Waiting for reviewers

[+dentoz]

Hi

Wondering what the normal wait is to get a new cache reviewed. I placed 2 new caches, submitted them and heard 3 days later that they needed minor changes. I did that and resubmitted. That was over 4 days ago and have heard nothing. Can someone tell me that is not unusual, or have they got lost in the system.

Cheers

dentoz

[+TriciaG]

Did you actually resubmit the caches for review, or just update the cache listing? You may want to check that to be sure.

[+palmetto]

Both caches were resubmitted. 

Expectation for reviews is 7 days. I hope you received the email that is generated each time a cache is submitted;  it contains that info!

If not, check that the email address on your Geocaching.com account . It should be one that you check, and be sure that the service provider doesn't put email from "noreply@Geocaching.com" into a spam folder. 

 

Edited September 3, 2017 by palmetto

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, dentoz said:

Hi

Wondering what the normal wait is to get a new cache reviewed. I placed 2 new caches, submitted them and heard 3 days later that they needed minor changes. I did that and resubmitted. That was over 4 days ago and have heard nothing. Can someone tell me that is not unusual, or have they got lost in the system.

Cheers

dentoz

That was faster than expected. I have recently seen something like this:

Day 0: Cache placed

Day 1: Cache sent for reviewing

Day 4: Reviewer asks why there is link to geocachin.com in the description.

Day 11: Reviewer wants to ask guidance from HQ about the link

Day 13: Appeal is processed in HQ and reviewer is informed about the outcome

Day 18: Reviewer ask more time to decide what to do

Day 24: Cache published

I'm surprised how quickly the appeal was handled at the headquarters.

Edited September 3, 2017 by arisoft

[+cerberus1]

6 hours ago, dentoz said:

Hi

Wondering what the normal wait is to get a new cache reviewed. I placed 2 new caches, submitted them and heard 3 days later that they needed minor changes. I did that and resubmitted. That was over 4 days ago and have heard nothing. Can someone tell me that is not unusual, or have they got lost in the system.

Cheers

dentoz

Not unusual, and 3 isn't bad when the guidelines say around 7. 

As the volunteer Reviewer is doing this in their spare time, the weekend with family, holidays, kid's birthdays/illness, changes with other cacher's hides, and caching themselves could be factored in too... 

A Reviewer says you properly resubmitted, if you met the changes, give it another day or two.   

[+dentoz]

They were both published today.

Thanks for the replies.

Cheers

dentoz

[m3rcapto]

Hmm, guess I'll be a bit more patient too then.

Mine was placed 30-8, so it's only been 8 days. It's very difficult waiting when you are this eager  I suffer from the annoying habit of not being able to do a 2nd thing before the 1st thing is 100% done :/ So a 2nd cache is gathering dust while I await publishing of the 1st. Woe is me  

The reviewer has been online 4 times since I submitted it, arghhh, how dare he/she ignore my cache  

[+palmetto]

Hi m3rcapto - I checked, and your cache is in the South Island queue, which looks to be pretty busy.

 

,

[m3rcapto]

Ah ok, thanks for checking :D

I didn't expect 'local reviewer' to be that broad a term  

I'll change my expectations accordingly, thanks  

[K!nder]

On 03/09/2017 at 7:28 PM, arisoft said:

That was faster than expected. I have recently seen something like this:

Day 0: Cache placed

Day 1: Cache sent for reviewing

Day 4: Reviewer asks why there is link to geocachin.com in the description.

Day 11: Reviewer wants to ask guidance from HQ about the link

Day 13: Appeal is processed in HQ and reviewer is informed about the outcome

Day 18: Reviewer ask more time to decide what to do

Day 24: Cache published

I'm surprised how quickly the appeal was handled at the headquarters.

Who submited the appeal? You or the Reviewer?

[K!nder]

On 03/09/2017 at 1:46 PM, palmetto said:

Both caches were resubmitted. 

Expectation for reviews is 7 days. I hope you received the email that is generated each time a cache is submitted;  it contains that info!

If not, check that the email address on your Geocaching.com account . It should be one that you check, and be sure that the service provider doesn't put email from "noreply@Geocaching.com" into a spam folder. 

 

After the first contact of the reviewer with the owner, where the reviewer express his/her concerns, and say that will try to see with GS what to do. Should the owner wait (it takes a lot of time) and probably it will be denied, because the owner has more info than the reviewer, or should the owner submit an appeal with the info first?

[+cerberus1]

14 minutes ago, K!nder said:

After the first contact of the reviewer with the owner, where the reviewer express his/her concerns, and say that will try to see with GS what to do. Should the owner wait (it takes a lot of time) and probably it will be denied, because the owner has more info than the reviewer, or should the owner submit an appeal with the info first?

I'd like to maintain a civil relationship with my Reviewer.   If they say they'll "try to see with GS what to do", I'd like to believe they're doing just that. 

The last thing I'd want to do is compromise that relationship by going over their head when they offered help.

But, I believe most Reviewers are used to it happening ... 

 

[+SeattleWayne]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

I'd like to maintain a civil relationship with my Reviewer.   If they say they'll "try to see with GS what to do", I'd like to believe they're doing just that. 

The last thing I'd want to do is compromise that relationship by going over their head when they offered help.

But, I believe most Reviewers are used to it happening ... 

 

I agree. I appreciate things being handled at the lowest level first, and I try (like you've stated) to not tarnish the working relationship between myself and the local reviewers.

 

After all, this is volunteer work, and it's a hobby. People tend to forget that.  

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, K!nder said:

 

On 3.9.2017 at 9:28 PM, arisoft said:

That was faster than expected. I have recently seen something like this:

Day 0: Cache placed

Day 1: Cache sent for reviewing

Day 4: Reviewer asks why there is link to geocachin.com in the description.

Day 11: Reviewer wants to ask guidance from HQ about the link

Day 13: Appeal is processed in HQ and reviewer is informed about the outcome

Day 18: Reviewer ask more time to decide what to do

Day 24: Cache published

I'm surprised how quickly the appeal was handled at the headquarters.

Who submited the appeal? You or the Reviewer?
 

 

I did it myself to speed up processing.If you have to choose whether to do it yourself or not, I recommend to be active because this way you will see the answer.

 

Edited January 10, 2018 by arisoft

[+Touchstone]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

I did it myself to speed up processing.If you have to choose whether to do it yourself or not, I recommend to be active because this way you will see the answer.

 

That's what I would do, unless specifically instructed by the Reviewer not to.  Some permission aspects of cache placements might fall into this category, in terms of how high up the chain of command does a cache owner need to go, type of thing (e.g. Military Installation cache placement).

In my area, it's usually the cache owner that initiates the Appeal to HQ.  If the Reviewer starts the process and generates an action ticket, and then the cache owner initiates one at some later time, it could potentially get very confusing (i.e. too many cooks in the kitchen).

[K!nder]

16 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I'd like to maintain a civil relationship with my Reviewer.   If they say they'll "try to see with GS what to do", I'd like to believe they're doing just that. 

The last thing I'd want to do is compromise that relationship by going over their head when they offered help.

But, I believe most Reviewers are used to it happening ... 

 

I am not trying to pass over my reviewer. Because i think the reviewers in my country are great. It was just to accelerate things and to give less trouble to everyone in the process. The faster the better for everyone. No matter what the answer would be i always would comunicate that to my reviewer. But i saw that the appeal involves stating the reviewer name, and i don't want to do it because i dont know if it wont get him problems. So i will stay and wait

[+Touchstone]

6 hours ago, K!nder said:

But i saw that the appeal involves stating the reviewer name, and i don't want to do it because i dont know if it wont get him problems.

That's kind of a non issue in my mind, because you have to tell them in the correspondence which Listing you are talking about, and once they go to the Listing page, it will be pretty clear in the back and forth messages who the Reviewer is.  Just a guess, but I doubt the information is used for punitive or corrective action, but probably more of a convenience.  They always include the Reviewer in the process, and it might be as simple as having all the information and final ruling in one place so they can expedite the trouble ticket, rather than going back and forth between the website and the tracking software they use.

But waiting and being patient is always a good thing too.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 1/10/2018 at 3:10 PM, Touchstone said:

That's what I would do, unless specifically instructed by the Reviewer not to.  Some permission aspects of cache placements might fall into this category, in terms of how high up the chain of command does a cache owner need to go, type of thing (e.g. Military Installation cache placement).

In my area, it's usually the cache owner that initiates the Appeal to HQ.  If the Reviewer starts the process and generates an action ticket, and then the cache owner initiates one at some later time, it could potentially get very confusing (i.e. too many cooks in the kitchen).

I suspect that in most areas that most appeals to HQ are initiated by the cache owner.  Most appeals are basically a cache owner appealing (trying to reverse) a decision made by the reviewer.  In arisofts example, he wasn't appealing a decision, but it was basically like a judge recusing himself from a case and letting someone else make the decision.  In that case, it  really doesn't matter who initiates the appeal.