Note for reviewer

[+-CJ-]

When publishing my new geocache I was suggested to add a note to my reviewer. It was a simple traditional cache in a SideTracked series (I've published a dozen of similar caches already). I had no ideas about what to add to my description so added nothing. I got an error message saying that my comment was missing. I wrote "it's a cache" and managed to get through. With my previous cache (of the same kind) it was "thank you".

 

This field was optional earlier. Sounded reasonable. Sometimes I really needed to add data (puzzles, maintenance plans). In most cases (e.g. simple traditional caches in my own city) I had nothing to add and left this field blank.

 

The text above the field still says it's optional: "If there is any additional information you want to provide about your geocache, include it below". I reported this bug to the translation HQ (I'm a volunteer translator). What I wish to ask in this thread is its mandatory status. The colleagues explained: "The reviewer note was made mandatory on purpose. The reviewers are mostly reporting improvements in the cache owners telling them more about their cache hide. We want cache owners to understand that it helps improve the review process if they provide more information and not less".

 

Well, I suppose I'm not as clever as I could be so there's a necessity to make me understand the importance of this field every time I publish a geocache (I own >60 caches). Don't you think that this should be done in some other way? For example, more information explaining the meaning/purpose of this field + an additional window saying "Are you REALLY going to leave the field blank? Your comment would help to improve your cache and make the review process smooth".

Edited June 17, 2014 by -CJ-

[+T.D.M.22]

Just say thanks to the reviewers.

 

I'm thinking this is more targeted towards the new users, not those of us who know what we are doing.

Edited June 17, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[+sarahmcmur]

It is annoying. I wrote a note on two unknown caches I submitted recently but for the traditional I submitted last week I had no idea what to put so I just put a full stop (or a period for American English speakers )

[+-CJ-]

I'm thinking this is more targeted towards the new users, not those of us who know what we are doing.

 

New users supposedly have even less understanding when they are required to add something about their cache.

 

Just say thanks to the reviewers.

 

I certainly can but I'm not talking about how to circumvent this requirement.

Edited June 17, 2014 by -CJ-

[+KRON family]

I do not see a big problem. In the new form we started about 25 listings we wrote "fdgfdgdg" or "." and everything was fine.

[+Bear and Ragged]

A bit like adding an encrypted No Hint...

 

Just add TFTR, it seems Groundspeak are more into acronyms these days, than actually writing something meaningful!

 

TFTR = Thanks For The Review. (But I guess you had worked it out anyway! )

[+NYPaddleCacher]

A bit like adding an encrypted No Hint...

 

Just add TFTR, it seems Groundspeak are more into acronyms these days, than actually writing something meaningful!

 

TFTR = Thanks For The Review. (But I guess you had worked it out anyway! )

 

or

 

That's one more hide for me. Thanks so much for reviewing this geocache.

 

 

[+EngPhil]

That's one more hide for me. Thanks so much for reviewing this geocache.

That's priceless. I think I shall have to remember that one. Perhaps Groundspeak could auto-populate the reviewer note with that as a default.

[+J Grouchy]

If it's "mandatory", to me that implies Groundspeak is expecting some specific information...wouldn't you think? If so, why not just ask for that specific info instead of leaving it open for anything the person wants to type? Otherwise it's just more clutter and a waste of time.

[+Lil Devil]

Last few caches I submitted, I just did a Google search for jokes, and included one as the reviewer note. I hope it put a smile on my reviewer's face when she reviewed my cache.

[+lumbricus]

Last few caches I submitted, I just did a Google search for jokes, and included one as the reviewer note...

 

Great idea!

[+-CJ-]

The answers are pretty funny. I will think about a list of Russian proverbs as a source of wise encouraging phrases for this field. However I raised this issue because I thought that newbies who were required to add some unknown information for their caches to be published could be confused easily. It's even more confusing because "your comments" field is usually optional in online forms. Situations when you're required to add at least a slash (or dot or comma or "hi" or "thanks") in some field to get the whole form being processed has been seen as a logical bug. Currently this can be fixed, in my opinion, but after a while COs will get into a habit to fill this field with rubbish and their attitude to this important field may become different.

[Keystone]

I don't publish caches in my review territory unless I know what type of container is used, and how it's hidden. Otherwise, I cannot catch things like buried caches or caches that deface natural objects. I need to confirm compliance with the listing guidelines before publishing. If I can't tell the container type and hiding style from reading the description, and if there is no reviewer note explaining these things, publication of the cache will be delayed.

 

So, if you can't think of anything else to say, try "this is a small lock 'n lock container with a geocaching logo, and it's hidden in a tree stump."

[+-CJ-]

Thank you Keystone. Could you try to drive more attention of the Groundspeak HQs to this bug so it is fixed?

 

As a volunteer reviewer I had to change my translation of the text explanation above the field so it became more clear what data is expected from users. Better than nothing.

[+-CJ-]

My mistake: I'm not a volunteer revewer but translator.

 

Since no other solution was suggested I changed the translation so that at least Russian COs aren't confused with this mandatory status.

[cezanne]

Since no other solution was suggested I changed the translation so that at least Russian COs aren't confused with this mandatory status.

 

In my opinion, a translator should not change the contents.

[+-CJ-]

In my opinion, a translator should not change the contents.

 

If you join the volunteer translation team once I will be glad to discuss this topic in a more professional manner and in a more suitable place.

[cezanne]

In my opinion, a translator should not change the contents.

 

If you join the volunteer translation team once I will be glad to discuss this topic in a more professional manner and in a more suitable place.

 

So in short: never going to happen for several reasons (among others no need for German, my opposition against translations of the gc.com site).

[+-CJ-]

Your position is crystal clear. Have mercy.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I think it's good that they made this field mandatory. It encourages people to give more information and potentially saves alot of time in the review process.

[+-CJ-]

It encourages people to give more information

 

Including greetings, dots and jokes.

 

Why not making the field "Hint" mandatory then? Hints are generally useful. If some COs don't want to give hints or believe that their caches are so easy that no hints are necessary they should fill this field with any other data (since it's mandatory). For example, "no hint here" or "hey, does anyone really need a hint?" or... sorry, there might have been numerous complaints about such usage of this field, no?

 

Each field is for some specific information. This mandatory field is for something. I strongly support the general idea of COs providing more useful information to reviewers but the implementation looks strange.

[cezanne]

Each field is for some specific information. This mandatory field is for something. I strongly support the general idea of COs providing more useful information to reviewers but the implementation looks strange.

 

You seem to overlook that depending on the region and the handling reviewer different it varies what type of information should be added. Our local reviewers do not care about the container type and hideout style, but there are some aspects that play a role for them which do not play a role in other areas. Unless it is the very first hide of someone, the cache hiders should know what type of information plays a role for the local reviewers.

[+JL_HSTRE]

What addition information would a Reviewer like to receive when I create an Event or CITO?

[+NanCycle]

What addition information would a Reviewer like to receive when I create an Event or CITO?

 

Beats me! For the mandatory Reviewer note on my Event, I just wrote "Reviewers welcome to attend."

[Keystone]

It's a good place to say that "This flash mob has been cleared with Mall security" or "The park rangers suggested the lakefront trail for cleanup and are very excited that we're having a CITO event."

 

If you host a recurring event, the reviewer note field can be used to highlight anything that changed since last month's cache page. ("We added a note that there's free WiFi at the restaurant, hope that's OK.")

[+ADKer]

When I first saw that I had to write a note, I used it to ask my review "Why do I have to write a reviewer note if there's nothing important to say?"

 

He answered that I didn't.

[+funkymunkyzone]

Personally, I think the main problem of this reviewer note being mandatory is when it's required to be filled in. Often (read: most of the time) I create the cache page well before I'm going to submit it. More often than not, this is because it will take me a bit longer to write up the cache page and/or the cache is not yet in place. So at the time I create the listing, I have nothing to say about the hide. Of course by the time I go to submit, there is no longer a mandatory reviewer note. I would think the better way to have enforced a meaningful note to the reviewer would have been at the time the cache is submitted to the reviewer.