Where's the Support

[+Frank Broughton]

83 of this CO's caches currently have needs maintenance tags on them, but so what - that is not important right? wink wink! EIGHTY THREE! Edited October 13, 2011 by Frank Broughton

[+SwineFlew]

83 of this CO's caches currently have needs maintenance tags on them, but so what - that is not important right? wink wink! EIGHTY THREE!

 

And you are keeping track of that?

[+baloo&bd]

83 of this CO's caches currently have needs maintenance tags on them, but so what - that is not important right? wink wink! EIGHTY THREE!

 

Direct answer, no. I don't have the time to go look at all of them, however if they are still being found and not bad enough to have a NA posted, they really don't have a negative impact on you or anyone else.

 

Everyone in this thread agrees we would rather the CO get out and fix them and, were I in the area and come across one in real bad shape and many or long duration NM logs, I may post a NA after my found it log. It would then be forgot about as there is nothing more I could do nor should I do anything more.

 

If your comments about germs are anything more than the humor I think they are intended to be, this might not be a good fit for a hobby for you. Many those low hid containers hidden in the woods could be used to find out how healthy the forest population is.

[+t4e]

 

Bells & Angels, yeah i have done a lot of this COs caches as well. I waited about a year for him to get around to replacing one that had gone missing. In that time the ADMINs did nothing again & the cache remained open & active. A very large number of this CO's caches should be archived & set up as waymarks.

 

did it ever occur to you that maybe he is one of the ADMINs?

 

 

Wow. 94 posts because a reviewer wouldn't archive a cache with a wet logsheet.

 

not even close, perhaps you should read all the posts before drawing a conclusion

Edited October 14, 2011 by t4e

[knowschad]

83 of this CO's caches currently have needs maintenance tags on them, but so what - that is not important right? wink wink! EIGHTY THREE!

 

Needs maintenance tags only mean the owner didn't clear them by posting an Owner Maintenance tag. I know of many very well maintained caches that still have Needs Maintenance icons showing up. But as I pointed out above, this cache owner does seem to have a bit of a history of just letting his caches to until a reviewer eventually shuts them down.

[+sbell111]

One of the cache owner's posts mentioned that the way the cache is currently hidden, the log cannot get wet. I seem to remember that at least one time when he checked it, the log was still dry and in good shape. Given this, why would I care if the container is compromised? This cache could be the poster child for slimbob caches, for all I care.

Edited October 13, 2011 by sbell111

[+Frank Broughton]

83 of this CO's caches currently have needs maintenance tags on them, but so what - that is not important right? wink wink! EIGHTY THREE!

 

And you are keeping track of that?

 

nope - just a quick observation tis all.

[+Ash McCloud]

You have now done all you can. Step back quietly from this cache listing and tiptoe away, leaving it to its miserable, soggy existance. Maybe when you look for the listing again in 6 months time it'll have gone.

 

MrsB

 

ha ha ha yeah i'll send you an e-mail when the cache has a pretty little line through it & we can raise a glass to the end of this one little bit of irkage! =)

 

You ain't a reviewer. Quit wasting your time (and our forum space) on this cache. Move on with your life. Let it go, man. It's too late to be the bigger man about this, but you can certainly walk away.

 

 

HAHA this is awesome!!

 

I would also add how about putting out your own cache instead of worrying so much about this one.

Of course when you finally do put a cache out, make sure you dot every I and cross every T.

[+Frank Broughton]

You have now done all you can. Step back quietly from this cache listing and tiptoe away, leaving it to its miserable, soggy existance. Maybe when you look for the listing again in 6 months time it'll have gone.

 

MrsB

 

ha ha ha yeah i'll send you an e-mail when the cache has a pretty little line through it & we can raise a glass to the end of this one little bit of irkage! =)

 

You ain't a reviewer. Quit wasting your time (and our forum space) on this cache. Move on with your life. Let it go, man. It's too late to be the bigger man about this, but you can certainly walk away.

 

 

HAHA this is awesome!!

 

I would also add how about putting out your own cache instead of worrying so much about this one.

Of course when you finally do put a cache out, make sure you dot every I and cross every T.

Which is exactly what everyone should be doing.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I think the CO definately should be replacing the container. The OP is not the only cacher noting that the container needs replacing. However, I wouldn't personally get hysterical over a wet log. I've found soggy logs before and posted needs maintenance, but other than that, I certainly don't check back. Since it's a micro, it wouldn't get me too excited. The caches that bother me are the ones full of moldy garbage and the owner not having logged on for 2 years, but even then, I'm not going to post a Needs Archived. I reserve the NA for caches that are missing and/or disabled for months and months.

Edited October 14, 2011 by The_Incredibles_

[+L0ne.R]

There certainly is an under current of frustration with poorly maintained caches.

 

+1

[+Redfist]

There certainly is an under current of frustration with poorly maintained caches.

 

+1

 

+1

 

I'm anal-retentive about maintaining mine. It annoys me when I see one that has been neglected for months. If you can't maintain it, archive it or have someone adopt it.

[Keystone]

In response to a complaint from a valued participant in this discussion, I've removed a number of posts that are off topic. Those participating in that "side game" will quickly recognize the absence of their posts, and will be equally quick to recognize the consequences of continuing their "side game." Thank you. Now, back to our scheduled discussion.

[+BryanX9X]

 

Bells & Angels, yeah i have done a lot of this COs caches as well. I waited about a year for him to get around to replacing one that had gone missing. In that time the ADMINs did nothing again & the cache remained open & active. A very large number of this CO's caches should be archived & set up as waymarks.

 

did it ever occur to you that maybe he is one of the ADMINs?

 

 

To be honest, yes it did cross my mind. He might be an ADMIN or he might be a close friend of an ADMIN, who knows. It also gave me a shiver down my spine. If he were an ADMIN, then i would fear for the future of the game/sport. Since these ADMINs are supposed to uphold the rules. To have an ADMIN that refuses to do routine maintenance on their own caches.

 

Honestly though (not knowing what the rules are for ADMINs) i do not think that an ADMIN should be able to review their own caches. Or their friend's caches for that matter. Not to say that an ADMIN can not be friends with other cachers, just that the reviews should be unbiased.

[+BryanX9X]

83 of this CO's caches currently have needs maintenance tags on them, but so what - that is not important right? wink wink! EIGHTY THREE!

 

Needs maintenance tags only mean the owner didn't clear them by posting an Owner Maintenance tag. I know of many very well maintained caches that still have Needs Maintenance icons showing up. But as I pointed out above, this cache owner does seem to have a bit of a history of just letting his caches to until a reviewer eventually shuts them down.

 

Not to be REALLY picky, but, if the CO goes out & does the maintenance on the cache but then does not post an Owner Maintenance, then in a way the CO has still failed. They did the cache maintenance, but they forgot the cache page maintenance, both of which are part of their jobs. But that is just being really picky, when it more than likely just boils down to forgetting to do step 2. But it does look negatively upon the CO, because how are you to know if anything has been done or not. It is like a cache that has 5 DNFs on it, someone posts a NM, now lets say the CO goes out & either replaces the cache or finds it in good health, if the CO never posts an OM then you don't know if you should go & hunt for it or not.

[+BryanX9X]

One of the cache owner's posts mentioned that the way the cache is currently hidden, the log cannot get wet. I seem to remember that at least one time when he checked it, the log was still dry and in good shape. Given this, why would I care if the container is compromised? This cache could be the poster child for slimbob caches, for all I care.

 

No offense but i disagree. Since i have been to this cache multiple times & on each occasion i have found it wet. Not to mention that i am not the only one who has made note of this log being wet.

 

Yes the cache is hidden under something but that does not stop it from getting wet.

 

Why would you care if the container is compromised? Really? So just because the ONE time the CO stopped by to take a look they found the log dry, you are going to just overlook the other numerous postings of where others have found the log wet? So the word of the CO holds more value than the word of the numerous cachers who have tried to be friendly & helpful & let the CO know that the cache needs TLC.

 

How many wet log postings does it take before someone will say "Hey i think you might want to think about using another type of container for your caches"

 

The CO himself noted that he is aware of the container's tendency to get broken, but he obviously does not care as he keeps buying more & putting them out there.

[+BryanX9X]

HAHA this is awesome!!

 

I would also add how about putting out your own cache instead of worrying so much about this one.

Of course when you finally do put a cache out, make sure you dot every I and cross every T.

 

Don't worry i will & i hope that i will see your name among those that find it & log it!!

[+BryanX9X]

+1

 

I'm anal-retentive about maintaining mine. It annoys me when I see one that has been neglected for months. If you can't maintain it, archive it or have someone adopt it.

 

+1

[+ChileHead]

What am I missing?

 

Looks like on 8/30/2010 you posted a NM but many others find it afterwards. One comment about it being wet, but it didn't look like from the logs it was a huge issue for those finders.

 

On 3/22/2011 you posted a NA. Perhaps the log wasn't as wet as it was months before (sometimes they dry out, sometimes they get wetter as well). After this two different groups added a fresh log sheet making this a viable cache again. What's the issue?

 

Really, you seem to be really worked up over this. Yes, it doesn't look like the CO is doing proper cache maintenance, but since others have taken it upon themselves to do so (which is a questionable practice if you ask me as it only prolongs the inevitable) there doesn't seem to be any reason to archive the cache listing.

[+ChileHead]

I reserve the NA for caches that are missing and/or disabled for months and months.

 

+1 ... exactly what I do as well.

[+GeoBain]

What am I missing?

 

Control issues.

 

Some people see "rules" and insist that those "rules" are enforced. They get upset when they discover that the "rules" are actually guidelines and that they don't have any control over what the other person does.

 

Some people have a hard time with the concept of fun.

 

I know. I'm one of these people. Left unchecked, I tend to want everyone to adhere to all the rules. But I've learned over the years to chill a bit. I got a real good lesson in letting go about this time last year. You cannot really control what others do. But you can determine how you will react to others and what level of enjoyment you will allow yourself.

[+fizzymagic]

You cannot really control what others do. But you can determine how you will react to others and what level of enjoyment you will allow yourself.

 

Wise words indeed.

 

Actually, geocaching has helped teach me that exact lesson. Maybe that's part of what makes it so wonderful, and why we see so many threads like this in the forums. I know that forum discussions have helped me be a lot more forgiving of other cachers over the years.

[+Dgwphotos]

This CO is obviously over the line in their replies and very rude. That is wrong. But I still so ne reason to archive.

I do see it as being a reason to ban the user.

[Keystone]

 

Bells & Angels, yeah i have done a lot of this COs caches as well. I waited about a year for him to get around to replacing one that had gone missing. In that time the ADMINs did nothing again & the cache remained open & active. A very large number of this CO's caches should be archived & set up as waymarks.

 

did it ever occur to you that maybe he is one of the ADMINs?

 

 

To be honest, yes it did cross my mind. He might be an ADMIN or he might be a close friend of an ADMIN, who knows. It also gave me a shiver down my spine. If he were an ADMIN, then i would fear for the future of the game/sport. Since these ADMINs are supposed to uphold the rules. To have an ADMIN that refuses to do routine maintenance on their own caches.

 

Honestly though (not knowing what the rules are for ADMINs) i do not think that an ADMIN should be able to review their own caches. Or their friend's caches for that matter. Not to say that an ADMIN can not be friends with other cachers, just that the reviews should be unbiased.

At some point, your obsession with this cache and this cache owner transformed itself into an obsession with your reviewer. I'm not quite sure why that is, but I will once again refer you to my post #12 at the beginning of your thread: take a deep breath, relax and try to move off of this thinking about your reviewer.

 

Here are some facts: Your reviewer has been a Groundspeak volunteer since April 21, 2004. Reviewers first build up a record as an excellent geocacher before being asked to join the volunteer team, so it's safe to assume that your reviewer first started finding and hiding caches in the 2000-2003 timeframe. This cache owner created their account on March 29, 2006 - almost two years after your reviewer began serving the New York geocaching community. Knowing this, would you want to retract your groundless speculation?

 

Next, a reviewer would not remain a reviewer for more than seven years unless they were doing a good job. If a reviewer were to be writing logs like this cache owner is writing, don't you think there would be some complaints and action by Groundspeak?

 

Finally, I'll address your allegation of bias in favor of "friends of the cache reviewer." In truth, friends of a cache reviewer will likely see their cache submissions face stricter scrutiny, and receive less latitude in granting exceptions to the listing guidelines. That's because we know there are community members out there who are inclined to make allegations of favoritism. The same logic applies when a reviewer publishes a cache they've hidden. Groundspeak allows us to publish our own caches but we are asked to consult another reviewer if there is *any* question about whether the hide meets the listing guidelines.

 

Conversely, once a reviewer becomes aware of a cache hider in their area who reacts negatively to reviewer decisions, it's human nature to be extra careful that the listing guidelines are applied to that cache hider in a very fair and flexible manner. We know that any decision we make can be appealed to Groundspeak, and we like to present a fair treatment of the geocacher, rather than presenting any appearance of negative bias.

[knowschad]

83 of this CO's caches currently have needs maintenance tags on them, but so what - that is not important right? wink wink! EIGHTY THREE!

 

Needs maintenance tags only mean the owner didn't clear them by posting an Owner Maintenance tag. I know of many very well maintained caches that still have Needs Maintenance icons showing up. But as I pointed out above, this cache owner does seem to have a bit of a history of just letting his caches to until a reviewer eventually shuts them down.

 

Not to be REALLY picky, but, if the CO goes out & does the maintenance on the cache but then does not post an Owner Maintenance, then in a way the CO has still failed. They did the cache maintenance, but they forgot the cache page maintenance, both of which are part of their jobs. But that is just being really picky, when it more than likely just boils down to forgetting to do step 2. But it does look negatively upon the CO, because how are you to know if anything has been done or not. It is like a cache that has 5 DNFs on it, someone posts a NM, now lets say the CO goes out & either replaces the cache or finds it in good health, if the CO never posts an OM then you don't know if you should go & hunt for it or not.

 

Yeah, that is being pretty picky. It would also be callingout some pretty good hiders that I know, just because they don't hang out in the forums and therefore haven't learned the subtleties of posting Owner Maintenance logs. That is a pretty trivial point of being a cache owner. If you are going to use the lack of Owner Maintenance logs as a reason to condemn cache owners, you should probably start looking for a new hobby.

[knowschad]

Bells & Angels, yeah i have done a lot of this COs caches as well. I waited about a year for him to get around to replacing one that had gone missing. In that time the ADMINs did nothing again & the cache remained open & active. A very large number of this CO's caches should be archived & set up as waymarks.

 

did it ever occur to you that maybe he is one of the ADMINs?

 

 

To be honest, yes it did cross my mind. He might be an ADMIN or he might be a close friend of an ADMIN, who knows. It also gave me a shiver down my spine. If he were an ADMIN, then i would fear for the future of the game/sport. Since these ADMINs are supposed to uphold the rules. To have an ADMIN that refuses to do routine maintenance on their own caches.

 

Honestly though (not knowing what the rules are for ADMINs) i do not think that an ADMIN should be able to review their own caches. Or their friend's caches for that matter. Not to say that an ADMIN can not be friends with other cachers, just that the reviews should be unbiased.

 

You have a right to your opinion, of course, but you are really skirting the boundaries of decency here if I read you right. Are you really suggesting that reviewers are giving favoritism to their buddies or their own sock accounts? You need to get to know your reviewers better if you think that is likely. I've been at this for seven years, and I have never, ever, ever had more than the utmost respect and admiration for the reviewers that I have known. Nope... you are way off base, if you are thinking there is favoritism going on here.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I want to let others know that caching is supposed to be a "Fun Hobby". Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Long term cachers (doesn't matter how many caches they have found, but have hidden at least a few) go and find a cache.

 

They will usually have small baggies and/or containers and/or a log book, and always a spare pen or pencil as part of the items in their caching bag. If it is an area or a place that is of interest and really deserves a cache being there to let others enjoy that particular area/place and they see a problem with the cache, they will fix the problem themselves and let the cache owner know either by a "polite log" or an email through Geocaching.com.

 

The hounding of a cache owner about perceived problems only causes hard feelings within the community and it is has become an obsession of sorts, not the "FUN HOBBY" that is was intended to be.

 

In this large area that we cache in, we have dried out several caches and logbooks, placed that log into a baggie and let the owner know. We went so far as to place one cache container into another (spare) container we had due to the original container being cracked. The cache owner would have to had traveled a long distance to get there and it is not always a quick thing to be able to drop everything in life to do maintenance on a cache, so since it looked like rain and the log was dry, we helped the CO out in this way and let him know.

 

Now this might look like a lot to go through, but is being a part and parcel of a good, healthy, strong caching community. It doesn't matter that our community is hundreds of miles and encompasses 3 states. Where ever we cache is our community. If we were to go to an Event, meeting other Geocachers, we would be meeting friends, not people who we think are wrongdoers.

 

Instructions of the game for the casual, long-term cacher - Go find a cache that sounds like a fun find or cool area to see or at a special thing. Log the cache with a few words to state what you liked about that cache if the logbook is one of the larger ones. Go online and tell about your adventures of finding the cache. If there was a problem, let the owner know and then move on to either finding/hiding more caches. Go to several Event caches and meet others of your normal caching area. Have a good time, relax. HAVE FUN. If it isn't fun, why bother?

 

Shirley/Granny~

[Clan Riffster]

i do not think that an ADMIN should be able to review their own caches. Or their friend's caches for that matter. Not to say that an ADMIN can not be friends with other cachers, just that the reviews should be unbiased.

While I've agreed with much of what you've posted, (cache maintenance is part of the guidelines we each agree to conform to each time we hide a cache, and the CO in question isn't interested in that aspect of the game), I think you are way off base with that remark. I know three of my Reviewers personally, (might know the fourth, but they are still in Ninja mode), and I would classify my relationship with them as "Friends". But I can assure you, if I tried skirting the guidelines, they would call me on the carpet in record time. I would imagine that somewhere in the process of deciding if someone should be a Reviewer, their ability to remain impartial comes into question.

 

You might want to apologize for that one.

[+Ash McCloud]

When I was in college I was taught some good advice from a great Lady. She told me to "choose your battles" If this one cache has you in this much of a frenzy, I would suggest you walk away from caching right now. Because all I see in the future is more stress for you.

 

What I really don't get is why you keep at it. When you go to an event and if you meet this CO there is a good chance that he or she will be well liked and now there will always be something between you. IT might be that if you chill on this, tell them your sorry for continuing to nag them about their cache you might be able to build a friendship. We all understand there are rules. Maybe we don't all follow them fully. I thought maybe you can change your name too the Correct Cache Crusader. Went back numerous times to a key holder cache. When I find one of those I can't sign and get away quick enough.

[AZcachemeister]

All I can say is that I'm glad cache owner's don't get away with this non-maintenance here in AZ.

 

If I claimed the cache was all about the location, and the log was unimportant, I'm pretty sure my cache would be archived (or at least disabled) pretty quickly.

 

If the reviewer doesn't want to do anything about it, no amount of complaining will get anything done.

Ignore the cache, post a find on it, or whatever...just move on.

 

I think the bigger issue here is the inconsistent application of the guidelines from one area to the next...but I also doubt there will be (nor can be) anything done about that either.

[+BryanX9X]

At some point, your obsession with this cache and this cache owner transformed itself into an obsession with your reviewer. I'm not quite sure why that is, but I will once again refer you to my post #12 at the beginning of your thread: take a deep breath, relax and try to move off of this thinking about your reviewer.

 

To be honest, i do not know how this has gotten so far out of hand or why so many people are getting the wrong impression, even with me restating it over & over. The purpose of this thread was to find out if there was another course of action, someone else to contact in regards to this problem. After the first 3 responses i got my answer. I was out of luck unless i wanted to try & contact GS directly.

 

Their has been no direct obsession with this particular cache or with the CO. The only problem with the CO is that a large majority of his caches need maintenance & he refuses to do so. The original question was posed vague for a reason, because there are a number of caches that i have gone for that have been missing or in need of maintenance. A lot of those caches have not been archived or maintained, so i was curious as to what could be done about it.

 

The only thoughts about the reviewers prior to this thread were that they must be busy if they have not looked into posts & e-mails that i sent out over a year ago. That is all no obsessions.

 

Here are some facts: Your reviewer has been a Groundspeak volunteer since April 21, 2004. Reviewers first build up a record as an excellent geocacher before being asked to join the volunteer team, so it's safe to assume that your reviewer first started finding and hiding caches in the 2000-2003 timeframe. This cache owner created their account on March 29, 2006 - almost two years after your reviewer began serving the New York geocaching community. Knowing this, would you want to retract your groundless speculation?

 

Next, a reviewer would not remain a reviewer for more than seven years unless they were doing a good job. If a reviewer were to be writing logs like this cache owner is writing, don't you think there would be some complaints and action by Groundspeak?

 

That is good to know, thanXX. But in response to that, is it possible to have more than one reviewer for a particular state or area? I will admit, that i do not know the intricate details surrounding the various reviewers, or what it takes to become one. So your info is very helpful.

 

The "groundless speculation" was just an honest response to the question posed, a proposition not a speculation. Not knowing the finer details of the reviewers history, or the rules regarding a reviewer's account, i would have to simply rely on logic & the information that i knew at the time. Are there multiple reviewers? I do not know. Can a reviewer have an account for reviewing & one for geocaching? I don't know. Can they have different account names? I do not know. Do they have to be linked to the same e-mail account? I don't know. Do i know the reviewer personally or have i ever met the reviewer? No. Do i know the CO personally or have i ever met the CO? No. So when asked if i had considered that the CO was also one of the ADMINs, i answered honestly based on the info that i had at the time, logic said that it was possible. I would hope that it was not probable, but it was possible.

 

Please note though that my comments were from the mindset that i would hope that it were NOT true. I would hope that the reviewers/admins would stick to the rules, & that as you pointed out, that they would not have been a reviewer for so long if they had not done so.

 

After re-reading my statement i can see where it could be taken another way, but it was not my intent. My intent was that yes it could be possible, but i would hope that it were not true.

 

Finally, I'll address your allegation of bias in favor of "friends of the cache reviewer." In truth, friends of a cache reviewer will likely see their cache submissions face stricter scrutiny, and receive less latitude in granting exceptions to the listing guidelines. That's because we know there are community members out there who are inclined to make allegations of favoritism. The same logic applies when a reviewer publishes a cache they've hidden. Groundspeak allows us to publish our own caches but we are asked to consult another reviewer if there is *any* question about whether the hide meets the listing guidelines.

 

Again there were no allegations, just a simple hypothesis, a proposal of one possible way that things might have transpired. No allegations what so ever. I am sorry if you or any of the others took it that way.

 

I in no way was saying that, that is what transpired, because i do not have all of the details. I am in no way accusing the reviewers of such acts, & i apologize if it has been seen otherwise.

[+BryanX9X]

You have a right to your opinion, of course, but you are really skirting the boundaries of decency here if I read you right. Are you really suggesting that reviewers are giving favoritism to their buddies or their own sock accounts? You need to get to know your reviewers better if you think that is likely. I've been at this for seven years, and I have never, ever, ever had more than the utmost respect and admiration for the reviewers that I have known. Nope... you are way off base, if you are thinking there is favoritism going on here.

 

NO! Not at all. I was trying to say that i would hope that that would NEVER happen.

 

But it seems that i have failed in trying to express myself clearly enough. Sorry. =(

[+Sapience Trek]

The only thoughts about the reviewers prior to this thread were that they must be busy if they have not looked into posts & e-mails that i sent out over a year ago. That is all no obsessions.

 

Needs maintenance posts are not seen by the reviewer. That is something the cache owner sees and should take care of. When a needs archived post is made then a reviewer will take a look, but no action is necessarily done. It depends on the cache. Looking at the history of this one it appears that cache seekers have put dry pages into the cache, thus making it a viable cache for others to find, though not a well maintained cache. I personally would have taken no action on this.

 

That is good to know, thanXX. But in response to that, is it possible to have more than one reviewer for a particular state or area? I will admit, that i do not know the intricate details surrounding the various reviewers, or what it takes to become one. So your info is very helpful.

 

There are two reviewers for New York, and there are others that step in to help when needed.

 

Can a reviewer have an account for reviewing & one for geocaching? I don't know.

 

It's up to the reviewer. Most have separate accounts.

[+BryanX9X]

While I've agreed with much of what you've posted, (cache maintenance is part of the guidelines we each agree to conform to each time we hide a cache, and the CO in question isn't interested in that aspect of the game), I think you are way off base with that remark. I know three of my Reviewers personally, (might know the fourth, but they are still in Ninja mode), and I would classify my relationship with them as "Friends". But I can assure you, if I tried skirting the guidelines, they would call me on the carpet in record time. I would imagine that somewhere in the process of deciding if someone should be a Reviewer, their ability to remain impartial comes into question.

 

You might want to apologize for that one.

 

As i have said already, i seem to have failed on expressing myself correctly on that one. I was not making any accusations or allegations of that nature. I was trying to say that i would hope that such things would not happen. I was not saying that they do or did happen.

[+BryanX9X]

When I was in college I was taught some good advice from a great Lady. She told me to "choose your battles" If this one cache has you in this much of a frenzy, I would suggest you walk away from caching right now. Because all I see in the future is more stress for you.

 

What I really don't get is why you keep at it. When you go to an event and if you meet this CO there is a good chance that he or she will be well liked and now there will always be something between you. IT might be that if you chill on this, tell them your sorry for continuing to nag them about their cache you might be able to build a friendship. We all understand there are rules. Maybe we don't all follow them fully. I thought maybe you can change your name too the Correct Cache Crusader. Went back numerous times to a key holder cache. When I find one of those I can't sign and get away quick enough.

 

For the last time:

I don't have a problem with the CO, aside from the lack of maintenance.

I don't have a problem with this cache, aside from it needing maintenance.

There is nothing personal about it, just a request for them to do their job.

 

I have many other caches like this one & more COs like this one. If i find a cache that needs maintenance i will flag it. I will do what i can to assist, but flag it none the less. If i visit the cache again at a later point & it is still in need of maintenance i will flag it for needing to be archived. There is one cache that comes to mind that i have logged as needing maintenance because it's log book is so full & so old that it has burst it's binding. Cachers are just dropping scraps of paper into the container to log their find. The container is almost full of just scraps of paper. I have flagged it as needing to be archived. Not because it can not be found, but because it needs maintenance & the CO is not doing it.

 

I am sure that most of these COs are well liked at events, my guess would be because most people found their cache when it was in good condition, & most people did not re-visit the cache again. Out of sight out of mind type of scenario.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I have many other caches like this one & more COs like this one. If i find a cache that needs maintenance i will flag it. I will do what i can to assist, but flag it none the less. If i visit the cache again at a later point & it is still in need of maintenance i will flag it for needing to be archived.

I think this is the point where many of us get confused. Why, in heaven's name, would you return to a magnetic key holder cache? The only possible reason I can think of is to "check up" on it, to see if the CO has done the maintenance that your log said it needed. Based on the responses in this thread, I'm not the only one who thinks this.

 

I've posted NM logs on keyholders with wet paper in them. But I've never gone back to one of them for a second visit.

 

There is one cache that comes to mind that i have logged as needing maintenance because it's log book is so full & so old that it has burst it's binding. Cachers are just dropping scraps of paper into the container to log their find. The container is almost full of just scraps of paper. I have flagged it as needing to be archived. Not because it can not be found, but because it needs maintenance & the CO is not doing it.

 

If people are finding it, and enjoying it, I think I would have put a new logbook in it. I did that for one near here, one of the oldest caches in Vance county, whose owner is no longer active.

 

Don't get me wrong, I've posted my share (probably more than my share) of NA logs. But I don't post NA logs for wet logsheets, or on caches with active owners. And I don't go back to check on the caches where I've placed NA or NM logs.

[+BryanX9X]

Needs maintenance posts are not seen by the reviewer. That is something the cache owner sees and should take care of. When a needs archived post is made then a reviewer will take a look, but no action is necessarily done. It depends on the cache. Looking at the history of this one it appears that cache seekers have put dry pages into the cache, thus making it a viable cache for others to find, though not a well maintained cache. I personally would have taken no action on this.

 

There are two reviewers for New York, and there are others that step in to help when needed.

 

Both good to know & thanXX for letting me know.

 

So just curious, not trying to start another huge war on here. (it seems like on here curiosity killed the cat because it sparked off the hot coals of some raging feud)

 

Since the reviewers do not get the needs maintenance logs, one of the posts on here suggested that i e-mail the reviewers a copy of the needs maintenance log. Is that a good suggestion? Granted my thoughts were just to only do that only after the original needs maintenance log went unmaintained by the CO.

 

Also just curious. I know that you said that since in the end people keep maintaining this cache for the CO, you can not really archive it for not having a log any longer. I get that. I just wonder if there is anything that could be done since the CO has openly stated that he does not care about cache maintenance.

 

I ask because i have heard it a bunch of times from COs in the area. This same mentality of if you can find some piece of the original container then you can log it. A mentality of once they put the cache out there they don't care what happens to it.

 

The other one that i will not get started on is the obvious lack of or questionable permission for placing a cache.

[+BryanX9X]

I think this is the point where many of us get confused. Why, in heaven's name, would you return to a magnetic key holder cache? The only possible reason I can think of is to "check up" on it, to see if the CO has done the maintenance that your log said it needed. Based on the responses in this thread, I'm not the only one who thinks this.

 

I've posted NM logs on keyholders with wet paper in them. But I've never gone back to one of them for a second visit.

 

HA HA HA good point, but no, nothing like that. The scenarios are more like, we are out with friends & we take them by to visit ones that we know are in the area & that are quick little grabs just to show them what it is like. You get there & you find the cache in the same horrible shape that it was in 6 months (or more) ago when we first logged it.

 

If people are finding it, and enjoying it, I think I would have put a new logbook in it. I did that for one near here, one of the oldest caches in Vance county, whose owner is no longer active.

 

Don't get me wrong, I've posted my share (probably more than my share) of NA logs. But I don't post NA logs for wet logsheets, or on caches with active owners. And I don't go back to check on the caches where I've placed NA or NM logs.

 

Well like i said the container is getting full of the various pieces of paper, there is no room to put in a new log. I do not feel right taking the old log just to put a new one in. All of those sheets would just end up in the recycle.

 

Besides, it is not our job to maintain someone else's cache. Helping out a little, alright. But if the log was full 6 months ago & the CO was made aware of it, i am not going to help out a second time around.

[jholly]

<snip>

Besides, it is not our job to maintain someone else's cache. Helping out a little, alright. But if the log was full 6 months ago & the CO was made aware of it, i am not going to help out a second time around.

It really sounds to me like you need to put *ALL* of this CO's caches on your ignore list and move on. Then you will not be upset in the future.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I think this is the point where many of us get confused. Why, in heaven's name, would you return to a magnetic key holder cache? The only possible reason I can think of is to "check up" on it, to see if the CO has done the maintenance that your log said it needed.

 

HA HA HA good point, but no, nothing like that. The scenarios are more like, we are out with friends & we take them by to visit ones that we know are in the area & that are quick little grabs just to show them what it is like.

 

Wait... Your explanation is making me even more confused.

 

So, there's this cache that is so awful you think it shouldn't exist. And there's some friend who you want to show what caching is like.

 

So you take your friend to the most awful cache you know about? Really?

 

Something isn't adding up here.

[CACAHUETES]

Who gives a dadgum if that cache needs archiving. Try to abate your anger and move on.

 

Dr 'Huetes out

[+thebruce0]

Wait... Your explanation is making me even more confused.

So, there's this cache that is so awful you think it shouldn't exist. And there's some friend who you want to show what caching is like.

So you take your friend to the most awful cache you know about? Really?

Something isn't adding up here.

I think he means he'd like to be able to do that. If you were right there, would you not like to simply say "hey, there's a cache over here, come check it out" without having to worry? *shrug* (not that I'm defending the obsessiveness over this particular cache )

Edited October 21, 2011 by thebruce0

[+GeoGeeBee]

Wait... Your explanation is making me even more confused.

So, there's this cache that is so awful you think it shouldn't exist. And there's some friend who you want to show what caching is like.

So you take your friend to the most awful cache you know about? Really?

Something isn't adding up here.

I think he means he'd like to be able to do that. If you were right there, would you not like to simply say "hey, there's a cache over here, come check it out" without having to worry? *shrug* (not that I'm defending the obsessiveness over this particular cache )

No, he's posted multiple visits to this cache. He keeps checking on it. When I asked him why, he said it's because he's taking friends out.

 

Not that I believe any of it.

[knowschad]

I think this is the point where many of us get confused. Why, in heaven's name, would you return to a magnetic key holder cache? The only possible reason I can think of is to "check up" on it, to see if the CO has done the maintenance that your log said it needed.

 

HA HA HA good point, but no, nothing like that. The scenarios are more like, we are out with friends & we take them by to visit ones that we know are in the area & that are quick little grabs just to show them what it is like.

 

Wait... Your explanation is making me even more confused.

 

So, there's this cache that is so awful you think it shouldn't exist. And there's some friend who you want to show what caching is like.

 

So you take your friend to the most awful cache you know about? Really?

 

Something isn't adding up here.

 

You noticed that too, huh?

[+baloo&bd]

I think this is the point where many of us get confused. Why, in heaven's name, would you return to a magnetic key holder cache? The only possible reason I can think of is to "check up" on it, to see if the CO has done the maintenance that your log said it needed. Based on the responses in this thread, I'm not the only one who thinks this.

 

I've posted NM logs on keyholders with wet paper in them. But I've never gone back to one of them for a second visit.

 

HA HA HA good point, but no, nothing like that. The scenarios are more like, we are out with friends & we take them by to visit ones that we know are in the area & that are quick little grabs just to show them what it is like. You get there & you find the cache in the same horrible shape that it was in 6 months (or more) ago when we first logged it.

 

If people are finding it, and enjoying it, I think I would have put a new logbook in it. I did that for one near here, one of the oldest caches in Vance county, whose owner is no longer active.

 

Don't get me wrong, I've posted my share (probably more than my share) of NA logs. But I don't post NA logs for wet logsheets, or on caches with active owners. And I don't go back to check on the caches where I've placed NA or NM logs.

 

Well like i said the container is getting full of the various pieces of paper, there is no room to put in a new log. I do not feel right taking the old log just to put a new one in. All of those sheets would just end up in the recycle.

 

Besides, it is not our job to maintain someone else's cache. Helping out a little, alright. But if the log was full 6 months ago & the CO was made aware of it, i am not going to help out a second time around.

 

I'm starting to think the moderators might want to consider merging this thread with this one.

[+TerraViators]

There certainly is an under current of frustration with poorly maintained caches.

 

+1

 

+1

 

I'm anal-retentive about maintaining mine. It annoys me when I see one that has been neglected for months. If you can't maintain it, archive it or have someone adopt it.

+1

 

I wish the reviewers would support the archival of broken containers that the CO's refuse to repair or replace. Nobody wants to find a damaged container, just like you don't want a leaky faucet, a bald tire, a burnt steak, etc. All of things are still what they are and functional, but it doesn't mean they don't suck.

[+L0ne.R]

Don't get me wrong, I've posted my share (probably more than my share) of NA logs....And I don't go back to check on the caches where I've placed NA or NM logs.

 

I have. Posted a NA on a cache that was broken and full of dirt and mold. There were already numerous posts about the condition. I posted an NM then added a watch to the cache. After a month I posted a NA. After 3 months the reviewer archived the cache and I drove back to discard it (then posted a note to let everyone including the defunct owner know that the cache was discarded - I took a photo as evidence of it's unsanitary, broken condition).