Trying to understand Reviewer

[+74vwBus]

I placed and submitted traditional geocaches on the 21st. I then placed another geocache yesterday. 
The one I placed yesterday went live immediately. But I have started to receive notifications that the ones that I submitted on the 21st will be published on the 26th. Four days later?

I then wake up this morning to see that caches that were placed yesterday are going live today??

My geocaches are traditional caches and they have a been reviewed and set for a release that was not requested. 
I’m just trying to understand why caches yesterday are being released today, but yet caches submitted on the 21st are being scheduled for days later?? It’s not a series or mystery. They’ve clearly been reviewed. Why are they being held? 
Thanks for any insight. 

[RuideAlmeida]

54 minutes ago, 74vwBus said:

Why are they being held? 

 

And why you think the forums would be the right place to ask... instead of asking your reviewer?

Did you check for any local limitations, until December 26th, by instance?

Edited December 23, 2021 by RuideAlmeida

[+74vwBus]

8 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

 

And why you think the forums would be the right place to ask... instead of asking your reviewer?

Did you check for any local limitations, until December 26th, by instance?

Our reviewer does not talk to people. You ask any questions and you get some type of computer generated response. 

[+74vwBus]

Some of the caches were submitted 12/21 

I get it is holiday season. I get they’re volunteers. I do appreciate that. Even wished him a Merry Christmas. 
just puzzled as to why a cache is reviewed, but then scheduled to be released rather than just hit go live like he has others hidden after. 

[RuideAlmeida]

6 minutes ago, 74vwBus said:

...but then scheduled to be released rather than just hit go live like he has others hidden after. 

 

Just as an example, around here we have some public places, like parks and reservations that will stay closed during some days, opening again after Christmas, like the APE Cache, by instance. If any cache were published there in the meantime, it could provoke some unintended (and illegal) entrances.

Edited December 23, 2021 by RuideAlmeida

[+74vwBus]

1 minute ago, RuideAlmeida said:

 

Just as an example, around here we have some public places, like parks and reservations that will stay closed during some days, opening again after Christmas, like the APE Cache, by instance. If any cache were published there in the meantime, it could provoke some unintended (and illegal) entrances.

These are all on state game lands. Nothing closed or limited for holidays. 

[RuideAlmeida]

2 minutes ago, 74vwBus said:

These are all on state game lands. Nothing closed or limited for holidays. 

 

Certainly the reviewer knows what he's doing... imagine if there is another previous planned cache there, and the reviewer will ask the owner if he really wants to proceed, given 26th as the limit date, until handing the spot to you? Have the Merriest Xmas Ever!!

[+74vwBus]

Just now, RuideAlmeida said:

 

Certainly the reviewer knows what he's doing... imagine if there is another previous planned cache there, and the reviewer will ask the owner if he really wants to proceed, given 26th as the limit date, until handing the spot to you? Have the Merriest Xmas Ever!!

Nope. Not that either. If the spot was taken he would not have it on hold for me to be released on the 26th. If it was already taken by another geocache my geocache would have been denied not put on a time release. 

[+74vwBus]

I have 265 geocaches hidden. These aren’t my first hides. 
 

I’m just trying to understand the process. It’s just confusing that one that was submitted on the 20th is not released. But one on the 22nd is released.

Edited December 23, 2021 by 74vwBus

[+MartyBartfast]

The only way you're gonna find out is to ask them direct, anything else is just gonna be speculation.

 

It's quite possible that they had a pile of caches which had requested to be released on the 26th, and so they were going through all those scheduling the release, next ones on the list were yours and muscle memory means they did the same for them without noticing. The ones that were immediately released might have been done at a different time so they weren't in the "schedule for the 26th" mindset.

 

 

[+74vwBus]

Unfortunately there is no communication with our local reviewer. Can’t just message him and ask questions. That’s why I came here.

[Moun10Bike]

You can always communicate with your reviewer - that’s part of their role. Reviewers prefer email to the Message Center so you should use that method. 

[+74vwBus]

7 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

You can always communicate with your reviewer - that’s part of their role. Reviewers prefer email to the Message Center so you should use that method. 

Our reviewer has told us directly not to

message him. Ask in the cache submission. 

[+MartyBartfast]

6 minutes ago, 74vwBus said:

Ask in the cache submission. 

That's not uncommon in my experience, so just post your question as a reviewer note.

 

[Keystone]

Hello from your local Reviewer!

 

Thank you for hiding a "power trail" of 50+ caches in a State Game Lands and submitting those cache pages for review this week.  I love "hiking caches" and I know that your local community does, too.  Yours is one of three series of "hiking caches" pending in my review queue right now.  These new caches will bring much fun to the community during and after the holiday season.

 

In my experience, when there is a large series of caches all in one area, like your "loop trail," the community appreciates it more when the caches are published all at once.  It can be frustrating to walk several miles to find 10 caches, only to get home and discover that 10 more have been published in the meantime.  So, I chose to hold your caches so that they can all be published at once.  The publication date -- this coming Sunday -- is well within the seven day service level goal for a new cache submission to receive its initial review.  You were still submitting new caches late last evening.

 

As I explained to you in a Reviewer Note late last evening, I am traveling for the holidays - beginning with a five hour drive later today, followed by a getaway stay in a fancy hotel.  I said that I would review all the caches you had submitted up through that one, so that all the caches could be published Sunday, but that any additional caches would be reviewed after Christmas.  Even Reviewers can have a holiday break, and this Help Center article notes this:  "Typically, review begins within 7 days of the date that you submit your cache. But reviews may take longer in the week before or after holidays and large geocaching events."

 

My note about the schedule was part of a longer log that noted a conflict under the "Cache Saturation" guideline.  That was just one of the ten caches that had review questions thus far.  Another reason for choosing Sunday for the publication date was to allow you adequate time to respond to all these issues.

 

Your response to my log about the cache saturation issue and the publication schedule was, and I quote this in its entirety:

Quote

Edited.

 

That cache page would have been a great place to ask questions about the review and publication schedule, or to let me know that it was OK with you to publish caches in the series on a scattershot basis, as and when I've taken breaks from my paying job or personal life to review them in batches of five or ten at a time.

 

General questions, unrelated to any one particular cache, can always be escalated to me in an email via the link on my profile page.  Like many reviewers, I do not use the Message Center except for my player account on the smartphone app.  Responses specific to any one cache need to be in a reviewer note on that cache page, so that I can keep track of everything.  I checked, and I do not see any emails or messages from you.

 

As you can hopefully tell from this forum post, I am quite capable of responding to questions quickly and in a thorough manner.

 

Would you like for your caches to be published as and when I am able to review them, and knowing that there will be "gaps" within your power trail?  You can answer here, if it's more convenient for you.

[+74vwBus]

22 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

That's not uncommon in my experience, so just post your question as a reviewer note.

 

 
So if I have a question about a series that I’m placing in it has 20 geocaches in it, I am to place the 20 geocaches then ask a question? 

[+74vwBus]

24 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Hello from your local Reviewer!

 

Thank you for hiding a "power trail" of 50+ caches in a State Game Lands and submitting those cache pages for review this week.  I love "hiking caches" and I know that your local community does, too.  Yours is one of three series of "hiking caches" pending in my review queue right now.  These new caches will bring much fun to the community during and after the holiday season.

 

In my experience, when there is a large series of caches all in one area, like your "loop trail," the community appreciates it more when the caches are published all at once.  It can be frustrating to walk several miles to find 10 caches, only to get home and discover that 10 more have been published in the meantime.  So, I chose to hold your caches so that they can all be published at once.  The publication date -- this coming Sunday -- is well within the seven day service level goal for a new cache submission to receive its initial review.  You were still submitting new caches late last evening.

 

As I explained to you in a Reviewer Note late last evening, I am traveling for the holidays - beginning with a five hour drive later today, followed by a getaway stay in a fancy hotel.  I said that I would review all the caches you had submitted up through that one, so that all the caches could be published Sunday, but that any additional caches would be reviewed after Christmas.  Even Reviewers can have a holiday break, and this Help Center article notes this:  "Typically, review begins within 7 days of the date that you submit your cache. But reviews may take longer in the week before or after holidays and large geocaching events."

 

My note about the schedule was part of a longer log that noted a conflict under the "Cache Saturation" guideline.  That was just one of the ten caches that had review questions thus far.  Another reason for choosing Sunday for the publication date was to allow you adequate time to respond to all these issues.

 

Your response to my log about the cache saturation issue and the publication schedule was, and I quote this in its entirety:

 

That cache page would have been a great place to ask questions about the review and publication schedule, or to let me know that it was OK with you to publish caches in the series on a scattershot basis, as and when I've taken breaks from my paying job or personal life to review them in batches of five or ten at a time.

 

General questions, unrelated to any one particular cache, can always be escalated to me in an email via the link on my profile page.  Like many reviewers, I do not use the Message Center except for my player account on the smartphone app.  Responses specific to any one cache need to be in a reviewer note on that cache page, so that I can keep track of everything.  I checked, and I do not see any emails or messages from you.

 

As you can hopefully tell from this forum post, I am quite capable of responding to questions quickly and in a thorough manner.

 

Would you like for your caches to be published as and when I am able to review them, and knowing that there will be "gaps" within your power trail?  You can answer here, if it's more convenient for you.

 

The caches were placed in groups. Then submitted as such. 
It’s not a series. It wasn’t meant to be thought of as one placement. I chose to saturate an area with traditional caches. Not puzzles or Multis. Simple traditional caches. They’re all not the same “power trail” because they are not connected. 
The 22 that were indeed a power trail were all submitted at once. 
 

In the long run, I placed a nice, glitter painted ammo can that I had hoped would be live for Christmas. 
I went out and did all the work I hopes it could publish in time. I figured being submitted by 12/21, it would have a good chance to be live by 12/25

We had been told by you in the past that we cannot request a release time. That you cannot sit and hit a button by request. (I figured they could be scheduled) 

So for years now, I stopped any request for a time released cache. 
I reshuffled work at my “paying job” in hopes to have this all done in time. But alas. 
At least I now know your answer. I’ll just be more clear that caches miles apart are not part of the same power trail. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by 74vwBus

[+74vwBus]

It’ll be ready for 2022

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, 74vwBus said:

I placed and submitted traditional geocaches on the 21st. I then placed another geocache yesterday. 
The one I placed yesterday went live immediately.

 

I published yesterday's cache pretty much immediately, because by using my map-reading skills, I could see it was not part of your batch of 50+ caches in another area.  There was no reason to hold it up, just like all the other one-off caches I've published yesterday and today.

[Keystone]

Just now, 74vwBus said:

It’s not a series. It wasn’t meant to be thought of as one placement. I chose to saturate an area with traditional caches. Not puzzles or Multis. Simple traditional caches. They’re all not the same “power trail” because they are not connected. 

The 22 that were indeed a power trail were all submitted at once.

 

Thanks for this reply.  I do not offhand know which 22 caches are intended to be published as a group.

 

What I will do is publish all the caches that have gone through the review process, and then return to the rest after my holiday break.  Best wishes to you and your community for a joyous holiday season.

[+74vwBus]

1 minute ago, Keystone said:

 

I published yesterday's cache pretty much immediately, because by using my map-reading skills, I could see it was not part of your batch of 50+ caches in another area.  There was no reason to hold it up, just like all the other one-off caches I've published yesterday and today.

 

I never requested any caches to be held. Sometimes we hiders release in batches so that the first to find can be shared rather than all 50 some to be gobbled up by one person. 

[+74vwBus]

Just now, Keystone said:

 

Thanks for this reply.  I do not offhand know which 22 caches are intended to be published as a group.

 

What I will do is publish all the caches that have gone through the review process, and then return to the rest after my holiday break.  Best wishes to you and your community for a joyous holiday season.

So now comes the punishment that they’ll all not go live the 26th. 

[+74vwBus]

I knew coming here would put me back on Keystone’s 💩 list. Back to the hole I go. lol

Delayed publishing and sharp reviews to follow. 
Merry Christmas! 🎄🎁 

[Keystone]

Great news!  I've just published 28 of the OP's caches that have already gone through the review process.

 

I will return to reviewing the others after my holiday getaway.  I appreciate the flexibility offered to publish the caches as and when I find time to review them.

[+74vwBus]

3 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Great news!  I've just published 28 of the OP's caches that have already gone through the review process.

 

I will return to reviewing the others after my holiday getaway.  I appreciate the flexibility offered to publish the caches as and when I find time to review them.

You’re Priceless. Thanks for yet again showing your true colors. It’s known. 
Thanks for keeping it professional. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by 74vwBus

[+niraD]

28 minutes ago, 74vwBus said:

I chose to saturate an area with traditional caches.

This forum really needs a "Sad" response.

[Keystone]

55 minutes ago, 74vwBus said:

We had been told by you in the past that we cannot request a release time. That you cannot sit and hit a button by request. (I figured they could be scheduled) 

So for years now, I stopped any request for a time released cache.

 

Just to clarify for other readers of this thread, Reviewers are happy to accommodate requests from cache owners for coordinated publication times, given adequate notice, and so long as the process is not abused.  For example, in the OP's area, there is a wonderful annually recurring series about the "12 Days of Christmas" that will be released once per day, beginning tomorrow, as well as a surprise series of caches coordinated amongst several hiders, that will be published in the not too distant future.  These two series will be a great ending to a year where I've coordinated publication of at least 20 different cache series in South Central and Southwest Pennsylvania.

[+74vwBus]

12 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

Just to clarify for other readers of this thread, Reviewers are happy to accommodate requests from cache owners for coordinated publication times, given adequate notice, and so long as the process is not abused.  For example, in the OP's area, there is a wonderful annually recurring series about the "12 Days of Christmas" that will be released once per day, beginning tomorrow, as well as a surprise series of caches coordinated amongst several hiders, that will be published in the not too distant future.  These two series will be a great ending to a year where I've coordinated publication of at least 20 different cache series in South Central and Southwest Pennsylvania.

 

 

If there's anything that you are consistent about...is being inconsistent.

As a 2000 member has previously stated......"We don't have many issues with reviewers. But when there's an issue, it seems to always involve Keystone."

We've answered each other's questions at this point. Lessons noted. Merry Christmas!

[Keystone]

Hiders who have not abused the coordinated publication process are consistently entitled to utilize it.

Hiders who have abused the coordinated publication process are consistently barred from utilizing it.

 

Consistency is important!

[+74vwBus]

Yep, and by consensus of local cachers, you're not consistent. Not gonna sit here and point them all out. But you've clearly played favorites through the years and bend rules to your favor given the circumstance. If I had a nickel for every Keystone complaint of inconsistency...
My favorite points speak for themselves. 

[+74vwBus]

55 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Hiders who have not abused the coordinated publication process are consistently entitled to utilize it.

Hiders who have abused the coordinated publication process are consistently barred from utilizing it.

 

Consistency is important!

If one was a lawyer, it would be their job to paint a bad picture of me. Which are you doing pretty good. Make me look like some guy that has no idea what he’s doing and he’s hiding geocaches for the first time. That he’s abused your publication process. 
 

I have hidden 266 geocaches to this date. Of which, 178 are active. I have 1423 favorite points. With a percentage of 11.6% 

At least 1 in 10 of my finds, gets a favorite point. That would tell you that I’m most likely a quality hider. And if you’re a quality hider, most likely you understand the publication process. 
Yes, you are correct. Seven years ago when I first started I may have asked for a bunch to be published at certain times.

I have not asked you to publish a cache at a certain time in over four years. I wouldn’t really call that abuse.  
 

You’re more than welcome to paint me as someone that has no clue as to what they’re doing. But it’s not the case. 
 

I came on here again with a legitimate question. I just wanted to know the process and reasoning. Your response was then throw a fit and publish half of the geocaches. Say what you want, but we all know at the end of the day that’s the truth.  
 

The last time I came in here and asked a question about the reviewer process, you came on to that thread and attacked me with another reviewer. (it can be found by searching my posts) A few members that were early members then stepped in and told you guys both to come off of your high horses.

This is basically the same exact story different day. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by 74vwBus

[RuideAlmeida]

1 hour ago, 74vwBus said:

If there's anything that you are consistent about...is being inconsistent.

As a 2000 member has previously stated......"We don't have many issues with reviewers. But when there's an issue, it seems to always involve Keystone."

 

I think this is a good time for you to read again the forum guidelines... mainly points 2 and 4.

 

"2. Forum courtesy: Please treat Geocaching HQ, its employees, geocaching community volunteers, fellow community members, and guests in these forums with courtesy and respect. Whether a community member has one post or 5,000 posts, everyone should be treated respectfully.  

...

 

4. Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious, or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated."

[geoawareUSA9]

21 hours ago, 74vwBus said:

I came on here again with a legitimate question. I just wanted to know the process and reasoning.

 

If you want to know your reviewer's reasoning for something, the best way to get it is to ask your reviewer, not to passively aggressively post in the forums.

 

I think we're done here.

[geoawareUSA9]

Unlocking at OP's request.

[+74vwBus]

I owe Keystone an apology. I got frustrated and totally reacted in the wrong. 
I do appreciate all the volunteer efforts to keep this game alive and well. 
My apologies to Keystone for the attack and especially for the awful timing. 
I will admit that in hindsight, his set time and date was actually the best release time for the group of caches. 
My apologies to Keystone, other Mods, and the community in general. 
I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas. 

[+Mudfrog]

I'm glad that everything worked out and everyone is happy now. 

 

Not to stir things up again but I do have an opinion regarding something Keystone stated earlier.

 

Quote

In my experience, when there is a large series of caches all in one area, like your "loop trail," the community appreciates it more when the caches are published all at once.  It can be frustrating to walk several miles to find 10 caches, only to get home and discover that 10 more have been published in the meantime.  So, I chose to hold your caches so that they can all be published at once.  The publication date -- this coming Sunday -- is well within the seven day service level goal for a new cache submission to receive its initial review.  You were still submitting new caches late last evening.

 

His idea of choosing to publish all at once is probably fine the majority of the time but I don't feel it's something a reviewer should assume is best and choose to do. There could certainly be times when a cache owner might purposely want his or her caches, even if they were part of a series, NOT published all at the same time. Again imo, caches should be published in the order they were submitted,, unless the cache owner requests something different. This of course, barring any questions or potential issues a submitted cache may have.

 

 

[Keystone]

A large number of caches were submitted by the OP in the days prior to Christmas, with the last new submission arriving in my review queue at 11:31 p.m. on 12/22 local time with a cache saturation issue.  Meanwhile, I was busy preparing for Christmas travels and I was busy at my paying job, dealing with year-end deadlines, COVID notifications from two of my team members, a resignation, and finalizing everyone's year-end bonuses.  I had a hard stop early Thursday afternoon 12/23, when I needed to drive five hours to see family for Christmas.  I then needed 48 hours away from the computer for Christmas celebration activities.  I knew I'd be able to return to reviewer duties on Saturday 12/25 in the early evening, by which time I expected that the OP could respond to the ten or so caches that had review issues.  This is why I chose Sunday 12/26 for a goal time to complete the review and publication of all the OP's caches.  I stand by that decision.

 

The review process is now complete for all 71 caches submitted by the OP this month.  All caches were reviewed within the service goal of seven days after initial submission, notwithstanding the holiday.

[+NanCycle]

56 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

I'm glad that everything worked out and everyone is happy now. 

 

Not to stir things up again but I do have an opinion regarding something Keystone stated earlier.

 

 

His idea of choosing to publish all at once is probably fine the majority of the time but I don't feel it's something a reviewer should assume is best and choose to do. There could certainly be times when a cache owner might purposely want his or her caches, even if they were part of a series, NOT published all at the same time. Again imo, caches should be published in the order they were submitted,, unless the cache owner requests something different. This of course, barring any questions or potential issues a submitted cache may have.

 

 

I had a series of caches which I placed about 4 at a time, but submitted just one at a time, each after the previous one had been found.  I did this specifically so that more cachers would have a chance at the FTF.  Personally I  much prefer to be 2TF, after someone has already done the Beta testing.  

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

... idea of choosing to publish all at once is probably fine the majority of the time but I don't feel it's something a reviewer should assume is best and choose to do.

There could certainly be times when a cache owner might purposely want his or her caches, even if they were part of a series, NOT published all at the same time. 

 

Wouldn't someone wanting caches published singly simply announce that to the Reviewer when sent in?

If a Reviewer, I'd think that if a group were sent at once, with no word what to do, I'd publish them together as common sense.

I could see someone in a small park, or an easy loop on a trail close to parking published one at a time.

Those of us who like to walk a bit, the geocaching part of the walk gets annoying quick when there's so many other places to go...   

[+GeoElmo6000]

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Not to stir things up again but I do have an opinion regarding something Keystone stated earlier.

 

His idea of choosing to publish all at once is probably fine the majority of the time but I don't feel it's something a reviewer should assume is best and choose to do. There could certainly be times when a cache owner might purposely want his or her caches, even if they were part of a series, NOT published all at the same time. Again imo, caches should be published in the order they were submitted,, unless the cache owner requests something different. This of course, barring any questions or potential issues a submitted cache may have.

 

3 hours ago, Keystone said:

A large number of caches were submitted by the OP in the days prior to Christmas, with the last new submission arriving in my review queue at 11:31 p.m. on 12/22 local time with a cache saturation issue.  Meanwhile, I was busy preparing for Christmas travels and I was busy at my paying job, dealing with year-end deadlines, COVID notifications from two of my team members, a resignation, and finalizing everyone's year-end bonuses.  I had a hard stop early Thursday afternoon 12/23, when I needed to drive five hours to see family for Christmas.  I then needed 48 hours away from the computer for Christmas celebration activities.  I knew I'd be able to return to reviewer duties on Saturday 12/25 in the early evening, by which time I expected that the OP could respond to the ten or so caches that had review issues.  This is why I chose Sunday 12/26 for a goal time to complete the review and publication of all the OP's caches.  I stand by that decision.

 

The review process is now complete for all 71 caches submitted by the OP this month.  All caches were reviewed within the service goal of seven days after initial submission, notwithstanding the holiday.

 

Assuming the latter is a response to the former, I don't think the former was addressed.  I'm under the assumption that caches won't be published in a batch unless specified by the CO. 

 

In this case, the OP was originally asking why some caches were published and others were held for a later publication date, and the Reviewer responded that the community generally appreciates series being published together.  The Reviewer should have asked the CO (the OP) what they wanted if it was unclear.

 

IMO:

1) COs should communicate through reviewer notes when they have special requests for the Reviewers (in this case, the CO wanted certain caches published before Christmas)

2) Reviewers shouldn't make assumptions; if there is a question, they should communicate with the CO through a reviewer note (in this case, whether the CO wanted the caches published together after all were reviewed)

3) COs and Reviewers should be patient with each other and respectful to each other.

 

I generally message my local reviewer (OReviewer) ahead of time with questions and heads-up notices, especially if it involves a publication date.  He's been a great reviewer and has been very accommodating.

[+K13]

Huge kudos to a Reviewer @Keystonewho  quickly published 71 geocaches that were dumped on him 2 days before Christmas.  I'm not sure why anyone could find a reason to complain about that.  They would probably complain if you hung them with a new rope.

[+Mudfrog]

23 hours ago, K13 said:

Huge kudos to a Reviewer @Keystonewho  quickly published 71 geocaches that were dumped on him 2 days before Christmas.  I'm not sure why anyone could find a reason to complain about that.  They would probably complain if you hung them with a new rope.

 

If you read the bolded part of Keystone's post that I quoted earlier,

 

Quote

In my experience, when there is a large series of caches all in one area, like your "loop trail," the community appreciates it more when the caches are published all at once.  It can be frustrating to walk several miles to find 10 caches, only to get home and discover that 10 more have been published in the meantime.  So, I chose to hold your caches so that they can all be published at once.  The publication date -- this coming Sunday -- is well within the seven day service level goal for a new cache submission to receive its initial review.  You were still submitting new caches late last evening

 

If I'm interpreting this correctly, then it sounds like the OP's caches were NOT all submitted at one time.

 

Not complaining, just voicing an opinion. And yes, I do appreciate reviewers doing the work they do, especially with all the annoyances from us that they have to put up with. 

[+thebruce0]

Sounds like just a perfect storm of timing and scheduling. As a cache owner, especially around the busiest time of year, I'd include in my reviewer notes about my intents for publishing especially a large batch (or multiple groups) of caches, otherwise I wouldn't be surprised if the reviewer published them based on an assumed/convenient schedule on their part.   Perhaps things would have been better if it weren't Christmas... who knows.

In any case, it seems that things have been resolved, so kudos to all involved for wrapping things up nicely here.