VERY FRUSTRATED! Prime reviewer not publishing caches!

[knowschad]

 

Oh, I don't think they've insulted him, and believe me, it's not the first "Texas need more reviewers" thread. I do however, think there's probably a thread going on in the top secret reviewer only forum on this. Careful guy's, you don't want to out several of yourselves by all signing up en-masse for another website on the same day. Not that that ever actually happened or anything.

 

The only place I may have seen more forum posts regarding the need for more reviewers would probably be various European countries. Texas is (doh!) a HUGE landmass and has quite a few power trails, to boot.

 

Speaking of the top secret reviewer only forum... do you think anybody has ever had their thread locked over there?

[+Harry Dolphin]

yet they aren't willing to lift a finger to help.

Nothing presented so far shows this to be the case

 

Dunno. Certainly looks like an entitlement problem to me. Wah. Wah. Kick and scream! 24 caches not published in ten days. Wah. 40 more caches not published in 4 days! Kick and scream!

That doesn't work? Come into a forum and pout.

Having dealt with several reviewers, I think they're the best there are! I work in customer service, and guess what? Whining and crying drops you to the bottom of my list.

OP should breathe deeply. Say "Oh, well". The world will not end if your 40 caches are not published in four days! Try enjoying life for a change. Much better for the blood pressure.

As I've mentioned before: I had a reviewer who published caches every Thursday. If there were a question, it might take two Thursdays. Oh, well. Not a problem. The world is not ending. I certainly would not pout, and rant and rave in the forum. Not a big thing. It's only a game. The sun will rise tomorrow! Maybe I'm too laid back? Oh, well.

[+Shop99er]

yet they aren't willing to lift a finger to help.

Nothing presented so far shows this to be the case

 

Dunno. Certainly looks like an entitlement problem to me. Wah. Wah. Kick and scream! 24 caches not published in ten days. Wah. 40 more caches not published in 4 days! Kick and scream!

That doesn't work? Come into a forum and pout.

Having dealt with several reviewers, I think they're the best there are! I work in customer service, and guess what? Whining and crying drops you to the bottom of my list.

OP should breathe deeply. Say "Oh, well". The world will not end if your 40 caches are not published in four days! Try enjoying life for a change. Much better for the blood pressure.

As I've mentioned before: I had a reviewer who published caches every Thursday. If there were a question, it might take two Thursdays. Oh, well. Not a problem. The world is not ending. I certainly would not pout, and rant and rave in the forum. Not a big thing. It's only a game. The sun will rise tomorrow! Maybe I'm too laid back? Oh, well.

 

Bravo Harry!!

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Oh, I don't think they've insulted him, and believe me, it's not the first "Texas need more reviewers" thread. I do however, think there's probably a thread going on in the top secret reviewer only forum on this. Careful guy's, you don't want to out several of yourselves by all signing up en-masse for another website on the same day. Not that that ever actually happened or anything.

 

The only place I may have seen more forum posts regarding the need for more reviewers would probably be various European countries. Texas is (doh!) a HUGE landmass and has quite a few power trails, to boot.

 

Speaking of the top secret reviewer only forum... do you think anybody has ever had their thread locked over there?

 

Even though I'm sure there are reviewers who make other reviewers do this ==> no, I seriously doubt they've ever had a thread locked. So no one is posting "IBTL" over there. No OP's are saying "Keystone, please close this thread". I can say with a great deal of confidence though, that they've had a "Texas needs more reviewers" thread, either at this time, or in the past.

[+MustangJoni]

While I don't disagree that another reviewer in Texas wouldn't hurt, I have to say that Prime Reviewer does a fantastic job.

 

He has always been wonderful about answering my dumb questions. While I would love to have my caches published within minutes of submission, they have always been reviewed in an efficient manner.

 

Prime Reviewer is a true asset to geocaching here in Texas. He does a great job!

[+TerraViators]

If anything, Prime Reviewer is ALWAYS consistent. I don't understand why he wants the job or how he does it solo, but he does.

[+Too Tall John]

GC1417E Not a year on this one but a good while

GCYD8H Took a year but did get done, actually just disabled

GC14VZX Took a year from first request then two more were made before archiving

GC1M7K5. There are several like this one were people have reported that it needs maintenance or archiving for over a year and co finally disabled it and it still sits for months.

 

If there I'd any way you can just look at my logs this would be much easier.

Many times I've just come across them and seen them.

 

I'm not saying he is a horrible prime reviewer, I'm saying he needs help!

GC1417E First NA log posted April 9, by you. No DNF logs.

GCYD8H First NA posted April 8. Cache is now disabled.

GC14VZX First NA log a year ago, but no compelling reason given to archive other than "Searched today. Notta. Owner needs to verify that it is there. Cache hasn't been found in a while." After much more recent (and detailed) logs, cache is archived.

GC1M7K5 First NA log posted April 8, owner disabled the next day.

 

Got any better examples? These look like they are being handled exactly like they should.

Is anyone else still curious if disciplesonmission has any better examples of the caches they're complaining about?

 

Or was this the best they've got? If that was it, they don't seem to have a compelling case...

Edited June 21, 2011 by Too Tall John

[+Student Camper]

If Prime Reviewer doesn't feel he needs any help and Groundspeak PTB has no issues with it, then, What the h**l is the problem????

[knowschad]

If Prime Reviewer doesn't feel he needs any help and Groundspeak PTB has no issues with it, then, What the h**l is the problem????

Apparently the problem is the time that it sometimes takes for Texans to get their caches published. Just because Prime Reviewer doesn't feel the need for help does not mean that there isn't an issue here. I'm not saying that there is an issue, either, but we have seen a lot of smoke coming from Texas, so I would suspect a fire.

[jholly]

If Prime Reviewer doesn't feel he needs any help and Groundspeak PTB has no issues with it, then, What the h**l is the problem????

Apparently the problem is the time that it sometimes takes for Texans to get their caches published. Just because Prime Reviewer doesn't feel the need for help does not mean that there isn't an issue here. I'm not saying that there is an issue, either, but we have seen a lot of smoke coming from Texas, so I would suspect a fire.

There has been occasionally smoke rising from Pennsylvania also. Doesn't mean we need to get the tar heated up and the feathers ready. If my memory is not totally faulty I think even complaints from Idaho. Several have chimed in that they don't see a problem with prime reviewer. They seem to be happy with the service. The OP along the line did mention that they did not have to be released as a batch, and PR could do them at his/her leisure. Maybe PR wants to do them as a batch and is working through the pile. One question I have that does not seem to have been brought up, is did the OP contact PR *before* the first submission and ask on how PR would want to handle this pile and establish the ground rules ahead of time. I suspect the power trail owners in California and Nevada had input from the reviewers ahead backing up the semi and dumping it all in the queue. Probably the mini trail owners in other states had conversations with the reviewers before clicking the submit button a bunch of times.

 

As for the complaints about archiving caches.

 

GC1417E - hasn't been found for 2 years. Really? Rainbow vents is still waiting for FTF for how many years? I've seen other go a long time between finds. No reason to archive them. Also it appears the OP didn't even try to look, just dropped the NA and walked away. I side with PR.

 

GCYD8H - OP looked for it, logged a note. Whats wrong with a DNF? A year later a NA, apparently without looking again. PR disables about a month later. Seems pretty standard, give the CO a chance to look at things before more reviewer attention. CO does say just archive because they are out of the area.

 

GC14VZX - Took a year from the first request. Really? Been found on a regular basis, one DNF and then a NA. Then another that apparently did not look for it drops a NA. I can see why PR ignored the request. Finally a DNF as to why the DNF happened and that likely the cache was gone. PR gave it about a month after the second NA, the first after the missing DNF. Seems normal to me.

 

GC1M7K5 - Been found on a regular basis then some DNF's. A NM and finally a NA. Then the owner disables the cache. What do you want PR to do?

 

I really don't see where PR was slacking on his/her job. Quite frankly I really don't think the OP has much to complain about. As for one reviewer handling Texas we really don't know what the situation really is. Prehaps PR is retired and has plenty of time for reviewing, perhaps PR is independently wealth and does not need to work and has plenty of time for reviewing, perhaps PR is a collective and there are really several of them, perhaps PR is really seven times more efficient than the typical Ontario reviewer. Outside of not quickly processing the semi truck load of caches for the OP, it appears that PR is handling his/her job just fine.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Well I'd just like to get my caches published before someone else tries to place caches in the spots I've already done.....

 

You're not SERIOUSLY suggesting that while you have an active review pending that Prime Reviewer would let someone hijack your prior cache submission, and publish a brand new submission for someone else within that interference zone instead ???????????

I am not sure how the process works. If there are others that are being published infront of mine, how is it that it wouldn't be possible? If mine are being looked over, because there are so many of them, and he goes to a few in that area that someone else only posted a few, how does he know where mine are located if he hasn't had the chance to review them yet.

Again, not a personal assault on reviewer, I guess just ignorance of how it all works.

To me unless he has an automated system that loads all the coordinates up as the caches are submitted, yes, I can see how it could happen.

 

 

Unless I'm mistaken, the process is automated. You submit a cache, it "freezes" the location so that if someone else comes along and also tries to publish a cache within 528' of that spot, the reviewer will see your cache submission first and the spot will remain yours until either the cache is published or you archive the listing. It doesn't "wait" for a reviewer to come along and view the listing. As long as you get your submission in first, noone else would be able to snipe the spot out from under you.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

It is my opinion, after reading many similar threads, there are certain people who think they should hit that Needs Archived button on a regular basis. I feel that a Needs Maintenance or a DNF (or just not anything and try again later) would have been the thing to do. I feel these certain people should have their Needs Archived button deactivated....................

 

Again, just my opinion.........................

 

Shirley~

------------------------------------

Edited June 21, 2011 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

[knowschad]

If Prime Reviewer doesn't feel he needs any help and Groundspeak PTB has no issues with it, then, What the h**l is the problem????

Apparently the problem is the time that it sometimes takes for Texans to get their caches published. Just because Prime Reviewer doesn't feel the need for help does not mean that there isn't an issue here. I'm not saying that there is an issue, either, but we have seen a lot of smoke coming from Texas, so I would suspect a fire.

There has been occasionally smoke rising from Pennsylvania also. Doesn't mean we need to get the tar heated up and the feathers ready. If my memory is not totally faulty I think even complaints from Idaho. Several have chimed in that they don't see a problem with prime reviewer. They seem to be happy with the service. The OP along the line did mention that they did not have to be released as a batch, and PR could do them at his/her leisure. Maybe PR wants to do them as a batch and is working through the pile. One question I have that does not seem to have been brought up, is did the OP contact PR *before* the first submission and ask on how PR would want to handle this pile and establish the ground rules ahead of time. I suspect the power trail owners in California and Nevada had input from the reviewers ahead backing up the semi and dumping it all in the queue. Probably the mini trail owners in other states had conversations with the reviewers before clicking the submit button a bunch of times.

 

As for the complaints about archiving caches.

 

GC1417E - hasn't been found for 2 years. Really? Rainbow vents is still waiting for FTF for how many years? I've seen other go a long time between finds. No reason to archive them. Also it appears the OP didn't even try to look, just dropped the NA and walked away. I side with PR.

 

GCYD8H - OP looked for it, logged a note. Whats wrong with a DNF? A year later a NA, apparently without looking again. PR disables about a month later. Seems pretty standard, give the CO a chance to look at things before more reviewer attention. CO does say just archive because they are out of the area.

 

GC14VZX - Took a year from the first request. Really? Been found on a regular basis, one DNF and then a NA. Then another that apparently did not look for it drops a NA. I can see why PR ignored the request. Finally a DNF as to why the DNF happened and that likely the cache was gone. PR gave it about a month after the second NA, the first after the missing DNF. Seems normal to me.

 

GC1M7K5 - Been found on a regular basis then some DNF's. A NM and finally a NA. Then the owner disables the cache. What do you want PR to do?

 

I really don't see where PR was slacking on his/her job. Quite frankly I really don't think the OP has much to complain about. As for one reviewer handling Texas we really don't know what the situation really is. Prehaps PR is retired and has plenty of time for reviewing, perhaps PR is independently wealth and does not need to work and has plenty of time for reviewing, perhaps PR is a collective and there are really several of them, perhaps PR is really seven times more efficient than the typical Ontario reviewer. Outside of not quickly processing the semi truck load of caches for the OP, it appears that PR is handling his/her job just fine.

 

I guess a state as big as Texas has a lot more people to complain, too, which could account for some of the "smoke".

[Clan Riffster]

I certainly can't complain, as I've never had any dealings, pro or con, with Prime Reviewer. It just seemed odd that when you take all the "My Reviewer is terrible" type threads, Texas takes the lead by a huge margin. In almost every Texas reviewer complaint, the resolution suggested by the person doing the complaining is not related to how much work PR actually does, (they seem to universally acknowledge that he does work his butt off), but rather, they are geared more toward the theory that the sheer volume of work required for the geographic region is more than any single person can handle. The only reason given for this in these type threads is the conspiracy theory suggesting that PR threatened to quit if another reviewer were brought in. Only the most wacky cacher believes stuff like that, but since TPTB won't give the real reason, the paranoid rumor keeps getting fertilized.

 

Does Texas need another reviewer? Don't know. But those who think so sure are a vocal lot.

[+J the Goat]

I'm surprised that nobody has suggested or asked whether or not you've checked the cache pages for reviewer notes that might give you information as to why the caches are still not published. PR may not email you, he may prefer to conduct cache issue conversations on the cache page. Check it out.

[jholly]

I'm surprised that nobody has suggested or asked whether or not you've checked the cache pages for reviewer notes that might give you information as to why the caches are still not published. PR may not email you, he may prefer to conduct cache issue conversations on the cache page. Check it out.

Actually, now that you mention it, a previous thread demanding that PR be tarred and feathered PR did mention that the preferred method of communication prior to publication is via reviewer notes so the history is maintained.

[+Shop99er]

When I was at the event I mentioned in my earlierpost, there were two main complaints about PR.

 

1) "He's not publishing my caches fast enough." It didn't and evidently still doesn't matter that he most likely has a life that doesn't revolve around their caches getting published.

 

2) "He won't let me _______." IF there was a guideline violation in a new submission, it was PR's fault that the cache didn't get published, not the CO. The complainers were pissed off that he wa holding them to the guidelines, and not letting them do what they wanted.

 

I own a cache in Texas. When I set it up and submitted it, there was a problem. It was too close to another existing cache.

So, I contacted the owner of the other cache, told him what I was doing and why. Then, I asked him if he could move his something like 80 feet. I got a very nice mail back from him stating that he would go ahead and archive his cache to make room for mine.

I left a reviewer note n my cache, and it was published the next day.

 

He does his job, and enforces the guidelines. Just like he's supposed to. If you don't like that, go to Terracaching.

[+Semper Questio]

There were, and still are, other beefs as well. I hear about them quite often in regular conversation. Some go way back, even before the Great Revolt. The main reason no one hears about them is that the majority of folks involved seldom, if ever, come to the forums. As to the legitimacy of those issues...who knows but those involved?

[Clan Riffster]

1) "He's not publishing my caches fast enough." It didn't and evidently still doesn't matter that he most likely has a life that doesn't revolve around their caches getting published.

I suspect that having lives outside of cache publishing is a truism for most reviewers. I'm just not convinced that this is a sufficient excuse for a geographic region to have a, (supposed), history of not making Groundspeak's 72 hour publication goal. It appears that other states which reached a certain volume of cache publication were granted additional reviewers so the 72 hour goal could be maintained. What is so curious about this is that Texas seems to be exempt from customer service concerns, assuming all the complaints we see in here are valid.

 

If you don't like that, go to Terracaching.

That seems pretty harsh. I can't help but think if I went to Target and saw one cashier trying to service a hundred shoppers, and my complaint regarding having to wait in line for an hour just to buy some Lock & Locks was met with, "If you don't like it, go to Walmart", I would have words with the twit who told me that.

 

As I see it, (again, assuming there is any validity to these frequent complaints), Groundspeak has a couple options. They can add a couple more reviewers, which surely would not cause any harm to the caching community, or they can close their eyes, shove fingers in their ears and pretend that the problem doesn't exist, continuing to fuel the angst of their customers.

 

I gotta say, this is the only thread I can remember where folks were suggesting that easing the work load of a reviewer was a bad thing. Typically, a "Texas needs more reviewers" thread gets met with a bunch of Texas cachers saying how great Prime Reviewer is. Which is to be expected. For the most part, we all love our reviewers. I'm just kinda surprised that folks would take it to the next level, actually criticizing the idea of helping Prime Reviewer.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I own a cache in Texas. When I set it up and submitted it, there was a problem. It was too close to another existing cache.

So, I contacted the owner of the other cache, told him what I was doing and why. Then, I asked him if he could move his something like 80 feet. I got a very nice mail back from him stating that he would go ahead and archive his cache to make room for mine.

I left a reviewer note n my cache, and it was published the next day.

 

He does his job, and enforces the guidelines. Just like he's supposed to. If you don't like that, go to Terracaching.

 

Not ready to recommend Garmin for Geocaching, eh? Personally, I'm a fan of the other Opencaching (.us)

 

Obviously PR does a great job, and loves doing it. I just looked, and appointed in very early 2004. That's almost 7 1/2 years on the job. Many a reviewer has been fired or quit in less time than that. Does he need help? Not for me to say, haven't set foot in the Lone Star State since before Geocaching existed, myself.

[+Too Tall John]

I suspect that having lives outside of cache publishing is a truism for most reviewers. I'm just not convinced that this is a sufficient excuse for a geographic region to have a, (supposed), history of not making Groundspeak's 72 hour publication goal. It appears that other states which reached a certain volume of cache publication were granted additional reviewers so the 72 hour goal could be maintained. What is so curious about this is that Texas seems to be exempt from customer service concerns, assuming all the complaints we see in here are valid.

The highlighting in the quote is mine. The TX versions of "It's Been Waaay too Long and My Cache Still Isn't Published!" threads that I remember all end in the revelation that the cache owner hasn't resolved a guidelines issue. For example, the current thread is in relation to a bunch of caches that, according to the guidelines, are outside the 72 hour target window because of volume. Just because the CO has left a note the PR can publish them as he goes doesn't mean that PR will do that. Can you imagine the flack he'll get from the FTF hounds for sending them back to the very same spot over and over and over again for however many days? I'd try to work through them and publish the whole group, too.

 

Really, if PR were as backlogged as people are claiming, it should be easy for Groundspeak to look at the TX review queue and see that there is an issue. Groundspeak reviewers have, over and over again, said that their goal is to publish as many caches as they can. It's good business for Groundspeak to have happy customers with lots of caches to find. Seeing no action from that quarter makes me think that there's just an extra large portion of impatient people down there in TX.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Too Tall John

[+Don_J]

I suspect that having lives outside of cache publishing is a truism for most reviewers. I'm just not convinced that this is a sufficient excuse for a geographic region to have a, (supposed), history of not making Groundspeak's 72 hour publication goal. It appears that other states which reached a certain volume of cache publication were granted additional reviewers so the 72 hour goal could be maintained. What is so curious about this is that Texas seems to be exempt from customer service concerns, assuming all the complaints we see in here are valid.

The highlighting in the quote is mine. The TX versions of "It's Been Waaay too Long and My Cache Still Isn't Published!" threads that I remember all end in the revelation that the cache owner hasn't resolved a guidelines issue. For example, the current thread is in relation to a bunch of caches that, according to the guidelines, are outside the 72 hour target window because of volume. Just because the CO has left a note the PR can publish them as he goes doesn't mean that PR will do that. Can you imagine the flack he'll get from the FTF hounds for sending them back to the very same spot over and over and over again for however many days? I'd try to work through them and publish the whole group, too.

 

Really, if PR were as backlogged as people are claiming, it should be easy for Groundspeak to look at the TX review queue and see that there is an issue. Groundspeak reviewers have, over and over again, said that their goal is to publish as many caches as they can. It's good business for Groundspeak to have happy customers with lots of caches to find. Seeing no action from that quarter makes me think that there's just an extra large portion of impatient people down there in TX.

 

Certainly you are not suggesting that reviewers adjust their work flow and publishing schedules to accommodate the whims of FTF hounds?

 

IMO, if the CO has made it clear that he would prefer to have a cache published when it passes review, and not wait until the other caches are reviewed, that is what should happen. Why would the reviewer take on extra work to coordinate a mass release when the CO explicitly asked that he not do so?

[+Too Tall John]

Certainly you are not suggesting that reviewers adjust their work flow and publishing schedules to accommodate the whims of FTF hounds?

I've heard of reviewers not publishing caches in the dead of night to prevent a midnight exodus of the FTF'ers, so yes. It might not be to the whims of the FTF hounds, but it is because of them.

IMO, if the CO has made it clear that he would prefer to have a cache published when it passes review, and not wait until the other caches are reviewed, that is what should happen. Why would the reviewer take on extra work to coordinate a mass release when the CO explicitly asked that he not do so?

I do believe the the CO said they were ok with the caches being published a few at a time, they didn't request that they be done that way. Maybe PR had a good reason to want to publish them all at once. Groundspeak, whose business it is to have lots of happy customers with lots of caches to find, doesn't seem to think that PR's workload is too high, so the suggestion that he's got this backlog seems just silly, especially when the only people complaining about it seem to have a Paul Harvey "Rest of the Story" story lurking in the background.

[jholly]

Well, this whole thing is so much a tempest in a teapot. All of the last of the OP's caches were published on 6/20, within the 10 guideline for a bulk deposit. So does Texas need another reviewer? I would say no, since PR seemed to provide service within the guidelines for publishing a bunch of caches. As a side note, other caches of the OP's that were not part of the bulk submission were published within the 3 day service guideline. What was the problem again? Oh, yes, PR did not archive the caches that the OP thought needed archiving or he did not hop on them right away. See my previous post on those caches. Sorry, PR is doing his job and I don't see a need for another reviewer unless PR thinks he is overworked.

[+hzoi]

Well, this whole thing is so much a tempest in a teapot.

 

I believe you've just described most of the contents of the Groundspeak forums. Maybe not Hamster Caching, but I bet if I dug deep enough in that forum, I'd find some angst there, too.

[Clan Riffster]

So does Texas need another reviewer?

I have no idea. I don't live there, nor do I cache there. I have noticed a rather significant trend though; If a thread gets started, worded to the effect of, "________ needs more Reviewers", it's highly likely that, out of all the countries on the globe, and all the states in our Union, Texas will be in that title. In trying to determine a cause for that trend, I've come to a dead end, with two possible scenarios:

 

1 ) Texas does need at least one more Reviewer

 

2 ) Cachers in Texas whine... a lot.

 

I kinda lean toward # 1, only because of geography. My home state of Florida is comprised of 65,755 sq miles, and we have four reviewers to serve our caching needs. Texas is comprised of 268,580 sq miles, (more than four times the size of Florida), and only has one. Texas is second in the Union by population, being beaten only by Kalifornia, and it's not too hard to imagine that the percentage of the Texas populace which are cachers could be fairly consistent with other regions. But they only rate having one Reviewer?

 

Either way, it's not my fight. I'll leave that up to the good people who live there. Some mook from Florida, (or Washington, for that matter), probably doesn't have an accurate grasp on the situation. The bi-monthly "Texas needs more Reviewers" threads do strike up a rather humorous visual though. Whenever one pops up, I envision one struggling cashier, feverishly trying to keep up with the ever growing line of customers at a Wally World. The management has asked him if he needs help, and, (believing he's making some sort of noble sacrifice with his struggle), the cashier pauses, catches his breath, and gasps, "I got this!".

 

(On a side note; when I was spellchecking, I realised I had spelled "cashier" with two Cs. "Cachier" I got it bad... LOL! )

[mresoteric]

One thing to consider. Prime Reviewer may be able to get the job done. But you know he has to be working his a** off to get it done. (for free)

 

If I were Groundspeak I would be concerned with burn out. Better to get him some help now and half the load than wait for him to burn out and quit and then find 2 reviewers for Texas.

[jholly]

So does Texas need another reviewer?

I have no idea. I don't live there, nor do I cache there. I have noticed a rather significant trend though; If a thread gets started, worded to the effect of, "________ needs more Reviewers", it's highly likely that, out of all the countries on the globe, and all the states in our Union, Texas will be in that title. In trying to determine a cause for that trend, I've come to a dead end, with two possible scenarios:

 

1 ) Texas does need at least one more Reviewer

 

2 ) Cachers in Texas whine... a lot.

 

I kinda lean toward # 1, only because of geography. My home state of Florida is comprised of 65,755 sq miles, and we have four reviewers to serve our caching needs. Texas is comprised of 268,580 sq miles, (more than four times the size of Florida), and only has one. Texas is second in the Union by population, being beaten only by Kalifornia, and it's not too hard to imagine that the percentage of the Texas populace which are cachers could be fairly consistent with other regions. But they only rate having one Reviewer?

 

Either way, it's not my fight. I'll leave that up to the good people who live there. Some mook from Florida, (or Washington, for that matter), probably doesn't have an accurate grasp on the situation. The bi-monthly "Texas needs more Reviewers" threads do strike up a rather humorous visual though. Whenever one pops up, I envision one struggling cashier, feverishly trying to keep up with the ever growing line of customers at a Wally World. The management has asked him if he needs help, and, (believing he's making some sort of noble sacrifice with his struggle), the cashier pauses, catches his breath, and gasps, "I got this!".

 

(On a side note; when I was spellchecking, I realised I had spelled "cashier" with two Cs. "Cachier" I got it bad... LOL! )

I don't disagree with your post, but every time one of these threads comes up, the end result is that PR is providing service within or better than the service guidelines. And one of the "problems" in this thread was that the service guideline for a semi-truck load of caches is different than the normal onesy towsy cache submission. The OP had both submissions handled in the allotted service guidelines. I'm speculating that part of the problem is that Texas is big and has one reviewer, therefore it needs more reviewers. Far as size goes, Florida has 31,358 caches and Texas has 46,673. So what is the average daily workload? Looks to be about the same or slightly more than Florida. As for Kalifornia, they have 95,136 caches. It seems the biggest problem with PR is he would rather get the job done than talk about it. Secretly I think PR is like the borg collective or is a super computer experiment run by IBM down in Austin.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Texas is comprised of 268,580 sq miles, (more than four times the size of Florida), and only has one.

 

I agree with all you wrote, but I don't think this statistic has any meaning.

 

Texas is four times the size of Florida, but the population of Texas is only 33% larger than that of Florida.

 

I don't know how many geocachers are in each state, but it's easy enough to find out how many active geocaches there are. Texas has 50% more than Florida.

 

Not that this negates anything that you wrote. And it's interesting to note, by inference, that Texas is much less saturated than Florida... four times the space, but only 50% more caches.

[+Shop99er]

So does Texas need another reviewer?

I have no idea. I don't live there, nor do I cache there. I have noticed a rather significant trend though; If a thread gets started, worded to the effect of, "________ needs more Reviewers", it's highly likely that, out of all the countries on the globe, and all the states in our Union, Texas will be in that title. In trying to determine a cause for that trend, I've come to a dead end, with two possible scenarios:

 

1 ) Texas does need at least one more Reviewer

 

2 ) Cachers in Texas whine... a lot.

 

I kinda lean toward # 1, only because of geography. My home state of Florida is comprised of 65,755 sq miles, and we have four reviewers to serve our caching needs. Texas is comprised of 268,580 sq miles, (more than four times the size of Florida), and only has one. Texas is second in the Union by population, being beaten only by Kalifornia, and it's not too hard to imagine that the percentage of the Texas populace which are cachers could be fairly consistent with other regions. But they only rate having one Reviewer?

 

Either way, it's not my fight. I'll leave that up to the good people who live there. Some mook from Florida, (or Washington, for that matter), probably doesn't have an accurate grasp on the situation. The bi-monthly "Texas needs more Reviewers" threads do strike up a rather humorous visual though. Whenever one pops up, I envision one struggling cashier, feverishly trying to keep up with the ever growing line of customers at a Wally World. The management has asked him if he needs help, and, (believing he's making some sort of noble sacrifice with his struggle), the cashier pauses, catches his breath, and gasps, "I got this!".

 

(On a side note; when I was spellchecking, I realised I had spelled "cashier" with two Cs. "Cachier" I got it bad... LOL! )

I don't disagree with your post, but every time one of these threads comes up, the end result is that PR is providing service within or better than the service guidelines. And one of the "problems" in this thread was that the service guideline for a semi-truck load of caches is different than the normal onesy towsy cache submission. The OP had both submissions handled in the allotted service guidelines. I'm speculating that part of the problem is that Texas is big and has one reviewer, therefore it needs more reviewers. Far as size goes, Florida has 31,358 caches and Texas has 46,673. So what is the average daily workload? Looks to be about the same or slightly more than Florida. As for Kalifornia, they have 95,136 caches. It seems the biggest problem with PR is he would rather get the job done than talk about it. Secretly I think PR is like the borg collective or is a super computer experiment run by IBM down in Austin.

 

Ya know, Jim, my brother lives in Austin, he doesn't come to the forums real often, and he's a computer guru. Maybe he programmed PR to do what you suggest. That is, do the job right, the first time.

[Keystone]

This thread again? (yawns, stretches and moseys on over to the reviewer queue.)

 

hmmmm.... Looking at the Texas review queue at this random point in time, it would appear that there are no pending cache submissions that have been awaiting review for more than three days.

 

Imagine that.

 

(leaves thread, yawns again, and goes back to sleep....)

[mresoteric]

This thread again? (yawns, stretches and moseys on over to the reviewer queue.)

 

hmmmm.... Looking at the Texas review queue at this random point in time, it would appear that there are no pending cache submissions that have been awaiting review for more than three days.

 

Imagine that.

 

(leaves thread, yawns again, and goes back to sleep....)

 

Can you give any insight into the average workload in Texas versus other areas such as Florida with more reviewers?

 

I'm confident Prime Reviewer is able to keep up with the queue. But isn't it possible there is more work than one reviewer should have to be responsible for? Isn't it also possible that PR is too proud to admit to it. I respect the Superman mentality, but that often leads to burn out.

 

Are there any guidelines setup for how much work load any 1 reviewer should be responsible for?

 

In short, isn't it possible PR needs help whether he realizes it or not?

[+Ecylram]

 

Can you give any insight into the average workload in Texas versus other areas such as Florida with more reviewers?

 

I'm confident Prime Reviewer is able to keep up with the queue. But isn't it possible there is more work than one reviewer should have to be responsible for? Isn't it also possible that PR is too proud to admit to it. I respect the Superman mentality, but that often leads to burn out.

 

Are there any guidelines setup for how much work load any 1 reviewer should be responsible for?

 

In short, isn't it possible PR needs help whether he realizes it or not?

 

Since we are speculating...

 

It's possible, if not probable that Prime Reviewer is doing just fine. The work is getting done and the state of Texas gets the benefits of continuity and consistency. Biggest issue in Texas is a very small, but vocal, group of geocachers that spend too much time gossiping about "problems" that don't exist in reality.

[Clan Riffster]

Since we are speculating...

 

It's possible, if not probable that Prime Reviewer is doing just fine. The work is getting done and the state of Texas gets the benefits of continuity and consistency. Biggest issue in Texas is a very small, but vocal, group of geocachers that spend too much time gossiping about "problems" that don't exist in reality.

You are correct. That certainly is possible. Everything could be sweetness and light in the Grand State of Texas. It's really hard to tell from just reading the forums. We do know, from Keystone's timely post, that conditions in Texas, right now, are within established parameters.

 

What is less certain is, if that is the norm. Again, all we have to judge by are the posts on this forum. We know that there are an assortment of cachers, from all over the state, who make regular posts in here which seemingly indicate that things are not always rosy in Texas. These posts are usually met with derision from folks who live outside the area in question, and after a few days, (long enough for any mess to be swept up), a Reviewer will chime in saying "Everything looks fine".

 

As readers, we can form opinions, based on what we read, but how valid can these opinions be? Some old, fat, crippled, balding guy from Florida, who has four Reviewers taking care of his every need really has no clue about how things are going in Texas. I suspect the same could be said about some cacher from Colorado with only four hides to their name. Could they really have a valid opinion on the matter? But, like forums everywhere, this utter lack of validity won't stop us from bashing either the lone Reviewer, or those who claim he needs some help.

 

Meh. That's the Internet for ya.

[knowschad]

Since we are speculating...

 

It's possible, if not probable that Prime Reviewer is doing just fine. The work is getting done and the state of Texas gets the benefits of continuity and consistency. Biggest issue in Texas is a very small, but vocal, group of geocachers that spend too much time gossiping about "problems" that don't exist in reality.

You are correct. That certainly is possible. Everything could be sweetness and light in the Grand State of Texas. It's really hard to tell from just reading the forums. We do know, from Keystone's timely post, that conditions in Texas, right now, are within established parameters.

 

What is less certain is, if that is the norm. Again, all we have to judge by are the posts on this forum. We know that there are an assortment of cachers, from all over the state, who make regular posts in here which seemingly indicate that things are not always rosy in Texas. These posts are usually met with derision from folks who live outside the area in question, and after a few days, (long enough for any mess to be swept up), a Reviewer will chime in saying "Everything looks fine".

 

As readers, we can form opinions, based on what we read, but how valid can these opinions be? Some old, fat, crippled, balding guy from Florida, who has four Reviewers taking care of his every need really has no clue about how things are going in Texas. I suspect the same could be said about some cacher from Colorado with only four hides to their name. Could they really have a valid opinion on the matter? But, like forums everywhere, this utter lack of validity won't stop us from bashing either the lone Reviewer, or those who claim he needs some help.

 

Meh. That's the Internet for ya.

 

I will speculate, since we are speculating, that Prime Reviewer has a watch on this thread, and whenever he gets notification that it has been posted to again, goes nuts cleaning up his Reviewer Queue before Keystone gets his notice and checks up on the state of the State of Texas again.

 

Or not.

[Clan Riffster]

I will speculate, since we are speculating, that Prime Reviewer has a watch on this thread, and whenever he gets notification that it has been posted to again, goes nuts cleaning up his Reviewer Queue before Keystone gets his notice and checks up on the state of the State of Texas again.

 

Or not.

Toss in a crack team of ninjas as his able bodied, secret assistants, and I'm with you!

[jholly]

No, I think that IBM super computer in Austin keeps a neat and tidy review queue at all times.

[+TerraViators]

Well, since we're only speculating, I understand Keystone's post that no unpublished cache submissions have crossed the 72 hour threshold. I don't believe that would be a problem, anyway. Being that there is only one reviewer in Texas, I could see where cache submissions could be possibly not reviewed as thoroughly because of trying to get them listed within 72 hours.

Edited July 14, 2011 by TerraViators

[4wheelin_fool]

 

I will speculate, since we are speculating, that Prime Reviewer has a watch on this thread, and whenever he gets notification that it has been posted to again, goes nuts cleaning up his Reviewer Queue before Keystone gets his notice and checks up on the state of the State of Texas again.

 

Or not.

 

I will speculate, based on Keystone's posts that he has a watch on this thread which sends a ringtone to his cellphone and wakes him up.

 

Also, further speculation could indicate that perhaps the bumpers could be doing this on purpose, because they are working in cahoots with the locals who have figured out his sleeping habits and who reside in the Ohio/Pennsylvania area where Keystone publishes caches. It's payback because Keystone sometimes publishes caches late at night and wakes them up with their FTF notices on their cellphones.

 

But that's purely speculation.

[+Timber_Wolf]

I must say I had no problems with the one cache I have in Texas.

 

I also must say that every time I send a message to the PR, the answer to it was in less than 24 hours.

I send a message last night and the answer was given this morning.

 

Now to the OP, placing 64 caches, most of them along a road really can wait a little longer.

There are people that actually try to make caches an adventure, make it so you need to think about it.

These ones should always come before the lets put 500 caches on a 5 mile road strip to get more hidden in my profile.

[+K13]

I will add a little life to this zombie.

 

Here is a synopsis of my experience with Texas cache publishing:

 

My first cache was published in 28 minutes, on a Friday around 6:30 p.m. That's right, 28 minutes from the time of the submission of the cache page until it was published!

 

My other caches took around 30 hours to publish. Should I complain about that? I mean, it took 60 times longer for those.

 

Prime Reviewer is doing an awesome job, IMNSHO.

[+T.D.M.22]

I had a cache reviewed in 5 minutes(Not published-I messed something up) I've also had caches take about 30 hours as well. That's 360 times as long. Who do I complain to?

[+Timber_Wolf]

Now I will have a new cache out in a couple of weeks, I will let you know how fast this one goes, as it will include to get a cache archived that is at the same position.

 

Maybe it will take 30 minutes, maybe it will take five days.

 

Most people will need more time to find it, than it will take to be activated, so who cares?

[+Semper Questio]

This thread died out almost 19 months ago. Why dredge it up again if everything seems fine?

[+hzoi]

This thread died out almost 19 months ago. Why dredge it up again if everything seems fine?

My guess is, because Zeppo's challenge cache gripes apparently made it fashionable again for Texas geocachers to complain about Prime Reviewer.

[+Semper Questio]

This thread died out almost 19 months ago. Why dredge it up again if everything seems fine?

My guess is, because Zeppo's challenge cache gripes apparently made it fashionable again for Texas geocachers to complain about Prime Reviewer.

 

Zeppo's issues are more than just a gripe about Prime. But in any case, that has nothing to do with this thread and the Texans posting here since the 19 month break have not been bashing Prime. I think it was just another dead thread resurrection, not a thread jump.

[+thatdarndane]

We are having a real problem with getting caches reviewed in Texas. Most are taking no less then seven days. I submitted 26 last Sunday, that's eight days ago, and one on Monday. Twenty one are a series, six are not. The only one published was the one I submitted on Monday. Haven't heard a peep on the other 26. That's the new norm in Texas. People are frustrated and complaining all over the state. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of missing caches that he won't do anything about either unless you post multiple logs to have them archived, but he will archive caches that are still viable when certain people who haven't even looked for the cache post ONE log that the cache hadn't been found in a year (because no one has looked for them in that length of time, not because they are missing). It's taking the fun out of caching.

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.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Keystone
Removed impermissible reference

[Keystone]

Oh, goodie. Another resurrection for this happy thread. At least now Texas has multiple cache reviewers.

 

When you submit large batches of caches to be published at the same time, allow up to ten days rather than the usual seven days. This is stated right in the listing guidelines. The reviewers are especially hard-hit right now because of the volume of cache submissions for the August "31 Days of Geocaching" Challenge.

 

A check of the Texas queue right now shows no more than a three day backlog in initial responses to individual cache submissions. As noted above, allow extra time for large batches like your series, which a reviewer has placed "on hold" to review when time permits. I've done the same thing with two series in my review territory.

 

I have edited your post; please do not use Groundspeak's Forums to promote alternative listing sites.

[Keystone]

We are having a real problem with getting caches reviewed in Texas. Most are taking no less then seven days. I submitted 26 last Sunday, that's eight days ago, and one on Monday. Twenty one are a series, six are not. The only one published was the one I submitted on Monday. Haven't heard a peep on the other 26. That's the new norm in Texas.

Looking at the Texas cache list, I see 25 caches published already with a hidden date of August 1, 24 published already with a hidden date of July 31st and 23 caches published already with a hidden date of July 30th. (This includes yours, with a hidden date of 7/30 and a publication date of 8/2.) How are these dates more than seven days? Today is August 5th.

[GrandPotentate]

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

 

start your own geo-location game system