Harsh! Reviewer archiving with NO notice

[+rutson]

Is this a new policy, if so I disagree with it whole-heartedly:

 

http://coord.info/GC1E4VZ

 

OK, it's not been found for months, but the cache took me two goes, I feel the owner needs some notice of intention of archive.

[+mpilchfamily]

I see no problem. Its been DNF for quite a while. I just surprised no one logged a NM or a NA.

 

I'm surprised this reviewer took the time to look through caches like that and archive it. Sure most reviewers may disable the cache leaving a note for the CO to fix it in a time period or it will be archived. But that's just a courtesy. They have full right to archive right away. just as that reviewer did. He quoted the guidelines regarding this. After such a long period of time it seems clear that the CO isn't maintaining the cache anymore.

[+Mad H@ter]

I think that if you read the reviewers note you will see that this seems to be a mistake as it does state that the cache is being disabled. I belive/hope that this was just a slip of the mouse.

[+Stuey]

I agree, VERY harsh! Two recent attempts are from low find count cachers, and the last one is obviously clueless as they say that they pulled all the stones out of the wall.

[Deceangi]

As from reading the Reviewer Note, it appears a slip of the Mouse in regards to selecting the log type. As dalesmanX will have worked from the Admin version of the page, meaning a completely different layout, I know from personal experience that is possible.

 

May I ask why you dived straight into the forum with this. Rather than contacting dalesmanX first, and giving him a chance to explain and rectify the action. Considering it's already generated

 

I agree, VERY harsh!

 

When you don't even know if it's genuine action or a genuine mistake. How about giving dalemanX a chance to explain, before making further comments

 

Deci

[+harrogate hunters]

I have had three no finds on a recent cache of mine and someone reported it !!!

 

My cache could have gone the same way.....

 

Its actually still there, the recent no finders need to go to specsavers

 

There used to be a time when geocachers looked after their own caches, this system seemed to work very well, obviously times have changed !!!

[+Afterburned]

As from reading the Reviewer Note, it appears a slip of the Mouse in regards to selecting the log type. As dalesmanX will have worked from the Admin version of the page, meaning a completely different layout, I know from personal experience that is possible.

 

May I ask why you dived straight into the forum with this. Rather than contacting dalesmanX first, and giving him a chance to explain and rectify the action. Considering it's already generated

 

I agree, VERY harsh!

 

When you don't even know if it's genuine action or a genuine mistake. How about giving dalemanX a chance to explain, before making further comments

 

Deci

 

Well that's no fun! This way we all get to wade in with uninformed opinions (like this one)!

[+dalesmanX]

I have NEVER claimed to be infallible.

[team tisri]

From the log text, "If there is no response to this log after 14 days I will archive the cache. In the meantime I am disabling it." it seems pretty clear that it was supposed to be disabled rather than archived.

[+shadowmib]

Can a cache be un-archived?

[+Simply Paul]

Can a cache be un-archived?

Yes, but only by a reviewer. I hope this one gets a check and reactivated if it's available. For the record, I've never claimed to be inflatable.

[+Madyokel]

Yes it can.

As a similar should show sometime in the morning I hope.

But will it be the longest placed to approved in the UK..

July 08..Tut Tut Must be the best maintained cache and nobody has signed the log yet..

To make it worse.. It has a twin

[+t4e]

and people are wondering why many don't log DNF's

 

since when a string of 4 DNF's means the cache is not available?

 

perhaps is just an overzealous reviewer

[+rutson]

dalesman. I apologise. I did not read every word of the log. I noticed the format had changed and the immediate archive only.

 

This got my goat as the last time something like this happened the time period was seven days and it was a new policy that the reviewer community had come up with and the first we knew was warning notices being slapped on caches. I had a cache archived before I'd had a chance to read the notice never mind get to the cache.

[+Unobtainium]

I can see that the archiving part of this situation was a mistake and was not intended. However I do question the posting of the archiving notice on a cache where none of the visitors thought that it needed maintenance let alone archiving.

 

I personally would check a cache after 1 or 2 DNF's but I know others that wait for the NM log.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Andy K!

[Deceangi]

I can see that the archiving part of this situation was a mistake and was not intended. However I do question the posting of the archiving notice on a cache where none of the visitors thought that it needed maintenance let alone archiving.

 

I personally would check a cache after 1 or 2 DNF's but I know others that wait for the NM log.

 

What the community do not see from one log, is a background that caused the Reviewer to take that action.

 

Every action we take, we have to be prepared to justify that action to Groundspeak. Who if they believed the action was unwarranted, can reverse it. Or alternatively issue a warning or even a appropriate sanction to that Reviewer, the most sever and ultimate sanction being to remove the Reviewer as a Site Volunteer.

 

To those who doubt this, I can tell you that I have personally had a Warning off Groundspeak for a action I took. One which a UK cacher complained about, a complaint Groundspeak upheld. So Reviewers are not immune from the consequences of their actions. And in this case, knowing the background to this case, I personally would say dalemanX was correct in taking the intended action of Disabling the cache.

 

That sends a clear signal to the Cache Owner that there is a issue that needs resolving. Inthis case a Physical Maintenance is needed. If the CO is not able to Physically Visit the cache, than all that is needed is a Owner note to the cache page, in regards to when it will be Physically Maintained, or a email to dalesmanX.

 

One of the biggest complaints Reviewers see, is about quality. That is something which can not be applied to the Review process, however what can be applied by Reviewers, is the requirement by the Guidelines for Cache Owners to Physically Maintain their caches. And that is something dalesmanX is applying.

 

Again the community is not seeing the background information from just one log. If anyone cares to make a more detailed investigation into the background, the reasoning will become clear.

 

Deci

[+Unobtainium]

Deci,

 

whilst I agree with everything you have said, may be those visitors should have taken more action and posted the NM log?

[+Amberel]

If we change the discussion to being a disablement rather than an archive, as it's clear that was what was intended, I would have assumed that some attempted private email correspondence preceded the disablement, and I'd be happy with that.

... the most severe and ultimate sanction being to remove the Reviewer as a Site Volunteer.

Knowing what the reviewers go through, that doesn't sound like a SANCTION .

 

The only very minor issue I have is with a 14 day period - lots of people go on holiday for 2 weeks, and unlucky timing could mean they don't see an email in time. No duration is going to cover all the bases, of course, but I think 21 days might be better.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+maxkim]

Yes it can.

As a similar should show sometime in the morning I hope.

But will it be the longest placed to approved in the UK..

July 08..Tut Tut Must be the best maintained cache and nobody has signed the log yet..

To make it worse.. It has a twin

Can't see anything yet??? :) MaxKim.

[+maxkim]

Looking at the cache, reading all the logs on it and the fact that DalesmanX has seen the actual cache suggests there is more to this than meets the eye. As Ian has said, when you read the final log it was intended to be a temp disablement which would be the correct response (Note to self to sort two of our caches today!!!) and just a mistake that it was archived straight away. (Heavens knows I have even hit the Found button instead of the DNF button before now) :blink: Cheers MaxKim

[Deceangi]

Deci,

 

whilst I agree with everything you have said, may be those visitors should have taken more action and posted the NM log?

 

I can't comment for other countries, but this is something I've seen prevalent within the UK community. Members will not post NM or MA logs, because they do not wish to be castigated by the community or by the cache owner. And before anyone says it does not happen, I've personally had community members come to me, due to that happening.

 

There are members who prefer to contact Reviewers in private, so as to hide their identity. Many times they apologise for contacting me over the issue, but they prefer to go down that route than openly post a NM or NA log. Some doing so after having been castigated in the past for doing so publicly.

 

It's the ethos within the UK community which needs to change, with members making NM & NA logs being supported and not castigated.

 

So we need to get the ethos of castigating anyone who makes a NM/NA log changed to one of supporting them. As they are trying to do the best for the whole community. Personally I've been trying that for nearly 5 years. And whilst some within the community now do so, there is still a prevalent ethos of castigating. It's changing for the better, but the community has to take up the education of other members for it to completely happen.

 

How many post honest but polite logs when there are issues, or the cache is just a "one to do for the numbers" because it's in a location where there is rubbish or there is no good reason to have brought anyone there. Most will just post TNLNSL, where a log stating, the area has degenerated to a rubbish collection area, is honest and helpful.

 

Another issue which is preventing people posting genuine MN logs, is that within the UK there has been a huge increase of newer cachers posting a NM log, when they can't find the container. That's another issue the community needs to action, by educating those who make such logs instead of a DNF (how many within the community actually and regularly post DNF logs?)

 

It's amazing how just one comment, can open up a world of issues

 

We constantly joke that any person who gets asked to join the Reviewer Team, does not get full disclosure that's because a lot of it can't be explained and has to be experienced. When the person steps through that magic door, they get a total system shock. Because what's been about local issues, suddenly becomes about community wide issues. The picture has become the Big One, which is a jigsaw where parts which seem should fit together don't quite, and the job is to resolve why.

 

Deci

[+maxkim]

Yes it can.

As a similar should show sometime in the morning I hope.

But will it be the longest placed to approved in the UK..

July 08..Tut Tut Must be the best maintained cache and nobody has signed the log yet..

To make it worse.. It has a twin

Can't see anything yet??? :) MaxKim.

All has become clear... LOL. Max

[+Madyokel]

Yes..

Many Thanks DalesmanX

Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal "The Park"

Published as the rain stopped and the sun came out

 

Shure is an old cache number though

Edited March 13, 2011 by Madyokel

[+Unobtainium]

Some doing so after having been castigated in the past for doing so publicly.

I've received negative feedback in the past for NM logs on 'historical' caches, it didn't stop me from posting NM's. I must admit it is only recently that I posted a couple of NA logs on a caches that have been in need of one for a while. The only thing that delayed me was the previous feedback, but on reflection, it was the correct thing to do.

 

I was a previous culprit of being too nice and not wanting to hurt peoples feelings even when they had not upheld their part of the guidelines. I have to say that the sport was the true loser in that.

[+dave-harris]

DNF's do not mean the cache is not there. Someone could have moved it, not put it back in the right place, not looking in the right place, etc. etc. It should be the owner who checks it out after a few DNF's. I would rather get an e-mail from the cacher saying he thinks its gone missing, or ask for an additional clue. NM should be kept for such purposs, i.e. damaged pot, full log book, etc.

 

Twice this year i have had e-mails from seperate people, one saying that one of my cache locations had been damaged in an accident and the cache had gone. The second was to say that another may have gone walkabout and could i check it out. This i think got a quicker response from me and both were replaced and back up and running within a week of the report. Had i just seen one DNF i would have left it until i had seen a few more. That would only have wasted the time of following cachers. At the end of the day its all down to how people re-act. On these occasions a NM note should also be posted to advise fellow cachers.

[+flookbird]

While the log appears to have the archive symbol, the cache is only showing as disabled and says temporarily unavailable at the top. As someone who has been frustrated by this hider's caches in the past (near to home but missing/poor condition/in dubious places) I do wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye - perhaps the very fact that someone has taken stones out of a wall to find the cache was prompt enough?

[+Mark+Karen]

I can't comment for other countries, but this is something I've seen prevalent within the UK community. Members will not post NM or MA logs, because they do not wish to be castigated by the community or by the cache owner. And before anyone says it does not happen, I've personally had community members come to me, due to that happening.

 

I did post a NM log once, and got a nasty email in response from the CO. Surprising too as he is/was quite a prominent geocacher.

[+Border Caz]

When I first started caching I tried e-mailing COs with cache issues. They just ignored me, no reply, no action.

 

So now I slap on a NM or even a NA if I feel it's justified.

 

Not had any complaints yet.

[+Pearcies]

Being quiet new to caching I didn't know people would have issues with NM logs. Maybe it's different areas of the country, but down my way I received a thank you in the CO's maintanence log for mentioning it.

[+The Patrician]

If I find anything seriously wrong with a cache I usually mail the owner and tell him and then forget about it. The worst I've ever found, admittedly on top of a mountain, was a box full to the brim with freezing water with a lot of dissolved log book et al floating about in it. The owner was, as I recall, grateful for the info.

 

Life's too short to worry about Tupperware in a hedge!

Edited March 16, 2011 by The Patrician

[+maxkim]

If I find anything seriously wrong with a cache I usually mail the owner and tell him and then forget about it. The worst I've ever found, admittedly on top of a mountain, was a box full to the brim with freezing water with a lot of dissolved log book et al floating about in it. The owner was, as I recall, grateful for the info.

 

Life's too short to worry about Tupperware in a hedge!

Ahh depends if you were up the mountain anyway or if you climbed it just for the cache... I've done both over time and it would make a difference. MaxKim. :rolleyes: <_<

[+The Patrician]

Yes, I see what you mean. I was up there anyway and took the cache in as an added extra.