Please Help: Cache Reviewer Issues

[ZGBob]

Hello, 

 

I was invited a few weeks ago to this site by a friend and veteran geocacher here, because my son and I were really interested in jumping into the game. We both knew what it was about, and I've played a similar game before via other sites. 

Long story short, I've been trying to submit a cache for 3 weeks, but the local reviewer in Japan ("ShinyOrbital") will not approve our cache, has even brought my nationality up as a negative issue. He is retired, so I am guessing he's got little better to do than power trip on here. He has been extremely condescending and rude. 

The issue: He says we need to find 20 caches before we can hide one. I mentioned the official guidelines merely encourage this, and do not require it, and the official customer support here even told me the same. Still, "ShinyOrbital" refuses to approve our cache. My son was very excited, and I am feeling very disappointed in the lack of professionality. Who does this kind of crap to families just trying to play the game??? We have been out looking for caches together, and took two weekends to make sure our hide met the guideline criteria. I work full-time, so this time is precious. 

This reviewer, ShinyOrbital, mentioned that "we Japanese" don't want inexperienced (i.e. foreign cachers) just jumping in and playing. I mentioned my family is Japanese and that I was invited by a veteran cacher in the area. Emily at customer support said the same reviewer will be informed that 20 finds are not required. Shiny Orbital doubled down. He's stringing us along, and even mocked me sarcastically, and then asked "What is your problem?"

All I ask is that if 20 finds are required, the guidelines be updated to reflect that. Even in the Japanese language the guide says 20 finds are only encouraged, and not required. I refuse to talk to this xenophobic troll anymore known as "ShinyOrbital," and if there's nothing that can be done by Geocaching.com to rein in losers like this, making people who just wanna play the game wait and wait and wait just for some sick fun, I'm going to go to some other site. 

I don't want to. I like this one. But sheesh. Exasperating. Anyone dealt with a reviewer like this before?

-ZGBob

[ZGBob]

To be clear: Even after customer service spoke to this guy, he still will not approve, and is asking me multiple questions about the hide just to string things along. 

[Keystone]

I looked at your cache page, in addition to the Message Center conversation you posted.  (This is an example of why many Reviewers, including myself, refuse to use the Message Center, preferring to keep all discussion about a cache within the Reviewer Note logs on the cache page.)

 

I think there's been miscommunication and misunderstanding on both sides.  First, it's true that Reviewers cannot hold up publication of a cache that meets the Guidelines, solely because the hider doesn't have 20 finds.  This has been reinforced by Geocaching HQ to all Reviewers, in writing, as recently as June of this year.  I also didn't like the ethnic reference.  I have never said "we Pennsylvanians..." or "we Americans..." in a Reviewer Note, but I have said "here in Pennsylvania," as in, "a permit is required to hide a cache in a state park here in Pennsylvania." 

 

A better approach with new hiders is to ask a few more questions in the review process to make sure their first cache hides are successful, like making sure the coordinates are accurate and that an appropriate container with a logsheet was used.  In fact, your Reviewer has transitioned over to asking those types of questions - the type of container, the cache contents and the hiding place.  These are standard questions.  Unfortunately, the Reviewer overlooked the fact that you mentioned many of these details in your initial Reviewer Note on September  8th: "Located in light woods, at the start of a dirt trail, at the end of a paved path. Small figure in a jar with a logbook hidden in a tree stump."  I'd answer by repeating this note, perhaps expanding on it by indicating whether the "jar" is plastic, glass or some other material.  (Glass jars make terrible cache containers in most circumstances.)  Your note is better written than most initial Reviewer Notes I see from new geocachers, and I would have published your cache right away after hearing an answer about the glass jar question.

 

I do think that you're personalizing your cache review experience more so than what's intended.  Proportionately, more problems with bad coordinates, bad hiding spots and bad containers come from less experienced hiders, so new hiders tend to hear more questions from their Reviewer.  This is one of the reasons why geocachers are "encouraged" to find caches before hiding one.  It's human nature to react negatively to suggestion that "your baby is ugly," but the best approach is just to answer the questions objectively.  Finally, as you state you've spent hours going out and looking for caches, I encourage you to log your finds on Geocaching.com.

 

I've edited your topic title to make it more objective.  I encourage you to take a deep breath and continue with the process. Remember that it's just a game. Welcome to Geocaching!

[+JL_HSTRE]

10 hours ago, ZGBob said:

We have been out looking for caches together

 

And yet your profile still shows 0 Finds logged.

[ZGBob]

4 hours ago, Keystone said:

I looked at your cache page, in addition to the Message Center conversation you posted.  (This is an example of why many Reviewers, including myself, refuse to use the Message Center, preferring to keep all discussion about a cache within the Reviewer Note logs on the cache page.)

 

I think there's been miscommunication and misunderstanding on both sides.  First, it's true that Reviewers cannot hold up publication of a cache that meets the Guidelines, solely because the hider doesn't have 20 finds.  This has been reinforced by Geocaching HQ to all Reviewers, in writing, as recently as June of this year.  I also didn't like the ethnic reference.  I have never said "we Pennsylvanians..." or "we Americans..." in a Reviewer Note, but I have said "here in Pennsylvania," as in, "a permit is required to hide a cache in a state park here in Pennsylvania." 

 

A better approach with new hiders is to ask a few more questions in the review process to make sure their first cache hides are successful, like making sure the coordinates are accurate and that an appropriate container with a logsheet was used.  In fact, your Reviewer has transitioned over to asking those types of questions - the type of container, the cache contents and the hiding place.  These are standard questions.  Unfortunately, the Reviewer overlooked the fact that you mentioned many of these details in your initial Reviewer Note on September  8th: "Located in light woods, at the start of a dirt trail, at the end of a paved path. Small figure in a jar with a logbook hidden in a tree stump."  I'd answer by repeating this note, perhaps expanding on it by indicating whether the "jar" is plastic, glass or some other material.  (Glass jars make terrible cache containers in most circumstances.)  Your note is better written than most initial Reviewer Notes I see from new geocachers, and I would have published your cache right away after hearing an answer about the glass jar question.

 

I do think that you're personalizing your cache review experience more so than what's intended.  Proportionately, more problems with bad coordinates, bad hiding spots and bad containers come from less experienced hiders, so new hiders tend to hear more questions from their Reviewer.  This is one of the reasons why geocachers are "encouraged" to find caches before hiding one.  It's human nature to react negatively to suggestion that "your baby is ugly," but the best approach is just to answer the questions objectively.  Finally, as you state you've spent hours going out and looking for caches, I encourage you to log your finds on Geocaching.com.

 

I've edited your topic title to make it more objective.  I encourage you to take a deep breath and continue with the process. Remember that it's just a game. Welcome to Geocaching!

Thank you for your response. This reviewer knows what he is asking is already basically in the cache description. I'm not sure how his sarcasm and "What is your problem?" is me personalizing things to much. I don't feel like dealing with this guy anymore and wish there was more than one volunteer for the area. 

I'll consider letting him drag me along some more, but may just go somewhere else. What are the value of guidelines if reviewers ignore them, and even the words of user assistance folks from the site itself telling him to stop holding things up? 

Again, appreciate your help.

Edited September 28 by ZGBob

[+x7Kevin]

13 hours ago, ZGBob said:

I refuse to talk to this xenophobic troll anymore known as "ShinyOrbital," and if there's nothing that can be done by Geocaching.com to rein in losers like this, making people who just wanna play the game wait and wait and wait just for some sick fun

 

I'm sorry that's your first experience, but you also calling them a xenophobic troll and loser is not going to do anything to help the situation either. I seriously don't think they're doing it for sick fun but probably because they have had many negative experiences of those with zero finds hiding problematic caches. 

 

It's important to remember they're just a volunteer and it's a game for fun. 

 

I would follow-up with customer support again and am sure they will help resolve the situation if the reviewer is still refusing, but in the meantime probably best to just play the game and find some caches while you're waiting. 

[ZGBob]

Just now, x7Kevin said:

 

I'm sorry that's your first experience, but you also calling them a xenophobic troll and loser is not going to do anything to help the situation either. I seriously don't think they're doing it for sick fun but probably because they have had many negative experiences of those with zero finds hiding problematic caches. 

 

It's important to remember they're just a volunteer and it's a game for fun. 

 

I would follow-up with customer support again and am sure they will help resolve the situation if the reviewer is still refusing, but in the meantime probably best to just play the game and find some caches while you're waiting. 

When someone brings up nationality as a reason why my cache can't accepted... that's kind of the definition of xenophobe. I followed the guidelines. He says 20 are required, and the help center told me directly they are not. He asked me "What is your problem" and said a bunch of other sarcastic stuff in the cache review itself. Anyway. Yeah. He's a liability for the site and game.

[+JL_HSTRE]

5 minutes ago, ZGBob said:

He's a liability for the site and game.

 

People hiding geocaches without ever having found any are also a liability. As are people hiding geocaches far from home, or in places (especially entire different countries) where they are residing only temporarily. That's the issue with "foreigners" and is as true of someone from Japan in America as someone from America in Japan - not your actual ethnicity. 

 

Either of those factors separately, and especially together, mean an increased risk that the cache was unwisely placed and will be abandoned after placement. That is not always the case, but it is sufficiently commonplace to warrant a Reviewer being more stringent and asking more questions than normal. 

 

Whether those questions were posed by the Reviewer with an appropriate level of tact and politeness for their position is a separate matter.

[ZGBob]

3 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

People hiding geocaches without ever having found any are also a liability. As are people hiding geocaches far from home, or in places (especially entire different countries) where they are residing only temporarily. That's the issue with "foreigners" and is as true of someone from Japan in America as someone from America in Japan - not your actual ethnicity. 

 

Either of those factors separately, and especially together, mean an increased risk that the cache was unwisely placed and will be abandoned after placement. That is not always the case, but it is sufficiently commonplace to warrant a Reviewer being more stringent and asking more questions than normal. 

 

Whether those questions were posed by the Reviewer with an appropriate level of tact and politeness for their position is a separate matter.

If almost two decades here is just residing temporarily then I'm in trouble. I'm just following the guidelines, and the reviewers should, too. That is the only issue, really. Yes, I haven't logged any finds, and that can be a liability, I understand that. Let's just agree to disagree here. 

[+Goldenwattle]

I waited until I had found several hundred caches before placing my first cache, and even then I felt like a newbie. I thought my first cache was unique. It wasn't, because since then I found several caches exactly the same. It was boring and I archived it years ago. Not only because it was boring, but because it was a nano and kept having problems. More experience now, and that has made a difference.

Almost all caches I have found (or in several cases not found) by beginners with no cache finds have had problems. Coordinates are a big one. Also unsuitable containers. Experience does improve a person's caching ability, both in finding and setting caches and getting accurate coordinates. Some of those I didn't find was because of bad coordinates, up to 400m out. That beginner argued with me their coordinates were correct, and I was trying to get them to look at Google maps, which was an effort, because I was wrong and they knew better than me.

[+GeoTrekker26]

17 hours ago, ZGBob said:

 

Long story short, I've been trying to submit a cache for 3 weeks, but the local reviewer in Japan ("anon") will not approve our cache, has even brought my nationality up as a negative issue. He is retired, so I am guessing he's got little better to do than power trip on here. He has been extremely condescending and rude. 

 

This thread has me really confused. I can not figure out why you want to place a cache. 

[+MNTA]

Straying out of the intra-personal issues here.

 

My experience is some of the worst caching experiences I have had is from  with new enthusiastic cachers with no experience. Lack of experience shows, like hiding under trash or a micro in the forest (hey it is supposed to be hard),. Some did not seem to understand the style of the game  and I truly wish there was an enforced number of finds and that the review process was a bit more thorough with help from the reviewers to ensure hides are following the rules and coordinate guidance (look on google maps those coordinates are the middle of the street as an example).

 

So I highly encourage you to first focus on finding before hiding, 

 

 

 

[ZGBob]

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

Straying out of the intra-personal issues here.

 

My experience is some of the worst caching experiences I have had is from  with new enthusiastic cachers with no experience. Lack of experience shows, like hiding under trash or a micro in the forest (hey it is supposed to be hard),. Some did not seem to understand the style of the game  and I truly wish there was an enforced number of finds and that the review process was a bit more thorough with help from the reviewers to ensure hides are following the rules and coordinate guidance (look on google maps those coordinates are the middle of the street as an example).

 

So I highly encourage you to first focus on finding before hiding, 

 

 

 

I totally understand what you are saying, but in that case, the guidelines need to be changed, so as to not be arbitrary. This has been my whole real issue from the start. Emily at support says 20 finds are not required, and Shiny Orbital says they are. This is a basic linguistics/guidelines thing. Anyway, we've waited three weeks but aren't giving up, went out again today searching and found a bunch! 

I'd never put something under trash and am not sure why anyone with common sense (even a beginner who has read the guidelines like us) would. The issue here is an unprofessional reviewer, but I'm doing my best to get along with him now and have resubmitted my cache. We'll see. 

[ZGBob]

7 hours ago, GeoTrekker26 said:

This thread has me really confused. I can not figure out why you want to place a cache. 

We want to play the game. I was told by one Geocaching.com representative/volunteer that 20 finds are not required to place a cache. The regional reviewer here says 20 finds *are* required and decided to bring nationality/culture into it, which is bizarre. If the hide meets the guidelines, what is the issue? It's not hard to understand.

[ZGBob]

9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I waited until I had found several hundred caches before placing my first cache, and even then I felt like a newbie. I thought my first cache was unique. It wasn't, because since then I found several caches exactly the same. It was boring and I archived it years ago. Not only because it was boring, but because it was a nano and kept having problems. More experience now, and that has made a difference.

Almost all caches I have found (or in several cases not found) by beginners with no cache finds have had problems. Coordinates are a big one. Also unsuitable containers. Experience does improve a person's caching ability, both in finding and setting caches and getting accurate coordinates. Some of those I didn't find was because of bad coordinates, up to 400m out. That beginner argued with me their coordinates were correct, and I was trying to get them to look at Google maps, which was an effort, because I was wrong and they knew better than me.

Yes, I do understanding making finds is important. Got some finds now and also I actually read guidelines for things like this. I read them carefully before placing the cache. If you think hundreds should be required first, then suggest that as a change. I was told from the site itself the finds were not required. I have experience with coordinates from other activities and applications in my life. There's really not a need for such gatekeeping to uphold game integrity. Anyhow, I've resubmitted, and hopefully being new and (not native Japanese) and wanting to play won't be a demerit anymore. 

[ZGBob]

Thanks everyone for the feedback. At the risk of prattling on way too much I will say this:

The communication breakdown about the guidelines, and the cache rejection, came after a lot of things were already going south for me personally, and I was pinning a lot of hopes on playing this game with my son, who was (and is!) very pumped about it.

While I think the reviewer is unprofessional, I overreacted, and reacted too emotionally. That was immature too, and my mistake. 

I do still hope the guidelines are clarified/followed and my cache approved.

Thanks again. 

Edited September 29 by ZGBob

[+kunarion]

1 hour ago, ZGBob said:

Thanks everyone for the feedback. At the risk of prattling on way too much I will say this:

The communication breakdown about the guidelines, and the cache rejection, came after a lot of things were already going south for me personally, and I was pinning a lot of hopes on playing this game with my son, who was (and is!) very pumped about it.

While I think the reviewer is unprofessional, I overreacted, and reacted too emotionally. That was immature too, and my mistake. 

I do still hope the guidelines are clarified/followed and my cache approved.

Thanks again. 

 

I've placed a bunch of caches, and my impression is that sometimes reviewers act emotionally or overreact.  That is, I believe that some reviewers are human. 
 

Not every hoop a reviewer wants you to go through is a good hoop.  Some of my cache ideas were kind of spoiled by changes that a reviewer required.  Whatever.  Move on.

 

If a reviewer has an extra thing for me to do, I either do that, or I don't place that cache.  In your case, "finding 20 caches" is not a bad idea.  There are so many considerations beyond just the guidelines, it's useful to find a lot of at least easy ones first.  Physically place your container today, and go check on it after Find #20, and if all is well, submit it again.  At that point, it's good to go, for sure.

 

I determined to find 100 caches before my first hide.  I'm so bad at finding, I settled on 50 finds .  Glad I found those first!  For a lot of reasons.

 

Edited September 29 by kunarion

[ZGBob]

53 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

I've placed a bunch of caches, and my impression is that sometimes reviewers act emotionally or overreact.  That is, I believe that some reviewers are human. 
 

Not every hoop a reviewer wants you to go through is a good hoop.  Some of my cache ideas were kind of spoiled by changes that a reviewer required.  Whatever.  Move on.

 

If a reviewer has an extra thing for me to do, I either do that, or I don't place that cache.  In your case, "finding 20 caches" is not a bad idea.  There are so many considerations beyond just the guidelines, it's useful to find a lot of at least easy ones first.  Physically place your container today, and go check on it after Find #20, and if all is well, submit it again.  At that point, it's good to go, for sure.

 

I determined to find 100 caches before my first hide.  I'm so bad at finding, I settled on 50 finds .  Glad I found those first!  For a lot of reasons.

 

Yes, it is obvious they are human. As am I. But as the sole reviewer for a whole country, I do expect a bit more professionalism and at least knowing the guidelines and being on the same page as the official support team and more experienced reviewers. I also never said there was nothing more to consider beyond the guidelines. I appreciate your candor though. Yep, some definitely do react emotionally. Luckily there are many ways to geocache, and many forums at which to participate. If I can't get ShinyOrbital to give us a chance to hide as well as find, we'll just have to explore other options. 

[+arisoft]

On 9/28/2024 at 12:03 PM, ZGBob said:

To be clear: Even after customer service spoke to this guy, he still will not approve, and is asking me multiple questions about the hide just to string things along. 

 

Did you submit an appeal?  https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=476

 

This is the official way to solve disputes.

 

I have seen that a reviewer may ask questions that are already answered in the description or in the reviewer note. I suggest not to take this personally. Just give the information when asked even this seems unnecessary.

[Keystone]

15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Did you submit an appeal?

 

Yes, the OP's inquiry to Geocaching HQ's help center was routed correctly to the Community Volunteer Support team, which is responsible for coordinating the work of the hundreds of volunteers worldwide.  I call them our "benevolent amphibian overlords" but don't let HQ know that.     The appeal regarding the "must finds 20 caches" question was successful, and the review process has moved on from there.  The OP has calmed down and answered the follow-up questions, which I was happy to see.

[+cerberus1]

12 hours ago, MNTA said:

Straying out of the intra-personal issues here.

My experience is some of the worst caching experiences I have had is from  with new enthusiastic cachers with no experience. Lack of experience shows, like hiding under trash or a micro in the forest (hey it is supposed to be hard),. Some did not seem to understand the style of the game  and I truly wish there was an enforced number of finds and that the review process was a bit more thorough with help from the reviewers to ensure hides are following the rules and coordinate guidance (look on google maps those coordinates are the middle of the street as an example).

Yep. The other 2/3rds was a FTF monster.  She'd leave at night in her PJs if a notification came out.  

When phone apps first came out, new people could log in and go. Their weekend with a new game...

We found that many didn't understand the basics for finding, and hiding caches turned my happy FTF monster into a Beta Tester for newbs...

The other 2/3rds went for a new cache once that was only a mile or so from home.  It took her quite a while, and I called, starting to worry.

She finally found it 400 feet off in a spot that seemed obvious (to her), CO a no-finds new member that said they thought they were spot-on.

Unlike me, she was more in it for the FTF and she quit the hobby (except for geocoins) that day...

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, kunarion said:

I determined to find 100 caches before my first hide.  I'm so bad at finding, I settled on 50 finds .  Glad I found those first!  For a lot of reasons.

 

I waited until I'd made the recommended 20 finds, which took me 2 months from the time I started caching. While there were a lot more caches around here than there are now, I was still in full-time work then and caching was strictly a weekend-only activity that had to fit in with everything else that could only be done at the weekends. For someone starting here now, they'd have to do a fair bit of travelling or be keen on long T3+ hikes to get to 20 finds, especially if they were a basic member exclusively using the official app.

 

My first hide was fairly mundane as such things go, being a 400ml Sistema placed in a hollow between a large rock and a tree in a bushland reserve close to home. Its coordinates, which I took with my Garmin GPSMAP 62 and averaged over several visits, were within the accepted tolerance, and it got 53 finds and no FPs (and no DNFs, NMs or NAs either) in its 18 months of life. I archived it when a large tree fell right on top of its hiding place, which was rather ironic as the cache's "One Windy Night" theme was all about a particularly fierce wind storm a few years earlier that felled several large trees in the reserve.

 

 

Had I waited until now, with over a decade in the game and nearly 2000 finds under my belt, I probably wouldn't have done much differently for my first hide. The Sistemas make good reliable containers as long as they're kept out of direct sunlight, and placing it close to home I think is a good idea for a first hide. Most of what I've learnt since about cache-hiding has come from the experience of hiding caches and seeing what worked well and what didn't, not from finding large quantities of them.

Edited September 29 by barefootjeff

[+justintim1999]

Sometimes it's easier to bend with the breeze than to break, especially when it's something trivial.    Not sure what caching's like where you are but I can grab 20 finds on 1 trail system in a morning.     My reviewer pushed me a little when I hid my first caches.  In some ways I'm glad they did.   They cared enough to make sure I was doing it right so others would be able to enjoy the experience of finding my cache.   It made me take cache ownership a little more seriously. 

 

If I were in your place, I'd find 21 caches, log them then reach out to your reviewer clear the air.    Remember, their volunteer reviewers for a reason and it's not the paycheck. 

 

In this case, right or wrong doesn't matter as much as hiding and finding good caches especially if it's something you can your son can enjoy doing together.     

[+CCFwasG]

On 9/29/2024 at 6:33 AM, ZGBob said:

Yes, I do understanding making finds is important. Got some finds now and also I actually read guidelines for things like this. I read them carefully before placing the cache. If you think hundreds should be required first, then suggest that as a change. I was told from the site itself the finds were not required. I have experience with coordinates from other activities and applications in my life. There's really not a need for such gatekeeping to uphold game integrity. Anyhow, I've resubmitted, and hopefully being new and (not native Japanese) and wanting to play won't be a demerit anymore. 

 

First, I appreciated the apology note, even if I didn't think it was strictly required (i.e. it seemed to me "xenophobe" was appropriate, if "loser" wasn't).

But I'm here to make a point and agree with you on something: I think that Groundspeak absolutely should make it a requirement to find X number of caches before being allowed to place one. The reply from @Goldenwattle says a lot of what I think about that. Finding caches by newbies can be hugely frustrating (my partner recently managed to find one that was hundreds of feet or more from the coords - but only after a long message exchange with the CO). Personally I like the number 100 (or even more) but 20 or 50 is at least a start.

Now, having said that I think there should be an official minimum, I'm obviously aware there is not, so you are correct and as long as you meet guidelines the cache should be published. 

FWIW I don't mind randomly calling attention to a CO in the NYC area who started placing loads of caches before finding many at all. The ratio was about 5 to 1 and went up over months. His initial hides were terrible, mostly coordinates-wise, but also locations were not good, plus some hides were almost unfindable. That said, after getting defensive about his hides for the first 6-12 months he finally listened to feedback and his hides are much better. His ration is still odd though - about 2 hides for every 1 find, last I looked. Some people prefer to hide things, I suppose! 

Edit to add: CONGRATS! I see it was finally published. (And wow on one of the details I can't mention publicly, but CT peeps will know.) I see 11 finds too, which is appreciated by the community. I'm putting a watch on it and hope it is found soon, only been live for a short time I think!

Edited October 2 by CCFwasG

[+barefootjeff]

29 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

But I'm here to make a point and agree with you on something: I think that Groundspeak absolutely should make it a requirement to find X number of caches before being allowed to place one. The reply from @Goldenwattle says a lot of what I think about that. Finding caches by newbies can be hugely frustrating (my partner recently managed to find one that was hundreds of feet or more from the coords - but only after a long message exchange with the CO). Personally I like the number 100 (or even more) but 20 or 50 is at least a start.

 

Just be aware that there are some parts of the world where finding 100 caches would be pretty arduous. Fiji, for example, only has 24 caches in the whole country. Even here in Australia, once you get away from the major cities caches can be pretty thin on the ground. When I started in 2013, it took me almost a year to get to 100 finds and there were a lot more caches around here back then than there are now. My region, the New South Wales Central Coast covering 1681 square kilometres to the north of Sydney, has about 500 caches in total but many of those are higher terrain and/or higher difficulty ones. For beginner caches (non-PMO traditionals with D and T both 2 or less), there are only 132 so you'd almost have to clear the map before you could qualify to hide one.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

I think that Groundspeak absolutely should make it a requirement to find X number of caches before being allowed to place one.

I agree and have said similarly . For areas with lots of caches a number of finds could be set, say 100. However this number needs to be flexible in areas with few or no finds. Barefootjeff also pointed his out. In areas with a few caches they should still need to find a few caches, but a number far lower than 100. It might only be say five caches. This depend on how many and what caches can be found there. In areas with no caches, someone has to be the first to place a cache, so a local placing a cache there should be allowed to with no finds. But be given extra assistance by the reviewer in doing so.

[+MNTA]

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

But be given extra assistance by the reviewer in doing so.

 

This should be standard for all new hiders. Pictures of the hide should be required.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

This should be standard for all new hiders. Pictures of the hide should be required.

 

Yep, the reviewers here are always saying that the more information that's provided in the reviewer note, the easier their job is, and often pictures really do paint a thousand words. I always include a close-up of the container, another shot of it in position and a wider view of the hiding place, for example this one from a few years ago:

 

 

It irks me that the pop-up reviewer note box that appears after clicking on Submit doesn't allow photos to be added, so I always prepare a separate reviewer note with photos in advance and then just say "See the reviewer note below" in the pop-up one.

[+Goldenwattle]

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yep, the reviewers here are always saying that the more information that's provided in the reviewer note, the easier their job is, and often pictures really do paint a thousand words. I always include a close-up of the container, another shot of it in position and a wider view of the hiding place, for example this one from a few years ago:

 

 

It irks me that the pop-up reviewer note box that appears after clicking on Submit doesn't allow photos to be added, so I always prepare a separate reviewer note with photos in advance and then just say "See the reviewer note below" in the pop-up one.

I do appreciate that you show good containers, that we should all be aiming for.

[+Almege]

Can someone tell me how to add pictures of the cache for the reviewer note?  While I could see how to upload the images for the cache description, I didn't notice anywhere to upload a photo of the container itself for the reviewer (not for publication). I probably missed it somehow.  Thanks in advance.

[+Calypso62]

I now always include photos of the cache container, a closeup of the hide  as well as a general area shot. If I've used one, I also include a screen shot of the checker success page.

This was talked about at a Reviewer information session at a past Mega event. After hearing that, I started adding photos and never had a problem getting my caches published.

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, Calypso62 said:

I now always include photos of the cache container, a closeup of the hide  as well as a general area shot.

 

This is a good practice. Recently a reviewer asked somehow ambiguous questions about the hide and I answered by adding photo. No additional questions raised after this.

 

11 hours ago, Almege said:

Can someone tell me how to add pictures of the cache for the reviewer note?

 

This works same way you add more pictures to your found it logs after you have posted the log. You add pictures to the revierer note log - not the description.

Edited October 3 by arisoft

[+Almege]

7 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

This is a good practice. Recently a reviewer asked somehow ambiguous questions about the hide and I answered by adding photo. No additional questions raised after this.

 

 

This works same way you add more pictures to your found it logs after you have posted the log. You add pictures to the revierer note log - not the description.

Thanks!

[+Almege]

Hi! I was just wondering how long it usually takes for a reviewer to respond to a cache submitted for review. Is it only reviewers from the local area or more widely? These days I live in an area that has only a few caches (that is why I started making some, to hopefully spark some development here ) so I suppose there would not be many local reviewers? 

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, Almege said:

Hi! I was just wondering how long it usually takes for a reviewer to respond to a cache submitted for review. Is it only reviewers from the local area or more widely? These days I live in an area that has only a few caches (that is why I started making some, to hopefully spark some development here ) so I suppose there would not be many local reviewers? 

From the Help Center: 

 

Communicate with your reviewer. Once your cache has been submitted, a community volunteer reviewer will check the cache page to make sure your cache is following all of the guidelines. Generally, reviewers aim to start review of a cache within seven days, but reviews may take longer depending on several factors including the time of year and your location. They may ask clarifying questions about certain aspects of your cache, so make sure you’re keeping an eye on your cache owner dashboard under Unpublished hides.

 

(Bold is my emphasis on the most relevant part of the paragraph)

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Almege said:

Hi! I was just wondering how long it usually takes for a reviewer to respond to a cache submitted for review. Is it only reviewers from the local area or more widely? These days I live in an area that has only a few caches (that is why I started making some, to hopefully spark some development here ) so I suppose there would not be many local reviewers? 

 

I see you're in Australia so that's easily answered from the Regional Wiki. There are six reviewers, roughly one per state with some overlap of the smaller states, plus a Geoaware doing EarthCaches:

 

The Help Centre says that the review process usually starts within 7 days, often it's a lot quicker but if a reviewer is tied up with other commitments or is on leave, it can occasionally take a bit longer. The NSW reviewer generally clears the queue every few days.

 

 

[+Almege]

Hi all, I am wondering how reviewers determine the location of a geocache accurately? if reviewers rely on the mapping tool in the GC website, then it seems to me they can be fairly inaccurate in terms of lot boundaries and allowable uses. The specific issue I have just encountered is that the reviewer seems to think that a cache is located in a nature reserve,  when in fact it is not. The maps on the GC site do show that the cache is located in a nature reserve however, Council planning and zone maps clearly show the cache is located in another adjacent lot that is not part of the reserve - it is adjacent to, but not in, the nature reserve . The basic problem seems to be that the mapping tool in the GC website is not accurate. The reviewer is not located anywhere near the location, so they understandably lack detailed local knowledge that I have. So how to resolve this kind of issue (not just in this case but in general). 

 

Another issue, which is puzzling, is that a reviewer who disagrees with something about a cache 'disables it to clear the list'. As i read it, this puts the submitted cache to the bottom of any new list until it is resubmitted. But this creates a potential problem. If another person submits a cache within the proximity rule zone and it is approved in the meantime, then all the work going into setting up the first cache can be lost. So who gets priority in terms of location and how is this worked out?  To offer an example, I had carefully selected two locations for caches, both have been marked inactive by the reviewer to clear the list. I already had another geocacher hide a cache in a location that ruined an excellent site right near my house (due to the proximity rule), so I am wondering what happens if that person or other person adds a cache too close to the two i have submitted already?

[Keystone]

You are misinformed on both your questions.

 

The land boundaries are typically provided to us as GIS files directly from the land manager.  Your cache is inside the boundary line.  This file is part of our Reviewer toolset and is in addition to what's viewable on Geocaching.com map sources.

 

Disabling a cache doesn't mean you "lose your spot in line."

[+mtn-man]

This is a sneaky way to say hello to an old pal.  I miss you my good friend.  Your ears should have been burning this weekend.   I've missed a lot it seems.

 

I would suggest to Almege to provide pictures in the reviewer notes.  Give the reviewer as much information as possible.  If you feel you have an acceptable location, giving the reviewer more data will help.  Many times the land owner will also help via email to confirm where your cache is located, which you can then pass on to the reviewer.  Anything you put in the reviewer notes will be deleted before your cache is published.  Be as detailed as possible.  Keep at it and good luck.

[+Almege]

On 10/7/2024 at 2:46 PM, mtn-man said:

This is a sneaky way to say hello to an old pal.  I miss you my good friend.  Your ears should have been burning this weekend.   I've missed a lot it seems.

 

I would suggest to Almege to provide pictures in the reviewer notes.  Give the reviewer as much information as possible.  If you feel you have an acceptable location, giving the reviewer more data will help.  Many times the land owner will also help via email to confirm where your cache is located, which you can then pass on to the reviewer.  Anything you put in the reviewer notes will be deleted before your cache is published.  Be as detailed as possible.  Keep at it and good luck.

Thanks for the constructive comments and encouragement. Well, I did provide a lot of detail in that case, including screenshots of the lot boundaries using the title and lot mapping system of the local municipality which clearly show that the site was not within a restricted area. I also took photographs from every angle that clearly demonstrate it was part of the road reserve. However,  the reviewer was either unwilling or unable to consider this more detailed land mapping information. Regardless of being factually correct, I just had to give up on the cache. All said, it was a negative and discouraging experience. I can only hope for better interactions and outcomes in the future.

[+Almege]

On 10/7/2024 at 5:27 AM, Keystone said:

You are misinformed on both your questions.

 

The land boundaries are typically provided to us as GIS files directly from the land manager.  Your cache is inside the boundary line.  This file is part of our Reviewer toolset and is in addition to what's viewable on Geocaching.com map sources.

 

Disabling a cache doesn't mean you "lose your spot in line."

As for the first, the GIS system provided by the local municipality is completely accurate. So, if the lot boundaries on the council system show different information, I'd say they are would be right. 

 

As for the second, it would be more helpful if you could elaborate the process of priority when the stated situation arises. To be clear, I am talking about the following situation....  person A submits a cache (Cache 1) for review and for one reason or another, it gets bogged down in the review process, and remains unpublished for several weeks.  During that period, Person B happens to submit a cache for review at a different location (Cache 2), but that location is within the proximity rule vis a vis the proposed location for Cache 1. If Cache 2 is not problematic, can it be reviewed and published before the review process for Cache 1 is completed? If that is so, then it stands to reason that Cache 1 (still in review and unpublished) will at that moment become unpublishable as it will fall afoul of the proximity rule for Cache 2 published by Person B. I am not sure if you are saying that the process is that Cache 2 would have to wait for review until Cache 1 is finalised before it would be reviewed, or if the scenario I outlined above is in fact possible. Can you kindly offer more detailed explanation in reply so I can understand what you mean?

[+Almege]

On 10/7/2024 at 5:27 AM, Keystone said:

You are misinformed on both your questions.

 

The land boundaries are typically provided to us as GIS files directly from the land manager.  Your cache is inside the boundary line.  This file is part of our Reviewer toolset and is in addition to what's viewable on Geocaching.com map sources.

 

Disabling a cache doesn't mean you "lose your spot in line."

By the way, I am not 'misinformed' but seeking information by asking questions. There is an important difference.   

[+barefootjeff]

11 minutes ago, Almege said:

As for the second, it would be more helpful if you could elaborate the process of priority when the stated situation arises. To be clear, I am talking about the following situation....  person A submits a cache (Cache 1) for review and for one reason or another, it gets bogged down in the review process, and remains unpublished for several weeks.  During that period, Person B happens to submit a cache for review at a different location (Cache 2), but that location is within the proximity rule vis a vis the proposed location for Cache 1. If Cache 2 is not problematic, can it be reviewed and published before the review process for Cache 1 is completed? If that is so, then it stands to reason that Cache 1 (still in review and unpublished) will at that moment become unpublishable as it will fall afoul of the proximity rule for Cache 2 published by Person B. I am not sure if you are saying that the process is that Cache 2 would have to wait for review until Cache 1 is finalised before it would be reviewed, or if the scenario I outlined above is in fact possible. Can you kindly offer more detailed explanation in reply so I can understand what you mean?

 

I'm not a reviewer, but my understanding of how the system works (I think from a Meet the Reviewers session at a mega, or perhaps in these forums), is that as soon as you create a cache page, the physical locations of that cache are effectively reserved, so the one that's created first (i.e. has the earliest GC code) has precedence if there's any overlap. That's one of the reasons why unpublished cache pages are eventually automatically archived. So you needn't worry about your location being gazumped by someone else while it's awaiting review.

[+barefootguru]

On 10/14/2024 at 5:35 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm not a reviewer, but my understanding of how the system works (I think from a Meet the Reviewers session at a mega, or perhaps in these forums), is that as soon as you create a cache page, the physical locations of that cache are effectively reserved, so the one that's created first (i.e. has the earliest GC code) has precedence if there's any overlap. That's one of the reasons why unpublished cache pages are eventually automatically archived. So you needn't worry about your location being gazumped by someone else while it's awaiting review.

 

Our Aotearoa New Zealand reviewer gave me this helpful advice:

Quote

 

If you create a listing but don't submit it, technically the location isn't reserved, although most of the time a reviewer will contact you if another cacher has placed a cache nearby for review.

Best practise is to submit the listing and get the OK from a reviewer.

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, barefootguru said:

Our Aotearoa New Zealand reviewer gave me this helpful advice:

Quote

 

If you create a listing but don't submit it, technically the location isn't reserved, although most of the time a reviewer will contact you if another cacher has placed a cache nearby for review.

Best practise is to submit the listing and get the OK from a reviewer.

 

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but the impression I had was that, as soon as a listing is created, its physical locations will show up on whatever tool the reviewers use to check for proximity issues on the caches they're reviewing. Not all listings can be submitted immediately, I have one for a cache in a national park that I created back in May, only to then discover that the park's ranger is on extended leave until the end of the year when he'll be retiring but a replacement won't be appointed until then. The local ranger here was going to see if she could slip it through for me but I haven't heard anything back, then I was unwell for three months so I wouldn't have been able to place the cache even if I did get the okay from national parks.

[+Goldenwattle]

8 hours ago, barefootguru said:

If you create a listing but don't submit it, technically the location isn't reserved

I was placing a TB Hotel in the attic of my Little Free Library and didn't want say a nano stuck to a nearby past and taking the area, so I contacted the reviewer and explained about my planned TB Hotel. It was still under construction with a special attic being built into the design. Then this space was to be wallpapered, carpeted, furnished, have artwork on the walls and a working clock (old watch). Much better than that theoretical nano. The reviewer liked the idea and reserved the spot for me.