Puzzle Caches Approval

[+AtoZ]

I put in a puzzle cache 17Jul2004 and have been waiting for it to be approved. I have since had a 1/1 cache approved. But I do now know if it takes longer to get a puzzle cache approved then a normal cache. The only connumication I have gotten from the approver(s) is a request for the unencrypted waypoints which i providec. But I have ask a couple times as to the status and no reply. I know they are busy and have real lives and have to go caching but I guess I didn't know if there are special requirements for getting a puzzle cache approved. And thanks to all the approvers for you hard work.

Cheer

[+tirediron]

That does seem like kind of a long time... perhaps a short, polite "What's happening" to your approver?

[+Stunod]

Are you replying to the email address of the approver and not replying to any system generated (BOT) emails?

 

Also, be sure to include the waypoint number in any communication.

[+CompuCash]

there are no indications that there is an issue with puzzle caches - the end result is not a virtual is it? thereIS an issue with virtual caches-

[+AtoZ]

I have gone in to the cache page and always used the Posted a Note to the Reviewer section on the cache page so there is a history of all my comments. But other then the request for the unencrypted waypts in DD MM.MMMM there has been no other responce to my request for information as to when the cache may be approved or if there is a need for additional information. It is a micro with a logbook/sheet as I stated in the first note to the Reviewer.

Alls I ever understood the reviewers had to do was validate it met the reuirements for a safe cache. One cacher friend said the tried to solve it it that is the cace hos do caches lile the Sphere and MI5 ever get approved. My cache is rated 5/1 because it is fairly cryptic. I don't mean to sound bac but I am at a quandry as to what to do???

 

Cheers

[Keystone]

I went and looked at your cache page (you have just one in the queue for your home state). Your page is dated 7/24 rather than 7/17. You provided the coordinates but in UTM format. The reviewer asked for the coordinates in the preferred GC.com datum and format. You provided them, via a "Note to Reviewer" on 7/29.

 

You then posted additional "Notes to Reviewer" on 8/1 and 8/2, asking about the status of your cache. Today is 8/3.

 

Please note that a "Note to Reviewer" sits only on the cache page and the reviewer will not know about it unless he or she goes and checks the cache page. Some reviewers prefer to operate in this fashion, and they actively go and look at the caches they have on hold, to see if any notes have been added to the page. But a notification is NOT sent to the reviewer when you place a note on your cache page.

 

Have you sent an e-mail to the reviewer? That is usually the best approach. E-mail the reviewer via their profile page and state that you've added the coordinates to the cache page in a reviewer note, and to please have another look at the page. I am sure that the reviewer will read their e-mail and respond promptly.

Edited August 3, 2004 by Keystone Approver

[MOCKBA]

I have gone in to the cache page and always used the Posted a Note to the Reviewer section on the cache page so there is a history of all my comments. But other then the request for the unencrypted waypts in DD MM.MMMM there has been no other responce to my request for information as to when the cache may be approved or if there is a need for additional information. It is a micro with a logbook/sheet as I stated in the first note to the Reviewer.

Alls I ever understood the reviewers had to do was validate it met the reuirements for a safe cache. One cacher friend said the tried to solve it it that is the cace hos do caches lile the Sphere and MI5 ever get approved. My cache is rated 5/1 because it is fairly cryptic. I don't mean to sound bac but I am at a quandry as to what to do???

 

Cheers

It is easy to check elswehere in the forums, in an unlikely case if I recall it wrong.

But AFAIK leaving a new Note to Approver isn't an effective way to follow-up to approver's questions. That's 'cuz the Note is e-mailed to yourself but not to the approver, for whatever oversight of this feature's designers.

To reach the approver, use Groundspeak e-mail. Copy to yourself to keep records. You may mention the Notes to Approver in your e-mail, but in themselves, the Notes won't do the notification. Also, at the Profile page of the Approver, check when he/she last logged in to the site. The poor chaps take vacations or caching trips sometimes, which may leave the rank-and-file worrrying about response times for no good reason.

[+AtoZ]

Okay thank you vary much. I had hesiteded sending a email to the reviewer because I didnt now if it was proper. I guess I assumed that the reveiwer got the notes to reviewer. Now it makes sense. THANKS

Ol an sorry about the mix up on the dates I knew it was over a week. THANKS AGAIN. I guess it actualy helps to ask.

Cheers

[+Mopar]

That's 'cuz the Note is e-mailed to yourself but not to the approver, for whatever oversight of this feature's designers.

Many areas have more then one reviewer, plus they are sometimes sick or on vacation and have other reviewers covering for them. How would the website know which reviewer to email a note to?

[Keystone]

Happy to help, and thanks also to MOCKBA for his post, which was written more clearly than mine. I'm sure you'll see your cache listed soon if there are no issues with the final location. Trust me, we DON'T attempt to solve the puzzle caches. At least volunteers like me, who stink at puzzles, don't try to do it!

[+AtoZ]

I was really impressed Sunday night, my daughter and I placed a cache and I put it on the web site for approval about 6pm by 7:30 it was approved. Then I saw the approve was on line about that time and so was very appricative to them for the approval. I guess I just dint know about sending an email to them directly.

You can know who the approver is by reading the request sent back to you.

Cheers

[ju66l3r]

Puzzle Caches Approval, what does it take????????

 

More question marks?

 

[MOCKBA]

That's 'cuz the Note is e-mailed to yourself but not to the approver, for whatever oversight of this feature's designers.

Many areas have more then one reviewer, plus they are sometimes sick or on vacation and have other reviewers covering for them. How would the website know which reviewer to email a note to?

It's always fun to see Mopar ready-to-pounce at my next shot at this site's flaws. Since my "THREE NO's" principles are against asking for improvements or suggesting improvements, you leave me in a bit awkward position

 

Anyways here's my rough understanding of approver's queues:

The queues are likely organized through a database table by date, region, and current handler if there is one (presumably this value is NULL when it's freshly submitted). Each individual approver's queue is a combination of not-yet-assigned caches (NULL approver) and the caches where approver is assigned to be THIS ONE (i.e. the follow-ups).

These queues are typically way overgrown, i.e. there is no ready mechanism to do bulk cleanup of the old queue entries. Therefore, once your submission grows stale, it may end up in a pile of old queue entries, and away from attention. Once an approver is assigned, a cache report goes out of default queues of other approvers, although they could still retrieve and modify it on a case-by-case basis.

(I don't believe that there is a general mechanism for re-assigning approvers for follow-ups when the original approver is on vacation. It is probably done either case-by-case, or by ad-hoc queries).

 

This just to say that the database generally knows who to send the communications about the queued cache reports. One of the relevant DATE fields may also be updated when a new Nore to Approver is submitted, effectively bumping a report to the top of a queue.

[+Mopar]

That's 'cuz the Note is e-mailed to yourself but not to the approver, for whatever oversight of this feature's designers.

Many areas have more then one reviewer, plus they are sometimes sick or on vacation and have other reviewers covering for them. How would the website know which reviewer to email a note to?

It's always fun to see Mopar ready-to-pounce at my next shot at this site's flaws. Since my "THREE NO's" principles are against asking for improvements or suggesting improvements, you leave me in a bit awkward position

Not a pounce at all, sorry if you misunderstood. I guess if the approval queue works the way you suggest, you may be correct. As I understand it, that's not the case though. I'm sure KA will pop in with one of his nicely worded explanations and clarify.

Edited August 3, 2004 by Mopar

[+CO Admin]

I put in a puzzle cache 17Jul2004 and have been waiting for it to be approved.  I have since had a 1/1 cache approved.  But I do now know if it takes longer to get a puzzle cache approved then a normal cache.  The only connumication I have gotten from the approver(s) is a request for the unencrypted waypoints which i providec.  But I have ask a couple times as to the status and no reply.  I know they are busy and have real lives and have to go caching but I guess I didn't know if there are special requirements for getting a puzzle cache approved.  And thanks to all the approvers for you hard work.

Cheer

 

Hi, thanks for your concern regarding your cache.

 

In my original e-mail to you requesting the coords I stated:

 

Hi, before I can clear this cache for approval I need the coords for all the waypoints in this cache. Get them to me and I will process this caches as quickly as I can

 

Thank you

CO Admin

 

[red]NOTE: do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the Geocaching.com mail bot. Go to your cache page and e-mail CO Admin from the log there or email me directly at CO_app@yahoo.com, (there is an underscore between CO and app CO_app) referencing the cache URL's, or waypoint numbers. Also, do not remove any admin notes as they aid other Geocaching.com admins if they need to work with you on your cache. [/red]

 

At the bottom of that e-mail you will notice detailed directions on how to contact me. Sorry for the confusions but as noted above I am not notified of notes left on the cache page. Your cache is approved.

Edited August 3, 2004 by CO Admin

[Keystone]

I am glad to hear that the cache has been listed.

 

Always follow the method of contact suggested by the reviewer in their note to you, because some do things different than others as noted above.

 

MOCKBA, this will confirm that the review queue is NOT organized in the manner that you theorized.

[+AtoZ]

THANK YOU ALL AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+briansnat]

Have you sent an e-mail to the reviewer? That is usually the best approach. E-mail the reviewer via their profile page and state that you've added the coordinates to the cache page in a reviewer note, and to please have another look at the page. I am sure that the reviewer will read their e-mail and respond promptly.

 

Also (for future reference since I see your cache was approved), include the waypoint (GC#) and/or the cache's URL in your e-mail so the approver knows which cache you are referring to.

[+Stunod]

Have you sent an e-mail to the reviewer? That is usually the best approach. E-mail the reviewer via their profile page and state that you've added the coordinates to the cache page in a reviewer note, and to please have another look at the page. I am sure that the reviewer will read their e-mail and respond promptly.

 

Also (for future reference since I see your cache was approved), include the waypoint (GC#) and/or the cache's URL in your e-mail so the approver knows which cache you are referring to.

Good idea, Brian

[MOCKBA]

... but, A2Z, what's level-5 in it? Any more puzzle layers after you find the rings? Or they are hidden in a very sneaky manner?

[+Huntnlady]

... but, A2Z, what's level-5 in it? Any more puzzle layers after you find the rings? Or they are hidden in a very sneaky manner?

I second Mockba's comment.

 

The Agency is the puzzle cache page.