Problem with a Reviewer

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Advice sought.

 

We submitted a cache for approval. We believe unreservedly that it complies with the requirements. A reviewer replied to us saying that it didn't. We felt that the reviewer was perhaps confused about the cache and politely replied with further information about it and asked if they could, in turn, explain their position a little better. This was several days ago and we have received no further contact from the reviewer even though they appear to have been active on the website. We fear that our cache has been sidelined by the reviewer. The website says that caches are usually reviewed within 2-3 days.

 

What can we do to get this moving again? We are happy to comply with requirements etc and sort out any issues or misunderstandings but we can't do this if the reviewer won't communicate with us.

 

Any advice?

[knowschad]

Advice sought.

 

We submitted a cache for approval. We believe unreservedly that it complies with the requirements. A reviewer replied to us saying that it didn't. We felt that the reviewer was perhaps confused about the cache and politely replied with further information about it and asked if they could, in turn, explain their position a little better. This was several days ago and we have received no further contact from the reviewer even though they appear to have been active on the website. We fear that our cache has been sidelined by the reviewer. The website says that caches are usually reviewed within 2-3 days.

 

What can we do to get this moving again? We are happy to comply with requirements etc and sort out any issues or misunderstandings but we can't do this if the reviewer won't communicate with us.

 

Any advice?

 

First, are you certain that you replied to the reviewer, and not to the noreply@gecaching.com address? That happens a lot more than you might think.

 

Remember that reviewers are volunteers. They have lives, they have families, they like to get out and cache, too sometimes. The 2-3 day review period is a goal, not a promise. Besides, your cache has already been reviewed. It is now up for reconsideration. Your reviewer may well be discussing the situation with other reviewers in their private work forum. If you don't hear *something* in another day or two, try emailing them again (through their caching profile email) asking them politely if they had received your earlier response.

[knowschad]

PS: I just checked your profile and see that you are hardly a newcomer to caching and hiding caches. Please don't take anything I said as condescending.

[+Chokecherry]

I communicated via reviewer notes on the things I've done here if there's been any issues. Check to see if there are new reviewer notes on your cache which may expound on the issues. Are there any issues that you may have seen going in that the reviewer may be seeing without explanation from you about why it's not actually an issue? Did you get permission and follow local laws and regs? Etc.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Thanks for the advice.

 

We appreciate the point about reviewers being volunteers and having other lives. However, a simple note on the cache page explaining what the delay is wouldn't take more than a few seconds and would go a long way to alleviating our concern that our cache has ended up in some caching black-hole. We have checked and no note has been added. As we said, the reviewer has been very active on the site since they rejected our cache so it doesn't seem that real life has intervened!

 

The cache was a very simple one that simply included on the cache page that it had been hidden to say goodbye to a long-time cacher who had decided to hang up their GPS receiver and do other things with their life. We have seen heaps of other caches like that. Recently a local reviewer in our country announced that they were moving overseas and went about installing caches saying "This has been installed in this area to say thank you to the local cachers for all the fun I've had around here". We don't see a lot of difference between this and our cache.

 

However, the reviewer struck our cache down because, they said, "caches that solicit or promote anything aren't allowed". We couldn't understand what they meant as we couldn't see how our cache solicited anything or promoted anything. We asked for clarification. Now the reviewer won't even communicate with us. We are puzzled. It seems there is no system available to bypass a reviewer who won't communicate with you. It's bizarre.

[knowschad]

Thanks for the advice.

 

We appreciate the point about reviewers being volunteers and having other lives. However, a simple note on the cache page explaining what the delay is wouldn't take more than a few seconds and would go a long way to alleviating our concern that our cache has ended up in some caching black-hole. We have checked and no note has been added. As we said, the reviewer has been very active on the site since they rejected our cache so it doesn't seem that real life has intervened!

 

The cache was a very simple one that simply included on the cache page that it had been hidden to say goodbye to a long-time cacher who had decided to hang up their GPS receiver and do other things with their life. We have seen heaps of other caches like that. Recently a local reviewer in our country announced that they were moving overseas and went about installing caches saying "This has been installed in this area to say thank you to the local cachers for all the fun I've had around here". We don't see a lot of difference between this and our cache.

 

However, the reviewer struck our cache down because, they said, "caches that solicit or promote anything aren't allowed". We couldn't understand what they meant as we couldn't see how our cache solicited anything or promoted anything. We asked for clarification. Now the reviewer won't even communicate with us. We are puzzled. It seems there is no system available to bypass a reviewer who won't communicate with you. It's bizarre.

 

From what I understand, caches that are a tribute to a friend, things like that, typically are allowed. How you word the cache page and title the cache itself, however, can have a lot to do with it. I'm a bit surprised that your reviewer hasn't sent you an "I'm looking into it" note, or suggested changes in the wording, but it does sound to me as though he/she may be discussing it in their private area first. Hang in there.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Thanks for the advice. We will do as you suggest and wait for another day or two but we feel the reviewer hasn't done a very good job of communicating with us on this one.

[+The Blorenges]

Here in UK our reviewers like to do the exchanges of information/discussion about issues/problems as Notes to Reviewer on the cache submission form. That way the discussion is all there for future reference but will not be seen by others once the cache has been published.

 

My suggestion would be:

 

Change the wording a bit - whatever it is that's bothering the reviewer. Then, on the cache page reviewer note mention you've made an amendment - You could add that it's not clear to you exactly what the problem is...

 

Then re-enable the cache page so that it goes back into the reviewer's queue.

 

If, after a couple of attempts, you feel that you're not getting anywhere and you do not agree with the reviewer's interpretation of the relevant guideline then you can ask that your cache should go to Appeals so that someone further up the Groundspeak ladder can have a look at it.

 

MrsB

[+Lil Devil]

First, are you certain that you replied to the reviewer, and not to the noreply@gecaching.com address? That happens a lot more than you might think.

This is a very good point. How did you communicate to your reviewer? Did you reply to the email you received that notified you of his log on your cache page? If you did, that email went nowhere.

 

You need to go to your reviewer's profile, and click the "email" link.

[knowschad]

Thanks for the advice. We will do as you suggest and wait for another day or two but we feel the reviewer hasn't done a very good job of communicating with us on this one.

 

Say, can we get a more "angsty" response from you about this? We regulars aren't really accustomed to, or equipped to handle such polite "Problem with reviewer" posts. Throw a tantrum or something, will you?

[+Hemlock]

This was several days ago

Actually, that was the 18th. Friday. Two days ago.

 

The website says that caches are usually reviewed within 2-3 days.

Correct, but that is only for the first review. That happened within 2 days of your submission. Once that "first contact" happens, there is no guarantee of how long it may take.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Just confirming that our message was sent to the reviewer via gc.com's message system. The reviewer didn't indicate whether they preferred communication via that system or via a note on the cache page.

 

We are happy to alter wording etc but we really need the reviewer to communicate with us. very frustrating.

[+MustangJoni]

The last time I had a cache questioned by the reviewer (about 2 weeks ago), he disabled it (it was not published), and I had to re-enable it by checking the the "Enable Cache Listing" box on the edit page. It was approved shortly after that.

 

I'm not sure if I had to do that, but it did get approved.

Edited November 20, 2011 by MustangJoni

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Hemlock, it's the 21st where we are. That's three days ago.

 

If I treated my customers like that I wouldn't have much of a business.

 

And we ARE customers. Groundspeak has taken our money for a premium membership. That means it now has certain obligations under consumer laws. Groundspeak is a business. It takes money from us then turns around and says that we have to wait while "volunteers" deal with issues. Funny way to run a business.

 

All we have asked for is a little timeliness in dealing with our concerns and, if it is going to take a little bit of time, then at least have the decency to communicate with us and keep us informed. It's not much to ask is it?

[knowschad]

Hemlock, it's the 21st where we are. That's three days ago.

 

If I treated my customers like that I wouldn't have much of a business.

 

And we ARE customers. Groundspeak has taken our money for a premium membership. That means it now has certain obligations under consumer laws. Groundspeak is a business. It takes money from us then turns around and says that we have to wait while "volunteers" deal with issues. Funny way to run a business.

 

All we have asked for is a little timeliness in dealing with our concerns and, if it is going to take a little bit of time, then at least have the decency to communicate with us and keep us informed. It's not much to ask is it?

 

I was just KIDDING about the angst! Really!

[+wimseyguy]

It's already been posted, but perhaps bears repeating.

The reviewers are volunteers, and do this on their own time. Sometimes other things in thier lives take precedence over review duties, especially on the weekends.

It sounds like the initial review was performed within the promised 72 hours.

 

Perhaps a deep breath, a tall cold one, or cuppa tea and some donuts while you wait patiently will make it easier to wait?

[+dfx]

And we ARE customers.

Not when it comes to getting caches reviewed and published. You didn't pay for that.

[Keystone]

It appears that the cache page was so agenda-laden that the regular reviewer for the OP's area has referred the review of the listing directly to Groundspeak. The initial reviewer note came from a Groundspeak Lackey who we call upon when faced with difficult situations. I imagine that the Groundspeak Lackey will reply on Monday, the first day of the work week.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

It is absolutely appalling that a person who has access to the reviewer's forum can come into this forum and sprinkle about little bits of information about this matter and the discussions that have been held there and because we don't have access to the same reviewer forum we don't know what has been said and can't defend ourselves. We absolutely dispute that our cache was "agenda ridden". We explained ourselves to the reviewer and asked for their feedback. we were happy to consider re-wording the cache page if they reviewer could explain what they felt the problem was. They have not come back to us.

 

Groundspeak is a business with a huge international profile and which is happy to take money for premium memberships. Yet, when it suits, it plays the "We're only an amateur volunteer organization" card. It can't have it both ways.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Go to bed, get some rest, and come back tomorrow, you started out well but at this point you are hurting, not helping your case. Keystone is a Reviewer and you can trust what he said, it was a Groundpeak Lackey who wrote you the note, the top guys are already working on your cache.

[+Touchstone]

It is absolutely appalling...

 

I suspect you misinterpreted the Moderator's intent. Since there was a great deal of speculation going on, in the interest of being *helpful*, I believe Keystone was merely trying to set the record straight on what was going on with the Listing and the possible avenues open to you. The following pretty much spells it out...

 

...the regular reviewer for the OP's area has referred the review of the listing directly to Groundspeak.

 

Most of the Forum regulars will recognize that as being pretty much a done deal, and that it's pointless to offer advice at this point.

 

Good luck with the Listing!

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Here is the text of the cache I submitted:

 

This cache is at the new Dunedin City Cemetery, a development that many may not yet be aware of. At time of placing the cemetery is now open but there have been no interments as yet. As with all caches in such places please use discretion and common-sense when seeking the cache. It is not hidden on or near any location that will be used for graves.

 

The cache is also to mark the retirement of U.N.C.L.E. who started caching back in 2004. Since then he has introduced many new people, including us, to the activity. He started the first school caching group in Dunedin and has never failed to provide help to newcomers.

 

In recent times U.N.C.L.E. found himself concerned about the safety of the activity and its impact on the environment and wildlife so he has decided to move on to new challenges. He will be missed.

 

Cache is a clear one litre snaplock container hidden at ground level. Please ensure it is well covered up when you replace it.

 

Bonus point for the first person to explain the significance of the cache title.

 

Could someone please explain how this amounts to an "agenda"?

[+Touchstone]

Could someone please explain how this amounts to an "agenda"?

 

I'm afraid that it's pretty pointless for us to speculate (although I'm sure some people will try). Work with Groundspeak. Get your Listing Published and enjoy the Find logs

[+t4e]

while all this happened over the weekend and Groundspeak employees are entitled to weekends off too, same as everyone else, i have to agree though with the OP that lack of communication it is a real problem, and seems to affect the whole organization

 

yes, reviewers are volunteers but "questionable" caches are not that many, it takes 2 seconds to post a note saying "this cache has been forwarded to Groundspeak for final decision" or whatever the course of action is, instead of letting people play a guessing game....

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Here is the text of the cache I submitted:

 

This cache is at the new Dunedin City Cemetery, a development that many may not yet be aware of. At time of placing the cemetery is now open but there have been no interments as yet. As with all caches in such places please use discretion and common-sense when seeking the cache. It is not hidden on or near any location that will be used for graves.

 

The cache is also to mark the retirement of U.N.C.L.E. who started caching back in 2004. Since then he has introduced many new people, including us, to the activity. He started the first school caching group in Dunedin and has never failed to provide help to newcomers.

 

In recent times U.N.C.L.E. found himself concerned about the safety of the activity and its impact on the environment and wildlife so he has decided to move on to new challenges. He will be missed.

Cache is a clear one litre snaplock container hidden at ground level. Please ensure it is well covered up when you replace it.

 

Bonus point for the first person to explain the significance of the cache title.

 

Could someone please explain how this amounts to an "agenda"?

Contained within the bolded bit, I imagine, considering his fairly recent contributions on the forum.

[4wheelin_fool]

In recent times reviewers have found themselves concerned with agendas written into cache pages, as well as the safety of the slippery slope which imperils all of us, as well as blazing trails into angst laden territories. So perhaps you could move on to new challenges?

Edited November 21, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+t4e]

Here is the text of the cache I submitted:

 

This cache is at the new Dunedin City Cemetery, a development that many may not yet be aware of. At time of placing the cemetery is now open but there have been no interments as yet. As with all caches in such places please use discretion and common-sense when seeking the cache. It is not hidden on or near any location that will be used for graves.

 

The cache is also to mark the retirement of U.N.C.L.E. who started caching back in 2004. Since then he has introduced many new people, including us, to the activity. He started the first school caching group in Dunedin and has never failed to provide help to newcomers.

 

In recent times U.N.C.L.E. found himself concerned about the safety of the activity and its impact on the environment and wildlife so he has decided to move on to new challenges. He will be missed.

Cache is a clear one litre snaplock container hidden at ground level. Please ensure it is well covered up when you replace it.

 

Bonus point for the first person to explain the significance of the cache title.

 

Could someone please explain how this amounts to an "agenda"?

Contained within the bolded bit, I imagine, considering his fairly recent contributions on the forum.

 

yeap, i agree fully...

 

i should hope that taking that sentence out the cache should be ready to go

[Pup Patrol]

I'm very confused now.

 

U.N.C.L.E. is your old username, is it not?

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

But how is it an agenda? It's just a staement of fact. That's why he has retired from caching. If that was all that was bothering the reviewer couldn't they have said so and we would have considered re-wording? We re-worded the text once (even though we didn't think there was anything wrong with it) but as they won't talk to us we can't do anything more.

 

If there is an "agenda" at work here we think it is flowing in the opposite direction. The person who's departure from caching we would like to commemorate crossed swords many times with the local reviewers in this country (in their capacity as geocachers, not reviewers) and now we honestly think they (the local reviewers) are loathe to see a tribute cache to him so are using their privileged positions as reviewers to stop it.

 

Besides, if we removed all reference to him from the cache page the cache would presumably be published. We could then write a nice log note about him and I doubt there is anything the reviewers could do. So the reviewers are just messing us around here because they can.

 

Yes, we are feeling a little angsty about this because we feel the reviwers are the ones with the agenda here and the system is loaded in their favour with no independent authority to oversee things.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

I'm very confused now.

 

U.N.C.L.E. is your old username, is it not?

 

Oh, snap!

 

Good catch.

[+dfx]

I'm very confused now.

 

U.N.C.L.E. is your old username, is it not?

 

Strike!

 

Too funny

[+Touchstone]

...commemorate crossed swords many times with the local reviewers in this country ...

 

Sometimes it's best to let sleeping dogs lie, for lack of a better expression. Yes, that is a form of agenda. Perhaps I'd characterize it as, "keeping the dream alive".

[jholly]

I think we are getting closer to page 4.

[+WRASTRO]

Seems pretty easy to me, but I could be off base in my opinion. It appears you are trying to list a cache in tribute to your former self and to complain about the affects of our game on the envirnment and wildlife. The attempt to conceal the true identity of the honoree (you) would be a very large red flag for me if I had the misfortune to be a reviewer.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

No, U.N.C.L.E. is not OUR old username.

 

U.N.C.L.E. was the username for an account that was a group of people who went caching together. Any problem with that? Is there a rule that says an account can only be held by an individual? As is the nature of groups the people within it have changed. There was one individual in the group, let's call them G, who did all the logging and other caching admin for our group. I guess because of that they became the "face" of our group in the eyes of other local cachers. But that was THEIR interpretation and the name never referred to an individual even though some other saw it that way.

 

G has retired from caching. The rest of us are continuing with the group. Is there a problem with that? We decided to change the accounts username to mark the change. We also thought it would be nice to hide a cache to commemorate a long-term cacher who was moving on from the game. Because others knew G as U.N.C.L.E. that's why we referred to him by this name. Most local cachers wouldn't know who G was! We explained all this to the reviewers but they won't listen to us. When the overseas "lackey" emailled us he even greeted us with "Hi U.N.C.L.E" even though that has not been the account's username for about 10 days. So where did he get it from? The only logical explanation is that the local reviewers gave him that information as part of their attempt to whip up a controversy (see our earlier post that explains the relationship between G and the local reviewers).

 

Have we done something wrong with the username change?

[Keystone]

But how is it an agenda? It's just a staement of fact. That's why he has retired from caching. If that was all that was bothering the reviewer couldn't they have said so and we would have considered re-wording? We re-worded the text once (even though we didn't think there was anything wrong with it) but as they won't talk to us we can't do anything more.

Groundspeak already told you what text ought to be removed. I am here to keep things honest. I assure you, I have no special information available to me except for the notes on your cache page, and the text in the listing itself.

 

If there is an "agenda" at work here we think it is flowing in the opposite direction. The person who's departure from caching we would like to commemorate crossed swords many times with the local reviewers in this country (in their capacity as geocachers, not reviewers) and now we honestly think they (the local reviewers) are loathe to see a tribute cache to him so are using their privileged positions as reviewers to stop it.

Or, looking at who is reviewing your cache, another view is that the local reviewers wished to avoid any perception of bias, recused themselves, and forwarded the review directly to Groundspeak.

... feel the reviwers are the ones with the agenda here and the system is loaded in their favour with no independent authority to oversee things.

If the local reviewers wished to pursue any sort of agenda presumably they would not have recused themselves. The "independent authority to oversee things" is Groundspeak. You are now in their good hands. Wait for a response about the modified text and work with them.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

OK, I've just read the posts that have been put up while I was writing our last post. NO. Sgt_Wilson is NOT U.N.C.L.E. We are angry that we are being accused of this. How can we prove ourselves. Can we present our drivers licences to someone?

[4wheelin_fool]

The agenda is the reason why they left caching.

 

If it is not an agenda, why is it so difficult to remove?

[Keystone]

No, U.N.C.L.E. is not OUR old username.

 

U.N.C.L.E. was the username for an account that was a group of people who went caching together. Any problem with that? Is there a rule that says an account can only be held by an individual? As is the nature of groups the people within it have changed. There was one individual in the group, let's call them G, who did all the logging and other caching admin for our group. I guess because of that they became the "face" of our group in the eyes of other local cachers. But that was THEIR interpretation and the name never referred to an individual even though some other saw it that way.

 

G has retired from caching. The rest of us are continuing with the group. Is there a problem with that? We decided to change the accounts username to mark the change. We also thought it would be nice to hide a cache to commemorate a long-term cacher who was moving on from the game. Because others knew G as U.N.C.L.E. that's why we referred to him by this name. Most local cachers wouldn't know who G was! We explained all this to the reviewers but they won't listen to us. When the overseas "lackey" emailled us he even greeted us with "Hi U.N.C.L.E" even though that has not been the account's username for about 10 days. So where did he get it from? The only logical explanation is that the local reviewers gave him that information as part of their attempt to whip up a controversy (see our earlier post that explains the relationship between G and the local reviewers).

 

Have we done something wrong with the username change?

Any reviewer or Lackey can tell that you changed your username from U.N.C.L.E. to Sgt_Wilson. The change occurred on November 8th. No communication between your local reviewer and Groundspeak on this point was needed as it is preserved with the account history.

[+Touchstone]

Have we done something wrong with the username change?

 

Taking over an account of a controversial figure, might have been a mistake. I probably would have started with an entirely new account. Just my 0.02.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

If we said they are no longer caching because they fell over and broke their leg and can't get out and about any more would that be an agenda? It is simply a statement of fact in exactly the same way thay saying they left caching because of concerns over the activites safety is a staement of fact. What really seems to be going on is censorship by the reviewers.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

OK, I've just read the posts that have been put up while I was writing our last post. NO. Sgt_Wilson is NOT U.N.C.L.E. We are angry that we are being accused of this. How can we prove ourselves. Can we present our drivers licences to someone?

You should have followed my earlier advice to leave and come back tomorrow, I warned you that your posting was just making it worse for you.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

I agree Touchstone that it would have been better to start a new account but we would have lost our premium membership on the old one.

 

There wouldn't have been a problem with keeping the old account under a new username if people just acquainted themselves with the facts and used a bit of tolerance.

[+Touchstone]

What really seems to be going on is censorship by the reviewers.

 

That's probably not going to help getting your Listing Published.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Further, people keep talking about the account being "the account of the controversial figure". It was never THEIR account. The account was the group's. They were just the frontman who did the admin for us. Much of the controversial posts that may have appeared on forums etc under the old username was stuff that the rest of the group knew nothing about. Now we are being penalised in a "guilt by association" situation. It was OUR account as much as theirs.

 

If there was a way of us starting a new account and having the premium membership transferred over, we would do it. But there isn't.

 

We are getting so much grief because people won't look at the facts and won't believe us.

[4wheelin_fool]

A statement of fact can definitely be an agenda. Not all facts are agendas either.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

All of this could be settled if the reviewers just communicated with us, which goes back to the original point of the thread. It seems they are discussing us in their secret forum but won't actually communicate with us. What's the point in that?

 

I see another poster seems to also have concerns over reviewer communication with cachers. Perhaps its something Groundspeak needs to look at.

 

A simple note along the lines of "This could take a few days to sort out. Will keep in touch" could have allayed our fears. Instead we simply got a "Refuse to publish" note and then no further response to our requests for further information etc. We have no idea what has happened to our cache. Hence our concern.

[+Walts Hunting]

So you want to place a cache that says this hobby is no longer safe and is destructive to the environment in the eyes of the leaver and you don't think that is an agenda. I'm voting with the reviewer on this one. Do you ever recall your mother saying if you don't have something nice to say don't sat anything. Why not keep it positive. No need to go negative.

[+U.N.C.L.E.]

Walts Hunting, the concerns that G had have been well canvassed in our local geocaching community. In simply acknowledging that that is the reason he left it isn't stating anything that any of the local cachers don't already know about or have their own opinions on. And WE are not saying that the hobby is destructive etc etc. That's what makes it a non-agenda.

 

We are happy to remove that line if that is all that is worrying the reviewers. BUT THEY WON'T TALK TO US! That's the problem. Sheesh!

Edited November 21, 2011 by Sgt_Wilson

[4wheelin_fool]

Fact: Hitler killed a bunch of people.

Fact: Many abortions are performed each year.

Fact: Obama has never visited all 57 states.

 

These are all agendas, and facts.

 

Trying to make a point about safety and whatnot is definitely an agenda. Just remove the reasons why the dude left and you should be golden.