cezanne
08.09.2005, 18:21
Ich habe das Gefuehl, dass einige Cacher aufgrund der durchaus irrefuehrenden Bezeichnung "reviewer note" annehmen, dass sie auf diese Weise den Reviewer kontaktieren. Das ist aber nicht der Fall.
Die Reviewer Note ist einzig allein dazu da Informationen an den Reviewer vor dem Approval eines Caches zu uebermitteln (z.B. die Koordinaten von Zwischenstationen oder die Endkoordinaten eines Multi-Caches). Da es anfangs Probleme gab, werden diese Reviewer Notes nun automatisch mit dem Approval geloescht (fuer den Reviewer bleiben sie einsehbar - das ist uebrigens auch dessen einzige Chance die Koordinaten von Caches in der Naehe zu ueberpruefen).
Wenn jemand eine Reviewer Note nach dem Approval verfasst, dann hat das folgenden Konsequenzen bzw. Nicht-Konsequenzen:
(i) Jeder, der die Cacheseite anschaut, kann den Text der Note lesen (also sollte man keine Informationen, die nicht fuer die Allgemeinheit bestimmt sind, nach dem Approval ueber Reviewer Notes kommunizieren).
(ii) Jeder, der den Cache auf der Watch-List hat, bekommt den Text der Reviewer Note,
(iii) Der Reviewer bekommt i.a. nichts von der Reviewer Note mit, ausser er hat den Cache auf der Watchlist oder schaut zufaellig auf die Cache-Seite.
Konsequenz: Es bringt nichts Wartungsmitteilungen oder Mitteilungen, dass keine Archivierung angebracht ist oder Bitten um Typ-Aenderung etc als Reviewer Notes zu verfassen. Normale Notes und/oder Mails an den Approver sind je nach Sachlage die angebrachte Vorgangsweise.
(Schaden kann eine reviewer note an Stelle einer "normalen" note nicht, wenn kein vertraulicher Text drin steht, aber Sinn macht eine solche note auch keinen.)
Hier noch der vollstaendige Text-Auszug von gc.com fuer die Interessierten:
What's the Purpose of a "Note to Reviewer" and How Do They Work?
Reviewer Notes, which have a Signal the Frog icon: , are different from all other log types because they automatically get deleted when a cache is published. Prior to a new cache being listed, reviewer notes are used as part of the process of communicating information between the cache owner and the volunteer reviewer.
A cache owner can leave an initial reviewer note by filling out the field right on the cache submission form. Or, supplemental information can be added by a later, separate log entry. Examples for use of a reviewer note include disclosing the coordinates for all the other stages of a multicache, asking that the cache not be published until a later date (like the date of an event cache nearby), or explaining any issues which the cache owner thinks may be presented under the listing guidelines ("you may see railroad tracks on the online maps; these were removed years ago and it is now a rails-to-trails").
A reviewer may use a reviewer note to indicate unexplained problems with the cache submission that were noted during the course of the review. The reviewer note will cite the guideline that's relevant, explain why it's an issue for this cache, and suggest action to be taken by the cache owner to address the issue. The reviewer will also specify a preferred method for the owner to follow up with answers on the issue noted -- either e-mail or by leaving another reviewer note. If no method of communication is specified, send the reviewer an e-mail. This is because reviewers do NOT automatically receive notifications when a new note is left on the page -- they would need to watchlist the cache for that to happen. A minority of reviewers do just that.
Once the issues are resolved, the reviewer presses a button to publish the cache, and all the reviewer notes disappear. They can be accessed later on by the reviewer, if necessary to check on the history of the cache. For example, if someone else comes along and hides a new cache near an existing multicache, the reviewer can check the old notes to see where the other stages of the multi are located, so that the new cache won't encroach on the existing cache under the cache saturation rule.
After a cache is listed, the reviewer note log type serves no special purpose, other than the fact that it looks different, and only the cache owner and site volunteers have the ability to select this log type. Many reviewers prefer to use this log type when posting logs about maintenance issues, etc., as this aids in identifying them as a representative of the Geocaching.com website.
There is no particular reason for a cache owner to use the note to reviewer option after a cache is listed. THE LOG IS PUBLIC, NOT PRIVATE, if entered on the page after it's published. And, once again, reviewer notes DO NOT TRIGGER AN AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION TO THE REVIEWER. The reviewer would need to have the cache on their watchlist or a bookmark list in order to become aware of the note left for them on the cache page.
Cezanne
Die Reviewer Note ist einzig allein dazu da Informationen an den Reviewer vor dem Approval eines Caches zu uebermitteln (z.B. die Koordinaten von Zwischenstationen oder die Endkoordinaten eines Multi-Caches). Da es anfangs Probleme gab, werden diese Reviewer Notes nun automatisch mit dem Approval geloescht (fuer den Reviewer bleiben sie einsehbar - das ist uebrigens auch dessen einzige Chance die Koordinaten von Caches in der Naehe zu ueberpruefen).
Wenn jemand eine Reviewer Note nach dem Approval verfasst, dann hat das folgenden Konsequenzen bzw. Nicht-Konsequenzen:
(i) Jeder, der die Cacheseite anschaut, kann den Text der Note lesen (also sollte man keine Informationen, die nicht fuer die Allgemeinheit bestimmt sind, nach dem Approval ueber Reviewer Notes kommunizieren).
(ii) Jeder, der den Cache auf der Watch-List hat, bekommt den Text der Reviewer Note,
(iii) Der Reviewer bekommt i.a. nichts von der Reviewer Note mit, ausser er hat den Cache auf der Watchlist oder schaut zufaellig auf die Cache-Seite.
Konsequenz: Es bringt nichts Wartungsmitteilungen oder Mitteilungen, dass keine Archivierung angebracht ist oder Bitten um Typ-Aenderung etc als Reviewer Notes zu verfassen. Normale Notes und/oder Mails an den Approver sind je nach Sachlage die angebrachte Vorgangsweise.
(Schaden kann eine reviewer note an Stelle einer "normalen" note nicht, wenn kein vertraulicher Text drin steht, aber Sinn macht eine solche note auch keinen.)
Hier noch der vollstaendige Text-Auszug von gc.com fuer die Interessierten:
What's the Purpose of a "Note to Reviewer" and How Do They Work?
Reviewer Notes, which have a Signal the Frog icon: , are different from all other log types because they automatically get deleted when a cache is published. Prior to a new cache being listed, reviewer notes are used as part of the process of communicating information between the cache owner and the volunteer reviewer.
A cache owner can leave an initial reviewer note by filling out the field right on the cache submission form. Or, supplemental information can be added by a later, separate log entry. Examples for use of a reviewer note include disclosing the coordinates for all the other stages of a multicache, asking that the cache not be published until a later date (like the date of an event cache nearby), or explaining any issues which the cache owner thinks may be presented under the listing guidelines ("you may see railroad tracks on the online maps; these were removed years ago and it is now a rails-to-trails").
A reviewer may use a reviewer note to indicate unexplained problems with the cache submission that were noted during the course of the review. The reviewer note will cite the guideline that's relevant, explain why it's an issue for this cache, and suggest action to be taken by the cache owner to address the issue. The reviewer will also specify a preferred method for the owner to follow up with answers on the issue noted -- either e-mail or by leaving another reviewer note. If no method of communication is specified, send the reviewer an e-mail. This is because reviewers do NOT automatically receive notifications when a new note is left on the page -- they would need to watchlist the cache for that to happen. A minority of reviewers do just that.
Once the issues are resolved, the reviewer presses a button to publish the cache, and all the reviewer notes disappear. They can be accessed later on by the reviewer, if necessary to check on the history of the cache. For example, if someone else comes along and hides a new cache near an existing multicache, the reviewer can check the old notes to see where the other stages of the multi are located, so that the new cache won't encroach on the existing cache under the cache saturation rule.
After a cache is listed, the reviewer note log type serves no special purpose, other than the fact that it looks different, and only the cache owner and site volunteers have the ability to select this log type. Many reviewers prefer to use this log type when posting logs about maintenance issues, etc., as this aids in identifying them as a representative of the Geocaching.com website.
There is no particular reason for a cache owner to use the note to reviewer option after a cache is listed. THE LOG IS PUBLIC, NOT PRIVATE, if entered on the page after it's published. And, once again, reviewer notes DO NOT TRIGGER AN AUTOMATIC NOTIFICATION TO THE REVIEWER. The reviewer would need to have the cache on their watchlist or a bookmark list in order to become aware of the note left for them on the cache page.
Cezanne