Are Reviewers Overwhelmed? Why does it take so long to Archive a cache that is definitely lost?

[+scwri2000]

I have been waiting for a cache to be Archived for approx. 128 days now. The last DNF was over 100 days ago with other DNF's since. I searched twice and posted a "Archive" note recently. My reviewer/publisher left a message for the CC owner on the page that if she did not respond within 10 days she would archive the cache.

 

I wanted it archived because I placed one near the missing one and I would like it to be published for the kids in this park before winter, lol.

 

I didnt understand at first that disable and archived were two different things, I sent the reviewer a note saying I was sorry for the confusion, nd I waited and waited and waited, you get the point.

 

So I sent her a detailed email with dates emails were sent, last dates of DNF's, specific count of days since missing, etc. I asked again that she Archive it since by this time the 10 days SHE gave the CC owner in the note had passed. Which logically would mean she can Archive it.

 

Below is her response, then my response...............................

 

******

Hi there.

 

I do my best to take care of archiving caches when I have the time to do so. My paying job (my real job) is working me over 40 hours in the summertime, so I don't have a lot of free time right now.

 

Please be a bit on the patient side, and I will get around to archiving caches like 'shoelaces' soon.

 

Archiving caches like that isn't something I'm expected to do as a reviewer - it's something that I try to incorporate over the year when I have the time to do it.

 

Thanks for being patient and understanding!

 

MY RESPONSE TO THAT,....

 

I'm not going to argue with you. I just think its a little rediculous that you are publishing cache after cache, day after day (even as I type) and can't get rid of one which YOU clearly stated you would do to the owner in a specific time period. I'm not sure how this works (I'll figure specifics out tomorrow) but I'm sure there is someone I can contact to help you keep up with what needs to be done if you are to overwhelmed. Compromise...I'm moving my cache, this way you don't have to worry about archiving since it seems to be more about publishing.

 

HERE IS MY ISSUE: I just placed a new cache in her "area" today. Will I have a hard time? And is there a lesson in here for me? What is the rules of Archiving....do you have to wait hundreds of days even with no response from the CO?

 

School me....

[+Panther&Pine]

Deep breath.

How does this negatively affect you?

 

 

I'd be willing to bet that they are taking care of it.

[jholly]

Your not from Texas by any chance?

[+t4e]

 

I'm not going to argue with you. I just think its a little rediculous that you are publishing cache after cache, day after day (even as I type) and can't get rid of one which YOU clearly stated you would do to the owner in a specific time period. I'm not sure how this works (I'll figure specifics out tomorrow) but I'm sure there is someone I can contact to help you keep up with what needs to be done if you are to overwhelmed. Compromise...I'm moving my cache, this way you don't have to worry about archiving since it seems to be more about publishing.

 

 

you certainly made a friend of your reviewer...........NOT

 

And is there a lesson in here for me?

 

yeap, be patient and polite...they are volunteers and you have no right to keep their schedule

[+Panther&Pine]

Your not from Texas by any chance?

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

Depends on where you live....here in Cali...response is pretty fast..

[+webscouter.]

Since you asked it sounds like you are being unreasonable to me.

 

The reviewers are volunteers. I think you would be pretty hard pressed to find any cachers that would prefer that a reviewer archives caches instead of publishing new ones. Given the choice I want my reviewer to put the priority on publishing new caches.

 

Telling a reviewer that her actions are ridiculous will certainly not endure you to her. Fortunately most reviewers don't take personal feelings into account when reviewing caches.

[+Touchstone]

Just a couple of observations....

 

I just think its a little rediculous that you are publishing cache after cache, day after day...

 

As has been stated on many occasions by various Reviewers on these Forums, the simple plain vanilla Listings without any issues get Published relatively quickly, while those with an issue/issues might be put on hold for a bit while things get sorted out. Your Listing, by your own admission, had an issue and was clearly put on the back burner. From what you state, it sounds as though you were well aware of this issue when you submitted your Listing, so a bit of added patience may be in order.

 

Finally, the following KB Article has some information on the appropriate channels to address your concerns:

 

Publication of Caches

 

You might want to frame your email in a bit more conciliatory tone

 

Best of luck with your new cache!

[+BlueDeuce]

I'm from Iowa and I'm darn certain that an NA post here is rarely addressed by the local reviewer.

 

And yes I have contacted a site-wide reviewer simply asking them to review a cache without so much as a 'how do' in reply.

 

edit a/an and clarification.

Edited August 25, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+Max and 99]

128 days is nothing. I've been waiting over a year!

[+GeoBain]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

[+BlueDeuce]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

 

So school me on the timelines so I'm not being unreasonable. What exactly does get to it mean?

Edited August 25, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+scwri2000]

Since you asked it sounds like you are being unreasonable to me.

 

The reviewers are volunteers. I think you would be pretty hard pressed to find any cachers that would prefer that a reviewer archives caches instead of publishing new ones. Given the choice I want my reviewer to put the priority on publishing new caches.

 

Telling a reviewer that her actions are ridiculous will certainly not endure you to her. Fortunately most reviewers don't take personal feelings into account when reviewing caches.

 

But that was my whole point....its missing has been for sooooo long. I placed a new one to replace it, she and I have gone back and forth for a while, I just don't understand, well I guess I want to understand is it easier to just publish new ones instead of archiving others? She doesn't seem to understand what I keep asking her....is it a push of a button? It is extra research? BUT when you give the CC owner 10 days to reply or you will archive and that time is up, I think you should archive! I believe in do what you say, that's all.

[+BlueDeuce]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

 

Seriously. You step in here and tell me that "The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it."

 

What does that mean?

Edited August 25, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+scwri2000]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

 

So school me on the timelines so I'm not being unreasonable. What exactly does get to it mean?

 

Well, it has been missing for 128 days. The owner has just a handful of finds and has no activity at all in about a year. I'm not being narcissistic at all, I'm just trying to figure out why this takes so long and not one person can tell me why. I'm technical, I like to know why she can publish over 30 plus new caches in the few week timeline after the Archive request was done. AND her personal timeline for archiving to the CO has come and gone. I am tryijng to be very patient, but in the meantime my new cache is sitting out there and I want the kids to be able to find it while camp is still in session, which pretty much is no more since school starts next week. Oh well, like I said, publishing seems more important instead of getting rid of old neglected/missing caches which would free up more beautiful places to put nice caches again. Thats all.

Edited August 25, 2011 by scwri2000

[+BlueDeuce]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

 

So school me on the timelines so I'm not being unreasonable. What exactly does get to it mean?

 

Well, it has been missing for 128 days. The owner has just a handful of finds and has no activity at all in about a year. I'm not being narcissistic at all, I'm just trying to figure out why this takes so long and not one person can tell me why. I'm technical, I like to know why she can publish over 30 plus new caches in the few week timeline after the Archive request was done. AND her personal timeline for archiving to the CO has come and gone. I am tryijng to be very patient, but in the meantime my new cache is sitting out there and I want the kids to be able to find it while camp is still in session, which pretty much is no more since school starts next week. Oh well, like I said, publishing seems more important instead of getting rid of old neglected/missing caches which would free up more beautiful places to put nice caches again. Thats all.

 

No offensive but I wasn't talking to you. Avenois seems to know what is reasonable and I want to understand the gc.com guidelines.

[+GeoBain]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

 

Seriously. You step in here and tell me that "The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it."

 

What does that mean?

Ummmm, unless you are scwri2000, I didn't say word one to you.

 

And "The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it." means exactly what it says. I can think of a multitude of higher priority items for a reviewer than a supposedly missing cache because several DNF's have been posted.

 

For instance, the OP has already covered the publishing of new caches.

 

There is also the archival of caches where there are KNOWN issues, such a property issues, destroyed containers, etc.

 

I would place the archival of a cache which the OP doesn't really know has any real maintenance issues fairly low on the priority list if I were a reviewer.

 

* left out issues - in italic

Edited August 25, 2011 by Avenois

[+GeoBain]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

 

So school me on the timelines so I'm not being unreasonable. What exactly does get to it mean?

 

Well, it has been missing for 128 days. The owner has just a handful of finds and has no activity at all in about a year. I'm not being narcissistic at all, I'm just trying to figure out why this takes so long and not one person can tell me why. I'm technical, I like to know why she can publish over 30 plus new caches in the few week timeline after the Archive request was done. AND her personal timeline for archiving to the CO has come and gone. I am tryijng to be very patient, but in the meantime my new cache is sitting out there and I want the kids to be able to find it while camp is still in session, which pretty much is no more since school starts next week. Oh well, like I said, publishing seems more important instead of getting rid of old neglected/missing caches which would free up more beautiful places to put nice caches again. Thats all.

 

No offensive but I wasn't talking to you. Avenois seems to know what is reasonable and I want to understand the gc.com guidelines.

 

I'm not aware of a guideline that says a reviewer must archive a cache due to a string of DNF's. I know some have pulled the trigger prematurely when the cache was actually sitting there ready to be found.

 

Perhaps you could point me to that guideline. I'd love to see where we are guaranteed speedy archival so we can place a cache so long as a number of people have failed to find an existing cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

 

Seriously. You step in here and tell me that "The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it."

 

What does that mean?

Ummmm, unless you are scwri2000, I didn't say word one to you.

 

And "The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it." means exactly what it says. I can think of a multitude of higher priority items for a reviewer than a supposedly missing cache because several DNF's have been posted.

 

For instance, the OP has already covered the publishing of new caches.

 

There is also the archival of caches where there are KNOWN issues, such a property issues, destroyed containers, etc.

 

I would place the archival of a cache which the OP doesn't really know has any real maintenance fairly low on the priority list if I were a reviewer.

 

Thank you for explaining the duties of a reviewer and their priorities.

 

 

bd

Edited August 25, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+Ambient_Skater]

...I'm moving my cache, this way you don't have to worry about archiving since it seems to be more about publishing.

They're called reviewers, not archivers.

 

I just placed a new cache in her "area" today.

Umm, why is "area" in scare quotes?

[+GeoBain]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

 

Seriously. You step in here and tell me that "The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it."

 

What does that mean?

Ummmm, unless you are scwri2000, I didn't say word one to you.

 

And "The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it." means exactly what it says. I can think of a multitude of higher priority items for a reviewer than a supposedly missing cache because several DNF's have been posted.

 

For instance, the OP has already covered the publishing of new caches.

 

There is also the archival of caches where there are KNOWN issues, such a property issues, destroyed containers, etc.

 

I would place the archival of a cache which the OP doesn't really know has any real maintenance fairly low on the priority list if I were a reviewer.

 

Thank you for explaining the duties of a reviewer and their priorities.

 

 

bd

 

Quid pro quo, blue deuce. Can you please point me to the guideline that guarantees speedy archival so we can place a cache so long as a number of people have failed to find an existing cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

Quid pro quo, blue deuce. Can you please point me to the guideline that guarantees speedy archival so we can place a cache so long as a number of people have failed to find an existing cache.

 

And you can answer this because....?

[+GeoBain]

 

Quid pro quo, blue deuce. Can you please point me to the guideline that guarantees speedy archival so we can place a cache so long as a number of people have failed to find an existing cache.

 

And you can answer this because....?

 

I don't have a freaking clue. As far as I am aware, it doesn't exist. But you seem to think that this cache needs a speedy archival. You seem to support the OP's need to get it out of there ASAP so he can get that new cache in there.

 

I'm just curious if you are aware of a guideline I haven't seen by which we are guaranteed speedy archivals of caches where the existence of maintenance issues are not really known.

[+scwri2000]

I'm sorry this boxy looking messaging is confusing. venois I never sai there was specific guidelines, I just want to know how it works. Also its not just about some DNF's. Reviewer has contacted owner with no response. She gave her 10 days, 10 days are well over. Reviewer did say she was working on it yes, but even she hinted it will be archived when she has time. I guess I'm just anxious. I hate messages because tone comes across wrong. I'm not a narcissist. My reviewer wrote archiving is not required and she does it throughout the year when she can, so who is supposed to do it? I'm just confused abouth the whole thing.

[+GeoBain]

Perhaps the OP can give us a GC#. The closest I have come to finding one he has posted NA on is GC25PA9.

 

At least on this cache it seems the OP is a bit impatient. He posted a DNF on 06/19/2011. It had been found fairly regularly up until a couple weeks prior to the OP's DNF.

 

The OP waited a month before posting a NM log and then went straight for the NA log 4 days later.

 

This can't be the cache though since the OP is the only DNF and the 30 days given by the reviewer have not passed yet.

[+GeoBain]

I'm sorry this boxy looking messaging is confusing. venois I never sai there was specific guidelines, I just want to know how it works. Also its not just about some DNF's. Reviewer has contacted owner with no response. She gave her 10 days, 10 days are well over. Reviewer did say she was working on it yes, but even she hinted it will be archived when she has time. I guess I'm just anxious. I hate messages because tone comes across wrong. I'm not a narcissist. My reviewer wrote archiving is not required and she does it throughout the year when she can, so who is supposed to do it? I'm just confused abouth the whole thing.

 

Can you give us the GC#? Right now we're all just making guesses about this listing.

 

To answer your specific question though, there is not a specific timeline for archiving of caches that I am aware of.

 

*** Sorry, I just saw the other question too. Reviewers are the ones that handle the archivals. Groundspeak can step in and archive them too if needed. But as has been pointed out, reviewers are volunteers so they work on caches when they have available time.

 

I "assume" (I'm not a reviewer so I have no inside knowledge) that reviewers' primary focus is on getting caches published. That explains why you continue to see them published. They have a 72 hour goal for publication which means this has to be a priority.

 

The issue you are dealing with is just not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. We all would like things to work quickly especially when we have a spot picked out for a cache. But unfortunately, sometimes we have to wait.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Avenois

[+scwri2000]

Thanks eveyone for the insight. Patience is a vertue...here it is... Keep in mind she and I had many nice emails back and forth too. GC1QD8C. Have to go to bed now....need to head out for hurricane staples in the early am! And the message boxes still confuse me.. lol

[+Hypnopaedia]

After looking at the Hello Kitty!!! cache I believe the OP may just be a bit impatient. What I assume when I want a spot that is taken up by a trash/non-maintained cache is that I will probably not get the spot but I'll keep an eye open, nobody is entitled to any spot. I have had a few <300 cachers who after not finding a cache assume it's not there. I honestly have never seen anyone post a NA 4 days after a NM. I had a cacher who had a spot I wanted SOOOOOO badly (The park I played in as a child which could easily hold two caches except this one was smack dab in the center.). It was TD'd for months at a time and he kept posting he would get to it soon. A day before the final warning was up he replaced it. It had not been available to find for over 9 months. It happens. Flag the cache on your watchlist and go on with your caching and hiding. You are not entitled to the spot.

 

EDIT: Just checked the cache in question. Note the log from one of the only 300+ find cacher for this cache:

 

I literally had my hand on the CC and kept on going the first time around. Second time's a charm! Nicely done. I think in good weather the terrain rating is a bit conservative. In snow/ice, I might be inclined to skip this altogether.

 

I have seen many instances of caches being underrated and newer cachers are unable to find the cache and assume it's not there. Have you tried getting in touch with Sidekeck or Out12 to see if they may have a hint for you?

Edited August 25, 2011 by Hypnopaedia

[+BlueDeuce]

 

Quid pro quo, blue deuce. Can you please point me to the guideline that guarantees speedy archival so we can place a cache so long as a number of people have failed to find an existing cache.

 

And you can answer this because....?

 

I don't have a freaking clue. As far as I am aware, it doesn't exist. But you seem to think that this cache needs a speedy archival. You seem to support the OP's need to get it out of there ASAP so he can get that new cache in there.

 

I'm just curious if you are aware of a guideline I haven't seen by which we are guaranteed speedy archivals of caches where the existence of maintenance issues are not really known.

 

What I want first is a reasonable consistency in the application of the guidelines. I'm not talking worldwide. Let's start with the Midwest. At least I'll know then what to expect for a time-around time.

[+SwineFlew]

Your not from Texas by any chance?

 

Some inside joke that always come up when this topic goes around.

[+scwri2000]

After looking at the Hello Kitty!!! cache I believe the OP may just be a bit impatient. What I assume when I want a spot that is taken up by a trash/non-maintained cache is that I will probably not get the spot but I'll keep an eye open, nobody is entitled to any spot. I have had a few <300 cachers who after not finding a cache assume it's not there. I honestly have never seen anyone post a NA 4 days after a NM. I had a cacher who had a spot I wanted SOOOOOO badly (The park I played in as a child which could easily hold two caches except this one was smack dab in the center.). It was TD'd for months at a time and he kept posting he would get to it soon. A day before the final warning was up he replaced it. It had not been available to find for over 9 months. It happens. Flag the cache on your watchlist and go on with your caching and hiding. You are not entitled to the spot.

 

EDIT: Just checked the cache in question. Note the log from one of the only 300+ find cacher for this cache:

 

I literally had my hand on the CC and kept on going the first time around. Second time's a charm! Nicely done. I think in good weather the terrain rating is a bit conservative. In snow/ice, I might be inclined to skip this altogether.

 

I have seen many instances of caches being underrated and newer cachers are unable to find the cache and assume it's not there. Have you tried getting in touch with Sidekeck or Out12 to see if they may have a hint for you?

Are you tslking about hello kitty? That one was muggled for sure, pictures to prove it...I would never place a cache where hello kitty was, right out in the open for kids at the school next door . I'm talking about Shoelaces (in Rhode Island). Edited August 25, 2011 by scwri2000

[+GeoBain]

Thanks eveyone for the insight. Patience is a vertue...here it is... Keep in mind she and I had many nice emails back and forth too. GC1QD8C. Have to go to bed now....need to head out for hurricane staples in the early am! And the message boxes still confuse me.. lol

 

scwri2000,

 

Thanks for the GC.

 

Looking over the listing you probably should have posted a Needs Maintenance log first. There are a number of DNF's going back to March. However, no one bothered to post a NM in all that time.

 

Normally one would start with a Needs Maintenance log to get the CO's attention. After giving the CO a couple of weeks to respond, then posting the Needs Archive would be ok.

 

However, you went straight for the Needs Archive log on 7/26 and the reviewer was actually pretty quick to disable it on 7/29.

 

I'm really surprised by the 10 days comment in the reviewer note. Almost all the disable logs I have seen where there was no pressing issue, the reviewer has given at least 30 days to respond.

 

Another issue which the reviewer may be taking into consideration is the fact that the cache owner has not logged on since Wednesday, 08 June 2011. It is not unreasonable for someone to be out of pocket for a couple of months during the summer.

 

In any event, we're not even at the one month point following your first NA log.

 

You really are being impatient. This is understandable since you have a cache ready to go. But you should give the reviewer AND the current cache owner a little more time to take care of this issue. I personally have never seen a reviewer work faster than the 30 day time frame I previously mentioned.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Avenois

[+scwri2000]

Thanks Avenois for taking a look at it. Thanks for all the info, we're still figuring out so many things and it was just confusing. I do get impatient and if it was the other way around I would want my time!! So thanks again everyone!

[+GeoBain]

What I want first is a reasonable consistency in the application of the guidelines. I'm not talking worldwide. Let's start with the Midwest. At least I'll know then what to expect for a time-around time.

 

The problem is that the guidelines don't give a time line at all for archival of caches. I don't even think the guidelines mention the 72 hour goal for cache publication. (To be honest, I can't stand looking for the info with the way they've split it all up now, so I could be wrong about the 72 hours.)

 

I do agree that there should be a better job done in regards to caches with known issues. If there are a stream of NM logs followed by an NA log after a few months then 30 days should be a reasonable amount of time to archive. However, even then there are issues that we don't know about. Perhaps the CO has been in contact with the reviewer via email. We just don't know.

 

In the situation you describe, I would be very frustrated if it didn't appear that the reviewers were responding to NA logs ever. When you see caches still listed months after a reviewer has disabled the cache and there still isn't a response from either the CO nor the reviewer, I would start getting a bit upset too.

 

But that is not the situation here. Take a look at the GC and you should see that the time line is not that bad on this cache.

[+The_Incredibles_]

In our area, the reviewer would post a note giving the CO 1 month to replace and if no response after 1 month, would then archive.

 

So I think you need to wait a wee bit longer. Yes, it's been missing since April, but the reviewer only found out at the end of July. The reviewers do like to give CO's a chance to replace, rather than archiving immeidately, since that would be permanent.

 

I hear you about the proximity frustration, but thats' the way it goes. If you're in a huge hurry, mabye find another spot.

Edited August 25, 2011 by The_Incredibles_

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I think your reviewer gave you a concise and reasonable answer to your question and you jumped down her throat for it. It also seems clear your reviewer doesn't really want any part of the archiving side of reviewing, which is understandable. I think you're getting hung up on the "10 days" wording in the reviewer note. That's just boilerplate that your reviewer uses when he/she disables a cache. Some reviewers are very strict on the timelines and as soon as the clock strikes midnight on the 30th day and no response from the CO, they're hammering away on the archive button. Others get around to it when they can. Your reviewer falls into the latter camp. Wait it out and be cordial while you do.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Since you asked it sounds like you are being unreasonable to me.

 

The reviewers are volunteers. I think you would be pretty hard pressed to find any cachers that would prefer that a reviewer archives caches instead of publishing new ones. Given the choice I want my reviewer to put the priority on publishing new caches.

 

Telling a reviewer that her actions are ridiculous will certainly not endure you to her. Fortunately most reviewers don't take personal feelings into account when reviewing caches.

 

But that was my whole point....its missing has been for sooooo long. I placed a new one to replace it, she and I have gone back and forth for a while, I just don't understand, well I guess I want to understand is it easier to just publish new ones instead of archiving others? She doesn't seem to understand what I keep asking her....is it a push of a button? It is extra research? BUT when you give the CC owner 10 days to reply or you will archive and that time is up, I think you should archive! I believe in do what you say, that's all.

 

How do you know it is missing? Have you looked for it (I didn't see a DNF from you so I can't tell)? The only fact is that several new cachers have not been able to find it. It could very well still be there.

 

In a situation like this, caches aren't archive immediately, so that the owners can check on things. I have several difficult caches that people DNF all the time, but I know that cache is still there. I'd hate for one of those DNF's to post a NA and have the cache immediately archived.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

I understand your frustration about the cache that needs archived. It looks to me like it does too. Your email to the reviewer was a bait harsh though. However it seems reviewers do a good job keeping personal emotions and their reviewer tasks separate.

 

I am surprised it is taking that long for the cache to be archived. I have experience what Robert mentioned with the reviewers down here. They poet a note to the CO to check the cache. If the CO doesn't, the cache is archived. They're on top of NM and NA logs here, not sure what's up with your area.

 

Hope you get it resolved soon. I know geo trash is a pet peeve of mine too.

Edited August 25, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+webscouter.]

Another thing to consider is perhaps the CO sent a private email to the reviewer that you haven't seen. Maybe they have a personal matter that they don't want to post in public (divorce, sickness, legal issues) and the reviewer isn't going to tell you about it.

[+t4e]

 

I don't even think the guidelines mention the 72 hour goal for cache publication. (To be honest, I can't stand looking for the info with the way they've split it all up now, so I could be wrong about the 72 hours.)

 

 

All geocaches are reviewed by volunteers, and we ask that they contact you within 3 days of enabling your geocache.

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=81

 

the KB are well organized and its easy to find anything you need

 

Knowledge Books

[+Stargazer22]

.... Wait it out and be cordial while you do.

 

Great advice for many situations!

 

Don't let your desire to place your own cache in this spot make you lose sight of being patient and friendly with your reviewer. All the ones I know try very hard to please everyone, but you know the old saying about pleasing everyone.....

[+northernpenguin]

 

I wanted it archived because I placed one near the missing one and I would like it to be published for the kids in this park before winter, lol.

 

 

When I see that written, or hear that uttered, I cringe. I have had people decide they want "my spot" in the past and repeatedly muggle the cache until it gets archived.

Find another spot.

[+Ecylram]

Hmmm. NA was posted on 7/26/11. Reviewer disabled the cache on 7/29/11 and gave the CO time to respond. Seems totally normal to me.

 

In our area, a NA may lead to Reviewer disabling the cache if the situation warrants. They then give the CO at least a month to resolve before Archiving. They do a good job.

 

I see nothing alarming about how the reviewer is handling this situation.

[Pup Patrol]

Thanks Avenois for taking a look at it. Thanks for all the info, we're still figuring out so many things and it was just confusing. I do get impatient and if it was the other way around I would want my time!! So thanks again everyone!

 

Take a few minutes to review the Guidelines and read the excellent articles in the Knowledge Books.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=11'>http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=11

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php

 

It seems that you didn't quite understand the distinction between "disabled" and "archived". Placing a cache in the location was a bit premature, as you have learned.

 

Your reviewer is the best source of information for you. If you don't understand a reply from the reviewer, perhaps you could politely ask for a clarification.

 

Always keep in mind that perhaps the reviewer is in communication with the cache owner. One never knows what could be going on "behind the scenes".

[+Too Tall John]

I'm going to answer the question posed in the title of the thread:

Why does it take so long to Archive a cache that is definitely lost?

...but I'm going to answer it with a question:

Why does it take so long for cachers to post Needs Maintenance and/or Needs Archived logs on a cache that is "definitely" lost?

 

If your fellow cachers had brought this to MadMin's attention back when it first was suspected to be missing, perhaps it wouldn't have been an issue. The fact that prior to the string of DNFs, there were 78 finds and only 1 other DNF (and that was because the group wasn't prepared for the terrain) indicates to me that it probably is gone, but a NM back in May would have given the cache owner more time to check on the cache.

 

So, don't get upset at the reviewer, get mad at the cachers who wouldn't pull the trigger earlier when it was obvious there was a problem!

[knowschad]

School me....

 

You're being an a.. ummmm,,, unreasonable person.

 

The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it.

 

I haven't seen the cache, so I don't know what the DNF's say. But DNF's alone do not mean there is anything wrong with the cache. Some caches are designed to get lots of DNF's.

 

Since you haven't found the cache, you don't really know what the maintenance situation is.

 

But I can tell you that you won't last long in this game with that narcissistic attitude.

 

Seriously. You step in here and tell me that "The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it."

 

What does that mean?

Ummmm, unless you are scwri2000, I didn't say word one to you.

 

And "The reviewer will get to it when s/he gets to it." means exactly what it says. I can think of a multitude of higher priority items for a reviewer than a supposedly missing cache because several DNF's have been posted.

 

For instance, the OP has already covered the publishing of new caches.

 

There is also the archival of caches where there are KNOWN issues, such a property issues, destroyed containers, etc.

 

I would place the archival of a cache which the OP doesn't really know has any real maintenance fairly low on the priority list if I were a reviewer.

 

Thank you for explaining the duties of a reviewer and their priorities.

 

 

bd

 

While this was news to me, and came as a bit of a shock, I would say that this explains the duties and priorities of a reviewer, right from the mouth of a reviewer (quoted from the original post):

 

Archiving caches like that isn't something I'm expected to do as a reviewer - it's something that I try to incorporate over the year when I have the time to do it.

[knowschad]

Another thing to consider is perhaps the CO sent a private email to the reviewer that you haven't seen. Maybe they have a personal matter that they don't want to post in public (divorce, sickness, legal issues) and the reviewer isn't going to tell you about it.

 

I would think a reveiwer would have a way to communicate something like that without divulging any personal details. That said, the reviewer's note on the cache page clearly stated that if she didn't hear from the OP within 10 days, that the cache would be archived at that time. (I will say that 10 days is much shorter than I've ever seen, though. More typically is 30 days). Since all it takes to archive it is a click and a copy/paste note, I can't see that it would be taking up a lot of the reviewer's time.

[Pup Patrol]

I'll admit to being confused, too.

 

I thought that archiving caches was indeed part of the reviewer's job?

 

If not the reviewer, then who is supposed to archive them?

[knowschad]

I'll admit to being confused, too.

 

I thought that archiving caches was indeed part of the reviewer's job?

 

If not the reviewer, then who is supposed to archive them?

 

What has been explained here from time to time by reviewers such as Keystone is that sweeping for neglected caches is not a required part of their job. But I would certainly think that responding to NA logs would be. Its pretty rare when a cache owner will archive their own cache as a result of somebody posting an NA.

[+Panther&Pine]

If that time frame tweaks you check out this finally archived cache GC1GY5F.

 

We DNF'ed it in June 2009. There was a throwdown placed in July of that year which went missing between October of 2009 and May 2011 (my second DNF) with no finds. I logged an NM in May of 2011, CO hasn't logged in for a year at this point. Three weeks later I logged an NA after yet another DNF and conversation with other local cachers. Finally in August of 2011 it was archived.

 

Which means that it was really missing for over 2 years.