"Temporarily Disabled"

[+jerryo]

Can’t find anything recent on this but then I didn’t look too hard: how long do people think caches should be “temporarily disabled” before a reviewer waves his bat around? There seem to be quite a few that have been in this state of temporary unreadiness for many* months. To save the reviewers the trouble of looking for them how about if there were an automatic time limit for disabling caches so that after 4 months they were automatically archived.

*many many many

[+Renegade Knight]

A year is my personal rule of thumb before a disabled cache should have it's final resolution. Reviewers often step in and ask what's up long before then.

[Deceangi]

Using the Temporarily Disabled option for a cache in most cases should only be used for 3 to 4 weeks to allow the owner to rectify issues with it. You have to remember that this is a listing site and not a storage site.

 

The UK Reviewer team after discussing it between ourselves decided on a 12 week period. After which the cache will go through the following process.

 

0-12 weeks No action

12 weeks plus, Reviewer will post a warning to the cache

4 weeks after initial warning, if no action taken by the owner. A final warning is posted to the cache.

4 weeks after Final warning, if no action taken by the owner. Cache will be Archived.

 

The above is flexible as the circumstances of each cache is different. Generally if a cache is going to be disabled for over 12 weeks the usual advice given to the owner, is to post a note to the cache every 6-8 weeks explaining what is going on [ie: building/restoration work continuing, illness/injury]

 

The more active caches there are in the UK, the more we are going to see which are disabled. If the % of disabled caches becomes to great, then the UK reviewers will have to revisit the 12 week period before action is taken.

 

Without checking I believe the % of caches disabled for an extremely long time is tiny. And is something that we work to keep at a low level.

[Alan White]

The proportion of disabled caches itself is small. Of the 17626 active caches [1] in the UK, 672 are disabled. Of those 672, 365 have been disabled more than a month [2]. 13 have been disabled for six months or more.

 

Notwithstanding the amount of time reviewers spend managing caches, personally I'd like to see the timings reduced. If a cache has been disabled for four weeks without any word from the owner then the likelihood is that it's never going to be enabled (anecdotal only). Or, possibly, only enabled after one of the nudges from the reviewers. And I'm sure reviewers have better things to do than chase up owners who aren't maintaining their caches.

 

I'd like to see automatic archiving after six weeks of disabling, unless the owner posts a Owner Maintenance note. Same for caches with a Needs Maintenance attribute.

 

[1] As of my GSAK database, reasonably up to date, and excluding Events and CITOs, which I don't collect.

[2] Based on last log date, so not entirely accurate.

[+Jaz666]

Very very rough figures.......

 

Active cache listings 17,673

Disabled caches 683 (3.8%)

 

6 months + 1.9% of all disabled caches

5 months + 5.3%

4 months + 9.2%

 

So it looks like you're doing your job right

Edited April 25, 2007 by Jaz666

[+The Forester]

0-12 weeks No action

12 weeks plus, Reviewer will post a warning to the cache

4 weeks after initial warning, if no action taken by the owner. A final warning is posted to the cache.

4 weeks after Final warning, if no action taken by the owner. Cache will be Archived.

 

When was this rule devised and implemented? When was it published?

 

What is the appeals process for an inappropriately archived cache which has been archived without warning?

[+chizu]

What is the appeals process for an inappropriately archived cache which has been archived without warning?

 

Surely the appeals process is quite clear - get the cache up and running again, let the reviewers know, who will unarchive it! I think this is made quite clear by the reviewer note when a cache is archived.

Edited April 25, 2007 by chizu

[+rutson]

It is now, yes, it sure as hell wasn't when one of the reviewers posted much less thoughtfully worded notes.

 

The rules as they stand now seem fair.

 

personally I'd like to see the timings reduced

 

I'll withhold what I REALLY want to reply to THAT ridiculous statement.

[+rutson]

It is now, yes, it sure as hell wasn't when one of the reviewers posted much less thoughtfully worded notes.

 

The rules as they stand now seem fair.

 

personally I'd like to see the timings reduced

 

I'll withhold what I REALLY want to reply to THAT ridiculous statement.

[+Pengy&Tigger]

One of the things I see more and more is caches not being temped at all when they possibly should. One reason for this that another cacher cited to me is 'Well when I temp them, they will get archived before I get a chance to sort them'.

 

Coupled with the trend of people not logging DNFs, but just emailing the owner instead, this means that if the owner knows there is a problem there may potentially be nothing on the cache page to suggest this.

 

We have wasted our time looking for caches on more than one occasion recently where owners are pretty sure it's gone, but there is no DNF and the cache is still active.

 

T

 

Edit to add: reducing the timings for archiving will just decrease the number being temped - it merely shifts the problem elsewhere.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Pengy&Tigger

[+jerryo]

reducing the timings for archiving will just decrease the number being temped - it merely shifts the problem elsewhere.

That is an extremely good point.

[+chizu]

I might be wrong, but it hardly seems difficult to prevent a temped cache getting archived - just a quick note or email to the reviewer with a valid reason on why you haven't done anything about your cache is all that's required for the reviewers to let things be for a while.

[+CrazyL200]

Surely, it doesn't take much to nip out and do some maintenance - even if it means putting a completely new one out as a replacement.

Finding a new location if it's one that's been muggled could take a while, a couple of weeks or so, but not months.

Nothing more frustrating than DNF'ing because it's fallen into disrepair or gone missing, only to find the owner knew about it, but didn't bother making a 2 second note on the cache page.

[Deceangi]

0-12 weeks No action

12 weeks plus, Reviewer will post a warning to the cache

4 weeks after initial warning, if no action taken by the owner. A final warning is posted to the cache.

4 weeks after Final warning, if no action taken by the owner. Cache will be Archived.

 

When was this rule devised and implemented? When was it published?

 

What is the appeals process for an inappropriately archived cache which has been archived without warning?

 

the guidelines state

You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

we apply a loose interpretation of that.

 

Contact the Reviewer whose name is on the Archive note, and discus why you believe the cache has been inappropriately Archived, if a genuine mistake has been made. Or if the issues that caused the cache to be Archived have been resolved, the cache will be Unarchived.

[nobby.nobbs]

automatic immediate disabling after a couple of weeks is silly. yes i agree that the reviewers have better things to do with their time.

 

i have one that will be temped for about 3 months possibly. because that's that's how long they envisage doing the forestry work at the location. some flexibility is needed in the system, leave as it is for as long as the reviewers are happy with it.

[Alan White]

i have one that will be temped for about 3 months possibly. because that's that's how long they envisage doing the forestry work at the location. some flexibility is needed in the system

That's exactly why I said that the auto-archiving clock should be restarted if the owner posts an Owner Maintenance note. There are, as you say, always going to be cases where a few weeks isn't sufficient to resolve the problem.

 

However, my experience is that most caches which are disabled for more than a few weeks will never be enabled and will eventually follow the process Deceangi describes. Reducing the time limits and automating the process will remove these abandoned caches more quickly and without overworked reviewers needing to get involved.

 

Five months to not even post a note is far too long to leave a cache disabled.

[+Haggis Hunter]

0-12 weeks No action

12 weeks plus, Reviewer will post a warning to the cache

4 weeks after initial warning, if no action taken by the owner. A final warning is posted to the cache.

4 weeks after Final warning, if no action taken by the owner. Cache will be Archived.

 

When was this rule devised and implemented? When was it published?

 

What is the appeals process for an inappropriately archived cache which has been archived without warning?

I get a feeling that you may be talking about this cache, or even this cache? I am hazarding a guess that it is both?

 

I think all the logs explain themselves, or they would have if you hadn't deleted your 7 paragraph disablement log made on the 21st October 2006 for the Avon Trail cache? It then took you 3 months (6 months after you disabled the cache) to react to the archiving? At the present moment you have manipulated the cache to look like you have been victimised, but 6 months without doing anything with a perfectly good cache that had nothing wrong with it, is rather questionable?

 

You also keep harping on about it being part of a series, but no one except yourself has ever seen this series of caches? My SBA log gives proof of your admission that you hadn't recieved permission for the placement of this cache, as you disabled the Dead Good cache, that you had just taken over to redeem the cache, then used the permission factor as an excuse to disable it for a longer period than need be. Sadly due to your organisation skills that one to has gone to the wind to.

[Deceangi]

As the discussion is about the whole issue of Caches which have been Temporarily Disabled for extended periods, and not a discussion about individual caches. Can we please keep it on topic, as my colleagues and I, if we felt the need to revisit the issue, would take into account the opinions voiced here.

 

Deceangi

[+The Forester]

0-12 weeks No action

12 weeks plus, Reviewer will post a warning to the cache

4 weeks after initial warning, if no action taken by the owner. A final warning is posted to the cache.

4 weeks after Final warning, if no action taken by the owner. Cache will be Archived.

 

When was this rule devised and implemented? When was it published?

What is the appeals process for an inappropriately archived cache which has been archived without warning?

Open and honest answers to my three questions on this specific topic would be greatly appreciated by those of us who care who care about these matters.

 

Thankyou.

Edited April 26, 2007 by The Forester

[Deceangi]

0-12 weeks No action

12 weeks plus, Reviewer will post a warning to the cache

4 weeks after initial warning, if no action taken by the owner. A final warning is posted to the cache.

4 weeks after Final warning, if no action taken by the owner. Cache will be Archived.

 

When was this rule devised and implemented? When was it published?

What is the appeals process for an inappropriately archived cache which has been archived without warning?

Open and honest answers to my three questions on this specific topic would be greatly appreciated by those of us who care who care about these matters.

 

Thankyou.

 

the guidelines state

 

You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

we apply a loose interpretation of that.

 

Contact the Reviewer whose name is on the Archive note, and discus why you believe the cache has been inappropriately Archived, if a genuine mistake has been made. Or if the issues that caused the cache to be Archived have been resolved, the cache will be Unarchived.

 

Is I believe a open and honest answer, as you can see from the above the UK Reviewer Teams approach to the guideline regarding caches which have been Temporarily Disabled for a extended period, is a very loose interpretation of GC's published guidelines.

 

As for appealing the initial decision to Archive a cache, speak initially to the reviewer who Archived it . If after making contact your not happy with the reply please use appeals(at)geocaching.com, stating the GC No of the cache and the nature of the complaint.

 

In your case that would be Lactodorum for one cache. And Michael who is dealing with the other cache, on Groundspeaks behalf.

[nobby.nobbs]

i think really that i would stand by a decision made by the tyrannical trio

 

they are the ones that have to "enforce" this rule and so they alone know what they prefer. either the hassle of chasing temp disabled ones or the hassle of disgruntled cachers emailling them.

 

so i'll bow to their collective decision. really as long as it is widely known then whatever policy is fine.

[+t.a.folk]

Using the Temporarily Disabled option for a cache in most cases should only be used for 3 to 4 weeks to allow the owner to rectify issues with it. You have to remember that this is a listing site and not a storage site.

 

The UK Reviewer team after discussing it between ourselves decided on a 12 week period. After which the cache will go through the following process.

 

0-12 weeks No action

12 weeks plus, Reviewer will post a warning to the cache

4 weeks after initial warning, if no action taken by the owner. A final warning is posted to the cache.

4 weeks after Final warning, if no action taken by the owner. Cache will be Archived.

 

The above is flexible as the circumstances of each cache is different. Generally if a cache is going to be disabled for over 12 weeks the usual advice given to the owner, is to post a note to the cache every 6-8 weeks explaining what is going on [ie: building/restoration work continuing, illness/injury]

 

The more active caches there are in the UK, the more we are going to see which are disabled. If the % of disabled caches becomes to great, then the UK reviewers will have to revisit the 12 week period before action is taken.

 

Without checking I believe the % of caches disabled for an extremely long time is tiny. And is something that we work to keep at a low level.

 

To me 12 weeks before a warning , then another 4 weeks for a second warning ,then

another 4 weeks before action taken seems very reasonable if cache owner/cache maintainer has not posted any notes "explaining what is going on " (pausing for breath due to lack my lack of punctuation in second half of sentence ).

Nice to see the flexibility on the length of time of temporary disablement ,provided notes are posted , to cover the extra time sometimes needed for the differing situations ,for example ,lengthy Forestry Commission tree felling operations .

[+The Northumbrian]

I had a cache in Northumberland, GC5F5F and removed it until a new permission was sought from The Woodland Trust.after finding that the cache was on their property by 4 feet. it took a long time coming, and I never got the chance to go back and replace the cache so it remains tepd disabled, but not doing asny caching now due to injury, if someone wants to place a cache at those co-ords then feel free. It's a very nice place to visit. I may have to have all of mine adopted Or archived . If I had not taken the Jack hammer off one of my labourers to get the job done faster, and had it not bounced up on to my toes I might still have been active.

Nige

Edited April 27, 2007 by The Northumbrian

[+jerryo]

but not doing any caching now due to injury

Just so you know, I did two of your caches last week (Pow Hill and Stoterly Hill) and they're both in excellent nick.