Replace It or Archive It, Please

[Boneman65]

My first gripe. Here it goes.

 

As I learn more about this sport, and have now gotten to the point where I'm starting to place caches of my own, one of the most frustrating things I've come across is caches that have been disabled but not archived or replanted. We have caches in our area that have been crossed out for months, and are still sitting there reserving the spot. Meanwhile, the area is unavailable for anybody else to use.

 

Caches get disturbed, that's part of the game. So if you're not able or willing to maintain them in a timely manner, you might want to think twice about planting them in the first place.

 

Grrr.

[+Cardinal Red]

My first gripe. Here it goes.

 

As I learn more about this sport, and have now gotten to the point where I'm starting to place caches of my own, one of the most frustrating things I've come across is caches that have been disabled but not archived or replanted. We have caches in our area that have been crossed out for months, and are still sitting there reserving the spot. Meanwhile, the area is unavailable for anybody else to use.

 

Caches get disturbed, that's part of the game. So if you're not able or willing to maintain them in a timely manner, you might want to think twice about planting them in the first place.

 

Grrr.

 

I you feel that strongly about it, AFTER YOU LOOK FOR IT, post your result (Found or DNF), and a Needs Archived log.

[Boneman65]

 

I you feel that strongly about it, AFTER YOU LOOK FOR IT, post your result (Found or DNF), and a Needs Archived log.

 

Yes, except they've already disabled it, acknowledging that it's gone. They just haven't replaced it yet, and they haven't archived it either. Many of these go back to May, and some before that.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Boneman65

[+DragonsWest]

Once I had a load of coordinates in my GPSr for months and just got around to looking. One which was DNF'd a lot I found. Not all which are not found are lost.

[Boneman65]

Once I had a load of coordinates in my GPSr for months and just got around to looking. One which was DNF'd a lot I found. Not all which are not found are lost.

 

True. But as I stated in my first post, and again in my second, these caches have been disabled. They're not there, and haven't been for a long time.

[+OldLog]

I have come across more than a few that you know are gone and the owner doesn't do anything about it. Check on them fund they haven't logged in for many moons

[+Sagefox]

 

I you feel that strongly about it, AFTER YOU LOOK FOR IT, post your result (Found or DNF), and a Needs Archived log.

 

Yes, except they've already disabled it, acknowledging that it's gone. They just haven't replaced it yet, and they haven't archived it either. Many of these go back to May, and some before that.

 

You might have missed the red bird's point here. Posting a Should Be Archived (SBA) will get the attention of a volunteer reviewer. For the conditions you have stated this usually leads to a note on the cache page by the reviewer letting the cache owner know that they should fix this situation. Commonly the reviewer will check back in 30 days and if no action has been taken they will likely archive the cache. Post you SBA and then put the cache on your watchlist.

 

SBA. It is a helpful tool but use it sparingly.

[+WRASTRO]

I have a suggestion: more patience.

 

I have a question: have you tried contacting the cache owners and inquiring as to their intentions for these caches? No sense in beating on a horse here if you haven't at least tried to open the communication channel with the cache owners.

[+BigFurryMonster]

1. Contact cache owner

wait

2. Place 'Request Archived' log

wait

3. Contact local reviewer

[+Rross1973]

I have a cache in my local area... GCYBHK. It was disabled on March 9, 2009. The reviewer posted a note on July 9, 2009 that they would review it in two weeks. Being today is August 10th, nothing has been done. This one should have been archived long, long ago because the last person found it was back on May 10, 2008.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

It's possible that the reviewer has been in contact with the cache owner and that they are working on a plan to fix the cache. I know that in my area, the reviewers periodically sweep through the disabled cache listings. They give a certain amount of time for the cache to be fixed and then if it's not fixed, it's archived. The amount of time given varies in different areas, so just be patient. Life gets in the way sometimes.

[+gpsfun]

I have a cache in my local area... GCYBHK. It was disabled on March 9, 2009. The reviewer posted a note on July 9, 2009 that they would review it in two weeks. Being today is August 10th, nothing has been done. This one should have been archived long, long ago because the last person found it was back on May 10, 2008.

I would not be surprised to see the cache page archived soon if the cache owner continues to fail to respond.

 

There are often good reasons for cache owners to be a bit slow in responding to cache maintenance requests including personal life issues, the current economic woes, etc. Hard as it may be to understand, geocaching is not everyone's first priority - or perhaps it once was before something else got in the way.

[+sbell111]

 

I you feel that strongly about it, AFTER YOU LOOK FOR IT, post your result (Found or DNF), and a Needs Archived log.

 

Yes, except they've already disabled it, acknowledging that it's gone. They just haven't replaced it yet, and they haven't archived it either. Many of these go back to May, and some before that.

Disabling a cache is not necessarily an acknowledgement that it is missing. It is merely an acknowledgement that there is an issue.

 

I've disabled mine because the area wasn't accessible, or because there was flooding which had teh potential for unacceptable danger, or because it was reported to be missing (but wasn't, but I didn't know that until I checked it out).

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I have a cache in my local area... GCYBHK. It was disabled on March 9, 2009. The reviewer posted a note on July 9, 2009 that they would review it in two weeks. Being today is August 10th, nothing has been done. This one should have been archived long, long ago because the last person found it was back on May 10, 2008.

I would not be surprised to see the cache page archived soon if the cache owner continues to fail to respond.

 

There are often good reasons for cache owners to be a bit slow in responding to cache maintenance requests including personal life issues, the current economic woes, etc. Hard as it may be to understand, geocaching is not everyone's first priority - or perhaps it once was before something else got in the way.

Probably the same reasons why the volunteer reviewer didn't get back to it in exactly two weeks.

[+mchaos]

Personally I had a cache muggled. Its not far away, but with work and daily chores I wasn't able to get out to check it in a week.

 

Some times its not convenient for some one to go out right away, also, the person may be making a special container, or planing some thing new, Like a multi or something. May need time to get it all together. You never know.

 

Sounds like its a nice spot, and you really like it. You may not get a chance to use it.

 

I have a hide that needs maintenance. It is still findable so I have not disabled it. It may get disabled by a reviewer, although I did write a log to explain what I am doing, but if it gets disabled tomorrow, it wouldn't get replaced for a bit. I do have plans for it but its not something I can whip up tomorrow.

 

things like this happen from time to time.

 

More over, There was a hide I looked for that was not there, and where it was hidden, no doubt it was muggled. I tried contact the co, but no answer. He hadn't logged in for almost a year. So I posted a reviewer note. It took a month, but now the cache is gone. Now I just have to come up with a great cache to hide in that area.

[Skippermark]

Once I had a load of coordinates in my GPSr for months and just got around to looking. One which was DNF'd a lot I found. Not all which are not found are lost.

 

True. But as I stated in my first post, and again in my second, these caches have been disabled. They're not there, and haven't been for a long time.

If they've been disabled for a long time, I'd post a Should be Archived and then let the reviewer/cache owner work it out.

 

Edited to add missing word.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Skippermark

[+ecanderson]

I've had some gripes with placing caches out here in the Denver area, but something good I've noticed is that our two reviewers tend to stay on top of disabled caches. If they hang fire for too long, they'll get archived. "Too" obviously has variability, no doubt including email exchanges with owners, but they don't sit around forever here as they can do in some places.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As I learn more about this sport, and have now gotten to the point where I'm starting to place caches of my own, one of the most frustrating things I've come across is caches that have been disabled but not archived or replanted. We have caches in our area that have been crossed out for months, and are still sitting there reserving the spot. Meanwhile, the area is unavailable for anybody else to use.

 

As noted by others: Just because a cache is 'inactive' does not mean that it is missing. You seem to have a misconception that 'inactive' means 'missing'. I had one inactive for six months while the town (slowly) rebuilt the park. When they finished, the cache was still in place, and I reactivated it. Another, I had inactive for six months, pending repairs to the area. When it became apparent that repairs were not going to begin before the millenium, I archived it, and placed a new one nearby. Rebuilding of another park took well over a year.

There are several caches nearby 'inactive' due to white nose syndrome. No one knows how that's going to play out. I know cachers who mark their caches 'unavailable' during hunting season.

There are many reasons for a cache to be 'inactive' for prolonged times. That is between the cache owner and the reviewer.

On the other fin, we do see caches with 'SBA' for a damp log. Sad, because the cache is still viable. When the CO does not respond with maintenance, they can and will be archived (with a functioing cache still in place.)

I think you'd be better off seeking another area in which to hide your cache.

[Boneman65]

As I learn more about this sport, and have now gotten to the point where I'm starting to place caches of my own, one of the most frustrating things I've come across is caches that have been disabled but not archived or replanted. We have caches in our area that have been crossed out for months, and are still sitting there reserving the spot. Meanwhile, the area is unavailable for anybody else to use.

 

As noted by others: Just because a cache is 'inactive' does not mean that it is missing. You seem to have a misconception that 'inactive' means 'missing'. I had one inactive for six months while the town (slowly) rebuilt the park. When they finished, the cache was still in place, and I reactivated it. Another, I had inactive for six months, pending repairs to the area. When it became apparent that repairs were not going to begin before the millenium, I archived it, and placed a new one nearby. Rebuilding of another park took well over a year.

There are several caches nearby 'inactive' due to white nose syndrome. No one knows how that's going to play out. I know cachers who mark their caches 'unavailable' during hunting season.

There are many reasons for a cache to be 'inactive' for prolonged times. That is between the cache owner and the reviewer.

On the other fin, we do see caches with 'SBA' for a damp log. Sad, because the cache is still viable. When the CO does not respond with maintenance, they can and will be archived (with a functioing cache still in place.)

I think you'd be better off seeking another area in which to hide your cache.

 

You're right, of course, and I appreciate your response. But I wonder if we're picking apart the wording of my concern, instead of addressing the intent. Which is, namely, cachers who are remiss in maintaining their hides because they can't or won't make the time when none of the factors you mentioned are in play. Perhaps I should have stated that a little more clearly. I'm a reasonable guy, and I certainly understand the concept of extenuating circumstances. But I think it can also safely be said that that isn't always the case, and that a significant number of disabled caches suffer from simple neglect and nothing more. Those are the ones with which I am at issue.

[+gof1]

I just posted an SBA on a cache yesterday. The cache is a micro just slightly larger than match safe. One end has been busted out of it for over a year. The original log is a moldy wad of wet paper. The log that someone added is not much better. The owner has not logged in since April. As the cache had a needs maintenance log nearly a year old at that time it is obvious that the owner wasn't going to fix it. I could have fixed it for him but decided that I would rather see someone else have a shot at placing a cache in that location. Maybe they will keep up with the repairs. Then again the SBA may just be the poke in the ribs that gets the owner to step up and fix this long neglected cache.

[+Mr&MrsCrowley]

I don't have any issues with " disabled" caches because as many have said there could be underlying issues we don't know about .

 

What I do have an issue with is CO's who don't / won't maintain their caches despite numerous logs stating caches need maintenance / log book is full / cache is wet .

 

We have a cacher in the city I live in whom we have put on our " do not do these caches " list . They are always damp and 90% of them are hidden in garbage ridden areas . Definitely a cacher who hides purely for the " numbers " as opposed to bringing fellows cachers to a place of importance / view .

 

Before someone tells me to quit complaining and practice CITO ..... I would need a city garbage truck to clean up his areas .

 

Easier just to put him on the " list " and move on to the caches with CO's that care .

 

[+paleolith]

I would rather see someone else have a shot at placing a cache in that location. ... Then again the SBA may just be the poke in the ribs that gets the owner to step up and fix this long neglected cache.

Yep, I've seen it work both ways. When I write an SBA, I try to word it like "I'd be delighted to see the cache repaired/replaced, but it needs to be done soon or let it go". Sometimes it goes, sometimes it gets fixed. (The exception to this nicety is when the SBA is due to a cache placed on NPS land -- I still try to be nice about it, but that's a totally different situation.)

 

Edward

[+bittsen]

I submitted my first SBA today Didn't want to but when an urban cache has been several DNFd and no finds since before February and it's an easy location, it is gone!

It sort of pisses me off that I wasted my time going after a cache that has obviously been MIA for 6 months.

[+DragonsWest]

Murphy's Law of Archival & Cache Placement: As soon as you get that thing archived by a reviewer some weasel will have jumped in with their own cache.

 

Has happened. You just know it's going to happen again.

[+Scubasonic]

My first gripe. Here it goes.

 

As I learn more about this sport, and have now gotten to the point where I'm starting to place caches of my own, one of the most frustrating things I've come across is caches that have been disabled but not archived or replanted. We have caches in our area that have been crossed out for months, and are still sitting there reserving the spot. Meanwhile, the area is unavailable for anybody else to use.

 

Caches get disturbed, that's part of the game. So if you're not able or willing to maintain them in a timely manner, you might want to think twice about planting them in the first place.

 

Grrr.

 

Put a watch on it send the reviewer that submitted the cache a note, he will in-turn archive it if he has not got a favorable response from the CO in a month or 2 more.......... but that's all you can do, or you could ask the cache owner if he would archive it so you can put out a cache.

 

Scubasonic

[+power69]

Murphy's Law of Archival & Cache Placement: As soon as you get that thing archived by a reviewer some weasel will have jumped in with their own cache.

 

Has happened. You just know it's going to happen again.

I got my eye on one like that. perfect spot for a regular or large and this ones been disabled for months.

it might need repairs or was muggled course i would have no qualms about placing a cache there since owner may/may not want to replace it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I submitted my first SBA today Didn't want to but when an urban cache has been several DNFd and no finds since before February and it's an easy location, it is gone!

It sort of pisses me off that I wasted my time going after a cache that has obviously been MIA for 6 months.

 

Sometimes they're fun to hunt just to see if it's still there. But, if it has several DNFs since February, reading the cache page would tell you that. Then you wouldn't be surprised when you didn't find it? I've found a few like that. They can be fun and challenging! (And mention of elimination of bodily fluids is rather crude for a family friendly forum...)

[+bittsen]

I submitted my first SBA today Didn't want to but when an urban cache has been several DNFd and no finds since before February and it's an easy location, it is gone!

It sort of pisses me off that I wasted my time going after a cache that has obviously been MIA for 6 months.

 

Sometimes they're fun to hunt just to see if it's still there. But, if it has several DNFs since February, reading the cache page would tell you that. Then you wouldn't be surprised when you didn't find it? I've found a few like that. They can be fun and challenging! (And mention of elimination of bodily fluids is rather crude for a family friendly forum...)

 

Blah blah blah...

[+gof1]

I have no problem using the Needs Archive log when I feel it is required. It isn't like that actually archives the cache. All it does is bring the cache to the reviewers attention for further review. If I am right in my assumption then a space is opened for a new cache. If I am wrong I caused the reviewer a few minutes effort. Sorry guys. You're doing a heck of a job.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I submitted my first SBA today Didn't want to but when an urban cache has been several DNFd and no finds since before February and it's an easy location, it is gone!

It sort of pisses me off that I wasted my time going after a cache that has obviously been MIA for 6 months.

 

Sometimes they're fun to hunt just to see if it's still there. But, if it has several DNFs since February, reading the cache page would tell you that. Then you wouldn't be surprised when you didn't find it? I've found a few like that. They can be fun and challenging! (And mention of elimination of bodily fluids is rather crude for a family friendly forum...)

 

Blah blah blah...

 

Wow! What an insightful response. I shall have to ponder that!

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Let's keep it family friendly and in accordance with the Forum Guidelines. Thanks.

[+bittsen]

Let's keep it family friendly and in accordance with the Forum Guidelines. Thanks.

 

I agree and using slang language that has nothing to do with bodily fluids is not against the guidelines, as far as I know.

 

Many words have many meanings and to take a word out of context and putting it as an example is detrimental to the forums, IMHO.

 

We could add the proper term for a female dog, used appropriately, or that odd donkey animal, if used properly in context, that place that's mentioned many times in the bible, or even that game we play with dice in Vegas.

 

Language is funny that way, isn't it?

[+WRASTRO]

Let's keep it family friendly and in accordance with the Forum Guidelines. Thanks.

 

I agree and using slang language that has nothing to do with bodily fluids is not against the guidelines, as far as I know.

 

Many words have many meanings and to take a word out of context and putting it as an example is detrimental to the forums, IMHO.

 

We could add the proper term for a female dog, used appropriately, or that odd donkey animal, if used properly in context, that place that's mentioned many times in the bible, or even that game we play with dice in Vegas.

 

Language is funny that way, isn't it?

How about one of your recent favorites?

 

Thanks for keeping your posts on topic and adding to the discussion. Not a quote but paraphrasing.

 

Since I always read the cache page before I hunt any cache I would know if one had not been found since February and had a string of DNF logs. No one to blame but myself if I chose to go hunt said cache and didn't find it. Might be unhappy with myself for choosing to go after a cache with very little chance of finding it. Certainly wouldn't have any cause to be unhappy with anyone else due to my own decisions and choices.

[knowschad]

Sometimes they're fun to hunt just to see if it's still there. But, if it has several DNFs since February, reading the cache page would tell you that.

 

My friend, Bobcam LOVES to look for caches like that. The longer they have gone unfound, the happier he is when he finds 'em. He's very good at it, too. He also enjoys finding archived caches that were never picked up by the cache owner, even when said cache owner has since hidden another cache 20 feet from the old one.

[+bittsen]

Since I always read the cache page before I hunt any cache I would know if one had not been found since February and had a string of DNF logs. No one to blame but myself if I chose to go hunt said cache and didn't find it. Might be unhappy with myself for choosing to go after a cache with very little chance of finding it. Certainly wouldn't have any cause to be unhappy with anyone else due to my own decisions and choices.

 

The thing is, some people (myself included) will load a bunch of caches and cache on a whim. Not go after a certain cache but head to a certain area and go caching. I look at my GPSr and find one the right size and then go for it. Part of the fun for me is not knowing what I am going after until I get to the location near the cache.

I wait till I am at GZ or close to read the description and read the logs only if I need to for hints, or see if it has been found recently (when I'm stumped). Then I will read the hint if needed.

When I get to the point that I am actually searching the cache, and spend 5-10 minutes looking before reading the logs, when I DO read the logs and see that its not there, well.... I'm miffed. (is miffed going to offend anyone now?)

 

It's just the way I cache.

[+WRASTRO]

Since I always read the cache page before I hunt any cache I would know if one had not been found since February and had a string of DNF logs. No one to blame but myself if I chose to go hunt said cache and didn't find it. Might be unhappy with myself for choosing to go after a cache with very little chance of finding it. Certainly wouldn't have any cause to be unhappy with anyone else due to my own decisions and choices.

 

The thing is, some people (myself included) will load a bunch of caches and cache on a whim. Not go after a certain cache but head to a certain area and go caching. I look at my GPSr and find one the right size and then go for it. Part of the fun for me is not knowing what I am going after until I get to the location near the cache.

I wait till I am at GZ or close to read the description and read the logs only if I need to for hints, or see if it has been found recently (when I'm stumped). Then I will read the hint if needed.

When I get to the point that I am actually searching the cache, and spend 5-10 minutes looking before reading the logs, when I DO read the logs and see that its not there, well.... I'm miffed. (is miffed going to offend anyone now?)

 

It's just the way I cache.

So don't be unhappy with the CO because of the way you choose to cache. Be miffed at yourself because you make a choice that leaves you open to searching for caches that have very little chance of being found.

[+bittsen]

Since I always read the cache page before I hunt any cache I would know if one had not been found since February and had a string of DNF logs. No one to blame but myself if I chose to go hunt said cache and didn't find it. Might be unhappy with myself for choosing to go after a cache with very little chance of finding it. Certainly wouldn't have any cause to be unhappy with anyone else due to my own decisions and choices.

 

The thing is, some people (myself included) will load a bunch of caches and cache on a whim. Not go after a certain cache but head to a certain area and go caching. I look at my GPSr and find one the right size and then go for it. Part of the fun for me is not knowing what I am going after until I get to the location near the cache.

I wait till I am at GZ or close to read the description and read the logs only if I need to for hints, or see if it has been found recently (when I'm stumped). Then I will read the hint if needed.

When I get to the point that I am actually searching the cache, and spend 5-10 minutes looking before reading the logs, when I DO read the logs and see that its not there, well.... I'm miffed. (is miffed going to offend anyone now?)

 

It's just the way I cache.

So don't be unhappy with the CO because of the way you choose to cache. Be miffed at yourself because you make a choice that leaves you open to searching for caches that have very little chance of being found.

 

I think you just like to argue. I seem to recall you standing up against those who don't maintain their caches and yet now you say that it's my fault.

I can't argue that it's my fault for not checking the logs to see if it's less likely to be found but the fact remains that the cache appears to be missing for 6 months and yet its still listed as active. No matter how I search, that one should have been archived a long time ago since the CO clearly isn't bothering to keep it alive.

 

Besides, I am entitled to be upset if I want to be.

[+WRASTRO]

I really don't like to argue. You can believe that or not. I completely agree the cache you mention should likely have been archived long ago. Your stated method of caching resulted in you searching for a cache that was very likely not there. Be unhappy with the CO for not doing the right thing. Take responsibility for your own actions which led to you searching for the cache. Same opinion as in the other thread you refer to. Take responsibility for your own actions.

 

I still advocate attempting to contact the CO before posting an SBA. But that is just my opinion.

[+bittsen]

I really don't like to argue. You can believe that or not. I completely agree the cache you mention should likely have been archived long ago. Your stated method of caching resulted in you searching for a cache that was very likely not there. Be unhappy with the CO for not doing the right thing. Take responsibility for your own actions which led to you searching for the cache. Same opinion as in the other thread you refer to. Take responsibility for your own actions.

 

I still advocate attempting to contact the CO before posting an SBA. But that is just my opinion.

 

I do take responsibility for my own caching style but since I don't have a problem with my caching style, I only brought forth the inconsiderate actions (or inactions) of the cache owner.

 

In fact, I remarked to my caching buddy that I should check the logs before I look for these missing caches. But, as I said, thats not the issue nor pertinent to this thread, is it?

[+texasgrillchef]

I have a cache in my local area... GCYBHK. It was disabled on March 9, 2009. The reviewer posted a note on July 9, 2009 that they would review it in two weeks. Being today is August 10th, nothing has been done. This one should have been archived long, long ago because the last person found it was back on May 10, 2008.

 

Then it's time to issue a SBA & leave it at that!

 

TGC

[+texasgrillchef]

This is just my opinion....

 

Personally I feel that in life "S**T" happens sometimes. Because of this cache/hides sometimes need to be disabled &/or archived from time to time.

 

Now... when "S**T" happens.... should a cache be disabled or archived. Well...

 

1. If the CO has honest intentions of "Fixing" the issue with the cache, then in that case the cache should be disabled. However... if the CO knows that he won't be able to "Fix" the issue, &/or has no desire to ever fix the issue. Then in that case the cache SHOULD be archived & NOT just disabled.

 

2. If a cache is disabled. A reasonable time should be given for the CO to "FIX" the issue at hand. At the time the cache is disabled, the CO SHOULD leave a log as to WHY the cache was disabled. If it is known that because of the "ISSUE" at hand that the issue will cause an EXTRA delay in getting the cache fixed, then the CO should say so in the log as well. NO cache should be disabled for LONGER than 30 days, UNLESS an unusual circumstance is involved.

 

3. Caches that have been disabled for longer than 30 days WITHOUT an unusual circumstance should be reviewed by the local reviewer & that reviewer should contact the CO about the future of this cache. If the local reviwer doesn't get a response within 14 days or doesn't obtain a reasonable solution for this cache, then the reviwer should archive the cache.

 

4. In those circumstances that the reviewer has not reviewed the disabled cache, or has not had contact with the CO. In other words because the reviewer has been busy themselvs. Then users (us) should initiate an SBA OR... contact the CO to see if they are willing to allow you to ADOPT their cache. At which point if you adopt their cache you can make changes as needed, or as you see fit.

 

This is only my opinion though.

 

however... in my neck of the woods.. there have been 2 cache's that have been disabled for OVER 90 days. I initiated contact on both of them offering to ADOPT both of them. One one I got no response back after an additional 30 days. (Which made the cache disabled for 120 days). I then initiated an SBA on.. As of today it's still archived. The other the CO contacted me back, said he would have it fixed in 2 weeks, & now... it's back online and available again.

 

TGC

Edited August 12, 2009 by texasgrillchef

[Boneman65]

 

I still advocate attempting to contact the CO before posting an SBA. But that is just my opinion.

 

If a cache has been MIA for six months, I don't see any obligation on my part to send the CO a courtesy call. If they're not paying attention enough to even temporarily disable the listing after that amount of time, then I'll be more than happy to deal with the issue on their behalf.

[+sbell111]

I still advocate attempting to contact the CO before posting an SBA. But that is just my opinion.

If a cache has been MIA for six months, I don't see any obligation on my part to send the CO a courtesy call. If they're not paying attention enough to even temporarily disable the listing after that amount of time, then I'll be more than happy to deal with the issue on their behalf.

You know that submitting an SBA doesn't actually 'deal with the issue', right? It merely requests that a reviewer look into a situation. It's very likely that the reviewer will ask the cache owner 'what's up' and the cache owner will give a reasonable reason why the cache has remained disabled. Had you bothered to send the cache owner an email about the cache that you were so curious about, the reviewer would not need to get involved. As a bonus, it's more neighborly to your local cache owner, a person you actually have to associate with locally.

[Boneman65]

I still advocate attempting to contact the CO before posting an SBA. But that is just my opinion.

If a cache has been MIA for six months, I don't see any obligation on my part to send the CO a courtesy call. If they're not paying attention enough to even temporarily disable the listing after that amount of time, then I'll be more than happy to deal with the issue on their behalf.

You know that submitting an SBA doesn't actually 'deal with the issue', right? It merely requests that a reviewer look into a situation. It's very likely that the reviewer will ask the cache owner 'what's up' and the cache owner will give a reasonable reason why the cache has remained disabled. Had you bothered to send the cache owner an email about the cache that you were so curious about, the reviewer would not need to get involved. As a bonus, it's more neighborly to your local cache owner, a person you actually have to associate with locally.

 

You know that there isn't always a reasonable explanation though, right? And that sometimes CO's just procrastinate because they can't be bothered? These are the ones I'm talking about, not the ones with the reasonable explanation. I think this makes three times in this thread that I've made that distinction.

 

And in my thread that you've quoted, I specifically mention caches that have gone missing that haven't even been disabled yet.

Edited August 12, 2009 by Boneman65

[Quizes]

We are a friendly caching population where I live...if a cache needs maintenance, the next person to the cache will replace the container/log..etc and contact the CO that they did so. We believe in the pay it forward motto.

 

Recently we have a new cacher in the area who logs lots of NM & SBAs with his DNF postings. (Almost demanding that the cache be removed from the searchable database without offering his assistance or even a reason why he wants the CO to do so) Often his DNF then NM then SBA will come within a matter of days.

 

Don't be that guy.

[Boneman65]

We are a friendly caching population where I live...if a cache needs maintenance, the next person to the cache will replace the container/log..etc and contact the CO that they did so. We believe in the pay it forward motto.

 

Recently we have a new cacher in the area who logs lots of NM & SBAs with his DNF postings. (Almost demanding that the cache be removed from the searchable database without offering his assistance or even a reason why he wants the CO to do so) Often his DNF then NM then SBA will come within a matter of days.

 

Don't be that guy.

 

No worries there, matey. I don't plan to be

 

This isn't a hill to die on as far as I'm concerned, I was just thinking out loud. Most cache owners are conscientious and responsible, and I was only expressing an opinion on the few who aren't. These are the ones who never pay attention to the logs, never check in on their caches after a series of DNF's, don't disable caches that have gone missing, and don't archive disabled caches they have no intention of replacing.

 

In the process I think I opened a can of worms, which was not my intention.

[+gof1]

What can-o-worms? This is just a bit of semi-lively debate. As far as I can tel nobody has started throwing food yet.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If a cache has been MIA for six months, I don't see any obligation on my part to send the CO a courtesy call. If they're not paying attention enough to even temporarily disable the listing after that amount of time, then I'll be more than happy to deal with the issue on their behalf.

 

We don't know that the cache is actually missing. Only that it hasn't been found in six months. Several DNFs do not mean that the cache is actually missing.

[Boneman65]

If a cache has been MIA for six months, I don't see any obligation on my part to send the CO a courtesy call. If they're not paying attention enough to even temporarily disable the listing after that amount of time, then I'll be more than happy to deal with the issue on their behalf.

 

We don't know that the cache is actually missing. Only that it hasn't been found in six months. Several DNFs do not mean that the cache is actually missing.

 

Of course. But just for fun, let's assume something, for the sake of making the point I set out to make when I started this thread. Let's say:

 

1) CO hides a simple store bought magnetic lock box under a park bench, with a 1/1 rating. It's his 65th hide.

2) After a year, the logs show 28 finds, 1 DNF

3) Suddenly, over the course of an two-month period, six consecutive DNF's are logged.

4) People stop looking. Another 3 months go by, and the CO disables the listing, and posts the following note: "Looks like this cache has been muggled. I'll have it back up within the week."

5) Six months later, the cache is still disabled with no further notes from the CO

6) The CO has seven other caches in similar states of neglect, and four more with at least five DNF's in a row

 

Does this sound familiar? Is this CO acting responsibly? Do I owe him a courtesy call before I post a SBA ? Should he be allowed to publish any further hides before he responds to these ones?

[Clan Riffster]

At the time the cache is disabled, the CO SHOULD leave a log as to WHY the cache was disabled. If it is known that because of the "ISSUE" at hand that the issue will cause an EXTRA delay in getting the cache fixed, then the CO should say so in the log as well.

Agreed, completely. Communication between the cache owner and the local reviewers is a great way to keep everybody up to speed on what is happening with a particular cache. This communication can easily take the form of a note on the cache page, explaining the circumstances. That way, when the reviewer takes a gander at a cache that has been disabled for a while, they will know what's up. Great advice!