Jump to content

8 out of 16 Caches Archived


Recommended Posts

So I went out yesterday to get a new find that popped up on my notification email. When I get there, I realize the hide is inside of a developers land that has already been graded and ready for construction. There is a bright red "NO TRESPASSING" sign on the way in. So I come home, post a "Needs Archived" log with my findings. The log is immediately deleted by the owner and I get an email basically stating that, "well, almost all dirt lots will have a no trespassing sign somewhere and they aren't going to build in that area for a while etc etc etc.

 

I then forwarded this information to the reviewer and they promptly archived the cache. That's the good news.

 

The bad news is I went on this persons other hides and realized that out of 15 traditional caches, 8 of them have been archived for lack of maintenance issues. (and now one for private property) the 16th cache is a multi-cache and has not been archived.

 

So my question for the much more seasoned amongst us is, do you make it a habit to check a hider's "rep" before you go hunt their caches? I personally will never go look for another one of this person's hides again. Not liking the diversion from the fun aspect of this game and having to deal with this type of nonsense.

 

Edit: Archived or disabled, some have been disabled for months though.

Edited by onthehuntin702
Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anymore. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of? I see the ignore listing on the geocache pages but not ignore user or something like that.

Edited by onthehuntin702
Link to comment

There are a few hiders that we generally avoid for the most part because of our previous finds by that hider, although it does depend somewhat on where it is and the kind of logs that particular cache has already gotten. But there are more than a few hiders that we put on our "will or must find" list also based on our previous experiences with a particular hider. We have never used the ignore button although I can understand why some do and it sounds like it might be a good option for you for this hider.

Link to comment

I have waited on some newbie hides to have others find first to know the coords are good.

 

There are also some locals I do not seek because of the nature of their hides, which in some cases includes poor owner maintenance. I do not usually research hiders in advance; only after finding a problem like you did or hearing of issues from other cachers.

Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

I think the question was how to ignore the hider.

Link to comment

I do, just like I looked at yours before posting. :laughing:

Usually if I don't recognize the name (sometimes they change 'em).

I usually go for hides in small groupings, rather than pq a ton I won't do.

Gas the way it is, better to check and make sure it's still there, needs paper, etc., then head out and find similar to your experience.

Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

I think the question was how to ignore the hider.

Well how else do you expect to ignore a hider? You go into their caches and ignore every single cache they own. You see how that works. :D

Link to comment

So I come home, post a "Needs Archived" log with my findings. The log is immediately deleted by the owner and I get an email basically stating that, "well, almost all dirt lots will have a no trespassing sign somewhere and they aren't going to build in that area for a while etc etc etc.

 

I then forwarded this information to the reviewer and they promptly archived the cache. That's the good news.

 

A "Needs Archived" is a log that is also sent to the reviewer, so deleting your NA log is an exercise in denial and futility.

 

Once you've posted an NA, you don't need to contact the reviewer again (generally speaking). By posting the NA, you've already done it.

 

Help Center → Geocaching → More Site Functionality

 

9.14. Needs Archived Note

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=134

 

What is a Needs Archived note or log?

 

This log sends an email to the cache owner and a local reviewer. There are several instances when using a "Needs Archived" log is appropriate. Here are some example situations that warrant a Needs Archived note.

 

1 - There is a law enforcement, trespassing or similar issue requiring immediate attention. Occasionally a cache is placed in a location that is inappropriate because of security concerns - schools, court houses, or airports among the most common.

2 - There is no immediate problem, but it is painfully evident that the cache is missing AND the owner is missing.

 

When a reviewer receives a Needs Archived note he/she will usually:

 

Post a note to the cache page in response to the Needs Archived log, providing the owner with an opportunity to fix the problem, and following up in a few weeks to make sure the issue has received attention from the owner. In cases where there's a legitimate maintenance need like a wet or possibly missing container, but not a trail of evidence that the owner has ignored their responsibility, it is appropriate to give the owner a fair chance to respond.

 

OR

 

Do nothing. Some Needs Archived notes are logged purely as a matter of frustration, either because of a personal dispute with the cache owner or an inability to find the cache. New geocachers sometimes mistakenly assume that because they cannot find the cache when their GPS zeroes out, it *must* be missing and therefore should be archived. Other folks simply choose the wrong log option by accident. Each day, there's a Needs Archived note that says "we really enjoyed the hike to this beautiful spot. We took a toy bear and left a screwdriver set. Thanks for the cache."

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

I think the question was how to ignore the hider.

Well how else do you expect to ignore a hider? You go into their caches and ignore every single cache they own. You see how that works. :D

 

Which does no good if they post new caches...

Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

I think the question was how to ignore the hider.

Well how else do you expect to ignore a hider? You go into their caches and ignore every single cache they own. You see how that works. :D

 

Which does no good if they post new caches...

You're kidding me, right? I'm sure when you see the name of the CO you will add that cache to the list as well. This isn't rocket science here. :blink:

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anymore. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

That's what I was thinking - probably a tween-age boy.

Link to comment

There are a few hiders around my area that fit this description (poor coordinates, uninspired locations, lack of maintenance, among other things). I generally won't totally ignore them but I won't waste a lot of time at GZ looking for them, either, because they often turn out to be missing, or at the very least incredibly lame.

Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

I think the question was how to ignore the hider.

Well how else do you expect to ignore a hider? You go into their caches and ignore every single cache they own. You see how that works. :D

 

Which does no good if they post new caches...

You're kidding me, right? I'm sure when you see the name of the CO you will add that cache to the list as well. This isn't rocket science here. :blink:

 

Maybe not rocket science, but Groundspeak giving us the ability to simply exclude all of a users caches from our PQs must be. BTW, I have almost 500 caches that I would like to ignore by a particular hider, and he's hiding 20 a week. It sure would be nice if I could stick his name in a box, click OK and be done with it.

Link to comment

No Trespassing sign doesn't automatically mean access is limited. In this case the sign may have been posted by a previous land owner, now being developed for commercial development, or residential housing. Now, have to respect construction fences and such, but it isn't unreasonable to have access granted. Geocaching/Grounspeak has NEVER posted ay restrictions about having caches on shopping centers, home owner association's property, etc. without explicit permission (though having it is always a good idea). But by posting a "needs archived" before even contacting the owner first is VERY DISRESPECTFUL and lacks proper protocol.

 

BTW...I had placed a many caches on property where a "No Trespassing" sign was nearby. However, the cache itself was placed on a county owned, state owned right-of-way (a roadway that was never built). Who put the sign up was WRONG, and it was 100% legal for the cache to be there.

Link to comment

I disagree that owners should be contacted privately first about property or any other NA issues. Such issues need to be dealt with publicly on the cache page so there is a paper trail and so other seekers who have the same concerns you did will know the issue has been addressed. But don't attack the CO in the log; stick to the facts.

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

I think the question was how to ignore the hider.

I'm willing to pay extra for a ignore user feature. You bet I check listings before seeking them, and some CO's listings go on my ignore list. :(

Link to comment

...

So my question for the much more seasoned amongst us is, do you make it a habit to check a hider's "rep" before you go hunt their caches? I personally will never go look for another one of this person's hides again. Not liking the diversion from the fun aspect of this game and having to deal with this type of nonsense.

 

 

I generally give equal opportunity to every cache on an individual basis.

If it's a crappy cache in a crappy location, hopefully I find it quickly and never need to go back again.

 

That being said, there ARE a few 'locals' who have a proven track record of nothing but uninteresting (to me at least) caches.

I have a GSAK filter to sort out caches by these hiders, and I can then add them to my ignore list with the API.

Link to comment

I have long asked for an ignore all by user feature. We have several users around here that do not see caching the same way as I do. There is nothing wrong with that. But such an expansion of the ignore list feature would just be one more tool to help any player maximize the enjoyment they get from this game. They could ignore my caches just as easily as I could ignore theirs.

 

PQs would be so much simpler if you could just auto-ignore the (for example) 2000-film-can power trail that you couldn't care less about, by ignoring the hider account. No way am I handling 2000 of anything manually.

 

But yeah, dream on.

 

This is a very good, if extreme, example of why it would be such a useful tool. Yes, we could go through and add each listing manually. But it would be an onerous task.

 

Such a tool would only improve the enjoyment users get from this game.

Link to comment

...

So my question for the much more seasoned amongst us is, do you make it a habit to check a hider's "rep" before you go hunt their caches? I personally will never go look for another one of this person's hides again. Not liking the diversion from the fun aspect of this game and having to deal with this type of nonsense.

 

 

I generally give equal opportunity to every cache on an individual basis.

If it's a crappy cache in a crappy location, hopefully I find it quickly and never need to go back again.

 

That being said, there ARE a few 'locals' who have a proven track record of nothing but uninteresting (to me at least) caches.

I have a GSAK filter to sort out caches by these hiders, and I can then add them to my ignore list with the API.

 

And every time they hide a few new caches you have to go through the whole process again, correct? Wouldn't it be easier to simply tick a box on the users profile page once and never have to deal with it again?

Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

I think the question was how to ignore the hider.

Well how else do you expect to ignore a hider? You go into their caches and ignore every single cache they own. You see how that works. :D

 

Which does no good if they post new caches...

You're kidding me, right? I'm sure when you see the name of the CO you will add that cache to the list as well. This isn't rocket science here. :blink:

 

Maybe not rocket science, but Groundspeak giving us the ability to simply exclude all of a users caches from our PQs must be. BTW, I have almost 500 caches that I would like to ignore by a particular hider, and he's hiding 20 a week. It sure would be nice if I could stick his name in a box, click OK and be done with it.

Oh, I agree it would be nice to be able to block a hider, but in the meantime you have the ability to ignore one cache at a time. At least you have something to work with. Hey, it gives GS something to work on and players something to complain about. Perfect harmony. :laughing:

Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

I think the question was how to ignore the hider.

Well how else do you expect to ignore a hider? You go into their caches and ignore every single cache they own. You see how that works. :D

 

Which does no good if they post new caches...

You're kidding me, right? I'm sure when you see the name of the CO you will add that cache to the list as well. This isn't rocket science here. :blink:

 

Maybe not rocket science, but Groundspeak giving us the ability to simply exclude all of a users caches from our PQs must be. BTW, I have almost 500 caches that I would like to ignore by a particular hider, and he's hiding 20 a week. It sure would be nice if I could stick his name in a box, click OK and be done with it.

Oh, I agree it would be nice to be able to block a hider, but in the meantime you have the ability to ignore one cache at a time. At least you have something to work with. Hey, it gives GS something to work on and players something to complain about. Perfect harmony. :laughing:

 

Except GS is not working on it. Quite some time ago Mr. Irish stated, if I recall correctly, that it was on the list of things to work on. But when pushed it was admitted that this idea, with several others that users have been asking for, where so far down the list that they were unlikely to ever get any attention from the developers. In other words, fogettaboutit!

Link to comment

Except GS is not working on it. Quite some time ago Mr. Irish stated, if I recall correctly, that it was on the list of things to work on. But when pushed it was admitted that this idea, with several others that users have been asking for, where so far down the list that they were unlikely to ever get any attention from the developers. In other words, fogettaboutit!

 

That's right....instead of getting something the users have asked for, we get new icons. WooHoo!

 

[edit: typos]

Edited by BBWolf+3Pigs
Link to comment

That's what the ignore button is for. I posted an archive log for the same reason this weekend for No Trespassing and the owner archived the cache right away. The signs had been put up recently by the looks of the shiney staples. There was a handful of cachers that I would not go for their hides, good thing they don't play anyone. I think they might be into girls about now. :laughing:

 

 

Where is this fabulous ignore button that you speak of?

Go on the cache page and where you log a visit you will see the Ignore Listing right under log a visit.

I think the question was how to ignore the hider.

Well how else do you expect to ignore a hider? You go into their caches and ignore every single cache they own. You see how that works. :D

 

Which does no good if they post new caches...

You're kidding me, right? I'm sure when you see the name of the CO you will add that cache to the list as well. This isn't rocket science here. :blink:

 

Maybe not rocket science, but Groundspeak giving us the ability to simply exclude all of a users caches from our PQs must be. BTW, I have almost 500 caches that I would like to ignore by a particular hider, and he's hiding 20 a week. It sure would be nice if I could stick his name in a box, click OK and be done with it.

Oh, I agree it would be nice to be able to block a hider, but in the meantime you have the ability to ignore one cache at a time. At least you have something to work with. Hey, it gives GS something to work on and players something to complain about. Perfect harmony. :laughing:

 

Except GS is not working on it. Quite some time ago Mr. Irish stated, if I recall correctly, that it was on the list of things to work on. But when pushed it was admitted that this idea, with several others that users have been asking for, where so far down the list that they were unlikely to ever get any attention from the developers. In other words, fogettaboutit!

Ok so GS isn't working on it, but it still gives players something to complain about. :laughing: I wonder why TPTB won't give their players this option to ignore a hider. Seems like a good idea for some players.

Link to comment
Ok so GS isn't working on it, but it still gives players something to complain about. :laughing: I wonder why TPTB won't give their players this option to ignore a hider. Seems like a good idea for some players.

Off topic...

<snippity snip>

The lines were making this dyslexic old fart sick to his stomach. :lol:

 

I don't do PMOs due to the audit. Unfortunately, haven't gotten the hang of PQs either.

To hit the ignore on all the PMOs in my area, I'd have to go onto the very same pages that made me want to ignore them in the first place.

Imagine what those COs would think when I'm (now) showing up on audits of a couple hundred caches.

- Ignore by hider would be perfect (for me).

 

To possibly answer your question though, I believe that ignoring hiders may be construed as a negative use of the ignore function and thinking positively (Company goals), TPTB may be a bit hesitant to incorporate it with simply ignoring individual caches (objects).

Link to comment

No Trespassing sign doesn't automatically mean access is limited. In this case the sign may have been posted by a previous land owner, now being developed for commercial development, or residential housing. Now, have to respect construction fences and such, but it isn't unreasonable to have access granted. Geocaching/Grounspeak has NEVER posted ay restrictions about having caches on shopping centers, home owner association's property, etc. without explicit permission (though having it is always a good idea). But by posting a "needs archived" before even contacting the owner first is VERY DISRESPECTFUL and lacks proper protocol.

 

BTW...I had placed a many caches on property where a "No Trespassing" sign was nearby. However, the cache itself was placed on a county owned, state owned right-of-way (a roadway that was never built). Who put the sign up was WRONG, and it was 100% legal for the cache to be there.

 

So you are of the opinion that the person who wasted other peoples' time by clearly violating the law in entering and hiding a geocache on posted "NO TRESPASSING" property deserves some sort of decorum?

 

The way I understand it, the "needs archived" post by a user is simply an opinion to let the owner and reviewer know of what is going on in the field. In this case, the owner acknowledged it is private property but said, "don't worry about it." And the reviewer agreed that it was in violation of the rules here and archived it.

 

And yes, this is absolutely land developer owned, already graded out, posted no trespassing, private property. No grey area here at all.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...