Temporary Disabled caches

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

I don't know about the rest of you chaps but as I do more caches when I pull up an online list of non found caches I see more temporary disabled caches........the ones with a strike through. When I read the logs it obvious that they're not going to be replaced or the date they were temporarily disabled i.e. a few months ago, suggests that they're possibly not going to be replaced

 

Can I be a little presumptuous, if not pedantic, and ask those people who have a temporary disabled cache which they’re not going to reactivate to archive them please.

 

I know what you’re thinking, “What does it matter”? and “What’s it to do with him”? Well, it doesn’t really and nothing but a little bit of housekeeping just makes things a little tidier and easier on the eye…….call me Mr.Fussy.

 

Cheers

 

TLHM

[Lactodorum]

If a cache has been disabled for a lengthy period and/or it's obvious they're not being maintained please post a SBA note and the reviewers can then get involved in sorting out the problem. Some get archived, some don't but at least they all get looked at. Ta.

[+jerryo]

I agree with the OP; however, I have actually logged 2 SBAs on caches but they’re still active and both caches are missing. One, whose owner hasn’t logged on since June, I requested to be archived at the beginning of November; the other I requested to be archived two months ago and again there’s no change. I realise the reviewers do what they can – and that we don’t see the communications that occur – but I also think that over 8 weeks is too long to leave a cache in limbo. I can’t see why they can’t be archived sooner and then the onus is on the owner to re-activate them if they want. The major problem with these 2 caches is that they are still active.

[+Firth of Forth]

I agree with the OP; however, I have actually logged 2 SBAs on caches but they’re still active and both caches are missing. One, whose owner hasn’t logged on since June, I requested to be archived at the beginning of November; the other I requested to be archived two months ago and again there’s no change. I realise the reviewers do what they can – and that we don’t see the communications that occur – but I also think that over 8 weeks is too long to leave a cache in limbo. I can’t see why they can’t be archived sooner and then the onus is on the owner to re-activate them if they want. The major problem with these 2 caches is that they are still active.

 

I suppose one problem with that could be that someone places a cache within 0.1 mile of the archived cache's location, which prevents the owner from then replacing/reactivating. Could cause some bad feeling, but then again maybe it's fair enough. I think the reviewers do a pretty good job sorting these kinds of problems out - it's much much better than when I first started caching.

[+dino-irl]

I agree with the OP; however, I have actually logged 2 SBAs on caches but they’re still active and both caches are missing. One, whose owner hasn’t logged on since June, I requested to be archived at the beginning of November; the other I requested to be archived two months ago and again there’s no change. I realise the reviewers do what they can – and that we don’t see the communications that occur – but I also think that over 8 weeks is too long to leave a cache in limbo. I can’t see why they can’t be archived sooner and then the onus is on the owner to re-activate them if they want. The major problem with these 2 caches is that they are still active.

The SBA notification is an imperfect system and sometimes some of them can get missed. If you have specific caches you are concerned about then you should contact a reviewer by email about it. If it's a newer cache the very first log will tell you who published it and that's the best one to email. If it's an older cache then you'll need to guess or else work it out from a newer cache nearby.

 

(Always a good idea to give the GC.com code for the cache or provide a link too)

[Lactodorum]

Regarding acting upon SBA logs, I deal with the large majority of them so I guess I'm best placed to comment. I get copied with all of them (at least I believe I do!) and I look at all of them. Mostly I don't take any immediate action so as to give the owner a chance to sort it out themselves. If there's an "immediate" problem, such as a landowner request or a dangerous situation then I WILL archive it straight away.

 

Usually however they get left for an indeterminate length of time until I do some "housekeeping". This may be a week or two but depending upon what else I'm doing in my "real" life it could be a month or more. If it's causing trouble then please feel free to "refresh" the call by posting another SBA log (I'll see both then) or e-mailing any of the reviewers.

 

Of course, if Groundspeak doubled our existing salary ............................ !

[+Eckington]

 

Of course, if Groundspeak doubled our existing salary ............................ !

 

....I'ld settle for time and a half

[+Gushoneybun]

Whenever I have posted a SBA log and I have done around 4 now they have all be actioned. Some within a day or two others a week or so.

I have always emailed the owner about their cache and only entered a SBA log if I get no response I record details of when I contacted the owner on my log about the lack of a reply.

[+jerryo]

If there's an "immediate" problem, such as a landowner request or a dangerous situation then I WILL archive it straight away.

You certainly do

Usually however they get left for an indeterminate length of time until I do some "housekeeping". This may be a week or two but depending upon what else I'm doing in my "real" life it could be a month or more.

Which is fair enough.

If it's causing trouble then please feel free to "refresh" the call by posting another SBA log (I'll see both then) or e-mailing any of the reviewers.

I will do that. It'll've slipped through.

Of course, if Groundspeak doubled our existing salary ............................ !

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

If a cache has been disabled for a lengthy period and/or it's obvious they're not being maintained please post a SBA note and the reviewers can then get involved in sorting out the problem. Some get archived, some don't but at least they all get looked at. Ta.

I did a pocket query of 'In Active' caches from my home post code, I got 389 results.

 

Some of them were last found in the summer of 2005! There's one which was last found in August 2005 and the next log was a DNF in August 2007! Blimey It does make interesting reading.....well quite interesting reading

 

Some of them have logs from the moderaters asking the owner to archive or reactivate but if you set a cache to 'Temporary Disabled' and after say 2 months it's still disabled shouldn't there be an automatic process that just archives them.

 

If there was a process which did archive automatically it might gee the owner up a bit to go and do something!

[+FollowMeChaps]

SBA? Can we stop using jargon that not everyone understands!

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

SBA? Can we stop using jargon that not everyone understands!

Sorry..........SBA.........Should Be Archived: DNF...........Did Not Find

 

TLHM........The Lavender Hill Mob

[+Alibags]

Of course, if Groundspeak doubled our existing salary ............................ !

 

Oi! leave me out of this?!

[Lactodorum]

Some of them have logs from the moderaters asking the owner to archive or reactivate but if you set a cache to 'Temporary Disabled' and after say 2 months it's still disabled shouldn't there be an automatic process that just archives them.

Possibly, but until there's such a process the reviewers will need to rely on cachers to inform us

If there was a process which did archive automatically it might gee the owner up a bit to go and do something!

Unfortunately I don't think an automatic process can take into account all the circumstances involved and I for one wouldn't like the idea of caches being archived automatically.

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

Some of them have logs from the moderaters asking the owner to archive or reactivate but if you set a cache to 'Temporary Disabled' and after say 2 months it's still disabled shouldn't there be an automatic process that just archives them.

Possibly, but until there's such a process the reviewers will need to rely on cachers to inform us

If there was a process which did archive automatically it might gee the owner up a bit to go and do something!

Unfortunately I don't think an automatic process can take into account all the circumstances involved and I for one wouldn't like the idea of caches being archived automatically.

I think the thing that really bugs me is that there are caches out there that have been 'Temporarily Disabled' for 2 months and longer but the owner still finds the time to go out caching every weekend..........what does that tell you!

 

As far as I'm concerned if you place a cache then you take on the responsibility and obligation to maintain it both physically and virtually.

[+Renegade Knight]

I presently have 3 Caches I need to check on and one archived cache I need to pick up. I'll get to it. This spring is when I anticipate having time. There is no major crisis stopping me, but a lot of little things that I flat out have to take care of before I'm going to be having time to deal with the caches.

 

When I started I had a lot more time on my hands for caching in general. At the time I had less patience for folks who would not maintain their caches. Now I am happy if they are active enough to say they will get to it, and know they will at their earliest convenience even if it's going to be a long time. For every disabled cache there are a truckload of others that I can seek.

 

In the spring one will be disabled for something like 10 months. I may have a chance to get to it sooner than anticipated but it's not looking like the timing will work. That's life. When I first started I'd have been on that partcular cache inside of 2 months. Life happens. How stressed you get over things is your own choice.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Edited November 26, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...If there was a process which did archive automatically it might gee the owner up a bit to go and do something!

 

If you reverse things and archive it. All the things that keep me from caching and maintaining my caches just now don't go away. The end result is that the cache is archived and without the listing I just cross it off my list. There is no reason to do anything about it. The "problem" is gone. Also everthing is now a lower priority. If the cache is reportedly MIA I'm going to assume that's really the case and not check on it. If it's not MIA I'm going to pick it up, but not until the fullness of time has passed and since it's now much lower on the list.

 

Once archived I'm not going to rush out there and replace the cache and try to get a new one approved. If I had time to rush out there and do anything I already would have.

[+Firth of Forth]

Some of them have logs from the moderaters asking the owner to archive or reactivate but if you set a cache to 'Temporary Disabled' and after say 2 months it's still disabled shouldn't there be an automatic process that just archives them.

Possibly, but until there's such a process the reviewers will need to rely on cachers to inform us

If there was a process which did archive automatically it might gee the owner up a bit to go and do something!

Unfortunately I don't think an automatic process can take into account all the circumstances involved and I for one wouldn't like the idea of caches being archived automatically.

I think the thing that really bugs me is that there are caches out there that have been 'Temporarily Disabled' for 2 months and longer but the owner still finds the time to go out caching every weekend..........what does that tell you!

 

As far as I'm concerned if you place a cache then you take on the responsibility and obligation to maintain it both physically and virtually.

 

There are a multitude of reasons why a cache may be temporarily disabled for months, such as difficulty or time to get hold of the right cache container, access problems to the cache site, a difficult cache location (eg top of a mountain) etc etc. As Renegade Knight has stated, as long as the cache owner is an active cacher and is keeping an eye on things and will eventually get round to fixing the problem, I'm happy to focus on all the other hundreds of caches that are out there Having said that, the onus is on us active cachers to alert the reviewers to those caches which appear to have foundered because the cacher is no longer taking an interest in caching in general.

[+jerryo]

I presently have 3 Caches I need to check on and one archived cache I need to pick up. I'll get to it. This spring is when I anticipate having time.

 

But the reviewers, I’m pleased to say, don’t appear to have the same attitude. If you can’t maintain them, then remove them.

 

For every disabled cache there are a truckload of others that I can seek.

 

And there are denied opportunities for other people to put caches out in the same area while you’re procrastinating.

 

In the spring one will be disabled for something like 10 months. I may have a chance to get to it sooner than anticipated but it's not looking like the timing will work. That's life. When I first started I'd have been on that partcular cache inside of 2 months. Life happens. How stressed you get over things is your own choice.

 

It’s not really a matter of getting stressed about it. It’s about playing the game according to the rules. One of them, as you well know, is that you should be able to offer timely maintenance.

 

If you reverse things and archive it. All the things that keep me from caching and maintaining my caches just now don't go away. The end result is that the cache is archived and without the listing I just cross it off my list. There is no reason to do anything about it.

 

But you’re not doing anything anyway.

 

Once archived I'm not going to rush out there and replace the cache and try to get a new one approved. If I had time to rush out there and do anything I already would have.

 

So let someone else have a go.

[+jerryo]

There are a multitude of reasons why a cache may be temporarily disabled for months<snip>

Months??? They’re not very good reasons on the whole, which is why the reviewers drop in their reminders. Agreed, if they’re at the top of a mountain (the caches, not the reviewers) then it takes time, but we’re not really talking about that in general. If someone’s got time to hunt, they’ve got time to maintain. It may be worth citing the guidelines:

“As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area. These caches may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan. It is not uncommon for caches to go missing, areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for multi-cache or puzzles to be moved or removed, etc. Your maintenance plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems.”

[+Firth of Forth]

There are a multitude of reasons why a cache may be temporarily disabled for months<snip>

Months??? They’re not very good reasons on the whole, which is why the reviewers drop in their reminders. Agreed, if they’re at the top of a mountain (the caches, not the reviewers) then it takes time, but we’re not really talking about that in general. If someone’s got time to hunt, they’ve got time to maintain. It may be worth citing the guidelines:

“As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area. These caches may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan. It is not uncommon for caches to go missing, areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for multi-cache or puzzles to be moved or removed, etc. Your maintenance plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems.”

 

 

Yes, I am familiar with the guidelines - which are guidelines - and active cachers do their best, on the whole, to maintain their caches. And there still are some very good reasons why it may take longer than a few weeks. One of my caches had to be archived for several months as it was impossible to get access to it while a construction site opened up in front of it. I think that if you get too heavy handed about cache maintenance then caching will cease to be a pleasant activity for those who join.

Edited November 27, 2007 by Firth of Forth

[+jerryo]

<snip>One of my caches had to be archived for several months as it was impossible to get access to it while a construction site opened up in front of it. I think that if you get too heavy handed about cache maintenance then caching will cease to be a pleasant activity for those who join.

That's different as you said you archived it rather than temporarily disabling it. I assume you contacted the reviewers to unarchive it later. What were talking about is the temporary disabling of caches, not archiving them and re-animating them later. Anyway, there's nothing heavy handed about giving a few weeks for maintenance and then making enquiries. There are caches that may need disabling for a while longer, but not as many as all that. If there were no rules then there'd be chaos.

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

<snip>One of my caches had to be archived for several months as it was impossible to get access to it while a construction site opened up in front of it. I think that if you get too heavy handed about cache maintenance then caching will cease to be a pleasant activity for those who join.

That's different as you said you archived it rather than temporarily disabling it. I assume you contacted the reviewers to unarchive it later. What were talking about is the temporary disabling of caches, not archiving them and re-animating them later. Anyway, there's nothing heavy handed about giving a few weeks for maintenance and then making enquiries. There are caches that may need disabling for a while longer, but not as many as all that. If there were no rules then there'd be chaos.

I'm not talking about caches that are at the top of mountains or have had construction sites put in front of them. I'm talking about caches that have usually been muggled, have then been temporarily disabled, the owner states they’ll reactivate when they get time and then finds the time to go out and find caches!

 

You know who you are, you naughty people!

 

If you have a cache as described above and you have all the good intentions of reactivating but can’t really be bothered too then please archive it……..that’s all I’m asking. Someone else may have a better hiding place in the same area and your cache, being disabled, is stopping him or her from placing it.

 

I’m going to suggest something and I think I know what reaction I’m going to get from the community. What if we published each month on the forum a list of caches that have been temporarily disabled for 3 months and longer as a gentle reminder to the owner to do something about it………just a suggestion, please don’t crucify me

[+perth pathfinders]

Not everyone reads the forum, so perhaps not the best of solutions? Sounds a bit 'name and shame'.

 

Some people may need longer than a month to get back to their cache - for a number of reasons.

 

Perhaps just a gentle reminder of a note on the cache page or an email might be more sufficient and kinder to jog the owners memory? No need to get heavy handed until the caches or the owner have not been active for some time?

 

I do understand your reasons though, we have some up here that have been temporarily disabled for some time, it is annoying when they come up as your nearest unfound.

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

Not everyone reads the forum, so perhaps not the best of solutions? Sounds a bit 'name and shame'.

 

More like 'Name and Prod'

Perhaps just a gentle reminder of a note on the cache page or an email might be more sufficient and kinder to jog the owners memory? No need to get heavy handed until the caches or the owner have not been active for some time?

I don't want heavy handed but a note and an email would be good

I do understand your reasons though, we have some up here that have been temporarily disabled for some time, it is annoying when they come up as your nearest unfound.

I'm the same as you, it's annoying when they come up as your nearest unfound especially when you know the owner is actively finding and can't be bothered to maintain their own caches.

[Nediam]

I do understand your reasons though, we have some up here that have been temporarily disabled for some time, it is annoying when they come up as your nearest unfound.

I'm the same as you, it's annoying when they come up as your nearest unfound especially when you know the owner is actively finding and can't be bothered to maintain their own caches.

Why not stick them onto your "Ignore List"? Not a great solution I admit, but it would stop them popping up on your searches You could then keep an eye on the list for when/if they are re-instated. There are a few near me that are gone but aren't disabled and I've put them on my list

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

Why not stick them onto your "Ignore List"? Not a great solution I admit, but it would stop them popping up on your searches You could then keep an eye on the list for when/if they are re-instated. There are a few near me that are gone but aren't disabled and I've put them on my list

Sounds like the only solution which is going to work.......how do I set-up an ignore list?

[+perth pathfinders]

On right hand side of the cache page is the option to ignore. Just click it.

[+The Lavender Hill Mob]

On right hand side of the cache page is the option to ignore. Just click it.

Way to go! Thanks

[Lactodorum]

Perhaps I should add that if there's a problem preventing you from undertaking a timely maintenance visit all you need to do is to post a note on the cache page (which we'll see before considering it for archiving), or drop a reviewer a private e-mail. You'll find us very obliging in such circumstances and the cache is very unlikely to be archived if we know what's going on.

[+jerryo]

Perhaps I should add that if there's a problem preventing you from undertaking a timely maintenance visit all you need to do is to post a note on the cache page (which we'll see before considering it for archiving), or drop a reviewer a private e-mail. You'll find us very obliging in such circumstances and the cache is very unlikely to be archived if we know what's going on.

And if a note is posted, at least others know what's going on too. Sorted.

[+Firth of Forth]

<snip>One of my caches had to be archived for several months as it was impossible to get access to it while a construction site opened up in front of it. I think that if you get too heavy handed about cache maintenance then caching will cease to be a pleasant activity for those who join.

That's different as you said you archived it rather than temporarily disabling it. I assume you contacted the reviewers to unarchive it later. What were talking about is the temporary disabling of caches, not archiving them and re-animating them later. Anyway, there's nothing heavy handed about giving a few weeks for maintenance and then making enquiries. There are caches that may need disabling for a while longer, but not as many as all that. If there were no rules then there'd be chaos.

 

Actually that was a misuse of the word. I didn't archive it, but I did temporarily disable it, and rightly so. If I had archived it I risked losing the cache spot (in fact another cache did appear nearby while it was disabled) and a lot of work that had gone into producing a multicache.

[+MartyBartfast]

<snip>One of my caches had to be archived for several months as it was impossible to get access to it while a construction site opened up in front of it. I think that if you get too heavy handed about cache maintenance then caching will cease to be a pleasant activity for those who join.

That's different as you said you archived it rather than temporarily disabling it. I assume you contacted the reviewers to unarchive it later. What were talking about is the temporary disabling of caches, not archiving them and re-animating them later. Anyway, there's nothing heavy handed about giving a few weeks for maintenance and then making enquiries. There are caches that may need disabling for a while longer, but not as many as all that. If there were no rules then there'd be chaos.

 

Actually that was a misuse of the word. I didn't archive it, but I did temporarily disable it, and rightly so. If I had archived it I risked losing the cache spot (in fact another cache did appear nearby while it was disabled) and a lot of work that had gone into producing a multicache.

 

I think yours is a case where it's reasonable to leave a cache temporarily disabled for a long period, as the circumstances are beyond your control and I expect you explained what was going on in the log. It's a bit different where a cache is temporarily disabled longterm because the owner hasn't got round to replacing it yet, which might be preventing someone else placing one.