Jump to content

Unique Virtual too special to be Archived?

SwineFlew

By SwineFlew
in General geocaching topics

Followers 7

Recommended Posts

StarBrand

+StarBrand

Posted
Posted

A little late to ask isn't it?? The outcome here is a likely archival.

 

Having said that - I was never much into virtuals, although I have very much enjoyed several. You failed to say why this one is so very special??

 

The forthcoming return of some form of virtual caches may allow some kind of revival.

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
  • Author
Posted

A little late to ask isn't it?? The outcome here is a likely archival.

 

Having said that - I was never much into virtuals, although I have very much enjoyed several. You failed to say why this one is so very special??

 

The forthcoming return of some form of virtual caches may allow some kind of revival.

 

Because this virtual is one of the kind and its grandfathered based on what people are saying on the cache page.

Link to comment
Ecylram

+Ecylram

Posted
Posted

This morning, I noticed a very"unique" virtual and the CO is MIA and there is no way to get a hold of him/her. So I hit the need archived button to let the reviewers decide what to do about it.

 

So my question is, is a very unique virtual is too special to be archived?

 

Here is the guideline for virtual cache if you wonder: Visit Link

 

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

After looking at the description and logs, I'm not sure why there would be the need to post an NA on this. On my list of caches deserving an Archive this one would pretty much be at the bottom of the list.

Link to comment
GeoGeeBee

+GeoGeeBee

Posted
Posted

 

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

 

My tongue is going to be bleeding by the time I'm done, but I'll keep it as friendly as possible.

 

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

 

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

Link to comment
Panther&Pine

+Panther&Pine

Posted
Posted

 

My tongue is going to be bleeding by the time I'm done, but I'll keep it as friendly as possible.

 

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

 

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

+1. I really don't see how anyone was harmed by this cache being up.

I'm going to ignore this thread now since it isn't going to end well.

Link to comment
sabrefan7

sabrefan7

Posted
Posted

 

My tongue is going to be bleeding by the time I'm done, but I'll keep it as friendly as possible.

 

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

 

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

+1. I really don't see how anyone was harmed by this cache being up.

I'm going to ignore this thread now since it isn't going to end well.

 

Agreed. We tend (myself included) to get attached to a particular cache. But this IMHO is out of your realm and most likely better off left alone.

Link to comment
Clan Riffster

Clan Riffster

Posted
Posted

Though, like a few others, I'm not a huge fan of virtuals, I fail to see why this one "needs" to be archived.

My own, rather biased standards for posting a "Needs Archived log require at least three elements:

 

1 ) There is a significant issue with the cache.

2 ) The owner is MIA.

3 ) The community is unwilling to unofficially adopt it.

 

Obviously, an exception would be a cache that is a blatant violation of the guidelines.

 

In the case of this cache, I only see one of the three elements.

Link to comment
mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted

Then it would be an awesome spot for a real cache.

 

The admin explains on the cache page why a traditional would not be feasible.

They must not have even clicked through to the actual cache. Probably would have been a good idea before posting that it would be an awesome spot for a real cache. I would love to see someone open that container with their "please don't let my fingers get frostbite in seconds" gloves on.

Link to comment
The Blorenges

+The Blorenges

Posted
Posted

*Sighs*

 

I'm one of the 100+ who have been watching this one for ages.

 

I suspect that it has had a blind eye turned to it for some time but now that a NA has been logged its case has come to court and justice must be seen to be done.

 

I can only hope for a reprieve because it is in such a unique location.

 

MrsB

Link to comment
GeekinTX

+GeekinTX

Posted
Posted

I'm also one of the ones that is watching this listing, because I've known people that have been to (and lived at) the South Pole. I don't anticipate I'll ever log a find on this cache, but I'm very interested in reading from those that do/will. I refuse to use the cache page as a forum to debate its existence, so I'm glad this thread was created.

 

For a virtual cache, as long as it's still possible to log it (i.e. as long as the south pole still exists), I don't see any reason to archive this, with or without a CO. The only actual need for a CO in this case is to verify logs. If people start logging finds that clearly didn't find it or if troublemakers start using the cache page as a discussion forum, then the CO is needed to clean up that mess and police the users. As long as we can be self-policing, there's no reason for a CO. If someone feels strongly that there *is* a reason to have an owner, perhaps this one should be adopted by someone like Jeremy that will be around for the long haul.

 

LordBritish hasn't checked on his caches at the ISS or the Geothermal Vents at the bottom of the Atlantic for quite awhile, yet those caches still exist, and for good reason.

Link to comment
hydnsek

+hydnsek

Posted
Posted (edited)

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

 

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

+100

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment
Harry Dolphin

+Harry Dolphin

Posted
Posted

SwineFlew, I think that it is probably none of your business. How do you know that the CO doesn't sign in, and check his cache? (And that is far nicer than what I was going to say...)

 

Very simple, go look at his profile and his email is no longer work. :blink:

 

Ah. Then it is very obvious that there are many things that you do not understand? And have come here to demonstrate that?

Where is the 'Ignore" button, so I can ignore Certain forum users??

Link to comment
Team Dennis

+Team Dennis

Posted
Posted

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

 

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

+100

 

+101

 

I think now would be a very good time to retract your NA log (can you retract NA logs???) or risk the scorn of the forum community forever.

Link to comment
firennice

+firennice

Posted
Posted (edited)

Sorry for original poster and everyone dumping on him. I would agree with him.

 

The cache owner agreed to rules, and to stay active to keep his virtual. We self police, I do not think one can be held to a different standard than another.

If a cache is being ignored or is breaking the rules there is no problem with someone saying it needs maintenance or needs archived. If the person logs in and visits, everything will move on and nothing will happen.

 

Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location.

 

Great quote, but violating the rules of the game, is violating the rules. The cache owner should know that.

 

You should be looking at the cache owner for not following the rules, not anyone else. Throwing stones at someone for letting someone know is stupid.

Edited by firennice
Link to comment
rhodesisland

+rhodesisland

Posted
Posted

I can agree that some of the postings have been harshly focused on SwineFlew, but I also agree that this cache is too unique to be archived unless all other options have been exhausted!

 

Erik,

Even I all the way out here on Guam with very little chance of ever getting to this cache, would find it regretable if it were to be archived. As others have said, the location of this cache should be taken into consideration and every effort made to contact the CO to get an adoption arranged!

Thanks for considering our veiwpoint, Erik!

rhodesisland

Link to comment
NeecesandNephews

+NeecesandNephews

Posted
Posted (edited)

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

 

My tongue is going to be bleeding by the time I'm done, but I'll keep it as friendly as possible.

 

Why in heaven's name would you post an NA on a geocache that isn't in your normal search area, that you haven't looked for, and that doesn't affect you in any possible way?

 

I'm all about geocachers being self-policing, and I don't hesitate to post an NA when it's needed. I fail to see why one was needed here. I think you stepped over a line.

 

+1

I read the opening thread... went to the cache page... and thought "what???? You're in Oregon for cryin out loud!" Every time I think I have "seen it all" something new pops up. What a waste.

All I can say is I hope the OP keeps his caches in perfect condition.

" I got guts and very thick skin"

Bet in a week you won't have a single cache left to find. NOT that I am suggesting anything to anyone... merely predicting.

Edited by NeecesandNephews
Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted

Then it would be an awesome spot for a real cache.

 

The admin explains on the cache page why a traditional would not be feasible.

 

Oops, my bad. I should have actually looked at the page. I would not have issued an SBA either. I think that all of us are the cache police, when it comes down to a cache that can give our sport a black eye, but to seek out harmless caches and post NAs - let's just say I don't get the point.

Link to comment
Don_J

+Don_J

Posted
Posted

I can agree that some of the postings have been harshly focused on SwineFlew, but I also agree that this cache is too unique to be archived unless all other options have been exhausted!

 

Erik,

Even I all the way out here on Guam with very little chance of ever getting to this cache, would find it regretable if it were to be archived. As others have said, the location of this cache should be taken into consideration and every effort made to contact the CO to get an adoption arranged!

Thanks for considering our veiwpoint, Erik!

rhodesisland

 

Caches cannot be adopted without the owners permission. Unfortunately, the short sightedness of the OP set into motion something that can't be stopped without the owner logging into their account. The reviewer is involved and the cache will undoubtedly be archived.

 

Why the OP took it upon himself to police a cache that is 9700 miles away from his home is beyond me.

Link to comment
firennice

+firennice

Posted
Posted

Then it would be an awesome spot for a real cache.

 

The admin explains on the cache page why a traditional would not be feasible.

 

Oops, my bad. I should have actually looked at the page. I would not have issued an SBA either. I think that all of us are the cache police, when it comes down to a cache that can give our sport a black eye, but to seek out harmless caches and post NAs - let's just say I don't get the point.

 

It moves 30 feet a year... I wish I always had to look within that much of a circle. If you adjust the coords, or people move it back to the marker they put out... no problem... right?

Link to comment
WRITE SHOP ROBERT

+WRITE SHOP ROBERT

Posted
Posted

This morning, I noticed a very"unique" virtual and the CO is MIA and there is no way to get a hold of him/her. So I hit the need archived button to let the reviewers decide what to do about it.

 

So my question is, is a very unique virtual is too special to be archived?

 

Here is the guideline for virtual cache if you wonder: Visit Link

 

Lets keep this thread friendly, please.

Keep it friendly?? How about not requesting archival for no good reason. In the case of no CO for a Virtual, just log your find. Only if it is getting abused should it be archived. Sorry, I just "don't get it" with this new mindset that says everything just needs to be archived. Not a smooth move.

Link to comment
Sithlock Holmes

+Sithlock Holmes

Posted
Posted

Not turn turn this into the typical semantic argument of guideline vs rule...

But if there is enough leeway to allow for an exception to be possible, I think this cache would certainly qualify.

 

I will also echo the 'why' of others. Just don't get it. It seems like it would take more than 'rules is rules' to do this to such a neat and very out of the way virt.

Link to comment
WRITE SHOP ROBERT

+WRITE SHOP ROBERT

Posted
Posted

... sigh... SwineFlew... why?

 

I got guts and very thick skin.

 

Reread the guideline, it applies on all virtuals, unique or not.

So you obviously have no real interest in any answer and simply dropped by here to show(off) your prowness?!!!!? :ph34r:

No, Not at all...I decided that since something I tried to do was junked by the "Guidelines", that I will retaliate by searching out other things that are not within the "Guidelines" and pointing them out.

Link to comment
narcissa

+narcissa

Posted
Posted

I still find it sad that everyone's piling on the person that spoke up, and no mention of the person that abandoned their cache.

 

If the person was still around, even logging in, there would be no issue.

 

Sometimes people leave the game. Unless you know the circumstances, getting judgmental about it is out of line.

 

There's no need to gang up on SwineFlew, and no reason to get nasty about the cache owner.

Link to comment
firennice

+firennice

Posted
Posted (edited)

I agree Narcissa. There is no reason to gang up on anyone.

 

Everyone knows if you own caches and leave.. there are consequences. It may be illness, death, or just getting bored with everything.

 

If I left for a year, even forced out and cut off from internet. I would not expect my caches to all be there when coming back. I may expect to come back in a few weeks or a month, but I understand the consequences.

 

It was only a matter of time before a reviewer noticed it in a sweep, someone emailed the reviewer, or posted a needs archived. The results would have been the same. A warning posted, and then wait to see what the cache owner does.

 

That is why stone throwing is dumb.

Edited by firennice
Link to comment
Sharks-N-Beans

+Sharks-N-Beans

Posted
Posted

Doesn't look like the CO ever did anything other than list the cache. Tried to look for anything significant about this one and couldn't get past photoshopped joke finds. Not saying there aren't, but unfortunately those who made the trek are blurred in a sea of crap. Personally, I would be a little disappointed if I made the effort and the CO couldn't even maintain some sense of truth on the cache page. Just thinking everyone is looking at this like it has historical significance, but the way it was allowed to progress from the start renders it insignificant. Just one point of view.

Link to comment
G & C

+G & C

Posted
Posted

Definitely a lame NA posting. There was no reason for it whatsoever. No complaints about the cache, no complaints about the CO. Poster had never looked for the cache, and probably was never anywhere even remotely near the cache. What a blatantly stupid thing to do. Just callin' a spade a spade.

Link to comment
ao318

ao318

Posted
Posted

SwineFlew, I think that it is probably none of your business. How do you know that the CO doesn't sign in, and check his cache? (And that is far nicer than what I was going to say...)

 

Very simple, go look at his profile and his email is no longer work. :blink:

 

I still find it sad that everyone's piling on the person that spoke up, and no mention of the person that abandoned their cache.

 

If the person was still around, even logging in, there would be no issue.

 

I am not defending the CO but with many smart-phones a member can access the site without ever truly logging in. I have had people make finds on my caches that have logged the find from their phone and when I checked their profile I would notice that they hadn't logged in for months or longer, yet their cache finds have continued beyond that date.

Link to comment
Ecylram

+Ecylram

Posted
Posted

Sorry for original poster and everyone dumping on him. I would agree with him.

 

The cache owner agreed to rules, and to stay active to keep his virtual. We self police, I do not think one can be held to a different standard than another.

If a cache is being ignored or is breaking the rules there is no problem with someone saying it needs maintenance or needs archived. If the person logs in and visits, everything will move on and nothing will happen.

 

Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location.

 

Great quote, but violating the rules of the game, is violating the rules. The cache owner should know that.

 

You should be looking at the cache owner for not following the rules, not anyone else. Throwing stones at someone for letting someone know is stupid.

 

To be frank, I don't believe a cacher should be policing from thousands of miles away, without searching for the cache. For example, here are some caches that are 360 miles away from me, give or take. You might recognize them, as they are yours (firennice).

 

Durin - Dwarf - Middle Earth Cache - On 5/21/10 there was a report that the cache was muggled and a NM was files. A DNF was filed on 10/30/10 and it hasn't been found since. I could choose to file a NA on the cache thinking I'm being a good citizen. But for all I know, the cache is there and you just forgot to clear the NM attribute. There's no way I should file a NA.

 

4 Years of Geocaching - On 11/27/10 a cacher posted an NM on this cache stating the container was cracked. On 12/4 a cacher reported having to pour water out of the cache. The NM attribute has not been cleared and there is no notes from the owner that the cache was repaired. Should I post a NA because the CO isn't maintaining there cache? Of course not. I've never seen the cache and really don't know what is going on.

 

Signage - This cache has two consecutive DNF's and hasn't been found since 10/8/10. A couple of find logs before that mentioned the cache has been vandalized and that the cache needs maintenance. The NM attribute has not been cleared and there are no CO notes about checking on the cache. Also, it could be argued that the cache description encourages cachers to park illegally. Why not file a NA? Because I haven't visited the cache site. For all I know everything is going along swimmingly. It wouldn't be the first time that the logs give a false impression.

.

Friends in Low Places - This cache had an NM filed on 11/25/10 after it hadn't been found since 10/20/09. The cache was disabled nearly two months later and has been disabled for over a month without the cache being checked. An armchair logger could say the owner isn't doing their job and file an NA. That would be a RUBBISH thing to do, IMO.

 

For those who haven't caught on, the CO has placed 184 caches and I've cherry picked four examples and painted worst-case scenarios. The CO actually has a significant number of caches with multiple favorite votes and is obviously still actively involved in the game.

 

My point is, cachers shouldn't be posting NA's on caches they've haven't gone after. Especially when there is not serious known problem with the cache. If they want to "clean up the game" they should visit caches in their own area. For example, the PQ I ran to pull the above information turned up 1000 caches with uncleared NM's within a 50-mile radius.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 7
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...