justintim1999

It's just a thought. I think the invention of the app introduced many people to Geocaching and many of them started hiding caches at an alarming rate. It defiantly increased the number of caches out there. it also increased the number of abandoned caches when many who were initially into geocaching moved on.

Why should a reviewer (or anybody) be seen as an adversary for requiring someone to do what they agreed to do in the first place? Seems like people also don't like being asked to uphold their end of the deal. I can give the noobie a pass because in some cases they've bitten off more than they can chew but for the seasoned cache owner there's no excuse baring injury or illness. If a cache owner dose all the work to get a cache properly placed. Maintains it and picks up the container when they archive it, the only time they'll see their reviewers name is when the cache was published.

If we come up with a system that only allows more experienced caches to become cache owners we could potentially eliminate many of the issues the CHS was designed to monitor and in the process allow reviewers to work on more productive things. Seems most of the issues revolving around unmaintained caches that require reviewer intervention are caused by inexperienced cachers that are allowed to become cache owners before they even know if they intend to stick around. Case in point. Someone found one of my caches in a series this past weekend. I read the logs. Here is an excerpt of the log. "Blog wasn't fortunately wet and all I had was a pencil, so it didn't really write." I take this as the logs wet and the pencil didn't write well on it. Keep in mind that this was in the log of a find. Point is I'm in this for the long haul and cache maintenance is important to me. Even thought there is no reason for me to check up on this cache as no DNF or NM was posted I'll probably do so any way because I want to make sure the next finder isn't trying to sign a wet log. Now I'm fanatical and I don't expect every cache owner to be as fanatical as I am. I do think that many who try Geocaching get hooked fast and want to become a cache owner before they're really ready to be one.

Here goes In my opinion that's not a dnf. You found the cache but couldn't, for what ever reason, retrieve it and sign the log. I would post a note explaining exactly that.

I grew up in a family that wasn't really the out door type. Geocaching actually introduced me to nature. Now I own 22 Geocaches and 20 Letterboxes all hidden on conservation land as part of various initiatives to bring people to these places. I'm also on the board of directors of two committees that manage and promote conservation and open space. There's no doubt in my mind that Geocaching is a tool that can influence the way people see and interact with nature.

I agree and would add that we've been told that using the CHS is not mandatory. Reviewers can choose to use it or not.

I'm sure some people hide caches with the intent of never maintaining them. I'm also sure that some new cachers don't realize the time required in being a cache owner. I believe that most are willing to put in the time and effort. I have no problems with power trails as long as there's a plan of maintenance. There can be 5 or 6 people checking and fixing caches as long as there is one person who is accountable. Most vacation caches are not allowed unless you can prove to the reviewer you're able to maintain them properly. I did a sample of 100 caches that I've found that are now archived. 70 of them were archived by the owner. 30 of them were archived by a reviewer. Of the 70 almost 90% were owned by cachers with over 1000 finds. Of the 30 about 60% were owned by cachers with fewer than 100 finds and another 30% with less than 300. IMO 70% owner archival is pretty good. Problem is that 70% of those were owned by 5 individuals who are all considered good experienced cache owners who have been around for some time. Maybe part of the problem here is experience and longevity which indicates to me that being a cache owner shouldn't be automatic. I admit that this approach isn't a recipe for growing the game but I believe it would be a winning formula for better maintained caches.

Maybe like you we should all assume that all the caches that have multiple dnf are fine and their owners are just not very attentive. The best possible situation. But we know that's not the case. You keep talking like I think this e-mail is some magic bullet that's going to solve the current maintenance issues. I don't think it was designed to do that because there is no repercussion for ignoring it. If your CHS is low the only thing that's going to bring it up is your involvement. IMO it's intent is to educate. To bring awareness to the importance of cache maintenance and to let others know that poor cache maintenance is unacceptable. The CHS has put a new emphasis on holding cache owners to a higher standard. A standard they agreed to uphold when they decided to hide a cache. Whether or not it's effective only time will tell but I think the idea is sound.

I have a hard time believing people hide caches with the intention of purposely letting them rot? They're may be a few sick individuals out there like that but I think most cache owners start out with good intentions. To me it's more like cleaning up after your kids. "Clean up after yourself" is not a concept a 3 year old understands well. So you try different ways to get them to do it. Rewards. punishments. Sometimes it's just a constant dose of nagging that gets the job done. The key is to start early so you're not cleaning up messes when they're 21

Every cache owner likes to read flattering logs. In fact there are some cache owners who downright expect them. Although TFTC can be a little deflating don't let that get you down. Just because someone doesn't want to write a long log doesn't mean they didn't enjoy themselves. When someone writes "TFTC" on one of my caches I respond to myself " Thanks for taking the time to find it"

It is???? I mean a cache doesn't receive the e-mail if it has nothing but finds on it right. Could it be that some of these dnfs are actual issues and the e-mail resulted in some of them getting fixed without reviewer action? Is it possible? In the future I think GS will release the data on all this and I'm betting it will have done more good than bad. Of course the numbers won't mean anything to those who had to suffer through the e-mail reminder.

This I get and agree with. Just because you have a high D/T cache doesn't mean you should be subjected to unnecessary work. I'd expect the veteran cache owners to understand what GS trying to accomplish here and be willing to work with the system until the proper adjustment can be made.

But it dose let your reviewer know why the cache may not need attention. It also lets them know your paying attention.

I guess I'm choosing not to answer in the way you'd like me to. It's simple. They want me to take a look at the cache because there could be something wrong with it and they'd like to see more active owner maintenance. If one of my caches received just one dnf I take notice. I read the log and based on what cache it is decide whether or not I want to check up on it. If a cache has 2 or 3 dnfs I'd be concerned and probably check it out regardless of the e-mail. I think this is the thinking they'd like to see across the board.

Go for it. I had 23 caches and just recently archived the 5 stage multi because I felt I didn't have the time to maintain everything like I should. Becoming a cache owner is the best way to give back to the activity. Place as many caches as your comfortable taking care of.

81% if you put a gun to my head. Fortunately for everyone the game's not that serious. I followed the link you provided to the help center article and here's what's there. Role of community volunteer reviewer If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up with with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance. Answer your reviewer with a “Write Note” on the cache page and let them know when you will do maintenance. Thanks for your help in keeping the game fun! Again there's the word might. You could probably use the "write a note" feature on the cache page to indicate why you think nothing needs to be done or you could do nothing and put that e-mail in your spam folder never to be seen again.

He didn't start it. I think I did

I think it's setting the level of maintenance required. Some new cache owners think it set it and forget it or they're not sure when action should be taken. I can't speak to reviewer action in your area. I said it was one way to confirm activity. I don't see how it assumes the worst. all it says is you may want to take a look. I'd guess a low health score is just a possible red flag. I'm sure there's a number in the system that indicates that a cache is, more l likely than not, in trouble. Can some have 4 or 5 dnf and be fine. Yes. Can some have a NM on it and be fine. Yes. Can one have 2 dnf and be missing. Yes. There are a host of variables involved here. IMO the CHS looks at all the concrete data and determines what caches may need to be looked at. The e-mail is an attempt to get some of those resolved without reviewer intervention. I'd guess (after some time has passed to give owners a chance to act) a reviewer begins looking into the particulars of those caches and acts accordingly. I can't agree that all implications of this e-mail are a cache "needs maintenance" because of that little word "might" which to me means it may or may not.

In the guidelines under maintaining geocache container the first entry is "Visit the geocache regularly." I understand the difficulty in that with the cache you've referenced but I'd have to guess that's the reason the cache received the e-mail. Did the cache owner run out there and take a look? I doubt it as I doubt any other action was taken against this cache or it's owner. I agree some tweaking is necessary. What I don't understand is why this e-mail angers some people. It shouldn't and that's why I think there's something deeper going on here.

What can it do if the cache has no documented issues? I guess there could be worse thing than a new container and log. Fungible.....It's just fun to say

I like this post. You can only post an OM log so many times with the next log describing the same problem before a reviewer takes notice. The trust between a cacher and a reviewer is extremely important. Once you break that trust it's hard to get back. From then on don't expect to get the benefit of the doubt. Any time I check on a cache for whatever reason I post an OM regardless if I have to do anything or not. It takes about 10 seconds and lets everyone concerned know that I'm still alive and on the job.

Someone who gives but doesn't take.... My kind of cacher

I already explained what I think the purpose of the e-mail is but here it is again. 1. As a teaching tool for new cachers 2. A method of documenting potential issues 3. A way to determine if someone is still active. 4. A friendly reminder. In the examples you've given I'd guess that the local reviewer for each is well aware of the caches situation. I'd be surprised if the CHS didn't flag most if not all of them. I'd bet they’ve all received the e-mail, some more than once. If I were to put on my reviewers cap here’s how I’d see them. 2/1 cache, last found in 4/2014 with a NM log and 10 straight DNFs. Should be archived 2/1.5 - last found in 8/2014 with 5 straight DNFs and a NM log. The NM log triggered the reviewer disable, not the second CHS email Max copied and posted. – 5 dnfs seems to be a pretty long leash for a 2/1.5 cache. The e-mail may help here. 1.5/2 - last found in 4/2015. 5 straight DNFs, a new container supposedly put out by CO, and 2 more DNFs. – Suspicious. Would probably dig a little deeper 1/2 - last found 4/2015 - 7 straight DNFs and an OM 2 years ago. - Need more info. 2/2 - last found 5/2015 - 3 straight DNFs - Not overly worried about this one. 2.5/2 (like mine) - last found 6/2015 - 5 straight DNFs – 2.5/2 cache that was last laid eyes upon three years ago with 5 people failing to find it???? I'd want to know what's going. 1.5/1.5 - last found 5/2015 - 6 straight DNFs, an OM (supposedly replaced), and 6 more straight DNFs – Suspicious. Would probably dig a little deeper 1/2.5 - last found 10/2015 - 3 straight DNFs - Not worried about it. 2/2 - last found 10/2015 - 4 straight DNFs, an OM, then 6 more DNFs – Suspicious. More digging 1.5/1.5 - last found 11/2015 - 4 straight DNFs and a cacher filed a NM log last month. How long since the NM? What information was in the NM? I'd give it a little more time to see if the owner responds before taking action. Another case where the e-mail could help. 2/1.5 - last found 1/2016 - 5 straight DNFs - I'd be looking to see if the owner was still active. This brings up another point I’ve made earlier about when I think a dnf should be used (only after gz has been reached and a search has been conducted) I wonder how many of these dnfs fit this description? I also wonder how many caches (like 2/2 - last found 5/2015 - 3 straight DNFs) are passed over by other cachers because of the dnfs. This one may still be there and in good shape but no one want’s to waste their time looking for it. A cache like this may benefit from the e-mail as it may prompt the owner to take a look and post an OML. If you put a gun to my head (I know what your thinking) and told me I had to decide what to do with all these caches right then and there I’d disable all but two of them. If I had a little more time I’d like to find out what the real story is behind each. I think the CHS and the e-mail are useful tools but they’re only useful if the information is acted upon in a timely manor. My guess is that GS is hoping the e-mail will prompt owners to resolve some of these problems before a reviewer has to get involved thus reducing their workload. I don’t think the e-mail is as big a deal as some are making it out to be. The angst over it goes much deeper and for the life of me I can’t understand why.

There is a new one at Walden Pond and although I haven't done it yet from the looks of the logs people are enjoying it. The one thing that's cool about this cache is an opportunity to re-visit a place I've enjoyed in the past. I did a multi there and enjoyed the cache and the area. I now get to go back there and enjoy both things again. I think virtuals have the ability to add this dimension to caching and I like the idea of it.

Most times it's simply the cacher was having a bad day and was suffering from a case of excited blindness, but caches do go missing.