Reviewers

June 26, 2012

I think being able to choose who reviews and publishes your caches would be a fine addition, I think you should have a choice, not being reliant on one reviewer, wondering whether or not your cache will ever get published....

Just a thought...

8.3k · June 26, 2012

I think being able to choose who reviews and publishes your caches would be a fine addition, I think you should have a choice, not being reliant on one reviewer, wondering whether or not your cache will ever get published....

Just a thought...

Having a bit of a dust up with our reviewer, are we?

8.6k · June 26, 2012

I think Groundspeak should run it their way, it's their business.

But..... that's just what I think..........

June 26, 2012

Are there enough reviewers to have a choice?

9.2k · June 26, 2012

Maybe the reviewers should be allowed to pick and choose whose caches they review...

In the UK, I don't think there's much to choose between them. All under the watchful eye of Deci.

19k · June 26, 2012

What exactly is the problem that you are trying to fix with this solution of yours?

June 26, 2012

Reviewers are all meant to review caches to the same standard, so having a specific reviewer look (or not look) at your cache shouldn't make any difference. If you feel that a reviewer has not handled your cache submission appropriately, you can write to reviewers@geocaching.com and ask Groundspeak to look into the matter.

June 26, 2012

I think Groundspeak should run it their way, it's their business.But..... that's just what I think..........

Funny, I thought this section of the forum was titled "Discussions and Suggestions" Suggestion being the operative word here.....

15.4k · June 26, 2012

I think Groundspeak should run it their way, it's their business.But..... that's just what I think..........
Funny, I thought this section of the forum was titled "Discussions and Suggestions" Suggestion being the operative word here.....

Discussions is an operative word too. Discussions are not limited to those who agree with others' suggestions.

5k · June 26, 2012

Why do you feel that one reviewer might never publish your cache while another would? If you have a situation where you think a reviewer may have made a mistake, there is a process that can be followed which starts with a peer review between all of the reviewers.

2.7k · June 26, 2012

I think Groundspeak should run it their way, it's their business.But..... that's just what I think..........

Funny, I thought this section of the forum was titled "Discussions and Suggestions" Suggestion being the operative word here.....

This is a discussion .... about a bad suggestion. Bad being the operative word here.....

2.4k · June 27, 2012

What exactly is the problem that you are trying to fix with this solution of yours?

+1

did you have an answer for this question?

8.6k · June 27, 2012

I think Groundspeak should run it their way, it's their business.But..... that's just what I think..........

Funny, I thought this section of the forum was titled "Discussions and Suggestions" Suggestion being the operative word here.....

More funny yet 'cuz I see an opinion in the opening post -- not a "suggestion", so that cannot be the operative word here.

Given that fact, I took it as a discussion, instead. Hence my opinion was intended to be a part of that discussion.

1.7k · June 27, 2012

It IS possible anyway, just select a different region when you send the cache for review. Chances are, the reviewer for that region will deal with it but just say that the region is wrong and correct it.

Mark

3k · June 27, 2012

Most reviewers for a specific area have knowledge of the local laws and park regulations and land policies, and are better equipped to review for their own areas. Your cache will go in the same queue as everyone else in your area and will be reviewed within 7 days.

If that reviewer is busy, another can step in and fill the void. The more information you give the reviewer, the faster your cache can be published.

If you have a problem, write to Groundspeak. The reviewers are volunteers and were chosen for the job. They all follow the same principles and practices of cache reviewing, but have tge special local knowledge needed for their region, which is why they all review in their own areas.

1.3k · June 27, 2012

It IS possible anyway, just select a different region when you send the cache for review. Chances are, the reviewer for that region will deal with it but just say that the region is wrong and correct it.

Mark

Maybe if everyone submitted their caches to Finland we could all get timestamped "Published" logs. The reviewers there do it consistently whereas it has been indicated that it would be a hardship for ours:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=286676&view=findpost&p=4914066

2.7k · June 27, 2012

Maybe if everyone submitted their caches to Finland we could all get timestamped "Published" logs. The reviewers there do it consistently whereas it has been indicated that it would be a hardship for ours:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=286676&view=findpost&p=4914066

Cache owners already have the ability to do that post publication. The only interest I would have in this is to see who might have illegibly sneaked into a dusk to dawn area to grab a stupid FTF.

1.3k · June 27, 2012

Cache owners already have the ability to do that post publication. The only interest I would have in this is to see who might have illegibly sneaked into a dusk to dawn area to grab a stupid FTF.

That's another good reason to have this feature. It shouldn't be up to the reviewer or the CO to add the timestamp; the system should do it automatically. It would also allow for better troubleshooting of alleged lag between publication and notification.

But we digress. I was using this as an example of the consistent inconsistency between reviewers in different areas, despite the allegation of working from the same set of guidelines.

1.7k · June 27, 2012

...but have tge special local knowledge needed for their region, which is why they all review in their own areas.

Here in the UK they reviewers specifically do NOT review their own areas!

Mark

3k · June 28, 2012

...but have tge special local knowledge needed for their region, which is why they all review in their own areas.

Here in the UK they reviewers specifically do NOT review their own areas!

Mark

But I'm sure each one must be well aware of the land policies in the region they review, and someone should not choose the reviewer from, say the Pacific Northwest, to review their cache. That would be ludicrous.

(Edited because of typo)

Edited June 28, 2012 by Planet

14k · June 28, 2012

...but have tge special local knowledge needed for their region, which is why they all review in their own areas.

Here in the UK they reviewers specifically do NOT review their own areas!

Mark

That's two different things. Reviewers can have specific knowledge for the region in which they review caches. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have to live in that region.

8.3k · June 28, 2012

...but have tge special local knowledge needed for their region, which is why they all review in their own areas.

Here in the UK they reviewers specifically do NOT review their own areas!

Mark

But I'm sure each one must be well aware of the land policies in the region they review, and someone should not choose the reviewer from, say the Pacific Northwest, to review their cache. That would be ludicrous.

(Edited because of typo)

For a long time the reviewer for British Columbia was mtn-man, a resident of Atlanta Georgia. Are you saying this is ludicrous?

1k · June 29, 2012

I think Groundspeak should run it their way, it's their business.But..... that's just what I think..........

Funny, I thought this section of the forum was titled "Discussions and Suggestions" Suggestion being the operative word here.....

More funny yet 'cuz I see an opinion in the opening post -- not a "suggestion", so that cannot be the operative word here.

Given that fact, I took it as a discussion, instead. Hence my opinion was intended to be a part of that discussion.

You people are ridiculous. Obviously every topic in this forum is posted with the opinion that the site would be improved if the suggestion was implemented. So it's really an entire forum of people telling Groundspeak how to run their business.

It IS possible anyway, just select a different region when you send the cache for review. Chances are, the reviewer for that region will deal with it but just say that the region is wrong and correct it.

Mark

There's your solution.

3k · June 29, 2012

...but have the special local knowledge needed for their region, which is why they all review in their own areas.

Here in the UK they reviewers specifically do NOT review their own areas!

Mark

But I'm sure each one must be well aware of the land policies in the region they review, and someone should not choose the reviewer from, say the Pacific Northwest, to review their cache. That would be ludicrous.

(Edited because of typo)

For a long time the reviewer for British Columbia was mtn-man, a resident of Atlanta Georgia. Are you saying this is ludicrous?

That's because it took a long time groom a whole world full of volunteers. Now they have a whole lot more help. There used to only be a handful, because there weren't so many caches.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Planet

7.8k · June 29, 2012

...but have the special local knowledge needed for their region, which is why they all review in their own areas.

Here in the UK they reviewers specifically do NOT review their own areas!

Mark

But I'm sure each one must be well aware of the land policies in the region they review, and someone should not choose the reviewer from, say the Pacific Northwest, to review their cache. That would be ludicrous.

(Edited because of typo)

For a long time the reviewer for British Columbia was mtn-man, a resident of Atlanta Georgia. Are you saying this is ludicrous?

That's because it took a long time groom a whole world full of volunteers. Now they have a whole lot more help. There used to only be a handful, because there weren't so many caches.

And even though mtn-man isn't from around here, he still had a good knowledge of the policies and regional issues for the area he was reviewing.

3k · June 29, 2012

Even though mtn-man is a volunteer, I still see him as one if our founding fathers of geocaching. He's done so much for this game, and he's such a nice guy. I cached with him in the early years. He travels a lot.

I hope he doesn't read this and get a big head.

1k · June 29, 2012

Back to the original posters request..

Typically it is the reviewers that decide how to divide up an area. Some take first come first serve, some pick areas, some pick days of the week, or perhaps what color of shirt they are wearing.

Plus some take time off for vacation, scout camps, family get togethers, holidays, or burn out time, and the other reviewers step in.

Other areas only have one reviewer, a out of the area reviewer only steps in when they are overloaded, or need time off (see above).

So in essence.. I don't think it would be practical in most areas.

5.2k · July 4, 2012

Here's another idea. Hide caches that conform with the guidelines. Then you wouldn't have a row with your reviewer in the first place.

7.9k · July 5, 2012

That is just crazy!

Insanity I say!!

And I suppose we should add a reviewer note to cover any and all possible gray areas while we are at it?

:lol:

7.8k · July 5, 2012

Here's another idea. Hide caches that conform with the guidelines. Then you wouldn't have a row with your reviewer in the first place.

But then the only thing the reviewers would need to do is push the "Publish" button, and they could easily be replaced with a drinking bird:

18.9k · July 5, 2012

I think my caches have been reviewed/published by about 16 or more different individuals over the years. Some were published in less than an hour. Some took as much as 12 days.

Have patience.

1.7k · July 6, 2012

...Hide caches that conform with the guidelines. Then you wouldn't have a row with your reviewer in the first place.

If ONLY that were true!!!

:mad:

Mark

July 11, 2012

Thank you BlueRajah a concise reply that explains the situation, another suggestion, if the reviewer was to review your cache but not publish it leaving the cache owner to publish once given the go ahead by the reviewer, reason for this suggestion, this way you could plan your cache, work out where it is to go without placing the physical cache so if the reviewer says you cant place it there because, for example, it is within 500ft of the last piece in a puzzle cache (which doesn't show up on the map) you haven't wasted time and effort in first placing the cache and secondly retrieving it....

My last cache took a lot of effort,time and not least money to construct, a bit more than another 35mm film pot or clip lock box shoved in a bush, something which the cachers around here seem to appreciate, but because the way the system works I now have to go retrieve it because it is to close to an existing cache that I had no way of knowing existed. If the review system was as I suggest I could have done the online bit, had it reviewed, the reviewer would have said Sorry chap it's to close to another cache, I could then have re planned it and come up with a solution without all the time effort ect of physically placing the cache...

July 11, 2012

Thank you BlueRajah a concise reply that explains the situation, another suggestion, if the reviewer was to review your cache but not publish it leaving the cache owner to publish once given the go ahead by the reviewer, reason for this suggestion, this way you could plan your cache, work out where it is to go without placing the physical cache so if the reviewer says you cant place it there because, for example, it is within 500ft of the last piece in a puzzle cache (which doesn't show up on the map) you haven't wasted time and effort in first placing the cache and secondly retrieving it....

My last cache took a lot of effort,time and not least money to construct, a bit more than another 35mm film pot or clip lock box shoved in a bush, something which the cachers around here seem to appreciate, but because the way the system works I now have to go retrieve it because it is to close to an existing cache that I had no way of knowing existed. If the review system was as I suggest I could have done the online bit, had it reviewed, the reviewer would have said Sorry chap it's to close to another cache, I could then have re planned it and come up with a solution without all the time effort ect of physically placing the cache...

That system is already in place. Write up the page, submit it to the queue (or send the reviewer an email with the GC Code) along with a reviewer note for him/her to check for proximity and let you know if the spot is a go/no go. Either way, the reviewer let you know and disable the page again. If the spot is clear, go place your container and re-enable back to the queue when it's all ready to go. If not, you'll have to find another spot. Doing it this way you didn't have to waste time placing the container and then having to go pick it up after being told no.

July 11, 2012

That system is already in place. Write up the page, submit it to the queue (or send the reviewer an email with the GC Code) along with a reviewer note for him/her to check for proximity and let you know if the spot is a go/no go. Either way, the reviewer let you know and disable the page again. If the spot is clear, go place your container and re-enable back to the queue when it's all ready to go. If not, you'll have to find another spot. Doing it this way you didn't have to waste time placing the container and then having to go pick it up after being told no.

Yeah, had the same thought, unfortunately the reviewer either didn't read the note or chose to ignore it and went ahead and published, so people hungry for an FTF went hunting something that wasn't there...

5k · July 11, 2012

That system is already in place. Write up the page, submit it to the queue (or send the reviewer an email with the GC Code) along with a reviewer note for him/her to check for proximity and let you know if the spot is a go/no go. Either way, the reviewer let you know and disable the page again. If the spot is clear, go place your container and re-enable back to the queue when it's all ready to go. If not, you'll have to find another spot. Doing it this way you didn't have to waste time placing the container and then having to go pick it up after being told no.

Yeah, had the same thought, unfortunately the reviewer either didn't read the note or chose to ignore it and went ahead and published, so people hungry for an FTF went hunting something that wasn't there...

Well, stuff happens and sometimes things fall through the cracks. That doesn't mean that that particular reviewer is not responsible and you should have the ability to pick the one that you want.

What Groundspeak needs is a way to automate the process that DadOf6Furrballs outlined. This would make it faster for us and give the reviewers more time to publish caches. I understand that it is the current process but I have never really felt comfortable "pestering" my reviewer and engaging in a game of "Battleship" to get my cache into a clear spot.

July 14, 2012

Here in the UK they reviewers specifically do NOT review their own areas!

Mark

Actually in the UK and Ireland 15 out of the 17 reviewers we have, review the areas they live in

Edited July 14, 2012 by castagnari

1.5k · July 19, 2012

You plot the coords, place the cache, write up your cache page and submit.

You might once in a while run afoul of a puzzle cache final, but so be it. It's just part of the game.

If it really concerns you, write the reviewer in your area and verify the location.

I like it that I never know who's going to review my caches.

Actually, one of the local reviewers happens to be a friend, and I never knew it until just recently. And he has kept me out of trouble as often as any of the other reviewers for our area, and I would expect no less. Any of the reviewers in our area are as impartial, and fair as you could ever want, so I see no value at all in being able to select which one to have review a cache.

July 27, 2012

In reading all the posts here, It sounds like a good solution would be to change the process to add a co-ord pre-qualification piece. I am getting ready to place my first Cache and this has helped me. I have been doing some research on the caches in the area, but like mentioned I was un aware of a leg of a Puzzle cache, it was the next tree over from where i was going to place mine. I only found this out because I began that particular puzzle cache still havent completed it.

1.8k · July 30, 2012

IMHO, bad idea. I wouldn't want to see publication of new caches turn into a popularity contest. Not to mention the headache for Groundspeak of ensuring all reviewers added are up to snuff on guidelines and setting up permissions in the database.

Let's leave it as it is, thank you.

Reviewers

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

Join the conversation