who will get behind this idea

[+HHD]

Let's stop enabling lazy cos. If a co has 5 nm logs active on his/her caches they are not allowed to place any new caches until the maintaining has been completed.

 

This is just a concept. I'm open to other options but I'm getting tired of cachers placing new caches while leaving their others ones to rot and asking the community to maintain them instead of doing it themselves.

 

All comments welcome. I love ideas.

Edit to include issue brought up so far:

1) as far as the disabled caches issue goes, I'm fine with disabled caches not counting. If a co disabled a cache I don't look for it and at least it means the count down begins for inactivity. I understand safety and construction issues. 2) the co removes the flag fraudulently with out doing the maintenance...ok this is a likely problem. We are an on your honor sport so if they just remove it to cheat the system they are cheating themselves and other cachers. So my hope is the other cachers would call shananigans when this happens and repost nm logs and if it is a habit the reviewer will be notified by someone I'm sure. 3)fraudulent logging nm to keep the co from placing more caches...well here is my hope. Again...honor sport blah blah blah, and by setting the bar at 5, that should be a pretty high number to weed out normal maintenance issues for most. Now if someone is being targeted by a cacher scorned they can take that up with a reviewer. However, if a co is doing the maintenance as required why would a cacher target them? And if that mean cacher has it in for the co there are much more annoying ways to get to someone. 4) automate it or give the reviewers more work. I think the last thing we need to do is give reviewers more work so it should be automated. If for some reason it can't be automated...I'd be amazed if that's the case, then there should be a check box on the honor system that you have less then 5 caches with nm flags. If you are found to be cheating the system cachers will find out and notify the reviewers who will have to keep a list of cheaters and double check that they don't have too many nm flags

Edited November 19, 2011 by HighHeeled Dutchess

[+GeoBain]

Let's stop enabling lazy cos. If a co has 5 nm logs active on his/her caches they are not allowed to place any new caches until the maintaining has been completed.

 

This is just a concept. I'm open to other options but I'm getting tired of cachers placing new caches while leaving their others ones to rot and asking the community to maintain them instead of doing it themselves.

 

All comments welcome. I love ideas.

 

I'm in favor of the concept. But as I posted in the other thread, you need to work out how to deal with maintenance issues that are beyond the COs control such as seasonal problems, construction issues, etc.

 

Since there are many valid reasons for a cache to be disabled for an extended period of time, it would be difficult to automate this process.

 

Now to the NM flag, I like the idea of not allowing a co to hide further caches until they deal with the maintenance issues on their current caches. But a couple of problems arise here.

 

Currently, a CO can remove the NM flag on their caches without actually performing the needed maintenance. How do you prevent this from occuring just to be able to place a cache. It would be very difficult for a reviewer to know if this is happening.

 

Also, how would you deal with people logging NM on someone's caches just to prevent them from hiding more caches.

 

And if it is nearly impossible to automate this process, do the reviewers have enough time and resources to manually check for this?

[+NanCycle]

Let's stop enabling lazy cos. If a co has 5 nm logs active on his/her caches they are not allowed to place any new caches until the maintaining has been completed.

 

This is just a concept. I'm open to other options but I'm getting tired of cachers placing new caches while leaving their others ones to rot and asking the community to maintain them instead of doing it themselves.

 

All comments welcome. I love ideas.

 

Good idea; I do agree with it in theory, but as GeoBain noted probably not practical to implement. One of GB's comments "how to deal with maintenance issues that are beyond the COs control such as seasonal problems, construction issues, etc." could be to Temporarily Disable with an explanation of the issues and an expected date of when the cache could be Enabled again. This would show that the CO is aware of the problem and not just ignoring it.

[+HHD]

Good questions.

1) as far as the disabled caches issue goes, I'm fine with disabled caches not counting. If a co disabled a cache I don't look for it and at least it means the count down begins for inactivity. I understand safety and construction issues.

2) the co removes the flag fraudulently with out doing the maintenance...ok this is a likely problem. We are an on your honor sport so if they just remove it to cheat the system they are cheating themselves and other cachers. So my hope is the other cachers would call shananigans when this happens and repost nm logs and if it is a habit the reviewer will be notified by someone I'm sure.

3)fraudulent logging nm to keep the co from placing more caches...well here is my hope. Again...honor sport blah blah blah, and by setting the bar at 5, that should be a pretty high number to weed out normal maintenance issues for most. Now if someone is being targeted by a cacher scorned they can take that up with a reviewer. However, if a co is doing the maintenance as required why would a cacher target them? And if that mean cacher has it in for the co there are much more annoying ways to get to someone.

4) automate it or give the reviewers more work. I think the last thing we need to do is give reviewers more work so it should be automated. If for some reason it can't be automated...I'd be amazed if that's the case, then there should be a check box on the honor system that you have less then 5 caches with nm flags. If you are found to be cheating the system cachers will find out and notify the reviewers who will have to keep a list of cheaters and double check that they don't have too many nm flags.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'm opposed.

1) We have enough cache police as it is.

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

3) Lots of people put NM on a cache for stupid reasons. "Your Rite-in-the-Rain paper is wet! NM!" Or the one that got me: "There was a major flood in the area. It must be gone. NM!" I didn't think so, being it was 24' above the river level. But it took me two weeks to check on it. Yup! It was still right where I left it!

[+HHD]

I'm opposed.

1) We have enough cache police as it is.

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

3) Lots of people put NM on a cache for stupid reasons. "Your Rite-in-the-Rain paper is wet! NM!" Or the one that got me: "There was a major flood in the area. It must be gone. NM!" I didn't think so, being it was 24' above the river level. But it took me two weeks to check on it. Yup! It was still right where I left it!

 

I appreciate your feedback.

1) cache police...yeah can't fight that one. But if it is for the good of the community...

2) I bet you wouldn't forget to remove it if you couldn't place a cache. And a lot of people filter out nm caches so if you leave it up it only hurts your cache.

3) dumb nm logs...well we can't stop dumb people from doing dumb things but if you see the nm is a dumb nm then just remove it...like you do now.

[+GeoBain]

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

 

I see that as a positive. As soon as the reviewer denies the new cache the CO is very likely to figure out how to clear the NM flag.

 

3) Lots of people put NM on a cache for stupid reasons. "Your Rite-in-the-Rain paper is wet! NM!" Or the one that got me: "There was a major flood in the area. It must be gone. NM!" I didn't think so, being it was 24' above the river level. But it took me two weeks to check on it. Yup! It was still right where I left it!

 

That one is actually more likely than my intentional NM scenario. A lot of people just don't understand that NM is not a proper substitute for DNF.

[+baloo&bd]

And a lot of people filter out nm caches so if you leave it up it only hurts your cache.

 

Since the system clearly differentiates disabled caches from others and it is easy to filter them out, it's unclear what the issue is.

 

Not attending to legitimate NM logs is the exception, so really not that big a deal.

[Blue Square Thing]

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

 

Virtually every cache I find with an Needs Maintenance tag on it has been fine - it's just that the cache owner hasn't taken the flag off. Maybe we need to find a way to automatically prod cache owners on an increasingly regular basis to show them how to do so?

[knowschad]

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

 

Virtually every cache I find with an Needs Maintenance tag on it has been fine - it's just that the cache owner hasn't taken the flag off. Maybe we need to find a way to automatically prod cache owners on an increasingly regular basis to show them how to do so?

 

I know... maybe all NM logs should automatically be removed after a month or so.

[+ZeLonewolf]

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

 

Virtually every cache I find with an Needs Maintenance tag on it has been fine - it's just that the cache owner hasn't taken the flag off. Maybe we need to find a way to automatically prod cache owners on an increasingly regular basis to show them how to do so?

 

This. Perhaps a monthly auto-email reminding COs of caches with outstanding NM.

[+briansnat]

Let's stop enabling lazy cos. If a co has 5 nm logs active on his/her caches they are not allowed to place any new caches until the maintaining has been completed.

 

This is just a concept. I'm open to other options but I'm getting tired of cachers placing new caches while leaving their others ones to rot and asking the community to maintain them instead of doing it themselves.

 

All comments welcome. I love ideas.

 

I'm in favor of the concept. But as I posted in the other thread, you need to work out how to deal with maintenance issues that are beyond the COs control such as seasonal problems, construction issues, etc.

 

Since there are many valid reasons for a cache to be disabled for an extended period of time, it would be difficult to automate this process.

 

Now to the NM flag, I like the idea of not allowing a co to hide further caches until they deal with the maintenance issues on their current caches. But a couple of problems arise here.

 

Currently, a CO can remove the NM flag on their caches without actually performing the needed maintenance. How do you prevent this from occuring just to be able to place a cache. It would be very difficult for a reviewer to know if this is happening.

 

Also, how would you deal with people logging NM on someone's caches just to prevent them from hiding more caches.

 

And if it is nearly impossible to automate this process, do the reviewers have enough time and resources to manually check for this?

Agreed. Great idea but in practice it can be difficult to implement. There are too many mitigating factors and too many ways around it.

 

Let's just say it can't and shouldn't be automated, and knowing how much the reviewers have to deal with I'd don't think adding an additional responsibility would help the review process.

[+HHD]

Great ideas don't stop being great ideas because they might be hard to do...just need some time to work out the kinks.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'm opposed.

1) We have enough cache police as it is.

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

3) Lots of people put NM on a cache for stupid reasons. "Your Rite-in-the-Rain paper is wet! NM!" Or the one that got me: "There was a major flood in the area. It must be gone. NM!" I didn't think so, being it was 24' above the river level. But it took me two weeks to check on it. Yup! It was still right where I left it!

 

I appreciate your feedback.

1) cache police...yeah can't fight that one. But if it is for the good of the community...

2) I bet you wouldn't forget to remove it if you couldn't place a cache. And a lot of people filter out nm caches so if you leave it up it only hurts your cache.

3) dumb nm logs...well we can't stop dumb people from doing dumb things but if you see the nm is a dumb nm then just remove it...like you do now.

1) Ah! "The good of the community." Good definition for cache police! And if you don't like anyone who misspells a word on a cache page, will you not permit them to hide any more caches? Where does it stop?

2) Wow It must be compelling to get the system to work the way you want it

3) A dumb NM log is still an NM log, isn't it? Or is the same answer for people who remove NM without doing any maintenance?

Nope. I'm still voting against the enhanced cache police.

[+HHD]

All opinions are welcome. If you can't listen to the other side then you will never get anything accomplished.

Is this cache police...it could be viewed that way. If the system was automated though no cache police necessary.

It isn't that hard to remove a nm flag...no harder than using a turn signal....well maybe that's a bad analogy. It isn't that hard to do, and if you can download cords into a Gpsr, use that Gpsr to navigate gz, then find a nano in a brush pile, sign a log, then log the find on the website I think they can figure it out.

I don't advocate ignoring nm logs. But in the ones you mentioned above I would not have worried with visiting the location. A wet write in rain log is silly. A cache 23' off the ground (i assume tethered in a tree) swept away by high water? Seems like a waste of gas to me. Not saying I wouldn't check up on it in case the tree went missing just to make sure but I wouldn't sweat it.

But I guess I'm still a little shy on why if this was able to ne automated it would be cache police?

If it could be automated would that change your mind?

[+Shop99er]

I'm opposed.

1) We have enough cache police as it is.

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

3) Lots of people put NM on a cache for stupid reasons. "Your Rite-in-the-Rain paper is wet! NM!" Or the one that got me: "There was a major flood in the area. It must be gone. NM!" I didn't think so, being it was 24' above the river level. But it took me two weeks to check on it. Yup! It was still right where I left it!

 

I appreciate your feedback.

1) cache police...yeah can't fight that one. But if it is for the good of the community...

2) I bet you wouldn't forget to remove it if you couldn't place a cache. And a lot of people filter out nm caches so if you leave it up it only hurts your cache.

3) dumb nm logs...well we can't stop dumb people from doing dumb things but if you see the nm is a dumb nm then just remove it...like you do now.

1) Ah! "The good of the community." Good definition for cache police! And if you don't like anyone who misspells a word on a cache page, will you not permit them to hide any more caches? Where does it stop?

2) Wow It must be compelling to get the system to work the way you want it

3) A dumb NM log is still an NM log, isn't it? Or is the same answer for people who remove NM without doing any maintenance?

Nope. I'm still voting against the enhanced cache police.

After reading through this whole thread, and the one about gcrm, I find myself agreeing with Harry on all of his points.

 

This smacks of over-zealous cache police activity. There are plenty of them out there. We really don't need another one stirring up things "for the good of the community."

 

If you don't like how some people do or don't maintain their caches, ignore them. Automated rules like what you're asking for will serve no purpose other than make it easier for some people to be able to search for the caches that meet their personal requirements.

[+BlueDeuce]

As a cache cop I think it needs to be dealt with on local level. Community pressure. Straight out cache abandonment is far more common than that one guy who places more than he can support.

[+niraD]

There is already too much drama surrounding NM logs.

 

"Your NM log was an inappropriate abuse of the system."

"No it wasn't. You need to visit the site to perform maintenance."

"No, I don't. There's nothing wrong with the cache."

"Yes, there is. I explained what's wrong in my NM log."

"Your NM log was an inappropriate abuse of the system."

...

 

Allowing NM logs to block people from listing new caches will just increase the drama.

 

BTW, if you actually want to suggest a change, then this is the wrong place to do so.

[+HHD]

I know this isn't the right place. I'm testing the waters before I put forth my final option.

[+BlueDeuce]

I know this isn't the right place. I'm testing the waters before I put forth my final option.

 

Geocide?

[+HHD]

I know this isn't the right place. I'm testing the waters before I put forth my final option.

 

Geocide?

 

Something like that.

[+L0ne.R]

If a co has 5 nm logs active on his/her caches they are not allowed to place any new caches until the maintaining has been completed.

 

I'm in favor of the suggestion but I doubt Groundspeak will hinder people from hiding caches because it doesn't make business sense. My suggestion is use the Needs Reviewer Attention (NA) option where appropriate.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Lone R

[+6NoisyHikers]

A thought: Isn't our ability to log NM and NA already a type of "cache policing"?

 

I can think of a few high-number hiders in my area who should be officially encouraged to take care of their hides. A few good reasons that have nothing to do with the right to play the game the way you want are:

 

1. A missing cache means the area around GZ will get more trampling and pillaging than necessary, which can be tough on the environment.

 

2. A broken or trashed cache with an unsignable log book is just garbage in the woods. There is enough out there already, we don't need to add to it.

 

I think if we want to avoid that "black eye" we all talk about, one of the best ways is to be slightly stricter about how users treat the environment where we play our game. I think lack of owner maintenance is enough of an issue to warrant some changes. (There are other issues, but this is the topic here.)

 

I believe that responsible cache owners will be able to handle a new rule that involves consequences for multiple NM logs. Irresponsible cache owners will not, which should solve the bulk of that problem.

 

I'd like to add that I also agree that just because a problem is difficult to solve, that doesn't mean a solution shouldn't be attempted!

[+HHD]

A thought: Isn't our ability to log NM and NA already a type of "cache policing"?

 

I can think of a few high-number hiders in my area who should be officially encouraged to take care of their hides. A few good reasons that have nothing to do with the right to play the game the way you want are:

 

1. A missing cache means the area around GZ will get more trampling and pillaging than necessary, which can be tough on the environment.

 

2. A broken or trashed cache with an unsignable log book is just garbage in the woods. There is enough out there already, we don't need to add to it.

 

I think if we want to avoid that "black eye" we all talk about, one of the best ways is to be slightly stricter about how users treat the environment where we play our game. I think lack of owner maintenance is enough of an issue to warrant some changes. (There are other issues, but this is the topic here.)

 

I believe that responsible cache owners will be able to handle a new rule that involves consequences for multiple NM logs. Irresponsible cache owners will not, which should solve the bulk of that problem.

 

I'd like to add that I also agree that just because a problem is difficult to solve, that doesn't mean a solution shouldn't be attempted!

 

Thank you for you support and great points.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Let's stop enabling lazy cos. If a co has 5 nm logs active on his/her caches they are not allowed to place any new caches until the maintaining has been completed.

Interesting concept, but it won't work.

 

If you implement this, a lot of cache owners will finally figure out how to use the Owner Maintenance log to clear the NM flag. But those owners weren't really the problem, most of them fixed their cache and just didn't know how to clear the NM attribute.

 

The problem is that the truly lazy cache owners aren't going to suddenly go out and maintain their caches. They'll just clear the attribute and leave the mess out in the field.

[+HHD]

Let's stop enabling lazy cos. If a co has 5 nm logs active on his/her caches they are not allowed to place any new caches until the maintaining has been completed.

Interesting concept, but it won't work.

 

If you implement this, a lot of cache owners will finally figure out how to use the Owner Maintenance log to clear the NM flag. But those owners weren't really the problem, most of them fixed their cache and just didn't know how to clear the NM attribute.

 

The problem is that the truly lazy cache owners aren't going to suddenly go out and maintain their caches. They'll just clear the attribute and leave the mess out in the field.

 

This will happen I'm sure but eventually they will be called out on the carpet about it. You can only cheat the system so many times before the community will call shananagings.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Let's stop enabling lazy cos. If a co has 5 nm logs active on his/her caches they are not allowed to place any new caches until the maintaining has been completed.

Interesting concept, but it won't work.

 

If you implement this, a lot of cache owners will finally figure out how to use the Owner Maintenance log to clear the NM flag. But those owners weren't really the problem, most of them fixed their cache and just didn't know how to clear the NM attribute.

 

The problem is that the truly lazy cache owners aren't going to suddenly go out and maintain their caches. They'll just clear the attribute and leave the mess out in the field.

 

This will happen I'm sure but eventually they will be called out on the carpet about it. You can only cheat the system so many times before the community will call shananagings.

And how is that different from what we have now? You've created more work for reviewers, given cachers an idea that the cache is ok when it's not, in hopes that the CO will "eventually" be called out and change his ways.

 

But it's not going to happen. Right now, when a cache has been long in need of maintenance, anyone who finds it has the option of placing a NA log on it. But they don't.

 

Your proposed solution doesn't make things better. In fact, by encouraging owners to clear the NM attribute, it may make things slightly worse.

[+HHD]

I'm not encouraging owners to clear nm logs without doing the maintenance. I'm merely saying I'd be dumb to think it wouldn't happen.

What my proposal does do is put another layer of cache protection in place so that we don't let nm logs go on for years with no action while the cos go out and hide new caches weekly.

[+wimseyguy]

Another reason why this proposed new guideline/rule will not work.

Most cachers I know won't bother posting a NM log if there is already one posted to the listing.

Now if I bothered looking for a cache that already had a NM log on it, but appeared to still be there to find, just not in great shape, and was unable to find it, I might post a NA log. But I would almost never pile on an additional NM log. And that seems to be the norm around these parts. YMMV.

[+L0ne.R]

But I would almost never pile on an additional NM log. And that seems to be the norm around these parts. YMMV.

 

I always do. Multiple NMs gets the reviewers attention, at least in my area.

[+Sol seaker]

Dutchess,

 

I appreciate your gracious attitude with everyone no matter what position they take. It would be great if more on the forums adopted your polite manner. Thank you for that!!

 

I agree with the idea, but it does seem like implementation would be tough.

 

I'd love to see it for cache owners who have 3 or more caches with issues on them. Anyone can have one cache with issues that are temporary, such as construction or seasonal, etc. But I've seen people place new caches who have more than three caches with large issues they are ignoring (like cache has 8 DNFs and has been confirmed missing by someone who has found it before, and cache has still not been disabled or checked on).

 

For one cache with issues it does seem a bit like cache police. With three or even five caches being ignored with large issues, then it's for the good of the community.

[+GeoBain]

But it's not going to happen. Right now, when a cache has been long in need of maintenance, anyone who finds it has the option of placing a NA log on it. But they don't.

 

THIS is the biggest problem. We have the ability right now to self-police caches but people are afraid to do so. And the ones that are willing go overboard to the point of becoming cache police. Then they get scorned. Others see this. They are afraid to post NA when needed and appropriate. It's a viscuous cycle.

[+HHD]

I completely agree about the nm and na logs people are not willing to use. If you use na and nm more then annually you are deemed cache police. if you don't use them you are just ignoring the problem.

I learned long ago that letting a problem fester only makes the problem worse. The same is true in caching. If you don't use the tools given to you the cache and the community suffers.

When I use nm logs I hope to bring co attention to a problem. If that doesn't work or the cache has multiple nm logs or it has been months since the log and no attention paid by the co then I use the na.

I also use dnf and note...I use most of the log types. If that makes me cache police then so be it. I enjoy this game and want others to have a good experience to.

 

And thank you sol for the compliment. I truly want opinions. The more the merrier. Together we can find a way to make this idea work.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I completely agree about the nm and na logs people are not willing to use. If you use na and nm more then annually you are deemed cache police. if you don't use them you are just ignoring the problem.

I learned long ago that letting a problem fester only makes the problem worse. The same is true in caching. If you don't use the tools given to you the cache and the community suffers.

When I use nm logs I hope to bring co attention to a problem. If that doesn't work or the cache has multiple nm logs or it has been months since the log and no attention paid by the co then I use the na.

I also use dnf and note...I use most of the log types. If that makes me cache police then so be it. I enjoy this game and want others to have a good experience to.

 

And thank you sol for the compliment. I truly want opinions. The more the merrier. Together we can find a way to make this idea work.

Yes! Let's make geocaching what YOU want it to be! That's a pretty good definition of 'cache police'.

You might try getting off your highheeled horse, and let people enjoy what they enjoy doing. Next on your agendum? Caches ALL IN CAPS? Caches with mispeelings?

The system seesms to work fairly well as it is. There have been many arguments why it is not a good idea. But you blow those off. Only what you want is important? Yup. Cache police at work.

[+GeoBain]

I completely agree about the nm and na logs people are not willing to use. If you use na and nm more then annually you are deemed cache police. if you don't use them you are just ignoring the problem.

I learned long ago that letting a problem fester only makes the problem worse. The same is true in caching. If you don't use the tools given to you the cache and the community suffers.

When I use nm logs I hope to bring co attention to a problem. If that doesn't work or the cache has multiple nm logs or it has been months since the log and no attention paid by the co then I use the na.

I also use dnf and note...I use most of the log types. If that makes me cache police then so be it. I enjoy this game and want others to have a good experience to.

 

And thank you sol for the compliment. I truly want opinions. The more the merrier. Together we can find a way to make this idea work.

Yes! Let's make geocaching what YOU want it to be! That's a pretty good definition of 'cache police'.

You might try getting off your highheeled horse, and let people enjoy what they enjoy doing. Next on your agendum? Caches ALL IN CAPS? Caches with mispeelings?

The system seesms to work fairly well as it is. There have been many arguments why it is not a good idea. But you blow those off. Only what you want is important? Yup. Cache police at work.

 

Someone's on a high horse, but it doesn't have heels.

 

The OP has been pretty cordial in her posts. Can the rest of us try doing the same whether we agree with her or not?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Someone's on a high horse, but it doesn't have heels.

 

The OP has been pretty cordial in her posts. Can the rest of us try doing the same whether we agree with her or not?

 

Nah. Cordial? No, not really. Condescending is what I read. No resolution to the problems this would cause.

Sorry, I don't want the cache police stomping on my toes. Especially with highheels.

The system works well as is. Why rescind people's privileges? Because that's what she wants? No. I'm not buying it.

Hey! Let's try working within the system! Wow! What an easy answer!

[+fizzymagic]

Together we can find a way to make this idea work.

 

I think the issue here is a misunderstanding of the role of geocaching.com in cache listings. GC.com (aka Groundspeak) is a listing service, not a caching service. Groundspeak does not provide caches except in a very small number of instances.

 

Attempting to eliminate caches and cache hiders based on quality or other metrics is not in Groundspeak's business model. They provide tools that can be used by cachers to evaluate the difficulty, terrain, condition and quality of the caches they list so that those cachers can decide for themselves whether they wish to seek the caches.

 

If Groundspeak has good information that a particular listed cache has gone missing for a long period of time, they will de-list the cache based on unavailability. And Groundspeak will de-list a cache that is known to be in violation of the law. But they have never, and likely will never, de-list an available cache because of maintenance issues. And they never will prohibit a cacher from listing caches based on length of caching experience or maintenance issues with other caches.

 

It's the same reason virtual caches were stopped; Groundspeak does not want to be involved in decisions about quality.

 

It's not that Groundspeak doesn't care; it's just that what you are asking is completely outside the model of how the listing service works.

 

Your campaign to have Groundspeak take official action of some kind is not going to succeed. My advice is this: if you don't like caches that have ongoing maintenance issues, then don't search for them.

[+HHD]

I completely agree about the nm and na logs people are not willing to use. If you use na and nm more then annually you are deemed cache police. if you don't use them you are just ignoring the problem.

I learned long ago that letting a problem fester only makes the problem worse. The same is true in caching. If you don't use the tools given to you the cache and the community suffers.

When I use nm logs I hope to bring co attention to a problem. If that doesn't work or the cache has multiple nm logs or it has been months since the log and no attention paid by the co then I use the na.

I also use dnf and note...I use most of the log types. If that makes me cache police then so be it. I enjoy this game and want others to have a good experience to.

 

And thank you sol for the compliment. I truly want opinions. The more the merrier. Together we can find a way to make this idea work.

Yes! Let's make geocaching what YOU want it to be! That's a pretty good definition of 'cache police'.

You might try getting off your highheeled horse, and let people enjoy what they enjoy doing. Next on your agendum? Caches ALL IN CAPS? Caches with mispeelings?

The system seesms to work fairly well as it is. There have been many arguments why it is not a good idea. But you blow those off. Only what you want is important? Yup. Cache police at work.

 

As far as what I want, I think we all want the same thing. Caches that don't have soaked logs for months on end with no co intervention, no broken containers or missing containers that are being ignored by the co. Most cos tend to their caches in a resonable amount of time. However there are some cos that ignore maintenance because it isn't any fun and they just keep putting out new caches while ignoring the multitude of nm logs piling up. I hope to find some way to bring these cos to light and have them start maintaining their hides like the rest of us do before they put out any new hides.

I fully admit this may be an up hill battle. It is just a concept. I am using the forums to bring out the thoughts of other cachers much more experienced then I. I may gloss over some of the negatives because I'm looking for ways to improve the idea not shoot it into a bloody pulp, stamp it out and in general hate on it. That makes me one sighted I fully admit. Like I said I'm trying to find s way to improve the game for everyone.

Personal attacks on me are a given. So I will ignore those.

As far as the system working well enough now....really? If it was working why are the majority agreeing it is a good concept even of it might not fly?

[+HHD]

Together we can find a way to make this idea work.

 

I think the issue here is a misunderstanding of the role of geocaching.com in cache listings. GC.com (aka Groundspeak) is a listing service, not a caching service. Groundspeak does not provide caches except in a very small number of instances.

 

Attempting to eliminate caches and cache hiders based on quality or other metrics is not in Groundspeak's business model. They provide tools that can be used by cachers to evaluate the difficulty, terrain, condition and quality of the caches they list so that those cachers can decide for themselves whether they wish to seek the caches.

 

If Groundspeak has good information that a particular listed cache has gone missing for a long period of time, they will de-list the cache based on unavailability. And Groundspeak will de-list a cache that is known to be in violation of the law. But they have never, and likely will never, de-list an available cache because of maintenance issues. And they never will prohibit a cacher from listing caches based on length of caching experience or maintenance issues with other caches.

 

It's the same reason virtual caches were stopped; Groundspeak does not want to be involved in decisions about quality.

 

It's not that Groundspeak doesn't care; it's just that what you are asking is completely outside the model of how the listing service works.

 

Your campaign to have Groundspeak take official action of some kind is not going to succeed. My advice is this: if you don't like caches that have ongoing maintenance issues, then don't search for them.

 

Thank you for your input. Those are some new objections I haven't encountered yet.

Forgive me for being a bit of a noob and not knowing how to link to the knowledge books but if I understand the concept of Groundspeak and geocaching.com they are a listing service that houses a list of approved caches.

If I'm understanding your argument correctly your point is that they are simply a listing service not a policing service. I agree that they normally leave it to the reviewers to be the police rather than deal with it on a corporate level but by definition aren't reviewers representatives of the company? They are charged with maintaining the standards of placing hides and when a violation occurres they are the ones who take action.

If you read the knowledge books about cache maintenance it does clearly state cos are responsible for regular visits to fix issues that happen over time. So is it not a violation of that policy to ignore maintenance issues? And if it is can't we slow the proliferation of these cos caches until they fix the problems they already have? I'm not saying they can't ever place hides. I'm just saying if you have 5 nm caches..at least fix one before you hide more.

[+Sol seaker]

Someone's on a high horse, but it doesn't have heels.

 

The OP has been pretty cordial in her posts. Can the rest of us try doing the same whether we agree with her or not?

 

Nah. Cordial? No, not really. Condescending is what I read. No resolution to the problems this would cause.

Sorry, I don't want the cache police stomping on my toes. Especially with highheels.

The system works well as is. Why rescind people's privileges? Because that's what she wants? No. I'm not buying it.

Hey! Let's try working within the system! Wow! What an easy answer!

 

Wow. Have you been swimming upstream today or what?

 

She sounded pretty cordial to me. Are you reading into this?

 

Go have a donut, or some squid, or whatever the dolphin equivalent is, and get back to us later.

 

Here, try this:

unstress and relax thread

 

:omnomnom: :omnomnom:

[+HHD]

The system works well as is. Why rescind people's privileges?

 

Hey! Let's try working within the system! Wow! What an easy answer!

 

I do want to work within the system and use the tools provided to come to a solution. That is why I would like gs to enforce the maintenance guidelines and I am trying to offer a way in which to do that.

If it can be handled with out an additional step for reviewers I'm all ears.

[+Harry Dolphin]

If it was working why are the majority agreeing it is a good concept even of it might not fly?

 

Lessee...

Who agrees? What percentage of geocachers are regular forum users? Okay... Forum users.

4 agree with you.

6 disagree with you.

6 offered no opiniom or said it would not fly. Why you think that is agreeing with you, I have no idea.

Not an overwhelming majority.

I have not seen you agree with anyone offering opposing ideas. Many reasons why this is not a good idea have been offered. You seem to have glossed over them. "People post stupid NMs." "Delete them." "People might delete the NMs." Don't remember your reply, something like "Count that against them." No consistency. No willingness to accept opposing opinions. But the majority agree with you, even though it is a minority.

If you call yourself the cache police, why is it name-calling is someone agrees with you?

Sorry. Continue your one-sided tirade.

But remember: Geocaching is supposed to be fun. Go out and try having some fun!

[+GeoBain]

Lessee...

Who agrees? What percentage of geocachers are regular forum users? Okay... Forum users.

4 agree with you.

6 disagree with you.

6 offered no opiniom or said it would not fly. Why you think that is agreeing with you, I have no idea.

Not an overwhelming majority.

 

Post #2 - Support, but problems

Post #3 - Support, but agrees about problems

Post #9 - Seems to support, at least some automated prodding to clear maintenance flag.

Post #11 - Supports post #9

Post #12 - Supports idea, but also sees problems with implementation.

Post #22 - Supports idea but also sees problem with Groundspeak implementing it.

Post # 23 - Supports - added a few other reasons to at least try.

Post #31 - Supports but thinks it implementation will be tough.

 

Post #5 - Opposed, very opposed

Post #16 - Agrees with post #5. Very opposed.

Post #16 - Opposed. Believes it should be deal with locally.

Post #18 - Opposed. Will create too much drama.

Post #37 - Kind of unclear, but more opposed than anything.

 

Post #8 - Position unclear because he thinks the issue is unclear

Post #10 - Position unclear. Mosty attempt at humor.

Post #25 - Position unclear. Seems to like the concept though.

Post # 29 - Position unclear. Seems more not support than support though.

 

My numbers say

8 support

5 disagree

4 are unclear in their support

 

I would say the OP has a lot of support for the general idea, but overwhelmingly most see too many problems with the idea. In other words, good concept, but good luck getting it implemented.

Edited November 22, 2011 by GeoBain

[+HHD]

So to refocus this thread....

 

If you like my idea great, if you like the concept but don't think it will be approved how can we change it to get approved. If you don't like the idea that's fine to. But I'm really looking for ways to improve the concept before I post it in the correct forum, so if you hate the idea and have nothing to offer on how to improve the concept of limiting new hides of cos that are ignoring their maintenance duties then please feel free to post why you dislike the idea in a constructive way.

[+6NoisyHikers]

Here's my "least-amount-of-effort" idea:

 

With 3 and then 4 separate caches listing NM*: Automated email that says "Dear User, this email is a friendly reminder that the following 3 (or 4) caches require your attention - GC###, etc. Once you have resolved these issues THIS is how to clear the NM log. Please remember that if you accrue 5 caches needing maintenance, you will not be able to list new cache placements on Geocaching.com until these maintenance issues have been resolved. Thanks!"

 

With 5 NMs: "Dear User, this email is to inform you that your cache listing privileges have been suspended until you resolve the maintenance requirements for the following 5 caches - GC###, etc. Once you have resolved these issues THIS is how to clear the NM log. Your ability to list caches on Geocaching.com will be reinstated once these maintenance issues have been resolved. Thank you for your attention."

 

And there could be some contact info if a user had any questions.

 

*This avoids the multiple NMs a cache might get from several users reporting the same issue.

 

Of course it doesn't solve the problem of liars, cheats and socks, but it seems (to a non-programmer) to be a fairly simple system to set up that should put a stop to the worst offenders.

 

If the delay to physically take care of a NM is a reasonable/seasonable issue, the cache should be disabled until the owner can get to it. That could clear that cache from the NM pile as, technically, seekers would not be searching for it in vain and doing environmental damage in the process. That doesn't stop caches from being abandoned to become geo-litter just so an owner can place new ones, but again you can't stop those who are determined to cheat the system.

 

Again (don't count me twice!), I support this idea - feasible or not.

Edited November 22, 2011 by 6NoisyHikers

[+cerberus1]

I agree that there may be some who have problems taking care of their hides.

I also think it reasonable that those few should be made to fix the ones they need to before putting out any new ones, if it involves many.

But most responses so far only deal with the CO, not the searcher.

 

We have a few hides that require a bit of a hike.

Most of the NM we receive range from, "We couldn't find it. It must be missing" to "The log is damp."

So now I have to hoof it to find the cache still there and wipe the Rite in Rain paper on my pants to dry it again (pages state we use RiR paper).

One wrote a NM for," Went out with (so and so), an 'experienced cacher' and it wasn't where he found it".

The new coordinates for the moved by 300' hide were changed on the cache page and a note stating why - two years after (so and so) found it. I left a note saying "it's usually a good idea to turn the GPSr ON before attempting a find."

- This person NM our hide 'cause her friend couldn't point to it?

 

I see more issues with lazy/dumb NM logs than lazy COs in my area.

With most not going for a hide marked NM, instead waiting for the CO to "fix" it, how many of those NM-logged caches really needed the maintenance?

Since you're looking to penalize someone who may be a "paid" premium member, a reviewer would probably have to read prior logs to make a decision on why the NM was posted.

Too time consuming I'd bet.

[+6NoisyHikers]

I agree that there may be some who have problems taking care of their hides.

I also think it reasonable that those few should be made to fix the ones they need to before putting out any new ones, if it involves many.

But most responses so far only deal with the CO, not the searcher.

 

We have a few hides that require a bit of a hike.

Most of the NM we receive range from, "We couldn't find it. It must be missing" to "The log is damp."

So now I have to hoof it to find the cache still there and wipe the Rite in Rain paper on my pants to dry it again (pages state we use RiR paper).

One wrote a NM for," Went out with (so and so), an 'experienced cacher' and it wasn't where he found it".

The new coordinates for the moved by 300' hide were changed on the cache page and a note stating why - two years after (so and so) found it. I left a note saying "it's usually a good idea to turn the GPSr ON before attempting a find."

- This person NM our hide 'cause her friend couldn't point to it?

 

 

In these instances, an owner could resolve the situation from home by entering an owner maintenance note that states "log will be okay, it is RIR paper" or "Please log a DNF if you did not find it. Cache will be checked after 5 DNFs (or whatever number you see fit)." That would be a fair way to clear a NM and would leave a "paper" trail if anyone decided to call an owner on how they are handling NMs.

[+HHD]

Here's my "least-amount-of-effort" idea:

 

With 3 and then 4 separate caches listing NM*: Automated email that says "Dear User, this email is a friendly reminder that the following 3 (or 4) caches require your attention - GC###, etc. Once you have resolved these issues THIS is how to clear the NM log. Please remember that if you accrue 5 caches needing maintenance, you will not be able to list new cache placements on Geocaching.com until these maintenance issues have been resolved. Thanks!"

 

With 5 NMs: "Dear User, this email is to inform you that your cache listing privileges have been suspended until you resolve the maintenance requirements for the following 5 caches - GC###, etc. Once you have resolved these issues THIS is how to clear the NM log. Your ability to list caches on Geocaching.com will be reinstated once these maintenance issues have been resolved. Thank you for your attention."

 

And there could be some contact info if a user had any questions.

 

*This avoids the multiple NMs a cache might get from several users reporting the same issue.

 

Of course it doesn't solve the problem of liars, cheats and socks, but it seems (to a non-programmer) to be a fairly simple system to set up that should put a stop to the worst offenders.

 

If the delay to physically take care of a NM is a reasonable/seasonable issue, the cache should be disabled until the owner can get to it. That could clear that cache from the NM pile as, technically, seekers would not be searching for it in vain and doing environmental damage in the process. That doesn't stop caches from being abandoned to become geo-litter just so an owner can place new ones, but again you can't stop those who are determined to cheat the system.

 

Again (don't count me twice!), I support this idea - feasible or not.

 

That is beautiful. Exactly the concept I had in mind. Thank you for your feedback.

[Blue Square Thing]

Lessee...

Who agrees? What percentage of geocachers are regular forum users? Okay... Forum users.

4 agree with you.

6 disagree with you.

6 offered no opiniom or said it would not fly. Why you think that is agreeing with you, I have no idea.

Not an overwhelming majority.

Ah, the old "you're not regular so your opinin doesn't count" thingummey then? :-)

 

Seriously, how regular is regular and which forums and so on are interesting questions. But enough of that...

 

Post #9 - Seems to support, at least some automated prodding to clear maintenance flag.

 

As the author of post #9 (I think...) I wouldn't say I support the idea of not allowing people to place caches, which I think is the initial idea. I would say, however, that I'd really like to see something done about redundant NM tags on caches - primarily because they make me think twice about going out to get them.

 

If my suggestion is some sort of middle route through stuff then that's fine. That's what it was probably intended to be.

 

Of course, I'm probably not regular enugh for that opinion to count and all and, hey, I've only found 138 caches and so on and so on... **:-)**

[+GeoBain]

Lessee...

Who agrees? What percentage of geocachers are regular forum users? Okay... Forum users.

4 agree with you.

6 disagree with you.

6 offered no opiniom or said it would not fly. Why you think that is agreeing with you, I have no idea.

Not an overwhelming majority.

Ah, the old "you're not regular so your opinin doesn't count" thingummey then? :-)

 

Seriously, how regular is regular and which forums and so on are interesting questions. But enough of that...

I think you're making more of that than was intended.

 

We have a lot of discussions around here. And a lot of those discussions are passionate. (a lot are very mundane too)

 

But no matter how overwhelmingly a majority of posters here might feel about something, we aren't even a drop in the bucket percentage wise to the overall number of geocachers.

 

So I think all HD was saying how many geocachers are even going to read this and therefore, how do you know how much support you really have. But as for those reading this thread, here is my break down of the posts so far...

 

Again, I could be wrong; especially since I am using my somewhat faulty "forum regular" interpretive skillz.