Reviewer notes to disabled cache

[+CYBret]

I mean, if you think about it, it would make more sense for a user to post notes rather than disable his cache, because it keeps it below the reviewer's radar if they don't want it archived without their knowledge. I'm not looking for a way around it - it just seems like the people who disable a cache because they know they have to fix it or it is unavailable for a time are dealing with a ticking time bomb, while those users who choose not to do anything, and just ignore needs maintenance logs (intentionally or through not checking online), stay below the radar and should be watched...while the person disabling their cache is doing their job.

This is exactly the problem I cited earlier; a responsible owner who disables his (or her) cache is being punished. That's why I refuse to do so until Groundspeak changes their policy.

 

This is a symptom of a larger problem with not thinking through policies and guidelines thoroughly, anticipating potential issues. Poorly-thought-out guidelines have led to the explosion of lame urban microcaches; poorly-thought-out policies like this lead to caches not being disabled when they need to be.

 

So instead you're punishing the cacher who filters disabled caches out of his pocket query and finds himself searching for your cache that's not there because you don't have time to maintain it and won't disable it? That makes sense.

 

If you can't get to it, post a note letting the reviewer know. Every reviewer I know understands the time limitations we all live with. Trust me...reviewers are KEENLY aware of time limitations.

 

I've received my own share of generic reviewer notes about my disabled cachers. Sometimes I've had to respond that I needed a little more time, but more often than not I've gotten off my butt and fixed the cache. Either way, I don't take it personally.

[+fizzymagic]

So instead you're punishing the cacher who filters disabled caches out of his pocket query and finds himself searching for your cache that's not there because you don't have time to maintain it and won't disable it?

Groundspeak is making the disabling of caches counterproductive; the cacher who relies on the cache being disabled is free to complain to Groundspeak about their policies. I really would like to be able to disable my caches, but I am not willing to put up with automated archiving that I can only avoid by suitable groveling. So I don't. I can understand that many people would not approve of my choice, but it's my little nonviolent protest.

 

I've received my own share of generic reviewer notes about my disabled cachers. Sometimes I've had to respond that I needed a little more time, but more often than not I've gotten off my butt and fixed the cache. Either way, I don't take it personally.

I certainly don't take the impersonal notes and automated archiving personally. Indeed, it is the impersonal nature of the process to which I object!

 

It sure would be nice if Groundspeak occasionally consulted the caching community before implementing policies like this.

[+paleolith]

Yes, the message is canned. I've seen virtually identical posts from several reviewers, in different regions. If your skin is thin, then do some more reading before exposing yourself. Watch a few dozen cache pages for a few months (with an emphasis on caches that don't seem to be doing well to start with) and you'll read plenty of these.

 

Note that just reading random cache pages will not net you many, because a high percentage of long-term-disabled caches are in fact abandoned and are archived shortly after. This can skew perceptions of how often this posting is used. If you don't watch caches, you'll seldom see it.

 

One of the oldest caches in Los Angeles county has been disabled for nearly a year, and unavailable for a year and a half. It got this message, and was defended by several posters. End of issue AFAIK, though the reviewer may post again in time. This is only fair: don't play favorites.

 

As for fizzymagic's technique -- if I DNF a cache, and it's obviously been missing for some time based on logs, I'll SBA it. At that point it's no longer hidden from the reviewer, and the hider gets a rep as someone who ignores problems. I don't recommend that course.

 

Edward

[+FireRef]

It sure would be nice if Groundspeak occasionally consulted the caching community before implementing policies like this.

 

... and many others. Like I've said many times, I think they often forget that they wouldn't have a database full of caches to make money on if they didn't have users who came here. Seems like it would be a much better business model to take into consideration the wishes and wants of the people who support you, rather than just doing whatever you want or think is best. It is a business owned by one person - but it wouldn't function without the rest of us.

[Keystone]

FROG MEMO

 

TO: Bryan and Elias

 

FROM: Keystone

 

DATE: November 18, 2008

 

SUBJECT: Equity Ownership

 

Check your stock holdings, guys. From what I'm reading in the forums, Jeremy's up to something sinister. I am sure it's all part of his evil plan to achieve world domination through subversive religion masquerading as science.

 

Let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

[+FireRef]

Ok - controlled by one person - or maybe 2-3 ... but still, not controlled by the 10s of thousands of people who actually provide the information for the site.

 

This "memo" completely sidesteps the issue. Laugh all you want (yes, it was funny), but the problem still remains.

[+Quiggle]

I really would like to be able to disable my caches, but I am not willing to put up with automated archiving that I can only avoid by suitable groveling.

Automated archiving? I don't have any options for automated archiving.

 

I have to look at each cache individually. If the cache owner has it disabled for a length of time and has updates on the page, I'm happy to leave it alone (in most cases, but it depends on the situation). If it's disabled for 3 months with no information, and my "What's the status?" note doesn't get any response, then I archive it, usually after 30 days. So in that scenario, the cache has sat there for 4 months, or 1/3 of the year.

 

Now if I see a cache that is not disabled, yet gets continued DNFs and no owner action, I'm more likely to disable then archive it sooner than the first scenario, because it appears as if the owner isn't paying attention. I can find these on my own through regular browsing of the site, e-mails from cachers that are frustrated due to lack of owner attention, or needs archived logs.

 

In case 1, the owner is in charge, and keeping updates, therefore the cache is more likely to stick around.

 

In case 2, the owner appears to not care about the cache, therefore the cache is less likely to stick around.

 

Which door are your caches behind?

[+Quiggle]

Seems like it would be a much better business model to take into consideration the wishes and wants of the people who support you, rather than just doing whatever you want or think is best.

The consideration is for those that want to place a cache but can't because someone won't take care of their cache yet it holds a 528 foot buffer.

 

The consideration is for those that want to find a cache but can't because someone won't take care of their cache and the cache is not actually there to find (but you didn't know that because they failed to utilize the tools on the website to disable the cache to let others know there was a problem and allow them to filter it out of their pocket query).

[+FireRef]

The problem with this is that the reviewer doesn't see a string of DNF's unless the cache is on a watchlist. They do see the disabled cache. They don't see the owner maintenance requests.

 

So it punishes the people who do what they are supposed to, by disabling the caches - it seems like it would be easier, as someone else said, to not disable it, and get to and fix it when you can, rather than disabling it, and having to answer questions which inevitably come.

 

What would be wrong with sending reviewers OM logs for caches in their area, similar to what SBA logs and Disable logs do? Is this such a big problem?

 

Again, I'm not in favor of doing it the wrong way... I'm in favor of the reviewers watching things which need to be watched. Most disabled caches, as was stated earlier, are fixed and returned to service. Most series of DNF caches which have been abandoned don't get noticed until well after they should have been.

[+riviouveur]

The problem with this is that the reviewer doesn't see a string of DNF's unless the cache is on a watchlist. They do see the disabled cache. They don't see the owner maintenance requests.

 

So it punishes the people who do what they are supposed to, by disabling the caches - it seems like it would be easier, as someone else said, to not disable it, and get to and fix it when you can, rather than disabling it, and having to answer questions which inevitably come.

 

Most of what I want to say here is covered by Quiggle's post. I would add that, at least as far as I'm concerned, the amount of time you get to reply to my "Hi, this cache seems to be having a few problems, is a maintenance visit planned?" note, is a function of, among other things, how long it was since the cache was last found (taking into account D/T, of course). If a popular urban micro has no finds for three months and is then disabled tdoay, then the clock started ticking some weeks ago. On the other hand, if you keep in communication with your reviewer, it is unlikely that your cache will be archived unless s/he gets tired of repeated uses of the word "mañana".

 

What would be wrong with sending reviewers OM logs for caches in their area, similar to what SBA logs and Disable logs do? Is this such a big problem?

I believe that one of the reason people don't log SBA is because they worry about the owner's reaction to being "ratted out". You can rehash the name of the log to make it sound "kinder and gentler", but in any case it comes down to "I'm frustrated, the owner isn't looking after their cache, this needs to be escalated".

 

NM logs are often about small things (pencil missing, log nearly full) and they are explicitly designed to let the cache owner know that there's a problem. There used to only be SBA. So by copying them to the reviewers you remove most of their reason for existing.

 

FWIW, even when I get an SBA, I don't archive the cache immediately (unless there are obvious major guideline issues), or even disable it. I make a note to have a look in a couple of weeks. Often the SBA has spurred the owner into action by then.

 

Most series of DNF caches which have been abandoned don't get noticed until well after they should have been.

I have some sympathy with this comment. However, I've yet to find a good way to reduce the amount of work involved to something which is acceptable. If a group of four people sets out for a cache and they all log DNF, that's four for four little red squares in GSAK, but maybe they were all using the same coordinates which one of them had entered with a typo and there's no problem. So I've got an awful lot of reading to wade through before I decide whether to send the cache owner out to use 2 gallons of gas to confirm that there's no problem; and inevitably I will have a number of "false positives", some of which may result in people coming in here and complaining about over-zealous reviewers.

 

Fortunately, help for the reviewers is at hand, in the shape of the community. If you notice a cache which has multiple independent DNFs and is showing all the classic signs of being missing, you can log NM, you can log SBA, or you can send a short "heads up" note to the reviewer for your area. Your reviewer team, and your fellow local cachers, thank you in advance.

Edited November 18, 2008 by riviouveur

[+Renegade Knight]

...So it punishes the people who do what they are supposed to, by disabling the caches - it seems like it would be easier, as someone else said, to not disable it, and get to and fix it when you can, rather than disabling it, and having to answer questions which inevitably come...

 

I've got a couple caches I co-listed. For all intents and purposes they are my caches. Except the other cahcer listed them. I'm working the maintenance and can't disable the cache. So it just sits annoying the locals while I work to get it replaced (now that it's been determined to be missing).

 

Life happens. There is always a way to follow the rules and get burned for your trouble.

[+fizzymagic]

Automated archiving? I don't have any options for automated archiving.

It certainly appears to be automated in my area. How exactly would I be able to tell if it were not automated? In my area, there is a generic note that appears a fixed time after the cache is disabled. Notes to the reviewer made at the time the cache is disabled have no effect on that. Then there is a generic archive log that appears a fixed time after that. From outward appearances, the process is entirely automated unless the cache reviewer steps in to stop it. It looks as though not archiving the cache is more trouble for the reviewer than archiving it is.

 

I am pretty happy with our local reviewers; this kind of thing doesn't seem consistent with the rest of my dealings with them.

 

If the process is not actually automatic, then I would suggest that Groundspeak alter it so that cache owners do not perceive it as such. That alone might go a long ways towards reducing the hard feelings associated with the process.

[+Prime Suspect]

So then what would be a good reasonable time or number of DNF's or combination to go from a needs maintenance log to a SBA log?

 

I mean, if you think about it, it would make more sense for a user to post notes rather than disable his cache, because it keeps it below the reviewer's radar if they don't want it archived without their knowledge. I'm not looking for a way around it - it just seems like the people who disable a cache because they know they have to fix it or it is unavailable for a time are dealing with a ticking time bomb, while those users who choose not to do anything, and just ignore needs maintenance logs (intentionally or through not checking online), stay below the radar and should be watched...while the person disabling their cache is doing their job.

It's a self-correcting problem. If the cache hangs around long enough, but remains in active but unfindable status, locals will start posting SBAs on it, which immediately gets the reviewer's attention. It the cache can't actually be found (easy to determine, especially if the owner is posting notes telling people not to try and find it), the reviewer will disable it, and start the clock running.

[+riviouveur]

If the process is not actually automatic, then I would suggest that Groundspeak alter it so that cache owners do not perceive it as such. That alone might go a long ways towards reducing the hard feelings associated with the process.

 

Groundspeak provides no automatic tools for this. Many reviewers will have their own routines, procedures, macros, etc to make this less-fun aspect of the job more bearable, and to meet the requirements of their territory. If your reviewer is placing these logs with clockwork precision, many would argue that that's admirable consistency - everyone gets six weeks or two months or whatever to react. The alternative is for it to be haphazard, at which point people start claiming that they are being discriminated against because they only got 44 days and the guy next door got 57. (Certainly I see more threads in here complaining about perceived inconsistency on the part of the reviewers, rather than excessive consistency.)

 

In my 7,500-cache reviewe territory, I write about 150 "please check on your disabled cache" messages every month, about 60 "fix this or it will be archived", and I archive around 30 listings for lack of maintenance. With this kind of job (which brings joy to nobody) and those kind of numbers, it's something I sit down to do two or three times a month on a cold, wet evening when there's not much on TV, and I hope you will understand that I don't write a whole lot of creative, personalised messages either. It's a lot of copying and pasting, and "paperwork" - every time I post a note at a given level of escalation, I note what that level is and when I'm next going to check on the cache.

 

Hopefully these "boilerplate" messages are friendly and helpful - at least, the first level ones - but if you have four disabled caches and they all come up in the same week's sweep, you are going to be getting four identical RNs, and in two months you will get four final warnings, and three weeks later or whatever, you will have four archived listings. I'd rather save my more creative energy for answering e-mails from cachers who ask questions, than chasing up people who should really have either fixed their cache, or let me know that it was going to take some time, before now.

[+Quiggle]

The problem with this is that the reviewer doesn't see a string of DNF's unless the cache is on a watchlist. They do see the disabled cache. They don't see the owner maintenance requests.

I come across these caches fairly regularly while looking at caches around my area. Do I seek them out? No, but I can find them. You can even use GSAK to search for such things, can't you?

 

So it punishes the people who do what they are supposed to, by disabling the caches - it seems like it would be easier, as someone else said, to not disable it, and get to and fix it when you can, rather than disabling it, and having to answer questions which inevitably come.

You're missing the point entirely by taking the paranoid view of things. Your cache won't be archived just because you disable it. You've got time to take care of it, so do so. But don't disable it then forget about it. I've had caches in my area disabled for 6 months due to a park closure and renovation. Never archived the cache because there was a legit reason. But the guy who disabled his cache in July, got a note from me three months later in October, and still didn't do anything in November, his cache was archived. That's a four month span (one third of the year) and his cache was archived but the six month disabled cache didn't.

 

See the difference?

 

What would be wrong with sending reviewers OM logs for caches in their area, similar to what SBA logs and Disable logs do? Is this such a big problem?

What would be the point?

 

A needs maintenance log is an extra flag to the cache owner that their cache needs maintenance, if they tend to skim (or not read) the found it logs. If they miss the needs maintenance logs, you can log a needs archived. If you're complaining about disabled caches being archived, can you imagine the uproar it would cause if a cache that just needed a new logsheet (which is a perfect example for a needs maintenance log) was archived because those logs went to reviewers? My point is those are minor issues, and don't need reviewer intervention. Those instances that do, there's already a log type for that.

 

Most disabled caches, as was stated earlier, are fixed and returned to service.

Above you argued against disabling a cache because you believe it will get archived (reviewers don't get disabled logs either, unless the cache is on a watchlist), but on the other hand you're saying the majority of disabled caches get fixed and return to service. Which is it?