Archive Procedures

[+Zeke's Uncle]

Many of us have requested that a cache be archived. (This is not a discussion of whether you should or should not.) But what happens after you do? Who or what gets notified other than the cache owner? Headquarters? And they assign the problem to the appropriate reviewer? Or does it go directly to the appropriate reviewer? What and why does it take so long for a notice to be placed by a reviewer that it is about to be archived? What is the criteria and the procedure and the time table for the powers that be after a request has been made? Maybe a lackey or moderator could answer this.

[+T.D.M.22]

Keystone will probably have the best answer, but from my experience it depends on different things. Yes the reviewer gets notified. What happens after that depends. If you log a NA without any explanation, nothing will probably happen.

 

I was out of town and tried to find a cache that should have been an easy find. I knew it wasn't there, and the CO was 6000 KM away. Living and caching there. The reviewer archived it on the spot, because even if it happened to be there the CO was too far away to maintain it.

 

I also logged a NA on a cache after a local flood. The cache wasn't in good shape, to begin with and I figured I could put a cache in the area. The same reviewer wouldn't archive it right away (I couldn't check it because the area was closed) but he was watching it, and archived it after a few DNF's, that he probably would have not paid any attention to.

 

So it depends on everything. Is the CO active? If so, the CO might get a chance to repair/move the cache first. Are there people who want to place caches in the area? If so, it might get archived sooner rather than later. Is it missing? Is that confirmed by someone who had previously found it? Is it on private property? IS it a cacher saying this, or is it a landowner requesting the cache to be removed? If a land owner is requesting it to be removed it could be archived immediately, and could always be unarchived if it moves a little distance off the property?

 

As you can see there are a lot of different scenarios.

[+niraD]

My experience is that listings with permission problems get archived quickly, and that others take a while.

 

If you post a Needs Archived log stating that the property manager told you to leave and to take the %$#@! geothing with you, then the listing will get archived very quickly. If the CO manages to sort out the permission problems, then the listing can get unarchived later, but the default is to archive it quickly.

 

If you post a Needs Archived log that documents some other problem (e.g., verified missing by previous finder with no response from CO for months), then the reviewer will probably disable the listing and post a Reviewer Note giving the CO a deadline for responding to the problem. If nothing happens by the deadline, then the listing is archived.

 

And if you post a Needs Archived log that doesn't document a real problem (e.g., I looked for 10 minutes and couldn't find it), then nothing happens.

[+Sapience Trek]

Many of us have requested that a cache be archived. (This is not a discussion of whether you should or should not.) But what happens after you do? Who or what gets notified other than the cache owner? Headquarters? And they assign the problem to the appropriate reviewer? Or does it go directly to the appropriate reviewer? What and why does it take so long for a notice to be placed by a reviewer that it is about to be archived? What is the criteria and the procedure and the time table for the powers that be after a request has been made? Maybe a lackey or moderator could answer this.

 

Just like cache submissions, the needs archived notes go to the appropriate reviewers. How it's handled is usually done on a case by case basis.

 

Many times people post a needs archived because they think "it must be missing because I didn't find it". If there is no history of DNFs and the only person who couldn't find it is the person making the request to archive, I'll usually ignore it - or at least watch the cache.

 

A surprising number of people post a needs archived when they meant to post a find - probably just a fat finger when logging. No action is taken on those either, of course.

 

If a needs archived note is posted because of a permission issue ("I got chased off by the property owner who didn't want the cache there!") then the cache is usually disabled or archived pretty quickly.

 

If a needs archived note is posted and there seems to be a long history of DNFs, then many reviewers will give the cache owner some time to respond before taking any sort of action.

[+Zeke's Uncle]

All the caches I asked to be archived had more than one valid reason. Either successive DNFs (at least 6), another cacher already asked that it be archived and nothing happened (over 6 months ago in one case), the CO hasn't logged on in over 6 months and hasn't cached longer than that, etc. I usually like to make sure. And I list these reasons when I post a NA. I hear some reviewers will act immediately and some have their own timetable. That's why I asked if there was some sort of process or guideline for reviewers regarding NAs. If not, maybe there should be. It sure is frustrating when I make PQs and I get a bunch of "geotrash" (for lack of a better word). I guess I could just go to GSAK and filter the PQ, but then I'm spending more time at my computer than I am caching. Maybe GC could improve their PQ filter process while they're making NA guidelines. Hmm.

[+niraD]

Has anyone posted Needs Maintenance? If so, then you could use a pocket query to exclude caches with the Needs Maintenance attribute set.

[+Don_J]

Many of us have requested that a cache be archived. (This is not a discussion of whether you should or should not.) But what happens after you do? Who or what gets notified other than the cache owner? Headquarters? And they assign the problem to the appropriate reviewer? Or does it go directly to the appropriate reviewer? What and why does it take so long for a notice to be placed by a reviewer that it is about to be archived? What is the criteria and the procedure and the time table for the powers that be after a request has been made? Maybe a lackey or moderator could answer this.

 

How come I knew you were in Texas before I even looked at your profile?

 

Around here, a valid NA log gets a response from a reviewer within an hour or two. What that response is, is dependent on the overall situation, not necessarily what the NA log says. An urban micro with fifty finds followed by ten DNFs and an owner that hasn't been active for five years may get archived instantly. If it's out in the boonies, or has an active owner, it gets disabled with a 30 day notice.

[+Zeke's Uncle]

Has anyone posted Needs Maintenance? If so, then you could use a pocket query to exclude caches with the Needs Maintenance attribute set.

That's one way. However, there are many COs who don't, or forget to clear the NM attribute after they have performed maintenance. So many "good" caches would get excluded in that instance.

[+Zeke's Uncle]

Many of us have requested that a cache be archived. (This is not a discussion of whether you should or should not.) But what happens after you do? Who or what gets notified other than the cache owner? Headquarters? And they assign the problem to the appropriate reviewer? Or does it go directly to the appropriate reviewer? What and why does it take so long for a notice to be placed by a reviewer that it is about to be archived? What is the criteria and the procedure and the time table for the powers that be after a request has been made? Maybe a lackey or moderator could answer this.

 

How come I knew you were in Texas before I even looked at your profile?

 

Around here, a valid NA log gets a response from a reviewer within an hour or two. What that response is, is dependent on the overall situation, not necessarily what the NA log says. An urban micro with fifty finds followed by ten DNFs and an owner that hasn't been active for five years may get archived instantly. If it's out in the boonies, or has an active owner, it gets disabled with a 30 day notice.

I've known our reviewer for many years. I can personally say that he works his butt off. Until about 6 months ago, he was the only reviewer for the entire state and still reviews 2/3rds of it including all the major cities. It is a huge job. More than one of us have offered to help. I also realize that reviewers are real people with real lives and working both sometimes has it's problems. I have seen a cache get archived in an hour and I've seen 30 day notices posted after a couple more DNFs get logged and I've seen caches that have 3 different NAs from 3 different people over a 6 month span get nothing.

 

Being in Texas has nothing to do with it! I've seen this happen in more than one state. And probably for more than one reason.

 

Which goes back to my original discussion question of what happens after you post an NA log. It seems there is no set GC policy for cachers and reviewers alike to follow. As many new caches are getting placed and as many older cachers and their caches are falling by the wayside, it seems GC needs to come up with a standard policy for reviewers to follow. Which, I guess, starts a new discussion. How do I/we get GC to set a NA reviewer policy? Might help get rid of those crappy, non-maintained vacation caches too! But that's another discussion.

 

BTW, now that Don has applied this to Texas (even though I tried to keep it a general discussion), this is just one example: GC1QKG6

[+Don_J]

Many of us have requested that a cache be archived. (This is not a discussion of whether you should or should not.) But what happens after you do? Who or what gets notified other than the cache owner? Headquarters? And they assign the problem to the appropriate reviewer? Or does it go directly to the appropriate reviewer? What and why does it take so long for a notice to be placed by a reviewer that it is about to be archived? What is the criteria and the procedure and the time table for the powers that be after a request has been made? Maybe a lackey or moderator could answer this.

 

How come I knew you were in Texas before I even looked at your profile?

 

Around here, a valid NA log gets a response from a reviewer within an hour or two. What that response is, is dependent on the overall situation, not necessarily what the NA log says. An urban micro with fifty finds followed by ten DNFs and an owner that hasn't been active for five years may get archived instantly. If it's out in the boonies, or has an active owner, it gets disabled with a 30 day notice.

I've known our reviewer for many years. I can personally say that he works his butt off. Until about 6 months ago, he was the only reviewer for the entire state and still reviews 2/3rds of it including all the major cities. It is a huge job. More than one of us have offered to help. I also realize that reviewers are real people with real lives and working both sometimes has it's problems. I have seen a cache get archived in an hour and I've seen 30 day notices posted after a couple more DNFs get logged and I've seen caches that have 3 different NAs from 3 different people over a 6 month span get nothing.

 

Being in Texas has nothing to do with it! I've seen this happen in more than one state. And probably for more than one reason.

 

Which goes back to my original discussion question of what happens after you post an NA log. It seems there is no set GC policy for cachers and reviewers alike to follow. As many new caches are getting placed and as many older cachers and their caches are falling by the wayside, it seems GC needs to come up with a standard policy for reviewers to follow. Which, I guess, starts a new discussion. How do I/we get GC to set a NA reviewer policy? Might help get rid of those crappy, non-maintained vacation caches too! But that's another discussion.

 

BTW, now that Don has applied this to Texas (even though I tried to keep it a general discussion), this is just one example: GC1QKG6

 

If you know your reviewer personally, why didn't you ask him instead of bringing it to the forum? Then you go on to answer your own question. Yes, your reviewer is way over worked. This is no secret and has been discussed way too many times on this forum. This is why I was almost certain that I was going to find that you were in Texas simply by your question.

 

BTW, if my local reviewers ignored five NA logs over five months on a missing cache with a missing cache owner, I'd be writing to headquarters.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Has anyone posted Needs Maintenance? If so, then you could use a pocket query to exclude caches with the Needs Maintenance attribute set.

That's one way. However, there are many COs who don't, or forget to clear the NM attribute after they have performed maintenance. So many "good" caches would get excluded in that instance.

 

And how does that bother me? Lots of caches out there to be found. If I miss a few by COs who do not know how to clear the NM, what am I losing? Obviously not competent COs anyway?

I do not filter by that. Perhaps I should? I filter for "Not available" and "Last two logs Not Found". I do not need to waste my time on badly maintained caches! If I miss hunting for one where the CO does not know how to clear NM logs, how does that affect me? My Gupy upload for last weekend was 3000 within 35 miles. I found 13. We had a great weekend!

So, why should I waste my time on badly maintained caches?? I've got better things to do!

[+briansnat]

What and why does it take so long for a notice to be placed by a reviewer that it is about to be archived? What is the criteria and the procedure and the time table for the powers that be after a request has been made? Maybe a lackey or moderator could answer this.

 

Reviewers tend to focus on reviewing new caches first and that can sometimes take up much of an evening. Responding to NA logs winds up on the back burner, especially during busy periods.

 

I try to address the NA logs at least once a week, but if the new cache load is heavy, and/or life gets in the way, I may not even look at them for a week or two. By that time the list can be extensive and it could take me an entire evening to investigate and clear each one, which would cut into new cache reviewing. Therefore I may only do a few each day, which means it can sometimes take quite a while before a NA log is acknowledged. It's all about priorities.