Purpose of the SBA

[+sbell111]

What's the difference in sending an email saying your cache is destroyed and scattered all over versus posting an SBA?

You already answered your own question:

One is private, the other public and gets a reviewer involved.

That was illustrative and details the only difference being it being public and getting a reviewer involved.

If one of my caches gets destroyed, it most assuredly does not need to be archived, it needs to be repaired, or maintained, if you prefer that word.

Then there shouldn't be a problem then should there? Get it fixed and then there is no reason to archive it.

 

As for the link quoted, that's the first I've ever heard of it. Besides, you might want to re-read it very closely. I don't think it's saying what you or Dan are implying it is saying.

 

The bottom line is I've detailed when I will post an SBA. Period. Until such time we are informed my criteria in appropriate, if you don't like it I've got a "Jeremy Irish quote" for you.

Did you take a really big rude pill this morning?

[CoyoteRed]

Second, why do you not trust local cachers to be able to take the next step if the owner isn't responsive?

When I stop seeing log after log detailing problems with a cache then I might assume a note or a NM would be sufficient. Otherwise, I post an SBA.

In other words, you agree with almost everyone in this thread and disagree with your prior position.

 

Who said I've stopped seeing log after log detailing problems? You're making assumptions based on no facts.

[CoyoteRed]

Not worth it. Edited November 22, 2006 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

Second, why do you not trust local cachers to be able to take the next step if the owner isn't responsive?

When I stop seeing log after log detailing problems with a cache then I might assume a note or a NM would be sufficient. Otherwise, I post an SBA.

In other words, you agree with almost everyone in this thread and disagree with your prior position.

 

Who said I've stopped seeing log after log detailing problems? You're making assumptions based on no facts.

<sigh>

 

In your earlier posts, you never mentioned logs detailing problems or the previous use of 'NM' logs. You stated:

Where I draw the line between Needs Maintenance and Should Be Archived is whether the cache is fit to be hunted.

 

Wet logbooks, depleted trinkets, leaky containers, missing stash notes, etc. warrant, IMHO, a NM.

 

For an SBA, OTOH, destroyed containers, legal issues, missing caches (not simply ones I couldn't find), etc. are issues that would pretty much prevent a legal, successful hunt. This has nothing to do with how active the owner is in the least. It's either fix it or archive it. This also does not preclude community-based repair and adoption.

[+sbell111]

Not worth it.

 

Suffice it to say I find it ironic when I try to assert myself for me to play the game the way I see fit, you have a hissy fit. If I try to get others to play my way you have a hissy fit. If I play any way that is different that the way you play you have a hissy fit. Why is that?

Thanks for removing the more personal attack. Please point out any 'hissy fit' that I had. Better yet, send it to me by email rather than in the unrelated thread.

Edited November 22, 2006 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

Second, why do you not trust local cachers to be able to take the next step if the owner isn't responsive?

When I stop seeing log after log detailing problems with a cache then I might assume a note or a NM would be sufficient. Otherwise, I post an SBA.

In other words, you agree with almost everyone in this thread and disagree with your prior position.

 

Who said I've stopped seeing log after log detailing problems? You're making assumptions based on no facts.

<sigh>

 

In your earlier posts, you never mentioned logs detailing problems or the previous use of 'NM' logs. You stated:

Where I draw the line between Needs Maintenance and Should Be Archived is whether the cache is fit to be hunted.

 

Wet logbooks, depleted trinkets, leaky containers, missing stash notes, etc. warrant, IMHO, a NM.

 

For an SBA, OTOH, destroyed containers, legal issues, missing caches (not simply ones I couldn't find), etc. are issues that would pretty much prevent a legal, successful hunt. This has nothing to do with how active the owner is in the least. It's either fix it or archive it. This also does not preclude community-based repair and adoption.

 

Nice. Now you're trying to make an answer to a question fit a completely different question. Heck, you quoted the train of thought. Can't you follow it?

 

"Why can't you trust the community to take care of problems?"

"Because as evidenced by log after log of problems, they don't. If they did, then I might be more inclined to keep a reviewer out of it."

"So you agree with everyone and have changed your position."

 

No wonder folks like the ignore functions.

[CoyoteRed]

Not worth it.

 

Suffice it to say I find it ironic when I try to assert myself for me to play the game the way I see fit, you have a hissy fit. If I try to get others to play my way you have a hissy fit. If I play any way that is different that the way you play you have a hissy fit. Why is that?

Thanks for removing the more personal attack. Please point out any 'hissy fit' that I hap. Better yet, send it to me by email rather than in the unrelated thread.

 

Oh, just about every interaction between us.

 

Oh, yeah, I removed my attack against you yet I see yours against me still stands. Good one.

[+sbell111]

Oi, Vai!

 

Believe what you want.

[+DanOCan]

As for the link quoted, that's the first I've ever heard of it. Besides, you might want to re-read it very closely. I don't think it's saying what you or Dan are implying it is saying.

 

I implied nothing, I took it at face value.

 

If you feel I have misread something from what I consider the official Groundspeak answer please enlighten me so I can see what I missed.

 

Cheers!

[+Semper Questio]

Hmm. I read "Should Be Archived" as meaning that the person logging it has encountered a cache that "should be archived." If there is something about the cache that need to be fixed, checked, or investigated, it would seem more appropriate to me to use the "Needs Maintenance."

 

The problem with Needs Maintenance logs is that they are often ignored:

 

I posted a "needs maintenance" log for this cache and it went nowhere. Even a reviewer posted a "NA" log, yet the cache owner has done nothing.

 

Perhaps, then, gc.com should have an automated process that converts any NM logs that have been outstanding over 30 (? 60?) days to an SBA due to lack of owner maintenance. This would then go to the reviewers and they can be dealt with accordingly.

[+The Jester]

As for the link quoted, that's the first I've ever heard of it. Besides, you might want to re-read it very closely. I don't think it's saying what you or Dan are implying it is saying.

 

I implied nothing, I took it at face value.

 

If you feel I have misread something from what I consider the official Groundspeak answer please enlighten me so I can see what I missed.

 

Cheers!

There is a difference between "situations that warrant a SBA note" and "The cache should be archived immediately when". Notice the handling - one is done by the guy directing the SBA note, the other is by the regional volunteer. One is done NOW, the other has a time period to deal with problems. I don't think the whole answer is written very clearly, as it implies a list of situations for one thing, then only lists situations for another.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I haven't read all the posts but I'll add this :

I think things were fine BEFORE.....all we need is a F, DNF, and NOTE.

I have folks with just a few finds calling for maint. or archiving when 99% of the time its a plain old DNF.

The NOTE alerted the cache owner to any number of problems and a private email to owners and reviewers was always an option on the very rare case it was needed.

We need to be carefull less fine tuning becomes micro-management.

[Clan Riffster]

Get it fixed and then there is no reason to archive it.

And yet, your previously stated intent is to fire off an SBA if you found one of my caches that was damaged.

 

As for the link quoted, you might want to re-read it very closely. I don't think it's saying what you or Dan are implying it is saying.

I've always taken great pride in my reading skills. Seems to me that it says exactly what DanOCan quoted. Perhaps you could show me specifically what it is I'm misinterpreting?

 

Until such time we are informed my criteria in appropriate.

Not sure if this is a typo or not. Groundspeak has already informed you that your SBA criteria is inappropriate. Insisting that you are right, when Groundspeak says you're wrong is simply you being either unable or unwilling to admit it.

[CoyoteRed]

Get it fixed and then there is no reason to archive it.

And yet, your previously stated intent is to fire off an SBA if you found one of my caches that was damaged.

 

As for the link quoted, you might want to re-read it very closely. I don't think it's saying what you or Dan are implying it is saying.

I've always taken great pride in my reading skills. Seems to me that it says exactly what DanOCan quoted. Perhaps you could show me specifically what it is I'm misinterpreting?

 

Until such time we are informed my criteria in appropriate.

Not sure if this is a typo or not. Groundspeak has already informed you that your SBA criteria is inappropriate. Insisting that you are right, when Groundspeak says you're wrong is simply you being either unable or unwilling to admit it.

 

Yours is a misplaced pride. If you would re-read what I said originally, a leaky container would get a NM from me, a destroyed cache would get an SBA. "Damaged" is a bit of a broad term. Some paint flake off? Completely crushed into a pancake? What is "damaged?"

 

As for the quoted link, The Jester has already pointed out the flaw in that write up and said it better than I could have.

 

...and yes, it was sort of a typo, more of a situation where proof reading was most definitely warranted.

 

So, you want to point out where Groundspeak has said my criteria is inappropriate? I hope you have more than that poorly worded knowledge base page. I need something much more clear than that for me to change the way I do things. Like I said, I've not yet heard word one from any admin that I pull the trigger on SBA too quickly.

[Clan Riffster]

If you would re-read what I said originally, a leaky container would get a NM from me, a destroyed cache would get an SBA.

Here's what you posted earlier:

For an SBA, OTOH, missing caches (not simply ones I couldn't find), etc. are issues that would pretty much prevent a legal, successful hunt. This has nothing to do with how active the owner is in the least.

Please bear with me. I'm such a terrible reader I may have missed your point. First you say a destroyed cache warrants an SBA, then you say a missing cache warrants an SBA, and say that the activity level of the cache owner is irrelevant. So, knowing that a cache is 500' from my front door, knowing that I physically check it every day, and knowing that I am active, you would fire off an SBA if you find it missing? In my opinion, and in Groundspeak's opinion, that is jumping the gun. Since you continue your life of denial, I can only assume that you haven't read the link supplied earlier. Here's the relevant point where you & Groundspeak disagree:

"it is painfully evident that the cache is missing AND the owner is missing."

 

So, you want to point out where Groundspeak has said my criteria is inappropriate?

I already did. You are either unwilling or unable to change.

 

I need something much more clear than that for me to change the way I do things.

I suspect you'd argue with Jeremy if he told you posting an SBA on a missing cache with an active owner was inappropriate. Oh, that's right. He already did.....and you still argue....

[CoyoteRed]

I'm such a terrible reader I may have missed your point. First you say a destroyed cache warrants an SBA, then you say a missing cache warrants an SBA, and say that the activity level of the cache owner is irrelevant. So, knowing that a cache is 500' from my front door, knowing that I physically check it every day, and knowing that I am active, you would fire off an SBA if you find it missing?

Yeah, as if I'm going to know where owners live. Get real.

 

I am not going to research cache owners of every missing or destroyed cache I come across. First, I'm not privy to a host of information a reviewer has. I don't know where most cacher owners live, I don't know if they have special permissions, I don't know if a reviewer is on already on top of it, there's a lot I don't know about what is going on. A reviewer does. Why should I waste my time searching for an owner, sending out emails, waiting forever for responses, and still can't do anything about it except post an SBA?

 

In my opinion, and in Groundspeak's opinion, that is jumping the gun. Since you continue your life of denial, I can only assume that you haven't read the link supplied earlier. Here's the relevant point where you & Groundspeak disagree:

"it is painfully evident that the cache is missing AND the owner is missing."

 

So, you want to point out where Groundspeak has said my criteria is inappropriate?

I already did. You are either unwilling or unable to change.

 

I need something much more clear than that for me to change the way I do things.

I suspect you'd argue with Jeremy if he told you posting an SBA on a missing cache with an active owner was inappropriate. Oh, that's right. He already did.....and you still argue....

As for the rest, I simply don't read that page the same way as you. I'm not alone.

 

Suffice it to say, the way you read the page puts the onus of making sure the cache gets repaired on the community. The way I read it the onus is put on the reviewer--one of the folks that have any real power.

 

In fact, your premise of the "an active owner" is flawed because the owner could have been on the site the same day you make the log. He's active, right? Yet, even though you fire off one or several emails the cache still languishes as geolitter. What are you forced to do in this situation? Oh, that's right, nothing other than alert the reviewer. All the while you've have to be occupied with someone else's cache which could be in the next state if the cache was (not) found on a trip. Now the reviewer pretty much has to start the process all over again; email and wait.

 

BTW, if you're going to quote me, quote me. There's such a thing as ellipsis that indicate that you've omitted a portion of a statement. It would be nice use them. Otherwise, you change the meaning of the statement to something the original writer didn't intend.

 

Hope you're having a nice Turkey Day.

[Clan Riffster]

I am not going to research cache owners of every missing or destroyed cache I come across.

I'm not suggesting you should. The situation was hypothetical. I thought you might have picked up on that. Sorry for the confusion. I don't have a cache in my yard. My point was, as an active cacher, there is no need to do anything other than post a log stating words to the effect of "Your ammo can has been flattened by a herd of Pygmy elephants". I will fix the problem, and your task is done.

 

and still can't do anything about it except post an SBA?

You have many options. Think hard. They will come to you.

 

I simply don't read that page the same way as you. I'm not alone.

No, you're not alone. The world is full of folks who make it a point to ignore wisdom from on high, be it from their boss, their parents, or in this case, from Groundspeak. I would be willing to bet there are cache submissions sent in on a regular basis that are clear guideline violations, even though Groundspeak lists those guidelines in a reasonably easy to read format.

 

Suffice it to say, the way you read the page puts the onus of making sure the cache gets repaired on the community. The way I read it the onus is put on the reviewer--one of the folks that have any real power.

I'm not too sure how many ways one could possibly read "it is painfully evident that the cache is missing AND the owner is missing". Groundspeak even supplied the emphasis on the word, "AND".

 

All the while you've have to be occupied with someone else's cache

No, you can choose to be "occupied" with someone else's cache if you wish, or you can post a log explaining the problems. The choice is yours. Just as it is your choice to studiously ignore what Groundspeak has to say on the subject.

 

Hope you're having a nice Turkey Day.

Thanx! I had a most blessed day. Happy Holidays to you.

[+DanOCan]

There is a difference between "situations that warrant a SBA note" and "The cache should be archived immediately when". Notice the handling - one is done by the guy directing the SBA note, the other is by the regional volunteer. One is done NOW, the other has a time period to deal with problems. I don't think the whole answer is written very clearly, as it implies a list of situations for one thing, then only lists situations for another.

 

I'm still not sure where the answer is not described clearly.

 

If there is a legal or safety issue you post an SBA.

If the cache AND the owner are missing you post an SBA.

 

I don't care whether one happens right away or another takes time or whatever -- the topic of the thread is "Purpose of an SBA" and Groundspeak clearly defines the two situations when you should use it.

 

I think one thing we call agree on is the original question of "A Misunderstood Tool?" -- the answer to that is obviously a resounding "yes".

[+The Jester]

Arguing that there are only two situations where a SBA can and should be used based on the quoted knowledge base section is wrong. Those are just two that are detailed*. The part that you are skipping is in the line: "Here are some situations that warrant a SBA note." Note the word "some", that means that all situations are not listed, therefore to say those are the only times a SBA is called for is false.

 

*to my reading those are a special cases where IMMEDIATE archiving is call for, not the standard SBA handling as detailed later in that same section. That's just one way to look at it, though.

[CoyoteRed]

I am not going to research cache owners of every missing or destroyed cache I come across.

I'm not suggesting you should. The situation was hypothetical. I thought you might have picked up on that. Sorry for the confusion. I don't have a cache in my yard. My point was, as an active cacher, there is no need to do anything other than post a log stating words to the effect of "Your ammo can has been flattened by a herd of Pygmy elephants". I will fix the problem, and your task is done.

 

Well, good for you. You are a conscientious cache owner. Now, if you can get everyone to be as conscientious as you then we wouldn't even have the need for the log-type. Until such time I'll continue with the way I've been doing things.

[+DanOCan]

Arguing that there are only two situations where a SBA can and should be used based on the quoted knowledge base section is wrong. Those are just two that are detailed*. The part that you are skipping is in the line: "Here are some situations that warrant a SBA note." Note the word "some", that means that all situations are not listed, therefore to say those are the only times a SBA is called for is false.

 

I'll agree with that. That was the part I was missing. Thanks!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Perfect example of a need for an SBA; Saw this one on the GPS while on a road trip today, stopped and looked, no joy, read the cache page logs - why is this cache active?

 

GCMKNZ

 

Ed

Edited November 25, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+olbluesguy]

Perfect example of a need for an SBA; Saw this one on the GPS while on a road trip today, stopped and looked, no joy, read the cache page logs - why is this cache active?

 

GCMKNZ

 

Ed

 

Pull the SBA trigger! the owner was under the weather in Feb.06

has not logged in since Feb .06............this cache is probably the least of his worrys.

[Clan Riffster]

Arguing that there are only two situations where a SBA can and should be used based on the quoted knowledge base section is wrong.

Jester, I don't think anybody is making that argument. If that's what you interpreted from my posts, I apologize. What I was trying to point out was that Groundspeak believes a missing cache + a missing owner warrants an SBA. Since they believe the two, together, warrant an SBA, and place great emphasis on the "AND" in the sentence, it can be argued that, in Groundspeak's eyes, one without the other, (missing cache + active owner / missing owner + active cache), does not warrant an SBA. Obviously that's just my interpretation, and you are dead on in your assertion that there are many conceivable reasons which are not listed, which would warrant an SBA.

 

For instance, if I ever get taken by space aliens while hunting a cache, and get to experience "probing", I'll post an SBA faster than Rosie O'Donnell gnawing through the side of a carton of Ben & Jerry's, even though it's not listed in the official guidelines.

[btrodrigues]

Jester, I don't think anybody is making that argument. If that's what you interpreted from my posts, I apologize. What I was trying to point out was that Groundspeak believes a missing cache + a missing owner warrants an SBA. Since they believe the two, together, warrant an SBA, and place great emphasis on the "AND" in the sentence, it can be argued that, in Groundspeak's eyes, one without the other, (missing cache + active owner / missing owner + active cache), does not warrant an SBA. Obviously that's just my interpretation, and you are dead on in your assertion that there are many conceivable reasons which are not listed, which would warrant an SBA.

 

What about missing cache+owner who doesn't give a dadgum but keeps saying he'll replace the cache as soon as the vegetation grows higher or construction works stop or something?

I've seen absent caches wandering around like this for 6 ou 8 months...

[Clan Riffster]

While I don't like the idea, I see it as not warranting an SBA. So long as the owner is posting, they would still be considered "active" in my opinion.