Jump to content

Cache Approval Process


TeamEimi

Recommended Posts

woodysix8, I've done my best to address your concerns about some individual Maryland cache situations, and about the unexpected resignation of Maryland's cache reviewer a month or so ago, via private messages. We're happy to work with you on these issues.

 

OConnellz, speaking from my own experience, in the blur of caches that I look at each week, the multicache and puzzle cache details slip very quickly from memory by the time I get around to looking for them... which usually ain't very soon, since I'm kept pretty busy by my volunteer work for the site. In those cases where a nearby puzzle cache looks at first glance to be *really cool* and I don't want to ruin a surprise, I often pass off that review to another volunteer. In return, I've often handled such reviews outside my territory for others in the same position.

Link to comment
the multicache and puzzle cache details slip very quickly from memory by the time I get around to looking for them... which usually ain't very soon, since I'm kept pretty busy by my volunteer work for the site.

 

The local approver, at least in this area, used to be one of the first to find ANY cache. This would lend credit to the "approve, but be ready to disapprove if found to be illegit" theory. I haven't been paying attention lately, but with the recent growth, I am sure he has found it as occupying as you have. That would make execution a little more challenging.

 

In those cases where a nearby puzzle cache looks at first glance to be *really cool* and I don't want to ruin a surprise, I often pass off that review to another volunteer.

 

And that is what I would hope would happen, at least from the perspective of someone who likes to figure the puzzles out, or experience the cache as intended. Unfortunately, the local approver was accused of cheating, then it was determined that the accusation was ill-founded, but not before led to a lot of bad feelings in the area. I think that your example should be encouraged. Thanks for your input!

Link to comment
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.

That is without doubt true, and while I'm grateful for all the features and implementations not always visible to us mortal geocachers, I still have to say that if/when something works slow, in a wrong manner or doesn't work at all, it's only natural that the regular users usually start suggesting improvements. And since they don't necessarily know all the work already done behind the curtains, some suggestions might sound nitpicking, harsh or plain unnecessary. This is not my intention, and I'm actually very thankful of the patient dialogue you always provide, KA.

 

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.

Ok, maybe not to all the reviewers. But someone. Just to provide the approval in promised time.

 

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.

AFAIK, Erik doesn't speak all the languages that are officially spoken in the areas where he reviews caches. Yet he has done undoubtedly great job, also when approving multis and mysteries.

 

Granted, a local reviewer is generally better to have than someone from another continent, e.g. for the reasons you mentioned. But this site has had non-local reviewers through almost all its history, so I can't really see why some other approver from a distance couldn't cover the local one when (s)he's just not occasionally able to do the job. Of course, if there are unclarities in e.g. mystery or multicaches, the approval could take longer than 48 hours, but IMO it's important that the 1st response of reviewer comes within the 48 hour limit.

 

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.

The alarms could go off rather after a certain point of unapproval time than the queue reaching N caches. I'm fully aware of the difference in numbers in different areas of geocaching world, but GC.com still promises the same approval time everywhere. As I believe 'just adding approvers' is not that simple a job (correct me if I'm wrong), it'd be nice if the chances of an unapproved cache remaining forgotten in pending state could be diminished by some neat-o automated procedure.

 

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!

That's good to hear. As it seems, the approval process works pretty well in many places. I don't have any complaints about the Finnish situation myself either, but I know the reviewing time has been longer lately, even before the known computer troubles of the local approver. I'm not sure if adding more reviewers would be the only helping remedy, since not long ago there was only one reviewer for the whole Nordic and Baltic countries. Now there are three. Still somehow the other two didn't notice the unapproved-for-2-weeks cache in Latvia. I wonder if some kind of an alert system would have diminished the time of approval.

Link to comment

When you submit a cache you get an e-mail that says

 

Listings are reviewed by volunteers. Normally it will be reviewed within 36-72 hours.

 

I'm not a lawyer but a sentence worded that way isn't a promise its a statement of what usually happens. the use of the word "Normally" allows for some caches to take less time and some to take more.

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

Seems like a fair process to me. :)

 

My fear is that the people who will JUMP at the chance to have their input on all cache approvals, are the overzealous "cache police" types who would make the worst type of approver. Meanwhile, all the reasonable people who would have the most level-headed input into the cache approval process are out finding caches instead.

 

From what I've heard in these forums and talking to the admins, the people most vocal about wanting to become a volunteer cache reviewer are the last ones GC.com will pick...I'm not sure I'd want to see that change. :laughing:

Link to comment
When you submit a cache you get an e-mail that says

 

Listings are reviewed by volunteers. Normally it will be reviewed within 36-72 hours.

 

I'm not a lawyer but a sentence worded that way isn't a promise its a statement of what usually happens. the use of the word "Normally" allows for some caches to take less time and some to take more.

Then, for the sake of consistency, it surely could say like that on the Hide and Seek a Cache page too, or? Since now (December 2, 20:49 GMT) it says

Since each cache is approved by volunteers, expect to see your cache approved within 24-48 hours.

I am not a lawyer either, nor a native English speaker, but that sounds eensy weensy like a promise to me. :blink:

Link to comment

I have a couple of comments to add.

 

First, woodysix8, the hostility you have portrayed here shows me that you would not make a good cache reviewer. I'm sure that hostility enabled you to serve our country well, but that does not translate to cache reviewing.

 

Second, as far as reviewing puzzles and multis, we reviewers see so many caches, that all we have to do is wait a week or two, and we completely forget any details about a particular cache.

 

Conversely, some of the easier puzzles, I tend to solve them on the spot before looking at the note to reviewer which contains the answer. This allows me to hunt for it sooner, and also gives me a chance to check and make sure there are no errors in the puzzle. I have actually found several typos this way that would have seriously frustrated other cachers.

Link to comment
When you submit a cache you get an e-mail that says

 

Listings are reviewed by volunteers. Normally it will be reviewed within 36-72 hours.

 

I'm not a lawyer but a sentence worded that way isn't a promise its a statement of what usually happens. the use of the word "Normally" allows for some caches to take less time and some to take more.

Then, for the sake of consistency, it surely could say like that on the Hide and Seek a Cache page too, or? Since now (December 2, 20:49 GMT) it says

Since each cache is approved by volunteers, expect to see your cache approved within 24-48 hours.

I am not a lawyer either, nor a native English speaker, but that sounds eensy weensy like a promise to me. :blink:

 

:( Now, we are not lawyers either, but I bet if you ask anyone the difference between "reviewed within 36-72 hours" & "approved within 24-48 hours" (And this is the one you see when you go to submit your cache)....that they will say "Yes, Virginia, there is a difference there and just not an eensy weensy one at that.

 

It seems to be a conflict of Terms & Days. "Reviewed" is when a volunteer will finally get around to looking at it (not neccessarily approving it) & Of course the (promise) you see when you submit your cache, "Approved" is when it *will* be approved. If it looks like a conflict, smells like a conflict, sounds like a conflict....then .......

Link to comment

I did not realize what an important issue this is. I too have had caches that took over 48 hours to approve and even worse, I have had caches that were not approved at all. I say we form a class-action suit and sue Groundspeak for mental anguish and punitive damages. I apologize for blowing this off earlier, I had not gotten the memo, I was working under the false impression that this was still just a game. Now that I know better I will try to take it more seriously.

Link to comment

which reminds me that in my original thread-starter I forgot to say:

 

1) I personally do not mind if it takes a week to get a cache reviewed. This game does not come with deadlines to me.

2) One of the main reasons why I started the topic, is that in my area (Finland) - my experience is that the reviewing creates pretty heavy burden on _the_ reviewer (there is 1 in Finland - and I think he has done great job. AFAIK there are also 2 others for "Nordic and Baltic" countries, but it does not seem to help the case of Finland - and there is probably valid reasons for that).

 

So, the point I missed in the original posting is that I do believe that also reviewing should be fun - and not a burden. And I think that this state could be achieved more easily if the reviewing was distributed between more people.

 

But as many people have already pointed out there may be other solutions for achieving the state of fun for also reviewers that are more suitable for the case of geocaching.com - than the peer review-like system. The situation might be different if the architecture and system was re-created from scratch - but that is not obviously a good option for an already decently running and existing system.

 

Thanks,

 

- dad @ teameimi.

Edited by TeamEimi
Link to comment
When you submit a cache you get an e-mail that says

 

Listings are reviewed by volunteers. Normally it will be reviewed within 36-72 hours.

 

I'm not a lawyer but a sentence worded that way isn't a promise its a statement of what usually happens. the use of the word "Normally" allows for some caches to take less time and some to take more.

Then, for the sake of consistency, it surely could say like that on the Hide and Seek a Cache page too, or? Since now (December 2, 20:49 GMT) it says

Since each cache is approved by volunteers, expect to see your cache approved within 24-48 hours.

I am not a lawyer either, nor a native English speaker, but that sounds eensy weensy like a promise to me. :blink:

It still says "expect" that is not a promise

 

ex·pect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spkt)

v. ex·pect·ed, ex·pect·ing, ex·pects

v. tr.

 

1. To look forward to the probable occurrence or appearance of: expecting a telephone call; expects rain on Sunday.

.

 

Its not a big deal but its not a promise. 24-48 or 36-72 the point is its when it will probably happen and almost all of the caches happen within that period.

relax, have a drink. If it takes a little longer no one is breaking their promise they are just taking a longer than normal. Stuff happens.

 

I would expect that you will find this answer acceptable. Most people normally do.

Link to comment
Getting all excited about the time span involved by someone VOLUNTEERING their time, when you are arguing about the difference between one to three days... I would be glad it isn't weeks!

 

Oh, we are glad it is not weeks, but, it still is a "difference" from the page where you submit & the E-mail you recieve.....

 

It might be nice if it were changed on the "submit" page so people would not be "expecting" one thing & then see something else "after" it is received.....

 

If someone says they will get with you at 6 for dinner & then they do not show up till 9.....It's only a couple of hours, but you still got hungry just the same - and maybe a little iritated.

 

Shirley~

Link to comment
It might be nice if it were changed on the "submit" page so people would not be "expecting" one thing & then see something else "after" it is received.....

 

If someone says they will get with you at 6 for dinner & then they do not show up till 9.....It's only a couple of hours, but you still got hungry just the same - and maybe a little iritated.

 

Shirley~

Perhaps in the future, your buddy will tell you that you may have to stick it out until 11 p.m. before he arrives with the pizza, so that you'll be pleasantly surprised when it's there at 8:00.

Link to comment

Divine....you are welcome. :(

 

Keystone....We were very nicely surprised (& have been each time) when Utah Admin (or his helpers) approve our new caches with such speed (always under the time stated on the 'submit' page). And, when we had a question, we E-Mailed him & recieved a reply very quickly.

 

He is truely a 'star' in our book. :)

 

Shirley~

 

But, I still think the times stated should match to avoid any confusion

 

Link to comment

I've been following this thread with some interest. I would like to add my 2 bits in on written expectations.

 

Regardless of the dictionary and legal definitions, it has been my observation based on 15 years of experience as a facilities manager and down the road a netwok administrator and now consultant:

 

When someone is told to expect to receive something within a given frame of time, they take that statement of expectation as a commitment to deliver on time. Customers plan around those expectations and are quickly annoyed when things go awry without appropriate follow ups.

 

2oldfarts had it right the wording needs to be changed to a standard delivery expectation. How that expectation is written is entirely up to Groundspeak, but it would behoove them (based on the angst in this thread and other threads regarding same) to pull the perceived confusion out of the wording between (again perceived) disparate phrases.

 

I've always tried my best to deliver on given expectations. My customer satisfaction is based on the fact I give an average bad case expectation, and do my best to deliver better than that. If I can't, I follow up. It doesn't take much and the customer is appropriately advised.

Link to comment
Then, for the sake of consistency, it surely could say like that on the Hide and Seek a Cache page too, or? Since now (December 2, 20:49 GMT) it says
Since each cache is approved by volunteers, expect to see your cache approved within 24-48 hours.

I am not a lawyer either, nor a native English speaker, but that sounds eensy weensy like a promise to me. :(

Thanks. With the enormous complexity of the web site, changes are sometimes missed on other pages. I have adjusted the wording.

 

If any wordsmiths would like to ply their craft to an "expectation" statement, I'd like to hear it. I would prefer to leave it off, but the whole reason it is there is because people were constantly going to the forums and posting "how long does it take to get my cache approved?"

Link to comment
Then, for the sake of consistency, it surely could say like that on the Hide and Seek a Cache page too, or? Since now (December 2, 20:49 GMT) it says
Since each cache is approved by volunteers, expect to see your cache approved within 24-48 hours.

I am not a lawyer either, nor a native English speaker, but that sounds eensy weensy like a promise to me. :(

Thanks. With the enormous complexity of the web site, changes are sometimes missed on other pages. I have adjusted the wording.

 

If any wordsmiths would like to ply their craft to an "expectation" statement, I'd like to hear it. I would prefer to leave it off, but the whole reason it is there is because people were constantly going to the forums and posting "how long does it take to get my cache approved?"

Howdy Jeremy,

 

That can be easily done by providing something similar along these lines:

 

Since each cache is approved by volunteers, time to approval will vary. Normally this is within 24-48 hours. Issues with cache complexity or placement, personal schedules, and even holidays can make this process take longer. If an approval hasn't been processed or a post hasn't been placed on your cache page asking for more information within a week, please send e-mail to bring it to our attention.

 

It's wordy but it covers the bases. Somebody can probably slim this down some. Lower the bar of expectations, raise the bar on delivery. Based on what I've seen in the rise of membership and submissions of caches to be approved you guys are doing a phenomenal job, but you're reaching the level of being easily overwhelmed if you're not there already.

 

Looking forward to hiking with you again in the future.

Link to comment

How does this sound?

 

A cache with no problems is usually approved with-in XX hours. If yours is taking longer, please check the cache page for descriptions of the problem. If there are none, please send a reminder note after it has been 7 days.

 

You might set up a reminder button (where the other buttons are.) on the upper right corner of the UNapproved cache page. After the cache is approved it would disappear. This would identify the cache automatically for the approvers.

 

Just something to think about.

 

John

Link to comment
How does this sound?

 

A cache with no problems is usually approved with-in XX hours. If yours is taking longer, please check the cache page for descriptions of the problem. If there are none, please send a reminder note after it has been 7 days.

I like it. I also like TotemLake's but because folks don't tend to read I'd like to keep the text as short as possible. I'll bump this for a couple days to see if anyone has additional comments. Thanks!

Link to comment

Jeremy,

 

Please check the topic in the reviewer's watering hole on this very subject, started by Hydee on September 30th and currently near the very top. I would be grateful if you could take into account the reviewer's opinions, already expressed there, before making any further changes. Thank you.

Link to comment
Jeremy,

 

Please check the topic in the reviewer's watering hole on this very subject, started by Hydee on September 30th and currently near the very top. I would be grateful if you could take into account the reviewer's opinions, already expressed there, before making any further changes. Thank you.

Sounds like mutiny in the works...

 

OT, short and sweet works best. I Like the one posted by totemlake best too

Link to comment

Not so much. I was planning to work with Hydee before implementing any changes, since she's the ambassador for the reviewers (and just so happens to be returning from her Honeymoon on Monday).

 

However, I appreciate the concern, though I'd be happy to take any private emails as well.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...