Jump to content

Would reviewer disable cache because it is too tough?


Ma & Pa

Recommended Posts

Someone is claiming that a reviewer will disable a cache if it is not findable. I have never heard of this

 

Here is the chronology of the last logs on the cache.

 

1.*** 4 DNF logs

 

2.*** Needs archive log by cacher from across the country who did not log a DNF

 

What is it with NB cachers. When a cache hasn't been found in a year, and there are several DNFs on the cache page- Archive it or FIX it.

 

3.*** Reply from the CO

 

What's up with nb cachers? What up with the cachers from where ever your from? Cause they suck at finding caches apparently, look a little harder next time and don't be so ignorant

 

4.*** Log by reviewer disabling cache, asking to CO to check on cache and repair and replace if necessary

 

5.*** Enabling log by CO

 

I'm not sure why my cache got disabled? It's still there? I've checked on it 3 times....

 

6.*** Now a Needs maintenance log appears from an out of town cacher, indicating that the cache had been disabled because it was not findable. Here is the log.

 

In town from Ontario, so not a NB cacher. ... Great location, lots of potential for a good cache. Unfortunately, your cache does not seem to be in one of the locations that make sense to many other cachers. Yes, it may still be there, but when enough people have tried, and no one has found it in so long, it stops being a game, its not fun, and people will stop looking for it, and avoid your other caches.

That is why its been disabled, to get your attention, to have you modify it, to make it findable. Its called geocaching, not hiking. I can do that in any field/path, etc.

 

.

 

.

Edited by Ma & Pa
Link to comment

Tough caches are fine - but there is crazy-tough also - like a hollow rock in a field of 10, 000 rocks. Not fun.

 

But all NB cachers should keep the atmosphere pleasant - or there'll be a feud in the logs as was discussed elsewhere in the forum several months ago in another region.... :huh:

Link to comment

From the OP it appears that the reviewer disabled the listing because it needed an owner maintenance check. Once the owner checks the cache and says it's still there, then ordinarily they re-enable the listing and the reviewer's job is done. The "Cache Maintenance" guideline has been enforced with successful results (an owner check).

 

Disable a cache simply because it's too hard? Only two types of reviewers would do that. The first is a Rogue Reviewer. The second type is a Dog. Many reviewers are Dogs. Dogs are unpredictable and sometimes stray outside the guidelines. Groundspeak is trying to install electronic fences to curb this behavior.

Link to comment

That's crazy. A difficult cache is a great challenge. If 4DNFs are too much for anyone, they need to ignore it. Sounds like a load of obsessive disorder mixed with entitlement. The owner checked on it, so what more is there? Someone who is having dreams about it and who can't stay away. They want to clear their radius or throw a fit?

Link to comment

That's crazy. A difficult cache is a great challenge. If 4DNFs are too much for anyone, they need to ignore it. Sounds like a load of obsessive disorder mixed with entitlement. The owner checked on it, so what more is there? Someone who is having dreams about it and who can't stay away. They want to clear their radius or throw a fit?

 

Yup,, What he said!

Link to comment

Tough caches are fine - but there is crazy-tough also - like a hollow rock in a field of 10, 000 rocks. Not fun.

 

But all NB cachers should keep the atmosphere pleasant - or there'll be a feud in the logs as was discussed elsewhere in the forum several months ago in another region.... :huh:

 

Just because you think a cache is not fun does not mean someone else sees it as a challenge. Everyone plays the game as they see fit. I find pill bottles on signs in the middle of nowhere boring, but I don't go asking to archive those hides because I don't like them. I just choose not to go out of my way to find them.

When normal cachers start acting like cache police they will start a downward spiral into chaos as people will post NM on caches out of revenge. Log a DNF, question the CO if it's there in the log, and let the reviewers decide if it's time to NM or NA the cache. NA should be for clear violations of the guidelines. Caches placed on Private property without permission for example.

If you don't enjoy a type of cache hide don't seek it out.

Link to comment

I love hard-to-find well-camouflaged caches. My main concern about a cache being "too tough" would be whether the location can sustain the repeated prolonged searching that such caches attract.

 

And I believe the issue with a reviewer disabling such a cache has already been addressed.

Link to comment

There was a Cache in Ontario that wasn't found for 12 years. It was published in 2001 and not found until this year.

 

Yes, but the difficulty with that cache was all about getting to GZ (it had no DNFs before it was found).

 

I've also seen a few caches that had well over 100 DNFs before the first find. From reading the logs it was pretty clear that those attempting to find it were having a good time. In some cases event caches were created at the location and had a couple of dozen people in attendance. Lots of pictures and even links to videos were posted. As long as the cache is rated appropriately there is nothing wrong with a cache that is extremely hard to find.

 

 

Link to comment

From the OP it appears that the reviewer disabled the listing because it needed an owner maintenance check. Once the owner checks the cache and says it's still there, then ordinarily they re-enable the listing and the reviewer's job is done. The "Cache Maintenance" guideline has been enforced with successful results (an owner check).

 

Disable a cache simply because it's too hard? Only two types of reviewers would do that. The first is a Rogue Reviewer. The second type is a Dog. Many reviewers are Dogs. Dogs are unpredictable and sometimes stray outside the guidelines. Groundspeak is trying to install electronic fences to curb this behavior.

 

Up in my area, some of the Reviewers have taken to disabling a cache simply because it hasn't been found in several months. There were no NM or NA logs on the pages, just the standard love note to get out and check on it. A long time cacher here got one of those notes on a cache. It was right where it's supposed to be, but the noobie Reviewer went a bit overboard. The Co in this tale pretty much told the Reviewer to find something useful to do. That pretty much ended that donnybrook. The cache is still out there, too.

 

Since when is there a maximum time that can pass between finds? I have a cache that has only been found twice in 7 months. It's not a hard cache to find (it's a challenge cache), but the requirements are kinda tough. When can I expect to get the note?

 

Or, have some of the Dog Reviewers escaped the fences?

Link to comment

In my region I expirienced such a thing once. A newly published cache had about 5 DNFs (from long time cachers with thousands of finds each). Someone obviosly reported this chace to a reviewer, who disabled the cache with the request to perform maintenance. The owner wrote that the cache is in place and enabled it. Then there were about 5 more DNFs, followed by a NA (cacher suspected a fraud). The cache was archived and the owner revealed that there never was a cache and he used this to get pictures of "monkeys searching in the mud" with a hidden webcam.

 

I don's know how representative this story is, but maybe this happes more often than we like to think. So that reviewers are get suspicios when new caches aren't found.

Link to comment

I dont know...

 

Here is one cache that got disable by the reviewer. I found that cache, but WOW, whats a very hard one and all I think about was PAIN!

 

http://coord.info/GC16XYQ

 

Its one of the most meanest cache that I ever hunted for!

 

The CO is not longer around, but she gave the password to another cacher in my area to take care of all those caches out there. One of the placer did put a replacement out because she cant find other one but not sure why it got archived.

Link to comment

SwineFlew, I don't think that was a good example for this thread. Your linked cache attracted many DNF's and then a "Needs Archived," to which the reviewer responded by disabling the listing and giving the owner time to make repairs. The owner decided on their own to archive the listing. This pattern occurs daily around the world.

Link to comment

What's an "NB cacher"?

 

I don't get the whole "not fun" argument. If people want to search, let them search. If you don't find it to be fun, stop searching and go to another cache. Don't try to dictate whether others can go look for it or not.

 

I also don't think the CO should be confrontational in his posts. All he really needs to say in response to a disabling/NA log is "I checked and it's still there". That should be all that matters.

Link to comment

The cache is in Miramichi area of the province of New Brunswick (NB). Both logs mentioned are from cachers from the province of Ontario (ON) who would likely be either on vacation in our beautiful province or would be visiting family.

 

The response from the CO does seem a little harsh, but he was responding to someone who had just insulted the cachers from NB.

 

Needs Archived Needs Archived

 

28 Jul 13

 

 

What is it with NB cachers. When a cache hasn't been found in a year, and there are several DNFs on the cache page - Archive it or FIX it.

Link to comment

From the OP it appears that the reviewer disabled the listing because it needed an owner maintenance check. Once the owner checks the cache and says it's still there, then ordinarily they re-enable the listing and the reviewer's job is done. The "Cache Maintenance" guideline has been enforced with successful results (an owner check).

 

Disable a cache simply because it's too hard? Only two types of reviewers would do that. The first is a Rogue Reviewer. The second type is a Dog. Many reviewers are Dogs. Dogs are unpredictable and sometimes stray outside the guidelines. Groundspeak is trying to install electronic fences to curb this behavior.

 

Up in my area, some of the Reviewers have taken to disabling a cache simply because it hasn't been found in several months. There were no NM or NA logs on the pages, just the standard love note to get out and check on it. A long time cacher here got one of those notes on a cache. It was right where it's supposed to be, but the noobie Reviewer went a bit overboard. The Co in this tale pretty much told the Reviewer to find something useful to do. That pretty much ended that donnybrook. The cache is still out there, too.

 

Since when is there a maximum time that can pass between finds? I have a cache that has only been found twice in 7 months. It's not a hard cache to find (it's a challenge cache), but the requirements are kinda tough. When can I expect to get the note?

 

Or, have some of the Dog Reviewers escaped the fences?

I haven't heard about this. Not sure the full story, there might have been more going on behind the scenes (emails to a reviewer instead of dnf's/na's). But we don't usually disable until a cache has a few dnf's combined with a longer time period.

Link to comment

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe twice this year Groundspeak's newsletter has featured a cache with only one finder and a slew of DNFs, I think around 100; one of the times it was featured was encouraging cachers to log DNFs.

 

There's a difference between constructive criticism and back-biting criticism, and retaliating against an insulting logger doesn't help. Ignore the insults, reference Groundspeak's own newsletter article, and calmly move on. If I further remember correctly, the second time the cache was featured, the owner had posted something similar to "give up; it's difficult; you're not going to find it"--the one where the cache is in the footprint of the covered pavilion and the father with the young son found it after an 1 1/2 hour search.

 

I find it highly unusual that Groundspeak takes the time to highlight the same cache twice, drawing attention to the high numbers of DNFs v. 1 Found It, and then would accept a reviewer's disabling a cache due to the sheer number of DNFs.

Link to comment

 

Up in my area, some of the Reviewers have taken to disabling a cache simply because it hasn't been found in several months. There were no NM or NA logs on the pages, just the standard love note to get out and check on it.

 

Something like that could possibly lead to my geocide, at least as a cache owner. It not my fault that today's typical cacher is too lazy to stray further than 100' from the car.

 

I have 19 active caches that average less than 3 finds a year. One is found every 536 days, another every 460. If a reviewer decided that I needed to check these caches every 3 months, and Groundspeak backed that position, I'd just archive them. Since I don't hide caches in parking lots so the numbers cachers can find them every day, I wouldn't own any caches.

Link to comment

What's an "NB cacher"?

 

I don't get the whole "not fun" argument. If people want to search, let them search. If you don't find it to be fun, stop searching and go to another cache. Don't try to dictate whether others can go look for it or not.

 

I also don't think the CO should be confrontational in his posts. All he really needs to say in response to a disabling/NA log is "I checked and it's still there". That should be all that matters.

 

If I have every confidence that my cache is okay, that's what I'm going to write in my enable note, along with an invitation for the DNF'er to write me for a clue. I've never lied to my reviewer and I never will, but if I honestly feel that my cache is okay, I'm not going to drop everything and run out to check it, and I'm not going to leave it disabled so others don't look for it.

 

I've seen more than one new cacher post a NA on a difficult cache instead of a DNF. My local reviewers ignore that stuff but it sounds like some reviewers act on auto pilot and disable the cache and require the CO to go verify. That's ridiculous.

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...