Another pet peeve

[+jellis]

Been seeing lately cachers (even veteran ones) post notes like "cache is missing will replace soon" and don't disable the cache.

I understand if they think their cache may still be there but these cachers are saying it as they know they are missing, so they should be disabled.

 

Then the cache keeps showing up on my PQ.

Are they hoping the reviewer won't notice. Which they don't until someone complains.

Edited February 5, 2012 by jellis

[+Walts Hunting]

Container missing plus perfume knows plus no action to fix equals na log. That will get his attention

[+NanCycle]

Been seeing lately cachers (even veteran ones) post notes like "cache is missing will replace soon" and don't disable the cache.

I understand if they think their cache may still be there but these cachers are saying it as they know they are missing, so they should be disabled.

 

Then the cache keeps showing up on my PQ.

Are they hoping the reviewer won't notice. Which they don't until someone complains.

 

Could be ignorance of the proper use of the "disabled" status. I know this is true in the case of one CO I know--I will try to educate next time I see them.

[+lamoracke]

pet peeve..just going to respond to OP's topic and she sends me a regular email at the same time. Makes it hard to concentrate on my post!

[+The VanDucks]

We've had to temporarily disable a few of our caches for a week or so until we had a chance to go by and fix the problem.

 

We have a very alert local reviewer who will send the CO a note exactly 30 days after you disable your cache to say it needs to be fixed or it will be archived. Now, that is helpful, and it hasn't really been a problem for us, since all our caches are close to home. But I can imagine if the CO is on some extended trip out of the area, he or she would have a problem. I think that may be why the CO's you mention just post a note but don't disable their cache.

 

As a matter of pride, we try to keep all our 32 caches up and running 99% of the time, but I know a lot of CO's are careless about maintenance (a whole 'nother topic!)

[+niraD]

We have a very alert local reviewer who will send the CO a note exactly 30 days after you disable your cache to say it needs to be fixed or it will be archived. Now, that is helpful, and it hasn't really been a problem for us, since all our caches are close to home. But I can imagine if the CO is on some extended trip out of the area, he or she would have a problem. I think that may be why the CO's you mention just post a note but don't disable their cache.

Yep. I've heard experienced cache owners say that they don't disable their remote caches, because that starts the local volunteer reviewer's auto-archive clock. Yes, you can fix the problem and ask for the cache to be unarchived, but if the guidelines have changed since the cache was originally hidden, then it loses its grandfathered status when it is archived, and it might not be unarchived.

[+Bamilbis]

Seems to me that if a CO is so far away that the reviewer 'clock' might run out before the CO can get there then maybe, just maybe, the cache is too far away and the CO shouldn't be the CO of that cache.

 

I understand some caches are only seasonally available and this should be able to be worked out with the reviewer if the case so the 'auto-clock' shouldn't be a factor for this case.

 

My .02 is spent. Enjoy your day...

[+Glenn]

Seems to me that if a CO is so far away that the reviewer 'clock' might run out before the CO can get there then maybe, just maybe, the cache is too far away and the CO shouldn't be the CO of that cache.

 

I understand some caches are only seasonally available and this should be able to be worked out with the reviewer if the case so the 'auto-clock' shouldn't be a factor for this case.

 

My .02 is spent. Enjoy your day...

I imagine once someone gets burned by the "reviewer clock" they may be a little shy to pull the trigger on the disable flag. Especially when you have some caches that sit there for many many months with a needs maintenance log and multiple DNF's and no reviewer chomping at the bit to archive the cache like they do when a cache owner disables their own cache.

[+NicknPapa]

Seems to me that if a CO is so far away that the reviewer 'clock' might run out before the CO can get there then maybe, just maybe, the cache is too far away and the CO shouldn't be the CO of that cache.

 

I understand some caches are only seasonally available and this should be able to be worked out with the reviewer if the case so the 'auto-clock' shouldn't be a factor for this case.

 

My .02 is spent. Enjoy your day...

I imagine once someone gets burned by the "reviewer clock" they may be a little shy to pull the trigger on the disable flag. Especially when you have some caches that sit there for many many months with a needs maintenance log and multiple DNF's and no reviewer chomping at the bit to archive the cache like they do when a cache owner disables their own cache.

 

Based on how I see things working here I find it more likely that they "got burned" by CO inaction rather than "the reviewer clock". From what I have seen, if a CO leaves a note explaining why the cache won't be enabled by the time set by the reviewer, or better yet, leaves notes on the cache page explaining current progress before the clock starts, there is usually no issue unless it goes on for an unrealistic length of time.

[+SwineFlew]

 

We have a very alert local reviewer who will send the CO a note exactly 30 days after you disable your cache to say it needs to be fixed or it will be archived. Now, that is helpful, and it hasn't really been a problem for us, since all our caches are close to home. But I can imagine if the CO is on some extended trip out of the area, he or she would have a problem. I think that may be why the CO's you mention just post a note but don't disable their cache.

 

 

Same here.

 

We got CO that wont disable their caches because they are trying to buy more time. At the same time, they will chew out people if they post a nm log when the cache is really missing.

[+Lil Devil]

Based on how I see things working here I find it more likely that they "got burned" by CO inaction rather than "the reviewer clock". From what I have seen, if a CO leaves a note explaining why the cache won't be enabled by the time set by the reviewer, or better yet, leaves notes on the cache page explaining current progress before the clock starts, there is usually no issue unless it goes on for an unrealistic length of time.

What he ^^ said.

 

It's better to communicate with your reviewer rather than burying your head in the sand.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Been seeing lately cachers (even veteran ones) post notes like "cache is missing will replace soon" and don't disable the cache.

I understand if they think their cache may still be there but these cachers are saying it as they know they are missing, so they should be disabled.

 

Then the cache keeps showing up on my PQ.

Are they hoping the reviewer won't notice. Which they don't until someone complains.

I find it interesting that a CO would make the effort to check on a cache and not take a replacement just in case it ws not there.

[+lamoracke]

Been seeing lately cachers (even veteran ones) post notes like "cache is missing will replace soon" and don't disable the cache.

I understand if they think their cache may still be there but these cachers are saying it as they know they are missing, so they should be disabled.

 

Then the cache keeps showing up on my PQ.

Are they hoping the reviewer won't notice. Which they don't until someone complains.

I find it interesting that a CO would make the effort to check on a cache and not take a replacement just in case it ws not there.

 

depends how close to home it is and if it would take extra effort to get a new cache. If it was an ammo can and I did not have an extra one and it might be there, I would check on it first before buying a new one.

[AZcachemeister]

Around here 'owner disabled' caches usually get about 60 days before the reviewer posts a note asking for a status update. If the owner replies with a reasonable excuse for the delay, more time is given. As long as the owner is active and responsive, it's unlikely the listing would be archived.

If the cache was disabled by the reviewer, and the owner fails to respond in some fashion, it gets archived in 30 days.

[+power69]

Around here 'owner disabled' caches usually get about 60 days before the reviewer posts a note asking for a status update. If the owner replies with a reasonable excuse for the delay, more time is given. As long as the owner is active and responsive, it's unlikely the listing would be archived.

If the cache was disabled by the reviewer, and the owner fails to respond in some fashion, it gets archived in 30 days.

Not always. one of mine got a reviewer note and i replied the same day and exactly 30 days later it was archived even though i wrote out in detail why it was disabled.

[+hzoi]

Container missing plus perfume knows plus no action to fix equals na log. That will get his attention

Huh? What does the perfume know exactly?

[Clan Riffster]

Container missing plus perfume knows plus no action to fix equals na log. That will get his attention

Huh? What does the perfume know exactly?

"Perfume" is a Sanskrit phrase, referring to a social semi-deity of that age, who's lifestyle was very much like the modern day Santa Clause. Perfume knows who smells naughty or nice...

OK, I made all that up... But it sounded good...

Edited February 6, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[+jellis]

Been seeing lately cachers (even veteran ones) post notes like "cache is missing will replace soon" and don't disable the cache.

I understand if they think their cache may still be there but these cachers are saying it as they know they are missing, so they should be disabled.

 

Then the cache keeps showing up on my PQ.

Are they hoping the reviewer won't notice. Which they don't until someone complains.

I find it interesting that a CO would make the effort to check on a cache and not take a replacement just in case it ws not there.

 

depends how close to home it is and if it would take extra effort to get a new cache. If it was an ammo can and I did not have an extra one and it might be there, I would check on it first before buying a new one.

You should see the back of my SUV. Even have a cow skull. For my caches I always come prepared when I get multiple DNFs or NM requests. Most of the times it's either a minor fix or it's there. But at least I have something.

I don't carry as much when I am just looking for caches but I try to bring extra logsheets, baggies or containers if I see that they are really in need of a replacement like mushy or missing logs, no lids, cracks or holes etc. If I am not carrying then I try to put in the log for the next cacher hoping that they can bring something.

[+Ambrosia]

Been seeing lately cachers (even veteran ones) post notes like "cache is missing will replace soon" and don't disable the cache.

I understand if they think their cache may still be there but these cachers are saying it as they know they are missing, so they should be disabled.

 

Then the cache keeps showing up on my PQ.

Are they hoping the reviewer won't notice. Which they don't until someone complains.

I find it interesting that a CO would make the effort to check on a cache and not take a replacement just in case it ws not there.

 

I just did that the other day. I had a cache that had a couple dnfs on it, and hadn't been thinking about it for a while. I happened to be driving by a couple blocks away and remembered and checked it. Cache is gone, I didn't have a replacement with me so I disabled the cache page.

[AZcachemeister]

Around here 'owner disabled' caches usually get about 60 days before the reviewer posts a note asking for a status update. If the owner replies with a reasonable excuse for the delay, more time is given. As long as the owner is active and responsive, it's unlikely the listing would be archived.

If the cache was disabled by the reviewer, and the owner fails to respond in some fashion, it gets archived in 30 days.

Not always. one of mine got a reviewer note and i replied the same day and exactly 30 days later it was archived even though i wrote out in detail why it was disabled.

 

[+niraD]

Not always. one of mine got a reviewer note and i replied the same day and exactly 30 days later it was archived even though i wrote out in detail why it was disabled.

And experiences like that are why some won't disable their caches.

[+Moose Mob]

Not always. one of mine got a reviewer note and i replied the same day and exactly 30 days later it was archived even though i wrote out in detail why it was disabled.

And experiences like that are why some won't disable their caches.

I'm having a tough time with this one.

[+Shop99er]

 

We got CO that wont disable their caches because they are trying to buy more time. At the same time, they will chew out people if they post a nm log when the cache is really missing.

 

That's about when I would start posting NA logs.

[+jellis]

Sometimes if you mention why (even in detail) but not do follow ups they just assume you are not checking it. Or another reviewer takes over who did not get the information. It happened to one of my friends and it got unarchived because the other reviewer didn't have all the information.

[+power69]

Not always. one of mine got a reviewer note and i replied the same day and exactly 30 days later it was archived even though i wrote out in detail why it was disabled.

And experiences like that are why some won't disable their caches.

yep. add me to the ranks of them. I saw another cache that had same issue as mine but got to stay disabled 14 months[they must have been in the reviewers clique]