Using the 'Needs to be Archived' Option

[+Kit Fox]

Here is a fine example of "the owner said the cache was there, even though it really wasn't." I logged a DNF, the owner claimed it was still there, so I tried again, and it still wasn't there.

 

Sometimes, having faith in cache owners is a bad idea.

 

Here is another example of a cache that should have been archive along time ago, but too many cachers were afraid to post the dreaded SBA log. Lava Lamp has had 10 DNFs since May of 2003. I posted a needs maintenance log, and a reviewer, stumbled across my log, and posted a SBA Log.

 

If everyone lives under the fear of cacher scorn, there will be more caches like this. Do the right thing, give the cache another shot, after contacting the cacher who replaced the cache. If you still don't find it, post a SBA Log.

Edited October 17, 2006 by Kit Fox

[+hikemeister]

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.

 

 

Just a lucky guess, but right on the money. Yes indeed, the caches I refer to has a string of DNFs. I have it on my watch list and will see what happens. The bad thing is that this one is right across the road from Lowes, where we seem to end up just about every other weekend, when I tell my son 'let's give it another try.' It is like an addiction !!! But seriously, I'm not that bugged about it -- but appreciate the good advice and find it interesting how a post about one topic can spin off into many directions. I need to visit here more often.

[+Moose Mob]

If you think your local cache reviewer should look at it, you can either e-mail the reviewer directly or post an SBA to get thier attention.

 

Although we don't have exact criteria to determine if a given cache should or should not be archived, we tend to have a bit more background information that may help us determine a particular course of action.

[Clan Riffster]

Obviously, I would disagree.

Wow. Couldn't see that one coming.

[+BlueDeuce]

As I said at the beginning, contact your reviewer.

 

If you all want to debate that you can or can't always determine the precise conditions that warrants a SBA, go right ahead. I say if it's questionable then contact your reviewer and let them decide. You are not a bad person if you do.

 

Here's my criteria.

 

1. If it's blantantly outside of guidelines, like when someone posts a cache lying about it's location so to send people to harass someone at that location. (True Story) I post a SBA to notify the public (aka cachers) and directly contact the reviewer.

 

2. If I think it's outside of guidelines, I contact the reviewer.

 

3. If it's been disabled by the cache owner for six months or more (usually more). I post a note asking for status, if no response for two months I post another note asking for status, no response for another two months I post a SBA. Then there is usually several more months before the actual archive. (in most cases)

 

4. If there have been several DNFs, and I think it's missing, and it doesn't seem like the owner is responding I contact the reviewer. I will either be told to relax and don't worry about it, or to wait to see what else develops, or the reviewer will ask for status from the cache owner.

 

If you think any of these steps goes outside my area of responsibility or I am being a busybody, then contact your reviewer.

[+hikemeister]

OK thanks.

 

I actually think one root of this problem is that some people have too many caches, spread out over a wide area that prevents them from being able to maintain or check status. I typically have about 30 active caches at any given time, and even with that number it is challenging to keep up with them. So when there are two consecutive DNFs, I either go and check the cache or temporarily disable until I can do it.

 

Others, with over 100 caches, may simply be unable to maintain what they have and just let strings of DNFs accumulate.

 

Enough of this -- I agree with the recommendation to contact the local reviewer.

[+SniperChicken]

Sounds like the cache hider is pretty sure it is still there,i don't see the big deal...this is a sport ,if you can't find it log it DNF and go on to another one.The cache owner will have to live with the reputation he puts forth.It does not so much reflect on the seekers ability to find a cache,especially when other cachers are not having any better luck finding it. I know it must be frustrating to have this one nagging you,i think every cacher has 1 or 2 like this at one time or other.Have fun with the sport,try not to let it get to you.

[+geognerd]

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.

Clan Riffster, I'm not trying to be a jerk or go on a power trip. And I'm not as trigger happy as I may sound. I read the previous logs for the cache and can usually tell whether a cache is simply a difficult cache that will have a lot of DNFs, or an easy cache that should be found by most cachers. I disagree with CR that a 1/1 should be found every time, but if a cache with an easy difficulty rating with a long history of finds followed by 6 DNFs over a period of months, then something is wrong. I post a note first, asking the cache owner to check on the cache and if they plan on keeping it active. If the cache owner is incapable of temporarily disabling the cache, posting a note, repairing the cache, or archiving the cache within a month, something needs to be done. I'm not saying they even have to fix the cache within a month. I simply ask that the owner at least post a note saying they are aware of the cache's situation. This note acknowledges they are still playing the game. If they post a note and don't get around to fixing it for a few months, that's fine with me, because the owner at least acknowledged my concern.

 

I'll give an example of my methodology. There was a cache disabled in June of this year. The owner said the landscapers were cleaning up leaves around the cache, which served as the cache's camo. At the end of September, the cache still wasn't re-enabled. I posted a note asking if the cache will be coming back, and stated that it should be archived if it was not coming back. It doesn't take 3 months to clean up leaves. On top of that, the cache is located along a fence separating the cache owner's house from the park. So it's not like the cache owner had to go to great lengths to put the cache back and enable it. Since the cache is in the owner's backyard, I only gave them two weeks to respond to my note. They already had several months to enable the cache. There was no response to my note, so I went and logged an SBA notice. As soon as I logged the SBA they jumped into action and replaced the cache. If the owner had posted a response to my note or e-mailed me, I wouldn't have bothered with the SBA log at all.

 

I've noticed that it takes a couple of weeks before one of my local reviewers acts on my SBA log. The local reviewer posts a note stating that if s/he is not contacted by a certain date (usually a month away), the cache will be archived. Clan Riffster, perhaps your local reviewer doesn't act in this manner. But where I am, the cache owner is given plenty of time to fix the cache and get it back in action. So here's the timeline for one of my SBAs: Post a note asking about cache's status. Two to four weeks later, log an SBA. One to two weeks later, reviewer posts a note. One month later, if there is no action by the owner, the reviewer archives the cache. So the cache owner has 7-10 weeks to fix the cache after I post a note asking about its status.

 

As I said at the beginning, contact your reviewer.

 

If you all want to debate that you can or can't always determine the precise conditions that warrants a SBA, go right ahead. I say if it's questionable then contact your reviewer and let them decide. You are not a bad person if you do.

 

Here's my criteria.

 

1. If it's blantantly outside of guidelines, like when someone posts a cache lying about it's location so to send people to harass someone at that location. (True Story) I post a SBA to notify the public (aka cachers) and directly contact the reviewer.

 

2. If I think it's outside of guidelines, I contact the reviewer.

 

3. If it's been disabled by the cache owner for six months or more (usually more). I post a note asking for status, if no response for two months I post another note asking for status, no response for another two months I post a SBA. Then there is usually several more months before the actual archive. (in most cases)

 

4. If there have been several DNFs, and I think it's missing, and it doesn't seem like the owner is responding I contact the reviewer. I will either be told to relax and don't worry about it, or to wait to see what else develops, or the reviewer will ask for status from the cache owner.

 

If you think any of these steps goes outside my area of responsibility or I am being a busybody, then contact your reviewer.

My criteria for logging an SBA are similar to those posted by BlueDeuce above, though he gives the owner more time and more chances to reply to his notes than I do. Logging an SBA, as demonstrated in my post here, is not an instantaneous process and cache owners are given several chances to get their act together.

[Clan Riffster]

I'll agree to most of your criteria, with one major caveat:

If the cache owner is still active, (responds to posts/DNF's/etc), then I would not post an SBA. My life is complicated enough without having to worry about what JoeyBagOfDonuts is doing with his cache. If the owner fades away from the game, yet leaves their cache behind, and DNF's start to accumulate, I'd have no problem posting an SBA, after I hunted the cache and filed my own DNF. Regardless of the cache's rating, owner's activity level or number of DNF's, I will not post an SBA based upon someone else's log.

[+hikemeister]

I'll agree to most of your criteria, with one major caveat:

If the cache owner is still active, (responds to posts/DNF's/etc), then I would not post an SBA. My life is complicated enough without having to worry about what JoeyBagOfDonuts is doing with his cache. If the owner fades away from the game, yet leaves their cache behind, and DNF's start to accumulate, I'd have no problem posting an SBA, after I hunted the cache and filed my own DNF. Regardless of the cache's rating, owner's activity level or number of DNF's, I will not post an SBA based upon someone else's log.

 

Agree with this one -- I would not post a SBA unless I made a major attempt to find the cache AND there was a long list of DNFs before me...and even then, I would first contact the CO to ask if the cache is there (if yes, try again)...for a hint (if given, try again)...etc. That's the pattern I have followed on the cache that started this thread. It is funny because it had a string of DNFs, then a flurry of finds on the same day, when one of the geocachers DNF and placed another cache that almost immediately started another string of DNFs. Hey maybe that is the solution -- I'll just drop a 35 mm and log a find (NOT).

 

PS -- I wonder how many folks get to a cache location, DNF, call the owner, place a new container, and then log the find. I have been with other geocachers twice when this happened and it is kind of funny because you are logging a find of something you hid.

[+Harry Dolphin]

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?

 

Nope. Northwest Jersey. Things are the same everywhere. "I can't find it. It must be missing. Needs Maintenance." Or "I can't find it. I'll drop a film canister, and log a find." The one I'm thinking of is an old cache, with very few finds. True, the cache owner is not active. He did four checks on it in four years because people calimed that it was missing. We found it a year later. It is not a high muggle area. I'd guess the chances of it being muggled are highly improbable. (Of course, I cannot guarantee that, without looking for it again.) I do not see this as a reason for Needs Maintenance or SBA. When we went looking, it had not been found in almost a year. I'd hate to see a classic, five-year-old cache archived because someone says "I can't find it. SBA." And, there are a number of old caches around that have not been maintained by the owner for a while, and/or have been cared for by the local community.

[+BlueDeuce]

You're assuming the reviewer would archive a 'classic five year old cache', because someone posted a SBA.

 

That the community has to support.

 

Because the owner won't.

[+Blaidd-Drwg]

 

Agree with this one -- I would not post a SBA unless I made a major attempt to find the cache AND there was a long list of DNFs before me...and even then, I would first contact the CO to ask if the cache is there (if yes, try again)...for a hint (if given, try again)...etc. That's the pattern I have followed on the cache that started this thread. It is funny because it had a string of DNFs, then a flurry of finds on the same day, when one of the geocachers DNF and placed another cache that almost immediately started another string of DNFs. Hey maybe that is the solution -- I'll just drop a 35 mm and log a find (NOT).

 

PS -- I wonder how many folks get to a cache location, DNF, call the owner, place a new container, and then log the find. I have been with other geocachers twice when this happened and it is kind of funny because you are logging a find of something you hid.

 

As I stated in my earlier post, I think the dropping of a replacement cache is just wrong. The owner needs to check the cache. If this is one of those caches that are great old hides, then contact some of the better known local leading cachers and ask them to check the cache (preferably one who has found it previously). If they confirm that it is not where they saw it, and they can't relocate it, I still go with SBA!

[+Corp Of Discovery]

If you think your local cache reviewer should look at it, you can either e-mail the reviewer directly or post an SBA to get thier attention.

 

Although we don't have exact criteria to determine if a given cache should or should not be archived, we tend to have a bit more background information that may help us determine a particular course of action.

 

That doesn't always work either. There's a cache I hunted in a group last weekend that is not there and has had several SBAs logged on it, mine included, and nothing has been done yet. It's not there because the cache owner updated the page saying so. The cache has had problems from inception: published/retracted, complaints and the coords were entered wrong and were never updated. This isn't a new cache but one that's a few month old...

[+Kit Fox]

I'm starting to believe there is an actual backlog of SBAs that the reviewers need to "catch up on."

 

I know of quite few caches with SBA logs, with legit reasons, and no action has taken place in a great deal of time.

[Clan Riffster]

It's not there because the cache owner updated the page saying so. The cache has had problems from inception: published/retracted, complaints and the coords were entered wrong and were never updated.

Obviously everybody has their own criteria regarding what should generate an SBA, but nothing on that list would cause me to hit the button, primarily because the owner is still active in the game and is apparently responding. Everything in that list, (cache MIA/complaints/bad coords), are all grounds for the owner to do some maintenance, but, in my eyes, that cache shouldn't be archived. Maybe I just have low expectations?

Cache MIA: Been there! I replaced it rather than archiving it.

Complaints: Been there! If I feel they're valid, I address them. If it's just someone whining, I ignore them.

Bad coords: Been there! Due to a screw up on my end, one of my puzzle caches had the FTF'ers searching 600' away. I fixed the page rather than archiving the cache.

 

It's always been my belief that an SBA should be reserved for those caches that Should Be Archived, and not wasted on those caches that need help. The single most determining factor for me is if the owner is still in the game. If they are trying, I'll forgive most anything. If they quit playing, and the cache develops major issues, and no locals are willing to assume responsibility for it, I'll fire off an SBA.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

It's not there because the cache owner updated the page saying so. The cache has had problems from inception: published/retracted, complaints and the coords were entered wrong and were never updated.

Obviously everybody has their own criteria regarding what should generate an SBA, but nothing on that list would cause me to hit the button, primarily because the owner is still active in the game and is apparently responding. Everything in that list, (cache MIA/complaints/bad coords), are all grounds for the owner to do some maintenance, but, in my eyes, that cache shouldn't be archived. Maybe I just have low expectations?

Cache MIA: Been there! I replaced it rather than archiving it.

Complaints: Been there! If I feel they're valid, I address them. If it's just someone whining, I ignore them.

Bad coords: Been there! Due to a screw up on my end, one of my puzzle caches had the FTF'ers searching 600' away. I fixed the page rather than archiving the cache.

 

It's always been my belief that an SBA should be reserved for those caches that Should Be Archived, and not wasted on those caches that need help. The single most determining factor for me is if the owner is still in the game. If they are trying, I'll forgive most anything. If they quit playing, and the cache develops major issues, and no locals are willing to assume responsibility for it, I'll fire off an SBA.

 

I only post SBAs on caches that deserve them. Lets see, the cache owner has 0 finds and this is their only hide; joined June 21, 2006, hasn't been on the site since Sept. 4, 2006; 14 logs- including 5 DNFs, 4 SBAs, 1 needs maintenance, 1 retraction, 1 note, 1 publish (the first one must have been deleted) and 1 find (apparently by a friend); all that is dating back to July. Still nothing has been done by either the cache owner or a reviewer.

 

Finally, here's the highlight of the cache description:

Its somewhere in my front yard, since it IS my first

The posted coords take you to the middle of a strip mall parking lot.

 

That's an SBA in my book.

Edited October 21, 2006 by Corp Of Discovery

[+hikemeister]

I think we are a magnet for caches like this.

 

Today we went out to find two micros on the way to hide one of ours, and came on a nice place for hiding another cache at the end of a dead end road. I was pretty certain that there was no cache there, but then was surprised to find a waypoint in my GPS just 20 feet away. Looked it up on the handy dandy Treo and sure enough, a nano that had not been found since May 2005 with four (now five) DNF logs. Here we go again*@~!

 

Oh yes, we did NOT submit a needs to be archived log -- just posted a note to the owner saying it needs to be checked and that we would do it for him if he so desires.