SUBMITTED (21313) - [FEATURE] System to remove "ghost" trackables from cache inventories.

[+hzoi]

I came looking for this thread again.

 

Lately, whenever a relatively novice cacher submits a cache or logs one of mine, when I have time, I'll go click on their finds. Any cache showing trackables, I'll Mark Missing that inventory at about an 80% rate.

Getting some automated, or semi-automated, user fix in for this would be very nice.

 

Think about how bad the missing cache issue would be if all the old archived listings still showed as active on the site. People would hardly believe that caches were really out there and findable at all. All the old trackable inventory does show.

 

Thank you

 

(when caches are mentioned on these forums, oldest local, favorites, fun etc, I often go there and clear huge trackable inventories; I do this when I travel as well.)

Thanks for your input, palmetto!

 

So, we have a reviewer saying that this would make their job easier. Perhaps if a few other reviewers chimed in, or hinted to Groundspeak that this would be a welcome change, we could get some more consideration for this feature.

[+J Grouchy]

I came looking for this thread again.

 

Lately, whenever a relatively novice cacher submits a cache or logs one of mine, when I have time, I'll go click on their finds. Any cache showing trackables, I'll Mark Missing that inventory at about an 80% rate.

Getting some automated, or semi-automated, user fix in for this would be very nice.

 

Think about how bad the missing cache issue would be if all the old archived listings still showed as active on the site. People would hardly believe that caches were really out there and findable at all. All the old trackable inventory does show.

 

Thank you

 

(when caches are mentioned on these forums, oldest local, favorites, fun etc, I often go there and clear huge trackable inventories; I do this when I travel as well.)

 

Yeah...it's frustrating to see caches with multiple trackables in the inventory but none of them are there. Then, when I post a note on the trackable listing page to mark it missing, the owners of the trackables do nothing. I really just don't understand why folks won't mark them missing.

 

Here is an example:

http://coord.info/GLDFFEKM

 

This cache has eight in the inventory. I posted a NM log for the CO to mark them missing since none of those were in the cache (it's an Altoid tin...so it's not like I just missed them). Then I went to each page for each of those trackables and posted that they were not in the cache and the owner should mark it missing. Nothing. Nobody has done anything in the two+ weeks since I found the cache.

[+palmetto]

So, we have a reviewer saying that this would make their job easier.

 

Well, no. Marking trackables missing isn't a reviewer issue; it's not "job" related.

It's just something I do, because I can.

[+nevadanick]

I came looking for this thread again.

 

Lately, whenever a relatively novice cacher submits a cache or logs one of mine, when I have time, I'll go click on their finds. Any cache showing trackables, I'll Mark Missing that inventory at about an 80% rate.

Getting some automated, or semi-automated, user fix in for this would be very nice.

 

Think about how bad the missing cache issue would be if all the old archived listings still showed as active on the site. People would hardly believe that caches were really out there and findable at all. All the old trackable inventory does show.

 

Thank you

 

(when caches are mentioned on these forums, oldest local, favorites, fun etc, I often go there and clear huge trackable inventories; I do this when I travel as well.)

 

Yeah...it's frustrating to see caches with multiple trackables in the inventory but none of them are there. Then, when I post a note on the trackable listing page to mark it missing, the owners of the trackables do nothing. I really just don't understand why folks won't mark them missing.

 

Here is an example:

http://coord.info/GLDFFEKM

 

This cache has eight in the inventory. I posted a NM log for the CO to mark them missing since none of those were in the cache (it's an Altoid tin...so it's not like I just missed them). Then I went to each page for each of those trackables and posted that they were not in the cache and the owner should mark it missing. Nothing. Nobody has done anything in the two+ weeks since I found the cache.

 

I guess Mount10bike solved your problem. All trackables are now gone from the cache.

 

As far as writing the CO, they have 4 finds and 1 trackable and 2 hides. They also haven't logged in for about 2 years, so it's a bit optimistic to expect them to mark the trackables missing

 

I didn't have time to get through the whole list of TB's but the few I did check on, if I recall, were not in that cache more than a month or two. Granted, they may have in fact been gone when you checked, but 1-2 months is not sufficient time (imo) to warrant marking a TB or coin missing as a trackable owner. My geo-partner has a lot of items traveling and many have a history of having several month lags between logs, retrievals, placements, etc. Not everyone treats this as a day-to-day hobby and logs when they have time, or remember to log something. Sure, we would all like to see it done quicker, but that's not the reality of this 'sport'.

 

All the more reason that this suggestion to allow cachers to mark a TB missing into a grey/limbo status for at least 90 days should SERIOUSLY be considered. It's all been hashed before ... over and over and over ...

and about that squeaking wheel theory ... SQUEAK... SQUEAK... SQUEAK ....

[+J Grouchy]

I came looking for this thread again.

 

Lately, whenever a relatively novice cacher submits a cache or logs one of mine, when I have time, I'll go click on their finds. Any cache showing trackables, I'll Mark Missing that inventory at about an 80% rate.

Getting some automated, or semi-automated, user fix in for this would be very nice.

 

Think about how bad the missing cache issue would be if all the old archived listings still showed as active on the site. People would hardly believe that caches were really out there and findable at all. All the old trackable inventory does show.

 

Thank you

 

(when caches are mentioned on these forums, oldest local, favorites, fun etc, I often go there and clear huge trackable inventories; I do this when I travel as well.)

 

Yeah...it's frustrating to see caches with multiple trackables in the inventory but none of them are there. Then, when I post a note on the trackable listing page to mark it missing, the owners of the trackables do nothing. I really just don't understand why folks won't mark them missing.

 

Here is an example:

http://coord.info/GLDFFEKM

 

This cache has eight in the inventory. I posted a NM log for the CO to mark them missing since none of those were in the cache (it's an Altoid tin...so it's not like I just missed them). Then I went to each page for each of those trackables and posted that they were not in the cache and the owner should mark it missing. Nothing. Nobody has done anything in the two+ weeks since I found the cache.

 

I guess Mount10bike solved your problem. All trackables are now gone from the cache.

 

As far as writing the CO, they have 4 finds and 1 trackable and 2 hides. They also haven't logged in for about 2 years, so it's a bit optimistic to expect them to mark the trackables missing

 

I didn't have time to get through the whole list of TB's but the few I did check on, if I recall, were not in that cache more than a month or two. Granted, they may have in fact been gone when you checked, but 1-2 months is not sufficient time (imo) to warrant marking a TB or coin missing as a trackable owner. My geo-partner has a lot of items traveling and many have a history of having several month lags between logs, retrievals, placements, etc. Not everyone treats this as a day-to-day hobby and logs when they have time, or remember to log something. Sure, we would all like to see it done quicker, but that's not the reality of this 'sport'.

 

All the more reason that this suggestion to allow cachers to mark a TB missing into a grey/limbo status for at least 90 days should SERIOUSLY be considered. It's all been hashed before ... over and over and over ...

and about that squeaking wheel theory ... SQUEAK... SQUEAK... SQUEAK ....

 

Yeah, well the CO being a fly-by-nighter is the reason I usually also make a note for the owners of the trackables. I just think those who log and move trackables are those who should be able to actually have input beyond writing a note on the page that nobody ever looks at. Even if there was a log type for the trackable page that was the equivalent of a "Needs Maintenance" or "Needs Archived" logs that the cache pages have, there would be more accurate tracking and inventory listings over time.

[+nevadanick]

 

[snipped]

 

Yeah, well the CO being a fly-by-nighter is the reason I usually also make a note for the owners of the trackables. I just think those who log and move trackables are those who should be able to actually have input beyond writing a note on the page that nobody ever looks at. Even if there was a log type for the trackable page that was the equivalent of a "Needs Maintenance" or "Needs Archived" logs that the cache pages have, there would be more accurate tracking and inventory listings over time.

 

Perfect logic for GS to address the suggestion in this thread. I don't think they would ever create a separate page, log type or category. BUT ... it would seem relatively simplistic to allow trackable oriented cachers to note a missing trackable in a cache inventory, grey it for 90 days, then AUTOMATICALLY place it into the 'Unknown Location' category that already exists.

 

I would think that one of their concerns would be the cacher who would go through a cache this afternoon and want to remove a trackable that was actually picked up by a cacher 2 hours earlier and has not had time or ability to log it properly yet. The suggestion in this thread allows a form of 'self correction' process to place the trackable back in circulation immediately with no further action as soon as it is properly logged.

 

Seems to be another GS case of absolute resistance, without explanation, to fixing a growing problem with a relatively simple solution. Wish there was a search ability to find out just how many trackables are actually 'non-existent' in the 2-1/2 million geocaches worldwide. Maybe posting a figure about the 500,000+ MISSING TRACKABLES might get their attention. Maybe the missing in action number is closer to 2.5 MILLION missing trackables ... one for every cache ... ?? ...

[+Harry Dolphin]

This cache has eight in the inventory. I posted a NM log for the CO to mark them missing since none of those were in the cache (it's an Altoid tin...so it's not like I just missed them). Then I went to each page for each of those trackables and posted that they were not in the cache and the owner should mark it missing. Nothing. Nobody has done anything in the two+ weeks since I found the cache.

 

It is not the responsibility of the CO to mark TBs missing. Putting an NM on the cache for this reason is an abuse of the system. COs may, if they wish to, but the are not required to.

[Milo&Co]

Hi,

 

I just came looking for info. on this since I've just come across yet another cache with TBs listed which, looking through the logs, are clearly no longer there

 

I seem to be frequently sending messages to the TB owners to ask them to remove their apparently missing TB from the inventory of the relevant cache. I say 'I'm afraid your xx TB is missing' and express hope for it turning up, but I never get a response. Sometimes they do get removed, but often it just seems to be ignored. (I occasionally ask the CO if they could remove the TB from the inventory, but only if the TBO also appears to be 'MIA'! )

 

I have also seen comments from COs about missing TBs.. I think they don't realise they can remove them.. even experienced cachers..

 

Good to know I'm not alone, others are bothered too, and some are trying to encourage that things are put in place to help those of us that are bothered to do something about it.

 

A big thumbs up from me for OP!

 

[+nevadanick]

Hi,

 

I just came looking for info. on this since I've just come across yet another cache with TBs listed which, looking through the logs, are clearly no longer there

 

I seem to be frequently sending messages to the TB owners to ask them to remove their apparently missing TB from the inventory of the relevant cache. I say 'I'm afraid your xx TB is missing' and express hope for it turning up, but I never get a response. Sometimes they do get removed, but often it just seems to be ignored. (I occasionally ask the CO if they could remove the TB from the inventory, but only if the TBO also appears to be 'MIA'! )

 

I have also seen comments from COs about missing TBs.. I think they don't realise they can remove them.. even experienced cachers..

 

Good to know I'm not alone, others are bothered too, and some are trying to encourage that things are put in place to help those of us that are bothered to do something about it.

 

A big thumbs up from me for OP!

 

 

Until GS figures out it may good biz to protect one of their cash cows ...

 

You can politely e-mail your local reviewer, give them the cache name and GC# and ask them to remove the TB's listed in the inventory, especially if the entries are seriously aged.

 

They also have no 'responsibility' to do it, but they do have the 'ability'. I wouldn't do it too often as reviewers are volunteers and are quite busy without adding TB/geocoin issues, but we've had success in our area. It does help keep caches in that reviewer's area from receiving 'missing trackables' complaint logs.

 

I don't have any responsibility to do it either, but I do own 200+ caches and I do take maintenance seriously ... INCLUDING keeping the trackable inventories clean and up to date. I really would hate seeing multiple log e-mails complaining about MY caches and the excess MIA trackables. If they are MIA ... they are STILL listed in MY cache ... so I make sure they are NOT.

[+Kacher82]

It may not be spelled out as the CO's responsibility, but, IMO, part of cache maintenance is keeping the inventory up to date. It is the CO's responsibility to maintain the cache. However, the topic of this thread is to have a system available for when COs and TOs don't take care of it. I still think what has been discussed is a great idea.

 

I, personally, as a trackable owner, won't immediately mark a TB missing just because one person didn't find it. I'll put that cache on my watchlist and see if anyone else mentions missing TBs. I figure if two people say it's missing, it probably is, and I'll mark it so. In one case, the next person to find the cache picked up my TB and moved it on. The one that said it was missing had apparently found the wrong container. In a couple other cases, the CO has marked it missing.

 

As a CO, I haven't yet had any TBs go missing out of any of my three caches, but if someone mentioned a missing TB in their log, I would go check it out myself. If it is truly missing, I would mark it so.

[+J Grouchy]

This cache has eight in the inventory. I posted a NM log for the CO to mark them missing since none of those were in the cache (it's an Altoid tin...so it's not like I just missed them). Then I went to each page for each of those trackables and posted that they were not in the cache and the owner should mark it missing. Nothing. Nobody has done anything in the two+ weeks since I found the cache.

 

It is not the responsibility of the CO to mark TBs missing. Putting an NM on the cache for this reason is an abuse of the system. COs may, if they wish to, but the are not required to.

 

It may not be spelled out as the CO's responsibility, but, IMO, part of cache maintenance is keeping the inventory up to date. It is the CO's responsibility to maintain the cache. However, the topic of this thread is to have a system available for when COs and TOs don't take care of it. I still think what has been discussed is a great idea.

 

I, personally, as a trackable owner, won't immediately mark a TB missing just because one person didn't find it. I'll put that cache on my watchlist and see if anyone else mentions missing TBs. I figure if two people say it's missing, it probably is, and I'll mark it so. In one case, the next person to find the cache picked up my TB and moved it on. The one that said it was missing had apparently found the wrong container. In a couple other cases, the CO has marked it missing.

 

As a CO, I haven't yet had any TBs go missing out of any of my three caches, but if someone mentioned a missing TB in their log, I would go check it out myself. If it is truly missing, I would mark it so.

 

Agreed...I personally think that is part of the 'maintenance' of the cache. The fact that COs actually have the ability to mark them missing is evidence of this. Just as when folks request new logs to replace full or wet ones, folks often will report missing trackables in their find logs and it's reasonable to expect cache owners to take note of this. And just like those "needs new log" requests often pile up before the CO does anything (which is fine...one can't be expected to run out to replace a log the next day every time it's mentioned), it's reasonable to expect missing trackable reports to pile up a bit before anything is done...unless, of course, a NM log specifically detailing the missing trackables gets posted. Then it's obviously an issue - in this case, EIGHT trackables listed in the inventory of an Altoid tin micro-cache.

[+The A-Team]

I have also seen comments from COs about missing TBs.. I think they don't realise they can remove them.. even experienced cachers..

There are some COs that are aware of the feature and choose not to use it, but I have to wonder how many COs there are that don't even know about it? If all COs were made aware of it, a lot of them might start using it and this problem might not be as big. This would be an excellent topic for a weekly newsletter and/or blog post. Personally, I consider the trackable inventory part of the cache listing and maintain it just as I do the rest of the listing. If there's a trackable listed in one of my caches, you can assume it's either there or has only recently left/gone missing.

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

Agreed...I personally think that is part of the 'maintenance' of the cache. The fact that COs actually have the ability to mark them missing is evidence of this.

 

Just because you have the ability to do something, that does not mean that you are required to do it. It was added so that COs who want to remove missing were able to do so. That does not mean that they have to. The trackable is not part of the cache, just a visitor. I post notes in my log, and on trackables that are not in the cache. Usually, the TB owners do not do anything about it either. They're the ones who should. (Of course, they stopped caching six years ago...)

But, NO! It is not part of cache maintenance.

[+funkymunkyzone]

Well, I see this "automated system" causing an even bigger mess with trackables rather than cleaning it up, and all at the expense of considerable development effort that could be better used elsewhere. There's already a system in place - the owners of trackables can mark them missing, and cache owners can mark them missing. I understand frustration and I don't mean to be dismissive, but if this automated system was implemented, there'd be orders of magnitude more complaints about it automatically messing up trackables. [Flame protection suit: on]

[+nevadanick]

Well, I see this "automated system" causing an even bigger mess with trackables rather than cleaning it up, and all at the expense of considerable development effort that could be better used elsewhere. There's already a system in place - the owners of trackables can mark them missing, and cache owners can mark them missing. I understand frustration and I don't mean to be dismissive, but if this automated system was implemented, there'd be orders of magnitude more complaints about it automatically messing up trackables. [Flame protection suit: on]

 

I think you may be missing what the intent of the suggestion really is here. It is NOT to generate any kind of 'automated system'. It would simply allow a hybrid entry by a member cacher to note that a trackable is NOT in the cache they visited. By clicking a 'not in cache' option it would place the trackable in a limbo status for (as suggested) a minimum 90 days. During that time, ANY log showing it's whereabouts would return the trackable to fully active status. At the end of the time (90 days) it would 'automatically' move to the 'unknown location' designation.

 

If a cache owner or trackable owner wants to do otherwise, it would only require them to make a log entry. The trackable would then revert to whatever status the CO or TO wants it in.

 

The reasoning becomes more obvious when more and more 'members' stop caching and the increasing number of CO's and TO's never log in again. We have encountered countless caches where trackables have been non-existent for l-o-n-g periods of time and both the TO and CO are MIA. Implementing the suggestion here would take a huge number of these misplaced trackables out of caches that cachers expect to find them in.

 

I do have to ask .... (through your flame protection suit ) ... how you think that taking a trackable out of an 'active cache inventory' status would mess up a trackable when, in fact, it IS NOT THERE ??? How 'messed up' is an inventory that cannot be corrected by missing TO's and CO's ?? As I mentioned earlier, yes, you can request that a reviewer do it, but how much can we expect to pile on 'volunteer' reviewers when cache visitors are already 'volunteering' to clean up cache trackable inventories ?

[+funkymunkyzone]

Well, I see this "automated system" causing an even bigger mess with trackables rather than cleaning it up, and all at the expense of considerable development effort that could be better used elsewhere. There's already a system in place - the owners of trackables can mark them missing, and cache owners can mark them missing. I understand frustration and I don't mean to be dismissive, but if this automated system was implemented, there'd be orders of magnitude more complaints about it automatically messing up trackables. [Flame protection suit: on]

 

I think you may be missing what the intent of the suggestion really is here. It is NOT to generate any kind of 'automated system'. It would simply allow a hybrid entry by a member cacher to note that a trackable is NOT in the cache they visited. By clicking a 'not in cache' option it would place the trackable in a limbo status for (as suggested) a minimum 90 days. During that time, ANY log showing it's whereabouts would return the trackable to fully active status. At the end of the time (90 days) it would 'automatically' move to the 'unknown location' designation.

You just used the word automatically, hence my assertion that it's an automated system.

 

I do have to ask .... (through your flame protection suit ) ... how you think that taking a trackable out of an 'active cache inventory' status would mess up a trackable when, in fact, it IS NOT THERE ??? How 'messed up' is an inventory that cannot be corrected by missing TO's and CO's ?? As I mentioned earlier, yes, you can request that a reviewer do it, but how much can we expect to pile on 'volunteer' reviewers when cache visitors are already 'volunteering' to clean up cache trackable inventories ?

It's all the trackables that will get "Not in Cache" logs erroneously, or worse, that then get messed up when they get automatically removed into the limbo land of 'missing'. And how about the trackable thief that then learns that all they have to do is log that a trackable is 'Not in Cache' when they steal it and hey presto after 3 months it disappears from the view of the community - out of sight out of mind, and they get away with it. The system has even tidied up their crime for them.

 

Like I said, I understand the frustration, and I even understand brainstorming a solution, but the solution has to clearly result in a better situation with fewer if any problems at all. I don't think this fits the bill.

 

(PS, my flame protection suit has an internet connection, so no worries )

[+The A-Team]

You just used the word automatically, hence my assertion that it's an automated system.

Yes, there's an element of automation, but to me calling it "automated" implies a fully-automated process, which this certainly is not. The proposed system depends on the action of a cacher to start the process. If, and only if, during that process nothing else happens, then the automation kicks in and the trackable is marked as missing. An example of a fully-automated process would be one where a trackable that hasn't received a log in a year automatically gets marked as missing. I think most here have agreed that such a system isn't what we want, because there are countless scenarios where a trackable may still be in a cache, but not receive any logs for a long time. On the other hand, a fully-non-automated process is what we have now, and it clearly isn't working.

 

It's all the trackables that will get "Not in Cache" logs erroneously, or worse, that then get messed up when they get automatically removed into the limbo land of 'missing'.

Sure, there will likely be some erroneous "missing" logs, but keep in mind that a missing trackable is not equivalent to an archived cache. If a trackable has been marked as missing by the proposed system, it can be easily reversed by the person actually in possession of the trackable. For example, if someone later finds it in the bottom of their backpack, they can simply perform a "grab" log to get it into their inventory and they can then drop it into a cache and the trackable lives on. On the other hand, if it never resurfaces, it has been correctly marked as missing and will no longer clutter up a cache listing. A trackable erroneously marked as missing is more of a minor inconvenience, not a death sentence.

 

And how about the trackable thief that then learns that all they have to do is log that a trackable is 'Not in Cache' when they steal it and hey presto after 3 months it disappears from the view of the community - out of sight out of mind, and they get away with it. The system has even tidied up their crime for them.

I don't see a problem here. If the trackable has been stolen, it's unlikely to ever be part of geocaching ever again and at some point it needs to be marked as missing. Whether that's by the CO or TO marking it as missing, or by this proposed system, the end result is the same. Having it remain listed as being in a cache helps nobody and is what we're trying to fix with this proposal.

[+J Grouchy]

 

Agreed...I personally think that is part of the 'maintenance' of the cache. The fact that COs actually have the ability to mark them missing is evidence of this.

 

Just because you have the ability to do something, that does not mean that you are required to do it. It was added so that COs who want to remove missing were able to do so. That does not mean that they have to. The trackable is not part of the cache, just a visitor. I post notes in my log, and on trackables that are not in the cache. Usually, the TB owners do not do anything about it either. They're the ones who should. (Of course, they stopped caching six years ago...)

But, NO! It is not part of cache maintenance.

 

And I believe it is. ~shrug~

[+nevadanick]

It's all the trackables that will get "Not in Cache" logs erroneously, or worse, that then get messed up when they get automatically removed into the limbo land of 'missing'. And how about the trackable thief that then learns that all they have to do is log that a trackable is 'Not in Cache' when they steal it and hey presto after 3 months it disappears from the view of the community - out of sight out of mind, and they get away with it. The system has even tidied up their crime for them.

 

Like I said, I understand the frustration, and I even understand brainstorming a solution, but the solution has to clearly result in a better situation with fewer if any problems at all. I don't think this fits the bill.

 

 

We can continue to do nothing ... and have the caches with MIA TO's and CO's filled with non-existent trackables. Cachers just LOVE that situation ...

 

-or-

 

Expect reviewers to do it for us.

 

How about giving us something that WILL work ... ????

[+nevadanick]

 

Agreed...I personally think that is part of the 'maintenance' of the cache. The fact that COs actually have the ability to mark them missing is evidence of this.

 

Just because you have the ability to do something, that does not mean that you are required to do it. It was added so that COs who want to remove missing were able to do so. That does not mean that they have to. The trackable is not part of the cache, just a visitor. I post notes in my log, and on trackables that are not in the cache. Usually, the TB owners do not do anything about it either. They're the ones who should. (Of course, they stopped caching six years ago...)

But, NO! It is not part of cache maintenance.

 

And I believe it is. ~shrug~

 

You (and I) believe that it IS part of cache maintenance, but others do not. It is, in the end, optional. Not much different than our choice of using or not using attributes, cache sizes, added waypoints, crypted hints, etc. These are also 'optional' features that we, as hiders, are not REQUIRED to use, but are certainly helpful.

 

I'm not sure why any cache hider would be pleased (or wouldn't care) about receiving countless GS owner notices containing negative comments about missing trackables. Even if someone believes that trackable inventories are not part of a CO's responsibility, I fail to see why they think OTHER CACHERS won't believe it to be a failure by the CO ... ?? Baffles me.

 

As a CO, I would hate getting negative logs about any of my caches. Anything I can do to prevent this is cool by me. My caches ARE a reflection on me (imo). >> ~shrug~ ...

[+funkymunkyzone]

Yes, there's an element of automation, but to me calling it "automated" implies a fully-automated process, which this certainly is not.

Splitting hairs. It's an automated system that has to periodically scan through all of the trackables in the database and check all of the 'Not in cache' ones and see if they've received a new log. That's a lot of work, which apparently is justified here, and yet plenty of other suggestions get shot down because there's the slightest hint of using more server processing. *shrug*

 

A trackable erroneously marked as missing is more of a minor inconvenience, not a death sentence.

In my experience, trackables whose logs get messed up are more likely to then go missing, whether it's someone who targets them (and let's be clear there are people out their with righteous views on things, like taking and destroying geocoin proxies that belong to others) or someone who picks it up and is now confused what to do, or maybe even just not getting noticed anymore because it's not listed in the cache so you don't look for it.

 

And how about the trackable thief that then learns that all they have to do is log that a trackable is 'Not in Cache' when they steal it and hey presto after 3 months it disappears from the view of the community - out of sight out of mind, and they get away with it. The system has even tidied up their crime for them.

I don't see a problem here. If the trackable has been stolen, it's unlikely to ever be part of geocaching ever again and at some point it needs to be marked as missing. Whether that's by the CO or TO marking it as missing, or by this proposed system, the end result is the same. Having it remain listed as being in a cache helps nobody and is what we're trying to fix with this proposal.

I see a problem here - right now evidence remains on the page that the trackable should be there but has been stolen. This new automated system comes by and cleans up the scene of the crime. Heck, people keep dropping trackables into the cache, and the thief keeps coming back for more...

[+funkymunkyzone]

I'm not sure why any cache hider would be pleased (or wouldn't care) about receiving countless GS owner notices containing negative comments about missing trackables. Even if someone believes that trackable inventories are not part of a CO's responsibility, I fail to see why they think OTHER CACHERS won't believe it to be a failure by the CO ... ?? Baffles me.

 

As a CO, I would hate getting negative logs about any of my caches. Anything I can do to prevent this is cool by me. My caches ARE a reflection on me (imo). >> ~shrug~ ...

 

As an owner of a popular cache that does attract logs containing negative comments about TBs and geocoins not being in the cache I feel I am somewhat qualified to comment. This particular cache is in a spot that gets a lot of vacation visits, finders on holiday from other countries. These people (the complainers) have no concept, apparently, that this popular cache gets visits many times a day in high season so the trackables they are complaining about were probably taken earlier that day or week. So instead of getting a few snide remarks in the log, which I can handle when I'm in my Flame Protection Suit™, instead they'll be righteously marking them as 'Not in Cache' needlessly scaring the owners of the trackables and making my cache look like a dangerous place for TBs not to mention simply confusing things by having all the trackables greyed out (or whatever the latest proposal is). They will feel good about wielding this mighty weapon to cleanse the world and rid caches of these pesky trackables, most of them not checking the trackable history at all before doing so. (I'm 50/50 on whether the sky will also fall )

Edited March 25, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+nevadanick]

Some worry that the sky will fall ... others ponder their odds of ascending to it ...

 

Not to fear though in either case ... GS has apparently no intention of ever addressing the issue.

[+niraD]

I'm not sure why any cache hider would be pleased (or wouldn't care) about receiving countless GS owner notices containing negative comments about missing trackables.

Yeah, those "missing TB" and "missing GC" messages can get annoying. In fact, they can get so annoying that some cache owners stop placing larger containers that can hold TBs and GCs. Problem solved: no more annoying messages.

 

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

[+nevadanick]

I'm not sure why any cache hider would be pleased (or wouldn't care) about receiving countless GS owner notices containing negative comments about missing trackables.

Yeah, those "missing TB" and "missing GC" messages can get annoying. In fact, they can get so annoying that some cache owners stop placing larger containers that can hold TBs and GCs. Problem solved: no more annoying messages.

 

Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

 

Next time you quote something, quote the entire context, then add meaningful remarks.

 

My comments were entirely about the 'choice' CO's have in regards to monitoring and maintaining trackable inventories, not about the messages.

 

Besides, isn't this a place for discussion about the good and bad of ideas ... ?? ... let's keep it at that.

 

Place your micros ... that too is your choice.

[+niraD]

Next time you quote something, quote the entire context, then add meaningful remarks.

Clearly I'm missing your point then.

 

My comments were entirely about the 'choice' CO's have in regards to monitoring and maintaining trackable inventories, not about the messages.

Yes. And my point is that one way that some COs have chosen to deal with trackable inventories is to hide caches that can't contain trackables. That eliminates one point of contention between them and those who think that monitoring and maintaining trackable inventories is one of the cache owner's responsibilities.

[+The_Incredibles_]

This cache has eight in the inventory. I posted a NM log for the CO to mark them missing since none of those were in the cache (it's an Altoid tin...so it's not like I just missed them). Then I went to each page for each of those trackables and posted that they were not in the cache and the owner should mark it missing. Nothing. Nobody has done anything in the two+ weeks since I found the cache.

 

It is not the responsibility of the CO to mark TBs missing. Putting an NM on the cache for this reason is an abuse of the system. COs may, if they wish to, but the are not required to.

 

I disagree. Part of the COs job is to maintain the cache page, which includes the list of trackables.

[+palmetto]

The suggestion in this thread allows a form of 'self correction' process to place the trackable back in circulation immediately with no further action as soon as it is properly logged.

 

that already happens. No additional coding required. If a trackable has been Marked Missing, it's in an Unknown location. Someone logs it, it resumes its travels from its last known location.

 

I disagree. Part of the COs job is to maintain the cache page, which includes the list of trackables.

 

I was convinced otherwise by fizzymagic. Sorry, I'm not going to try to find that thread.

As cache placer, he places trading caches. He's NOT interested in the side game of trackables. He isn't putting trackables into his own caches. How is responsible for them? I think he's right about this; the only way a cache owner can prevent people from placing trackables into their caches is hide micros (and even then you can't stop the wrong drops). While dealing with that trackable inventory is a nice thing for the cache owner to do, the cache owner is not responsible to keep up with trackables in the cache.

(Self proclaimed Travel Bug Hotels are a whole 'nuther issue; in my experience, the often the worst place for trackables, with the worst inventory management - those owners ought to be checking on inventory)

[+J Grouchy]

I disagree. Part of the COs job is to maintain the cache page, which includes the list of trackables.

 

I was convinced otherwise by fizzymagic. Sorry, I'm not going to try to find that thread.

As cache placer, he places trading caches. He's NOT interested in the side game of trackables. He isn't putting trackables into his own caches. How is responsible for them? I think he's right about this; the only way a cache owner can prevent people from placing trackables into their caches is hide micros (and even then you can't stop the wrong drops). While dealing with that trackable inventory is a nice thing for the cache owner to do, the cache owner is not responsible to keep up with trackables in the cache.

(Self proclaimed Travel Bug Hotels are a whole 'nuther issue; in my experience, the often the worst place for trackables, with the worst inventory management - those owners ought to be checking on inventory)

 

If that is also the position that Groundspeak takes, all the more reason to implement the feature this thread is requesting. It turns the trackable aspect of the game into a self-policing system, where those who actually DO play it and DO pay attention to cache inventories have the ability to keep them relatively current and up-to-date.

 

I still disagree with the logic presented, though. Groundspeak MADE it the business of the CO when they chose to present the cache inventory data on the cache listing page and also gave the CO the ability to mark them missing. Had they not done that, I would agree that the CO shouldn't need to be involved.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I disagree. Part of the COs job is to maintain the cache page, which includes the list of trackables.

 

I was convinced otherwise by fizzymagic. Sorry, I'm not going to try to find that thread.

As cache placer, he places trading caches. He's NOT interested in the side game of trackables. He isn't putting trackables into his own caches. How is responsible for them? I think he's right about this; the only way a cache owner can prevent people from placing trackables into their caches is hide micros (and even then you can't stop the wrong drops). While dealing with that trackable inventory is a nice thing for the cache owner to do, the cache owner is not responsible to keep up with trackables in the cache.

(Self proclaimed Travel Bug Hotels are a whole 'nuther issue; in my experience, the often the worst place for trackables, with the worst inventory management - those owners ought to be checking on inventory)

 

If that is also the position that Groundspeak takes, all the more reason to implement the feature this thread is requesting. It turns the trackable aspect of the game into a self-policing system, where those who actually DO play it and DO pay attention to cache inventories have the ability to keep them relatively current and up-to-date.

 

I still disagree with the logic presented, though. Groundspeak MADE it the business of the CO when they chose to present the cache inventory data on the cache listing page and also gave the CO the ability to mark them missing. Had they not done that, I would agree that the CO shouldn't need to be involved.

 

Exactly. Even if I have little interest in trackables, it doesn't matter. The trackables are listed on my cache page. It's part of being a courteous cache owner to keep the list up-to-date. It doesn't really take alot of effort. If someone says 'I found the cache and there were no trackables in it', it's easy enough to mark them missing. This has happened to me several times and I promptly mark them missing. I've seen caches where log after log people are stating that trackables are missing and the owner does nothing. To me, that's an incredibly rude thing to do. It's affecting people who are looking for your cache, so you should take care of it. Just like if someone dumped a pile of garbage at GZ, I would either move the cache or go pick up the garbage. It's my job as cache owner to provide a decent experience for those who come look for it. If you don't have this attitude, you probably shouldn't be hiding caches.

[+kunarion]

But, NO! It is not part of cache maintenance.

There's a lot more for Cache Owners to do, if we're consistently applying this New Feature. If it's necessary to implement, then requiring COs & finders to catalog all contents of caches and keep that list updated is also required, for the same reasons.

 

And if an incorrect TB log is grounds for deletion, this must apply to cache logs as well. Automatically remove cache listings upon verification of an incorrect log (such as any Finder mis-counting the number of Swag items contained). Remove that Geocacher's Profile, too. Again, the New Feature is all about removing listings when they have missing or incorrect logs. Apply it everywhere on the site.

 

As a bonus, the community is hiding evidence after a theft, and that's always a great idea. So get on board and support this!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[team tisri]

You just used the word automatically, hence my assertion that it's an automated system.

 

But presumably you're happy with the other automated systems that do everything else on the site. You know, like mark where the trackable once was, calculate its distance, keep score of who has found how many caches and so on? Being automated isn't necessarily bad.

 

I do have to ask .... (through your flame protection suit ) ... how you think that taking a trackable out of an 'active cache inventory' status would mess up a trackable when, in fact, it IS NOT THERE ??? How 'messed up' is an inventory that cannot be corrected by missing TO's and CO's ?? As I mentioned earlier, yes, you can request that a reviewer do it, but how much can we expect to pile on 'volunteer' reviewers when cache visitors are already 'volunteering' to clean up cache trackable inventories ?

It's all the trackables that will get "Not in Cache" logs erroneously, or worse, that then get messed up when they get automatically removed into the limbo land of 'missing'. And how about the trackable thief that then learns that all they have to do is log that a trackable is 'Not in Cache' when they steal it and hey presto after 3 months it disappears from the view of the community - out of sight out of mind, and they get away with it. The system has even tidied up their crime for them.

 

Like I said, I understand the frustration, and I even understand brainstorming a solution, but the solution has to clearly result in a better situation with fewer if any problems at all. I don't think this fits the bill.

 

(PS, my flame protection suit has an internet connection, so no worries )

 

If someone steals a trackable (every single one of mine has gone missing) I really couldn't care less whether the system tidies up their "crime" or not from that perspective, but if my trackable has gone missing it would be nice if there were some automated (there's that word again) means that anyone noticing it wasn't where it claimed to be could flag it. Yes, they could drop me a note but that then means I need to keep a specific watch on it and remember to check on it. What's wrong with a system that lets people mark it "not in cache" or "suspected missing" or whatever you want to call it, and then marking it missing after a designated period? If it turns out the person who got to the cache 10 minutes previously took the trackable then as soon as it is logged the "suspected missing" flag is cleared, if it turns out the person who got to the cache six months previously stole the trackable then three months later it will be marked as missing, indicating its correct status. If it turns out the person who got to the cache six months previously picked it up and forgot about it, then either it will resurface (in which case it comes back to life, and its correct status is duly marked) or it will vanish forever in which case "missing" is correct.

 

What's not to like about it?

[+J Grouchy]

But, NO! It is not part of cache maintenance.

There's a lot more for Cache Owners to do, if we're consistently applying this New Feature. If it's necessary to implement, then requiring COs & finders to catalog all contents of caches and keep that list updated is also required, for the same reasons.

 

Not sure where you're going with that...but if they start adding tracking numbers to swag and listing these swag items in the cache inventory and giving the CO the power to mark these items missing, then yes...they ARE by default making this a part of the maintenance plan.

 

Groundspeak made all this happen...they created the trackable system, they created and manufactured the trackable tags and numbers, they wrote the code that allows users to log and track these tags and they wrote the code that associates these trackables with a particular cache and lists that cache's inventory on the description page. Then they gave the ability to the cache owner to mark it missing. Not the ones who move the trackables around, mind you...the cache owners. Obviously they did this to discourage folks from stealing a trackable, marking it missing and then moving on scot-free. But all this stuff Groundspeak put together adds up to it being a part of the cache maintenance plan, in my opinion, along with replacing wet logs or broken containers or cleaning out filthy contents (which rarely happens, by the way).

[team tisri]

But, NO! It is not part of cache maintenance.

There's a lot more for Cache Owners to do, if we're consistently applying this New Feature. If it's necessary to implement, then requiring COs & finders to catalog all contents of caches and keep that list updated is also required, for the same reasons.

 

Not sure where you're going with that...but if they start adding tracking numbers to swag and listing these swag items in the cache inventory and giving the CO the power to mark these items missing, then yes...they ARE by default making this a part of the maintenance plan.

 

Groundspeak made all this happen...they created the trackable system, they created and manufactured the trackable tags and numbers, they wrote the code that allows users to log and track these tags and they wrote the code that associates these trackables with a particular cache and lists that cache's inventory on the description page. Then they gave the ability to the cache owner to mark it missing. Not the ones who move the trackables around, mind you...the cache owners. Obviously they did this to discourage folks from stealing a trackable, marking it missing and then moving on scot-free. But all this stuff Groundspeak put together adds up to it being a part of the cache maintenance plan, in my opinion, along with replacing wet logs or broken containers or cleaning out filthy contents (which rarely happens, by the way).

 

If someone steals a trackable I'd rather they had the ability to mark it missing so people know it's not there, than leave the records showing it's somewhere unknown for some period of time leaving people disappointed after they had hoped to find it.

 

I wouldn't even call it "getting off scot free", it's not as if they've taken anything of any value and it's hard to see the police taking much interest in a "crime report" that says "I left a Happy Meal toy attached to a tag in a box under a fallen tree, and some time in the last six weeks someone took it, and I want you to investigate. It's value? Oh, at least $5".

[+kunarion]

Well, I see this "automated system" causing an even bigger mess with trackables rather than cleaning it up, and all at the expense of considerable development effort that could be better used elsewhere. There's already a system in place - the owners of trackables can mark them missing, and cache owners can mark them missing. I understand frustration and I don't mean to be dismissive, but if this automated system was implemented, there'd be orders of magnitude more complaints about it automatically messing up trackables. [Flame protection suit: on]

Exactly. The New Feature is well-intentioned, but it won't work, due to a major problem: It's performed by the same group that caused the problem. Geocachers.

 

The reason there's nothing in the cache is because the previous cacher found something in the cache. Somebody else got there first. Too bad, so sad. If we demand accuracy in logs, we demand accuracy in logs, especially by takers. Note from most of the posts here, people aren't concerned about accuracy, they want to take TBs. And then they demand that other people clean up after them.

On the premise that people are diligent and honest, carefully inventorying caches, and doing the correct logs... then there's no issue that requires this Feature. The "ghost Trackables" wouldn't have happened. Since they do happen, the New Feature will fail. It contradicts itself.

 

There's already a system in place - the owners of trackables can mark them missing, and cache owners can mark them missing.

But responsibility is not with the CO and TO. The CO made a nice cache to place an item into, the TO sent the item, and both ask that you log the item. The one who deserves all the scorn is the person who took the item, the person who gets left out of the equation. The system in place is: When you take anything, or change anything, log it. No exceptions, no excuses. The TB did not become "Missing", it was taken, and often by a "Geocacher". If there's a log missing , the taker gets to go correct the log. Whoever took it, go log it. If people can't do this simple thing (which obviously they can't), they can't do the complicated thing.

Edited March 26, 2014 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

it's not as if they've taken anything of any value and it's hard to see the police taking much interest in a "crime report" that says "I left a Happy Meal toy attached to a tag in a box under a fallen tree, and some time in the last six weeks someone took it, and I want you to investigate. It's value? Oh, at least $5".

Yes! There were once people complaining that they couldn't find the things anymore, and there was even some "New Feature" somewhere, suggesting a whole new system to deal with these worthless "missing" things! Glad that's over.

[+funkymunkyzone]

You just used the word automatically, hence my assertion that it's an automated system.

 

But presumably you're happy with the other automated systems that do everything else on the site. You know, like mark where the trackable once was, calculate its distance, keep score of who has found how many caches and so on? Being automated isn't necessarily bad.

Those automated actions are passive, resulting from a positive action by a user, not a "I don't know what happened here" action by a user resulting in the water being muddied.

 

I do have to ask .... (through your flame protection suit ) ... how you think that taking a trackable out of an 'active cache inventory' status would mess up a trackable when, in fact, it IS NOT THERE ??? How 'messed up' is an inventory that cannot be corrected by missing TO's and CO's ?? As I mentioned earlier, yes, you can request that a reviewer do it, but how much can we expect to pile on 'volunteer' reviewers when cache visitors are already 'volunteering' to clean up cache trackable inventories ?

It's all the trackables that will get "Not in Cache" logs erroneously, or worse, that then get messed up when they get automatically removed into the limbo land of 'missing'. And how about the trackable thief that then learns that all they have to do is log that a trackable is 'Not in Cache' when they steal it and hey presto after 3 months it disappears from the view of the community - out of sight out of mind, and they get away with it. The system has even tidied up their crime for them.

 

Like I said, I understand the frustration, and I even understand brainstorming a solution, but the solution has to clearly result in a better situation with fewer if any problems at all. I don't think this fits the bill.

 

(PS, my flame protection suit has an internet connection, so no worries )

 

If someone steals a trackable (every single one of mine has gone missing) I really couldn't care less whether the system tidies up their "crime" or not from that perspective, but if my trackable has gone missing it would be nice if there were some automated (there's that word again) means that anyone noticing it wasn't where it claimed to be could flag it. Yes, they could drop me a note but that then means I need to keep a specific watch on it and remember to check on it. What's wrong with a system that lets people mark it "not in cache" or "suspected missing" or whatever you want to call it, and then marking it missing after a designated period? If it turns out the person who got to the cache 10 minutes previously took the trackable then as soon as it is logged the "suspected missing" flag is cleared, if it turns out the person who got to the cache six months previously stole the trackable then three months later it will be marked as missing, indicating its correct status. If it turns out the person who got to the cache six months previously picked it up and forgot about it, then either it will resurface (in which case it comes back to life, and its correct status is duly marked) or it will vanish forever in which case "missing" is correct.

 

What's not to like about it?

Most trackables will get this "not in cache/suspected missing" status most times they are picked up from a cache, certainly if they visit and are retrieved from a popular cache. That will make the trackable history very muddy in my opinion.

[team tisri]

What's not to like about it?

Most trackables will get this "not in cache/suspected missing" status most times they are picked up from a cache, certainly if they visit and are retrieved from a popular cache. That will make the trackable history very muddy in my opinion.

 

How will the waters be muddied? Look at a couple of simple scenarios:

 

I visit cache A and take Billybob TB away with me.

Before I write my log you visit cache A, notice Billybob TB isn't there despite being listed, so you mark it as "possibly missing".

When I write my log I note that I took Billybob TB, at which point the "possibly missing" flag is cleared and it's as if you never logged it.

 

Now I visit cache B and notice Grunge TB isn't there despite being listed, so mark it as "possibly missing".

Three months later nobody else has logged Grunge TB so the system figures it's not in the last reported location, hasn't been seen for three months, and is therefore in an unknown location. So the system marks it as being in an unknown location.

 

Imagine someone wants to cause trouble with the new feature, see that Flunkle TB is in cache A so they move it to cache B without logging it and then mark it "suspected missing"

The next time someone visits cache B and takes Flunkle TB away they log the fact they took it, the "suspected missing" flag is cleared and nobody is any the wiser.

If nobody visits B for three months the bug is marked as "unknown location" only to be resurrected the next time someone visits B. In the meantime "unknown location" is correct because its location is, well, unknown.

 

The only way the waters would be muddied would be if there were a specific entry on the trackable page saying "marked as suspected missing", and there's no need for that to be put on the trackable's page.

[+funkymunkyzone]

The only way the waters would be muddied would be if there were a specific entry on the trackable page saying "marked as suspected missing", and there's no need for that to be put on the trackable's page.

 

So the "not in cache"/"suspected missing"/"possibly missing"/"marked as suspected missing" (sorry I'm losing track of what it is as it keeps changing) doesn't get displayed as a log on the trackable page? Really? So someone effectively logs something and changes the status of the trackable, but the log can't be seen, not even by the owner of the trackable? Strange.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about it, as that was not my intent in offering my opinion. I've read up enough on this suggested feature, I disagree with it, and my personal opinion on it has become more cemented. I'll leave you guys to continue discussing it, but I hope it never gets implemented so I don't have it messing with my trackables.

[+J Grouchy]

The only way the waters would be muddied would be if there were a specific entry on the trackable page saying "marked as suspected missing", and there's no need for that to be put on the trackable's page.

 

So the "not in cache"/"suspected missing"/"possibly missing"/"marked as suspected missing" (sorry I'm losing track of what it is as it keeps changing) doesn't get displayed as a log on the trackable page? Really? So someone effectively logs something and changes the status of the trackable, but the log can't be seen, not even by the owner of the trackable? Strange.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about it, as that was not my intent in offering my opinion. I've read up enough on this suggested feature, I disagree with it, and my personal opinion on it has become more cemented. I'll leave you guys to continue discussing it, but I hope it never gets implemented so I don't have it messing with my trackables.

 

I don't know...it seems extremely simple and basic to me...and very logical. It's basically a "probation" status for trackables in limbo. How is that "strange" or easy to lose track of?

[+ecanderson]

We can continue to do nothing ... and have the caches with MIA TO's and CO's filled with non-existent trackables. Cachers just LOVE that situation ...

I take it you don't get any response when you nudge the owner??

[+nevadanick]

We can continue to do nothing ... and have the caches with MIA TO's and CO's filled with non-existent trackables. Cachers just LOVE that situation ...

I take it you don't get any response when you nudge the owner??

 

I take it you didn't read that the TRACKABLE OWNER and the CACHE OWNER are BOTH no longer active on Groundspeak ....

 

Or ... I guess you could say that I do not get any responses to 'nudges' when the owners are GONE from caching ......

Edited March 27, 2014 by nevadanick

[+ecanderson]

Yes, I seem to have missed that.

 

That said, I guess I don't understand the issue. If the cache owner is MIA, and the cache is not adopted, the cache should be archived. If it is archived, then no one will be looking for it, much less the trackables within.

[jholly]

Yes, I seem to have missed that.

 

That said, I guess I don't understand the issue. If the cache owner is MIA, and the cache is not adopted, the cache should be archived. If it is archived, then no one will be looking for it, much less the trackables within.

I have done a number of caches where the CO is MIA, and in some cases pushing up daisies, but as long as the cache is viable I see no reason for the cache to be archived.

[+nevadanick]

Yes, I seem to have missed that.

 

That said, I guess I don't understand the issue. If the cache owner is MIA, and the cache is not adopted, the cache should be archived. If it is archived, then no one will be looking for it, much less the trackables within.

I have done a number of caches where the CO is MIA, and in some cases pushing up daisies, but as long as the cache is viable I see no reason for the cache to be archived.

 

This is one of the perfect reasons for implementation of this suggestion. We have that condition here on many caches ... missing CO's and TO's but the container is still in place. A few folks (including me) will replace logs when full and maintain the cache, in general ... with the exception of being able to clean up the trackable inventory unless I write a detailed explanation to our reviewer and ask him to mark the trackables into the 'unknown location'. I believe it is unfair to pass this responsibility to reviewers when responsible cachers could do it.

 

One particular cache is a TB hotel near the airport here. The CO is long ago missing but the trackables mount regularly. We had it cleaned out last year, but in the last 12 months it has built up another inventory of 'missing' trackables. Implementation of the suggestion of the OP would allow a concerned cacher ( >> me) to clear the inventory. Why would I do that? Because the cache is active, it is near me, this is MY hobby and I am retired with time to do deeds like this.

 

Of the comments regarding cleaning up after thieves and hiding the evidence, that really doesn't apply, imo. When 'thieves' take an item, they are not going to log it anyway .. in or out of a cache. They simply 'take it'. In the cases where newbie cachers take a trackable and shortly after that ... they STOP caching, there will never be a log entry. The suggestion of the OP doesn't alter the location either. It would just put the trackable in a status that would indicate to other 'savvy' cachers that the trackable greyed/ghosted has been marked as NOT in the cache at that time. It would STILL be in the inventory, but more like a 'disabled' cache is still active on GS but showing that there is some kind of questionable status on the cache ... in this case ... a questionable trackable. When a disabled cache is in that status too long, the reviewers will normally archive it, or give an active cacher a final warning to enable it or archive it. Same with this suggestion. After a 90 day ( or ... ??? TBD) ghost (disabled) status it goes into the world of the unknown - as it should be.

 

In the case of archived caches, it takes action and approval of a reviewer to re-instate it. In regards to this suggestion, all it would take is a log by ANY cacher with the trackable code ID in hand to re-activate the trackable.

 

----------------------------

Yesterday palmetto (post #329) suggested that CO's, like fizzymagic, don't allow trackables in their caches. Doing a little checking, this CO adds a statement to their cache that reads, in red letters: http://coord.info/GC9C71

 

Please do not leave trackable items, including coins and travel bugs, in this cache. If you do, they will be marked as missing as soon as I notice them. Prior cachers have been very rude about not finding trackables they expected in the cache, so none will ever show as available.

-----------------------

 

There are smartphone apps out there that do not accommodate a full description contained in a cache. How fair is THIS when a cacher leaves a TB in a viable, active cache, only to have it removed by the CO ... which by the way .. I believe is a violation of GS rules and standards. A 'warning' that trackables will not be maintained might even be questionable, just as comments about 'TB Jails' is not permitted by GS. Cache pages are the ultimate property of GS while the cache is that of the CO as long as they follow GS rules ... not create their own rules to suit their feelings.

 

Regardless of how the situation might be addressed, I still find it interesting that GS has no apparent interest in even discussing options. Especially when it involves a serious cash cow for GS providing what I believe is a large revenue stream in both trackable codes and unique icons.

[+niraD]

Doing a little checking, this CO adds a statement to their cache that reads, in red letters: http://coord.info/GC9C71

 

Please do not leave trackable items, including coins and travel bugs, in this cache. If you do, they will be marked as missing as soon as I notice them. Prior cachers have been very rude about not finding trackables they expected in the cache, so none will ever show as available.

-----------------------

 

There are smartphone apps out there that do not accommodate a full description contained in a cache. How fair is THIS when a cacher leaves a TB in a viable, active cache, only to have it removed by the CO ... which by the way .. I believe is a violation of GS rules and standards. A 'warning' that trackables will not be maintained might even be questionable, just as comments about 'TB Jails' is not permitted by GS. Cache pages are the ultimate property of GS while the cache is that of the CO as long as they follow GS rules ... not create their own rules to suit their feelings.

I don't see how it's a violation of any of Groundspeak's rules, but maybe there's a rule somewhere that I've forgotten.

 

Regardless, how is this a problem? If someone finds a trackable in the cache, then they can still grab it to get it into their inventory, and then drop it somewhere else normally. Some of us have moved and logged plenty of trackables without searching for caches that contain trackables.

[+nevadanick]

Doing a little checking, this CO adds a statement to their cache that reads, in red letters: http://coord.info/GC9C71

 

Please do not leave trackable items, including coins and travel bugs, in this cache. If you do, they will be marked as missing as soon as I notice them. Prior cachers have been very rude about not finding trackables they expected in the cache, so none will ever show as available.

-----------------------

 

There are smartphone apps out there that do not accommodate a full description contained in a cache. How fair is THIS when a cacher leaves a TB in a viable, active cache, only to have it removed by the CO ... which by the way .. I believe is a violation of GS rules and standards. A 'warning' that trackables will not be maintained might even be questionable, just as comments about 'TB Jails' is not permitted by GS. Cache pages are the ultimate property of GS while the cache is that of the CO as long as they follow GS rules ... not create their own rules to suit their feelings.

I don't see how it's a violation of any of Groundspeak's rules, but maybe there's a rule somewhere that I've forgotten.

 

Regardless, how is this a problem? If someone finds a trackable in the cache, then they can still grab it to get it into their inventory, and then drop it somewhere else normally. Some of us have moved and logged plenty of trackables without searching for caches that contain trackables.

 

Like many things in GS terms these days, it may be a matter of interpretation, but .... from GS:

 

Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines

III. LOGGING Guidelines: Logging Guidelines cover the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks. This is a guideline change that applies to all logs written since April 4, 2009. If you own an existing cache with mandatory additional logging requirements, we request that you:

1.Review your own cache listing to see if the ALR can be made into a simple, optional task, or whether it must be removed altogether.

2.Edit the text of your cache listing and, if necessary, contact a reviewer to change the cache type.

3.Cease deleting logs based on ALRs.

-----------------------------------------

 

In this case, the additional OPTIONS are the placement of trackables in caches. For a CO to intentionally mislog or alter the cache page with false information does not seem it would be allowed.

 

If reviewers and GS do not allow TB Jails, then why would intentionally mislogging any trackable info be allowed ??

 

I would also believe that 3.Cease deleting logs based on ALRs. means that deleting trackable placement intentionally would not be allowed.

[team tisri]

Yes, I seem to have missed that.

 

That said, I guess I don't understand the issue. If the cache owner is MIA, and the cache is not adopted, the cache should be archived. If it is archived, then no one will be looking for it, much less the trackables within.

 

If the cache is still physically there and contains trackables it's a shame to just write them all off when they could be recovered.

[team tisri]

The only way the waters would be muddied would be if there were a specific entry on the trackable page saying "marked as suspected missing", and there's no need for that to be put on the trackable's page.

 

So the "not in cache"/"suspected missing"/"possibly missing"/"marked as suspected missing" (sorry I'm losing track of what it is as it keeps changing) doesn't get displayed as a log on the trackable page? Really? So someone effectively logs something and changes the status of the trackable, but the log can't be seen, not even by the owner of the trackable? Strange.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to argue any more about it, as that was not my intent in offering my opinion. I've read up enough on this suggested feature, I disagree with it, and my personal opinion on it has become more cemented. I'll leave you guys to continue discussing it, but I hope it never gets implemented so I don't have it messing with my trackables.

 

There's no reason the owner can't see what's happened, just like the owner can see the tracking code but others only see the generic TB code. If it's marked as suspected missing it can show up in gray on the cache page so people know it may not be there.

 

I really struggle to understand just what it is you find so objectionable about it. If the trackable isn't really missing it will return to circulation soon enough and no harm is done. If it is missing it gets marked missing automatically so if either or both of the CO and TO are inactive (or unregistered, or whatever) the cache doesn't continue to show trackables that have long since vanished.

 

What I see is an upside with no downside at all.

[+hzoi]

t's hard to see the police taking much interest in a "crime report" that says "I left a Happy Meal toy attached to a tag in a box under a fallen tree, and some time in the last six weeks someone took it, and I want you to investigate. It's value? Oh, at least $5".

 

 

Depends on which police you call, I guess.