MnGCA Home MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   User listUser list   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

MN cache reviewing
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 35

PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bflentje wrote:
We all know that a cache listing with "Cannon Falls Bike and Canoe Rental" is bad. But how about referring to "the rental shop in town"?


I think it would be possible but would depend on the context around it. There's a fine line between mentioning it and promoting it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 35

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
bflentje wrote:
And where do you stand on cemetery caches? Private, public and abandonded..


SJ required proof before publishing - I'm maintaining that stance.

Abandonded is interesting and I haven't dealt with it yet that I know of. There is still an underlying property owner however so I guess the approach would probably be the same.

A little explaination for those that may not understand this:

Cemeteries are unique in that a lot of people don't feel geocaches belong in them. Personally I'm mixed - I've seen some very poor placements and I've seen some very well done placements. My feelings aren't the issue though. It's my guess and understanding that very *very* few cemeteries will knowingly allow geocaches on their property. Knowing that this group of land managers will almost exclusively deny caches makes me want proof that the cache is allowed there. The guidelines require that you obtain adequate permission, so it shouldn't be an issue to provide that permission (which you certainly have obtained).


I've been a little lax on requiring proof of permission for hides that were on cemetery property but away from the stones themselves (ie. along the trees at the outer perimeter of a cemetery). After a recent discussion with a cemetery trustee regarding a cache placed without permission I'm going to start asking for proof of permission for a cache placed anywhere in the cemetery.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eagleyes
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Jun 2003

Posts: 743
Location: NE & E CENTRAL, MN

PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 4:09 pm    Post subject: New Reviewer for MN? Reply with quote

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC32CPG
_________________
LIFE IS GOOD;CABIN LIFE IS GREAT
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rustynails
Geocacher


Joined: 27 Oct 2009

Posts: 782

PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:34 pm    Post subject: Re: New Reviewer for MN? Reply with quote

eagleyes wrote:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC32CPG


What's your point Eagleyes?

My first thought was BWCA, but there are other hides in the area. The only problem I see is the terrain rating is low for an island cache.

I think Vrso is just a sub for Mnfruitcake and has published Minn. caches in the past.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 35

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a note that Gat R Done is now publishing about half of the caches that are being submitted. Because we are splitting the workload in half, you may see one of us publish some caches and yet have your cache remain unpublished. Rest assured, it will get looked at (assuming that it's enabled for review) - it's possibly assigned to the other reviewer to review.

The guidelines state the most caches will get published (or you'll hear from the reviewer) within 3 days of enabling the cache for review. It's our *goal* to be *well under* that time frame. I would expect that the vast majority of caches get reviewed within about 36 hours (not to say that there aren't exceptions to that).

Once one of us starts the review on a cache page we anticipate to follow that cache page through to publication (or archival if it's not publishable). In other words, once one of us starts the review, we'll be reviewing that listing to completion.

At this point I'm not prepared to discuss HOW we're splitting the reviewing up as we're not sure exactly how it's going to work either (we're playing with a system right now to make it as random as possible).

If you have any questions about a cache placement or other reviewer type questions you're welcome to contact either of us, but for simplicity I'd ask that you don't contact us both at the same time (ie. pick one). We do keep each other in the loop for specific issues.

This is a learning experience for each of us as we transition from a 1-reviewer state to a 2-reviewer state and we appreciate your patience.

Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tonkaMN
MnGCA Board


Joined: 10 Jun 2009

Posts: 849

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
At this point I'm not prepared to discuss HOW we're splitting the reviewing up as we're not sure exactly how it's going to work either (we're playing with a system right now to make it as random as possible).


I'm not sure *random* is the best way to do it. Suppose someone submits a power trail of 10 or so caches at the same time and seven get assigned to one reviewer and 3 to the other. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the same reviewer look at all 10 of them, since they are all virtually identical?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GeoPierce
Geocacher


Joined: 16 Nov 2005

Posts: 1657
Location: Eden Prairie, MN

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tonkaMN wrote:
MN.Fruitcake wrote:
At this point I'm not prepared to discuss HOW we're splitting the reviewing up as we're not sure exactly how it's going to work either (we're playing with a system right now to make it as random as possible).

I'm not sure *random* is the best way to do it. Suppose someone submits a power trail of 10 or so caches at the same time and seven get assigned to one reviewer and 3 to the other. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the same reviewer look at all 10 of them, since they are all virtually identical?

As a programmer, "system" sounds to me like they randomly go into one reviewer queue or the other when they are submitted. I just know I'm happy with the 3 FTFs I got yesterday. Smile
_________________
Tupperware doesn't belong in the kitchen!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
emmanogoldfish
Geocacher


Joined: 26 Oct 2007

Posts: 106

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tonkaMN wrote:
MN.Fruitcake wrote:
At this point I'm not prepared to discuss HOW we're splitting the reviewing up as we're not sure exactly how it's going to work either (we're playing with a system right now to make it as random as possible).


I'm not sure *random* is the best way to do it. Suppose someone submits a power trail of 10 or so caches at the same time and seven get assigned to one reviewer and 3 to the other. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the same reviewer look at all 10 of them, since they are all virtually identical?


Random is better, in this example way better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 35

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tonkaMN wrote:
MN.Fruitcake wrote:
At this point I'm not prepared to discuss HOW we're splitting the reviewing up as we're not sure exactly how it's going to work either (we're playing with a system right now to make it as random as possible).


I'm not sure *random* is the best way to do it. Suppose someone submits a power trail of 10 or so caches at the same time and seven get assigned to one reviewer and 3 to the other. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the same reviewer look at all 10 of them, since they are all virtually identical?


There's two ways to look at that - from a reviewer perspective and from the cacher finder perspective. (The third way, from the cache owner perspective, has the same results - the caches get reviewed).

From the reviewer perspective it's ever so slightly easier to review them as a group, yes. Once your mind is working in one area or on one trail then it's easy to keep going.

From the cache finder perspective, it could conceivably be a pain if you rush right out to find the newly published caches only to have some other new ones published (by the other reviewer) the next day. However, perhaps that's the cost of rushing right out (and thus the cost of FTFs)? The advantage may be that it spreads out the FTF possibilities as well (which is not the reason we're trying it this way - it's just an unintended side effect).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tonkaMN
MnGCA Board


Joined: 10 Jun 2009

Posts: 849

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At least now I know why 3 of my caches got ignored by gat r done yesterday. I was wondering what I had done wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewmcc
Past MnGCA Board


Joined: 29 Jul 2007

Posts: 996

PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always send one cache at a time, Spreads the wealth!
_________________
Dinnae fash yersel (don't worry yourself)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
King Boreas
Geocacher


Joined: 16 Dec 2002

Posts: 2438
Location: Exploring Minnesota

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
perhaps that's the cost of rushing right out (and thus the cost of FTFs)? The advantage may be that it spreads out the FTF possibilities as well


Code:
 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gat R Done
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 29 Dec 2011

Posts: 37

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tonkaMN wrote:
At least now I know why 3 of my caches got ignored by gat r done yesterday. I was wondering what I had done wrong.


No reason to be concerned. If a cache is one I am reviewing and something needs attention, I'll post a Reviewer Note to let the CO know what the issue is. If it's something that requires additional research, I may post a note saying your cache hasn't been ignored and to please be patient.

Sometimes things do come up when reviewing caches and one has to return later to finish: Dinner time, favorite TV program came on (I don't have a DVR)......etc. You can be rest assured I won't be publishing caches when Survivor is on. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Draconisdax
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Nov 2007

Posts: 982
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

PostPosted: Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gat R Done wrote:
tonkaMN wrote:
At least now I know why 3 of my caches got ignored by gat r done yesterday. I was wondering what I had done wrong.


No reason to be concerned. If a cache is one I am reviewing and something needs attention, I'll post a Reviewer Note to let the CO know what the issue is. If it's something that requires additional research, I may post a note saying your cache hasn't been ignored and to please be patient.

Sometimes things do come up when reviewing caches and one has to return later to finish: Dinner time, favorite TV program came on (I don't have a DVR)......etc. You can be rest assured I won't be publishing caches when Survivor is on. Smile

I won't be submitting them while Survivor is on either!!!
_________________
You may only be young once...but I will be immature forever!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tonkaMN
MnGCA Board


Joined: 10 Jun 2009

Posts: 849

PostPosted: Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gat R Done wrote:
tonkaMN wrote:
At least now I know why 3 of my caches got ignored by gat r done yesterday. I was wondering what I had done wrong.


No reason to be concerned. If a cache is one I am reviewing and something needs attention, I'll post a Reviewer Note to let the CO know what the issue is. If it's something that requires additional research, I may post a note saying your cache hasn't been ignored and to please be patient.

Sometimes things do come up when reviewing caches and one has to return later to finish: Dinner time, favorite TV program came on (I don't have a DVR)......etc. You can be rest assured I won't be publishing caches when Survivor is on. Smile


Thanks. That's good to know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 3 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission.