DECLINED - [FEATURE] Retire missing caches

[+GatorFox]

Caches which have 6 dnf's or which have not been found in 6 months should be retired unless the owner certifies that he or she has visited the cache and it is still there.

 

On a recent visit to Savannah, GA, over half the caches that we were going to look for were missing. To keep the sport alive, dead caches need to go away!

[Moun10Bike]

Please read the pinned post at the top of this forum entitled, "READ FIRST! Posting in the Geocaching.com Website Forum. I've edited your topic title to comply with the requests outlined therein.

[+t4e]

Caches which have 6 dnf's or which have not been found in 6 months should be retired unless the owner certifies that he or she has visited the cache and it is still there.

 

On a recent visit to Savannah, GA, over half the caches that we were going to look for were missing. To keep the sport alive, dead caches need to go away!

 

it has nothing to do with keeping the sport alive, you need to do more research before you pick the caches you want to do

 

why 6 DNF's, what's so special about that number?

 

CO can post a note saying that the cache is there, how do you know they actually went to check on it?

 

at the end of the day you have a choice to go for a "lonely" cache or not

Edited November 9, 2011 by t4e

[+mpilchfamily]

Caches which have 6 dnf's or which have not been found in 6 months should be retired unless the owner certifies that he or she has visited the cache and it is still there.

 

On a recent visit to Savannah, GA, over half the caches that we were going to look for were missing. To keep the sport alive, dead caches need to go away!

Need a little more then just a few DNFs and having not been found in 6 months. For one many high D/T caches have very few visits and may have multiple DNFs logged. That doesn't mean they need to be archived. But if you find a cache with a bunch of DNFs and no one has logged a NM on it then maybe you should try to find it and log an NM if you can't find it. If there is an NM logged and a bunch of DNFs and its been a few months since the NM was logged then maybe its time to log an NA.

 

There is a proses in place for getting rid of these missing caches. Far too many cachers are worried that logging a NA is bad. But it just brings the cache to the reviewer's attention. Then they can try contacting the CO. If no response is given after a period of time then the reviewer will archive the cache.

[+dfx]

Isn't that what the NA log is there for?

[knowschad]

Isn't that what the NA log is there for?

 

Well, really, an NA log is for caches that need archiving, or at least need Reviewer Attention. What the OP is really seems to want is caches to be easy to find, easy to get to.

[+JL_HSTRE]

An absence of logs does not mean anything is wrong with the cache.

 

Some high difficulty caches also have a high DNF rate.

 

Just be vigilant with NM and NA logs.

[+Hurricane Luke]

caches which ...have not been found in 6 months should be retired...

 

There's a good portion of my caches gone!

 

I think the current DNF, NM, & NA system works well. It's a simple three-tiered system which allows the community to decide when a cache becomes in need of maintenance, and in need of archival. Setting an arbitrary number or time period won't work because that means alot of the high difficulty and terrain caches which get lots of DNF's and not many visits will instantly be 'retired'.

[+niraD]

There are high-difficulty caches that accumulate dozens of DNFs for every find.

 

There are high-terrain caches that go more than a year between finds.

 

I see no reason to automatically archive these caches. I see no reason to require a CO to "certify" anything to keep them from being automatically archived. The current system of NM and NA logs works well enough.

[kanchan]

Please don't auto-archive any caches. I have seen and found many active caches that had accumulated a dozen of DNFs or received no visitors for 2+ years that were still intact. You can simply post a NM or NA log.

[+GeoKeeper]

I think a system could be put in place where the reviewers can be automatically flagged when a cache seems to be in trouble. As a cache owner, I wouldn't mind if my caches were periodically flagged because of lack of activity. It could be triggered by difficulty and time since owner has logged onto the website. I don't think automatically archiving them would be a good idea, but an auto review notification would be good.

 

I also think the "Needs Archived" needs to be changed to "Needs Reviewing" because for most, the "Needs Archived" does have a negative connotation.

 

I recently replaced a fairly active cache because it had gone missing. Only to find out that the owner hasn't logged on in almost 3 years. A cache owner has to accept responsibilities when hiding caches. One of them should be an auto review process. People leaving the game, or people moving to different parts of the country should archive their caches so active cachers in the area who want to hide caches can.

 

My 2¢ worth!

Edited November 23, 2011 by GeoKeeper

[+northernpenguin]

I don't like the idea of automatically removing stale caches, due the the number of factors and opportunities for false positives already mentioned - difficult caches, for example, or remote caches. Or the old, I hate that cacher, I'll just post 6 DNFs (maybe with friends) and voila I can have his hiding spot.

 

I don't want my caches handled by a "ReviewerBot 1000"

 

Automatically archiving caches, in a way that targets remote/difficult caches seems like another way to keep the quantity vs quality train rolling toward power trail land. Some of us remember when we'd go out looking for a cache. Not expecting 10 easy finds every time I go out the door.

 

Download GSAK, and filter caches which have not been found in the last 4 logs and you'll have the same effect without removing the challenging/adventurous/difficult/fun ones from the pool for the rest of us.

[AZcachemeister]

I don't like the idea of automatically removing stale caches, due the the number of factors and opportunities for false positives already mentioned - difficult caches, for example, or remote caches. Or the old, I hate that cacher, I'll just post 6 DNFs (maybe with friends) and voila I can have his hiding spot.

 

I don't want my caches handled by a "ReviewerBot 1000"

 

Automatically archiving caches, in a way that targets remote/difficult caches seems like another way to keep the quantity vs quality train rolling toward power trail land. Some of us remember when we'd go out looking for a cache. Not expecting 10 easy finds every time I go out the door.

 

Download GSAK, and filter caches which have not been found in the last 4 logs and you'll have the same effect without removing the challenging/adventurous/difficult/fun ones from the pool for the rest of us.

 

Exactly, and thank-you.

 

I don't exactly agree with the 'stale' connotation though.

Those are the sweetest caches you can find!

[Moun10Bike]

Thank you for the suggestion, but we are choosing to focus on tools that allow reviewers to better track problematic caches and reports of them.