Help
I submitted a Traditional cache on the 20th and here it is the 25th and it still has not been reviewed. There have been several caches published that were submitted after mine and they were published? In my area what is the deal I thought that it was a 3 day review process at most.
Page 1 of 1
What is the deal with the Washington reviewers
#2
Posted 25 October 2011 - 07:46 AM
Runnystrong, on 25 October 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:
I submitted a Traditional cache on the 20th and here it is the 25th and it still has not been reviewed. There have been several caches published that were submitted after mine and they were published? In my area what is the deal I thought that it was a 3 day review process at most.
Have you asked the reviewer?
#3
Posted 25 October 2011 - 07:50 AM
Is your cache enabled? The reviewers won't see it unless it's enabled.
#4
Posted 25 October 2011 - 07:52 AM
keehotee, on 25 October 2011 - 07:46 AM, said:
Runnystrong, on 25 October 2011 - 07:43 AM, said:
I submitted a Traditional cache on the 20th and here it is the 25th and it still has not been reviewed. There have been several caches published that were submitted after mine and they were published? In my area what is the deal I thought that it was a 3 day review process at most.
Have you asked the reviewer?
There are several which one do I contact?
#6
Posted 25 October 2011 - 07:56 AM
#7
Posted 25 October 2011 - 07:59 AM
#8
Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:07 AM
#9
Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:10 AM
Hard to believe someone with 43 hides doesn't understand the review process or how to contact a reviewer.
I think you could pick one reviewer to contact, and if it isn't in that person's queue, they could probably check things out any way.
I think you could pick one reviewer to contact, and if it isn't in that person's queue, they could probably check things out any way.
#10
Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:12 AM
Are you really, really, really sure?
I suspect that someone in this thread knows what they're talking about
I suspect that someone in this thread knows what they're talking about
#11
Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:28 AM
Pup Patrol, on 25 October 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:
Hard to believe someone with 43 hides doesn't understand the review process or how to contact a reviewer.
I think you could pick one reviewer to contact, and if it isn't in that person's queue, they could probably check things out any way.
I think you could pick one reviewer to contact, and if it isn't in that person's queue, they could probably check things out any way.
I would look harder on how long a cacher has been a memeber than how many hides they have...
To the OP:
I would write to either Rock Rabbit, Cascade Reviewer, Ice and Wind (who is a man BTW) or Wizard of Ooze. Probably the one you want to choose is the reviewer that has published most of your other cachers. Personally I hae found Wizard of Ooze to be the mosty responsive to e-mails through their profile page.
If it got missed then it should not be a problem. If there is some other issue then I would expect tht you might have to wait a while longer...
#12
Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:33 AM
FobesMan, on 25 October 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:
Pup Patrol, on 25 October 2011 - 08:10 AM, said:
Hard to believe someone with 43 hides doesn't understand the review process or how to contact a reviewer.
I think you could pick one reviewer to contact, and if it isn't in that person's queue, they could probably check things out any way.
I think you could pick one reviewer to contact, and if it isn't in that person's queue, they could probably check things out any way.
I would look harder on how long a cacher has been a memeber than how many hides they have...
To the OP:
I would write to either Rock Rabbit, Cascade Reviewer, Ice and Wind (who is a man BTW) or Wizard of Ooze. Probably the one you want to choose is the reviewer that has published most of your other cachers. Personally I hae found Wizard of Ooze to be the mosty responsive to e-mails through their profile page.
If it got missed then it should not be a problem. If there is some other issue then I would expect tht you might have to wait a while longer...
He's been through the review process 43 times already. How long someone has used an account name doesn't tell us much.
Hard to believe that a user could go through the review process 43 times already and not hit even one tiny glitch.
#13
Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:36 AM
It should also be noted that the submission process has changed. In the past, when you submitted a new cache, there was a checkbox at the top of the form to enable the submission. By default it was checked.
Currently, the same checkbox is farther down on the page, below the coordinate entry box, and it is NOT checked by default.
I stand by my prediction that the OP's cache is not enabled.
Currently, the same checkbox is farther down on the page, below the coordinate entry box, and it is NOT checked by default.
I stand by my prediction that the OP's cache is not enabled.
#14
Posted 25 October 2011 - 09:13 AM
To the OP, the cache that you wrote up on 10/20 is disabled. As is the cache you wrote up yesterday.
They need to be enabled to be seen in the review queue. They both have this warning at the top:
The reviewers will not see this listing until you enable it.
This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.
The cache report form was subtly changed in the recent site update. Caches are disabled by default. You must enable them.
They need to be enabled to be seen in the review queue. They both have this warning at the top:
The reviewers will not see this listing until you enable it.
This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.
The cache report form was subtly changed in the recent site update. Caches are disabled by default. You must enable them.
#16
Posted 25 October 2011 - 09:51 AM
palmetto, on 25 October 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:
The cache report form was subtly changed in the recent site update. Caches are disabled by default. You must enable them.
I, for one, did not know this. I don't recall it being listed in the release notes, either, although I could be wrong. I think changing the default is a great idea, but moving its location and changing the default at the same time is bound to cause a lot of confusion.
#17
Posted 25 October 2011 - 10:00 AM
knowschad, on 25 October 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:
I think changing the default is a great idea, but moving its location and changing the default at the same time is bound to cause a lot of confusion.
I agree. But this part should still be clear as a bell. Especially if you have been asked repeatedly to check if it is enabled.
The reviewers will not see this listing until you enable it.
This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.
#18
Posted 25 October 2011 - 10:18 AM
eh...
A little trip over your own feet occasionally is a humbling, yet good thing.
A little trip over your own feet occasionally is a humbling, yet good thing.
#19
Posted 25 October 2011 - 01:55 PM
I have to say, after filling out 26 submittal forms the other day, the new check box does tend to blend in with the rest of the form. Putting it in bold text might help a bit. Just adding those seven extra characters to the HTML would save some time and angst.
#20
Posted 25 October 2011 - 03:44 PM
Another thing that I found was if you create the cache, and then go back into the cache to edit it, things like the attributes disappear if you don't re-select them all again. That may be the same with the enable check box.
#22
Posted 25 October 2011 - 04:32 PM
Was it #36? I see a "new" cache in your profile of 44 hides.....
edit - published today.
edit - published today.
This post has been edited by popokiiti: 25 October 2011 - 04:35 PM
#23
Posted 25 October 2011 - 04:50 PM
dphickey, on 25 October 2011 - 03:44 PM, said:
Another thing that I found was if you create the cache, and then go back into the cache to edit it, things like the attributes disappear if you don't re-select them all again. That may be the same with the enable check box.
#24
Posted 25 October 2011 - 05:11 PM
niraD, on 25 October 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:
dphickey, on 25 October 2011 - 03:44 PM, said:
Another thing that I found was if you create the cache, and then go back into the cache to edit it, things like the attributes disappear if you don't re-select them all again. That may be the same with the enable check box.
Probably did not check the boxes for saying they read and understand the guidelines. Without that nothing is saved.
#26
Posted 25 October 2011 - 07:54 PM
"Pull over for some cache" #36 and #37 are published, no finds yet....were these the two caches the OP was talking about?
#28
Posted 25 October 2011 - 08:34 PM
Lil Devil, on 25 October 2011 - 08:36 AM, said:
It should also be noted that the submission process has changed. In the past, when you submitted a new cache, there was a checkbox at the top of the form to enable the submission. By default it was checked.
Currently, the same checkbox is farther down on the page, below the coordinate entry box, and it is NOT checked by default.
I stand by my prediction that the OP's cache is not enabled.
Currently, the same checkbox is farther down on the page, below the coordinate entry box, and it is NOT checked by default.
I stand by my prediction that the OP's cache is not enabled.
So many times I have suggested this and so many times I heard. No we like it this way and most said they can have the cache page put together without ever having to uncheck the box. Well hats off to you guys. Some of us take longer and I am glad they finally changed it. It is tough to find though when you do want to check it but less likely to hit it by accident.
#29
Posted 26 October 2011 - 02:20 AM
knowschad, on 25 October 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:
palmetto, on 25 October 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:
The cache report form was subtly changed in the recent site update. Caches are disabled by default. You must enable them.
I, for one, did not know this. I don't recall it being listed in the release notes, either, although I could be wrong. I think changing the default is a great idea, but moving its location and changing the default at the same time is bound to cause a lot of confusion.
I get the weekly Groundspeak newsletter, I'm signed up to get the Groundspeak notifications*, neither have said anything about this...
Quote
E-Mail Preferences
Do not show my email address to other users.
Inform me of helpful tips, new features and changes to the web site.
I want to receive the Groundspeak weekly newsletter.
Do not show my email address to other users.
Inform me of helpful tips, new features and changes to the web site.
I want to receive the Groundspeak weekly newsletter.
*In fact, I've never received anything via this method!
This post has been edited by Bear and Ragged: 26 October 2011 - 02:20 AM
#34
Posted 26 October 2011 - 10:53 AM
#35
Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:02 AM
#36
Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:06 AM
knowschad, on 26 October 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:
At the risk of reveling my age, they at one time were cans. Nice little aluminum cans with a nice steel screw top and a nice rubber gasket. Why did I throw that big bag of them out years ago? One probably has to spend a kings ransom to buy one of those today.
#37
Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:12 AM
jholly, on 26 October 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:
knowschad, on 26 October 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:
At the risk of reveling my age, they at one time were cans. Nice little aluminum cans with a nice steel screw top and a nice rubber gasket. Why did I throw that big bag of them out years ago? One probably has to spend a kings ransom to buy one of those today.
I believe they are kind of collectable. Try Ebay.
#38
Posted 26 October 2011 - 11:24 AM
Dgwphotos, on 26 October 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:
jholly, on 26 October 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:
knowschad, on 26 October 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:
At the risk of reveling my age, they at one time were cans. Nice little aluminum cans with a nice steel screw top and a nice rubber gasket. Why did I throw that big bag of them out years ago? One probably has to spend a kings ransom to buy one of those today.
I believe they are kind of collectable. Try Ebay.
I guess I shouldn't quit my job to become a stand-up comic, huh?
#39
Posted 26 October 2011 - 12:59 PM
knowschad, on 26 October 2011 - 11:24 AM, said:
Dgwphotos, on 26 October 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:
jholly, on 26 October 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:
knowschad, on 26 October 2011 - 11:02 AM, said:
At the risk of reveling my age, they at one time were cans. Nice little aluminum cans with a nice steel screw top and a nice rubber gasket. Why did I throw that big bag of them out years ago? One probably has to spend a kings ransom to buy one of those today.
I believe they are kind of collectable. Try Ebay.
I guess I shouldn't quit my job to become a stand-up comic, huh?
He'll be here all week, folks...
#41
Posted 26 October 2011 - 02:03 PM
So did the issue get resolved? I got lost in the serial quoting of everything said before that was off topic.
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
#42
Posted 26 October 2011 - 02:11 PM
Team WorldTour, on 26 October 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:
So did the issue get resolved? I got lost in the serial quoting of everything said before that was off topic.
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
Way back in post number 14, a reviewer reported to the OP that they had gone to the listing and determined that the CO/OP had not checked the box that puts an unpublished cache into the review Queue. The OP has been silent ever since...
#43
Posted 26 October 2011 - 02:21 PM
Yes, I see that is unchecked by default (listing enabled),
though the note still says otherwise that you must uncheck it yourself.
Overall that sounds like a good thing so one doesn't submit a cache
that isn't really ready to be found. Problem I see is that part
of the submission page is easy to overlook.
Side note: I still have real film cans laying around.
though the note still says otherwise that you must uncheck it yourself.
Overall that sounds like a good thing so one doesn't submit a cache
that isn't really ready to be found. Problem I see is that part
of the submission page is easy to overlook.
Side note: I still have real film cans laying around.
#44
Posted 26 October 2011 - 02:47 PM
FobesMan, on 26 October 2011 - 02:11 PM, said:
Team WorldTour, on 26 October 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:
So did the issue get resolved? I got lost in the serial quoting of everything said before that was off topic.
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
Way back in post number 14, a reviewer reported to the OP that they had gone to the listing and determined that the CO/OP had not checked the box that puts an unpublished cache into the review Queue. The OP has been silent ever since...
Post #14:
palmetto, on 25 October 2011 - 09:13 AM, said:
To the OP, the cache that you wrote up on 10/20 is disabled. As is the cache you wrote up yesterday.
They need to be enabled to be seen in the review queue. They both have this warning at the top:
The reviewers will not see this listing until you enable it.
This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.
The cache report form was subtly changed in the recent site update. Caches are disabled by default. You must enable them.
They need to be enabled to be seen in the review queue. They both have this warning at the top:
The reviewers will not see this listing until you enable it.
This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.
The cache report form was subtly changed in the recent site update. Caches are disabled by default. You must enable them.
Post #22:
popokiiti, on 25 October 2011 - 04:32 PM, said:
Was it #36? I see a "new" cache in your profile of 44 hides.....
edit - published today.
edit - published today.
Yup, once the problem was solved, the new caches were published. And have already been found.
#46
Posted 26 October 2011 - 07:57 PM
Team WorldTour, on 26 October 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:
So did the issue get resolved? I got lost in the serial quoting of everything said before that was off topic.
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
I don't recommend taking your issue into another thread.
#47
Posted 26 October 2011 - 08:02 PM
Team WorldTour, on 26 October 2011 - 02:03 PM, said:
So did the issue get resolved? I got lost in the serial quoting of everything said before that was off topic.
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
The OP is steaming about 5 days wait? I'm going on two months! If he tried to list a cache in Germany, he would blow a gasket!
Yes, we've noticed.
#49
Posted 26 October 2011 - 09:09 PM
Yes guys I am sure he probably finally got the joke with all the Are you Sures.
Oh Lil Devil that puzzle I had all you guys try out at the event went live Thanks to Nomex.
Maybe you should come over and try it for real. Along with some of my other ones.
Oh Lil Devil that puzzle I had all you guys try out at the event went live Thanks to Nomex.
Maybe you should come over and try it for real. Along with some of my other ones.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1