unpublished caches being archived

[+The_Incredibles_]

For those who have unpublished caches in the works...please be aware that reviewers have been asked to archive unpublished caches which you have not edited or logged in 30 days.

 

"This cache is being archived since it was disabled without being published, and has not been edited or logged for at least 30 days. Groundspeak has asked reviewers to do this to keep unpublished caches from overloading the active database of caches. You can request for this cache to be unarchived, but it is generally easier to just start from scratch with a new cache page."

[AZcachemeister]

Another un-announced change in protocol.

 

I do see the point in archiving (or requesting action) for a listing that is blocking another newer listing.

 

But otherwise, so what?

 

Is there such a huge difference in the Groundspeak database between Archived and Disabled?

[+Don_J]

For those who have unpublished caches in the works...please be aware that reviewers have been asked to archive unpublished caches which you have not edited or logged in 30 days.

 

"This cache is being archived since it was disabled without being published, and has not been edited or logged for at least 30 days. Groundspeak has asked reviewers to do this to keep unpublished caches from overloading the active database of caches. You can request for this cache to be unarchived, but it is generally easier to just start from scratch with a new cache page."

 

"Overload the active database", "generally easier to just start from scratch with a new cache page.".

 

Wouldn't that just add more records to that overloaded database?

 

At any rate, can someone name a benefit for having an unpublished cache attached to your profile for months or even years. I mean, if you really are not working on it.

[+St.Matthew]

So if I have for example, a puzzle idea, can I list final as say, N 00 00.001 W 080 00.001, and do so safely, knowing that it won't interfere?

[knowschad]

I'm guessing there has been some heavy waypoint number reserving abuse going on, where people have "reserved" large blocks of GC numbers in an attempt to reserve something special. But even without abuse, any cache pages being reserved without plans to reuse do cost Groundspeak something, however little, and it does add up.

[+briansnat]

I never received that memo. But as a general practice, there are few reviewers who will let you sit on an unpublished cache indefinitely. If you keep the reviewer apprised of your intent then that spot is yours - within reason.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

At any rate, can someone name a benefit for having an unpublished cache attached to your profile for months or even years. I mean, if you really are not working on it.

We have a few. When we hid our second multi, we explored the area and took coords for a few additional spots that could become future caches. We entered them in GC.com because it was convenient for planning. The terrain was pretty rough, so we wanted to see how the multi was received before placing the others. As it turns out, there is not a lot of traffic (could be due to the tree climb). If it is driving-up op costs, I have no problem with letting them go, but we have never been advised one way or the other. GC appears to be addressing system waste lately which is a good thing. Sounds like someone hired a consultant.

[knowschad]

I have one, but I'm not telling.

[+Flintstone5611]

I have had some reviewers prodding me about spots that I have but are being requested by other cachers. It was as simple as "I am still working on this cache" and that was the end of the discussion. It was followed up by an archival if I didn't leave an update after 30 days, but I then requested it to be unarchived and it was. I think it is just to make sure that spots aren't being horded.

[+The_Incredibles_]

At any rate, can someone name a benefit for having an unpublished cache attached to your profile for months or even years. I mean, if you really are not working on it.

 

I can answer that. I get lots of ideas, but also have a bad memory. So I like to write down ideas as soon as I have them. Some probably never will turn into caches, but many will. Some I'm not ready to put out yet, but want to some time in the future when I get the right inspiration or find the right spot. I make sure to put the coordinates somewhere out in the ocean so it's not in anybody's way. Now that there's this 30 day thing I'll probably have to write my ideas down in a Word document, rather than making new cache pages.

 

However, I can see why Groundspeak would want a 30-day limit. It makes sense in a lot of ways. Not sure how if it saves server space, though? I clicked on one of my archived unpublished caches and the page was still there. I don't know if it disappears after a certain time or what, but right now, the data must be stored somewhere because I can still access it.

Edited December 27, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+6NoisyHikers]

We have an unpublished cache with coordinates purposely set in the middle of a restricted watershed. Initially it was a cache created accidentally when I was trying out the new submission form. Now I use it as a place to host photos that I want to share on the forums. I write a note on the page, add the photo and then link to that log address in the message.

[+Sol seaker]

My guess there is a lot of abuse of the system by people who are trying to get certain GC numbers. To get a certain one they may have to get a lot, and then all the rest just sit with no intention of being used.

 

I would imagine the active database would be different than just the storage space used for archived caches, but I'm no expert.

 

It doesn't make sense to have a lot of caches lying around in the active database that no ones going to use.

If they say it helps them to archive them, then what the heck. Archive 'em. They have kept premium membership prices the same for years, so I'm all for keeping it the same and keeping their costs down.

[+Don_J]

At any rate, can someone name a benefit for having an unpublished cache attached to your profile for months or even years. I mean, if you really are not working on it.

 

I can answer that. I get lots of ideas, but also have a bad memory. So I like to write down ideas as soon as I have them. Some probably never will turn into caches, but many will. Some I'm not ready to put out yet, but want to some time in the future when I get the right inspiration or find the right spot. I make sure to put the coordinates somewhere out in the ocean so it's not in anybody's way. Now that there's this 30 day thing I'll probably have to write my ideas down in a Word document, rather than making new cache pages.

 

However, I can see why Groundspeak would want a 30-day limit. It makes sense in a lot of ways. Not sure how if it saves server space, though? I clicked on one of my archived unpublished caches and the page was still there. I don't know if it disappears after a certain time or what, but right now, the data must be stored somewhere because I can still access it.

 

You actually have ideas though. Over the years, I have seen some on the forum say that that have had listings sitting for years and years and I was just wondering what benefit they get from that. I was wondering if I was overlooking something. Personally, I'd get tired of seeing it at the top of the "my" page every time I logged in.

[knowschad]

Not sure how if it saves server space, though? I clicked on one of my archived unpublished caches and the page was still there. I don't know if it disappears after a certain time or what, but right now, the data must be stored somewhere because I can still access it.

Hmmm... that is a good point!

[+T.D.M.22]

For those who have unpublished caches in the works...please be aware that reviewers have been asked to archive unpublished caches which you have not edited or logged in 30 days.

 

"This cache is being archived since it was disabled without being published, and has not been edited or logged for at least 30 days. Groundspeak has asked reviewers to do this to keep unpublished caches from overloading the active database of caches. You can request for this cache to be unarchived, but it is generally easier to just start from scratch with a new cache page."

 

"Overload the active database", "generally easier to just start from scratch with a new cache page.".

 

Wouldn't that just add more records to that overloaded database?

 

At any rate, can someone name a benefit for having an unpublished cache attached to your profile for months or even years. I mean, if you really are not working on it.

 

The way I see it(I'm guessing here though) reviewers, like us, can't see an archived cache unless they look on the CO's profile or search by GC#. Now the reviewers can see all active caches, and all caches which have not been published yet. It's the caches that have just been sitting there with no apparent attempt to publish-or even work on the cache page taking up the space in the "waiting to be reviewed an published" area that they have to sort through to get to the caches they have to review.

 

Think of it like a mall parking lot. Instead of having to walk all the way across the lot to get to your car because people just leave their cars there they could tow away cars that are abandoned and you wouldn't have to walk as far because only the people at the mall use the parking lot now.

[4wheelin_fool]

It makes more sense that they clutter up the reviewer's map, rather than take server space. Some people use those pages for personal TB hotels and whatnot. I suspect that if it's in the middle of the ocean it would be safe.

[Clan Riffster]

I have some unpublished caches that are taking up the hypothetical landscape. For the most part, these are long term projects which have not yet borne fruit. In the past, I mentioned to my Reviewers that my noted GZs were not set in stone. If someone wanted a spot near one of mine, they could adjust mine at will. Or, give me a nudge, and I would move it somewhere else. Since they are not really solid as far as GZs, archiving them wouldn't bother me. Well, there are two exceptions. Areas I've already plotted out and done legwork on. But even those spots should go to the cacher who is actually working on placing an active cache, if I'm just sitting on my duff for an inordinate amount of time.

[+Don_J]

For those who have unpublished caches in the works...please be aware that reviewers have been asked to archive unpublished caches which you have not edited or logged in 30 days.

 

"This cache is being archived since it was disabled without being published, and has not been edited or logged for at least 30 days. Groundspeak has asked reviewers to do this to keep unpublished caches from overloading the active database of caches. You can request for this cache to be unarchived, but it is generally easier to just start from scratch with a new cache page."

 

"Overload the active database", "generally easier to just start from scratch with a new cache page.".

 

Wouldn't that just add more records to that overloaded database?

 

At any rate, can someone name a benefit for having an unpublished cache attached to your profile for months or even years. I mean, if you really are not working on it.

 

The way I see it(I'm guessing here though) reviewers, like us, can't see an archived cache unless they look on the CO's profile or search by GC#. Now the reviewers can see all active caches, and all caches which have not been published yet. It's the caches that have just been sitting there with no apparent attempt to publish-or even work on the cache page taking up the space in the "waiting to be reviewed an published" area that they have to sort through to get to the caches they have to review.

 

Think of it like a mall parking lot. Instead of having to walk all the way across the lot to get to your car because people just leave their cars there they could tow away cars that are abandoned and you wouldn't have to walk as far because only the people at the mall use the parking lot now.

 

It's always been my understanding, (through forum discussions), that reviewers do not see disabled/unpublished caches unless they pop up in a proximity check. They are not in their review queues and don't have to be sorted through.

[+Manville Possum]

I never received that memo. But as a general practice, there are few reviewers who will let you sit on an unpublished cache indefinitely. If you keep the reviewer apprised of your intent then that spot is yours - within reason.

I have one that I log my trackables into. I asked my reviewer first, but that was back in 2008 and these type listings seemed common at the time. There have been quite a few changes with trackables, like the dip and collection options, I'm not really sure if I need that old unpublished listing anymore. If it's a problem I will comply.

[+SooMukwas]

1356585472[/url]' post='5178950']

I have had some reviewers prodding me about spots that I have but are being requested by other cachers. It was as simple as "I am still working on this cache" and that was the end of the discussion. It was followed up by an archival if I didn't leave an update after 30 days, but I then requested it to be unarchived and it was. I think it is just to make sure that spots aren't being horded.

 

How long can a spot/areas be held without publishing a cache there before it is called hording?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I never received that memo. But as a general practice, there are few reviewers who will let you sit on an unpublished cache indefinitely. If you keep the reviewer apprised of your intent then that spot is yours - within reason.

 

My reviewer (in the past) has contacted me asking about my intent if there is a proximity issue that comes up. I have several "test" pages for caches as I work of details and plans. I've started putting the word "Test" in cache titles in an effort to let him know this (but not in my upcoming but unpublished events).

 

Reviewers should let owners know before the cache is archived. Once archived, you can't easily go in an cut/copy the HTML from the listing. I do all of my listing HTML "old school" and if I can't copy from the archived listing, I have to redo it all from scratch.

[+The A-Team]

Reviewers should let owners know before the cache is archived. Once archived, you can't easily go in an cut/copy the HTML from the listing. I do all of my listing HTML "old school" and if I can't copy from the archived listing, I have to redo it all from scratch.

Or just ask for it to be unarchived? But yes, I would hope reviewers would ask me before archiving an unpublished cache listing.

[7rxc]

I never received that memo. But as a general practice, there are few reviewers who will let you sit on an unpublished cache indefinitely. If you keep the reviewer apprised of your intent then that spot is yours - within reason.

 

My reviewer (in the past) has contacted me asking about my intent if there is a proximity issue that comes up. I have several "test" pages for caches as I work of details and plans. I've started putting the word "Test" in cache titles in an effort to let him know this (but not in my upcoming but unpublished events).

 

Reviewers should let owners know before the cache is archived. Once archived, you can't easily go in an cut/copy the HTML from the listing. I do all of my listing HTML "old school" and if I can't copy from the archived listing, I have to redo it all from scratch.

 

I did web pages 'old school' before the advent of wysiwyg editors and still prefer that to a point.

It would not occur to me to work on the page only... I would keep my up to date work on my computer and cut and paste to the page to test... and archive a copy on my machine as a safety. Always was the proper direction to head... but you are right about notification. Having to do a complete rework would be horrible for anyone.

But losing that is entirely up to you... or not.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Don_J]

I never received that memo. But as a general practice, there are few reviewers who will let you sit on an unpublished cache indefinitely. If you keep the reviewer apprised of your intent then that spot is yours - within reason.

 

My reviewer (in the past) has contacted me asking about my intent if there is a proximity issue that comes up. I have several "test" pages for caches as I work of details and plans. I've started putting the word "Test" in cache titles in an effort to let him know this (but not in my upcoming but unpublished events).

 

Reviewers should let owners know before the cache is archived. Once archived, you can't easily go in an cut/copy the HTML from the listing. I do all of my listing HTML "old school" and if I can't copy from the archived listing, I have to redo it all from scratch.

 

Or, take the advice on the listing form and keep a local copy. I wouldn't leave the only copy of anything important sitting out there in cyberspace.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Once archived, you can't easily go in an cut/copy the HTML from the listing

 

mmm, you still hit the "edit listing" link and go to the edit page. It won't actually take edits, if it's archived, but nothing stopping you from copying the html from that edit page.

Or right click on the page, and select "view page source" and copy that...

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Once archived, you can't easily go in an cut/copy the HTML from the listing

 

mmm, you still hit the "edit listing" link and go to the edit page. It won't actually take edits, if it's archived, but nothing stopping you from copying the html from that edit page.

Or right click on the page, and select "view page source" and copy that...

 

When I click on Edit Listing, I get this message:

This cache has been archived. You will need to contact the reviewer listed at the bottom of your cache listing or another local cache reviewer to unarchive it. Use GC Code GC1VHGE when referencing your cache listing.

There is no html visible...only a link back to the archived cache listing.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Once archived, you can't easily go in an cut/copy the HTML from the listing

 

mmm, you still hit the "edit listing" link and go to the edit page. It won't actually take edits, if it's archived, but nothing stopping you from copying the html from that edit page.

Or right click on the page, and select "view page source" and copy that...

 

When I click on Edit Listing, I get this message:

This cache has been archived. You will need to contact the reviewer listed at the bottom of your cache listing or another local cache reviewer to unarchive it. Use GC Code GC1VHGE when referencing your cache listing.

There is no html visible...only a link back to the archived cache listing.

 

CTR is correct. You need to do a "view source" from inside the browser. And then you have to sift through all the boilerplate stuff to actually find your part of the listing.

[+niraD]

FWIW, Firefox has a "View Selection Source" option in the context menu. You can select the content you want, then use View Selection Source to view the source for that content alone.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

FWIW, Firefox has a "View Selection Source" option in the context menu. You can select the content you want, then use View Selection Source to view the source for that content alone.

 

Did not know that. Thanks.

[+The A-Team]

FWIW, Firefox has a "View Selection Source" option in the context menu. You can select the content you want, then use View Selection Source to view the source for that content alone.

 

Did not know that. Thanks.

Yeah, I didn't know that either. That could make some puzzle solving quicker! Scrolling through the source looking for the description fields is always a pain.

[+Isonzo Karst]

When you right click on the cache page, select view page source (Firefox), then use Control+F to find "ShortDescription" and then Control+F to find "LongDescription" to more quickly get to the text fields.

 

Interesting, I was careful to log in under my Basic account, and check an archived cache belonging to that account.

In that mode, I CAN get to the edit page (I just did it again, to verify)> I can edit like mad too, but all that happens when I click "submit changes" is an error message - nothing in the text field changes, and the coords (which i didn't touch) go to zeros!

When I go back to the cache page, it's totally unchanged.

I wonder if this may be a function of the age of the listing? ie, it was written up on the "old form" not the new form? ....I don't know.

 

 

You can also email a reviewer to unarchive an unpublished listing.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Isonzo Karst

[+Ike 13]

Well it looks like my local reviewer isn't doing this yet (Which I'm very thankful for).

 

I have a few unpublished listings. A handful were for a geotour/coin trail we were trying to put together but no local group seemed interested. I created pages as spot holders and to play with the html. I may publish one or two as stand alone caches and plan to clear out the others and reuse the GC. Another is a challenge cache that I've been planning and just need to get it in place.

 

I see the point if a user has dozens or hasn't logged on in months but other than that I don't see the benefit

[+Don_J]

When you right click on the cache page, select view page source (Firefox), then use Control+F to find "ShortDescription" and then Control+F to find "LongDescription" to more quickly get to the text fields.

 

Interesting, I was careful to log in under my Basic account, and check an archived cache belonging to that account.

In that mode, I CAN get to the edit page (I just did it again, to verify)> I can edit like mad too, but all that happens when I click "submit changes" is an error message - nothing in the text field changes, and the coords (which i didn't touch) go to zeros!

When I go back to the cache page, it's totally unchanged.

I wonder if this may be a function of the age of the listing? ie, it was written up on the "old form" not the new form? ....I don't know.

 

 

You can also email a reviewer to unarchive an unpublished listing.

 

Here's what I can see. A published cache that has been archived, I can not get to the edit form at all. Instead I get the page that was noted above.

 

An archived cache that was never published, I can get to the edit page, but the short and long description fields are dead. I can see them, but I can not highlight text in them, and the right click context menu is dead. This is in FF 17.0.1, with a whole bunch of add-ons. I have to rush off to work, so someone may want to see what it does in IE or Chrome.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Hi Don J, we're wandering somewhat off topic here, but I'll report again on edit or copy attempts on archived never published listings.

 

Logged in as Isonzo Karst, premium member, looking at an unpublished archived listing from May 2010, I can click "edit" and go to the "edit" page. As you reported, I can't do squat there. I can not highlight the text fields or type into them. Winddows7, Firefox 14.0.1 (i should update). The only log on it is an archive log by Isonzo Karst. It was never enabled. It has this message at the top

Cache Issues:

 

This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes.

This cache has not been reviewed yet. Once it is published, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

The reviewers will not see this listing until you enable it.

This cache is temporarily unavailable. Read the logs below to read the status for this cache.

 

 

I also have a Basic Member account. Logged into that account, and looking an archive unpublished listing it owns, also from May 2010, the basic member account can get to the edit page, + copy paste the text there, and type into the text fields. it won't work, nothing happens except an error message. It has some reviewer notes by that basic account and an archive log, by my admin account.

 

message at the top

 

Cache Issues:

 

This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes.

This cache has not been reviewed yet. Once it is published, it will be listed on the site. Check the logs to see if the reviewers have left a note for this listing.

Inexplicable....

[+hzoi]

We have an unpublished cache with coordinates purposely set in the middle of a restricted watershed. Initially it was a cache created accidentally when I was trying out the new submission form. Now I use it as a place to host photos that I want to share on the forums. I write a note on the page, add the photo and then link to that log address in the message.

I use one of our archived caches for the same thing. Published, found by cachers, then archived.

 

I have one that I log my trackables into.

 

I use archived caches for that, too, usually events.

 

You could always add those trackables to your collection, which dispenses with the need for an unpublished cache.

Edited January 3, 2013 by hzoi

[+Gustav129]

I used to know how, but how do you go back to see your archived unpublished caches. I'd actually like to use the GC codes for caches that I plan on putting out.

[+Isonzo Karst]

http://www.geocaching.com/my/geocaches.aspx?archived=y

 

you'll see any archived unpublished caches with titles in strikethrough in the pane to the right of the page.

 

To get there, your profile

 

at the top

Quick View | Lists | Geocaches (Yours) (Recently Viewed) | Trackable Items (Yours) | Trackables Inventory

 

Click Geocaches NOT (Yours), a page with your most recent 15 logs. There, rather obscurely on the right side, is a panel with a list of your unpublished caches, and the option to view archived.

[+The_Incredibles_]

http://www.geocaching.com/my/geocaches.aspx?archived=y

 

you'll see any archived unpublished caches with titles in strikethrough in the pane to the right of the page.

 

To get there, your profile

 

at the top

Quick View | Lists | Geocaches (Yours) (Recently Viewed) | Trackable Items (Yours) | Trackables Inventory

 

Click Geocaches NOT (Yours), a page with your most recent 15 logs. There, rather obscurely on the right side, is a panel with a list of your unpublished caches, and the option to view archived.

 

Thanks for this. So I don't understand then all the fuss about server space. Clearly they're still there. Guess it's more about unpublished caches clogging the reviewer's screen.

[+Web-ling]

Change the cache type of unpublished caches to Unknown - then they won't clog up the reviewer's proximity detector tool (unless this has changed since I was a Reviewer). Also, make sure the coordinates are in the middle of nowhere.

 

I've got a few I have used to work out ideas. I will probably just use them up as new caches in the near future.

[+The A-Team]

Change the cache type of unpublished caches to Unknown - then they won't clog up the reviewer's proximity detector tool (unless this has changed since I was a Reviewer).

I don't understand why Unknowns would be excluded from proximity searches. They're one of the "physical" geocache types, so they fall under the proximity guideline along with the others like Traditional and Multi. I can point you to many Unknowns that have items hidden at the posted coordinates. I would think Event would be a better choice to exclude it from proximity searches.

[+Ambrosia]

Unless I'm missing something, all cache types should show up in a proximity search. The search is by location (coordinates), not cache type.

[+The A-Team]

Unless I'm missing something, all cache types should show up in a proximity search. The search is by location (coordinates), not cache type.

Web-ling was talking about the super-secret, super-powerful, special reviewer proximity search. They can use it to make sure a new cache isn't too close to an existing cache. Since cache types like Virtual, Earthcache, Event, etc. don't factor in to the proximity guideline, there's no reason for them to show up in such a search.

[+Ambrosia]

Unless I'm missing something, all cache types should show up in a proximity search. The search is by location (coordinates), not cache type.

Web-ling was talking about the super-secret, super-powerful, special reviewer proximity search. They can use it to make sure a new cache isn't too close to an existing cache. Since cache types like Virtual, Earthcache, Event, etc. don't factor in to the proximity guideline, there's no reason for them to show up in such a search.

Thanks, I knew that we were talking about the super duper special reviewer toy place.

[+The A-Team]

Thanks, I knew that we were talking about the super duper special reviewer toy place.

Shhh, the first rule of the super duper special reviewer toy place is "Don't talk about the super duper special reviewer toy place".

[+Ambrosia]

Thanks, I knew that we were talking about the super duper special reviewer toy place.

Shhh, the first rule of the super duper special reviewer toy place is "Don't talk about the super duper special reviewer toy place".

Mmmmm....toys...

[+gpsfun]

For those who have unpublished caches in the works...please be aware that reviewers have been asked to archive unpublished caches which you have not edited or logged in 30 days.

 

"This cache is being archived since it was disabled without being published, and has not been edited or logged for at least 30 days. Groundspeak has asked reviewers to do this to keep unpublished caches from overloading the active database of caches. You can request for this cache to be unarchived, but it is generally easier to just start from scratch with a new cache page."

Could you please tell us how that misinformation was communicated? I'm a reviewer and have never received any such direction from Groundspeak.

 

Thank you.

[+SwineFlew]

I got a few that I havent done anything to it for over a year. My reviewer is very likely ignoring it.

 

I know one person got one in the middle of the wood. The reason I know about it because that person is using it as a bug dipping or dropping place. :ph34r:

[+SwineFlew]

BTW, hi GpsFun... it was very nice to meet you at the event in SC.

[Zerpersande]

So if I have for example, a puzzle idea, can I list final as say, N 00 00.001 W 080 00.001, and do so safely, knowing that it won't interfere?

I'm guessing, but probably. Why do that though? Surely you have a rough idea of where it will go. The coords you listed might catch unwanted attention. If it is remotely realistic, well, you see my point, right?