Reviewing caches in order

[+POLKYS QUEST]

I've noticed the caches in our area are being posted well out of order. Surely they should be posted in the order they are submitted unless there is an issue with the listing! The process at the moment leads to reviewers having their own bias preferences to caching showing up in how they process the listings for example the reviewer in our area helped to organize an event and the temporary caches got upgraded straight away while others are still sitting there well past the normal 10 days without any reviewer notes. To stop this a protocol should be in place to make the whole process smoother and fairer for all .

[+T.D.M.22]

I

[+The A-Team]

...for example the reviewer in our area helped to organize an event and the temporary caches got upgraded straight away...

Huh? Temporary caches can't be published. If your reviewer is publishing caches that they know will be archived within a few days, then you should report that reviewer to Groundspeak.

 

As for the reviewing order, it will never be first-come, first-served. Some caches will require more or different review than others. For example, a cache may look like it's on private property or some other restricted land, and the reviewer may be trying to confirm that. Or a new and innovative idea could be in a grey area of the guidelines and the reviewer may discuss it with other reviewers or Groundspeak to see if they've dealt with a similar one in the past. There are countless possible reasons why a cache could require a bit more scrutiny.

 

One of the forum-regular reviewers posted their procedure for dealing with cache reviews and emails from cachers a while back, and it was eye-opening to see how they deal with it all. If I get a chance, I'll see if I can dig it up.

[jholly]

The correct place to lodge a complaint is here. Posting here you will only get replies from lawyers and county sheriffs arguing points of law and no useful information. Or was your point to embarrass your reviewer and cause him mental distress?

[+The A-Team]

As I promised in my last post, I found the post from reviewer Keystone. Here ya go, a week in the life of a reviewer. He details the order in which he deals with caches in the 3rd to last paragraph, but it's worth it to read the entire post to see what reviewers actually have on their plate with this site, their paying job, and in their personal life.

[AZcachemeister]

The first thing to remember is that the reviewers WANT to publish caches.

Most likely the reviewer will look at the caches in their queue in order of age...some of them will raise no questions and be published straightaway, while others may require some sort of clarification or verification from the CO.

Would you prefer the reviewer stop publishing caches if they encountered a cache with an issue?

Should every cache in my area be held up because I forgot to enter the final co-ordinates to my puzzle cache?

[+palmetto]

Curious, I checked the South Australia review queue. One very large cache series, and a few other caches. Outside of the series, there's nothing older than 2 days.

[+Cardinal Red]

I've noticed the caches in our area are being posted well out of order. Surely they should be posted in the order they are submitted unless there is an issue with the listing! The process at the moment leads to reviewers having their own bias preferences to caching showing up in how they process the listings for example the reviewer in our area helped to organize an event and the temporary caches got upgraded straight away while others are still sitting there well past the normal 10 days without any reviewer notes. To stop this a protocol should be in place to make the whole process smoother and fairer for all .

 

Are you certain you actually checked off that the cache is ready for review? You have not hidden a cache for a while and that default has changed. But while I have your attention:

 

I think "a protocol should be in place" to remind you that you have not adequately completed maintenance on one of your caches. Oh wait, there already is. And you just brushed past it?

 

The problem would be solved with a simple OWNER MAINTENANCE log to "The quest to discover mullenising!" Now you know one of the things that really annoys me.

[Keystone]

Here is some guidance on priorities in cache reviews that all reviewers are educated about:

 

1. Event cache submissions jump to the top of the line, since they are often time-sensitive. If it's a Monday, and I see an event scheduled for a few weekends later, I review it first so it makes the weekly newsletter. Makes me feel good. Rule makes sense.

 

2. Generally, caches should be reviewed according to GC Codes, which are assigned sequentially when the cache listing is created. We can sort our pending caches in this manner, which works most of the time. Absent special factors, the earliest GC Code gets reviewed first.

 

3. AZ Cachemeister's post is very helpful and provides a real life example. It is OK for a reviewer to skip a cache that's hidden along the railroad tracks behind a school in a buried container, because composing the review note for that submission will be time consuming. It makes me feel good when I can process ten caches quickly. Then, I can tackle that problem cache later when I have more time.

 

Also, I am moving this thread to the Geocaching Topics forum. There is no "Feature Suggestion" here. In general, the reviewers have the tools we need to process our work fast and fairly. When we need additional tools, rest assured, we ask Groundspeak for them. Loudly!

[+POLKYS QUEST]

I've noticed the caches in our area are being posted well out of order. Surely they should be posted in the order they are submitted unless there is an issue with the listing! The process at the moment leads to reviewers having their own bias preferences to caching showing up in how they process the listings for example the reviewer in our area helped to organize an event and the temporary caches got upgraded straight away while others are still sitting there well past the normal 10 days without any reviewer notes. To stop this a protocol should be in place to make the whole process smoother and fairer for all .

 

Are you certain you actually checked off that the cache is ready for review? You have not hidden a cache for a while and that default has changed. But while I have your attention:

 

I think "a protocol should be in place" to remind you that you have not adequately completed maintenance on one of your caches. Oh wait, there already is. And you just brushed past it?

 

The problem would be solved with a simple OWNER MAINTENANCE log to "The quest to discover mullenising!" Now you know one of the things that really annoys me.

 

Thxs for pointing that out I thought disabling and then re enabling fixed the problem but obviously not in the system at least I was onto the cache maintenance quickly but it's one thing that could've been fixed with a programming protocol in place to ensure things were done in the correct order.

[+POLKYS QUEST]

As I promised in my last post, I found the post from reviewer Keystone. Here ya go, a week in the life of a reviewer. He details the order in which he deals with caches in the 3rd to last paragraph, but it's worth it to read the entire post to see what reviewers actually have on their plate with this site, their paying job, and in their personal life.

[+POLKYS QUEST]

Thxs I'll read through it

[+POLKYS QUEST]

The correct place to lodge a complaint is here. Posting here you will only get replies from lawyers and county sheriffs arguing points of law and no useful information. Or was your point to embarrass your reviewer and cause him mental distress?

[+POLKYS QUEST]

The correct place to lodge a complaint is here. Posting here you will only get replies from lawyers and county sheriffs arguing points of law and no useful information. Or was your point to embarrass your reviewer and cause him mental distress?

No it's to hopefully help improve the way caches are published I'd rather have set protocols which everyone can follow and understand than the current system ie if you lodge a traditional cache you receive a response within 5 days and you must reply to any issues within a further 5 days and the cache will be published 15 days from the list for review date. To me that's better than the hop scotch system at the moment

[+POLKYS QUEST]

Curious, I checked the South Australia review queue. One very large cache series, and a few other caches. Outside of the series, there's nothing older than 2 days.

 

And the age of some of those in the series not published?

[+K13]

The correct place to lodge a complaint is here. Posting here you will only get replies from lawyers and county sheriffs arguing points of law and no useful information. Or was your point to embarrass your reviewer and cause him mental distress?

No it's to hopefully help improve the way caches are published I'd rather have set protocols which everyone can follow and understand than the current system ie if you lodge a traditional cache you receive a response within 5 days and you must reply to any issues within a further 5 days and the cache will be published 15 days from the list for review date. To me that's better than the hop scotch system at the moment

 

So, you want every cache to be a 15 day wait from the day the cache is submitted for review? That is a better method than what we have now?

As I only have 2/3 of the caches placed as you, my results may be different, but I have an average listing to publish wait of around 23 hours. I would find a wait of 15 days to be insufferable.

The current system seems to be working just fine.

[+POLKYS QUEST]

As I promised in my last post, I found the post from reviewer Keystone. Here ya go, a week in the life of a reviewer. He details the order in which he deals with caches in the 3rd to last paragraph, but it's worth it to read the entire post to see what reviewers actually have on their plate with this site, their paying job, and in their personal life.

 

Interesting reading when you read the whole thread to me it just highlighted the need to set parameters or time frames so all caches are dealt fairly or equally to save confusion and ease the burden on the reviewers

[+POLKYS QUEST]

The correct place to lodge a complaint is here. Posting here you will only get replies from lawyers and county sheriffs arguing points of law and no useful information. Or was your point to embarrass your reviewer and cause him mental distress?

No it's to hopefully help improve the way caches are published I'd rather have set protocols which everyone can follow and understand than the current system ie if you lodge a traditional cache you receive a response within 5 days and you must reply to any issues within a further 5 days and the cache will be published 15 days from the list for review date. To me that's better than the hop scotch system at the moment

 

So, you want every cache to be a 15 day wait from the day the cache is submitted for review? That is a better method than what we have now?

As I only have 2/3 of the caches placed as you, my results may be different, but I have an average listing to publish wait of around 23 hours. I would find a wait of 15 days to be insufferable.

The current system seems to be working just fine.

 

No that was just an example of how things could possibly be structured obviously reviewers from different areas have different workloads. I'm suggesting a system that is very clear to the reviewer and the caching community to stop the confusion.

[Keystone]

Curious, I checked the South Australia review queue. One very large cache series, and a few other caches. Outside of the series, there's nothing older than 2 days.

 

And the age of some of those in the series not published?

At this time, the South Australia review queue contains seven individual caches awaiting initial review, plus a rather large series of caches by the same hider. The series was submitted for review on 11 June, Seattle time. The seven individual caches have submission dates ranging from 12 June to 13 June, Seattle time. There are no pending caches "older" than the large series, measured by submission date. Going by GC Codes, four of the individual caches are "ahead in the line" relative to the series, and the other three individual caches are "behind" the series. Were I the reviewer for this territory, I'd likely process the seven individual caches first unless I'd made special arrangements with the series sponsor.

 

I am having trouble understanding the basis for the OP's complaint. There are not a large number of caches gathering dust in the corner for a week, as appears to be the suggestion.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Keystone

[+Don_J]

I've noticed the caches in our area are being posted well out of order. Surely they should be posted in the order they are submitted unless there is an issue with the listing! The process at the moment leads to reviewers having their own bias preferences to caching showing up in how they process the listings for example the reviewer in our area helped to organize an event and the temporary caches got upgraded straight away while others are still sitting there well past the normal 10 days without any reviewer notes. To stop this a protocol should be in place to make the whole process smoother and fairer for all .

 

I'm curious as to how you came to these conclusions?

 

It is hard to tell what communications occurred between cache owners and the reviewers regarding problems getting a cache published because reviewer notes are deleted when a cache is published. I hope that you are not simply going on the order that GC# are being published. I have been known to reserve a GC# and take several weeks before I submit it for review. Many later GC#s will be published prior to mine. This does not mean that those caches got preferential treatment.

 

As far as caches for an event, the proper way to do this is to set up all of the listings well in advance and coordinate with the reviewer to get them published in bulk at a particular time. This is not preferential treatment. It's simply advanced coordination.

 

You have leveled some pretty serious accusations on a forum that is typically supportive of our volunteer reviewers. I hope that you are prepared to back them up if you plan to have a serious discussion.

[+a1elec]

I have caches sitting in my page that have not been published for 12 months but then they have not been sent to the review for publication yet still working on a series and have not had time to finish it.

 

Beside as soon as you start to edit a cache from your profile the number is reserved for the cache so the cache number is no indication of the order in which the review received them.

[+POLKYS QUEST]

Curious, I checked the South Australia review queue. One very large cache series, and a few other caches. Outside of the series, there's nothing older than 2 days.

 

And the age of some of those in the series not published?

At this time, the South Australia review queue contains seven individual caches awaiting initial review, plus a rather large series of caches by the same hider. The series was submitted for review on 11 June, Seattle time. The seven individual caches have submission dates ranging from 12 June to 13 June, Seattle time. There are no pending caches "older" than the large series, measured by submission date. Going by GC Codes, four of the individual caches are "ahead in the line" relative to the series, and the other three individual caches are "behind" the series. Were I the reviewer for this territory, I'd likely process the seven individual caches first unless I'd made special arrangements with the series sponsor.

 

I am having trouble understanding the basis for the OP's complaint. There are not a large number of caches gathering dust in the corner for a week, as appears to be the suggestion.

 

The initial part of the series containing 59 caches was hidden on the 22nd may and published on the 26th may. A further 22 caches were hidden on the 1st of June. 5 caches were published on the 6th of June and a further 5 were published on the 11th of June. The remaining 12 of the 22 remain unpublished. A further 83 were submitted for review on the 11th of June and are awaiting publishing. So if the reviewer keeps publishing 5 caches every 5 days it will be almost three months before they are all published the reviewer raised questions about the extra 22 caches which were addressed appropriately so that the caches could be published which he started doing.

[Keystone]

So your question/problem is what?

[+POLKYS QUEST]

I've noticed the caches in our area are being posted well out of order. Surely they should be posted in the order they are submitted unless there is an issue with the listing! The process at the moment leads to reviewers having their own bias preferences to caching showing up in how they process the listings for example the reviewer in our area helped to organize an event and the temporary caches got upgraded straight away while others are still sitting there well past the normal 10 days without any reviewer notes. To stop this a protocol should be in place to make the whole process smoother and fairer for all .

 

I'm curious as to how you came to these conclusions?

 

It is hard to tell what communications occurred between cache owners and the reviewers regarding problems getting a cache published because reviewer notes are deleted when a cache is published. I hope that you are not simply going on the order that GC# are being published. I have been known to reserve a GC# and take several weeks before I submit it for review. Many later GC#s will be published prior to mine. This does not mean that those caches got preferential treatment.

 

As far as caches for an event, the proper way to do this is to set up all of the listings well in advance and coordinate with the reviewer to get them published in bulk at a particular time. This is not preferential treatment. It's simply advanced coordination.

 

You have leveled some pretty serious accusations on a forum that is typically supportive of our volunteer reviewers. I hope that you are prepared to back them up if you plan to have a serious discussion.

 

Part of the weekend event is for cachers to hide temporary caches on the first day for others to find later over the weekend. It's common and the cachers often decide to make these temporary event caches into permanent caches on gc. Which is fine! Just these caches became permanent caches before other caches in the system. That's the crux of it and my point about making the system fairer for all. Why should people attending an event in part organized by a reviewer have preference over caches already in the system? The event was for the weekend 8th to the 10th being a long weekend

[Keystone]

What's the GC Code range and original submission date range for the event caches hidden in connection with the weekend of 8 to 10 June? What are the GC Codes and original submission dates for some of the caches you allege to have been passed over?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

As I promised in my last post, I found the post from reviewer Keystone. Here ya go, a week in the life of a reviewer. He details the order in which he deals with caches in the 3rd to last paragraph, but it's worth it to read the entire post to see what reviewers actually have on their plate with this site, their paying job, and in their personal life.

 

Interesting reading when you read the whole thread to me it just highlighted the need to set parameters or time frames so all caches are dealt fairly or equally to save confusion and ease the burden on the reviewers

 

Actually, what you're suggesting would ADD to the confusion and burden for the reviewers.

 

The reviewers do a great job. I trust them to publish the caches in the order that makes it easiest for them. If they have 10 caches in their publishing queue and the first one is a 10 stage puzzle/multi nutcracker, why should the other nine caches have to wait for that one to be published?

 

Just because you submit a cache for review today, doesn't mean it will be published before a cache that is submitted tomorrow.

[+POLKYS QUEST]

Sorry if I'm out of sync with posts by others but I'm using an iPhone and you have to scroll up and down continuously just to read one post

[+RIclimber]

The correct place to lodge a complaint is here. Posting here you will only get replies from lawyers and county sheriffs arguing points of law and no useful information. Or was your point to embarrass your reviewer and cause him mental distress?

No it's to hopefully help improve the way caches are published I'd rather have set protocols which everyone can follow and understand than the current system ie if you lodge a traditional cache you receive a response within 5 days and you must reply to any issues within a further 5 days and the cache will be published 15 days from the list for review date. To me that's better than the hop scotch system at the moment

If it takes several days for each back-and-forth then something is wrong. I've hidden over 200 caches and on average they're listed the next morning. Many are looked at within hours.

Most of the time I hide a cache in the morning, list it in the afternoon, and that night get an email saying that everything is fine and it will be listed first thing in the morning. (This is to stop FTF hunters from going out after the parks close.) If I don't have a note of some kind within 18 hours I start to worry.

[+POLKYS QUEST]

What's the GC Code range and original submission date range for the event caches hidden in connection with the weekend of 8 to 10 June? What are the GC Codes and original submission dates for some of the caches you allege to have been passed over?

 

The event cache gc4a71y

 

Caches arising from event gc4dxto, gc4dtrg, gc4dxbe, gc4dx9x

 

Passed over gc4dcnv and ny, gc4dcp3 and 5 a c e h k n r and v

[+The A-Team]

At this time, the South Australia review queue contains seven individual caches awaiting initial review, plus a rather large series of caches by the same hider. The series was submitted for review on 11 June, Seattle time. The seven individual caches have submission dates ranging from 12 June to 13 June, Seattle time. There are no pending caches "older" than the large series, measured by submission date.

A further 22 caches were hidden on the 1st of June. 5 caches were published on the 6th of June and a further 5 were published on the 11th of June. The remaining 12 of the 22 remain unpublished. A further 83 were submitted for review on the 11th of June and are awaiting publishing.

It sounds to me like the source of your confusion regarding this series is that there are caches you think have been submitted for review that actually haven't. Keystone says he can only see the series caches that were submitted on June 11, and can't see the 12 of 22. Maybe the reason why those 12 haven't been published is because they haven't been submitted yet?

[+dprovan]

I am having trouble understanding the basis for the OP's complaint. There are not a large number of caches gathering dust in the corner for a week, as appears to be the suggestion.

The initial part of the series containing 59 caches was hidden on the 22nd may and published on the 26th may. A further 22 caches were hidden on the 1st of June. 5 caches were published on the 6th of June and a further 5 were published on the 11th of June. The remaining 12 of the 22 remain unpublished. A further 83 were submitted for review on the 11th of June and are awaiting publishing. So if the reviewer keeps publishing 5 caches every 5 days it will be almost three months before they are all published the reviewer raised questions about the extra 22 caches which were addressed appropriately so that the caches could be published which he started doing.

Now I'm having even more trouble understanding the basis of the complaint. This strikes me as a description of a reviewer doing an exceptional job.

[+palmetto]

Edited to remove my original comment - I posted more info about the series, but it's really not for this forum, but between the cache owner and the reviewer.

Edited June 14, 2013 by palmetto

[+K13]

Is anyone else getting the suspicion that the OP may be involved in the cache series and is upset that any other caches in the entire review area were published prior the entire series being finished by the reviewer?

[AZcachemeister]

I wish my biggest concern in life was what order caches got published in.

 

If the caches pass the guidelines, they will be published.

If they do not, then the owner will need to make adjustments before they can be published.

 

It works the same everywhere on earth.

 

Getting uppity about exactly when a cache gets published (unless prior arrangements were made) is just going to pointlessly raise your stress level.

 

CHILL

[+wimseyguy]

Is anyone else getting the suspicion that the OP may be involved in the cache series and is upset that any other caches in the entire review area were published prior the entire series being finished by the reviewer?

 

I'm thinking he's already found them and is upset he cannot post his massive FTF claims.

Edited June 15, 2013 by wimseyguy

[+dprovan]

Is anyone else getting the suspicion that the OP may be involved in the cache series and is upset that any other caches in the entire review area were published prior the entire series being finished by the reviewer?

I know what you mean, but it's really, really hard for me to imagine someone involved and, therefore, getting a huge service from this noble and hard working reviewer would turn around and complain. It's remarkable that the reviewer's eyes have glazed over more from looking over that series since it looks like a real snoozer, at least from the reviewer's point of view: all the usual issues to consider for each and every cache, yet nothing interesting about any of them.

[7rxc]

There might be some merit to the idea of reviewer guidelines/rules change however.

 

Something along the line of restricting the number of caches submitted by one person (or even group of cachers) for a power trail or series in a batch / per xx timeperiod. Intent would not be to restrict the placer, but to help other placers get a fair share of time available. It would maybe cut down on the flack reviewers seem to attract from time to time, thus making it maybe a bit easier.

 

Doug 7rxc

[jholly]

There might be some merit to the idea of reviewer guidelines/rules change however.

 

Something along the line of restricting the number of caches submitted by one person (or even group of cachers) for a power trail or series in a batch / per xx timeperiod. Intent would not be to restrict the placer, but to help other placers get a fair share of time available. It would maybe cut down on the flack reviewers seem to attract from time to time, thus making it maybe a bit easier.

 

Doug 7rxc

It seems to me that someone submitting a lot of caches for a big power trail would be intelligent enough to talk to the reviewer first, make several large submissions and give the reviewer time to review the submissions before pulling the trigger on publishing them. It would be interesting if RoadRunner would weigh in with the reviewer prospective of a large power trail.

 

As for cutting down on the flack reviewers get from time to time. I'm thinking not much will stop that.

[Keystone]

7rxc and jholly make excellent points. Most hiders of large series will have an email dialogue with their reviewer at the beginning of their plan. This sets clear expectations. For example, with a fairly recent power trail, the reviewer agreed to review 10 or 20 caches per day as a goal. He explained that other geocachers deserved good service too, and it wasn't fair to make them wait while 500 caches were processed. Of course, he then beat that goal. Everyone was happy: the reviewer managed his schedule, the hiders saw their power trail listed quicker than promised (but way, way more than seven days), and other cachers saw their listings processed within the normal service expectations.

 

I'm failing to see why anyone should be unhappy in South Australia this month. They had a most righteously awesome event, leading to some creative permanent cache placements. Now they're getting a power trail. When's the next plane flight to Adelaide?

[+palmetto]

I think the language in the guidelines sets up unrealistic expectations, together with the language in the "cache report submitted" email.

 

In 2005, this was added to the guidelines, "If you are placing a large number of caches in connection with an event cache, to be released on the day of the event, please submit the cache pages for all of the caches at least ten days in advance of the release date...."

 

In 2005, a large number was 20.

 

There were no powertrails, the guidelines also stated, "If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache".

 

The large number/ten days language is not in synch with current reality.

Opening the review queue on Monday to the usual number of caches in bunches 1 - 5 from individuals, plus powertrails of 60 - 200 is now much more common.

 

The powertrail will be reviewed around, ie, events first, then the individual/small groups of caches, and finally some number of the powertrail caches each day as time permits. It might take weeks to work with a powertrail, if the queue is also busy with other caches, sometimes longer if there are issues.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to language that limits the expectations of review and publication of caches from a single to owner to some X number per day.

[+Kacher82]

Is anyone else getting the suspicion that the OP may be involved in the cache series and is upset that any other caches in the entire review area were published prior the entire series being finished by the reviewer?

I know what you mean, but it's really, really hard for me to imagine someone involved and, therefore, getting a huge service from this noble and hard working reviewer would turn around and complain. It's remarkable that the reviewer's eyes have glazed over more from looking over that series since it looks like a real snoozer, at least from the reviewer's point of view: all the usual issues to consider for each and every cache, yet nothing interesting about any of them.

How does the OP even know about the unpublished caches, unless he's the owner?

[+wmpastor]

The correct place to lodge a complaint is here. Posting here you will only get replies from lawyers and county sheriffs arguing points of law and no useful information. Or was your point to embarrass your reviewer and cause him mental distress?

Maybe he wanted feedback or venting, like he said.

 

In any case, now he knows why some require more review time than others.

[4wheelin_fool]

No system can be absolutely perfect. If someone spends a week writing up a cache page before submitting, chances are that the cache will be published well before another cache in which the owner spent 5 minutes writing up the cache page, even if they were both submitted on the same day. The lower GC# gives the first cache precedence, so it may be published very soon, while the 5 minute write up may take a week.

 

What does this mean? Spend a few days looking over the cache page before submitting it.

Edited June 16, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+POLKYS QUEST]

Is anyone else getting the suspicion that the OP may be involved in the cache series and is upset that any other caches in the entire review area were published prior the entire series being finished by the reviewer?

 

I'm thinking he's already found them and is upset he cannot post his massive FTF claims.

 

Lol no don't bother with FTF the caches were placed with my fiancée. Personally I don't get a thrill out of hiding them but she likes doing it and giving back! I guess it's her nature because she's a personal carer lol

[+POLKYS QUEST]

There might be some merit to the idea of reviewer guidelines/rules change however.

 

Something along the line of restricting the number of caches submitted by one person (or even group of cachers) for a power trail or series in a batch / per xx timeperiod. Intent would not be to restrict the placer, but to help other placers get a fair share of time available. It would maybe cut down on the flack reviewers seem to attract from time to time, thus making it maybe a bit easier.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

I agree as long as everyone knows what's going on at the moment some reviewers keep co in the dark the reviewer I'm having problems with only mentioned after I started this forum, that he is posting the caches in groups of 5 because my fiancée updated coordinates! She initially used an I phone to place the caches but because some cachers said the coordinates seemed in the middle of the road she brought a GPS and updated the series the next day now she's getting punished for being a quick learner and for being proactive lol

[+POLKYS QUEST]

7rxc and jholly make excellent points. Most hiders of large series will have an email dialogue with their reviewer at the beginning of their plan. This sets clear expectations. For example, with a fairly recent power trail, the reviewer agreed to review 10 or 20 caches per day as a goal. He explained that other geocachers deserved good service too, and it wasn't fair to make them wait while 500 caches were processed. Of course, he then beat that goal. Everyone was happy: the reviewer managed his schedule, the hiders saw their power trail listed quicker than promised (but way, way more than seven days), and other cachers saw their listings processed within the normal service expectations.

 

I'm failing to see why anyone should be unhappy in South Australia this month. They had a most righteously awesome event, leading to some creative permanent cache placements. Now they're getting a power trail. When's the next plane flight to Adelaide?

 

Nope the reviewer here doesn't keep co's informed and doesn't work with them from what I've seen he doesn't accept that people make mistakes and gives no credit when they quickly fix them. His own caches aren't maintained properly which makes the whole process seem abit farcical

[+POLKYS QUEST]

Is anyone else getting the suspicion that the OP may be involved in the cache series and is upset that any other caches in the entire review area were published prior the entire series being finished by the reviewer?

I know what you mean, but it's really, really hard for me to imagine someone involved and, therefore, getting a huge service from this noble and hard working reviewer would turn around and complain. It's remarkable that the reviewer's eyes have glazed over more from looking over that series since it looks like a real snoozer, at least from the reviewer's point of view: all the usual issues to consider for each and every cache, yet nothing interesting about any of them.

How does the OP even know about the unpublished caches, unless he's the owner?

 

Obviously helped placed them and the co is my fiancée

[+POLKYS QUEST]

The correct place to lodge a complaint is here. Posting here you will only get replies from lawyers and county sheriffs arguing points of law and no useful information. Or was your point to embarrass your reviewer and cause him mental distress?

Maybe he wanted feedback or venting, like he said.

 

In any case, now he knows why some require more review time than others.

 

Yep my fiancée has requested that the caches go to appeal because the reviewer won't give credit to her improving how she goes about her hides! He's made the process very difficult and is set in his view. He doesn't release all the reviewer noted and only puts up the information that supports his own case ignoring notes that she placed! He's only new so hopefully he'll improve quickly

[+POLKYS QUEST]

I wish my biggest concern in life was what order caches got published in.

 

If the caches pass the guidelines, they will be published.

If they do not, then the owner will need to make adjustments before they can be published.

 

It works the same everywhere on earth.

 

Getting uppity about exactly when a cache gets published (unless prior arrangements were made) is just going to pointlessly raise your stress level.

 

CHILL

 

The caches are meeting the guide lines but the reviewer was publishing them 5 at a time 5 days apart without explanation! It was only when I raised the matter here did he contact the co and say that because she updated the coordinates on the previous part of the series he thought it best to release them periodically. The initial part was placed with the I phone app he refuses to take into account that the new part has been placed with a Magellan GPS! Which makes him ignorant to the fact that some people actually take on board suggestions and improve how they go about things more than I can say about him

[+rjb43nh]

“I've noticed the caches in our area are being posted well out of order. Surely they should be posted in the order they are submitted unless there is an issue with the listing! The process at the moment leads to reviewers having their own bias preferences to caching showing up in how they process the listings for example the reviewer in our area helped to organize an event and the temporary caches got upgraded straight away while others are still sitting there well past the normal 10 days without any reviewer notes. To stop this a protocol should be in place to make the whole process smoother and fairer for all.”

 

“……he is posting the caches in groups of 5 because my fiancée updated coordinates! She initially used an I phone to place the caches but because some cachers said the coordinates seemed in the middle of the road she brought a GPS and updated the series the next day.”

 

“…..Yep my fiancée has requested that the caches go to appeal because the reviewer won't give credit to her improving how she goes about her hides! He's made the process very difficult and is set in his view. He doesn't release all the reviewer noted and only puts up the information that supports his own case ignoring notes that she placed! He's only new so hopefully he'll improve quickly.”

 

“……It was only when I raised the matter here did he contact the co and say that because she updated the coordinates on the previous part of the series he thought it best to release them periodically.”

 

So the reviewer, who you continually insult, is clearly doing his job by making sure that even more caches with bad coordinates by auzzie convict aren’t released and you’re somehow blaming him?

 

William Shakespeare-“"The fault, dear POLKYS QUEST, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…”