+GeoBain Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I've always been under the impression that NA logs were sent to a reviewer queue which was monitored on a regular basis. However, a lackey recently stated: Groundspeak volunteers review Needs Archived logs -usually- monthly. She went on to clarify: To be clear, one of the ways that we receive reports from cachers - or non-caching community members - is directly. When something is urgent - and it is reported directly to us via email or phone call - we take the appropriate action. I realize that not all NA logs will receive the same response time. Some issues can be handled at the reviewer's leisure, some may need no response at all, while others are urgent and need same day response. With this new information I am reevaluating my lack of support for a warning logtype. Perhaps we do NOT currently have the tools we need. There needs to be an obvious way to communicate with a reviewer concerning urgent issues. While an email to the reviewer or Groundspeak may be great for those seeking anonymity, it is NOT obvious that this is the only way to ensure immediate response to an urgent matter. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 From a real-world example I can tell you it will take less than 24 hours from an issue being noted to having the cache archived. One of my early caches turned out to be on private property (my bad). The property owner found out about it after some cachers were approcached by a security guard while they searched for it at night. The next day they contacted Groundspeak, and the local reviewer had it archived by the time I got home from work. That is fine. I would hope that Groundspeak would response to a land owner that contacts them directly. But we were led to believe that a NA is pretty much direct contact with the reviewers. We were told that posting the NA log sends it to a reviewer queue in addition to being posted on the cache listing. I wonder how many people have the same understanding of how the NA log queue works as I do did? I would never even think to use the contact @ geocaching.com address unless I need to keep my name off of the cache listing for some reason or if an urgent NA log went unanswered for a period of time. I would just assume it had been read and was being dealt with appropriately. Link to comment
+Snoogans Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Great thread. Thanks for posting it. Too bad my computer time has run out for the time being... Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) Like this cache, it was archived really fast once the property owner complain. http://coord.info/GC358W8 Get this...the cache is on public right-away. Edited January 18, 2012 by SwineFlew Link to comment
+mpilchfamily Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 What kind of response time are you expecting and with what kind of a response? Did you post an NA log that didn't get the response your where looking for? An NA log isn't a call to 911. If there is an urgent problem then a direct message to the reviewer or GS would probably be the best response. If there is an issue that needs next day attention then it big enough that higher authorities need to be involved. A land owner having an issue with a cache being placed on there property isn't one of those situations. Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 If you wanna cache to be archived right at the spot, call up the bomb squads. DONT DO IT SINCE ITS AGAINST THE LAW IF YOU FAKE THE CALL. Link to comment
cezanne Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 What kind of response time are you expecting and with what kind of a response? I do not have a specific expectation, but have been very surprised as well by Sandy's statement. I thought that the NA logs are read regularly. 30 days is much, much longer than the typical review time for caches. 30 days might be ok for caches that are not looked after any longer, but not for a lot of other issues. Cezanne Link to comment
Sandy Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 NA logs are sometimes actioned immediately, and sometimes in batches. It is a role that some of our volunteers do, and they have access to the most recent logs via a tool created for this purpose. I am sorry if I was not clear before, and seemed to lump all logs into the 'monthly' basket. My point is that this is a part of a volunteer role, so immediate action may not be forthcoming, situation of the volunteer dependent. In extreme cases, cachers can always email Groundspeak to report caches of grave concern. Suggesting that we close this thread as the point has been addressed, as has the concern about 'languishing logs'. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 What kind of response time are you expecting and with what kind of a response? Did you post an NA log that didn't get the response your where looking for? As previously stated, I expect the actual response from a reviewer to vary depending on the issue. However, I have always believed that the NA logs were at least read within a 24 to 72 hour window. A one month time frame just to read the log is out of the question for some issues and may explain a lot of the frustrations we see posted in the forums. If there is an urgent problem then a direct message to the reviewer or GS would probably be the best response. How many people know this? Maybe I am stupid or naive, but I always thought that NA logs were at least read pretty quickly. I have always considered the reviewer to be the first step in the process. I have always considered emailing GS directly to be something possibly needed if there is no response from the reviewer or the response is considered unsatisfactory. Link to comment
+GeoBain Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 NA logs are sometimes actioned immediately, and sometimes in batches. It is a role that some of our volunteers do, and they have access to the most recent logs via a tool created for this purpose. I am sorry if I was not clear before, and seemed to lump all logs into the 'monthly' basket. My point is that this is a part of a volunteer role, so immediate action may not be forthcoming, situation of the volunteer dependent. In extreme cases, cachers can always email Groundspeak to report caches of grave concern. Suggesting that we close this thread as the point has been addressed, as has the concern about 'languishing logs'. Thank you for clarification. Just to be clear, you are stating the reviewers do read the NA logs in a timely manner as we have been led to believe. It is just that the responses may vary depending on the situation. If that is the way it works, then yes, please feel free to close the thread. If not, I would like an opportunity to further explore this topic. Link to comment
Recommended Posts