Reviewer disabled cache with a needs maintance

[+WestSideDaddy]

A new one for me. I have a couple of caches that have NM posts on them (they both have a full log sheets) and I haven't had a chance to swing by and replace them (bad on me). But I just got a couple of reviewer's notes and the local reviewer disabled them. I've never seen that sort of thing before.

[+OZ2CPU]

so get your car started and fix your caches, or if you dont care about them,

disable them your self.

caches with a clear NEED for maintanence and nothing happens for a long time

by either the CO or other friendly geocachers who finds it,

they can and will be archived by reviewers.

Edited March 15, 2013 by OZ2CPU

[+WestSideDaddy]

I should add, I am not complaining about it, it just surprised me. I only have 50 caches and I've only been doing it for a couple years, but it was just something I've never seen happen before.

[Pup Patrol]

A new one for me. I have a couple of caches that have NM posts on them (they both have a full log sheets) and I haven't had a chance to swing by and replace them (bad on me). But I just got a couple of reviewer's notes and the local reviewer disabled them. I've never seen that sort of thing before.

 

It happens all the time here in Ontario, Canada. After a certain time with no cache owner action or communication, the reviewers have archived caches with outstanding maintenance problems as well.

 

You can contact the reviewer and explain the situation, post a note on the cache page, or just fix the problem and post an "owner maintenance" log before the reviewer needs to step in.

 

 

B.

[+WestSideDaddy]

so get your car started and fix your caches, or if you dont care about them,

disable them your self.

caches with a clear NEED for maintanence and nothing happens for a long time

by either the CO or other friendly geocachers who finds it,

they can and will be archived by reviewers.

 

I don't disagree with you and I know that it is my responsibility, but it just caught me as a surprise.

 

With all the posts on the forums about caches with NA logs that never get archived by absentee cache owners it just surprised me to get a cache disabled from a NM log.

[+terrkan78]

Sometimes reviewers to "sweeps" to check for caches with outstanding NM and they'll then disable them. In some areas these "sweeps" happen more frequently than in other areas (depends to some extent on the reviewer's schedule I believe). I haven't seen this in my area before, but I've read about it happening.

 

No worries - within the next few weeks just either log an owner maintenance or put a note on the page saying when you'll be able to get out there.

[+T.D.M.22]

If they need new logbooks, put new logbooks in. You say you are not complaining...why post it then? It isn't twitter....Jimmie had a coke.

[+T.D.M.22]

I just looked at some of your caches....A couple caches have been in need of maintenance for more than 2 months without even a note on the page saying you will check on them...Someone may have tried to find a couple of your cache and noticed this and sent an email off to the reviewer, or more likely the reviewer did a sweep. You should at least log a note on the caches saying you will take care of them otherwise they might get archived if the reviewer thinks you aren't willing to do the maintenance.

[+dprovan]

I've been hearing about this in the forums, and I'm not sure if it's just a local thing, or some change in reviewer guidelines. I've always thought it was none of the reviewer's business until a cacher concluded there was a problem that might never be resolved, so the reviewer should be called in to start archival proceedings, if it goes that far.

 

The only exceptions I've seen in my area have made me suspect that a reviewer looking at a cache for personal reasons himself concluded there was a problem, and hence started the archival procedure unilaterally. I've only seen that in cases where when I looked at it, I realized it was long overdue, so there was no question the action was warranted.

 

What I'm reading about in the forums, though, are cases along the lines you describe: a reviewer reacting exclusively to the needs maintenance flag and unilaterally starting the archival process without even looking at the cache to see that the problem is something minor like a full log. When I've spoken negatively about this practice in other threads, people tell me the reviewers are so busy that they can't be expected to actually look at a cache they're archiving. I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm glad it doesn't happen in my area. I suspect it's because the reviewers in my area are even busier and don't have time to take any unilateral actions.

[+ras_oscar]

A NM does not go to the reviewer, only a NA. If a NM prompted the reviewer to disable, it's either because a cacher sent a PM to the reviewer with more information, or because the reviewer did a periodic sweep of caches with NM attribute for more than a certian period of time. If there are caches you cannot get to immediately, I'd suggest you PM the reviewer and tell them your maintenance time frame. While I am not a reviewer, nor do I play one on TV, I suspect reviewers pretty much run their region as they see fit. They are here to see that the game is enjoyable for all of us.

[+CanadianRockies]

A new one for me. I have a couple of caches that have NM posts on them (they both have a full log sheets) and I haven't had a chance to swing by and replace them (bad on me). But I just got a couple of reviewer's notes and the local reviewer disabled them. I've never seen that sort of thing before.

I've seen numerous reviewers (or other Groundspeak volunteers) periodically examine caches with NM flags and/or numerous DNFs. Usually, if there's a problem, they will post a note explaining the issue and give the cache owner 2-4 weeks to either correct the problem or explain why they need additional time. If the owner does nothing, then the reviewer eventually archives the cache.

 

Sometimes, the reviewer will disable a cache when they first notice the problem. Around here, however, that usually only happens if the cache has a serious issue (e.g., is clearly missing or might have permission concerns). I'm a little surprised that your caches were disabled due to full logs.

[+Off Grid]

so get your car started and fix your caches, or if you dont care about them,

disable them your self.

caches with a clear NEED for maintanence and nothing happens for a long time

by either the CO or other friendly geocachers who finds it,

they can and will be archived by reviewers.

Should we talk about all the caches where there's a nm like the one up the street from me been two years needs a new container always soaking wet constantly nm but nothing's done. Don't see it archived contacted geocaching three times and emailed the owner so...

[+Semper Questio]

Yeah, this is not a terribly unusual occurrance. To be perfectly honest, I wish more of this type of thing was done. It would make my cache filtering much easier!

 

Some time ago I suggested (and was quickly shot down) that it may be good to have a cadre of volunteer cache monitors that looked at multiple-DNF, NM-flagged, and NA-flaged caches. They would disable DNFd and NMd caches with messages to the owners of what's wrong and how to clear the NM flags if they have one. They would review NAd caches to see if an NA seems genuinely warranted. If any caches seem to need archived or more expert review, then they get referred to reviewers. This could serve to ease the workload on reviewers, help educate cache owners, and hopefully help improve the timliness of cache maintenance or at least get questionable caches from perpetually showing up in cache lists.

[+CanadianRockies]

Yeah, this is not a terribly unusual occurrance. To be perfectly honest, I wish more of this type of thing was done. It would make my cache filtering much easier!

 

Some time ago I suggested (and was quickly shot down) that it may be good to have a cadre of volunteer cache monitors that looked at multiple-DNF, NM-flagged, and NA-flaged caches. They would disable DNFd and NMd caches with messages to the owners of what's wrong and how to clear the NM flags if they have one. They would review NAd caches to see if an NA seems genuinely warranted. If any caches seem to need archived or more expert review, then they get referred to reviewers. This could serve to ease the workload on reviewers, help educate cache owners, and hopefully help improve the timliness of cache maintenance or at least get questionable caches from perpetually showing up in cache lists.

In our region, there's a non-reviewer who occasionally helps our reviewer perform the tasks you described. I'm not sure if this is a Groundspeak Lackey who helps out when they have spare time or a Volunteer Non-Reviewer.

[+redwoodkestrel]

There is a cache in my area that is very difficult to find - tricky search area and in a canyon-like location so it's hard to pick up an accurate GPS signal. I found it back in January 2012 after a very extensive search.

 

After my log, the next three logs were DNFs - two in September and one in October. No needs maintenance logs were ever posted, or have even been posted for the cache.

 

But two weeks after the DNF in October, the cache was disabled by a reviewer, saying it needed to be checked on by the CO. I happened to be hiking in the area the next day, so I went and checked on the cache and posted a note saying I found it and all is well, but the cache remained disabled. The CO went and checked on it a month or so later and re-enabled it.

 

I had to say I was surprised to see it reviewer-disabled after three DNFs and no NMs, when it is a very difficult cache to find - seems up level from a reviewer disabling a cache that has had a NM on it for awhile (which, in some cases, seems appropriate). Hmmm... just more food for thought.

[+hzoi]

I get the sense that the word has gotten out around the reviewer community that it would be a good idea to check in on caches that have had the needs maintenance flag for a while. Seems like a good thing to me.

 

As far as the disabling caches just because of DNF logs, I don't support a hard and fast rule of X DNFs = disabling.

 

If there are caches that aren't supposed to be hard to find by design, but are hard to find in reality due to situations the cache owner could fix (maybe better coordinates if possible, maybe more clarity in the description, maybe a hint or an imrpoved hint, or maybe even just adjusting the difficulty to make up for it), it may be warranted.

 

Some caches are just tough, though. Like the picnic shelter cache that was featured on the Latitude 47 blog recently that only has one find. Should that one get disabled as a matter of course every time three DNFs stack up? Heck no, and if that starts happening, then another word might need to get out in the reviewer community to be more flexible.

 

My 1/50th of a dollar, nothing more.

[+NeverSummer]

so get your car started and fix your caches, or if you dont care about them,

disable them your self.

caches with a clear NEED for maintanence and nothing happens for a long time

by either the CO or other friendly geocachers who finds it,

they can and will be archived by reviewers.

Should we talk about all the caches where there's a nm like the one up the street from me been two years needs a new container always soaking wet constantly nm but nothing's done. Don't see it archived contacted geocaching three times and emailed the owner so...

You could choose to be a positive community member and replace the cache with a new container and dry logbook.

[+The A-Team]

Should we talk about all the caches where there's a nm like the one up the street from me been two years needs a new container always soaking wet constantly nm but nothing's done. Don't see it archived contacted geocaching three times and emailed the owner so...

If it's the cache I think it is, I'd agree that it might be time for it to go. The cache was first reported as being missing its lid in June 2010. However, the only log I see from you is your "Found it" log, and no "Needs maintenance" or "Needs archive" logs. When you say you "contacted geocaching three times", who were you contacting? The proper person to contact would be one of our three local reviewers, if you're going to email someone. Personally, if I had found the cache in this shape (I found that one before it had this problem), I'd at least log a "Needs maintenance". Seeing that the owner hasn't logged in since May 2011, I'd maybe wait a couple of weeks (just in case they come out of the woodwork), then log a "Needs archive" to bring it to the attention of a reviewer. To me, the owner is clearly absent and will never return to maintain their cache. If they're not going to, it should be archived so someone else can place an actively-maintained cache.

 

Therefore, my recommendation would be to log a "Needs archive" to bring this unmaintained cache to the attention of a reviewer, and mention in the log that the owner appears to be absent and the cache has had the problem for over 2.5 years.

[+Bushwalker53]

It's very common. When someone logs that it needs maintenance the reviewers can see, if the problem hasn't been fixed for a few weeks they will disable it. Now that it's disabled you will have about 30 days to take action before it will be archived for non responsiveness. I'd get out there and fix it straight away if I were you.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't know, maybe somebody should go ask the reviewer and report back.

[+Rustynails]

A new one for me. I have a couple of caches that have NM posts on them (they both have a full log sheets) and I haven't had a chance to swing by and replace them (bad on me). But I just got a couple of reviewer's notes and the local reviewer disabled them. I've never seen that sort of thing before.

 

Why have you not posted this in the local forums? I bet if you did, you would get an answer.

[+Huntleigh]

so get your car started and fix your caches, or if you dont care about them,

disable them your self.

caches with a clear NEED for maintanence and nothing happens for a long time

by either the CO or other friendly geocachers who finds it,

they can and will be archived by reviewers.

Should we talk about all the caches where there's a nm like the one up the street from me been two years needs a new container always soaking wet constantly nm but nothing's done. Don't see it archived contacted geocaching three times and emailed the owner so...

You could choose to be a positive community member and replace the cache with a new container and dry logbook.

 

I disagree with that approach. Yes, it is a stop gap solution that fixes the immediate problem but it doesn't answer the underlying problem that there is a CO who is not maintaining.

 

Often in cases like these the CO has disappeared off the radar entirely. It is my belief that in such cases it should get a NA log. Hopefully the reviewr will archive it and then, if it is a good site, a positive community member can create a new cache at the same site.

 

(Or if the CO is only just off the radar adopt the site).

 

The exception is especially important sites where there is enough care and concern in the entire local caching community for there to be a guaranteed level of maintenance.

[AZcachemeister]

It's a wake-up call.

 

Get over there and maintain your cache(s)!

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

They've done it to me all the time. For a while I really had a hard time keeping up my caches (every other cacher was screwing them up). I wasn't surprised, actually thankful, as I wasn't even really paying attention (most of this was during my medical illness days).

[+The A-Team]

Should we talk about all the caches where there's a nm like the one up the street from me been two years needs a new container always soaking wet constantly nm but nothing's done. Don't see it archived contacted geocaching three times and emailed the owner so...

You could choose to be a positive community member and replace the cache with a new container and dry logbook.

I disagree with that approach. Yes, it is a stop gap solution that fixes the immediate problem but it doesn't answer the underlying problem that there is a CO who is not maintaining.

I agree.

If the cache were in a cache-poor area, I might lean more towards having a member of the community look after it to keep one of the few caches in the area active.

 

However, the cache referred to by Off Grid is in a very saturated area. There's no need to keep an abandoned cache limping along when there are plenty of new local cachers just itching to get into cache ownership.

[+Walts Hunting]

A new one for me. I have a couple of caches that have NM posts on them (they both have a full log sheets) and I haven't had a chance to swing by and replace them (bad on me). But I just got a couple of reviewer's notes and the local reviewer disabled them. I've never seen that sort of thing before.

 

You are not taking into consideration that someone may have been reluctant to log a NA but emailed the reviewer. He saw the NM logs and took the next step.

[+The_Incredibles_]

So much for 'we're just a listing service'. Disabling for a log that's only been full 2 months, for me, is bordering on harassment. I think unless there's something seriously wrong with the cache, I think the reviewers should stay away.

[Keystone]

I've been hearing about this in the forums, and I'm not sure if it's just a local thing, or some change in reviewer guidelines. I've always thought it was none of the reviewer's business until a cacher concluded there was a problem that might never be resolved, so the reviewer should be called in to start archival proceedings, if it goes that far.

Reviewers are responsible for making sure the listing guidelines are followed, and that includes the "cache maintenance" guideline. There's no rule that says we can't take action unless there's a "Needs Archived" log. In areas where cachers are reluctant to do that, periodic sweeps are especially helpful. That said, ALL maintenance enforcement is completely optional on the part of each reviewer, EXCEPT for responding to "Needs Archived" logs. (Note that one response is to review the situation and determine no action is necessary.)

 

A NM does not go to the reviewer, only a NA. If a NM prompted the reviewer to disable, it's either because a cacher sent a PM to the reviewer with more information, or because the reviewer did a periodic sweep of caches with NM attribute for more than a certian period of time. If there are caches you cannot get to immediately, I'd suggest you PM the reviewer and tell them your maintenance time frame. While I am not a reviewer, nor do I play one on TV, I suspect reviewers pretty much run their region as they see fit. They are here to see that the game is enjoyable for all of us.

I agree with everything you wrote except for the suggestion to "PM the reviewer." A response on the cache page is more likely to be noticed. If the reviewer is disabling 200 caches during a sweep, then weeks later he will be pulling up those cache pages and checking for any response. If there isn't any response, he presses the archive button. When I'm in the middle of this, it's easy to forget about a forum PM or email.

[+NeverSummer]

Should we talk about all the caches where there's a nm like the one up the street from me been two years needs a new container always soaking wet constantly nm but nothing's done. Don't see it archived contacted geocaching three times and emailed the owner so...

You could choose to be a positive community member and replace the cache with a new container and dry logbook.

I disagree with that approach. Yes, it is a stop gap solution that fixes the immediate problem but it doesn't answer the underlying problem that there is a CO who is not maintaining.

I agree.

If the cache were in a cache-poor area, I might lean more towards having a member of the community look after it to keep one of the few caches in the area active.

 

However, the cache referred to by Off Grid is in a very saturated area. There's no need to keep an abandoned cache limping along when there are plenty of new local cachers just itching to get into cache ownership.

Believe me, if I knew the back story of the specific cache, I'd think the same. Based on the comment alone that I quoted, it just sounded like sour grapes.

 

Living in Alaska has certainly changed the way I think about caches and maintenance. I got to AK, saw a bunch of local caches that were derelict, posted my DNF or NM log and waited. Silence. Post again. Silence. Post a NA, then it would get attention--usually from the Reviewer, sometimes from an owner. Some of them just needed to go; vacation caches, caches with poor coordinates, caches that routinely went missing, etc. Others belong to cachers who have left the game for one reason or another.

 

But, sometimes, cachers can't get online like they used to, might not see the emails, etc. If this cache is a thorn in their side, they have 2 options: Fix the cache and polish a reputation, or post a NA and continue along the way--no harm done. Neither is a bad choice in this case, but one seemed like an opportunity for kindness instead of scratching the ownership of a cache itch.

 

To steer it back on topic (sorry about that...), some Reviewers choose to go above and beyond by volunteering their volunteer time to voluntarily help keep caches on the up-and-up. (Where did I hear phrasing like that before... ) If a cache in your 'hood happens to be in constant need of maintenance, and the owner is AWOL, it makes a good case for a NA log. If a Reviewer takes the time to disable a cache instead of archiving it, think of it as a nudge to at least post an update on the cache page.

Edited March 16, 2013 by NeverSummer

[+bflentje]

If they need new logbooks, put new logbooks in. You say you are not complaining...why post it then? It isn't twitter....Jimmie had a coke.

 

Unnecessary.

[+dprovan]

In areas where cachers are reluctant to do that, periodic sweeps are especially helpful.

OK, so it is a local thing where reviewers have decided cachers are reluctant to post Needs Archived, and cachers have decided it's the reviewers' resposibility to monitor the maintenance flag. I like the way it works in my area where people post NA when a cache needs archived, and the reviewers rarely get involved without an NA, and then only for caches that clearly have a serious problem way beyond the log being full.

[+ras_oscar]

I have been caching for several years and have only posted a NA once. I posted a DNF, and the CO disabled the cache, stating that the area was changing and they would "re-establish the cache after the area had settled down" (there were renovations in a park area). I placed the cache on my watch list so I could log it when it returned. The renovations were complete a couple weeks later. The cache didn't return. 12 months after my DNF I posted a NA. A week later the reviewer posted a note stating that the cache was being archived following a "sweep of the area for caches that had been disabled for too long" Did my NA prompt the archive? perhaps, perhaps not. I don't particularly care. A cache had (IMHO) been abandoned and the system in the form of the local reviewer stepped in and opened up the area for other hides. That's what is supposed to happen when a cache is not maintained by the CO.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I have seen plenty of caches disabled by Reviewers due to NM issues (and asked for a few myself), but never for only the log being full.

 

More commonly the cache is piling up DNFs without being checked or a serious container issue (broken and/or contents soaked).

[+DanOCan]

I have seen plenty of caches disabled by Reviewers due to NM issues (and asked for a few myself), but never for only the log being full.

 

Same here. Most NMs leading to disabling have been for caches that appear to have gone missing and need a visit. A full log is hardly reason to take a findable cache out of commission. I've never seen a log so full I couldn't find some place to scratch my initials.

[+SwineFlew]

Our reviewers does it here as well.

 

Not to be rude or anything, some CO needs a little "push" to take care of their caches that need maintenance.

[+dprovan]

Not to be rude or anything, some CO needs a little "push" to take care of their caches that need maintenance.

Around here, that push is done by other cachers posting NA. Why do you need the reviewer to do that for you?

[+Don_J]

so get your car started and fix your caches, or if you dont care about them,

disable them your self.

caches with a clear NEED for maintanence and nothing happens for a long time

by either the CO or other friendly geocachers who finds it,

they can and will be archived by reviewers.

Should we talk about all the caches where there's a nm like the one up the street from me been two years needs a new container always soaking wet constantly nm but nothing's done. Don't see it archived contacted geocaching three times and emailed the owner so...

You could choose to be a positive community member and replace the cache with a new container and dry logbook.

 

Please DON'T!

If the CO is gone and the cache is gone or in horrible condition, post a NA and let the system work. After it's archived, if you wish, place a proper cache and maintain it.

 

I have been trying get a local cache archived for almost five years so I can place a proper one. Original cache was Gladware. The COs placed it along with three other caches and never looked back. The others have been archived for years but every time this one biodegrades, someone who can't afford to lose a smilie drops another Gladware. A month later, it's full of water and the next finder places a fresh log, and on and on and on. If the reviewer won't archive it, he should at least edit the description to say, "bring your own log, because the one in the cache will be wet."

[+edscott]

So much for 'we're just a listing service'. Disabling for a log that's only been full 2 months, for me, is bordering on harassment. I think unless there's something seriously wrong with the cache, I think the reviewers should stay away.

 

2 months??? Maybe you meant two weeks?

[+L0ne.R]

I had a look at the OP's list of hides. 6 of the OP's nanos have current active NMs for full logs and/or broken containers. Seems to be quite common with nanos. The little scroll fills up fast and/or the container gets damaged after a few finds.