Reviewer hasn't logged in recently?

[+Hurricane Luke]

Hi All. We love Earthcaches. They're probably one of our most liked cache categories there is, so recently we decided to develop our first one - and we sent it in for review on 6 January. We've made totally sure that it's up to standard, that it matches all the GSA requirements, spellchecked it etc. we've even had it partly reviewed by a geologist!

 

And we don't mean to sound rude or impatient, but it is now 10 January, and our local reviewer hasn't logged on for the past 10 days. We do understand they volunteer their time being a reviewer, and that's fine, but is there anyone else that can review it in the mean time? I'm not exactly sure if our region has more than one reviewer though.

 

We are just really anxious about how this whole process works, having never done it before, and the GSA guidelines say it might take a few days - is this typical, or does it normally take longer than this? An additional problem is that we also have an additional 7 traditional caches in the normal review queue that are being held up by this Earthcache, which are located in the same area. It's a long, dusty trip to this remote site, and we don't really want to make people venture there twice (if the caches are published, and then the Earthcache is published a week later).

 

So we are really left wondering how all this should proceed? How long is it normal to wait for an EC publication? Again, we aren't trying to be rude or have a rant here, we are just really anxious about how this all works!

[+Planet]

Are you sure that you are looking at the right reviewer?

Earthcaches are reviewed differently.

Also, on your cache listing page, did you check the box to enable it? If you didn't it will not show up.

[geoawareUSA1]

I took a look, and your Listing is properly Enabled and waiting in the Queue for the Reviewer.

 

An additional problem is that we also have an additional 7 traditional caches in the normal review queue that are being held up by this Earthcache, which are located in the same area.

 

I would recommend that you move ahead with your Traditional Listings, and not wait for your Earthcache Listing to get Published.

 

Thanks for you patience and good luck with your submission!

[+hzoi]

Couple things.

 

First, as Planet pointed out, your local reviewer isn't the one who's going to review an earthcache -- there's a separate team of earthcache reviewers. (And though your reviewer may not have logged in for a while, it does look like Zero Gravitas was minding the store.)

 

Second, as Planet also points out, the cache has to be enabled in order for the reviewer to see it. I see you've published a few caches recently, not trying to insult your intelligence. But we've fallen into this trap as well -- might want to go ahead and double check the cache listing and make sure it's enabled.

 

If the cache was enabled and submitted for review on the 6th, it's a little late at this point. The standard is to get your cache initially reviewed within 72 hours. That doesn't mean "published," that means initially reviewed and screened for issues. But if there were issues, normally a reviewer would contact you. They're a little outside the window at this point, I realize it's now going on the morning of 11 January there. But many of the EC reviewers frequent this forum, so they're aware of the issue now.

[cezanne]

If the cache was enabled and submitted for review on the 6th, it's a little late at this point. The standard is to get your cache initially reviewed within 72 hours.

 

72 hours is not the standard for ECs, not even for the initial reply and I think that this is quite understandable. For ECs a waiting time of one week is quite short.

The work which goes into reviewing one EC is much higher than the work that goes into reviewing other cache types. Moreover, there are less EC reviewers than normal reviewers and they are more difficult to find.

 

Cezanne

[+Hurricane Luke]

Hi All,

Thanks for the helpful replies! Yes, we do know that a separate reviewer does do Earthcaches, and yes, we did enable it I probably should have clarified that in my OP. Judging by the replies, it seems as though we are in the 'middle of the road' for this review.

 

Another Earthcache volunteer reviewer has very kindly stepped in and started the review process for us. Again, thanks for all replies!

 

Cheers,

Luke.

[+hzoi]

If the cache was enabled and submitted for review on the 6th, it's a little late at this point. The standard is to get your cache initially reviewed within 72 hours.

 

72 hours is not the standard for ECs, not even for the initial reply and I think that this is quite understandable. For ECs a waiting time of one week is quite short.

The work which goes into reviewing one EC is much higher than the work that goes into reviewing other cache types. Moreover, there are less EC reviewers than normal reviewers and they are more difficult to find.

 

Cezanne

 

I was referring to the 72-hour standard in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books. The earthcache section of the knowledge books doesn't list another standard for review, and the only thing the GSA Earthcache guidelines states is, "The review process can take a few days and even longer if your submission requires adjustments." While "a few" is not terribly specific, it doesn't necessarily contradict the 72-hour standard.

 

Earthcache reviews may exceed the standard that Groundspeak has set for initial review, but there does not seem to be a separate standard. If you know of one, please include a link.

[cezanne]

I was referring to the 72-hour standard in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books. The earthcache section of the knowledge books doesn't list another standard for review, and the only thing the GSA Earthcache guidelines states is, "The review process can take a few days and even longer if your submission requires adjustments." While "a few" is not terribly specific, it doesn't necessarily contradict the 72-hour standard.

 

Earthcache reviews may exceed the standard that Groundspeak has set for initial review, but there does not seem to be a separate standard. If you know of one, please include a link.

 

Like you I do not know anything about a separate standard, and I am quite confident that no precise standard for the duration of the EC review process exists. Moreover, I do not think that the paragraph in the knowledge book you cite has been written with Earthcaches in mind. The text has been written even before the EC submission moved over to Groundspeak's server.

There are some ECs where the reviewers might even be required to perform a search in the literature to be able to make a decision on an EC or to come up with reasonable suggestions, improved logging tasks etc That's something which is not comparable at all to the normal review process of normal caches.

 

In earlier times when the number of EC reviewers was smaller it even happened that some ECs waited for around two months to be published. This has been improved by adding more reviewers. However, at least in the areas I am familiar with, 4 days is exceptionally fast for an EC, 7 days still below average too quite normal. Everything faster than 2 weeks is quite normal from my experience, at least in areas with many EC submissions. Personally, I also think that waiting 2 weeks for an EC to be handled is something which is perfectly fine.

 

In my area around the week-end 72 hours is not even the standard for physical caches which are typically much easier and faster to review.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 10, 2012 by cezanne

[+Hurricane Luke]

Thanks all. Our earthcache was published recently by GeoAwareANZAC after working through a few issues with GeoAwareHQ (definitely appreciated - he's really helpful). (GC3A8H2)...