Auto-disabling of caches that haven't been found in a long time

[+Bear and Ragged]

Today, I decided to go after a multi-cache in my area. But when I arrived at the site of the first stage, I looked its info up and discovered that the cache hadn't been found in 1¼ years, meaning it was highly likely to have been muggled.

 

Did you look for it?

Did you find it wasn't there? In which case you can post a DNF and NM.

 

Or did you just shrug your shoulders and go off and find an easy cache?

 

Auto-disable?

Bad idea.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Bear and Ragged

[4wheelin_fool]

Today, I decided to go after a multi-cache in my area. But when I arrived at the site of the first stage, I looked its info up and discovered that the cache hadn't been found in 1¼ years, meaning it was highly likely to have been muggled.

 

Did you look for it?

Did you find it wasn't there? In which case you can post a DNF and NM.

 

Or did you just shrug your shoulders and go off and find an easy cache?

 

Auto-disable?

Bad idea.

 

Auto disabling or archival may be a bad idea, but some easy identification for these would be nice. Some would seek them out and some would avoid them. Any unnecessary action that threatened their listed existence is bad.

[+Dame Deco]

I disagree, I like finding lonely caches. And I always check caches before I go--I'd have known it hadn't been found in a long time before I went.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Dame Deco

[+Walts Hunting]

Today, I decided to go after a multi-cache in my area. But when I arrived at the site of the first stage, I looked its info up and discovered that the cache hadn't been found in 1¼ years, meaning it was highly likely to have been muggled.

 

Did you look for it?

Did you find it wasn't there? In which case you can post a DNF and NM.

 

Or did you just shrug your shoulders and go off and find an easy cache?

 

Auto-disable?

Bad idea.

 

Auto disabling or archival may be a bad idea, but some easy identification for these would be nice. Some would seek them out and some would avoid them. Any unnecessary action that threatened their listed existence is bad.

 

Once again the answer is GSAK. Dump it in and set filter for found in last year and you got your wish.

[+DanOCan]

Today, I decided to go after a multi-cache in my area. But when I arrived at the site of the first stage, I looked its info up and discovered that the cache hadn't been found in 1¼ years, meaning it was highly likely to have been muggled. What I consequently propose is that if a cache has not had a "found it" log for a certain period of time depending on its difficulty and terrain ratings, its listing should automatically be disabled and the owner of the cache should be notified that the cache needs to be verified as still in place and ready to be found. I recognize that this idea may be a bit controversial, though.

 

At the risk of putting words into the mouth of the OP, I don't think he/she was advocating an automatic disabling of every cache after a certain amount of time. I believe he/she understood that caches with a higher Difficulty or Terrain rating often go for long stretches with no Finds.

 

However, I still don't like the idea.

 

I prefer to make my own judgement calls on caches. If I see a cache that is relatively simple in terms of Difficulty and Terrain and I don't see it getting any logs while other caches near it are being found I'll assume the cache in question has some sort of issue and people are just failing to log their DNFs. Pretty hard to automate that sort of logic into some sort of automated process though. Human intuition is pretty powerful.

[+Ladybug Kids]

Today, I decided to go after a multi-cache in my area. But when I arrived at the site of the first stage, I looked its info up and discovered that the cache hadn't been found in 1¼ years, meaning it was highly likely to have been muggled.

 

Did you look for it?

Did you find it wasn't there? In which case you can post a DNF and NM.

 

Or did you just shrug your shoulders and go off and find an easy cache?

 

Auto-disable?

Bad idea.

 

Auto disabling or archival may be a bad idea, but some easy identification for these would be nice. Some would seek them out and some would avoid them. Any unnecessary action that threatened their listed existence is bad.

 

Once again the answer is GSAK. Dump it in and set filter for found in last year and you got your wish.

When I'm traveling, I use GSAK to filter out every cache that has the Needs Maintenance attribute, two or more consecutive DNFs in the most recent logs (figuring less than half of the cachers out there actually log their DNFs), is temporarily disabled, or has a Needs Archived log in the four most recent logs. Then I filter out any cache that's older than three months old that doesn't have a favorite point. Those filters still leave me with more caches than I can possibly find during a short visit, yet virtually ensures I will have lots of positive caching experiences without needlessly thrashing around the brush looking for something that isn't their or trying to sign a soggy piece of pulp.

 

At home, I do look at the "questionable" cache pages more carefully and decide whether to load the cache or not. At least here I have the luxury of returning following an unsuccessful hunt.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I can't believe that there are more than 50 responses and nobody has mentioned 4.5lb Walleye. Placed in Sept. 2001 and not found until June, 2013 when Stormgren-x had the geocaching community on the edge of their seats as we followed the track logs while he and his friend spend a week paddling to ground zero. I would rate it as about the most significant geocaching related even that happened this year. It never would have happened if auto-disabling had been implemented.

 

[+cache_test_dummies]

I can't believe that there are more than 50 responses and nobody has mentioned 4.5lb Walleye. Placed in Sept. 2001 and not found until June, 2013 when Stormgren-x had the geocaching community on the edge of their seats as we followed the track logs while he and his friend spend a week paddling to ground zero. I would rate it as about the most significant geocaching related even that happened this year. It never would have happened if auto-disabling had been implemented.

I may be wrong, but I think there was an attempt in this topic to point out that particular remarkable find.

[+SwineFlew]

I can't believe that there are more than 50 responses and nobody has mentioned 4.5lb Walleye. Placed in Sept. 2001 and not found until June, 2013 when Stormgren-x had the geocaching community on the edge of their seats as we followed the track logs while he and his friend spend a week paddling to ground zero. I would rate it as about the most significant geocaching related even that happened this year. It never would have happened if auto-disabling had been implemented.

It was a throw down... Take a good look at the backtrack and the video. The video was made after it was "found" base on the backtrack.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I can't believe that there are more than 50 responses and nobody has mentioned 4.5lb Walleye. Placed in Sept. 2001 and not found until June, 2013 when Stormgren-x had the geocaching community on the edge of their seats as we followed the track logs while he and his friend spend a week paddling to ground zero. I would rate it as about the most significant geocaching related even that happened this year. It never would have happened if auto-disabling had been implemented.

It was a throw down... Take a good look at the backtrack and the video. The video was made after it was "found" base on the backtrack.

 

Oh? I'm not the only one? I thought it was remarkably dirt free for having been there 12 years...

[+wmpastor]

Today, I decided to go after a multi-cache in my area. But when I arrived at the site of the first stage, I looked its info up and discovered that the cache hadn't been found in 1¼ years, meaning it was highly likely to have been muggled. What I consequently propose is that if a cache has not had a "found it" log for a certain period of time depending on its difficulty and terrain ratings, its listing should automatically be disabled and the owner of the cache should be notified that the cache needs to be verified as still in place and ready to be found. I recognize that this idea may be a bit controversial, though.

More than "a bit controversial, " in the minds of all posters so far!

 

Where's Roman!? What's he got to say?!