West Coast Aproval -

[+CompuCash]

submitted cache on Tuesday -

 

5 days no aproval -

 

no response from aprover -

 

is there a problem? on vacation? Way over loaded?

[Keystone]

I see that the two Northern California reviewers have "triaged" by saving some of the complex multicaches and puzzles for attention a bit later on, after processing some of the easier traditional caches. Their backlog right now is in the range of 60 caches which is about average for that area.

 

In checking the queue just now, the multi right in front of yours just got listed so hopefully yours will soon rise to the top. Remember that the website was down for a chunk of time shortly after you submitted your cache Tuesday evening. Thanks for your patience.

[+CompuCash]

Thanks KA - welcome too - I try to be patient -

 

ya - sometimes it helps just to know what is going on -

 

did forget about the day things fell apart -

 

yikes - 60 caches is usual? Do these guys get to sleep?

[+Renegade Knight]

Interesting. I new there was a cache queue but not that it was ordered as such.

 

It would be nice to be able to visit your cache and see it's status. "Your cache is #222 in the queue."

 

Alas I also know caches that are not a slam dunk can be bypassed for a while, and other caches are approved while the issues are being resolved. Still I like the idea. Maybe it could flip when there is a problem. "Your cache is in the special needs queue, check your email or your cache page for how to proceede"

[+ILReviewer]

Continuing the "triage" analogy, ordering the cache queue would be like using a "take a number" system in an emergency department. The cache queue is a long list of caches in order of the date/time they were submitted. We filter based on state or country (like I filter mine to just Illinois). It might be logical to say "your cache is the fourth cache in the queue for Illinois." But that still doesn't mean that it's the fourth one I'll review.

 

As Keystone said, sometimes we go through the list and take care of the easy ones - traditional caches in a park, no railroad tracks, 10 miles from another cache. Then after that list is cleared, we go back and work with the multi-stage caches or caches that need a little extra attention (is it REALLY 150 feet from the tracks? Is that a nuclear power plant by the third stage?).

 

Also remember that even if the numbering system worked and your cache would be next in line, we may have pressing things like finding a few caches or family life (or a down website) that keep us from getting to your caches immediately.

 

I know it would be nice to know how long you have to wait, but the best we can do is promise that we will TRY to get to them in 48-72 hours (as the hide-a-cache page says).

 

Thanks for your patience.

 

Edited for clarity and very bad spelling

Edited October 4, 2004 by ILAdmin

[+Touchstone]

I got mine back in 48 hrs and it was a multi. I consider that pretty good. Has there been any talk of automating some of the approval steps? Seems like the "proximity rule" is an obvious one. You're less than 528 feet froim an existing cache, BAM, you're outta there. Seems like that could be incorportated in the submission step. Maybe that feature is already in place and I just haven't noticed it .

Edited October 4, 2004 by Touchstone

[Keystone]

I think that the proximity guideline is a perfect example of why we would not want to have the computer making decisions about compliance with this site's listing rules. This is one of the guidelines that is bent every day, for good reason. A computer cannot tell that the existing cache 200 feet away is at the bottom of a cliff and the new one is at the top. The programming would need to be tweaked to say "unless one of the caches is an event cache, in which case the 528 foot rule doesn't apply." And so on.

 

I am working right now with a geocacher who has a strong interest in a local museum, and wants to place a cache there that matches the theme of the museum. Unfortunately there is an existing cache in the woods nearby - about 300 feet away - that has nothing to do with the museum. Upon being informed of this, the hider got discouraged and said "gee, no choice but to archive the cache," but I wrote back and encouraged them to find a different spot, indicating that I would bend the 528 foot rule since this cache was themed to the museum. Maybe not 300 feet away, but perhaps knowing that a cache won't be automatically rejected if it's 495 feet away will permit this hider to find a place for what sounds like an interesting cache.

 

Jeremy has made a number of improvements to the cache review process that could be called "automation," like organizing information on the review page that we need in order to check compliance with various rules. The page we see looks very different from the regular cache page. We very much appreciate these improvements but the human factor is still quite important.

[+CompuCash]

Thanks for the update - like I said - it helps to know what is going on and how the process works.

 

One comment I would like to make (this is not a complaint so much as an observation) regarding your triage - - while I fully understand and appreciate that situation (and would likely do the same in your positions) - is does seem just a little unfair, (Ironic? incongruous?) that someone who 'just tosses a micro in the ivy' can get his cache approved quickly while those of us who spend considerable time and effort setting up a multi/puzzle cache have to wait considerably longer to see their cache approved.

 

anyway - looking forward to seeing my two multi's approved and listed -

 

thanks again for the info -

[+Touchstone]

Thanks for the "post of clarity", KA. I agree totally with the personal touch that Approvers put into the work. Around here the proximity rule isn't too much of a big deal. I can understand running into it more frequently in an urban setting.

 

Compucash does raise a good point though. The multi's and puzzles do seem to get shuffled to the bottom of the pile. I'm not sure what rescources you have available when you're checking caches, but on the multi's and puzzles I understand you have to look at all the waypoints of the cache. I always try and remember to put a Reviewers Note with all my waypoints on the submission, but if there were extra coordinate fields to enter, it might make the mapping part of the process faster. I don't even know if this is possible, but it seems to me that if you have to map all the waypoints manually on the multi/puzzle caches it's going to take considerably longer.

[+CompuCash]

Thanks for the "post of clarity", KA. I agree totally with the personal touch that Approvers put into the work. Around here the proximity rule isn't too much of a big deal. I can understand running into it more frequently in an urban setting.

 

Compucash does raise a good point though. The multi's and puzzles do seem to get shuffled to the bottom of the pile. I'm not sure what rescources you have available when you're checking caches, but on the multi's and puzzles I understand you have to look at all the waypoints of the cache. I always try and remember to put a Reviewers Note with all my waypoints on the submission, but if there were extra coordinate fields to enter, it might make the mapping part of the process faster. I don't even know if this is possible, but it seems to me that if you have to map all the waypoints manually on the multi/puzzle caches it's going to take considerably longer.

 

Touchstone got me thinking -

 

Would it help if we mapped the waypoints ourselves (Delorme topo) and sent an image along with the cache submital?

 

[Keystone]

You should probably ask your regular reviewer what their preference is, because we use different tools and methods to check multicaches and puzzles. Personally, I like it when all the coordinates are listed thusly:

 

N40° 12.123', W080° 34.345'

N40° 45.456, W080° 56.567'

[etc.]

 

That way, it is easiest for me to copy the coordinates and paste them using the system I've developed for checking multicache waypoints. Other reviewers may prefer that you send a .loc file by e-mail if there are lots of waypoints. I would think that an image of a map wouldn't be too helpful because the reviewer would still need to work with the waypoint data for things like proximity checks. But the only opinions that count here are those of YOUR cache reviewer.

[+CompuCash]

ah - yes - I see -

 

well it was just an idea -

 

I usuall send mine as -

 

stop 1

 

37 12.123'

122 34.345

 

stop 2

37 45.456

122 56.567

 

and have not had any complaints but would be glad to ammend to make things easier -

 

thanks for the input.

[+Marky]

I usuall send mine as -

 

stop 1

 

37 12.123'

122 34.345

 

stop 2

37 45.456

122 56.567

 

and have not had any complaints

I personally would like them to have the N and W desinators, or be decimal with positive and negative to determine the hemispheres. That way, boulter's coordinate grabber won't choke on them. It does a nice regular expression match on a bunch of formats, but your example doesn't include enough info for a computer program (no problem for human parsers though). To test how well formed your waypoints are, you can go to my Terraserver image page and just enter the GC#. If all the waypoints are well formed, you should get an image with all the waypoints plotted on them. (This is apparently a moot point, because looking at your multis, they all seem to be of the variety that has the coords for the next waypoint in the first stage cache, not posted on the cache page.)

 

Your format also fails for the cut and paste crowd (like KA), as they would have to manually insert the N and W into your text before their mapper of choice would cope with them.

 

--Marky

[+CompuCash]

AWSOME!!

 

thanks -

 

tried to copy and paste mine out of the forum and add the n/w but won't work - maybe some html stuff going with it - weird - copyed from one of my cache pages and works great - very nice site - thanks for sharing and for the work involved -

 

 

--

 

edit -- >> never mind on the coord errors

Edited October 4, 2004 by CompuCash

[PatrickD]

is does seem just a little unfair, (Ironic? incongruous?) that someone who 'just tosses a micro in the ivy' can get his cache approved quickly while those of us who spend considerable time and effort setting up a multi/puzzle cache have to wait considerably longer to see their cache approved.

If you've worked for weeks/months/years to plan your cache, waiting a day longer to have it approved is just a drop in the bucket. The turnaround time is still relatively short.

[Keystone]

Patrick, thanks for pointing that out. It sometimes takes the reviewer awhile to figure out what was going on in the hider's mind while they constructed a well-designed puzzle or multicache. Think of how much planning we all do before setting out on a hunt for a cache like that. The reviewer has to compress their work into as short a timeframe as possible. We do much of the same plotting, mapping, studying and thinking that a finder would go through.

 

Conversely, when the reviewers respond with questions, we sure wish that quick turnaround time worked both ways. Sometimes when I put a cache on hold and ask questions, weeks go by with no response. Then a follow up message receives no response. Now I have a potential geo-litter problem instead of a cache review problem. When a cache reviewer asks a question about your cache, it is helpful to respond within the same turnaround timeframe that folks would like us to stick with -- a couple of days, while all the facts are fresh in the reviewer's mind.

[+ShowStop]

I will comment that there were several events going on this weekend in California. I know of at least half dozen caches that were placed prior to one of the events. Besides the admins possibly attending the events, there sure were plenty of caches placed prior to the events to keep them busy.

 

For Southern California, the admins usually do a heavy hit to the queue on Thurs/Fri, then the unapproved caches sit over the weekend and are tackled again on Monday. When I placed my multi-cache, approval took three days. If there are no issues with your multi, I'd say it will clear the approval list sometime today or tomorrow.

[+CompuCash]

I will comment that there were several events going on this weekend in California. I know of at least half dozen caches that were placed prior to one of the events. Besides the admins possibly attending the events, there sure were plenty of caches placed prior to the events to keep them busy.

 

For Southern California, the admins usually do a heavy hit to the queue on Thurs/Fri, then the unapproved caches sit over the weekend and are tackled again on Monday. When I placed my multi-cache, approval took three days. If there are no issues with your multi, I'd say it will clear the approval list sometime today or tomorrow.

 

OK - I know they are busy and all but now I am getting concerned - was a full week yesterday -

[+CompuCash]

After reading KA (and others) posts about coordinate formats, I

went back last night and edited my notes for both submitted caches

so that my waypoints are in a format that is easy to cut and paste as mentioned.

 

hope that helps -

Edited October 5, 2004 by CompuCash

[+Peaceable Rhino]

I was wondering about this, too. Put out a new cache on Saturday and saw it approved inside of an hour. Put one out on Monday and am still waiting. Must be a lot of caches to wade through after the weekend. Or else the reviewer is exhausted.

 

Edited October 6, 2004 by gazissax