Jump to content

Quarterly Sweeps for unfound caches


addisonbr
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

If CacheDrone is a reviewer, is the note posted on the cache pages something that is not related to reviewer duties but rather something that is being done for personal reasons as indicated by the recent reply of wanting to be sure before CacheDrone goes after them in the Spring?

I've never seen a listing of reviewers' duties. However, based on many discussions here, it's clear that those duties include not only publishing submitted caches, but also monitoring the general state of caches and caching, and that individual reviewers are given quite a bit of latitude in doing so. CacheDrone is trying a novel approach to try to improve one facet of the state of caching in hisser area. Will it work? Dunno. I agree with the concept that a string of DNFs which is incongruent with the difficulty of the cache and the experience of the seekers will definitely discourage others from seeking it. Whether this technique works, we'll see. As long as no forced action is taken, I see it as mostly innocuous. (Mostly: if it were my cache, I might ask CacheDrone if s/he minded my simply deleting the log, rather than posting OM, to avoid clutter. But that's not a big deal.)

 

In addition, it's clear that reviewers have a private forum, as they should. They probably discuss proposed techniques for helping to keep areas clean. They may have discussed this one, or may discuss it after the experiment. More power to them. I hope we hear the results.

 

Edward

Link to comment

My tin-foil-hat prediction was right on the money. I'm amazed at how many people bought into the FAKE quote that Nozzletime apparently pulled out of his posterior, and acted as if it were fact.

 

The note is just a reminder to the owners of a group of caches that might have issues. No action was threatened. But apparently that fact isn't enough for some idiots people. You now have to tell them that there will be no action, to prevent them from thinking the sky is going to fall. What other things do you have to be told won't happen?

 

This is just sad. Get a life, everybody. If this is the best you can come up with to start a controversy, then you suck at starting controversies.

 

I think that's kind of harsh! I really didn't see tin foil hat people buying into the "fake quote", just a lot of bickering between a couple of people.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment
This is just sad. Get a life, everybody. If this is the best you can come up with to start a controversy, then you suck at starting controversies.

Well done. Name calling, insulting everyone indiscriminately. In a jolly mood, I see. I'm debating whether I should click on the "report post" button. Somehow, I expected better from you.

Link to comment

I think that's kind of harsh! I really didn't see tin foil hat people buying into the "fake quote", just a lot of bickering between a couple of people. And there really was a 2008 virtual cache massacre that happened in Ontario, and nowhere else. :rolleyes:

You keep talking of this like it's unique. There have been virtual cache sweeps before 2008, and after 2008. This one stands out for you because you noticed it. My own sweeps in Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere happened far earlier, in preparation for the launch of Waymarking.com.

 

I don't presently leave the sort of note that CacheDrone is trying out, but it's certainly within his powers to do so.

 

I do monthly sweeps of "temporarily disabled" caches, as do many other reviewers.

 

I am guessing I'm one of the few reviewers who "scrubs" all the caches in my territory to move missing trackables off the cache page inventory and into an "unknown location." It's within my powers to do so, and in my judgment, it serves the local community in a positive way.

 

There are other examples.

 

With the exception of reacting to "Needs Archived" logs, nothing is "mandated" to the reviewers when it comes to enforcing the "Cache Maintenance" guideline post-publication. Some do more than others.

Link to comment

"All cache owners must do a physical visit every 6 months if the cache has not been found."

I didn't see that in the guidelines that are being linked to.

 

I have a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months and is a 25K (15 mile) hike, I guess I am going to get a lot of exercise.

 

If this is not a new guideline, I would hope Groundspeak would have the reviewer remove all those notes.

 

Re: the bold text. Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say! :rolleyes: That is the second time you have done so in the public forums, and I expect you to exercise some restraint here after.

 

I will not be removing the notes as they were posted as a courtesy.

 

I do see the troubles putting MY thoughts in quotation marks has caused.

I am sorry and apologize if people read it as I quoted you CD.

Link to comment

.........to prevent them from thinking the sky is going to fall. What other things do you have to be told won't happen?

 

This is just sad. Get a life, everybody. If this is the best you can come up with to start a controversy, then you suck at starting controversies.

 

The sky has been falling for millions of years. Rain, sleet, hail all count as part of the sky, as well as asteroids, meteors, comets, Skylab in 1979, bird crap, fecal matter being released from airplanes, spent bullets from July 4th celebrations....plus other stuff:

 

 

The earliest reports of such happenings in America though dated back to 1828. It was said that after 10 to 12 days of rain, a partially dug ditch that belonged to a Joseph Muse of Cambridge, Maryland was found to contain hundreds of fish. The creatures ranged in size from four to seven inches long and were apparently jack perch and sun perch. There had been no water in the ditch before the rainfall and the nearest river was over a mile away. There was no explanation as to how they could have gotten there.

 

In 1833, something more unusual than fish fell from the sky over the town of Rahway, New Jersey. On November 13, locals saw what they described as “fiery rain” falling to the ground. When the glowing masses struck the ground, they turned into “lumps of jelly”. The lumps were said to be transparent and became round, flattened masses when they landed. Within hours, the jelly disintegrated and became a pile of small white particles that crumbled into dust when touched. The strange masses were reported at the same time that a meteor shower was taking place over the eastern United States and may have been connected to it in some way.

 

Troops stationed at an army post near San Francisco had their own encounters with strange objects from the sky on July 24, 1851. On that afternoon, soldiers who were on the drill field reported being pelted with spatters of blood and pieces of meat, that were apparently beef. The blood and meat fell from a cloudless sky and ranged in size from “a pigeon’s egg to that of an orange”. Several pieces of meat were given to the post surgeon and he described some of the slices as being slightly spoiled, as if they had been left out in the sun too long.

 

A similar event was said to have taken place in Simpson County, North Carolina on February 15 of that same year. Witnesses reported that pieces of flesh, liver, brains and blood rained down from the sky over an area that was roughly 30 feet wide and about 250 yards long.

 

On June 15, 1857 a farmer who lived in Ottawa, Illinois reported that he heard a hissing sound in the sky and he looked up to see a shower of cinders falling to the earth. They landed on the ground in a V-shaped pattern about 50 feet from where he was standing and caused the ground to steam and the grass to catch fire. The larger cinders buried themselves into the earth and even the smallest pieces were inserted into the ground at least partially. The farmer, whose name was Bradley, noticed a small, dense and dark cloud “hanging over the garden” at the time of the fall. The weather that day had been damp and a little rainy but no thunder or lightning had been reported.

 

The children of Lake County, California must have been happy on the nights of September 2 and 11, 1857. According to the History of Napa and Lake Counties by Lyman L. Palmer, a shower of candy apparently fell on some portions of the county on those evenings. The report states: “It is said that on both of these nights there fell a shower of candy or sugar. The crystals were from one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch in length and the size of a goose quill. Syrup was made of it by some of the lady residents of the section.”

 

Another shower of flesh and blood was reported in California on August 1, 1869. The shower occurred for three minutes and covered about two acres of J. Hudson’s farm near Los Nietos. The day was clear and windless and the bloody flesh fell in strips that were from one to six inches long. Many of them were reportedly covered with fine hairs, as if stripped from the body of an animal.

 

In August 1870, a deluge of “water lizards” hit Sacramento, California. The small animals were from two to eight inches long and alive when they hit the ground. The initial shower rained the lizards down so that they nearly covered the roof of the opera house. They slid down the building and into the rain spouts so that they covered the pavement around the building. The Sacramento Reporter stated that hundreds of them survived for several days in rainwater that flooded a partially dug cellar that was located nearby.

 

Main Street in Owingsville, Kentucky at the time of the mysterious Meat Falls of 1876.

 

One of the strangest stories of this sort took place on March 3, 1876 when flakes of meat fell over an area 100 yards long and 50 yards wide near the Bath, Kentucky home of Mr. and Mrs. Allen Crouch. The sky was clear at the time of the fall and the flakes of meat were described as being one to three or four inches square and appeared to be fresh beef. However, according to two gentlemen who (for some reason) decided to taste the meat, it was neither mutton nor venison.

 

Or perhaps it wasn’t meat at all - wrote Mr. Leopold Brandeis, whose article appeared on the strange fall in a July issue of the Sanitarian. He explained that the so-called “meat” was really nothing more than “nostic” - “a low form of vegetable substance”. He did not however, explain how this substance managed to fall from the sky. His opinion on the matter did not last for long for he was soon contacted by Dr. A. Mead Edwards, president of the Newark Scientific Association, who asked for a sample of the material that had been collected from Bath County. Brandeis was kind enough to give him the entire specimen, along with the information that he had obtained it from a doctor in Brooklyn, who had in turn been given it by a Professor Chandler.

 

Shortly after this, a letter from Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton was posted to the Medical Record, saying that he and Dr. J.W.S. Arnold had examined the material from the Kentucky meat shower under a microscope. The material, which had been given to them by Professor Chandler, was identified as being lung tissue from a human infant or a horse. According to the letter, “the structure of the organ in these two cases” was apparently “very similar”.

 

After reading the letter, Dr. Edwards called on Dr. Hamilton and was given a sample of the material that he had been studying. He was told that the samples had been sent from Kentucky to the editor of the Agriculturist, who had given them to Professor Chandler. And while the trail of where the samples had come from seemed to be growing longer and longer, Edwards noted that they seemed to be similar in character and age, although the sample given to him by Brandeis was less well preserved. Soon after, Edwards was shown a microscopic slide of a third sample of the Kentucky meat, which had been given to Professor J. Phin of the American Journal of Microscopy by a Mr. Walmsley of Philadelphia, who had in turn received it from Kentucky. The slide contained something that was “undoubtedly straited muscular fibre.”

 

Phin also showed Edwards a fourth sample that had been collected by A.T. Parker of Lexington, Kentucky. This sample also turned out to be muscle tissue but Edwards wanted to see more. He wrote to Parker and was sent three more samples, two of which turned out to be cartilage and the third, more muscle tissue. Edwards also passed along an explanation for the bizarre event that was currently making the rounds in Kentucky.

 

Locals believed that the meat had been disgorged by buzzards, “who, as is their custom, seeing one of their companions disgorge himself, immediately followed suit.” Parker did not explain just how many buzzards would be required to vomit that much meat, how much they would have had to have eaten - or just how high they had been flying as to render themselves invisible to those on the ground!

 

Perhaps almost as strange was the rain of living snakes that fell over the southern part of Memphis, Tennessee in 1877. These creatures reportedly ranged from about a foot to 18 inches in length and were presumed by the people of Memphis to have been swept into the air by a hurricane. Although even Scientific American asked where so many snakes would exist “in such abundance” (they fell by the thousands) “is yet a mystery.”

 

Scientific American also reported another strange occurrence in late October 1881 when Milwaukee, Green Bay and other towns in that part of Wisconsin saw falls of strong, very white spider webs. They were in sizes from a few inches to strands of more than 60 feet long. The webs all seemed to float inland from above Lake Michigan in thick sheets, fading upward into the sky for as high as the eye could see. There was no mention of any spiders being seen or in the presence of the webs and where the substance could have come from was a mystery.

 

On September 4, 1886, a shower of warm stones purportedly fell on the offices of the News and Courier in Charleston, South Carolina. The first shower occurred around 2:30 in the morning and then was repeated at 7:30 and then again at 1:30 in the afternoon. As far as any observers could see, the stones fell only over a small area directly above the newspaper offices. They came down with great force and even broke apart on the pavement. The rocks were described as polished pebbles of flint with the smallest being about the size of a grape and the largest as big as a hen’s egg. Many of the stones were gathered up and saved but I was unable to learn what may have become of them.

 

Scientific American from February 1891 had another tale of strangeness from the skies concerning the Valley Bend district of Randolph County, West Virginia. It seems that over the course of that winter, they were several occasions when ground was thickly covered with worms. Since the snow had been two feet deep at the times when the worms were discovered, and there was a hard crust on the top of it, they seemingly fell from the sky along with the fresh snow. They were said to be a species of ordinary “cut worms” and were abundant enough that a “square foot of snow can scarcely be found on some days without a dozen of these worms on it.”

 

During the early morning hours of a day in November 1896, a deluge of dead birds fell from a clear sky above Baton Rouge, Louisiana. They fell in such numbers that contemporary accounts say that they “cluttered the streets of the city”. The birds included wild ducks, catbirds, woodpeckers and many birds of strange plumage, some of them “resembling canaries”. The birds were all dead and fell in heaps throughout the city. The only plausible theory advanced as to the source of the birds was that they had been driven inland by a recent storm along the Florida coast and had been killed by a sudden change in temperature around Baton Rouge. The editors of the Monthly Weather Review stated that storms and temperature changes were common, but bird falls were most assuredly not.

 

From birds to fish again - in June 1901, hundreds of small catfish, trout and perch fell during a heavy rain at Tiller’s Ferry, South Carolina. After the rain showers ended, the fish were found swimming around in pools of water that had accumulated between the rows of cotton of a farm owned by Charles Raley. There is no record of what the Raley’s had for dinner that night!

 

In November 1921, rocks began to fall from the sky over the town of Chico, California. J.W. Charge, the owner of a grain warehouse along the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, complained to City Marshal J.A. Peck that someone was throwing rocks at his building everyday. Peck, believing it was nothing more than local youngsters playing pranks on the man, paid little attention to the report. His conclusions, after a very brief investigation, were that he had seen the stones fall but could not explain them. He suspected that “someone with a machine was to blame.” The stones remained a nuisance to Charge but were largely ignored by everyone else until a few months later, on March 8, 1922. On that day, stones ranging in size from peas to baseballs came raining down on the warehouse, seemingly from nowhere. They continued to fall for days and a search by police officers of the area failed to find anyone throwing the rocks.

 

In the days that followed, Charge’s warehouse sustained quite a bit of damage, from broken windows to split boards and collapsed roof shingles. Stones also began to rain down on a cluster of houses that were located near the railroad tracks and individuals who stood in the open, perhaps trying to determine the source of the mysterious projectiles, were often struck. The investigators and officials present often became targets too. Fire Chief C.E. Tovee and Traffic Officer J.J. Corbett were narrowly missed by a large boulder that came from nowhere and struck a wall behind the spot where they had been standing just moments before. The force of the stone’s impact left a large dent in the wood.

 

The fall of stones continued throughout most of the rest of the month, attracting a large amount of publicity and a number of curiosity-seekers. The origin of the stones was never solved but a Professor C.K. Studley added to reports by saying that some of the rocks were so large that they “could not be thrown by ordinary means”. He also noted that they did not seem to be of meteoric nature. The famous chronicler of anomalies Charles Fort asked a friend, writer Miriam Allen deFord, to go to Chico to investigate personally. Throughout March a series of articles appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle and the rocks were described as being warm and “oval-shaped”. Miriam Allen de Ford, wrote: “I looked up in the cloudless sky and suddenly saw a rock falling straight down, as if becoming visible when it came near enough. This rock struck the earth with a thud and bounced off on the track beside the warehouse, and I could not find it.” She also stated that at one point a rock fell from the sky to “land gently at my feet.”

 

Fish fell again on October 23, 1947 and this time over the town of Marksville, Louisiana. The weather at the time was calm and it was not raining, although it was somewhat foggy. The fish came raining down without warning and included largemouth bass, sunfish, shad and minnows. Some of them were frozen and others merely cold but all were said to be “fit for human consumption.” The fish came down into an area that was about 1,000 feet long and 75 or 80 feet wide and a number of them struck people who happened to be on the street at the time. The weather bureau in New Orleans reported that there were no tornadoes in the area at the time of the incident.

 

On the night of September 26, 1950, two Philadelphia police officers, John Collins and Joe Keenan, encountered something far beyond the range of experience expected from two veteran cops. As they were cruising the streets in their patrol car that night, they made their way down a quiet side street near Vare Avenue and 26th Street. Coming around a corner, their headlights pick up a large, shimmering object that seemed to be falling down into an open field about a half block away from them.

 

When they stopped to investigate, their flashlights illuminated a domed mass of quivering purple jelly. It was about six feet in diameter and about a foot thick in the center. It gently sloped down toward the edges but was still an inch or two thick. The pulsating movement of the mass made them wonder if it might be alive! They quickly radioed for help and were soon joined by Sergeant Joe Cook and Patrolman James Cooper. Cook suggested that the four of them try and pick the thing up but when Officer Collins attempted to reach underneath it, the mass fell apart in his hands. Fragments of it clung to his skin but it too began to slide off of him, leaving only a sticky, odorless scum behind. Within a half-hour after Cook and Cooper arrived on the scene, the entire mass had evaporated and vanished.

 

On September 7, 1953, a downpour of frogs and toads “of all descriptions” began falling from the sky over Leicester, Massachusetts. The streets seemed to be alive with them and children gathered them into buckets using their hands, making a game of the astounding event. Officials attempted to explain the sudden appearance of thousands of the creatures by saying that they had escaped from a nearby, overflowing pond - however this explanation did not provide a logical reason as to why so many of them were found on the roofs of houses and in the rain gutters!

 

Carpenters who were working on the roof of a house in Shreveport, Louisiana had to take cover on July 12, 1961 when a brief deluge of green peaches began falling from the sky. They were all about the size of golf balls and were believed to have fallen from a dark cloud that was spotted overhead. According to the local weather bureau, the conditions around the city that day were not sufficient to cause whirlwinds, tornadoes or water spouts. Even a strong updraft would not have been enough to carry peaches into the sky, leaving those who witnessed the event to scratch their heads in confusion.

 

In January 1969, hundreds of badly injured ducks came crashing to the earth in St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Wildlife officials surmised that the ducks had received their fatal injuries, which included broken bones and mysterious hemorrhages, while they were flying. What may have caused the damage, or why so many ducks were flying in one large mass, was unknown.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

 

I realize that there are some really challenging and difficult caches out there. Without a doubt there are some that can easily go 6 months without being found. But at some point you have to ask yourself why that is? If it is because a bunch of DNFs are scaring everyone away... check on it! If it is a really challenging cache... check on it. Then in both cases, your Owner Maintenance log might inspire people to go try it out!

 

The same can be said for a remote active cache that has had previous finds. I found one not from from where I live that hadn't had a find in about two years. After logging my find, it was found by three others in the next couple of weeks.

Link to comment

I think that's kind of harsh! I really didn't see tin foil hat people buying into the "fake quote", just a lot of bickering between a couple of people. And there really was a 2008 virtual cache massacre that happened in Ontario, and nowhere else. :o

You keep talking of this like it's unique. There have been virtual cache sweeps before 2008, and after 2008. This one stands out for you because you noticed it. My own sweeps in Pennsylvania, Ohio and elsewhere happened far earlier, in preparation for the launch of Waymarking.com.

 

I don't presently leave the sort of note that CacheDrone is trying out, but it's certainly within his powers to do so.

 

I do monthly sweeps of "temporarily disabled" caches, as do many other reviewers.

 

I am guessing I'm one of the few reviewers who "scrubs" all the caches in my territory to move missing trackables off the cache page inventory and into an "unknown location." It's within my powers to do so, and in my judgment, it serves the local community in a positive way.

 

There are other examples.

 

With the exception of reacting to "Needs Archived" logs, nothing is "mandated" to the reviewers when it comes to enforcing the "Cache Maintenance" guideline post-publication. Some do more than others.

 

Man, I hate when someone quotes something I edited out. But I agree it stands out for me because I noticed it. Perhaps I keep bringing it up because I didn't care for the fact that there was shown to be a bug in the last log-in date shown on the website for users at the time the sweep happened. All of this, and I sometimes like to crack on CacheDrone. :rolleyes:

 

Yes, I agree with your examples, especially about you scrubbing missing trackables. I think some people see notes like CacheDrone's, realize that not every reviewer is posting the same note, and immediately question the whole "within his powers to do so" thing, such as you stated.

 

And of course people are all paranoid after the whole rogue reviewer/non-existent cache thing. Hopefully CD never goes rogue. :ph34r:

Link to comment

"All cache owners must do a physical visit every 6 months if the cache has not been found."

I didn't see that in the guidelines that are being linked to.

 

I have a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months and is a 25K (15 mile) hike, I guess I am going to get a lot of exercise.

 

If this is not a new guideline, I would hope Groundspeak would have the reviewer remove all those notes.

 

Re: the bold text. Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say! :ph34r: That is the second time you have done so in the public forums, and I expect you to exercise some restraint here after.

 

I will not be removing the notes as they were posted as a courtesy.

 

I do see the troubles putting MY thoughts in quotation marks has caused.

I am sorry and apologize if people read it as I quoted you CD.

 

Yeah, just an unfortunate choice of where you put some quotation marks in your own post. Not like you took a BB code quote box, and started hacking up someone's quote with the purpose of misleading people or something. Keep that tin foil hat on straight, and you'll be fine. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

"All cache owners must do a physical visit every 6 months if the cache has not been found."

I didn't see that in the guidelines that are being linked to.

 

I have a cache that hasn't been found in 6 months and is a 25K (15 mile) hike, I guess I am going to get a lot of exercise.

 

If this is not a new guideline, I would hope Groundspeak would have the reviewer remove all those notes.

 

Re: the bold text. Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say! :rolleyes: That is the second time you have done so in the public forums, and I expect you to exercise some restraint here after.

 

I will not be removing the notes as they were posted as a courtesy.

 

I do see the troubles putting MY thoughts in quotation marks has caused.

I am sorry and apologize if people read it as I quoted you CD.

 

Thanks Nozzletime, I appreciate you taking the time. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I actually appreciate moderators keeping up on Cache maintenance.

 

Actually, I agree with most of the posters who say 6 months is a bit short, because there are so many caches that can only be found in the summer, but I think it's a good idea.

 

If no one does it there will be tons of lost caches all over

 

And it's true many don't record their DNF's so the many of the caches may be missing.

Link to comment

Hi folks - I saw this note on a cache I've been watching and was wondering if anyone knows whether it's a new site-wide policy, or a system that's unique to Ontario?

 

Hello fellow geocacher. I'm one of the volunteer reviewers for Geocaching

 

***Unfound for more than six months***

 

Starting in the spring of 2010 a quarterly sweep across Ontario will be performed on all geocaches that have not been found during a six month period. At this moment, your geocache has never been found. This purpose of this note is to give you a heads-up that it may be best if you can physically visit your cache and have ensured that everything is still in place and the cache is ready to be found. Once completed you should post an Owner Maintenance log on this geocache. This will let people know that they can safely attempt to find your cache, as they may have been waiting to see if there is any activity from you or others.

Sounds to me like it's specific to that area/reviewer, as a way to manage the contact with Ccahe owners. It doesn't sound like any kind of Policy to me. I certainly hope that it is not.

Link to comment

To quote CacheDrone from a thread in the Canada forums on the same topic.

 

"Agreed of course that winter can be a factor, which can always be expressed. However, as stated in the other thread and in by the quote from the OP, the sweep will be done quarterly. Thus the minimum spacing would be seven months for any single cache.

 

Example 1. Last find was 21 DEC ... my sweep on 21 MAR would ignore it, my sweep on 21 JUN would cause me to look at it, possibly disable it, then 22 JUL would be one month after disabling and if nothing updated then it likely would be archived. Of course, this is all if the CO does absolutely nothing.

 

Example 2. Last find was 21 JUN... my sweep on 21 SEP would ignore it, my sweep on 21 DEC would cause me to look at it, possibly disable it, then 22 JAN would be one month after disabling and if nothing updated then it likely would be archived. Of course, this is all if the CO does absolutely nothing.

 

Naturally, if the CO logs on and says "The cache site is buried under snow, I'll check it in the Spring... that is fine. On the 21 MAR sweep would be another 'nudge' and if they can't get their listing enabled by 21 JUN then I see no reason why the listing should remain. At that point we would be talking about an entire year having passed. CO's do have to taken some sort of responsibility for their caches, and responding to queries about the conditions of their cache would be one of them.

 

Also, remember that we are talking about "not found in over 6 months" and that being done once every three months. So the examples above are the absolute bare minimum. Many would likely be in the neighbourhood of 8 months with no real action being taken for a total of 9 months.

 

Lastly, nearly every geocache that has been archived can be unarchived if the CO (and no one else) contacts the reviewer. I unarchive stuff all the time as long as it is still compliant with the current listing guidelines."

 

I know that CacheDrone says, "possibly disable it", but with his then going on to say, "if nothing updated then it likely would be archived", how could one not easily jump to the conclusion that one needs to check on his cache that has been unfound for 6 months esp if he sees the note on his cache page.

 

I have a cache "Teapot Lake Cache GCX34F" in a remote area that only gets found about once or twice a year since being placed in July 2006 and another one that is nearby placed by another cacher "OF4WD Series: Black Lake Trail GCQBE6" that gets very little traffic since being placed in 29 August 2005.

These caches are there but not sought out often, so do we really need to make the trek in to satisfy CacheDrone or anyone else?

Just my 2cents.

Link to comment

GCYJHR was there for 3 years and 2 months. Not an easy place to go checking if a reviewer asks to do so!

 

And of course ... I really would like to see owner checking GCG822, the most ***self-censored*** cache description in the world. Does it meet ANY guideline? I cannot imagine how to write the logbook!

 

... re-thinking about placing hard to find one that I have in mind :blink:;)

 

Edited to add: GCG3HJ, 6 years, 6 months and 5 days.

 

Edited incorrect link.

Edited by DeepButi
Link to comment
GCYJHR was there for 3 years and 2 months. Not an easy place to go checking if a reviewer asks to do so!

 

And of course ... I really would like to see owner checking GCG822, the most ***self-censored*** cache description in the world. Does it meet ANY guideline? I cannot imagine how to write the logbook!

 

... re-thinking about placing hard to find one that I have in mind :blink:;)

 

Edited to add: GCG3HJ, 6 years, 6 months and 5 days.

 

You used the URL for GCYJHR for both of your links. Rainbow Hydrothermal Vents is what you intended to link to, I believe: GCG822

Link to comment

Thanks knowschad, corrected.

 

What really annoys me is how every country reviewers seem to interpret guidelines in new ways, so there is no way to know what will happen in the future. This creates, at least to me, doubts about what to place and what not to place. Our local reviewers didn't care about being told lies, whereas someone in another place starts a campaign to clean up 6 month unfound ones. Too diferent behaviours ... :blink:

Link to comment

I try to look at it from both sides. I think it is good for those who seek caches. Example, how many times have you gone out and came across a cache that hadn't been found in a year and chose to pass on it thinking you don't want to waste your time on something that might not be there?

 

But if we did have that in place for hiders especially ones who have a lot of caches in remote areas would be using a lot of gas getting to them knowing they are all right.

 

Puzzles are the worst. Since you have to wait til someone solves them and go to locate it to realize it is missing.

 

I once in awhile check my caches on my own sweep. I have a few that tend to walk away without any DNFs because they are not visited much.

 

When I go on a caching trip I use GSAK and check those that have DNFs or check the "last found" and then see why they haven't. I will then sometimes contact the owner and ask if they could check it if it isn't too much trouble.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

Thanks knowschad, corrected.

 

What really annoys me is how every country reviewers seem to interpret guidelines in new ways, so there is no way to know what will happen in the future. This creates, at least to me, doubts about what to place and what not to place. Our local reviewers didn't care about being told lies, whereas someone in another place starts a campaign to clean up 6 month unfound ones. Too diferent behaviours ... :blink:

 

I think GC should get together more often with these reviewers, especially the ones that have complaints about them and see why they are making their own rules or not following the guidelines themselves.

It seems unfair when you are being attacked and you are helpless.

 

I also don't only blame the reviewer because they are sometimes getting the wrong info. Such in case yesterday I had one of my caches under attack by being accused of being on a fence adjacent to a schoolyard.

 

The cache is attached to a fence on the trail side, with a water filled canal and another fence between them. That is at least 100 ft or more before you are near the school property not counting the small open area and a school parking lot. I am working it out with the reviewer right now to please everyone.

Link to comment

Thanks knowschad, corrected.

 

What really annoys me is how every country reviewers seem to interpret guidelines in new ways, so there is no way to know what will happen in the future. This creates, at least to me, doubts about what to place and what not to place. Our local reviewers didn't care about being told lies, whereas someone in another place starts a campaign to clean up 6 month unfound ones. Too diferent behaviours ... :blink:

 

If you don't like how the ref is calling the game, get a helmet and whistle and go out on the ice yourself. Its a volunteer job.

Link to comment

Thanks knowschad, corrected.

 

What really annoys me is how every country reviewers seem to interpret guidelines in new ways, so there is no way to know what will happen in the future. This creates, at least to me, doubts about what to place and what not to place. Our local reviewers didn't care about being told lies, whereas someone in another place starts a campaign to clean up 6 month unfound ones. Too diferent behaviours ... :blink:

 

If you don't like how the ref is calling the game, get a helmet and whistle and go out on the ice yourself. Its a volunteer job.

I you looked at the other thread on Becoming a Reviewer, you would see this is not so. You cannot volunteer yourself to become a reviewer. In fact it is most likely that new reviewers are recommended by existing reviewers, so someone who complains about the reviewers a lot is not likely to get a recommendation to become a reviewer (unless of course the reviewers see being a reviewer as some sort of punishment).

 

Threads like these are a good way to vent frustration with your reviewer. There is also the appeals @ geocaching.com where you can complain about your reviewer's decisions to Groundspeak. Groundspeak has been known to overrule reviewers.

 

I find threads like these give the general community some insight to the thinking of reviewers and a chance to understand the guidelines from the reviewers' perspective. When this thread was first published it sounded to me like CacheDrone had gone overboard in thinking that a difficult remote cache that isn't being found often need to be reviewed from time to time. CacheDrone took the time to explain in more detail his motivation, and other reviewers provide comments giving insight to this as well. While I don't agree 100% with CacheDrone's reasoning, the motivation and intent of what he is doing is understandable. While what he is doing goes beyond the normal duties of a reviewer, these actions (although made post publication) are in the spirit of the following statement from the guidelines:

At times a cache may meet the listing requirements for the site but the reviewers, as experienced cachers, may see additional concerns that you as a cache placer may not have noticed. As a courtesy, the reviewer may bring additional concerns about cache placement to your attention and offer suggestions before posting.
Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

...

Threads like these are a good way to vent frustration with your reviewer. There is also the appeals @ geocaching.com where you can complain about your reviewer's decisions to Groundspeak. Groundspeak has been known to overrule reviewers.

...

I don't have any frustration with our reviewers. And probably my sentence was too "hard" (100% of 1 case means nothing). I know they are volunteers and I appreciate their job.

 

But seeing so different behaviours depending on the country is somehow discouraging, at least for newcomers as I am.

 

To me it's simple:

 

a) is it against the guidelines? Take action. If not, let it go.

b ) if GS wants -it's his right- to change the way caches are handled, modify the guidelines.

 

Why? Because we, the players, need to know what is and what is not acceptable. If this changes depending on individual actions, it's hard to deal with it.

 

I simply state my opinion in order to better understand how things are, not the slightlest intention to devaluate reviewers job. Geocaching will not exist without them.

Edited by DeepButi
Link to comment

Some reviewers may believe that want to create a better geocaching experience on a whole for the community. That is a noble thing. It does pose some problems. To me a reviewer should be impartial and without prejudice. Some members of the community may not agree with the thought of a reviewer pushing their personal beliefs onto others. Any time the words "I think", "I believe", I would like", or something similar appear in a posting or reviewer note from a reviewer it can been seen as a personal feeling or idea, or an incorrect personal interpretation of the guidelines. The biggest problem with trying to create an ideal geocaching experience is quantifying the experience. Most of us know where the road paved with good intentions leads to, and pushing people down that road who don't agree is going to create friction.

 

A good reviewer should be able to interact with users in a relaxed manor without looking like they are bringing the hammer down by long quotations from the guidelines and simply and clearly point out what the problem is. This can be a difficult thing to do while also balancing the fact that they are in charge and letting the users know that without sounding like they have all the control. A good re pore goes a long way to achieving mutual respect.

 

My advice to the reviewers is pay close attention to the wording of what you post. If you think there is a chance people are not going to like it, or worse run to the forums with it, re-read with point of view of the recipient of the message. Are they going to take it the wrong way, it the message ambiguous, or could it be written more clearly to avoid misunderstanding.

Link to comment

ok, so what's the policy on adopting caches without the owner's explicit consent? if there's a cache that's in bad need of maintenance, but the owner obviously has stopped caching and doesn't reply to any messages, is there a way to "force-adopt" any of their listings, through a reviewer or something?

 

in particular there is a cache around here that even has a request for adoption in the cache description itself. i'd be willing to adopt it and have sent the owner a message, but that was about 2 weeks ago and no reply has come yet. is it possible to adopt it anyway, somehow?

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
ok, so what's the policy on adopting caches without the owner's explicit consent? if there's a cache that's in bad need of maintenance, but the owner obviously has stopped caching and doesn't reply to any messages, is there a way to "force-adopt" any of their listings, through a reviewer or something?

 

in particular there is a cache around here that even has a request for adoption in the cache description itself. i'd be willing to adopt it and have sent the owner a message, but that was about 2 weeks ago and no reply has come yet. is it possible to adopt it anyway, somehow?

 

 

dfx I am by no means an authority on the subject, but have some prior experience I can relate to you.

 

adopting without owners consent?- not done under any circumstances.

 

force-adopt? as it was described to me, the practice implemented in this situation is " log a NA, wait for the archival, place new cache" Hardly what I would consider an adoption.

 

I suggested in a previous thread discussing this, that an option could be placed on the listing page, STRICTLY voluntary, that owners could choose to allow adoption of their cache if they were not onsite for a certain length of time. It was recieved with mixed response.

 

edit-typo

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment

what's the policy on adopting caches without the owner's explicit consent?

 

"Groundspeak will not process a geocache transfer without written permission from the geocache owner. Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com." Source: http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?....page&id=54

Link to comment
ok, so what's the policy on adopting caches without the owner's explicit consent? if there's a cache that's in bad need of maintenance, but the owner obviously has stopped caching and doesn't reply to any messages, is there a way to "force-adopt" any of their listings, through a reviewer or something?

 

in particular there is a cache around here that even has a request for adoption in the cache description itself. i'd be willing to adopt it and have sent the owner a message, but that was about 2 weeks ago and no reply has come yet. is it possible to adopt it anyway, somehow?

 

 

dfx I am by no means an authority on the subject, but have some prior experience I can relate to you.

 

adopting without owners consent?- not done under any circumstances.

 

force-adopt? as it was described to me, the practice implemented in this situation is " log a NA, wait for the archival, place new cache" Hardly what I would consider an adoption.

 

I suggested in a previous thread discussing this, that an option could be placed on the listing page, STRICTLY voluntary, that owners could choose to allow adoption of their cache if they were not onsite for a certain length of time. It was recieved with mixed response.

 

edit-typo

 

You're alright Neeces and Nephews, you nailed it. They used to allow involuntary adoptions until a couple of years ago. But too many people too many times who in most cases hadn't logged into the website in years went bonkers when they saw their caches were adopted out. :)

Link to comment

You're alright Neeces and Nephews, you nailed it. They used to allow involuntary adoptions until a couple of years ago. But too many people too many times who in most cases hadn't logged into the website in years went bonkers when they saw their caches were adopted out. :)

 

Yep. That's the problem, the absentee cache owners - it's mine you can't have it. Same thing happened on a letterboxing site I'm a member of. Adoptions were allowed for about a year then that option was closed down when a few absent owners went bonkers when they saw their abandoned caches were adopted out.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...