Inadvertent Spoilers

[+gallahad]

When we create a new cache page it is customary to provide at note to the reviewer, especially when creating a mutli-cache or puzzle cache for which the reviewer may need to know coordinate information for determining whether the final cache coordinates are in compliance with the rules.

The "Note to Reviewer" is transparent when creating a new cache page and the reviewer removes it when the cache is approved.

A problem exists when an archived cache is unarchived and edited by its owner. The reviewer does typically lock the page so that, prior to approving the edited version during the editing process, only the reviewer and the owner have access to the information. However, there is a flaw in the system:

Any member who has previously posted a watch on the page will receive an email notice of the Note to Reviewer posted to the edited page. Therefore, even though the member cannot access the page being edited, he/she is privy to the notes posted for the reviewer.

I realize that there is a work around that involves simply sending an email to the reviewer instead of posting a "Note to Reviewer" under these circumstances. However, I had to learn that the hard way.

Wondering if we couldn't adjust the system so that, when the cache is "unarchived" and the page is locked by the reviewer, email notices are not sent to those who have the page on their watch list......

[+sbell111]

I wonder how many caches this request applies to. I have to think that very few caches are unarchived in this manner. Most archived caches stay that way.

 

If this doesn't affect very many caches, I would suggest that the sites resources are not wasted to develop a solution that would pertain to very few caches.

[+gallahad]

I wonder how many caches this request applies to.  I have to think that very few caches are unarchived in this manner.  Most archived caches stay that way.

 

If this doesn't affect very many caches, I would suggest that the sites resources are not wasted to develop a solution that would pertain to very few caches.

I concur that, if it's a "waste" of resources, we shouldn't spend a lot of time on developing a fix. However, if it's a "waste" of resources to fix it, perhaps we could spend a few minutes editing the text on the page to alert members to avoid using that feature when editing an "unarchived" cache and to use direct email to the reviewer as an alternative.

I'm not looking for utopia, just a solution. Some of us work long and hard to create challenging caches and when a key stroke spoils all the work it's a bit frustrating to learn (after the fact) that you'll have to tear down what you've built and start all over again.

If it's "wasting" resources to write a permenant fix, here's an idea for editing the source page:

 

<TR>

<TD vAlign="top" align="left" colSpan="2">

<P><STRONG>Note to Reviewer</STRONG><BR>

In order to expedite your new cache approval, please provide any details for

the cache listing. For example, include coordinates for each stage of

a multicache, or provide more details about a virtual cache. The reviewer will

delete this note before approving your listing. If you are editing a cache that

has been previously approved (including "unarchived" caches") you should avoid

using this feature and, instead, communicate with the reviewer directly by email.

</P>

</TD>

</TR>

Edited February 2, 2005 by gallahad

[+sbell111]

One solution might be to not allow cachers to watch archived caches.

[+Marky]

In these cases, I just send a friendly e-mail to the reviewer noted at the bottom of the page, rather than post a reviewer note. A few extra clicks, but not all that much work to do. A fairly simple solution.

 

--Marky

[Jeremy]

Although an unusual occurance, I agree that this should be fixed somehow. Either suggestion would work but I think the non-notification of archived listings is the best bet. The owner will be the only one to get this info.

[+Marky]

Although an unusual occurance, I agree that this should be fixed somehow. Either suggestion would work but I think the non-notification of archived listings is the best bet. The owner will be the only one to get this info.

For just reviewer notes please! I would still want to get other types of logs.

 

--Marky

[Keystone]

I agree with Marky. There are lots of valid reasons to receive watchlist notifications on archived caches. As a site volunteer I watch several archived caches to keep tabs on problems that had occurred. Also, sometimes absent owners finally wake up after I archive a cache with maintenance problems, and they post a note to the page (rather than e-mailing me) asking for the cache to be unarchived. Or people post notes (rather than e-mailing the site) asking to adopt an archived cache. These are just a few examples.

 

I have seen the problem with reviewer notes on a reactivated cache maybe once or twice since the reviewer note log type was introduced.

[+sbell111]

...but I think the non-notification of archived listings is the best bet. ...

That's twice today that my idea was tossed in the can. I'm beginning to get a complex.

[+gallahad]

I wonder if we haven't lost sight of the original issue here. The objective was to provide a means of submitting notes to the reviewer (which, in my view, should be private) without sharing them with every Tom, Dick and Harry who has a watch posted on the page. And, that this was especially important when "unarchiving" a cache. Other little tid bits of information that might be of interest as described by KA are unlikely to fall within the realm of private communications.

[+sbell111]

Since everyone is able to see an archived cache page, posting notes to it will never be private. Private communication regarding archived caches should be via email.

[Keystone]

I wonder if we haven't lost sight of the original issue here. The objective was to provide a means of submitting notes to the reviewer (which, in my view, should be private) without sharing them with every Tom, Dick and Harry who has a watch posted on the page. And, that this was especially important when "unarchiving" a cache. Other little tid bits of information that might be of interest as described by KA are unlikely to fall within the realm of private communications.

E-mail works well for that.

 

Perhaps the reviewers could remind cache owners not to use the reviewer note feature, at the time when they unarchive the cache. gallahad, would things have worked out better if you had received the following (hypothetical) notification:

 

I am unarchiving this cache at the request of the owner, who contacted me about making some changes to it.  For that reason, I am also temporarily un-approving the cache to allow for editing, so for awhile nobody else will be able to view the page.  Stay tuned for the return of this cache!

 

Owner, when you are ready for me to take another look at your cache page, or if you have questions or information to pass on to me, please contact me by e-mail at [address].  Do NOT use the "note to reviewer" feature, as this will trigger a notification log to the watchlist.

[+gallahad]

Yes KA, that would have worked fine for my purposes. It sure would have saved me some unnecessary embarrassment. However, I want to make it clear that I do not in any way wish to place blame on anyone, especially the reviewer, for the problem. The reviewer did his job well and I appreciate all his efforts. He's been extremely patient and helpful in working with me on this cache.

Edited February 2, 2005 by gallahad

[+pghlooking]

I am also temporarily un-approving the cache to allow for editing, so for awhile nobody else will be able to view the page. Stay tuned for the return of this cache!

 

If unapproved, even temporarily, would this remove all names from the watchlist and treat it as a new cache with the exception to the logs? I didnt think there was a way to watchlist an unapproved cache so am curious if it is unapproved, how would that affect the watchlist?

[+Hemlock]

the following (hypothetical) notification:

 

I am unarchiving this cache at the request of the owner, who contacted me about making some changes to it.  For that reason, I am also temporarily un-approving the cache to allow for editing, so for awhile nobody else will be able to view the page.  Stay tuned for the return of this cache!

 

Owner, when you are ready for me to take another look at your cache page, or if you have questions or information to pass on to me, please contact me by e-mail at [address].  Do NOT use the "note to reviewer" feature, as this will trigger a notification log to the watchlist.

Well *I* certainly learned from this.

 

Sorry, gallahad.

[+CO Admin]

I am also temporarily un-approving the cache to allow for editing, so for awhile nobody else will be able to view the page.  Stay tuned for the return of this cache!

 

If unapproved, even temporarily, would this remove all names from the watchlist and treat it as a new cache with the exception to the logs? I didn't think there was a way to watchlist an unapproved cache so am curious if it is unapproved, how would that affect the watchlist?

No it would not affect the watchlist.

 

You cant watch list an unapproved cache because you cant see it. if you could see it as all the reviewers can you could watch list it

Edited February 3, 2005 by CO Admin

[Keystone]

Hello fellow Pittsburgher,

 

As gallahad painfully learned, unapproving a cache has absolutely no effect on the watchlist for that cache. Everyone who was on the watchlist stays on the watchlist. They just cannot view the cache page while it's in the unapproved state. Thus, the need to explain that the cache page will be temporarily out of commission.

 

The reason why an existing cache would need to be unapproved is to allow the owner to make edits to it. Archived caches are "frozen" to edits and even a listed cache has limitations -- the cache type can't be changed and the coordinates can be tweaked but not changed radically. "Well," you may ask, "if the cache is so different, why doesn't the owner just create a brand new cache?" That is a question that would be answered between the owner and the volunteer reviewer prior to all of this happening. A good example would be an elaborate puzzle cache whose final location proved to be prone to muggling. The owner relocates it to a more secluded corner of the park, but the puzzle remains the same. If the main feature of the cache was the puzzle, not the actual hike to the container, the reviewer can be convinced to unarchive the old puzzle cache and allow for it to be moved and the clues tweaked.

 

When the owner's done tweaking the cache, he needs to contact the volunteer to have it reviewed and listed again, so that everyone can see it. He would need to disclose its new final location. That is what needs to be done in an e-mail, NOT a reviewer note that would be copied to the watchlist.

 

The watchlist functions normally at all times, beginning the moment that the cache page is first generated -- IF you can see the cache page. Ever notice that your newly listed cache already has a person watching it? This may just be your friendly Groundspeak volunteer. There's nothing sinister about this. Some reviewers like to make sure the cache has an uneventful beginning -- some watch EVERY new cache in their area. If there are lots of DNF logs, complaints about inaccurate coordinates, etc., the reviewer can step in and help out if he or she is alerted to the problem via the watchlist.

 

EDIT: While I typed this, CO Admin answered your question in two lines. Volunteer reviewers have different styles. I am very long-winded, which is why someone usually duct-tapes my mouth when I show up at an event.

Edited February 2, 2005 by Keystone Approver

[+pghlooking]

Thanks for both explanations. I just assumed that when it went back to unapproved it would lose the general watchlist. got it now.

[+sbell111]

KA, thank you for your indepth explanation. It helped me understand better.

[+CO Admin]

EDIT: While I typed this, CO Admin answered your question in two lines. Volunteer reviewers have different styles. I am very long-winded, which is why someone usually duct-tapes my mouth when I show up at an event.

sound bite vs print reporting. They both have their place

[+gallahad]

Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion. I'm confident that there is enough information here to help Admin. in making a decision that will benefit the sport, and I am grateful for having had the experienced input of so many helpful geocachers.

Kudos to all the volunteer reviewers. Theirs can, and I think often is, a thankless job. Hats off to ya'all.

 

(edit for one of those awful typo's)

Edited February 3, 2005 by gallahad

[+Hemlock]

I am very long-winded, which is why someone usually duct-tapes my mouth when I show up at an event.

I'm buying stock in duct-tape

[+gallahad]

Hello fellow Pittsburgher,

 

What condiments come with a "Pittsburgher"?

[Keystone]

I have no use for condiments.

 

I'm pretty ugly, and I'm a geocacher.

 

But thanks for askin'.

[+erik88l-r]

Playing the devil's advocate here.....

 

(usually as a cache reviewer I'm just seen as the devil)

 

"Notes to Reviewer" are permanent notes attached to the cache page. They may not be visible once a cache has been approved, but they are still there and can be retrieved. I retrieve them all the time in the case of a multistage cache that has a new cache placed nearby. The only way I can see if the new cache is too close to the final stage of the old one is to pull up the original "Note to reviewer" that documented those coords.

 

If a cache is archived, then unarchived and unapproved for editing, and new information is sent as an e-mail to a cache reviewer that information is lost the next time the cache reviewer cleans out his mailbox. Some may maintain their own database of all the coords of all the caches they've ever approved, but that's not practical for me. If someone does send me an e-mail I will copy and paste that info as my own "Reviewer's Note" on the cache page just to maintain the documentation.

 

For that reason I would agree that fixing it so "Notes to Reviewer" are not sent out to those who have a cache on their watch list would be a good thing. Just using e-mails as a work around would not be a good thing, IMHO

 

~erik~

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Shouldn't a "Note to the Reviewer" only go to the reviewer? I mean, what's the point of making them public?

[+Prime Suspect]

It could all be solved by simply removing the option for an owner to post a reviewer note once a cache has been approved. Having that option present on an approved and active cache gives the false impression that the reviewer will somehow receive those notes.