"should Be Archived" Etiquitte?

[+Shifty]

So, sometimes I get extremely bored sitting here at home and I enjoy going over caches that haven’t been found in awhile. Now, by awhile I mean years. In my area I have a few that have not been found since 2002. Personally I have never gone to hunt them, but they are close by so conceivably I could. However I don't like making trips for no reason. I have sent private e-mails to the owner asking them to be checked on with no response, and some other people have even posted notes saying they think the cache might not be there.

 

Is it considered bad taste just to post a note as a "Needs Archived" if you have not hunted for the cache and just want the owner to take responsibility and check on his cache?

 

Thanks

Shifty

Edited July 4, 2005 by Shifty54

[+Renegade Knight]

I have remote caches that I have not been to in a couple of years. One of them I have never been too (it would not ge approved today). If someone emailed me and requested that I check up on them because they have not been found in a while I'd give them a polite "no". They are my caches and so far as I know have no issues. In my own time on my own schedule I will make it back to the area and either check up on them or pull them.

 

Remote caches have better odds of being there than urban ones. In the waste of time department I don't want to waste my time checking up on caches that don't need it any more than I want to waste my time looking for caches that are not there. I've done plenty of that though and if I could not 'hack it' I'd have long since given up on this hobby.

Edited July 4, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+KoosKoos]

Is it considered bad taste just to post a note as a "Needs Archived" if you have not hunted for the cache and just want the owner to take responsibility and check on his cache?

 

Thanks

Shifty

I would say yes...until you visit the cache location, how can you know if it needs to be archived?

 

On older caches, owners frequently disappear...that may or may not mean the cache is gone, bad, in disrepair, etc. Others in the community may be doing mainteance, but can't upate the cache description (and may not make a note of it in the online logs).

[+Shifty]

Oh, Here's one of em just in case yer curious.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1000

[NatureFish]

It's beyond bad taste, it's HORRIBLE!

 

Get out there! You have ZERO right to comment negatively on a cache you've never even attempted!

 

There are quite a lot of caches that are not visited very often, for any number of reasons. There is no reason to believe that they are not just as good as ever.

 

Asking an owner to check his cache because you read the page and somehow intuited a problem...sorry, that's gonna get you only flamed - a lot!

 

Now, if the logs show that the last 3 geocachers DNF'd it, then it may fall upon the owner to go check it out.

 

As long as the last few geocachers found it there is no reason to believe it's in any danger.

[+Shifty]

Ok, well isn't it just as horrible that it's been almost 3 years without the owner posting a note about this cache?

 

"As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing. "

 

I doubt the approvers are looking at all the caches all the time, they have lives as well. I would think after 2 hurricanes, 3 floods, and 2.5 years, at the very least, the owner could say something. It's even more horrible to drop out of caching and abandon all your caches as geolitter.

 

So it's wrong to say it needs archived. So what would you suggest? I'm not a babysitter and my time is just as valuble as yours, I shouldn't have to check your cache for you. If you are going to put it in a spot that is prone to the elements (not to mention bad ones) you should know it's gonna need checked on.

[+Glenn]

<snip>

Now, if the logs show that the last 3 geocachers DNF'd it, then it may fall upon the owner to go check it out.

 

As long as the last few geocachers found it there is no reason to believe it's in any danger.

Thats the problem. Some cachers don't report on the condition of a cache. If they don't find the cache they don't make any log on the webpage. This makes it hard for both owners and future hunters to determine the condition of the cache.

 

Shifty54, I say go for it getting there is 80% of the fun! Also, if you don't find the cache please don't be so prideful that you don't log a DNF. If you do find the cache take note of the condition and log it on the webpage. That way the next visitor knows what to expect and knows what to bring if they want to help maintain the cache a little.

[+Shifty]

Heh, I have no qualms about logging a DNF. I find that the fun for the hider is reading the problems the seeker has trying to find it. Especially when the hider has spent a good deal of time with it.

 

S

[+budd-rdc]

Regardless of the circumstances, you shouldn't request a cache to be archived unless you have actually visited there and tried to find it.

 

The point of Geocaching is to go and experience the outdoors, not sit in front of the computer and be an armchair QB.

 

Bring a camera, and plan an adventure. Hope for a slim chance that you'll find fragments of the container. If you don't want to "waste your time" doing that, then, click "ignore listing" on that cache page and let someone else handle it.

[NatureFish]

If they don't find the cache they don't make any log on the webpage. This makes it hard for both owners and future hunters to determine the condition of the cache.

 

This game only works in an information paradigm - if we don't log DNFs we're not sharing crucial information!

 

There's no embarrasment involved in not finding something, but I would be embarrassed if the geocacher after me wasted his time because I failed to log a DNF.

[ju66l3r]

A good example of what to do in these cases is on that cache (GC1000) that you linked to above.

 

A geocacher/group went out to look for the cache and reported what they found in a note with the comments along the line of "the owner should come out and verify that it's gone and replace the cache or archive the listing". Every log is mailed to the cache owner. If they don't respond within a few weeks (I think that's about how long the reviewers give them when they are doing an area audit) then I think it would be safe to put the SBA log up to flag the cache for the reviewers attention.

 

We are a largely self-policing system for cache integrity once it's approved and for every note like the one I describe, there are probably 3-10 people who looked and for whatever reason did not post a DNF/note. It's honorable what your intentions are but you can't just "armchair" something like this.

[+RichardMoore]

In some cases it would be acceptable to SBA a cache without going to it.

Check out my SBA for this cache.

As you can see, the last few searchers came up empty.

And one of those searchers was the owner of the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

Ok, well isn't it just as horrible that it's been almost 3 years without the owner posting a note about this cache? ...

No.

[+Shifty]

Ok, well isn't it just as horrible that it's been almost 3 years without the owner posting a note about this cache? ...

No.

Thats pretty cruel man.

 

It doesn't matter how remote your caches are, you never know who or what may move them. There have been reports of animals destroying caches in remote areas due to the container having a scent. Just because you think there is nothing wrong, doesn't mean that something didn't happen. The rules say you must check your cache periodically, if you can't do that then the cache shouldn't be there. Like Ju66l3r mentioned, we all need to do our part to make sure the game stays fun and up to date. Thoughts like "the cache is so remote there can't possibly be anything wrong with it" are more of a hinderance than they are helpful.

[+S Keillan]

In some cases it would be acceptable to SBA a cache without going to it.

Check out my SBA for this cache.

As you can see, the last few searchers came up empty.

And one of those searchers was the owner of the cache.

I've posted a few SBA's lately for some caches in the area that I've not been to, but it should be obvious that the cache is not in play. Many of those have been "temporarily disabled" for close to a year, and the cache owners have not bothered to log on to check on their caches.

 

I agree that it would be bad form to jump to conclusions regarding a cache just by interpreting a DNF or two, but I believe that if there is overwhelming evidence that the cache is gone and the owners AWOL, an SBA note is not inappropriate.

 

Just my two cents.

[CoyoteRed]

Here's is a perfect example of a remote cache Sand Dollar. Placed June 2002 and has had two visitors. It is on a barrier island and I don't know how many hurricanes have have come through in that time. The owner doesn't come to the site much any more. In fact, they only visited the site right after the last visitors to the cache, probably because of the email notification.

 

Read the cache description. I'd never, in a million years, request that cache be archived unless I knew there is a problem. Ever.

 

Now, Shifty54, if I had your attitude we would have never attempted that cache. We would have never been treated to such a remote beach and gorgeous view of the ocean. We would have not been afforded the opportunity to feel the exhilaration of finding that which was not guaranteed to be there.

 

For us, and those like us, these adventures are what it's all about. Into the unknown. No guarantees.

 

Now, if we allow armchair geocachers to start removing these gems just because it's not a guaranteed smiley, if we reduce the hunts to only those where we walk away with a succesful hunt, then where is the thrill? Where is the adventure?

 

Me, if I had several caches around me that had not been found in a while, I'd have my behind out there either finding it or confirming with previous finders or owners it's gone--with an emphasis on a finding it.

 

So, to answer your query directly, yes, it would be considered bad form to log an SBA on any cache you've not even attempted--especially simply to get the owner to go out and check on it so you can be guaranteed a smiley. Yes, very bad form.

[+FloridaCacher]

I started not to post to this thread and then I thought why not. Let me give you my perspective as a reviewer and what I have encountered. I think there is one option that hasn't been considered here the op could send a note to the reviewer bringing the cache to their attention rather than post an sba note to the cache page. I understand this cuts the cache owner out of the loop but if the op has already made numerous attempts to make contact with the cache owner maybe a note from the reviewer would assist in the situation.

 

Also keep in mind that a sba note doesn't automatically archive a cache it only brings it to the reviewers attention. I have dealt with caches in both fashions here in Florida. As long as I receieve some response from the cache owner explaining the situation with a cache I won't automatically archive the cache. As a matter of fact I do everything possible to confirm a cache is missing before I archive it to make sure that we are not leaving geolitter in the wild.

 

Personally I wouldn't post an SBA note to a cache unless I had physically tried to find it but I don't see any problem trying to raise awareness about old unfound caches.

[+Hemlock]

To add another reviewer's perspective, just because a cache hasn't been found in a while, doesn't mean it's missing. It takes a string of DNF logs, by at least a few experienced cachers, before I would even think of archiving a cache.

 

Two years of no logs, or one or two DNFs by cachers with 10 finds each, are benign in my opinion. I might put it on my watchlist, but I wouldn't archive it.

[+AuntieWeasel]

Yet in this area, problems reported on a cache which elicit a non-response from the owner will eventually be sufficient to get a cache archived. Sometimes, it seems reviewers were combing through the listings specifically to do housekeeping (that, or somebody alerted them in email. If you bring problems to the attention of the reviewer directly instead of posting an SBA, you've essentially posted a stealth SBA, haven't you?).

 

I'm not complaining. I appreciate it. We all know of caches whose owners have long vanished but the cache is well maintained by the community. But most degrade to smelly log-lessness or lie disabled but unarchived for a year taking up valuable hiding real estate.

 

I'd feel funny posting an SBA under any circumstances, but I won't give somebody a hard time for asking if that's the right response. Especially since it looks to me like it's the right response in the example he posted. Expecting a whole string of people to hike out to the boonies for a disappointment when the owner ain't talking sets the bar too high.

[AZcachemeister]

Here's is a perfect example of a remote cache Sand Dollar.  Placed June 2002 and has had two visitors.  It is on a barrier island and I don't know how many hurricanes have have come through in that time.  The owner doesn't come to the site much any more.  In fact, they only visited the site right after the last visitors to the cache, probably because of the email notification.

 

Read the cache description.  I'd never, in a million years, request that cache be archived unless I knew there is a problem.  Ever.

 

Now, Shifty54, if I had your attitude we would have never attempted that cache.  We would have never been treated to such a remote beach and gorgeous view of the ocean.  We would have not been afforded the opportunity to feel the exhilaration of finding that which was not guaranteed to be there.

 

For us, and those like us, these adventures are what it's all about.  Into the unknown.  No guarantees. 

 

Now, if we allow armchair geocachers to start removing these gems just because it's not a guaranteed smiley, if we reduce the hunts to only those where we walk away with a succesful hunt, then where is the thrill?  Where is the adventure? 

 

Me, if I had several caches around me that had not been found in a while, I'd have my behind out there either finding it or confirming with previous finders or owners it's gone--with an emphasis on a finding it.

 

So, to answer your query directly, yes, it would be considered bad form to log an SBA on any cache you've not even attempted--especially simply to get the owner to go out and check on it so you can be guaranteed a smiley.  Yes, very bad form.

EXACTAMUNDO!

 

There are two versions of Geocacher's hell:

1. All the caches are 1/1, and you never DNF.

2. All the caches are 1/1, and you ALWAYS DNF, but everyone else is posting 'easy find' logs.

 

[+wimseyguy]

Personally, I would never post an SBA on a cache that I hadn't attempted to find myself. In fact, unless mine was one of a string of DNF's I still won't hit that button.

 

But there is something odd about this example that has been linked to. It isn't in a terriblely remote area, and there are many active cachers around there, so why hasn't it been either found, DNF'd or SBA'd by one of them already?

 

I agree with FC that an email to the local reviewer (who is frequently seen around these parts) would be the appropriate action in this case, and most cases like this.

There's really nothhing wrong with the "stealth SBA" as I doubt a reviewer would pull the plug without an attempt of three to contact the cache owner to see what's up.

[+Ambrosia]

Oh, Here's one of em just in case yer curious.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1000

It looks like that one was found in June of this year.

[CoyoteRed]

Oh, Here's one of em just in case yer curious.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1000

It looks like that one was found in June of this year.

I don't think that is a find. The last smiley is from 3 years ago.

 

Still, not enough to post an SBA, IMHO. The last log even said they didn't hunt very long because of the assumption it is missing.

I just glanced around, and figured it was a lost cause.

Me, I probably would have spent at least a couple of hours or until the DEET ran out, which ever came first.

[+Ambrosia]

Oh, Here's one of em just in case yer curious.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1000

It looks like that one was found in June of this year.

I don't think that is a find. The last smiley is from 3 years ago.

 

Still, not enough to post an SBA, IMHO. The last log even said they didn't hunt very long because of the assumption it is missing.

I just glanced around, and figured it was a lost cause.

Me, I probably would have spent at least a couple of hours or until the DEET ran out, which ever came first.

I just re-looked at it, and realized that I was seeing yellow smilies in my mind!

[+Ambrosia]

This is my fear as a cache owner:

 

I can't count how many times one of my caches has had seasoned cachers post a dnf with a note saying, "I don't think this is there any more...would the cache owner check it? Maybe the cache needs more maintanance, or maybe it needs to be archived" etc.... Then I worry that there is something wrong with it, or an approver may feel the need to archive it. Then I go out (sometimes a long way out) and check the cache to find that it is fine, and exactly where I placed it. This has happened enough that I don't check on caches until they've had something like 2 or 3 dnf's in a row (depending on the cache). But I've always worried that someone will post a sba and make a hard time for me. This would be especially frustrating if that person had never even tried the cache out.

 

Please don't sit around thinking of all the caches that you need to monitor. It is not your job nor your responsibility. You are not the cache owner, and you are not an approver. Either check out the cache on your own (though even if you dnf it, that doesn't mean that it isn't there), or ignore it, and go on with life.

[+Hemlock]

Then I go out (sometimes a long way out) and check the cache to find that it is fine, and exactly where I placed it.  This has happened enough that I don't check on caches until they've had something like 2 or 3 dnf's in a row (depending on the cache).  But I've always worried that someone will post a sba and make a hard time for me.

Part of me wants to say that if it's that far out, maybe you shouldn't be placing a cache there in the first place.

 

But if you do, please communicate with those seeking the cache, and especially with a reviewer who asks about problems.

 

The thing I find frustrating when following up on SBA logs, is when an otherwise active cacher doesn't respond to my queries. Here's a scenario that actually happened recently.

 

Cache hidden in October last year.

Over the next 3 months, a whole string of DNFs are logged, some by very experienced cachers.

January: Cache is found by a cacher with 20 finds (actually found by 3-yo daughter). Notes that coords were a bit off, but didn't take a new reading.

February, March: More DNFs

Late March: Cacher emails me and asks me to look at it. I send an email to the hider, who had logged in and found other caches recently. I get no response.

April: More DNFs.

Early May: I post a note on the cache page asking the cache owner to check on the cache and update the coords if necessary.

Late May: Another DNF.

Early June: Still no comment from cache owner, even though he's been finding a dozen caches a week all year. I archive the cache.

Two days later: I get an email from the cache owner saying he checked on the cache and its fine. He provides new coords which are over 120' from the original coords.

I unarchived the cache, updated the coords, and it has been found several times since then.

 

What I don't understand is why did I have to resort to archiving the cache to get a response out of the owner?

 

This is but one example. Stuff like this happens all the time, sometimes resulting in flames in the forums. Communication is a good thing. It's frustrating that cache owners tend to forget this.

[+Ambrosia]

Then I go out (sometimes a long way out) and check the cache to find that it is fine, and exactly where I placed it.  This has happened enough that I don't check on caches until they've had something like 2 or 3 dnf's in a row (depending on the cache).  But I've always worried that someone will post a sba and make a hard time for me.

Part of me wants to say that if it's that far out, maybe you shouldn't be placing a cache there in the first place.

 

But if you do, please communicate with those seeking the cache, and especially with a reviewer who asks about problems.

 

I don't mean far out, but enough out that it's irritating every time you get a note saying that it needs to be checked.

 

I've always tried to do my best about being on top of things with my caches. Whenever I do a maintanance visit, I log it. I answer reviewers in a timely manner, and I feel that I have a good relationship with my local approvers and cachers. And that's what it is all about!

[+TotemLake]

So, etc...

It sounds like you want someone to validate your need to big brother others.

 

Regardless of when the owner has checked on it, until you've hunted it, you have no valid reason to comment an SBA on the cache. For you to take it upon yourself to arm chair cache cop the cache just because "the guidelines said...", that really is in poor form. Get out there and hunt them or don't. But don't cause red tape headaches just because you *think* it Should Be Archived. Nobody gave you that responsibility.

 

I'm not a babysitter and my time is just as valuble as yours, I shouldn't have to check your cache for you. If you are going to put it in a spot that is prone to the elements (not to mention bad ones) you should know it's gonna need checked on.

 

But nobody asked you to be the babysitter. It almost sounds like you're going out with an emphasis to get the smiley instead of enjoying the adventure. When I take it upon myself to hunt a cache, I'm not taking it upon myself to check to see if it's there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to find it and enjoy the experience. If I don't find it, well, there's always the experience.

Edited July 4, 2005 by TotemLake

[+gpsjeep]

"As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.)

According to you in your first post, nobody reported a problem with the cach. Only you that you have no interest in finding it even though it is relatively close to you.

Why don't you take this as a challenge to yourself to find it. And if you can't find it them log it DNF.

Wow, that sounds like a grand idea. I challenge you to find it.

-Jeff

[+AuntieWeasel]

According to you in your first post, nobody reported a problem with the cach.  Only you that you have no interest in finding it even though it is relatively close to you.

No, in the one example he posted, the last post was a DNF (well, a note, but a DNF nonetheless) documenting and photographing the area, which he described as trashed by hurricane Ivan, and suggesting the owner have a check. And it looked pretty trashed to me. I can possibly wrap my mind around an Xtreme Samaritan who spends his cache days hunting someone else's cache that's probably not there, but I can't imagine there are many of them on the trail.

 

I understand not wanting to do a physical check of a remote cache on the strength of one report. I've blown off checking my neighborhood 1/1 on the strength of a newbie's DNF. But if the owner can't be arsed to write an email, there are really not any high horses to get up upon here.

[+gpsjeep]

According to you in your first post, nobody reported a problem with the cach.  Only you that you have no interest in finding it even though it is relatively close to you.

No, in the one example he posted, the last post was a DNF (well, a note, but a DNF nonetheless) documenting and photographing the area, which he described as trashed by hurricane Ivan, and suggesting the owner have a check. And it looked pretty trashed to me. I can possibly wrap my mind around an Xtreme Samaritan who spends his cache days hunting someone else's cache that's probably not there, but I can't imagine there are many of them on the trail.

 

I understand not wanting to do a physical check of a remote cache on the strength of one report. I've blown off checking my neighborhood 1/1 on the strength of a newbie's DNF. But if the owner can't be arsed to write an email, there are really not any high horses to get up upon here.

No,

In his first post he said that he could "personally have never gone to hunt them, but they are close by so conceivably I could."

His from Mechanicsburg, Pa. That's near the Ohio/ Pa. border. There is no way in hell that hurricane Ivan could have trashed this cache. Not in Mechanicsburg, Pa anyways.

[+AuntieWeasel]

According to you in your first post, nobody reported a problem with the cach.  Only you that you have no interest in finding it even though it is relatively close to you.

No, in the one example he posted, the last post was a DNF (well, a note, but a DNF nonetheless) documenting and photographing the area, which he described as trashed by hurricane Ivan, and suggesting the owner have a check. And it looked pretty trashed to me. I can possibly wrap my mind around an Xtreme Samaritan who spends his cache days hunting someone else's cache that's probably not there, but I can't imagine there are many of them on the trail.

 

I understand not wanting to do a physical check of a remote cache on the strength of one report. I've blown off checking my neighborhood 1/1 on the strength of a newbie's DNF. But if the owner can't be arsed to write an email, there are really not any high horses to get up upon here.

No,

In his first post he said that he could "personally have never gone to hunt them, but they are close by so conceivably I could."

His from Mechanicsburg, Pa. That's near the Ohio/ Pa. border. There is no way in hell that hurricane Ivan could have trashed this cache. Not in Mechanicsburg, Pa anyways.

Eh. Read the log. One assumes it's his best case, but it's a pretty good case.

[+Team Cotati]

In some cases it would be acceptable to SBA a cache without going to it.

Check out my SBA for this cache.

As you can see, the last few searchers came up empty. 

And one of those searchers was the owner of the cache.

And AN Admin archived the cache. End of issue.

Edited July 5, 2005 by Team Cotati

[+RichardMoore]

In some cases it would be acceptable to SBA a cache without going to it.

Check out my SBA for this cache.

As you can see, the last few searchers came up empty. 

And one of those searchers was the owner of the cache.

And the Admin for the area archived the cache. End of issue.

Actually, it wasn't the admin for this area.

Which does bring up another point:

As I understand it, SBA logs go to all of the cache reviewers. The idea being that there are times when an immediate response is necessary, and the local reviewer may not be available.

[+Team Cotati]

"And AN Admin archived the cache. End of issue." There, all better now....actually

Edited July 5, 2005 by Team Cotati

[+RichardMoore]

"And AN Admin archived the cache. End of issue." There, all better now....actually

I thought the issue was whether it was ever acceptable to SBA a cache without going to look for it yourself?

[+southdeltan]

Ok, well isn't it just as horrible that it's been almost 3 years without the owner posting a note about this cache? ...

No.

Thats pretty cruel man.

 

It doesn't matter how remote your caches are, you never know who or what may move them. There have been reports of animals destroying caches in remote areas due to the container having a scent. Just because you think there is nothing wrong, doesn't mean that something didn't happen. The rules say you must check your cache periodically, if you can't do that then the cache shouldn't be there. Like Ju66l3r mentioned, we all need to do our part to make sure the game stays fun and up to date. Thoughts like "the cache is so remote there can't possibly be anything wrong with it" are more of a hinderance than they are helpful.

The "guidelines" say you must check on your cache. They do NOT say you must post status reports. If there is nothing wrong with the cache, there is no reason to post a note. If I check on it and it's not there, of course I'll either archive it, replace it or disable it until I can. I think I understand where RK is coming from and I agree with it. As an active cache owner - I would think a bit of trust should be placed on the owner. In this case the cache owner is inactive and that does change it - but I'd look for it before passing judgement.

 

Honestly though, I don't see why you're concerned about this. It isn't your duty to check on somebody elses cache and if you don't want to look for this one - just put it on your IGNORE list. Otherwise go look for it. If you don't find it, post a dnf then post a sba.

 

sd