Disabled without a reason

[4wheelin_fool]

I've noticed lately that a reviewer will disable a cache without any reason why. Has anyone else seen this happen? Here are 2 examples. The first one was found to be ok.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC27CAC

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1T2GY

[+eusty]

I guess someone must have contacted the reviewer as said "it's not there" or something similar?

[+Semper Questio]

The first cache had a report of mold and the other had a report of the log being mush, both a couple of months before they were disabled. I would expect that someone sent the reviewer a note that the caches needed a little clean-up work and new logs. Also, both caches have the "needs maintenance" attribute showing which may have brought them to the reviewers attention. You may want to clear those (by logging an "owner maintenance" log) if they are in good shape.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Semper Questio

[+kunarion]

both caches have the "needs maintenance" attribute showing which may have brought them to the reviewers attention.

Both still have that icon after a long time. Maybe "Disable" occurs after a certain elapsed time. A little advance warning would be good (if you don't count the NM). But both the NM and the Disable can be armchair cleared by the Cache Owner.

 

And both caches still have the issue that caused the NM. And neither CO understands what that issue is.

Edited February 25, 2013 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

Using a boilerplate disable message in this case seems like a clear mistake. If this happened because of some back channel communications, I think it would be the responsibility of the reviewer to convey why it's being done. Well, actually I think it's the complainer's responsibility to convey what the problem is, but apparently a lot of people really like the idea of whispering in a reviewer's ear, and if the reviewer's going to take action based on that, he can't really pretend the secret justification is there for all to see.

 

The first cache had a report of mold and the other had a report of the log being mush, both a couple of months before they were disabled. I would expect that someone sent the reviewer a note that the caches needed a little clean-up work and new logs. Also, both caches have the "needs maintenance" attribute showing which may have brought them to the reviewers attention. You may want to clear those (by logging an "owner maintenance" log) if they are in good shape.

The maintenance flag on one was set on one 2.5 years ago, so I really hope that had nothing to do with this. I can't even find the NM log on the other one, so I have no idea when that maintenance flag went up. (Although good point about clearing a maintenance flag with an OM.) And note that the comment about the log being a mushy mess was by someone explaining why they replaced the log with a new one, so I don't think it's reasonable to call that a maintenance issue.

 

Anyway, assuming there was a real problem so the disables are perfectly reasonable, the main lesson here appears to be that finders in those areas should be using NM logs to report problems so the problems can be fixed before someone gets a reviewer to step in and disable the cache with a threat of archival in a month.

[+kunarion]

I think it's the complainer's responsibility to convey what the problem is

Good point!

 

But if caches are being disabled on a schedule, it would be good to PM friends who have "NM" icons, to go ahead and clear those. A NM icon looks like a cache problem to some people. Go figure.

[+AdventureRat]

The "needs maintenance" attribute is still set on both of the example caches. Around here (Ontario), that will eventually get a cache disabled with similar comments from our reviewers. I'm okay with that, and I certainly don't expect the reviewers to read through all of the logs to figure out how the attribute got set and whether it's valid or not. If it's set, it's up to the cache owner to remove it when appropriate. Many people filter out caches with this attribute set.

 

For the first cache, I can see the "Needs Maintenance" log that set the attribute in the first place, but the cache owner never posted an "Owner Maintenance" log to clear it, or cleared it manually. The second cache doesn't have a "Needs Maintenance" log, so either the cache owner deleted it, or the "needs maintenance" attribute was self-applied.

[+Ike 13]

The "needs maintenance" attribute is still set on both of the example caches. Around here (Ontario), that will eventually get a cache disabled with similar comments from our reviewers. I'm okay with that, and I certainly don't expect the reviewers to read through all of the logs to figure out how the attribute got set and whether it's valid or not. If it's set, it's up to the cache owner to remove it when appropriate. Many people filter out caches with this attribute set.

If that was the reason for disabling then the reviewer should use a seperate copy paste message stating that so that the owner knows the issue and can fix it.

 

Example: Hello I am going through local caches that have had a Needs Maintenance Icon set for more than one year. Please visit your cache and verify the cache is there, that the log is nice, dry and has plenty of room, and that the container is in good condition. Once this is comple please log a Owner Maintenance log followed by an Enable Cache listing log. This will clear the Need Maintenance icon. If you have questions please contact me via my profile and I will be happy to help!

[+AdventureRat]

The "needs maintenance" attribute is still set on both of the example caches. Around here (Ontario), that will eventually get a cache disabled with similar comments from our reviewers. I'm okay with that, and I certainly don't expect the reviewers to read through all of the logs to figure out how the attribute got set and whether it's valid or not. If it's set, it's up to the cache owner to remove it when appropriate. Many people filter out caches with this attribute set.

If that was the reason for disabling then the reviewer should use a seperate copy paste message stating that so that the owner knows the issue and can fix it.

 

Example: Hello I am going through local caches that have had a Needs Maintenance Icon set for more than one year. Please visit your cache and verify the cache is there, that the log is nice, dry and has plenty of room, and that the container is in good condition. Once this is comple please log a Owner Maintenance log followed by an Enable Cache listing log. This will clear the Need Maintenance icon. If you have questions please contact me via my profile and I will be happy to help!

 

I said similar, not the same. Here is a specific example of what is posted by our local reviewers:

 

Greetings from a Volunteer Reviewer,

 

*** > Cache Listing Disabled - Action By Cache Owner Required < ***

 

Based on the previous log entries concerning the condition of this cache, this cache listing has been Disabled.

This will give the cache owner the opportunity to check on the cache and repair/replace it if needed.

Once it has been confirmed that no issues exist, the cache owner should:

- Enable this listing

- Post an Owner Maintenance log to remove the Needs Maintenance attribute icon

 

The cache owner should Write a note to provide updates on the status of this cache to everyone.

Alternatively, the cache owner may choose to Archive the listing to make the area available for new caches.

If there are no updates posted by the cache owner within 30 days, this cache listing may be Archived.

[+Don_J]

The "needs maintenance" attribute is still set on both of the example caches. Around here (Ontario), that will eventually get a cache disabled with similar comments from our reviewers. I'm okay with that, and I certainly don't expect the reviewers to read through all of the logs to figure out how the attribute got set and whether it's valid or not. If it's set, it's up to the cache owner to remove it when appropriate. Many people filter out caches with this attribute set.

If that was the reason for disabling then the reviewer should use a seperate copy paste message stating that so that the owner knows the issue and can fix it.

 

Example: Hello I am going through local caches that have had a Needs Maintenance Icon set for more than one year. Please visit your cache and verify the cache is there, that the log is nice, dry and has plenty of room, and that the container is in good condition. Once this is comple please log a Owner Maintenance log followed by an Enable Cache listing log. This will clear the Need Maintenance icon. If you have questions please contact me via my profile and I will be happy to help!

 

I said similar, not the same. Here is a specific example of what is posted by our local reviewers:

 

Greetings from a Volunteer Reviewer,

 

*** > Cache Listing Disabled - Action By Cache Owner Required < ***

 

Based on the previous log entries concerning the condition of this cache, this cache listing has been Disabled.

This will give the cache owner the opportunity to check on the cache and repair/replace it if needed.

Once it has been confirmed that no issues exist, the cache owner should:

- Enable this listing

- Post an Owner Maintenance log to remove the Needs Maintenance attribute icon

 

The cache owner should Write a note to provide updates on the status of this cache to everyone.

Alternatively, the cache owner may choose to Archive the listing to make the area available for new caches.

If there are no updates posted by the cache owner within 30 days, this cache listing may be Archived.

 

That is a very well written and informative notification. The two on the examples are simply lame and offer no information as to why the CO needs to check his cache or what to do afterwards. In fact, the CO on the second one is obviously waiting for the reviewer to come back and enable his cache. Both owners as well as few recent finders seem clueless as to why they were disabled. If something like this suddenly appeared on one of my caches, I would simply think it was a mistake and re-enable the cache. If the reviewer is going to disable my cache when there is no obvious reason or recent logs stating an issue, I would expect that he would have the courtesy to tell me why.

 

If these are simply for a NM attribute that should have been long cleared after maintenance was performed, then it shows just how important communication can be. A simple canned response that is usually used after a clearly visible Needs Archive log, was a poor choice and just causes more problems then it is intended to fix.

[+dprovan]

The "needs maintenance" attribute is still set on both of the example caches. Around here (Ontario), that will eventually get a cache disabled with similar comments from our reviewers.

I said similar, not the same. Here is a specific example of what is posted by our local reviewers:

 

"...Based on the previous log entries concerning the condition of this cache, this cache listing has been Disabled."

My only problem with this is that the action is not "Based on the previous log entries". From what you're saying, it's based on the maintenance flag alone, so that's what it should say.

[+AdventureRat]

The "needs maintenance" attribute is still set on both of the example caches. Around here (Ontario), that will eventually get a cache disabled with similar comments from our reviewers.

I said similar, not the same. Here is a specific example of what is posted by our local reviewers:

 

"...Based on the previous log entries concerning the condition of this cache, this cache listing has been Disabled."

My only problem with this is that the action is not "Based on the previous log entries". From what you're saying, it's based on the maintenance flag alone, so that's what it should say.

 

The "needs maintenance" attribute was set by a "Needs Maintenance" log entry, so I would consider that disabling the cache based on previous log entries.

 

However, my point is really that in my opinion, the cache owner should be reading their logs and taking appropriate action. I do not expect the reviewers to read through all of the logs and spoon-feed the details of each of their

actions to cache owners. They have enough tasks to perform that consume enough of their time. Even in the case of one of the example caches where the NM log is quite a ways back, I still don't expect the reviewer to decipher the entire situation. If the cache owner simply forgot to remove the NM flag when they performed maintenance, then just remove it and move on. Based on the c/o's most recent log, he doesn't pay any attention to the logs at all. He says that there were no reports of issues with it, but that's only in the most recent logs. Further back there were quite a few log entries mentioning the soaked log book and rust, but no acknowledgement from the c/o. Sorry, not a lot of sympathy here.

[+dprovan]

The "needs maintenance" attribute was set by a "Needs Maintenance" log entry, so I would consider that disabling the cache based on previous log entries.

Nevertheless, the reviewer is acting purely on the maintenance flag in the case you've brought up, and that's what the log should say. Saying it's based on the logs should mean the reviewer actually read the logs.

 

However, my point is really that in my opinion, the cache owner should be reading their logs and taking appropriate action. I do not expect the reviewers to read through all of the logs and spoon-feed the details of each of their

actions to cache owners. They have enough tasks to perform that consume enough of their time. Even in the case of one of the example caches where the NM log is quite a ways back, I still don't expect the reviewer to decipher the entire situation. If the cache owner simply forgot to remove the NM flag when they performed maintenance, then just remove it and move on. Based on the c/o's most recent log, he doesn't pay any attention to the logs at all. He says that there were no reports of issues with it, but that's only in the most recent logs. Further back there were quite a few log entries mentioning the soaked log book and rust, but no acknowledgement from the c/o. Sorry, not a lot of sympathy here.

I'm not asking you to have sympathy, I'm just asking that when the reviewer steps in unilaterally, disables a cache, and threatens to archive it, that they are accurate about what caused them to do it. In these particular cases, the COs are left clueless about why this happened and what problems they should be addressing. By all accounts, there was nothing at all wrong with GC1T2GY. GC27CAC apparently had a full, moldy log, but I'm not sure I see why a problem with the log, never reported in an NM log, is something that calls for a reviewer to step in and start archival proceedings.

 

I hope this reviewer isn't operating like the reviewer you're talking about, though: GC27CAC still has the NM flag set because, as so often happens, the CO doesn't understand that he has to post an OM log to clear the NM flag. Instead he just enabled it with the NM flag still set. Since the reviewer didn't even mention the NM flag or how to clear it, I'm not too surprised that part of the problem wasn't resolved.

[AZcachemeister]

It's pretty simple.

 

Unresolved 'Needs Maintenance' issues can (and usually do) indicate an unresponsive owner.

 

Personally, I appreciate it that the reviewers will take the time to deal with caches with outstanding 'Needs Maintenance' issues. This is not within the scope of their 'assigned' duties.

 

If the CO is so blunt that they can't figure out what is wrong, then maybe they shouldn't be a CO.

Does the reviewer really need to post: 'See this attribute? Yes, this one right here. Do you know what that means?'

[+AdventureRat]

It's pretty simple.

 

Unresolved 'Needs Maintenance' issues can (and usually do) indicate an unresponsive owner.

 

Personally, I appreciate it that the reviewers will take the time to deal with caches with outstanding 'Needs Maintenance' issues. This is not within the scope of their 'assigned' duties.

 

If the CO is so blunt that they can't figure out what is wrong, then maybe they shouldn't be a CO.

Does the reviewer really need to post: 'See this attribute? Yes, this one right here. Do you know what that means?'

 

+1

[+dprovan]

If the CO is so blunt that they can't figure out what is wrong, then maybe they shouldn't be a CO.

There Was Nothing Wrong. The CO was left figuring out why it was disabled when There Was Nothing Wrong.

 

To avoid that problem, the reviewer could have simply mentioned that what triggered their action was the maintenance flag and pointing out that it should be cleared if there was nothing wrong.

 

Personally, I appreciate it that the reviewers will take the time to deal with caches with outstanding 'Needs Maintenance' issues. This is not within the scope of their 'assigned' duties.

So I'm the opposite. I see uncleared NM flags all the time because some long ago problem was fixed but the flag was never cleared. If the reviewer doesn't have time to dig a little deeper before disabling a cache because of a two year old NM flag even though the recent logs are all successful, happy finds, I'd rather they keep their noses out of it, with all due respect.

[+Don_J]

The "needs maintenance" attribute is still set on both of the example caches. Around here (Ontario), that will eventually get a cache disabled with similar comments from our reviewers.

I said similar, not the same. Here is a specific example of what is posted by our local reviewers:

 

"...Based on the previous log entries concerning the condition of this cache, this cache listing has been Disabled."

My only problem with this is that the action is not "Based on the previous log entries". From what you're saying, it's based on the maintenance flag alone, so that's what it should say.

 

The "needs maintenance" attribute was set by a "Needs Maintenance" log entry, so I would consider that disabling the cache based on previous log entries.

 

However, my point is really that in my opinion, the cache owner should be reading their logs and taking appropriate action. I do not expect the reviewers to read through all of the logs and spoon-feed the details of each of their

actions to cache owners. They have enough tasks to perform that consume enough of their time. Even in the case of one of the example caches where the NM log is quite a ways back, I still don't expect the reviewer to decipher the entire situation. If the cache owner simply forgot to remove the NM flag when they performed maintenance, then just remove it and move on. Based on the c/o's most recent log, he doesn't pay any attention to the logs at all. He says that there were no reports of issues with it, but that's only in the most recent logs. Further back there were quite a few log entries mentioning the soaked log book and rust, but no acknowledgement from the c/o. Sorry, not a lot of sympathy here.

 

Our area has three reviewers and none of them seems to have time to search out caches with supposedly unanswered NM attributes on them. If these reviewers do have the time, then perhaps they should take a few moments to write a new canned message that says just that.

[+Don_J]

It's pretty simple.

 

Unresolved 'Needs Maintenance' issues can (and usually do) indicate an unresponsive owner.

 

Personally, I appreciate it that the reviewers will take the time to deal with caches with outstanding 'Needs Maintenance' issues. This is not within the scope of their 'assigned' duties.

 

If the CO is so blunt that they can't figure out what is wrong, then maybe they shouldn't be a CO.

Does the reviewer really need to post: 'See this attribute? Yes, this one right here. Do you know what that means?'

 

I had to explain step by step, how to remove the NM attribute to one of our areas most talented cache owners. Telling this person that they can't own caches because he can't figure out a function on the web site would be a great loss to our caching community. All he could understand was that in the old days if someone said your cache was missing, you went and replaced it and posted a note saying that it was ready.

 

In both of the examples, the CO's were right on top of it and actually went and checked their caches. Each seems to have a different understanding as to what to do next. A properly worded disable note could help both of them get their cache pages in order, make them better cache owners and more than likely cut down on the reviewer's work as they would likely be more responsive to posted issues on their caches in the future. The good thing about a canned disable note is that they only have to actually write it once.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Don_J

[+hzoi]

The cache owners should have cleared the needs maintenance attributes, yes. Since the reviewer was concerned, they should have been more specific in their note, yes. Lessons learned on both sides.

 

And off grid, get over yourself. You're a tangent in this thread, not the subject; go sulk somewhere else.

[+OReviewer]

The first cache had a report of mold and the other had a report of the log being mush, both a couple of months before they were disabled. I would expect that someone sent the reviewer a note that the caches needed a little clean-up work and new logs. Also, both caches have the "needs maintenance" attribute showing which may have brought them to the reviewers attention. You may want to clear those (by logging an "owner maintenance" log) if they are in good shape.

While I can't speak for Cotton, I can tell you that the one I disabled was due to the report of mold and mushy log. Nothing worse than finding a cache and having the stink of mildew and not being able to sign.

 

I will agree that at times, some templates could be a bit more specific information but at the same time, with the volume of submissions and issues, it is often easier to speak in the general so all bases are covered.

[+thebruce0]

While I can't speak for Cotton, I can tell you that the one I disabled was due to the report of mold and mushy log. Nothing worse than finding a cache and having the stink of mildew and not being able to sign.

hm.

See, here, that wouldn't happen. The cache finder, really, should decide whether a cache condition is "fun" or "awful" to sign, even if they don't know beforehand... If they don't like it, they don't have to log it found, and/or they can post the NM log to nudge the CO to do something about its condition.

I don't think reviewers should be disabling caches on reading (recent) maintenance issues, unless there's a major concern like a guideline violation or lack of responsiveness or what have you. I very much respect how our local Ontario reviewers are now going about their tasks... it makes a lot of sense, and leaves the relative little issues to the cachers until it escalates enough for reviewer attention... then if it continues there's the threat of archival.

[+OReviewer]

See, here, that wouldn't happen. The cache finder, really, should decide whether a cache condition is "fun" or "awful" to sign, even if they don't know beforehand... If they don't like it, they don't have to log it found, and/or they can post the NM log to nudge the CO to do something about its condition.

I don't think reviewers should be disabling caches on reading (recent) maintenance issues, unless there's a major concern like a guideline violation or lack of responsiveness or what have you. I very much respect how our local Ontario reviewers are now going about their tasks... it makes a lot of sense, and leaves the relative little issues to the cachers until it escalates enough for reviewer attention... then if it continues there's the threat of archival.

You're lucky I don't review Ontario very often. :anitongue:

 

You're making assumptions that I wasn't contacted about the mushy log.

 

Every cache has the chance to be someone's first. And first impressions mean a lot. If your first impression to geocaching is a moldy log, you may not continue. As the reviewer, I do my best to keep my community maintained and reduce the amount of missing/disgusting caches out there. Because of this, I get a lot of e-mails on problem issues so I deal with them.

 

Come for a visit, you'll find a lot of well maintained caches in PA, very small amount of 3+ DNFs without owners checking on them.

[+thebruce0]

You're making assumptions that I wasn't contacted about the mushy log.

True. In that case, I'd agree, if there's been a NM log on it, with no response, and you were contacted, then the concern would be more along the lines of lack of responsiveness than just a 'mushy/moldy log'. Now, I'd wager that if a reviewer here were contacted about a mushy log, but the user hadn't posted a NM log, they'd be directed to do that or contact the CO first - then the reviewer might take action if there was a concern about the CO responsibility... but that's here

 

Come for a visit, you'll find a lot of well maintained caches in PA, very small amount of 3+ DNFs without owners checking on them.

...because they're afraid of it being disabled before they have a chance to maintain it? *IKidIKid*

[+farrtom]

This is about a different cache the original one being discussed in this thread. I thought it was on topic and didn't need a new thread being started.

 

I just received an email today of a cache on my watch list that was archived by a reviewer. The cache was temporarily disabled by the CO in the middle of October stating that they would be back in the late spring, after the snow melts to replace the container. (The last finders reported problems with the container.)The reviewer posted a note the end of the December reminding the CO to replace the container. The CO edited the original disable note the first of January and then yesterday the reviewer archived it stating there had been no response from the owner even thought the original temporarily disabled note was edited 10 days after the first time the reviewer posted a note.

Don't reviewers read through the comments? I think it would have been better for the CO to post a new note versus editing the original BUT this cache owner is an active owner with over 100 hides (most of them are part of a geo-art).

I think the reviewer was getting a little ahead of themselves on this archive and should have been more patient. Is it because geocaching is getting close to 2 mil. hides that they were cleaning up or is this a over active reviewer.

FYI, This cache is hid in a area that is not easily accessible during the winter and this is not our regular reviewer for this area.

[+Don_J]

This is about a different cache the original one being discussed in this thread. I thought it was on topic and didn't need a new thread being started.

 

I just received an email today of a cache on my watch list that was archived by a reviewer. The cache was temporarily disabled by the CO in the middle of October stating that they would be back in the late spring, after the snow melts to replace the container. (The last finders reported problems with the container.)The reviewer posted a note the end of the December reminding the CO to replace the container. The CO edited the original disable note the first of January and then yesterday the reviewer archived it stating there had been no response from the owner even thought the original temporarily disabled note was edited 10 days after the first time the reviewer posted a note.

Don't reviewers read through the comments? I think it would have been better for the CO to post a new note versus editing the original BUT this cache owner is an active owner with over 100 hides (most of them are part of a geo-art).

I think the reviewer was getting a little ahead of themselves on this archive and should have been more patient. Is it because geocaching is getting close to 2 mil. hides that they were cleaning up or is this a over active reviewer.

FYI, This cache is hid in a area that is not easily accessible during the winter and this is not our regular reviewer for this area.

 

A perfect example of why you shouldn't edit a three month old log. No one gets notified when you edit a log. I'm sure that the reviewer was watching for a new log to be posted, updating the status and the CO's plans. That didn't happen.

[+hzoi]

A perfect example of why you shouldn't edit a three month old log. No one gets notified when you edit a log. I'm sure that the reviewer was watching for a new log to be posted, updating the status and the CO's plans. That didn't happen.

 

I was thinking the exact same thing.

 

Fortunately for the cache owner, archival isn't forever -- all they need to do is communicate (better) with their reviewer, and said caches can be resurrected.