How to deal with caches that are missing, but enabled

[cezanne]

Recently in my area the number of caches which are missing, but which are still enabled increases. In some cases, the owners (often inexperienced cachers with a small number of found and hidden caches) have not logged in for quite a while, in other cases they even have logged in, but showed no reaction.

Most of the caches are marked by the NM icon, some even have at least one needs archived log.

 

I am not personally affected by this situation as I always check the recent logs before visiting a cache, but many paperless cachers do not refresh their database very regularly. As a consequence thereof, several unfortunate ways of dealing with the frustration seem to get established. Some cachers leave a new cache container and write a found it log . Others take a photograph of the location and write a found it log.

It appears to me that this sort of behaviour is a bad example for beginners.

 

There exists a log type for "Needs archived" which (at least in theory) notifies the reviewers that there might be a problem with a cache. Is there also a way how to deal with caches which should be deactivated until are fixed? Normally, this is of course the task of the hider of the cache. But what if he does not react? I know that reviewers are able to deactivate caches, but my question is whether they are willing to do so in the situations I mentioned above. I also would like to know how the problem is dealt with in other regions of the world.

 

 

Cezanne

[+debaere]

Recently in my area the number of caches which are missing, but which are still enabled increases. In some cases, the owners (often inexperienced cachers with a small number of found and hidden caches) have not logged in for quite a while, in other cases they even have logged in, but showed no reaction.

Most of the caches are marked by the NM icon, some even have at least one needs archived log.

 

I am not personally affected by this situation as I always check the recent logs before visiting a cache, but many paperless cachers do not refresh their database very regularly. As a consequence thereof, several unfortunate ways of dealing with the frustration seem to get established. Some cachers leave a new cache container and write a found it log . Others take a photograph of the location and write a found it log.

It appears to me that this sort of behaviour is a bad example for beginners.

 

There exists a log type for "Needs archived" which (at least in theory) notifies the reviewers that there might be a problem with a cache. Is there also a way how to deal with caches which should be deactivated until are fixed? Normally, this is of course the task of the hider of the cache. But what if he does not react? I know that reviewers are able to deactivate caches, but my question is whether they are willing to do so in the situations I mentioned above. I also would like to know how the problem is dealt with in other regions of the world.

 

 

Cezanne

 

If I can't find the log, but the last log entry was a find, I assume its my issue and just log a DNF. If I DNF and the last few logs were DNF, I log a Needs Maintenance log to inform the CO that there is a possible issue. If the CO doesn't respond in 3-4 weeks, I log a Needs Archive log, which loops in the reviewer (who normally gives another couple weeks grace - at least in my area), then the reviewer normally archives the cache if the CO doesn't respond.

[knowschad]

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), its time to ask your reviewer(s) to look into them, either through an email, or through Needs Archived (aka Needs Attention) logs.

[+Touchstone]

Here's a pretty clear explanation of what' supposed to happen when you Log a NA Note:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Keeping in mind that the Reviewers volunteer their time, your mileage may vary on the response.

[cezanne]

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), its time to ask your reviewer(s) to look into them, either through an email,

 

In a single case I did that a while ago, but got the impression that the reviewer feels that it does not belong to his job to deactivate a cache if the hider does not do so for a while. I had dared to ask because I have seen such logs from reviewers in Germany and the US, but that might be exceptions there as well.

 

 

or through Needs Archived (aka Needs Attention) logs.

 

Personally, I would not use the "needs archived" log type in the type of case I have in mind.

If one of my caches goes missing and I get informed about it, my typical reaction is first to deactivate the cache and not to archive it right away. In my experience, less people visit deactivated caches and even less of them dare to write found it logs for such caches if there was no cache there. The NM-icon does hardly scare cachers away - the deactivation, however, has much more effect.

 

That's why I would appreciate a separate log type of the type "needs attention" or the naming "needs archived" should be changed.

 

 

Cezanne

[+WHO-DEY]

If what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), its time to ask your reviewer(s) to look into them, either through an email, or through Needs Archived (aka Needs Attention) logs.

 

I agree. Once you post a "needs archive" the reviewer gets a blip on their radar. BEWARE: Some owners can be overly sensetive to a post like that, but you are doing it for other cachers benefit. Do what you think is right, and you will be fine.

[cezanne]

Here's a pretty clear explanation of what' supposed to happen when you Log a NA Note:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Thanks. I am familiar with this text. I do not think, however, that NA-logs are the best action in the type of situation I have described.

 

Keeping in mind that the Reviewers volunteer their time, your mileage may vary on the response.

 

I am sorry, but I do not quite get the second part of your statement. I do understand all single words, but have problems with the message as a whole.

 

BTW: What are typical (in the normal season, not in holiday periods) response rates to NA-logs in different parts of the world if the situation is not one that needs urgent attention (like in the case of a bomb alarm)? Several days, several weeks, a month, several months? With response rate I do not mean the time which elapses until a cache eventually gets archived, but the time until a reviewer action gets documented on the cache page.

 

Cezanne

[+The Blorenges]

Here, I understand that one of the UK team of reviewers usually deals with all the NA logs. The reviewer's response time to a NA log seems to be within 2-3 days. The reviewer's log generally gives the cache owner a period of time to sort the cache out - This seems to vary between a week and a month, depending on how long it's been since it was last found, how many DNFs, how many NM requests and other factors.

 

MrsB

[+StarBrand]

.....

BTW: What are typical (in the normal season, not in holiday periods) response rates to NA-logs in different parts of the world if the situation is not one that needs urgent attention (like in the case of a bomb alarm)? Several days, several weeks, a month, several months? With response rate I do not mean the time which elapses until a cache eventually gets archived, but the time until a reviewer action gets documented on the cache page.

 

Cezanne

Around here, it is quite common to never see any actual documentation on the cache page from the reviewer. It would be nice if they could leve some idication that something has transpired. I do respect that the communication with the cache owner might be private but some note aknowleding that the NA log is being looked into would be nice.

 

Also - unless you have found them previously and have no re-checked them, I always take exception to any cache being declared 'missing'. If I only had a a dollar for each my caches that was declared missing but was in fact safe and sound..........

[knowschad]

Keeping in mind that the Reviewers volunteer their time, your mileage may vary on the response.

I am sorry, but I do not quite get the second part of your statement. I do understand all single words, but have problems with the message as a whole.

"Your mileage may vary" means, "your results may be different". It comes from a disclaimer on our automobiles when they make claims about gas mileage.

[+Castle Mischief]

Keep in mind that after you log a NA- assuming you do- there might be a period of what looks to be inactivity on the cache page, but may actually be the CO and the reviewer working out the details.

[+Touchstone]

I guess I'm a bit confused. In the OP the scenario given is an absent or non responsive cache owner of an apparently missing cache. Since it's pretty well documented that Reviewers won't recieve Notifications of NM log types, it seems that the only reasonable recourse is to post an NA log, which the Reviewer will get a Notification of.

 

I suppose, failing any response from the Reviewer ( which seems rather unlikely), the final recourse to have the Listing(s) removed would be to contact Groundspeak.

 

Am I missing something or are people just overly polite

[+Eastshire]

I guess I'm a bit confused. In the OP the scenario given is an absent or non responsive cache owner of an apparently missing cache. Since it's pretty well documented that Reviewers won't recieve Notifications of NM log types, it seems that the only reasonable recourse is to post an NA log, which the Reviewer will get a Notification of.

 

I suppose, failing any response from the Reviewer ( which seems rather unlikely), the final recourse to have the Listing(s) removed would be to contact Groundspeak.

 

Am I missing something or are people just overly polite

 

I don't think you're missing anything. If there's been no response for a few weeks to a Needs Maintenance log it should be moved up to a Needs Archived log.

[cezanne]

I guess I'm a bit confused. In the OP the scenario given is an absent or non responsive cache owner of an apparently missing cache.

 

Right, except that I was talking of caches that definitely are missing - not just believed to be missing, but that's not the key point anyway.

 

Since it's pretty well documented that Reviewers won't recieve Notifications of NM log types,

 

True and indeed well-known.

 

it seems that the only reasonable recourse is to post an NA log, which the Reviewer will get a Notification of.

 

That's probably a matter of taste. I rather would prefer to mail the reviewer as NA ist just not appropriate in many cases from my point of view. Those caches need attention, not necessarily being archived (in case of multi caches this even often produces unnecessary geo-litter).

 

I am not sure, however, whether it is ok for reviewers to receive mails notifying them about such issues or whether they e.g. do not want to be bothered by such relatively minor issues below the NA-level.

 

Note that my preferred action from the reviewer side in the cases I mentioned is not an archival of the caches (maybe at a later time it is unavoidable), but just deactivating the cache if the cache owner is either not willing or not able to do so at the moment.

 

 

Am I missing something or are people just overly polite

 

I can just talk for myself. I do not want to write a "needs archived" if I do not think that archiving a cache is the best solution at the moment when I am writing that log. There might be more pragmatic people who

just use NA in the way of needs attention.

 

Cezanne

[+keehotee]

I guess I'm a bit confused. In the OP the scenario given is an absent or non responsive cache owner of an apparently missing cache. Since it's pretty well documented that Reviewers won't recieve Notifications of NM log types, it seems that the only reasonable recourse is to post an NA log, which the Reviewer will get a Notification of.

 

I suppose, failing any response from the Reviewer ( which seems rather unlikely), the final recourse to have the Listing(s) removed would be to contact Groundspeak.

 

Am I missing something or are people just overly polite

 

I don't think you're missing anything. If there's been no response for a few weeks to a Needs Maintenance log it should be moved up to a Needs Archived log.

 

I'm still missing something. When did "I can't find your cache" turn into "your cache needs maintenance"? If you can't find it, how do you know whether it needs maintenance or not?

According to the FAQs, the correct action is still to post a DNF if you can't find the cache...

What do I do if I find out that a cache has gone missing?

If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache as one that you "Did Not Find" so the cache owner is notified. Cache owners who repeatedly receive "Did Not Find" logs should check to see that their cache has not been removed. As a geocacher, if you notice that a cache detail page has an unusual number of "Did Not Find" logs, please let the local reviewer know or contact us. We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area.

There's nothing in there about NM or NA logs.

[cezanne]

Keep in mind that after you log a NA- assuming you do- there might be a period of what looks to be inactivity on the cache page, but may actually be the CO and the reviewer working out the details.

 

I think that heavily depends on which reviewer deals with the issue. In some countries, there is a subset of the reviewers who takes care of most of the work associated with NA-logs, in other countries there is no such separation. Moreover, some reviewers apparently document their requirements for non-archival on the cache page, others do not.

 

Some reviewers apparently react to non-urgent NA-logs within a few days, other deal with non-urgent NA-logs at most once a month (according to information provided by themselves). In my country I observed that when writing a NA-log and at the same time informing one of the reviewers by an e-mail, typically the case is handled much more quickly than without the separate mail (then it might take several months until an action is taken). In Germany, the inactive caches and I think even the ones with NM-icon set for a longer time are periodically scanned from time to time by some automatic procedure and then typically very tight deadlines are set for maintenance (in my point of view, too tight ones).

 

The replies in this thread also demonstrate that different reviewers deal quite differently with these matters. (Note that this does not mean that some are doing a good job while others do a bad job - there do not exist clear rules and so every reviewer is doing what he thinks that is a reasonable compromise between invested time and the obtained result).

 

Cezanne

[+Eastshire]

I'm still missing something. When did "I can't find your cache" turn into "your cache needs maintenance"? If you can't find it, how do you know whether it needs maintenance or not?

According to the FAQs, the correct action is still to post a DNF if you can't find the cache...

What do I do if I find out that a cache has gone missing?

If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache as one that you "Did Not Find" so the cache owner is notified. Cache owners who repeatedly receive "Did Not Find" logs should check to see that their cache has not been removed. As a geocacher, if you notice that a cache detail page has an unusual number of "Did Not Find" logs, please let the local reviewer know or contact us. We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area.

There's nothing in there about NM or NA logs.

 

The NA log is how we let GS and the reviewer know. Additionally, we are talking about caches that we know are missing. If we know they're missing, it usually means we've found them in the past and checked on them ourselves when we noticed an unusual number of DNF logs. It's not a matter of not finding it; it's a matter of nothing to find.

[cezanne]

I'm still missing something. When did "I can't find your cache" turn into "your cache needs maintenance"? If you can't find it, how do you know whether it needs maintenance or not?

According to the FAQs, the correct action is still to post a DNF if you can't find the cache...

 

I am a great supporter of DNF-logs. I do not write, however, DNF-logs for caches I have already found some time ago. If the chance exists that the cache has just been moved I'd write a note. But there are cases where this possibility can be excluded. Suppose e.g. a small cache container behind a clearly defined object in an urban setting where no other hideout exists for a container of that size. If several previous finders confirm that the cache is gone and moreover all new visitors cannot find the cache which had no DNFs before it gone lost (1*), then it is really safe to consider the cache is being gone.

 

What do I do if I find out that a cache has gone missing?

If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache as one that you "Did Not Find" so the cache owner is notified. Cache owners who repeatedly receive "Did Not Find" logs should check to see that their cache has not been removed. As a geocacher, if you notice that a cache detail page has an unusual number of "Did Not Find" logs, please let the local reviewer know or contact us. We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area.

There's nothing in there about NM or NA logs.

 

I agree, but unfortunately what happens more and more frequently in my area is that in the case of missing caches where the cache hider is not reacting, some cachers who visit the location in vain, do not write DNF-Logs, but rather write found it logs with photographs of the cache location. The bad example of a few typically is copied by others (argument for them "if others claim a find, I will do as well" etc) and so it is a kind of chain reaction. I wondered how such chain reactions could be avoided. I could not find a place in the FAQ or in the knowledge base which addresses this issue.

 

 

Cezanne

[knowschad]

Recently in my area the number of caches which are missing, but which are still enabled increases. In some cases, the owners (often inexperienced cachers with a small number of found and hidden caches) have not logged in for quite a while, in other cases they even have logged in, but showed no reaction.

Most of the caches are marked by the NM icon, some even have at least one needs archived log.

 

I am not personally affected by this situation as I always check the recent logs before visiting a cache, but many paperless cachers do not refresh their database very regularly. As a consequence thereof, several unfortunate ways of dealing with the frustration seem to get established. Some cachers leave a new cache container and write a found it log . Others take a photograph of the location and write a found it log.

It appears to me that this sort of behaviour is a bad example for beginners.

 

 

There exists a log type for "Needs archived" which (at least in theory) notifies the reviewers that there might be a problem with a cache. Is there also a way how to deal with caches which should be deactivated until are fixed? Normally, this is of course the task of the hider of the cache. But what if he does not react? I know that reviewers are able to deactivate caches, but my question is whether they are willing to do so in the situations I mentioned above. I also would like to know how the problem is dealt with in other regions of the world.

 

Cezanne

So, you have two questions:

1) What if the hider does not respond to logs and emails

2) How is this problem dealt with elsewhere

 

I don't mean to be rude, but I believe both have been answered, and you don't seem to want to hear the answer, Cezanne. I don't know of any other tools at your disposal than what has been already discussed.

 

Needs Archived logs fire a warning shot over the bow for the cache owner, IF said cache owner really even cares anymore, notifies the reviewer that there is a problem, and warns future would-be searchers of a problem. An email to the reviewer only deals with the second of those. Does that make sense?

[+Dragery]

Or if you're feeling super nice, find a previous finder, and go replace the cache

[+wimseyguy]

I realize you added a , but throw-down replacement caches are one of the worst developments in this game. Caches need to be maintained, if they are not being maintained, and especially if the owners have dropped out completely, the listings should be archived. This is best accomplished by posting a NA log to the cache page.

 

This puts both the CO and reviewer on notice that there is an issue with the cache listing. Once you have notified the reviewer you should step back and let things take their course.

[+secretagentbill]

That's probably a matter of taste. I rather would prefer to mail the reviewer as NA ist just not appropriate in many cases from my point of view. Those caches need attention, not necessarily being archived (in case of multi caches this even often produces unnecessary geo-litter).

If the cache is gone and the owner is gone, the cache doesn't just need attention, in my opinion. At that point, there is no cache or maintainer, so the listing needs to go away. It just doesn't exist anymore.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If the cache is missing, and the cache owner is also missing, then the proper next step is Needs Archived.

Example 1: I went looking for a cache last weekend, not realizing that it had two NMs from two months ago. One from a friend stating: This cache is missing. The hiding place is obvious. There is only one place it could be. It is not there. (I'm very surprised that it lasted as long as it did!) Cache owner has also been missing for two months. No cache. No CO. I posted NA. Reviewer has disabled it, giving the owner about a month to deal with the problem.

Example 2: A three step multi. (How a three step multi can have seven steps is beyond me. Oh, well.) Actually a very interestng multi! Hidden by a journalist interested in geocaching. One hide. No finds. Second waypoint was missing, and had been for over a year. (Okay. I admit I got help on that one from a previous finder.) Final was definitely missing (hint was specific, and previous finder assured me that I was at the right spot, and it was an easy find.) NM went unanswered. CO had not signed on in almost a year. No cache. No CO. No waypoint. NA. Reviewer gave CO two months to do something. Nothing was done.

No cache. No cache owner. Should be archived. No reason to leave it as 'inactive'. It isn't there. It should be archived.

[AZcachemeister]

Recently in my area the number of caches which are missing, but which are still enabled increases. In some cases, the owners (often inexperienced cachers with a small number of found and hidden caches) have not logged in for quite a while, in other cases they even have logged in, but showed no reaction.

Most of the caches are marked by the NM icon, some even have at least one needs archived log.

 

I am not personally affected by this situation as I always check the recent logs before visiting a cache, but many paperless cachers do not refresh their database very regularly. As a consequence thereof, several unfortunate ways of dealing with the frustration seem to get established. Some cachers leave a new cache container and write a found it log . Others take a photograph of the location and write a found it log.

It appears to me that this sort of behaviour is a bad example for beginners.

 

There exists a log type for "Needs archived" which (at least in theory) notifies the reviewers that there might be a problem with a cache. Is there also a way how to deal with caches which should be deactivated until are fixed? Normally, this is of course the task of the hider of the cache. But what if he does not react? I know that reviewers are able to deactivate caches, but my question is whether they are willing to do so in the situations I mentioned above. I also would like to know how the problem is dealt with in other regions of the world.

 

 

Cezanne

 

The first question is: How do you know it's missing?

If 4 or 5 experienced cachers can't find it, and you (as a previous finder) can't locate it either, it should get a N.A. (currently Needs Archived, but soon to be converted to R.A.N.T. {Reviewer Attention Needed Today}). In my area, the reviewer will usually disable the cache, expecting that the owner will chime in either to say the cache is OK, or maintenance was performed. If the owner is AWOL, and does not respond, the cache is archived within 1-3 months.

[+dfx]

i agree with the others.

 

if the cache is missing and the owner shows no reaction: SBA.

 

if the cache appears to be missing and the owner shows no reaction (in the form of checking on it, confirming that it's still there or disabling it): SBA.

 

i don't see the problem here. archiving the listing may not be the best option IF there is any chance of the physical cache getting fixed. but if the owner is totally unresponsible and the cache is unfindable, broken, etc, then archiving the listing is the ONLY option.

Edited July 15, 2010 by dfx

[cezanne]

i don't see the problem here. archiving the listing may not be the best option IF there is any chance of the physical cache getting fixed. but if the owner is totally unresponsible and the cache is unfindable, broken, etc, then archiving the listing is the ONLY option.

 

I guess it is the time scale that plays the key role for me.

 

If a cache owner does not react for months because he has given up caching, then archiving is the only option. If he does not respond for a few weeks, it is well possible that he might take care of the cache at a later time and e.g. is just abroad or ill or whatever. The first step in my opinion should be deactiving a cache listing if the chance for getting the cache fixed is not neglectably low.

 

I would never write a NA-log if my message is not that the cache needs to be archived, but if I just want a reviewer to deactivate the cache. Deactivation is also something that should happen relatively soon, in particular if cachers start to claim photo found logs while the archival can wait and be done after say 1-3 (just some rough guess, not a fixed period) months.

 

As the term problem is concerned you used:

I do not have a problem if others write NA-logs also when their real intent is not to get the cache archived, but just to receive the attention of a reviewer. It is just that my own attitude towards the issue.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited July 15, 2010 by cezanne

[+The Blorenges]

I would never write a NA-log if my message is not that the cache needs to be archived, but if I just want a reviewer to deactivate the cache. Deactivation is also something that should happen relatively soon, in particular if cachers start to claim photo found logs while the archival can wait and be done after say 1-3 (just some rough guess, not a fixed period) months.

 

Cezanne

 

Just a small point: If by "deactivation" you mean temporarily 'Disable Listing' that won't stop some cachers logging photo found logs on the cache.

 

Once again, this discussion indicates to me a good reason why changing the name of the Needs Archive log to Needs Reviewer Attention would seem a sensible idea. As you have stated, there are often occasions when a cacher wants to draw the reviewer's attention to a problem with a cache but it might not necessarily require the cache to be archived.

 

MrsB

[cezanne]

 

Just a small point: If by "deactivation" you mean temporarily 'Disable Listing' that won't stop some cachers logging photo found logs on the cache.

 

Yes, I meant disabling the cache. It is true that it will not stop all cachers to behave in that way. The majority, however, (at least in my area) does not visit such disabled missing caches while if the cache is active, many go there and then log finds out of frustration and even feel that this ok and that they deserved the found it log.

 

Once again, this discussion indicates to me a good reason why changing the name of the Needs Archive log to Needs Reviewer Attention would seem a sensible idea. As you have stated, there are often occasions when a cacher wants to draw the reviewer's attention to a problem with a cache but it might not necessarily require the cache to be archived.

 

I agree, or they could introduce an additional log type. Both variants would be ok with me.

 

Cezanne

[+wimseyguy]

You do know that if a cache is archived, the owner can ask the reviewer to unarchive it when they decide it does deserve some owner attention and maintenance? Sometimes an archival is the only way to get their attention if they are ignoring multiple DNF and NM logs. It isn't a permanent death of the listing, but is more definite that disabling or leaving it active with multiple NA logs.

Edited July 15, 2010 by wimseyguy

[knowschad]

Cezanne,

 

I can see that you are concerned about the impression that you would be making on the cache owner and other cachers by posting a Needs Archived log. They way that I have dealt with that perception is to make my intentions clear in the text of my NA log. I will say something like, "I guess its about time to get the reviewer's attention", or even "I really don't want to see this cache archived, but it needs some help. Could a reviewer take a look at this please?".

[+dfx]

or you can just send a message to the reviewer, asking them to disable the listing.

[knowschad]

or you can just send a message to the reviewer, asking them to disable the listing.

Yes, but that doesn't serve to alert others that may go looking for it. Its also kind of going behind the hider's back, isn't it?

[cezanne]

or you can just send a message to the reviewer, asking them to disable the listing.

 

Yes, I can and actually I have done that in a specific example a while ago. I still do not know, however, whether such an action is ok for the reviewers or whether they feel that sending such mails is inappropriate.

 

The cache did not got disabled - the argument was that more time needs to elapse several weeks. Meanwhile one of the cachers who could not find the cache, put a new container there and a while the cache stayed there until I got removed again. Then a new wave of photo logs started. I wrote another message to the reviewer with no reaction at all this time.

Another cacher has logged a NA-log a while ago and there are by now also three NM-logs for the cache. The cache is still in the active mode. So all suggestions made in this thread, did not lead to any success.

 

I am not providing a link to the specific cache I talked about above as almost all logs are in German (if you would like to have a look, the hider is superpaul) and moreover my question was a general one and not specifically related to that specific cache (in that case I think that archival would be the best solution as the location is badly chosen). I have encountered several similar cases recently.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 17, 2010 by cezanne

[+The Blorenges]

OK, I've had a look...

 

NA was logged on 10th July.

 

If my understanding is correct, since then there has been

 

One Note saying the cache is not there,

 

2 NM logs

 

2 DNF logs

 

and 6 'fake' Found it logs! Some of the Found logs actually state that the cache was not there.

 

 

I'm not sure what to suggest next

 

Try another NA!

 

MrsB

[+Coldgears]

YMMV with reviewers.

[+paleolith]

cezanne, I think you underestimate how often caches such as you describe actually do need archiving.

 

If the CO doesn't get notifications or doesn't have time to disable the cache, then it really is time to archive it.

 

Yes, sometimes a CO will be traveling, but if the CO is traveling in such a manner as not to be able to get email or access the web, then the CO should not be attempting to maintain caches. Either the CO should allow someone to adopt the cache, or it should be archived.

 

Yes, sometimes a CO will be ill. If the CO isn't too ill to get on the web, reviewers will usually (and should) allow a lot of extra time to fix a cache if the CO says the delay is due to illness. If the CO is too ill to post to the web for months, then it's pretty unlikely (sadly) that the CO is coming back, and the cache should be archived.

 

If the cache is worth keeping despite the above points, then someone else will post explanations, which the reviewers usually accept. See GC1ED for an example.

 

It's certainly OK to email a reviewer. But if a reviewer disables a cache, that's usually going to be accompanied by the reviewer putting it on a list to be reviewed in a month or to, and archived if the CO has not responded either by fixing the cache or by posting an explanation. That's generally the same result as from posting a NA.

 

Most often (at least in the places I've cached) the reviewer's response to a NA is going to be to disable the cache with a notification that the CO needs to fix the cache or post an explanation of why it isn't fixed yet. The reviewers normally give a lot of latitude to COs who are clearly paying attention but haven't been able to fix it yet.

 

So I think there are plenty of protections already in place, and a new method to get caches disabled just isn't needed.

 

Edward

[+Lil Devil]

Cezanne,

 

I see several "find" logs on that cache where they state the cache is missing, and they post a picture of the location. Is that common in your area?

[knowschad]

cezanne, I think you underestimate how often caches such as you describe actually do need archiving.

 

If the CO doesn't get notifications or doesn't have time to disable the cache, then it really is time to archive it.

 

Yes, sometimes a CO will be traveling, but if the CO is traveling in such a manner as not to be able to get email or access the web, then the CO should not be attempting to maintain caches. Either the CO should allow someone to adopt the cache, or it should be archived.

 

Yes, sometimes a CO will be ill. If the CO isn't too ill to get on the web, reviewers will usually (and should) allow a lot of extra time to fix a cache if the CO says the delay is due to illness. If the CO is too ill to post to the web for months, then it's pretty unlikely (sadly) that the CO is coming back, and the cache should be archived.

 

If the cache is worth keeping despite the above points, then someone else will post explanations, which the reviewers usually accept. See GC1ED for an example.

 

It's certainly OK to email a reviewer. But if a reviewer disables a cache, that's usually going to be accompanied by the reviewer putting it on a list to be reviewed in a month or to, and archived if the CO has not responded either by fixing the cache or by posting an explanation. That's generally the same result as from posting a NA.

 

Most often (at least in the places I've cached) the reviewer's response to a NA is going to be to disable the cache with a notification that the CO needs to fix the cache or post an explanation of why it isn't fixed yet. The reviewers normally give a lot of latitude to COs who are clearly paying attention but haven't been able to fix it yet.

 

So I think there are plenty of protections already in place, and a new method to get caches disabled just isn't needed.

 

Edward

To add to your excellent post, it generally takes a month or two before a reviewer will actually archive a cache following a NA log. They will usually disable it, with a message for the cache owner to fix it up and re-enable the cache. If this is not done in a given period of time (a month, in my experience) then they archive it, with a note that the cache can still be un-archived by the reviewer if everything is fixed up.

 

Bottom line: Don't enable bad cache owners. They, not you, are responsible for their caches.

[cezanne]

Cezanne,

 

I see several "find" logs on that cache where they state the cache is missing, and they post a picture of the location. Is that common in your area?

 

No, it has not been common at all. If the cache would have the status "disabled", the story would not have started.

It started because one of the frustrated searchers started to act that way and most of the others thought that they deserve a found it alike and iminated the behaviour. I am worried, however, as currently we have a way of many new cachers in the area and these beginners easily get a wrong idea about logging etiquette.

 

If a cache is disabled or no bogus does happen, I am not caring if archiving it takes one month, three months or six months. It could alsoo have waited in this case if the reviewer had been willing to disable the cache when he has been asked to do so because of the special circumstances in this case.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

, it generally takes a month or two before a reviewer will actually archive a cache following a NA log. They will usually disable it, with a message for the cache owner to fix it up and re-enable the cache.

 

 

Disabling is all what I (and actually not only me) would have liked the reviewer to do in the specific example I mentioned - it did not happen, however although the problem persists for more than one month.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

OK, I've had a look...

 

NA was logged on 10th July.

 

If my understanding is correct, since then there has been

 

One Note saying the cache is not there,

 

2 NM logs

 

2 DNF logs

 

and 6 'fake' Found it logs! Some of the Found logs actually state that the cache was not there.

 

Actuially, the story is even longer. The cache first disappeared in June. There have been some fake found logs back then and a needs maintenance log. The cache hider did not react. I asked one of the reviewers to disable the cache which he objected to do. Then another visitor of the cache put a new box at the old hiding location and logged a found it. The next few found it logs are legitimate. Then the cache disappeared again ithe container is in full sight of the neighbouring house and it is quite obvious that someone there feels annoyed by the garbage lying around and continues to remove it).

 

After the cache had disappeared for the second time, what you noted above happened where it needs to be stressed that all loggers of fake founds were fully aware of the fact that the cache is missing and nothing can be found there. Moreover, I have written a second mail to the reviewer I have had adressed in June and asked him to disable the cache because there are so many fake logs and the cache hider lost the interest into the cache.

 

 

 

Try another NA!

 

I do not think that will help. In my experience NA-Logs in my area only get timely attention if they are very urgent or in some cases if accompanied by an extra mail (which has been sent in this case anyway).

 

Actually, it is not this specidif example cache which bothers me., but the situation in general. I learnt from this thread that reviewers seem to handle such situations in different ways . Some react sooner than others and some would disable a cache if the hider is not reacting.

 

Cezanne

[+dfx]

i would continue to bug the reviewer(s) with messages and keep posting NA. maybe try messaging reviewers of other areas as well (not sure if they'd actually be able to perform any action though).

 

around here, NA logs typically see a response within 24 hours of being posted. all emails are always promptly and professionally answered. they even fix cache listings up if the cache itself is fine, but the listing is incorrect and the CO doesn't do anything about it. so big thumbs up for our reviewers

 

but i'd say this shouldn't be the exception, but rather the opposite. maybe Groundspeak needs to be told that there's not enough reviewers in a certain area?

[+Lovejoy and Tinker]

How to deal with caches that are missing, but enabled?

 

Simple, just go out and put a replacement cache in place of the missing one (if you can't find it), allowing following cachers to log your replacement as a find.

 

http://coord.info/GCV89A

 

No more DNF's and you can claim a smiley on all those 'missing' caches.

Just take a stock of 'small temporary' caches in your back pack and drop them whenever you think or know the original is missing

 

Not that we're sore or anything after not finding this one and not thinking of doing this ourselves...

Edited July 19, 2010 by Lovejoy & Tinker