4wheelin_fool

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

Agreed. Although archiving just 1 cache in good condition due to owner inaction is 1 cache too many. Having a side effect of further discouraging DNFs is even worse.

You forgot no longer cares about caching (as well as dead) for reasons for no response. There is already a DNF on the page from someone who did look for it. It is about communications; someone (in this case, a cacher), tried to contact the CO, no response. They contacted me. I do what I feel is right in this situation; now it is back on the cache owner. They can: -Respond with something and extend the life to near infinity as long as they keep responding with reasonable responses. -They can not respond and it gets archived (with the ability to have it unarchived; assuming it meets the current guidelines). Knowing that the majority of people do not respond to these messages, I would think that posting them should be done only if absolutely necessary, not over a single DNF, or even 3 DNFs on anything with a difficulty of 3 or higher. Why not just skip that step and auto archive them, as they can always have them unarchived? Eagerly doing anything so quickly likely may turn off anyone completely to do any type of maintenance. Forcing someone to comply when they believe that it's probably not necessary may cause people to stubbornly respond in the opposite way as intended. A kid comes home and starts to think about his homework, next his parent yells at him to do it now. He then goes outside. Any surprise? If someone is asking about a underwater cache with 1 DNF in the middle of winter, there are certainly other options beyond immediately disabling it, such as waiting for spring, or waiting for more activity. I can certainly understand reviewer involvement over maintenance, but not DNFs. Someone who didn't find anything at all has no idea if it needs to be maintained or not. Another issue is that Groundspeak has cut off communications to people who have not logged in for some time. Such as this user http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=ab6feec7-4452-4523-b506-6ae8c7ed984a&wid=55a96e2c-86cc-4f43-abb2-22876c22f2cf&ds=2 that I wanted to contact. Don't really know if he is getting any emails at all.

Well, although now I can understand how kayaking and swimming caches are disabled in the middle of winter, I still don't think it makes much sense at all. Last winter this excellent cache: http://coord.info/GC2XN1R was disabled for 3 DNFs. Yes that's more than 1 DNF, but it's a difficult cache underwater and DNFs are to be expected. Of course it was there, the owner responded once which only delayed the next note in April, which went unanswered and was archived due to a communication problem. I don't think tasking people to check on difficult hides, especially in the winter, is going to inspire too much maintenance. And you can see that 3 DNFs doesn't indicate that it was missing, let alone 1. http://coord.info/GC48GFG was disabled and archived due to a team of 2 people not finding it, and apparently they thought their DNFs were not enough. Its a tricky hide. The coords take you to the center of a patch of woods, while the cache is reachable from outside around the back. Yes, the owner did not answer or check on it, but should they after only 2 DNFs from the same group? This only encourages more inappropriate NA notes. I'm sure it is there also, and bothering the cache owner to check on it is unnecessary. http://coord.info/GC216D7 was disabled, but its a mystery why. No Needs Maintenance notes or any DNFs at all. Just a note from the last finder 2 months ago that the log was a little damp and moldy. Does every cache like this need reviewer intervention?

But it's not. Therein lies the problem. Quick search of NJ caches that haven't been found recently. GCFE7B - unfound since 9/2010 and two DNFs GC10JTJ - unfound since 7/2011 and a single DNF GC1D5D5 - unfound since 9/2011 and a single DNF log GC2X5M3 - unfound since 9/2011 and a single DNF log GC1A7XP - unfound since 11/2011, a single DNF log AND a NM log GCEAF0 - unfound since 11/2011and a single DNF log GCMRGY - unfound since 1/2012 and two DNF logs GCZ30P - unfound since 1/2012, a CO note on 10/2013 and 3 consecutive DNFs Here's an example that's even more glaring, given the D/T rating and the fact that it has a NM log posted over a year ago. 6 pages into the list. GC2PMQ2 - 1/1.5 cache, not found since 8/2012, 3 consecutive DNF logs (and one note saying it wasn't found by a previous finder), and a NM log. Where is the reviewer action on these? Took me 5 minutes to go through the list. If they were truly concerned about cleaning up dead caches, these would all have been disabled and archived. Perhaps they haven't just been gotten to yet? If that's the road they're heading down, that's fine with me, just tell us, don't leave it to guesswork. "Groundspeak has decided it's time to clear up some possibly deficient caches due to possible inactivity on the CO's part. If you, the owner, don't post a log to this page within 30 days, we'll be required to disable it. If another 30 days goes by without any action on your part, it will be archived." Yes, it's similar to what they're already doing, at least based on the examples here, but at least it won't be left to conjecture on our part. Be a bit more transparent and I think more people wouldn't have as many issues as are being expressed in this thread. Right now it's just some big mystery as to why it's happening and it seems arbitrary at best. That's really odd, and I suppose that perhaps the goal is just to do a half dozen at a time so nobody notices? The initial cache in the first post was a paddle to. So it hasn't been found in a while, why disable it now?

Yes, on the app I hit "View on External Map", and from there it gives turn by turn directions.

And after 3 DNFs and an NA, it was right where it should be, and in fine condition.

Good luck! Just don't post any DNFs. Don't even post a note. In fact, delete this thread. The reviewers deserve time off during the holidays - even if Jeremy told them to archive every "lonely" cache they hear about. Geez. I hope he doesn't DNF this cache that I hid in NC, and hasn't been found since 2012. :ph34r:

Then state that it's because of an existing or changed policy regarding the inability to use National Forest land for geocaching, not state that it might be missing and that's the reason why it's disabled. There's NO argument on this particular cache if that's the reason. Instead we see a notice that implies it might be missing. I have no idea if that's part of the issue or not. If you have a problem with it, you can email GeoCrater and ask. See the "canned response" context from Ladybug Kids: If the Reviewer uses GSAK to mass-post reminder emails, TD logs, or whatever, the language won't always be as precise as it could be. But when you're reviewing hundreds or thousands of caches a couple times a year, I can understand "cutting some corners" to log those caches a little quicker. The bottom line is that an owner can post a note or contact the Reviewer to re-enable or keep a cache from being archived in the first place. That's not so hard, is it? Hey...at least it's a response, which is all that is required to prevent the reviewer from archiving it. I say that only half-jokingly... Right? All you'd have to do is post a note or email the Reviewer. It's as if cezanne and others assume there's some kind of motive behind these archivals or a Reviewer temporarily disabling a cache listing. If your caches are all above board and in good order, the guidelines are on your side for the cache to stay enabled and/or for an appeal to go your way. I'm floored that there's this much overzealous emotion and reactionary conspiracy theorizing going on about this subject. Posting a note only delays another reviewer note for 30 days. Eventually you have to go out there and check on that 1 DNF. Most people don't do it, get aggravated and let it get archived. Not the way any cache should end.

Good luck! Just don't post any DNFs.

That sounds like a reviewer agenda to promote easy hides and parking lot playing. Really, how can such a hide really bother someone that much?

Unless the reviewer(s) disabling the caches comments, we can't know for sure. What it looks like to me is reviewers trying to pro-actively clean up caches they think may be missing/neglected. And they are doing this using a algorithm and/or tools which look for specific things. The examples all have a long time since it was last found, and a DNF log (with no found it logs after the DNF). And also some time has gone by since the DNF. And I suspect that in the majority of cases this "algorithm" works. A LPC not found for 2 years with DNFs probably is missing. The less accessible, seldom found caches get swept up in this. Which is unfortunate. But they can be saved if the owner is active and responds. The reviewers are aware that often nobody will respond. Since they know this, you would think that they would take action only if necessary. Instead, it's a kick in the buttocks for losing interest.

Why aren't we getting p.o.'d at the owner Gypsee? She adopted the cache back in 2010 and hasn't posted to the cache page ever since. She's relatively active, last login was Oct 15 2014. Very unfortunate that she let it die. Looking at her list of cache hides, there are a lot of red wrenches. The catalyst it triggered by someone sitting at a desk, versus the owner who is likely not willing to trek out there over a single DNF. Suppose it is missing, the point should be that there are several DNFs posted before archiving. This will only encourage more people to post their DNFs rather than discourage it.

It depends. In this specific case, what criteria did the decision depend on? Keystone already commented on that specific case Last found in 2010 and a very unfavorable DNF log in 2012. I don't find the DNF "very unfavorable". The DNF says Found GZ and a very likely spot that fit in with the hint. This one hasn't been logged in almost 2 1/2 years, and I afraid that time and the elements may have gotten the better of this one. The first part of the DNF implies to me they were focussed on one spot, while other logs talk about looking in several places, on the other side of the river, etc. The statement about 2 1/2 years is simply a fact, the rest is speculation on the cacher's part. I'd like to know why the cache in Oregon was archived. Here it is again: http://coord.info/GC8EDF Depends on what? The reviewer not reading the logs?

Another one today bites the dust http://coord.info/GCRYBA It's a one mile hike which is why there are so few visits. The trend today is to avoid such hides, and with the new imaginary DNF policy, more will go. If there is only I DNF, there is absolutely no need to imagine more which is asinine, but exactly what is going on here. Seems more of an agenda to make remote hides disappear and to punish inactive owners. How about using some imagination and picture someone eventually finding it?

The listed CO has not logged into GC.com since 2006...Are they even maintaining the cache anymore? Obviously they did not respond to the reviewer note in a 30 day window... The single DNF indicates that they likely did not reach ground zero and were on the wrong trail. The archival looks like a new pattern of fixing things that aren't broken. 4 finds in 10 years and suddenly the owner needs to run out to check on it?

I can't see how anyone could benefit by this. Annoying a hider over a single DNF on a lonely cache, or annoying finders, such as myself, who enjoy finding such caches. Most people would likely check the logs before heading out, and if they didn't then they know it's their own fault. Personally I don't need to be protected from a potential DNF. I've found a cache that had accumulated a chain of 7 DNFs, and a Needs Maintenance. Disabling after 3 DNFs is a bit excessive, and appears to be pushing the game towards easy finds in parking lots. I hardly think such hides are blocking any new ones. The practice gives the appearance of looking for excuses to archive, rather than looking for excuses to keep it going. So someone checks on it. Then what? Another DNF and they have to run out again and check on it?

Don't know how helpful that would be if it triggers an archival process. Most geocachers do not log on every day and go out in the winter. Here is another http://coord.info/GC1KCTY. No activity for 5 years, then a DNF followed with a disablement a month later. I suppose there are reviewers imagining non posted DNFs, but rather the latest trend is ignoring remote hides. Briansnat is a good example, as he has quite a few hides in out of the way places. Many had regular finds every year, but lately the visits have dropped off. The newer cachers like playing in parking lots and don't like hiking a few miles for a find. Now with disablement after a single DNF, these type of hides will simply disappear. It's rather easy for someone to sit at a computer and disable them, while tasking the owner to trek out there and verify it. Most don't want to be bothered with the inane, as it's a part time hobby, not a hand holding game. The hand holding for PAFs at puzzles and difficult hides, as well as shared FTFs, has now escalated to tasking the owner to hold their hand while they look for something that probably is buried under a few years of leaves. I don't see how this disablement/archive trend could make the game more popular, but only to aggravate and annoy. It appears to reached a new level of anal retentiveness. It's like the vascular system in a human body. When the blood circulates less, the extremities are affected first, like remote hides. A drop of 24% of new hides in a single year is nothing to be ignored. It's one thing to disable a cache after 3 DNFs, as it still may be there. Now the disablement occurs after 1 DNF and several invisible imagined DNFs.

Well there's a cache in Alaska that needs archival then. 1 DNF and no finds in 14 years. Should the map be cleaned up to protect potential finders?

Last found in 2010 and a very unfavorable DNF log in 2012. Last found in 2009 and a DNF in 2014. Last found in 2010 and the 2013 DNF log from someone with thousands of finds reports a thorough one-hour search for a two-star difficulty cache. Last found in 2011; DNF'd in 2013 by someone with thousands of finds. Last found in 2012; cache is a tenth of a mile off a road. Last found in 2010; DNF log in 2013 by someone with thousands of finds. If there were examples of a single DNF in October 2014 by a newbie, followed by a reviewer disablement in October, then I think there'd be fodder for a forum thread. If there were examples where the owner posted a note saying "I'm in the hospital / on vacation / unable to paddle a canoe over ice" and the cache were archived by the reviewer four weeks later, there'd be fodder for a forum thread. The only forum thread I see a need for here would be one titled "Great Job, OReviewer!" for serving the community as he is doing. I am really not seeing the problem here, other than "more people should log their DNF's" because surely there were other visits. Even a single DNF by a respected, experienced cacher is a "kiss of death" for many caches; sophisticated seekers will exclude these caches from loading onto the GPS unless and until there is Owner Maintenance or a "found it" log. So, they sit there untouched for years. All of the threads over the years saying "somebody should do something about all those unmaintained caches out there, taking up space" are hereby incorporated into this response by reference as if fully set forth herein. These aren't LPCs in parking lots. Caching activity in remote areas has dropped drastically in the last few years. There is no reason for someone to check on a remote cache after 1 DNF. Especially a paddle-to in December.

You and grouchy squeezed in your reply before mine. Great minds think alike. A note saying it will be checked on will only be followed by another boilerplate reviewer note a month later. It's like a form of harassment over a single DNF. Many of these COs are now playing the QR code game now. I wonder why. Have you got an example of where they posted a specific note confirming their maintenance proposals which was subsequently ignored by the Reviewer? What, you don't believe me? There's dozens of examples. Here's one over 2 DNFs: http://coord.info/GC2V73R It started with 3 DNFs triggering automatic disabling. Then a few locals picked up on that and started posting Needs Maintenance notes after 2 DNFs. Now it has escalated to just a single DNF, and not being found in awhile. Not really surprised to learn that new cache placements are off 24% from last year.

You and grouchy squeezed in your reply before mine. Great minds think alike. A note saying it will be checked on will only be followed by another boilerplate reviewer note a month later. It's like a form of harassment over a single DNF. Many of these COs are now playing the QR code game now. I wonder why.

http://coord.info/GCX8NT Perhaps I should of start deleting DNFs?

http://coord.info/GC1MWGH Egads

Goodness. Looks like "lonely caches" don't stand a chance in NJ. B. Nope... another one http://coord.info/GC1HRAV