Getting a cache reviewed?

[+GeoGuyB]

How long does it take to get a cache reviewed?

[+StarBrand]

How long does it take to get a cache reviewed?

Read this Knowledgebook article: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=81

[Keystone]

Hi,

 

Just confirming that the cache you submitted today is properly positioned for review. Thanks for hiding a cache!

[Party_Rockerz]

Hi,

 

Just confirming that the cache you submitted today is properly positioned for review. Thanks for hiding a cache!

N 45° 22.830 W 066° 13.137

that is the location of the geocache i submitted, placed and confirmed yesterday! why didn't it review it! please somebody review mine!

[+The A-Team]

please somebody review mine!

Please read the link in the 2nd post in this topic.

[+Wreck Diver]

Looks like the coordinates could have used some additional review by the owner?

[+Cardinal Red]

Looks like the coordinates could have used some additional review by the owner?

 

A brand new account with zero finds. Initial searcher log puts coordinates into question. And what are you looking for? "It will be a plastic bag". Is this bag well protected from the weather?

 

Edit to add: It seems the OP's published coords were off by 280 some feet, and it wasn't just a typo. I wish I could have observed the process that missed the mark by that much.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Cardinal Red

[+Wreck Diver]

Geocaching.com would improve the reviewers work load, response time and overall cache quality if they would implement a requirement that geocachers have twenty five finds or more to submit a new geocache listing for review.

 

I can understand a new geocacher's excitement at wanting to own a geocache and contribute to the community, but with little to no experience in the field, they are ultimately recreating all of the common knowledge mistakes such as using tennis ball cans, sandwich meat containers and ammo boxes marked with military markings. The faux pas is further complicated by grabbing "quick" coordinates without understanding that it may take several minutes for a GPS to settle and the coordinate numbers to become stable.

 

All in all, I don't think that geocaching.com is doing themselves or the geocachers any favors by approving geocaches when the submitter hasn't had opportunity to see what makes a well planned geocache in a location worth visiting or to acquire the experience to submit a cache so that doesn't cause additional headache for the reviewers.

 

There are far too many spontaneous and I'll-conceived caches listed that lead one to wonder what the owner was thinking when it was conceived and submitted.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: guardrail magnets and lamppost micros every 512 feet is NOT the standard we should be presenting to upcoming and impressionable cachers.

 

Maybe an administrative expectation of owner experience will help this exponential down slide of the quality of caches that are becoming synonymous with geocaching.com.

[+The A-Team]

Geocaching.com would improve the reviewers work load, response time and overall cache quality if they would implement a requirement that geocachers have twenty five finds or more to submit a new geocache listing for review.

Do a search in these forums and you'll find many previous discussions explaining why such a restriction wouldn't work.

[Keystone]

I would rather read 100 forum posts and private messages like the ones directed at me by Party Rockerz than to discourage a single new geocacher's enthusiasm by having a rule saying they couldn't hide a cache yet.

 

Thank you, Party Rockerz, for hiding a cache. I encourage you to take up one of the offers of assistance made to you by the early finders of your cache.

[+briansnat]

Geocaching.com would improve the reviewers work load, response time and overall cache quality if they would implement a requirement that geocachers have twenty five finds or more to submit a new geocache listing for review.

 

I can understand a new geocacher's excitement at wanting to own a geocache and contribute to the community, but with little to no experience in the field, they are ultimately recreating all of the common knowledge mistakes such as using tennis ball cans, sandwich meat containers and ammo boxes marked with military markings. The faux pas is further complicated by grabbing "quick" coordinates without understanding that it may take several minutes for a GPS to settle and the coordinate numbers to become stable.

 

All in all, I don't think that geocaching.com is doing themselves or the geocachers any favors by approving geocaches when the submitter hasn't had opportunity to see what makes a well planned geocache in a location worth visiting or to acquire the experience to submit a cache so that doesn't cause additional headache for the reviewers.

 

There are far too many spontaneous and I'll-conceived caches listed that lead one to wonder what the owner was thinking when it was conceived and submitted.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: guardrail magnets and lamppost micros every 512 feet is NOT the standard we should be presenting to upcoming and impressionable cachers.

 

Maybe an administrative expectation of owner experience will help this exponential down slide of the quality of caches that are becoming synonymous with geocaching.com.

 

So they make a rule that you have to find 20 caches before you hide one. What is a novice who is eager to hide a cache going to do? He's going to try to reach that number as quickly as possible, which means he'll probably hit every guardrail magnet and lamp post hide in the area. Guess what that will teach him about geocaching.

[+WRASTRO]

Geocaching.com would improve the reviewers work load, response time and overall cache quality if they would implement a requirement that geocachers have twenty five finds or more to submit a new geocache listing for review.

 

I can understand a new geocacher's excitement at wanting to own a geocache and contribute to the community, but with little to no experience in the field, they are ultimately recreating all of the common knowledge mistakes such as using tennis ball cans, sandwich meat containers and ammo boxes marked with military markings. The faux pas is further complicated by grabbing "quick" coordinates without understanding that it may take several minutes for a GPS to settle and the coordinate numbers to become stable.

 

All in all, I don't think that geocaching.com is doing themselves or the geocachers any favors by approving geocaches when the submitter hasn't had opportunity to see what makes a well planned geocache in a location worth visiting or to acquire the experience to submit a cache so that doesn't cause additional headache for the reviewers.

 

There are far too many spontaneous and I'll-conceived caches listed that lead one to wonder what the owner was thinking when it was conceived and submitted.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: guardrail magnets and lamppost micros every 512 feet is NOT the standard we should be presenting to upcoming and impressionable cachers.

 

Maybe an administrative expectation of owner experience will help this exponential down slide of the quality of caches that are becoming synonymous with geocaching.com.

In theory this "could" be a good idea. In practice a new cacher can fairly easily sign up and have 1,000 finds in one day. I don't think many of us would be thrilled to hunt the caches that new cacher would be inspired to place. Well maybe there would be a lot of cachers happy and excited to hunt if there were enough caches to find in a very limited area.

 

Think about a requirement for a cacher to be an active member for six months or a year before being eligible to place a cache. That would eliminate the one hit wonders. If you want to be really radical you could promote the concept that anyone who wants to hide a cache must be a premium member. No restrictions on finding caches. Just on placing them. AND they need to be members for six months or a year before they can place a cache.

 

The reality is no requirement will really make a difference in the quality of hides. Some will be great. Some will be absolute crud. Look at any bell curve and you will understand.

[+HuntindogSparky]

How long does it take to get a cache reviewed?

[Pup Patrol]

How long does it take to get a cache reviewed?

 

Read this Knowledgebook article: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=81

 

 

 

B.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

In theory this "could" be a good idea. In practice a new cacher can fairly easily sign up and have 1,000 finds in one day. I don't think many of us would be thrilled to hunt the caches that new cacher would be inspired to place. Well maybe there would be a lot of cachers happy and excited to hunt if there were enough caches to find in a very limited area.

 

Think about a requirement for a cacher to be an active member for six months or a year before being eligible to place a cache. That would eliminate the one hit wonders. If you want to be really radical you could promote the concept that anyone who wants to hide a cache must be a premium member. No restrictions on finding caches. Just on placing them. AND they need to be members for six months or a year before they can place a cache.

 

The reality is no requirement will really make a difference in the quality of hides. Some will be great. Some will be absolute crud. Look at any bell curve and you will understand.

 

You'd think that would work, but I've noticed caches that seem to be "drive by" placements from long-time cachers with hundreds of hides who live in another state (!)--and they're micros stuck on telephone poles. And they've been marked "needs maintenance" for months. As long as some people love to find a pill bottle in a Wal-Mart LPS, that's the way the game goes.

 

Ooo, this has gone OT, hasn't it?

 

 

Just to keep on topic--I had a cache reviewed and published in under three hours! I barely had time to go back and mark the container with the GC code after I submitted the info! So...sometimes it doesn't take very long at all. Depends on what's in the queue, day of the week, and so on.

[+chefkimmo]

I am what I consider new to caching and yes I am looking at placing some caches. I am reading the comments on this thread and can see the points you all are making and as a newer person I wonder what is "right". Yes, I was thinking there should be something on what someone should do before they should place caches.... my team, well we are at over 100 finds and thrive on the different types of hides so we would love to put out hides that are not just at the lamp post type hides but also a little more difficult that if you might have to think outside the box to make a find. Funny you all mention magnets on guardrails - I have yet to find one of those!

 

I haven't been in for 6 months quite yet and I haven't found 1,000 yet but I do believe I could place some good caches where (I am hoping) even some of the more experienced people may say.... hmmm, that was a good one.

 

I will admit we are planning on the best form of flattery or some may call it plagerism but when we find something we think of as a good hide we want to put one out similar to it. It will not be near the one we found and will not be exact but it will be similar.

 

My son is a special needs and due to an accident at a very young age his vision is very bad. He has a hard time with depth perception and the extremely well hidden camoflouged hides are near impossible for him but he so enjoys geocaching so I hope that some people will not stop putting out the ones at lamps and slightly easier ones for people like him and small kids and at the same time I hope that I find the time, ability and a partner to go out and find some of the hardest caches as well.

 

Funny thing is I came to this thread by doing a search to double/triple check that I was going about finding the coordinates right for my first swap. I have spent time on here reading about others difficulties so we can put out some caches and hopefully make some fun for the caching community in a wide range of easy to some what hard.

 

Thanks for everyone's comments on here

[+Chief301]

I am what I consider new to caching and yes I am looking at placing some caches. I am reading the comments on this thread and can see the points you all are making and as a newer person I wonder what is "right". Yes, I was thinking there should be something on what someone should do before they should place caches.... my team, well we are at over 100 finds and thrive on the different types of hides so we would love to put out hides that are not just at the lamp post type hides but also a little more difficult that if you might have to think outside the box to make a find. Funny you all mention magnets on guardrails - I have yet to find one of those!

 

I haven't been in for 6 months quite yet and I haven't found 1,000 yet but I do believe I could place some good caches where (I am hoping) even some of the more experienced people may say.... hmmm, that was a good one.

 

I will admit we are planning on the best form of flattery or some may call it plagerism but when we find something we think of as a good hide we want to put one out similar to it. It will not be near the one we found and will not be exact but it will be similar.

 

My son is a special needs and due to an accident at a very young age his vision is very bad. He has a hard time with depth perception and the extremely well hidden camoflouged hides are near impossible for him but he so enjoys geocaching so I hope that some people will not stop putting out the ones at lamps and slightly easier ones for people like him and small kids and at the same time I hope that I find the time, ability and a partner to go out and find some of the hardest caches as well.

 

Funny thing is I came to this thread by doing a search to double/triple check that I was going about finding the coordinates right for my first swap. I have spent time on here reading about others difficulties so we can put out some caches and hopefully make some fun for the caching community in a wide range of easy to some what hard.

 

Thanks for everyone's comments on here

 

You came here looking for tips and ideas on how to place a good cache. You went out and found a bunch of caches before considering placing one so you have a fair idea what makes a quality cache. You have a special needs member of your caching team so you recognize that there is a place for easier caches that are still created with quality in mind instead of just "There wasn't a cache here so I put one"

 

I expect that when you do place a cache it will be well planned and maintained. You are not the person we're talking about

Edited June 27, 2012 by Chief301

[+Chief301]

The faux pas is further complicated by grabbing "quick" coordinates without understanding that it may take several minutes for a GPS to settle and the coordinate numbers to become stable.

 

.

 

Wait, you just have to hit "Mark Waypoint", right?

 

[/sarcasm]