Go ahead, ARCHIVE that cache!

[+roziecakes]

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.

 

I agree with this. If the cache owner hasn't logged on in a year or more I usually go that route.

[+t4e]

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?

 

maybe you should read my reply again before shooting your mouth, does it make it more visible for you now?

Edited August 11, 2010 by t4e

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

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.

 

I've done this from time to time, and it often yields an even better Cache that what I had hidden. When I first started I thought of always archiving my Caches after 1 year, but I kinda get attached to some of them.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

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.

 

I've done this from time to time, and it often yields an even better Cache that what I had hidden. When I first started I thought of always archiving my Caches after 1 year, but I kinda get attached to some of them.

 

I do have a couple of favorites that I just haven't been able to bring myself to archive. For the most part, though, I archive a couple of my caches every now and then. I don't understand why folks seem to feel a cache needs to live forever. Once all the locals have found it give someone else a chance to take their creativity out for a spin.

[+BullRit]

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?

 

Last month I sent a PM to a CO with more than 20 active hides who had not logged into GC for several months. He responded in less than 10 minutes but still hasn't logged into GC as of this date. He is managing the caches via his email account. I've learned that the last login date doesn't tell the full story

[+sillygirl & jrr]

This thread reminded me of a cache in Santa Barbara, Jail House Rock hasn't been found since 11/2008 and isn't even disabled! When we looked for in March 2010 we posted a NM and an SBA, and since then only 3 more DNFs! It annoyed us at the time since it was the closest cache to the Mission. I wonder why the reviewer didn't take any action in this case? Maybe now it will at least get disabled.

 

On the other hand, just because a cache hasn't been found in a while, doesn't mean it's not there. On the same trip one of our favorite finds Fairway View (pretty much a park) grab hadn't been found for 9 months.

 

The Santa Barbara trip was where I learned to use GSAK to filter out caches with 4 DNFs in a row as it seemed like S.B. had lots of missing caches. We only posted NM logs on ones we looked for, but there were a lot more that we skipped entirely.

 

As for archiving caches once the locals have found them.... it seems funny to us. But then again most of our caches have more finds by visitors than locals!

 

jrr

[+roziecakes]

 

On the other hand, just because a cache hasn't been found in a while, doesn't mean it's not there. On the same trip one of our favorite finds Fairway View (pretty much a park) grab hadn't been found for 9 months.

 

 

That's true... I think though, that a cache that obviously is falling apart, or is obviously missing, say it has over 5 DNFS at least warrants a NM log if not an NA if the cache owner has not responded to multiple NM logs, or requests to check on it, etc.

 

But yes, some caches just haven't been found in a long time, it's true.

[+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?

maybe you should read my reply again before shooting your mouth, does it make it more visible for you now?

It was always quite visible, thanks. And I did read your post before, as you say, "shooting my mouth."

 

It's still completely clear that you feel entitled to have cache hiders maintain their caches to your standards on your schedule.

 

This sense of entitlement has really grown in the sport in the last couple of years. I think it's because there are so many cachers now that, for new cachers, it feels like a "consumer" sport. Cache hiders are viewed in the same way that businesses are; if their service is not up to snuff, then you feel you should quickly complain. The problem here is that cache hiders are not businesses that exist to serve you. They are regular people who have done you the favor of putting out a cache for you to find.

 

Sorry, but the constant complaints about cache hiders not maintaining their caches to your standards on your time schedule come across as incredibly self-centered and entitled.

 

I doubt you are really that way; as a result, I think it would be helpful to change your attitude to be grateful to cache hiders when they perform maintenance rather than constantly critical of their inadequate efforts. Remember that there are far more caches out there than anyone will ever be able to do in their lifetime. If some individual cache isn't up to your standards, then feel free to ignore it. But the constant complaints in the forums are not very, well, attractive.

[+Walts Hunting]

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

 

It not the reviewers responsibility to look for long disabled caches. The fact that one mentioned above does take a proactive approach is admirable but not part of his/her basic function.

 

Many people are reluctant to do a NA log to avoid a confrontation so they do a NM log which the CO does not have to respond to. It just creates the attribute and people can take that into account.

 

I take a little more aggressive approach and if I have a cache that pops up in a PQ for an area I am going to and there are consecutive DNF's I will read them to see why they were filed. Sometimes the DNF's aren't because the searcher can't find it but things like "It was getting to dark for us so we decided to come another day". I will submit a NA.

 

You will hear some people say to do a NM first but several consecutive DNF's with comments "it's not there" constitute sufficient notice to the CO that there is a problem and at the least he/she should have disabled it until they can get to it.

[+lachupa]

Isn't part of the problem here that people get overly ambitious with placing caches?

 

I was on a caching run this weekend and ran across someone who said in the description that he was trying to place 202 caches. I have no idea what the significance of that number is for him but it seems like a lot of caches to me.

 

I was working off of a pocket query that was just based on zipcode. We spent some time looking for one that turned out to be an earthcache so we’ve learned to add filters to these things. Hey we’re getting smarter.

 

Anyway, Mr 202 - The first one of his we found was a guardrail park and grab style. It was a film canister that I don’t see lasting out the winter, but hey whatever. The second one of his was in a little river walk that was pretty nice and a good size cache although it was sort of stuck shut and really hard to get open.

 

The one in the river walk had a note in it that someone had replaced the bag and did some clean up on the cache. The second one had a note in the logs that it had been replaced with permission of the owner due to the fact that it was clearly missing.

 

I don’t know the particulars here but it looks like someone got all excited and scattered way more caches out there than he could maintain and they’re starting to decay. At least other people are picking up the slack, but should that really be necessary? Isn’t part of placing a cache taking responsibility to maintain it?

[+BulldogBlitz]

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.

 

to top that... i wouldn't bother posting an NA on a cache in an area that i was just visiting. there are 1,000 more caches to find out there without getting bent out of shape over one in a place i'm only visiting.

[+BulldogBlitz]

It was always quite visible, thanks. And I did read your post before, as you say, "shooting my mouth."

 

It's still completely clear that you feel entitled to have cache hiders maintain their caches to your standards on your schedule.

 

This sense of entitlement has really grown in the sport in the last couple of years. I think it's because there are so many cachers now that, for new cachers, it feels like a "consumer" sport. Cache hiders are viewed in the same way that businesses are; if their service is not up to snuff, then you feel you should quickly complain. The problem here is that cache hiders are not businesses that exist to serve you. They are regular people who have done you the favor of putting out a cache for you to find.

 

Sorry, but the constant complaints about cache hiders not maintaining their caches to your standards on your time schedule come across as incredibly self-centered and entitled.

 

I doubt you are really that way; as a result, I think it would be helpful to change your attitude to be grateful to cache hiders when they perform maintenance rather than constantly critical of their inadequate efforts. Remember that there are far more caches out there than anyone will ever be able to do in their lifetime. If some individual cache isn't up to your standards, then feel free to ignore it. But the constant complaints in the forums are not very, well, attractive.

 

some cache hiders are prolific in their attempts to geospam the countryside.... all because someone didn't bother to tell them on their first cache hide that their container was lousy and did a better job of holding water than keeping water out. now... there are 300 of these containers... that's a hefty chunk to "ignore".

 

i say ... complain on! if they don't like to hear complaints... fix it or don't hide caches.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

It was always quite visible, thanks. And I did read your post before, as you say, "shooting my mouth."

 

 

Wow. Is nicey-nice week over already?

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

 

It was always quite visible, thanks. And I did read your post before, as you say, "shooting my mouth."

 

 

Wow. Is nicey-nice week over already?

 

It never got off the ground. It certainly never made through to the end of that thread.

[+Castle Mischief]

This sense of entitlement has really grown in the sport in the last couple of years. I think it's because there are so many cachers now that, for new cachers, it feels like a "consumer" sport. Cache hiders are viewed in the same way that businesses are; if their service is not up to snuff, then you feel you should quickly complain. The problem here is that cache hiders are not businesses that exist to serve you. They are regular people who have done you the favor of putting out a cache for you to find.

 

Sorry, but the constant complaints about cache hiders not maintaining their caches to your standards on your time schedule come across as incredibly self-centered and entitled.

 

I doubt you are really that way; as a result, I think it would be helpful to change your attitude to be grateful to cache hiders when they perform maintenance rather than constantly critical of their inadequate efforts. Remember that there are far more caches out there than anyone will ever be able to do in their lifetime. If some individual cache isn't up to your standards, then feel free to ignore it. But the constant complaints in the forums are not very, well, attractive.

 

As opposed to the entitlement game of "I can put anything out to be found and you should all thank me no matter what the sad shape my cache is in?"

 

Entitlement, regardless of what you may have read, works both ways.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

It was always quite visible, thanks. And I did read your post before, as you say, "shooting my mouth."

 

 

Wow. Is nicey-nice week over already?

 

There is no hostility, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

[+dbrierley]

 

It's still completely clear that you feel entitled to have cache hiders maintain their caches to your standards on your schedule.

 

 

It isn't about any one person's standards or schedule; it's about Geocaching.com's standards and schedule. The guidelines say:

 

"As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive the listing."

 

If a cache owner finds the guidelines too burdensome, listing the cache on a another service is an option.

[Clan Riffster]

It's still completely clear that you feel entitled to have cache hiders maintain their caches to your standards on your schedule.

Personally, my entitlement kicks in right around the time that reasonableness has ended. If someone makes, what I perceive to be a reasonable attempt to maintain their caches, based largely upon what is going on in their lives, I have no issues with their hides getting the occasional soggy log. However, if they appear to be simply sitting on their duff, waiting for someone else to do their work for them, I have a problem with that. In my opinion, performing needed maintenance trumps spending the day racking up more finds. Obviously, some folks don't agree with that opinion. I know I had to check a little box for each cache I hid, stating that I read and understood the guidelines, before Groundspeak would publish it. These guidelines include language that addresses the need to maintain what I hid. Some folks take that responsibility pretty seriously. Others, apparently, do not.

 

I take a little more aggressive approach... ...I will submit a NA.

My approach is far more passive, whether the cache in question is local to me, or included in a vacation PQ. With the exception of land manager complaints, I will not post a NA for any cache that I haven't physically hunted for myself. I believe that, by adhering to this self imposed rule, my NAs will better reflect actual conditions, rather than simply following, lemming like, after the logs of other seekers.

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

I've done this from time to time, and it often yields an even better Cache that what I had hidden. When I first started I thought of always archiving my Caches after 1 year, but I kinda get attached to some of them.

 

I do have a couple of favorites that I just haven't been able to bring myself to archive. For the most part, though, I archive a couple of my caches every now and then. I don't understand why folks seem to feel a cache needs to live forever. Once all the locals have found it give someone else a chance to take their creativity out for a spin.

 

Add me to the list of COs who don't feel a cache needs to last forever. Ours tend to stay around for 3-5 years. At that point I tend to get bored and the maintenance starts to become a chore. When that happens it's time to remove the cache and archive it. Afterwards, I have been more then pleasantly surprised at the better caches that get placed in the area (and we pride ourselves in placing decent caches).

[+Too Tall John]

Hrm. . . This 'entitlement' bit has gotten me thinking. I was looking at my "NM" logs the other day, and ran across a response from the cache owner of a cache I fixed to the best of my abilities, but needed more attention.

Juneuary 6, 1788 by SupahCachah (9,820,239 found)

Out with Too Tall John. . . We found the log on the ground, the hook still in place, but no container. Too Tall put the log in a baggie and taped it to the hook. Cache maintenance is required. TFTC!

Juneuary 6 1788 by ImaTool (1,122,666 found)

Apparently cache needs repair. WIll perform in in the coming days. On a side note, I hope cachers in the area realize that it IS ok for them to take it upon themselves to repair caches that are broken, have full logs, or wet logs etc etc. In fact, it is encouraged.

This is from a guy who hasn't been caching a year and a half yet, and has 350+ hides! I fixed his durned cache to the best of my ability at the time, it seems to me his stating "that it IS ok for [cachers] to take it upon themselves to repair caches that are broken" is a bit entitled. If you feel you need to rely on others to maintain your film cans and pill bottles, maybe you need to rethink your hides.

 

Oh! On a recently published cache that had a name taken from a popular movie that he has an entire series of caches based on, he posted a note on the cache page:

Juneuary 99 1788 by ImaTool (1,122,666 found)

 

Original cache name.....

He doesn't hold the rights to the movie name, and the cache is a good 40 miles away from his home caching area! Not only that, but in his series, the cache names have nothing to do with the location, but the cache he posted the note on states how the spot reminds the cache owner of the part of the movie mentioned in the title.

 

Talk about entitlement.

[+t4e]

 

It was always quite visible, thanks. And I did read your post before, as you say, "shooting my mouth."

 

It's still completely clear that you feel entitled to have cache hiders maintain their caches to your standards on your schedule.

 

This sense of entitlement has really grown in the sport in the last couple of years. I think it's because there are so many cachers now that, for new cachers, it feels like a "consumer" sport. Cache hiders are viewed in the same way that businesses are; if their service is not up to snuff, then you feel you should quickly complain. The problem here is that cache hiders are not businesses that exist to serve you. They are regular people who have done you the favor of putting out a cache for you to find.

 

Sorry, but the constant complaints about cache hiders not maintaining their caches to your standards on your time schedule come across as incredibly self-centered and entitled.

 

I doubt you are really that way; as a result, I think it would be helpful to change your attitude to be grateful to cache hiders when they perform maintenance rather than constantly critical of their inadequate efforts. Remember that there are far more caches out there than anyone will ever be able to do in their lifetime. If some individual cache isn't up to your standards, then feel free to ignore it. But the constant complaints in the forums are not very, well, attractive.

 

well you obviously choose to interpret my words the way you want

 

yes, i am grateful to those that put caches out, but to a certain extent...if you just toss it out there and don't give a dadgum about it and expect other cachers to fix it for you just out of gratefulness you got the wrong idea about this game and i am not grateful by any means

 

there is no sense of entitlement from my part by any stretch of imagination, its plain ans simple your responsibility as a cache owner, when you click "submit" on a new cache you agree to the guidelines which include your responsibilities as CO to take care of it

 

i have fixed many caches on my travels, i even replaced containers etc and i do believe in lending a helping hand, my problem is with those that will blatantly say "i have no time" "its not at the top of my priority list" or even worse ignore any NM on their caches, meanwhile they go out caching every day....and this is the part you seem to ignore in my original post

 

now those CO are the ones with a sense of entitlement "i put it out, you be grateful and fix it for me"

 

yes, life happens and other things come before taking care of your caches at least show some courtesy and

acknowledge the fact that there is a problem with your cache, post a note and if you don't want to play the game anymore give it up for adoption or archive it

 

the problem is some people don't care just because its a game

 

what constant complains? i think you're confusing me with someone else

 

forums are for discussions, since when one's opinion is a complaint?

 

in any case if you don't like my complaining, you're free not to reply or to put me on your ignore list

 

ooh and one more thing, if you think i complain maybe you should spend some time in the FEEDBACK section and see how threads are about "cache maintenance" issues

Edited August 13, 2010 by t4e

[+TitusLlewelyn]

I agree. If a cacher gets out of the game, the caches can be adopted officially. I have adopted many caches because the original owner moved or quit caching.

 

Caches can be saved. You can edit anything but the GC number. You can replaced an ammo can with a baby soda bottle and edit the listing to show that. You can mnove a cache up to 527 feet yourself. I have ahd caches that were muggled and move them 30 feet and they are OK. The muggles can not fidn them with no GPS and no access to GC.com.

 

We have had a number of cachers disappear in our part of the world. Usually teh caches die one at a time wasting a lot of time and money for unknowing cachers. Up in arkansas a cache can be reported as needing to be archived and the steps to archive it start in less than a day. In East Texas it takes a week or so. We all love new caches, but let us admit that missing ones do not help our sport.

 

Groundspeak has been getting their reviewers to archive Virtual Caches in which the owner can not be reached by email. That is sad in a way. If they started archiving other types of caches of owners that can not be reached by email I suspect that about 8-10% of the caches would be in trouble. At least that is the way it is around where I live and cache.

 

We have found a number of caches that were disabled. Typically they had poor coordinates and no hint. after a DNF or two the cache owner disables the cache and places a note saying, "I will check on this soon." well, a year later is still not 'soon'. Alarms should start going off some place if the cache owner has not signed in in a period of say 90 days. The same for caches disabled for long periods. And then perhaps for a number of DNFs in row.

 

All caches marked as needing archived should be reviewed and some action taken. It is that simple. The one reporting it could be incorrect, but that would be OK in most cases. An archived cache can be unarchived and returned to service.

 

===================================

 

 

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.

[jholly]

Virtuals are no longer a listable cache, they are grandfarthered. Instead of doing a mass execution GS has chosen to allow attrition to eliminate the virtuals and part of this is that they can not be adopted.

 

If you adopt a cache and change the container type, especially from a regular to a micro, move the blooming thing 527 feet you really should have archived the cache and started over, it is a whole new experience.

 

If the cache has been disabled for a year file a NA. I've do that and most times the owner will just archive it. I can say that every cache I filed a NA on has been archived, some times it takes a couple months for things to happen but it does.

 

Lastly, not every cache needs or should be saved. Some should be allowed to quitely whimper in the corner and die.

[+TitusLlewelyn]

Some should have never been placed in the first place.

 

=======================================

 

Virtuals are no longer a listable cache, they are grandfarthered. Instead of doing a mass execution GS has chosen to allow attrition to eliminate the virtuals and part of this is that they can not be adopted.

 

If you adopt a cache and change the container type, especially from a regular to a micro, move the blooming thing 527 feet you really should have archived the cache and started over, it is a whole new experience.

 

If the cache has been disabled for a year file a NA. I've do that and most times the owner will just archive it. I can say that every cache I filed a NA on has been archived, some times it takes a couple months for things to happen but it does.

 

Lastly, not every cache needs or should be saved. Some should be allowed to quitely whimper in the corner and die.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

I agree. If a cacher gets out of the game, the caches can be adopted officially. I have adopted many caches because the original owner moved or quit caching.

 

Not without the owners consent. Not for several years anyway.

[+Chokecherry]

I put a na on a local cache a couple weeks ago only to have it still sitting there waiting for reviewer attention. Not only is the nano not maintained but since a park rebuild it is very obvious the city does not want people climbing where that cache is. What used to be wide open is now surrounded by a wall with the only opening being where one can climb. I heard from some new local cachers that they tried to find it unfamiliar with the lingo here. I explained. So that being said I'm hesitant to do a na on future caches with issues knowing that it's as easily blown off as a nm.

[+Mauison]

I've posted numerous SBA logs on caches here on Maui. A few prolific hiders moved off the island, leaving their caches unmaintained. Eventually they went missing and nothing happened, not even a temp. disabled log. So I posted the SBA log after reading about cachers here on their vacation, searching for caches that were no longer there. I didn't want future searchers to have these bad caching experiences here so by posting the NA notes, I've "cleaned" up the area.

 

Sometimes Needs Maintenance logs don't work. I've posted them for caches owned by active cachers (or cachers with island "guardians") but have gotten no response. Most of the time when I post a SBA log, action gets taken quickly.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I put a na on a local cache a couple weeks ago only to have it still sitting there waiting for reviewer attention. Not only is the nano not maintained but since a park rebuild it is very obvious the city does not want people climbing where that cache is. What used to be wide open is now surrounded by a wall with the only opening being where one can climb. I heard from some new local cachers that they tried to find it unfamiliar with the lingo here. I explained. So that being said I'm hesitant to do a na on future caches with issues knowing that it's as easily blown off as a nm.

 

If it's only been "a couple weeks" I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it is still waiting for reviewer attention. It's possible that the reviewer has contacted the cache owner to give him a chance to move the cache or otherwise deal with it. It would only seem fair that the reviewer would give the CO time to respond before archiving the cache.

[+Pond Bird]

If the cache hasn't had maintenance performed on it in years, then I would tell a reviewer.

[+Tassie_Boy]

If the cache hasn't had maintenance performed on it in years, then I would tell a reviewer.

 

Go easy with that digger mate, post before your's was 5 years old.

[+cerberus1]

If the cache hasn't had maintenance performed on it in years, then I would tell a reviewer.

Quick on the trigger, aren't ya?

 

Our ammo can hides that don't get hit by kids with the muggle app last a long time before we check, to find we didn't really need to do that maintenance afterall.

One I checked just two months ago after a fake logger (folks stated they were heading there soon), and even though it sat since '11, all contents were dry and still looking new.

Though back a ways, I can see it's there from the road.

How 'bout a mail to the CO before you go rushing off to tell...

[+J Grouchy]

If the cache hasn't had maintenance performed on it in years, then I would tell a reviewer.

 

Go easy with that digger mate, post before your's was 5 years old.

 

Pond Bird seems to be digging up years-old threads...what gives?

[+AustinMN]

That's interesting.

[+J Grouchy]

That's interesting.