Jump to content

Horrible Reviewer Syndrome


Rebore

Recommended Posts

Are you not satisfied with the work of your reviewer?

Why? Does it take too long until your cache is published, do they interpret the guidelines in a different way you do, disable or archive caches where it's not adequate, ignore NA logs or is there any other reason?

No name calling, just reasons, here's the place.

 

ETA: If you are afraid to post here because of possible consequences for your hides, feel free to say that, too.

 

 

Edited by Rebore
Link to comment

I've had no issues with my reviewers or seen any from them with them with other players. They are just there, doing their job with a complete lack of drama. Lava Lizard, Seismic Quark, and Marko Ramius. If I have questions, they take more time than I figure they have to answer. If my hide skirts some boundary, they explain why and offer suggestions as to fix. They even don't have any ill will when I've asked for a review a couple times.

Link to comment

I have one experience when a reviewer did not behave in a professional manner and an another experience when publishing process took over three weeks wihout reasonable reason. Generally speaking, I am quite satisfied with reviewers and helpdesk.

Today, I read from a local forum that reviewers are complaining that the headquarters does not announce publicly about all of the guideline changes and sometimes these secret rules will cause problems because geocachers suspect that the reviewer came up with their own rules.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Today, I read from a local forum that reviewers are complaining that the headquarters does not announce publicly about all of the guideline changes and sometimes these secret rules will cause problems because geocachers suspect that the reviewer came up with their own rules.

We first noticed folks not paying attention in '09 when ALRs got canned.  Many we know have never read the guidelines other than what is required to place a cache.   A recent "discussion" with one on game land caches and deer season here showed that landowner rules aren't looked at much either.  Just last week one stopped over and asked "what is this health score thing?".   Raking at the time, decided best to have coffee rather than hand him a spare leaning on a tree.   :)

Guess I'd find it unusual that  Reviewers would share  their displeasure of the site with others. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I don't have any issues with my Reviewers, and have seen them consistent in their actions with all players. 

 

2 hours ago, K13 said:

I have been fortunate enough to have the best reviewers at G$ in my area. No complaints from me!

2 hours ago, fbingha said:

I've had no issues with my reviewers or seen any from them with them with other players. They are just there, doing their job with a complete lack of drama. 

 

18 minutes ago, Mockingbird559 said:

Happy with my reviewers.

I agree with all of the above.

Link to comment

On the plus side, caches in this area get published promptly, with helpful comments and guidance where appropriate.

On the minus side, NAs can go weeks or months before a response; there are at least a couple of caches within 10 miles that have been disabled by a reviewer with a deadline but remained some months later; nobody seems to be monitoring disabled caches (there are three I know of that have been disabled for over a year, and several more disabled for several months). One could argue on this last point that they could be dealt with with an NA, but see the first point.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I have worked with two Reviewers, and do not have any complaints.  My caches did not always go through on the first attempt, but the Reviewers were helpful in getting the issues settled.

I have heard complaints, but they usually boil down to someone trying to slip something past a Reviewer, then complaining when they weren't allowed to publish their "awesome" ideas.  There was also some local irritation over some recent NM/NA/Reviewer archival of caches, but I think that was a shaking out of newer Groundspeak policies that even the Reviewers were getting used to.  Hey, they're only human!!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, gasbottle said:

 

On the minus side, NAs can go weeks or months before a response; there are at least a couple of caches within 10 miles that have been disabled by a reviewer with a deadline but remained some months later; nobody seems to be monitoring disabled caches (there are three I know of that have been disabled for over a year, and several more disabled for several months).

 

 

I'm seeing the same from one reviewer. Are the caches in your area old with lots of FP's and a HUGE inventory of trackables that the the owner abandoned?

Over all the six or seven reviewers I have had dealings with were professional except for one. The held a large area open for a "buddie" that was working on an "epic" cache that never happened. I felt he was power tripping, and still do. After I complained to HQ another reviewer was assigned me it seems.

I'm not so sure that they have a secret set of guidelines, but it seems GS will support them right or wrong from where I'm watching.

I remember when a reviewer would at least correct the TB inventory, but what I seen recently was the reviewer re enabled several listings that the CO had disabled and then deleted his note. Months later the same issue returns and the throwdowns begin. 

I enjoy geocaching much less than I did a few years ago because of how the game became all about the numbers and cache quality plummeted.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Copy from the "What irks you most" thread:

There are only few reviewers in my country, I think two right now. The nickname of the local one being in charge since the beginning is "High Horse" in the online community. He once hosted the "official" geocaching forum for our country, until he pissed off so many people that one of them set up a new forum, and most users switched. We also had a very motivated reviewer once, who was really engaged with and liked by the community, but he threw the towel after a few months/years. I can't tell for sure, but I don't think it was only the community that irked him. Many oldtimers miss the times when a foreign reviewer (the one who published the first caches in my country) was in charge.

So yes, it's absolutely possible that cachers are not fond of their reviewer, and the reason is not just because he didn't publish a cache due to a guideline violation.

Edited by Rebore
Link to comment

13 years ago when I first started there were some disagreements with the reviewer regarding whether or not certain areas were off limits. There was even a higher up from headquarters who got involved who at one point said, "The answer is 'no' and I don't have to tell you why." Eventually that got worked out. (The answer was "yes" and he did have to admit it.) For the past 12 years, though, my reviewer has been great. Caches are published promptly and concerns are expressed and resolved promptly and professionally.

Thanks for the great work, NYAdmin!

Link to comment

I just hid another 100 caches and had a few issues getting some of them published.  However, the problem was mine not the reviewers and once the problems were resolved the cache's were published in a very short time.  All in all the reviewers in my area are dedicated to making Geocaching fun for everyone.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, cheech gang said:

My reviewer is a dog.

My reviewer is a high horse with a hat. :D

Guys, guys, you got that all wrong. This thread is meant to complain about reviewers, not to praise them.

Just kidding of course, nice to hear that there is mostly a good relationship between the reviewer and the community. :)

Edited by Rebore
Link to comment

I love my reviewers and have never had any issues with any of them.  Sure, I have had variability with regard to time to publish, but nothing unreasonable.   That is likely a reflection of  the fact that they all have lives outside of being a reviewer.  Keystone was my first reviewer and he set me straight on some of  the guidelines and etiquette.  My current reviewers are very nice and have even brought their dog by to see me and my dog while finding my cache in front of my house.  

Link to comment

This thread is going to stay very short. Almost. And the following might be a elsewhere (seemingly especially in English speaking countries) inapplicable list of a few thinkable nitpicky B) reasons why some geocachers or potential owners feel very very happy or not too happy with their reviewers. 

Geocaches get published without problems or not if listing contains

  • obvious (from listing text) physical stages that are declared as virtual stages
  • obvious (from listing text) guideline violations, for example trespassing
  • obvious (from coordinates and/or description) stages where no one ever will give permission (world heritage sites, railway bridges, ...)
  • more or less obvious fake final coordinates (same text, other coordinates or not fitting description) after previously failing to meet 0.1 mi rule
  • wrong cache type. Sometimes leads to badly received change of cache type much later
  • [coordinate check], cache is published at any random point of time or coordinate check is done.
  • no description
  • evidence there is no logbook (bring your own whatever required, log via USB-stick, log via WLAN, write on wall)
  • logging requires embroidery, carving, stamping ...
  • final/stage coordinates that should not be affected by header coordinates of an unknown cache/letterbox that is not hidden at header
  • coordinates blocked by fake final coordinates of another cache when you know the other cache is somewhere else (not really reviewer-related)

time-related issues

  • time to publish exceeds / does not exceed 1/3/7/whatever days +
  • publish is delayed by 'guidelines say this, blocking coordinates that etc.' with/without reason
  • a preferred publish date is given, cache is published at any random point of time or at time

Challenge-caches get published without problems or not if

  • new challenge guidelines are met
  • new challenge guidelines are not met
  • cache has an extra final waypoint
  • cache lacks checker / lacks own checker
  • list/number of qualifying geocachers includes geocachers from city/region/state/country/half the continent
  • number of pre-quailfied geocachers is 1/3/5/10/50/100
  • consist of five randomly chosen requirements because the owner is fulfilling them

Virtual reward caches (probably no one will indeed complain as most feel there are far too little of them) get published without problems or not if they

  • are locationless reverse caches
  • have additional logging requirements besides visiting given waypoints and proving having been there by photo or information gathered.
  • have physical stages

Geocaches with NA

  • get disabled / don't get disabled by the reviewer that posts a reviewer note that the cache is missing and the owner has to react.
  • stay for months without any action
  • are archived straight away despite the owner taking action; without explanation that doing maintenance and enabling explaining everything is OK is not enough, also a performed maintenance log is necessary
  • are archived despite having no obvious problem at all, only some ranting geocacher or a misplaced NA long deleted.
  • are archived more or less promptly when someone stresses that it is really urgent, for example a hide without permission at a place where caches (and strangers/geocachers) are not welcome and anti-whatever/whatever-phobic incidents occurred and police is observing the place.

Coordinate Updates that lead to almost revealing the final waypoint of a multi-cache/unknown via disable by reviewer with "Now there is a coordinate conflict with a .... Move back the 10 meters to original coordinates."

More or less quirky questioning the guidelines / reviewers

  • "My cache is more than 0.1 mi from the next, vertically, why has it to be 0.1 mi horizontally"
  • "My cache is separated by a river from the next one, why do I need 0.1 mi"
  • wishes that are not possible 
  • accusations the reviewer did this or the reviewer didn't that (coordinate reservation, order of publish, give an advantage to certain geocachers, ignore some NA-loggers, react to sock puppet NA logs ...)
  • ...

 

 

Link to comment
On 12/2/2017 at 2:02 PM, arisoft said:

I read from a local forum that reviewers are complaining that the headquarters does not announce publicly about all of the guideline changes and sometimes these secret rules will cause problems because geocachers suspect that the reviewer came up with their own rules.

I've seen some issues related to this crop up over the years. Nothing that's affected my caches though. Groundspeak could probably use some improvements in their communication with the geocaching community, but that can be said for lots of organizations and government entities.

Link to comment
Quote

 I read from a local forum that reviewers are complaining that the headquarters does not announce publicly about all of the guideline changes and sometimes these secret rules will cause problems because geocachers suspect that the reviewer came up with their own rules.

4 hours ago, Joshism said:

I've seen some issues related to this crop up over the years. Nothing that's affected my caches though. Groundspeak could probably use some improvements in their communication with the geocaching community, but that can be said for lots of organizations and government entities.

Quote

 

When guidelines change, they will always be reflected in the updated guidelines that are available to everyone. There are no secret or unannounced guidelines.  

What isn't announced publicly is the occasional guidance Groundspeak provides to reviewers that may clarify how to interpret or enforce certain guidelines. That might account for for the perception that there are "secret" guidelines.   

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

At the risk of being accused again of exaggerating how perfect my life is...

The reviewers I've interacted with are always impeccable. When I'm observing reviewers as a third party, the worst I've even see is that they made a judgement call that was different than I would, but still a perfectly reasonable decision. Often their reaction time is what I disagree with, but unlike gasbottle, for me, more often than not, I think they step in too quickly, not too slowly.

The only time I don't like a reviewer's actions is when a rule I don't agree with is being enforced at GS's insistence.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, briansnat said:

When guidelines change, they will always be reflected in the updated guidelines that are available to everyone. There are no secret or unannounced guidelines.  

What isn't announced publicly is the occasional guidance Groundspeak provides to reviewers that may clarify how to interpret or enforce certain guidelines. That might account for for the perception that there are "secret" guidelines.

Although guideline changes are always reflected in the updated guidelines, there isn't any way to determine what has changed without reading the updated guidelines and comparing it to the guidelines before that update. That's why I have suggested numerous times that there should be a forum section similar to the release notes section that was used to announce any guideline changes (and could also include new policies communicated to reviewers that could impact a new listing submitted for publication).

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
3 hours ago, briansnat said:

When guidelines change, they will always be reflected in the updated guidelines that are available to everyone. There are no secret or unannounced guidelines.  

What isn't announced publicly is the occasional guidance Groundspeak provides to reviewers that may clarify how to interpret or enforce certain guidelines. That might account for for the perception that there are "secret" guidelines.   

Can you explain why some reviewers call these "clarifications" as "secret rules"? These rules will be disclosed to members only when asked directly or when refusing publication. Maybe I should give some examples but I am not going to do this because they are secret. :D

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

I believe these are house rules. My house, my rules and they change whenever I want them changed.

Something like this. Today I noticed that using a drone is not allowed. There is nothing about drones in guidelines.

Think about geocacher who spend a bitcoin to buy new drone to make a great cache on the sky and then this is not published because these house rules. May be a bit annoying.

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

And there are links to published drone caches there too, correct? :o

I don't see any. The caches that have been discussed seem to have some other method that can be used to access them. The one you mentioned in that discussion says this in its description:

Quote

ALTHOUGH THIS CACHE WAS PLACED WITH A DRONE, A DRONE IS NOT NEEDED TO RETRIEVE THE CACHE.

 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Keystone said:

I disagree.  There are at least four guideline principles relevant to the proposition of requiring drone usage to find a cache.  The guidelines do not expressly address every possible variant of geocache that might be hidden.

Would it be possible to look at them one by one? I have read the guidelines for about seven years now but still I do not remember any suitable one. I can guess that this may depend on local regulations.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Would it be possible to look at them one by one? I have read the guidelines for about seven years now but still I do not remember any suitable one. I can guess that this may depend on local regulations.

I can think of at least the following:

  • ALR
  • Land manager permission
  • Local laws
  • I'm not sure exactly which guideline it would fall under, but caches are sometimes archived if they cause issues with neighbours (suspicious behaviour, nuisance, etc.)

At least some of these seem straightforward enough to not require a lengthy discussion.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

I can think of at least the following:

  • ALR
  • Land manager permission
  • Local laws
  • I'm not sure exactly which guideline it would fall under, but caches are sometimes archived if they cause issues with neighbours (suspicious behaviour, nuisance, etc.)

At least some of these seem straightforward enough to not require a lengthy discussion.

Okay, I'll bite. In the other thread, Keystone said:

Quote

Community Volunteer Reviewers will not knowingly publish a cache that requires the use of a drone for the finder to retrieve and log a find on the cache.

So, going through the ones The A-Team thought of:

  • ALR - we already have a whole class of "special equipment required" caches, like UV-light, scuba gear, boat, climbing gear, beacon, etc. where these aren't considered ALRs. How would "drone required" be fundamentally different to "boat required"? The only thing I can think of is that a boat takes the cacher to the cache whereas a drone brings the cache to the cacher, but there are caches that require, say, a magnet on the end of a fishing line to bring the cache to the cacher where the cache itself is otherwise unreachable. Still scratching my head.
  • Land manager permission - if the land manager is happy with drones buzzing around his land, and has put that in writing, why would this still be a problem?
  • Local laws - if local laws allow drones, either explicitly or implicitly by GZ being outside an area where drones are prohibited, why would this still be a problem?
  • Neighbours - if GZ was in, say, a state forest where the nearest neighbours are tens of kilometres away, why would this still be a problem?

Clearly I'm missing something, but I can't see anything in these or the other placement guidelines that would imply a blanket ban on "a cache that requires the use of a drone for the finder to retrieve and log a find on the cache".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

I can think of at least the following:

  • ALR
  • Land manager permission
  • Local laws
  • I'm not sure exactly which guideline it would fall under, but caches are sometimes archived if they cause issues with neighbours (suspicious behaviour, nuisance, etc.)

At least some of these seem straightforward enough to not require a lengthy discussion.

ALR seems interesting. Could you explain it little bit more?

LMP depends on country. In my country it is allowed to fly a drone under 150m elevation almost everywhere.

Local laws may accept or deny this. Here it is allowed.

Link to comment
On 12/2/2017 at 0:03 PM, Rebore said:

Are you not satisfied with the work of your reviewer?

I feel bad for my reviewers because they have to deal with me!  "Dear reviewer, would this puzzle idea be allowed?"  "Dear reviewer, can you check the placement of this puzzle final?" "Dear reviewer, can I interpret this rule in this way?"

Hats off to my reviewers!

Link to comment
13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

ALR - we already have a whole class of "special equipment required" caches, like UV-light, scuba gear, boat, climbing gear, beacon, etc. where these aren't considered ALRs. How would "drone required" be fundamentally different to "boat required"? The only thing I can think of is that a boat takes the cacher to the cache whereas a drone brings the cache to the cacher, but there are caches that require, say, a magnet on the end of a fishing line to bring the cache to the cacher where the cache itself is otherwise unreachable. Still scratching my head

Legal drone use is very restricted in many areas of the US, not to mention the FAA certification requirements for use and operations. I don't think Groundspeak wants to open that can of worms.

I live in a county that passed an ordinance that banned launch and recovery of all drones within parks and natural areas. The ordinance is not well known and poorly posted.  Technically, you can fly in from outside the property as long as you remain airborne. But if you fly out of LOS now you're violating FAA regulations.

Not to mention the high percentage of clueless drone users who got one for Christmas and nearly fly it into things.

I'm glad Groundspeak doesn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Joshism said:

Legal drone use is very restricted in many areas of the US, not to mention the FAA certification requirements for use and operations. I don't think Groundspeak wants to open that can of worms.

FAA certification requirements apply only to commercial drone pilots. There is no registration/certification required for hobbyists.

Scuba diving has regulations and certifications too. We still have scuba caches.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, niraD said:

FAA certification requirements apply only to commercial drone pilots. There is no registration/certification required for hobbyists.

Scuba diving has regulations and certifications too. We still have scuba caches.

Some caches may need driving licence and a registered vehicle. :D

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, arisoft said:
1 hour ago, niraD said:

FAA certification requirements apply only to commercial drone pilots. There is no registration/certification required for hobbyists.

Scuba diving has regulations and certifications too. We still have scuba caches.

Some caches may need driving licence and a registered vehicle. :D

Those caches are likely much easier if you've got a drivers license and a registered vehicle but unless it requires driving someplace where pedestrians are prohibited, a motor vehicle would not be a requirement. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Some caches may need driving licence and a registered vehicle. :D

Those caches are likely much easier if you've got a drivers license and a registered vehicle but unless it requires driving someplace where pedestrians are prohibited, a motor vehicle would not be a requirement. 

Hmm... Maybe the terrain rating of a lot of caches will go up. Driving to the trailhead requires special equipment, special skills, and special government certification, which is 5-star terrain. Hiking to the trailhead from the nearest public transportation could involve hiking a significant distance, which is 4-star terrain, or hiking over potentially hazardous terrain (the shoulder of a roadway), which is 4.5-star terrain. Think of the D/T squares that people could fill!

For the record... ;)

Link to comment
Quote

With permission, geocachers may place caches in space, either on other planets or in spacecraft.

How on the earth it is possible to place geocaches to satellites and planets if even using a drone is prohibited by reasons which for sure applies for those targets?

Yes... the solution is "with permission". Anything can be done "with permission".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Joshism said:

Legal drone use is very restricted in many areas of the US, not to mention the FAA certification requirements for use and operations. I don't think Groundspeak wants to open that can of worms.

I live in a county that passed an ordinance that banned launch and recovery of all drones within parks and natural areas. The ordinance is not well known and poorly posted.  Technically, you can fly in from outside the property as long as you remain airborne. But if you fly out of LOS now you're violating FAA regulations.

Not to mention the high percentage of clueless drone users who got one for Christmas and nearly fly it into things.

I'm glad Groundspeak doesn't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

I'm not overly fond of drones either, I'm just trying to see what it is in the published guidelines that infers they can't be required for finding a cache.

Link to comment

Having cached in both British Columbia and Nova Scotia, I'd say there are some pretty big differences in what's allowed. I'm not bothered by the inconsistency, because it makes sense that something could easily cause problems here, where there are many active cachers, while the same thing might easily never cause a problem in NS, where there are far fewer active cachers.

I did once have a reviewer threaten me with a $10000 mischief fine for a cache on public property that the reviewer thought would encourage people to bother nearby residents. The concern was that it was in a residential area. I didn't bother trying to go forward with that cache, and being told I was responsible for any and all actions of other cachers not necessary to find the cache was enough to put me off caching, until GS reluctantly agreed that no, what the reviewer had said was not valid. Just recently, another cacher had a cache published at that same location, so I guess there wasn't any real issue. A different reviewer published the cache than the one who rejected mine. 

I have had some caches rejected for reasons that I hadn't thought of - for example, one I hid in a city park was rejected for being too close to a school, when the school was a block or two away, with a building, a parking lot, and a fence in between such that the cache area was not visible from the school. I don't know if I even noticed the school at first when I hid the cache. I had noticed the spot because I had visited it months before to find a cache that was eventually archived. When I provided more info, the reviewer was fine with it. So no complaints there!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, nextlogicalstep said:

A different reviewer published the cache than the one who rejected mine. 

I have noticed that some reviewers may be more stubborn than others and are using delaying tactics without giving reasons for the decision. It works for inexperienced cache owners who wait impatiently new publishing and are willing to accept also false decision. I have seen that the same reviewer denies one setup and then allows it even more freely way for an another cache. Anywaw this happens only rarely and helpdesk can solve this kind of problems.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, rustynails. said:

We have two very good reviewers.

The only problem I have inconsistency between states. What's allowed in one state is prohibited in another.  

I wouldn't blame that on reviewers.  One of the requirements for a geocaches is that it has to comply with all local laws and policies.  If one state allows geocaches in cemeteries and an adjacent state doesn't, a review that denies a cache in a cemetery in one state that would be allowed in another is just doing their job.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...