Archiving a cache

[+FshngGC]

There is a cache in our area whose owner has moved from the area and that has basically disappeared. I want to archive it and then put a new cache in its place. How can this be done?

[+redsox_mark]

You can log a "Needs Archived". The reviewer will receive notification. If they agree there is good reason it needs to be archived (unless issues are addressed) he/she will take action; generally giving the owner a period of time to fix the problems. If the owner doesn't act then after that time it will be archived.

 

Note that if the cache is in good condition with no issues the reviewer may take no action; even if the owner has moved away.

 

Or you can try and contact the owner and see if they will let you adopt it. If they do, then it will be yours; you can then either fix it up and keep the old listing, or you can archive it yourself and place a new one.

[+TheHarleyRebel]

You can ask to adopt the lising, just message the CO.

Edited March 24, 2014 by TheHarleyRebels

[+Chief301]

You cannot archive someone else's cache. You can post a Needs Archive note explaining why it should be archived, and your local reviewer will be alerted, then he/she will begin the archival process.

[+Chief301]

If it is not far away you can keep the same listing, if it is only temporary, use the disable option, not archive.

 

It's not the OP's cache. Only the CO or a reviewer can archive a cache.

[+T.D.M.22]

If it's that good of a spot, post a NA log, mentioned above. Then place your own cache there.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Keystone
removed comment about duplicate threads

[Pup Patrol]

There is a cache in our area whose owner has moved from the area and that has basically disappeared. I want to archive it and then put a new cache in its place. How can this be done?

 

3 threads about the same thing?

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=320760

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=320759

 

 

B.

[Keystone]

I merged two similar threads together, and closed a third one.

[+FshngGC]

There is a cache in my home town called Bug Chaser

The person that placed Bug Chaser is no longer in my home town and cannot be contacted.

Bug chaser has apparently disappeared and there is nobody to maintain this or any of his caches.

I think that Bug Chaser should be archived, but I don't know how to contact who to accomplish that.

I have placed a Needs to be Archived note in its log but have received no response.

How can this be done?

I could replace the cache or adopt it. Which would you suggest?

[+briansnat]

Posting a Needs Archived is all you need to do. Now it's up to the reviewer to decide whether your log is warranted. If he agrees then you are free to place your own cache there once the old one is archived.

[+FshngGC]

IS it possible to find and communicate directly with a reviewer?

[+T.D.M.22]

Ok, seriously, there is no need for another thread. You've already started 3 on the same subject.

 

In each one of those you have been given advice, it won't change...

 

IS it possible to find and communicate directly with a reviewer?

 

Yes it is. When you post a needs archived it alerts the reviewer-who will then do what he sees fit, which may be archiving it, or other action as necessary.

 

To find your reviewer, go to any local cache page, and usually the first log(at the very bottom) will be a reviewer to publish it. Some older caches may not have it, just try another. But there is no need to contact the reviewer after you had already logged the Needs Archived-the reviewers may have reasons not to archive it, or answer right that second-they do have lives, get sick, go to weddings, have paying jobs. Sometimes they have to put this unpaid position last.

 

SO have patience that the reviewer will get to it, and trust the reviewer to do their job.

Edited March 25, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[+FshngGC]

Yes...seriously and if you read the answers to my first two you will see that the subject had been skirted about but was not answered. I wrote the last one so as to explain my question in detail to get to the point. The answer I got was much clearer.

[+niraD]

This Help Center article may help:

Finding your local reviewer

 

But based on your description, I wouldn't expect the cache to be archived immediately. I would expect the reviewer to give the cache owner a 30-day warning.

 

Immediate archival is usually reserved for time-sensitive problems like angry property owners who want the geocache and the geocachers gone immediately.

[+FshngGC]

Ok, seriously, there is no need for another thread. You've already started 3 on the same subject.

 

In each one of those you have been given advice, it won't change...

 

IS it possible to find and communicate directly with a reviewer?

 

Yes it is. When you post a needs archived it alerts the reviewer-who will then do what he sees fit, which may be archiving it, or other action as necessary.

 

To find your reviewer, go to any local cache page, and usually the first log(at the very bottom) will be a reviewer to publish it. Some older caches may not have it, just try another. But there is no need to contact the reviewer after you had already logged the Needs Archived-the reviewers may have reasons not to archive it, or answer right that second-they do have lives, get sick, go to weddings, have paying jobs. Sometimes they have to put this unpaid position last.

 

SO have patience that the reviewer will get to it, and trust the reviewer to do their job.

[+FshngGC]

Thank you. I don't know how a reviewer finds a Needs to be Archived log. It seemed it would save him some trouble if I communicated with him directly. Thanks again

[+BruceS]

Thank you. I don't know how a reviewer finds a Needs to be Archived log. It seemed it would save him some trouble if I communicated with him directly. Thanks again

 

The reviewer has tools available to him which allows him to see all the Needs Archive logs in his area all in one place. A Needs to be Archived log is communicating directly with the reviewer.

[+T.D.M.22]

Thank you. I don't know how a reviewer finds a Needs to be Archived log. It seemed it would save him some trouble if I communicated with him directly. Thanks again

 

 

... When you post a needs archived it alerts the reviewer-...

 

He doesn't find it, it finds him so to speak. And if you have to elaborate on something oyu said in another thread-post again in that thread.

[+FshngGC]

The first Needs to be Cached log was placed six months ago. I have entered a new NTBC log tonight. If I haven't received some response in the next week or two I will probably just place a new cache in the area )I can't adopt it because the owner can't be contacted) and let the system work itself out. The worst that can happen is that it will raise a red flag and the problem can be addressed.

[+uxorious]

The first Needs to be Cached log was placed six months ago. I have entered a new NTBC log tonight. If I haven't received some response in the next week or two I will probably just place a new cache in the area )I can't adopt it because the owner can't be contacted) and let the system work itself out. The worst that can happen is that it will raise a red flag and the problem can be addressed.

 

If you place a new cache too close to the one you are hoping will be archived, you will just be wasting your time. The reviewer will reject your cache as being too close.

 

You cannot place a new cache in that spot until the cache there is archived.

 

Also, be sure that if a NA Has been posted the reviewer will look at it. What he does about it may or may not be what you hope. but he has more info than you do.

[Pup Patrol]

Yes...seriously and if you read the answers to my first two you will see that the subject had been skirted about but was not answered. I wrote the last one so as to explain my question in detail to get to the point. The answer I got was much clearer.

 

You got the same answer numerous times in your other threads, which were merged into one by a moderator.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=320756

 

If you needed to make the situation clearer, you should have posted a reply to that thread.

 

 

B.

Edited March 25, 2014 by Pup Patrol

[+funkymunkyzone]

The first Needs to be Cached log was placed six months ago. I have entered a new NTBC log tonight. If I haven't received some response in the next week or two I will probably just place a new cache in the area )I can't adopt it because the owner can't be contacted) and let the system work itself out. The worst that can happen is that it will raise a red flag and the problem can be addressed.

 

My guess is that those first Needs Archived logs (26 sept last year) got ignored because the person posting them appeared to be on a mission to remove all of this CO's caches, even ones that are currently not experiencing any issues.

 

Maybe you'll have better luck now by only flagging the caches that have actual problems, and over time the caches will presumably all get archived unless the CO comes back to the game.

Edited March 25, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+FshngGC]

And does will the reviewer tell me why he decides against a posting. It seems that if "GeoCaching" follows its rules to the extent that a non-existent cache cannot be resolved that they are shooting themselves in the foot. However, I have been told that the decision can be questioned, which would lead me to believe that I should be informed of the decision or that it should at least be logged.

[+FshngGC]

RE the previous log: SaidCache and I are the only two people that are trying to get decent caching into the area. The whole purpose of his requests to archive these caches was that the individual that had placed them had left the state and could not be contacted so adoption was no option and the large portion of the caches were were being damaged or were disappearing. As is the case with Bug Chaser they could be replaced the way we would like to have them if they could be archived. I fail to see why that would be such a problem. The problem should be addressed as one problem and not as many. If there is going to be no response then the whole idea of setting up an area where Geocaching could be enjoyable then I guess I'll carry the activity elsewhere.

[Keystone]

If you crave a response, here is the form note I would have pasted into a log on that cache if it were in my review territory:

 

Hello, I was alerted to check this page because of the "Needs Archived" log. Reviewing the past logs, I think that the archive request ought to be treated as a DNF log. I am not taking any action at this time.

 

Regards,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

[+FshngGC]

Under the circumstances I wonder how long a cache has to be a DNF before it is archived. It is too bad that the situation is crippled by this type of judgement and I will not bother to waste my time with hiding caches any more.

[+funkymunkyzone]

RE the previous log: SaidCache and I are the only two people that are trying to get decent caching into the area. The whole purpose of his requests to archive these caches was that the individual that had placed them had left the state and could not be contacted so adoption was no option and the large portion of the caches were were being damaged or were disappearing. As is the case with Bug Chaser they could be replaced the way we would like to have them if they could be archived. I fail to see why that would be such a problem. The problem should be addressed as one problem and not as many. If there is going to be no response then the whole idea of setting up an area where Geocaching could be enjoyable then I guess I'll carry the activity elsewhere.

 

My only point was that 'Needs Archived' logs were being posted to caches that were otherwise fine by the looks of the logs. This makes it difficult for the reviewer to work out which caches really need attention and which don't. It can even muddy the water and make the reviewer suspicious of there being a back story and other motives. I'm not saying there is here, but it can appear like that.

Edited March 25, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

[+FshngGC]

I realize that there is work involved in getting a cache archived. I have looked for it twice (extensively) at a time that there should be no brush to hide it and could not locate it. SaidCache found it earlier so he would have had some idea where it was and what he was looking for. The two caches prior to his were DNF's which takes it back to last summer. There were two finds before that. Who knows? If the cache could be archived it could be replaced and there would be a cache. But yes, I understand that there are things you have to go by. I think I'll just take a break this summer and maybe something will eventually come of this.

[+niraD]

Under the circumstances I wonder how long a cache has to be a DNF before it is archived.

Okay, I looked up the cache in question. Keep in mind that I am not a reviewer, and I don't even play one on TV. I have no knowledge of what is really going on with this cache, or with your local politics. With that said...

 

One DNF log does not mean a cache is missing. Even 2 DNF logs in a row does not mean a cache is missing. A few more DNFs might lead the local reviewer to start the 30-day warning period, given the D1.5 rating. Or if a past finder returns and confirms that it is missing, that might lead the local reviewer to start the 30-day warning period.

 

But that's a 30-day warning, not the immediate archival that you seem to want.

 

It is too bad that the situation is crippled by this type of judgement and I will not bother to waste my time with hiding caches any more.

What does "hiding caches" have to do with archiving this one cache? Go find some other place to hide a cache, somewhere that doesn't have a cache already. After all, that's one of the reasons behind the saturation guideline.

[Keystone]

niraD, that's the basic analysis that I apply as a reviewer. I also look at (1) whether there's a pattern of a few DNF's, then a few finds, then a few DNF's, and (2) whether there's any sort of larger agenda. With both those factors applicable here, three DNF's do not form a basis for archiving the listing, or even for disabling it.

 

After a few "independent" DNF's on the subject cache in the future, that analysis can change.

 

This illustrates the importance of logging finds and DNF's accurately. As an observer from my laptop computer, I can be misled by smileys when all they found was a velcro strip, and I can be misled if there have been five unsuccessful searches by people who think that logging a DNF is a badge of failure.

[+The_Incredibles_]

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2B516_bug-chaser

 

There is a high percentage of DNFs on this cache. It sounds like it is well hidden. Just because you searched thoroughly twice does not mean it's gone. I know it's hard to believe, but as you get more experience, you'll understand.

 

You should have logged 2 DNFs, not 2 NAs. Also, unless there's something seriously wrong with the cache, like it's on private property and you've got an angry landowner, then there's no need to jump straight to 'Needs Archive'. If the cache is likely missing, you should post a Needs Maintenance request first.

[+fizzymagic]

Under the circumstances I wonder how long a cache has to be a DNF before it is archived.

 

I have found several caches more than a year after they were DNFed. Generally the length of time after a DNF is less important than how many DNFs there are.

 

It is too bad that the situation is crippled by this type of judgement and I will not bother to waste my time with hiding caches any more.

 

Huh? Non sequitur. What does hiding caches have to do with getting somebody else's cache archived? Are you saying that you want to hide a cache at this spot and your evident strong desire to have it archived is so that you can place your own cache?

 

Sorry, but that's a lousy reason to go around trying to get caches archived. There are plenty of spots to hide new caches.

[Cascade Reviewer]

I have merged the two threads on the same topic. FshngGC, please do not post anymore threads about this subject, thank you.

[+WarNinjas]

I will not bother to waste my time with hiding caches any more.

Come on man! You are a fishing guy like me. Keep it cool. This is kind of like I don't like how this game is being played so I am taking my ball and going home. I see you are fairly new to this and have one hide with 9 likes already. We all want you to to make cool hides and we want to find them. The cache in question might possibly need to be archived as the owner is not active. It might also be hidden in a way that is new to you and hard to find, who knows. This is a game and you did your part by posting a needs archiving. Now just sit back and let the rules of the game play out. There is no rush for this. No need to stop playing or hiding caches because of it. Just try and enjoy the game and play it. There are many other frustrating parts of being a cache hider then this like your cache you put hours into creating and possibly a long hike or kayak trip only to find out it is blocked by a puzzle or something. This is not one of those it will just take some time for it to work itself out. In the time it takes go find some more caches and look for other places to hide some. We all want you playing as if people don't play it is no fun.

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

This illustrates the importance of logging finds and DNF's accurately.

 

So true. There could be a whole bunch of people who went out there recently and didn't log their DNFs. Unfortunately, the cache page doesn't always tell the whole story.

 

I had a cache which was missing and I didn't know because people were not logging their DNFs. Telling me after I replaced it that they searched when it was missing is not helpful. Logging DNFs is important because it helps the cache owner and other cachers to know exactly what's going on.

Edited March 25, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[Clan Riffster]

I will not bother to waste my time with hiding caches any more.

If, in your opinion, you need to apply this petulant attitude, (I'm not getting my way, so I'll quit doing something I enjoy! Take that!), to finding caches, as well as hiding them, please remember to fill out the appropriate form: Geocide Form

[+FshngGC]

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clearer. My problem had nothing to do with looking for caches. I was bothered by the fact that caches can't be archived and replaced. The caches that I think should be archived are not only missing, but were placed by a person that has left the area and in the end left caches unattended. Some are missing and some are in high need of maintenance. He should have archived them when he moved and could do so today if he could be contacted. As far as placing caches I am going to quit for now and watch his to see what the logs are saying. I have been caching for over two years but am not naive enough to believe that I could replace all of them. I will continue to LOOK for caches.

[+macatac1961]

There are so many aspects to this game. Don't let one issue derail the entire thing. Leave this one be for now and come back to it after a few weeks. Or not, the ignore list is a handy tool for things like this. But I've learned you can always adjust your caching style a little so that you continue to enjoy the hobby. Don't stop hiding caches (if that's an aspect you enjoy) because of this one situation.

[+T.D.M.22]

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clearer. My problem had nothing to do with looking for caches. I was bothered by the fact that caches can't be archived and replaced. The caches that I think should be archived are not only missing, but were placed by a person that has left the area and in the end left caches unattended. Some are missing and some are in high need of maintenance. He should have archived them when he moved and could do so today if he could be contacted. As far as placing caches I am going to quit for now and watch his to see what the logs are saying. I have been caching for over two years but am not naive enough to believe that I could replace all of them. I will continue to LOOK for caches.

 

That you think should be archived. While you may have been caching for 2 years with 26 finds, Cascade reviewer has been reviewing for 8 years, Keystone has been a reviewer for 11 years.They've reviewed more caches then you have ever seen. They have both been caching longer than that, and so has your reviewer. Trust them to do their jobs they way they are supposed to. I hate to break it to youWell, not really but since they have been chosen, and they are the reviewers, quite frankly it doesn't matter what you think should be done.

[+FshngGC]

I realize that being a reviewer is not simple and some responsibility comes with it. My issue is with the fact that everybody's hands are tied and there seems to be no way to get around the fact that a geocacher left a lot of geocaches around and due to the fact that he cannot be contacted they can't be adopted or archived and replaced. It seems there should be something that could be done.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clearer. My problem had nothing to do with looking for caches. I was bothered by the fact that caches can't be archived and replaced. The caches that I think should be archived are not only missing, but were placed by a person that has left the area and in the end left caches unattended. Some are missing and some are in high need of maintenance. He should have archived them when he moved and could do so today if he could be contacted. As far as placing caches I am going to quit for now and watch his to see what the logs are saying. I have been caching for over two years but am not naive enough to believe that I could replace all of them. I will continue to LOOK for caches.

 

I see why you're not happy with an abandoned cache being sanctioned, but I think the issue is that there are some established norms and steps, and an important step was missed - the Needs Maintenance log. Post the NM, put a watch on the cache, after about a month when the CO doesn't respond, post the NA.

Edited March 25, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+T.D.M.22]

If the cache is in good shape-or at least if the reviewer thinks it is, it won't be archived. I have even sent an NA log to a cache that was lost in a flood, with a CO that has been gone for 4 years or so, with the intentions of placing my own cache. He wouldn't do anything until another cacher also reported it as NA. It's just part of the game.

 

Now your reviewer has seen this cache before-maybe even got other NA logs on it. If he knows it's hard to find and thinks it's still there-and as someone who hasn't found it you can't confirm or deny if it is-it won't be archived. If someone(or more than one) who has found it confirms it's gone that's a different story. I'm guessing you want that location-not sure how I know this, but I do-so simple solution is to take someone who has found it, and have them log a NA if it is indeed missing.

 

A cache can't be adopted without owners consent. It is theirs, and it may be listed on another site. That's also a good reason not to remove it it gets archived-I know if they aren't active here anymore they probably aren't elsewhere, but it's still a valid point) Anyway-most cases it would be better to place a new cache, rather then just adopting the old one. New container, maybe moved a little bit away. Just another smiley for your local cachers...

Edited March 25, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[Clan Riffster]

I was bothered by the fact that caches can't be archived and replaced.

What led you to believe this? In your two years of playing, have you never seen a cache which was archived? I hope you can accept my word when I say, under the correct circumstances, with a properly worded NA log, caches can be archived. The key to accomplishing this is two fold. First, you must adequately communicate why a particular cache needs to be archived. These notes should be specific for each cache. A boiler plate, copy/paste log, applied to a bunch of caches, will seldom get the desired results. Second, your Reviewer needs to agree that your stated reason for believing a cache should be archived meets their criteria for taking action.

 

For instance, stating something like, "I couldn't find it. It must be missing." would likely not be sufficient grounds for an NA by any Reviewer I know. The proper log type in that case is a DNF, not an NA. You've tossed in a couple more tidbits, (cacher has moved / some caches are in poor shape), which might bump a cache from needing a DNF to needing a NM, but it's still not clear that you've reached the level of an NA.

 

My personal criteria for posting an NA is as follows:

(Assuming there are no serious guideline violations)

 

1 ) The cache is in serious disrepair.

(A DNF does not mean a cache is missing, or needs repair)

2 ) The owner refuses to respond to NMs.

(A buddy who agrees to care for it qualifies as owner maintenance)

3 ) The community is not keeping it viable.

 

The caches that I think should be archived are not only missing, but were placed by a person that has left the area and in the end left caches unattended. Some are missing and some are in high need of maintenance.

Are they missing, or are they in disrepair? We're back to square one here. Take the caches individually, and apply the proper log type, detailing your concerns in the text. If your only legitimate observation is that you couldn't find it, the proper log type is a DNF. If a cache offers more observations, (such as finding just a piece of Velcro, combined with a hint saying it's held in place by Velcro), would warrant an additional log, using the NM log type. This hypothetical example is clearly a case of a cache in need of maintenance, not a cache which needs to be archived. If your buddy was with you, and found it before, and can verify it is missing, you should post your DNF to reflect the fact that you could not find it, as well as an NM, detailing why you believe it's missing.

 

At that point, the second stage of my criteria kicks in. You need to give the owner a reasonable amount of time to respond to your NM log. How long? That varies from Reviewer to Reviewer. Locally, I think 30 days is a good time frame for the owner to either fix it, or, at the very least, post a note to their cache page explaining their intent. After a reasonable time frame, you'll have additional observations to pass on to the Reviewer, such as, "On February 2nd, I DNFed this cache. My buddy BillyBob, who has found it in the past, verified it was missing on February 18th, so I posted an NM log. It has now been 30 days since the NM log was posted, with no action from the cache owner. This one should be archived". A log like that is quite likely to generate a response from a Reviewer, disabling the cache, giving the owner X number of days to respond. If the owner refuses to respond, the cache will likely be archived.

 

Back to you hiding caches. Is being a cache owner something you enjoy? If so, why would you want to stop doing something you enjoy, just because you have had a problem getting some caches archived? That equates to cutting off your nose, to spite your face. Don't let the actions of others dictate an activity you enjoy.

[+FshngGC]

If only I could prove that the cache was NOT there...lol. You can prove something exists but you can't prove that it doesn't.

[+The_Incredibles_]

If only I could prove that the cache was NOT there...lol. You can prove something exists but you can't prove that it doesn't.

 

When there are enough DNFs in a row (by different people), the reviewer can and will archive it. Also, if the cache is in really bad shape for an extended period of time (cracked container, moldy contents etc), the reviewer can take action as well. You need to learn to trust the process.

 

Here are 2 examples:

 

1) Magnetic nano under a bench. Lots of DNFs and a previous finder has confirmed it's gone.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2MMJT_stinky-bay

 

2) Cache in bad shape for years and owner not responsive.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC20QNA_make-your-move

Edited March 25, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+niraD]

If only I could prove that the cache was NOT there...lol. You can prove something exists but you can't prove that it doesn't.

Maybe you missed my earlier post (emphasis added):

 

Okay, I looked up the cache in question. Keep in mind that I am not a reviewer, and I don't even play one on TV. I have no knowledge of what is really going on with this cache, or with your local politics. With that said...One DNF log does not mean a cache is missing. Even 2 DNF logs in a row does not mean a cache is missing. A few more DNFs might lead the local reviewer to start the 30-day warning period, given the D1.5 rating. Or if a past finder returns and confirms that it is missing, that might lead the local reviewer to start the 30-day warning period.

If the only evidence that a cache needs maintenance is the DNF logs, then it takes enough independent DNF logs to establish a pattern of DNFs before a reviewer will start the 30-day warning period. How many DNF logs is that? It depends on the cache. If there has been a history of Finds with virtually no DNFs, then a few independent DNFs in a row might be enough. If there has been a history of a few Finds, a couple DNFs, a few more Finds, a couple more DNFs, and so on, then it will take a longer streak of DNFs to establish a pattern.

 

If you don't want to wait for enough independent DNFs to establish this pattern, then you need a past finder to return and confirm that the cache is missing.

 

But regardless, you shouldn't start with a NA log. You should start with a NM log. Then, if the CO doesn't respond to the NM log, you can post a NA log.

 

If you start with a NA log when there is no pattern of DNFs and no confirmation that the cache is missing, then the reviewer is likely to think that the NA log should be treated as a DNF log. If you start with a NA log when there is a pattern of DNFs or confirmation that the cache is missing, but no NM log has been posted, then the reviewer is likely to think that the NA log should be treated as a NM log.

 

Yes, missing/unmaintained caches are archived every day. But it takes more than a couple people not finding a cache to have it archived.

[+FshngGC]

An earlier finder can't find Bug Chaser. That's what started this whole thing. I'm not completely referring to my own inability to find it as a reason to archive it. If that was the case most of the NF's would be listed as NA's. Plus if you look through his caches the majority of his caches have already been archived.

Edited March 25, 2014 by FshngGC

[+The_Incredibles_]

An earlier finder can't find Bug Chaser. That's what started this whole thing.

 

I don't see where on the cache page they've posted their DNF or note?

 

Reviewers can't mind-read.

[Clan Riffster]

Reviewers can't mind-read.

Puppy-Monster can...

[+SwineFlew]

Our reviewer will disable any caches with a string of DNF logs.

 

This cache in question on this thread will get disable by our reviewer within a heartbeat. Why? Just a string of DNF and low difficult. Any caches that's under 2 stars should be found with very little trouble. If you wanna low ball it, go ahead, but it mights backfire on you. I found out that high difficult caches take longer for reviewers to disable or archived.

 

To any CO that whine about this, its YOUR job to make sure YOUR cache is there. Just get in your car and drive over and check it out. That simple. If you dont have time or money to do this, you got no business being a CO. And being on the forum is not going to make you a better CO.

 

Once all the local high number finders found your cache, your cache will be found only by newbie from that point on.(in most cases) And think about this, if you low ball your cache, you will get more DNF logs and that will lead to getting the cache archived. I found out that if I archived all my older caches and start over, you got less trouble keeping your caches going. Something to think about.