Was I out of line? (again)

[+TrailGators]

Admins are better suited to handle these situations. Also, I think in these threads, it's better to advise people to give others the benefit of the doubt especially if the cache is already disabled.

So, what do you think is reasonable? How long should we allow caches to be disabled? I agree with you that sometimes people are put in situations beyond their control and cannot maintain their caches. Is there a time limit you would give to this, or is it unlimited?

It depends on the situation. It's really up to the admins who are aware of things that we may not be not aware of...

[+QSparrow]

It depends on the situation. It's really up to the admins who are aware of things that we may not be not aware of...

Ok, if you feel this way, I did not archive the thing, the admins did. All I did was post a log. Why am I getting blamed?

[+welch]

Here's how to handle a disabled cache.

 

After a good 6 month disable period, Post a note asking for status.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a note asking for status.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a note and suggest that they archive the cache, reminding them that it can be unarchived when it's replaced.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a SBA.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a SBA.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a SBA.

 

Wait 3 months. (continue this until the reviewer or owner archives the cache or it is replaced and activated.

 

If the owner complains consider that status and wait 3 months. No action after that - ask for status.

That's funny. If a cache is temporarily disabled you can easily filter it out of your PQ so I don't understand what the trouble is here...

 

And one can keep stepping over trash laying on the ground for a long time. But eventally it either needs someone to pick it up (unless it blows away in the wind on its own).

[+TrailGators]

It depends on the situation. It's really up to the admins who are aware of things that we may not be not aware of...

Ok, if you feel this way, I did not archive the thing, the admins did. All I did was post a log. Why am I getting blamed?

I'm not blaming you. I just advised that if a cache is disabled then let the admins handle it.

[+QSparrow]

It depends on the situation. It's really up to the admins who are aware of things that we may not be not aware of...

Ok, if you feel this way, I did not archive the thing, the admins did. All I did was post a log. Why am I getting blamed?

I'm not blaming you. I just advised that if a cache is disabled then let the admins handle it.

Ok thanks for the clarification. BTW, I just got an even nastier email, to which I apologized again. I'm done. It's not worth it to me.

[+TrailGators]

It depends on the situation. It's really up to the admins who are aware of things that we may not be not aware of...

Ok, if you feel this way, I did not archive the thing, the admins did. All I did was post a log. Why am I getting blamed?

I'm not blaming you. I just advised that if a cache is disabled then let the admins handle it.

Ok thanks for the clarification. BTW, I just got an even nastier email, to which I apologized again. I'm done. It's not worth it to me.

Time is the universal healer...

[+briansnat]

It depends on the situation. It's really up to the admins who are aware of things that we may not be not aware of...

Ok, if you feel this way, I did not archive the thing, the admins did. All I did was post a log. Why am I getting blamed?

I'm not blaming you. I just advised that if a cache is disabled then let the admins handle it.

Ok thanks for the clarification. BTW, I just got an even nastier email, to which I apologized again. I'm done. It's not worth it to me.

Time is the universal healer...

 

Yep, in 100 years will anyone care?

[+QSparrow]

It depends on the situation. It's really up to the admins who are aware of things that we may not be not aware of...

Ok, if you feel this way, I did not archive the thing, the admins did. All I did was post a log. Why am I getting blamed?

I'm not blaming you. I just advised that if a cache is disabled then let the admins handle it.

Ok thanks for the clarification. BTW, I just got an even nastier email, to which I apologized again. I'm done. It's not worth it to me.

Time is the universal healer...

 

Yep, in 100 years will anyone care?

Of course not. I don't even care anymore.

[+TrailGators]

It depends on the situation. It's really up to the admins who are aware of things that we may not be not aware of...

Ok, if you feel this way, I did not archive the thing, the admins did. All I did was post a log. Why am I getting blamed?

I'm not blaming you. I just advised that if a cache is disabled then let the admins handle it.

Ok thanks for the clarification. BTW, I just got an even nastier email, to which I apologized again. I'm done. It's not worth it to me.

Time is the universal healer...

 

Yep, in 100 years will anyone care?

QSparrow will be on his deathbed and someone will ask him "do you remember when you asked that a cache be archived and then it was? After that one was archived, there were only 436,522 caches left in the world...."

[+tozainamboku]

It looks like in this case the cache was there and the cache owner had just forgotten to reenable the cache. Of course it might be that someone else decided to replace the cache and the owner had really just abandoned it. We can't tell. QSparrow's note from April 17 should have been enough to remind the cache owner to reenable the cache. But the owner may not have understood this or just ignored the note. To escalate this to a SBA note is not really necessary unless QSparrow is trying to place another cache in the area and this would be too close. I suspect that SBA note got Nomex involve. When the cache owner did not respond to Nomex the cache was archived. The cache owner is blaming QSparrow for getting his cache archive, but it is really the cache owners fault for not maintaining the cache page. I would think a note from a reviewer would get him to act. I do notice that Nomex's archive note states he will unarchive the cache when it is repaired. Perhaps the owner will email Nomex to let him know the cache is OK and he had just forgotten to reenable it. Then I will be able to go look for it.

[+QSparrow]

QSparrow will be on his deathbed and someone will ask him "do you remember when you asked that a cache be archived and then it was? After that one was archived, there were only 436,522 caches left in the world...."

And I (she) will say, 'what's a cache?'

[+TrailGators]

QSparrow will be on his deathbed and someone will ask him "do you remember when you asked that a cache be archived and then it was? After that one was archived, there were only 436,522 caches left in the world...."

And I (she) will say, 'what's a cache?'

Oops sorry! I meant "she." Then the nurse will say: "Look! What's a film cannister doing under your pillow?"

[+Mudfrog]

It depends on the situation. It's really up to the admins who are aware of things that we may not be not aware of...

Ok, if you feel this way, I did not archive the thing, the admins did. All I did was post a log. Why am I getting blamed?

I'm not blaming you. I just advised that if a cache is disabled then let the admins handle it.

Ok thanks for the clarification. BTW, I just got an even nastier email, to which I apologized again. I'm done. It's not worth it to me.

 

Anyone who would send a nasty email over something like this is being childish and is just trying to push your buttons. It's rediculous and you shouldn't have to put up with it but jerks are everywhere and there's not much we can do about them. Just ignore it..

[+QSparrow]

Oops sorry! I meant "she." Then the nurse will say: "Look! What's a film cannister doing under your pillow?"

Correction! What is that ammo box doing under your pillow! I still have 6 of them unplaced!

Edited August 3, 2007 by QSparrow

[+QSparrow]

Anyone who would send a nasty email over something like this is being childish and is just trying to push your buttons. It's rediculous and you shouldn't have to put up with it but jerks are everywhere and there's not much we can do about them. Just ignore it..

And that's part of it too. My buttons are kind of easy to push. I hopefully will learn from this & apply it to other parts of my life. I do appreciate all the feedback you all have given me, positive and negative. You guys rock.

[+TrailGators]

Oops sorry! I meant "she." Then the nurse will say: "Look! What's a film cannister doing under your pillow?"

Correction! What is that ammo box doing under your pillow! I still have 6 of them unplaced!

Remember this was your death bed....So maybe you want to use one of those ammo boxes as an urn...

 

So is everything OK now? I would just ignore the email. That person can still fix their cache. It wasn't permanently archived. Lesson learned. Move on...

[+QSparrow]

So is everything OK now? I would just ignore the email. That person can still fix their cache. It wasn't permanently archived. Lesson learned. Move on...

Yeah, absolutely. Everything is OK now. I've put my caches up for adoption & I'm done with this sport. Lesson learned! Moving on. I do appreciate all the help.

[+TrailGators]

So is everything OK now? I would just ignore the email. That person can still fix their cache. It wasn't permanently archived. Lesson learned. Move on...

Yeah, absolutely. Everything is OK now. I've put my caches up for adoption & I'm done with this sport. Lesson learned! Moving on. I do appreciate all the help.

OK, but if I were you I would have waited a few days. Actually, if I were you I would have told that person to take a long walk on a short pier...

[+QSparrow]

OK, but if I were you I would have waited a few days. Actually, if I were you I would have told that person to take a long walk on a short pier...

Well I am giving this person the benefit of the doubt in our email exchanges just like I would have liked him to give me. But I like I said this wasn't the first time I got this kind of response. I guess I just don't have thick enough skin for this. Just like I'd make a horrible politician. I know my limits & that's a good thing.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Yep, in 100 years will anyone care?

 

By then, we will all be muggled.

 

Good grief! If someone wants to take the trouble to prop-up some absentee cacher's placement by replacing and maintaining it, then why don't they just let it get archived and then re-publish it as their own? If any nasty emails are going to be sent, it should be to the owner (well...not really), for not doing one of the following:

1. activate the listing when a fellow cacher replaces the container.
   
2. Maintain the container themselves, like a responsible cacher, and then activate the listing.
   
3. Archive the listing
   

Doing nothing is not an acceptable option. Is a disabled listing hurting anyone, you ask? Why leave it there, when it's obvious that the owner isn't around anymore? I like to see things kept tidy.

 

Rude emails are never acceptable. This is a game, not a war.

Edited August 3, 2007 by nonaeroterraqueous

[+QSparrow]

Yep, in 100 years will anyone care?

 

By then, we will all be muggled.

 

Good grief! If someone wants to take the trouble to prop-up some absentee cacher's placement by replacing and maintaining it, then why don't they just let it get archived and then re-publish it as their own? If any nasty emails are going to be sent, it should be to the owner (well...not really), for not doing one of the following:

1. activate the listing when a fellow cacher replaces the container.
   
2. Maintain the container themselves, like a responsible cacher, and then activate the listing.
   
3. Archive the listing
   

Doing nothing is not an acceptable option. Is a disabled listing hurting anyone, you ask? Why leave it there, when it's obvious that the owner isn't around anymore? I like to see things kept tidy.

 

Rude emails are never acceptable. This is a game, not a war.

Thank you. My feelings exactly. I just don't get it why we can't all just get along. I may have made a huge mistake but it was not intentional. I apologize repeatedly. Why can't we all treat each other with respect?

[nobby.nobbs]

because this is real life and to be honest in any group of people you will get a few who are less than friendly. don't take it to heart just delete the emails and move on to something that matters. for instance where the next cache is

[+hukilaulau]

Ok, seems like most of you think I was out of line. I guess there is some set of unwritten rules out there that I'm supposed to follow and if I don't I get a nasty email. I don't think this is the sport for me. Good luck all! Anybody want to adopt some caches?

Wow. Of 9 posts since your original, 2 thought you were out of line. 2 more agreed with you, and there were several in between. looks like you weren't really asking a question at all, just building a platform...

[+hukilaulau]

So is everything OK now? I would just ignore the email. That person can still fix their cache. It wasn't permanently archived. Lesson learned. Move on...

Yeah, absolutely. Everything is OK now. I've put my caches up for adoption & I'm done with this sport. Lesson learned! Moving on. I do appreciate all the help.

Are you still here?!?

[+Morgan's Marauders]

OK, but if I were you I would have waited a few days. Actually, if I were you I would have told that person to take a long walk on a short pier...

Well I am giving this person the benefit of the doubt in our email exchanges just like I would have liked him to give me. But I like I said this wasn't the first time I got this kind of response. I guess I just don't have thick enough skin for this. Just like I'd make a horrible politician. I know my limits & that's a good thing.

 

Stay out of the forums and play the game. Much less angst and more fun that way! Or come to Off-topic. It's fun there and we have food from the pig.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Morgan's Marauders

[+QSparrow]

Stay out of the forums and play the game. Much less angst and more fun that way! Or come to Off-topic. It's fun there and we have food from the pig.

It's not the forum that's giving me angst. You guys give me sanity.

 

Here's a follow-up.

 

On Thursday I got this email:

 

That cache was last found in February!!!

February.

In May you ask if its active??? Why when it was found in February.

If you'd look at the cache owners profile or read some past logs you would know that the owners

gone BUT there are others maintaining the cache...LIKE MYSELF!!!!!

Most cache owners are not going to answer a question like that anyway.

The idea behind the game for one is to get people out of the house and have fun. Finding the cache

or NOT!!!

I have painstakingly kept that cache running for a couple of years and now because YOU were lazy

and NEVER went to look for it and you posted that note, now the cache is gone!! Thanks!!

NOW, YOU GO DOWN THERE AND SEE IF ITS TRULY GONE OR NOT!!!

 

I have driven 5=0 miles for caches, some I find and some I don't. The ones I don't find doesn't mean

they are gone. I NEVER post a note to archive it simply because I can't find it. It would be different if

there were 10 DNF's before I arrived. Heck, if that were the case I wouldn't go search for it in the first

place. But THAT was NOT the case here!!

 

Now go down there. The cache is on Devil Gate Dam on the old road way.

You have to approach it from the east.

Go there tomorrow and let me know what you find out. If its there it may very well be wet. But if it

there..... well you know how I already feel about it.

 

This was my reply:

 

Again, very sorry. A million apologies. Really. I feel really bad about this.

 

I really thought that would be the end of it. But this morning I get this:

 

so I see you never went and checked on the cache.

shame shame shame

 

So after talking with you guys I now know that I could have handled the original situation better. I apologized to this person multiple times for it. But my apology was clearly not accepted. I'm wavering between giving him a real piece of my mind, and just letting it go. What would you do?

 

(Edited to add italics for readability.)

Edited August 7, 2007 by QSparrow

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Stay out of the forums and play the game. Much less angst and more fun that way! Or come to Off-topic. It's fun there and we have food from the pig.

It's not the forum that's giving me angst. You guys give me sanity.

 

Here's a follow-up.

 

On Thursday I got this email:

 

That cache was last found in February!!!

February.

In May you ask if its active??? Why when it was found in February.

If you'd look at the cache owners profile or read some past logs you would know that the owners

gone BUT there are others maintaining the cache...LIKE MYSELF!!!!!

Most cache owners are not going to answer a question like that anyway.

The idea behind the game for one is to get people out of the house and have fun. Finding the cache

or NOT!!!

I have painstakingly kept that cache running for a couple of years and now because YOU were lazy

and NEVER went to look for it and you posted that note, now the cache is gone!! Thanks!!

NOW, YOU GO DOWN THERE AND SEE IF ITS TRULY GONE OR NOT!!!

 

I have driven 5=0 miles for caches, some I find and some I don't. The ones I don't find doesn't mean

they are gone. I NEVER post a note to archive it simply because I can't find it. It would be different if

there were 10 DNF's before I arrived. Heck, if that were the case I wouldn't go search for it in the first

place. But THAT was NOT the case here!!

 

Now go down there. The cache is on Devil Gate Dam on the old road way.

You have to approach it from the east.

Go there tomorrow and let me know what you find out. If its there it may very well be wet. But if it

there..... well you know how I already feel about it.

 

This was my reply:

 

Again, very sorry. A million apologies. Really. I feel really bad about this.

 

I really thought that would be the end of it. But this morning I get this:

 

so I see you never went and checked on the cache.

shame shame shame

 

So after talking with you guys I now know that I could have handled the original situation better. I apologized to this person multiple times for it. But my apology was clearly not accepted. I'm wavering between giving him a real piece of my mind, and just letting it go. What would you do?

 

(Edited to add italics for readability.)

Personally, if it were me, I would let go of it, and move on, having learned a lesson. Yes, the other cacher has now crossed the line and is being rude, but that is really their issue and not yours; you do not need to respond to him/her nor even read future emails from that person.

[+Mudfrog]

Stay out of the forums and play the game. Much less angst and more fun that way! Or come to Off-topic. It's fun there and we have food from the pig.

It's not the forum that's giving me angst. You guys give me sanity.

 

Here's a follow-up.

 

On Thursday I got this email:

 

That cache was last found in February!!!

February.

In May you ask if its active??? Why when it was found in February.

If you'd look at the cache owners profile or read some past logs you would know that the owners

gone BUT there are others maintaining the cache...LIKE MYSELF!!!!!

Most cache owners are not going to answer a question like that anyway.

The idea behind the game for one is to get people out of the house and have fun. Finding the cache

or NOT!!!

I have painstakingly kept that cache running for a couple of years and now because YOU were lazy

and NEVER went to look for it and you posted that note, now the cache is gone!! Thanks!!

NOW, YOU GO DOWN THERE AND SEE IF ITS TRULY GONE OR NOT!!!

 

I have driven 5=0 miles for caches, some I find and some I don't. The ones I don't find doesn't mean

they are gone. I NEVER post a note to archive it simply because I can't find it. It would be different if

there were 10 DNF's before I arrived. Heck, if that were the case I wouldn't go search for it in the first

place. But THAT was NOT the case here!!

 

Now go down there. The cache is on Devil Gate Dam on the old road way.

You have to approach it from the east.

Go there tomorrow and let me know what you find out. If its there it may very well be wet. But if it

there..... well you know how I already feel about it.

 

This was my reply:

 

Again, very sorry. A million apologies. Really. I feel really bad about this.

 

I really thought that would be the end of it. But this morning I get this:

 

so I see you never went and checked on the cache.

shame shame shame

 

So after talking with you guys I now know that I could have handled the original situation better. I apologized to this person multiple times for it. But my apology was clearly not accepted. I'm wavering between giving him a real piece of my mind, and just letting it go. What would you do?

 

(Edited to add italics for readability.)

Personally, if it were me, I would let go of it, and move on, having learned a lesson. Yes, the other cacher has now crossed the line and is being rude, but that is really their issue and not yours; you do not need to respond to him/her nor even read future emails from that person.

 

But, is the cache listed as active or is it still disabled? If i'm reading this right, the cache is still disabled. I don't care how many people are taking care of the physical cache, this one part needs to be rectified. If it can't be then the cache needed to be archived!

[+Mudfrog]

I finally just now went and looked at the cache page in question.

 

The cache had been disabled for more than a year. That right there is grounds for the reviewer to come in and automatically archive it. But even then, the OP didn't hit the panic button and in fact asked if the cache was available or not. She got no reply from the owner or anyone else so she did the right thing and posted an SBA log.

 

Even if you look at this from the nasty email sender's point of view,,, Nomex, the reviewer states in their log that this cache can be unarchived at any time if the owner simply comes back and states that the cache is ok. It's pretty evident that the owner isn't going to take any action but if by some chance he or she does, the cache can easily be unarchived. What the heck is the problem here?

[+Rockin Roddy]

The problem seems to be that the owner isn't around anymore and another cacher is maintaining the site! The other cacher possibly either doesn't get the emails or isn't interested in answering emails he does get, so there is no answer to any requests for assurance that this cache is in place and ready to go!

 

IF Nomex emailed the owner (I don't know as I still haven't looked at the cache page) instead of posting a note on the cache page, the other cacher surely didn't get the email. In this case, the other cacher should have asked for the cache being archived so he could place his cache. That way, the other cacher would now be the owner and would get any and all emails and notifications!

 

QSparrow actually did this other cacher a favor (as well as caching in general) by posting the SBA. Now if the other cacher has enough sense to publish a NEW cache, this would be good to go!

 

Don't quit Q, this isn't your fault at all!

[+Harry Dolphin]

As RR says, the owner is missing, and the cache is being maintained by someone else. Unfortunately, Geocaching is not set up for this situation. Only the cache owner or a reviewer can remove the SBA or Needs Maintenance. Boy, is the cache owner going to be miffed when he gets back from Iraq, or wakes up from his coma. And I do see a number of caches being maintained by someone else. Sometimes, all it takes is a 'needs maintenance' log because 'I couldn't find it', or 'cache is damp' to get one of these archived. I have done some maintenance on other owner's caches when a log said "container is cracked". But if 'needs maintenance' had been logged, that onus would have remained.

But the geocaching guideline is that the cache owner needs be active. Since the maintainer has been maintaining it for a while, the best thing to do would be for him/her to adopt the cache.

I see four venerable local caches that will soon be archived. They've been out there five or six years. They were good, and innovative for their day. But, the owners are inactive. Some similar ones have been adopted. One, I may consider adopting. Which is very unusual for me!

Another, I was asked by the local group if I were interested in adopting the five-and-a-half year old cache. If it were tenable I would have adopted it. But the area has changed tremendously in the last five and a half years. It would have to be rehidden a distance away. And that would be a different cache, would it not? I might hide a 'redux' cache nearby, after it's archived. Oh, well. Sorry to see it go, after its long history. But, such is life.

[+BlueDeuce]

I'm wavering between giving him a real piece of my mind, and just letting it go. What would you do?

 

I would stick to the facts and the guidelines. It is unfortunate that a cacher dislikes being asked about a disabled cache. However that has no bearing on the requirements for maintaining a cache.

 

If you or anyone feels uncomfortable about addressing a disabled cache, send an email to a reviewer and ask them to review the cache's current status. It is ultimately their decision to leave it disabled or to archive it.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So after talking with you guys I now know that I could have handled the original situation better. I apologized to this person multiple times for it.

 

Next time, don't apologize. Pushy people thrive on that sort of thing.

[nobby.nobbs]

just ignore the other person, at the end of the day they should have adopted the cache or disabled it then used the exact same container and location to set their own cache. just like they can do now... so why the angst?

 

move on it's not worth getting stressed over.

[+simpjkee]

I wouldn't add a needs maintenance attribute to a cache I had never been to. To me, that is, in a nice way, a not so smart thing to do. The only two times I have logged a needs maintanence was 1) when the log was sooooooo full that I had to leave a piece of paper from the printed cache page to log my find. and 2) when I found the more than obvious remains of a cache. Logging a maintenance request to a cache I havent been to is ridiculous IMO

[+Mudfrog]

I wouldn't add a needs maintenance attribute to a cache I had never been to.

 

In the case of the OP, this was the right thing to do. Nobody had to visit the cache to see that it needed help. There was no guessing, no opinion made about the cache. The disabling of the cache for over a year was easily seen by anyone who brought the page up on their computer and that right there was more than adedequate justification for bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

[+Thrak]

Admins are better suited to handle these situations. Also, I think in these threads, it's better to advise people to give others the benefit of the doubt especially if the cache is already disabled.

So, what do you think is reasonable? How long should we allow caches to be disabled? I agree with you that sometimes people are put in situations beyond their control and cannot maintain their caches. Is there a time limit you would give to this, or is it unlimited?

 

In my area the reviewers tend to archive caches that have been disabled for extended periods. They post a note on the cache page letting the owner know it has been disabled for an overly long time and asking them if they intend to take care of the issue. If they don't get a response back in a reasonable amount of time and the cache just continues to sit there disabled the reviewer posts another note and archives it.

[+Kealia]

Here's how to handle a disabled cache.

 

After a good 6 month disable period, Post a note asking for status.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a note asking for status.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a note and suggest that they archive the cache, reminding them that it can be unarchived when it's replaced.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a SBA.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a SBA.

 

Wait 3 months.

 

Post a SBA.

 

Wait 3 months. (continue this until the reviewer or owner archives the cache or it is replaced and activated.

 

If the owner complains consider that status and wait 3 months. No action after that - ask for status.

 

No way. That's WAY too long IMO. If a cache is already disabled, there's no reason to wait anywhere near that long.

 

Yes.

 

You have no 'proof', yourself, that the cache is not there, and I'm not sure why you feel the need to suggest that it be archived without checking it out.

 

Since your dialog with the owner didn't work out, you could have dropped a line to the approver (listed on the cache page at the very bottom) and see if they know what's up with the cache. That would serve two purposes: 1) it brings it back to their attention that it has been disabled for a time and 2) They can deal with it on a more authoritative level.

 

You have zero authority and in the end, it will save you a lot of grief.

 

I think flagging it for archival was a little pretentious given the circumstances.

 

 

michelle

 

I don't think it was pretentious at all. I think it was a cacher trying to fix a problem. Agreed, that using the reviewer may have been the better/easier way to go, but I don't see any issue with what I've read so far.

 

Maybe I'm missing something....Wasn't this cache already disabled?

Yes - for more than a year.

 

I think you do need to give people the benefit of the doubt. Life can hit people with hard times. So there are legit excuses. As long as the cache is disabled, it's not hurting anyone.

If the cache has been Disabled for a long period of time without being taken care of by an owner, it is blocking the placement of another cache by someone who will maintain a cache in that location. Sometimes a location may not be worthy of having another cache placed there, but other times it is a good place someone might like to bring cachers to . . . if only there was a viable cache there.

 

Edit for typo . . .

What if the cache owner went to Iraq or he had open heart surgery. It's his rightful spot! Why take it away when you don't know the situation? There are plenty of other caches to find.....

 

Nobody has a "rightful spot". You can have a spot as long as you are maintaining your caches for as long as you want. Once that cache is not maintained or replcaed once it's disabled, you no longer "own" that spot IMO.

 

If it was truly disabled for over a year, this discussion is silly. he did the right thing.

However, I need to know go look at the cache in question and reserve the right to come back in here and change my entire opinion.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I wouldn't add a needs maintenance attribute to a cache I had never been to.

 

In the case of the OP, this was the right thing to do. Nobody had to visit the cache to see that it needed help. There was no guessing, no opinion made about the cache. The disabling of the cache for over a year was easily seen by anyone who brought the page up on their computer and that right there was more than adedequate justification for bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

You miss the point that the cache was being maintained by someone other than the CO. Presumably, from the interaction cited, the cache is actually in excellent condition.

I agree with simpjkee that it is presumptuous, and, in this case erroneous, to post a 'needs maintenance' on a cache for which one has never searched.

Unfortunately, the only way, under current guidelines, is to adopt the cache, in order to remove 'needs maintenance' label.

I would NEVER post a 'needs maintenance' on a cache that I have never looked for.

Sorry, my Ouija Board is broken.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Exactly..ouija boards would have been the only way cachers could get answers to whether the cache was there or not since no one was answering questions. IF the new "owner" wished to have that cache, he should have had it adopted out to him or archived/opened another.

 

I know life gets in the way (or even death in some cases), but if someone KNOWS they can't keep a cache maintained, they should give the info needed (password etc) to their trusted replacement until they can return and take over again! If this isn't possible, you run into this sort of issue. It was great someone wanted to care for the cache, but lets do it the right way!

 

It's silly to think that people should have to guess if the cache is available before deciding to waste gas to go after or not. Since I would base my decision on the logs and such info on the cache page, the person maintaining SHOULD have the ability to update. If I get no answer, I'm going to assume the cache is unavailable...and a cache unavailable for a year is geotrash IMO.

 

AND...if this "maintainer" were so caring about keeping the cache going, why not go change the wet log, seems he knew of it being wet from the message he sent?

 

ALSO, it would have been simple for the "maintainer" to post a note with contact info if he were willing to care for the cache...that'd helped a bunch don't you think?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[mtbikernate]

I agree with the OP and many others here...it doesn't matter if someone else was maintaining the cache or not. If the listed owner was not maintaining the cache page or the cache itself, then the cache needs to be archived.

 

Since the container is apparently still out there and maintained by someone else, what is the problem with that person re-listing the cache under their name now that the old listing has since been archived? Seems a no-brainer to me...now the real maintainer can PROPERLY maintain the cache and its listing.

 

I've seen a number of cache listings on the site where they've been 'temporarily disabled' for quite some time. Some have had owner notes posted...some have had none. I've not run across any 'temporarily disabled' for quite this long, and if I run across them, and especially if I think I'd like to put a cache there, I'll post an SBA whether I've found the cache or not.

 

I say good on the OP for FINALLY getting that spot opened up to someone who will PROPERLY maintain the cache and the cache listing.

 

Now, if it had been me in this situation, with the fairly short fuse I have and ZERO tolerance for idiocy, I'd have thought about a rather scathing response to the cranky cache maintainer for their rudeness to me.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

No way. That's WAY too long IMO. If a cache is already disabled, there's no reason to wait anywhere near that long.

 

 

It has been my experience that there has to be some time period to allow the owner to respond. That's why I post a status request first, a second time, maybe three, or four, then get the attention of a reviewer. After that the issue is between me and the reviewer.

[+QSparrow]

I can't believe it. Today I get this:

 

You never did go see if the cache in on the bridge!!

To bad to sad

 

I've composed this email:

 

Enough is enough.

 

If you want to maintain somebody else's cache, the proper thing to do is adopt it. But because you decided to maintain a DISABLED cache, that meant that very few people were going to even see it. It is irrelevant whether or not the cache was actually there or not. IT WAS DISABLED.

 

The fact that the thing is now archived, believe it or not, is actually not the end of the world. The original owner, if he still wants it, can have it unarchived. Or you can take over the maintenance properly and submit it as your own cache now. Or somebody else can now use that spot since it is not being taken up any more by a DISABLED cache.

 

Again, I never claimed that it was not there. If you think it was archived prematurely, take it up with the admin, but it sure seems that he agrees with me, since he archived it.

 

Now stop harassing me, and next time, adopt the cache.

 

Any opinions before I hit "send"?

 

Edited to fix spelling.

Edited to take out some of the harshness.

Edited August 15, 2007 by QSparrow

[+horsegeeks]

I can't believe it. Today I get this:

 

You never did go see if the cache in on the bridge!!

To bad to sad

 

I've composed this email:

 

Enough is enough.

 

YOU were the one who did not follow the rules. If you want to maintain somebody else's cache, the proper thing to do is adopt it. But because you decided to go around the rules and maintain a DISABLED cache, that meant that very few people were going to even see it. It is irrelevant whether or not the cache was actually there or not. IT WAS DISABLED.

 

The fact that the thing is now archived, believe it or not, is actually not the end of the world. The original owner, if he still wants it, can have it unarchived. Or you can take over the maintenance properly and submit it as your own cache now. Or somebody else can now use that spot since it is not being taken up any more by a DISABLED cache.

 

Again, I never claimed that it was not there. If you think it was archived prematurely, take it up with the admin, but it sure seems that he agrees with me, since he archived it.

 

Now stop harassing me, and next time, adopt the cache.

 

Any opinions before I hit "send"?

 

Edited to fix spelling.

 

Hit send, take two aspirins, get some sleep and then go caching for pete's sake and don't let the small things in life bother you so much.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Excellent! Not too rude yet blunt enough to HOPEFULLY get the point across!

 

Maybe the guy will actually understand and do what should have been done to start with!

 

I'd even go so far as to warn that further harassment would be turned over to GS!

Edited August 15, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Enough is enough.

 

If you want to maintain somebody else's cache, the proper thing to do is adopt it. But because you decided to maintain a DISABLED cache, that meant that very few people were going to even see it. It is irrelevant whether or not the cache was actually there or not. IT WAS DISABLED.

 

The fact that the thing is now archived, believe it or not, is actually not the end of the world. The original owner, if he still wants it, can have it unarchived. Or you can take over the maintenance properly and submit it as your own cache now. Or somebody else can now use that spot since it is not being taken up any more by a DISABLED cache.

 

Again, I never claimed that it was not there. If you think it was archived prematurely, take it up with the admin, but it sure seems that he agrees with me, since he archived it.

 

Now stop harassing me, and next time, adopt the cache.

 

Very polite. I would have said:

 

Bug off, moron. I don't need to know what a fool you were for maintaining someone else's disabled cache.

 

But, then, my computer is on the third floor where it's extra hot, and I'm sweating like a dog, and I just drank a very strong hot cup of coffee.

[+treasure_hunter]

I said it has been disabled for more than a year. How long should a cache go on disabled like that before the owner needs to check up on it? If the owner does not take responsibility for their caches, shouldn't they be disabled?

 

Shouldn't the reviewer have stepped in and checked on the status of the cache after it had been temporarily disabled for so long?

[+BlueDeuce]

I said it has been disabled for more than a year. How long should a cache go on disabled like that before the owner needs to check up on it? If the owner does not take responsibility for their caches, shouldn't they be disabled?

 

Shouldn't the reviewer have stepped in and checked on the status of the cache after it had been temporarily disabled for so long?

 

Well, it doesn't happen. After 4-6 months you might want ask for status from the cache owner.

 

Then again in 9.

 

After 12 post a SBA.

 

Then you got the attention of the reviewer.

 

You can post a SBA earlier but I haven't seen much difference in the time line.

[+DrAwKwArD]

I said it has been disabled for more than a year. How long should a cache go on disabled like that before the owner needs to check up on it? If the owner does not take responsibility for their caches, shouldn't they be disabled?

 

Shouldn't the reviewer have stepped in and checked on the status of the cache after it had been temporarily disabled for so long?

 

Well, it doesn't happen. After 4-6 months you might want ask for status from the cache owner.

 

Then again in 9.

 

After 12 post a SBA.

 

Then you got the attention of the reviewer.

 

You can post a SBA earlier but I haven't seen much difference in the time line.

 

Looks like your area is hard-up for responsible reviewers. Our reviewers archive after giving the cache owner 40-60 days to remedy the problem.

[+Rockin Roddy]

yep...our reviewer is very good about watching problem caches. He just sent out notices for a few in our area...2 weeks without change and it's archive time! Now, those caches have been MIA for some time, but when it is brought to his attention, he acts promptly!