Cache Approval Process

December 1, 2004

Hello,

You may or may not have similar experiences as me, but here goes anyway. I find the current cache approval system inadequate. Lets discuss reasons later in this thread but here is a suggestion that I would like to be discussed. What if the approval systems was as follows....

The reviewers/approvers

Every registered user, who has planted atleast N (lets say 10) caches him/herself is automatically offered a reviewer/approver status. The user can decide to take the permission or not.
The approver status may be revoked (in cases such as: abuse, longterm inactivity, etc.)
The area of jurisdiction - where the user has approval rights is determined by the caches planted by him/herself (if all caches have been planted in certain state, or certain country in Europe/somewhere else the user has the power to use his rights for caches created within a proximity of this area)

The process

When someone creates a new cache, it goes to the "approval pending status"
The new cache and it's details are shown (in some URL, notification sent periodically) to the approvers of that area.
If the cache gets minimum of N ok to approve (lets say 5) statements from the approvers it gets approved - in case no-one disagrees. If someone disagrees, the approvers vote. If the vote is positive (n percentage of voters say yes), the cache is approved.
The creator of the cache has a "live" view to the progress of the approval process.
Any comments/guestions aimed at the cache creator are passed periodically (daily, 2 times a day?) to the cache creator.

Any issues dealing with already approved caches may be handled by a modified version of similar process.

Benefits: 1) faster and more democratic process. 2) no single approver can cause innecessary delay to cache approval. Also, no evil dictator fear. 3) fully trackable. ... n)

Comments?

- dad @ teameimi

Edited December 1, 2004 by TeamEimi

6.4k · December 1, 2004

1) faster and more democratic process.
2) no single approver can cause innecessary delay to cache approval. Also, no evil dictator fear.

3) fully trackable. ... n)

Comments?

- dad @ teameimi

1) one person could slow down the whole thing by declining a cache and then delaying his vote.

2) one person, or a group of people, could create fake accounts or conspire to approve caches they want that don't meet this site's listing guidelines. They could also conspire to disallow caches by people they don't like, regardless of the guidelines.

3) So you would need a full time group of people to track everyone and make sure they are properly reviewing the caches.

As is often seen here in the forums, sometimes it's hard to even get the current hand-picked group of reviewers all on the same page and in line with the desires of the web site's owners. With literally tens of thousands of reviewers, that would be almost impossible. Every cache would be a long, drawn out debate.

To be practical, it would also require a major rewrite of the website and database. That's no small task for a large corporation, it's probably almost an impossibility for the current staff to do while still keeping the site functioning.

December 1, 2004

1) one person could slow down the whole thing by declining a cache and then delaying his vote.

Naturally, vote would be ready when "enough" approvers have voted and vote deadline is passed -> not a problem.

2) one person, or a group of people, could create fake accounts or conspire to approve caches they want that don't meet this site's listing guidelines. They could also conspire to disallow caches by people they don't like, regardless of the guidelines.

Creation of fake accounts for this purpose would not be easy, as getting the approver status would require first having atleast N (say 10) caches approved. -> not a problem?

3) So you would need a full time group of people to track everyone and make sure they are properly reviewing the caches

-> Earlier problems not a problem, so this is not a problem. As a summary, I was thinking about these issues as well - but I believe that the fact that the approvers need to have track record of created and approved caches - and that approver status (and karma in other geocachers eyes) can be revoked also helps. In my opinion, the chances that someone corrupts the system is much higher in the current setup of things.

To what comes to implementation. This is not impossible. Or if it is, then we are doomed anyway.

- dad @ teameimi

December 1, 2004

The caches that I have placed have all been approved within 12 hours. Usually within 4 hours. And in one case within a half an hour.

What sort of time limit were you thinking about for the voting?

In order to make it fair for everyone to have the opportunity to view the cache, research the area, and decide whether to approve or reject the cache you would have to leave it open for at least 24 hours. People work different shifts, log on at different times, don't log on every day, etc.

If the cache is rejected, who informs the cache owner of specific reason for the rejection? And helps the cache owner meet the requirements to get the cache approved?

I've hidden six caches, but I've found 572, and I'm a volunteer with the local park system, assisting in their cache permit approval process. Why wouldn't I be considered capable of determining what a good cache is?

22k · December 1, 2004

8 to 10 people, with different levels of experience, understanding of local park rules and regulations, and social skills, just to determine if a single cache is within guidelines.

Sounds efficient to me! Let’s do it!

Edited December 1, 2004 by BlueDeuce

6.4k · December 1, 2004

8 to 10 people, with different levels of experience, understanding of park rules and regulations, and social skills, just to determine if a single cache is within guidelines.

Sounds efficient to me! Let’s do it!

That's what I was thinking. To be fair, the initial voting would have to be open for at LEAST 24hrs. If there is a dissenting vote, then there probably needs to be another 2-3 days to allow the jury to discuss it. If you aren't going to allow the dissenter a chance to argue why they felt the cache shouldn't be approved then heck, just drop the whole deal and list any cache that gets at least one YES vote.

December 1, 2004

Sounds like an effort to make something that works very well much more complicated. I don't want a committee debating for days over my cache. I've had a couple caches denied and many more approved, all within 12 hours of submission, so nothing wrong there. I can think of a few cachers who have over 10 hides that I sure wouldn't want approving my caches. :rolleyes: They don't know their a** from their elbow and you want them to have a say in the approval process? However, I would love to be able to deny every one they submit! :lol:

4.8k · December 1, 2004

I kind of like the idea of a more democratic process in thoery. But in practice I just don't see how it would work well or be very efficient for reasons already pointed out by others here.

24.7k · December 1, 2004

As outlined that seems like a fairly workable approval system.

Some issues include approving caches in areas outside the system boundaries. For example where you can't meet the minimu # of Yes approvers your system wants, or where there are no approves who have accepted the job in the territory.

You need a higher authority to decide on when to pull the plug on a person abusing the approval system. Because there is the need for a higher authorty you will create the need to deal with appeals for a caches approval. Those appeals will come.

GPSGames.org has a variation of a peer review process for it's caches.

Edited December 1, 2004 by Renegade Knight

December 1, 2004

The caches that I have placed have all been approved within 12 hours. Usually within 4 hours. And in one case within a half an hour.
What sort of time limit were you thinking about for the voting?

In order to make it fair for everyone to have the opportunity to view the cache, research the area, and decide whether to approve or reject the cache you would have to leave it open for at least 24 hours. People work different shifts, log on at different times, don't log on every day, etc.

Well, clearly the approval delay in current system differs a lot (which is one issue). In some cases it can be days - in some cases even weeks. Sometimes obviously even hours. As you have hidden only six caches, maybe there is not enough for statistics. Does someone have the data? In addition to the common average times, it would be interesting also to know the averages for countries/areas in which it really works slow currently.

In a peer review like system, in "clear cases" (everyone who votes says YES), I'd say hours are enough. (Ofcourse there would have to be some clever algorithm for deciding what is enough, but those are details). If things get complicated, then they take more time.

By the way, why would every approver even need to be given a chance to comment? Yes, people work different shifts and are online at different time and that is only good. Caches get approved even if some of the approvers are sleeping. Those who are available do the job.

If the cache is rejected, who informs the cache owner of specific reason for the rejection? And helps the cache owner meet the requirements to get the cache approved?

The system, or in some cases You, Me or Sally. If the issues to be handled are clear, they could be entered into the "system" and delivered automatically to the creator. Creator does what was wanted and re-submits the item. Or, if the cache creator needs personal guidance, then someone must be assigned to that task. And ofcourse, if there is some specific guestion about some specific issue (like can the cache be hidden like this in a park like this) - then a peer review kind-of system would provide just the means to get the "experts" in each guestion involved in giving that guidance.

* * *

THE REAL ISSUE IS, HOWEVER:

...maybe the situation is different in there - and maybe this is the reason I can even sincerely suggest a process change like this....

but in here people (or a clear majority of them) can be trusted in, play the game because they get something from it and try to be nice to each other. And the best way to keep things like that, are again IMHO, to trust in the people and make them run the system.

Atleast in here IMHO, geocaching has not yet turned into a system in which people would try to find loopholes to create "evil" caches. And maybe there can be some people that are on mission to make sure someones cache does not get approved. But do people like this come in a mass big enough to have a chance in beating the majority's voting?

If I would see this real issue differently then I'd probably also believe that there is no place for democracy either.

- dad @ teameimi

Edited December 1, 2004 by TeamEimi

1.3k · December 1, 2004

You may or may not have similar experiences as me, but here goes anyway. I find the current cache approval system inadequate. Lets discuss reasons later in this thread but here is a suggestion that I would like to be discussed.

Why do you find the current system inadequate?

I personally have never had a problem with it. When I list a cache it's often approved within 3 or 4 hours, sometimes shorter than that.

The only times that I've even heard of problems are:

1. People don't include all relevant information (like all of the waypoints in a multi, or proof that adequate permission was given)

2. The cache they approved falls outside, or in some grey area, of the guidelines and furthur clarification is needed.

3. Personal obligations of the local approver prevents them from approving (like a sudden emergency that they have to deal with, or an illness). This is very rare, because normally other approvers step up and handle the problem.

I don't think a new approval process is necessary. I DO think that there are a few important things about getting a cache approved that most people don't know - and that could be added to the FAQ or the Knowledge Base.

So... exactly what's wrong with the approval process in your opinion? In my personal experience caches are approved within hours. I am friends with many geocachers in my state, and I've only heard of a few of them having a cache that took more than a day or two to get approved (usually a few hours however). In all cases, important information was left left off or things had to be verified.

sd

December 1, 2004

I have 92 hidden caches and I have never had a problem with approval times. Usually mine have been approved within minutes or hours of submission. Those that took longer, did so for a good reason and generally were taken before the current group of volunteer approvers for discussion, because they were outside of the box. With that said, I see no reason to change the current process.

To answer a couple of concerns brought up already. I have no doubt that I could organize a group of cachers in order to get something approved that shouold not be. All you would need to do is get fifteen or twenty of your caching buddies to be ready to approve at a pre-arranged time, then submit the cache at that time. You would easily have enough "yea's" to pass the approval. Conversely, it would be quite easy to organize local cachers against approving another cacher's caches. Frankly, there are cachers in my area who would find it very difficult to get anything approved, even without any formal organization against them. Perhaps, our area is more organized and tight-knit than other parts of the country, but in Mid-Tenn, your proposed system would be way too easy to manipulate. I am sure we would do it just to mess with each other and I have not even mentioned vote-swapping etc.

In my experience, caches that get delayed in the approval process, do so for a very good reason. The current system works, why mess with it.

2.1k · December 1, 2004

Hi,

Even though I live in an area that is difficult to place caches in (the Adirondack Park in Upstate New York), My local approver has been generally very quick (hours up to a day or so). Exceptions, when they have occurred, resulted from questions concerning the location of placement of some of my caches (maps differ as to where State Forest Preserve is and isn't). He (I think) has been reasonable, understanding, accomodating, and helpful in every instance.

Working with a cache approval committee in my area would be a nightmare, and would certainly take longer than approval currently does.

Even in the unlikely event that it takes 3 days...I don't really have to know any quicker than 72 hours...rememberfolks, this is a game/hobby :rolleyes:

nfa-jamie

December 1, 2004

I'm generally happy. My caches have previously been approved by mtn-man, but I have no idea if he is assigned to our area (Louisiana) or what.

I have 3 new caches waiting for approval since Saturday night. They're ordinary caches, and I can't see any problems with them, and no notes from an approver.

Where do we go to find out who to email about approving our caches?

6.4k · December 1, 2004

By the way, why would every approver even need to be given a chance to comment? Yes, people work different shifts and are online at different time and that is only good. Caches get approved even if some of the approvers are sleeping. Those who are available do the job.

According to your initial plan, there would be X votes on a pending cache. For sake of argument, lets use X=5. A new cache turns up, and 4 people vote yes, 1 person votes no. How would you handle that? Let's see what you said:

If the cache gets minimum of N ok to approve (lets say 5) statements from the approvers it gets approved - in case no-one disagrees. If someone disagrees, the approvers vote. If the vote is positive (n percentage of voters say yes), the cache is approved.

So you put it to a vote. Without any discussion, the vote is going to be 4-1, and the cache get's listed. However, that one person voted no because he happens to know the local park the cache is in has banned caches, and apparently the other 4 don't know, or don't care. Your system has no way or time for those 5 reviewers to discuss the reasons why some say yes and some say no.

Atleast in here IMHO, geocaching has not yet turned into a system in which people would try to find loopholes to create "evil" caches. And maybe there can be some people that are on mission to make sure someones cache does not get approved. But do people like this come in a mass big enough to have a chance in beating the majority's voting?

Man, I really hate burst this bubble!

We no longer can change cache types or make major changes to cache coordinates because so many people were creating a "safe" cache and as soon as it was approved changing it to a cache type or location they knew wouldnt be banned. We have a current thread where one cacher accuses another of posting SBA logs on caches just to harrass the hiders. We have cachers that steal caches and travel bugs for fun. We have other websites to list caches that this one wont list because they are banned parks or require trespassing. We have cachers who log finds on caches they don't find, and cachers who delete legit logs by cachers they don't like. We have cachers that log 20 finds on one cache to up their find numbers, and cachers that toss hundreds of 35mm micros out their car window as they drive to increase their hide count. Most of the cachers I've encountered are great people, but they ARE people. There are good, and there are bad. Unfortunately, 1 bad person can disrupt things for 1000 good people. While most cachers are good, there are enough "bad" ones to really screw things up if you let them.

December 1, 2004

As for our approver, Erik, he does the job usually within 15 to 60 minutes and we only once had a problem (that sheerly had to do with the inconsistant rules, not with the approver).

And: I'm happy that someone else does the approving, so we don't have to abstain from doing the caches ourselves.

BS/2

P.S: Just to say it again: Three cheers for erik88l-r.

24.7k · December 1, 2004

A hybrid version of this might make a lot of sence when you have a very well organized local geocaching group as a way of migrating some of the responsiblity and control to the group.

The existing system has it's flaws. The one proposed has some flaws. All systems do. The question though is if peer reivew has advantages over the existing system such that it solves more problems while creating less than the present system.

9.4k · December 1, 2004

To borrow a quote:

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

-Winston Churchill

I can apply it to the current setup. The majority of approvers are elected officials appointed by their local orgs. Others are old-timers that volunteered in the past and understand the reasoning behind all the guidelines we have (and *sigh* unfortunately need).

I can't say this enough. Most online "solutions" address the virtual and not the physical. Sure, Slashdot works great because Slashdot doesn't have a physical presence in the real world. The only consequences of a virulent flambait post is someone has to read it.

We have real world issues to address through online means and that complexity means that automated style solutions are not the answer. The current implementation works and I thank the volunteers for making it work so well.

Sure there are flaws, but this concept has many more of them.

9.4k · December 1, 2004

At least in here IMHO, geocaching has not yet turned into a system in which people would try to find loopholes to create "evil" caches.

Yes. Thanks to the volunteer reviewers. This does show how effective the current process is.

9.1k · December 1, 2004

A hybrid version of this might make a lot of sence when you have a very well organized local geocaching group as a way of migrating some of the responsiblity and control to the group.

What, like maybe in Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, Missouri and New Zealand, to give just a few examples? Many well-organized geocaching associations count a GC.com cache reviewer among their officers. In fact, involvement with the local organization is one of the best credentials to become a member of the volunteer group. But not all areas have such a group. And, if a more trusting system would work well in Finland, it may fall flat on its face in certain parts of the U.S. I'd imagine it would be a lot of work to program different types of review and approval systems into the coding for the website.

6.4k · December 1, 2004

And: I'm happy that someone else does the approving, so we don't have to abstain from doing the caches ourselves.

Thats another thing. What about multi caches and puzzle caches? I would assume that the solutions to those would be viewable to anyone with 10 hides (or whatever number) who looked at the unapproved caches while they are waiting to be approved.

I would also assume that anyone could skip the voting, and run out to grab the FTF using the coords for the final cache, or ANY unapproved cache for that matter, before the cache is listed.

December 1, 2004

Thanks for the discussion, point made clear. It is your system anyway. The existing system (and the bacteria already contained within) cannot be clearly turned into teddybear wonderland of democracy.

Edited December 1, 2004 by TeamEimi

9.4k · December 1, 2004

Thanks for the discussion, point made clear. It is your system anyway. The existing system (and the bacteria already contained within) cannot be clearly turned into teddybear wonderland of democracy.

The US of A doesn't even have a true democracy but a Representative Democracy. I suppose the closest to a governmental organization would be a mixture of a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy.

9.1k · December 1, 2004

But under the reign of the appropriate monarch, it is still possible to wind up with world domination through religion masquerading as science.

6.4k · December 1, 2004

Thanks for the discussion, point made clear. It is your system anyway. The existing system (and the bacteria already contained within) cannot be clearly turned into teddybear wonderland of democracy.

The US of A doesn't even have a true democracy but a Representative Democracy. I suppose the closest to a governmental organization would be a mixture of a constitutional monarchy and a representative democracy.

Not a republic?

7.2k · December 1, 2004

There is a cache listing site that is members only--maybe "semi -open" as they call it is a better word. You have to be sponsored by two members in order to join. Both of your sponsors have to approve your cache before it is listed. The main thrust of this site is quality over quantity. You will only likely get sponsored if you can convince someone you will be placing quality caches. Each cache can be rated by others anonymously even before it is found by the person rating it. The weight of the rating score is determined by the person's own score. Each rating is tallied and partly determines the hider's score. Part of a cacher's score is also affected by the cachers' scores whom he sponsored and the caches he's approved.

The whole system is engineered to award excellent caches and discourage ones no one likes. Cachers below you are responsible to you just as you are responsible to your sponsors.

While not a true "peer" review scheme, it does have strong peer accountibility mechanisms.

BTW, cross posting caches is strongly discouraged.

EDIT: Open discussion is likely frowned upon by TPTB.

Edited December 1, 2004 by CoyoteRed

9.4k · December 1, 2004

There is a cache listing site that is members only--maybe "semi -open" as they call it is a better word.

Yes. I'm well aware of this site. It's another approach. Time will tell whether it is a successful one.

4.8k · December 1, 2004

BTW, cross posting caches is strongly discouraged.

Why discourage cross-posting????

7.2k · December 1, 2004

BTW, cross posting caches is strongly discouraged.

Why discourage cross-posting????

I can't presume to know the mindset of those who started the site as I'm very new myself, but I can see a couple of issues if a site such as this allowed the caches to be found by just anyone.

The quality of the cache might suffer as off-site hunters (just a term to use to refer to finders who didn't get the info through the main site) might not have nearly as much invested in the hunt and quality of cache as someone who had to find sponsorship to get in. Each cache is kind of an MOC, but we're all members.

If a good portion of the caches were cross listed then it would be similar to the navicache paradox, "why go to navicache if most of the caches are listed here? Why list there if no one goes there?"

Yes, it will take some doing to get some momentum, I'm sure everyone there understands that, but it's a viable alternative if you have a cache idea that while it might be safe, legal, and ethical it's just not allowed here. While gc.com is the largest site, unfortunately it's the largest site. I mean you just about have to cater to the lowest common denominator. It's easier to have blanket rules instead of allowing common sense to determine actions. When you're ready to graduate to a higher level and have gone to a higher level, there is the place for you. I know of a few common posters here that would probably love the competitiveness of this site AND have the creativity to rank very high.

Yes, there is a strong sense of competitiveness there, but it's different--the creative will shine, not just the most prolific.

In fact, come to think about it, it is based on something I advocated a while back, rankings on your hides, not your finds. It's like excelling at cooking instead of excelling at eating.

4.8k · December 1, 2004

Thanks for the info CR. The concept sounds interesting, although I'm not sure how I feel about the whole process of having sponsors to join and no cross-posting etc. But I can see the value in the end goal and can see why those rules would help achieve a level of quality. I imagine it will greatly appeal to some and not appeal to others. Pretty much the nature of many things I guess. :rolleyes:

December 1, 2004

I agree with the creator of this topic in some aspects. Although the approval process is somewhat slow it otherwise does not need to be changed. The more people involved the more of a chance there will be for corruption of approvers. For something as important as the approval of new caches we need to be certain beyond a doubt that the approver has no bias. If we do something as impersonal as assign or offer the post to people based on the number of created caches we risk the quality of our caches. :rolleyes:

1.3k · December 1, 2004

Instead of throwing out what we have and creating something new, I'd be more interested in addressing the problems you say the current AP has. (Seems to me that'd be easier).

What are the inadequate aspects of the current approval process?

sd

2.6k · December 1, 2004

Why do you find the current system inadequate?

I personally have never had a problem with it. When I list a cache it's often approved within 3 or 4 hours, sometimes shorter than that.

I have 92 hidden caches and I have never had a problem with approval times.

My local approver has been generally very quick (hours up to a day or so).

As for our approver, Erik, he does the job usually within 15 to 60 minutes

That's great. I'm really glad for you. I just happened to witness a case where a cache approving took about two weeks, and AFAIK it wasn't a guideline bending case. Generally the cache reviewing has been prompt at my neck of woods, but there can be times when there's something busier or more time-taking in any local reviewer's life, and the approvals are starting to delay. The fact that the approving happens to run smoothly somewhere around Smalltown, USA doesn't help those around Hicksville, Canada, whose reviewing process runs slow or not at all. Even worse, if the caching culture there is young and has not started to grow yet; people will move on to other listing services if the first one simply doesn't work.

I really can't say if the suggestion by the OP would speed up the process, and I haven't pondered all the side effects, but I'm glad they're trying to come up with some constructive suggestions to do at least something.

Myself, I probably wouldn't completely scuttle the current reviewing process, but rather create some kind of a backup plan to prevent approval delays. Like, for example, if the new cache hasn't been approved by the local reviewer in e.g. 3 days (72 hours), all the GC.com reviewers would get it visible on their approval queue. That way someone could take care of it. I dunno if this kind of system already exists, but at least it doesn't seem to work right now in some areas.

1.3k · December 1, 2004

Why do you find the current system inadequate?

I personally have never had a problem with it. When I list a cache it's often approved within 3 or 4 hours, sometimes shorter than that.

I have 92 hidden caches and I have never had a problem with approval times.

My local approver has been generally very quick (hours up to a day or so).

As for our approver, Erik, he does the job usually within 15 to 60 minutes

That's great. I'm really glad for you. I just happened to witness a case where a cache approving took about two weeks, and AFAIK it wasn't a guideline bending case. Generally the cache reviewing has been prompt at my neck of woods, but there can be times when there's something busier or more time-taking in any local reviewer's life, and the approvals are starting to delay. The fact that the approving happens to run smoothly somewhere around Smalltown, USA doesn't help those around Hicksville, Canada, whose reviewing process runs slow or not at all. Even worse, if the caching culture there is young and has not started to grow yet; people will move on to other listing services if the first one simply doesn't work.

I really can't say if the suggestion by the OP would speed up the process, and I haven't pondered all the side effects, but I'm glad they're trying to come up with some constructive suggestions to do at least something.

Myself, I probably wouldn't completely scuttle the current reviewing process, but rather create some kind of a backup plan to prevent approval delays. Like, for example, if the new cache hasn't been approved by the local reviewer in e.g. 3 days (72 hours), all the GC.com reviewers would get it visible on their approval queue. That way someone could take care of it. I dunno if this kind of system already exists, but at least it doesn't seem to work right now in some areas.

It doesn't sound like there's a problem with the PROCESS to me.

It sounds like you need more approvers in your area.

sd

2.6k · December 1, 2004

It doesn't sound like there's a problem with the PROCESS to me.

It sounds like you need more approvers in your area.

We can call it 'process' or 'amount of approvers' or whatever. Or we can say that GC.com should 'improve their approval process to produce enough approvers in all areas'. Or we can call it just for arguments sake 'hilavitkutin'. Personally, I just want the caches approved in the promised time. Always.

As we already have observed, the 'hilavitkutin' runs smoothly in most areas where GC.com lists caches. However, in some areas, from time to time, the 'hilavitkutin' clearly is delayed. 'Hilavitkutin' lags. Because of slow 'hilavitkutin' people don't get their caches reviewed in promised time. Now, would it be so bad idea to build some kind of an internal alarm to provide smooth 'hilavitkutin' to all areas? That would help the local cachers even when more approvers can't be foud right away. :rolleyes:

21.9k · December 1, 2004

Bad news and good news...

The bad news is that the primary volunteer cache reviewer for Finland has been having computer problems which has kept him offline for an extended period of time. The good news is that today he was able to sign in to our reviewer forum to let everyone know that. I also see that the backlog of ten or so caches awaiting review in Finland has already been reduced to zero.

Computer problems messed me up a couple of weeks ago. I was traveling on business, and the laptop computer provided to me by my office unexpectedly did not have a modem. I called another reviewer on my cellphone and two folks pitched in to help keep my queue current. Ideally, the other two reviewers for the Nordic and Baltic countries could have been alerted in that fashion.

But anyways, short-term problem solved.

1.3k · December 1, 2004

It doesn't sound like there's a problem with the PROCESS to me.

It sounds like you need more approvers in your area.

We can call it 'process' or 'amount of approvers' or whatever. Or we can say that GC.com should 'improve their approval process to produce enough approvers in all areas'. Or we can call it just for arguments sake 'hilavitkutin'. Personally, I just want the caches approved in the promised time. Always.

As we already have observed, the 'hilavitkutin' runs smoothly in most areas where GC.com lists caches. However, in some areas, from time to time, the 'hilavitkutin' clearly is delayed. 'Hilavitkutin' lags. Because of slow 'hilavitkutin' people don't get their caches reviewed in promised time. Now, would it be so bad idea to build some kind of an internal alarm to provide smooth 'hilavitkutin' to all areas? That would help the local cachers even when more approvers can't be foud right away.

Um... You can call it whatever you want I guess. I see a difference between 'approval process" and "approvers". If you have so many umpires in a game, but for some reason they have to officiate the game without enough officials and an important call is missed because the extra set of eyes missed it - it doesn't mean the rules are messed up, it means you need that extra person to do his job.

As far as I can tell, the only thing wrong is that the cache approver in your area (is it the same as the OP's area?) isn't getting the job done (or at least, he/she isn't consistant). I hesitate to say you just need a new approver because I don't know the approver or his/her situation.

I do know, after talking to several approvers and reading the forums, that they do generally cover each other. Sounds like maybe there aren't enough European approvers to cover each other.

No need to change the process, just add more approvers.

I was told that some approvers handle multiple U.S. States, and when the load gets to be too much they add more approvers.

sd

2.6k · December 1, 2004

No need to change the process, just add more approvers.

Ok. I didn't know it's that easy to find approvers to just add. In that case the alert system I suggested is indeed unnecessary. :rolleyes:

1.3k · December 2, 2004

No need to change the process, just add more approvers.

Ok. I didn't know it's that easy to find approvers to just add. In that case the alert system I suggested is indeed unnecessary.

I don't think it's a bad idea.... I guess I thought you meant something else in the approval process (ie, THE GUIDELINES).

From what KA says, there's (as I suspected) already an unofficial process in place. Perhaps some automated process could be put in:

Approver doesn't login for X number of days and/or the queue backs up with Y number of caches - then the all the approvers get a note so somebody knows about it.

sd

December 2, 2004

I think the current system is good. It could be augmented, but not being an approver, I don't know what tools they have to maintain the cache approval process. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against mtn-man, and I think he's doing a great job, too.

In my case, it looks like mtn-man has been away and unable to approve a few caches for our state (we have quite a few newbies who recently started in the New Orleans area, and I bet quite a few are theirs as they start to try it out for themselves).

There is a general indication that there is a lot of opacity in the actual process behind the policy (an approver will usually review your cache in 36 to 72 hours) - which is exactly what results in the various suggestions which people have. There's nothing wrong with suggestions, but they come from the lack of knowledge about how things work, and this is actually pretty typical of the way things happen on gc.com. A lot of the motivations and stuff is hidden away in messages on the forums, but doesn't really make it into the place where most people go. I think the amount of kvetching would be reduced with a little more transparency out there.

Some things I've considered which might be changed or improved:

I couldn't even find out who to email to get my cache approved - Electric Mouse kindly informed me. I probably have an old email from mtn-man, but who knows if he is still my approver. So a bump link on the page to send an email to the approver automatically. I'm note sure that reviewer notes do that, because when I've had past comments, they tell me to email them with the cache details, because it doesn't automatically.

The opacity situation could also be improved by maybe having status on the approvals. Say: Approver not taken action, Approver Reviewed - but Waiting on Response from Hider, Approver Currently Reviewing, in addition to presumable Approved and Archived - then the hiders know to some extent what is going on.

Automatic escalation - if caches are in the "no action taken" category for a certain amount of time, maybe it should escalate to a super-regional view where approvers in neighboring regions will automatically also see it and pitch in.

Enjoy your caching...

6.5k · December 2, 2004

GPSGames.org has a variation of a peer review process for it's caches.

yea. that one, as I understand it, actually allows anyone (besides owner) to review a cache and recommend it be 'approved'. And it can be reviewed by as many people as want to review it, and reviews can be changed later on. Since the search feature can be reset, a 'don't approve' just drops the cache from one rating to another (everyone likes to most like, or whatever they'll called). Kinda helps prevent disgruntal peers from totally black listing all your caches.

21.9k · December 2, 2004

No need to change the process, just add more approvers.

Ok. I didn't know it's that easy to find approvers to just add. In that case the alert system I suggested is indeed unnecessary.

I don't think it's a bad idea.... I guess I thought you meant something else in the approval process (ie, THE GUIDELINES).

From what KA says, there's (as I suspected) already an unofficial process in place. Perhaps some automated process could be put in:

Approver doesn't login for X number of days and/or the queue backs up with Y number of caches - then the all the approvers get a note so somebody knows about it.

sd

Folks seem eager to suggest automating more in the cache review process. I want to first say that Jeremy has made vast improvements over the past year in the review queue, the special cache page views that reviewers use, and other tools. If we felt there was a way to increase efficiency, we'd be the first to suggest it. And many of those suggestions *are* implemented -- but the community never sees all that hard work. The volunteers are very grateful for it, as it helps us do a better job AND a faster job.

But let's not go too far. Automatic alarm bell e-mails to all the reviewers? If the reviewer for Finland has computer troubles and is offline for a few days, I don't want to hear about it. My Finnish language skills are nonexistent! For that matter, the same is true for New Jersey... not because I can't speak Joisey, but because it's one of the most cache-dense areas in the world, and NJ Admin keeps track of where all the various puzzle caches and multicaches take you. I would undoubtedly do a bad job. And few are willing to help me out in Ohio... it's a patchwork minefield of different regulations by land managers.

As for alarms going off when the queue in an area backs up by N caches, let's say that N = 10, which was the approximate backup for Finland today. Perhaps for Finland, that's an average or busy week. For California, it's a slow Tuesday morning.

At this moment, there are 109 caches worldwide that have not been acted upon. That is one of the smallest backlogs we've seen since last winter!

Edited December 2, 2004 by Keystone Approver

1.1k · December 2, 2004

Myself, I have something like 76 caches hidden and the only problem I have had has been when I did not supply enough information. I am happy with the way things are going. Learning curve and all that.

Yes, I am sure there are improvements that need to be made. As soon as a better system comes along I am sure it will be brought online.

As for the backlog of caches, why not have a backup crew of approvers who will get notified when their services are needed? Not full time but avaliable when the local approver's computer goes down, they need some time of their own, an influx of new caches buries them, for whatever reason they need to be away or need help.

logscaler.

December 2, 2004

All I know is, the approver for my area is overzealous yet the approver for the northern part of the state is too lax...

It is my opinion that we need a dedicated reviewer/approver for the state of MD. I'm a member of the MDGS and believe that we have the capability to maintain a quality cache approver designation.

I'm totally peeved that a person in Tennessee can act like they know the area by looking at a generic map or even topo.

:laughing:

I've communicated my thoughts to the administrators and all I get is excuses.

This same approver has disabled a cache I placed without knowing the whole story or even communicating with me before doing so. Meanwhile there is a non existent cache that remains disabled, not archived because the owner says he is going to be replacing it soon. It took over a month to contact that owner who lives more than 2 hundred miles away.

I'm very worried that there is something strange going on.

I don't think the idea that was presented will work but I do think that caches can be rated by the finders and then be stricken if they don't meet the local standards.

21.9k · December 2, 2004

woodysix8,

Please don't sidetrack this thread, which has been a productive discussion of the cache review *process*, by interjecting a complaint about a single cache. If you feel the need, start a separate topic, or send a message describing your issue with complete details to the special e-mail address provided for that purpose: approvers at geocaching dot com.

FYI, Maryland at one time had two dedicated cache reviewers from the MGS. They have both left the volunteer ranks. In their absence, other volunteers including myself are pitching in with various tasks. Specifically, I recently went through the entire state and left maintenance notes on all the disabled caches, where appropriate. If you believe I've missed one, send me a message.

5.3k · December 2, 2004

The last thing I want is to have cache approval done by the same people who leave dirty golfballs and broken McToys as trades.

December 2, 2004

KSA I just pm'd you. I don't feel as I sidetracked anything.

To voice my opinion once again as I have to GC.com.... More quality approvers are required. Why haven't any been recruited? I have nothing against volunteering. I've served my country voluntarily for 19 years so far. I would appreciate it though if we could keep the approval standards "standard."

December 2, 2004

I think that there is opportunity in the approval process where multi-, puzzles, or any other off-set cache is involved. At least around in Western Montana, there seems to only be one approver, and that person is very likely to be hunting all the caches they approve.

In the case of any offset cache, it seems to me like approving one that you plan to hunt later would suck some of the fun out of it, and cut down on the trial and error that should be involved. Especially when you need to have ALL of the coords involved in order to approve the cache. In these cases, it would seem more fun for the approver to 'trade' those off with another approver so there is still some element of surprise involved. Or, maybe rather than REQUIRING the placer to provide all the coords, get them to guarantee that the locations meet the guidelines, with the promise that the cache would be quickly archived if they were found to be otherwise.

1.9k · December 2, 2004

The last thing I want is to have cache approval done by the same people who leave dirty golfballs and broken McToys as trades.

THAT :laughing: is EXACTLY why I am against the idea.

December 2, 2004

The last thing I want is to have cache approval done by the same people who leave dirty golfballs and broken McToys as trades.

THAT is EXACTLY why I am against the idea.

Which idea would that be? A rating system on existing caches or approval by committee? I don't agree with the latter either.

Cache Approval Process

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment