Go ahead, ARCHIVE that cache!

[+Rathergohiking]

It seems to me as if many hiders are unwilling to archive caches that appear to have been muggled. There are lots of instances where caches are disabled for months; even years. I think this practice has an adverse affect on geocaching. If a hider wants to keep the location because it is special to them, then go ahead and fix the cache in a timely manner. Failure to do so contributes to what I would term “cache stagnation”. It also locks out areas from the placement of new caches. Maybe geocaching.com should put a time limit as to how long a cache can be disabled? Personally, I would like to see more caches archived on a regular basis, so locations can be “recycled”. That would keep geocaching more interesting in local areas. A lot of cachers find everything within a certain radius of where they live and then stop and lose interest.

 

Just some random thoughts…feel free to expand on this discussion.

[+Sapience Trek]

Cachers are encouraged to report via "needs archived" logs caches that have been missing or disabled for a longer than reasonable amount of time.

[+t4e]

caches disabled for years?

 

i haven't seen one yet, you have an example?

 

if a NM or NA log has been posted to the offending cache page the reviewer would be alerted and will intervene giving the CO a deadline to fix their cache, if no action is taken within this time they will archive it themselves

 

at least this is what happens in my area

[+steel city babes]

Cachers are encouraged to report via "needs archived" logs caches that have been missing or disabled for a longer than reasonable amount of time.

 

Thanks just did this for one I did yesterday! Never really thought about it. So does the needs archived go to the reviewer???

 

Steel City Babes

[+Touchstone]

caches disabled for years?

 

i haven't seen one yet, you have an example?

 

if a NM or NA log has been posted to the offending cache page the reviewer would be alerted and will intervene giving the CO a deadline to fix their cache, if no action is taken within this time they will archive it themselves

 

at least this is what happens in my area

 

Reviewers won't get a Notification for the NM log type, but you are correct about the NA log type. Unless a Reviewer takes it upon themselves to submit a PQ to filter for the NM Attribute, it's not likely to receive any action. From my experience, the Reviewers in my area will only respond to the NA log type.

[+briansnat]

Cachers are encouraged to report via "needs archived" logs caches that have been missing or disabled for a longer than reasonable amount of time.

 

Thanks just did this for one I did yesterday! Never really thought about it. So does the needs archived go to the reviewer???

 

Steel City Babes

 

NA does go to the reviewers. If the cache owner is obviously inactive (check his profile for his last logged in date), by all means issue an NA.

 

If the cache owner is active however, he may take offense to the NA log. He may even take offense if you e-mail him directly and ask about the cache. Some cache owners are pretty thin skinned and take NA logs and inquiries personally, so you should be prepared for some acrimony if you do that.

 

Another avenue is to send the local reviewer an e-mail about the cache. Some reviewers perform periodic sweeps of inactive caches and some don't. All would welcome a heads up about a cache that has been out of service too long.

[+t4e]

 

NA does go to the reviewers. If the cache owner is obviously inactive (check his profile for his last logged in date), by all means issue an NA.

 

If the cache owner is active however, he may take offense to the NA log. He may even take offense if you e-mail him directly and ask about the cache. Some cache owners are pretty thin skinned and take NA logs and inquiries personally, so you should be prepared for some acrimony if you do that.

 

yeap, just encountered one of those few days ago

 

Another avenue is to send the local reviewer an e-mail about the cache. Some reviewers perform periodic sweeps of inactive caches and some don't. All would welcome a heads up about a cache that has been out of service too long.

 

that's what i usually do, a quick message with the link and a suggestion to keep an eye on it

[knowschad]

In our area, the reviewer makes periodic sweeps of caches that have been disabled for more than a few months, posts a note to those caches warning of impending archival, and follows up a month later by archiving those that haven't been fixed up. This, of course, is above and beyond the the call of duty.

[+uxorious]

Most of the time I have seen a cache that was disabled for a long time, there has been something out of the CO control. A park closed for construction, a tunnel closed for repairs, etc. In such a case it wouldn't do any good to archive it as no one else could use that spot anyway.

 

I have seen some that have been disabled for what seems like a long time, that could be taken care of. If I wanted to use that spot, I might pursue an attempt to get the CO to make a move. Otherwise, I will leave it up to someone who does want the spot.

[+Rathergohiking]

Here's a good example of a cache that has been disabled for a long period of time.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...03-8349be3c466b

 

It appears that the reviewers in this area are not very attentive to getting rid of stagnate caches. Just my opinion.

[+wimseyguy]

It appears that the cachers in this area are not very concerned about getting rid of this stagnate (sic) cache either.

[+lachupa]

I ran across this looking for a few caches to do this weekend when I go see my parents.

 

something looks a bit off about it but I didn't know what to do

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...35-ed2ed2a022ab

 

I wasn't going to bother looking for it though.

 

(edited with the real link)

Edited August 5, 2010 by lachupa

[Dinoprophet]

In our area, the reviewer makes periodic sweeps of caches that have been disabled for more than a few months, posts a note to those caches warning of impending archival, and follows up a month later by archiving those that haven't been fixed up. This, of course, is above and beyond the the call of duty.

Here, too. I assumed that was a site-wide thing.

[+t4e]

I ran across this looking for a few caches to do this weekend when I go see my parents.

 

something looks a bit off about it but I didn't know what to do

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/55234

 

I wasn't going to bother looking for it though.

 

you going to Venice, Italy for the weekend from USA?

[+lachupa]

I ran across this looking for a few caches to do this weekend when I go see my parents.

 

something looks a bit off about it but I didn't know what to do

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/55234

 

I wasn't going to bother looking for it though.

 

you going to Venice, Italy for the weekend from USA?

 

Hey I'm multi tasking. I can text, read, drive, put on make-up, and steer a Ford Escape. Don't think I can't.

 

but since you saw it, isn't that story wild?

Edited August 5, 2010 by lachupa

[+Team Dennis]

In our area, the reviewer makes periodic sweeps of caches that have been disabled for more than a few months, posts a note to those caches warning of impending archival, and follows up a month later by archiving those that haven't been fixed up. This, of course, is above and beyond the the call of duty.

 

Of course you realize that people in "our area" are spoiled rotten with a very good reviewer who is quick to respond and very easy to work with. Not everyone has a Surfer Joe...

[+rob3k]

It seems to me as if many hiders are unwilling to archive caches that appear to have been muggled. There are lots of instances where caches are disabled for months; even years. I think this practice has an adverse affect on geocaching. If a hider wants to keep the location because it is special to them, then go ahead and fix the cache in a timely manner. Failure to do so contributes to what I would term “cache stagnation”. It also locks out areas from the placement of new caches. Maybe geocaching.com should put a time limit as to how long a cache can be disabled? Personally, I would like to see more caches archived on a regular basis, so locations can be “recycled”. That would keep geocaching more interesting in local areas. A lot of cachers find everything within a certain radius of where they live and then stop and lose interest.

 

Just some random thoughts…feel free to expand on this discussion.

 

One problem with automatically archiving a cache when it has been disabled for a set period of time is this would leave some hiders to simply not disable a missing cache.

 

Our local reviewers are pretty good about scanning disabled caches (similar to what knowschad's reviewer does.) I've also noticed some cachers posting notes that their cache is missing and they'll get out to replace when they can rather than disabling. My assumption is that at least some of these hiders are doing that to avoid the reviewer sweep.

Edited August 5, 2010 by rob3k

[knowschad]

I ran across this looking for a few caches to do this weekend when I go see my parents.

 

something looks a bit off about it but I didn't know what to do

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...35-ed2ed2a022ab

 

I wasn't going to bother looking for it though.

 

(edited with the real link)

Nice touch that they have a Geochecker set up for one Handy if you have a smartphone I suppose, or if you DNFd and wanted to come back, but that's pretty odd for a field-math multi!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I ran across this looking for a few caches to do this weekend when I go see my parents.

 

something looks a bit off about it but I didn't know what to do

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/55234

 

I wasn't going to bother looking for it though.

 

you going to Venice, Italy for the weekend from USA?

 

It happens. I was in Rome for two days last year for essentially a two hours meeting. I also spent a considerable amount of time walking around the city and geocaching during my free time. However, as the case my for a weekend visit to see ones parents, that doesn't mean that the duration of the trip may only be for the weekend and that Venice would be the only place visited. In my case, after spending a couple of days in Rome, I got on another plane (along with those I met with in Rome) and traveled to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia for another four days of meetings before returning home.

[+Kit Fox]

caches disabled for years?

 

i haven't seen one yet, you have an example?

 

if a NM or NA log has been posted to the offending cache page the reviewer would be alerted and will intervene giving the CO a deadline to fix their cache, if no action is taken within this time they will archive it themselves

 

at least this is what happens in my area

 

Tea @ Sea (One year, one month, and three weeks)

[knowschad]

In our area, the reviewer makes periodic sweeps of caches that have been disabled for more than a few months, posts a note to those caches warning of impending archival, and follows up a month later by archiving those that haven't been fixed up. This, of course, is above and beyond the the call of duty.

 

Of course you realize that people in "our area" are spoiled rotten with a very good reviewer who is quick to respond and very easy to work with. Not everyone has a Surfer Joe...

Yup, we've got a pretty good reviewer, ( for a doorknob)!

[+t4e]

caches disabled for years?

 

i haven't seen one yet, you have an example?

 

if a NM or NA log has been posted to the offending cache page the reviewer would be alerted and will intervene giving the CO a deadline to fix their cache, if no action is taken within this time they will archive it themselves

 

at least this is what happens in my area

 

Tea @ Sea (One year, one month, and three weeks)

 

well, i'm sorry to say this but its the local cacher's fault, for over a year now nobody had the guts to post a NA log...this is what "passing the buck" attitude does, everyone else hoped that someone else will do the "dirty job" of posting the NA log and over a year later its still disabled

[+GeoGeeBee]

well, i'm sorry to say this but its the local cacher's fault, for over a year now nobody had the guts to post a NA log...this is what "passing the buck" attitude does, everyone else hoped that someone else will do the "dirty job" of posting the NA log and over a year later its still disabled

 

There seems to be a lot of that around here.

 

People complain about lousy caches, but when they find them they post "polite" logs. Instead of "the coordinates are way off, here are the correct ones" they log "found it after we widened our search." Instead of "everything about this search was awful" they post "TFTC."

 

Oh, but the CO might be new... we wouldn't want to hurt his feelings. But if he gets positive feedback on a cache that sucks, he's just going to place more sucky caches. How is he going to know his caches suck unless someone grows a pair and points it out?

 

I posted an NA log on a cache last week. Consider this sequence of logs:

 

April 20, 2008: Found it a fair distance from the coords, but I made a guess as to where it would be, and found it. . .

 

Sept. 30, 2008: . . .found it after about 30 minutes of searching. It was in the general area of where we'd been looking all along but somehow we never stumbled upon it. The container is broken though and the contents are wet. . .

 

Dec. 30, 2008: Found it on the second try. Per previous posts, the latch on the jar is broken off, the jar needs replacing.

 

(Yes, it's in a glass jar with one of those rubber-gasketed clamp-on lids.)

 

Jan. 1, 2009: Cache is adopted, new owner posts log saying he has done maintenance.

 

June 24, 2009: DNF

 

August 9, 2009: Cache had quite a bit of water in it, log is barely signable. Needs an owner visit. Honestly, maybe another type of container? Just a suggestion. (Needs Maintenance log is posted)

 

September 7, 2009: Almost could not signed the VERY wet log! T4TH. (Another Needs Maintenance log is posted)

 

There are no logs posted for nine months... hard to believe no one looked for it in that time. Then this:

 

June 8, 2010: Log was soaking wet. Cache needs some TLC. Left a TB. (why would you pick this cache to leave a TB?)

 

June 27, 2010: Unfortunately we had no pen & there was none in the cache so I tried to scratch something on the SOGGY log. (Another NM log posted.)

 

July 25, 2010: Quick find but log is soaked.

 

On July 29 I posted the NA. Why had no one done it before now? We have a cache with bad coordinates, in a questionable container, and an absent owner. It's had three NM logs posted over a period of nearly a year, with no response. If the owner has ignored the previous NM logs, why post another one?

 

Go ahead and post the NA!

[+DanOCan]

On July 29 I posted the NA. Why had no one done it before now? We have a cache with bad coordinates, in a questionable container, and an absent owner. It's had three NM logs posted over a period of nearly a year, with no response. If the owner has ignored the previous NM logs, why post another one?

 

Now, based solely on the logs you provided, the last logs which complained about the coordinates were posted more than two years ago. Quite possible the container has been moved and is now not that far off ground zero.

 

As for the soggy log issue, I have a cache which has had eight finds on it since the first person noted the log was soaked back in March. The cache is still viable, people are still finding it and enjoying the location. Yes, it has been five months and I haven't replaced the log yet, but that's because it hasn't hit the top of my priority list. I don't think a soggy log is a reason to archive a cache.

[+DanOCan]

Personally, I would like to see more caches archived on a regular basis, so locations can be “recycled”. That would keep geocaching more interesting in local areas.

 

I have a different take on things.

 

I rather enjoy seeing caches that last for years and years. If an area is really nice or interesting I'll visit it again regardless of whether or not there is a cache present. If my only excuse to return to an area is because someone recycled the location then I don't think it would maintain my interest anyway.

[+t4e]

 

As for the soggy log issue, I have a cache which has had eight finds on it since the first person noted the log was soaked back in March. The cache is still viable, people are still finding it and enjoying the location. Yes, it has been five months and I haven't replaced the log yet, but that's because it hasn't hit the top of my priority list. I don't think a soggy log is a reason to archive a cache.

 

certainly not, but if there were NM logs and you ignore it for 5 months you bet i will post that NA log

 

the log is an integral part of finding the cache, its there for people to log their visit

 

and i'm sorry but if a CO is active and caching almost every day, the "it hasn't hit the top of my priority list" its a pretty lame excuse for not maintaining their own cache

[+SwineFlew]

caches disabled for years?

 

i haven't seen one yet, you have an example?

 

if a NM or NA log has been posted to the offending cache page the reviewer would be alerted and will intervene giving the CO a deadline to fix their cache, if no action is taken within this time they will archive it themselves

 

at least this is what happens in my area

 

Tea @ Sea (One year, one month, and three weeks)

 

There! I did the dirty work for ya.

[+Rathergohiking]

I believe a bit of responsibility and courtesy comes with hiding caches. If you disable a cache, either fix it or archive it within a reasonable amount of time (month or less?). If you get a few consecutive DNFs for one of your hides, then check on the cache and post a note on the cache page that it is still there or not. If your cache is prone to being muggled (2 or more times?), then archive it.

 

Just my opinion; developed after placing 100+ hides myself over the years.

[+dbrierley]

If a cache has been disabled for more than "a few weeks" without explanation, a "needs archived" request is OK. If there is no response by the reviewer or cache owner within a few weeks, try contacting Geocaching.com. To see if there is a pattern of long-disabled caches in an area, a pocket query can be created, using the "is not active" option. Archived caches are no longer searchable, so only disabled caches are returned.

[+Quossum]

This topic just came up on my local forum, too. I started it after searching for this cache. Its last find was in 2008, then a string of DNF's, including mine (and probably many unreported DNFs during that time!). Apparently the high-difficulty cache was hidden in the ivy, but there is now no ivy on the wall. When I checkout out the CO's other hides, I found his only other two active hides had similar problems, and he hadn't logged in for over a year.

 

I wrote him a polite email, saying his caches were in need of attention, and he wrote back saying I could adopt them if I wanted to. Um, no thanks! I didn't reply to that, and then he logged into the site, making me think maybe he'd take some sort of action...but nothing changed about any of the caches.

 

It's not like I'm coveting the spots or anything, but still...guess this is one of the cases where the NA would be logical.

 

--Q

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

It's not like I'm coveting the spots or anything, but still...guess this is one of the cases where the NA would be logical.

 

 

And yet, you didn't post it?

[+t4e]

 

It's not like I'm coveting the spots or anything, but still...guess this is one of the cases where the NA would be logical.

 

 

And yet, you didn't post it?

 

more so since the CO hasn't been active cacher in about 2 years, regardless of the "last visit" date

[hoosier guy]

On July 29 I posted the NA. Why had no one done it before now? We have a cache with bad coordinates, in a questionable container, and an absent owner. It's had three NM logs posted over a period of nearly a year, with no response. If the owner has ignored the previous NM logs, why post another one?

 

Now, based solely on the logs you provided, the last logs which complained about the coordinates were posted more than two years ago. Quite possible the container has been moved and is now not that far off ground zero.

 

As for the soggy log issue, I have a cache which has had eight finds on it since the first person noted the log was soaked back in March. The cache is still viable, people are still finding it and enjoying the location. Yes, it has been five months and I haven't replaced the log yet, but that's because it hasn't hit the top of my priority list. I don't think a soggy log is a reason to archive a cache.

 

No I don't think so either. I think it is a good reason though for cachers to help out a CO by carrying a log or at least a sheet of paper or two to place in a cache with a soggy log. Life does get in the way of caching sometimes and if we can help one another out why not do it?

[+Mike_NJ]

This is an interesting thread, because it highlights a problem with a cache I was interested in finding when I was in the Austin area last week.

 

A cache that had a seemingly easy rating (1.5/1.5) has gone DNF for over 18 months (Dec 28 2008 to present).

Sadly, that fact completely turned me and my co-cachers off from even putting it on our list to seek.

 

"Hey we're close to this Sniff cache," says someone else

"It's had DNF for a year and a half" says I

"Oh, pass" says they

 

Would I be remiss in not contacting the original reviewer at the very least, or should I post NA even though I didn't go to look for it?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Mike_NJ

[hoosier guy]

This is an interesting thread, because it highlights a problem with a cache I was interested in finding when I was in the Austin area last week.

 

A cache that had a seemingly easy rating (1.5/1.5) has gone DNF for over 18 months (Dec 28 2008 to present).

Sadly, that fact completely turned me and my co-cachers off from even putting it on our list to seek.

 

"Hey we're close to this Sniff cache," says someone else

"It's had DNF for a year and a half" says I

"Oh, pass" says they

 

Would I be remiss in not contacting the original reviewer at the very least, or should I post NA even though I didn't go to look for it?

 

For me I wouldn't post a NA unless I'd gone out and looked for it myself and saw that it was gone for sure or destroyed. But that is just my thoughts & feelings.

[+dfx]

Would I be remiss in not contacting the original reviewer at the very least, or should I post NA even though I didn't go to look for it?

the owner hasn't logged in for over half a year. go ahead and post that NA.

[+Quossum]

 

It's not like I'm coveting the spots or anything, but still...guess this is one of the cases where the NA would be logical.

 

 

And yet, you didn't post it?

 

more so since the CO hasn't been active cacher in about 2 years, regardless of the "last visit" date

 

Exactly. I fully admit to my cowardice in this situation. I've only been Geocaching since May 2010--three months. I don't want to come off as one of those smart-a** newbies who starts this game and immediately thinks they're all that, wantin' to archive people's caches and stuff. And the man did respond when I emailed him, practically offering to let me adopt the caches. True, I have no desire to do that--I've got plenty of cache ideas in the works of my own--but I thought it would seem particularly churlish to decline his offer and then whip right around and post the NA instead.

 

Don't get me wrong...that's what I should do, and I will, I will. Just trying to get up the ba--uh, gumption to do so. That's why threads like this and hearing the opinions of more experienced cachers are appreciated and valuable to me, and I thank everyone for the thoughts expressed here.

 

--Q

[+t4e]

 

Exactly. I fully admit to my cowardice in this situation. I've only been Geocaching since May 2010--three months. I don't want to come off as one of those smart-a** newbies who starts this game and immediately thinks they're all that, wantin' to archive people's caches and stuff. And the man did respond when I emailed him, practically offering to let me adopt the caches. True, I have no desire to do that--I've got plenty of cache ideas in the works of my own--but I thought it would seem particularly churlish to decline his offer and then whip right around and post the NA instead.

 

Don't get me wrong...that's what I should do, and I will, I will. Just trying to get up the ba--uh, gumption to do so. That's why threads like this and hearing the opinions of more experienced cachers are appreciated and valuable to me, and I thank everyone for the thoughts expressed here.

 

--Q

 

i see your point, weird that the CO has replied but done nothing about the cache, maybe they are not aware that they should archive it if they do not wish to take care of it?

 

anyways, if you want to stay anonymous in such situations, i suggests you just send a short message to the reviewer with a link to the cache page and suggest they keep an eye on it

[+GeoGeeBee]

On July 29 I posted the NA. Why had no one done it before now? We have a cache with bad coordinates, in a questionable container, and an absent owner. It's had three NM logs posted over a period of nearly a year, with no response. If the owner has ignored the previous NM logs, why post another one?

 

Now, based solely on the logs you provided, the last logs which complained about the coordinates were posted more than two years ago. Quite possible the container has been moved and is now not that far off ground zero.

 

As for the soggy log issue, I have a cache which has had eight finds on it since the first person noted the log was soaked back in March. The cache is still viable, people are still finding it and enjoying the location. Yes, it has been five months and I haven't replaced the log yet, but that's because it hasn't hit the top of my priority list. I don't think a soggy log is a reason to archive a cache.

 

No I don't think so either. I think it is a good reason though for cachers to help out a CO by carrying a log or at least a sheet of paper or two to place in a cache with a soggy log. Life does get in the way of caching sometimes and if we can help one another out why not do it?

 

Who would I be helping if I had placed a new log in that cache? The CO who hasn't logged on to GC.com in nearly a year? The CO who hasn't responded to three NM logs for nearly a year?

 

Would I be helping the local caching community by replacing the log? It's still in a feakin' glass jar with a leaky lid. The new log is going to be wet within weeks, if not days. The coordinates are still going to be off. (Yeah, the last log to complain about it was a long time ago. I found the cache; the coordinates are still off.)

 

As I said in my NA log, it's a nice park. It deserves a better cache than this. And now that the glass jar has been archived, maybe someone will place one.

 

I have replaced logs in caches when they needed it. This cache needed more than a replacement log. It wasn't worth saving, in my opinion. The real question is why did the second and third cachers to post NM logs not go ahead and post the NA, since the owner had already shown no interest in responding to the existing NM log?

[Clan Riffster]

Just my opinion...

On the subject of opinions: (drifting a bit off topic here)

Something I've noticed time and again is, cache owners who receive a "Needs Archived" log on one of their caches can get pretty snippy about it. The odds that they'll get snippy seem to escalate greatly if the person who posted the NA hadn't even bothered to search for the cache in question, and instead, relied on the logs of other people to determine if a cache should be nuked. These cache owners often call foul, accusing the NA poster of being the cache police. Because of this extra dose of angst, I've made it a rule to never post a NA on a cache unless I've actually hunted for the cache, and I can speak directly from personal experience.

 

Note: None of what I've posted should suggest that your solution, (posting a NA), was a poor choice. I would simply have hunted first and posted second. I believe that doing it this way adds a measure of credibility to my log. I did find it odd that you've had to post more than one NA, when it appears the cache owner took no steps to rectify the problems addressed in the first NA.

 

Just my $0.02

[+DanOCan]

and i'm sorry but if a CO is active and caching almost every day, the "it hasn't hit the top of my priority list" its a pretty lame excuse for not maintaining their own cache

 

I'm active. I'm caching many days.

The cache is present. The cache is being logged. People are enjoying it.

A damp / soggy log is hardly a crisis that needs immediate attention, let alone a Needs Archived.

 

My personal rule is that I save the NA for situations where both the cache and the owner are absent, or for legal issues such as being asked to remove the cache by an angry landowner.

 

That's just my take on things.

[+Chokecherry]

This was the closest topic I could find to what I'm looking for... I have put an NA on a local cache because the remodel that was done around where the nano is hidden has made the cache inaccessible. And it's pretty apparently from the remodel that they don't want people in where that nano is... so how long does it take for the reviewer to take action on it?

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

and i'm sorry but if a CO is active and caching almost every day, the "it hasn't hit the top of my priority list" its a pretty lame excuse for not maintaining their own cache

 

I'm active. I'm caching many days.

The cache is present. The cache is being logged. People are enjoying it.

A damp / soggy log is hardly a crisis that needs immediate attention, let alone a Needs Archived.

 

My personal rule is that I save the NA for situations where both the cache and the owner are absent, or for legal issues such as being asked to remove the cache by an angry landowner.

 

That's just my take on things.

 

A cache with a slightly damp log gets a mention. A cache with a wet log gets a NM. When the log looks like a well masticated wad of chewing tobacco it gets a NA.

[+fizzymagic]

and i'm sorry but if a CO is active and caching almost every day, the "it hasn't hit the top of my priority list" its a pretty lame excuse for not maintaining their own cache

Yes, it's really horrible that someone would have priorities other than running out to make sure your experience at his cache is perfect. I mean, seriously, what is he thinking of? Doesn't he realize that you are the most important thing in the Universe?

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

and i'm sorry but if a CO is active and caching almost every day, the "it hasn't hit the top of my priority list" its a pretty lame excuse for not maintaining their own cache

Yes, it's really horrible that someone would have priorities other than running out to make sure your experience at his cache is perfect. I mean, seriously, what is he thinking of? Doesn't he realize that you are the most important thing in the Universe?

At what point does it stop being a case of haven't got to it yet and start being a case of cache neglect?

[jholly]

and i'm sorry but if a CO is active and caching almost every day, the "it hasn't hit the top of my priority list" its a pretty lame excuse for not maintaining their own cache

Yes, it's really horrible that someone would have priorities other than running out to make sure your experience at his cache is perfect. I mean, seriously, what is he thinking of? Doesn't he realize that you are the most important thing in the Universe?

At what point does it stop being a case of haven't got to it yet and start being a case of cache neglect?

When the reviewer posts the archive warning note.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

Yeah. I remember a time when that used to happen.

[+roziecakes]

In our area, the reviewer makes periodic sweeps of caches that have been disabled for more than a few months, posts a note to those caches warning of impending archival, and follows up a month later by archiving those that haven't been fixed up. This, of course, is above and beyond the the call of duty.

Here, too. I assumed that was a site-wide thing.

 

Here too. I also think that at certain points the reviewers here go through and look at caches that have NM logs as well, because I see notes that say "It looks like your cache is under the weather, etc" and they ask folks to check on them.

[+Chokecherry]

In our area, the reviewer makes periodic sweeps of caches that have been disabled for more than a few months, posts a note to those caches warning of impending archival, and follows up a month later by archiving those that haven't been fixed up. This, of course, is above and beyond the the call of duty.

Here, too. I assumed that was a site-wide thing.

 

Here too. I also think that at certain points the reviewers here go through and look at caches that have NM logs as well, because I see notes that say "It looks like your cache is under the weather, etc" and they ask folks to check on them.

 

I'm not sure ours does the NM log caches since there are many that have had those logs for many moons here. I'm the same reviewer territory as knowschad, and I have definitely seen our reviewer post notes on disabled caches. I've been kind of watching half a couple caches wondering when that's going to happen again just to see the outcome.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

I also see no sense posting a NM log to a cache with an owner that is long gone. May as well just skip to the NA.