Jump to content

Question for reviewers


Philman
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

I'm not sure what you're fishing for in that question, but to answer one interpretation, Reviewers are held to a certain Code of Conduct, just like any employee of Groundspeak. To misuse information that is intended to be be confidential would be in violation of that CoC.

 

Most Multi's in my area don't tend to be to arduous or involve rocket science. In general, I tend to ignore most, but the simplest of Puzzles. My Player account is pretty well known in the area, so it would be pretty obvious if I started to *solve* five star difficulty Puzzles. My wife, on the other hand, is quite capable of it :)

 

edit spelling

Edited by Nomex
Link to comment

What an odd question.

 

The answer to "How does it feel?" is "Like a Rolling Stone."

 

That's because the details very quickly roll off from my active memory and down the mental hill into a valley of forgotten details.

 

Less than five minutes ago, I published two new multicaches. Five minutes later, I can recall that they both began on the same side of a reservoir, and one ended in the same area while the other one ended at a point of interest that's a fair driving distance to the east. I cannot remember what reservoir or what county they are in. By this evening I will not remember the identity of the separate point of interest where one of the multicaches ends. By tomorrow I won't remember that I published both of them today.

 

And if, by chance, I am in the area of these multicaches and decide to hunt for them, the details will be a complete surprise to me. There are just too many caches and a normal human cannot remember all the details.

Link to comment

What an odd question.

 

The answer to "How does it feel?" is "Like a Rolling Stone."

 

That's because the details very quickly roll off from my active memory and down the mental hill into a valley of forgotten details.

 

Less than five minutes ago, I published two new multicaches. Five minutes later, I can recall that they both began on the same side of a reservoir, and one ended in the same area while the other one ended at a point of interest that's a fair driving distance to the east. I cannot remember what reservoir or what county they are in. By this evening I will not remember the identity of the separate point of interest where one of the multicaches ends. By tomorrow I won't remember that I published both of them today.

 

And if, by chance, I am in the area of these multicaches and decide to hunt for them, the details will be a complete surprise to me. There are just too many caches and a normal human cannot remember all the details.

I dont think hes talking about remembering where the final is at... hes talking about using your admin power to look up the final coordinates.

 

The reason you say its an odd question because you dont want to answer it that you or other reviewers had use their admin power to look up the final coordinates. I am sure it been done since the beginning of unknown/puzzle caches.

Link to comment

I doubt they know the solutions in that I'm sure they don't remember many if any, but if you're asking what it's like to have privileged access to final coordinates, I'm sure, like in any other trusted position, it's quite a burden to hold oneself to a sufficiently high set of standards such that no one could even imagine a reviewer using that information unfairly.

Link to comment

What an odd question.

 

The answer to "How does it feel?" is "Like a Rolling Stone."

 

That's because the details very quickly roll off from my active memory and down the mental hill into a valley of forgotten details.

 

Less than five minutes ago, I published two new multicaches. Five minutes later, I can recall that they both began on the same side of a reservoir, and one ended in the same area while the other one ended at a point of interest that's a fair driving distance to the east. I cannot remember what reservoir or what county they are in. By this evening I will not remember the identity of the separate point of interest where one of the multicaches ends. By tomorrow I won't remember that I published both of them today.

 

And if, by chance, I am in the area of these multicaches and decide to hunt for them, the details will be a complete surprise to me. There are just too many caches and a normal human cannot remember all the details.

 

What, you don't keep notes like the phone-a-friend networks? :ph34r:

Link to comment

Yes, I suppose it just comes down to trust. When we make decisions on who to ask to be a Reviewer, one of the things that we look for is someone with integrity. It is very important that we as Reviewers don't abuse the trust that Groundspeak or our fellow cachers have in us.

 

If Groundspeak found out that a Reviewer was actively abusing their powers to find the finals and waypoints for Mystery/Puzzles or Multis, I don't think that Reviewer would be a Reviewer for much longer.

 

I don't appreciate that it's just assumed that Reviewers do this. <_<

Link to comment

Yes, I suppose it just comes down to trust. When we make decisions on who to ask to be a Reviewer, one of the things that we look for is someone with integrity. It is very important that we as Reviewers don't abuse the trust that Groundspeak or our fellow cachers have in us.

 

+1, thumbs up, like.

 

If Groundspeak found out that a Reviewer was actively abusing their powers to find the finals and waypoints for Mystery/Puzzles or Multis, I don't think that Reviewer would be a Reviewer for much longer.

 

I don't appreciate that it's just assumed that Reviewers do this. <_<

 

If you think of human nature, I think it's an easy assumption to make, unfortunately. But to be clear, I do not fall into the camp that might distrust reviewers.

Link to comment

Like most volunteers, I use separate accounts for my player and reviewer activities. If I were out in the field, stumped on stage two of a multicache, I'd have only the "public" version of the cache listing on my GPS and iPhone app. To "cheat," I'd need to login on the website using my reviewer account, and that's more trouble than it's worth -- assuming I even have cellphone network access when out in the middle of the woods where stage two is hidden. Fortunately, I'm not even tempted to go there, as it would violate my ethics and also spoil the fun of figuring out that evil stage two. I like keeping the two "personas" separate.

Link to comment

That's a very odd question. Just because someone has access to information does not mean they will use it nefariously. As a sys admin for several businesses, I have complete access to sensitive servers. But I use that access for the purpose for which it was granted and no more. Just because I can access the information does not mean that I will. I'm hired partly for my skill set, but probably more for my reputation as a trustworthy individual. The same goes for reviewers. I think it's pretty insulting to insinuate anything different.

Link to comment

That's a very odd question. Just because someone has access to information does not mean they will use it nefariously. As a sys admin for several businesses, I have complete access to sensitive servers. But I use that access for the purpose for which it was granted and no more. Just because I can access the information does not mean that I will. I'm hired partly for my skill set, but probably more for my reputation as a trustworthy individual. The same goes for reviewers. I think it's pretty insulting to insinuate anything different.

 

For the system admin case it's just a matter of trust. In case of caches I think a different aspect comes into play that is not present in the system admin example.

I never would want to act as reviewer as I certainly would remember a lot more than I would like to know about the caches I'm going to visit in the future.

 

So I think either one should not have a good memory or do not review too many caches in the area one normally caches in or one should be mainly interested into traditionals.

If none of these options is fulfilled, I imagine it to be hard to enjoy caching in the same manner than without the reviewer job.

Link to comment

That's a very odd question. Just because someone has access to information does not mean they will use it nefariously. As a sys admin for several businesses, I have complete access to sensitive servers. But I use that access for the purpose for which it was granted and no more. Just because I can access the information does not mean that I will. I'm hired partly for my skill set, but probably more for my reputation as a trustworthy individual. The same goes for reviewers. I think it's pretty insulting to insinuate anything different.

 

I was going to bring up the system admin example as well. I worked as a systems administrator for 17 years, which, because I had unlimited access dozens of systems meant I had read/write access to about 1600 users email folders and everything else those users might store in their home directories. Those users assumed that their privacy would not be invaded because I was trusted not to do it.

Link to comment

That's a very odd question. Just because someone has access to information does not mean they will use it nefariously. As a sys admin for several businesses, I have complete access to sensitive servers. But I use that access for the purpose for which it was granted and no more. Just because I can access the information does not mean that I will. I'm hired partly for my skill set, but probably more for my reputation as a trustworthy individual. The same goes for reviewers. I think it's pretty insulting to insinuate anything different.

 

I was going to bring up the system admin example as well. I worked as a systems administrator for 17 years, which, because I had unlimited access dozens of systems meant I had read/write access to about 1600 users email folders and everything else those users might store in their home directories. Those users assumed that their privacy would not be invaded because I was trusted not to do it.

 

I don't doubt you're trustworthy but the fact of the matter is, not everyone is. I've worked in IT for 16 years at the same firm and I can name more than one that have been "let go" for abusing the information that they have access to.

Link to comment

My working definition of "integrity" is doing the right thing when no one is watching. I trust reviewers to have integrity in this respect. Plus, I expect that, if it ever became an issue, Groundspeak would likely step in.

 

Because a volunteer reviewer happened to find a mystery or multi cache that they happened to review?

 

I expect you'd be waiting a long time.

 

As far as I can see, this is a non-issue on all fronts.

Link to comment

My working definition of "integrity" is doing the right thing when no one is watching. I trust reviewers to have integrity in this respect. Plus, I expect that, if it ever became an issue, Groundspeak would likely step in.

 

Because a volunteer reviewer happened to find a mystery or multi cache that they happened to review?

 

I expect you'd be waiting a long time.

 

As far as I can see, this is a non-issue on all fronts.

I agree. Only thing I meant by "became an issue" is if a reviewer was actually suspected of abusing their abilities as a reviewer to log caches. I doubt it would happen, but in the unlikely event that it did, I suspect Groundspeak would act appropriately.

Link to comment

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

 

This may be completely baseless, but someone once told me that reviewers are typically assigned to territories that are outside of their local area in order to avoid this.

 

Since reviewers are volunteers (thank you, reviewers), they probably also have a paying job with little time to follow up on this stuff even if they were inclined to do so.

 

You should probably lay off the puzzle caches for a while. Sounds like you have become obsessed. dry.gif

Link to comment

This may be completely baseless, but someone once told me that reviewers are typically assigned to territories that are outside of their local area in order to avoid this.

I believe it's actually the exact opposite: reviewers are typically assigned to their local area. That means they're more familiar with local customs, laws, regulations, and the local caching community.

Link to comment

My last post got me thinking...

To the reviewers: Have you ever physically visited a cache site during the review process if it's close to home/somewhere you happen to be visiting? I know this isn't standard practice, but since reviewers typically review their home region, I'd have to assume this happens occasionally, no?

Link to comment

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

 

While reviewing I can go through hundreds of caches in a week. I run the caches through a quick filter to see if they comply as far as distance and location. If they comply (along with other guidelines) then I publish. If I eventually find a mystery or multi that I published it can be months or years later and I have no advantage over anybody else. My memory isn't that good. So how does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi as a reviewer? I don't. I feel just as you do. I'm totally clueless and need to find the cache the same way you do.

Link to comment

This may be completely baseless, but someone once told me that reviewers are typically assigned to territories that are outside of their local area in order to avoid this.

I believe it's actually the exact opposite: reviewers are typically assigned to their local area. That means they're more familiar with local customs, laws, regulations, and the local caching community.

 

Must depend on how many reviewers your "area" has, as the reviewers in Ontario, from what I've seen, review caches that are not in their "home" territory.

 

B.

Link to comment

My last post got me thinking...

To the reviewers: Have you ever physically visited a cache site during the review process if it's close to home/somewhere you happen to be visiting? I know this isn't standard practice, but since reviewers typically review their home region, I'd have to assume this happens occasionally, no?

Only once, and only because it was within walking distance from my home. Knowing that I certainly had an edge on the FTF, both in terms of Publish timing and easy access, I merely went to the site to see how it was hidden. I passed it many times afterwards during my usual walk, and eventually, after a few months, actually signed the log and logged my Find. I'm kind of in a rural area, so most of the time, I have to drive somewhere to find caches. I think there's three now in my immediate area. I haven't bothered finding the other two yet. Giving other folks a chance to log them before me seemed only fair.

 

I've only had one FTF since I began Reviewing (almost 10 years now), and that was completely unintentional and quite a surprise. The cache was located in a Park/Open Space that requires a permit to enter. I finally got around to arranging for a permit about 6 months after Publication and only a single find on the Listing page. When I got there, the logsheet was completely blank, to my surprise. Turns out the User was fairly new and mistook the nearby Trail Register for the cache, which was actually placed in a bush nearby :laughing: It wasn't any big deal, and everyone had a pretty good laugh over it.

Link to comment

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

 

This may be completely baseless, but someone once told me that reviewers are typically assigned to territories that are outside of their local area in order to avoid this.

 

Since reviewers are volunteers (thank you, reviewers), they probably also have a paying job with little time to follow up on this stuff even if they were inclined to do so.

 

You should probably lay off the puzzle caches for a while. Sounds like you have become obsessed. dry.gif

 

Some reviewers will pass off the review of certain puzzle caches to another reviewer because they are interested in the cache and don't want an advantage. The average cacher has idea as to what goes on behind the scenes, but this is a common ethic. But generally most reviwers deal with so many caches each week that the specifics of any single cache are long forgotten by the time they are out on the hunt.

Link to comment

If it wasn't for my notes about how a mystery cache was solved, then I'd often have to "start over" when viewing the cache page for a mystery cache. I can't imagine that reviewers would remember all the puzzle solutions that come through their queue.

 

Assuming lack of memory, there is the possibility that Reviewers take notes during the review process so that they can find the mystery caches with they player account. I don't think that's a common occurrence though. Reviewers must have respect for the hobby itself, otherwise they wouldn't volunteer their time to support geocaching. It's hard to imagine that people committed to geocaching would subvert the process and 'cheat' to get the final coords. It would ruin the fun and feeling of accomplishment that comes from solving those puzzles themselves.

Link to comment

My last post got me thinking...

To the reviewers: Have you ever physically visited a cache site during the review process if it's close to home/somewhere you happen to be visiting? I know this isn't standard practice, but since reviewers typically review their home region, I'd have to assume this happens occasionally, no?

 

just 1 time: approx. 250m from home, and being not sure, if this cache had been placed inside a dry field stone wall, we've took Mr. O.R.Egon and visited the cache.

Link to comment

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

 

I don't see where the OP mentioned nefarious use of privileged information by reviewers :huh:

 

I'm still wondering if the OP intended this thread to turn into a discussion on whether or not we should suspect volunteer reviewers of 'cheating' at puzzles / multi caches.

 

I'm also wondering how it matters.

Link to comment

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

 

Thanks for the compliment on my memory! I only wish it be as good as you assume...

 

But I can tell you that DNFs on caches I published feel exactly the same as any other cache. See http://coord.info/GC1W28P for an example. I published it, DNFed twice, never found it. :ph34r: Nice area though.

Link to comment

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

 

Thanks for the compliment on my memory! I only wish it be as good as you assume...

 

But I can tell you that DNFs on caches I published feel exactly the same as any other cache. See http://coord.info/GC1W28P for an example. I published it, DNFed twice, never found it. :ph34r: Nice area though.

 

Well, I would not recall 60 waypoints either. However, for sure I would remember much more than I would feel happy with if I were a reviewer and that's one of many reasons why I'm glad that I'm not a reviewer. Do not get my wrong - I'm not concerned that a reviewer might have advantages in finding a cache. Just when it comes to me I would remember more than I'd like to know in advance - it's one thing to actually find a container and another one is the overall experience and that often includes some form of surprises - e.g. not knowing at all where a cache route leads to. A lot of these effects are ruined for those who do not forget facts they come across easily.

 

Moreover there are many puzzle caches which are ruined once one read how the solution works. This most probably is not an issue for you as you are doing very few puzzle caches anyhow.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

Moreover there are many puzzle caches which are ruined once one read how the solution works. This most probably is not an issue for you as you are doing very few puzzle caches anyhow.

 

 

Cezanne

 

A reviewer will see the coordinates for the final location but, unless the CO specifically spells out how the puzzle is solved they're not going to see the solution. Some reviewers may ask the CO to explain, in general terms, how a puzzle works, to determine that it's not violating some other guideline like requiring people to contact the CO via email to obtain additional information or go to some web site which requires a login. If a reviewer was interested in solving the puzzle they could just hit the publish button if it met all other requirements then work on trying to solve it without any additional information. If they subsequently determine that it violates a guideline they can archive the cache (or ask the CO to fix the problem).

Link to comment

A reviewer will see the coordinates for the final location but, unless the CO specifically spells out how the puzzle is solved they're not going to see the solution. Some reviewers may ask the CO to explain, in general terms, how a puzzle works, to determine that it's not violating some other guideline like requiring people to contact the CO via email to obtain additional information or go to some web site which requires a login.

 

Many cachers provide the details automatically without request (I have done so too in order to be do everything in my hands to avoid delaying the publication).

 

Moreover sometimes even seeing the coordinates gives away the idea - e.g. if the coordinates were N ab c4.711 E de f4.711 (a-f are given and fit to the area) and the cache is called Eau de Cologne.

 

There are other examples as well.

 

Do not get me wrong - my point is not that I'm concerned that a reviewer might have an advantage. I just argue that it can easily happen that they get to know more than someone like me would like to know.

I've observed however that most reviewers either do not cache much or at least do not visit many puzzle and multi caches in their territory (if at all).

Link to comment

I'm still wondering if the OP intended this thread to turn into a discussion on whether or not we should suspect volunteer reviewers of 'cheating' at puzzles / multi caches.

Like most of the other responders, I'm wondering what other possible purpose you are imagining for the OP. If we ignore that possibility that the question is trying to sneak in a suspicion of using the information to cheat, the question seems kinda silly, something like asking how it feels to read the newspaper every morning.

Link to comment

I'm still wondering if the OP intended this thread to turn into a discussion on whether or not we should suspect volunteer reviewers of 'cheating' at puzzles / multi caches.

Like most of the other responders, I'm wondering what other possible purpose you are imagining for the OP. If we ignore that possibility that the question is trying to sneak in a suspicion of using the information to cheat, the question seems kinda silly, something like asking how it feels to read the newspaper every morning.

 

I'm not intuitive enough to have worked out what most of the other responders are wondering - or even intuitive enough to work out what the OP was thinking when he made the post - given that they haven't shared that information with us - or posted since.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest though that the OP was silly, just because they didn't frame or qualify their post in a way that would shed more light on the thought processes behind it - but I have noticed how much you like to use that word :lol:

Link to comment

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

 

I don't see where the OP mentioned nefarious use of privileged information by reviewers :huh:

 

The OP did not, at least not directly. One of the responses before yours certainly did and in no uncertain terms.

Edited by Michaelcycle
Link to comment

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

 

I don't see where the OP mentioned nefarious use of privileged information by reviewers :huh:

 

The OP did not, at least not directly. One of the responses before yours certainly did and in no uncertain terms.

 

Which is precisely the point I'm making. The thread seems to have taken a direction which I'm not convinced the OP intended.

Link to comment

How does it feel like to know the solution to every mystery and multi cache you've ever reviewed?

 

I don't see where the OP mentioned nefarious use of privileged information by reviewers :huh:

 

The OP did not, at least not directly. One of the responses before yours certainly did and in no uncertain terms.

 

Which is precisely the point I'm making. The thread seems to have taken a direction which I'm not convinced the OP intended.

Well that is a shocker.

Link to comment

Like most of the other responders, I'm wondering what other possible purpose you are imagining for the OP. If we ignore that possibility that the question is trying to sneak in a suspicion of using the information to cheat, the question seems kinda silly, something like asking how it feels to read the newspaper every morning.

 

It does not seem to be a silly question to me at all if we ignore that possibility. Actually, I know the case of a former reviewer who has been a power cacher before his reviewer time and who almost ceased to visit caches in his time as reviewer and also mentioned the issues with puzzle caches (he reviewed in an area where there are way more puzzle and multi caches than in the US) and that they were one of the main reasons why his caching style has changed considerably.

 

I still think that in a region with many puzzle and multi caches it is not easy for a reviewer who reviews in his/her own caching terrority to stay a very active finder of multi and puzzle caches (for some cachers the number of non traditionals is larger than 50%).

Link to comment

This may be completely baseless, but someone once told me that reviewers are typically assigned to territories that are outside of their local area in order to avoid this.

I believe it's actually the exact opposite: reviewers are typically assigned to their local area. That means they're more familiar with local customs, laws, regulations, and the local caching community.

 

Must depend on how many reviewers your "area" has, as the reviewers in Ontario, from what I've seen, review caches that are not in their "home" territory.

 

B.

Only one of the BC reviewers is "out", so I don't know where the other three live. However, until that one reviewer moved about a year ago, I'm sure they were reviewing caches very close to where they lived. I'm updating some caches in GSAK right now to confirm this and will report back when it's done.

Link to comment

A reviewer will see the coordinates for the final location but, unless the CO specifically spells out how the puzzle is solved they're not going to see the solution. Some reviewers may ask the CO to explain, in general terms, how a puzzle works, to determine that it's not violating some other guideline like requiring people to contact the CO via email to obtain additional information or go to some web site which requires a login.

 

Many cachers provide the details automatically without request (I have done so too in order to be do everything in my hands to avoid delaying the publication).

 

Your point was that providing a solution to the puzzle could spoil the puzzle for the reviewer. If someone is concerned about spoiling the puzzle for the reviewer then they can just provide a vague description of the nature of the puzzle. I suspect that a vague description is good enough *unless* there might still be a reason for the reviewer to think it may violate the guidelines. Whether it's a puzzle or not if there is something about a cache listing that leads a reviewer to think that it might not comply with they guidelines they're going to ask for a clarification.

 

 

Moreover sometimes even seeing the coordinates gives away the idea - e.g. if the coordinates were N ab c4.711 E de f4.711 (a-f are given and fit to the area) and the cache is called Eau de Cologne.

 

I suspect that when reviewing a puzzle or multi cache they just copy/paste the coordinates into a page that will tell them if there are proximity issues or might look at them on the map to see if it might in an area with a restrictive geocaching. Even if they type them in by hand I wouldn't be surprise if they pretty much forget what they are by the time they've hit the submit button.

 

 

There are other examples as well.

 

Do not get me wrong - my point is not that I'm concerned that a reviewer might have an advantage. I just argue that it can easily happen that they get to know more than someone like me would like to know.

I've observed however that most reviewers either do not cache much or at least do not visit many puzzle and multi caches in their territory (if at all).

 

I have observed that most reviewers use a separate player account from their reviewer account so whatever you see in the reviewers account regarding the types of hides probably has little to do with their role as a player.

Link to comment

Your point was that providing a solution to the puzzle could spoil the puzzle for the reviewer. If someone is concerned about spoiling the puzzle for the reviewer then they can just provide a vague description of the nature of the puzzle.

 

Yes, certainly they could. I'm not sure however whether the average cacher thinks about this issue when sending off a puzzle cache.

Moreover, I do not know how many reviewers are actually affected at all.

I still think however that a harmless interpretation of the OP's question is not a silly or pathological one.

 

I suspect that when reviewing a puzzle or multi cache they just copy/paste the coordinates into a page that will tell them if there are proximity issues or might look at them on the map to see if it might in an area with a restrictive geocaching. Even if they type them in by hand I wouldn't be surprise if they pretty much forget what they are by the time they've hit the submit button.

 

That could well be the case for many of them. It would not be true for me if I had to check the coordinates on a map.

 

I have observed that most reviewers use a separate player account from their reviewer account so whatever you see in the reviewers account regarding the types of hides probably has little to do with their role as a player.

 

I wonder why you talk about hides - I did nor write anything about hides, but about their behaviours as cache finders.

 

Out of 5 reviewers who have been responsible for reviewing caches in my country (only three of them are still active and only two in my country) a single one has a seperate account for reviewing and this person only chose a different reviewer account as the player account is a family account, but it his identity been known right from the beginning. The reviewer I wrote about has used his player account for reviewing.

 

Many of the German reviewers who have separate accounts have chosen their names such that everyone knows their real identity.

 

I tried to formulate very carefully and explicitely stated the framework in which I think that it could be an issue for reviewers and this framework is not fulfilled for most North American reviewers (hardly any of them searches for a large number of mysterys and multi caches in their territory, most not even outside which is not a surprise as this is true for the majority of North American geocachers and reviewers are selected from the community over there).

 

In a country like mine it is very hard to stay a very active and regular cacher with a high proportion of puzzle and multi caches visited while being a reviewer. Believe it or not. Whichever example you bring from the US will not change my opinion and does not apply to the circumstances around here.

Link to comment

This may be completely baseless, but someone once told me that reviewers are typically assigned to territories that are outside of their local area in order to avoid this.

I believe it's actually the exact opposite: reviewers are typically assigned to their local area. That means they're more familiar with local customs, laws, regulations, and the local caching community.

 

Must depend on how many reviewers your "area" has, as the reviewers in Ontario, from what I've seen, review caches that are not in their "home" territory.

 

B.

Only one of the BC reviewers is "out", so I don't know where the other three live. However, until that one reviewer moved about a year ago, I'm sure they were reviewing caches very close to where they lived. I'm updating some caches in GSAK right now to confirm this and will report back when it's done.

Okay, I downloaded 174 caches in and around the town they used to live in that were hidden in the period they were living there, and 75 of them were published by that reviewer. Some were right in their hometown and would have been less than a mile or two from home.

Link to comment

Your point was that providing a solution to the puzzle could spoil the puzzle for the reviewer. If someone is concerned about spoiling the puzzle for the reviewer then they can just provide a vague description of the nature of the puzzle.

 

Yes, certainly they could. I'm not sure however whether the average cacher thinks about this issue when sending off a puzzle cache.

Moreover, I do not know how many reviewers are actually affected at all.

I still think however that a harmless interpretation of the OP's question is not a silly or pathological one.

 

If a CO doesn't think about the issue when sending off a puzzle cache they probably aren't going to think about spoiling the puzzle for a reviewer.

 

 

I suspect that when reviewing a puzzle or multi cache they just copy/paste the coordinates into a page that will tell them if there are proximity issues or might look at them on the map to see if it might in an area with a restrictive geocaching. Even if they type them in by hand I wouldn't be surprise if they pretty much forget what they are by the time they've hit the submit button.

 

That could well be the case for many of them. It would not be true for me if I had to check the coordinates on a map.

 

I have observed that most reviewers use a separate player account from their reviewer account so whatever you see in the reviewers account regarding the types of hides probably has little to do with their role as a player.

 

I wonder why you talk about hides - I did nor write anything about hides, but about their behaviours as cache finders.

 

I meant to type finds.

 

 

Out of 5 reviewers who have been responsible for reviewing caches in my country (only three of them are still active and only two in my country) a single one has a seperate account for reviewing and this person only chose a different reviewer account as the player account is a family account, but it his identity been known right from the beginning. The reviewer I wrote about has used his player account for reviewing.

 

Many of the German reviewers who have separate accounts have chosen their names such that everyone knows their real identity.

 

I tried to formulate very carefully and explicitely stated the framework in which I think that it could be an issue for reviewers and this framework is not fulfilled for most North American reviewers (hardly any of them searches for a large number of mysterys and multi caches in their territory, most not even outside which is not a surprise as this is true for the majority of North American geocachers and reviewers are selected from the community over there).

 

In a country like mine it is very hard to stay a very active and regular cacher with a high proportion of puzzle and multi caches visited while being a reviewer. Believe it or not. Whichever example you bring from the US will not change my opinion and does not apply to the circumstances around here.

 

Oh, I believe it. It doesn't seem to matter what the topic is, you or your country always seems to be the exception to the rule.

 

 

Link to comment

Suffice it to say that, since there are so many Community Volunteer Reviewers, there are many different ways in which volunteers harmonize their fun as a player with their duties and ethical responsibilities as a reviewer. It is fine for reviewer teams in different parts of the world to handle the same issue in different ways that work well for those volunteers and the communities they serve.

 

Reviewer 1 can review her home area and not care about spoiling puzzles because she doesn't enjoy puzzles as a player.

Reviewer 2 can review his home area but refer puzzles in and around his hometown for review by someone else so as not to spoil them.

Reviewers 3 and 4 can share a review territory with an understanding that puzzles in Reviewer 3's hometown will be reviewed by Reviewer 4 and vice versa.

Reviewer 5 might cover a territory several hours driving distance away from where she lives, so puzzles and multicaches aren't an issue since she will have forgotten all the details prior to her next roadtrip to that territory.

Reviewer 6 is a dog and thus incapable of solving puzzles. Many reviewers are dogs.

 

When I first started as a reviewer in 2003, I covered all of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. At that time, I would pass off review of a puzzle in my home area to the New Jersey reviewer. Then over the years, due to the growth in the game, there are now a total of eight reviewers covering the same total territory. I still review in my immediate home area (southwest Pennsylvania) but I also review in Northwest Ohio, 200 miles away. I kept that area because I especially like the cache hiders there -- so much so that I asked three of them to become reviewers. They prefer not to review in their home area, so problem solved. It's quite possible for me to publish a cache 40 miles from a reviewers' home in Ohio on the same day when that reviewer publishes a cache 40 miles from my home!

Link to comment

I guess to me the more interesting question is if a reviewer of a multi or mysytry ever finds this cache and the waypoints and finals are not what is published as hidden waypoints what does the reviewer do? That is the CO not trusting the reviewer purposely fudeged the waypoints and final to hide the actual locations. Normal finders would not be aware since they can not see the hidden waypoints but a reviewer can. Has it happened, and if so what did the reviewer do? This is assuming the reviewer was not bought off with a whole box of MilkBones.

Edited by jholly
Link to comment

I guess to me the more interesting question is if a reviewer of a multi or mysytry ever finds this cache and the waypoints and finals are not what is published as hidden waypoints what does the reviewer do? That is the CO not trusting the reviewer purposely fudeged the waypoints and final to hide the actual locations. Normal finders would not be aware since they can not see the hidden waypoints but a reviewer can. Has it happened, and if so what did the reviewer do? This is assuming the reviewer was not bought off with a whole box of MilkBones.

I almost always assume an innocent mistake in situations like that (i.e. fat fingering the coordinates, dyslexia, etc.). If it's a Listing I've Reviewed or in my area, I'll contact the cache owner to double check the coordinates. If it's outside my area, I'll let the Local Reviewer know as a courtesy. To be honest, it's usually the "Normal finders" that report these issues to me. Either way, I treat it as a new Review, and proceed as I normally do, to try and get the issue corrected and back into compliance with the spirit of the Guidelines. No Milkbones involved.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...