Approvers...

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

So, to get bock to the topic...

 

The following seems to be the only ones that we have compiled.

 

Ohio - Western Pennsylvania - West Virginia ----- Keystone Approver

Northern California ---------------------------------- Hemlock     

Texas ------------------------------------------------ 9key

Southwest & Rocky Mountain area ----------------- RockyMtnReviewer (totaly wrong but good try)

 

Mountains Back East (Where there are bunches of plants) ----------------- mtn-man???????????

 

Utah -------------------------------------------------- UtahAdmin

Arizona - Nevada - Colorado ------------------------ CO Admin (missing at least one)

Southern California ---------------------------------- SoCalAdmin & WestCoastAdmin

Southern Idaho -------------------------------------- MT Fellwalker"

 

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

Anyone want to correct any of it for us or add to it??

 

Oh, to Bjoun74 from Ohio & to any others who might be confused as to why a list would be wanted by 'Oldies' as well as by 'Newbies'..

 

This is to clarify = It would be nice to have a listing so we might be able to ask a question (if one arises) or get Pre-Approval. (in other words - run an idea by the approver for your area before bothering to place it & get the go-ahead. This is much easier than placing it & sitting on pins & needles &  then just having to go retrieve it, IF it doesn't get approved). Understand now? & I do NOT care if changes are being made all the time. If I get an E-Mail returned, as in NOT deliverable, to an approver, then I will send it to Geocaching.com & have them forward it to the correct approver or not.

 

What is so hard to understand? You are starting to make me go

 

Shirley~

 

Edit to include cute little WACKO guys.

corrections

 

Thank you VERY much, CO Admin!

 

Shirley~

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Don’t get me wrong. The less than 1% of GC.com users that use the forums already have a pretty good idea of how to contact an approver. For the other 99+% of GC.com users this list will never be seen.

 

Keep making your little list but it doesn’t seem to be anything more then an exercise in list making.

 

We have had 19 caches approved by 7 different approvers.

 

UtahAdmin

CO Admin

9Key

eric88l-r

ncflyers

Crow T Robot

& mtn-man

 

With that many different approvers we were unsure who to contact for advice concerning cache placement. As you can see they are from all across the country. When it comes to a specific area it would be best to know who covers it and is the most familiar with the area and it's regulations.

 

Since most of our caches are in Utah we contacted UtahAdmin when we needed advice, but for the rest of our caches (in AZ & NV) there is quite a selection to choose from.

 

It would be nice to have a listing to find the 'current' approver for the area where we plan to place a cache for those times when there may be a question about some aspect of the hide.

 

John

[+Confucius' Cat]

how about some info on your plants.

My favourite plants are my three endangered American Chestnut trees.

 

Am I qualified to be an approver now?

Sorry, but no.

 

Reviewers are aware of the research going on regarding developing blight resistant chestnut trees. Hows that for providing info on your plants.

 

You still have much to learn young grasshopper.

 

(edited so as not to look like a pure fool since you DID have a link to TACF and I didn't at first recognize it)

The American Chestnut Foundation published my picture in their journal last year.

 

 

So far, my trees are blight free. Usually blight attacks in about 5 years or less. Mine are 7 yrs old, about 6" diamater and about 25' tall. Only time will tell if they are truly blight resistant.

 

Yes, master, I have a lot to learn, but my trees are thriving in spite of me. (The birdies thank me too)

Edited August 8, 2004 by ChurchCampDave

[+Bjorn74]

This is to clarify = It would be nice to have a listing so we might be able to ask a question (if one arises) or get Pre-Approval. (in other words - run an idea by the approver for your area before bothering to place it & get the go-ahead. This is much easier than placing it & sitting on pins & needles &  then just having to go retrieve it, IF it doesn't get approved). Understand now? & I do NOT care if changes are being made all the time. If I get an E-Mail returned, as in NOT deliverable, to an approver, then I will send it to Geocaching.com & have them forward it to the correct approver or not.

 

What is so hard to understand? You are starting to make me go

It's just that if you place a cache, it gets approved or not and you suddenly know who might approve the next one. If your first cache is "risky" then you either need to start more simply, or you need to email any one of the Volunteer Cache Reviewers with questions. They don't bite and I'm sure they would appreciate the forthought.

 

However, I haven't experienced this to work. Reviewers are so busy that they don't have much time to play with hypotheticals. It's a lot easier to look at cache details and use the tools accessible with a set waypoint. I would offer an alternative:

 

Pick your location.

Create the cache page.

Make a Reviewer Note that states that you're not placing the container until it's approved (I know of at least one Reviewer who hates UnApproved GeoLitter).

When the note that things are fine comes, you can place the container and post another note to the cache page that it is ready.

 

I've often "proposed" (gotta use that word carefully around my reviewer or critic as I refer to he/she/it/them ) cache hides and I don't expect an answer anymore. There is too much work to do to be 3000 people's cache brainstormers. I did have a long series of discussions about a recent cache placement of mine. I must have caught the reviewing machine on a good synapse . However, I knew it would take submission to get the conversation started. I should note that this machine and I communicate frequently. It's just that I think he/she/it/they need actual pages to reject outright. My pipe-dreams are too fluffy to deserve a virtual fatal strike.

 

Ok, so I see why people thinks it matters, but I think there are more effective ways to get what you want. This certainly doesn't work as well as:

 

1) Abducting the reviewers until you get one that likes your cache.

2) Hacking into a reviewers account and approving your own caches. I'm not smart enough to do this, btw.

3) Give up and quit entirely, declaring Forum Suicide.

 

Oh, I have one more serious proposal. With so many groups having forums and other means of communication, you can alway ask other cachers to see where your cache might hit a snag. On the COG Forums (Shameless Plug) we have a forum called "Conceptual Caching" where we discuss new ideas and implementations. That Forum is for a group of people who place more interesting caches and have requested to be part of this discussion. Although nearly half the reviewers have been online with us, I don't think any of them know about it. Now if we had a HamsterCache Forum, I'm sure they'd be involved with it. In this forum, we ask each other questions about snags and better alternatives. It works pretty well.

Edited August 8, 2004 by Bjorn74

[+mtn-man]

Yes, master, I have a lot to learn, but my trees are thriving in spite of me. (The birdies thank me too)

 

Very cool that you are keeping yours going. I have only seen a few young ones as I have hiked in N. GA. I should go back to where I knew about 4 or 5 were and see if they have been killed. They are off-trail out in the middle of nowhere so no one would ever see them.

 

I was surprised no one mentioned me until the rockhounders. I even gave a hint when I posted in this topic using my CO Admin sock puppet account. I approved everywhere. I really like doing Canadian caches the best. They love me so much in Western Canada.

[+Renegade Knight]

Unless this list is updated it will drop off the forums and become pretty much outdated. This is a good idea but it would take work to keep it current whether cachers do it or the site admins.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

2) Hacking into a reviewers account and approving your own caches.  I'm not smart enough to do this, btw.

If I could hack into a reviewer's PayPal account instead...

Edited August 9, 2004 by Team GPSaxophone

[+fly46]

Y'all are right... It just donned on me when I realized I needed to talk to the approver in Georgia that I had started this list... Yeah, it dropped into forum oblivion.

 

Anyway, As for the question about reading the forums, I'm posting the link to the page on my profile, anyone who has a caching website can post the link to the list on their sites or whatever else..

 

Someone wants to know why we would want a list, how about this:

When there's a problem with a cache and the cache owner has dropped off the planet, we need to know who to talk to. We don't always know who an expericenced cacher to ask would be, either. If the powers that be don't want a list, they should solve this by making the part where we can see who reviewed our own caches viewable by everyone. I'm sorry that most of you assume that we'll only ever need this for our own cache placement, but that simply isn't the case.

 

 

Here's the list so far according to this thread. Please feel free to change this:

 

Alabama - ?

Alaska - ?

Arizona - CO Admin

Arkansas - ?

California - WestCoastAdmin, SoCalAdmin, Hemlock

Colorado - CO Admin

Connecticut - ?

Delaware - ?

Florida - ?

Georgia - ?

Hawai'i - ?

Idaho - MT Fellwalker

Illinois - ?

Indiana - ?

Iowa - ?

Kansas - *gln

Kentucky - ?

Louisiana - ?

Maine - ?

Maryland - ?

Massachussettes - ?

Michigan - ?

Minnesota - ?

Mississippi - ?

Missouri - ?

Montana - ?

Nebraska - ?

Nevada - CO Admin

New Hampshire - ?

New Jersey - ?

New Mexico - ?

New York - ?

North Carolina - ?

North Dakota - ?

Ohio - Keystone Approver

Oklahoma - ?

Oregon - ?

Pennsylvania - Keystone Approver

Rhode Island - ?

South Carolina - ?

South Dakota - ?

Tennessee - Tennessee Geocacher

Texas - 9key

Utah - UtahAdmin

Vermont - ?

Virginia - ?

Washington - ?

West Virginia - Keystone Approver

Wisconsin - ?

Wyoming - ?

Washington DC - ?

 

Other Countries - ?

[+mtn-man]

Someone wants to know why we would want a list, how about this:

When there's a problem with a cache and the cache owner has dropped off the planet, we need to know who to talk to.  We don't always know who an expericenced cacher to ask would be, either.  If the powers that be don't want a list, they should solve this by making the part where we can see who reviewed our own caches viewable by everyone.    I'm sorry that most of you assume that we'll only ever need this for our own cache placement, but that simply isn't the case.

Sorry, but that is flawed logic unfortunately. In the past, I approved caches around the world since I was one of the early reviewers. That doesn't mean I am the reviewer of note for every country at this time. Things change and will continue to change.

 

If you have a problem where the cache owner has evaporated, then you can either post a "should be archived" note if it needs archiving or you can write to the contact address. The person who monitors that address will forward it to the reviewer for that area.

 

As you can see from my signature line I live in GA. If you have a problem with a cache in GA feel free to send me a message through my profile page or via a PM in these forums.

[+fly46]

Someone wants to know why we would want a list, how about this:

When there's a problem with a cache and the cache owner has dropped off the planet, we need to know who to talk to.  We don't always know who an expericenced cacher to ask would be, either.  If the powers that be don't want a list, they should solve this by making the part where we can see who reviewed our own caches viewable by everyone.    I'm sorry that most of you assume that we'll only ever need this for our own cache placement, but that simply isn't the case.

Sorry, but that is flawed logic unfortunately. In the past, I approved caches around the world since I was one of the early reviewers. That doesn't mean I am the reviewer of note for every country at this time. Things change and will continue to change.

 

If you have a problem where the cache owner has evaporated, then you can either post a "should be archived" note if it needs archiving or you can write to the contact address. The person who monitors that address will forward it to the reviewer for that area.

 

As you can see from my signature line I live in GA. If you have a problem with a cache in GA feel free to send me a message through my profile page or via a PM in these forums.

It wasn't so much logic as it was some sort of solution that would work for the time being. As in... If we can't have an extra large pizza with double every topping we want, can we at least have a slice of cheese pizza..

 

Besides - YOU try being logical at 3.30 AM! lol.

[+Renegade Knight]

Moun10bike still does Idaho. I'm just not sure when where and how. I think he focuses on Northern but I just got a "what's up" log on a disabled cache from him so he is paying attention.

[+Contryguy]

Here's the list so far according to this thread. Please feel free to change this:

 

Alabama - ?

Alaska - ?

Arizona - CO Admin

Arkansas - ?

California - WestCoastAdmin, SoCalAdmin, Hemlock

Colorado - CO Admin

Connecticut - ?

Delaware - ?

Florida - ?

Georgia - ?

Hawai'i - ?

Idaho - MT Fellwalker

Illinois - ?

Indiana - ?

Iowa - ?

Kansas - *gln

Kentucky - ?

Louisiana - ?

Maine - ?

Maryland - ?

Massachussettes - ?

Michigan - ?

Minnesota - ?

Mississippi - ?

Missouri - ?

Montana - ?

Nebraska - Electric Mouse

Nevada - CO Admin

New Hampshire - ?

New Jersey - ?

New Mexico - ?

New York - ?

North Carolina - ?

North Dakota - Electric Mouse

Ohio - Keystone Approver

Oklahoma - ?

Oregon - ?

Pennsylvania - Keystone Approver

Rhode Island - ?

South Carolina - ?

South Dakota - Electric Mouse

Tennessee - Tennessee Geocacher

Texas - 9key

Utah - UtahAdmin

Vermont - ?

Virginia - ?

Washington - ?

West Virginia - Keystone Approver

Wisconsin - ?

Wyoming - ?

Washington DC - ?

 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dokata is Electric Mouse and the approver is great

Edited August 27, 2004 by Contryguy

[+Anonymous']

I don't know if Washington's have been mentioned but the two I know are Moun10Bike and Team Misguided.

[+Muirwoody]

I'm in Indiana. Most of mine have been approved by Mountain Climber. I have also had Tennessee Geocacher and Purple Moose approve my caches. I don't think I've gone over a few hours for approval with any of eight caches. Excellent.

[+LaPaglia]

Here's the list so far according to this thread. Please feel free to change this:

 

Alabama - ?

Alaska - ?

Arizona - CO Admin

Arkansas - ?

California - WestCoastAdmin, SoCalAdmin, Hemlock

Colorado - CO Admin

Connecticut - ?

Delaware - ?

Florida - ?

Georgia - ?

Hawai'i - ?

Idaho - MT Fellwalker

Illinois - ?

Indiana - ?

Iowa - ?

Kansas - *gln

Kentucky - ?

Louisiana - ?

Maine - ?

Maryland - ?

Massachussettes - ?

Michigan - ?

Minnesota - ?

Mississippi - ?

Missouri - ?

Montana - ?

Nebraska - Electric Mouse

Nevada - CO Admin

New Hampshire - ?

New Jersey - ?

New Mexico - ?

New York - ?

North Carolina - ?

North Dakota - Electric Mouse

Ohio - Keystone Approver

Oklahoma - ?

Oregon - ?

Pennsylvania - Keystone Approver

Rhode Island - ?

South Carolina - ?

South Dakota - Electric Mouse

Tennessee - Tennessee Geocacher

Texas - 9key

Utah - UtahAdmin

Vermont - ?

Virginia - ?

Washington - ?

West Virginia - Keystone Approver

Wisconsin - ?

Wyoming - ?

Washington DC - ?

 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dokata is Electric Mouse and the approver is great

The problem with generating a list like this is that

1: its already outdated

B: Its wrong in at least 3 places

[+Renegade Knight]

...The problem with generating a list like this is that

1: its already outdated

B: Its wrong in at least 3 places

Until this site makes a list and keeps it updated, this is as good as it gets. Why not take some time, and point out where the list isn't accurate? Or champion the cause of this site keeping a list and keeping it updated?

[+LaPaglia]

...The problem with generating a list like this is that

1: its already outdated

B: Its wrong in at least 3 places

Until this site makes a list and keeps it updated, this is as good as it gets. Why not take some time, and point out where the list isn't accurate? Or champion the cause of this site keeping a list and keeping it updated?

Because:

A: By the time I make the comment it could change again

2: I have no desire to champion this cause. I know who my local approve is. When the site wants to publish this information I am sure they will publish it. Nothing I can do here will change that one way or the other.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

A: By the time I make the comment it could change again

2: I have no desire to champion this cause. I know who my local approve is. When the site wants to publish this information I am sure they will publish it. Nothing I can do here will change that one way or the other.

A: Yes it could change, it does change, and that proves the need for the list.

2: How in the hell could you know your local approver if it change as fast as you say. ok I know how you would know your local approver, but most of us don't have that insider knowledge.

 

It's funny that part of the the reasons you don't want to help are the reasons the information is needed.

 

That would be a good locationless. "Find your elusive approver".

[+fly46]

...The problem with generating a list like this is that

1: its already outdated

B: Its wrong in at least 3 places

Until this site makes a list and keeps it updated, this is as good as it gets. Why not take some time, and point out where the list isn't accurate? Or champion the cause of this site keeping a list and keeping it updated?

Because:

A: By the time I make the comment it could change again

2: I have no desire to champion this cause. I know who my local approve is. When the site wants to publish this information I am sure they will publish it. Nothing I can do here will change that one way or the other.

So what if the information *COULD* change again? At least we would know it was correct at one point.

 

I'm updating my master list with the additions...

Come on the rest of you!

[+Hynr]

The reasons that have been given for having a posted list of approvers don’t make sense.

 

If you want to communicate with the person that will approve your next cache, then you create the listing and submit it. You can say anything you want about the cache in the box at the very bottom. If you want to chat with someone about things that are not related to a particular cache, but related to approving stuff, then you do that right here in the forums.

 

If you want to communicate about a dead cache then you do that by posting a “needs archiving” note.

 

By the way, Hemlock is a great approver. And WestCoastApprover is also super. The fact that I have a bunch of caches in preparation has nothing whatsoever to do with my saying so.

[+fly46]

The reasons that have been given for having a posted list of approvers don’t make sense.

 

If you want to communicate with the person that will approve your next cache, then you create the listing and submit it. You can say anything you want about the cache in the box at the very bottom. If you want to chat with someone about things that are not related to a particular cache, but related to approving stuff, then you do that right here in the forums.

 

If you want to communicate about a dead cache then you do that by posting a “needs archiving” note.

 

By the way, Hemlock is a great approver. And WestCoastApprover is also super. The fact that I have a bunch of caches in preparation has nothing whatsoever to do with my saying so.

So I'm thinking about a difficult multi, but I'm not sure how it fits in the cache placement rules. Should I spend four weeks trying to place it only to be told that the cache isn't going to get approved, or should I be able to figure out who the approver will be and then ask about the cache first before we both go through the trouble of the approval process?

 

If I were an approver, I'd want someone to ask me a simple question that would take me five minutes to answer as opposed to submitting a cache page that takes me forty-five minutes to read through before I deny it.

[+Hynr]

So why not post in the forum and get others to provide advice. If it is too specific and you are afraid of giving away your secret info, then create the cache to the extent you can and explain your problem in the note to the approver. The approver will work with you as much as s/he has the time to do so.

 

If it takes you 4 weeks of work, then you have a different problem that is probably not resolved by contacting an approver.

 

Why should a busy approver spend any time on a theoretical cache that may or may not happen? They are not paid the big bucks ( ) to give cache placement advice for caches folks might think about placing.

 

If you absolutely need the local approver and you have placed even one cache before, then you already have all the information you need on your version of the cache page.

[+fly46]

 

If you absolutely need the local approver and you have placed even one cache before, then you already have all the information you need on your version of the cache page.

And your reasoning against the list is once again reason for it.

It's already been specified in this thread that approvers change all the time.

 

Kep himself said that his area just changed.

So if the person that WAS doing one of the areas that he just took over approved a cache before he stopped approving, then PMing him would be pointless because he's not doing it anymore..

 

So instead of having a page that has the chance to be updated, you're suggesting hit and miss?

 

mtn-man himself said that he used to approve all over before there were numerous approvers.........

[+Renegade Knight]

The instructions for virtuals specificaly say ask first.

The instructions for a commerial cache say to ask.

 

Hynr, you have a good point about theoretical caches and approver time. But do we take our questions to the forums where members can speculate on answers, and if we are lucky an approver comes along and gives a real answer? That's not a lot different from asking the approver who is going to deal with your question eventually anyway. I know from experience that approvers are different. What one will approve another won't. So even if you get an approver to answer in the forums the answer may not be the one you need.

[+briansnat]

Yes, master, I have a lot to learn, but my trees are thriving in spite of me.  (The birdies thank me too) 

 

Very cool that you are keeping yours going. I have only seen a few young ones as I have hiked in N. GA. I should go back to where I knew about 4 or 5 were and see if they have been killed. They are off-trail out in the middle of nowhere so no one would ever see them.

 

I was surprised no one mentioned me until the rockhounders. I even gave a hint when I posted in this topic using my CO Admin sock puppet account. I approved everywhere. I really like doing Canadian caches the best. They love me so much in Western Canada.

I have an American Chestnut growing on my front lawn. My brother got a bunch from the ACF and gave me a seedling. Its been in the ground 2 years and is knee high and doing well so far. I've found a few while hiking in my area. All are no more than saplings. Its something when you consider that they once comprised 1/4 of all trees in this region and grew very huge. Just picture a disease that comes along and kills every oak tree in the US. It was a similar disaster.

 

Back to the approver list. I haven't gone through all the posts so I don't know if these guys are mentioned. NJ Admin does NJ and I think parts of some other states. NY Admin does NY and GPSFUN does southern VT at least and probably more.

 

I think an approver list is a good idea. I know it changes frequently, but still, there should be one available. When someone comes here with an idea for a cache, the response is often "run it by your local approver". Unless the person has placed some caches, he probably has no idea who it is.

Edited August 27, 2004 by briansnat

[+mtn-man]

...The problem with generating a list like this is that

1: its already outdated

B: Its wrong in at least 3 places

Until this site makes a list and keeps it updated, this is as good as it gets. Why not take some time, and point out where the list isn't accurate? Or champion the cause of this site keeping a list and keeping it updated?

Because:

A: By the time I make the comment it could change again

2: I have no desire to champion this cause. I know who my local approve is. When the site wants to publish this information I am sure they will publish it. Nothing I can do here will change that one way or the other.

Even more to the point, we as cache reviewers are *not authorized* to champion the cause. Posting this list is not a decision we can make. We are cache reviewers. We make no policy for the site; we only follow it. If the site wants to publish this list then they will. Until that time you will not see any reviewers contribute to it's compilation. Please don't ask us to. We are not allowed to.

 

EDIT: If you have a question for your local reviewer and you do not know who they are, then write the contact address. They will forward it to the appropriate person.

Edited August 27, 2004 by mtn-man

[+mtn-man]

By the way, I have already said this once in this topic...

 

Part of the problem with this topic is that areas are changing.  You also have people saying who the reviewers are for regions when they are not exactly sure if that information is correct.  I can tell you that some of the information listed on this page is incorrect.  It is not my business to say what I think is incorrect information or what is correct information.  That is up to Hydee and Groundspeak. 

 

If a list is to be developed it should come from Groundspeak. 

Speculation could lead to incorrect information.

[+hedberg]

In the northern part of Europe (including the Baltic countries) do we have three plastic LEGO toys, armed with deadly weapons...

 

You don't wanna mess with them. Take a look at them and you will understand why!

 

 

To these reviewers do you not dare to send complaining emails like "He, what the duck. You haven't approved my new cache!"

 

BTW, they are doing a great work despite their hostile look

Edited August 27, 2004 by hedberg

[+briansnat]

If you have a question for your local reviewer and you do not know who they are, then write the contact address. They will forward it to the appropriate person.

 

So you get your answer in 5 weeks? Be realistic!

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

If you have a question for your local reviewer and you do not know who they are, then write the contact address. They will forward it to the appropriate person.

 

So you get your answer in 5 weeks? Be realistic!

You tell 'em!

We do agree on this one!!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

If you have a question for your local reviewer and you do not know who they are, then write the contact address. They will forward it to the appropriate person.

 

So you get your answer in 5 weeks? Be realistic!

Everyone that has placed a cache already has a contact name listed on the bottom of their cache page.

 

The "wait 5 weeks" address is obviously meant for n00bs because we want them to be geocachers for 5 weeks before placing a cache anyway.

[+mtn-man]

If you have a question for your local reviewer and you do not know who they are, then write the contact address. They will forward it to the appropriate person.

 

So you get your answer in 5 weeks? Be realistic!

You tell 'em!

We do agree on this one!!

No, actually, you come to the forums and start a topic.

 

EDITED -- Ouch, the original might have been more appropriate!

Edited August 27, 2004 by mtn-man

[+NoLemon]

Yes, I see a need for having a contact for the reviewer responsible for my area. No, I don't really need to know their real, non-approver identity. Am I curious, I guess so, but it doesn't really matter.

 

I do think, however, there needs to be a standardized email address for the reviewers. For the US and Canada, it should start with the state or provincial abbreviation. For example, OH_Approver, IL_Approver, BC_Approver, etc. Use "approver," "reviewer," etc. as long as it is consistent.

 

Those addresses should be auto-forwarded to the person or persons responsible for that area. Thus is JohnDoeCacher is the approver for IL, WI, and IA then IL_Approver, WI_Approver and IA_Approver would all forward to his account. His email client should be configured in such a way that when he replies, the "from" address on the reply matches the address to which the replied-to email was sent.

 

Copies of emails sent to the primary person should be sent to a group mail box or a listserv type account that all reviewers have access to. That way, if the primary person is unavailable someone can pick it up.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Yes, I see a need for having a contact for the reviewer responsible for my area. No, I don't really need to know their real, non-approver identity. Am I curious, I guess so, but it doesn't really matter.

 

I do think, however, there needs to be a standardized email address for the reviewers. For the US and Canada, it should start with the state or provincial abbreviation. For example, OH_Approver, IL_Approver, BC_Approver, etc. Use "approver," "reviewer," etc. as long as it is consistent.

 

Those addresses should be auto-forwarded to the person or persons responsible for that area. Thus is JohnDoeCacher is the approver for IL, WI, and IA then IL_Approver, WI_Approver and IA_Approver would all forward to his account. His email client should be configured in such a way that when he replies, the "from" address on the reply matches the address to which the replied-to email was sent.

 

Copies of emails sent to the primary person should be sent to a group mail box or a listserv type account that all reviewers have access to. That way, if the primary person is unavailable someone can pick it up.

 

Now this is an original idea that might just be the ticket.

 

Yea or NAAAY?

 

mtn-man or CO Admin or Jeremy or aome approver--what do you think about this one?

 

Shirley~

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Yes, I see a need for having a contact for the reviewer responsible for my area. No, I don't really need to know their real, non-approver identity. Am I curious, I guess so, but it doesn't really matter.

 

I do think, however, there needs to be a standardized email address for the reviewers. For the US and Canada, it should start with the state or provincial abbreviation. For example, OH_Approver, IL_Approver, BC_Approver, etc. Use "approver," "reviewer," etc. as long as it is consistent.

 

Those addresses should be auto-forwarded to the person or persons responsible for that area. Thus is JohnDoeCacher is the approver for IL, WI, and IA then IL_Approver, WI_Approver and IA_Approver would all forward to his account. His email client should be configured in such a way that when he replies, the "from" address on the reply matches the address to which the replied-to email was sent.

 

Copies of emails sent to the primary person should be sent to a group mail box or a listserv type account that all reviewers have access to. That way, if the primary person is unavailable someone can pick it up.

California has more than one approver. Four, in fact. How would you propose they handle that? CA1, CA2, CA3, CA4 would be too confusing. CAbelowN37 would be too hard to remember.

[+mtn-man]

Yes, I see a need for having a contact for the reviewer responsible for my area.    No, I don't really need to know their real, non-approver identity.  Am I curious, I guess so, but it doesn't really matter.

 

I do think, however, there needs to be a standardized email address for the reviewers.  For the US and Canada, it should start with the state or provincial abbreviation.  For example, OH_Approver, IL_Approver, BC_Approver, etc. Use "approver," "reviewer," etc. as long as it is consistent.

 

Those addresses should be auto-forwarded to the person or persons responsible for that area.  Thus is JohnDoeCacher is the approver for IL, WI, and IA then IL_Approver, WI_Approver and IA_Approver would all forward to his account.  His email client should be configured in such a way that when he replies, the "from" address on the reply matches the address to which the replied-to email was sent.

 

Copies of emails sent to the primary person should be sent to a group mail box or a listserv type account that all reviewers have access to.  That way, if the primary person is unavailable someone can pick it up.

California has more than one approver. Four, in fact. How would you propose they handle that? CA1, CA2, CA3, CA4 would be too confusing. CAbelowN37 would be too hard to remember.

And, what if an area has a single reviewer and they take a one or two week vacation? Then there will be complaints that they won't reply. With one central contact address things get distributed to the correct person, whether it is the regular reviewer or someone who is covering for them while they are gone. We all check in and let the group know when we are taking vacations or will be out of the loop, etc.

[+NoLemon]

Yes, I see a need for having a contact for the reviewer responsible for my area.    No, I don't really need to know their real, non-approver identity.  Am I curious, I guess so, but it doesn't really matter.

 

I do think, however, there needs to be a standardized email address for the reviewers.  For the US and Canada, it should start with the state or provincial abbreviation.  For example, OH_Approver, IL_Approver, BC_Approver, etc. Use "approver," "reviewer," etc. as long as it is consistent.

 

Those addresses should be auto-forwarded to the person or persons responsible for that area.  Thus is JohnDoeCacher is the approver for IL, WI, and IA then IL_Approver, WI_Approver and IA_Approver would all forward to his account.  His email client should be configured in such a way that when he replies, the "from" address on the reply matches the address to which the replied-to email was sent.

 

Copies of emails sent to the primary person should be sent to a group mail box or a listserv type account that all reviewers have access to.  That way, if the primary person is unavailable someone can pick it up.

California has more than one approver. Four, in fact. How would you propose they handle that? CA1, CA2, CA3, CA4 would be too confusing. CAbelowN37 would be too hard to remember.

And, what if an area has a single reviewer and they take a one or two week vacation? Then there will be complaints that they won't reply. With one central contact address things get distributed to the correct person, whether it is the regular reviewer or someone who is covering for them while they are gone. We all check in and let the group know when we are taking vacations or will be out of the loop, etc.

In regards to four (or more in CA) - are they by region? SoCAL, BayArea, NoCal, etc. I see your point, that is just a detail that needs to be ironed out.

 

When approvers go on vacation the standard email is changed to redirect to whomever is covering for them. That happens now in a manual manner, no?

 

Under this scheme, each approver should have one or two back-ups. Emails to the primary should go to the back-up(s) with an appropriate label in the header.

 

Granted this plan may take some more coordination and planning than the current system does. And change is always hard for people. But I think it would address the concerns about who to contact that most people have (at least from what I've seen in the forums the last couple of months).

 

BTW & for the record - I was VERY PLEASED with the quick turn around I recently recieved from the approver in my area. In no way should my comments in this thread indicate that I am unhappy or have issues with any of the volunteers. You all are doing a good job and it is appreciated.

[+NoLemon]

Yes, I see a need for having a contact for the reviewer responsible for my area.    No, I don't really need to know their real, non-approver identity.  Am I curious, I guess so, but it doesn't really matter.

 

I do think, however, there needs to be a standardized email address for the reviewers.  For the US and Canada, it should start with the state or provincial abbreviation.  For example, OH_Approver, IL_Approver, BC_Approver, etc. Use "approver," "reviewer," etc. as long as it is consistent.

 

Those addresses should be auto-forwarded to the person or persons responsible for that area.  Thus is JohnDoeCacher is the approver for IL, WI, and IA then IL_Approver, WI_Approver and IA_Approver would all forward to his account.  His email client should be configured in such a way that when he replies, the "from" address on the reply matches the address to which the replied-to email was sent.

 

Copies of emails sent to the primary person should be sent to a group mail box or a listserv type account that all reviewers have access to.  That way, if the primary person is unavailable someone can pick it up.

California has more than one approver. Four, in fact. How would you propose they handle that? CA1, CA2, CA3, CA4 would be too confusing. CAbelowN37 would be too hard to remember.

This can also be handled with a clickable map. Click on your state or part of the state and the appropriate email address will be used for in the mail-to form.

[+mtn-man]

Granted this plan may take some more coordination and planning than the current system does.  And change is always hard for people.  But I think it would address the concerns about who to contact that most people have (at least from what I've seen in the forums the last couple of months).

 

BTW & for the record - I was VERY PLEASED with the quick turn around I recently recieved from the approver in my area.  In no way should my comments in this thread indicate that I am unhappy or have issues with any of the volunteers.  You all are doing a good job and it is appreciated.

Frankly, I would prefer Jeremy focus on other areas. I don't see this as a great concern. I don't get very much email from the contact address, so why go out and reinvent the wheel for something that is not that big of a deal in the big picture (sure, I know if it is affecting you directly at the time it is important, but I'm speaking in the grand scheme of things).

 

If there was a topic started each day or week about not being able to get in touch with a reviewer I think this might be an issue. Right now I think there are much bigger and better things to worry about, like virtual caches and locationless caches. Would you propose that they stop working on solutions to those problems to address the issue of emailing reviewers? Based on the ratio of forum topics I would bet the answer is no.

[+NoLemon]

Granted this plan may take some more coordination and planning than the current system does.  And change is always hard for people.  But I think it would address the concerns about who to contact that most people have (at least from what I've seen in the forums the last couple of months).

 

BTW & for the record - I was VERY PLEASED with the quick turn around I recently recieved from the approver in my area.  In no way should my comments in this thread indicate that I am unhappy or have issues with any of the volunteers.  You all are doing a good job and it is appreciated.

Frankly, I would prefer Jeremy focus on other areas. I don't see this as a great concern. I don't get very much email from the contact address, so why go out and reinvent the wheel for something that is not that big of a deal in the big picture (sure, I know if it is affecting you directly at the time it is important, but I'm speaking in the grand scheme of things).

 

If there was a topic started each day or week about not being able to get in touch with a reviewer I think this might be an issue. Right now I think there are much bigger and better things to worry about, like virtual caches and locationless caches. Would you propose that they stop working on solutions to those problems to address the issue of emailing reviewers? Based on the ratio of forum topics I would bet the answer is no.

Mtn-man - since you quoted me I am going to assume that your reply was aimed at me. As I said in my earlier post, I don't have a problem with the way it works now. I agree, there are more important things to focus on (though, personally I'm not sure I'd include locationless in that list).

[+mtn-man]

I agree, there are more important things to focus on (though, personally I'm not sure I'd include locationless in that list).

I hear you. They will be back someday and I bet it will be better than before.

 

Your overall point is taken and understood. I do appreciate you suggesting possible solutions too. Like I say, I still think there are bigger issues to address at this time. I would rather that they keep working on things they are doing now.

[+Renegade Knight]

Reviewers. Ok you are not Authorized to champion the cause. They why do you guys spend your time knocking it, if you can't help? This isn't the same as the controversy over virtuals, it's no skin off the sites back. You guys could help and do that without authorization because you are approvers you do have regions for the most part and you are not sworn to sececy. If you can't or won't help keep in mind that if you are not authorized to champion the cause surely you are not Authorized to hinder the topic either?

[+Sputnik 57]

Keep making your little list but it doesn’t seem to be anything more then an exercise in list making.

I've been making a list of all the lists that I've been making. I didn't think of it as exercise until now. No wonder I am exhausted!

 

OT, I'm all for keeping this thread going to compile a list. Even if I don't know who MY approver is, it lets me know who THE approvers are. I can then go to 9-Key (or whoever) and ask a question, not expecting that he'll drop everything to help me out, but hoping that when he gets a Round Tuit (Bosun leaves them as Sig items down here on the Texas gulf coast), he might drop me a line and point me in the right direction.

[+flask]

i know who my aprover is, but i'm not telling. if you hide caches in my neighborhood, you know who it is, too.

 

other than the fact that my approver is "from away", i think he/she/it's the best approver in the whole gosh-darn world! why, just today i went over to the post office to mail a little present.

 

shhhh, don't tell nobody. it's a surprize.

[+mtn-man]

i know who my aprover is, but i'm not telling. if you hide caches in my neighborhood, you know who it is, too.

 

other than the fact that my approver is "from away", i think he/she/it's the best approver in the whole gosh-darn world! why, just today i went over to the post office to mail a little present.

 

shhhh, don't tell nobody. it's a surprize.

Is it ticking?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Bump

[+flask]

i know who my aprover is, but i'm not telling. if you hide caches in my neighborhood, you know who it is, too.

 

other than the fact that my approver is "from away", i think he/she/it's the best approver in the whole gosh-darn world! why, just today i went over to  the post office to mail a little present.

 

shhhh, don't tell nobody. it's a surprize.

Is it ticking?

it is not ticking.

 

but i'm still not telling who it is. if you're clever you can figure it out. or if you're another approver, you already know.

 

'nuf sed.

[Pto]

....other than the fact that my approver is "from away", i

 

Likewise for me.

 

I am clever I guess?

[Keystone]

I offer this link as a handy reference tool for use by the volunteers who are based in Georgia.

[+flask]

I offer this link as a handy reference tool for use by the volunteers who are based in Georgia.

oh, you're a funny one.