Jump to content

Anyone Else Run Into This With A Reviwer?


Recommended Posts

Got an e-mail today in regards with one of my caches that has been temporarily archived for the summer months, Its on a historic footbridge in town and since june or so the town has been repainting it and redecking it, (it takes a while, its a 100 yr old bridge). So my issue is the review that posted the note has only been (according to his profile) a cacher since may of this year and has zero finds. Now I realize that they may of made a seperate account devoted to reviewing, but still, it doenst instill much confidence. Has anyone else run into this?

 

-TW

Link to comment

That is quite normal. Many reviewers use a separate account for reviewing caches. Some might want to be annoymous because it is a tough job at times and they want to cache at events and such in peace. Others might just want to keep records separate (e.g. cache notes that show up on the "my cache page" etc.). Others might not care if people know their identity but prefer to not draw extra attention to it or keep the identies separate. I can think of many reasons for it. You can trust though that they are all seasoned cachers.:D

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment

Well I guess what I forgot to include was that I have been posting on the cache page about whats going on, I posted that it was closed due to the painting etc, and when someone posted asking the status I promptly put a note up saying that it was still being worked on, so I am a bit confused why I was getting this e-mail, its not like I have been not keeping up my duties. When I heard they were going to be working on the bridge I removed the cache with the intent to replace it when they are done. So hopefully the reviewer doenst permentantly archive it.

Link to comment
Got an e-mail today in regards with one of my caches that has been temporarily archived for the summer months, Its on a historic footbridge in town and since june or so the town has been repainting it and redecking it, (it takes a while, its a 100 yr old bridge). So my issue is the review that posted the note has only been (according to his profile) a cacher since may of this year and has zero finds. Now I realize that they may of made a seperate account devoted to reviewing, but still, it doenst instill much confidence. Has anyone else run into this?

 

-TW

I know the person that you are refering to. This is a person that is an amazing cacher. Someone I would be honored to cache with.

 

You didnt say what the e-mail was about so I assume that it was just about the persons qualifications as a cacher. Rest assured that this person has about 15 times the caches found that you have.

 

By the way your cache is not archived but disabled. To the local approvers there is a major difference in the two.

 

The guide lines state:

"You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing."

 

since your cache has been disabled since May it is natural for the local reviewer to ask about it.

 

Sounds like your reviewer is right on top of things.

 

Posted while you were explaining the e-mail you recieved

Edited by CO Admin
Link to comment

Looking at your profile, the cache was temporarily disabled and not archived. If the cache has been removed, the page should be disabled until it is back in place. That keeps people from looking for the cache. Some people don't read the cache pages and just head out and disabling keeps the cache out of their list if they are filtering caches using Pocket Queries etc. Disabling the page is temporary and you can reverse that yourself by clicking the link under the name on the page to re-enable it when the cache is back in place. Simply add a note to the page that you will be replacing the cache when the bridge work is done and will re-enable it at that time. You could also send the reviewer a note saying that too. That should assure that all remains OK. If for some reason it gets archived, just write to the reviewer when the work is done and ask that it be unarchived.

Link to comment
Has anyone else run into this?

I did a search, but I don't see any other threads where anyone else ever complained of a reviewer ... :D

 

Seriously, what's wrong with a temp archive in this case?

 

Edit: I guess the term "temp archive" doesn't make much sense now that I read my post. My point was, what's the problem with archiving it until fixed?

Edited by Pantalaimon
Link to comment

I have posted whats been going on, my point is, from the e-mail I recieved it seemed like a "form e-mail" to me what they wrote seemed like they didnt even read any of the posts. And I havent posted their e-mail to me here put of respect for privacy. But here is the main body of it

 

"Log Date: 8/30/2004

I noticed this cache while reviewing new caches in the area. It looks like your

cache has been under the weather for some time. While I feel that Geocaching.com

should hold the location for you and block other cachers from entering the area

around this cache for a reasonable amount of time, we can't do so forever.

Please either repair/replace this cache, or archive it so that someone else can

place a cache in the area, and geocachers can once again enjoy visiting this

location. Also, if you haven't done so already, please pick up any remaining

cache bits as soon as possible.

 

I want to thank you for the time that you have taken to contribute to geocaching

in the past and am looking forward to seeing your cache up and running in the

future.

 

Thanks for your understanding."

 

To me this says that the reviewer didnt even bother to read the logs, just saw how long the cache was out of commision and sent this.

Also I realize the distinction between disabled and archived, just didnt remeber the term exactly when I was writing the post. hey its 9pm and I am at work still :D

 

TW

Link to comment

Looks like the cache has been inactive as long as it was active. Also looks like some of the locals were wondering what the status was. My guess is someone probably privately asked the admin to look into it, and this was basically to let you (and the local cachers) know he's on top of the situation. A cache disabled for over 3 months SHOULD set off some alarms, looks like your reviewer is doing his job.

Link to comment

I trust that the reviewer read your logs. What it comes down to is if the cache is out of commission, the page should be disabled and that is what was done. Reviewers pretty much have to use some "form" responses at times because of the large number of caches they review that have similar issues.

 

Note that in the future, if one of your caches is unavailable, the best thing to do is temporarily disable it yourself with a note explaining why. Then re-enable it when the cache is available again. All the reviewer did was do that for you.

 

It is nothing to get overly concerned about. Basically if a cache is not available it is good to have it disabled so that it doesn't show up as active and cause people to search for it. As the owner, you can easily re-enable it when it is back in place.

 

In all honesty, your reviewer did the right thing. Don't take it for more than it is or take it personally. Instead don't worry, post a note that the bridge is still under construction and that you will re-enable the cache when it is back in place. Until then, leave it disabled. All should be fine then. :D

Link to comment

I posted the following in a different part of the forums last week when the last person complained about their volunteer reviewer's find count. It's equally applicable this week, although the math is a bit off due to a new reviewer being added, and everyone's find and hide counts going up a bit.

 

Some interesting statistics:

 

As a group, the volunteer cache reviewers have found well over 30,000 geocaches, and hidden more than 1,700. The "average" reviewer has found nearly 700 geocaches and hidden about 40. We know a little bit about finding and hiding geocaches, and how the geocache listing requirements operate. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been asked to join the volunteer team.

 

If you look at my profile, it says I haven't found or hidden any caches. But if you look at my separate player account, I've found nearly 1,100 and hidden about 25 (working on several hides at this very moment). The same is true for many other volunteers who choose to maintain separate accounts for their work on behalf of the website.

 

I hope that this information is helpful.

Link to comment

"Note that in the future, if one of your caches is unavailable, the best thing to do is temporarily disable it yourself with a note explaining why. Then re-enable it when the cache is available again. All the reviewer did was do that for you. "

 

Which is what I did, I also had posted updates so people knew the status, which is why I am confused as to why I got the e-mail. The last note I posted was 28 august 04 and got their e-mail today which is the 30th.

 

-TW

Link to comment

I have a possible explanation. Perhaps this reviewer does their maintenance reviews the same way that I do. I order a pocket query of every cache in the state that is temporarily disabled. I work through each of them offline, using third party software. I read the recent logs and make a judgment whether a note on the cache page is warranted.

 

Suppose in your case that I ordered a pocket query that was delivered on the morning of August 28th, and I did my "maintenance checks" on the 30th. Fairly current data, right? Not in the case of your cache. Unless I *also* read the page online to check for recent logs, I would've missed the note you posted right after the pocket query generated.

 

What are the odds of that happening? Well, it happened to me in July. I left pretty much the same note on a cache in Ohio, when the owner had replaced it one day after my pocket query generated. I now check the online logs.

 

Like I said, I am not saying that's what happened here, or even that a note was not warranted, but it is one possible explanation.

Link to comment

I always kind of wondered about an approver showing a zero cache count. I thought that was a little odd. Thanks for clearing this up. It seems obvious now, but I never new reviewers sometimes set up a seperate account for reviewing. Good to know. Now I can sleep well tonight as I await my next cache approval by a much more qualified geocacher than myself!

Edited by team walkingsticks
Link to comment

KA gave you the answer you need. I've got two caches that are Disabled and have been for some time. One I had posted notes on it saying what was going on. The other I didn't. I got the generic note on the one cache and not the other. The difference was they read the note. A quick email and everything was squared away. I updated the note on the other cache and now everyone can see the status.

 

I have another disabled cache that I really should get too...

Link to comment

I have done the same thing that KA does pull a query and work with them in watcher and go to the site and speed post notes, but all it takes is an email to the reviewer in question to straighten everything out.

 

We are volunteers here and trying to do a good job of a bad situation and keep others in the area from seeing them on their closes list.

 

One other thing while we are talking about cache maintenance , if someone has like two no finds in a 30 day period, go out and check your cache it’s courtesy to your fellow cache hunters.

 

Tennessee Geocacher // Reviewer // Moderator

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...