Cache Police?

[+Donmoore]

I know this has been discussed at some point before but what is the standard procedure for requesting a cache to be archived?

 

Now my cache which is in Northern Ireland, which due to some problems with the area and also the fact that I am now trying to get someone else to replace it for me has been temporarily disabled for some time.

 

I got a request to have it archived today from someone in SURREY, hardly a local cacher with a great deal of interest in this cache.

 

So who made the purple pineapple the cache police for Northern Ireland?

 

Oh and hello everyone sorry I have been away for a while

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

Hi Donny!

 

Maybe someone was planning a trip to the area?

 

I have occasionally looked up caches for an area I am likely to be in soon and posted noted about availabilty.

Edited November 15, 2008 by Dorsetgal & GeoDog

[+t.a.folk]

Hi Donny!

 

Maybe someone was planning a trip to the area?

 

I have occasionally looked up caches for an area I am likely to be in soon and posted noted about availabilty.

 

Ditto !

Put our hands up to doing likewise a week or so ago on a cache out of our area .

[+deejay44]

The temporary disable should only be used for short periods of time usually weeks rather than months so I would not consider PP request unreasonable no matter where they live. Also I dont think it could be changed to a virtual as these are not allowed anymore AFAIK.

 

Edited typo

 

Dave

Edited November 15, 2008 by deejay44

[+Haggis Hunter]

Did you send PP an email asking to explain or have you just came straight on here so that everyone knows?

[+Haggis Hunter]

I have just looked at the cache in question and PP's post is a genuine post looking to find out what is happening with the cache. After all you have had it disabled for 5 1/2 months with no update!

[Alan White]

We are all the cache police. If we don't look after the hobby whom do you think will?

 

There was also an SBA by another cacher on 31 May. If you'd actioned that one then PP wouldn't have needed to post another.

[+currykev]

Sorry, but 6 months without maintenance is not on. Just do it and all cachers will be happy.

...but also.....you should've been given some sort of chance before PP decided to act.

Edited November 15, 2008 by currykev

[+purple_pineapple]

I'm sorry, but if someone has an issue with this, then i would appreciate an e-mail before a post to the forums. Why does where I live make a difference? I would like to say thanks to all the others who have said that I was quite right to post a NA log. A quick note to Curreykev - the cache has been temp disabled since may 31 - if that isn't a chance to act, then what is? I would have posted a Needs maintenance - but that option isn't there when the cache is disabled.

 

Finally, I make no bones about the fact that I go through and so this occasionally - and the UK reviewers have stated that they are perfectly happy for this - they only have a limited amount of time themselves.

 

Sorry, but this post really upset me - if you could be bothered to maintain your caches, then others wouldn't need to post NA logs to them.

[+careygang]

I'm sorry, but if someone has an issue with this, then i would appreciate an e-mail before a post to the forums. Why does where I live make a difference? I would like to say thanks to all the others who have said that I was quite right to post a NA log. A quick note to Curreykev - the cache has been temp disabled since may 31 - if that isn't a chance to act, then what is? I would have posted a Needs maintenance - but that option isn't there when the cache is disabled.

 

Finally, I make no bones about the fact that I go through and so this occasionally - and the UK reviewers have stated that they are perfectly happy for this - they only have a limited amount of time themselves.

 

Sorry, but this post really upset me - if you could be bothered to maintain your caches, then others wouldn't need to post NA logs to them.

 

I'm with you PP. I'll even agree with Alan White - we are all the 'Cache police'

 

The system is there to flag up caches in need of maintenance or archiving. This case is even more clear cut than most its had an outstanding SBA on it for 5 months, if our UK Reviewers had not been otherwise districted then I'm sure they would have chopped it long ago.

One thing that really hacks me off is cachers who make regular 'Find' Logs but then put in their log that it needs some sort of maintenance, like log book full, box split, lid missing etc.

If it needs maintenance, then use the maintenance log. The only log that flags up to reviewers is the SBA.

 

See this cache page for a good example of the system working.. GC19E9J It was in my local area, but that's beside the point. Other cachers had placed various notes and other logs but not stood up and made a SBA. I did and it was archived a week later.

 

The message is maintain it or archive it.

[+dibbler69]

Dont worry about it. A local cache to me has also be flagged as needs be archived.

There could be a trainee reviewer in the making

But I agree a cache should be looked after and maintained.

Edited November 16, 2008 by dibbler69

[+purple_pineapple]

Dont worry about it. A local cache to me has also be flagged as needs be archived.

There could be a trainee reviewer in the making

But I agree a cache should be looked after and maintained.

 

lol - no chance.

 

Seriously though - we have overworked and underpaid reviewers (!) who are happy for folks to flag up problems. All it takes is a note on the cache page by the owner that is hasn't been forgotten about and everyone is happy!

 

Finally, thanks again for the positive posts!

 

PS - is this another case for having the NA log changed to a less 'provocative' name? "Reviewer Attention" or something of that ilk? ho humm!

[+ayepee]

We are all the cache police. If we don't look after the hobby whom do you think will?

 

 

Funnily enough, I posted a "needs archiving" log on a cache that I did at the beginning of October. I did not email the cache owner as they have not logged onto the GS website for months, and from previous logs, this particular cache had been very much under the weather for some time.

 

But what happens next? Is it just that our reviewers have been overstretched that nothing seems to have happened, or are they trying to contact the owner?

 

As I logged, this area is worth visiting so at least if the present cache is archived, a new one can be placed.

 

Also regarding needs maintenance logs. I think is always worthwhile as the owner is more likely to see this log rather that have to read in the find log that the pencil is blunt, or whatever.

 

ayepee

[+drdick&vick]

I'm sorry, but if someone has an issue with this, then i would appreciate an e-mail before a post to the forums. Why does where I live make a difference? I would like to say thanks to all the others who have said that I was quite right to post a NA log. A quick note to Curreykev - the cache has been temp disabled since may 31 - if that isn't a chance to act, then what is? I would have posted a Needs maintenance - but that option isn't there when the cache is disabled.

 

Finally, I make no bones about the fact that I go through and so this occasionally - and the UK reviewers have stated that they are perfectly happy for this - they only have a limited amount of time themselves.

 

Sorry, but this post really upset me - if you could be bothered to maintain your caches, then others wouldn't need to post NA logs to them.

 

Totally agree with all of the above, what some of these cache owners, who leave a cache as Temp Unavailable for a long time, is that if a more keen and conscientious cacher wants to place a cache within .1 mile of that cache they are impeeding them from doing so. Maybe it even needs an automatic setting that if a cache is marked as Temp Unavailable for a period of ? months or more that it is automatically archived and the location is then reopened for others to use.

[+purple_pineapple]

We are all the cache police. If we don't look after the hobby whom do you think will?

 

 

Funnily enough, I posted a "needs archiving" log on a cache that I did at the beginning of October. I did not email the cache owner as they have not logged onto the GS website for months, and from previous logs, this particular cache had been very much under the weather for some time.

 

But what happens next? Is it just that our reviewers have been overstretched that nothing seems to have happened, or are they trying to contact the owner?

 

As I logged, this area is worth visiting so at least if the present cache is archived, a new one can be placed.

 

Also regarding needs maintenance logs. I think is always worthwhile as the owner is more likely to see this log rather that have to read in the find log that the pencil is blunt, or whatever.

 

ayepee

 

All needs archiving logs are notified to the reviewers - they are in fact the ONLY logs that generate a reviwer notification as well. What happens next is up to the reviewer - Alba on the recent set that I posted to has either archived them if she felt that the owner has had enough notifications before, or she posts her own note asking for it to be dealt with within a time frame - the response is up to the reviewer though.

 

Occasionally, the original NA log gets missed though if the reviewers are busy! These things happen!

 

Generally, a needs maintenance log is usually sufficient, but they can't be posted on caches that are disabled, so the choice is limited then.

 

[+ayepee]

 

All needs archiving logs are notified to the reviewers - they are in fact the ONLY logs that generate a reviwer notification as well. What happens next is up to the reviewer - Alba on the recent set that I posted to has either archived them if she felt that the owner has had enough notifications before, or she posts her own note asking for it to be dealt with within a time frame - the response is up to the reviewer though.

 

Occasionally, the original NA log gets missed though if the reviewers are busy! These things happen!

 

Generally, a needs maintenance log is usually sufficient, but they can't be posted on caches that are disabled, so the choice is limited then.

 

 

I have just looked and the cache has now been archived.

[+currykev]

If I see a cache or 2 that's been "disabled" for a length of time...in an area that I shall be visiting, I will email the owner to see if it'll be back in action before I arrive.

I've even offered and have done the maintenance myself...that gives me definate find too

If the owner doesn't reply, then I'll just forget the cache in question.

I wouldn't post a Needs Archiving log, as that's not how I do things.

[+Donmoore]

I have been and replaced this cache 3 times and moved it's location once. Since its last disapperance I have been to the site 3 times once to check it and twice to replcae it but due to the amount of people around I couldn't.

 

I have now moved out of the country and a fellow cacher has said he will replace it. I asked him to do it when I moved and have asked him to do it again now. So hopefully for your peace of mind it will get done ASAP.

 

Anyone looking at going to the cache can clearly see it is not available and also the fact that if I archived it, this would mean another cache could not be placed here then everyone loses.

 

I know it maintained but I really don't think that if no one locally has contacted me voicing their concern that it is that big of an issue. Its only a hobby after all.

[+purple_pineapple]

If I see a cache or 2 that's been "disabled" for a length of time...in an area that I shall be visiting, I will email the owner to see if it'll be back in action before I arrive.

I've even offered and have done the maintenance myself...that gives me definate find too

If the owner doesn't reply, then I'll just forget the cache in question.

I wouldn't post a Needs Archiving log, as that's not how I do things.

 

a perfectly acceptable tactic, but not the only option, I'm sure you'll agree!

 

On the basis that I can't do anything myself, living in Surrey, I have a couple of options. I can contact the owner, which I don't tend to do, or I can write a note. I looked up a couple of long-standing disabled caches yesterday, and on several of them I wrote notes, depending on what the situation was. This one had had a previous NA log, so I chose to put another NA log.

 

I could, of course, just forgotten about it, as you say, but if nobody brings up caches for the reviewers attention, then those that have been abandoned as the owner doesn't play any more (not this one I agree) will sit there for ever!

 

Nothing wrong with how you do it Kev, but nothing wrong with the way I try to help as well I hope!

 

Incidentally, I've had a NA log on one of my caches in the past, as it had been disabled for a while and I hadn't done anything with it. If I was still planning on putting a relacement out, I could have posted a note with my intentions (as Donmoore has done). As it happens, it was the prod I needed to give it up as a lost cause, so I archived it!

 

PS - the cache isn't archived, just disabled. Hopefully it can be re-activated soon, which gives folks a cache to find, which is the best outcome!

[+careygang]

I have been and replaced this cache 3 times and moved it's location once. Since its last disapperance I have been to the site 3 times once to check it and twice to replcae it but due to the amount of people around I couldn't.

 

I have now moved out of the country and a fellow cacher has said he will replace it. I asked him to do it when I moved and have asked him to do it again now. So hopefully for your peace of mind it will get done ASAP.

 

Anyone looking at going to the cache can clearly see it is not available and also the fact that if I archived it, this would mean another cache could not be placed here then everyone loses.

 

I know it maintained but I really don't think that if no one locally has contacted me voicing their concern that it is that big of an issue. Its only a hobby after all.

 

I see a couple of problems here:

 

You say you have moved out of the country, therefore you are unable to maintain it. The correct action is therefore to Archive or have it adopted, not just rely on another cacher to maintain it in your name. What is the point in that? It's OK on a temporary basis, but let another cacher get credit for ownership if you have moved on.

Seems to me this whole issue has been caused because you did not archive or have adopted and now you expect someone else to keep it going for you.

 

You are totally wrong in saying "if I archived it, this would mean another cache could not be placed here".

That is the whole point of something being Archived; it clears the location for a new cache. Until it is Archived nobody can place a cache in that area, so the un-maintained, un-archived just blocks the location.

[+Donmoore]

 

I see a couple of problems here:

 

You say you have moved out of the country, therefore you are unable to maintain it. The correct action is therefore to Archive or have it adopted, not just rely on another cacher to maintain it in your name. What is the point in that? It's OK on a temporary basis, but let another cacher get credit for ownership if you have moved on.

Seems to me this whole issue has been caused because you did not archive or have adopted and now you expect someone else to keep it going for you.

 

You are totally wrong in saying "if I archived it, this would mean another cache could not be placed here".

That is the whole point of something being Archived; it clears the location for a new cache. Until it is Archived nobody can place a cache in that area, so the un-maintained, un-archived just blocks the location.

 

I was going to put my caches up for adoption but the person who is to be looking after them said just to leave it as is and he and another local would check them out if and when is needed. Also I might be back in the country again by next year.

 

As for being totally wrong I hold my hands up. I was lead to believe that even an archived cache meant another cache could not be placed on that location, but if I'm wrong thats good news. I will see if the other cacher wants to put the cache there if not I'll archive it and someone else can put a cache there if they feel like it.

[+Icenians]

I think I would far rather have an approach of CurryKev's style from someone looking to find the cache and maybe even help sort the issue than the approach which, quite frankly, comes across as a self appointed reviewer nagging me. That is an approach that doesn't tend to get the best from me whether caching or any other field.

[+careygang]

If I see a cache or 2 that's been "disabled" for a length of time...in an area that I shall be visiting, I will email the owner to see if it'll be back in action before I arrive.

I've even offered and have done the maintenance myself...that gives me definate find too

If the owner doesn't reply, then I'll just forget the cache in question.

I wouldn't post a Needs Archiving log, as that's not how I do things.

 

I think I would far rather have an approach of CurryKev's style from someone looking to find the cache and maybe even help sort the issue than the approach which, quite frankly, comes across as a self appointed reviewer nagging me. That is an approach that doesn't tend to get the best from me whether caching or any other field.

 

There is one problem with currykev's approach, and it is something I see a lot of out here.

 

Caches where the owner is either long gone, having not logged in for months or years, or is still logging in but doesn't give a (insert word of choice).

Cachers take the soft option of just either leaving a standard TFTC/TNLN entry, or just happen to include a quick note that the box is broken, and consequently nothing gets done to maintain the cache. There are loads around here that are poorly maintained as a result.

 

As I see it, it is not up to the finder to try and second guess the personality of the owner. You think it's nagging, but the system is there to be used. If the owner doesn't like it then fine; but then if a cache is properly maintained it shouldn't come to this.

I recently put a SBA on a cache that was around 200 ft onto a motel property in their rear parking area. We were chased off the property by irate staff, so yes I immediately put a SBA because the owner should have known better. The owner then deleted my SBA log; which I then replaced with a short DNF, but I knew that the SBA original had been sent to the reviewer.

The reviewer then put it on their watch list because there was a DNF a few weeks after by someone who was also chased off. The Reviewer then immediately disabled it with a note to the owner to either get permission or remove it. GC1F2JN

[+Icenians]

It's more the thought that someone is sitting at home LOOKING for these caches with issues that bothers me. If I found a cache that needed archiving I would SBA it but that is very different from me appointing myself as a reviewer and spending the day looking for caches to SBA just because I feel they have been unavavilable for some time.

[+Icenians]

As I see it, it is not up to the finder to try and second guess the personality of the owner. You think it's nagging, but the system is there to be used. If the owner doesn't like it then fine; but then if a cache is properly maintained it shouldn't come to this.

 

In this case the nag wasn't from a finder.

[+spannerman]

I think I would far rather have an approach of CurryKev's style from someone looking to find the cache and maybe even help sort the issue than the approach which, quite frankly, comes across as a self appointed reviewer nagging me. That is an approach that doesn't tend to get the best from me whether caching or any other field.

 

Yep, I'd rather sit back and have someone offer to maintain my caches for me as well.

 

I though, am one of the majority of cachers who read the guidelines when placing their caches and take the maintenance seriously.

I have posted several NA logs on long term disabled caches and have no qualms about doing so. The reviewers have encouraged the use of this feature to assist them so I cannot see a problem. It does not affect anyone who looks after their caches, only those who are happy to spend all their spare time searching out the properly maintained caches while making the rest of us wait until they are ready to enable their own.

 

If my way of playing this game makes me "The Cache Police" or a "Self Appointed Reviewer" then so be it, I will not worry about upsetting, what I consider to be, the selfish element of our community.

[+purple_pineapple]

It's more the thought that someone is sitting at home LOOKING for these caches with issues that bothers me. If I found a cache that needed archiving I would SBA it but that is very different from me appointing myself as a reviewer and spending the day looking for caches to SBA just because I feel they have been unavavilable for some time.

 

why does it bother you though? I don't expect anyone else to do it, although I know full well that a number of other cachers will do this periodically, but if I'm happy to do it (and its my time thats taken up, not anyone else's) then why should it bother anyone else?

 

And just to clarify, I don;t consider myself a reviewer, or wish to be one. I enjoy FTFing too much. And I wouldn't call 5.5 months some time - I would consider it too long in view of the previous SBA on it.

 

Finally, as Donmoore had assumed that an archived cache still 'reserved' the spot, then the long term disabled is an understandable thing to do - easy to see why he would want to replace the cache if at all possible. hopefully he is pleased to find out that isn't the case

[+Icenians]

 

why does it bother you though? I

 

Just my nature. I tend to rebel against an form of self appointment. Just something that rubs me up the wrong way.

 

My post was just saying how I would feel about an approach in that way.

[+drdick&vick]

Still agree with PP as I have just done a search in my area and found 18 caches that have been listed as Temp Unavailable 5 months or more and that is to many (1 has been so for 15mths).

Yes it is my time and I don't have any problem with wasting it that way. As far as being a self appointed 'anything' you are so wrong, if the cachers ignores anything I write then that is down to them if no effort was made I would consider a SBA log.

[+Donmoore]

This thread can be locked now.

 

I am satisfied that I can now get this cache sorted out one way or another without losing the spot.

 

I didn't mean to offend anyone but I personally don't like people who really have no concern of my caches simply NAing it without first contacting me. But hey that's me live and let live.

[+careygang]

As I see it, it is not up to the finder to try and second guess the personality of the owner. You think it's nagging, but the system is there to be used. If the owner doesn't like it then fine; but then if a cache is properly maintained it shouldn't come to this.

 

In this case the nag wasn't from a finder.

 

Agreed, this time it wasn't but it's still a case of us 'self-policing'. As I said earlier, far too many cachers do not do their bit in maintaining the standards of our activity.

 

This one GCEEFC is typical of many poorly maintained caches; I myself was soft in my log of Sep 25th, but the fact is I had already checked and seen that the owner had not logged in for a year and lived the other side of the USA, so not a lot of point in making a Needs Maintenance Log. Our reviewer has left a polite note on 31 Oct, but just look how many cachers have left nondescript logs since then. None of them mentioning the condition of the container.

[+careygang]

Infamous double posting.

Edited November 17, 2008 by careygang

[+sTeamTraen]

Since PP could also simply have sent a mail to a reviewer of his choice, thus remaining anonymous as far as the cache owner is concerned, the discussion comes down not so much to "should people look for problems with caches" as "should people report problems with caches in a transparent way". In fact, we have no way to know how many people might already be sending reports of caches with "issues" to the rveiewers like this every week/month etc.

[+purple_pineapple]

Since PP could also simply have sent a mail to a reviewer of his choice, thus remaining anonymous as far as the cache owner is concerned, the discussion comes down not so much to "should people look for problems with caches" as "should people report problems with caches in a transparent way". In fact, we have no way to know how many people might already be sending reports of caches with "issues" to the rveiewers like this every week/month etc.

 

true, and yes, I could also e-mail the reviewers. However, I don't see a problem with 'transparent reporting'. The issue is more with folk's interpretation of the log. There are always negative connotations associated with an NA log (which is primarily down to the name I should think) which shouldn't necessarily be the case. At the end of the day, i treat NA logs (on my caches and one's I've posted on) as a hopefully helpful reminder to the owner, and doubles up as a notification to the reviewer, in case the owner isn't around or isn't responding.

 

I firmly believe that Needs Archiving should be renamed to soemhting less confrontational (Needs Action?) which would encourage people to use it a little more, and remove the negative aspect. Maybe a third level of notification could be introduced (Needs Urgent Attention) for those that require immediate attention. As I can't see that happening anytime soon, we'll just have to put up with what we've got.

[+currykev]

This thread can be locked now.

 

 

Who has lost the keys?

[Alan White]

I firmly believe that Needs Archiving should be renamed to soemhting less confrontational (Needs Action?) which would encourage people to use it a little more, and remove the negative aspect. Maybe a third level of notification could be introduced (Needs Urgent Attention) for those that require immediate attention.

The reason for the introduction of the Needs Maintenance log was to provide that intermediate level (between Note and SBA). As you point out, that can't be used on a disabled cache and in any case would be pointless since a disabled listing obviously needs maintenance (Needs Attention might be a better phrase). Experience would suggest that a cache owner will often - let's be kind and say - postpone action required as a result of a Note, or even a NM. But an SBA will usually, as in this case, result in something happening.

 

I do agree that Needs Archiving might be better named as Requires Reviewer Action or similar. I'm not sure that doing so would remove the negative connotation though. Any such log is really saying "I don't think you're looking after your cache so I'm reporting it to someone who has the authority to do something about it". Sometimes such a comment will be taken negatively even though it's really just a helpful reminder.

 

As for the transparency aspect, the reviewers have often said that they prefer issues to be raised by the appropriate logs rather by email. I understand it's easier for them to deal with that way. Doing so also brings the issue to the attention of any potential finders and, often, local cachers who can do something about it and thereby save the cache owner a visit.

[+drdick&vick]

The main reason for the 'max distance form home for setting a cache' ruling was to ensure that you are close enough to be able to do any needed maintainance that is needed on any cache that you own and therefore stops it from becoming trash instead of cache.

 

I think that we need to view this thread as a reminder to cache owners of their responsibility and not as a means of having yet another moan at a cacher who is trying to help the caching community.

[+Pharisee]

The main reason for the 'max distance form home for setting a cache' ruling was to ensure that you are close enough to be able to do any needed maintainance that is needed on any cache that you own and therefore stops it from becoming trash instead of cache.

 

I'm not sure that there is a maximum distance 'ruling'. From my experience it's been down to individual negotiation with the Reviewer. If a cache was submitted that was obviously off your home turf, based on your home co-ordinates, it was up to you to convince the Reviewer that suitable provision for maintenance had been made. If they were satisfied, then distance from home was no obstacle to the cache being published.

[+drdick&vick]

Point taken but the main point still stands, if you are not prepared to maintain it don't place it.

[+careygang]

The main reason for the 'max distance form home for setting a cache' ruling was to ensure that you are close enough to be able to do any needed maintainance that is needed on any cache that you own and therefore stops it from becoming trash instead of cache.

 

I'm not sure that there is a maximum distance 'ruling'. From my experience it's been down to individual negotiation with the Reviewer. If a cache was submitted that was obviously off your home turf, based on your home co-ordinates, it was up to you to convince the Reviewer that suitable provision for maintenance had been made. If they were satisfied, then distance from home was no obstacle to the cache being published.

Within the limits of what are regarded as 'rules' for this activity, the key sentence is this...

 

It may be difficult to fulfill your maintenance obligations if you place a cache while traveling on vacation or otherwise outside of your normal caching area. These caches may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan.

 

Now of course the use of 'may' can be taken as 'might', or 'could' or even 'will'. It all depends on the intent of the author rather than the perception of the reader. Add in the transatlantic nature of this subject, and it becomes anyone's guess.

 

Personally I would like this to use the word 'will' since I'm an engineer by profession and I prefer the unambiguous in written text. Use of the word 'may' twice in this text is far too vague for my upbringing.

 

So you are right, it is down to the interaction with the reviewer and even how strictly the reviewer interprets this key phrase. My post #31 illustrated a good example; perhaps that owner at the time of placing had a relative in the area who could maintain it for them, or perhaps they came here every month on business, but to live in Maine and have a cache in Nevada is a bit of a long stretch (it's a 4 or 5 hour flight).

[ISCADUM]

Point taken but the main point still stands, if you are not prepared to maintain it don't place it.

 

Hmmmmmm...... ????

 

I am on a long holiday in Cornwal near TRuro and have found a few good places to place cahes but cant as I am to far from home. I have noticed that some people have placed caches and got them adopted for maintaining. How can I go about finding a kind person to do this for me.

[NickPick]

Point taken but the main point still stands, if you are not prepared to maintain it don't place it.

 

Hmmmmmm...... ????

 

I am on a long holiday in Cornwal near TRuro and have found a few good places to place cahes but cant as I am to far from home. I have noticed that some people have placed caches and got them adopted for maintaining. How can I go about finding a kind person to do this for me.

 

Perhaps DrDick&Vick should have re-read his post with his pedantic hat on and phrased it as "If you are not prepared to ensure its maintenance, don't place it"

 

<sarcasm>How foolish of him not to anticipate someone pointing out how he's contradicted himself in a post from 4 months ago! </sarcasm>

 

He was looking for someone to maintain a cache for him, which shows that he did want it maintained. There have been many in the past which have been abandoned as litter, which is why we have the 'holiday caches' rule.

Edited November 18, 2008 by NickPick

[+PopUpPirate]

FWIW, I think that emailing PP direct would have definitely been the right course of action. An SBA log shouldn't be taken as a personal sleight!

 

Of course, if a cache can't be maintained in the required timeframe then it'll get archived. If, however, the cache gets replaced at a later date, a quick mail to a reviewer will soon have it unarchived for you.

[+MissJenn]

Closing as per the OP's request. The conversation has continued elsewhere.