Cache owners neglecting thier caches

[+jeffbouldin]

As I've seen new caches published that are hidden by people who have disabled\needs maintenance caches I started thinking, What if there was a policy that you could not have a new one published until your existing ones were taken care of?

[+luckycharmer]

Sounds like a great idea but as a cache owner all I would have to do is report the disabled cache as repaired and submit my new cache for maintenance. As fast as caches around here are getting published , chances are no one will put a need maintenance on the old one until the new one is published.

 

We also have to disable caches around here because of floods which are out of our control and because of hunting season.

[Keystone]

Suppose that the cache hider owns 200 caches. She decides to hide her 201st. But, right now five of her caches are temporarily disabled. Two of the disabled caches are along mountain trails that are closed for the winter. One of the caches just got disabled last week due to storm damage. Another is patiently awaiting its return once the construction project is finished. The fifth is in a state hunting preserve and is closed until deer season is over. All of these are valid reasons for a cache to be disabled.

 

Are you suggesting that there be an automatic block, so that a hider cannot submit more listings if they have disabled caches? Because there's no reason in my opinion why the above fictional hider ought not be able to hide a new cache today. People will stop disabling their caches to get around this.

 

Or are you saying that the volunteer cache reviewer needs to look through each of the 200 caches to find any which are disabled, locate the five disabled by looking through all ten index pages, and then open each of those five cache pages to evaluate the circumstances and reach a "fair" answer? 'Cause they don't pay us enough to do that.

[+jeffbouldin]

In the area of Tennessee I'm in we don't have many of those issues. But I can see how they would be a problem.

 

What I see around here is a note that says I'll have to get out and check it or I need to replace the container. Then nothing for months. I just feel it is irresponsible to be placing new caches when you are not keeping up with ones that you already own, unless there is a good reason. The issues you mentioned would be good reasons. If the cache is far away and gas prices are too high then it might be time to adopt it out or shut it down then place some closer to your area.

 

What if the reviewer checked and saw disabled caches and then asked the owner to explain why they can't maintain?

 

BTW I thought you reviewers made millions and had mansions and did nothing but Geocache all day.

[+Don_J]

(Snipped)

Are you suggesting that there be an automatic block, so that a hider cannot submit more listings if they have disabled caches? Because there's no reason in my opinion why the above fictional hider ought not be able to hide a new cache today. People will stop disabling their caches to get around this.

 

 

How about a non-fictional example. The recent Sesnon Fire in Southern California consumed six adjacent canyons. I had caches in four of them. In one of the canyons, a bridge was damaged and is available to residents only. I cannot access my seven caches and have disabled them. Meanwhile, I have forgone finding caches while I checked on my caches in the other three canyons. As I hiked the first canyon to check and replace caches, should I be banned from placing new ones because I have yet to check the other three canyons?

 

If it takes six months to get the bridge open to the public, am I banned from placing new hides? I understand the OP's frustration, but the suggested solution seems rather extreme.

[+tozainamboku]

Or are you saying that the volunteer cache reviewer needs to look through each of the 200 caches to find any which are disabled, locate the five disabled by looking through all ten index pages, and then open each of those five cache pages to evaluate the circumstances and reach a "fair" answer? 'Cause they don't pay us enough to do that.

This actually sounds like a good idea and with some tool written for the reviewers to use would not add significant time for the review of most caches. It would show when someone is hiding more caches than they are able to maintain.

 

I suspect however that the bigger problem are people who disable a cache and then stop geocaching altogether. Perhaps they used disabled when they meant to use archive. In order to clean up these caches, some reviewers are already running queries that find caches that have been disabled for a long time. This can be done when there is a lull in cache hiding activity (for instance winter in many areas). So it doesn't interfere with reviewers prime job of reviewing new caches.

[Keystone]

Or are you saying that the volunteer cache reviewer needs to look through each of the 200 caches to find any which are disabled, locate the five disabled by looking through all ten index pages, and then open each of those five cache pages to evaluate the circumstances and reach a "fair" answer? 'Cause they don't pay us enough to do that.

This actually sounds like a good idea and with some tool written for the reviewers to use would not add significant time for the review of most caches. It would show when someone is hiding more caches than they are able to maintain.

I am telling you it would add time to the review of all cache listings for all hiders, as we would need to check out each hider's other hides before reviewing the new one. Even if Groundspeak diverted programming resources to give the reviewers a list that showed only the owner's disabled caches, we would still need to look at each of those listings, make a decision on whether the disabled status was "appropriate," and then argue with hiders who are told "no." This process cannot be fully automated, as there are legit reasons for caches being disabled for a long time, and there are plenty of examples of owners who can maintain dozens or even hundreds of active caches. There are quite a few programming enhancements on the reviewer side of the website that would be higher on my list of "want to haves."

 

If a cache is disabled for "too long" then write the owner and encourage them to fix it, or offer to help. If there is no response and it's been months, leave a "needs archived" log.

[+TrailGators]

Or are you saying that the volunteer cache reviewer needs to look through each of the 200 caches to find any which are disabled, locate the five disabled by looking through all ten index pages, and then open each of those five cache pages to evaluate the circumstances and reach a "fair" answer? 'Cause they don't pay us enough to do that.

This actually sounds like a good idea and with some tool written for the reviewers to use would not add significant time for the review of most caches. It would show when someone is hiding more caches than they are able to maintain.

I am telling you it would add time to the review of all cache listings for all hiders, as we would need to check out each hider's other hides before reviewing the new one. Even if Groundspeak diverted programming resources to give the reviewers a list that showed only the owner's disabled caches, we would still need to look at each of those listings, make a decision on whether the disabled status was "appropriate," and then argue with hiders who are told "no." This process cannot be fully automated, as there are legit reasons for caches being disabled for a long time, and there are plenty of examples of owners who can maintain dozens or even hundreds of active caches. There are quite a few programming enhancements on the reviewer side of the website that would be higher on my list of "want to haves."

 

If a cache is disabled for "too long" then write the owner and encourage them to fix it, or offer to help. If there is no response and it's been months, leave a "needs archived" log.

I like this idea but recognize that it would have to tweaked to make it workable. It wouldn't take any time if the site didn't allow the new cache to be submitted if the person had more than 3 disabled caches. I can understand exceptions, but it would be statistically improbable to have too many exceptions. Edited November 2, 2008 by TrailGators

[jholly]

I can understand exceptions, but it would be statistically improbable to have too many exceptions.

 

As has already been pointed out a number of a persons hides could be disabled for very good reasons (flood, fire, hunting season, winter, all of the above). Now if 6-8 of a persons 20-30 hides are disabled then you have a statistically improbable event. Would you just say no to this person? I still don't think SMOP will solve the issue.

 

Jim

[+Cache O'Plenty]

The basic concept makes some sense. We all want all of the active caches to be maintained. And, we all can provide anecdotal examples of cachers that don't maintain their own caches. But, these same cachers are the ones that will work the system by merely not using the disable function. That will merely drive up the number of DNF logs and then it will become a nightmare.

 

Perhaps there is some mechanism to help this issue but it may be better to have the local cachers police their own area. I would never suggest that Reviewers take on this job.

 

It's easy enough to just not look for any Disabled caches (mark them as ignore or filter them via the PQ). Reviewers already have a process whereby they identify long term disabled ones and start the process to archive them. It does take a month or two to go through that process but it is effective.

[+TrailGators]

I can understand exceptions, but it would be statistically improbable to have too many exceptions.

 

As has already been pointed out a number of a persons hides could be disabled for very good reasons (flood, fire, hunting season, winter, all of the above). Now if 6-8 of a persons 20-30 hides are disabled then you have a statistically improbable event. Would you just say no to this person?

Of course not. Admins would know if there were fires or floods. The bottom line is that some people are very bad about maintaining their caches and there is nothing in the system to give admins the ability to say enough is enough. They have to wait for SBAs get posted by someone that doesn't mind being the bad guy. Anyhow, if a red flag is objectionable then at least give us the ability to ignore all caches from those cachers. Edited November 2, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Grigorii Rasputin]

Hi, Jeff

 

Hey, I'm with you on this! Believe me, I've seen my share of junky caches, too! I've also seen the cache pages with three, four, or five 'needs maintenance' notes.

 

While I agree in theory with your suggestion, I think it would just add to the work our volunteer reviewers already do. I've just gotten to the point where if I see the last entry in a cache page is a 'needs maintenance' note, I don't even bother going after that one.

 

Cache Safe,

Pete

[+Tequila]

I agree that cache maintenance is definitely an issue.

 

But adding that workload to volunteer reviewer's is probably not the best way to go. I am still amazed at how much time they must spend now approving caches. In my area, I have seen caches approved at virtually every hour of the day or night and every day of the week.

 

A good idea without a workable solution. sigh.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Quick side note: The Attribute flag for Needs Maintenance does not work correctly. It returns a yes if there has EVER been a NM log versus the presence of the Red Cross. If we could fix that, it would help.

[+Harry Dolphin]

While it would certainly be much nicer is geocachers took proper care of their caches, there is no way, under the present system, that OP's suggestion would work. Yes. I know of cachers who never perform maintenance, and continue to hide caches. Eventuallly, these caches do get archived by the system. But, as many have pointed out, 'unavailable' can mean many things. I had one that was unavailable for six months, while the town rebuilt the park. With appropriate note, this is considered acceptable. (Interestingly, the cache was still in its hiding place when the town finished.) There are some cachers who do not know how to remove the 'needs maintenance' flag. Or, perhaps, they just don't bother to.

Nope. Too many variables involved for this to work.

[AZcachemeister]

I feel the OP's pain, but I don't think a restriction on new hides is the answer.

It would be nice if the reviewer could possibly get some notification that the owner of the cache they were about to publish had XX number of NM or temp disabled caches so that an innocuous reminder could be sent to the owner, something like 'I am publishing your new cache, but did you know you have 14 caches with Needs Maintenance attributes, and 7 that are Temporarily Disabled? Perhaps you should consider maintaining you existing caches?'

Doubtful it would stop some of the less responsible hiders, but perhaps some of them have just lost track?

[+Parabola]

I too understand where the OP is coming from. I posted a NM log due to the cache is MIA. The reason I know it's MIA was a person that had found the cache before had visited the cache a few days before I did. When I got how to log my DNF I saw he said the cache had disappear. Since then the owner hasn't checked on it, posted any kind of note, nothing. That was back in April. But the owner has hidden about 70 caches since then. I kind of wonder if they even remember getting the NM notice or not. But I just ignore it cause I know is I ask about it I'll be told to mind my own business and it will be fixed when ever he feel's like it. I know that's just his attitude. He's known for letting one go for very long times until someone finally get's tired of it and fixes it for him.

 

I wish there was so way to narrow down this caches and cache hider's but I don't think there's any good way to do it. As other's have pointed out there are very good reason's why some are disabled for a longer period of time.

 

I would use the SBA log but that's just going to get messy with the nasty e-mail I'd get, so I just plop them on the ignore list on move on.

[jholly]

I would use the SBA log but that's just going to get messy with the nasty e-mail I'd get, so I just plop them on the ignore list on move on.

 

nothing messy about them. A. don't reply. B. If they are through GC.com and they persist ask GC.com to have a chat with the CO. A SBA get the reviewer involved.

 

Jim

[+Parabola]

I would use the SBA log but that's just going to get messy with the nasty e-mail I'd get, so I just plop them on the ignore list on move on.

 

nothing messy about them. A. don't reply. B. If they are through GC.com and they persist ask GC.com to have a chat with the CO. A SBA get the reviewer involved.

 

Jim

 

I wish it was that simple. I would only use a SBA in certian circumstance's and this one should have one place on it. After all the owner has found a cache less than a half mile away, you'd think he would have swung by and checked on it and then disabled it till he could fix it. But it still sit's there with my NM log from April.

 

Yes, I would get some flamage from him if I do put down a SBA, and the e-mails wouldn't be sent threw GC.com. So I doubt anything could be done about it by GC.com being they didn't go threw there e-mail system. So I've chosen just to slap it on the ignore list so it won't show up in my PQ's and feel that probably just the best way to handle it. Then nobody get's testy. But yes this cache sit's with a NM log on it, and hopefully nobody waste's there time looking for it due to my last log.

[+TrailGators]

Last year a local cacher created a sock puppet account and then went to town SBAing a couple of hundred caches in the area that were SBAed or disabled. Of course this was after the huge fire so many were down from the fire. Anyhow, he was able to get about half of the disabled caches cleaned up by doing this. I'm sure that he spent a great deal of time doing this but he did us all a favor. So if there was a rule that you couldn't have any new caches if you had more than 3 disabled or SBA caches, then any new cache I would have submitted would have been rejected because I had seven caches that were disabled because of the fire. However, I could have easily posted a note when I submitted new cache, that all of my disabled caches were in the fire zone and the zone was closed until further notice. So I still think this is workable idea. It does provide an incentive for people to maintain their caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

Suppose that the cache hider owns 200 caches. She decides to hide her 201st. But, right now five of her caches are temporarily disabled. Two of the disabled caches are along mountain trails that are closed for the winter. One of the caches just got disabled last week due to storm damage. Another is patiently awaiting its return once the construction project is finished. The fifth is in a state hunting preserve and is closed until deer season is over. All of these are valid reasons for a cache to be disabled.

 

Are you suggesting that there be an automatic block, so that a hider cannot submit more listings if they have disabled caches? Because there's no reason in my opinion why the above fictional hider ought not be able to hide a new cache today. People will stop disabling their caches to get around this....

Very nice.

[+TrailGators]

Suppose that the cache hider owns 200 caches. She decides to hide her 201st. But, right now five of her caches are temporarily disabled. Two of the disabled caches are along mountain trails that are closed for the winter. One of the caches just got disabled last week due to storm damage. Another is patiently awaiting its return once the construction project is finished. The fifth is in a state hunting preserve and is closed until deer season is over. All of these are valid reasons for a cache to be disabled.

 

Are you suggesting that there be an automatic block, so that a hider cannot submit more listings if they have disabled caches? Because there's no reason in my opinion why the above fictional hider ought not be able to hide a new cache today. People will stop disabling their caches to get around this....

Very nice.

They can't circumvent SBA logs. Based on feedback here, a limit based on the number of SBA logs does make more sense.

[Keystone]

I hate Billy. I think I'll go log "Needs Archived" logs on five of Billy's caches so the computer automatically blocks him from hiding any new ones.

 

 

Seriously... there is a process in place for "Needs Archived" logs. The reviewer ought to be reacting to these independent of the owner's desire to hide a new cache. Why spend programming resources to tie these processes together?

[+TrailGators]

I hate Billy. I think I'll go log "Needs Archived" logs on five of Billy's caches so the computer automatically blocks him from hiding any new ones.

 

 

Seriously... there is a process in place for "Needs Archived" logs. The reviewer ought to be reacting to these independent of the owner's desire to hide a new cache. Why spend programming resources to tie these processes together?

I guess I've never seen people blatantly lie like that, but evidently you guys have. An SBA is something that I would never post unless it was real. The bottom line is that if you guys see someone that is obviously not maintaining their caches can you tell them that you won't approve any new ones until they clean up the mess that they have? My position is that bad behavior should not be rewarded. What is the harm in holding people accountable for the maintenance guidelines?

Edited November 3, 2008 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

I hate Billy. I think I'll go log "Needs Archived" logs on five of Billy's caches so the computer automatically blocks him from hiding any new ones.

 

 

Seriously... there is a process in place for "Needs Archived" logs. The reviewer ought to be reacting to these independent of the owner's desire to hide a new cache. Why spend programming resources to tie these processes together?

I would think that once an SBA is logged a reviewer will look at the cache and determine whether or not it should be archived.

 

The issue is when there are caches disabled for a long time or where a needs maintenance log hasn't been addressed in a reasonable time. Of course what is a reasonable time may vary from cache to cache so it is it hard to automate this process. The idea here is to get the reviewers to take a look for these problems when a cacher submits a new hide. There shouldn't be a hard an fast rule that the reviewer can't approve the new cache, but it is an opportunity for the reviewer to spot maintenance problems. With special reviewer queries, I suspect this would not add very much time to the average cache review. Sure you may have some prolific hiders with a lot of disabled caches that would need to be checked, but even here the reviewer will soon know who is still working through a backlog of problem caches and who is just not doing maintenance.

 

I suspect however the the bigger problem are cachers that have stopped caching. They aren't going to submit new caches so their caches are going to sit unmaintained without this forced check. In this case I can understand the reviewers reluctance to link the two processes. Perhaps if they just let us know that they do check from time to time if there are unmaintained caches people would feel better. And of course, the SBA can always be used to elevate the issue to get prompt reviewer action.

[Keystone]

Except for responding to "needs archived" logs, any effort to keep after cache maintenance issues is completely voluntary on the cache reviewer's part. Some spend more time on it than others.

 

Personally, I devote more attention to problems with existing cache problems during the "slower" hiding months of November through February. On a weekend in June, when I come home from a day of geocaching and I need to review 40 new caches as quickly as possible so I can go to bed, I have very little interest in researching a cache hider's record of "needs maintenance" logs and so forth. I'd rather avoid the "why is it taking so long?" complaints.

 

Remember, the whole reason for the "needs maintenance" log was so that the community could have a tool short of the "needs archived" log to escalate issues to the cache owner. In advocating that we police "needs maintenance" logs, you're asking for the volunteer cache reviewers to do exactly the opposite of what the community clamored for when asking for this log type.

[+TrailGators]

Except for responding to "needs archived" logs, any effort to keep after cache maintenance issues is completely voluntary on the cache reviewer's part. Some spend more time on it than others.

 

Personally, I devote more attention to problems with existing cache problems during the "slower" hiding months of November through February. On a weekend in June, when I come home from a day of geocaching and I need to review 40 new caches as quickly as possible so I can go to bed, I have very little interest in researching a cache hider's record of "needs maintenance" logs and so forth. I'd rather avoid the "why is it taking so long?" complaints.

 

Remember, the whole reason for the "needs maintenance" log was so that the community could have a tool short of the "needs archived" log to escalate issues to the cache owner. In advocating that we police "needs maintenance" logs, you're asking for the volunteer cache reviewers to do exactly the opposite of what the community clamored for when asking for this log type.

I don't think anyone was advocating anything when it comes to NM logs. It's the caches that have have had NM and DNF logs over a long period of time that get the SBA logs that are the ones I was talking about. Why should someone that has these types of unmaintained caches be allowed to hide more when they can't even maintain what they have? So if you want to hide a new cache then first make sure that your other caches are up to snuff. That seems fair and reasonable to me. It also seems like it would reduce the workload of the admins by putting the responsibility and accountability back on the cache owners.

 

Anyhow, this is just a friendly "what if" suggestion because I doubt that anything is going to come of this...

Edited November 3, 2008 by TrailGators

[Keystone]

Oh, sorry if I misunderstood.

 

Indeed, an unanswered "needs maintenance" log is very relevant when I am summoned to the cache page in response to a "needs archived" log. My standard practice would then be to temporarily disable the listing and give the owner two weeks to fix the problem. If there is no response in two weeks, I archive the listing. That is the result in the majority of cases.

 

When the "needs archived" comes out of the blue, and the cache owner is active, I'm more inclined to hang back and see how the owner chooses to handle the situation. The cache goes onto a different bookmark list.

 

Your reviewer's mileage may vary.

[+StarBrand]

Oh, sorry if I misunderstood.

 

Indeed, an unanswered "needs maintenance" log is very relevant when I am summoned to the cache page in response to a "needs archived" log. My standard practice would then be to temporarily disable the listing and give the owner two weeks to fix the problem. If there is no response in two weeks, I archive the listing. That is the result in the majority of cases.

....

I hope even in this case that the context and reason for the NM log is looked at closely. I have had NM logs for a cache camera that was full and for a Rest area that was temporarily closed for construction. Neither one was a great motivation for me to run out and maintain anything in any immediate sense.

[+TrailGators]

Oh, sorry if I misunderstood.

 

Indeed, an unanswered "needs maintenance" log is very relevant when I am summoned to the cache page in response to a "needs archived" log. My standard practice would then be to temporarily disable the listing and give the owner two weeks to fix the problem. If there is no response in two weeks, I archive the listing. That is the result in the majority of cases.

....

I hope even in this case that the context and reason for the NM log is looked at closely. I have had NM logs for a cache camera that was full and for a Rest area that was temporarily closed for construction. Neither one was a great motivation for me to run out and maintain anything in any immediate sense.

Sounds like people are using NM logs for the wrong reasons. That's part of the reason why I recommended using SBA logs. I think it would be cool if the site gave a message like "you currently have 3 caches with SBA logs, please attend to these caches before submitting this cache." Edited November 4, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Grigorii Rasputin]

At the risk of sounding snarky or 'elitist', so many of the caches I have seen with MULTIPLE 'needs maintenance' notes are owned by cachers who are pretty new, I mean only 13 caches, or so.

 

Time and again, I've seen people discover Geocaching (which is great!), find 20 or so caches, hide 4-5 caches, then lose interest. I'm the last person who believes we need more rules in GC, but maybe you couldn't hide a cache until you had 30-40 finds under your belt????

 

Cache Safe,

WWW.Glass-Cockpit.org

[+Tequila]

At the risk of sounding snarky or 'elitist', so many of the caches I have seen with MULTIPLE 'needs maintenance' notes are owned by cachers who are pretty new, I mean only 13 caches, or so.

 

Time and again, I've seen people discover Geocaching (which is great!), find 20 or so caches, hide 4-5 caches, then lose interest. I'm the last person who believes we need more rules in GC, but maybe you couldn't hide a cache until you had 30-40 finds under your belt????

 

Cache Safe,

WWW.Glass-Cockpit.org

 

I have seen similar things. But I have also seen some very nice hides by newbies....and they maintain their caches. I have also seen long time active cachers not maintaining their caches. I have also seen a cacher who has caches everywhere and when someone logs a NM on his cache, he simply archives it. Leaving garbage in the bush.

 

I doubt you could easily enforce some sort "30 find rule". If a newbie wanted to put out a cache badly enough, they could simply log 30 false finds and publish a cache. Where there is a will, there is a way.

 

Another geocaching problem without a simple solution. Sigh.

[+nelson crew]

Another geocaching problem without a simple solution. Sigh.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, I can't figure out which) you can't fix stupid with a new rule. That being said, I have a couple of temporarily disabled caches to fix...

[+patned]

I've seen a number of responses here where people don't want to submit a Needs Archived for various reasons, usually looking bad, getting swamped with nasty emails, etc. There is a relatively easy way to get the truly bad caches archived without any damage to yourself. Create a 'throwaway' email account you'll never check (Yahoo, Gmail, etc.). Then create a 'throwaway' account on the gc.com site. Enter the Needs Archived log using this account. Gets the message to the reviewer, nobody will punish you for doing something needed, because nobody knows who you are. I don't really recommend this and would not do it myelf, it is likely against the rules for GC, just pointing out that there ARE ways to get the job done. Be creative.

 

If nothing else, carry tape, logs, bags, etc with you, and repair some of the caches as you go. If you had fun up to the point where you actually took the cache in hand, ignore the condition of it as best you can and help the next finder have more fun. Isn't that what this is all about?

[+Renegade Knight]

...They can't circumvent SBA logs. Based on feedback here, a limit based on the number of SBA logs does make more sense.

 

SBA logs are all all subject to scruteny. I've never seen them used right, I have seen them used to harass.

 

SBA logs are really. "In my opinion as a finder who doesn't hold all the facts that something may be up wiht this cache to the point it should be archived".

 

If some of the more vocal finders ran this game it would completely suck for owners and then you would have that contrived end of world scenario from Atlas Shrugged. Caching style.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If nothing else, carry tape, logs, bags, etc with you, and repair some of the caches as you go. If you had fun up to the point where you actually took the cache in hand, ignore the condition of it as best you can and help the next finder have more fun. Isn't that what this is all about?

The sock puppet approache you suggested has zero merit. IF someone won't stand up for their SBA log, the log is worthless.

 

The latter comment though has merit. Consdier if you can hold the cache in hand, the cache is viable. No need to SBA. It may need TLC but that's another thing.

[+Renegade Knight]

Another geocaching problem without a simple solution. Sigh.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, I can't figure out which) you can't fix stupid with a new rule. That being said, I have a couple of temporarily disabled caches to fix...

Likewise. Interestingly I'm having a harder time because I followed other rules...