Don't Needs Archived Logs Go Somewhere?

[+Stump]

I was under the impression that Needs Archived logs put caches on a list for approvers to deal with. Am I under the wrong impression?

 

Last summer I spent some time in Southern California and ended up posting 7 or 8 needs archived logs (that's another story). Most of them finally got the owners to do something with their caches but for two of them the owners were long gone. I kept watching them and after over two months finally forwarded them on to our local approver to take care of them. And s/he did. Both of these caches had two Needs Archived logs on them and were clearly gone as were the owners. example cache another example

 

Now while looking at more caches in Southern California I came across yet another Needs Archived log that has been ignored. This one from August and nothing had been done about it even though it's clearly a problem that needed to be taken care of by an approver.

 

Are Needs Archived logs not going to a list for approvers to take care of? Or is the Southern California approver not able to take care of their responsibilities for whatever reason?

Edited November 4, 2005 by Stump

[+Hemlock]

They're not being ignored. I have 100 or so sitting in my inbox waiting to be dealt with. Generally I give the cache owners a month or two to fix things on their own before I archive their caches.

 

Stump, the only SBA I have left from you is from July on Double Trouble. The cache owner posted just a month ago that they would check on it. Next time I run through the emails, this one will likely get archived if there is no more posts from the owner.

 

That said, the cache is properly disabled. Why the hurry to have it archived?

[Keystone]

For a three-week period in August, e-mail notifications of "Should be Archived" logs were *not* sent out to the volunteer cache reviewers, due to a technical issue on Geocaching.com's end. This was discovered and corrected going forward, but some of the logs may have escaped attention.

 

So, there are possible reasons for what you're observing, other than some egregious personal shortcoming of the Southern California volunteers.

[+Team Perks]

Pardon my asking, but why are you so gravely concerned about a couple of missing caches a thousand miles away?

 

Okay, so two caches you mention weren't immediately archived. (If I were the approver, I probably wouldn't have archived either of the caches you've cited immediately after you posted your log either.) However, I can tell you that the caches in So Cal that truly do need to be archived promptly seem to be taken care of in a timely manner.

[+Stump]

Okay, so two caches you mention weren't immediately archived. (If I were the approver, I probably wouldn't have archived either of the caches you've cited immediately after you posted your log either.) However, I can tell you that the caches in So Cal that truly do need to be archived promptly seem to be taken care of in a timely manner.

Not immediately archived? One was missing for seven months and had a Needs Archived log by a previous finder for 4 months before an approver outside the area finally stepped in at my prodding to take care of it. The owner for these caches had been MIA for over a year.

 

As far as them being taken care of promptly that is incorrect. This cache had a Needs Archived log posted in August to get something fixed that had been mentioned as a problem since May. If the cache had even been looked at it would have been fixed easily. I asked another approver to fix it and it was done immediately.

 

Keystone, these archive logs were made in June and July not August.

 

Hemlock. as I mentioned all of my Needs Archived logs have been taken care of. An approver up here took care of the remaining ones. But that meant they sat for at least 3 months without you(?) checking in on them.

[+Stump]

That said, the cache is properly disabled. Why the hurry to have it archived?

I don't want it archived. Disabled is fine and if it's still that way in a couple of weeks I'll offer to replace the container for the owner. The archived log was simply to get the attention of the owner and I thought the approver. The cache was obviously missing for 10 months before the owner finally disabled it and had a needs archived log for over 2 months with no action from an approver.

[+Hemlock]

But that meant they sat for at least 3 months without you(?) checking in on them.

Sorry, but I believe in giving the cache owner plenty of opportunity to repair/replace the cache before it gets archived. I do look at every SBA within a day or two of receiving it. Then they sit for a month, two months, maybe 3 or 4, before I decide to go through and archive all the ones that need it. By that time, I'd estimate 2/3 of them have either been replaced or archived by the owner himself. So less work for me

[+Stump]

So less work for me

But a less enjoyable experience for geocachers who hunt these things that are missing. I guess I'm just not used to having to read previous logs to find out if a cache is actually there are not before I go out hunting.

 

I understand waiting for 2 or 3 months. But one of these was missing for 10 months.

[+Team Perks]

So less work for me

But a less enjoyable experience for geocachers who hunt these things that are missing. I guess I'm just not used to having to read previous logs to find out if a cache is actually there are not before I go out hunting.

 

I understand waiting for 2 or 3 months. But one of these was missing for 10 months.

Caveat emptor. If I go looking for a cache where the past ten logs say it isn't there, it's my own dang fault. There are plenty of tools such as GSAK that can tell me at a glance which caches are likely missing. I guess I'm just not used to *not* reading the past logs, and it surprises me that you'd be so upset when you don't appear to have done your own research beforehand.

 

As has been stated, most of the owners get off their duffs and replace a missing cache after an SBA note. If they're trigger happy with the archive button, then the approvers have to deal with the extra work of un-archiving all of those caches. Especially here in So Cal, with so many new caches being submitted all the time, I wouldn't want to shoulder the extra burden of "instant archival" considering that the current process works with the exception of a small percentage of cases.

[+ODragon]

Sorry, but I believe in giving the cache owner plenty of opportunity to repair/replace the cache before it gets archived. I do look at every SBA within a day or two of receiving it. Then they sit for a month, two months, maybe 3 or 4, before I decide to go through and archive all the ones that need it. By that time, I'd estimate 2/3 of them have either been replaced or archived by the owner himself. So less work for me

While I understand the less work arguement, one of the nice things the reviewers here do is just put up a note basically saying the SBA is on their radar and give a time frame so that a whole bunch of SBA don't get posted and people like Stump don't feel like they're waiting forever for a response.

 

Just a comment/suggestion, no jundgement on how you do it intended.

[+Hemlock]

Sorry, but I believe in giving the cache owner plenty of opportunity to repair/replace the cache before it gets archived. I do look at every SBA within a day or two of receiving it. Then they sit for a month, two months, maybe 3 or 4, before I decide to go through and archive all the ones that need it. By that time, I'd estimate 2/3 of them have either been replaced or archived by the owner himself. So less work for me

While I understand the less work argument, one of the nice things the reviewers here do is just put up a note basically saying the SBA is on their radar and give a time frame so that a whole bunch of SBA don't get posted and people like Stump don't feel like they're waiting forever for a response.

 

Just a comment/suggestion, no judgement on how you do it intended.

My previous post was incomplete. When I first look at it, I do disable the cache with a comment like you said, if the cache is not already disabled AND it is obviously really missing. But often times, a couple of DNFs by cachers with 10 finds each, I'm not really convinced the cache is missing. Also if its just a wet logbook, I'm going to move on and not worry about it. Someone will eventually replace the logbook.

 

If the cache is already disabled, I consider the SBA itself to be the warning. I don't feel I should post another note. If the cache owner ignores the SBA, the cache will be archived in a few months.

 

I understand other reviewers may process SBAs differently. But they don't have to deal with the volume of SBAs that California gets. There are twice as many caches in California as in the next busiest state, and consequently twice the number of SBAs. It's a big job to deal with all of them.

[+ODragon]

My previous post was incomplete. When I first look at it, I do disable the cache with a comment like you said, if the cache is not already disabled AND it is obviously really missing.

 

If the cache is already disabled, I consider the SBA itself to be the warning. I don't feel I should post another note. If the cache owner ignores the SBA, the cache will be archived in a few months.

 

I understand other reviewers may process SBAs differently. But they don't have to deal with the volume of SBAs that California gets. There are twice as many caches in California as in the next busiest state, and consequently twice the number of SBAs. It's a big job to deal with all of them.

Oh, thanks for the clarification. And they should give you more help!

 

Thanks for all your work as a reviewer!

[+Stump]

My previous post was incomplete. When I first look at it, I do disable the cache with a comment like you said, if the cache is not already disabled AND it is obviously really missing. But often times, a couple of DNFs by cachers with 10 finds each, I'm not really convinced the cache is missing. Also if its just a wet logbook, I'm going to move on and not worry about it. Someone will eventually replace the logbook.

My intention wasn't to start an argument or point fingers at approvers as being bad. I understand So Cal must be extremely busy and it would be hard to keep up.

 

The two caches that I originally posted links to were not disabled. They were obviously missing. And the owner was obviously long gone and not coming back.

 

I'm only trying to point out that what you say is being done is not being done. Or at least it wasn't for a few of the caches I've seen.

[+Stump]

Caveat emptor. If I go looking for a cache where the past ten logs say it isn't there, it's my own dang fault. There are plenty of tools such as GSAK that can tell me at a glance which caches are likely missing. I guess I'm just not used to *not* reading the past logs, and it surprises me that you'd be so upset when you don't appear to have done your own research beforehand.

So we're all supposed to cache like you do? Past logs often have too many hints in them. And I was on vacation without access to GSAK.

 

And I'm not upset. I didn't mistakenly use the mad font did I? Just wanting clarification on how the system works and wondering why it wasn't working as I thought it did in So Cal.

 

Though I'll admit I'm a bit upset now with people telling me how I'm supposed to cache and that Needs Archived logs are being handled one way when it's quite clear, at least in the three examples I gave, that they're not.

[+Team Perks]

I don't recall ever saying you should cache the way I do. I'm just saying that if you just load up a query of caches and don't at least scan the logs for smiles vs. frownies, you're bound to run into the occasional missing cache/missing owner scenario. I still come across those even after I think I've scoured my query for caches I think are likely to be missing; defeat is just a part of the game.

 

Since you've cited your own personal experience, I'll cite mine. Every SBA I've ever posted has been acted upon very quickly--in most cases by the owner, but in other cases by the approvers when the owners are obviously no longer active in the game. Based on my experience, the current practice seems to work. Granted, there will be times when the approvers actually need to have lives of their own, but I just don't see a systemic problem out here.

 

I know both of the approvers here in So Cal; they're good, respectable, people as well as hard-working volunteers. So please forgive me if I don't take kindly to your suggestion that they aren't doing their jobs.

[+Renegade Knight]

An email would get my attention and have a far more pleasant effect than using the SBA sledgehammer. If you did send me that email and it was urgent I'd disable it and get to it as my schedule permits.

 

Unless it's a crisis there should be a long delay between when the SBA log is made and the cache is archived.

[+Hemlock]

Unless it's a crisis there should be a long delay between when the SBA log is made and the cache is archived.

Thank you. I'm glad someone understands.

 

Stump, yes some occasionally slip through the process. Emails get lost, or the reviewer mis-interprets the situation. Send me an email with GC#s and I'll look into them.

[+welch]

But a less enjoyable experience for geocachers who hunt these things that are missing. I guess I'm just not used to having to read previous logs to find out if a cache is actually there are not before I go out hunting.

You don't need to read them but you should scroll down the page and look at the icons. If the last couple logs are Needs Archived, or DNF maybe you shouldn't hunt that one now. If they're notes, or a one or two DNFs read those and make a judgement.(how long has the cache been unfound? does the person logging a DNF know what they're doing? did they give up after 10minutes or an hour?) If the logs are all smily faces, then don't read them and go caching.

 

Replying to Don't Needs Archived Logs Go Somewhere?

Yes, at least they're supposed to.

If they don't answer the NA in 4-8 weeks post another one. Keep doing that, eventally either it will get fixed or the reviewer will tell you they're looking at it and to stop posting. You also have to remember it should take a time to get a cache archived to make sure the cache is really missing and that the owner is actually gone. As strange as it seems to me, I'm told some people don't check their email but every couple weeks...

From local experience I think the reviewer here will let NAs pile up for a month or two (unless you email them directly with a problem) before going and posting warnings and archiving long missing caches. But he does review new caches almost everyday, (seems that must be more important?).

[Keystone]

Keystone, these archive logs were made in June and July not August.

Your original post said "more than two months ago." By my calendar, that put me in August, right when there was a problem with the notifications. Pardon me for trying to be helpful through providing accurate, relevant information. Please be more precise in articulating your complaints, and I'll avoid making mistakes like that. Thanks.

[+Team Perks]

Bad Keystone! Hydee's gonna lock you back up in your cage any moment now.

[+welch]

Bad Keystone! Hydee's gonna lock you back up in your cage any moment now.

Maybe they didn't open the cage, just slipped a keyboard in?

[Keystone]

I was under the impression that Needs Archived logs put caches on a list for approvers to deal with. Am I under the wrong impression?

 

Last summer I spent some time in Southern California and ended up posting 7 or 8 needs archived logs (that's another story). Most of them finally got the owners to do something with their caches but for two of them the owners were long gone. I kept watching them and after over two months finally forwarded them on to our local approver to take care of them. And s/he did. Both of these caches had two Needs Archived logs on them and were clearly gone as were the owners. example cache another example

 

Now while looking at more caches in Southern California I came across yet another Needs Archived log that has been ignored. This one from August and nothing had been done about it even though it's clearly a problem that needed to be taken care of by an approver.

 

Are Needs Archived logs not going to a list for approvers to take care of? Or is the Southern California approver not able to take care of their responsibilities for whatever reason?

Looking at the original post more closely, I can see where I drew my conclusion that I ought to post about the problem that occurred in August. Please see the highlighted text in the above quote. That is more accurate than my prior post. Sorry for any confusion.

[+Stump]

Your original post said "more than two months ago."  By my calendar, that put me in August, right when there was a problem with the notifications.  Pardon me for trying to be helpful through providing accurate, relevant information.  Please be more precise in articulating your complaints, and I'll avoid making mistakes like that.  Thanks.

More precise? They were archived on October 4th. Assuming they were taken care of immediately, 2 months ago would put it at August 4th. Which would mean if the "more than" was 4 or more days that it would be July. Assuming "more than" as at least 4 days seems like a good assumption to me.

 

But my response wasn't meant to attack your response. It was simply my attempt at being more precise. I did not realize there was a problem in August and that allowing a possibilty of 3 days would cause a problem.

 

Am I using some kind of font that makes you guys put negative feelings on my statements? Is there a mad or antagnostic font that I'm not aware of? I do have a new keyboard perhaps I hit a wrong button on it and turned the font on by mistake.

 

**Keystone, I see your added post and it makes sense. But like I said, I was just giving more information not putting down your response. Your response about August was a good one.

Edited November 4, 2005 by Stump

[+Quiggle]

This topic has probably outlived its usefullness. The OP's question has been answered.

 

Yes, SBA logs do go somewhere, and the reviewers do take action on them, when warranted, and sometimes using slightly different criteria to determine what to do with them. In the end the SBA logs are not ignored (though they were ignored in a part of August due to not being seen immediately), and each reviewers response time will vary based on the situation.

 

Stump, if you'd like to close the topic, there is a drop-down menu in the lower left of the screen. Feel free to use it, or leave it open and argue semantics.

[Jeremy]

I'll also note that a "needs maintainence" log type will be added soon which will apply a first aid attribute to caches. When the owner of the listing either edits the attribute list or applies an "owner maintainence" log the attribute will be removed. With the additional filter for listings that have this icon it will be far easier to step through and disable or otherwise archive listings that need to be removed.

[+Lil Devil]

Sounds like a nice addition, Jeremy.

[+Stump]

That's awesome Jeremy. I'd heard rumors but didn't hear it was in the works.

[+shunra]

Is there a mad or antagnostic font that I'm not aware of?

I believe the nature of antignostic fonts is such that one cannot be aware of them.