Logging Archived Caches?

[+HistDrew]

I was curious about the propriety of logging caches that have been archived. After I returned from Shanghai, China, I was hunting around for various caches and noticed this old Virtual cache

 

It was archived back in 2011, but folks are still logging it. What gives?

[+Kacher82]

It seems to me that if a cache is archived, people shouldn't be finding it. That would be a bit hard to police on a virtual. If you found a cache, but hadn't got it logged before it was archived, there's nothing wrong with logging it afterward.

[4wheelin_fool]

There is nothing wrong with logging an archived cache. If its a traditional and the owner does not want any more visits, they need to remove the container and post a note.

 

The virtual you pointed out was archived inadvertantly because someone assumed that the question was no longer valid, however it is, but the owner is no longer active. If they were to start archiving virts because of inactive owners there would be quite an uproar. If the virtual is collecting fake logs, it should be locked, but I don't see that here.

Edited June 27, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+HistDrew]

If they were to start archiving virts because of inactive owners there would be quite an uproar. If the virtual is collecting fake logs, it should be locked, but I don't see that here.

 

Agreed about the inactive owners. I have seen some newbies put a NA on a virtual, and the owner ends up as inactive and so a perfectly good cache disappears. That's too bad.

 

Seems to me that if a cache is archived, it's gone.

[+Cardinal Red]

... I have seen some newbies put a NA on a virtual, and the owner ends up as inactive and so a perfectly good cache disappears. That's too bad.

 

A cache with an inactive owner is not perfect.

[+HistDrew]

... I have seen some newbies put a NA on a virtual, and the owner ends up as inactive and so a perfectly good cache disappears. That's too bad.

 

A cache with an inactive owner is not perfect.

 

An otherwise perfectly good cache disappears.

[+lamoracke]

If its an archived virtual that requires an answer sent, I would not log it unless that CO is still around and says its okay. I have logged one archived virtual, it was near home but the CO was still around and said it was okay.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I've done virtuals where the cache owner is long gone (although the cache was not archived). I guess it's fine as long as people aren't taking advantage.

 

As per logging archived caches, I see no problem logging a cache that is still physically in place. I've found a number of caches like this. Logging an archived virtual where the cache owner is long gone? Seems a bit cheesy to me.

[+wmpastor]

... I have seen some newbies put a NA on a virtual, and the owner ends up as inactive and so a perfectly good cache disappears. That's too bad.

 

A cache with an inactive owner is not perfect.

Even though "not perfect," it may be "perfectly good" - I agree with HistDrew.

 

Another example of "the best is the enemy of the good"?!

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

Logging an archived virtual where the cache owner is long gone? Seems a bit cheesy to me.

 

I agree. I would say it's like shooting fish in a barrel, except that Mythbusters busted that one a while back...

 

If its an archived virtual that requires an answer sent, I would not log it unless that CO is still around and says its okay. I have logged one archived virtual, it was near home but the CO was still around and said it was okay.

 

I guess this virtual is now effectively just a cache find smiley for the CO's friends then...

 

Not many others would know about the archived cache, or would go ahead and email the archived cache's CO (ie. bother a cache owner they don't know who may have archived a cache for a good reason and doesn't want to hear about it anymore)

[+cerberus1]

... I have seen some newbies put a NA on a virtual, and the owner ends up as inactive and so a perfectly good cache disappears. That's too bad.

 

A cache with an inactive owner is not perfect.

Even though "not perfect," it may be "perfectly good" - I agree with HistDrew.

 

Another example of "the best is the enemy of the good"?!

 

- Off Topic -

I gotta agree with Cardinal Red...

Now that yet another "bring back" thread started, I looked at a couple of older Virtuals and found many cases of multiple finds, no required pics, etc.

- All on Virtuals with long-gone, inactive owners.

Unlike a traditional, where (if someone wanted) caches are kept up by others for inactive owners with containers and logs, once a Virtual owner is gone, no one is able to fix those problems for him.

They should be archived.

 

On Topic, I feel that archived caches should be locked when archived.

If someone didn't log it while active , guess they're outta luck.

- It's only a smiley...

[+lamoracke]

 

If its an archived virtual that requires an answer sent, I would not log it unless that CO is still around and says its okay. I have logged one archived virtual, it was near home but the CO was still around and said it was okay.

 

I guess this virtual is now effectively just a cache find smiley for the CO's friends then...

 

Not many others would know about the archived cache, or would go ahead and email the archived cache's CO (ie. bother a cache owner they don't know who may have archived a cache for a good reason and doesn't want to hear about it anymore)

 

No harm in asking. Was in a local park I go to all the time, a friend told me about its existence, I emailed him as he is still an active cacher and he said yes when I responded with the answer. He could have not replied or said no after all. Big whoop.

Edited June 28, 2013 by lamoracke

[+funkymunkyzone]

 

If its an archived virtual that requires an answer sent, I would not log it unless that CO is still around and says its okay. I have logged one archived virtual, it was near home but the CO was still around and said it was okay.

 

I guess this virtual is now effectively just a cache find smiley for the CO's friends then...

 

Not many others would know about the archived cache, or would go ahead and email the archived cache's CO (ie. bother a cache owner they don't know who may have archived a cache for a good reason and doesn't want to hear about it anymore)

 

No harm in asking. Was in a local park I go to all the time, a friend told me about its existence, I emailed him as he is still an active cacher and he said yes when I responded with the answer. He could have not replied or said no after all. Big whoop.

 

So why was it archived?

[+lamoracke]

No idea, was archived before my time, he said he was done with geon#%@s in his archive log, but there is no drama before or after that log.

[+funkymunkyzone]

No idea, was archived before my time, he said he was done with geon#%@s in his archive log, but there is no drama before or after that log.

 

Ah - I see. Geocide.

 

Gotta say... then letting people log finds after they were archived - shows a lack of commitment to the geocide!

[Mr.Yuck]

No idea, was archived before my time, he said he was done with geon#%@s in his archive log, but there is no drama before or after that log.

 

Ah - I see. Geocide.

 

Gotta say... then letting people log finds after they were archived - shows a lack of commitment to the geocide!

 

Statistics show that 95% of Geocides lack commitment.

 

There's a guy in my area who Geocided in like 2005, came back in like 2008, and Geocided again in like 2011. I predict a third cycle.

 

As far as this cache in the OP, it was overwhelmingly German tourists saying the info wasn't there, when it always was, and still is. Is there a language issue here? Or were the logging requirements always confusing, even to native English speakers? (The CO appears to be Canadian).

Edited June 28, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[+kunarion]

I was curious about the propriety of logging caches that have been archived.

I've logged one was archived just after the PQ -- so I noticed after the Find that it was archived. It had a MIA cache Owner, and suspected cache problems. But the cache was fine.

 

The toughest archived cache I ever found was an ammo box crushed by a tree two years before. It had been archived for a year. I signed the log. But I only posted a Note. Go figure.

Edited June 28, 2013 by kunarion

[+suchanana]

I was curious about the propriety of logging caches that have been archived. After I returned from Shanghai, China, I was hunting around for various caches and noticed this old Virtual cacheIt was archived back in 2011, but folks are still logging it. What gives?

methinks that propriety is a great indicater of character...logs indicate cachers' intent was honorable with old coords in their gps'r... the virtual/absent owner can of worms issue deserves its' own forum !!