Why is it taking so long to post my new cache?

[+joshuaSR]

I've had to republish a brand new geocache twice and it's still not gone thru. Why is the publisher taking so long just to say yes to this new cache? It's been almost a month since I published it first but it's still in limbo. Has the person reviewing my cache left the country and has no computer access? I've not heard anything from whoever it is yet about what I need to do to change it or why it's not out for a cache.

 

I'm pretty pissed off if you couldn't tell.

[+WRASTRO]

Based on recent threads related to this topic I will guess you haven't actually enabled your cache, which would mean the reviewers haven't seen it.

[Pup Patrol]

I'm going to assume that it's the same reviewer that published the cache that you have out. Not sure why you haven't assumed the same thing.

 

Have you checked the listing for any Reviewer Notes?

Edited November 3, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+GeoBain]

You're probably right. The person reviewing your cache left the country and has no computer access.

 

Or, you might have just missed checking the box that enables your cache. You got any really obvious red text at the top on the listing telling you what you're missing?

[+joshuaSR]

I just received an email.

 

Cache Issues:

This cache has not been reviewed yet. Once it is published, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

Edited November 3, 2011 by joshuaSR

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I just received an email.

 

Cache Issues:

This cache has not been reviewed yet. Once it is published, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

 

If I followed you correctly, you had previously submitted the cache, the reviewer bounced it back to you to fix something and then it sat in limbo. When a reviewer "rejects" a submission, he/she disables the cache. When you fix whatever the issue was, you have to re-enable it or the reviewer won't see it in their queue. It sounds like you re-enabled it now.

[Keystone]

For the record, the OP's cache submissions were not enabled for review until today. I'd fully expect the reviewer to respond in the next few days, now that the duplicate submissions appear in the review queue.

[+GeoBain]

For the record, the OP's cache submissions were not enabled for review until today. I'd fully expect the reviewer to respond in the next few days, now that the duplicate submissions appear in the review queue.

 

It's amazing how many people miss that not activated message.

 

[+addisonbr]

It's amazing how many people miss that not activated message.

That could be a gentle argument in favor of a re-wording of the message. It does seem to consistently cause a lot of confusion among newer cachers.

[Clan Riffster]

It's amazing how many people miss that not activated message.

That could be a gentle argument in favor of a re-wording of the message.

No matter how you reword it, there will be some who just don't get it. For a variety of reasons... What I'd like to see is, how many caches were published with no issues since the last thread complaining about a cache not being published. I'm betting that the number would be pretty high, which would at least indicate that most players do figure it out.

[+GeoBain]

They might try "Your cache will not be seen by a reviewer until you check the enable box". But if it seemed like no one was looking at my cache, before I brought it to the forums I think I would at least wonder what that odd red text at the top of my listing meant.

 

It doesn't get much clearer than:

 

Cache Issues:

 

* This cache has not been reviewed yet. Once it is published, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

* The reviewers will not see this listing until you enable it.

* This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.

Edited November 3, 2011 by GeoBain

[+addisonbr]

No matter how you reword it, there will be some who just don't get it.

While certainly true, as someone with an avid interest in user design, I find that when the same problem keeps cropping up over and over and over again (as evidenced by the exasperation of forum regulars when the threads keep popping up), it's often worth thinking about how a redesign might help. You may not eliminate all confusion, but cutting it down is also cool.

[Clan Riffster]

I find that when the same problem keeps cropping up over and over and over again...

Oh, I agree. Fixing stuff, and watching the results is pretty satisfying. I'm just curious about how big the problem really is. I'm one of the clueless horde who didn't notice when the cache write up page was reformatted, until I typed up a cache page. I noticed then that it was pretty different, and saw, to my pleasure, that the "Enabled" box was now unchecked, by default. It wasn't very difficult to figure out.

 

Because I was able to figure it out with no guidance, (and I'm oft referred to as being dumber than a bag of hammers), I wondered how often it was an issue. The last time we saw a post to this effect was this thread from early October. I don't know how to do the Internet wayback thingy, or I try to get a general idea about how many caches have been successfully published between then and now.

 

If the number was in the thousands, perhaps the bean counters figured it works for the vast majority, and as such, is not a priority?

[+addisonbr]

(and I'm oft referred to as being dumber than a bag of hammers)

That does come up a lot, but you're always the one saying it!

 

perhaps the bean counters figured it works for the vast majority, and as such, is not a priority?

Yeah, I mean, if it was an actual do-stuff code change I'm not sure I would push it without knowing more. But as a simple rewording of a sentence, I'm hoping that could be slipped in without taking up too much time. Just to save Keystone the time he spends researching the caches every time these threads pop up, even once or twice, it would probably be a net win for Groundspeak and its volunteers.

[+J the Goat]

I don't see the need for any re-wording. While it may take an extra minute to figure out, it's still pretty clear as to what the problem is. I'm of the mindset that if you can't figure out how to follow the instructions on the cache page, you probably shouldn't be publishing that cache. We've all made some sort of mistake with a new cache, whether it be a proximity issue or a blunder on the page itself. How many of you have then had to come to the forums and demand that the reviewers are in the wrong? While we see these topics more often than may be necessary, it's really a small portion of folks who can't figure it out on their own.

 

In reading what I just wrote, I will acknowledge that the OP doesn't seem to be of the normal demanding whiner who complains about the reviewers. Theirs does seem to be a sincere question, and they were forthcoming with the information they got. Sorry to have lumped you in with some of the other problem causers we've seen in the past.

[+addisonbr]

While we see these topics more often than may be necessary, it's really a small portion of folks who can't figure it out on their own.

(Alternatively, it could be a small portion of them who come to the forums at all. It may be that this trips up a lot of people who just wind up giving up. I don't know though.)

[+SwineFlew]

Why this topic keeps coming up every three days or so????? GS needs to look into this matter and try to change a few things so it doesnt happens too offen.

[Pup Patrol]

No matter how you reword it, there will be some who just don't get it.

While certainly true, as someone with an avid interest in user design, I find that when the same problem keeps cropping up over and over and over again (as evidenced by the exasperation of forum regulars when the threads keep popping up), it's often worth thinking about how a redesign might help. You may not eliminate all confusion, but cutting it down is also cool.

 

Why this topic keeps coming up every three days or so????? GS needs to look into this matter and try to change a few things so it doesnt happens too offen.

 

Having the message in BOLD and in RED, and at both the top and bottom of the submission form would be an easy thing to do, no?

 

Oh, it's been posted in the Feedback section and is "submitted". So there is a re-work planned.

 

Prominence and clarity of the message should help.

[+rtyrie]

It's amazing how many people miss that not activated message.

 

A related issue is the placement of the "Enable cache listing" checkbox. It is currently placed in the middle of the cache submission page between "Coordinates" and "Location". I don't understand the logic behind this choice of location on the page. Such an important field should be prominently displayed - the bottom of the page seems to be a logical spot.

Edited November 4, 2011 by rtyrie

[+larryc43230]

A related issue is the placement of the "Enable cache listing" checkbox. It is currently placed in the middle of the cache submission page between "Coordinates" and "Location". I don't understand the logic behind this choice of location on the page. Such an important field should be prominently displayed - the bottom of the page seems to be a logical spot.

Thank you, rtyrie, for bringing this up. A friend of mine was caught by this gotcha just the other day. With the possible exception of the "Yes, I have read..." checkboxes, the "Enable cache listing" checkbox is the single most critical item on the page for anyone wanting their listing to be reviewed. It really needs to be relocated to a more prominent location (at either the top or bottom of the page), and somehow highlighted so it's not so easy to miss.

 

--Larry

[+The Blorenges]

A related issue is the placement of the "Enable cache listing" checkbox. It is currently placed in the middle of the cache submission page between "Coordinates" and "Location". I don't understand the logic behind this choice of location on the page. Such an important field should be prominently displayed - the bottom of the page seems to be a logical spot.

Thank you, rtyrie, for bringing this up. A friend of mine was caught by this gotcha just the other day. With the possible exception of the "Yes, I have read..." checkboxes, the "Enable cache listing" checkbox is the single most critical item on the page for anyone wanting their listing to be reviewed. It really needs to be relocated to a more prominent location (at either the top or bottom of the page), and somehow highlighted so it's not so easy to miss.

 

--Larry

 

You might like to add your support for this: [FEATURE] Make the "enable cache listing" check box more prominent.

 

MrsB

[+larryc43230]

You might like to add your support for this: [FEATURE] Make the "enable cache listing" check box more prominent.

 

MrsB

Good suggestion; done!

 

--Larry

[+TheLoneGrangers]

Make it a Pop up that requires you to click enable or wait

[+niraD]

Make it a Pop up that requires you to click enable or wait

Oh, goodie. Then we'll have people asking why nothing happened when they submitted their cache listings, and we'll get to ask them if they use a pop-up blocker.

[+joshuaSR]

Well my cache has been published and is active. Kind of funny how 20 minutes later someone gets another FTF. Sounds like a scam to me. Oh well, time to find some caches the right way, explore on my own.

[+hydnsek]

Well my cache has been published and is active. Kind of funny how 20 minutes later someone gets another FTF. Sounds like a scam to me. Oh well, time to find some caches the right way, explore on my own.

Or maybe they just have Instant Notifications, a Premium Member feature.

[Keystone]

Well my cache has been published and is active. Kind of funny how 20 minutes later someone gets another FTF. Sounds like a scam to me. Oh well, time to find some caches the right way, explore on my own.

I think you will enjoy geocaching a lot more if you stop looking to cast blame on the volunteer who published your cache once he saw it. He did not scam you.

 

I see from your profile that you're in the military. Thank you for your service. Did you know that your reviewer, from your local area, is presently located in a distant land, working hard to keep the rest of us safe and free? That fact made your OP a bit of an ironic read for me.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Keystone

[GOF and Bacall]

Well my cache has been published and is active. Kind of funny how 20 minutes later someone gets another FTF. Sounds like a scam to me. Oh well, time to find some caches the right way, explore on my own.

I think you will enjoy geocaching a lot more if you stop looking to cast blame on the volunteer who published your cache once he saw it. He did not scam you.

 

I see from your profile that you're in the military. Thank you for your service. Did you know that your reviewer, from your local area, is presently located in a distant land, working hard to keep the rest of us safe and free? That fact made your OP a bit of an ironic read for me.

 

You see? This is why I could never be a reviewer or mod. I would not reply as politely as you do.

[+cheech gang]

You see? This is why I could never be a reviewer or mod. I would not reply as politely as you do.

 

You'd be extra polite if you had to wear this unform all day:

 

[Keystone]

I'd change that mugshot avatar right quick, Cheech Gang.

 

You DO know that many reviewers are dogs, don't you?

 

I will admit, some days it's harder than others to hold up that rainbow.

[jholly]

Well my cache has been published and is active. Kind of funny how 20 minutes later someone gets another FTF. Sounds like a scam to me. Oh well, time to find some caches the right way, explore on my own.

Keystone gave you some good advice. I will say that reviewers have a surprising low FTF count, probably because they do not consider it ethical to take advantage of their position. Hydnsek hit the nail on the head. The FTF just happens to be the co-owner of the ET Highway power trail, for the second time, he is not a reviewer to the best of my knowledge. And I also thank you for your service, I appreciate what you do, nine years in the Navy gave me an insight.