Needs Maintenance ! - Volunteer maintainers ?

[+MrCJDL]

Hi all,

 

Firstly, please excuse the rant... but it's constructive Secondly, I haven't been a cacher for all that long... but I've been doing it long enough to know how it works, what is 'right' and what is not. However, I am sure there area few flaws in my argument below, I look forward to debating them

 

One of the things that irritates me (and many others, it seems) is poor cache maintenance. it seems to be that the 'Needs Maintenance' icon doesn't seem to have much of a point... many times it gets ignored, or sometimes it gets left there after maintenance has been performed by another cacher (E.g., log/pen replaced). Sometimes the only way to see if a cache is still there / in a half-decent condition is to read the previous logs.

 

Regarding the 'needs maintenance' icon, at first if I saw this, it would put me off and I would pretty much overlook the cache (how many others do this)... but it then became clear to me that sometimes a) The C/O has left the NM icon there even though cache no longer needs maintained... or it was flagged as NM for a reason that is no longer valid, or has since been fixed by someone other than the C/O - in which case the icon can't be removed. So, now I don't just ignore NM caches... I read the logs carefully, and if it seems like all is well, I'll go for it.

 

On the flip side of the coin, how often have you got there and found a waterlogged container, full of soggy and/or rusty(!!) junk ? I read a DNF log recently which said "Got to GZ and couldn't find it... searched for 30 mins" etc etc... the next was a found log which read "Found pieces of a lid with a Geocache sticker attached, no log..." etc etc. This had been flagged as needs maintenance for quite some time, but the C/O hadn't responded/acted - sure it could have been flagged as 'needs archived', except this could actually be an exceptional cache if someone would just maintain it !

 

Sometimes the C/O might be away for a while, sometimes they might have given up on the game, or maybe moved away and haven't had anyone adopt their cache... or maybe they just can't be bothered ? Who knows... but the amount of long-term NM caches, certainly around my location, is starting to get a bit ridiculous.

 

Now, for the suggestion. We have a network of volunteer reviewers... how about we put together a network of volunteer maintainers and/or adopters ? At the moment, the needs maintenance logs get flagged to the C/O, surely there would be a way to also flag them to a volunteer maintainer, or have it added to a queue... this could be followed up on with the C/O after a week or so by a 'nearby' maintainer/adopter... and if there was no response the maintainer could go and do the maintenance - or if someone else has already done it, e.g. replaced log/pencil, they can remove the icon - they could also adopt the cache (even temporarily) if it is apparent that the C/O is MIA.

 

Along with the clear benefits this would have to the game & the community, I can see only 2 drawbacks to this suggestion: a) Sure replacing logs / cache notes / pencils is cheap.... but containers ? How would these 'maintainers' be compensated, or given the 'volunteer' status, would that even be necessary ? This could encourage C/Os to not bother maintaining their cache, with the thought that someone else will do it for them if left long enough.

 

It's this last point that bothers me, and I can't really think of any reasonable solutions to that - other than perhaps flagging it for archival after 2/3 'repairs'.

 

Anyways, thanks for reading / listening / whatever - I look forward to reading your thoughts/comments ?

 

Cheers,

Chris.

Edited July 18, 2011 by cjdl

[+Chokecherry]

IF the cache is a hot mess and needs that much maintenance and it's not addressed, we as the community have the option top log a NA on those caches. If people used their NA options more often these hot messes wouldn't be as much of a problem but everyone is scared to use them.

 

The cache owner agrees to do the maintenance of their caches. We don't need a crew of people going around who can't do stuff like change coordinates or cache information if needed on the page going around fixing caches in a way that they assume the owner wanted.

[+Walts Hunting]

Its the responsibility of the co to do maintenance. If they don't let a na log follow and when it gets archived someone can place a new one. Why do we need a group of people to do someone elders work.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

"Community" maintenance is a bad thing, IMO. It just seems to add credence to your rant (and it allows the CO to be even lazier). If a cache is not maintained properly, dupe it with an NA log.

[+Too Tall John]

We already have a network of volunteer cache maintainers. They are each assigned to a group of caches to maintain. It's a great program, and each volunteer is able to select exactly how many caches they wish to take care of. When maintenance needs arise, they are charged with maintaining the cache and they have the ability to change coordinates, cache descriptions, and remove Maintenance Needed flags. They can adopt out caches in their queue. They even have the power to archive a cache in their queue without having to go through the waiting period that a reviewer generally goes through if they are in the process of archiving a cache for maintenance issues. Only one downside: if one of these maintainers quits the game, their maintenance queue is locked to them and nobody else can preform the listing maintenance tasks that might arise. At this point, other maintainers in the area have to contact the local reviewer about problems with a cache that needs maintenance. This might lead to the archival of the cache.

 

Yes, what I'm describing are cache owners.

 

The biggest problem with the OP's suggestion, IMO, is that if Groundspeak were to develop a network of volunteers to maintain caches, they would be, in effect, taking ownership of those caches. This is a point the company has, for the most part, been quite adamant about: Geocaching.com is a listing service and they do not** own the caches listed on it. There are legal reasons why this is the case, reasons that I'll let the lawyers explain. The upshoot, however, is that a system like the OP suggests is impossible, especially the part about adopting out caches that belong to absentee cache owners. Groundspeak already won't do this for the above reasons, a network of GS volunteers maintaining those caches won't change the reasons behind it.

 

** There are a few exceptions. Groundspeak HQ comes to mind...

Edited July 18, 2011 by Too Tall John

[+addisonbr]

This could encourage C/Os to not bother maintaining their cache, with the thought that someone else will do it for them if left long enough.

I think this is accurate.

 

I used to think that caches being archived was a bad thing, and put a fair bit of effort into trying to fight it off in my area. I felt I was saving good things from death - I enjoyed the caches and thought it was a shame that nobody else would be able to. I would often replace containers for other COs after they had both gone missing (the cache, and the CO). I once tried (futilely) to adopt a vacation cache that had been archived after going missing.

 

But I just don't look at it that way anymore. I think of it more like forest ecology. The system is better off as a whole if the dead and dying are allowed to cycle through. I don't think fighting to keep caches alive when even the COs don't care about them anymore accomplishes much for the advancement of the game. I'd rather see that cache become part of the colorful history of geocaching, and know that the next cache in the area will likely be healthier, with a CO that changes the logbooks, fixes leaky containers, replies to email.

 

Caches aren't meant to be permanent. When owners disappear that's often a sign that "it's time". NM'ing / NA'ing / archiving these listings (in turn and in order) is a perfectly healthy and natural part of that process.

[+cx1]

"Community" maintenance is a bad thing, IMO. It just seems to add credence to your rant (and it allows the CO to be even lazier). If a cache is not maintained properly, dupe it with an NA log.

 

Are you suggesting that 'any' maintenance task (new log/baggy, re-attaching a magnet etc) should only be performed by the CO?

 

As to the original topic. I try to fix small things like a new log or dry out a container I find damp etc while out doing normal caching. I make a note of this in my log as well. If it is a problem beyond a simple field repair I will use a N/M log in addition to a note in my found log. I also do not avoid caches just because they have a N/M flag but I don't intentionally seek them out either. I don't think I would volunteer to be on a 'cache maintenance team' but I would not have an issue if such teams were started by Goundspeak (though I doubt this would ever happen).

[+briansnat]

It is the owner's responsibility to maintain a cache. Period. I have no problem with people performing minor maintenance as as favor to the owners, maybe replacing a Ziploc, patching a crack, adding a logbook, but though it is nice to do it never should become expected. Organized volunteer teams will just create more lazy cache owners who expect others to take care of their caches.

 

If an owner is unwilling or unable to maintain his cache and it falls into disrepair, the appropriate response is to post a NA. If the spot is so great then someone who is willing to maintain a cache can put one there.

[+captnemo]

It is the owner's responsibility to maintain a cache. Period. I have no problem with people performing minor maintenance as as favor to the owners, maybe replacing a Ziploc, patching a crack, adding a logbook, but though it is nice to do it never should become expected. Organized volunteer teams will just create more lazy cache owners who expect others to take care of their caches.

 

If an owner is unwilling or unable to maintain his cache and it falls into disrepair, the appropriate response is to post a NA. If the spot is so great then someone who is willing to maintain a cache can put one there.

+1

[+Walts Hunting]

Right on Brian!!!

[+Ecylram]

It is the owner's responsibility to maintain a cache. Period. I have no problem with people performing minor maintenance as as favor to the owners, maybe replacing a Ziploc, patching a crack, adding a logbook, but though it is nice to do it never should become expected. Organized volunteer teams will just create more lazy cache owners who expect others to take care of their caches.

 

If an owner is unwilling or unable to maintain his cache and it falls into disrepair, the appropriate response is to post a NA. If the spot is so great then someone who is willing to maintain a cache can put one there.

+1

 

+2

 

My opinion has changed on this as I've gained more experience. Brian's right, there are cachers who place caches and do no further maintenance. This results in missing, broken, nasty, unimaginative caches that provide a poor caching experience and block the placement of typically better caches in the area.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

"Community" maintenance is a bad thing, IMO. It just seems to add credence to your rant (and it allows the CO to be even lazier). If a cache is not maintained properly, dupe it with an NA log.

 

Are you suggesting that 'any' maintenance task (new log/baggy, re-attaching a magnet etc) should only be performed by the CO?

Cutting to the chase, this is EXACTLY what I am saying.

Temp fixes are one thing... maintenance is another. Too many temp fixes = lazy CO; lazy CO = junk caches (geo-litter).

 

Note too, if it needs a baggie to stay dry, the cache is ALREADY a failure.

[+MrCJDL]

Interesting responses, and kinda of what I thought to be honest... I too will do 'small' repairs/favours, such as drying out a damp cache or replacing a logbook... but I wouldn't go much further than that due to exactly what many of you have said: it would create lazy cache owners.

 

I must admit that I've felt like flagging one or 2 as NA, but didn't as I felt bad about it - maybe the point that people are 'scared' to apply an NA log is valid ? But why ? Also, I do feel it's a shame that some caches at 'great spots' will no longer be there... but as has rightly been said, given that it's such as good spot - someone else who WILL maintain it can place a new cache. This makes me feel better :-)

[knowschad]

I must admit that I've felt like flagging one or 2 as NA, but didn't as I felt bad about it - maybe the point that people are 'scared' to apply an NA log is valid ? But why ? Also, I do feel it's a shame that some caches at 'great spots' will no longer be there... but as has rightly been said, given that it's such as good spot - someone else who WILL maintain it can place a new cache. This makes me feel better :-)

Many of us here wish that Groundspeak would change "NA" from meaning "Needs Archiving" to "Needs (Reviewer) Attention". Obviously by posting an NA log, YOU are not archiving the cache. That is not in your power. All you are doing is notifying the reviewer, in addition to the cache owner, that there is a significant issue with the cache.

[AZcachemeister]

Active caches need active owners.

 

Really, it's just that simple.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Nope, people should maintain their own caches or they should be officially adopted or archived.

[+A & J Tooling]

I'll replace logs and dry out wet containers but only so we can sign the logs.

[+L0ne.R]

I must admit that I've felt like flagging one or 2 as NA, but didn't as I felt bad about it - maybe the point that people are 'scared' to apply an NA log is valid ? But why ? Also, I do feel it's a shame that some caches at 'great spots' will no longer be there... but as has rightly been said, given that it's such as good spot - someone else who WILL maintain it can place a new cache. This makes me feel better :-)

Many of us here wish that Groundspeak would change "NA" from meaning "Needs Archiving" to "Needs (Reviewer) Attention". Obviously by posting an NA log, YOU are not archiving the cache. That is not in your power. All you are doing is notifying the reviewer, in addition to the cache owner, that there is a significant issue with the cache.

 

Here's the feedback entry (it's under review):

 

http://feedback.geoc...5-needs-archive

[4wheelin_fool]

Community maintenence was a good thing at one time when there was a lot less caches. It still is if it's minor maintenence, as briansnat noted. However, there are just too many caches now for that to be feasible, although cache finders should feel a little responsible for the caches. If it becomes a trend for everyone to not really hide caches back well, and then expect the owner to run out every few months after a muggling because of the cache being left out in the open, then that extreme really is not good either. A little bit of finder responsibility goes a long way, but the ultimate responsibility lies with the cache owner.

[+wimseyguy]

It is the owner's responsibility to maintain a cache. Period. I have no problem with people performing minor maintenance as as favor to the owners, maybe replacing a Ziploc, patching a crack, adding a logbook, but though it is nice to do it never should become expected. Organized volunteer teams will just create more lazy cache owners who expect others to take care of their caches.

 

If an owner is unwilling or unable to maintain his cache and it falls into disrepair, the appropriate response is to post a NA. If the spot is so great then someone who is willing to maintain a cache can put one there.

+1

+4 (skipped over two other posts which agreed)

And it seems that the experience level of the CO is irrelevant to the interest in maintaining their caches. I've seen poor maintenance from new cachers on their first hide, and the same behavior from cachers who have been active for years with thousands of finds.