I want another reviewer

[DitoCujoPupz]

hi,

its the second time that the reviewer "btreviewer" denied the publication of my geocache by invented reasons. I demand that another reviewer review the page of my geocache. I am sure that is in conformity.

 

GC46BX1 "Red One"

[+Isonzo Karst]

Use appeals if you believe your reviewer is in error.

 

 

If you need to appeal the decisions of our reviewers, contact Groundspeak and categorize your message for the Appeals group. We look forward to assisting you.

[+Getzie family]

And try not to fight your battles at this forum but use Email.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Getzie family

[Pup Patrol]

hi,

its the second time that the reviewer "btreviewer" denied the publication of my geocache by invented reasons. I demand that another reviewer review the page of my geocache. I am sure that is in conformity.

 

GC46BX1 "Red One"

 

We can't see an unpublished cache page, so giving us the GC code is pointless.

 

Curious as to why you chose the "Geocaching and Education > General" forum to post this thread, which will probably be locked soon.

 

 

 

B.

[+markcase]

Moving topic to appropriate forum. Not an education topic.

 

Mark Case

Education Forum Moderator

[+ras_oscar]

Reviewers are volunteer Geocachers, just like you. Flaming them in the forums is unlikely to make them more responsive. If you want our advice, please post details of the cache and the reasons given for non-publication. While forum members cannot get your reviewer decision reversed, we may be able to assist you in modifying your cache to resolve your reviewer's issues.

Edited March 4, 2013 by ras_oscar

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Demand a new reviewer, eh? I think your position may be a little shaky for demanding.

 

But then, I have found it easier to work with a reviewer rather than against them. If you wire yourself into a "no alternative" position while trying to place a cache, you are only setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

Calling a reviewer out in the forums isn't going to help you in the least. As suggested, your path to satisfaction (if any) is directly to Groundspeak. Not here.

[BlueRajah]

I just looked over your two caches to see what you were discussing.

 

Had I been your reviewer the same things would have happened. 161m (528') is required, I need all the waypoints, no commercial caches, no caches close to schools, and unless it is your property paint would not be used to help mark cache locations.

 

As they are all in the guidelines it appears your reviewer did exactly what they were supposed to do.

Edited March 4, 2013 by BlueRajah

[+Semper Questio]

cue Paul Harvey

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

cue Paul Harvey

Glad you saved me the trouble... I thought the same.

 

Knew it would come out sooner or later (the "problem(s)" with the caches).

 

EDIT: Hadn't thought about the paint markers though. Have noticed a fair number in Portugal do did that.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[Keystone]

I agree with Blue Rajah's list of guideline issues. It was fun translating from Portuguese and watching the story unfold.

 

In addition, a second Portuguse reviewer already took a second look at the cache, in response to the OP's "demand" on the cache page. The second reviewer reached the same conclusion, and told the OP about their right to appeal to Groundspeak.

 

So, I guess I suck, too, because I would have handled this review the same way.

[+Semper Questio]

I agree with Blue Rajah's list of guideline issues. It was fun translating from Portuguese and watching the story unfold.

 

In addition, a second Portuguse reviewer already took a second look at the cache, in response to the OP's "demand" on the cache page. The second reviewer reached the same conclusion, and told the OP about their right to appeal to Groundspeak.

 

So, I guess I suck, too, because I would have handled this review the same way.

 

I DEMAND you replace yourself!

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

The point of bringing a reviewers name out is so that others can see if this is a track record and if it necessary for the community to come together. Many reviewers have lasted much longer than their due because the forum tends to ban or suspend users for even mentioning it. Moderators also aren't consistent. I got a seven day suspension for making a general joking statement about reviewers, yet here (thankfully) the discussion continues.

 

In other words, transparency is not always the priority with Groudspeak unfortunately.

 

There is also a serious lack of reviewers. You'd think for being unpaid positions, they'd have about 100 more reviewers. Many just are overwhelmed and not able to give the attention needed to assist cachers in fixing issues and coming up with solutions.

Edited March 4, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+Legochugglers]

hi,

its the second time that the reviewer "btreviewer" denied the publication of my geocache by invented reasons. I demand that another reviewer review the page of my geocache. I am sure that is in conformity.

 

GC46BX1 "Red One"

If you want to appeal sensibly and constructively then you need to follow the correct procedure.

 

If you want the forum to give a spectrum of views on your grievances then you will need to provide some more info.

 

I know where I would go!

[+cerberus1]

hi,

its the second time that the reviewer "btreviewer" denied the publication of my geocache by invented reasons. I demand that another reviewer review the page of my geocache. I am sure that is in conformity.

 

GC46BX1 "Red One"

I'm curious why you didn't take this to the Portugal forums for discussion.

"My reviewer sucks" in English on the international forums possibly could go unnoticed by people in your community for some time.

- Although I bet it's noticed now...

[Mr.Yuck]

The point of bringing a reviewers name out is so that others can see if this is a track record and if it necessary for the community to come together. Many reviewers have lasted much longer than their due because the forum tends to ban or suspend users for even mentioning it. Moderators also aren't consistent. I got a seven day suspension for making a general joking statement about reviewers, yet here (thankfully) the discussion continues.

 

 

One of my bans (I think only 3 days) was for making what I still insist was a good natured joke about a reviewer. I don't remember what it was. I could look it up, as I save all "Congratulations, you're banned" PM's but no need for that.

 

OK, for the OP here. He/She needs to calm down, and write a well-thought out, non confrontational email to appeals@geocaching.com. I'm going to guess you lose 99% of the time, but I did once help a then teenaged cache owner successfully win a cache placement appeal in 2005 or 2006. Who knows though, maybe he was the only one.

[+T.D.M.22]

The point of bringing a reviewers name out is so that others can see if this is a track record and if it necessary for the community to come together. Many reviewers have lasted much longer than their due because the forum tends to ban or suspend users for even mentioning it. Moderators also aren't consistent. I got a seven day suspension for making a general joking statement about reviewers, yet here (thankfully) the discussion continues.

 

In other words, transparency is not always the priority with Groudspeak unfortunately.

 

There is also a serious lack of reviewers. You'd think for being unpaid positions, they'd have about 100 more reviewers. Many just are overwhelmed and not able to give the attention needed to assist cachers in fixing issues and coming up with solutions.

 

It has nothing to do with transparency... It's that they are all out to get you. It has to do with the Illuminati, General Motors, and the Colorado Avalanche. [/sarcasm]

 

Come on everyone is so quick to judge those in power, yet I'll bet you couldn't even handle half of what the reviewers do....

[4wheelin_fool]

I demand that the OP read the guidelines again, and explain which ones should not pertain to him, as well as why.

 

Or, perhaps the OP should move to California or Germany.

[+Dgwphotos]

I agree with Blue Rajah's list of guideline issues. It was fun translating from Portuguese and watching the story unfold.

 

In addition, a second Portuguse reviewer already took a second look at the cache, in response to the OP's "demand" on the cache page. The second reviewer reached the same conclusion, and told the OP about their right to appeal to Groundspeak.

 

So, I guess I suck, too, because I would have handled this review the same way.

 

I DEMAND you replace yourself!

Reviewer, replace thy self!

Edited March 4, 2013 by Dgwphotos

[+hzoi]

Moving topic to appropriate forum. Not an education topic.

 

I don't know, seems there was a lesson or two to be learned here.

[+Beach_hut]

The point of bringing a reviewers name out is so that others can see if this is a track record and if it necessary for the community to come together. Many reviewers have lasted much longer than their due because the forum tends to ban or suspend users for even mentioning it. Moderators also aren't consistent. I got a seven day suspension for making a general joking statement about reviewers, yet here (thankfully) the discussion continues.

 

In other words, transparency is not always the priority with Groudspeak unfortunately.

 

There is also a serious lack of reviewers. You'd think for being unpaid positions, they'd have about 100 more reviewers. Many just are overwhelmed and not able to give the attention needed to assist cachers in fixing issues and coming up with solutions.

 

Or alternatively, there's a shortage of willing applicants - if they're just going to get flamed in the forums for doing their unpaid job correctly.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Beach_hut

[+ArcherDragoon]

The point of bringing a reviewers name out is so that others can see if this is a track record and if it necessary for the community to come together. Many reviewers have lasted much longer than their due because the forum tends to ban or suspend users for even mentioning it. Moderators also aren't consistent. I got a seven day suspension for making a general joking statement about reviewers, yet here (thankfully) the discussion continues.

 

In other words, transparency is not always the priority with Groudspeak unfortunately.

 

There is also a serious lack of reviewers. You'd think for being unpaid positions, they'd have about 100 more reviewers. Many just are overwhelmed and not able to give the attention needed to assist cachers in fixing issues and coming up with solutions.

Ah...yes...Mob Justice...always the way to go...

 

If one has issues with a reviewer...they should always be taken to Groundspeak...not aired in the forums.

[+cheech gang]

My caches suck, but my reviewer publishes them anyway.

[+NCreviewer]

I agree with Blue Rajah's list of guideline issues. It was fun translating from Portuguese and watching the story unfold.

 

In addition, a second Portuguse reviewer already took a second look at the cache, in response to the OP's "demand" on the cache page. The second reviewer reached the same conclusion, and told the OP about their right to appeal to Groundspeak.

 

So, I guess I suck, too, because I would have handled this review the same way.

You guys forgot to mention that linking to a geocachingspoilers video that shows other placements that do not meet the guidelines isn't a very strong defense.

 

"I saw it on the internet, so it must be true".

 

Bonjour?

[+BCandMsKitty]

WOW

 

This is the most blatant troll thread I've seen in a long time!

[+Viajero Perdido]

You'd think for being unpaid positions, they'd have about 100 more reviewers.

You think it's easy to find 100 people willing to work hard for free?

 

You find the most boggling stuff on the internet...

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

You'd think for being unpaid positions, they'd have about 100 more reviewers.

You think it's easy to find 100 people willing to work hard for free?

 

You find the most boggling stuff on the internet...

That is the point...add more, the job is no longer hard. Increases efficiency, allows for better consensus (when there is an appeal), more intimate local knowledge, and the list goes on. I am would be EXTREMELY surprised if they couldn't find more volunteers. I would volunteer.

 

Of course, more communication from the reviewers would be nice. Hell, as things progress, I'd love to interview a bunch of them for my new geocaching (v)blog (just started so not even really a thing yet).

Edited March 5, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+supertbone]

I just looked over your two caches to see what you were discussing.

 

Had I been your reviewer the same things would have happened. 161m (528') is required, I need all the waypoints, no commercial caches, no caches close to schools, and unless it is your property paint would not be used to help mark cache locations.

 

As they are all in the guidelines it appears your reviewer did exactly what they were supposed to do.

 

I never complain about my reviewer (ahem). Please just remember that the next time I submit a cache.

[+JKMonkey]

try emailing Groundspeak, i doubt complaining to the forums will solve much

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

That is the point...add more, the job is no longer hard. Increases efficiency, allows for better consensus (when there is an appeal), more intimate local knowledge, and the list goes on. I am would EXTREMELY surprised if they couldn't find more volunteers. I would.

 

 

I am sure they could find hundreds of volunteers. The problem is would those volunteers be any good at the job?

 

I think it takes a special kind of person to do the job of a reviewer. I don't think I could do it.

[AZcachemeister]

Moving topic to appropriate forum. Not an education topic.

 

I don't know, seems there was a lesson or two to be learned here.

 

That right there is pretty darned funny!

[AZcachemeister]

The point of bringing a reviewers name out is so that others can see if this is a track record and if it necessary for the community to come together. Many reviewers have lasted much longer than their due because the forum tends to ban or suspend users for even mentioning it. Moderators also aren't consistent. I got a seven day suspension for making a general joking statement about reviewers, yet here (thankfully) the discussion continues.

 

In other words, transparency is not always the priority with Groudspeak unfortunately.

 

There is also a serious lack of reviewers. You'd think for being unpaid positions, they'd have about 100 more reviewers. Many just are overwhelmed and not able to give the attention needed to assist cachers in fixing issues and coming up with solutions.

 

You can see the reviewer's track record?

 

Like how many micros they have published, and how many caches they have denied because they were buried...stuff like that?

 

I'm in awe of your secret powers!

[GOF and Bacall]

The worst part about all these reviewers that suck is that they probably hang out with the Stupid police!!! Hoisting a few beers. Picking out which caches to blow up. Clubbing baby seals. That kinda stuff.

[+Sapience Trek]

There is also a serious lack of reviewers.

 

When there is a need for another reviewer, one is brought on.

[+Sapience Trek]

I think it takes a special kind of person to do the job of a reviewer. I don't think I could do it.

 

Me neither.

[AZcachemeister]

The worst part about all these reviewers that suck is that they probably hang out with the Stupid police!!! Hoisting a few beers. Picking out which caches to blow up. Clubbing baby seals. That kinda stuff.

 

OMG!!!

 

Do you think maybe the sucky reviewers are in league with the stupid police?

 

We are so screwed.

[GOF and Bacall]

The worst part about all these reviewers that suck is that they probably hang out with the Stupid police!!! Hoisting a few beers. Picking out which caches to blow up. Clubbing baby seals. That kinda stuff.

 

OMG!!!

 

Do you think maybe the sucky reviewers are in league with the stupid police?

 

We are so screwed.

 

Maybe. But the fact that ST shows up to post minutes after I did kind makes me nervous. Does Groundspeak have black ops connections?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The point of bringing a reviewers name out is so that others can see if this is a track record and if it necessary for the community to come together. Many reviewers have lasted much longer than their due because the forum tends to ban or suspend users for even mentioning it. Moderators also aren't consistent. I got a seven day suspension for making a general joking statement about reviewers, yet here (thankfully) the discussion continues.

 

In other words, transparency is not always the priority with Groudspeak unfortunately.

 

There is also a serious lack of reviewers. You'd think for being unpaid positions, they'd have about 100 more reviewers. Many just are overwhelmed and not able to give the attention needed to assist cachers in fixing issues and coming up with solutions.

 

You can see the reviewer's track record?

 

Like how many micros they have published, and how many caches they have denied because they were buried...stuff like that?

 

I'm in awe of your secret powers!

 

From what I've read, two of the necessary criteria for becoming a reviewer are:

 

1. In possession of super powers

2. Crazy enough to want the job.

 

I believe that WeatherWarrior mentioned that he's a storm chaser...someone that intentionally goes out and gets as close as possible to tornadoes and hurricanes.

 

It sounds to me like he's eminently qualified for the job.

Edited March 5, 2013 by NYPaddleCacher

[GOF and Bacall]

The point of bringing a reviewers name out is so that others can see if this is a track record and if it necessary for the community to come together. Many reviewers have lasted much longer than their due because the forum tends to ban or suspend users for even mentioning it. Moderators also aren't consistent. I got a seven day suspension for making a general joking statement about reviewers, yet here (thankfully) the discussion continues.

 

In other words, transparency is not always the priority with Groudspeak unfortunately.

 

There is also a serious lack of reviewers. You'd think for being unpaid positions, they'd have about 100 more reviewers. Many just are overwhelmed and not able to give the attention needed to assist cachers in fixing issues and coming up with solutions.

 

You can see the reviewer's track record?

 

Like how many micros they have published, and how many caches they have denied because they were buried...stuff like that?

 

I'm in awe of your secret powers!

 

From what I've read, two of the necessary for becoming are reviewer are:

 

1. In posession of super powers

2. Crazy enough to want the job.

 

I believe that WeatherWarrior mentioned that he's a storm chaser...someone that intentionally goes out and gets as close as possible to tornados and hurricanes.

 

It sounds to me like he's eminently qualified for the job.

 

It has often been said that asking to be a reviewer is a sure way to be disqualified. I figure that they don't want anybody crazy enough to want to do the job.

 

By the way, kan I be a reviewer?

[Uncle Ruckus]

I agree with Blue Rajah's list of guideline issues. It was fun translating from Portuguese and watching the story unfold.

 

In addition, a second Portuguse reviewer already took a second look at the cache, in response to the OP's "demand" on the cache page. The second reviewer reached the same conclusion, and told the OP about their right to appeal to Groundspeak.

 

So, I guess I suck, too, because I would have handled this review the same way.

You guys forgot to mention that linking to a geocachingspoilers video that shows other placements that do not meet the guidelines isn't a very strong defense.

 

"I saw it on the internet, so it must be true".

 

Bonjour?

 

Where did you see that, MadeUpMonkeypoop.com?

[GOF and Bacall]

I agree with Blue Rajah's list of guideline issues. It was fun translating from Portuguese and watching the story unfold.

 

In addition, a second Portuguse reviewer already took a second look at the cache, in response to the OP's "demand" on the cache page. The second reviewer reached the same conclusion, and told the OP about their right to appeal to Groundspeak.

 

So, I guess I suck, too, because I would have handled this review the same way.

You guys forgot to mention that linking to a geocachingspoilers video that shows other placements that do not meet the guidelines isn't a very strong defense.

 

"I saw it on the internet, so it must be true".

 

Bonjour?

 

Where did you see that, MadeUpMonkeypoop.com?

 

"They can't say anything on the internet that isn't true."

[+The A-Team]

I am sure that is in conformity.

Based on what? By my count, there have now been no fewer than 5 reviewers that have looked at your cache, and they say there are at least 5 guideline violations. Have you even read the guidelines? You ran into some pretty major ones with the proximity, commercial cache, and defacement guidelines. Heck, if you had buried your cache, you probably would have set a record for least-conforming cache.

 

Your reviewer doesn't seem to be the problem here...

[+Team Bostradamus]

I must be really lucky, the reviewer I had published my last cache within a few hours!!

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

I think it takes a special kind of person to do the job of a reviewer. I don't think I could do it.

Me neither.

Don't sell yourself short. I don't see it as being that difficult. Not easy (esp. when you have various long tasks, property verification, etc.), just persistent, objective, resourceful.

 

You can see the reviewer's track record?

 

I'm in awe of your secret powers!

The 'force' is with me. "These aren't the caches you're looking for". ;-)

But seriously...it is just reading comprehension and tracking, talking with other cachers, reading the forum(s) etc. Not hard to get a decent idea of any cacher, reviewer, moderator, etc. I can't imagine it is that hard.

 

 

I believe that WeatherWarrior mentioned that he's a storm chaser...someone that intentionally goes out and gets as close as possible to tornadoes and hurricanes.

 

It sounds to me like he's eminently qualified for the job.

Is reviewing and publishing a power trail like being in the 'bear's cage' of a supercell maybe ;-) There is hail, rain, tornadoes, debris, etc. all around you, but somehow you always know the way out safely. Edited March 5, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+popokiiti]

I think the OP needs to read the guidelines for hiding a cache....not just once, but a couple more times too. Easy to miss something on the first scan. One of our first hides was disallowed. We'd seen others like it, so thought it would be OK. Should have re-read the guidelines, as that type of cache had been grandfathered and it clearly stated that. We had a reviewer who kindly explained everything - thanks Mtn-Man!

Like caching, hiding is something to be learned too - accept the constructive criticism, learn from it and move on. We did...

[+The_Incredibles_]

My caches suck, but my reviewer publishes them anyway.

 

[+TerraViators]

The point of bringing a reviewers name out is so that others can see if this is a track record and if it necessary for the community to come together. Many reviewers have lasted much longer than their due because the forum tends to ban or suspend users for even mentioning it. Moderators also aren't consistent. I got a seven day suspension for making a general joking statement about reviewers, yet here (thankfully) the discussion continues.

 

One of my bans

 

Genius.

[+M 5]

I made fun of my local reviewer in one of my newest caches. He was the main villian, and he published it same day. Not sure if that means he sucks or not, but he is fun to mess with.

[+Manville Possum]

I just looked over your two caches to see what you were discussing.

 

Had I been your reviewer the same things would have happened. 161m (528') is required, I need all the waypoints, no commercial caches, no caches close to schools, and unless it is your property paint would not be used to help mark cache locations.

 

As they are all in the guidelines it appears your reviewer did exactly what they were supposed to do.

 

I have read the comments from other posters and moderators, and I agree that I would suck too. Your next post in the forums here given your "record" in my opinion may be "My local Police suck".

Thank you for your service Soilder.

[+The A-Team]

Your next post in the forums here given your "record" in my opinion may be "My local Police suck".

That's so last month. This month the theme is sucky reviewers.