Reviewer not responding to NAs

[+gasbottle]

The reviewer who covers my area retired recently. He was very efficient: caches are published promptly, suggestions offered and other requests were actioned in a timely fashion.

 

The new reviewer who has taken over is doing a reasonable job in most respects but doesn't seem to want to handle NAs. I have two NAs outstanding and i know of at least one other. Perhaps we were spoiled by our previous reviewer who'd turn things around within 48 hours, but the new reviewer has left these outstanding for over a month.

 

I have exchanged emails with him/her and a he's had a list of all the caches I've flagged. A couple got archived, but these three remain. I'd expect that a cache flagged for archiving would get disabled or archived, or the reviewer would raise a note as to why he didn't think this was appropriate in any specific case. None of this has happened.

 

I realise that the reviewers can be busy people so I don't want to nag. On the other hand a month or more without action seems excessive.

 

What's the best course of action?

[Keystone]

1. Reviewers have different styles. Some will act on "Needs Archived" logs within days. Others will handle the true emergencies quickly ("law enforcement told me to remove the cache") but save more routine actions ("cache is missing") for several weeks, to act upon all at once. Some will give extra time for the CO to take action, if the reviewer sees that the owner is active.

 

2. Not all "Needs Archived" logs necessarily lead to a cache listing being disabled or archived. Many of these logs ought to have been "Needs Maintenance" or "DNF" logs. (I have a response template that says that, so it doesn't look like I've ignored the request.)

 

What's the best course of action? Go out and find some geocaches this weekend. That's a good prescription for most issues.

[Nomex]

Looking at the NA list of notifications for your area, it would appear that there are a large number of seemingly bogus NA logs from a User account that has since been Locked by Groundspeak for spamming issues after several Reviewers (including myself) complained to HQ. It may take awhile for your local Reviewer to sift through the legitimate NA logs. Be patient and follow Keystone's advice on the best course of action.

[+hzoi]

What's the best course of action?

In addition to the comments of the reviewers above, I will add a gentle reminder that you're not the reviewer. I haven't looked up any of your NA logs. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that they are all warranted and in the best interest of the geocaching community. But even if that's true, you're not the reviewer, and I think it's a tad presumptious of you to bring this issue to the forums.

 

Keystone and Nomex didn't say this, but I feel it's worth mentioning that, if Groundspeak wanted you to be the reviewer, they'd've asked you. They didn't, so I recommend being patient with the person who they did pick while they get settled into their new role and figure out how to fit reviewing into their work/life balance.

[Keystone]

The new reviewer who has taken over is doing a reasonable job in most respects but doesn't seem to want to handle NAs. I have two NAs outstanding and i know of at least one other. Perhaps we were spoiled by our previous reviewer who'd turn things around within 48 hours, but the new reviewer has left these outstanding for over a month.

After reading Nomex's post, I was curious about the NA spammer account so I looked at outstanding NA requests for New Zealand. When I did that, I noticed that there is only one pending notification from your account. That cache was disabled rather promptly by the cache owner, so there was no need for any reviewer action. If the cache remains disabled for too long, it will be picked up by the reviewer when they do their next "cleanup sweep" for disabled listings. All other NA logs from your account have been decisioned.

[+dprovan]

Keystone and Nomex didn't say this, but I feel it's worth mentioning that, if Groundspeak wanted you to be the reviewer, they'd've asked you. They didn't, so I recommend being patient with the person who they did pick while they get settled into their new role and figure out how to fit reviewing into their work/life balance.

I think that's a little unfair. Keystone and Nomex gave good answers that offer a few possibilities, so I expect the OP to be content to wait and see how things turn out. But he had a valid concern about what seemed to be a change in how well problem caches are handled in his area. Accusing him of acting like a reviewer is uncalled for.

[+Manville Possum]

Keystone and Nomex didn't say this, but I feel it's worth mentioning that, if Groundspeak wanted you to be the reviewer, they'd've asked you. They didn't, so I recommend being patient with the person who they did pick while they get settled into their new role and figure out how to fit reviewing into their work/life balance.

I think that's a little unfair. Keystone and Nomex gave good answers that offer a few possibilities, so I expect the OP to be content to wait and see how things turn out. But he had a valid concern about what seemed to be a change in how well problem caches are handled in his area. Accusing him of acting like a reviewer is uncalled for.

 

I agree, seems he thinks he is a moderator? Really, few geocachers will even post an NA. Seems it causes too many problems.

[+hzoi]

Keystone and Nomex didn't say this, but I feel it's worth mentioning that, if Groundspeak wanted you to be the reviewer, they'd've asked you. They didn't, so I recommend being patient with the person who they did pick while they get settled into their new role and figure out how to fit reviewing into their work/life balance.

I think that's a little unfair. Keystone and Nomex gave good answers that offer a few possibilities, so I expect the OP to be content to wait and see how things turn out. But he had a valid concern about what seemed to be a change in how well problem caches are handled in his area. Accusing him of acting like a reviewer is uncalled for.

Well, when you cut out the part of my post that I drafted in attempt to cushion what I was saying, sure, it looks unfair.

 

I didn't say he was a bad person. I didn't even accuse him of being the cache police. But he's not the reviewer.

 

And if someone called me out to my entire field, a month or so after I picked up a brand new responsibility, because I'm not as experienced as the old guy and they thought they would announce that they thought I could do my job better, I don't think I'd appreciate it very much. Perhaps the reviewer in question feels differently. Perhaps you might as well. But that's not how I'd react, and I thought I'd share it.

[+dprovan]

Well, when you cut out the part of my post that I drafted in attempt to cushion what I was saying, sure, it looks unfair.

Cushioning an unfair accusation doesn't make it fair.

 

And if someone called me out to my entire field, a month or so after I picked up a brand new responsibility, because I'm not as experienced as the old guy and they thought they would announce that they thought I could do my job better, I don't think I'd appreciate it very much. Perhaps the reviewer in question feels differently. Perhaps you might as well. But that's not how I'd react, and I thought I'd share it.

If the reviewer's feelings were hurt, he or she can speak up. We don't need you to invent insult out of a perfectly natural expression of concern.

[+hzoi]

Well, when you cut out the part of my post that I drafted in attempt to cushion what I was saying, sure, it looks unfair.

Cushioning an unfair accusation doesn't make it fair.

 

And if someone called me out to my entire field, a month or so after I picked up a brand new responsibility, because I'm not as experienced as the old guy and they thought they would announce that they thought I could do my job better, I don't think I'd appreciate it very much. Perhaps the reviewer in question feels differently. Perhaps you might as well. But that's not how I'd react, and I thought I'd share it.

If the reviewer's feelings were hurt, he or she can speak up. We don't need you to invent insult out of a perfectly natural expression of concern.

 

But apparently "we" do need you as an unappointed moderator here and elsewhere on the forums to speak for the geocaching community. Duly noted. I'll sign off from this end of the conversation and let you handle things, then.

 

edit to add: for the record, I try not to speak for "we." I speak for me.

Edited March 17, 2017 by hzoi

[+dprovan]

But apparently "we" do need you as an unappointed moderator here and elsewhere on the forums to speak for the geocaching community.

You made an unsupportable accusation and I called you on it. Stop pretending to be the victim.

[+narcissa]

The reviewer who covers my area retired recently. He was very efficient: caches are published promptly, suggestions offered and other requests were actioned in a timely fashion.

 

The new reviewer who has taken over is doing a reasonable job in most respects but doesn't seem to want to handle NAs. I have two NAs outstanding and i know of at least one other. Perhaps we were spoiled by our previous reviewer who'd turn things around within 48 hours, but the new reviewer has left these outstanding for over a month.

 

I have exchanged emails with him/her and a he's had a list of all the caches I've flagged. A couple got archived, but these three remain. I'd expect that a cache flagged for archiving would get disabled or archived, or the reviewer would raise a note as to why he didn't think this was appropriate in any specific case. None of this has happened.

 

I realise that the reviewers can be busy people so I don't want to nag. On the other hand a month or more without action seems excessive.

 

What's the best course of action?

 

Overall, your best course of action is to consider your NA log the end of your personal responsibility. You came, you saw, you reported the issue. That's great, now it is now in someone else's hands.

 

It isn't reasonable to expect an instant response, immediate disabling, or archiving within an arbitrary time period. The reviewer must assess the situation and may need more information, or may decide that the cache owner should have more time to act.

 

It might be wise to reflect on why you are so eager to see NA logs actioned by reviewers so quickly.

[+dprovan]

Overall, your best course of action is to consider your NA log the end of your personal responsibility. You came, you saw, you reported the issue. That's great, now it is now in someone else's hands.

Oooh! Really good point. I still say he raised a valid concern about a change in his area, and that's been asked and answered, but yours is the way to put the point that hzoi is getting at. You express it in a way that's eternally valid. hzoi put it in a way that makes it sound like the OP has continued on to post arguments against how the insiders have responded.

[+narcissa]

Overall, your best course of action is to consider your NA log the end of your personal responsibility. You came, you saw, you reported the issue. That's great, now it is now in someone else's hands.

Oooh! Really good point. I still say he raised a valid concern about a change in his area, and that's been asked and answered, but yours is the way to put the point that hzoi is getting at. You express it in a way that's eternally valid. hzoi put it in a way that makes it sound like the OP has continued on to post arguments against how the insiders have responded.

 

I don't know what this comment is referring to, sorry.

[+SwineFlew]

Keystone and Nomex didn't say this, but I feel it's worth mentioning that, if Groundspeak wanted you to be the reviewer, they'd've asked you. They didn't, so I recommend being patient with the person who they did pick while they get settled into their new role and figure out how to fit reviewing into their work/life balance.

I think that's a little unfair. Keystone and Nomex gave good answers that offer a few possibilities, so I expect the OP to be content to wait and see how things turn out. But he had a valid concern about what seemed to be a change in how well problem caches are handled in his area. Accusing him of acting like a reviewer is uncalled for.

 

I agree, seems he thinks he is a moderator? Really, few geocachers will even post an NA. Seems it causes too many problems.

 

Yes... the NA button is the "Red Button"... just because it's there doesn't mean you can push it. The real problem is that some CO can't handle anything negative about their "special" geocaches. Now GS needs someone just to go over all the caches with long DNF logs and disable it and ask the CO to fix it, if not, bye bye. The cachers dont want to upset anyone, so someone else have to do it. The best thing everyone can do, log a DNF log everytime. The faster it build up, the better the reviewer will see it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Overall, your best course of action is to consider your NA log the end of your personal responsibility. You came, you saw, you reported the issue. That's great, now it is now in someone else's hands.

 

It isn't reasonable to expect an instant response, immediate disabling, or archiving within an arbitrary time period. The reviewer must assess the situation and may need more information, or may decide that the cache owner should have more time to act.

 

It might be wise to reflect on why you are so eager to see NA logs actioned by reviewers so quickly.

 

If I feel a cache needs to be archived, I log my NA. From there, it is up to the reviewer to make the decision. Example: I did a series far from the Dolphinarium. I won't be back. I found three. CO missing for a few years. NAed two. One for a soaking log. Reviewer agreed with me on that one. The other I could not find. Last finder found a Ziplock bag on the ground. Replaced it per the description. No container. I'll guess that the reviewer did not consider that sufficient for archival. And that's the porpoise of the reviewer. I'm quite sure that it is missing. But that was not sufficient for the reviewer.

I defer to the reviewers opinion. I offer my opionion. If the reviewer does not accept that, that is his/her prerogative.

[+gasbottle]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Maybe i have a little of the OCD, but I like to follow up on something that I've started and see what happens. The consensus here is that i need to be a little more patient. I accept that.

 

I find the accusation that I'm somehow trying to act as a reviewer rather harsh. If logging an NA is overstepping some mark then we'll end up with a map cluttered with absent and rotting caches that the respective COs have long abandoned. It was dispiriting as a new cacher to see how much junk was lying out there.

 

Over the last year I've raised about 35 NAs (against over 1400 finds). A few of those caches got fixed by their owners, most of the rest were archived. Many of the locations occupied by these archived caches have been reused by COs placing new caches. I'd hope that is a positive contribution to caching rather than an unwanted interference.

[+dprovan]

I don't know what this comment is referring to, sorry.

I was agreeing with you and complimenting you on your presentation.

[+dprovan]

If logging an NA is overstepping some mark...

I was afraid you -- or someone else reading this -- might take hzoi's comment this way, but I'm reasonably sure he was only upset with you because you questioned the reviewer's reaction, not because you posted the NA to begin with.

[+Team DEMP]

If logging an NA is overstepping some mark...

I was afraid you -- or someone else reading this -- might take hzoi's comment this way, but I'm reasonably sure he was only upset with you because you questioned the reviewer's reaction, not because you posted the NA to begin with.

 

I'm 100% with dprovan. Everything you did was fine including coming to the forums and asking about it. Some of the responses you received are off base but typical as some defend all that is Groundspeak. Keep doing what you are doing!

[+narcissa]

I don't know what this comment is referring to, sorry.

I was agreeing with you and complimenting you on your presentation.

 

I don't see what my comments have to do with the other user you mentioned. That user wasn't quoted in my comment and I see no need for weird personal comparisons.

[+dprovan]

I don't see what my comments have to do with the other user you mentioned. That user wasn't quoted in my comment and I see no need for weird personal comparisons.

I'm sorry. I thought it was a simple point, but I guess it requires more explanation that I expected. You emphasized that NAs should be fire-and-forget: someone posting an NA explains their thinking, but then it's up to the reviewer to react as they see fit taking all aspects of the situation into account. As I said, an excellent point and a good idea to remind the OP of that.

 

I took hzoi's reaction to be similar, but instead of simply reminding the OP that he's already done his part, hzoi specifically accused the OP of trying to subvert the reviewer's role by discussing his concerns about the reviewer's unexpected reaction in the forums.

 

What you said was friendly advice making it obvious that posting the NA was appropriate. hzoi's response was confrontational and, as we saw, easily misinterpreted as saying one shouldn't post NAs at all. But I saw both reactions as based on the same idea: that the seeker's part in the process is posting the NA after which he should be content to observe what happens.

[+narcissa]

I don't see what my comments have to do with the other user you mentioned. That user wasn't quoted in my comment and I see no need for weird personal comparisons.

I'm sorry. I thought it was a simple point, but I guess it requires more explanation that I expected. You emphasized that NAs should be fire-and-forget: someone posting an NA explains their thinking, but then it's up to the reviewer to react as they see fit taking all aspects of the situation into account. As I said, an excellent point and a good idea to remind the OP of that.

 

I took hzoi's reaction to be similar, but instead of simply reminding the OP that he's already done his part, hzoi specifically accused the OP of trying to subvert the reviewer's role by discussing his concerns about the reviewer's unexpected reaction in the forums.

 

What you said was friendly advice making it obvious that posting the NA was appropriate. hzoi's response was confrontational and, as we saw, easily misinterpreted as saying one shouldn't post NAs at all. But I saw both reactions as based on the same idea: that the seeker's part in the process is posting the NA after which he should be content to observe what happens.

 

Please do not use my comments as a springboard for attacking other users. My comment had nothing to do with that user.

[+dprovan]

Please do not use my comments as a springboard for attacking other users. My comment had nothing to do with that user.

I'm sorry you didn't like my comment.

[+GrateBear]

Good grief, with all that's going on in the world these days, this whole issue seems to have been blown well out of proportion. I've had a few NAs that weren't addressed for some time, but eventually they were. Why get so upset that the reviewer didn't hop right on it? I have to think it takes a while for a new reviewer to get up to speed. I'm picturing The Joker "Why so serious?"

[+dprovan]

Why get so upset that the reviewer didn't hop right on it?

Who's upset? The OP expressed a concern, it was answered, and the OP returned to say he was satisfied with the answer.