Lower GC# priority on new cache submission

[+bnelson333]

The area where I live is well saturated with caches and new spots are hard to come by. To that end, when an existing hide gets archived (generally for MIA CO) there is a mad dash to replace it. However, there are several users who like hiding, but don't really make it a priority. The problem is, they "reserve" a spot, but then never do anything with it. This actually leads to less caches, not more.

 

Example: cache #1 gets archived. User A has archivals on notification and quickly makes a cache (#2) page using the coordinates from the cache that got archived, even though they haven't placed a cache. They just happened to be near a computer when the notification came out.

 

User B takes the time to visit the spot, prepare a container, place it, then create a cache (#3) page and submit it. Maybe this happens a day or even many weeks after user A. But this new cache gets denied because user A is still "camping" the spot, i.e. their cache page (#2) has a lower GC# and therefore gets priority per Groundspeak guidelines.

 

This isn't an edge case, it happens quite often here.

 

I completely understand that sometimes caches take extra work, getting permission, unique containers, etc. This is probably what is intended by having this guideline. However, Groundspeak needs to give more latitude to the reviewers around this: if a person has actually gone through the effort of preparing and placing a container in a spot and submitting a cache for review, that should be given priority.

 

As it stands right now, the reviewer is tied by this rule and told that cache #2 gets priority, and then they wait to see if the person who created the page (mind you, hasn't even submitted it for review!) has any plans for it. Generally, if they (the reviewer) doesn't hear back, they will publish cache #3, but user A (cache #2) can just indefinitely say "I'm working on it" and then a cache never gets published to that location.

 

Some leeway would have to be given to a CO who is archiving their own cache and immediately placing a new cache in that location (something different, perhaps). The reviewer should easily be able to tell that's the case and give it priority.

[+Sapience Trek]

if a person has actually gone through the effort of preparing and placing a container in a spot and submitting a cache for review, that should be given priority.

 

If user A is actually working on placing a nice complex hide, and actually started before user B went out to place their micro in a random spot, I'd want to give user A the benefit of the doubt that they were actually working on it.

 

Generally, if they (the reviewer) doesn't hear back, they will publish cache #3, but user A (cache #2) can just indefinitely say "I'm working on it" and then a cache never gets published to that location.

 

There isn't a hard set time frame, but if user A dawdles around for more than a couple weeks, I will likely ignore their cache and publish user B's. It's a judgement call, as I really don't know what both users are doing, and I'd want some pretty conclusive information to justify the delay.

[+CanadianRockies]

As it stands right now, the reviewer is tied by this rule and told that cache #2 gets priority, and then they wait to see if the person who created the page (mind you, hasn't even submitted it for review!) has any plans for it. Generally, if they (the reviewer) doesn't hear back, they will publish cache #3, but user A (cache #2) can just indefinitely say "I'm working on it" and then a cache never gets published to that location.

Some skepticism should be accorded to the geocacher who indefinitely says, "I'm working on it." And, I believe, most reviewers will do so and eventually tell them that their time has expired. That seems to be more feasible than a system where the reviewer tries to determine which geocacher has put forth the most genuine effort into creating their cache and assigning a priority based on that. Under that scenario, what would prevent a user from saying, "I'm working on it really, really, really hard" while doing very little?

[+GerandKat]

...

The reviewer should easily be able to tell that's the case and give it priority.

 

We really don't know, how we are supposed to know, if the Co who was faster with the listing, isn't in the stress and hectic preparing the next great cache.

 

So unless you're able to send us this magic ball of glass, we're doomed to believe, that if there is a listing, this CO is preparing some great new geocache.

 

In the area we review in (Northern Germany), we tell the CO of geocache #3 the GC-code and the GC-name, and if he asks we even tell him the nick of the CO of geocache #2.

 

So it is up to them, to communicate, and decide, who's going to get the spot!

 

Little tip, wait some time (some months) and if there isn't any new geocache published in the area (as we said, you'll know the GC Code) ask your local reviewer to take a second look.

[Keystone]

Generally, if they (the reviewer) doesn't hear back, they will publish cache #3, but user A (cache #2) can just indefinitely say "I'm working on it" and then a cache never gets published to that location.

Checking with user A is not an "indefinite" process. My note to user A will always say that, if I don't hear back within a week, I'll publish the other cache. If I *do* hear back, acceptable answers include (i) it's ready now, (ii) it will be ready within X days (where X is not unlimited), or (iii) it won't be ready soon for a legitimate reason, like land manager permission paperwork. Generally the check-in with user A will buy them a couple of weeks, absent special circumstances.

 

Some leeway would have to be given to a CO who is archiving their own cache and immediately placing a new cache in that location (something different, perhaps). The reviewer should easily be able to tell that's the case and give it priority.

A cautious CO would disable, but not archive, a cache listing which they intend to replace with a new cache in the same location. On the new cache listing, the CO can say in a reviewer note that the reviewer is authorized to archive the old listing. Example: "Since my puzzle cache has only received five finds over the past year, I decided to replace it with a traditional because this is such a nice spot to visit. Please archive the puzzle cache when the new cache is ready for publication."

[+L0ne.R]

This happened to me. The new trail had been camped on. I wanted to place 2 caches. Couldn't. But the reviewer said he would contact the 'camper'. In 3 days I got the go ahead. I'm guessing the camper said he wasn't ready.

[+hzoi]

Since two reviewers have indicated that reviewers do have discretion to do this, it sounds like your frustration is more that your local reviewer has not been quicker to exercise his or hers. Perhaps this should be a one-on-one conversation with your reviewer, not a forum thread.

[+hzoi]

p.s. With nearly 15,000 caches within a 50-mile radius of your first hide, your area is well covered, bot not saturated. There are just under 31,000 in that same radius from Frankfurt, Germany. If they can pack more in, surely there are plenty of places that are not covered by campers.

 

I do find it a little ironic that, looking at the map of your area, the big parks seem to be much less populated by caches than, say, the Target parking lots. Are the available areas in, say, Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park really all camped on?

[Keystone]

Since two reviewers have indicated that reviewers do have discretion to do this, it sounds like your frustration is more that your local reviewer has not been quicker to exercise his or hers. Perhaps this should be a one-on-one conversation with your reviewer, not a forum thread.

I took the OP as a suggestion to skip the process of checking with the holder of the earlier GC Code, and change the guidance so that the first cache submitted for review would have priority. I don't see that happening. What if the first CO was busy working on permit paperwork, but the second CO did not even know that a permit was needed? What if the first CO was putting the finishing touches on a complex "gadget" cache, and the second CO has hidden a bison tube on a pine tree? As a reviewer, I cannot tell for certain what the first CO is doing, so I ask them. Most answer within a day or two, and oftentimes they yield the spot to the cache that's ready to go.

 

p.s. With nearly 15,000 caches within a 50-mile radius of your first hide, your area is well covered, bot not saturated. There are just under 31,000 in that same radius from Frankfurt, Germany. If they can pack more in, surely there are plenty of places that are not covered by campers.

 

I do find it a little ironic that, looking at the map of your area, the big parks seem to be much less populated by caches than, say, the Target parking lots. Are the available areas in, say, Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park really all camped on?

When I see vast cacheless areas in nice parks, I immediately assume that those areas are either off limits to new geocaches or that burdensome land manager permits are required. If you look at a cache map in Pennsylvania, you will see very few caches in state parks. That's because there's a $30 cache placement fee, plus a two-step paperwork process to obtain a permit that's good for three years.

[+Team Microdot]

When we reserve a spot our local reviewer adds some boilerplate to the confirmation email explaining that the spot will be held for three months after which it will be released with no further correspondence to the person making the reservation.

 

I believe this system works well - at least I've not heard about any problems.

 

I also believe that while the spot is held the reviewer, if approached about that location by a second cacher, will relay communication between the two cachers with a view to releasing the spot before the agreed 'expiry date' if the person making the original reservation is agreeable.

 

I believe this system works well - probably because everyone gets treated equally and there's no ambiguity. At least I've not heard about any problems.

[+dprovan]

As it stands right now, the reviewer is tied by this rule and told that cache #2 gets priority, and then they wait to see if the person who created the page (mind you, hasn't even submitted it for review!) has any plans for it. Generally, if they (the reviewer) doesn't hear back, they will publish cache #3, but user A (cache #2) can just indefinitely say "I'm working on it" and then a cache never gets published to that location.

This might work out better if you talk it over with the other CO directly. I think the reviewer will tell you who it is if you ask, assuming they didn't volunteer that information up front. One would hope you and the other CO could compare ideas and time frames to make the best use of the spot for everyone instead of you just throwing the reviewer in to grab it for you by force.

 

In such a densely populated area, if there isn't already a behind-the-scenes CO community cooperating over this issue that you just need to get plugged into, it sounds like it would be a good idea for you to foster one.

[+lee737]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...... in my experience, it is easy to spot a temp disabled cache that is going to be archived, absent CO etc..... In this situation, do your site visit then, work out your container and spot, preferably not directly in the same place or in the usual search radius, have your listing ready, as the time to archival ticks down, hide your cache, then be ready on the trigger for when the archive is done! I'm assuming in such a heavily populated/cached area with competition like you describe (we don't have that here) that the reviewers are pretty prompt to archive dead caches....

Edited December 5, 2016 by lee737

[+narcissa]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...... in my experience, it is easy to spot a temp disabled cache that is going to be archived, absent CO etc..... In this situation, do you site visit then, work out your container and spot, preferably not directly in the same place or in the usual search radius, have your listing ready, as the time to archival ticks down, hide your cache, then be ready on the trigger for when the archive is done! I'm assuming in such a heavily populated/cached area with competition like you describe (we don't have that here) that the reviewers are pretty prompt to archive dead caches....

 

They are joining them, just not as quickly as someone else. These cachers are already doing everything they reasonably can to watch out for spaces that open up.

[+DragonsWest]

I was once asked (by local reviewer) if the Puzzle I was working on was already in place. If so to get a move on and get it submitted within seven (7) days or someone else's cache would be published.

 

That seemed quite fair.

 

I was almost ready to submit the cache anyway, which didn't hurn.

[+narcissa]

I was once asked (by local reviewer) if the Puzzle I was working on was already in place. If so to get a move on and get it submitted within seven (7) days or someone else's cache would be published.

 

That seemed quite fair.

 

I was almost ready to submit the cache anyway, which didn't hurn.

 

I have also been asked. In my case, I had gone back to the drawing board and wasn't ready to implement, so I was happy to cede the spot to someone else.