Needs Maintenance/Needs Archive Without Visiting The Cache

[+the pooks]

I find the notion of an armchair NM or SBA log very aggressive and against the spirit of the game. This is a hobby that folks do for fun - some get enthusiastic and take it to another level, others develop other interests and move away from caching. Sombody describing in a log note that the cache or logbook is wet is also a polite NM log for everybody including the owner to read and decide whether they want to do something about the cache (repair it or ignore it) or not.

 

Rather communicate via the reviewer. If you want to place a cache near an listed NM cache explain this to the reviewer and let him/her take it further. I got a note from our reviewer about a cache of mine and I made a descision to archive it. I would have felt a lot more cheesed off had the request come from another cacher and even more cheesed off had it come from an armchair cacher. To me the karma about the game is important.

[+Renegade Knight]

It is quite often apparent that a cache needs a NM or SBA just from other cachers logs. Most people are too shy to post them.

I see no problem with others who have more balls taking up their slack.

 

For example, many people will post "the log was wet and unsignable" (even i have at times) , yet not post a Needs Maintenance along with that log.

 

I see no problem with posting a NM for them, even if i haven't been there. Could they be lying? Sure. I'll take that risk. I just want the cache to be good for when i get there.

 

A Wet log is not a deal breaker on a cache. It's there, it can be found, it's viable, and I carry a pen that can sign wet logs because it's not an uncommon problem. You have a flaw in your logic though. When someone logs my cache and says. "The log is wet" I read the log. Now I know. I'll get to it as time and life allow. That may not be fast enough for you, but such is life. If you go and add an NM log to the other log. I'll read it ,and I'll get to it as time and life allow. Exactly as fast as before. Meanwhile if I'm a MIA owner. Neither log does me any good. Your log is redundant and a waste of digital ink.

 

If your balls have you backing up someone who's lying, they aren't really doing you any good. If your balls have you joining up with a lynch mob and posting your NM and SBA logs even though you have no knowledge of the cache, you are just being redudant and wasting digital ink again.

 

In the words of Paul Harvy, Gonads are useful for their purpose but they are no subsitute for brains.

 

Let the people who know something use their brains and solve the problem.

[+Renegade Knight]

...You are operating under the FALSE assumption that it isn't anyone's business but the owner's. WRONG! Have you ever heard the term "geocaching community". If a cache is NEGLECTED, it has a chilling effect on the entire community. A spot is tied-up by a JUNK cache who's owner doesn't live up to the obligation he/she agreed to when the geocache was placed. What if someone wants to place a cache within 512-feet but can't because a totally useless geocache which no one can find or log a smiley is there? IT IS EVERYONE'S BUSINESS! The geocache "owner" does not own the real estate the cache is on, in most cases. The geocache "owner" does not have a right to list the geocache on Groundspeak...It is a privilage that can be given, taken away, and adjusted....

 

You tie up a few concepts in that post.

First concept. It's my cache. Not yours. Not ever. I'll maintain it as time and life allow. No sooner, perhaps slower. If you have a problem with my time frame you can volunteer to help me. I won't ask though because it's my responsbility and it's a cache. Not and of the other real live concerns that are far more important.

 

Second concept. Community. Would that be were you volunteer to help a cache owner, or rally against them in the forums? I'm fuzzy on that.

 

Third concept. Right to list. You are right about that. Listing on this site isn't automatic. A perfectly viable cache can be rejected as a candidate for listing here. It has nothing to do with the first conept.

 

Fourth Concept. Tying up real estate. My cache ties up a spot about 8" x 8" give or take. The listing ties up a radius of 528' give or take. Other sites don't check this sites listings so if you are community minded and don't mind listing elsewhere you can put your cache closer than 528' but ideally not so close they confuse one cache with a nother.

 

Part of the concept of community is to understand the relationship between finder, owner, and listing site. They all make this activity happen. The obligations are different, and the interaction is guided by the sense of community though sometimes other things get in the way.

[+Renegade Knight]

I find the notion of an armchair NM or SBA log very aggressive ...

 

They are agressive. I'm glad that you understand that and understand why. The NM's sole useful purpose is to set a flag on the cache. That can be done with a checkbox on a regualr log. The NM log doesn't serve any other useful purpose (I know some don't bother reading regular logs and only look for NM logs...but they are not doing their job as an owner so phhhtttt to them). The SBA log is a tool that does have a purpose. Some caches need to be archived "NOW!" for various reasons. The mess can be sorted out later. The SBA log is overused, but at least it has a purpose.

[+Mule Ears]

"Needs Maintenance" and "Should be Archived" judgments should be based on firsthand information. If someone sees a pattern of DNFs or complaints on the cache page and wants to express an opinion about it, they should email the owner. If the owner is absent, visit the cache and find out firsthand what's going on.

[+Moose Mob]

As a Reviewer, I appreciate the SBA logs, even if they come from a person who has not visited the cache. If a cache has 4 or 5 DNF's on an otherwise easy find then someone needs to post it. I have seen these often from people that are planning travel into or through a particular area and the caches need a bit of attention and the locals haven't let the reviewer know it needs addressed.

 

SBA from inexperienced newbies exist, but are rare and short lived. I would let that slide.

[+Mule Ears]

As a Reviewer, I appreciate the SBA logs, even if they come from a person who has not visited the cache. If a cache has 4 or 5 DNF's on an otherwise easy find then someone needs to post it. I have seen these often from people that are planning travel into or through a particular area and the caches need a bit of attention and the locals haven't let the reviewer know it needs addressed.

 

SBA from inexperienced newbies exist, but are rare and short lived. I would let that slide.

 

Straight from the Moose's mouth--can't beat that

 

Part of my uneasiness with armchair SBAs and NMs is that they don't contain any new information. The owner has already seen previous logs, so presumably he knows the score. My impulse is always to settle issues at the lowest possible level. But if the alert generated by an SBA is useful to reviewers, so be it.

 

This issue is of interest to me because I frequently seek out remote caches that are in trouble and make arrangements with the owners to adopt them or fix 'em up. Examples (of a few fix ups): 1 2 3 4

 

I could have issued SBAs and NMs from my desk, but instead I emailed the owner and volunteered my help. Maybe it's my cynical nature, but I think that second-guessing the owner's judgment from the comfort of home could become a hobby for some cachers. The ones who visit caches just to critique them could stay home and get their power rush that way.

[O-Mega]

As a Reviewer, I appreciate the SBA logs, even if they come from a person who has not visited the cache. If a cache has 4 or 5 DNF's on an otherwise easy find then someone needs to post it. I have seen these often from people that are planning travel into or through a particular area and the caches need a bit of attention and the locals haven't let the reviewer know it needs addressed.

 

SBA from inexperienced newbies exist, but are rare and short lived. I would let that slide.

I agree that when you come upon a cache you are planning to visit (on your route) has possible issues that a NM or SBA log may be in order. But not by anyone who just trolls through logs looking to police up 'problem' caches. I guess I figure that if they don't have a dog in the fight they shouldn't bother, its a local thing to take care of.

There have been a few people that have emailed me to let me know one of my caches at Land Between the Lakes (LBL) needed maintenance when I have already performed it. I don't bother to log a maintenence note on any cache that receives routine maintenence (no NM logs) so sometimes cachers, who didn't mention in their logs it needed maintenence, email after the fact.

[+RanHefner]

RH: Yelling at someone who holds a differing opinion does not make your case stronger. We are allowed to disagree.

 

Who's yelling? I am putting emphasis on certain words.

[4wheelin_fool]

A unanswered "needs maintenence" attribute will cause a cache to be archived much faster, than a string of DNFs.

 

As well it should be! Listen to what you're saying...Are you actually saying that if a geocache owner does not answer an NM log it shouldn't be archived? Please remember...An "armchair" NM log by me usually only happens when a string of DNF's logs INCLUDE information that there is a problem with the cache. Things like the log is full...The log is damaged (damp)...The cache container is broken...etc. I have seen MANY of these logs and the owner will just ignore them...We all know why! He/she is HOPING that someone will take it upon themselves to repair the cache. THIS SUCKS! The geocache owner pledged to properly maintain the cache. This crap like, "I will get to it when I have the time" and low-and-behold six months later...NOTHING! THIS JUSTIFIES ANYONE, VISITOR OR NOT, TO POST AN NM OR SBA LOG!!!

 

It sounds like you are a very responsible "needs maintenence" armchair logger, and I commend you for not going overboard. However, in other cases, I have noticed it misused a great bit while looking through cache pages, so as a general rule I cannot condone it.

 

I have recieved a "needs maintenence" note on a cache which turned out to be in place and fine. There was no DNFs posted and just one cacher could not find it, so I had to go out there and verify that it was where I left it to remove the attribute.

On another occasion, I had a "needs maintenence" log posted on a cache which did not have a pen or pencil in it. It was a simple walk, 529 feet from the road on the other side of a grassy field. A new cacher went the wrong way through a swamp in bitter freezing cold with their son and was upset there was not a pen in it. I felt bad for them and let the online "find" log stay without a signature in the logbook, but it still triggered a attribute. If I had been on an eight month sabbatical several light years away outside the confines of the United Federation of Planets it may have been archived by the time I got back.

[+RanHefner]

First concept. It's my cache. Not yours. Not ever. I'll maintain it as time and life allow. No sooner, perhaps slower.

It is your cache CONTAINER, but the cache listing is Groundspeak's. As far as maintaining, you checked two boxes upon listing the cache basically saying you agree with the guidelines. Groundspeak lists the guidelines regarding maintenance. They say the length of time a cache can be down is "several weeks". Several is more than three. They do NOT say several months. Several months is three or more. Conclusion, the maximum a cache should be "down" if less than three months. You agreed to these quidelines and life doesn't permit a timely maintenance trip, adopt or archive the cache.

 

Fourth Concept. Tying up real estate. My cache ties up a spot about 8" x 8" give or take. The listing ties up a radius of 528' give or take. Other sites don't check this sites listings so if you are community minded and don't mind listing elsewhere you can put your cache closer than 528' but ideally not so close they confuse one cache with a nother.

 

Any cache regardless of size ties up an imaginary radius of 528'. Saying the cache only takes only 64 square inches is a lame argument. As for "other sites"...We are talking about Groundspeak listed caches. If you want to discuss other sites, have at it....At their site.

 

Part of the concept of community is to understand the relationship between finder, owner, and listing site. They all make this activity happen. The obligations are different, and the interaction is guided by the sense of community though sometimes other things get in the way.

 

Yes, sometimes things get in the way. I have experienced this, too! What defines you is how you deal with it. If you are too prideful to ask for help, adopt it out, or archive it, then you are not thinking of the geocaching community.

[+RanHefner]

Part of my uneasiness with armchair SBAs and NMs is that they don't contain any new information. The owner has already seen previous logs, so presumably he knows the score. My impulse is always to settle issues at the lowest possible level. But if the alert generated by an SBA is useful to reviewers, so be it.

 

Good point, Mule Ears, but please understand. Almost all of the SBA and NM logs I post have a string of DNF's WITH information that says there is a problem with the cache. Most of the time, the logs are from very experienced cachers. In ALL cases, there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMMUNICATION from the cache owner. No notes acknowledging the problems. No notes saying he/she will check on it soon. No disabling the cache. NOTHING. It is then the NM or SBA log is posted.

 

If the geocache owner would post a simple note explaining his/her intention there would be no "armchair" log!

[+hukilaulau]

First concept. It's my cache. Not yours. Not ever. I'll maintain it as time and life allow. No sooner, perhaps slower.

 

Part of the concept of community is to understand the relationship between finder, owner, and listing site. They all make this activity happen. The obligations are different, and the interaction is guided by the sense of community though sometimes other things get in the way.

First, I want to say that I believe you, personally, are a responsible cacher. So you don't fit the profile I'm directing this at, but you've chosen to defend those that do, so here goes:

 

I could argue that it is my cache when I come haul out the remains of your broken container and throw them in the trash. I could argue that it's not your cache when you've not responded to distress notes for two years and a reviewer archives it.

You will no doubt disagree with this, but reality takes precedence over theory and you've lost the cache! This is similar to a situation where a man has junk cluttering his front yard and ignores repeated complaints and violation notices and screams about "private property" and "I'll take care of it when I get around to it, and not before!" right up to the point where the city comes and hauls the stuff away and bills him for it.

When one member of a "community" just drops out, the others have to take over any responsibility he is abdicating.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Part of my uneasiness with armchair SBAs and NMs is that they don't contain any new information. The owner has already seen previous logs, so presumably he knows the score. My impulse is always to settle issues at the lowest possible level. But if the alert generated by an SBA is useful to reviewers, so be it.

 

Good point, Mule Ears, but please understand. Almost all of the SBA and NM logs I post have a string of DNF's WITH information that says there is a problem with the cache. Most of the time, the logs are from very experienced cachers. In ALL cases, there is ABSOLUTELY NO COMMUNICATION from the cache owner. No notes acknowledging the problems. No notes saying he/she will check on it soon. No disabling the cache. NOTHING. It is then the NM or SBA log is posted.

 

If the geocache owner would post a simple note explaining his/her intention there would be no "armchair" log!

Along those lines, the only armchair SBA-type log/note that I have ever posted was for a cache in Chennai India that had a long string of DNFs prior to my own attempt to hunt it in August 2005, which also resulted in a DNF, and followed by another string of DNFs after mine (punctuated by a strangely suspicious "find" log entry of just a few words from a cacher who apparently had never even been to India). Finally, about a year after my own DNF, and after checking the cache listing page once again to find an ever-increasing string of DNFs (with the sole exception of the strange find log mentioned above), I, along with several other folks who had been watching this cache in wonderment (wondering, that is, why it had not been archived years ago since it was so obviously missing), started to press for the cache to be archived, and it was eventually archived by the reviewer.

 

However, to offer some more grist for the mill, there is currently an armchair SBA drama ongoing regarding one of the oldest caches in the world, and one which has never yet been found. A traditional cache in Belize, called Oh so blue (GC15D), which was placed in January 2001, had an armchair SBA log filed on it yesterday (5/14/2008) by a zero-find account bearing the name of "Art Carnage".

[+RanHefner]

However, to offer some more grist for the mill, there is currently an armchair SBA drama ongoing regarding one of the oldest caches in the world, and one which has never yet been found. A traditional cache in Belize, called Oh so blue (GC15D), which was placed in January 2001, had an armchair SBA log filed on it yesterday (5/14/2008) by a zero-find account bearing the name of "Art Carnage".

 

The fact a cache has not been found does not justify an "armchair" SBA log. I would not post such a log on a cache like the one you mentioned in the link.

 

Here is an example of an "armchair" SBA I logged:

 

Note: I ask questions in the posting below...Not of you in particular, but to everyone in general.

 

Here is an example of an "armchair" SBA I posted. I want you to simply answer this question. Should this cache have been archived?...Armchair or not!

 

The first DNF was posted by a seasoned geocacher. He/she indicates a potiental problem with the cache..."down trees". This should have been an indication that the owner should visit the cache.

 

DNF February 10, 2007 by ???????? (1094 found)

I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I never saw stage 1 while I was looking. Lots of down trees and a lot of them looked to be freshly cut. It's most likely still there, I just didn't run across it.

 

A month goes by and another cacher indicates there may be a problem...Same problem described in the previous log.

 

DNF March 4, 2007 by ??????? (186 found)

Went to look for stage 1 but didn't waste a whole lot of time trying. Lots and lots of fresh cut trees in the area. Don't know if stage 1 is there are not.

 

The owner does the right thing! He/she disables the cache indicating that he/she will visit the cache site to investigate.

 

DISABLE CACHE March 13, 2007 by ??????? (83 found)

Will be temporarily disabling ??????? until we can go out and do maintenance.

 

Four months later...No communication from the owner. Another cacher visits the cache and confirms the same problem mentioned before.

 

NOTE July 27, 2007 by ??????? (451 found)

Went to hunt this one without knowing it was disabled. Can't tell from the "logs" (either kind) if stage one is still there. When will this be back up and running? Thanks.

 

The previous logger asks "When will this be back up and running" and gets NO answer from the owner!

 

Seven months after a problem has been reported and six months after it has been disabled and no further communication to the community by the owner, I post an "armchair" SBA log.

 

NEEDS ARCHIVED September 8, 2007 by RanHefner (328 found)

Its been 6 months.

 

Apearantly the local reviewer agrees with me and archives the cache.

 

REVIEWER ARCHIVE September 10, 2007 by ??????? (3 found)

Cache appears to be gone or unmaintained. If the cache owner decides to replace or repair this, it can easily be unarchived if it still meets the current guidelines. (visit link).

 

Regretfully,

 

Thanks,

???????

Volunteer Geocaching.com Reviewer

 

NOTE: do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Email me directly at ???????@GeocachingAdmin.com , referencing the cache URL, or waypoint number. Also, do not remove any reviewer notes as they aid other Geocaching.com reviewers if they need to work with you on your cache.

 

Here are the facts: There was a problem with the cache site that was reported by several cachers. The owner, at one time, did the right thing by disabling the cache with a promise to visit and fix if necessary. Several months go by without any further communication...NOTHING! I post an "armchair" SBA log. The reviewer looks at all of the posted logs and comes to the conclusion that the cache should be archived. The reviewer ALSO states that the owner can have the cache UNARCHIVED if they just go out and repair the cache. Point being, the owner has yet ANOTHER opportunity to get their cache back in action, but refused to do so.

 

Isn't it clear that if the reviewer archives the cache, he/she is agreeing with my SBA log?

 

You may or may not agree with the practice of "armchair" logging, but put that aside a moment and either defend the cache owner or agree that this cache should have been archived. If you come to the conclusion that this cache should have been archived like the local reviewer did, what difference does it make HOW THE SBA log came about?

Edited May 15, 2008 by RanHefner

[+RanHefner]

I have recieved a "needs maintenence" note on a cache which turned out to be in place and fine. There was no DNFs posted and just one cacher could not find it, so I had to go out there and verify that it was where I left it to remove the attribute.

On another occasion, I had a "needs maintenence" log posted on a cache which did not have a pen or pencil in it. It was a simple walk, 529 feet from the road on the other side of a grassy field. A new cacher went the wrong way through a swamp in bitter freezing cold with their son and was upset there was not a pen in it. I felt bad for them and let the online "find" log stay without a signature in the logbook, but it still triggered a attribute. If I had been on an eight month sabbatical several light years away outside the confines of the United Federation of Planets it may have been archived by the time I got back.

 

First, I usually carry some extra pens and blank logs with me JUST IN CASE. I wouldn't post an NM or SBA log because there wasn't a pen in the cache...Cachers should bring their own, anyway! I also don't think the local reviewer would archive the cache just because the pen was missing. The reviewers I have observed have VERY GOOD judgment and would never archive a cache over such a trivial problem...If you can call it a problem when the pen is missing.

 

Reviewers do not automatically archive cache listings when an NM log goes unanswered. They will look at the entire situation as the logs indicate. But if a reviewer was drunk at the time and did archive the cache for a missing pen, you can appeal the decision. The posting guidelines spell out the procedure for such an appeal.

[O-Mega]

However, to offer some more grist for the mill, there is currently an armchair SBA drama ongoing regarding one of the oldest caches in the world, and one which has never yet been found. A traditional cache in Belize, called Oh so blue (GC15D), which was placed in January 2001, had an armchair SBA log filed on it yesterday (5/14/2008) by a zero-find account bearing the name of "Art Carnage".

 

The fact a cache has not been found does not justify an "armchair" SBA log. I would not post such a log on a cache like the one you mentioned in the link.

 

Here is an example of an "armchair" SBA I logged:

 

Note: I ask questions in the posting below...Not of you in particular, but to everyone in general.

 

Here is an example of an "armchair" SBA I posted. I want you to simply answer this question. Should this cache have been archived?...Armchair or not!

 

The first DNF was posted by a seasoned geocacher. He/she indicates a potiental problem with the cache..."down trees". This should have been an indication that the owner should visit the cache.

 

DNF February 10, 2007 by ???????? (1094 found)

I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I never saw stage 1 while I was looking. Lots of down trees and a lot of them looked to be freshly cut. It's most likely still there, I just didn't run across it.

 

A month goes by and another cacher indicates there may be a problem...Same problem described in the previous log.

 

DNF March 4, 2007 by ??????? (186 found)

Went to look for stage 1 but didn't waste a whole lot of time trying. Lots and lots of fresh cut trees in the area. Don't know if stage 1 is there are not.

 

The owner does the right thing! He/she disables the cache indicating that he/she will visit the cache site to investigate.

 

DISABLE CACHE March 13, 2007 by ??????? (83 found)

Will be temporarily disabling ??????? until we can go out and do maintenance.

 

Four months later...No communication from the owner. Another cacher visits the cache and confirms the same problem mentioned before.

 

NOTE July 27, 2007 by ??????? (451 found)

Went to hunt this one without knowing it was disabled. Can't tell from the "logs" (either kind) if stage one is still there. When will this be back up and running? Thanks.

 

The previous logger asks "When will this be back up and running" and gets NO answer from the owner!

 

Seven months after a problem has been reported and six months after it has been disabled and no further communication to the community by the owner, I post an "armchair" SBA log.

 

NEEDS ARCHIVED September 8, 2007 by RanHefner (328 found)

Its been 6 months.

 

Apearantly the local reviewer agrees with me and archives the cache.

 

REVIEWER ARCHIVE September 10, 2007 by ??????? (3 found)

Cache appears to be gone or unmaintained. If the cache owner decides to replace or repair this, it can easily be unarchived if it still meets the current guidelines. (visit link).

 

Regretfully,

 

Thanks,

???????

Volunteer Geocaching.com Reviewer

 

NOTE: do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Email me directly at ???????@GeocachingAdmin.com , referencing the cache URL, or waypoint number. Also, do not remove any reviewer notes as they aid other Geocaching.com reviewers if they need to work with you on your cache.

 

Here are the facts: There was a problem with the cache site that was reported by several cachers. The owner, at one time, did the right thing by disabling the cache with a promise to visit and fix if necessary. Several months go by without any further communication...NOTHING! I post an "armchair" SBA log. The reviewer looks at all of the posted logs and comes to the conclusion that the cache should be archived. The reviewer ALSO states that the owner can have the cache UNARCHIVED if they just go out and repair the cache. Point being, the owner has yet ANOTHER opportunity to get their cache back in action, but refused to do so.

 

Isn't it clear that if the reviewer archives the cache, he/she is agreeing with my SBA log?

 

You may or may not agree with the practice of "armchair" logging, but put that aside a moment and either defend the cache owner or agree that this cache should have been archived. If you come to the conclusion that this cache should have been archived like the local reviewer did, what difference does it make HOW THE SBA log came about?

The only argument I have AGAINST the ASBA log is that ALL the cachers before noted that they either didn't spend much time or didn't bother to look. As for why the cachers didn't answer after disableing the listing I could only guess; maybe he was deployed to Iraq for 18 months?, Injured?

The reviewer archived the log AFTER it was disabled as many do. It has no bearing on the fact that you posted the SBA log. Now as to the owner disableing the cache, it was probably do to your SBA but could of been due to the multiple DNS (did not seek) logs.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

However, to offer some more grist for the mill, there is currently an armchair SBA drama ongoing regarding one of the oldest caches in the world, and one which has never yet been found. A traditional cache in Belize, called Oh so blue (GC15D), which was placed in January 2001, had an armchair SBA log filed on it yesterday (5/14/2008) by a zero-find account bearing the name of "Art Carnage".

 

The fact a cache has not been found does not justify an "armchair" SBA log. I would not post such a log on a cache like the one you mentioned in the link.

 

Here is an example of an "armchair" SBA I logged:

 

Note: I ask questions in the posting below...Not of you in particular, but to everyone in general.

 

Here is an example of an "armchair" SBA I posted. I want you to simply answer this question. Should this cache have been archived?...Armchair or not!

 

The first DNF was posted by a seasoned geocacher. He/she indicates a potiental problem with the cache..."down trees". This should have been an indication that the owner should visit the cache.

 

DNF February 10, 2007 by ???????? (1094 found)

I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but I never saw stage 1 while I was looking. Lots of down trees and a lot of them looked to be freshly cut. It's most likely still there, I just didn't run across it.

 

A month goes by and another cacher indicates there may be a problem...Same problem described in the previous log.

 

DNF March 4, 2007 by ??????? (186 found)

Went to look for stage 1 but didn't waste a whole lot of time trying. Lots and lots of fresh cut trees in the area. Don't know if stage 1 is there are not.

 

The owner does the right thing! He/she disables the cache indicating that he/she will visit the cache site to investigate.

 

DISABLE CACHE March 13, 2007 by ??????? (83 found)

Will be temporarily disabling ??????? until we can go out and do maintenance.

 

Four months later...No communication from the owner. Another cacher visits the cache and confirms the same problem mentioned before.

 

NOTE July 27, 2007 by ??????? (451 found)

Went to hunt this one without knowing it was disabled. Can't tell from the "logs" (either kind) if stage one is still there. When will this be back up and running? Thanks.

 

The previous logger asks "When will this be back up and running" and gets NO answer from the owner!

 

Seven months after a problem has been reported and six months after it has been disabled and no further communication to the community by the owner, I post an "armchair" SBA log.

 

NEEDS ARCHIVED September 8, 2007 by RanHefner (328 found)

Its been 6 months.

 

Apearantly the local reviewer agrees with me and archives the cache.

 

REVIEWER ARCHIVE September 10, 2007 by ??????? (3 found)

Cache appears to be gone or unmaintained. If the cache owner decides to replace or repair this, it can easily be unarchived if it still meets the current guidelines. (visit link).

 

Regretfully,

 

Thanks,

???????

Volunteer Geocaching.com Reviewer

 

NOTE: do not select reply in your e-mail program if you wish to respond to this message from the geocaching.com mail bot. Email me directly at ???????@GeocachingAdmin.com , referencing the cache URL, or waypoint number. Also, do not remove any reviewer notes as they aid other Geocaching.com reviewers if they need to work with you on your cache.

 

Here are the facts: There was a problem with the cache site that was reported by several cachers. The owner, at one time, did the right thing by disabling the cache with a promise to visit and fix if necessary. Several months go by without any further communication...NOTHING! I post an "armchair" SBA log. The reviewer looks at all of the posted logs and comes to the conclusion that the cache should be archived. The reviewer ALSO states that the owner can have the cache UNARCHIVED if they just go out and repair the cache. Point being, the owner has yet ANOTHER opportunity to get their cache back in action, but refused to do so.

 

Isn't it clear that if the reviewer archives the cache, he/she is agreeing with my SBA log?

 

You may or may not agree with the practice of "armchair" logging, but put that aside a moment and either defend the cache owner or agree that this cache should have been archived. If you come to the conclusion that this cache should have been archived like the local reviewer did, what difference does it make HOW THE SBA log came about?

I agree with your decision to have logged an SBA for the cache in question. It seems to have been the most sensible and efficient course of action available.

[+RanHefner]

The only argument I have AGAINST the ASBA log is that ALL the cachers before noted that they either didn't spend much time or didn't bother to look. As for why the cachers didn't answer after disableing the listing I could only guess; maybe he was deployed to Iraq for 18 months?, Injured?

The reviewer archived the log AFTER it was disabled as many do. It has no bearing on the fact that you posted the SBA log. Now as to the owner disableing the cache, it was probably do to your SBA but could of been due to the multiple DNS (did not seek) logs.

 

I like the acronym you have just coined..."ASBA".

 

If the cacher is unavailable to properly maintain the cache, a simple note stating such and asking if someone could help would be warranted. Also, if a geocacher is unable to properly maintain the cache FOR ANY REASON, it is his/her responsibility to find someone who can, adopt it to someone, or archive it. Being unavailable to maintain the cache is no excuse for holding it in limbo.

 

To put the DNF's in context, they DID state that there was a ton of freshly cut trees at ground zero. A very good indication that their is a problem!

 

As to your point about "the reviewer archived the log AFTER it was disabled as many do." You are right, but also realize that the reviewer may not have been aware of the disabled cache until he/she was notified with my ASBA (thanks for the acronym) log.

[+the pooks]

It certainly does seem that some of these caches discussed here justify a SBA log, but the persons most qualified to make such a log are those who have searched for the cache and the reviewer. Having searched for the cache gives one a "licence" to comment about maintenance - you have earned it by taking the trouble to look for it. If you feel the cache needs archiving without ever beig there yourself, a more diplomatic approach would be to ask the reviewer via direct mail for comment. An armchair SBA log has a lot of potential for rubbing folks up the wrong way (as can also be guaged from the comments in this thread ), which to me has a detrimental effect on the fun spirit of the game.

[+Mule Ears]

The point is moot anyway. It falls under the paradox of the Don't Spit on the Floor sign. The people who obey the sign wouldn't dream of spitting on the floor in the first place. And those who are inclined to spit, don't care a whit about the sign.

 

I don't see a way of preventing armchair SBAs and NMs, so there will be armchair SBAs and NMs. V&S's link to the obvious sock-puppet SBA made me see the light. I was thinking in terms of adding a link to a cacher's profile that would allow you to view their various notes, SBAs, NMs, etc. But it's too easy to create an account just for mischief.

 

All I can (uselessly) say is that an armchair SBA/NM is just somebody's opinion. Unfortunately, it's an opinion that may get a worthwhile cache archived. Many backcountry caches are finder-supported. Their owners are absent, but these great caches continue on with volunteer maintenance. It's a fragile chain, and if some online passerby sees unaddressed maintenance issues or DNFs, an otherwise fine cache can disappear before anyone can save it.

 

Why not place an entirely new cache? In my case, many of the caches I've fixed have been outside my home range; a new cache would be rightly declined as a "vacation" placement.

 

My bias in favor of backcountry caches (I don't give a hoot about urban caches, which probably should churn rapidly to keep the FTF excitement going) makes me fearful of armchair SBAs/NMs. Challenging caches could disappear a lot faster than they'd be likely to be replaced.

[+Mule Ears]

It certainly does seem that some of these caches discussed here justify a SBA log, but the persons most qualified to make such a log are those who have searched for the cache and the reviewer. Having searched for the cache gives one a "licence" to comment about maintenance - you have earned it by taking the trouble to look for it. If you feel the cache needs archiving without ever beig there yourself, a more diplomatic approach would be to ask the reviewer via direct mail for comment. An armchair SBA log has a lot of potential for rubbing folks up the wrong way (as can also be guaged from the comments in this thread ), which to me has a detrimental effect on the fun spirit of the game.

 

Well said.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If it isn't your cache and you've never tried to find it...Why would you stick your NOSE into someone else's BUSINESS.

 

Cache cops. They remind me of hall monitors.....

 

Hall Monitors are needed because some folks won't behave and the rules have to be enforced upon them.

 

That's why we need Forum Moderators too.

 

Cache Cops, ditto.

 

Real cops, same thing.

 

If I understand it correctly Reviewers are requested by Groundspeak to 'cruise' listings in their area looking for just such issues to clean up, according to HoneyChile when she was doing that in Alabama. At least for a while if you had more than a couple of DNFs or issues weren't resolved by an Owner's note in short order you would get a 'fix it or lose it' email. I thought that was great... there's way too many unmaintained caches out there, get rid of them!

 

I have to wonder if the objection to Hall Monitors and Cache Cops isn't most vocally made by those who do not want to have to follow the rules and don't want their actions / inactions brought to attention? My experience as a Case Monitor for our Department of Youth Services taught me that no one screams 'persecution' louder than the guilty.

 

Yes, like anything else policing can be taken to obnoxious and unwarranted extremes, but for the most part we are a self-policing community and it is up to each of us to keep it clean and orderly.

 

The Reviewers are, as a whole, pretty smart folks. It doesn't take them long to identify a trouble-maker. Report the issues you find when it appears that Reviewer intervention is warranted, regardless of how you find them, and let the Reviewer decide on an appropriate action if one is warranted. Do that on a regular basis for little or no reason, or especially for personal agenda reasons, and I expect that the Reviewer will quickly learn to discount your reports.

[+RanHefner]

It certainly does seem that some of these caches discussed here justify a SBA log, but the persons most qualified to make such a log are those who have searched for the cache and the reviewer.

 

Reviewers do not post SBA logs. They do post reviewer notes and occasionally archive the cache, but never SBA logs.

 

Having searched for the cache gives one a "licence" to comment about maintenance - you have earned it by taking the trouble to look for it.

 

This is your opinion, which is not backed up by the guidelines. If that's the way YOU want to play the "game" then I support your decision to not post an SBA without visiting the cache.

 

I have chosen a different method that is not contrary to the guidelines.

 

If you feel the cache needs archiving without ever beig there yourself, a more diplomatic approach would be to ask the reviewer via direct mail for comment. An armchair SBA log has a lot of potential for rubbing folks up the wrong way (as can also be guaged from the comments in this thread ), which to me has a detrimental effect on the fun spirit of the game.

 

What about a diplomatic approach on the part of the cache owner/poster? Shouldn't they keep the geocaching community informed about his/her intentions to properly maintain a cache? (BTW...They agreed to do just that when they posted the cache.)

 

What is undiplomatic about posting a log that is allowed by Groundspeak? What is undiplomatic about posting the truth? If the cache has been labeled unavailable for several months, why shouldn't it be archived?

 

Diplomacy varies with each individual. I feel it is diplomatic to post a message saying, "It's been disabled for a year now, maybe it's time to archive it." as opposed to a log I wouldn't post like, "Hey deadbeat...Get the cache going or archive it!"

 

About "detrimental effect on the fun spirit of the game." What is more "detrimental"? Posting a log suggesting it needs maintenance or archived or an owner who NEGLECTS his/her responsibility to the geocaching community by REFUSING to do what they agreed to do?

[O-Mega]

If it isn't your cache and you've never tried to find it...Why would you stick your NOSE into someone else's BUSINESS.

 

Cache cops. They remind me of hall monitors.....

 

Hall Monitors are needed because some folks won't behave and the rules have to be enforced upon them.

 

That's why we need Forum Moderators too.

 

Cache Cops, ditto.

 

Real cops, same thing.

 

If I understand it correctly Reviewers are requested by Groundspeak to 'cruise' listings in their area looking for just such issues to clean up, according to HoneyChile when she was doing that in Alabama. At least for a while if you had more than a couple of DNFs or issues weren't resolved by an Owner's note in short order you would get a 'fix it or lose it' email. I thought that was great... there's way too many unmaintained caches out there, get rid of them!

 

I have to wonder if the objection to Hall Monitors and Cache Cops isn't most vocally made by those who do not want to have to follow the rules and don't want their actions / inactions brought to attention? My experience as a Case Monitor for our Department of Youth Services taught me that no one screams 'persecution' louder than the guilty.

 

Yes, like anything else policing can be taken to obnoxious and unwarranted extremes, but for the most part we are a self-policing community and it is up to each of us to keep it clean and orderly.

 

The Reviewers are, as a whole, pretty smart folks. It doesn't take them long to identify a trouble-maker. Report the issues you find when it appears that Reviewer intervention is warranted, regardless of how you find them, and let the Reviewer decide on an appropriate action if one is warranted. Do that on a regular basis for little or no reason, or especially for personal agenda reasons, and I expect that the Reviewer will quickly learn to discount your reports.

Sure. they are needed. But here its like a kid in class telling the hall monitor that he heard from others that you were out in the hall after the bell. I don't think anyone is arguing that nobody should report it, its just that I (and others) feel that the one reporting should have either first hand knowledge or at the very least have a reason to be stiring the pot such as planning a caching trip or a previously found or DNFed cache on a watchlist etc.

[+RanHefner]

Sure. they are needed. But here its like a kid in class telling the hall monitor that he heard from others that you were out in the hall after the bell.

 

Very good analogy! I suspect you are likening the hall monitor to the reviewer and the kid "telling" the "armchair" SBA or NM logger. If this is correct...Then the hall monitor will take the information told him/her and take a look at the "halls" (cache listing). If the "hall monitor" (reviewer) does see the the person under suspicion in the halls (cache logs indicating problems without owner intervention), then the "hall monitor" will act and take appropriate actions!

Edited May 15, 2008 by RanHefner

[Cache Whisperer]

My objection to armchair reviewers has nothing to do with my willingness (or unwillingness) to follow the rules, but is more an objection to wannabe reviewers taking things into their own hands.

 

Groundspeak goes through their own process of identifying and vetting their volunteers, weeding out the wannabes and unqualified in the process. By practicing armchair reviewing, this process is bypassed.

 

Like all undesirable aspects of the game, this practice should be discouraged before it becomes a tool for cache maggots and vengeful cachers. If not, the usefullness of valid SBA's become nil.

[+RanHefner]

Groundspeak goes through their own process of identifying and vetting their volunteers, weeding out the wannabes and unqualified in the process. By practicing armchair reviewing, this process is bypassed.

 

The process is not bypassed! As I understand it, reviewers routinely use the pocket queries, or something like it, to monitor the caches in his/her area. It can be a daunting task to try to monitor thousands of caches. It is likely that many are overlooked.

 

Posting an SBA log only notifies the area's reviewers that their MAY be a problem with the cache. No process is bypassed.

[O-Mega]

It certainly does seem that some of these caches discussed here justify a SBA log, but the persons most qualified to make such a log are those who have searched for the cache and the reviewer.

 

Reviewers do not post SBA logs. They do post reviewer notes and occasionally archive the cache, but never SBA logs.

 

Having searched for the cache gives one a "licence" to comment about maintenance - you have earned it by taking the trouble to look for it.

 

This is your opinion, which is not backed up by the guidelines. If that's the way YOU want to play the "game" then I support your decision to not post an SBA without visiting the cache.

 

I have chosen a different method that is not contrary to the guidelines.

 

If you feel the cache needs archiving without ever beig there yourself, a more diplomatic approach would be to ask the reviewer via direct mail for comment. An armchair SBA log has a lot of potential for rubbing folks up the wrong way (as can also be guaged from the comments in this thread ), which to me has a detrimental effect on the fun spirit of the game.

 

What about a diplomatic approach on the part of the cache owner/poster? Shouldn't they keep the geocaching community informed about his/her intentions to properly maintain a cache? (BTW...They agreed to do just that when they posted the cache.)

 

What is undiplomatic about posting a log that is allowed by Groundspeak? What is undiplomatic about posting the truth? If the cache has been labeled unavailable for several months, why shouldn't it be archived?

 

Diplomacy varies with each individual. I feel it is diplomatic to post a message saying, "It's been disabled for a year now, maybe it's time to archive it." as opposed to a log I wouldn't post like, "Hey deadbeat...Get the cache going or archive it!"

 

About "detrimental effect on the fun spirit of the game." What is more "detrimental"? Posting a log suggesting it needs maintenance or archived or an owner who NEGLECTS his/her responsibility to the geocaching community by REFUSING to do what they agreed to do?

 

Reviewers do indeed post logs that have the same effect as an SBA! Many a cache around here get the message:

 

Hi,

What is the status of this cache is it there. It has not be found in a while.

 

If it is please post it to the cache page and send me a note please.

 

From the guidelines:

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for checking on 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.

 

This is a courtesy to your fellow cache hunters.

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

Reply to: MaxCacher@aol.com

 

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you how to play, and I know its within the guidelines but it as you can see it doesn't sit well with some people. Just as an owner can delete logs they don't like (or any reason) its allowed but not viewed in a good light by most.

[+Renegade Knight]

First concept. It's my cache. Not yours. Not ever. I'll maintain it as time and life allow. No sooner, perhaps slower.

It is your cache CONTAINER, but the cache listing is Groundspeak's....

 

It's my cache. It's my listing. This site publishes the listings written by others. Think in terms of YouTube. YouTube publishes the content provided by others. They can publish or pull a video based on content. This site is similar. Their recent decision not to adopt out caches where the owner is MIA attests to this fact.

 

The 528' rule is a function of this sites rules for publishing a listing here. Nothing more. It's not in the control of the cache owner.

[+RanHefner]

Reviewers do indeed post logs that have the same effect as an SBA! Many a cache around here get the message:

 

Maybe it is splitting hairs, but they will post a reviewer note explaining that it appears there is a problem with the cache and if action is not taken it will be archived. I guess it is a warning of the possibility of being archived, but not an SBA. Like I said...Splitting hairs.

 

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you how to play, and I know its within the guidelines but it as you can see it doesn't sit well with some people. Just as an owner can delete logs they don't like (or any reason) its allowed but not viewed in a good light by most.

 

On these points, I can fully agree. I don't like to divulge conversations with our local reviewer, but I will share this. When I started posting ASBA and ANM logs, the reviewer sent me a message. Part of the message warned me that I would probably receive angry responses from some of the cache owners. It was a friendly warning. I thanked him/her for the warning and the "heads-up". He/she was right, but I have received many thank you's, not only from other cachers, but from owners, too! YES OWNERS.

Edited May 15, 2008 by RanHefner

[+Renegade Knight]

First concept. It's my cache. Not yours. Not ever. I'll maintain it as time and life allow. No sooner, perhaps slower.

 

Part of the concept of community is to understand the relationship between finder, owner, and listing site. They all make this activity happen. The obligations are different, and the interaction is guided by the sense of community though sometimes other things get in the way.

...I could argue that it is my cache when I come haul out the remains of your broken container and throw them in the trash. I could argue that it's not your cache when you've not responded to distress notes for two years and a reviewer archives it....

 

Legal reality. It's my personal property and my cache. Actual reality, it's my cache but beyond my control and worth such a trivial amount that if you report it stolen the police will not put it on their priority list because everthing else they deal with is more important. It would take a PI and your own laywer to force the issue. Few have the time, money or interest.

 

Here is the part that will suprise you.

When I abandon the cache. It's litter. Litter should be picked up and dealt with. If you want to take owernship of it. That's your call.

 

Where we may disagree is the point at which it's abandoned. If the community takes a vote and decides it's abandoned and I'm saying 'heck no' it's not really abandoned. It's not abandoned in my book any more than a broken radio on my counter is abandoned. But that kicks in the first part of this responce. It's my cache, it's not litter, but in reality I have little control or recourse if someone did go pick it up.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Edited May 15, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...Posting an SBA log only notifies the area's reviewers that their MAY be a problem with the cache. No process is bypassed.

 

SBA means Should Be Archived. Not maybe sorta there kinda may be a potential problem that is worth a look if you have the time, please if you don't mind but I wasnn't there and so I'm not even sure myself but all these other logs seem to be indicators of something". If you want to log "MBP" May Be Problem logs great. Ask for them to create it.

 

SBA should mean "This Cache Should Be Archived" now because we don't have time to wait on the OWNER for whatever reason.

[Cache Whisperer]

Groundspeak goes through their own process of identifying and vetting their volunteers, weeding out the wannabes and unqualified in the process. By practicing armchair reviewing, this process is bypassed.

 

The process is not bypassed! As I understand it, reviewers routinely use the pocket queries, or something like it, to monitor the caches in his/her area. It can be a daunting task to try to monitor thousands of caches. It is likely that many are overlooked.

 

Posting an SBA log only notifies the area's reviewers that their MAY be a problem with the cache. No process is bypassed.

 

Posting an SBA log notifies the reviewer that a cache has serious problems above and beyond wet logs or a string of dnf's and the situation requires the cache to be archived. I can only think of very few problems that would warrant such a log. such issues include...

 

Property owner stops you while you're searching and informs you that the cache was placed on private property without permission and has been removed.

 

Cache is in a location that has been closed by legal authority.

 

Posting a NM log indicates to the cache owner and the reviewer that a cache needs attention (the appropriate action). Once the reviewer looks into it they may or may not post a reviewer note and may or may not take further action depending on the owners response (or lack of response). Once a reviewer sees a NM log, they put it on a watchlist (or should)

 

The process is most definitely bypassed by armchair reviewers. By taking it on upon yourself to cruise listings looking for problems, then taking aggressive action on that listing, you are acting as if you were a Groundspeak volunteer.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Cache Whisperer

[+Keruso]

i've only posted to NM logs in my two year "career" as a cacher

 

The Elves Magnify a Micrcache, at one point had the magnifier taken out, so i posted a NM log. Leps changed the cache to Magnum Microcache. Still at the same spot, just a different name

 

What a View!, i "found" the week before, and since this was a fake bolt on a guardrail cache, and i've never seen one yet, i happen to have notice a bolt that was loose. I thought that was it. I went back a week later with some friends that i made on my local organization, turns out that i found the wrong thing and that the cache was in need of major repair. posted a NM log

[+sassydil]

I did an armchair SBA several months ago. There was a cache on my list I had been meaning to get to and when I finally got around to looking at the cache page a cacher had logged a "Note" six months earlier saying that the cache had been removed by rangers and that they (the cacher) now had physical possession of said cache at their home and wanted to know from the owner what they should do with it. The owner hadn't been on line in a year, never responded to the cacher or to any emails I sent them over several months, so I did an SBA.

[+RanHefner]

I did an armchair SBA several months ago. There was a cache on my list I had been meaning to get to and when I finally got around to looking at the cache page a cacher had logged a "Note" six months earlier saying that the cache had been removed by rangers and that they (the cacher) now had physical possession of said cache at their home and wanted to know from the owner what they should do with it. The owner hadn't been on line in a year, never responded to the cacher or to any emails I sent them over several months, so I did an SBA.

 

Sounds like you did the right thing. Some would say that you shouldn't have posted that log because you never visited the cache site??? Go figure!

[+holazola]

Did anyone else notice that in the time that the finer points of NM & SBA logs have been debated here - That someone went out and actually FOUND the cache referenced on the OP's post. An FTF after six years! GOOD JOB!

A Superior Cache!

[+OzGuff]

Did anyone else notice that in the time that the finer points of NM & SBA logs have been debated here - That someone went out and actually FOUND the cache referenced on the OP's post. An FTF after six years! GOOD JOB!

A Superior Cache!

Good thing an armchair NA wasn't posted as that would likely have led to an unwarranted archival!

[+RanHefner]

Did anyone else notice that in the time that the finer points of NM & SBA logs have been debated here - That someone went out and actually FOUND the cache referenced on the OP's post. An FTF after six years! GOOD JOB!

A Superior Cache!

Good thing an armchair NA wasn't posted as that would likely have led to an unwarranted archival!

 

Only if the owner ignored the log and the reviewer found cause to archive it. And that's the REAL point isn't it? an NA does NOT archive the cache! I think any reviewer could look at the TOTALITY of the logs on the cache and come to the conclusion that it shouldn't have been archived.

[+Mule Ears]

Only if the owner ignored the log and the reviewer found cause to archive it. And that's the REAL point isn't it? an NA does NOT archive the cache! I think any reviewer could look at the TOTALITY of the logs on the cache and come to the conclusion that it shouldn't have been archived.

 

But an armchair NA/NM log would have materially increased the chances that an amazing cache would have been purged from the database. Your position would be much more convincing if you'd said, "Yeah, whew. Would have been a shame if a reviewer had gone along with someone's bad suggestion to archive." Instead, in effect, you're saying that it doesn't matter that armchair NA/NMs are based on secondhand information and sometimes on bad judgment, since the reviewers will catch the mistakes.

 

We need a Hippocrates of Geocaching to promote the idea 'First, do no harm.'

 

If I sound like I'm being hard on you specifically, RanHefner, don't take it to heart. You're just sort of the spokesman for the benefits of armchair cache-page inspections, so I'm using your positions to make my point. I'm sure you're careful and sparing with your NM/NAs. But others who might be attracted to the idea might not be. And "A Superior Cache" is exactly the sort of case in which they'd do great harm.

[+RanHefner]

Only if the owner ignored the log and the reviewer found cause to archive it. And that's the REAL point isn't it? an NA does NOT archive the cache! I think any reviewer could look at the TOTALITY of the logs on the cache and come to the conclusion that it shouldn't have been archived.

 

But an armchair NA/NM log would have materially increased the chances that an amazing cache would have been purged from the database. Your position would be much more convincing if you'd said, "Yeah, whew. Would have been a shame if a reviewer had gone along with someone's bad suggestion to archive." Instead, in effect, you're saying that it doesn't matter that armchair NA/NMs are based on secondhand information and sometimes on bad judgment, since the reviewers will catch the mistakes.

 

We need a Hippocrates of Geocaching to promote the idea 'First, do no harm.'

 

If I sound like I'm being hard on you specifically, RanHefner, don't take it to heart. You're just sort of the spokesman for the benefits of armchair cache-page inspections, so I'm using your positions to make my point. I'm sure you're careful and sparing with your NM/NAs. But others who might be attracted to the idea might not be. And "A Superior Cache" is exactly the sort of case in which they'd do great harm.

 

No offense taken! I applaud differing opinions.

 

Keep in mind...In almost all cases the reviewer will post a reviewer note. If the owner responds explaining the situation with the cache, the reviewer will not archive the cache.

 

Your proposed axim, "First, do no harm." That is good! My opinion is that the FIRST to do the HARM is the owner who does not live up to his/her commitment when he/she placed the cache. There are two boxes you MUST check to post a cache. This basically has you CONFIRM you will abide by the rules and guidelines. One of which it to maintain your cache in a timely manner. "Several weeks" is the guideline...Not "several months".

 

Also keep in mind...There is no posted guideline requiring you to visit the cache to post a note, NM, or SBA log. Since this is undisputed, then a person may apply his/her own guidelines for posting caches, but they can NOT force it upon others.

[+Renegade Knight]

I did an armchair SBA several months ago. There was a cache on my list I had been meaning to get to and when I finally got around to looking at the cache page a cacher had logged a "Note" six months earlier saying that the cache had been removed by rangers and that they (the cacher) now had physical possession of said cache at their home and wanted to know from the owner what they should do with it. The owner hadn't been on line in a year, never responded to the cacher or to any emails I sent them over several months, so I did an SBA.

You knew where the cache was and didn't find it?

Edited May 20, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Mule Ears]

No offense taken! I applaud differing opinions.

 

Keep in mind...In almost all cases the reviewer will post a reviewer note. If the owner responds explaining the situation with the cache, the reviewer will not archive the cache.

 

Your proposed axim, "First, do no harm." That is good! My opinion is that the FIRST to do the HARM is the owner who does not live up to his/her commitment when he/she placed the cache. There are two boxes you MUST check to post a cache. This basically has you CONFIRM you will abide by the rules and guidelines. One of which it to maintain your cache in a timely manner. "Several weeks" is the guideline...Not "several months".

 

Also keep in mind...There is no posted guideline requiring you to visit the cache to post a note, NM, or SBA log. Since this is undisputed, then a person may apply his/her own guidelines for posting caches, but they can NOT force it upon others.

 

We're mostly in agreement. The owner is primarily responsible for upkeep of his caches, and there's no guideline requiring a visit before posting an NM/NA. Agreed. A Superior Cache is a perfect illustration of where it gets sticky: The cache went unfound for six years. When it was finally found, the owner hadn't logged into geocaching.com in more than six months. If an NM/NA had been posted a month ago, this cache would have disappeared from the database right about the time that somebody worked up the gumption to go look for it. They had a terrific adventure and now have a great story to tell. And the cache is confirmed to be there so that others who might have hunted it but for the uncertainty about its status now have a green light.

 

Absent owner, unfound for six years, and an NA note--it would have been an open-and-shut case for archival. Instead, it's a perfect illustration why most of the time NM/NA should be based on firsthand information.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Your proposed axim, "First, do no harm." That is good! My opinion is that the FIRST to do the HARM is the owner who does not live up to his/her commitment when he/she placed the cache. There are two boxes you MUST check to post a cache. This basically has you CONFIRM you will abide by the rules and guidelines. One of which it to maintain your cache in a timely manner. "Several weeks" is the guideline...Not "several months". ...

 

My rule is that I maintain my caches as time, life, and ability allow. I afford others that courtesy. You also forget, or never knew that a few weeks flat out is not reasonable for some caches. Caches can be inassessable for much of the year. However if you truly think that a cache is priority number 1 in a persons life because of a guideline that indicated to be flexable then, clearly, you are unlucky enough have so little going on in your real life that you actually do have time to maintain caches perfectly.

 

That also means you have time to get out of your armchar and check other peoples caches before you log it. That's another of those guideliens. Visit the cache then log it. Of course you are defending your position that nobody can force you to do this even as you use the SBA log as a method of trying to force cache owners to follow your intrepretation of the guidelines.

 

As time, life, and ability allow. That's all anyone can give regardless of guidelines.

[+the pooks]

One needs to give RanHefner his due. He has almost singlehandedly kept this thread alive due to his steadfast defence of his position!

 

I really like caches in remote places and for that I am more than happy to a) be very undemanding about maintenance issues on such caches and am of the view that all finders help in the maintenance of such caches. The practical alternative is to have no caches in such locations at all. I know this view is on the fringe of the guidelines (I have been involved on a debate on this issue that got so heated that the thread was shut down!), but there are many cachers out there that lean towards this position on remote caches.

 

You are within your rights to post an armchair NA log, and there will be times when we will all think it justified, but guaging from this debate it is generally frowned upon and this cache that was discovered after 6 years (don't know how to get the name without affecting my post) has beautifully illustrated why it is such a contentious issue.

 

It seems that when you type a b followed by a parenthesis you get a

Edited May 20, 2008 by the pooks

[+sassydil]

I did an armchair SBA several months ago. There was a cache on my list I had been meaning to get to and when I finally got around to looking at the cache page a cacher had logged a "Note" six months earlier saying that the cache had been removed by rangers and that they (the cacher) now had physical possession of said cache at their home and wanted to know from the owner what they should do with it. The owner hadn't been on line in a year, never responded to the cacher or to any emails I sent them over several months, so I did an SBA.

You knew where the cache was and didn't find it?

 

I'd go after it if I knew where the cacher lived!

[+geosilly]

i see no problem with logging a needs maintenance log if you see that several experienced cachers have logged DNF's. i own 49 caches and its hard to check on them in a timely manner. i rely on fellow cachers to let me know one of them needs help. i would be upset if someone didn't alert me to a cache that needs help. its all about helping out our fellow cachers,,, whats wrong with that?

[+the pooks]

i see no problem with logging a needs maintenance log if you see that several experienced cachers have logged DNF's. i own 49 caches and its hard to check on them in a timely manner. i rely on fellow cachers to let me know one of them needs help. i would be upset if someone didn't alert me to a cache that needs help. its all about helping out our fellow cachers,,, whats wrong with that?

 

An owner receives all the logs via email as well, so would/should be aware of all the DNF. I think the debate here is whether someone should post a SBA or NM if they have never visited the cache. I'm all for somebody posting a firsthand (ie been to the site) NM or SBA.