Archived as part of site maintenance and database clean-up?

[+Don_J]

I can only imagine the outrage that would follow if google decided without warning delete everyones drafts in their gmail accounts because it was taking room and was slowing their servers... ot Microsoft with hotmail or Yahoo, but its Groundspeak so its cool, no biggie.

 

Just think about it, we own or control NOTHING with GC. Nice.

 

Microsoft actually did this with Hotmail many years ago, however they used a slightly different process. They sent an email to all accounts that hadn't been used in over a year with a link to click if you wanted to keep the account. The accounts that they didn't receive a reply after a certain period of time were deleted.

 

Of course, anyone that expects Groundspeak to have the programming resources of Microsoft is simply out of their gourd.

 

I only have one un-submitted listing that I wish to keep, so after reading Moun10bike's note that any update to the listing resets it's time out period, I edited it and added a single "." at the end of the short description. I'm sure my effort spent was much miniscule compared to the effort spent here by people complaining.

[+Don_J]

True, but as I said if in the future they will take such actions every 6 months or even 3 months (NB: some posts talk about the recommendation to work not more than 3 months on a listing without posting a reviewer note) I would not want to ask for unarchival of the same caches 5 times or more and I also would not want to start a new listing each time.

Once again you are demonstrating selective reading. Moun10bike posted that there are no plans to cull inactive listings that are newer than one year back in post 49.

 

I noticed his post, but it is in contraction to this text cited by the OP (coming from GS HQ).

 

In the future, please work to submit cache pages for review within three months of creation. If you are working on a complex cache, or are waiting on permission, communicate your progress by posting regular reviewer notes to unsubmitted listings. Submissions older than six months may be automatically archived.

 

Groundspeak asks to submit a cache within three months or to communicate progress by posting regular reviewer notes.

Quite often I do not make any progress within 6 months because I did not even touch a cache during that period.

As long as I'm not blocking anything, I still think that this is ok and harms absolutely noone.

 

If I could hide my temporary listings from the reviewers (if I wish to do so), they had less work

and I have no need to write a note every three months to say that I had not time to continue my work.

 

To sum up, archiving cache drafts that have an age of over a year, is ok with me as that would mean to have to ask the reviewer once or at most twice to unarchive something.

The three months ventilated by someone else would cause a big issue for me.

 

 

It sounds like you are asking for them to improve the system so that it ignores your long-term work in progress listings.

 

No, my main point was I think that the system the reviewers have available has a lot of weaknesses.

 

Wouldn't you be a bit disturbed if they did ignore them, you took a dusty puzzle off the shelf after 15 months, and then discovered that it cannot be published as there are now three other newer listings nearby that are blocking your grand plan?

 

Actually not as I'm not expecting Groundspeak to reserve anything for me for those type of listings I talked about.

(Right now I do not have such a listing, but for example I worked quite a while on my last cache.)

 

I'm following what happens in my city anyway and so I'm up to date where I can hide something.

For most of my mystery caches the setup of the puzzle parts and the virtual stages (note I do not own a single cache that only has a single

stage) is the important part of the

work - the final at the end is more or less irrelevant and does not play a big role. I take care about at the very end.

 

What I find much more disturbing is that for example the header coordinates of multi caches are not classified and so it can happen that distance

conflicts arise because sometimes something is hidden at the header coordinates while in most cases in my country nothing is hidden there.

Quite often the default approach of the local reviewers is to assume that nothing is hidden.

So I think that classifying the header coordinates makes sense in any case.

 

The current system requires them to take a look at those listings and make an informed and reasonable determination if they are active projects or simply abandoned ideas. I prefer this degree of hands on involvement and suspect most others will as well. Especially in areas where there are a lots of puzzle and multi stage listings and fewer quality locations for new caches.

 

I still would prefer if there existed a switch with which I could actively tell a reviewer "You do not need to waste your time at the moment with my listing. I'm working on it, but there is right now nothing that I want you to take into account." Note that this only reduces their work and does not harm anyone. I'm not saying that noone should be able to have some temporary reservation - this of course makes sense in many cases, but just not in my case.

I do know from experience that quite a number of cachers have cache listings that are not abandoned but where they do not wish to block anything by them at that moment. So why making this obligatory? Why not offer an option to "opt out from blocking something"?

 

 

Cezanne

 

You seem to expect the whole world to just wait on you because you don't have the time/courtesy to post a note every three months. I find your attitude to be extremely selfish.

 

What happens three years from now when they are sitting on 200,000 abandoned listings where the CO's checked the "don't bother me box"

[+dprovan]

Well, I was thinking that, and you posted it. We had 4 unsubmitted cache pages archived by this sweep. Really no big deal. It would be more interesting if, instead of debating the theoretical, someone would post details of an example where they felt they were wronged.

I must have missed the posts where anyone said they were wronged, so I'm not clear that there's anything practical to discuss. On the other hand, I'm interested in a discussion of different approaches to take in the future to see if, theoretically, they might provide better solutions to the stated problem.

[cezanne]

 

You seem to expect the whole world to just wait on you because you don't have the time/courtesy to post a note every three months. I find your attitude to be extremely selfish.

 

What happens three years from now when they are sitting on 200,000 abandoned listings where the CO's checked the "don't bother me box"

 

No, it is neither selfish as others want me to continue hiding caches (for me finding is much easier and causes no work) nor it is correct what you state above. I did not ask for a "don't bother me box" but for a switch that allows me to mark my listing as being in draft status and of no relevance whatsoever for the reviewers. This reduces the work load of the reviewers and does not increase it. In my area in urban regions more than 30% (probably much more in some areas of say Vienna) of the waypoints that are relevant for saturation are waypoints not viewable by the public and only known to the reviewers. So it certainly would help the reviewers to not getting to see the waypoints of draft versions oif this is the intent of the cache owner as the cache owner does not want to block something. In a city like Vienna if a cache gets archived, there are typically at least three other cachers that have waited for that spot to be able to use in their cache and it can well be that all three caches would be worth to be published and are quite different from each other. In such areas the situation is so much different than in a forest where of course moving by 200m will not change much typically. Most of these caches are however multi caches or mystery caches where more than a single location is visited, but the final has to be somewhere. When thinking mainly in terms of traditionals and simple offset caches it is of course hard to imagine what I describe above.

 

Further I wrote that the mass archival that happened now is ok with me (also if they repeat this once per year), but I do not want to be obliged to write reviewer notes every 3 months or lose listings every 3 months.

There is nothing to report on when one has not worked on a listing and is waiting for nothing and it is so easy to forget writing such a note when one is not working on a draft for the moment. My drafts sometimes start with a few sentences and maybe a couple of waypoints like trailheads etc. I might add my next idea after months right when I have it. At that point what I have is so far from an actual cache that asking for regular reviewer notes is not appropriate from my point of view. The situation is very much different if someone is waiting for the ok of a land manager or that some device that is needed for the cache is o supply again or whatever.

Looking at your caches I understand however why you find it hard to understand what I'm talking about. Your caches are very different from mine and in general there are much more complex caches in my country.

For cachers like you the container and the physical element of caches are so much more important than for me. In my case 95% of the work is done when the listing is finished and I have visited all locations. Hiding a container somewhere is just what I do as Groundspeak requires me to do so. In fact all my caches could live well without container as well and some even better.

 

 

Moreover, I'm confused by all the contradictory information in this thread. There is hige difference between doing a mass archival once per year and asking cachers to submit a listing within three months. It is also a huge difference whether only listings are archived for which no edit has happened over x months and all listings that did not get edited over x months. My understanding was that Groundspeak asks all cacher owners to submit a cache within 3 months or to post regular reviewer notes. In my understanding the fact whether the listing has been edited or not did not come into the play. I will never own an active draft listing that does not get edited within a year.

 

If you are ready to write reviewer notes every 3 months for your draft version, fine. I'm not unhappy with this and I dare to give a voice to this unhappyness and I suggested what could be done to solve both my issue and the workload issue of the reviewers. Of course GS can decide how they are going to act. You cannot force me however to be happy with something which is unfortunate and very inconvenient for me.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited December 21, 2013 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

If you haven't edited the listing in a year...I doubt you really care about placing a cache at that location. If it takes you a year or more to create and publish your cache, you have some kind of OCD issue and as the saying goes "(blank) or get off the pot".

 

Not true - and certainly not a reason to call into question a person's mental health

 

I live in a cache dense area where good cache locations are often frustrated by caches which are serviceable but clearly abandoned by the owner. These caches are generally allowed to remain as long as they are serviceable and worthwhile finds. Hence I might place a sleeper cache in a spot in proximity of such a cache and only submit it for publication when the abandoned cache goes end-of-life and gets archived. This process might take months or even years - and certainly doesn't indicate that I suffer from a mental disorder.

 

A couple of years ago I had an idea for a novel (at least I've never seen one like it) multi-cache which had very specific requirements in terms of locations. About a year later I found suitable locations along a footpath and knocked up a cache page. Granted I did not get around to completing that cache as quickly as I might, for various reasons, but I wasn't causing proximity issues with anyone so it wasn't an issue.

 

Eventually an email came through from the friendly local reviewer that a cache submission had been made which clashed with my page - where was I up to with it? I confirmed that I would be proceeding and my page remained. Then I got off my butt and put everything together and went out to place the cache to discover that a river bridge along the route had been washed off its mountings. This I reported to the local council who are responsible for maintenance. It's about 18 months later and the bridge has still not been restored - hence I can't proceed.

 

Someone else wanted to place a couple of caches along that route recently - I confirmed to the reviewer that it was only fair they be allowed to do so and he promptly archived my page - and I couldn't find it anywhere. The page had lots of key information in at - so I didn't want to lose it and managed to get it restored because one day that route will become available again and the bridge will be back and I'll be able to bring my idea to fruition.

 

In total it could be a fair number of years before that idea comes to fruition and I'd kinda like to have the page there until it does - but this isn't grounds to claim that I don't care about it and nor does it suggest I suffer OCD, does it?

[+Don_J]

 

Moreover, I'm confused by all the contradictory information in this thread. There is hige difference between doing a mass archival once per year and asking cachers to submit a listing within three months. It is also a huge difference whether only listings are archived for which no edit has happened over x months and all listings that did not get edited over x months. My understanding was that Groundspeak asks all cacher owners to submit a cache within 3 months or to post regular reviewer notes. In my understanding the fact whether the listing has been edited or not did not come into the play. I will never own an active draft listing that does not get edited within a year.

 

If you are ready to write reviewer notes every 3 months for your draft version, fine. I'm not unhappy with this and I dare to give a voice to this unhappyness and I suggested what could be done to solve both my issue and the workload issue of the reviewers. Of course GS can decide how they are going to act. You cannot force me however to be happy with something which is unfortunate and very inconvenient for me.

 

Cezanne

 

I believe someone else accused you of selective reading. In post #24 the Community Liaison to Engineering explained exactly how this is going to work. Open your page, hit edit, click in one of the descriptions and hit the darn Space Bar. Do it once every three month and you won't lose any sleep over it. And, if for some reason, you forget and your great work of art that you can't even be bothered to look at at least once in three months gets archived, a simple note to your reviewer and 'Poof', it's back.

 

You act like you are getting a tooth pulled, or something.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Don_J

[Nomex]

My understanding was that Groundspeak asks all cacher owners to submit a cache within 3 months or to post regular reviewer notes. In my understanding the fact whether the listing has been edited or not did not come into the play. I will never own an active draft listing that does not get edited within a year.

 

I think that this is all a matter of working with your local Reviewer. Groundspeak must place the bar somewhere, if you you think 3 months is too short, you're entitled to that opinion, but I dare say that present company excluded, if someone hasn't returned to a project in over 3 months, it's more than likely abandoned.

 

Case in point...

 

A couple of years ago I had an idea for a novel (at least I've never seen one like it) multi-cache which had very specific requirements in terms of locations.

 

This happened in my Reviewing area, in an extremely cache dense area. It took weeks to sort out the proximity issues with the numerous Stages/Final for this complex Multi. Months passed while the cache owner worked on the project, kind of on and off again. Listings would get submitted that would conflict with the various Stages (did I mention this was in a very cache dense area?), and I would patiently ask how the progress was going, and sadly reject Listings that were ready to go.

 

This went on for over a year, with seemingly very slow progress (I might add that the distance between Stages would probably have involved a couple hundred miles of driving back and forth). After 6 months of seemingly no activity/no response, I posted a Note stating that I would not be able to Hold the locations any longer. In the absence to any response to my most recent Note, I ended up Archiving the Listing to free up the areas that the Stages/Final blocked.

 

If you have something on the order of that sort of complexity, which ties up a significant amount of prime real estate, I'd suggest getting in touch with your local Reviewer to work out a plan and timeline for completion. I know I sure learned a lesson from this experience

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

If you have something on the order of that sort of complexity, which ties up a significant amount of prime real estate, I'd suggest getting in touch with your local Reviewer to work out a plan and timeline for completion. I know I sure learned a lesson from this experience

 

I wonder how many big power trails are created by reserving long stretches of road by creating cache listings well before hand. I imagine it takes some time to acquire and prepare hundreds of containers and they certainly take up vast amounts of real estate.

 

 

 

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Well, I was thinking that, and you posted it. We had 4 unsubmitted cache pages archived by this sweep. Really no big deal. It would be more interesting if, instead of debating the theoretical, someone would post details of an example where they felt they were wronged.

I must have missed the posts where anyone said they were wronged, so I'm not clear that there's anything practical to discuss. On the other hand, I'm interested in a discussion of different approaches to take in the future to see if, theoretically, they might provide better solutions to the stated problem.

That's pretty much what I thought.

[+ChileHead]

I wonder how many big power trails are created by reserving long stretches of road by creating cache listings well before hand. I imagine it takes some time to acquire and prepare hundreds of containers and they certainly take up vast amounts of real estate.

 

It probably also takes a ton of time to acquire permission for the hundreds of caches in the trail from dozens and dozens of land owners.

[jholly]

 

If you have something on the order of that sort of complexity, which ties up a significant amount of prime real estate, I'd suggest getting in touch with your local Reviewer to work out a plan and timeline for completion. I know I sure learned a lesson from this experience

 

I wonder how many big power trails are created by reserving long stretches of road by creating cache listings well before hand. I imagine it takes some time to acquire and prepare hundreds of containers and they certainly take up vast amounts of real estate.

Most of those long stretches of lonely roads out in the middle of nowhere had few if any caches along them to start with and they were not exactly the hot spot of cache placement before the power trail showed up. So what if the if the spots were held for even as long as a year, which I'm sure is well outside the norm?

[jholly]

I wonder how many big power trails are created by reserving long stretches of road by creating cache listings well before hand. I imagine it takes some time to acquire and prepare hundreds of containers and they certainly take up vast amounts of real estate.

 

It probably also takes a ton of time to acquire permission for the hundreds of caches in the trail from dozens and dozens of land owners.

In most cases it is only one or two land owners, the state DOT or BLM.

[+wimseyguy]

Really? Another reasonable thread is going to degrade into a power trail discussion?

[+fuzzybelly]

 

 

This happened in my Reviewing area, in an extremely cache dense area. It took weeks to sort out the proximity issues with the numerous Stages/Final for this complex Multi. Months passed while the cache owner worked on the project, kind of on and off again. Listings would get submitted that would conflict with the various Stages (did I mention this was in a very cache dense area?), and I would patiently ask how the progress was going, and sadly reject Listings that were ready to go.

 

This went on for over a year, with seemingly very slow progress (I might add that the distance between Stages would probably have involved a couple hundred miles of driving back and forth). After 6 months of seemingly no activity/no response, I posted a Note stating that I would not be able to Hold the locations any longer. In the absence to any response to my most recent Note, I ended up Archiving the Listing to free up the areas that the Stages/Final blocked.

 

If you have something on the order of that sort of complexity, which ties up a significant amount of prime real estate, I'd suggest getting in touch with your local Reviewer to work out a plan and timeline for completion. I know I sure learned a lesson from this experience

This is why I don't mind the archival process. Holding up caches placements that are ready to go could be a real disappointment to a cacher, not so much to an experienced one who understands the issues, but if it's a newer cacher, it may really discourage them.

 

I don't do a lot of the more complex caches, frankly I ain't bright enough, but I understand the enjoyment finders and creators get from them and think that great. But some of the last few pots sound fairly selfish which doesn't seem very geocaching-ish(if that's a word)

[+Team Microdot]

But some of the last few pots sound fairly selfish which doesn't seem very geocaching-ish(if that's a word)

 

Which posts specifically seem fairly selfish to you?

[+kunarion]

Well, I was thinking that, and you posted it. We had 4 unsubmitted cache pages archived by this sweep. Really no big deal. It would be more interesting if, instead of debating the theoretical, someone would post details of an example where they felt they were wronged.

I must have missed the posts where anyone said they were wronged, so I'm not clear that there's anything practical to discuss. On the other hand, I'm interested in a discussion of different approaches to take in the future to see if, theoretically, they might provide better solutions to the stated problem.

That's pretty much what I thought.

Exactly! The OP was surprised that a cache page vanished, mentioned it, and asked what the deal is. It's appropriate to answer "because there's nothing to discuss", and leave it at that. This is certainly no place for a discussion.

[+fuzzybelly]

But some of the last few pots sound fairly selfish which doesn't seem very geocaching-ish(if that's a word)

 

Which posts specifically seem fairly selfish to you?

I only mean holding spots and intentionally holding up other ready to be published caches.

Edited December 21, 2013 by fuzzybelly

[+Don_J]

But some of the last few pots sound fairly selfish which doesn't seem very geocaching-ish(if that's a word)

 

Which posts specifically seem fairly selfish to you?

 

My personal opinion is when someone says that the process shouldn't happen because it's not a problem in their area, despite the fact that at least three reviewers have posted and stated that it is becoming a real problem in their review areas, I do see a bit of selfishness. Moun10bike explained back in post #24 that you don't even have to post a reviewer note, although one explaining your intentions would be nice. All you have to do is make a simple edit and your time out period restarts.

 

I do like the fact that they added a section explaining things in the "Working with your Reviewer" section of the Knowledge Books, however, I think they once again missed an opportunity to use the Weekly Newsletter to give us some actual news.

[+nittany dave]

I just don't see it as an issue at all. Cleaning out old, unused and unpublished listings seems like a good idea to me. Making the reviewers job a little easier seems like a good idea too.

If someone can't be bothered to post a simple reviewer note every 3 months then they must be too busy to geocache. Set a reminder on your free calendar tool of choice and post a 'still working on it' note. 1-2 minutes. Someone mentioned they may need to see the cache details online from any computer. Dropbox, Google Drive, any number of other free tools are available to keep your cache details on and available from any pc, tablet or smartphone.

It's a change sure, but I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages and the disadvantages seem trivial to me.

[+fuzzybelly]

I do like the fact that they added a section explaining things in the "Working with your Reviewer" section of the Knowledge Books, however, I think they once again missed an opportunity to use the Weekly Newsletter to give us some actual news.

I can't believe this either.

I'm new to these forums but I figured in the ANNOUNCEMENT section there would be something, I didn't see anything there either.

 

I'm lucky where I'm at(Alaska) our local reviewer sent an article to our state newsletter and a note on our forum pages.

[+Mudfrog]

I think GS is being pretty generous in allowing unpublished listings to remain if they've been edited within the past twelve months. I would've supported a move to archive all unpublished listings over twelve months old, whether they've been edited or not.

 

If you haven't edited the listing in a year...I doubt you really care about placing a cache at that location. If it takes you a year or more to create and publish your cache, you have some kind of OCD issue and as the saying goes "(blank) or get off the pot".

Well, I was thinking that, and you posted it. We had 4 unsubmitted cache pages archived by this sweep. Really no big deal. It would be more interesting if, instead of debating the theoretical, someone would post details of an example where they felt they were wronged.

 

Yes, posting legitimate examples would would be helpful. As it is now, all i see are cachers who have either forgotten, procrastinated too long, or who never really had any intention of ever submitting the cache for review.

[+Rikitan]

There were 131,000 legacy pages in the database where nobody paid attention to that.

 

130,999.

I was working 2-3 weeks to prepare my cache back in 2010, when another cache took "my" final spot just before sending for review.

Very unlucky.

 

I decided to keep whole design of my unpublished cache and wait. I know the blocking cache will be archived one day, may it take years. I'm paying constant attention. But my draft is now archived. How unlucky again.

 

After reading this thread, I understand the reason and I appreciate you gave us easy option to unarchive our drafts. Thank you. I still have 2 questions, please:

 

1. Why haven't you notified CO's about planned action upfront and caused lot of upset and missunderstanding? Simple warning message "Hey, we plan to archive your old stuff, because ..." in my profile 3 months before clean-up would work perfectly to prevent extra-work for CO's and reviewers. This is elemental in customer service.

 

2. Is reviewer note to archived draft sufficient to get attention of my reviewer?

 

Cheers,

Rikitan.

[+Rikitan]

Yes, posting legitimate examples would would be helpful. As it is now, all i see are cachers who have either forgotten, procrastinated too long, or who never really had any intention of ever submitting the cache for review.

 

Example above.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

But my draft is now archived. How unlucky again.

Did you have your page unarchived?

[Keystone]

1. Why haven't you notified CO's about planned action upfront and caused lot of upset and missunderstanding? Simple warning message "Hey, we plan to archive your old stuff, because ..." in my profile 3 months before clean-up would work perfectly to prevent extra-work for CO's and reviewers. This is elemental in customer service.

There were legitimate reasons to perform the automated archival without prior notice. Knowing there would be some, like you, who were still working on their dormant pages, Groundspeak included the instructions for easy unarchival. Thanks for your understanding.

 

2. Is reviewer note to archived draft sufficient to get attention of my reviewer?

 

Cheers,

Rikitan.

No. Placing a log on a cache will not alert your reviewer. You need to write them an email referencing the name and GC Code of the cache(s) that you would like to have unarchived.

[+Mudfrog]

There were 131,000 legacy pages in the database where nobody paid attention to that.

 

130,999.

I was working 2-3 weeks to prepare my cache back in 2010, when another cache took "my" final spot just before sending for review.

Very unlucky.

 

I decided to keep whole design of my unpublished cache and wait. I know the blocking cache will be archived one day, may it take years. I'm paying constant attention. But my draft is now archived. How unlucky again.

 

After reading this thread, I understand the reason and I appreciate you gave us easy option to unarchive our drafts. Thank you. I still have 2 questions, please:

 

1. Why haven't you notified CO's about planned action upfront and caused lot of upset and missunderstanding? Simple warning message "Hey, we plan to archive your old stuff, because ..." in my profile 3 months before clean-up would work perfectly to prevent extra-work for CO's and reviewers. This is elemental in customer service.

 

2. Is reviewer note to archived draft sufficient to get attention of my reviewer?

 

Cheers,

Rikitan.

 

Get it unarchived by emailing your reviewer with the GC number of the unpublished cache. If, for some reason, you have trouble getting it unarchived, then simply copy and paste your old draft from the archived page into a new cache page.

[I!]

I was working 2-3 weeks to prepare my cache back in 2010, when another cache took "my" final spot just before sending for review.

Very unlucky.

Interested to know if deferred publication would have saved you some pain in this case. You have an idea for a cache, quickly draft a bare listing with the correct cache type + waypoints (but little else), then submit with a marker saying "publish no sooner than 4 weeks from now". The reviewer has enough info to accept or reject your listing immediately, and you hear back a couple of days later that you're good to go (or that the other guy beat you to it; oh well, at least you found out quickly). You spend the next 2-3 weeks leisurely updating the listing text (not the coords - they're now locked) and crafting the containers then, "ta-da!", your listing springs into life at the appointed time.

 

Or would it not typically work that way?

[+Beach_hut]

I was working 2-3 weeks to prepare my cache back in 2010, when another cache took "my" final spot just before sending for review.

Very unlucky.

Interested to know if deferred publication would have saved you some pain in this case. You have an idea for a cache, quickly draft a bare listing with the correct cache type + waypoints (but little else), then submit with a marker saying "publish no sooner than 4 weeks from now". The reviewer has enough info to accept or reject your listing immediately, and you hear back a couple of days later that you're good to go (or that the other guy beat you to it; oh well, at least you found out quickly). You spend the next 2-3 weeks leisurely updating the listing text (not the coords - they're now locked) and crafting the containers then, "ta-da!", your listing springs into life at the appointed time.

 

Or would it not typically work that way?

 

The reviewer still has to make sure the cache page itself meets the guidelines (e.g. Commercial guidelines etc)

[+Mudfrog]

Getting a little off topic but,,

 

I was working 2-3 weeks to prepare my cache back in 2010, when another cache took "my" final spot just before sending for review.

Very unlucky.

 

Am i right in saying that a draft which is submitted to GC.com (not enabled just yet) on a traditional cache holds ground zero for the time being? If so, are stages on a multicache or the final on an unknown also held when a draft is submitted?

[+Sapience Trek]

Getting a little off topic but,,

 

I was working 2-3 weeks to prepare my cache back in 2010, when another cache took "my" final spot just before sending for review.

Very unlucky.

 

Am i right in saying that a draft which is submitted to GC.com (not enabled just yet) on a traditional cache holds ground zero for the time being? If so, are stages on a multicache or the final on an unknown also held when a draft is submitted?

 

In this particular example, not necessarily. A draft cache can hold a spot but only if it is free and clear of other caches. If you have a cache camping out near a spot, you won't be holding anything.

 

In the following case:

CacheA ---300ft---> CacheB ---300ft---> CacheC

 

CacheA is an existing cache.

CacheB is submitted only 300ft from CacheA, so it's not published. It can't hold the spot.

CacheC is submitted after CacheB, it's 600ft from CacheA and only 300ft from CacheB. Since CacheB is not a valid viable cache, the proximity to it is ignored and CacheC is published.

[Keystone]

We archived a lot of CacheB's last week.

[+JohnCNA]

We archived a lot of CacheB's last week.

I had a cache B archived. Thanks! I couldn't figure out how to make it go away by myself. :-)

[4wheelin_fool]

Get it unarchived by emailing your reviewer with the GC number of the unpublished cache.

 

But that's not as exciting as posting about it in the forums. First of all, only the reviewer will read the email, not a few dozen bored people in here. Second, the cache will be brought back with a single word - "unarchiving", which is rather dull compared to multiple forum pages generated as a result.

[+Rikitan]

Getting a little off topic but,,

 

I was working 2-3 weeks to prepare my cache back in 2010, when another cache took "my" final spot just before sending for review.

Very unlucky.

 

Am i right in saying that a draft which is submitted to GC.com (not enabled just yet) on a traditional cache holds ground zero for the time being? If so, are stages on a multicache or the final on an unknown also held when a draft is submitted?

 

In this particular example, not necessarily. A draft cache can hold a spot but only if it is free and clear of other caches. If you have a cache camping out near a spot, you won't be holding anything.

 

In the following case:

CacheA ---300ft---> CacheB ---300ft---> CacheC

 

CacheA is an existing cache.

CacheB is submitted only 300ft from CacheA, so it's not published. It can't hold the spot.

CacheC is submitted after CacheB, it's 600ft from CacheA and only 300ft from CacheB. Since CacheB is not a valid viable cache, the proximity to it is ignored and CacheC is published.

 

Spot was free and clear of other caches, although draft of my unknown cache with final waypoint did not held the place (as I thought) and other cache was published instead. Maybe it was drafted there even sooner then mine, just reviewer knows.

 

OK, I don't want to keep bothering you. I posted the case here, because I think prior notice would be fair approach for similar actions in future. How this 'site maintenance' happened was a bit arrogant - this is my honest perception and feedback.

[+Rikitan]

Get it unarchived by emailing your reviewer with the GC number of the unpublished cache.

 

But that's not as exciting as posting about it in the forums. First of all, only the reviewer will read the email, not a few dozen bored people in here. Second, the cache will be brought back with a single word - "unarchiving", which is rather dull compared to multiple forum pages generated as a result.

 

This is my post #114 over 8 years of caching. Posting to forums is not exciting to me. I had 2 questions, now I have 1 answer and 1 excuse - my sincere thanks to those who responded. Cheers.

[+Olddffart]

By luck and coincidence, non of my pending caches were affected by this mass archival of unpublished caches.

I only found out about it by stumbling upon this thread.

My thoughts:-

» The Pros of archiving long dormant unpublished caches far outweigh the Cons.

» The 1 yr. grace period is lots of time - especially with the simple requirements to restart the clock.

» The ability to have them un-archived by a simple email request is good.

» The un-announced implementation of this was LOUSY customer relations.

» Most cachers do not read these forums on a regular basis and have no idea of why this happened or how to deal with it.

» A short write-up in the Weekly Newsletter or a similar email note explaining the facts and conditions that have been (eventually) brought to light in this thread would have satisfied a lot of presently upset customers.

.

[+Isonzo Karst]

The un-announced implementation of this was LOUSY customer relations.

Most cachers do not read these forums on a regular basis and have no idea of why this happened or how to deal with it.

A short write-up in the Weekly Newsletter or a similar email note explaining the facts and conditions that have been (eventually) brought to light in this thread would have satisfied a lot of presently upset customers.

 

The effected cachers all received the archived email(s), which nicely explained what was happening and how to deal with it. (i got 16!)

 

The Weekly Newsletter goes out to nearly all cachers, the majority of whom own no caches, and own no old unpublished listings.

 

I don't see much in the way of "presently upset customers".

[+thebruce0]

Informing everyone of what was going to happen would likely have caused mass panic and re-saving of affected listings just to be safe, which would essentially have made the action pointless, since most of those re-saved would specifically have been the ones best archived.

In this case, the drawback of not being notified was certainly outweighed by the simplicity of purposefully reversing/unarchiving the caches one is intending on keeping.