GDad Souter

Having discussed the issue of Orphan Caches on General Discussions it was suggested by one of the Reviewers that I also post on Features Discussion. As a newbie, I would certainly be interested to hear what other Cachers think. Basically, when assessing Caches for my family, including my toddler GDaughter, I take great care in trying to find Caches which will give a good experience and keep the little ones safe. As part of this, I try to avoid Caches that have been abandoned by their owners. Not only is the Cache likely to be a soggy mess, but the Cache page is likely to be out of date and any new hazards gone unreported. The information about a CO is available, although the date last visited is probably misleading if they are using an app, but it takes time to trawl through their profile, previous logs, disabled Caches etc. to get a full picture. I am told that Reviewers have access to a complex algorithm to help them weed out delinquent COs etc. I just wondered if GS could use the data they have to display a CO rating on the Cache page, right up there with Favourites, Attributes etc. It could be as basic as providing information as to whether the CO is active or not, or it could could be a rating system as used by sellers on eBay. Either way, it could be used to filter out Caches owned by COs who have gone walkabout. Reviewers are already aware of which COs are ignoring NMs, for example, but this information is not being made readily available to members of the Geocaching website, and Reviewers are understandably lagging behind in trying to sort them out. I understand a lot of Cachers like these old Caches for use in Challenges etc. and I am not suggesting they be archived unless they fall apart or go missing. I am just asking for a way to identify these Caches so I can avoid them.

Can I add that as a newbie I have certainly not been put off by a few wet logs, and I have found some real junk Caches. I have also encountered my fair share of needles, broken glass, fly-tipping and dog poo. I also once opened a key box to be confronted with a dead fish. Remote locations selected by COs are often the same remote places frequented by less discerning members of society. None of this has put me off and I have always logged DNFs, NMs and NAs where appropriate, despite once being blanked by a local CO when I did NA one of their Caches. My good experiences have far outweighed the bad ones, and I am tough enough to deal with such things. However, being aware that there are dangers makes it even more important that I thoroughly assess Caches before taking my toddler GDaughter Geocaching. Although not the point I am making, there is a definite link between Orphan Caches and increased dangers; a conscientious CO might well spot some new hazard and take appropriate action, an absent CO is never likely to. Also, if I post an NM regarding needles, I would expect an active CO to take immediate action even it meant temporarily disabling the Cache. Again, this would not happen with Orphan Caches. No, my point is simply that we all know there are Caches out there which do not have an active CO, and this can't be acceptable under GS rules. Also, I have to fathom out which COs are not active by looking at the date they last visited the site, the date of their last log, their status, which seems inconsistent, and their archived Caches to confirm they are not responding to NMs and NAs. I don't mind putting in the leg work but GS could make it easier and help to improve our overall experience. There was mention of a complicated algorithm used by Reviewers. Why couldn't GS use something like that to produce a CO rating which could be right up there on the Cache page alongside Favourites etc., and also be used to filter out Caches with a low CO rating? Such a system works well for sellers on eBay and people work hard to maintain their high rating. There are Caches near where I live which have survived several years without a CO, apparently. They are in good condition with dry logs, possibly as a result of a Throwdown or replacement log. The description, terrain etc. Is often out of date, otherwise no problem. Yet this can't be acceptable under GS rules and may put Cachers at risk for reasons given above. The trouble is, whilst Cachers may be prepared to post NMs and NAs for damaged, missing or wet Caches, they are unlikely to post an NM because they suspect the CO has gone walkabout. Until the Orphan Cache finally starts to fall apart, it will continue for years.

Thanks to everyone who has commented on this topic. I would just like to add a few more comments of my own so everyone is clear where I am coming from. I soon learned not to take Caches at face value and spend quite a lot of time checking the CO's profile, previous logs etc. I also study the terrain on iMaps and check all the information given on the description page. I agree that weeding out the dross can be part of the game and I get as much fun from planning trips as carrying them out. Generally, I am looking for safe, tidy caches that can be enjoyed by my toddler GDaughter, but I'm also willing to take on remote Caches which haven't been found for a long time, or even abandoned Caches if I need to complete a challenge. Either way, soggy logs etc. are part of the game. Yes, it can be disappointing but doesn't lessen the experience if you have been taken to a magical place with stunning views. I guess my beef is mainly with the inconsistency of Groundspeak to have COs meet a number of criteria before being allowed to publish a Cache, but who then turn a blind eye to the fact that a very large percentage of Caches in their database have been left to rot by their owners. If there is no practical way of removing these Caches or offering them up for adoption, then at least information about their current status could be displayed on the Cache page. There are at least two COs near to where I live who produced In excess of 50 Caches each and, according to their profile, have not visited the site for several years. It has to be assumed they are no longer active because they have not responded to maintenance requests and many of their Caches have been archived by the local Reviewer. Other Caches remain for the moment but make little sense, being once part of a series. It is frustrating that in my local area alone, there is probably about a third as many Caches unavailable for various reasons as the number I have found. I have logged my share of NM and NA requests, but I don't want to end up being the local Cache policeman. One thing I will do, though, is highlight any abandoned Caches when I log a find. This is better than a TFTC to a nonexistent owner, and will make it easier for the next person. It might also give the CO a chance to challenge my assumption if they are still lurking around. Ideally, Groundspeak should face up to this problem and get it sorted.

I'm relatively new to Geocaching (10 months and 314 caches) so go easy with me. This is my first posting too. I also expect this topic to have been covered before but, as I say, I'm new to this game. Thoroughly enjoying the experience apart from one thing. Read on. When I first looked at the map as a newbie I couldn't believe how many caches were available. Trouble is, as I started to visit sites, I realised that a very large number of caches don't match the description, are damaged or have soggy logs. Not at all the experience I was expecting. I then realised, looking a little closer, that the owners of these caches gave up caching years ago. There are whole areas around where I live where caches have been sprinkled like confetti and left to rot. Most cachers are happy to live with a soggy log or inaccurate description, and will even replace a container or log, thus perpetuating the situation of a cache without an owner. If someone doesn't find a cache they are unlikely to log a maintenance or archive request unless there have been a string of previous DNFs. The sequence to remove an orphan cache seems to require months of cachers finding a poor quality cache, followed by a string of DNFs and then input from the local reviewer. A poor experience for a lot of people. Groundspeak seem to have made a lot of effort to improve the experience for cachers with a cache page providing lots of helpful information including terrain, difficulty, cache size, attributes, favourites etc. Why then, is there not a way to try and maintain this original high standard. Perhaps COs should be required to check their caches every so often with caches removed automatically if they are not checked or the owner gives up caching. If we don't want to be quite so Draconian then providing additional information on the cache page such as when the CO last logged on might be helpful. Or give cachers the option to flag the cache as a bad experience. If we had the opposite of favourites a cache could come to the attention of a reviewer if it had ten hits, or whatever. I look forward to hearing what other people make of this, or hearing about what has been tried before.