asked me what I think.

 

I told them this:

 

Screaming at Groundspeak isn't going to help. Contacting the Lackey that oversees the Reviewers isn't going to help. Calling that Lacky names (yes, that had started) sure wasn't going to help.

 

Those folks wanted me to tell them who that Lackey is, so they could flood that e-mail address. I didn't do that,m either.

 

Bottom line, if PR doesn't ask, not much is gonna happen.

 

From what I've seen, reviewers recommend reviewers. I've seen the Province of Ontario go from 3 reviewers for all of the entire Country of Canada (one of whom didn't even live there), to 5 in Ontario alone in the last 4 years. I suppose if a reviewer doesn't recommend anyone to be a new reviewer, there will be no new reviewers. :blink:

If you live in a state as big as Texas, how are you going to find someone capable of reviewing another part of Texas? Don't you have to find someone local to be the reviewer? I'm sure he doesn't travel to the other end of Texas enough to meet another geocacher who is qualified...

Link to comment

Barring a nearly unheard of intervention by GS, there is only one "standard" way that a new reviewer would get added in Texas.

 

Prime Reviewer would have to ask for help.

 

The Texas caches tried a sorta revolt several years ago. It got them nowhere. I was at an event near Austin once, and this whole discussion came up. The TX cachers knew who I was, and where I'm from, so they asked me what I think.

 

I told them this:

 

Screaming at Groundspeak isn't going to help. Contacting the Lackey that oversees the Reviewers isn't going to help. Calling that Lacky names (yes, that had started) sure wasn't going to help.

 

Those folks wanted me to tell them who that Lackey is, so they could flood that e-mail address. I didn't do that,m either.

 

Bottom line, if PR doesn't ask, not much is gonna happen.

 

From what I've seen, reviewers recommend reviewers. I've seen the Province of Ontario go from 3 reviewers for all of the entire Country of Canada (one of whom didn't even live there), to 5 in Ontario alone in the last 4 years. I suppose if a reviewer doesn't recommend anyone to be a new reviewer, there will be no new reviewers. :blink:

If you live in a state as big as Texas, how are you going to find someone capable of reviewing another part of Texas? Don't you have to find someone local to be the reviewer? I'm sure he doesn't travel to the other end of Texas enough to meet another geocacher who is qualified...

 

I'm not sure how he can get what he gets done done! If there were only 10 people like me in one week posting caches, that would still be over 600 caches to review and post, not to mention all of the other responsibilities. I'm not knocking him, but he needs help whether he thinks he does or not!!

Link to comment

Barring a nearly unheard of intervention by GS, there is only one "standard" way that a new reviewer would get added in Texas.

 

Prime Reviewer would have to ask for help.

 

The Texas caches tried a sorta revolt several years ago. It got them nowhere. I was at an event near Austin once, and this whole discussion came up. The TX cachers knew who I was, and where I'm from, so they asked me what I think.

 

I told them this:

 

Screaming at Groundspeak isn't going to help. Contacting the Lackey that oversees the Reviewers isn't going to help. Calling that Lacky names (yes, that had started) sure wasn't going to help.

 

Those folks wanted me to tell them who that Lackey is, so they could flood that e-mail address. I didn't do that,m either.

 

Bottom line, if PR doesn't ask, not much is gonna happen.

 

From what I've seen, reviewers recommend reviewers. I've seen the Province of Ontario go from 3 reviewers for all of the entire Country of Canada (one of whom didn't even live there), to 5 in Ontario alone in the last 4 years. I suppose if a reviewer doesn't recommend anyone to be a new reviewer, there will be no new reviewers. :blink:

If you live in a state as big as Texas, how are you going to find someone capable of reviewing another part of Texas? Don't you have to find someone local to be the reviewer? I'm sure he doesn't travel to the other end of Texas enough to meet another geocacher who is qualified...

 

I'm not sure how he can get what he gets done done! If there were only 10 people like me in one week posting caches, that would still be over 600 caches to review and post, not to mention all of the other responsibilities. I'm not knocking him, but he needs help whether he thinks he does or not!!

 

Two weeks to get a cache published. NA logs ignored for years, and the only one that is allowed to determine if there is a problem, is the one who is causing the problem? What kind of nonsense is that?

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...