Question about the process of submitting a cache for review

[+TheJTeamELDK]

So I just placed my first cache and I have a question. After you submit for review it takes you to a screen where it tells you to enter details about the cache so the reviewer has as much information as possible. In that section I explained what the cache looks like, where it is exactly and even included 2 links to pictures that show where it is. That note is showing up as a "Post reviewer note". It looks like that is something that everyone will be able to see. Do you know if that will be visible to everyone else? I checked the website but I can't seem to find the answer to this question.  If it is visible to other people, I'd like to delete that log, as it gives too much away.  

[Keystone]

That sounds like an excellent Reviewer Note!  Thank you for following the instructions.  It makes the review process go much smoother and faster if you include those details.

 

All Reviewer Notes are hidden from view automatically when your cache is published.  So, nobody else will see the information except for your Reviewer.  No worries!

[+TheJTeamELDK]

2 minutes ago, Keystone said:

That sounds like an excellent Reviewer Note!  Thank you for following the instructions.  It makes the review process go much smoother and faster if you include those details.

 

All Reviewer Notes are hidden from view automatically when your cache is published.  So, nobody else will see the information except for your Reviewer.  No worries!

 

 

Thank you for the very quick response.  I really appreciate it!

[+Mysterion604]

It's a bit of a weird process (in my opinion), since you can post reviewer notes, but then when you hit "submit" after the application/editing process, it asks if you want to post a reviewer note again.

 

As far as I know, The reviewers can see all the reviewer notes during the process, but from what I read somewhere, the reviewer notes disappear at publication or are permanently hidden from public view. 

 

Sounds like you have your needs covered. Of course, that depends on what kind of cache it is.

The more clear info you give the reviewers, the faster the turnaround. Uploaded photos of the hide area good to include, for clarity. Making sure you mention that you have all your hide coordinates measured & averaged, etc. 

 

One thing I've noticed that reviewers do not do is check your page for spelling errors and other typos, so make sure to go over your page carefully. In any case, you can edit errors in a cache write-up after publication happens, as long as it doesn't amount to a major change to the cache or location. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2022 by mysterion604

[+lee737]

6 minutes ago, mysterion604 said:

It's a bit of a weird process (in my opinion), since you can post reviewer notes, but then when you hit "submit" after the application/editing process, it asks if you want to post a reviewer note again.

I do the same, putting everything needed in reviewer notes as I go - then that last one is usually 'cheers!'.....

[+barefootjeff]

14 minutes ago, lee737 said:

I do the same, putting everything needed in reviewer notes as I go - then that last one is usually 'cheers!'.....

 

Me too. A problem with the final pop-up reviewer note box is it doesn't allow you to include photos. Sure, you can add them after the note is posted, but there's always a chance the reviewer might start looking at it in that window between when the note is posted and when all the photos and captions have been added. I create a detailed reviewer note beforehand, with heaps of photos showing the cache, GZ, the hiding place, the cache in position with and without any covering camo, screenshots of council zoning maps and whatever scenic attraction is my reason for bringing cachers there. In the pop-up reviewer note, I just say something like "See the detailed reviewer note below that I prepared earlier."

[+Barstow]

How timely.  I had the very same questions about some things mentioned in this discussion.  I tried to follow the directions as closely as possible.  My understanding is that photos are optional.  

[Keystone]

Photos are generally optional except if there is a question under the Geocache Hiding Guidelines where a ground level photo adds helpful context not available from aerial photos.  Example:  Reviewer questions the cache under the "Railroads are Off Limits" guideline. Cache owner replies:  "yes, there is an active railroad 50 feet away, but as you can see from the attached photo taken at the cache location, there is a 10 foot tall fence separating the park from the tracks."

[+lee737]

4 hours ago, Barstow said:

My understanding is that photos are optional.  

I very rarely add photos to my reviewer notes - exceptions would be approval forms from National Parks where needed. One time I did is when I used screws to attach a container mount to a walkway - I wanted to point out exactly how the screws used existing holes in the walkway, and did not cause any changes to the structure, anticipating someone complaining.... 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

I very rarely add photos to my reviewer notes - exceptions would be approval forms from National Parks where needed. One time I did is when I used screws to attach a container mount to a walkway - I wanted to point out exactly how the screws used existing holes in the walkway, and did not cause any changes to the structure, anticipating someone complaining.... 

 

Something that sticks in my mind is a film clip we were shown in one of the first year introductory engineering courses at university. It showed a lecturer describing a strange three-dimensional object to the class, with one student imagining the object being lifted onto a ship with a crane while another imagined buying a box of fifty of them off the shelf in a hardware store. I'm not very good at describing things unambiguously in words so I prefer to use photos to show the reviewer exactly what my cache and hiding place look like. The reviewer note on my most recent cache (GC9M6X5) had thirteen images attached to it, and some of those were composite with two photos in the one image. Maybe I went overboard with that one (although it's a multi with four physical waypoints plus the final) but I try to fend off in advance any questions the reviewer might otherwise want to ask.