Jump to content

Should Be Archived


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Hmmm know what you mean Tony!

 

I've recently requested a cache be archived - but only because it's been temped since Jan, and unfound since last Oct - plus the fact that the cacher is no longer active.

 

I can see where Mandy is coming from, but I'd always be careful.. make sure that it looks like it aint gonna come back up before you press that archive button!!

Link to comment

If it's been a few months it's fair game, however it's probably best to email the owner and wait for a response before posting a SBA.

 

If you temp one, it's fair to keep people informed if you are making the effort to replace - see our Spectrum Green cache, which is missing but we intend to replace.

 

T

 

Edit to add: As for the reaction on the cache page, I think it's uncalled for. It's becoming all to often I see people carrying out public debates on cache pages, which is not really the place. Escpecially since it's usually some kind of invitation to argue out a point in public.

Edited by Pengy&Tigger
Link to comment

I agree with the follow up notes. SBA logs are for inactive owners who can't be reached or for dire emergencies where time is of the essence.

 

Since the cache is disabled, the reivewer would likely contact them to see what's up when they do their periodic disabled check.

 

Unlikely, if a reviewer sees it inactive for that long they will archive first.

 

Also the cacher does not appear to be active.

Link to comment

I posted the follow up note and for reference I have no great problem with Lost It posting the first request, although personally I would (and have) try and make contact with the cacher first.

 

The note is to give Andy and the reviewer my insight in to the situation and nothing more. I must be missing something or misunderstanding your post mongoose39uk because you appear to be implying that I have done something wrong. Would you mind clarifying your point.

Link to comment

Not found since December last year and unavailable for 4 months = good grounds to archive IMHO.

 

The cache can always be unarchived at a later date if maintenance happens, but seeing as it hasn't happened yet then what is the likelihood it is suddenly going to get done?

 

The argument posted on the cache page about worrying about temporarily disabling caches is ridiculous. I had to disable one of my caches due to flood damage to a footpath, it was about 2 months before it was sorted but every few weeks I would post an update on the cache page so people knew it wasn't abandoned.

 

If you just disable the cache and don't do anything about it then expect it to get archived sooner or later.

Link to comment

The problem seems to be that people regard a SBA log as something dire and nasty.

 

With the right thinking, SBA logs can actually help us all. It can prompt the setter to sort it out (or at least let people know what the delay is), and can remind the reviewers that it is still there.

 

We should remember that an SBA log DOESNT archive a cache, it only alerts our overworked reviewers so that they can take a look at it.

Link to comment

FWIW, I agree with CSC and Royles. Our esteemed mods have frequently said that they cannot get round to checking on every long term disabled, and find it useful if people can post SBAs for ones they are interested in, as it brings it to their attention. I believe they usually then give some time for a response as well...

 

Haven't posted any myself yet, as if a cache isn't 'in my way', then it can stay as long as it likes. But if I feel I can make use of the spot, then I'd like to be able to post an SBA with impunity!

Link to comment

I agree with the follow up notes. SBA logs are for inactive owners who can't be reached or for dire emergencies where time is of the essence.

 

Since the cache is disabled, the reivewer would likely contact them to see what's up when they do their periodic disabled check.

 

Unlikely, if a reviewer sees it inactive for that long they will archive first.

 

Also the cacher does not appear to be active.

 

Your reviewers must operate differenly than they do in the US. When I had a cache that was inactive for going on a year the reviewer posted a note asking what's up and I emailed them and gave them the scoop.

Link to comment

I have requested SBA a couple of times but always out in the open informing the owner I intended doing it first.... The last time was for a cache that it transpired had been missing for months with no acknowledgement from the owner and I got pulled by the police and checked out for hanging around searching. :)

Link to comment

And there was I thinking that SBAs were reserved for drystone walls (or do I mean trespass :P )...

 

I'll go and get me coat :)

 

Edit: My Scottish cache has been temped because some Glaswegian miscreant has nicked the Bell, the date cast thereon enabled the final location to be calculated...let’s hope this one survives the recasting of the Bell :)

Edited by BexyBear
Link to comment
Edit: My Scottish cache has been temped because some Glaswegian miscreant has nicked the Bell, the date cast thereon enabled the final location to be calculated...let’s hope this one survives the recasting of the Bell :)

 

As this is being typed the bell is being melted down into Glasgow Geocoins :)

 

On a similar topic,

 

Check out the logs for Buzzards View (GCCAA5), is it time to hit the SBA button? I have emailed the owner with no reply.

Link to comment

As the person who receives these SBA notesalong with the cache owner maybe I should explain what happenswhen I get one.

 

First off an SBA note doesn't automatically lead to a cache being archived. Secondly, an SBA shouldn'tbe seen as a "complaint", rather it is a useful piece of information for us reviewers.

 

When I get an SBA I usually ignore it for a day or two ( :laughing::ph34r: !). I've learned to do that because quite often the cache owner will react and I won't need to do anything. After this short delay I check out the cache page to see what it's all about. If there's a note from the owner explaining that it's been disabled for a good reason that's still valid I'll happily leave it be.

 

If I see a series of DNF's with no reaction from the owner I'll check their profile to see if they are still active. If they haven't logged on for some time and the consensus is that the cache is probably missing I'll probably archive it but with the proviso that if the owner contacts me I'll happily unarchive it.

 

Then there's the situation where the owner is still active but hasn't replied to comments on the cache page or the SBA log. This is more difficult and I may or may not archive it, depending on circumstances. In these cases there are no hard and fast rules I follow, more it's a case of instinct and experience.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, please continue to flag up potential problems by posting SBA's. They shouldn't be seen as criticisms.

 

Hope this helps :lol:

Link to comment

I know I'm being a total hypocrite here; as I have yet to place a cache, and I'll probably get flamed but I still feel it's a valid point.

 

Too often I am finding caches are placed and then neglected.

I often wonder if this is how the cache is maintained whether the proper permissions have been sought for placing the cache and possibly damaging the image of geocaching.

 

Shouldn't/couldn't there be a system where after a period of time the owner of a neglected cache cannot log finds.

Link to comment
Shouldn't/couldn't there be a system where after a period of time the owner of a neglected cache cannot log finds.
That'd be 'Disillusionment' then? :ph34r:

There are many reasons why a damaged, wet, or muggled cache may hang about on the system. The owner may be too ill, busy or away from the area for business or pleasure to attend to it. You would expect a note on the page giving an ETA for a maintenance visit though. In this case, October is a very long time ago and the setter may be any of the above - or worse :laughing: The cache page isn't the right place for a discussion of the pros and cons of an SBA note, in my opinion. However, I suspect the name of a 'Should Be Archived' log is the real problem. It's a firm statement of rubbishness. If it was renamed as 'Reviewer Alert' then it'd lose half its bad connotations, and more accurately describe its function. I think.

Link to comment

I think the cacher concerned was 100% right to post a SBA. That's what it's there for. I think the backlash is 100% wrong, uncalled for and out of order.

 

I believe that people have got completely the wrong end of the stick regarding SBA and Requires Maintenance logs and should view them as a helpful tool, and not an insult. Read what Lacto says above and digest. Hopefully SBAs can be used to both reduce geolitter and 'ghost caches', which no longer exist, but are potentially blocking a good spot for a replacement cache.

 

Co-incidentally, I posted a SBA on a cache that had been temp disabled for some months myself yesterday. The cache owners then chose to archive it. The comments I put on my SBA were polite enough, and I hope no offense was taken (and certainly none intended).

Edited by Alibags
Link to comment
Shouldn't/couldn't there be a system where after a period of time the owner of a neglected cache cannot log finds.
That'd be 'Disillusionment' then? :laughing:

There are many reasons why a damaged, wet, or muggled cache may hang about on the system. The owner may be too ill, busy or away from the area for business or pleasure to attend to it.

 

My argument was that if a cacher can find time to cache, surely the priority should be to maintain ones own caches first.

Link to comment
My argument was that if a cacher can find time to cache, surely the priority should be to maintain ones own caches first.
Well yes, ideally, but it should be looked at on a case by case basis. For example, I had a cache with a problem for a couple of months in Scotland, which a friend up there was going to sort for me next weekend. It's now been fixed by some kind visitors. Following your argument, I might have to go to Scotland to replace a cache before I could cache and log locally.

The situation Mongoose has highlighted is one where the owner's not logged in since October which rather says their interest in caching has waned, or something more serious has happened. They're neither logging nor maintaining.

Link to comment

I think the cacher concerned was 100% right to post a SBA. That's what it's there for. I think the backlash is 100% wrong, uncalled for and out of order.

 

I believe that people have got completely the wrong end of the stick regarding SBA and Requires Maintenance logs and should view them as a helpful tool, and not an insult. Read what Lacto says above and digest. Hopefully SBAs can be used to both reduce geolitter and 'ghost caches', which no longer exist, but are potentially blocking a good spot for a replacement cache.

 

Co-incidentally, I posted a SBA on a cache that had been temp disabled for some months myself yesterday. The cache owners then chose to archive it. The comments I put on my SBA were polite enough, and I hope no offense was taken (and certainly none intended).

 

Agree with the comments by Alibags.

Link to comment

If a cache has been disabled for a while without any new info, people looking at the page might think the owner's lost interest. Unless they can read minds they'll have no idea what the problem is or why it hasn't been fixed. If you periodically post explaining that you're busy at work, the park is under construction and closed to the public so it can't be fixed yet, OR whatever else, then we'll all know.

Yes, it would be nice if people would email or post notes first to ask what's up, but not everyone is going to do that. If a cacher owner posts a note say every 4 weeks a cache is disabled, it'll keep everyone happy. They would not get Need Archived logs, the people watching the page know whats happening, and the reviewer will see you are still alive and working on it and they don't need to get involved.

Link to comment

Slight change of direction – what would you do with this scenario ?

 

Cache placed 2 October 2002 – numerous visitors – cache owner last visited the site 1 January 2005. Status is ‘ Non Validated Member ‘. Listing is still open and people still find.

 

Cache itself is in good repair – only ( slight ) problem is that the log book is very full – as you’d expect if it hasn’t been maintained for ( probably ) 16 months.

 

Should it be archived ? Who should go and retrieve it ?

 

civilised

Link to comment

Slight change of direction – what would you do with this scenario ?

 

Cache placed 2 October 2002 – numerous visitors – cache owner last visited the site 1 January 2005. Status is ‘ Non Validated Member ‘. Listing is still open and people still find.

 

Cache itself is in good repair – only ( slight ) problem is that the log book is very full – as you’d expect if it hasn’t been maintained for ( probably ) 16 months.

 

Should it be archived ? Who should go and retrieve it ?

 

civilised

 

Contact the reviewers and offer to adopt it. They are very helpfull in situations like this.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

Link to comment

 

Contact the reviewers and offer to adopt it. They are very helpfull in situations like this.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

 

That's one solution of course.

 

I offered to adopt another cache, much closer to me, in circumstances much worse, ie finders are actively suggesting that maintenance was critical - the cache container is bent.

 

Lactodorum suggested that he should archive the cache and thus allow new one (s) in the vicinity.

 

I didn't feel that I was interested in setting a new one, in that area.

 

Please be assured that this in no way a criticism of the reveiwers - it ain't <_<

 

I'm just interested in the general feeling about a cache which is obviously unloved and uncared for ;) - apart from the people who hunt it.

 

At what point does it become ' geolitter ' ? And what should we do about that ?

 

civilised

Link to comment

 

I offered to adopt another cache, much closer to me, in circumstances much worse, ie finders are actively suggesting that maintenance was critical - the cache container is bent.

 

Lactodorum suggested that he should archive the cache and thus allow new one (s) in the vicinity.

 

I didn't feel that I was interested in setting a new one, in that area.

 

Please be assured that this in no way a criticism of the reveiwers - it ain't <_<

 

I'm just interested in the general feeling about a cache which is obviously unloved and uncared for ;) - apart from the people who hunt it.

 

At what point does it become ' geolitter ' ? And what should we do about that ?

 

civilised

 

Why not just replace the box and log book if it's needed? Put the cache on your watch list and say nothing. No brownie points, no need to adopt the cache, just the warm fuzzie feeling of having done a good deed.

Link to comment

If I was passing I would pop in a new logbook as it would be a shame to lose an otherwise good cache.

Good idea :)

We always carry a cache repair kit ziplock bags, pens, pencils and new logbooks.

If we are prewarned from the listing we have been known to take a new container.

 

On the subject of SBA ive always found a friendly email with the GC code and a link to the cache page and why i think the cache needs looking at sent to the approvers works well.

Link to comment

If I was passing I would pop in a new logbook as it would be a shame to lose an otherwise good cache.

Good idea :)

We always carry a cache repair kit ziplock bags, pens, pencils and new logbooks.

If we are prewarned from the listing we have been known to take a new container.

 

On the subject of SBA ive always found a friendly email with the GC code and a link to the cache page and why i think the cache needs looking at sent to the approvers works well.

 

Yes, that is one way of no one knowing you have asked for a cache to be archived.

Link to comment
Following your argument, I might have to go to Scotland to replace a cache before I could cache and log locally.

 

Well that would be your own fault for placing a cache that breaks the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#vacation

 

"Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be listed. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, ... You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly. Please be responsible. This guideline applies to all types of caches."

Link to comment
Following your argument, I might have to go to Scotland to replace a cache before I could cache and log locally.
Well that would be your own fault for placing a cache that breaks the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#vacation

"Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be listed. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, ... You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly. Please be responsible. This guideline applies to all types of caches."

For example, I had a cache with a problem for a couple of months in Scotland, which a friend up there was going to sort for me next weekend.

And from the link you kindly supply:

If you have special circumstances, please describe these on your cache page or in a note to the reviewer. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page.
I hope that satisfies you. It satisfied the reviewers...

 

Edit to add I agree with Alibags. A SBA is nothing to feel shy of. One shouldn't have to feel bad about using them, or obliged to contact a reviewer by email. Still, anything for a quiet life, I suppose...

Edited by Simply Paul
Link to comment
And from the link you kindly supply:
If you have special circumstances, please describe these on your cache page or in a note to the reviewer. For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page.
I hope that satisfies you. It satisfied the reviewers...

 

That's fine, but the point I'm making is I don't see why that should affect the idea of not being able to log finds once you have had a cache disabled for too long. It's *your* cache after all, the fact that you're getting someone else to look after it is irrelevant.

 

If your cache-guardian doesn't sort out the problem quickly for you, that's still *your* problem. If you have to take a trip up to Scotland to replace a cache before you could cache and log locally, well, tough.

 

As you can probably tell, I quite like Nebias's idea.

Edited by HooloovooUK
Link to comment

Hey - what next after sanctions for not attending to a disabled cache - fines for not logging a TB pick up within 2 hours? :ph34r:

 

Year, I'd go for that one too! :P

 

There's a geocoin in my watchlist that some woman has had in her posession for over a year. Shes done three caches and then given up, keeping the coin. It pi$$es me off! They should send you a fine for every day you keep a TB over two weeks.

Link to comment
If your cache-guardian doesn't sort out the problem quickly for you, that's still *your* problem. If you have to take a trip up to Scotland to replace a cache before you could cache and log locally, well, tough. As you can probably tell, I quite like Nebias's idea.
I can't make my friend Claire drive 200 miles just to look at my cache. I suspect, what would happen in Nebias's idea became caching law, is that a whole lot of caches which could and should just be dried and/or restocked would get archived. That can't be good for the game, can it? There are very few genuine 'problem' caches around. If people could use the SBA option without fear of backlash there would be fewer of them. Let's not use a nuke to break up a kicking-out-time fist fight. :ph34r:
Link to comment
I can't make my friend Claire drive 200 miles just to look at my cache.

 

Erm.... okay..... so your friend Claire doesn't actually fit the description of "a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you" after all then does she? So your cache is placed against the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines.

Link to comment

That's fine, but the point I'm making is I don't see why that should affect the idea of not being able to log finds once you have had a cache disabled for too long. It's *your* cache after all, the fact that you're getting someone else to look after it is irrelevant.

 

This is probably one of the worst ideas I've seen. If folks can't log a find they will just archive the cache instead. If they can't get to it to maintain it, they won't be able to get to it to pull it in either. Thus resulting in the boxes still being out there, hence geolitter.

 

Also the way around it would be to have one account for hides and one account for finds. If this happened I would create a new account and use it to adopt all our caches.

 

T

Link to comment

If they can't get to it to maintain it, they won't be able to get to it to pull it in either. Thus resulting in the boxes still being out there, hence geolitter.

 

If this is the case then it has been potential geolitter from day one. If you cannot get to a cache to maintain it, and nor can the person you have nominated to be the guardian of the cache then you shouldn't set it in the first place. I don't think anyone can really dispute HooloovooUK's point there.

Edited by Cryptik Souls Crew
Link to comment

We should have a proper tariff set out for penalties for the various misdemeanors that are everyone's pet irritations. A discount from the tarriff can be negotiated by making a general contribution to the caching world.

 

Judgements on misceants will have to be made by a kind of cacher court - probably best to have the people that shout loudest on the court as they are the ones who are always right.

 

I suppose the main punishments meted out will be fines or community service but any punishment is acceptable if decided by the court

 

So, we have arguably remote caches.

TB's unlogged for over 2 hours.

Presumably an automatic punishment when the 2 week warning appears on your profile page for a TB, but what about an intermediate punishment for 1 week?

Trading down

Obviously hides in mortar deficient walls.

Caches in bin liners

countryside micros

Simply Paul

unhelpful clues

Maintenance delayed by more than 6 hours.

 

With these new laws and set punishments for disobedience caching will be like a little utopian world where everyone will be comfortable they will know exactly what is acceptable behaviour. Interpretation, discretion and common sense will no longer be needed as there will be rules to follow. People will sparkle with the new enjoyment they find in a firmly regulated caching world and the current slow take up of the sport will be a thing of the past.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...