Allow CO to publish cache themselves after review

[+Ambient_Skater]

The current cache submission system requires cache owners to hide their cache and then submit it for review. If the cache is determined to conform to the guidelines, it is published as soon as it is reviewed. Otherwise, it fails review and the CO must correct their placement or listing.

 

This system is fundamentally flawed and very counter intuitive. It does not make sense for a cache to already be hidden when it is still under review. You wouldn't hide a container in the woods and then go home to start deciding where to hide it, so why would you hide a container and then go home to submit it for review? Not only do some first time hiders make the mistake of not having the cache in place before submitting it, but COs need to travel all the way back to their cache to adjust it if it is not published. The worst are when puzzle containers or multi stages are in the way, giving the hider no choice but to move their cache to a few different locations and hope, or solve a puzzle that they don't want (or even know how) to solve. They can email their reviewer or make a cache page with the proposed coordinates, but this is inefficient and more work for the reviewer.

 

The right way to do this is to allow hiders to submit the cache page for review and allow them to publish the cache themselves after it passes. This may sound crazy after the review process has been the same for almost 12 years, but think about it. This process doesn't only let COs stay out of the way of puzzle caches, but event hosts who want their caches published on a certain date can do that without burdening their reviewer. They can even ceremoniously publish the caches in front of the attendees during the event. And COs who are worried about geocaching recieving a black eye, broken arm, skinned knee, concussion, or other ridiculous injuries from FTF seekers entering a park after hours can always publish their cache within park hours.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Ambient_Skater

[+Max and 99]

The current cache submission system requires cache owners to hide their cache and then submit it for review. If the cache is determined to conform to the guidelines, it is published as soon as it is reviewed. Otherwise, it fails review and the CO must correct their placement or listing.

 

This system is fundamentally flawed and very counter intuitive. It does not make sense for a cache to already be hidden when it is still under review. You wouldn't hide a container in the woods and then go home to start deciding where to hide it, so why would you hide a container and then go home to submit it for review? Not only do some first time hiders make the mistake of not having the cache in place before submitting it, but COs need to travel all the way back to their cache to adjust it if it is not published. The worst are when puzzle containers or multi stages are in the way, giving the hider no choice but to move their cache to a few different locations and hope, or solve a puzzle that they don't want (or even know how) to solve. They can email their reviewer or make a cache page with the proposed coordinates, but this is inefficient and more work for the reviewer.

 

The right way to do this is to allow hiders to submit the cache page for review and allow them to publish the cache themselves after it passes. This may sound crazy after the review process has been the same for almost 12 years, but think about it. This process doesn't only let COs stay out of the way of puzzle caches, but event hosts who want their caches published on a certain date can do that without burdening their reviewer. They can even ceremoniously publish the caches in front of the attendees during the event. And COs who are worried about geocaching recieving a black eye, broken arm, skinned knee, concussion, or other ridiculous injuries from FTF seekers entering a park after hours can always publish their cache within park hours.

 

If this were ever to be implemented, I would think it would REQUIRE a time frame to get the cache placed, otherwise cache owners could hold onto a pre-approved location indefinitely.

 

What's to keep a CO from getting their cache pre-approved, and then changing the coordinates significantly? Would there be a system to prevent this?

[+Ambient_Skater]

What's to keep a CO from getting their cache pre-approved, and then changing the coordinates significantly? Would there be a system to prevent this?

The listing can't be edited between the time is is reviewed and published. After it's published, it can be edited normally like they can be now.

[+frinklabs]

The current cache submission system requires cache owners to hide their cache and then submit it for review.

 

Not necessarily. You can create the cache page with coordinates before ever going out in the field, then email your local reviewer with the GC code, before submission, and ask them if there will be a problem.

[+Fianccetto]

I agree, and tend to put a future date for publication in, to check that the reviewer is happy before publishing. I usually hide the cache for a week or so before sending the cache list for review to see if it will get muggled straight away, it depends on the cache. Where you have a number of COs trying to publish a lot of caches (say, on a long circular walk in the countryside around a town) this would be a very useful tool to help all the caches get published at the same time.

[+Lieblweb]

I partially agree with you....but yet, partially not.

 

Yeah, I wish there was a way to PRE-approve a location (due to puzzle caches & multis). However.... you have to visit GZ to get actual coordinates anyway before submitting anything regardless if you leave a container there or not. So, even with a pre-approval....your chances of needing to go back to GZ is 50/50. The pre-approval will only help if you DID NOT leave a container and the location was not approved.

Or

The pre-approval will only help if you DID leave a container and the location WAS approved.

 

I think the current system works just fine. It has to be simple and understandable for the newer folks. Currently....HIDE CONTAINER, submit coordinates, wait for publish. It can't be much easier than that.

As a cache hider - its your responsibility to visit GZ as many times as you need to before and after publishing. That's the way it is.... If you don't like going back to GZ - then you shouldn't hide caches that are inconvenient for you to visit regularly and often. Also, as a cache hider....you need to write your descriptions as descriptive as possible laying out all the rules of the cache and location. It's the responsibility of the cache finders to obey the rules. You don't have any control over those folks who don't obey the rules on the cache pages.

[+Ambient_Skater]

The current cache submission system requires cache owners to hide their cache and then submit it for review.

Not necessarily. You can create the cache page with coordinates before ever going out in the field, then email your local reviewer with the GC code, before submission, and ask them if there will be a problem.

Making a cache page and emailing the code is not a streamlined way of doing things. When caches are submitted for review, they enter a queue which the reviewer works through. When people email them GC codes here and there for the reviewer to look at, they are not part of the queue and it's extra work for the reviewer.

[+Lil Devil]

When caches are submitted for review, they enter a queue which the reviewer works through. When people email them GC codes here and there for the reviewer to look at, they are not part of the queue and it's extra work for the reviewer.

That's why in my area, I ask people to create the cache page, with a name such as "coord check only-do not publish" and go ahead and enable it. Then when I'm checking the queue I'll see it and check the coords. Much easier IMO than dealing with email.

[+Prime Suspect]

What's to keep a CO from getting their cache pre-approved, and then changing the coordinates significantly? Would there be a system to prevent this?

The listing can't be edited between the time is is reviewed and published. After it's published, it can be edited normally like they can be now.

So... that means the hider has to visit the cache site twice. You have to find the correct coordinates in order for the reviewer to actually review it. Then if it passes, you have to go and actually place the cache. How is that more streamlined?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

What's to keep a CO from getting their cache pre-approved, and then changing the coordinates significantly? Would there be a system to prevent this?

The listing can't be edited between the time is is reviewed and published. After it's published, it can be edited normally like they can be now.

So... that means the hider has to visit the cache site twice. You have to find the correct coordinates in order for the reviewer to actually review it. Then if it passes, you have to go and actually place the cache. How is that more streamlined?

 

I suppose one way around this might be to allow minor coordinate changes between the time the cache is reviewed and when it is published. Using the current process, one might get "ball park" coordinates (or even use Google Maps) to capture a set of coordinates for initially filling out the form (before the "this cache is active and ready for review" box is checked). That gets a GC number, and then one can work on the listing, put the GC number on the container and log book, and then go out and place the cache (and obtain the actual coordinates) and then come back home to submit the cache for review. Since we can currently update the coordinates after a cache has been published without an additional review, that's really no different from being able to adjust the coordinates between a "reviewed" and "published" stage.

[+Prime Suspect]

I suppose one way around this might be to allow minor coordinate changes between the time the cache is reviewed and when it is published.

I don't think that's going to fly.

 

Since we can currently update the coordinates after a cache has been published without an additional review, that's really no different from being able to adjust the coordinates between a "reviewed" and "published" stage.

I wouldn't bet on that.

[+Ambient_Skater]

The listing can't be edited between the time is is reviewed and published. After it's published, it can be edited normally like they can be now.

So... that means the hider has to visit the cache site twice. You have to find the correct coordinates in order for the reviewer to actually review it. Then if it passes, you have to go and actually place the cache. How is that more streamlined?

The hider can still have the cache in place the first time it is reviewed and publish it immediately after it passes.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Ambient_Skater

[+Prime Suspect]

The listing can't be edited between the time is is reviewed and published. After it's published, it can be edited normally like they can be now.

So... that means the hider has to visit the cache site twice. You have to find the correct coordinates in order for the reviewer to actually review it. Then if it passes, you have to go and actually place the cache. How is that more streamlined?

The hider can still have the cache in place the first time it is reviewed and publish it immediately after it passes.

Yes! And it could be streamlined even more, by just having the Reviewer publish it! I move that this be implemented immediately! From now one, the cache should be in place when the page is submitted, and the Reviewer publishes the cache when it passes review. That's so much better than the way it's currently done.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

The listing can't be edited between the time is is reviewed and published. After it's published, it can be edited normally like they can be now.

So... that means the hider has to visit the cache site twice. You have to find the correct coordinates in order for the reviewer to actually review it. Then if it passes, you have to go and actually place the cache. How is that more streamlined?

The hider can still have the cache in place the first time it is reviewed and publish it immediately after it passes.

Yes! And it could be streamlined even more, by just having the Reviewer publish it! I move that this be implemented immediately! From now one, the cache should be in place when the page is submitted, and the Reviewer publishes the cache when it passes review. That's so much better than the way it's currently done.

+1

[stebu]

The listing can't be edited between the time is is reviewed and published. After it's published, it can be edited normally like they can be now.

So... that means the hider has to visit the cache site twice. You have to find the correct coordinates in order for the reviewer to actually review it. Then if it passes, you have to go and actually place the cache. How is that more streamlined?

The hider can still have the cache in place the first time it is reviewed and publish it immediately after it passes.

Yes! And it could be streamlined even more, by just having the Reviewer publish it! I move that this be implemented immediately! From now one, the cache should be in place when the page is submitted, and the Reviewer publishes the cache when it passes review. That's so much better than the way it's currently done.

+1

C'mon! I think there's merit in Skater's suggestion. It would allow one to decide the exact publishing moment. And this wouldn't increase the burden on reviewers.

I'm voting for this proposal!

[+Mallah]

It gets my vote as well. No one above has provided a genuine reason NOT to do so IMHO.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The listing can't be edited between the time is is reviewed and published. After it's published, it can be edited normally like they can be now.

So... that means the hider has to visit the cache site twice. You have to find the correct coordinates in order for the reviewer to actually review it. Then if it passes, you have to go and actually place the cache. How is that more streamlined?

The hider can still have the cache in place the first time it is reviewed and publish it immediately after it passes.

Yes! And it could be streamlined even more, by just having the Reviewer publish it! I move that this be implemented immediately! From now one, the cache should be in place when the page is submitted, and the Reviewer publishes the cache when it passes review. That's so much better than the way it's currently done.

 

There's a difference between "the cache *should* be in place" and "the hider *can* have the cache in place".

 

With the current mechanism a cache *should* be in place prior to submitting it for review. Ideally, the cache *must* be in place prior to submission, otherwise the cache may be reviewed and published before the cache can actually be found. By giving the cache owner more control over exactly when the cache is published (after it's been reviewed), it offers the cache owner more flexibility in when the cache is placed, and ensures that the cache meets all the guidelines before it's in place. That doesn't mean that a CO can't still place a cache before it's been submitted for review.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Hide a cache...create page...then submit...seems fine to me!!!

 

Create page...hide cache...then submit...seems fine to me!!!

 

Create page...submit...then hide cache...does not seem fine to me. Location is a part of the review...how are reviewers to review a location of a cache when the location has not been determined when the page is submitted...to borrow a phrase...seems very counter-intuitive to me...

[Pup Patrol]

allow hiders to submit the cache page for review and allow them to publish the cache themselves after it passes.

 

Discarding all the extraneous words to get to the core idea.

 

I like it.

 

With a set time-limit, of course.

 

Still concerned over the fiddling of coordinates, though. Not sure how that can be controlled after the reviewer has already "published" the cache. But I suppose co's can fiddle with the coords in the current system, up to 528 feet.

 

 

B.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Hide a cache...create page...then submit...seems fine to me!!!

 

Create page...hide cache...then submit...seems fine to me!!!

 

Create page...submit...then hide cache...does not seem fine to me. Location is a part of the review...how are reviewers to review a location of a cache when the location has not been determined when the page is submitted...to borrow a phrase...seems very counter-intuitive to me...

 

The suggestion, as it was described, would require that a location be identified before submitting the listing for review. It just wouldn't require that a cache be in place at that location until it's ready to be published. In fact, the process could be exactly the same: Determine location...create page...hide cache...submit. The submission process could have a check box which determines whether the reviewer should publish the cache upon a successful review or if the cache owner will publish it themselves after it's been reviewed.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

allow hiders to submit the cache page for review and allow them to publish the cache themselves after it passes.

 

Discarding all the extraneous words to get to the core idea.

 

I like it.

 

With a set time-limit, of course.

 

Still concerned over the fiddling of coordinates, though. Not sure how that can be controlled after the reviewer has already "published" the cache. But I suppose co's can fiddle with the coords in the current system, up to 528 feet.

 

 

B.

 

As you noted, as it is now, the coordinates can be fiddled by the CO after a cache has been published up to 528'. That means that a cache could be moved after the location has been reviewed and the cache published to a location that could violate the guidelines in several ways (within 528' of another physical cache, onto private property, close to a school, or "sensitive" area). Personally, I think allowing coordinates the be changed to a location up to 528' without reviewer intervention is a bit much.

 

Suppose a cache that has been reviewed and is marked "Ready to Publish" could only have it's coordinates changed up to, say 50 meters, before it's published. That would allow a cacher to produce a set of coordinates (even using coordinates obtained using Google Maps/Earth) that would be reasonable estimate for the actual location where the cache is placed for review purposes. After the cache has been placed, and accurate coordinates have been obtained, the CO could publish the cache with corrected coordinates (up to a 50 meter difference from the reviewed coordinates). Anything more than that would require reviewer intervention. With a time-limit as you suggest in place, the CO may determine that they just can't find a spot to hide the cache within the 50 meters of the reviewed location, and after a week (or whatever) there ability to publish that listing would be disabled.

 

Frankly, I doubt that the suggestion would ever get implemented but I find a discussion of it's merits interesting.

Edited May 10, 2012 by NYPaddleCacher

[Pup Patrol]

As you noted, as it is now, the coordinates can be fiddled by the CO after a cache has been published up to 528'. That means that a cache could be moved after the location has been reviewed and the cache published to a location that could violate the guidelines in several ways (within 528' of another physical cache, onto private property, close to a school, or "sensitive" area). Personally, I think allowing coordinates the be changed to a location up to 528' without reviewer intervention is a bit much.

 

I agree. Being able to change the coords by that much without reviewer intervention is too much.

 

I think up to 50 feet should be the maximum a cache owner can change the coords on their own.

 

Frankly, I doubt that the suggestion would ever get implemented but I find a discussion of it's merits interesting.

I agree with this, too. I think it's an interesting concept. And would hopefully resolve the problem of containers not being placed before the listing is published, and would be helpful for those "don't publish until xxx" requests.

 

B.

[+niraD]

Personally, I think the existing system for verifying that a location is available before investing time/money/whatever in the hide is sufficient. (See Checking for Cache Saturation in the Help Center.) I haven't heard or read any comments from reviewers indicating otherwise.

 

But it might be nice to have a system to automatically publish a cache at a given time and/or on a given date. That would make it easier to publish caches when the location is open (e.g., to avoid after-hours FTF races), or to publish caches on a specific date (e.g., when the date is significant to the cache's theme).

[Mr.Yuck]

It gets my vote as well. No one above has provided a genuine reason NOT to do so IMHO.

 

Me too. There is a "family" of alternative Geocaching websites that do it exactly the way Ambient Skater has proposed. Of course that alone is probably enough reason to bring more naysayer's out.

 

Really, what would be so terrible about publishing your own cache when you want it published?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It gets my vote as well. No one above has provided a genuine reason NOT to do so IMHO.

 

Me too. There is a "family" of alternative Geocaching websites that do it exactly the way Ambient Skater has proposed. Of course that alone is probably enough reason to bring more naysayer's out.

a

Really, what would be so terrible about publishing your own cache when you want it published?

 

I doubt that it's going to make a difference but it would get a vote for me well.

 

As I see it, since a beta version of the new Cache Submission Process (CSP) has recently been released now is a really good time to consider potential changes in the way the submission process works, including ideas such as the ability for a cache owner to manage when their new listing is published, integration of a basic proximity tester, a new cache hider quiz, etc.

[+Prime Suspect]

Really, what would be so terrible about publishing your own cache when you want it published?

Just off the top of my head - it would make it easy for people to "hold" areas without having a cache there, blocking people who actually have a cache in hand and want to place it at the location.

 

And it would be yet another cache category that blocks placements, but can't be seen by others.

[+ngrrfan]

Really, what would be so terrible about publishing your own cache when you want it published?

Just off the top of my head - it would make it easy for people to "hold" areas without having a cache there, blocking people who actually have a cache in hand and want to place it at the location.

 

And it would be yet another cache category that blocks placements, but can't be seen by others.

IMHO....

 

Until a cache is published and area is open for use.

So, for example, you are looking at an area and coincidentally so am I. You make your listing, so do I. You submit yours, so do I but I choose to hold out for 24 hours until my best friend gets here from Timbukto. Yours is published making mine null and void. Oh well.... my loss.

 

The proximity checker wouldn't tell either of us that there is a cache nearby because neither cache is active.

[Pup Patrol]

Really, what would be so terrible about publishing your own cache when you want it published?

Just off the top of my head - it would make it easy for people to "hold" areas without having a cache there, blocking people who actually have a cache in hand and want to place it at the location.

 

And it would be yet another cache category that blocks placements, but can't be seen by others.

 

That's why I said "with a time limit" up above.

 

After the review is completed, CO has a certain period of time to "publish" the listing. (Say 2 weeks, for example.) If the CO doesn't "publish" the cache, then it either gets auto-published or deleted. (I can't decide which would be the better option.)

 

And not all caches would need to be under the "cache owner to publish" thing. Ideally it would be a choice on the submission form. If you don't choose it, the cache gets published as it does now.

 

Choices and options...

 

 

B.

[+Mallah]

Really, what would be so terrible about publishing your own cache when you want it published?

Just off the top of my head - it would make it easy for people to "hold" areas without having a cache there, blocking people who actually have a cache in hand and want to place it at the location.

 

And it would be yet another cache category that blocks placements, but can't be seen by others.

AFAIK that happens now with the current system. By creating a page it 'holds' those co ords and prevents the next person from placing anything around them, even before it has been reviewed and published. Unless I read that wrong.

[+chillypenguin]

This would have prevented a very embarrassing indecent local to us, where all the caches for an event this weekend were published on Friday. And had to be quickly disabled and removed by the CO.

 

Correction, the event is NEXT weekend !!!!

Edited May 12, 2012 by chillypenguin

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Really, what would be so terrible about publishing your own cache when you want it published?

Just off the top of my head - it would make it easy for people to "hold" areas without having a cache there, blocking people who actually have a cache in hand and want to place it at the location.

 

And it would be yet another cache category that blocks placements, but can't be seen by others.

 

That's why I said "with a time limit" up above.

 

After the review is completed, CO has a certain period of time to "publish" the listing. (Say 2 weeks, for example.) If the CO doesn't "publish" the cache, then it either gets auto-published or deleted. (I can't decide which would be the better option.)

 

And not all caches would need to be under the "cache owner to publish" thing. Ideally it would be a choice on the submission form. If you don't choose it, the cache gets published as it does now.

 

Choices and options...

 

 

B.

 

I wouldn't "auto-publish". It could just go into a state in which it needs to be resubmitted for review.

 

The proximity checker wouldn't tell either of us that there is a cache nearby because neither cache is active.

 

A proximity checker could confirm that a location has been reviewed for a pending placement, effectively making the location active even if there isn't yet a container at the location. Active cache containers get removed all the time and often the cache is disabled until the container has been replaced.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

duplicate. sorry

Edited May 13, 2012 by NYPaddleCacher

[+Isonzo Karst]

This topic comes up from time to time. Some years back, when Jeremy was much more active on these forums, he said it had appeal.

 

The only way I can see to do would be for the cache to be reviewed, LOCKED in all particulars, and a timer (date/time) set.

The lead time on this would need to be thought about. Minimum of 4 or 5 days into the future, so that the cache could actually be reviewed ahead of the set publication time, and a month or so out, perhaps ?

 

Right now, you can ask to have your cache(s) held for publication on a particular day, and mostly that's going to happen.

 

The downside of building it into the cache report form might be a large increase in unpublished caches, creating totally invisible saturation issues for other hiders.

 

The upside is owner control, without the reviewer having to deal with special time publication requests.

 

The other downside would be that it almost certainly would require a reviewer to Unlock, if the cache owner had a change of mind re time/date of publication, or wanted to make any other changes.

 

I think it might be hard to know, without trying, whether the upside outweighs the downside, both from the reviewer's perspective and from the perspective of cache placers.

Right now, saturation, running into other caches (including unpublished) is clearly #1 on the issues for placing new hides. I think this has the potential to make that issue worse.

[+Prime Suspect]

Really, what would be so terrible about publishing your own cache when you want it published?

Just off the top of my head - it would make it easy for people to "hold" areas without having a cache there, blocking people who actually have a cache in hand and want to place it at the location.

 

And it would be yet another cache category that blocks placements, but can't be seen by others.

 

That's why I said "with a time limit" up above.

 

After the review is completed, CO has a certain period of time to "publish" the listing. (Say 2 weeks, for example.) If the CO doesn't "publish" the cache, then it either gets auto-published or deleted. (I can't decide which would be the better option.)

 

And not all caches would need to be under the "cache owner to publish" thing. Ideally it would be a choice on the submission form. If you don't choose it, the cache gets published as it does now.

 

Choices and options...

 

You say "2 weeks" like it's a good thing. I don't think so. Why should someone be able to grab an area (possibly one they only saw on a map, and haven't even visited yet) and prevent someone with an actual cache to hide, right then and there? And why just stop at 1 area? A new park has just opened up? One person could grab the whole park with a bunch of overlapping caches, then be free to cherry-pick the best locations at their leisure, while everyone else is shut out. No thank you.

[Pup Patrol]

You say "2 weeks" like it's a good thing. I don't think so. Why should someone be able to grab an area (possibly one they only saw on a map, and haven't even visited yet) and prevent someone with an actual cache to hide, right then and there? And why just stop at 1 area? A new park has just opened up? One person could grab the whole park with a bunch of overlapping caches, then be free to cherry-pick the best locations at their leisure, while everyone else is shut out. No thank you.

 

 

This thread is for a suggestion that cache owners be allowed to publish their listing(s) AFTER the cache(s) has (have) been through the review process and been "approved" by the reviewer.

 

If the circumstances that you've given "examples" for occur, then those caches would go through the review process, like they do now.

 

So I'm not understanding your objection, or vehemence, at all.

 

 

B.

[+Mallah]

You say "2 weeks" like it's a good thing. I don't think so. Why should someone be able to grab an area (possibly one they only saw on a map, and haven't even visited yet) and prevent someone with an actual cache to hide, right then and there? And why just stop at 1 area? A new park has just opened up? One person could grab the whole park with a bunch of overlapping caches, then be free to cherry-pick the best locations at their leisure, while everyone else is shut out. No thank you.

That can happen NOW. So the question has to be Does It Happen? The answer is obviously No or if so in a way that doesn't appear to be upsetting anyone. Your concerns are unfounded.

[+Ambient_Skater]

You say "2 weeks" like it's a good thing. I don't think so. Why should someone be able to grab an area (possibly one they only saw on a map, and haven't even visited yet) and prevent someone with an actual cache to hide, right then and there? And why just stop at 1 area? A new park has just opened up? One person could grab the whole park with a bunch of overlapping caches, then be free to cherry-pick the best locations at their leisure, while everyone else is shut out. No thank you.

Someone can already do that with disabled listings.

 

From the discussion, it sounds like many people would prefer to be given the option of publishing the cache automatically upon review or publishing it themselves after review.

[+Prime Suspect]

You say "2 weeks" like it's a good thing. I don't think so. Why should someone be able to grab an area (possibly one they only saw on a map, and haven't even visited yet) and prevent someone with an actual cache to hide, right then and there? And why just stop at 1 area? A new park has just opened up? One person could grab the whole park with a bunch of overlapping caches, then be free to cherry-pick the best locations at their leisure, while everyone else is shut out. No thank you.

That can happen NOW. So the question has to be Does It Happen? The answer is obviously No or if so in a way that doesn't appear to be upsetting anyone. Your concerns are unfounded.

No, as per the current Guidelines, you are expected to have the cache in place and ready to be found when you submit the cache for review. And once it's reviewed and passed, it's published, and finders will be soon be after it. Any delays for published must be individually requested, and may raise red flags for the reviewer. That wouldn't happen if such a 2 week delay and self-publishing (or decline of publishing if you find out you just don't like the spot) were automated into the system.

[+Prime Suspect]

You say "2 weeks" like it's a good thing. I don't think so. Why should someone be able to grab an area (possibly one they only saw on a map, and haven't even visited yet) and prevent someone with an actual cache to hide, right then and there? And why just stop at 1 area? A new park has just opened up? One person could grab the whole park with a bunch of overlapping caches, then be free to cherry-pick the best locations at their leisure, while everyone else is shut out. No thank you.

Someone can already do that with disabled listings.

Not really. If your disabled, unpublished cache is causing a proximity problem, the reviewer is going to ask you about it. If you don't respond in a reasonable time frame, and don't have a good reason why it's taking so long to put a cache in place, you're likely to lose your spot.

[+Mallah]

You say "2 weeks" like it's a good thing. I don't think so. Why should someone be able to grab an area (possibly one they only saw on a map, and haven't even visited yet) and prevent someone with an actual cache to hide, right then and there? And why just stop at 1 area? A new park has just opened up? One person could grab the whole park with a bunch of overlapping caches, then be free to cherry-pick the best locations at their leisure, while everyone else is shut out. No thank you.

That can happen NOW. So the question has to be Does It Happen? The answer is obviously No or if so in a way that doesn't appear to be upsetting anyone. Your concerns are unfounded.

No, as per the current Guidelines, you are expected to have the cache in place and ready to be found when you submit the cache for review. And once it's reviewed and passed, it's published, and finders will be soon be after it. Any delays for published must be individually requested, and may raise red flags for the reviewer. That wouldn't happen if such a 2 week delay and self-publishing (or decline of publishing if you find out you just don't like the spot) were automated into the system.

You miss the point. people can create a cache page with given co ords and not publish anything. If someone else comes along and plants a cache within .61 miles of those co ords, when they come to submit it the cache will be refused because of the first set of co ords. There are no guidelines as to how long you must place and submit a cache once you have created a page. As such this allows people to 'grab' an area as you where getting upset about.

[+Prime Suspect]

You miss the point. people can create a cache page with given co ords and not publish anything. If someone else comes along and plants a cache within .61 miles of those co ords, when they come to submit it the cache will be refused because of the first set of co ords. There are no guidelines as to how long you must place and submit a cache once you have created a page. As such this allows people to 'grab' an area as you where getting upset about.

That's not quite correct. First, it's 0.1 miles or 0.16 km, or 528 feet or 160 meters.

 

Second, just starting a cache page will not necessarily hold a location. If it looks like it just a dummy cache page used for testing and/or holding personal coins, it will probably be ignored. If it's an active cache, the reviewer will inquire as to the status of the page. If there's no reply in a reasonable period of time, the second cache will most likely be published.

 

All of which goes to my point - An automated system that both allows a long period of time between review and publishing, and also allows the CO to "tweak" coordinates prior to publishing and without additional review, will be abused by the usual small percentage of geocachers who ruin things for everyone else.

[+jlinbu]

My 2 cents: I'd like to place a series in a very small town which has only ever held two caches. I placed one of them a few months back. The other cache was archived a few weeks ago by another cacher. My new series of caches will be placed in the next few weeks. I realistically can't build and hide all 10-15 caches in one weekend if I expect them to be of upmost quality. But I'd like all of the new caches to be published simultaneously. Well, why not just send them for review once the whole series is placed? Because I would want to know before building and placing all of those caches if any of them would be problematic. If I could send them through review them before I even hop in the car I would know which spots have the reviewers blessing and which don't. Sorry for rambling, but I think I should be able to hold a pre-approved listing up for a week or two until I have my complete series placed.

[+Lil Devil]

I think I should be able to hold a pre-approved listing up for a week or two until I have my complete series placed.

You can do that now. Just specify a publish date in the Note To Reviewer at the bottom of the submission page.

[Keystone]

And you can do that, today, with no reprogramming of the website. When you explain in a reviewer note that you'd like all the caches published at once but you'll submit them gradually, just specify the desired publication date and allow a bit of extra time for the reviewer to finish looking at everything. (Submitting 25 caches on Friday evening with a request to publish on Sunday morning isn't very nice.)

[+jlinbu]

I think I should be able to hold a pre-approved listing up for a week or two until I have my complete series placed.

You can do that now. Just specify a publish date in the Note To Reviewer at the bottom of the submission page.

Well I kinda meant having it reviewed before placing too. Oh, well as long as the cache is there before the FTF searches for it no one will know for sure whether it was placed beforehand or not.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Clinbu

[+Lil Devil]

I think I should be able to hold a pre-approved listing up for a week or two until I have my complete series placed.

You can do that now. Just specify a publish date in the Note To Reviewer at the bottom of the submission page.

Well I kinda meant having it reviewed before placing too.

Keystone said it better than I, but yeah, the reviewer isn't just going to wait until your specified date to review it. She'll review it right away and let you know if there is a problem.

 

The key is to communicate with your reviewer. They're usually pretty accommodating, within reason.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Lil Devil