Jump to content

Why shouldn't someone archive a cache?


scottmcblane
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Do you know of any stories where someone has archived a cache that you believe was unnecessary?

I had a cache I thought was pretty cool, in a post in the middle of a picnic area. Hundreds of kids may be there on a weekend, and it seems to have never been discovered except by cachers (I couldn’t believe how long it lasted, with such simple camo). Then park workers secured a garbage can to that post. I was seriously leaning on archiving, but asked a couple of people, including a previous finder for opinions (the garbage can was added after he made the find). It was suggested that I not archive it. But I did.

 

So maybe that’s a case where "someone shouldn’t archive". But it was my call.

 

By the way, if it's one of my caches, if you think it should NOT be archived, be sure to post nice Found logs, and add a Favorite. I might take that into consideration. Flies and all.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

There have been a few cache owners in the area who earned a reputation for always archiving their caches rather than performing maintenance. It didn't really matter what the maintenance need was: missing container, broken container, damaged camouflage, full log, damp log, newbie couldn't find it... If a Needs Maintenance log was posted, they'd just archive the cache.

 

I'd say that normal maintenance is not a reason for archiving a cache.

Link to comment

edit...sorry, off topic.

 

Nope, just a few situations where the owner got fed up with the community.

That's still a valid reason to archive a cache rather than just letting it rot and finally be forced archived through complaints of abandonment.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment
Do you know of any stories where someone has archived a cache that you believe was unnecessary?

 

Caches can be archived by owners. If the owner wants to archive a listing, that desire is all that's necessary. I would appreciate it if they'd make the effort to check on and clean up any cache remnant, but that's a different question.

 

Caches can be archived by site admins. Occasionally they get that wrong, usually from incomplete or false information. Where that's the case, and an active cache owner reacts in a reasonable amount of time, and requests that the cache be unarchived, that's usually going to happen.

Link to comment

I don't think a cache should be archived just so the CO can place another identical container in the exact same location with a new listing. I've seen this done when a few caches were placed for attendees of an event to find, then archived and a new listing created the next time the CO hosted an event in the same location. In some cases, they kept the original container and only replaced the log book.

Link to comment

I don't think a cache should be archived just so the CO can place another identical container in the exact same location with a new listing. I've seen this done when a few caches were placed for attendees of an event to find, then archived and a new listing created the next time the CO hosted an event in the same location. In some cases, they kept the original container and only replaced the log book.

 

This was the sort of situation I was going to mention as an example of what I consider to not be a valid reason for Archiving. In the situation I am thinking of it wasn't even for an event, it appeared to be purely for purposes of inflating the cachers number of hides and to allow everyone to inflate their numbers by finding the same caches over again.

 

We often didn't even get a new logbook -- everything was exactly the same excedpt the GC code.

Link to comment

I would have to say that some people get testy when you archive a historical cache.

You got that right. I found out the hard way when I posted NA (as two other users also had in the past) on a ownerless listing. I wanted to claim the site, the cache was missing, and adoption was not an option. Even the coordinates had been changed by another user and posted down under the DNF's. I got hate mail, GC.com got complaints that locals wanted the listing to stand because of age and history. I got PO'd, hiked in and left my own geocache at the new averaged coordinates. Our local Charter Member reviewer updated the coordinates. I put it on my watchlist, I now maintain it, and also have it listed on a competive geocache listing service. Problem solved. :laughing:

Link to comment

There have been a few cache owners in the area who earned a reputation for always archiving their caches rather than performing maintenance. It didn't really matter what the maintenance need was: missing container, broken container, damaged camouflage, full log, damp log, newbie couldn't find it... If a Needs Maintenance log was posted, they'd just archive the cache.

 

I'd say that normal maintenance is not a reason for archiving a cache.

I bet they leave the container in place too. <_<

Link to comment

I don't think a cache should be archived just so the CO can place another identical container in the exact same location with a new listing. I've seen this done when a few caches were placed for attendees of an event to find, then archived and a new listing created the next time the CO hosted an event in the same location. In some cases, they kept the original container and only replaced the log book.

 

This was the sort of situation I was going to mention as an example of what I consider to not be a valid reason for Archiving. In the situation I am thinking of it wasn't even for an event, it appeared to be purely for purposes of inflating the cachers number of hides and to allow everyone to inflate their numbers by finding the same caches over again.

 

We often didn't even get a new logbook -- everything was exactly the same excedpt the GC code.

 

I read about a CO who archives his caches, plants a new ones nearby, closer than .1 miles then invites people to go find the archived caches and log a find on them too. Archiving to circumvent the guidelines is wrong.

Edited by Solitario R
Link to comment
Do you know of any stories where someone has archived a cache that you believe was unnecessary?

A bit reversed, but...

I woke up feeling angsty, and log in to find a "TNLNSL" log on one of my hides. I archived it with a note to the effect of, "If my cache is so crappy it only rates an acronym, I don't want to own it anymore". A previous finder posted a note expressing regret at the archival, stating something about that hide being the first time they were able to convince their wee one to go off trail.

 

Probably a bit rash on my part, but it is what it is... :unsure:

Link to comment
Do you know of any stories where someone has archived a cache that you believe was unnecessary?

A bit reversed, but...

I woke up feeling angsty, and log in to find a "TNLNSL" log on one of my hides. I archived it with a note to the effect of, "If my cache is so crappy it only rates an acronym, I don't want to own it anymore". A previous finder posted a note expressing regret at the archival, stating something about that hide being the first time they were able to convince their wee one to go off trail.

 

Probably a bit rash on my part, but it is what it is... :unsure:

When my son logs a find that's about all you get is TFTC SL.

Link to comment

I don't think a cache should be archived just so the CO can place another identical container in the exact same location with a new listing. I've seen this done when a few caches were placed for attendees of an event to find, then archived and a new listing created the next time the CO hosted an event in the same location. In some cases, they kept the original container and only replaced the log book.

 

This was the sort of situation I was going to mention as an example of what I consider to not be a valid reason for Archiving. In the situation I am thinking of it wasn't even for an event, it appeared to be purely for purposes of inflating the cachers number of hides and to allow everyone to inflate their numbers by finding the same caches over again.

 

We often didn't even get a new logbook -- everything was exactly the same excedpt the GC code.

 

I read about a CO who archives his caches, plants a new ones nearby, closer than .1 miles then invites people to go find the archived caches and log a find on them too. Archiving to circumvent the guidelines is wrong.

there is a two for the price of one cache out there in Eugene. :blink::ph34r:

Link to comment

Heres an example that I think shouldn't have been archived.

 

GC1KA29

 

I had downloaded the cache on my GPS before a bussiness trip in CA this one happened to be close to my work and fairly easy find, but when I went to log it I found out it had just recently been archived because "no one had found it in months". Now this one is one of many peices of Geolitter.

Link to comment

Heres an example that I think shouldn't have been archived.

 

GC1KA29

 

I had downloaded the cache on my GPS before a bussiness trip in CA this one happened to be close to my work and fairly easy find, but when I went to log it I found out it had just recently been archived because "no one had found it in months". Now this one is one of many peices of Geolitter.

Not to take this thread off topic, however...read on.

 

Further down the logs and you will find the real reason of why the reviewer archived it.

 

Here is the link to that log... http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=d116c2b4-0e5e-4484-aa97-6ef1d7e11849

 

Any CO that temporarily disabled any of their caches and dont do anything will get their caches archived. That's answer of what happen to that cache.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

I don't think a cache should be archived just so the CO can place another identical container in the exact same location with a new listing. I've seen this done when a few caches were placed for attendees of an event to find, then archived and a new listing created the next time the CO hosted an event in the same location. In some cases, they kept the original container and only replaced the log book.

I was going to say the same thing. I have even found both containers at the same location because the CO was too lazy to look for the original cache. :laughing:

Link to comment

I don't think a cache should be archived just so the CO can place another identical container in the exact same location with a new listing. I've seen this done when a few caches were placed for attendees of an event to find, then archived and a new listing created the next time the CO hosted an event in the same location. In some cases, they kept the original container and only replaced the log book.

 

I see someone who seems to archive a lot of caches every year, to hide new ones nearby. Definitely new caches, with new containers and new log books. Very nice parks. But I've been to them several times now. Not sure I plan on going back.

Link to comment
When my son logs a find that's about all you get is TFTC SL.

I hear opportunity knocking! B)

This is an ideal chance to teach him the evils of acronym only logs.

"TFTC SL" translates directly to, "This cache sucked, so all you get is an acronym". :lol::P

I have tryed to explain that to him, but kids now day and this phone text stuff. It's perfectly acceptable to teenagers, but old you know what's like us translate it just as you say. Also he will not log DNF's.

I have a Xbox account also, and the teens use acronyms on their clan tags that are quite vulgar, and I won't give examples because I don't want moderated. I blame A7X. He said you would have to google that to know the meaning. I'm just glad he is involved in Church and not drugs. I remember when Bath Salts was Epsom Salts, and K2 was Kindergarden through 2nd grade. :unsure:

Link to comment
When my son logs a find that's about all you get is TFTC SL.

I hear opportunity knocking! B)

This is an ideal chance to teach him the evils of acronym only logs.

"TFTC SL" translates directly to, "This cache sucked, so all you get is an acronym". :lol::P

I have tryed to explain that to him, but kids now day and this phone text stuff. It's perfectly acceptable to teenagers, but old you know what's like us translate it just as you say. Also he will not log DNF's.

I have a Xbox account also, and the teens use acronyms on their clan tags that are quite vulgar, and I won't give examples because I don't want moderated. I blame A7X. He said you would have to google that to know the meaning. I'm just glad he is involved in Church and not drugs. I remember when Bath Salts was Epsom Salts, and K2 was Kindergarden through 2nd grade. :unsure:

 

On behalf of my generation I want to apologise for the increased use of acronyms and lack of DNF's. We are a lazy generation but some of us (me) appreciate lengthy logs, correct grammar and spelling, and the use of the DNF function.

 

P.S. Forgive the irony of my use of DNF. I know it is acronym :P

Link to comment
When my son logs a find that's about all you get is TFTC SL.

I hear opportunity knocking! B)

This is an ideal chance to teach him the evils of acronym only logs.

"TFTC SL" translates directly to, "This cache sucked, so all you get is an acronym". :lol::P

I have tryed to explain that to him, but kids now day and this phone text stuff. It's perfectly acceptable to teenagers, but old you know what's like us translate it just as you say. Also he will not log DNF's.

I have a Xbox account also, and the teens use acronyms on their clan tags that are quite vulgar, and I won't give examples because I don't want moderated. I blame A7X. He said you would have to google that to know the meaning. I'm just glad he is involved in Church and not drugs. I remember when Bath Salts was Epsom Salts, and K2 was Kindergarden through 2nd grade. :unsure:

 

On behalf of my generation I want to apologise for the increased use of acronyms and lack of DNF's. We are a lazy generation but some of us (me) appreciate lengthy logs, correct grammar and spelling, and the use of the DNF function.

 

P.S. Forgive the irony of my use of DNF. I know it is acronym :P

That's OK. It was my generation that made your generation, that's really why things are so messed up. :lol:

Trust me, I'm no Saint. Maybe a Boondock Saint..... :unsure: I'm just one of the lucky ones that were blessed enough to get older and a little wiser. It's hard to pull one over on me because it may be one of my old tricks. :anicute:

Link to comment

I don't think a cache should be archived just so the CO can place another identical container in the exact same location with a new listing. I've seen this done when a few caches were placed for attendees of an event to find, then archived and a new listing created the next time the CO hosted an event in the same location. In some cases, they kept the original container and only replaced the log book.

I've seen it done when the COs feel they been found by most of the locals so for the locals to find more (instead of leaving their comfort zone) they refresh the cache sites with new caches.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...