Post Reviewer note queue length

May 15, 2012

Hi everybody, quick question. Do I have to get 'back in line' so to speak, after getting a reviewer note on a cache I have hidden? The only reason I ask is because I am waiting for a cache to be reviewed and I have waited 3 days After the note was posted. I corrected what needed to be corrected with the listing immediately, now I am unsure what if any the issue is or iif I have any recourse. Should I email the Groundspeak people maybe? Any insight is appreciated.

7.3k · May 15, 2012

Hi everybody, quick question. Do I have to get 'back in line' so to speak, after getting a reviewer note on a cache I have hidden? The only reason I ask is because I am waiting for a cache to be reviewed and I have waited 3 days After the note was posted. I corrected what needed to be corrected with the listing immediately, now I am unsure what if any the issue is or iif I have any recourse. Should I email the Groundspeak people maybe? Any insight is appreciated.

It's best if you remain in contact with your reviewer before jumping the gun and contacting Groundspeak.

Did the reviewer give specific instructions of how to contact him/her again?

Has the cache been disabled, and needed to be enabled again?

There are a couple of Help Center articles that may be helpful:

4.5. Working With the Reviewer: communication

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=74

4.4. Working With the Reviewer: Cache Disabled or Archived

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=340

4.6. Working with the Reviewer: enable your cache after edits

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=301

4.3. Getting Your Cache Listed Quickly

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=77

Do not reply to the Geocaching.com email robot. This robot never answers email. The best way to get a message to your reviewer is by clicking on their name and using the "send message" feature, or by posting a new Reviewer note to the cache page, if that is what they requested.

B.

8.6k · May 15, 2012

In these circumstances, a reviewer will get to your submission ASAP. You do not have to "get back into line".

It is not an instant thing however, the reviewers are a busy lot. They will not drop everything they are currently engaged in to get back to yours.

Contacting Groundspeak will do you no good. The reviewers have their procedures and follow them well.

May 15, 2012

So just for clarification, the 'contact{at}Geocaching

.com' email address is a bot? And there is no way to communicate with whoever is higher up than the reviewers? I just feel like there is more to the issue than being brought to my attention from the reviewer. Can someone here (please!) contact me in private if you have the time? I would like an off-the-record opinion on something. Thank you in advance.

7.8k · May 15, 2012

And there is no way to communicate with whoever is higher up than the reviewers?

Like the others have said, nothing you've told us so far tells me it's necessary to go above the reviewer at this time. When you addressed the reviewer's concerns, did you send them a message letting them know you did, and re-enabled your cache? If either of these didn't occur, that would explain the delay. If you have any further questions, contact the reviewer first. If you don't, and just jump straight to contact@geocaching.com, they'll probably just tell you to contact the reviewer.

7.3k · May 15, 2012

So just for clarification, the 'contact{at}Geocaching

.com' email address is a bot? And there is no way to communicate with whoever is higher up than the reviewers? I just feel like there is more to the issue than being brought to my attention from the reviewer. Can someone here (please!) contact me in private if you have the time? I would like an off-the-record opinion on something. Thank you in advance.

I think you need to read those articles I posted links to. Communicating with your reviewer is explained quite clearly in those articles.

You don't need to go "higher" than your local reviewer at this point. We don't know what communications have transpired between you and the reviewer, or what process you've used to communicate with the reviewer. We're just guessing here.

If you have received notes from the reviewer, you should respond to them as instructed by the reviewer.

Read through those Help Center articles. I think they will help you a lot.

B.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Pup Patrol

May 15, 2012

Ok I'll just say it then. I believe the reviewer's motives for the delay are non-Geocaching related. Dare I say, 'making it a personal issue'. I don't feel the excessive need to complain formally, I guess there was just some hope for some third party intervention, just to get things moving along smoothly. All I'm trying to do is publish a cache. This is for everyone else; I get nothing from it. I'm familiar with the process, I have done this before for myself, and helped many people hide and list their caches. I did everything the reviewer wanted me to in their note, was thorough and prompt and polite in my second reviewer note as well.

7.3k · May 15, 2012

Ok I'll just say it then. I believe the reviewer's motives for the delay are non-Geocaching related. Dare I say, 'making it a personal issue'. I don't feel the excessive need to complain formally, I guess there was just some hope for some third party intervention, just to get things moving along smoothly. All I'm trying to do is publish a cache. This is for everyone else; I get nothing from it. I'm familiar with the process, I have done this before for myself, and helped many people hide and list their caches. I did everything the reviewer wanted me to in their note, was thorough and prompt and polite in my second reviewer note as well.

You didn't make it clear until now that you have been communicating with the reviewer.

If you have exhausted the reviewer-communication route, then you can go to Groundspeak.

Again, the link to the Help Center article:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=340

4 - If, after considerable effort to accommodate the Reviewer's requests, the cache owner is not making any further progress, the cache listing can be referred to the Appeals team. The cache listing can also be referred to the Appeals team if the cache owner does not agree that the cache listing is unpublishable, and does not want to make the requested changes.

Cache owners should inform the reviewer that the cache listing will be referred to Appeals. Often the cache listing is archived after publication is denied. The Appeals team will assess the cache listing, and take into account information provided to them by the cache owner and the volunteer reviewer.

If the cache appeal is successful, the cache listing may be un-archived. This is done at the discretion of Groundspeak. Often as appeal is successful, but only if the cache owner agrees to make requested changes to the cache listing, or answers relevant questions.

To appeal a reviewer's decision, send an email through our Help Center . Categorize the email as "Geocache Appeals". Provide the GC code of the cache, and information to explain why the Appeals team should allow publication of the cache listing.

B.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Pup Patrol

May 15, 2012

I have read everything, and I appreciate the help. I Guess I really just wanted to know from you guys, the community, if it was commonplace for a reviewer to just cease all contact. I understand the appeal process, and I'm not a jerk(believe it or not), I don't expect the reviewer to be on call 24/7 publishing caches, just had a slight concern as to where things were going due to the original reason for the 1st reviewer note. It was due to location issues, specifically "close to other work- in-progress caches" or something to that effect. If there is still an issue is he rolling his eyes at me and ignoring me? Because I can't see these other caches, it's not something I can really avoid until he let's me know. He even said to contact him Directly, on his profile link.

7.3k · May 15, 2012

He even said to contact him Directly, on his profile link.

And did you do that?

B.

May 15, 2012

*cough* GC3K81G *cough*. Don't worry it's not contagious. Lol.

May 15, 2012

Yes sir I did. Once in the reviewer note to accompany my updated co-ords, and yes in his profile link as well. I really felt like he was 'shoo-ing' me away from a large area. Whether you know the area or not, if it's appropriate/allowed I'm more than happy to post the correspondence here for you guys to see.

May 15, 2012

Thanks for your cache listing submission.

Regrettably, your cache is less than 161m/528ft from another "Work in progress" cache and a result, it would need to be relocated.

The area in question (the Trent Severn Waterway) has several caches that have been hidden with the cooperation of Parks Canada - they have not yet been published, but it would be an idea to avoid this area for a week or so... as the other caches will likely be published by then.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

CacheShadow - Volunteer Reviewer

You may contact CacheShadow by clicking here: http://www.geocaching.com/email/?guid=ad68eebc-c50f-4e05-ab60-1e8972fe2015

May 15, 2012

Sorry CacheShadow for not editing out your name, but I'm a journalist and a creature of habit.

May 15, 2012

I fail to see how any of this makes you think the reviewer has a personal issue with you, especially since you only have 5 finds. I'm befuddled... <_<

May 15, 2012

They are 5 immense finds, my friend. Blood, sweat and tears went into those 5 caches. Figuratively speaking, of course.

7.8k · May 15, 2012

I don't see anything in that reviewer note that makes it sound personal. Someone else beat you to the spot. Period. If you really want your cache to get published ASAP, relocate it away from that area. If you can wait a week as mentioned by the reviewer, you'll be able to see exactly where the other caches are, then adjust your location as required.

I fail to see how any of this makes you think the reviewer has a personal issue with you, especially since you only have 5 finds.

The strange thing is I replied to the OP in another topic a few weeks ago, and made a comment about their other hides. Their account now shows no hides. Weird.

1.2k · May 15, 2012

Thanks for your cache listing submission.

Regrettably, your cache is less than 161m/528ft from another "Work in progress" cache and a result, it would need to be relocated.

The area in question (the Trent Severn Waterway) has several caches that have been hidden with the cooperation of Parks Canada - they have not yet been published, but it would be an idea to avoid this area for a week or so... as the other caches will likely be published by then.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

CacheShadow - Volunteer Reviewer

You may contact CacheShadow by clicking here: http://www.geocaching.com/email/?guid=ad68eebc-c50f-4e05-ab60-1e8972fe2015

I see nothing personal there...

It may also help to know that there is an order for which caches "lay claim" to an area. It sound like the forest service has been working on something here...the delay in getting back to you is that he/she may be waiting to hear from the forest service as well...may even be saying something to them along the lines of "Hey, could you all confirm if you are doing this or not...we have another cacher that would love to hide something here as well."

The reviewer also states "it would be an idea to avoid this area for a week or so..." I would take this as a situation in which I am going to most likely have to wait longer than the 72 hours...

Patience...it takes a little patience...the forest service has something in the works and it is common practice (at least in my experience) that reviewers give those working on a cache area a week or two to get things in order especially if they have shown to the reviewer they are actively working on it...

7.3k · May 15, 2012

Ok I'll just say it then. I believe the reviewer's motives for the delay are non-Geocaching related. Dare I say, 'making it a personal issue'. I don't feel the excessive need to complain formally, I guess there was just some hope for some third party intervention, just to get things moving along smoothly. All I'm trying to do is publish a cache. This is for everyone else; I get nothing from it. I'm familiar with the process, I have done this before for myself, and helped many people hide and list their caches. I did everything the reviewer wanted me to in their note, was thorough and prompt and polite in my second reviewer note as well.

I have read everything, and I appreciate the help. I Guess I really just wanted to know from you guys, the community, if it was commonplace for a reviewer to just cease all contact. I understand the appeal process, and I'm not a jerk(believe it or not), I don't expect the reviewer to be on call 24/7 publishing caches, just had a slight concern as to where things were going due to the original reason for the 1st reviewer note. It was due to location issues, specifically "close to other work- in-progress caches" or something to that effect. If there is still an issue is he rolling his eyes at me and ignoring me? Because I can't see these other caches, it's not something I can really avoid until he let's me know. He even said to contact him Directly, on his profile link.

Thanks for your cache listing submission.

Regrettably, your cache is less than 161m/528ft from another "Work in progress" cache and a result, it would need to be relocated.

The area in question (the Trent Severn Waterway) has several caches that have been hidden with the cooperation of Parks Canada - they have not yet been published, but it would be an idea to avoid this area for a week or so... as the other caches will likely be published by then.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

CacheShadow - Volunteer Reviewer

You may contact CacheShadow by clicking here: http://www.geocaching.com/email/?guid=ad68eebc-c50f-4e05-ab60-1e8972fe2015

Um, that's not in any way a "personal issue".

This is the reviewer doing his job correctly, and politely might I say.

It sounds to me that you're trying to trump caches placed with the cooperation of Parks Canada? :blink:

Oh, by the way....you can edit your posts to remove the reviewer's name.

B.

May 15, 2012

No, that's not my issue. The long delay is my issue. And I'm not trying to bump any caches, I know the TSW property limits and mine is 300 (three hundred) metres from the property in question. My problem is that if it's still so close ( which is impossible) why hasn't he said anything. Reviewed after one day, 3 days since post reviewer note. What does it sound like now ?

May 15, 2012

Sounds to me like he knows the hider of the other caches, or IS the other hider, and is jealous of my spot. Funny thing is, since I am within all guidelines since relocating, not a peep. Not 'oh your still too close' (because I'm not) or a Cache Published log. Hmmmm. If only Sherlock Holmes were a real person. Or even Tin Tin and his trusty sidekick pup Snowy. They could solve this.

5.2k · May 15, 2012

Funny thing is, since I am within all guidelines since relocating, not a peep.

You seem to be making an assumption that you are not too close to another Parks Canada cache.

And it's only been 2 days. Me thinks you just need to be patient.

15.3k · May 15, 2012

Please refer to the guidelines:

Placing a large number of geocaches to be published on the same date requires advanced planning. Submit the cache listings at least ten days in advance of the requested release date. Post a Note to Reviewer on the cache listings requesting that the caches be published on the date specified. Reviewers will strive to accommodate reasonable requests.

It isn't that uncommon for reviewers to work with cache owners for days, and even weeks, before their caches are published. During that time, newer caches cannot be placed close to these work-in-progress caches.

It sounds like that's what happened in this case. Don't worry. It isn't personal.

7.3k · May 15, 2012

Sounds to me like he knows the hider of the other caches, or IS the other hider, and is jealous of my spot. Funny thing is, since I am within all guidelines since relocating, not a peep. Not 'oh your still too close' (because I'm not) or a Cache Published log. Hmmmm. If only Sherlock Holmes were a real person. Or even Tin Tin and his trusty sidekick pup Snowy. They could solve this.

I think you just crossed a line there.

Now YOU'RE making it personal.

You're now being insulting to the reviewers.

You were asked to be patient. This sounds like a Parks Canada project is in the works, and I'm pretty sure these things take time.

This is the sort of stuff that makes me wonder how the reviewers cope, without losing their patience.

B.

May 15, 2012

Well they should say something, not leave people wondering if there is still a problem or not. Talk about due diligence, or lack thereof. ( to the last poster's final comment)

7.8k · May 15, 2012

Not 'oh your still too close' (because I'm not)...

How do you know this? How do you know there isn't another unpublished cache in that area hidden by a different owner? You may think you're OK, but you can't know. Only the reviewers know.

You really need to step back and be patient. Wait until the Parks Canada caches are published, then determine whether your cache will still work in that area.

1.2k · May 15, 2012

Well they should say something, not leave people wondering if there is still a problem or not. Talk about due diligence, or lack thereof. ( to the last poster's final comment)

Keep in mind...they are also volunteers with personal lives...who knows...something may have come up that prevents him/her from getting back to you...again...a little patience is all that is being asked.

1.2k · May 15, 2012

Well they should say something, not leave people wondering if there is still a problem or not. Talk about due diligence, or lack thereof. ( to the last poster's final comment)

I think the reviewer did address this right away with the following comment...

"but it would be an idea to avoid this area for a week or so"

3.9k · May 15, 2012

Sorry CacheShadow for not editing out your name, but I'm a journalist and a creature of habit.

So what you're saying is that, as a journalist, you make a habit of copying correspondence which was sent to you on a personal basis into the public domain, without asking the sender's permission to use their message with their identity appended to it ?

I fail to see how any of this makes you think the reviewer has a personal issue with you, especially since you only have 5 finds. I'm befuddled...

And even more especially since the OP's profile shows 0 previous hidden caches. That makes me wonder how this account can have had any previous interaction with a reviewer at all.

Edited May 15, 2012 by sTeamTraen

May 15, 2012

Archer, regardless of his original comment, if I was in the same area wouldn't I have the right to know? And seeing as I own property adjacent to the land in question, it is more than fair to say that I know where the limits lie, and all I'm asking for is a little heads up on the relocation. Like I said before, under 24 hours for the first review, and now more than 3 days for the post review. I know for an absolute fact that an area cacher has had a cache published in under 8 hours! (acquaintance) So a little heads up on a post reviewed listing is Not too much too ask in my humble opinion.

May 15, 2012

Am I supposed to just assume my cache is still not acceptable where it is and just keep moving and relisting it as much as I can for a week? And since when can reviewers make arbitrary rules like that?

7.8k · May 15, 2012

Like I said before, under 24 hours for the first review, and now more than 3 days for the post review.

You've already been told by the reviewer (albeit in not so many words and not explicitly) to wait a week to see where the Parks Canada caches are. Is there some reason why your cache must be published before then, or are you just antsy to get it out there? Unless there's some time-sensitive reason why it needs to be published very soon, a few more days aren't going to affect your cache at all.

No matter how much you may think there is, there's nothing nefarious going on behind the scenes. Reviewers are chosen based on their experience and the respect of their community. Those chosen to be reviewers are the cream of the crop of the geocaching community. Alleging that they have a personal problem with you that's delaying your cache is going too far. So far, nothing any of us have seen implies anything other than the normal review issues and process.

Patience.

1.2k · May 15, 2012

Archer, regardless of his original comment, if I was in the same area wouldn't I have the right to know? And seeing as I own property adjacent to the land in question, it is more than fair to say that I know where the limits lie, and all I'm asking for is a little heads up on the relocation. Like I said before, under 24 hours for the first review, and now more than 3 days for the post review. I know for an absolute fact that an area cacher has had a cache published in under 8 hours! (acquaintance) So a little heads up on a post reviewed listing is Not too much too ask in my humble opinion.

Just because you call it your humble opinion...does not make it so...

The reviewer asked for patience...avoid the area for a week or so...no agenda...no hidden meaning...just simply wait...I have and I would in this case...not a big deal...world is not going to end because your cache hasn't been published yet...

1.2k · May 15, 2012

Am I supposed to just assume my cache is still not acceptable where it is and just keep moving and relisting it as much as I can for a week? And since when can reviewers make arbitrary rules like that?

Nope...you moved it once...now wait...he/she will get back to you as soon as possible. As others said...and the reviewer pointed out...and you acknowledge...there is something else going on in that general area...

May 15, 2012

Not since the relocation. That is the whole point. I've moved it the appropriate distance. Regardless whether I have or not, it's his job to review it just to be sure. My point is, he hasn't told me yea or nay. You can't use the excuse he's too busy with the other caches if he's already responded once. I would for sure just wait out the week and think nothing of it if it had a chance of not being close enough, but it is a pristine area for a cache and he is jealous that I got to the spot first. Not my fault no one had a cache in there already....

7.3k · May 15, 2012

Not since the relocation. That is the whole point. I've moved it the appropriate distance. Regardless whether I have or not, it's his job to review it just to be sure. My point is, he hasn't told me yea or nay. You can't use the excuse he's too busy with the other caches if he's already responded once. I would for sure just wait out the week and think nothing of it if it had a chance of not being close enough, but it is a pristine area for a cache and he is jealous that I got to the spot first. Not my fault no one had a cache in there already....

So once again, you're accusing the reviewer of "jealousy" and "personal reasons" for not publishing your cache fast enough to suit you.

Ok.

B.

1.8k · May 15, 2012

Not since the relocation. That is the whole point. I've moved it the appropriate distance. Regardless whether I have or not, it's his job to review it just to be sure. My point is, he hasn't told me yea or nay. You can't use the excuse he's too busy with the other caches if he's already responded once. I would for sure just wait out the week and think nothing of it if it had a chance of not being close enough, but it is a pristine area for a cache and he is jealous that I got to the spot first. Not my fault no one had a cache in there already....

It's possible that your reviewer processed all the caches he or she had in their queue, then shut down their computer for the weekend so they could do whatever they had planned in their personal life. They may very well have not seen your note yet. It's nothing personal; it's just that they may have not opened up the review queue since then.

If this happened on the 15th, it's only been two days, so there's no need to hit the panic button yet. If Thursday comes around and there's been no action, then there might be something wrong, but I highly doubt that a "personal issue" is what it is.

May 15, 2012

Thank you Cheeseheads, for a mature response. In fact, the only one. Such a shame to see so many other people enjoying trolling for the fun of it. What's it like having a chip on the shoulder everyone else? Heh.

2k · May 15, 2012

Thank you Cheeseheads, for a mature response. In fact, the only one. Such a shame to see so many other people enjoying trolling for the fun of it. What's it like having a chip on the shoulder everyone else? Heh.

:blink:

3.8k · May 15, 2012

A bit impatient are we? ONE it says wait about a week, which you have NOT done. You are still trying to place the cache and therefore NOT following directions. TWO he is dealing with Parks Canada, As far as I'm concerned since so many(assuming a thousand or so) caches could be on THEIR property, and the have the power to shut down ALL geocaching on their land, they are a bit more important. THREE what if the reviewer happened to get sick or injured? Maybe his computer broke. This is not a paying job for them, so there are lots of other reasons he/she may not be able to get back to you. And another thing, you mention something about your the cache placed on your property, how are the reviewers supposed to know who the property belongs to? They get the same-possibly outdated maps we do, and I've never seen anything on Google earth to indicate property, have you?

3.8k · May 15, 2012

Oh ya, almost forgot. Quit your wining!!

8.3k · May 15, 2012

Thank you Cheeseheads, for a mature response. In fact, the only one. Such a shame to see so many other people enjoying trolling for the fun of it. What's it like having a chip on the shoulder everyone else? Heh.

Thank you for the nice read today. I have enjoyed the many twists and turns. Do you mind if I put it in my entitlement folder? I think it would serve as a nice example. By the way, the only thing different on the Cheeseheads post when compared to many others is is the moderator tag. Perhaps that helps you read the post better.

May 15, 2012

Thank you Cheeseheads, for a mature response. In fact, the only one. Such a shame to see so many other people enjoying trolling for the fun of it. What's it like having a chip on the shoulder everyone else? Heh.

Their response was the same as everyone else... wait a while, and it doesn't appear to be personal. That is the same thing everyone has been telling you. To answer your question: I don't know. Looks like you're the one who could answer that best.

If I was that reviewer, I would not look at your cache again until "a week or so" has passed by, just like he told you to wait. He will most likely take another look at your listing around that time frame. Doesn't matter if you posted a note, or fixed the problems. He said to wait because of prior activity and that is what you should do. He has done his job very well, and politely, too.

Answer this question: why do you need a response so fast? It is not uncommon for reviewers to not get back with you for a week even when they haven't told you to wait that long. Patience.

1.2k · May 15, 2012

Thanks for your cache listing submission.Regrettably, your cache is less than 161m/528ft from another "Work in progress" cache and a result, it would need to be relocated.The area in question (the Trent Severn Waterway) has several caches that have been hidden with the cooperation of Parks Canada - they have not yet been published, but it would be an idea to avoid this area for a week or so... as the other caches will likely be published by then.If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.CacheShadow - Volunteer ReviewerYou may contact CacheShadow by clicking here: http://www.geocaching.com/email/?guid=ad68eebc-c50f-4e05-ab60-1e8972fe2015
I see nothing personal there...It may also help to know that there is an order for which caches "lay claim" to an area. It sound like the forest service has been working on something here...the delay in getting back to you is that he/she may be waiting to hear from the forest service as well...may even be saying something to them along the lines of "Hey, could you all confirm if you are doing this or not...we have another cacher that would love to hide something here as well."The reviewer also states "it would be an idea to avoid this area for a week or so..." I would take this as a situation in which I am going to most likely have to wait longer than the 72 hours...Patience...it takes a little patience...the forest service has something in the works and it is common practice (at least in my experience) that reviewers give those working on a cache area a week or two to get things in order especially if they have shown to the reviewer they are actively working on it...

Thank you Cheeseheads, for a mature response. In fact, the only one. Such a shame to see so many other people enjoying trolling for the fun of it. What's it like having a chip on the shoulder everyone else? Heh.

...

10.1k · May 15, 2012

Thank you Cheeseheads, for a mature response. In fact, the only one. Such a shame to see so many other people enjoying trolling for the fun of it. What's it like having a chip on the shoulder everyone else? Heh.

Think you missed who has the chip on the shoulder. If the reviewer tells you to wait a week, wait a week. Seems fairly simple. Pointing this out hardly qualifies as trolling. Trolling is complaining that your reviewer has a person issue, when s/he has told you that something is taking place with Parques Canada, and you should wait a week. Take deep breaths. Listen to your reviewer. Wait calmly for a week. Much better for your blood pressure too! Yes. I know the anxiety of getting a cache reviewed (even after seven years hiding caches.) Did I mentio the time my reviewer eloped, and went to the Lily Pad for his honeymoon, and one of my caches took three weeks to get reviewed? Breathe deeply. Om mani padmi hum. And wait a week, like your reviewer suggested!

1.2k · May 15, 2012

Not since the relocation. That is the whole point. I've moved it the appropriate distance. Regardless whether I have or not, it's his job to review it just to be sure. My point is, he hasn't told me yea or nay. You can't use the excuse he's too busy with the other caches if he's already responded once. I would for sure just wait out the week and think nothing of it if it had a chance of not being close enough, but it is a pristine area for a cache and he is jealous that I got to the spot first. Not my fault no one had a cache in there already....

It's possible that your reviewer processed all the caches he or she had in their queue, then shut down their computer for the weekend so they could do whatever they had planned in their personal life. They may very well have not seen your note yet. It's nothing personal; it's just that they may have not opened up the review queue since then.

If this happened on the 15th, it's only been two days, so there's no need to hit the panic button yet. If Thursday comes around and there's been no action, then there might be something wrong, but I highly doubt that a "personal issue" is what it is.

Thanks for your cache listing submission.Regrettably, your cache is less than 161m/528ft from another "Work in progress" cache and a result, it would need to be relocated.The area in question (the Trent Severn Waterway) has several caches that have been hidden with the cooperation of Parks Canada - they have not yet been published, but it would be an idea to avoid this area for a week or so... as the other caches will likely be published by then.If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.CacheShadow - Volunteer ReviewerYou may contact CacheShadow by clicking here: http://www.geocaching.com/email/?guid=ad68eebc-c50f-4e05-ab60-1e8972fe2015
I see nothing personal there...It may also help to know that there is an order for which caches "lay claim" to an area. It sound like the forest service has been working on something here...the delay in getting back to you is that he/she may be waiting to hear from the forest service as well...may even be saying something to them along the lines of "Hey, could you all confirm if you are doing this or not...we have another cacher that would love to hide something here as well."The reviewer also states "it would be an idea to avoid this area for a week or so..." I would take this as a situation in which I am going to most likely have to wait longer than the 72 hours...Patience...it takes a little patience...the forest service has something in the works and it is common practice (at least in my experience) that reviewers give those working on a cache area a week or two to get things in order especially if they have shown to the reviewer they are actively working on it...

Thank you Cheeseheads, for a mature response. In fact, the only one. Such a shame to see so many other people enjoying trolling for the fun of it. What's it like having a chip on the shoulder everyone else? Heh.

...

1.3k · May 15, 2012

Like my Mother used to say, "Patience is a virgin." Patience was her spinster sister but you get the point.

May 15, 2012

In my reviewing area, when the State Parks roll out their annual adventure series, it may take a little while to get all the pages edited, coordinates confirmed, and ready to release. During that period of time, I advise those who inadvertently encroach on the pending series to be patient until the roll-out. Making small moves during this time may not be helpful and the cache owner may find himself encroaching on the same or another cache in the series. Possibly that's the kind of thing going on here. I recognize that it's exciting to hide a cache. but I encourage you to take the good advice offered in the thread and exercise patience.

19k · May 15, 2012

After reading the entire thread, then seeing the comment about everybody but the mod trolling, I am very hesitant to post anything, but I will. In my 7 years of hiding caches, I have worked with at least 4 reviewers, and I am familiar with quite a few others through the forums, and I will tell you that I have not known one that did not show the highest professionalism when it came to their reviewer "job". *If* (and that is a HUGE "if") your reviewer had a personal issue with you, you can be assured that it would be addressed in a mature way in a dialog with you. You would not be simply given the cold shoulder, no matter what the issue was. You can take that to the bank.

An apology about your trolling comment would seem to be very appropriate to those that posted before me, by the way. You were being given some very straightforward advice that you apparently didn't want to hear. I'd thank them, if I were you.

May 16, 2012

Thank you Cheeseheads, for a mature response. In fact, the only one. Such a shame to see so many other people enjoying trolling for the fun of it. What's it like having a chip on the shoulder everyone else? Heh.

Thank you for the nice read today. I have enjoyed the many twists and turns. Do you mind if I put it in my entitlement folder? I think it would serve as a nice example. By the way, the only thing different on the Cheeseheads post when compared to many others is is the moderator tag. Perhaps that helps you read the post better.

+1

After reading the entire thread, then seeing the comment about everybody but the mod trolling, I am very hesitant to post anything, but I will. In my 7 years of hiding caches, I have worked with at least 4 reviewers, and I am familiar with quite a few others through the forums, and I will tell you that I have not known one that did not show the highest professionalism when it came to their reviewer "job". *If* (and that is a HUGE "if") your reviewer had a personal issue with you, you can be assured that it would be addressed in a mature way in a dialog with you. You would not be simply given the cold shoulder, no matter what the issue was. You can take that to the bank.

An apology about your trolling comment would seem to be very appropriate to those that posted before me, by the way. You were being given some very straightforward advice that you apparently didn't want to hear. I'd thank them, if I were you.

+1

In short, wow. Entertaining and informative thread, even if it didn't quite get through to some parties as intended.

Post Reviewer note queue length

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment