Mandatory Archiving....your take on it

[+Parabola]

No, I don't like the idea of the system archiving older caches. I just did one yesterday that hadn't been found in over a year. It was an awesome cache. As long as the owner is maintain it, they should have the choice to keep it active.

[+egami]

I think you missed part of the point. I can disappear from gc.com, but still be active and list my caches (the same ones) on another site. If this was the case, you would not be "helping" by removing my cache, even if I never logged in to gc.com again.

 

No, I don't believe so....when you agree to listing a cache on GC.com part of your end user agreement is as follows:

 

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

So, if you were in the situation it would be prudent of you, as an owner, to give up your GC.com listing.

[Tahosa and Sons]

Many of my caches only get a visit or two a year and they have been out there from 2 to 6 years. So why archive them just because too many cache wimps refuse to take a good hike.

[+TrailGators]

Many of my caches only get a visit or two a year and they have been out there from 2 to 6 years. So why archive them just because too many cache wimps refuse to take a good hike.

[+Markwell]

I think you missed part of the point. I can disappear from gc.com, but still be active and list my caches (the same ones) on another site. If this was the case, you would not be "helping" by removing my cache, even if I never logged in to gc.com again.

 

No, I don't believe so....when you agree to listing a cache on GC.com part of your end user agreement is as follows:

 

Cache Maintenance

 

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.

 

The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

 

So, if you were in the situation it would be prudent of you, as an owner, to give up your GC.com listing.

How does not logging in to Geocaching.com have anything to do with physically maintaining the cache. I can archive the cache on GC.com and leave the cache in the woods - fully maintaining it and listing it on another site, right? If I maintain a cache physically, why does it need a logging in on the site?

 

Along those same lines, since Geocaching.com is a listing service (you said you agree with that), why should a listing service have a responsibility to clean up unmaintaned caches? If anyone would want that responsibility, it MIGHT be part of a CITO of a local organization. However, I doubt any local org would do that because of the backlash from cache owners.

[+egami]

How does not logging in to Geocaching.com have anything to do with physically maintaining the cache. I can archive the cache on GC.com and leave the cache in the woods - fully maintaining it and listing it on another site, right? If I maintain a cache physically, why does it need a logging in on the site?

 

I didn't say it did outside of the fact that when you agree to the user agreement to host a cache that you also agree to do the online maintenance. That's built it. You click on that now when you publish a cache.

 

Along those same lines, since Geocaching.com is a listing service (you said you agree with that), why should a listing service have a responsibility to clean up unmaintaned caches? If anyone would want that responsibility, it MIGHT be part of a CITO of a local organization. However, I doubt any local org would do that because of the backlash from cache owners.

 

Well, I would hope to protect the integirty of what geocaching is that people might be interested in avoiding creating geo-litter. However, if the base as whole decides that's just fine and leaving unmaintained cache-trash all over the world then that's certainly their perogative.

 

Sure you can see the reasoning behind not wanting to deliberately leave trash around the world? Maybe I should be asking why cachers as a whole wouldn't be interested in eliminating geo-litter caused by orphaned caches.

Edited November 20, 2007 by egami

[+baloo&bd]

Sure you can see the reasoning behind not wanting to deliberately leave trash around the world? Maybe I should be asking why cachers as a whole wouldn't be interested in eliminating geo-litter caused by orphaned caches.

 

We are, and as such, we self-police and the overwhelming number due remove caches if they still exist at archiving. You are offering a solution in search of a problem.

 

An occasional orphaned cache left out is going to happen no matter what. There are some caches, one I know of near me, that thrives even though there is no evidence that the cacher has been active for over two years. No reason to archive.

 

It would be better for you to encourage cachers to continue to collect the occasional "geo-litter" rather than regulate to kill of some otherwise good caches.

[+egami]

We are, and as such, we self-police and the overwhelming number due remove caches if they still exist at archiving. You are offering a solution in search of a problem.

 

An occasional orphaned cache left out is going to happen no matter what. There are some caches, one I know of near me, that thrives even though there is no evidence that the cacher has been active for over two years. No reason to archive.

 

Well, again this has already been discussed and I don't disagree with that. I am just saying it's not as bad an idea that elmuyloco offered up as the OP.

 

I understand perfect world scenario is unlikely, but it doesn't hurt to encourage it.

 

It would be better for you to encourage cachers to continue to collect the occasional "geo-litter" rather than regulate to kill of some otherwise good caches.

 

Well, that's your opinion. However, you are ignoring much of my conversation in this thead if you've arrived at that conclusion. I've made it blatently clear that it would be critical to protect quality caches and avoid errant archiving.

Edited November 20, 2007 by egami

[+baloo&bd]

Well, that's your opinion. However, you are ignoring much of my conversation in this thead if you've arrived at that conclusion. I've made it blatently clear that it would be critical to protect quality caches and avoid errant archiving.

 

Actually, I have taken all of it in. Your opinion is based on an assumption that just does not prove to be valid.

 

" ...if the base as whole decides that's just fine and leaving unmaintained cache-trash all over the world then that's certainly their perogative."

 

Setting that fact aside, any type of auto-archiving would not correct this. Again assuming your assumption, this would potentially cause more "geo-litter" as now there is the potential for multiple caches to be left in any given area. If the first was not picked up, what assurance is there that the second or third would be?

 

Most caches which would be "auto-archived" would be done so due to abandonment (per this thread and your comment above), who will pick it up then?

 

You also apply a very subjective, as well as much discussed, qualifier of not archiving "quality" caches.

 

Until the unlikely event that saturation becomes an issue (guidelines already go a long way to prevent this) there is no reson to put any time limits on caches. Be a shame if any of these got caught up in such a scheme.

[+egami]

Actually, I have taken all of it in. Your opinion is based on an assumption that just does not prove to be valid.

 

Then if you've taken it all in you know that numerous times I've expressed that concern and offered potential solutions to avoid that.

 

Setting that fact aside, any type of auto-archiving would not correct this. Again assuming your assumption, this would potentially cause more "geo-litter" as now there is the potential for multiple caches to be left in any given area. If the first was not picked up, what assurance is there that the second or third would be?

 

I've addressed this prior with the green smiley idea. And, at the end of the day, nothing is 100% assured and it was never advertised as such, it'd merely be an enhancement that would, in theory, eliminate most of the current potential for geo-litter.

 

Most caches which would be "auto-archived" would be done so due to abandonment (per this thread and your comment above), who will pick it up then?

 

See prior response...this has already been answered in the thread.

 

You also apply a very subjective, as well as much discussed, qualifier of not archiving "quality" caches.

 

Which is the point in retaining reviewer discretion, as mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

Until the unlikely event that saturation becomes an issue (guidelines already go a long way to prevent this) there is no reson to put any time limits on caches. Be a shame if any of these got caught up in such a scheme.

 

I actually stated a couple times earlier, earlier in the thread, that this is no resolution really for saturation and that is not my personal interest in the version of archiving I said I would be interested again.

 

It wouldn't appear to me that you've read through my replies as you suggest.

Edited November 20, 2007 by egami

[+baloo&bd]

Actually, I have taken all of it in. Your opinion is based on an assumption that just does not prove to be valid.

 

Then if you've taken it all in you know that numerous times I've expressed that concern and offered potential solutions to avoid that.

 

Setting that fact aside, any type of auto-archiving would not correct this. Again assuming your assumption, this would potentially cause more "geo-litter" as now there is the potential for multiple caches to be left in any given area. If the first was not picked up, what assurance is there that the second or third would be?

 

I've addressed this prior with the green smiley idea. And, at the end of the day, nothing is 100% assured and it was never advertised as such, it'd merely be an enhancement that would, in theory, eliminate most of the current potential for geo-litter.

 

Most caches which would be "auto-archived" would be done so due to abandonment (per this thread and your comment above), who will pick it up then?

 

See prior response...this has already been answered in the thread.

 

You also apply a very subjective, as well as much discussed, qualifier of not archiving "quality" caches.

 

Which is the point in retaining reviewer discretion, as mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

Until the unlikely event that saturation becomes an issue (guidelines already go a long way to prevent this) there is no reson to put any time limits on caches. Be a shame if any of these got caught up in such a scheme.

 

I actually stated a couple times earlier, earlier in the thread, that this is no resolution really for saturation and that is not my personal interest in the version of archiving I said I would be interested again.

 

It wouldn't appear to me that you've read through my replies as you suggest.

 

You make a comment, someone replies directly to it, and then you state you never said it. Really difficult to maintain any type of discussion here. Had you read my reply, especially the last point you replied to, you would have realized that at no point did I ever imply you thought there was a saturation issue. Please read in context prior to replying.

 

Suffice it to say that this is a solution in search of a problem with, thankfully, little or no hope of being implemented/ Out the door to cache. L8r.

[+baloo&bd]

dupe

Edited November 20, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+egami]

You make a comment, someone replies directly to it, and then you state you never said it. Really difficult to maintain any type of discussion here.

 

No idea what comment you are even referring to...you are seemingly, however, confounding my thoughts with the OP's based on the number of erroneous assumptions you've made about my position.

 

Had you read my reply, especially the last point you replied to, you would have realized that at no point did I ever imply you thought there was a saturation issue.

 

If you read my reply, I never accused you of doing so.

 

Please read in context prior to replying.

 

The irony...

 

Suffice it to say that this is a solution in search of a problem with, thankfully, little or no hope of being implemented/ Out the door to cache. L8r.

 

That's your opinion. I didn't say I am 100% sold on the idea, but I've yet to see a reasonable demonstration as to why it's such a bad idea. Pretty much most of them brought up have solutions or are actually non-issue in relation to the idea that I was interested in consideration on.

 

However, you're right, nothing is likely to be done...it's just a discussion.

Edited November 20, 2007 by egami

[+Rockin Roddy]

That's what I want...a machine to decide when my cache isn't fun anymore!! NO THANKS!

 

Thee are caches on mountains which get maybe a visitor a year if at all. There are caches underwater that get VERY few visitors. There are even caches which have been out for a year and NEVER found (FTFs still waiting).

NO to the community telling me when my cache is trash, I think I'm more than capable enough to do that myself! If you don't like a cache and think it's in need of archival, the tool is there!

 

OOOH, where can I find those! Those sound challenging! I was looking to see if someone had a bookmark list showing them, but I'm still a noob and don't know how to search for a bookmark list. I tried searching the forums, but didn't see anything there either. Does anyone have a list somewhere?

 

OH and a BIG NO!!!! on the OP idea of auto-archiving caches. Like I said already, being a newbie, would really stink to miss out on some of the older, quality caches and be stuck having to find micro-spew that seems to be the current trend in hiding.

 

Thanks to all!

 

Happy Caching.

 

I'm not sure exactly where, but I saw some brought up recently in the MiGO website...so probably Michigan...and elsewhere as well! Check on the MiGO site or maybe someone can tell how to do a search for them?

[+Markwell]

but I've yet to see a reasonable demonstration as to why it's such a bad idea.

OK, I'll bite. Since this discussion is now on three pages, and since your responses are on various pages, and since your suggested improvements are on multiple posts, and since your suggestion evidently has nothing to do with the system automatically archiving caches (or even madatory archving for that matter)...

 

What is your current suggestion again?

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Okay... I have been earnestly trying to avoid this cesspool since it started, but this morning, well... this morning I am feeling a tad bored, and some devilish voice in me is urging me to go slumming in this bizarre thread. So.. here goes....

 

First, I must agree with Ambrosia and the other early responders who pointed out a number of GLARING inconsistencies in the original proposal posted by the OP, including that he/she first cites overcrowding/cache density as the reason for her/his proposal but then advises us that the low-find-frequency caches in question are rural caches located in remote areas (where there are perhaps only one cache per square mile, so cache density and overcrowding are obviously not a problem!

 

Next, what a perfectly nasty and filthy little idea, this suggestion of mandatory archiving! What a perfect way to ensure that all high quality caches -- that is, caches which require a bit of effort, diligence and patience whereupon to score a find, and which concomitantly are bound to have a low find frequency given the modern geocaching ethos of easy n' quick finds -- eventually become archived, leaving only hiqh-find-frequency park n'grabs and drive-by caches, aka Lame Uban Micros (aka LUMs), to litter the landscape! How perfectly marvelous! You know (and here we go with Godwin's Law again, as I am totally amazed that this groady thread has gotten to three pages and that no one has yet invoked Godwin's Law, and so it falls upon my shoulders to do so...), now that I think of it, I realize that this idea of mandatory archiving of low-find-frequency caches is exactly the kind of idea which Hitler and his jack-booted Nazi thugs would have loved and would have endorsed wholeheartedly! First they come for our high-Difficulty, high-Terrain caches which have a low find frequency, and then they come for our neighbors and our children, and maybe even our beloved goats! Egads! I know how these Nazis work!

[+elmuyloco5]

but I've yet to see a reasonable demonstration as to why it's such a bad idea.

OK, I'll bite. Since this discussion is now on three pages, and since your responses are on various pages, and since your suggested improvements are on multiple posts, and since your suggestion evidently has nothing to do with the system automatically archiving caches (or even madatory archving for that matter)...

 

What is your current suggestion again?

 

My idea, the one that Egami is talking about, has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the OP's idea. It is however another idea about mandatory archiving. I want to make sure that it is understood that I never suggested that the current procedures stop. They would still need to be in place to ensure poorly maintained caches or improperly placed caches owned by active members are handled appropriately. Here is what I suggested:

 

Every person is tracked by their visits to GC.com (found in the profile page). What I suggested was that there is a number of caches that are owned by GC.com members that have not visited the site for a year or longer. These caches are most likely now owned by non-active members. I feel that EVERY cache should be owned by an active member so that they can answer cachers' questions as well as maintain their caches. To ensure that these caches have not been abandoned, I have proposed the following plan:

 

Once a member of GC.com has been absent from the site for one year's time (easily implemented with an "if than" statement in programming), a form letter would be sent off to the email account they registered with GC.com. The letter would inquire about their status geocaching and their intentions for the caches they own. If the member responded that they intend to keep their cache, then nothing would happen to their cache listing. If a member responds that they are no longer caching, or no response is received from the owner, the cache is placed on a "to be adopted" list. This list is available to all members for viewing. Within a set period of time, I suggested 30 days, if the cache has not been adopted, it is to be archived and set on a "recently archived" list. By allowing all caches up for adoption, the caches that are "loved" by all, would remain as someone is bound to take them over. The "recently archived" list would be available for all GC members to look at. For caches that the owner has expressed that they have removed the physical cache (something that would be asked in the form letter described above), they would not be included on the "recently archived" list. For caches that have not been determined to be removed, they would placed on this list for other cachers to remove. Egami suggested a "green smiley" to be awarded to those who have removed the cache as a way of motivation. Once the cache has been physically removed, it is taken off the list.

 

This method does not attack old caches, or caches that have not been visited frequently. It only takes care of the geotrash that no one is interested in (shown by the fact that the owner no longer wants it, and that no other cacher wants to adopt it). It's simply a way to maintain a cleaner environment and prevent future maintenance issues, as any cache that is ownerless will eventually need to be maintenanced. Does it solve a problem of saturation? Eh, maybe a bit, but not it's intent. This subject would be better served by being placed in a different thread. When I made the suggestion it was because of the idea of mandatory archiving and not the bit about saturation. I had no idea the thread would go this far, and appears to be getting alot of comments from people who aren't reading everything involved in the discussion.

 

Edited to add: I am NO WAY trying to eliminate caches that are interesting, old, or barely visited. My caches are along hikes, and don't get many visits. I certainly don't want my caches to be taken away, or the other similar caches that we love so much. My intent is not to make more room for me to place caches either. We're getting ready to publish a 20 cache series and will likely not place many more. We feel it's enough to handle. This suggestion is just a way to keep the environment clean, help keep caches in better condition (by ensuring someone is actively owning them), and improve the geocaching sport/game/etc. There is no devious design behind the idea, just a desire to make things better for all.

Edited November 21, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+baloo&bd]

 

My idea, ....

 

I understand what you are trying to do, however this is already taking place as pointed out by my area reviewer, IL Reviewer, earlier in this thread.

 

The point I think most are trying to make is, if the cache is active, in good shape and still at the posted coords it does not matter if the owner shows as active. Not to mention with our (the US) current occupation overseas, there are a good many cachers that may just not be able to be contacted quickly enough to make it work.

 

They may be not interested anymore, or they may just be monitoring the emails and maintaining it that way.

 

There are a number of people who have an account set up for placing caches and another one for finding, the latter would be the active one.

 

Even if something like you are suggesting was adopted, which is highly unlikely, it would require even more intervention by the volunteers for a issue, that quite frankly, has such a low occurrence the trade off in time is just not worth it.

 

Encourage cachers to keep being self policing and newbies to adopt the same attitude and things will stay cleaned up. If this becomes an issue, land managers will let the different caches listing services know and they will jump on it. All the sites seem to be very responsive when there is an issue, especially with land owners/managers.

 

W

Edited November 21, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+egami]

but I've yet to see a reasonable demonstration as to why it's such a bad idea.

OK, I'll bite. Since this discussion is now on three pages, and since your responses are on various pages, and since your suggested improvements are on multiple posts, and since your suggestion evidently has nothing to do with the system automatically archiving caches (or even madatory archving for that matter)...

 

What is your current suggestion again?

 

My issue is more with avoiding geo-litter and implementing a process to help verify that archived caches are retrieved in the instance an owner is unable to confirm its retrieval...regardless of the method of archiving, which it appears elmuy has responded to you regarding.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I've yet to see any reason why my (or any other) cache should be up for automatic archival at any time.

[+elmuyloco5]

 

My idea, ....

 

I understand what you are trying to do, however this is already taking place as pointed out by my area reviewer, IL Reviewer, earlier in this thread.

 

The point I think most are trying to make is, if the cache is active, in good shape and still at the posted coords it does not matter if the owner shows as active. Not to mention with our (the US) current occupation overseas, there are a good many cachers that may just not be able to be contacted quickly enough to make it work.

 

They may be not interested anymore, or they may just be monitoring the emails and maintaining it that way.

 

There are a number of people who have an account set up for placing caches and another one for finding, the latter would be the active one.

 

Even if something like you are suggesting was adopted, which is highly unlikely, it would require even more intervention by the volunteers for a issue, that quite frankly, has such a low occurrence the trade off in time is just not worth it.

 

Encourage cachers to keep being self policing and newbies to adopt the same attitude and things will stay cleaned up. If this becomes an issue, land managers will let the different caches listing services know and they will jump on it. All the sites seem to be very responsive when there is an issue, especially with land owners/managers.

 

W

 

Military members would be affected no differently with my plan. If they leave for a year's time and their cache falls to disrepair, their reviewer would contact them anyway. If they don't respond to that contact, their cache will still be archived. How is this different? I was in the military myself, as was my husband for 10 years. A responsible military member would employ someone to take care of their cache or at least the reviewer to let them know about their deployment. It's really no different than notifying your bill holders. They don't wait for you to get back either. I'm not trying to get military members to lose their caches. I have the utmost respect for them and their service to our country.

 

I can't say whether or not my idea will be utilized. That's for Groundspeak to decide. It was just a suggestion.

 

More volunteers seems to be an issue with everyone. I don't see how this is a problem. Plenty of people would be happy to go remove items to earn their green smiley. People CITO now for no smiley at all. You can't just encourage people to clean up. It's already being "encouraged" on this site, and we can see where that is going. Look, you don't have to agree with my idea. It doesn't have to be implimented. It was a suggestion. And, while maybe not perfect (but then again nothing is), it's better than what is in place alone. I must say, I'm truly surprised that people who claim to promote CITO and removal of geotrash, aren't more open to finding ways to help control it, whether it's my idea or someone elses. Seems to me the consensus on the site is to ignore the trash issue and keep things the way they're going because they don't like change. We're more likely to lose the cooperation of land managers this way. I would hope that the cachers on this forum can see why something needs to be done to clean up these abandoned caches, no matter what method is utilized to do so.

Edited November 21, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+baloo&bd]

More volunteers seems to be an issue with everyone. I don't see how this is a problem. Plenty of people would be happy to go remove items to earn their green smiley. People CITO now for no smiley at all. You can't just encourage people to clean up. It's already being "encouraged" on this site, and we can see where that is going. Look, you don't have to agree with my idea. It doesn't have to be implimented. It was a suggestion. And, while maybe not perfect (but then again nothing is), it's better than what is in place alone. I must say, I'm truly surprised that people who claim to promote CITO and removal of geotrash, aren't more open to finding ways to help control it, whether it's my idea or someone elses. Seems to me the consensus on the site is to ignore the trash issue and keep things the way they're going because they don't like change. We're more likely to lose the cooperation of land managers this way. I would hope that the cachers on this forum can see why something needs to be done to clean up these abandoned caches, no matter what method is utilized to do so.

 

I really did not mean to get your ire up. Truth is, I, and apparently many others including some reviewers, just don't see a problem. Not that geo-litter would not be a problem, just that it is not there to the dgree that would warrant the effort required to implement a plan on all caches rather than the very small number that may be an issue.

 

I read somewhere earlier in the thread the comment that a land manager said about the environment more or less "self cleaning" the left out caches. While I don't know that I wholly agree with that, if the land managers are not viewing this as an issue, and trust me they are a very vocal bunch, you will be hard pressed to find one of the geocaching sites to spend much effort on it.

 

Of everyone that has participated in this forum to this point, I do not believe you will find one that believes that a trash issue should be ignored. Just that it is not as significant as some may believe and that what is there, is already being handled sufficiently. If you have some specific instances where this became an issue and can show them not to be as much as an exception as everyone believes, I am sure TPTB would be more likely to take notice

[+egami]

I read somewhere earlier in the thread the comment that a land manager said about the environment more or less "self cleaning" the left out caches. While I don't know that I wholly agree with that, if the land managers are not viewing this as an issue, and trust me they are a very vocal bunch, you will be hard pressed to find one of the geocaching sites to spend much effort on it.

 

On that issue...being that I introduced the geo-litter aspect, first off...I agree. I don't see the self-cleaning aspect personally and the individuals I know at our local wildlife refuge REALLY harbor that same concern and remain steadfastly against caches for this reason.

 

On the land manager issue in general...on our local Iowa boards we had a thread regarding Iowa DNR specfically and their policy. I know a number of DNR managers and solicited e-mails off to about 2/3's of the larger area land managers in the state to get a real feel for their perception. One of the questions I asked was about monitoring caches and of everyone queried only one manager monitored caches at any level and even then didn't take action on them. Most of them couldn't tell me what the policy was and none of them really worried about geocaching. So, it's probably relatively safe to assume that many managers nationwide aren't really even overly concious about it.

 

That doesn't mean, however, that we shouldn't be proactive in protecting the integrity of caching by trying to help minimize geo-litter.

[+elmuyloco5]

You don't have my "ire" up at all. I had stopped posting because I felt I had said my peace, but was asked by Markwell to please restate my idea, so I did. I only wanted to clarify how my plan would not adversely effect military members any more than the current plan does.

 

I have personally seen alot of trash when we go out, and spent quite a bit of our time cleaning up. I also have skipped over plenty of caches in our state that clearly show by the logs that they are poorly maintained. When I go to see if the individual is active, I find they are not. I personally subscribe to the belief that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My idea works along those lines.

 

I'm not hurt or offended by those who disagree with me. I am only shocked that so few people seem open to the idea of change to make things better, whether using my plan or not. The general response to anyone's ideas on here is that no one wants change. There are some truly creative ideas that have been presented over the short period of time I've been a member, and very few seem to get any positive response on this forum. I can't tell you the amount of posts I've seen with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" remark. I'm truly glad that the world's inventors don't subsrcibe to this way of thinking or we'd never have all the wonderful new products and the improvements to those products that we have today. Something doesn't have to be broken to benefit from improvement.

 

I read a post by Jeremy on this site about how he doesn't care for the argumentative attitude on the forums either. And where suggestions for something had been shot down by the forum users, moderators, and reviewers, Jeremy was considering implimenting some of them. Thank you, Jeremy, for keeping an open mind about site and game improvements.

 

Edited to add: As far as the geotrash not being a problem, I ask you, have you been to many archived caches to check the numbers of them that have been cleaned up? Has anyone? I would love to see those numbers., what are you basing your opinion of this situation on? I doubt many people are caching for archived caches, and if they were, I'm willing to bet there are a large percentage not being picked up.

Edited November 21, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+The Jester]

Edited to add: As far as the geotrash not being a problem, I ask you, have you been to many archived caches to check the numbers of them that have been cleaned up? Has anyone? I would love to see those numbers., what are you basing your opinion of this situation on? I doubt many people are caching for archived caches, and if they were, I'm willing to bet there are a large percentage not being picked up.

I'm not sure you'd win that bet. No I don't have any numbers in front of me (any more than you do), but from monitoring my finds (weekly PQs) and the local area of unfound (by me) caches (close to 3000 caches overall) - what I've seen is that the majority of TPTB archivals are for missing caches, not unmaintained caches. So what is there to retrieve?

 

You keep repeating that a cache with a missing owner will need maintainence, that after a year of not logging in their caches are trash. I'll dispute that. I have some caches that I've not been to in more that a year - none of the logs have indicated any problems, so where is the maintainence issue? Why can't someone who isn't finding caches (or using a different account for finding) be tracking their caches by the email logs?

 

This idea - in this form - is not new. Almost identical preposals have been discussed before. And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data. It took a lot of talk just to get the "All Finds PQ" to include archived caches. So, suggesting a "recently archived list" is the real breaking point of the idea.

[+egami]

And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data.

 

This keeps being brought up and it's a non-issue. You wouldn't need archived data to accomodate it.

[+elmuyloco5]

Edited to add: As far as the geotrash not being a problem, I ask you, have you been to many archived caches to check the numbers of them that have been cleaned up? Has anyone? I would love to see those numbers., what are you basing your opinion of this situation on? I doubt many people are caching for archived caches, and if they were, I'm willing to bet there are a large percentage not being picked up.

I'm not sure you'd win that bet. No I don't have any numbers in front of me (any more than you do), but from monitoring my finds (weekly PQs) and the local area of unfound (by me) caches (close to 3000 caches overall) - what I've seen is that the majority of TPTB archivals are for missing caches, not unmaintained caches. So what is there to retrieve?

 

You keep repeating that a cache with a missing owner will need maintainence, that after a year of not logging in their caches are trash. I'll dispute that. I have some caches that I've not been to in more that a year - none of the logs have indicated any problems, so where is the maintainence issue? Why can't someone who isn't finding caches (or using a different account for finding) be tracking their caches by the email logs?

 

This idea - in this form - is not new. Almost identical preposals have been discussed before. And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data. It took a lot of talk just to get the "All Finds PQ" to include archived caches. So, suggesting a "recently archived list" is the real breaking point of the idea.

 

You truly are misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth that I never said. Not liking my idea is one thing, and honestly, just fine with me. But, please don't misrepresent what I have said, it does nothing for either side of this discussion for the facts to keep being muddled.

 

I never said I had numbers infront of me, I said I was willing to bet that I'm correct. I didn't say that the majority of archived caches are from maintenance issues. What I said was out all of the archived caches out there (for whatever reason) I would like to see the percentage of caches that have been removed properly after archival. I thought what I said was clear about this, I'm talking about the removal of the physical cache. Are you searching for your 3000 caches after they have been archived? I'm confused as to how you would know that the physical cache has been picked up then? Is there a group that does this, if so please let me know.

 

I also NEVER said that after a year the cache of an unactive, or active owner would need to be maintenanced. Please go re-read what I have said. I thought I made it clear that EVERY cache at some point will need maintenance, even the best prepared cache on earth. If there is not an active owner, the cache must rely on others to maintain it. Maybe a particular cache you can recall will last for 40 years out there without help, but it doesn't matter as at some point to infinity, it will need to have maintenance. And an inactive owner means a cache that can have issues. The current plan waits for those issues to come up. AGAIN, my plan works towards prevention.

 

I also NEVER said that they can't be tracking their cache without coming online. If you would please refer to my plan again, you will see this. The form letter is sent out to the owner to ask if they PLAN to keep the cache active. How is this a problem with what you are asking???? You see, as long as they respond to the letter, the cache remains as it is.

 

I also never said my idea is unique. It is simply the first I've read of it since I have joined. I DO have the right to suggest items, just as you have the right to disagree with them. But, AGAIN, please stop misrepresenting what I have suggested. Yes, it might mean a change to some of Groundspeak's policy regarding archived caches. They would be listed online for all to see for a limited time. But, policies change in life, just as all things change in life in one way or another. It's up to them to decide that, not you, and not I. But again, a suggestion is allowed, no matter how much it would require policy changes. Unless there's a policy that states we are not allowed to make suggestions that would alter their policy, if so, I haven't seen it.

[+Markwell]

And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data.

This keeps being brought up and it's a non-issue. You wouldn't need archived data to accomodate it.

Within a set period of time, I suggested 30 days, if the cache has not been adopted, it is to be archived and set on a "recently archived" list. By allowing all caches up for adoption, the caches that are "loved" by all, would remain as someone is bound to take them over. The "recently archived" list would be available for all GC members to look at. For caches that the owner has expressed that they have removed the physical cache (something that would be asked in the form letter described above), they would not be included on the "recently archived" list.

 

The other aspect that has not been addressed is how you know that the cache isn't listed on another site.

 

You see, as long as they respond to the letter, the cache remains as it is.

 

However, there are individuals who have caches listed on other sites that have had their accounts banned from Geocaching.com. If they can't log in to Geocaching.com to update an e-mail address, and they are still out there placing caches, but CAN'T log on to Geocaching.com, how is Groundspeak supposed to contact them?

Edited November 21, 2007 by Markwell

[+elmuyloco5]

And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data.

This keeps being brought up and it's a non-issue. You wouldn't need archived data to accomodate it.

Within a set period of time, I suggested 30 days, if the cache has not been adopted, it is to be archived and set on a "recently archived" list. By allowing all caches up for adoption, the caches that are "loved" by all, would remain as someone is bound to take them over. The "recently archived" list would be available for all GC members to look at. For caches that the owner has expressed that they have removed the physical cache (something that would be asked in the form letter described above), they would not be included on the "recently archived" list.

 

The other aspect that has not been addressed is how you know that the cache isn't listed on another site.

 

That would have to rely on the individual to answer their email. I'm not sure why it's too much to ask the owner to clarify their intent. The result is a cleaner planet, and isn't that the point of the Groundspeak charity?

 

To answer your second question, they would no longer be listed as an active user when they are banned. At that point, the owner would be asked if they intend to keep up their cache regardless of their banning. If the answer is yes, then the cache can be archived from GC.com and you don't have to worry about it. If they have been banned from GC.com, why are there caches still listed here?

Edited November 21, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+baloo&bd]

If they have been banned from GC.com, why are there caches still listed here?

 

Not sure that they are, however if not, I can see the cache still being valid until it shows itself to be not maintained.

 

In answer to your other question, I don't have solid numbers, neither do you. Just assumptions. You've stated your position and theory, both based on sound reasoning, however have not given any specifics to prove or disprove.

 

I can tell you some examples of what I base my assumptions on, with one or two specific examples why I believe this has not yet becamoe an issue.

 

1. Most caches are archived because they are missing. I maintain a GSAK DB of caches in my area (about a 125 mile radius) and do go and regularly look at why caches, both found and otherwise, are archived. Out of curiosity.

 

2. Many times I have seen cachers offer bonus finds for series they have put out that have run their course. A popular series in my area was the Monoploy series by Greenback. He offered another find for those that had already found the caches to go pick them up. Not what I would have done, but a novel idea and not all that unique.

 

3. As I said, I check occasionally why they are archived. One reason is if the cache was "abandoned" or some other reason other than persistant muggling, I will sometimes consider re-using the area. I have yet to find a cache there.

 

4. One of our local FPD put a cache policy into place that when it was not found for X numbers of days, the owner was to email them that they had checked it. Reality set in and it ended up that a ranger would just swing by during there normal course of business to check on them if they were in the area. Twice, a cache with no logs for some period of time was found to be missing. A ranger has yet to find an archived one (they checked, or at least used to) when they looked.

 

As I said, neither of us has numbers, however my position is not offered just to resist change ut from my personal experience and what I have seen while caching, at events and here in the forums. I also may be somewhat spoiled because my local reviewer is very proactive, however from a recent thread talking about different reviewers, it does seem to be their culture.

 

Poorly maintained caches are frustrating, however do not always equal geo-litter. Laziness, illness, procrastination, a real life all may delay getting out there quicker. If the reviewer is on the ball, they see this and give gentle nudges in the right direction. Do a search in the threads, there have been several asking if it was proper to pick up archived/abandoned caches. To me, this shows cachers are actively dealing with the problem to some degree.

[+elmuyloco5]

And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data.

This keeps being brought up and it's a non-issue. You wouldn't need archived data to accomodate it.

Within a set period of time, I suggested 30 days, if the cache has not been adopted, it is to be archived and set on a "recently archived" list. By allowing all caches up for adoption, the caches that are "loved" by all, would remain as someone is bound to take them over. The "recently archived" list would be available for all GC members to look at. For caches that the owner has expressed that they have removed the physical cache (something that would be asked in the form letter described above), they would not be included on the "recently archived" list.

 

The other aspect that has not been addressed is how you know that the cache isn't listed on another site.

 

You see, as long as they respond to the letter, the cache remains as it is.

 

However, there are individuals who have caches listed on other sites that have had their accounts banned from Geocaching.com. If they can't log in to Geocaching.com to update an e-mail address, and they are still out there placing caches, but CAN'T log on to Geocaching.com, how is Groundspeak supposed to contact them?

 

I see your side of the issue, and I certainly hope that the case is that people are cleaning these up. I don't see the same scenario in my state, so not sure where to view the whole think from. I would think that my idea, or maybe some twisted and configured rendition of my idea would just be a good program to ensure that the caches are taken care of. Instead of just supposing they are, and hoping we are right, my plan would ensure that they are. I don't like to assume things, and the current method forces us to assume that each owner has been ethically sound and taking care of their litter. However, it seems by the simple fact that people do neglect caches, and do leave items that are against the guidelines, etc., that we can't assume that people will take care of their litter either. I know life would be nicer if everyone just picked up after themselves and did the right thing, but really, is it realistic to assume that they will?

[+Markwell]

[+The Jester]

And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data.

 

This keeps being brought up and it's a non-issue. You wouldn't need archived data to accomodate it.

Markwell did a pretty good job of answering this. It is NOT a non-issue: archived cache = archived data, you can't make a list of "recently archived caches" without using archived cache data. Of course, I'm talking about making a list on GC.com, if you want to get a group together to monitor all caches in your state and maintain a list of archived caches, go ahead. But it won't be an "official" GC.com list.

[+elmuyloco5]

And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data.

 

This keeps being brought up and it's a non-issue. You wouldn't need archived data to accomodate it.

Markwell did a pretty good job of answering this. It is NOT a non-issue: archived cache = archived data, you can't make a list of "recently archived caches" without using archived cache data. Of course, I'm talking about making a list on GC.com, if you want to get a group together to monitor all caches in your state and maintain a list of archived caches, go ahead. But it won't be an "official" GC.com list.

 

No one way saying that you could currently do this. Groundspeak would have to allow the archived data to be accessed for the duration of time it took for someone to remove the physical cache.

 

Edited to add: Groundspeak would also have to include the form letter and such in their programing. This suggestion was made with the understanding that improvements would have to be made by Groundspeak in order for it to work.

Edited November 22, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+The Jester]

Edited to add: As far as the geotrash not being a problem, I ask you, have you been to many archived caches to check the numbers of them that have been cleaned up? Has anyone? I would love to see those numbers., what are you basing your opinion of this situation on? I doubt many people are caching for archived caches, and if they were, I'm willing to bet there are a large percentage not being picked up.

I'm not sure you'd win that bet. No I don't have any numbers in front of me (any more than you do), but from monitoring my finds (weekly PQs) and the local area of unfound (by me) caches (close to 3000 caches overall) - what I've seen is that the majority of TPTB archivals are for missing caches, not unmaintained caches. So what is there to retrieve?

 

You keep repeating that a cache with a missing owner will need maintainence, that after a year of not logging in their caches are trash. I'll dispute that. I have some caches that I've not been to in more that a year - none of the logs have indicated any problems, so where is the maintainence issue? Why can't someone who isn't finding caches (or using a different account for finding) be tracking their caches by the email logs?

 

This idea - in this form - is not new. Almost identical preposals have been discussed before. And one of the biggest sticking points is, as I pointed out before, GC.com has firm stand against post/publishing archived cache data. It took a lot of talk just to get the "All Finds PQ" to include archived caches. So, suggesting a "recently archived list" is the real breaking point of the idea.

 

You truly are misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth that I never said. Not liking my idea is one thing, and honestly, just fine with me. But, please don't misrepresent what I have said, it does nothing for either side of this discussion for the facts to keep being muddled.

 

I never said I had numbers infront of me, I said I was willing to bet that I'm correct. I didn't say that the majority of archived caches are from maintenance issues. What I said was out all of the archived caches out there (for whatever reason) I would like to see the percentage of caches that have been removed properly after archival. I thought what I said was clear about this, I'm talking about the removal of the physical cache. Are you searching for your 3000 caches after they have been archived? I'm confused as to how you would know that the physical cache has been picked up then? Is there a group that does this, if so please let me know.

And don't put words in my mouth. I said I had no numbers in front me - just like you have no numbers in front of you. You bet that there is a high percentage of caches not picked up after archival. I'm saying I think you'd lose that bet - based on my watching a large number of cache listing and seeing when and why they are archived. Most of the archivals I've seen done by TPTB are for missing caches. If a cache is already missing, there is nothing to retrieve after archival. If the hider archives a cache - and doesn't retrieve it - how does your system catch that?

 

I also NEVER said that after a year the cache of an unactive, or active owner would need to be maintenanced. Please go re-read what I have said. I thought I made it clear that EVERY cache at some point will need maintenance, even the best prepared cache on earth. If there is not an active owner, the cache must rely on others to maintain it. Maybe a particular cache you can recall will last for 40 years out there without help, but it doesn't matter as at some point to infinity, it will need to have maintenance. And an inactive owner means a cache that can have issues. The current plan waits for those issues to come up. AGAIN, my plan works towards prevention.

By archiving caches before they need maintainence, JUST because someone hasn't logged into GC.com in a set time period.

 

I also NEVER said that they can't be tracking their cache without coming online. If you would please refer to my plan again, you will see this. The form letter is sent out to the owner to ask if they PLAN to keep the cache active. How is this a problem with what you are asking???? You see, as long as they respond to the letter, the cache remains as it is.

 

I also never said my idea is unique. It is simply the first I've read of it since I have joined. I DO have the right to suggest items, just as you have the right to disagree with them. But, AGAIN, please stop misrepresenting what I have suggested. Yes, it might mean a change to some of Groundspeak's policy regarding archived caches. They would be listed online for all to see for a limited time. But, policies change in life, just as all things change in life in one way or another. It's up to them to decide that, not you, and not I. But again, a suggestion is allowed, no matter how much it would require policy changes. Unless there's a policy that states we are not allowed to make suggestions that would alter their policy, if so, I haven't seen it.

I wasn't saying you can't make suggestions, just that this one has been tried before. Maybe you'll be able to change TPTB minds this time, but I wouldn't count on it.

[+elmuyloco5]

[ If the hider archives a cache - and doesn't retrieve it - how does your system catch that?

 

 

Simply, like I said, if the owner chooses to archive the cache themselves they can note whether or not they have retrieved it. If not, the cache goes on the same archival list. It leaves you no worse off then before since we are all hoping that these people are collecting their caches now. Not seeing your point as to how this won't work, sorry.

 

Not sure how I put words in your mouth. I didn't say that you had stated anything, I only asked you questions. Where did I make a comment that you had said something?

 

It honestly seems to me that you are working really hard to find a reason that this wouldn't work, but can't give a good one besides that Groundspeak has to approve it. If you have a reason I'm not seeing, please let know and I'll see what I could think of to work around it.

Edited November 22, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+baloo&bd]

It honestly seems to me that you are working really hard to find a reason that this wouldn't work, but can't give a good one besides that Groundspeak has to approve it. If you have a reason I'm not seeing, please let know and I'll see what I could think of to work around it.

 

Answered many, many times. There simply does not appear to be a problem that constitues implementing a rule that would cause more work for any of the volunteer reviewers or cachers..

[+elmuyloco5]

It honestly seems to me that you are working really hard to find a reason that this wouldn't work, but can't give a good one besides that Groundspeak has to approve it. If you have a reason I'm not seeing, please let know and I'll see what I could think of to work around it.

 

Answered many, many times. There simply does not appear to be a problem that constitues implementing a rule that would cause more work for any of the volunteer reviewers or cachers..

 

Can you please explain how this is any extra work for the reviewers? It would all be automated. And extra work for cachers? Only people who WANT to go out and retrieve them would. How is this extra work?

 

Actually, if you really think about it, it would make LESS work for reviewers.

Edited November 22, 2007 by elmuyloco5

[+The Jester]

It honestly seems to me that you are working really hard to find a reason that this wouldn't work, but can't give a good one besides that Groundspeak has to approve it. If you have a reason I'm not seeing, please let know and I'll see what I could think of to work around it.

 

Answered many, many times. There simply does not appear to be a problem that constitues implementing a rule that would cause more work for any of the volunteer reviewers or cachers..

 

Can you please explain how this is any extra work for the reviewers? It would all be automated. And extra work for cachers? Only people who WANT to go out and retrieve them would. How is this extra work?

 

Actually, if you really think about it, it would make LESS work for reviewers.

I'm not sure you can fully automate the process you are suggesting. To adopt a cache that isn't offered to you by the owner requires reviewer intervention. And this form letter, just one covering all caches? Or would it have to be one per cache? How do you automate the response for the caches? An email response with the person stating what they will do with their caches ("I'm keeping x, y, and z caches, archive a, b, and c - but don't adopt out c as it's listed on OtherListing.org. I've picked up a, but won't get to b for a couple of months.") just won't automate. At some point someone has to be monitoring the process - that's extra work for somebody.

[+Papalindo]

A systemic approach to forced archiving would be a really negative thing to do for geocaching. If the problem is a long neglected or missing cache, and another cacher really wants to place a cache in the immediate vicinity, he or she should simply ask the cacher to archive it. Often times, they are happy to do it, if the request is polite and reasonable. Sometimes the person assigned to publish your new cache will go ahead and archive an obviously neglected nearby cache if you were to make him/her aware of the situation. We all know what happens when you let a system get too big and has too many rules...it's no fun anymore.

[+baloo&bd]

Let's try this from another viewpoint....Where exactly has this grown to be a problem? Specifics, not generalities.

 

It still appears that this problem is perceived rather than actual.

 

And to directly answer the questions;

 

- reviewers need to intervene. As pointed out by Jester, this can not be fully automated.

 

- cachers will need to go and check on a cache that there have been no apparent problems with simply due to some arbitrary metric, otherwise they will simply send a useless reply that does not achive whatever the objective is.

 

- The automated parts need to be coded. TPTB have their hands full working on the next fix and or bugs to work on what appears to be a non-issue.

 

- To much possibility for an occasional error. i.e. the cache is listed on another site and me, not knowing, have now unintentionally muggled it.

[+elmuyloco5]

There are ways to work around all of the issues you listed. I would go into them all, but honestly, I'm just tired. It was a suggestion. I will be more than happy to expand upon the idea if someone at Groundspeak would like to hear more of my idea. But, this is getting to be a long back and forth and I've had to repeat myself so many times at this point, it seems useless to keep it up. I respect that you don't like the idea, thank you for your opinion. It's out there now, and for the "people in power" to decide on.

[+DTM and HLB]

No.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

My cache "Gone Campin'" is rarely visited, it's way out in the middle of nowhere at my lake property, but folks love it when they do make the trip.

 

My "The South Shall Rise Again!" is out in the country, rarely visited, but enjoyed by all.

 

I am the third owner of Alabama's first cache, "Trussville Civitan", it's not found often, it takes up a whole city park, there are 500 caches within 12 miles of it, but it's important to many of us and enjoyed when found.

 

Nope, if it is maintained it can live forever!

[+Rockin Roddy]

You don't have my "ire" up at all. I had stopped posting because I felt I had said my peace, but was asked by Markwell to please restate my idea, so I did. I only wanted to clarify how my plan would not adversely effect military members any more than the current plan does.

 

I have personally seen alot of trash when we go out, and spent quite a bit of our time cleaning up. I also have skipped over plenty of caches in our state that clearly show by the logs that they are poorly maintained. When I go to see if the individual is active, I find they are not. I personally subscribe to the belief that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My idea works along those lines.

 

I'm not hurt or offended by those who disagree with me. I am only shocked that so few people seem open to the idea of change to make things better, whether using my plan or not. The general response to anyone's ideas on here is that no one wants change. There are some truly creative ideas that have been presented over the short period of time I've been a member, and very few seem to get any positive response on this forum. I can't tell you the amount of posts I've seen with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" remark. I'm truly glad that the world's inventors don't subsrcibe to this way of thinking or we'd never have all the wonderful new products and the improvements to those products that we have today. Something doesn't have to be broken to benefit from improvement.

 

I read a post by Jeremy on this site about how he doesn't care for the argumentative attitude on the forums either. And where suggestions for something had been shot down by the forum users, moderators, and reviewers, Jeremy was considering implimenting some of them. Thank you, Jeremy, for keeping an open mind about site and game improvements.

 

Edited to add: As far as the geotrash not being a problem, I ask you, have you been to many archived caches to check the numbers of them that have been cleaned up? Has anyone? I would love to see those numbers., what are you basing your opinion of this situation on? I doubt many people are caching for archived caches, and if they were, I'm willing to bet there are a large percentage not being picked up.

 

In Michigan, MiGO (Michigan Geocaching Org) has a "Rescue Mission" which cleans up caches which have been archived but left as trash. Might I suggest that you work with your local org in setting up something like this? If you'd like more info, you can check out MiGO or write me!

 

As far as Groundspeak hearing your expanded view, don't hold your breath. If many (actually MOST) cachers don't like this idea, you'll be hard pressed selling it to them. Not being mean, just practical...not many cachers will endorse an idea which would archive older caches. Many (or MOST???) at GS are likely cachers.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Rockin Roddy

[+Alan2]

Automatic archiving is a bad idea. It will encourage crummier hides and discourage different and interesting types of hides in unusual or distant areas. I spent 6 months developing and hiding and writing the web pages for these 8 multis. They're all related and consist of 8 containers and about 35 intermediate but interesting "question to answer" type stops. They don't get a lot of visitors as they take time to do and some are out of the way for most visitors. However, if I knew they would be auto-archived at some point, I would not have even bothered.

 

Likewise, how many others who hiked 6-7 miles to place a cache or a multi in a beautiful area would not have done so if they it would be archived without their input? And then force them to go back out there and collect the containers when someone else decides to pull the plug?

 

What you'll wind up with are even more quick, throw it anywhere type hides than before. Boring and unimaginative.

 

NO to auto archiving.

[+TotemLake]

You don't have my "ire" up at all. I had stopped posting because I felt I had said my peace, but was asked by Markwell to please restate my idea, so I did. I only wanted to clarify how my plan would not adversely effect military members any more than the current plan does.

 

I have personally seen alot of trash when we go out, and spent quite a bit of our time cleaning up. I also have skipped over plenty of caches in our state that clearly show by the logs that they are poorly maintained. When I go to see if the individual is active, I find they are not. I personally subscribe to the belief that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. My idea works along those lines.

 

I'm not hurt or offended by those who disagree with me. I am only shocked that so few people seem open to the idea of change to make things better, whether using my plan or not. The general response to anyone's ideas on here is that no one wants change. There are some truly creative ideas that have been presented over the short period of time I've been a member, and very few seem to get any positive response on this forum. I can't tell you the amount of posts I've seen with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" remark. I'm truly glad that the world's inventors don't subsrcibe to this way of thinking or we'd never have all the wonderful new products and the improvements to those products that we have today. Something doesn't have to be broken to benefit from improvement.

 

I read a post by Jeremy on this site about how he doesn't care for the argumentative attitude on the forums either. And where suggestions for something had been shot down by the forum users, moderators, and reviewers, Jeremy was considering implimenting some of them. Thank you, Jeremy, for keeping an open mind about site and game improvements.

 

Edited to add: As far as the geotrash not being a problem, I ask you, have you been to many archived caches to check the numbers of them that have been cleaned up? Has anyone? I would love to see those numbers., what are you basing your opinion of this situation on? I doubt many people are caching for archived caches, and if they were, I'm willing to bet there are a large percentage not being picked up.

It absolutely amazes me how a minority opinion can believe this is for the betterment of the majority. In reality, this idea targets a small group of people for the benefit of a small group of people because of a self-righteous opinion that a person is being selfish at putting out a lot of hides.

 

When did giving materials, time and effort become a selfish effort? When did that concept change? All I see is an idea to accomodate a self-perceived need for entitlement.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

I'm not hurt or offended by those who disagree with me. I am only shocked that so few people seem open to the idea of change to make things better, whether using my plan or not.

 

BETTER is subjective.

 

It absolutely amazes me how a minority opinion can believe this is for the betterment of the majority. In reality, this idea targets a small group of people for the benefit of a small group of people because of a self-righteous opinion that a person is being selfish at putting out a lot of hides.

 

When did giving materials, time and effort become a selfish effort? When did that concept change? All I see is an idea to accomodate a self-perceived need for entitlement.

 

I wonder if it's not so much that someone else is "selfish" by putting out so many hides and keeping them available over the long term, but that the small minority would appreciate automatic archival of the old caches so that new caches can be placed so that the supporters could:

 

- find more local caches and amass more finds (without having to expend too much energy or gas to get to areas that have unfound caches for them) or

 

- place the new caches so they could amass more hides (without having to expend too much energy or gas to get to areas that have unexplored places for them to place something thoughtful/thought provoking in a new area)

 

Nah? Bet me? (I'm sure someone already suggested those possibilities in the last couple of pages, but I'm not gonna wade through the arguments to find them.)

 

So, what happens when the supporters of this idea run out of caches to find/places to hide... AGAIN? What if the 'mandatory archival time hasn't expired yet? Imagine the horror! (This question is rhetorical and doesn't require an answer.)

 

Just say no.

 

I won't remove my older caches, or my infrequently visited caches for your selfish benefit and I won't expect anyone else to do that for me either.

 

 

michelle

[+mtn-man]

I've yet to see any reason why my (or any other) cache should be up for automatic archival at any time.

Me neither.

 

Funny thing... the people promoting this as a great idea would probably change their minds once one of there caches is suddenly auto-archived. They would change their tune in a New York minute. I'll bet one of my ol' yeller eTrex units on that.

[+egami]

I've yet to see any reason why my (or any other) cache should be up for automatic archival at any time.

Me neither.

 

Funny thing... the people promoting this as a great idea would probably change their minds once one of there caches is suddenly auto-archived. They would change their tune in a New York minute. I'll bet one of my ol' yeller eTrex units on that.

 

I don't know...I can see both sides of this (at least elmuyloco's idea, not so much the OP's version), but frankly the main reason I'd be interested as I stated would be to just help alleviate potential geo-litter which I am surprised no one really cares if it gets left out there.

 

I mean, in the grand scheme of things, if you've already agreed to physically maintain a cache then certainly virtually maintaining once a year wouldn't be that cumbersome.

Edited November 23, 2007 by egami