Using the 'Needs to be Archived' Option

[+hikemeister]

There are two caches in our area that have not been found in over a year. They both are rated 1/1. I have contacted the owner and he claims they are there, yet even with some friends from California with over 20K collective finds, we could not find either cache. Most recently the owner indicates that one may have been replaced with a nano by another cacher last month. The cacher in question is a good guy with many nice local hides and he is one of the original geocachers in the area, so I hesitate to use the 'needs to be archived' option - but when is enough enough??

[+BlueDeuce]

How many DNFs have been logged?

[Clan Riffster]

Even if you knew for a fact that neither cache was there, an SBA is grossly unwarranted. The owner is still in the game, and it's up to them to respond to the DNF's. If the owner was no longer playing, then I might agree with an SBA.

[+BlueDeuce]

Good grief, I'm not sure which cache it is but I found four 1/1's in an eight mile radius from one of your caches that haven't been found for eight months or more. Only one didn't have several DNF's.

 

Contact your reviewer, I'm willing to bet they'll post a "check it or lose it note".

[+briansnat]

If the owner says they are there who are you to say he's lying? If anything the rating should be raised, but that's for the owner to decide.

[+hikemeister]

Good grief, I'm not sure which cache it is but I found four 1/1's in an eight mile radius from one of your caches that haven't been found for eight months or more. Only one didn't have several DNF's.

 

Contact your reviewer, I'm willing to bet they'll post a "check it or lose it note".

 

Yep, perhaps it is time.

 

So you noticed the large number of stale caches in the area, did you.

 

Thanks

[+Confucius' Cat]

Certainly doesn't warrant SBA if the owner says it's there.

[+hikemeister]

Certainly doesn't warrant SBA if the owner says it's there.

 

Actually in the case of one cache in question an email to the owner last weekend gave a response that 'check with XXX, who says he replaced it with a nano.'

[+Woodlit]

Maybe a Needs Maintenance log?

[+Zilvervloot]

No.

 

You can only post a “needs maintenance” when you find a cache.

When you do not find a cache you post a “do-not-found”-log.

 

To my opinion, in this case, I hope everybody post DNF-notes on the cache pages. That is the only proper thing to do, since that is what you have done, you did not find it. And it is nothing to be ashamed of. All the DNF-logs should inform potential cachers this is not an easy pick-up. And gives the cache-owner a warning something might be wrong.

 

Since the owner placed the cache we must assume he wants the cache to be found. Besides, if a cache is not found by cachers with a lot of experience, does not mean a lot. Even experienced cachers can have some blind spots. Or it can be a new way of hiding a cache. Once you have seen it, it is very easy, but the first time….

 

The cache might be there and it could be in great shape.

 

I do not know your area, but I suppose there are a many other caches to discover.

 

Zilvervloot.

[CoyoteRed]

Not that I've ever blown an easy find, but an 1 star cache is supposed to be in plain site or it is obvious where it is. A 1 star cache is pretty much supposed to be a slam-dunk.

 

Two factors I see in play here is multiple hunts by experienced cachers have failed to come up with the cache and we all know plenty of owners don't take their responsibilities seriously. These brings me to one of two possibilities; either the cache is grossly under-rated or it is missing.

 

I've noticed a trend with folks' attitude with posting an SBA. It seems as though the "standards" are getting tougher and tougher on pulling the trigger. It seems as though an SBA is now thought of as an indictment of the cache owner, his ability to place a viable cache, or against the cache itself. I disagree.

 

I see an SBA as having ellipsis after it, as in "Should Be Archived..." and the follow up is "...unless this cache is fixed somehow." It is stronger than a "Needs Maintenance" as that is something like "needs new logbook" or "cache is soaked." An SBA could be "placed against land policy" or "cache is completely destroyed."

 

I see the cache as presented as a candidate of an SBA because either the cache owner is lying about the cache being there or is lying about the cache being a 1 star difficulty. Once the appropriate issue is corrected then there would be no need for the SBA and could be deleted for all I care. Additionally, there's nothing like an SBA to get the owner's attention.

 

So, if the situation is as presented then I would give it one more good try to find it and then post an SBA.

[+denali7]

 

SBA because the difficulty rating is off?

[+sbell111]

I think an SBA is unwarrented in this situation. I also feel that calling the owner a liar won't make anything better.

 

You emailed the owner and he requested that you email the guy who replaced it with a nano. Did you look for a nano? If not, you should go back and look some more before you do anything else. If so, email the guy who replaced the cache and find out where he hid it. His GPSr may have been way off, leaving you hunting in the wrong location.

[CoyoteRed]

 

SBA because the difficulty rating is off?

 

We're not talking about the difference in 1 and 1.5 stars. Multiple failures of experienced cachers to find the cache makes it a difference of 1 and 3+.

 

I mentioned the rating being off as one of two possibilities. What's the chances of the rating being off that much as compared to the cache simply not being there? If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the cache being missing.

[+sbell111]

... I mentioned the rating being off as one of two possibilities. What's the chances of the rating being off that much as compared to the cache simply not being there? If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the cache being missing.

I object, facts not in evidence.

 

Perhaps you know something about this cache that the rest of us do not. From the facts given, we don't know that there have been multiple DNFs. We only know about one failed attempt made by hikemeister and his friends.

 

Given that they may not have known it was changed to a nano at the time of the hunt and that the coords may be off (since it was replaced by someone other than the cache owner), we cannot jump to the conclusion that the cache is either missing or the coords are off. Also, it should be remembered that all cachers are not as consistently proficient as you may be. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a 1/1 could be missed even if the coords are dead on.

[+denali7]

But with the CO saying the caches are there, you're also betting that he's lying. I know nothing of the cache in question or the owner, but it seems a bit arrogant to have a mindset such as, "Well, if I can't find it, it must be missing."

Experienced cachers occasionally miss finds, even easy ones. I have one exactly like that, and it's not a nano, either. I know I would never to presume that someone is lying simply because I couldn't find his cache...especially with a respected and well-known local hider, as the OP describes.

[Clan Riffster]

What's the chances of the rating being off that much as compared to the cache simply not being there?

Neither scenario warrants an SBA if the owner is still active.

[+geognerd]

Even if you knew for a fact that neither cache was there, an SBA is grossly unwarranted. The owner is still in the game, and it's up to them to respond to the DNF's. If the owner was no longer playing, then I might agree with an SBA.

Now if the owner did not respond to the DNFs, would the SBA be warranted? I do not think "Oh, so-and-so replaced the cache with a nano" is a proper response. Only the OP has all the facts, but I think the cache owner needs to make an in-person visit to a cache if it has many DNFs. It's not the responsibility of others to maintain their cache. If the owner cannot maintain their cache properly, which involves personally checking on the cache, their offending caches should be archived.

 

I agree with CR about people beeing too meek and afraid to pull the trigger on an SBA log. I have logged several SBAs. I'm not afraid of being labeled "Cache Police" because this is a self-policing sport. If a cache isn't being found and the owner isn't doing anything about it, the cache should be archived. The SBA log serves as a wake-up call to an owner. Before I post an SBA, I post a note asking if the cache is still in play. If the owner doesn't disable the cache or post a note of their own within a month, I will log an SBA notice. A couple of times the cache owners have miraculously sprung to life after the SBA log and fixed up the cache. But most of the time the owners apparently don't give a darn and the cache gets archived. If they really cared about their cache, they would've fixed it up or worked with the reviewer.

[+hikemeister]

I think an SBA is unwarrented in this situation. I also feel that calling the owner a liar won't make anything better.

 

You emailed the owner and he requested that you email the guy who replaced it with a nano. Did you look for a nano? If not, you should go back and look some more before you do anything else. If so, email the guy who replaced the cache and find out where he hid it. His GPSr may have been way off, leaving you hunting in the wrong location.

 

Yes of course I went back and looked for a nano...and yes I contacted the person who hid the nano, but he did not respond. At this point I will just forget about this one and hunt for other caches.

Edited October 17, 2006 by hikemeister

[+hikemeister]

But with the CO saying the caches are there, you're also betting that he's lying. I know nothing of the cache in question or the owner, but it seems a bit arrogant to have a mindset such as, "Well, if I can't find it, it must be missing."

Experienced cachers occasionally miss finds, even easy ones. I have one exactly like that, and it's not a nano, either. I know I would never to presume that someone is lying simply because I couldn't find his cache...especially with a respected and well-known local hider, as the OP describes.

 

A few more points regarding this issue:

 

(1) I agree that experienced cache finders sometimes miss easy ones. I am only marginally experienced, with just over 700 finds, and hunted the cache with geoachers with >10,000, >8,000 and >5,000 finds and we came up empty. But I also know that these guys sometimes report DNF on caches that are later found, just like me. Finding many caches does not make one an 'expert finder' of everything.

 

(2) Having said that, it sure is interesting when a 1/1 cache has many DNF over a long period of time.

 

(3) I never suggested that the owner is a liar. Another situation that I have experienced is cache owners who place a cache and then do not go and check on it, assuming that folks just cannot find it because of the hiding style. This particular geocacher is known for hiding 1/1 caches that sometimes take 15 minutes or more to find, with very unique and clever hiding styles. So that is what I am assuming going into this search -- but the location where the cache is hidden (a local eatery) now is closed, so we have literally scoured the area and there is nothing there.

 

My wife says I get too fixated on geocaching sometimes -- I guess all of this discussion about one small cache (which I could just forget) might prove her right.

 

 

Thanks all for the interesting discussion.

[Clan Riffster]

If a cache isn't being found and the owner isn't doing anything about it, the cache should be archived.

You can't be serious. If I create a difficult hide, and several people fail to find it, you'll post an SBA? Brother, being "meek" has nothing to do with it. The issue I'm seeing from you, at least in that sentence, is jumping the gun. You're using the SBA button as your own personal power trip to jerk the chain of cache owners who don't play the way you want them to. If the owner held your hand while you searched, would that make you feel better?

 

A DNF does not an SBA make, neither does an improperly characterized cache. If the owner is still active, and still responding, (even if those responses don't meet your high expectations), than their caches do not need to be archived. To post a note suggesting that they do need to be archived is presumptuous and insulting. Multiple DNF's suggest that the cache's difficulty rating might need to be increased, not that you should knee jerk an SBA. Even if you had previously found the cache, and were able to confirm that it was missing, a muggled cache, with an active owner is no reason for an SBA.

[+supertbone]

I have used SBA a handeful of times. I used it when a cache was placed near utility boxes and security cameras on the grounds of a county courthouse and when caches which have been disabled for months by inactive users. I use it when a cache clearly violates gc rules, can cause a public safety concern, or has been disabled for an extended period of time with no action by an inactive user. That being said the reviewer and the cache ower has ultimate authority on what gets archived or not.

[+denali7]

(3) I never suggested that the owner is a liar. Another situation that I have experienced is cache owners who place a cache and then do not go and check on it, assuming that folks just cannot find it because of the hiding style.

 

No, you never suggested the CO is lying. Sorry for the confusion, I should have quoted the line I was responding to:

 

I see the cache as presented as a candidate of an SBA because either the cache owner is lying about the cache being there or is lying about the cache being a 1 star difficulty

[CoyoteRed]

If a cache isn't being found and the owner isn't doing anything about it, the cache should be archived.

You can't be serious. If I create a difficult hide, and several people fail to find it, you'll post an SBA?

 

We're not talking about a difficult hide. We're talking about a hide that should be in plain site or it's quite obvious where it is. We're talking about a cache that shouldn't have any DNFs, especially ones where the searcher was able to look for the cache for any period of time.

 

If I place a difficult hide, I expect for the cache to go for long periods without being found and to garner DNFs. In this case, we're not talking about a difficult hide.

[+Renegade Knight]

There are two caches in our area that have not been found in over a year. They both are rated 1/1. I have contacted the owner and he claims they are there, yet even with some friends from California with over 20K collective finds, we could not find either cache. Most recently the owner indicates that one may have been replaced with a nano by another cacher last month. The cacher in question is a good guy with many nice local hides and he is one of the original geocachers in the area, so I hesitate to use the 'needs to be archived' option - but when is enough enough??

 

1) You (and others) can't find it.

2) The owner says it's there. (and assuming they checked)

3) It's rated 1/1

4) The owner is active.

 

All you can assume is that the rating is wrong. This is not SBA fodder based on the info provided.

 

I've had reviewers disable caches based on the logs with a request for me to check on them before re-enableing them. That's about as good as you can expect.

Edited October 17, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+denali7]

We're not talking about a difficult hide. We're talking about a hide that should be in plain site or it's quite obvious where it is. We're talking about a cache that shouldn't have any DNFs, especially ones where the searcher was able to look for the cache for any period of time.

 

If I place a difficult hide, I expect for the cache to go for long periods without being found and to garner DNFs. In this case, we're not talking about a difficult hide.

 

We all understand that this is your position. Where I, and some others, choose to disagree with you is in the assertion that a.) very easy caches will never have any DNF's, and b.) the wrong star on a cache is grounds to log an SBA.

 

There are many caches that have less than ideal difficulty and/or terrain ratings, and other threads on this board have proven that there are regional variations, also. Yes, 1-star difficulty caches should be in plain sight, but that is up to the CO to decide. One recent cache that garnered a great deal of attention was hidden in absolute plain sight but listed as a 5/5 due to being placed in a difficult to access location. It was mentioned only in passing that this should have been posted as a 1 difficulty/5 terrain, according to the "plain sight" tenet, but no one would seriously consider an SBA needed. Why is that? Because it was recognized that the CO could label his cache as he sees fit. I think the owner of this cache we're discussing now deserves that same respect.

[+sbell111]

If a cache isn't being found and the owner isn't doing anything about it, the cache should be archived.

You can't be serious. If I create a difficult hide, and several people fail to find it, you'll post an SBA?

 

We're not talking about a difficult hide. We're talking about a hide that should be in plain site or it's quite obvious where it is. We're talking about a cache that shouldn't have any DNFs, especially ones where the searcher was able to look for the cache for any period of time....

I guess that many cachers don't have your level of talent. Just because a cache is rated 1/1, does not mean that it will be found every time.

[+olbluesguy]

Put up a couple of bucks,and challenge the cache owner to point it out if it's still there.

If I didn't break out laughing at two guys stumbeling around I don't think this would ever be found,and it is in plain sight and can be seen from at least ten feet away.Should it be a diff.1?

I would hate it if someone would post a SBA just because they couldn't find it.

 

Oh No OBG

[CoyoteRed]

If a cache isn't being found and the owner isn't doing anything about it, the cache should be archived.

You can't be serious. If I create a difficult hide, and several people fail to find it, you'll post an SBA?

 

We're not talking about a difficult hide. We're talking about a hide that should be in plain site or it's quite obvious where it is. We're talking about a cache that shouldn't have any DNFs, especially ones where the searcher was able to look for the cache for any period of time....

I guess that many cachers don't have your level of talent. Just because a cache is rated 1/1, does not mean that it will be found every time.

 

...and your point is?

[+sbell111]

We're not talking about a difficult hide. We're talking about a hide that should be in plain site or it's quite obvious where it is. We're talking about a cache that shouldn't have any DNFs, especially ones where the searcher was able to look for the cache for any period of time....

I guess that many cachers don't have your level of talent. Just because a cache is rated 1/1, does not mean that it will be found every time.

...and your point is?

Was I unclear?

 

My point is that your assumption that all 1/1s should be found every time is unrealistic.

[+Blaidd-Drwg]

Certainly doesn't warrant SBA if the owner says it's there.

 

Actually in the case of one cache in question an email to the owner last weekend gave a response that 'check with XXX, who says he replaced it with a nano.'

I have real heartburn with the owners attitude as quoted above. I would be willing to bet that cacher XXX claimed a find on a cache that he didn't find and therefore placed the nano. If cacher XXX coordinated with the CO, then the CO should be able to tell you what you're looking for, not have you go to cacher XXX for information. There are now potentially two caches in the area. I vote for the SBA, based on owner's non-responsive response.

[CoyoteRed]

We're not talking about a difficult hide. We're talking about a hide that should be in plain site or it's quite obvious where it is. We're talking about a cache that shouldn't have any DNFs, especially ones where the searcher was able to look for the cache for any period of time....

I guess that many cachers don't have your level of talent. Just because a cache is rated 1/1, does not mean that it will be found every time.

...and your point is?

Was I unclear?

 

My point is that your assumption that all 1/1s should be found every time is unrealistic.

 

Okay. Shall we explore the reasons that a 1/1 would not be found? I'd love to heard them and see how this applies in this situation.

[+sbell111]

Certainly doesn't warrant SBA if the owner says it's there.

Actually in the case of one cache in question an email to the owner last weekend gave a response that 'check with XXX, who says he replaced it with a nano.'

I have real heartburn with the owners attitude as quoted above. I would be willing to bet that cacher XXX claimed a find on a cache that he didn't find and therefore placed the nano. If cacher XXX coordinated with the CO, then the CO should be able to tell you what you're looking for, not have you go to cacher XXX for information. There are now potentially two caches in the area. I vote for the SBA, based on owner's non-responsive response.

Honestly, I'm not in love with the cache owner's response, either. However, even if the cache owner had ignored the email all together, I wouldn't favor an SBA, given the information that we have (or lack of information).

[+denali7]

Okay. Shall we explore the reasons that a 1/1 would not be found? No

 

I'd love to heard them and see how this applies in this situation. ...but I'm sure the OP would like this thread to be about the caching community providing their input as to his question.

Edited October 17, 2006 by denali7

[+sbell111]

We're not talking about a difficult hide. We're talking about a hide that should be in plain site or it's quite obvious where it is. We're talking about a cache that shouldn't have any DNFs, especially ones where the searcher was able to look for the cache for any period of time....

I guess that many cachers don't have your level of talent. Just because a cache is rated 1/1, does not mean that it will be found every time.

...and your point is?

Was I unclear?

 

My point is that your assumption that all 1/1s should be found every time is unrealistic.

Okay. Shall we explore the reasons that a 1/1 would not be found? I'd love to heard them and see how this applies in this situation.

I don't know where you are going with this. Frankly, I don't much care.

 

Here's a 1/1 cache that I recently DNFed. Others have failed to find it also. I have every reason to believe that it is there, no reason to believe that it is rated improperly, and no basis for posting an SBA.

[+denali7]

Since so many cachers refuse to post DNF logs, analyzing a single DNF on ANY cache is pointless, anyway. In most cases, where 1 DNF appears, more went unreported. Because of this, it stands to reason that there are caches out there that are a bit more difficult than all the sunshiney logs would lead one to believe, just as there are caches that are more difficult than the cachepage indicates. Still, not a sole reason for SBA.

[+cimawr]

I have used SBA a handeful of times.

 

I have used it once, although I've also taken action on another cache which resulted in archiving, and may do the same with a third.

 

The one actual SBA I posted had two or three previous "needs maintenance" logs, going back several months, indicating that seekers found the area flooded and that at least two had found *remnants* of the container.

I happened to be going past the spot after doing another active cache in the same shopping complex, so I took a look and found the same thing - entire area under about 2" of water (which is a huge DUH on the part of the hider, since it's a SWM area for I-95! ) - and the cache nowhere to be seen in the hiding area described in the hint. (It was in a trash tire.)

On checking the owner's profile when I got back home, I saw that s/he had never been particularly active, and hadn't logged onto the website since 2005. SBA, no question.

 

Tthe second one - a large micro (Altoids tin) at a truck stop off of I-95 - was reported missing back in July by a cacher who had not only previously found it, but had dropped off TBs in it *since* the initial find. However, the cacher did it as a note, not as a "needs maintenance" or "SBA"... no action was taken.

I'm at that particular truck stop 2-4 times a week, and while the cache had gone missing before I started caching, I know where it was - AND know that the area was substantially changed by landscaping this summer. (It was also a SWM area; the cache was apparently attached to ground cover material, which has since been removed.)

The owner of the cache no longer lives in the state, and an attempt at e-mailing directly bounced. So I popped a heads-up note to the reviewer who'd approved it; s/he disabled it, then archived it two weeks later when the disabling wasn't responded to.

Again, that's a no-question SBA, although I chose to handle it differently.

 

Third cache is in a local park, in yet ANOTHER area that periodically floods.

Which is yet another DUH - that side of the parking area, which is located along the same creek as the hiding area, has HUGE signs all over the place saying "Area Subject to Flooding, Park At Your Own Risk".

 

Logs going back to May say the cache was full of water, log was destroyed, etc. etc.... last log prior to my visit was a "Needs Maintenance" four months ago, BEFORE we had heavy rains which would have completely flooded that particular area.

On looking for it myself, I found no sign of the cache, even after using the hint, which is a flat-out description of the hiding place. I'm betting that it just plan floated away in the rains.

I posted a "Needs Maintenance" since AFAIK the owner's still active (not sure because the account name has changed), but if no action's taken in another couple of weeks - at that point, the cache will have been flagged as needing maintenance for 5 months - I'll most likely pop a note to the local reviewer and put it in his court.

Edited October 17, 2006 by cimawr

[CoyoteRed]

Here's a 1/1 cache that I recently DNFed. Others have failed to find it also. I have every reason to believe that it is there, no reason to believe that it is rated improperly, and no basis for posting an SBA.

 

Doesn't sound like what the OP described. No string of DNFs. Actually, the month previously there was a string of finds by those in the double digits. Sounds like those who aren't finding this one are simply having a bad day.

 

Regardless, it doesn't affect my position one whit.

[CoyoteRed]

We all understand that this is your position. Where I, and some others, choose to disagree with you is in the assertion that a.) very easy caches will never have any DNF's, and b.) the wrong star on a cache is grounds to log an SBA.

 

I make no such assertions. You misunderstanding of my positions makes it highly likely you misunderstand the nuances of the issues.

 

"Shouldn't have" is not the same as "will never have."

 

I never said a wrong rating, on its own, is grounds for an SBA.

 

As for having a string of DNFs on a single star cache by experienced cachers it is grounds for concern. Posting an SBA does not archive the cache. It alerts admin to the situation where they can look into it. Some folks have already mentioned emailing the owner, emailing the previous "helper," and other such things. A reviewer can do the same things and are in a better position to handle it. Besides, after you've done it and then posted your SBA, they're probably going to turn around to do it all over again.

[+sbell111]

Here's a 1/1 cache that I recently DNFed. Others have failed to find it also. I have every reason to believe that it is there, no reason to believe that it is rated improperly, and no basis for posting an SBA.

Doesn't sound like what the OP described. No string of DNFs. Actually, the month previously there was a string of finds by those in the double digits. Sounds like those who aren't finding this one are simply having a bad day.

 

Regardless, it doesn't affect my position one whit.

You might want to reread the initial post. It did not mention a string of DNFs. Cachers looking together were unable to find it. If you and I go caching together and are unable to find a specific cache, it does not create 'a string of DNFs'.

[+sbell111]

We all understand that this is your position. Where I, and some others, choose to disagree with you is in the assertion that a.) very easy caches will never have any DNF's, and b.) the wrong star on a cache is grounds to log an SBA.

 

I make no such assertions. You misunderstanding of my positions makes it highly likely you misunderstand the nuances of the issues.

 

"Shouldn't have" is not the same as "will never have."

 

I never said a wrong rating, on its own, is grounds for an SBA.

 

As for having a string of DNFs on a single star cache by experienced cachers it is grounds for concern. Posting an SBA does not archive the cache. It alerts admin to the situation where they can look into it. Some folks have already mentioned emailing the owner, emailing the previous "helper," and other such things. A reviewer can do the same things and are in a better position to handle it. Besides, after you've done it and then posted your SBA, they're probably going to turn around to do it all over again.

Ignoring the obnoxiousness of your post, I will merely point out that no one except for you has mentioned a string of DNFs on the cache in question. Do you know something about this specific cache that you can share?

Edited October 17, 2006 by sbell111

[+Gary and Mary Adventurers]

Should be Archived is a last resort, and should only be used when ther is direct evidence that the cache is gone or destroyed, and the owner can not be contacted. Of course a SBA would also be appropriate if you found that the cache was obviously placed against guidlines.

The ratings for difficulty are so arbitrary, and open to personal interpretation. One cachers "1" is anothers "2" or "3". Terrain ratings are also not cut and dry. Taken literally a "1-1" should be able to be found by a person in a wheelchair almost immediately, and would probably be muggled before it was approved. We all know of caches we would rate differently, but that does not make them candidates for SBA.

The OP followed the proper procedure and contacted the owner.......take his word for it, and log a DNF, if all the logs are DNFs then folks will ignore the cache in the future.

 

Thanks for all the Adventures

[CoyoteRed]

Here's a 1/1 cache that I recently DNFed. Others have failed to find it also. I have every reason to believe that it is there, no reason to believe that it is rated improperly, and no basis for posting an SBA.

Doesn't sound like what the OP described. No string of DNFs. Actually, the month previously there was a string of finds by those in the double digits. Sounds like those who aren't finding this one are simply having a bad day.

 

Regardless, it doesn't affect my position one whit.

You might want to reread the initial post. It did not mention a string of DNFs. Cachers looking together were unable to find it. If you and I go caching together and are unable to find a specific cache, it does not create 'a string of DNFs'.

 

You might want to reread post #20 above.

[CoyoteRed]

Taken literally a "1-1" should be able to be found by a person in a wheelchair almost immediately, and would probably be muggled before it was approved.

 

Obviously, I would disagree.

 

But, I get what you mean. If folks used the rating system that is linked on the cache reporting page, then we'd all know what a 1/1 really was and we'd all be on the same page.

[+denali7]

I make no such assertions. You misunderstanding of my positions makes it highly likely you misunderstand the nuances of the issues.

 

"Shouldn't have" is not the same as "will never have."

But it is pretty close to:

We're talking about a cache that shouldn't have any DNFs,

 

...umm, now I don't understand the "nuances of the issues" because I don't agree with you? You misunderstand a great deal if you assume those who disagree with you are less intelligent or perceptive. Your grammar indicates that you may, in fact, be the unarmed man in a battle of wits.

 

BTW, splitting hairs is the classic strategy of those who are losing on the merit of their arguement.

 

eta: With apologies to the OP, I'm finished with this discussion.

Edited October 17, 2006 by denali7

[+sbell111]

... eta: With apologies to the OP, I'm finished with this discussion.

Me, too.

 

My advice to the OP is to ignore the cache but include it on your watch list. If it starts to get finds, go look for it again.

[+hikemeister]

Taken literally a "1-1" should be able to be found by a person in a wheelchair

 

That is a very good point -- a terrain of 1 is supposed to indicate handicap accessible, and I apply that very carefully to all of my own caches. There is no way this one can possibly be handicap accessible, even if it is still there (unless it is the worlds smallest nano and I need to come back with a microscope to find it).

[+Harry Dolphin]

I think that SBA should only be used in extreme circumstances. On an active railroad track, for instance. Cache obviously missing for a very long time. I posted one of those. Got my SBA deleted by an owner who said he checked and it was still there. I would assume that he probably prevaricated. Five DNFs in a year's time, with no finds, and the owner 25 miles away. It was archived.

On the other hand, OP's criterium does not seem appropriate for SBA.

I guess that my problem with that is that there are a certain number of caches maintained by the community. Owner either dead, or moved across the country. No one can remove that SBA or Needs Maintenance, except the owner or someone at gc.com. Fine. Six people couldn't find it. That doesn't mean that it Needs Maintenance. It's had twelve finds and fifteen DNFs in its five years of existance. I could waste a day (and $6 toll) just to verify that it's still there. I would hazard a guess that its still there. It's just not easy to find, and yes, the difficulty rating is probably a bit low. But it's a classic. The 'Needs Maintenance' or 'SBA' because you cannot find it seems like an abuse of the system.

[+hikemeister]

I could waste a day (and $6 toll) just to verify that it's still there. I would hazard a guess that its still there. It's just not easy to find, and yes, the difficulty rating is probably a bit low. But it's a classic. The 'Needs Maintenance' or 'SBA' because you cannot find it seems like an abuse of the system.

 

Wow !!

 

This is exactly what I think is happening in my home town -- cache owner not able or willing to check to see if the cache really is missing, and 'hazarding to guess' that the cache is still there.

 

Are you from Gainesville?

[CoyoteRed]

Your grammar indicates that you may, in fact, be the unarmed man in a battle of wits.

 

Yeah, and my spelling sucks at times, too, but that doesn't change the number on my IQ test. You're barking up the wrong tree as I'm completely secure in that area. Further, a smart person would have attacked my lack of schooling which is really the only thing poor grammar indicates.

 

As for splitting hairs, one only has to read back over the thread. My position is sound.

 

I reiterate, in my opinion, there is a problem with a cache if it is a 1 star difficulty and several experienced cachers can't find it. The cache hasn't been found in a while and, with a clear problem, the owner isn't physically checking the condition of his cache. As has already been indicated the location may not be the best because another cacher has replaced it, further indicating the cache may again be missing.

 

If the cache is not viable, if the location is not viable, it warrants an SBA. After which the reviewers and admin can handle it and make a better determination.