Question for reviewers

[Keystone]

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?

I'm aware of this happening, but it may be a regional problem rather than a generalized one. Human nature being what it is, the temptation to fudge waypoint details likely increases as cache density increases. I cannot recall seeing this, and I review (and cache) in a fairly cache-dense region of the USA. But if I did come across a discrepancy, I would likely handle it just as Captain Shiny Pants described above.

[cezanne]

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 agree, but this does not mean that it is silly to ask a question like the OP did (when we assume that it was meant in the way I understood the question).

 

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.

 

I intentionally mentioned another country too and I could name others as well. Geocaching has developped very differently in different regions of the world. You will not notice many of the differences by such picking out a small number of caches when visiting a country for at most a few days.

 

As the reviewer accounts are regarded, all Austrian reviewers followed the example of Erik (who has reviewed the Austrian caches for a number of years and also served as a model what cachers expected from a reviewer) and decided that everyone should know who they are.

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

I intentionally mentioned another country too and I could name others as well. Geocaching has developped very differently in different regions of the world. You will not notice many of the differences by such picking out a small number of caches when visiting a country for at most a few days.

 

How would you notice the differences and become an expert in such things?

[+HHL]

[...]

How would you notice the differences and become an expert in such things?

 

This Austrian [deleted] gave the answer by herself: "You will not notice many of the differences by such picking out a small number of caches when visiting a country for at most a few days."

 

Hans

Edited February 11, 2016 by HHL

[+Team Microdot]

[...]

How would you notice the differences and become an expert in such things?

 

This Austrian [deleted] gave the answer by herself: "You will not notice many of the differences by such picking out a small number of caches when visiting a country for at most a few days."

 

Hans

 

No - you're mistaken - that doesn't answer my question at all.

[+eigengott]

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?

 

In almost all cases I wouldn't even notice. Because I play with the player info, not with the reviewer info (hidden waypoints). And no, I still can't remember caches I reviewed one or two days ago. Maybe I remember the general area of a waypoint, but certainly not the exact coordinates.

 

Of course, if I'd stumble over two stages/finals sitting side by side, both listed on geocaching.com I may don my reviewer hat (after doing my logging as a player) and look into the situation. For stages/finals in restricted locations I don't even need my reviewer powers. I simply log a needs archived as a player (and let another reviewer handle it).

Edited February 11, 2016 by eigengott

[cezanne]

How would you notice the differences and become an expert in such things?

 

I never claimed to be an expert (on whatever) and I never claimed to be aware of a certain percentage of differences. Some differences become obvious when one goes for a higher number of caches in an area. (And there are e.g. already quite striking differences between caching in my home area and Vienna and even larger ones between Vienna and the area in Germany I know best).

 

But back to the reviewer topic: The topic I wrote about in the post to which NYPC replied was about the caching scenario for reviewers in my country and then NYPC's answer that most reviewers do not use their player account for reviewing did not fit in at all. Of course I do not believe that the finds logged by Keystone are the only finds logged by the cacher behind Keystone but I had explicitely mentioned about which scenario I'm writing.

[+Team Microdot]

How would you notice the differences and become an expert in such things?

 

I never claimed to be an expert (on whatever) and I never claimed to be aware of a certain percentage of differences.

 

Apologies - my mistake - when you write about the caching habits of most reviewers and even most North American cachers I assume that you've undertaken detailed research to support your assertions which, in my eyes, would afford you a certain level of expertise.

[cezanne]

How would you notice the differences and become an expert in such things?

 

I never claimed to be an expert (on whatever) and I never claimed to be aware of a certain percentage of differences.

 

Apologies - my mistake - when you write about the caching habits of most reviewers and even most North American cachers I assume that you've undertaken detailed research to support your assertions which, in my eyes, would afford you a certain level of expertise.

 

Look at the percentages of available multi caches in North America and you will quickly realize that the percentages of multi caches among the finds of North American multi lovers will typically be lower than of cachers in countries like Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium who are rather indifferent about the cache type and are not multi lovers. That's mainly a question of what's available to be found. There are also huge differences between e.g. Tyrol and Vienna in the distribution of available caches and this is directly reflected in the finds of those who mainly cache in their area.

 

I could not imagine how to manage a >50% percentage of non traditional and non virtual in North America while at the same time not limiting the visited caches to just a very small selection.

This is quite different e.g. for someone who lives in Vienna.

 

But also in absolute numbers there are considerable differences: E.g. there are only 10 US cachers and 6 from Canada who found >=1000 multi caches while there are 325 German cachers, 125 Dutch cachers, 47 Czech cachers, 40 Austrian cachers and 38 Belgian cachers with >=1000 multi finds (who have in comparison found much less caches than the >=1000 multi finders in the US). [The number for Australia by the way is 15.]

Edited February 11, 2016 by cezanne

[+cleandrysurface]

Needs Archived.

 

What the hell is anyone talking about at this point? Keystone gave a pretty comprehensive answer on the previous page.

[+The A-Team]

What the hell is anyone talking about at this point? Keystone gave a pretty comprehensive answer on the previous page.

A few of us have taken the opportunity to engage the reviewers in a bit of a Q&A, which has been interesting. A couple of others have engaged in a personal battle over some other topic. Since the Q&A seems to have run its course and we're just left with the personal battle, I think I agree with you that this discussion can be put to bed.

[jholly]

Needs Archived.

 

What the hell is anyone talking about at this point? Keystone gave a pretty comprehensive answer on the previous page.

Your new here, aren't you? We can go on for pages and pages slicing and dicing the smallest and most insignificant minutia.

[cezanne]

What the hell is anyone talking about at this point? Keystone gave a pretty comprehensive answer on the previous page.

 

Yes and no. He provided good insight on how it works in areas he is familiar with and he also mentioned that not everywhere it works in the same way.

In areas with a very high proportion of non traditionals and only 1 or 2 reviewers it's not that easy to handle and often results in a changed caching behaviour of

reviewers who start to avoid caches they would not have avoided otherwise.

[+cleandrysurface]

 

Yes and no.

 

It is either comprehensive, or it isn't.

 

What is the policy on trolls in this forum, btw?

[+Team Microdot]

Needs Archived.

 

What the hell is anyone talking about at this point? Keystone gave a pretty comprehensive answer on the previous page.

Your new here, aren't you? We can go on for pages and pages slicing and dicing the smallest and most insignificant minutia.

 

I think you mean you're new here

[jholly]

What is the policy on trolls in this forum, btw?

They are nurtured and fed.

[Keystone]

What the hell is anyone talking about at this point? Keystone gave a pretty comprehensive answer on the previous page.

 

Yes and no. He provided good insight on how it works in areas he is familiar with and he also mentioned that not everywhere it works in the same way.

In areas with a very high proportion of non traditionals and only 1 or 2 reviewers it's not that easy to handle and often results in a changed caching behaviour of

reviewers who start to avoid caches they would not have avoided otherwise.

If the answers I provide in the forums cannot be considered "comprehensive" if they fail to incorporate a thorough, statistically validated study of how the issue is handled in Austria, then I will gladly join the ranks with the majority of Community Volunteer Reviewers who don't bother coming to these Forums to post answers.

 

Did anyone else notice that the OP has not followed up? If they weren't scared away by SwineFlew's unnecessarily inflammatory post early on, surely they've quit following the discussion of puzzle cache concentration in Austria. Note that the OP lives in Virginia, has fewer than 50 finds, and has less than ten forum posts. The OP has hidden two caches: a traditional that had a rather bumpy ride to the archive list, and a totally non-controversial puzzle cache that was reviewed by a volunteer who doesn't live in Virginia. I am more interested in answering the OP's question in a general sense, leaving the OP with a good impression of the forums as a place to ask questions and receive answers.

[cezanne]

If the answers I provide in the forums cannot be considered "comprehensive"

 

I did not say anything negative about what you wrote. I even tried to make it clear that I appreciated your answer but apparently I failed in my effort.

 

Note that the OP lives in Virginia, has fewer than 50 finds, and has less than ten forum posts. The OP has hidden two caches: a traditional that had a rather bumpy ride to the archive list, and a totally non-controversial puzzle cache that was reviewed by a volunteer who doesn't live in Virginia. I am more interested in answering the OP's question in a general sense, leaving the OP with a good impression of the forums as a place to ask questions and receive answers.

 

I never expected the OP to have the same background reason for being interested into an answer to the question than myself

I could of course have asked the same question in a separate thread but does not really make sense or is it what you and others had preferred?

 

I do understand that the getting started area should be specially targeted at beginners but this thread has not been opened over there.

 

Until now I understood a topic in a public discussion forum as something which is not owned by the person who starts the thread and not as something which is intended to leave this person with a certain impression (of whichever sort).

 

My interest into the question was sincere and I would have appreciated if several reviewers from countries with a high proportion of non traditionals who visit many such caches themselves had made an attempt to answer. It's certainly not your fault that this did not happen.

 

Unfortunately, in my opinion we hear and read too rarely about geocaching in non English speaking countries in this part of the forum.

[+bflentje]

What the hell is anyone talking about at this point? Keystone gave a pretty comprehensive answer on the previous page.

 

Yes and no. He provided good insight on how it works in areas he is familiar with and he also mentioned that not everywhere it works in the same way.

In areas with a very high proportion of non traditionals and only 1 or 2 reviewers it's not that easy to handle and often results in a changed caching behaviour of

reviewers who start to avoid caches they would not have avoided otherwise.

If the answers I provide in the forums cannot be considered "comprehensive" if they fail to incorporate a thorough, statistically validated study of how the issue is handled in Austria, then I will gladly join the ranks with the majority of Community Volunteer Reviewers who don't bother coming to these Forums to post answers.

 

Did anyone else notice that the OP has not followed up? If they weren't scared away by SwineFlew's unnecessarily inflammatory post early on, surely they've quit following the discussion of puzzle cache concentration in Austria. Note that the OP lives in Virginia, has fewer than 50 finds, and has less than ten forum posts. The OP has hidden two caches: a traditional that had a rather bumpy ride to the archive list, and a totally non-controversial puzzle cache that was reviewed by a volunteer who doesn't live in Virginia.

 

You say this..

 

I am more interested in answering the OP's question in a general sense, leaving the OP with a good impression of the forums as a place to ask questions and receive answers.

 

AFTER you more or less call out his lack of experience and history. Jeepers creepers.

 

Note that the OP lives in Virginia, has fewer than 50 finds, and has less than ten forum posts. The OP has hidden two caches: a traditional that had a rather bumpy ride to the archive list, and a totally non-controversial puzzle cache that was reviewed by a volunteer who doesn't live in Virginia.