+Dogmeat* Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Someone hid a pill bottle in a bit of a clearing in 2010. The last time it was found was September 2011. I've looked four times now. The last five logs are from different people not finding it and I know of three people who didn't log their DNF. The CO hasn't logged in since March. Would it be wrong of me to request that it be archived? It's mocking me every time I look on the map. Quote Link to comment
team tisri Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Personally I'd log NM on it with a request the owner checks that it's still there. If there's no movement for a few weeks (I usually reckon 3-6 weeks depending on when I remember to check) then log NA, referring to the unactioned NM. Quote Link to comment
+Packanack Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Two years no find, 12 known DNFs , owner not active. Hit the archive button now. The last thing this game needs is more geo litter, abandoned caches and absent owners. Get itboff the board. better yet send an e mail to your reviewer asking that it be archived. Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Personally I'd log NM on it... This. Just because folks are DNFing it, does not mean it's missing. A NM lets the community know there may be a problem. It also gives the seemingly errant owner a chance to chime in. In the case you describe, it is unlikely they will respond. Your guess about them being MIA are probably accurate. After a reasonable time period, you can post a NA with more weight to it. Not only will you have a string of DNFs, and a hider profile suggesting absenteeism, you'll also have an ignored NM. By practicing patience, you not only do the right thing, (clearing an abandoned, needy cache from the map), you won't come off as a pest. Quote Link to comment
+Dogmeat* Posted August 19, 2013 Author Share Posted August 19, 2013 Thanks, guys. I marked it as NM before making the thread. I'll wait a few weeks now. Quote Link to comment
+pppingme Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 The problem with NM is that it doesn't draw it to the attention of anyone, and it just generates an email to the CO, if they are already ignoring their emails (CO's get an email for every log posted), then an NM isn't going to do much. I've logged Needs Archived many times with the note "Maybe this should be disabled until owner can check" and the local reviewer typically disables it right away. There's a lot of users that don't seem to understand disabled and refuse to use it. There's one hider in particular in my area, his caches seem to turn into high maintenance caches, and he will just post a note on it acknowledging its gone and saying he'll check on it or replace it in a couple weeks. Meantime cachers keep going after it not realizing its been acknowledged as missing. He has never disabled a cache on his own and typically leaves a scathing note to the reviewer if they disable it, even though the reviewer puts a friendly "when you get it fixed up just log an enable". He's been babied through it many times and still doesn't seem to get the concept. I do no think this is an isolated issue. A CO may take offense to the NA log, but until gs fixes this BUG, and gets reviewers involved at an earlier stage (like when an NM is logged) there's no better way to do it. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Someone should have filed an NM a long time ago, so even though that would be the logical next step, in this case going straight to NA is fine. If the CO hasn't reacted to two years of DNFs, you can be fairly certain that an NM won't accomplish anything, either. Besides, it's not as if an NA blocks the CO from belated action. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 A CO may take offense to the NA log, but until gs fixes this BUG, and gets reviewers involved at an earlier stage (like when an NM is logged) there's no better way to do it. The only bug here is a CO that takes offense at an NA log. I have no interest in getting reviewers involved earlier in the process. NAs are designed specifically so that seekers can decide for themselves that it's time to call in a reviewer. There's no better way to do it because it is, in fact, a good way to do it. Quote Link to comment
team tisri Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 The problem with NM is that it doesn't draw it to the attention of anyone, and it just generates an email to the CO, if they are already ignoring their emails (CO's get an email for every log posted), then an NM isn't going to do much. I've logged Needs Archived many times with the note "Maybe this should be disabled until owner can check" and the local reviewer typically disables it right away. There's a lot of users that don't seem to understand disabled and refuse to use it. There's one hider in particular in my area, his caches seem to turn into high maintenance caches, and he will just post a note on it acknowledging its gone and saying he'll check on it or replace it in a couple weeks. Meantime cachers keep going after it not realizing its been acknowledged as missing. He has never disabled a cache on his own and typically leaves a scathing note to the reviewer if they disable it, even though the reviewer puts a friendly "when you get it fixed up just log an enable". He's been babied through it many times and still doesn't seem to get the concept. I do no think this is an isolated issue. A CO may take offense to the NA log, but until gs fixes this BUG, and gets reviewers involved at an earlier stage (like when an NM is logged) there's no better way to do it. Some COs seem to have no idea at all what the maintenance and disabling features are for. Without naming names, I've seen a CO respond to an NM log with an Owner Maintenance log saying they'll try and get out in the next couple of weeks. Some people have enabled a cache saying they'll check on it and replace it if necessary. But then in other parts of the forum here I've seen people complaining bitterly about how the community somehow gangs up on people and harasses them by logging NM on their caches and ranting about how the owners have busy lives and can't be expected to drop everything to fix a cache. Such people seem to overlook the fact that NM is just to draw attention to a problem rather than demand immediate action, and logging NM is really nothing more serious than the caching equivalent of telling someone their zipper is undone. Quote Link to comment
+Don_J Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 The problem with NM is that it doesn't draw it to the attention of anyone, and it just generates an email to the CO, if they are already ignoring their emails (CO's get an email for every log posted), then an NM isn't going to do much. I've logged Needs Archived many times with the note "Maybe this should be disabled until owner can check" and the local reviewer typically disables it right away. There's a lot of users that don't seem to understand disabled and refuse to use it. There's one hider in particular in my area, his caches seem to turn into high maintenance caches, and he will just post a note on it acknowledging its gone and saying he'll check on it or replace it in a couple weeks. Meantime cachers keep going after it not realizing its been acknowledged as missing. He has never disabled a cache on his own and typically leaves a scathing note to the reviewer if they disable it, even though the reviewer puts a friendly "when you get it fixed up just log an enable". He's been babied through it many times and still doesn't seem to get the concept. I do no think this is an isolated issue. A CO may take offense to the NA log, but until gs fixes this BUG, and gets reviewers involved at an earlier stage (like when an NM is logged) there's no better way to do it. Some COs seem to have no idea at all what the maintenance and disabling features are for. Without naming names, I've seen a CO respond to an NM log with an Owner Maintenance log saying they'll try and get out in the next couple of weeks. Some people have enabled a cache saying they'll check on it and replace it if necessary. But then in other parts of the forum here I've seen people complaining bitterly about how the community somehow gangs up on people and harasses them by logging NM on their caches and ranting about how the owners have busy lives and can't be expected to drop everything to fix a cache. Such people seem to overlook the fact that NM is just to draw attention to a problem rather than demand immediate action, and logging NM is really nothing more serious than the caching equivalent of telling someone their zipper is undone. There's no reason why anyone has to drop everything and rush out because of a NM log. A simple note explaining that you acknowledge the problem and will attend to it when you are able to, goes a long way. Too many COs want to ignore DNFs and NM logs and then get upset when a reviewer finally steps in and asks them to take some sort of action. Quote Link to comment
team tisri Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 The problem with NM is that it doesn't draw it to the attention of anyone, and it just generates an email to the CO, if they are already ignoring their emails (CO's get an email for every log posted), then an NM isn't going to do much. I've logged Needs Archived many times with the note "Maybe this should be disabled until owner can check" and the local reviewer typically disables it right away. There's a lot of users that don't seem to understand disabled and refuse to use it. There's one hider in particular in my area, his caches seem to turn into high maintenance caches, and he will just post a note on it acknowledging its gone and saying he'll check on it or replace it in a couple weeks. Meantime cachers keep going after it not realizing its been acknowledged as missing. He has never disabled a cache on his own and typically leaves a scathing note to the reviewer if they disable it, even though the reviewer puts a friendly "when you get it fixed up just log an enable". He's been babied through it many times and still doesn't seem to get the concept. I do no think this is an isolated issue. A CO may take offense to the NA log, but until gs fixes this BUG, and gets reviewers involved at an earlier stage (like when an NM is logged) there's no better way to do it. Some COs seem to have no idea at all what the maintenance and disabling features are for. Without naming names, I've seen a CO respond to an NM log with an Owner Maintenance log saying they'll try and get out in the next couple of weeks. Some people have enabled a cache saying they'll check on it and replace it if necessary. But then in other parts of the forum here I've seen people complaining bitterly about how the community somehow gangs up on people and harasses them by logging NM on their caches and ranting about how the owners have busy lives and can't be expected to drop everything to fix a cache. Such people seem to overlook the fact that NM is just to draw attention to a problem rather than demand immediate action, and logging NM is really nothing more serious than the caching equivalent of telling someone their zipper is undone. There's no reason why anyone has to drop everything and rush out because of a NM log. A simple note explaining that you acknowledge the problem and will attend to it when you are able to, goes a long way. Too many COs want to ignore DNFs and NM logs and then get upset when a reviewer finally steps in and asks them to take some sort of action. Yep, but from the way a couple of folks I've encountered on here talk you'd think that logging NM was a huge personal insult and that they were expected to deal with a problem right away regardless of what else was going on. Maybe they had a few people log nasty messages within an NM log, but from what I could see all that was happening was someone was saying the log was damp and they took the hump because they regarded it as an accusation of failure. As you say, all they needed to do was acknowledge the NM and say they'd see to it next time they were out there. If the NM suggested the cache might be missing they could have disabled it until they were next out there. If people log NM against a cache and there's no sign of any action or even acknowledgement for several weeks nobody should be surprised to get an NA logged. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted August 20, 2013 Share Posted August 20, 2013 Needs Archived log. Posting one doesn't mean automatic archival...it just gets reviewer attention and they can decide whether to disable it or archive it. Quote Link to comment
+Dogmeat* Posted August 20, 2013 Author Share Posted August 20, 2013 The CO only has 19 finds since 2009, and this is their only hide. They've not been online since March. I think it's safe to request archival at this point. Quote Link to comment
+Dogmeat* Posted August 20, 2013 Author Share Posted August 20, 2013 Nineteen finds since 2009, which was when their profile was created I should add. Quote Link to comment
+The_Incredibles_ Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I would post a needs maintenance, followed by a needs archive 1 month later if no response. Quote Link to comment
+pppingme Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 I would post a needs maintenance, followed by a needs archive 1 month later if no response. If a cache is KNOWN to be missing, leaving it active for a month is too long. It should be disabled as soon as there is any confirmation of it missing. Quote Link to comment
+WarNinjas Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 If a CO hasn't logged on in months I would see a problem. I would still go with the NM then a while later NA. I don't do it but was happy when someone did on some around my house that I Thought needed it. Quote Link to comment
UpCon3Boy Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 If a CO hasn't logged on in months I would see a problem. I would still go with the NM then a while later NA. I don't do it but was happy when someone did on some around my house that I Thought needed it. This is exactly the problem I have. The last cache I found was in such a deplorable condition (no lid, logs exposed to elements and faded beyond readability, no TB's or trinkets) that I felt compelled to act. I sent the CO an email, but when I checked his profile, he last checked in GC(dot)com in March of 2012. There's 2 NMs that were listed in 2012 & 2013, and a lot of the find logs state exactly what I have said... "not much of a cache left". I sent an email to the reviewer who published it and he replied and said to NA it and wait a bit. I offered to adopt it because it's such a great location and it's a shame the OC let it fall to disrepair (we get a lot of tourist GC'ers), but he said to go through the "abandonment" process first. I have no problem with that. FYI: I'm very new to GC'ing and I love the sport already. It gets me out of my office (all day sit-down desk job) and into the woods and fresh air and strolling along trails and paths. Quote Link to comment
+Dogmeat* Posted August 23, 2013 Author Share Posted August 23, 2013 I decided to post NA after a few days so that the reviewers would be aware. The three reviewers around here are on vacation anyway, so they wont notice it until they get back. Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 NM is a good first step no matter how long the CO has been out of the game or how many dnfs. It makes the reviewer's job a bit easier later on when a NA is posted. No big deal here, though, now that it's done. Quote Link to comment
+Dogmeat* Posted August 24, 2013 Author Share Posted August 24, 2013 Well I just figured if they didn't log on since march, didn't find a cache since 2010, and this has not been found for a couple years, may as well. Quote Link to comment
+BlueDeuce Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 (edited) In my opinion, if someone posts a NA, right or wrong, and six months passes without a response. Guess what. Edit: Oh, and before we get into this to far, show me even one example that gc.com has a we won't archive it unless someone cleans it up policy. Edited August 24, 2013 by BlueDeuce Quote Link to comment
goldfishy Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 What is this new trend of requesting archives as a log on a cache page, just because someone can't find it. The ONLY times I would even consider doing that is if numerous numerous people post a DNF, AND there seems to be no response from the CO. I wish people would also realize sometimes life gets in the way of people being able to check on a cache immediately...work, illness, family members sick, death in the family, out of town, etc, etc. I'm frustrated!!! In just the last couple of months, I've had THREE of four of my caches have a request archive log. No personal note to me, no write note first on the cache page, just up and get rid of it! It's junk like that that makes me not want to have caches out there. Quote Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 What is this new trend of requesting archives as a log on a cache page, just because someone can't find it. The ONLY times I would even consider doing that is if numerous numerous people post a DNF, AND there seems to be no response from the CO. I wish people would also realize sometimes life gets in the way of people being able to check on a cache immediately...work, illness, family members sick, death in the family, out of town, etc, etc. I'm frustrated!!! In just the last couple of months, I've had THREE of four of my caches have a request archive log. No personal note to me, no write note first on the cache page, just up and get rid of it! It's junk like that that makes me not want to have caches out there. Well since you deleted the request we can't really give you any opinions. Quote Link to comment
+Scootercop Posted September 14, 2013 Share Posted September 14, 2013 There have been several times I emailed the CO about the cache asking for confirmation of its existence. In most cases when I have done this, the CO just archived it. However if the CO has not been active for greater than 6 months I will log a NA. Quote Link to comment
+giddeanx Posted September 15, 2013 Share Posted September 15, 2013 What is this new trend of requesting archives as a log on a cache page, just because someone can't find it. The ONLY times I would even consider doing that is if numerous numerous people post a DNF, AND there seems to be no response from the CO. I wish people would also realize sometimes life gets in the way of people being able to check on a cache immediately...work, illness, family members sick, death in the family, out of town, etc, etc. I'm frustrated!!! In just the last couple of months, I've had THREE of four of my caches have a request archive log. No personal note to me, no write note first on the cache page, just up and get rid of it! It's junk like that that makes me not want to have caches out there. GC2953X seems to be an example of this. Seems more like a hostile takeover though. Quote Link to comment
+Dogmeat* Posted September 15, 2013 Author Share Posted September 15, 2013 What is this new trend of requesting archives as a log on a cache page, just because someone can't find it. The ONLY times I would even consider doing that is if numerous numerous people post a DNF, AND there seems to be no response from the CO. I wish people would also realize sometimes life gets in the way of people being able to check on a cache immediately...work, illness, family members sick, death in the family, out of town, etc, etc. I'm frustrated!!! In just the last couple of months, I've had THREE of four of my caches have a request archive log. No personal note to me, no write note first on the cache page, just up and get rid of it! It's junk like that that makes me not want to have caches out there. ... which is exactly what the situation was here. Instead of just logging NA, I came here. It was answered, I did what I felt I should do, and then the thread died for two weeks. Quote Link to comment
+OHail Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 (edited) A general FYI, access via the geocaching app does not update the last visit date on a geocacher's profile. People may be actually active and it may not show. I recently looked at the profile of some new cachers whose logs say "I found this geocache using the Geocaching Intro App." Last visit to the site showed "Never". Can't say if this would be the case for the CO in the OP though. Edited September 16, 2013 by OHail Quote Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Cache in question... http://coord.info/GC24ZYW You did what most cachers would done. I see this all the time here. Quote Link to comment
+Dogmeat* Posted September 16, 2013 Author Share Posted September 16, 2013 A general FYI, access via the geocaching app does not update the last visit date on a geocacher's profile. People may be actually active and it may not show. I recently looked at the profile of some new cachers whose logs say "I found this geocache using the Geocaching Intro App." Last visit to the site showed "Never". Can't say if this would be the case for the CO in the OP though. That's why I also meantioned they didn't log anything since November 2010. Since this thread was made, they logged in (august 23). Maybe it'll get fixed. I hope so. Quote Link to comment
4wheelin_fool Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 A problem is that DNFs tend to have a snowball effect. Only after one gets posted, then others will appear. Some will not search long and get discouraged easily after seeing a previous DNF. Then they get piled on without much searching effort. Once a valid find appears, then everything inexplicitly returns to normal. This cache most likely could be missing, but cosidering the container, where did it go? Why would a muggle take that? Even so, it probably should be archived if there is no action from the CO. Quote Link to comment
+RoadRoach58 Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 DNF's have little to do with a cache's viability or merit. Some are just very hard to find. Others, not so hard, and genuinely missing. But how do I know it's missing if I haven't found it before, and I still can't find it? Someone that's found it before can probably tell me, and I can't count the number of times I have seen replacement notes after I log a DNF on an active owner's hide. CO presence and accountability has EVERYTHING to do with cache quality. If a CO is not held directly responsible for the quality of their placements, it encourages throw-downs, poor cache quality/placement, and long time missing caches that cannot be replaced because of theme or content that cannot be duplicated easily. Containers that were never meant to be left out in the weather start to deteriorate and things inside get nasty. REAL nasty sometimes. Things like butane lighters, live shotgun shells, cigarette butts, and rocks get left in caches for exchange with whom for what? GC.COM should fix the API to update the Last Visit Date any time an account is accessed for any reason if they expect us to police ourselves and each other. It makes using the NA flag a lot easier based on REAL information. The ONLY time I will use the NA flag is if I believe the CO is inactive based on the facts I have available, whether that's the sock puppet owner, or the real owner. Doesn't matter which, really. If an owner isn't going to at least log on every 3 months or so and take a peek at the stuff they put out, then the cache should be removed. Even if they want to depend on others to maintain it, or if others are doing so, and the CO isn't making a presence, does the cache really belong to them any more? Two DNF's on one of mine will trigger me to go out and check on it. I have one that squirrels seem to like to keep moving between finds. Who knew? To me, hanging the NM flag on one that can't be found doesn't quite fit either. Needs Maintenance to me says I held it in my hand, and this thing needs help. Broken/cracked pill bottles, bison tubes with stripped threads, Ziploc sandwich bags and plastic ware are all too often the norm now. Even duct tape covers on the Ziploc bags with magnets taped in. Can't get much cheaper than that, and the game suffers for it. All this said, reviewers have enough to do exploring maps and checking proximity to things and checking on permits, etc etc WITHOUT having to make judgment calls on archiving caches. Sometimes they simply get it wrong. A proscribed visitation schedule along with a proscribed Maintenance Note schedule could resolve some of the issues that are degrading the game. Lack of maintenance, suspend the cache. Suspend it long enough, archive it. Don't show up, archive it. I make no pretense to say how long one should wait for these steps to occur, but most of it could be run from triggers that are reset by a CO's diligence. That way, the CO is responsible for their cache, not us. I say this, because I have been personally (verbally) attacked in open forum by a CO for not performing maintenance on a small powertrail as I did it. Me, being the noob at the time, made the mistake of defending myself for peeing on his majesty's fire hydrant. Pandemonium ensued, and I came away the bad guy, for saying NM as a fact. Pardon me? I went out there to find it, not to repair it. Then, I find the name the caches are registered to is NOT the same name I got the messages from. THAT part would go away. NM breeds contempt from CO's that use sock puppet accounts for large numbers of hides, even when properly used, particularly on hides that are being neglected because of the sheer work to go out and take care of them. NA infuriates that type of CO as well. I know it's work to support caches. I have 22 of them, which is not a lot. But, I keep them up, and still have plenty time to cache. Figure that one out. Another option, automatically set the NM flag every 6 months or so. If the CO does not reset that with a Maintenance Note within the next month, set the NA flag automatically. If that doesn't get corrected within a month, then nuke it. All that said, put a small bounty on removal of archived caches, say a path-tag coin or something inexpensive, but a reward for the CITO effort which won't qualify as an event. Just don't leave the geolitter in place. After archival, and proof of removal, THEN remove it's listing. If the CO is genuinely in restoring the status of the cache, then photographic evidence (with geotagged photos) of going to the site and repairing whatever was wrong should be ample penance and proof that they care when submitted to a reviewer. Much like getting it approved to start with, but with additional requirements of proof. Wow, that almost sounded like an ALR. This is just a suggestion, and an idea, not telling anyone else they're wrong. We all deal with the fact our cars run out of gasoline if we as owners don't fill them up regularly. If used more, then they have to be filled more often, right? Same with a cache. The more hits it gets, the more help it will need. I don't know of many people that will fill up my car for me. Or paint my house. Or mow my lawn. You know, all those things that come with ownership of something. Most times, in real life, the things we neglect often have very serious repercussions for both neglector and neglectee. Why should the game be any different? Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Another option, automatically [...] automatically.Please, no. An automated system like this cannot account for the variability of geocaches, geocache locations, and geocache owners. Some caches can be just fine for 5 years between finds. Others can't survive 5 days. Some cache owners will fight automation with more automation of their own. Others will get fed up with the impersonal treatment they're receiving and give up, even though their caches are fine (and perhaps more interesting than the caches owned by the first group). Quote Link to comment
+Dogmeat* Posted September 20, 2013 Author Share Posted September 20, 2013 A problem is that DNFs tend to have a snowball effect. Only after one gets posted, then others will appear. Some will not search long and get discouraged easily after seeing a previous DNF. Then they get piled on without much searching effort. Once a valid find appears, then everything inexplicitly returns to normal. This cache most likely could be missing, but cosidering the container, where did it go? Why would a muggle take that? Even so, it probably should be archived if there is no action from the CO. It's near a series of paths used during the summer months and sometimes used to get to a nearby high school. Also, it's in a hole either in a tree or on the ground meaning it could have been kicked out by a squirrel or bird, or could have been seen and thought to have been garbage and picked up. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.