RanHefner

If you want to save tax dollars, hide the cache so that it doesn't draw undue attention.

You hit the nail squarely on the head. Agree 100%!

Right! And if no help is offered, the owner is OBLIGATED to maintain the cache, adopt it out, or archive it. He/she is NOT to let an unhealthy cache linger without any attention for months on end! You're wrong! There is a guideline and it is plainly posted on Groundspeak. To quote a reviewer, "Since 'in several months' is much more than the usual guideline of a few weeks, I am archiving it at this time." (Emphasis added by me). "Common courtesy" is when a cache owner PROPERLY maintains his/her cache. The "courtesy" is NOT provided to the community when the cache owner goes AWOL!

Here is a prime example of why a PM is useless! A REVIEWER posted a note on this cachers page asking him to post a note with the intentions to maintain the cache or archive it. The DEADBEAT owner IGNORES the REVIEWER'S message for over 5 months. The Reviewer had no choice but to archive it. Defend it if you will! CACHE OWNER SHIRKING HIS RESPONSIBILITIES You are right, that is a prime example on how it SHOULD be done. A REVIEWER drops a hint, then they (or in this case another) archives when no action is taken. That is how the system is supposed to work. If one of the three DNFs would of posted a NM log, I am sure there would of been no hard feelings. But when SOMEONE logs a NM or SBA with no knowledge of the cache, then it gets irritating. No panties here, just a natural WTF reaction. Again, if one of the three DNFs had added the log, at the same time as their DNF or much further down the road I doubt anyone would have an issue with it. The point of the post was explaining why a PM in many cases is useless. The owner should have seen (and probably did see) that there was a problem with the cache and just IGNORED it. Why do you think a PM would have changed things?

Yes, caches are small responsibilities which is why it DUMBFOUNDS me as to why an "owner" would hang on to it as if it were a family heirloom. Your reaction to the logs is what prompts ARMCHAIR logs! You didn't respond at all! If life "happens" adopt it out or archive it...DON'T HANG ON TO IT AND KEEP OTHER CACHERS GUESSING AS TO WHEN IT WILL BE BACK IN ACTION!!! This is not an isolated incident! It seems like "life happened" again! A cache is under the weather and the best the owner could do is to MAYBE replace the cache about a year after the problems began. The reviewer states that the time frame submitted by the owner is unreasonable. Even after that note, the reviewer was FORCED to archive the cache. The owner was just TOO PRIDEFUL to archive it himself! Another DEADBEAT cache owner Even after a GOOD explanation from the reviewer, the owner finds fault with it. GEEEEZZZZ!!! Bro, if you live in glass houses, don't throw stones!

Here is a prime example of why a PM is useless! A REVIEWER posted a note on this cachers page asking him to post a note with the intentions to maintain the cache or archive it. The DEADBEAT owner IGNORES the REVIEWER'S message for over 5 months. The Reviewer had no choice but to archive it. Defend it if you will! CACHE OWNER SHIRKING HIS RESPONSIBILITIES

Heaven forbid that someone actually maintain their cache!

Most of the logs of this nature come after several notes and other logs saying there is a problem with the cache. In many cases months go by without any communication from the owner. It seems the owner is waiting for someone to take the responsibility to maintain the cache for him/her. It serves the community in many instances when the owner finally gets off his/her BUTT and does something about the problems with the cache. It does update the community because many times the owner will FINALLY communicate the intentions...(i.e. I will check on it.) Otherwise, it appears to be a DEADBEAT owner that SHIRKS his/her responsibilities!

I have sent PM's in the past and in almost all cases you get one of two responses. NOTHING! Or, "I will check on it." Very rarely does the "I will check on it" come true in a timely manner. The REAL problem with a PM is that in almost all cases (as I have observed) the communication is just between the two participants. This does NOTHING to keep the geocaching community updated. Whereas a "note", "NM", or "SBA" sometimes gets a response from the owner. Now all who care to look at the cache page can have up to date information. Why a PM? It makes no sense! The only ones who want PM's are those who don't others to know of their neglect of their cache. It is those with blinding PRIDE that get their panties in a wad over a public "note". "Put on your big girl panties and deal with it!"

You judge too soon! If you are saying that my "prod" didn't get the owner to go out 10 minutes after the log was posted, then you are right! In many cases, such a prod will motivate the cache owner to take action. I have seen it many times! Are you saying that if a "note" prod motivates an owner to maintain their cache, it has no value?

Well, I had to think about this one. You are USUALLY very attentive about maintaining your caches. This one has been DNFed and unavailable for quite a while. Very unusual for you. BTW...This one probably doesn't belong on this thread. I only posted a note...Not an NM or SBA log. Is posting a note ok with you? Posting a note is benign in nature. It doesn't notify the reviewer and it doesn't have that pesky 'ol NM icon. Thought this was the easiest way to prod you.

Wow! That was a substantive contribution to the SUBJECT!

That's the only real difference. Both cause a reviewer to receive timely notification that a cache might have serious issues, and is possibly in need of their attention. One has the potential to create hard feelings between cachers, while the other does not. I realize there are folks out there, even in our little game, who thrive on confrontation, and can't be truly happy unless they are aggravating someone else, and if you're that type, Gaia bless you. Go forth and agitate to your heart's content. If you're not someone who lives on conflict, you can accomplish your same busybody goal with a simple PM to the reviewer. Posting the NM or SBA is not the source of the "confrontation". If confrontation begins, it is when the cache owner takes the log as an affront to his/her "domain". It is the NEGATIVE RESPONSE of the cache owner that causes "confrontation". A RESPONSIBLE owner sees it as an opportunity.

These are in my state. So if you were me, you would NA them? Here is something you might try. Post a note on the cache page saying something like this: "I see the cache has been disabled for a long period of time. Is this cache going to be replaced? If not, you should archive the cache so someone can use the area for a new geocache." If the owner doesn't respond in any way in a month, they if you get the feeling that the cache is not going to be replaced, post the SBA and let the reviewer sort it out.

I wouldn't do anything. I usually only post armchair logs to caches within my state. These are, however, very good examples why an SBA log by ANYONE may be useful. Why? It illustrates what I have been saying here. Notes, disabled logs, and NM logs do not draw the attention of the local reviewer. The SBA log WILL! It is then up to the reviewer to archive or not.

First, you ask for help from fellow cachers. Second, if no one will help, you try adopting the cache to someone who can maintain it. Third, if no one will help...If no one will adopt...ARCHIVE IT! Why would you impose on others to meet your own obligation over something so trivial as a cache? Why archive a perfectly good cache and create litter? No one is asking that a "perfectly good cache" be archived. If you have a "life experience" that keeps you from visiting your caches that have NO problem, WHO WILL KNOW?! I am talking about caches with REPORTED problems or very good evidence that there may be a problem.

Are you saying that no one should post an NM or SBA log except the cache owner??? Yes, the cache owner IS responsible for the care of the cache. Those who DO care for the cache don't get SBA or NM logs! Read the above carefully. We agree to abide by the terms of use agreement. Fair enough -- Groundspeak doesn't want us doing illegal things. And we agree that we have read and understand the guidelines. Read and understood. Not read and promise to follow the edicts blindly without consideration for any other life-impacting event. And no one is asking them to "follow the edicts blindly without consideration for any other life-impacting events." I am simply asking that if an event does come about that keeps you from maintaining a cache that is under the weather for SEVERAL MONTHS TO A YEAR OR MORE, that you take a LITTLE step to CONSIDER the health of the geocaching community. How...Ask for help, accept help, adopt it out, or archive it. On the subject of "accepting help", I have seen a cache that has been in need of maintenance for several months. There were notes posted by GREAT CACHERS offering to help with NO RESPONSES! The "owner" must have seen the notes, because he/she continued to log into the site. THIS is the type of DEADBEAT owner I am talking about. Are you serious?!? If "owners" that neglect their caches get disheartened and don't place caches anymore...GOOD! THIS IS A GOOD THING!!!!! I can only hope that when you see a DEADBEAT cache owner, you have the same feeling! I am going to "modify" the previous paragraph a bit and see how it reads....

First, you ask for help from fellow cachers. Second, if no one will help, you try adopting the cache to someone who can maintain it. Third, if no one will help...If no one will adopt...ARCHIVE IT!

It appears that the cache owner has abandoned the cache and it needs to be archived. Should I pull the trigger? Sure pull the trigger..."Do you feel lucky, punk?" But really, as you can see, this is an example of a responsible cache owner, if I do say so myself. The day after a couple DNF's that seemed to be accurate, I disabled the cache to COMMUNICATE to the geocaching public that searching for this cache may be fruitless. I COMMUNICATED a time frame of replacement. Yes I will be about 3 or 4 DAYS beyond my projected repair date...SHAME ON ME. I have a container ready and it will be replaced this weekend. The point being that I have COMMUNICATED with the geocaching community. I have taken steps to assure the COMMUNITY that it will be replaced, but don't search for it now. Thanks for highlighting a TEXTBOOK example on how a problem with a cache SHOULD be handled. "Go ahead, punk...MAKE MY DAY!" pull the trigger!!!

Anything is better than armchair logging busybodies playing cache police. Anything? Owner neglect is better? Owner not responding to cachers BEGGING him/her to fix the cache is better? Owner posting a message saying the cache is missing and it will not be replaced AND is unwilling to archive the cache is better? Anything??? WOW! I just want to understand your position. Are you saying that ANM and ASBA logs are worse than an owner that totally neglects the cache maintenance?

Anything is better than armchair logging busybodies playing cache police. Anything? Owner neglect is better? Owner not responding to cachers BEGGING him/her to fix the cache is better? Owner posting a message saying the cache is missing and it will not be replaced AND is unwilling to archive the cache is better? Anything??? WOW!

Yeah, I'm afraid that note reinforces my opinion. No new information, just scolding the CO. Anyone interested enough to express an opinion should be interested enough to visit the coords. They might just find the cache... Yea, you have a point! This one made me pause. It is an unusual case. I normally don't post an NM log after two DNF's, but it is a relatively easy cache that hasn't been found in almost two years after a couple of DNF's. If you notice the log it says "owner visit MAY be needed". Also, the reviewer will not archive the cache simply because of an NM log. Here is the interesting thing. Keep an eye on the cache. The log was posted on May 2nd. The owner has logged in as recently as May 20th. He/she has NOT responded to the log! It is THIS lack of communication that may lead to action by the reviewer...Not the NM log! Why wouldn't the owner post some simple note saying something?...ANYTHING! You would think if the cache has been DNFed and no finds in about 2 years, he/she would check on it! This is passive NEGLECT. Don't you think most if not all caches should get an owner visit at least once a year?

Then why did you check the two boxes agreeing with the guidelines that Groundspeak spells out? The cache owner MUST take into consideration the ability to maintain the cache BEFORE he/she places it. The several weeks is a guideline. I know from my local reviewer that these factors are taken into consideration. If an NM or SBA is posted AND the owner posts a note explaining that it is difficult to get to the cache AND he/she WILL make efforts to check it, my local reviewer will NOT archive the cache. But, if, after the NM or SBA log the cache owner posts NOTHING, the reviewer is likely to post a reviewer note explaining the requirements for the owner to respond to maintenance requests. If, after about 30 days, there is no answer, the cache will most likely be archived. I don't think ANY reviewer will archive a cache that is difficult to get to as long as the owner communicates with the geocaching community about the intention to maintain. I'm sorry, but I have not seen ANY guidelines on Groundspeak that says you must visit a cache to post a note, NM, or SBA log. If you see one, please post it! As for "my interpretation of the guidelines"...It is not MY interpetation...It is plainly spelled out on Groundspeak. I suggest re-reading it! If you can't maintain the cache in a timely manner, you have no reason placing the cache.

We're mostly in agreement. The owner is primarily responsible for upkeep of his caches, and there's no guideline requiring a visit before posting an NM/NA. Agreed. A Superior Cache is a perfect illustration of where it gets sticky: The cache went unfound for six years. When it was finally found, the owner hadn't logged into geocaching.com in more than six months. If an NM/NA had been posted a month ago, this cache would have disappeared from the database right about the time that somebody worked up the gumption to go look for it. They had a terrific adventure and now have a great story to tell. And the cache is confirmed to be there so that others who might have hunted it but for the uncertainty about its status now have a green light. Absent owner, unfound for six years, and an NA note--it would have been an open-and-shut case for archival. Instead, it's a perfect illustration why most of the time NM/NA should be based on firsthand information. My view of this situation is that for ANY owner to PROPERLY maintain his/her cache, he/she MUST log in from time-to-time to monitor the HEALTH of the cache. Yes, it would be a shame if such a cache was archived, but the owner would be responsible, not the poster of the SBA or NM log.

But an armchair NA/NM log would have materially increased the chances that an amazing cache would have been purged from the database. Your position would be much more convincing if you'd said, "Yeah, whew. Would have been a shame if a reviewer had gone along with someone's bad suggestion to archive." Instead, in effect, you're saying that it doesn't matter that armchair NA/NMs are based on secondhand information and sometimes on bad judgment, since the reviewers will catch the mistakes. We need a Hippocrates of Geocaching to promote the idea 'First, do no harm.' If I sound like I'm being hard on you specifically, RanHefner, don't take it to heart. You're just sort of the spokesman for the benefits of armchair cache-page inspections, so I'm using your positions to make my point. I'm sure you're careful and sparing with your NM/NAs. But others who might be attracted to the idea might not be. And "A Superior Cache" is exactly the sort of case in which they'd do great harm. No offense taken! I applaud differing opinions. Keep in mind...In almost all cases the reviewer will post a reviewer note. If the owner responds explaining the situation with the cache, the reviewer will not archive the cache. Your proposed axim, "First, do no harm." That is good! My opinion is that the FIRST to do the HARM is the owner who does not live up to his/her commitment when he/she placed the cache. There are two boxes you MUST check to post a cache. This basically has you CONFIRM you will abide by the rules and guidelines. One of which it to maintain your cache in a timely manner. "Several weeks" is the guideline...Not "several months". Also keep in mind...There is no posted guideline requiring you to visit the cache to post a note, NM, or SBA log. Since this is undisputed, then a person may apply his/her own guidelines for posting caches, but they can NOT force it upon others.