When to Request Archival

[+copperisblue]

All,

 

I didn't see exactly after a non-exhaustive search, please forgive my re-asking if it has been hashed over to death.

 

Our area is somewhat saturated, at least in the lovely nearby woods.

 

There is a cache that was placed way back in 2007. The owner found ~35 caches, and placed one. Last visit to the website was in 2010. His cache is still there, though it leaks badly. It never received a favorite, and is fairly unremarkable, save for its age. There are older local, active caches, but this still gets points for being 7 years old.

 

I wouldn't think to raise the question of if it should be archived or not, but that I just mapped out a multi and the second location (a prize spot) was ~300ft from the cache in question. There are just so many other, more interesting places to stash a box in these woods. (In the end, there is a second cache that is prohibiting my hide, I couldn't make my hide even if this one was archived).

 

So... would you request archival (with statement that you can retrieve the remnants)? Or keep it up and going? Do the maintenance yourself? (which at this point is probably replacing the container) Mind your own business?

 

Thanks for your input,

 

copperisblue

[+NanCycle]

All,

 

I didn't see exactly after a non-exhaustive search, please forgive my re-asking if it has been hashed over to death.

 

Our area is somewhat saturated, at least in the lovely nearby woods.

 

There is a cache that was placed way back in 2007. The owner found ~35 caches, and placed one. Last visit to the website was in 2010. His cache is still there, though it leaks badly. It never received a favorite, and is fairly unremarkable, save for its age. There are older local, active caches, but this still gets points for being 7 years old.

 

I wouldn't think to raise the question of if it should be archived or not, but that I just mapped out a multi and the second location (a prize spot) was ~300ft from the cache in question. There are just so many other, more interesting places to stash a box in these woods. (In the end, there is a second cache that is prohibiting my hide, I couldn't make my hide even if this one was archived).

 

So... would you request archival (with statement that you can retrieve the remnants)? Or keep it up and going? Do the maintenance yourself? (which at this point is probably replacing the container) Mind your own business?

 

Thanks for your input,

 

copperisblue

 

1. Does it have any Needs Maintenance logs posted? If not, post one, and mention that the CO is inactive. The wait a couple weeks and go to step 2.

 

2. If there is already NM posted, go ahead and post NA, also mentioning that the CO is gone from the game. Then leave it to the Reviewer to handle it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

All,

 

I didn't see exactly after a non-exhaustive search, please forgive my re-asking if it has been hashed over to death.

 

Our area is somewhat saturated, at least in the lovely nearby woods.

 

There is a cache that was placed way back in 2007. The owner found ~35 caches, and placed one. Last visit to the website was in 2010. His cache is still there, though it leaks badly. It never received a favorite, and is fairly unremarkable, save for its age. There are older local, active caches, but this still gets points for being 7 years old.

 

I wouldn't think to raise the question of if it should be archived or not, but that I just mapped out a multi and the second location (a prize spot) was ~300ft from the cache in question. There are just so many other, more interesting places to stash a box in these woods. (In the end, there is a second cache that is prohibiting my hide, I couldn't make my hide even if this one was archived).

 

So... would you request archival (with statement that you can retrieve the remnants)? Or keep it up and going? Do the maintenance yourself? (which at this point is probably replacing the container) Mind your own business?

 

Thanks for your input,

 

copperisblue

 

In you list of 'things to deserve a Needs Archived', the only one that comes close is 'leaks badly'. Is the log wet? Does it have NM logs for this? We don't care if it is unremarkable, has not gotten a favorite point, owner is missing, better places to hide a cache &c. Those are irrelevant. I'd say: Let it live its own life, and stop being presumptive because a cache interferes with your plans. Hide your cache somewhere else.

[fendmar]

This one?

[+narcissa]

Consider the larger consequences of poaching a spot. It's not a great way to foster good will among other geocachers.

[+TriciaG]

Hard to believe no one posted a NM in the past year or so. Is the cache a mess, or is it just not ideal?

 

Ignore the activity of the CO for now. Post a NM, IF the cache is in bad shape. But unlike NanCycle, I wouldn't mention the CO in this log.

 

If nothing gets resolved in a month or so, then post the NA that the cache is a mess (if it is) and the CO disappeared.

Edited June 8, 2014 by TriciaG

[+geodarts]

This one?

 

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM.

[+narcissa]

This one?

 

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM.

 

People are hesitant to post NM or NA logs, because they're worried that a CO or another cacher will hassle them for it.

[fendmar]

This one?

 

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM.

 

People are hesitant to post NM or NA logs, because they're worried that a CO or another cacher will hassle them for it.

It seems weird so many would note the maint issues in their logs, but not post a NM. Maybe because the log is still viable?

[+copperisblue]

That's the one.

 

And I could post the NM, but in this case I feel it would be the same as posting the NA request. I cannot be positive that the owner would not come running, but that that is my assumption.

 

First, recall that I am not trying to make a grab in the area. I intend to find another place my my cache. And my question was exactly to this point:

 

Consider the larger consequences of poaching a spot. It's not a great way to foster good will among other geocachers.

 

I want to foster the good will of the group. Would starting the process to clear the map of an old damaged cache so that the area may be filled with something new and possibly very nice (not mine, no horn toots) be better than leaving a cache that has been around for 7 years.

 

If the latter is the answer, I may try to place a new log, at least. I don't think I can replace the container. Is that the best choice? or posting the NM? or just leaving it alone?

[jholly]

That's the one.

 

And I could post the NM, but in this case I feel it would be the same as posting the NA request. I cannot be positive that the owner would not come running, but that that is my assumption.

 

 

No, there is a *BIG* difference between a NM and a NA. The NM only goes to the CO and if not set, sets the NM flag. A NA goes to not only the CO but also the reviewer(s) for the area. Even if the CO deletes the NA log the email has already been sent. The reviewer can step in and disable the cache and post a 30 day fix it notice with the warning the cache will be archived at the end of the period if things are not fixed. Or if the reviewer deems nothing needs to be done will just leave as is.

[jholly]

This one?

 

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM.

 

People are hesitant to post NM or NA logs, because they're worried that a CO or another cacher will hassle them for it.

It seems weird so many would note the maint issues in their logs, but not post a NM. Maybe because the log is still viable?

My feeling is if the CO does not react to my information in my found it log the CO probably won't react to my NM log. About the only time I post a NM is prior to posting a NA.

[jholly]

 

I want to foster the good will of the group. Would starting the process to clear the map of an old damaged cache so that the area may be filled with something new and possibly very nice (not mine, no horn toots) be better than leaving a cache that has been around for 7 years.

 

If the latter is the answer, I may try to place a new log, at least. I don't think I can replace the container. Is that the best choice? or posting the NM? or just leaving it alone?

 

Just because the cache is old is no reason to archive it. God forbid, or we would never be able to complete the Jasmer challenge.

 

Putting a new log in a viable container if the old log is full or wet is fine. Once you cross the line on replacing the container then your accepting the maintenance responsibilities for the cache. This is bad because you don't have access to the page if something needs to be updated.

 

Once the container is no longer viable (cracked, broken, dented beyond repair) it is time to start thinking about NM and NA. If it is a cache that has a CO that seems to have left the game I will post a NM and in about a month if nothing is noted or done I'll post a NA.

 

Bear in mind I don't go looking for cache specifically for this reason, but if I come across one in my normal activity I really don't care what others may say. If it needs to be removed from the game, it needs to be removed from the game.

[+Mudfrog]

You can perform maintenance on the cache if you want but i don't think that is the best thing to do since this cache's owner seems to be awol. I doubt he/she cares but go ahead and log a needs maintenance if the cache is in bad shape. If the CO doesn't respond in a couple or three weeks, go ahead and file the needs archive log.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I would start by taking a photo and attaching to your log. If no Needs Maintenance log exists, then post 1. Wait 1 month, then post Needs Archive if no response. I have helped clear the map of a few caches like this. Important to go retrieve the geo-litter after.

[+dprovan]

If the cache needs maintenance, then post an NM. Show the other people in your area how NMs and even NAs can be used as friendly and useful tools.

 

Do not post an NA just because you don't like the cache or think something better could be there. That would be very unfriendly. It's there. The caches you are imagining, whether yours or someone else's, have no right to displace it.

 

On the other hand, feel free to contact the CO in case they still read e-mail and try to convince them to archive to open the area up. You could even explain your idea for a multi if you think he might see it as a better use of that area.

 

I wouldn't recommend maintaining a cache that is in disrepair.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

It is funny how many people in the FI logs indicate the cache is in a bad condition but none has posted a NM log.

[+Team Microdot]

Looks to me like the cache is junk and the CO AWOL.

 

Log a Needs Maintenance, give it four weeks and when nothing happens, log a Needs Archived.

 

It's nice to find old caches - when they are being maintained. If it's junk I don't care how old it is - old junk is still junk.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Post a NM describing the condition of the cache. With a photo if possible. After a month without it getting fixed then NA. Photo proof would help show the issue is legit and you're not poaching the site.

 

To the person who doesn't bother with NMs because they figure a CO will react to the info in their Found log or not at all:

1) some COs do not read their Find logs and only react to NM/NA logs

2) NM logs are important for moving toward Archival on unmaintained caches. Failure to log NMs slows down that process.

[+J Grouchy]

Oh my lord there is so much wailing and gnashing of teeth about this sort of thing! Just post a Needs Maintenance log and if nothing is done after 30 to 60 days, post a Needs Archived log. What's the big deal? You aren't sentencing the cache to death, you aren't insulting the CO's mother...you're just posting notice that it needs attention. That's every CO's job...and if they can't do it, they lose the cache. Period. Chances are they already gave up on it anyway.

 

I can't believe there is a long thread every time this question gets asked...as if it's a critical moral decision. In the end, it's just a log and whoever has the power to do anything about it is ultimately responsible for what happens after you post it. YOU are not archiving the cache...you're just giving the CO an extra "nudge". I posted an NA log the other day because there were no finds for a year, three straight DNFs and a NM log from a previous finder several months ago. That VERY DAY the CO posted a note that they would replace the missing cache and the reviewer disabled it a day or two later until the CO is able to do so. That's exactly the sort of thing the NA log is for. Sometimes COs just don't bother until there is a threat of it being archived.

Edited June 9, 2014 by J Grouchy

[4wheelin_fool]

It is funny how many people in the FI logs indicate the cache is in a bad condition but none has posted a NM log.

 

I suppose that most people in the community think a wet mass of pulp and moldy rainwater is tolerable enough. I also suppose that if the OP posts a NM and then a NA a few months later, followed by a their own stage of a multi, there are those that will think that the NM was only for selfish reasons. It's a little strange as the CO is absent and nobody has any intentions on fixing it, and perhaps more NM notes should be used as a general rule.

[+narcissa]

This one?

 

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM.

 

People are hesitant to post NM or NA logs, because they're worried that a CO or another cacher will hassle them for it.

It seems weird so many would note the maint issues in their logs, but not post a NM. Maybe because the log is still viable?

 

I think they just don't want flack for being the one who is responsible for the wrench appearing.

[+narcissa]

a cache that has been around for 7 years

 

Other than the fact that it's damaged, which may or may not be related to the age of the cache, why do you insist on making the age of the cache an issue?

[4wheelin_fool]

This one?

 

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM.

 

People are hesitant to post NM or NA logs, because they're worried that a CO or another cacher will hassle them for it.

It seems weird so many would note the maint issues in their logs, but not post a NM. Maybe because the log is still viable?

 

I think they just don't want flack for being the one who is responsible for the wrench appearing.

 

That is silly, as the cache owner is the only one that can be held responsible for that.

[+narcissa]

That is silly, as the cache owner is the only one that can be held responsible for that.

 

I agree it's silly, but I know from first hand experience that some geocachers are not above berating and harassing others for submitting legitimate NM/NA logs.

Edited June 9, 2014 by narcissa

[+cerberus1]

That is silly, as the cache owner is the only one that can be held responsible for that.

 

I agree it's silly, but I know from first hand experience that some geocachers are not above berating and harassing others for submitting legitimate NM/NA logs.

I agree.

- We've even been berated for archiving our own hides.

[+copperisblue]

Thanks all, for the opinions.

 

I'm heading out to check out a new possible location. While I'm out I'll grab a picture of the cache in question, and write a NM note to the owner. Probably leave it after that.

[Pup Patrol]

This one?

 

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM.

 

People are hesitant to post NM or NA logs, because they're worried that a CO or another cacher will hassle them for it.

It seems weird so many would note the maint issues in their logs, but not post a NM. Maybe because the log is still viable?

 

I think they just don't want flack for being the one who is responsible for the wrench appearing.

 

What's more likely is that they just don't know about "needs maintenance" logs.

 

The focus has been so much on "found it", that newer cachers have no idea that there are ways to alert the cache owners, and the Reviewers, about caches that are in dire need of maintenance. There's been a lot of discussion of how cachers will post a "found it" log that says quite clearly that they did not find it at all. They don't know about the other log types, it's as simple as that.

 

It would be prudent to post the appropriate "needs maintenance" log first, with photos, before jumping to the "needs archived". Because of the lack of NM logs, it would look odd for a Needs Archived log to suddenly appear. Perhaps when the Reviewer does see the NA, he/she will review the log history and see that the cache has been a disgusting, slimy mess for quite some time.

 

I wouldn't worry at all about posting NM, or NA. I guess I'm not that bothered by what other "local" cachers or cache owners think of what I log.

 

To not log Needs Maintenance is doing a disservice to your fellow cache seekers. If one wants to filter their searches to not include those caches with maintenance issues, they are being misled by the lack of honesty and correct logging by other finders.

 

 

B.

[+NanCycle]

My feeling is if the CO does not react to my information in my found it log the CO probably won't react to my NM log.

 

I have a series of 38 caches along our river trail. When someone posts Found Its on a dozen or so of them, I'll usually read a couple, and if they're just Tftc or just Found It or something similar, or if the couple I read are identical, I don't usually read any more of them right away. Eventually I'll read all logs (usually after a NM or DNF has been posted.)

 

But if a DNF or NM is posted, I read the log right away and bookmark the cache to check on it as soon as I can. So it is really important to me to have the NM posted rather than just have an issue mentioned in the Found It log.

[+L0ne.R]

But if a DNF or NM is posted, I read the log right away and bookmark the cache to check on it as soon as I can. So it is really important to me to have the NM posted rather than just have an issue mentioned in the Found It log.

 

I agree. For many cache owners, the NM serves to alert us to a serious enough problem that needs attention ASAP. It's too bad some cache owners express irritation and scare off people from posting NMs. Even if an NM is minor, example a damp logbook, some of us want to know because we want to make finding one of our caches a pleasant experience. Instead people hesitate and by the time anyone says something the logbook has moldy spots all over it or worse.

 

In the case of the cache in question - logs have been mentioning problems with the cache since last year - May 14 2013, and the cache owner is long gone (4 years since last log in). I would not hesitate to post an NM followed by an NA in 2 weeks. Then removal of the cache once the cache is archived by the reviewer. Followed up with a Note on the cache page that I have the cache and will give the owner 1 month to contact me to have the cache returned. Then the container goes in the trash.

 

 

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Remember too that if a CO only uses the app, they will not show up as active on the website.

 

Cache owners are responsible to maintain caches. NEVER throw down a replacement cache......NEVER (that is from Groundspeak)

 

Always be considerate when posting a NM and NA cache. I've learned through my own somewhat abrupt postings, it is more affective and efficient to post with consideration that caches, cache owners, etc. may have or need time, awareness, etc. Geocaching still doesn't have the best design and means for alerting about issues.

Edited June 9, 2014 by TheWeatherWarrior

[jholly]

Remember too that if a CO only uses the app, they will not show up as active on the website.

 

Cache owners are responsible to maintain caches. NEVER throw down a replacement cache......NEVER (that is from Groundspeak)

 

Always be considerate when posting a NM and NA cache. I've learned through my own somewhat abrupt postings, it is more affective and efficient to post with consideration that caches, cache owners, etc. may have or need time, awareness, etc. Geocaching still doesn't have the best design and means for alerting about issues.

True, but if you check their recent finds and the last find was a year or more ago you can probably draw the conclusion that the CO is not very active, or for some reason, decided not to log online anymore.

[+Team Microdot]

Geocaching still doesn't have the best design and means for alerting about issues.

 

What improvements would you suggest?

[team tisri]

This one?

 

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM.

 

People are hesitant to post NM or NA logs, because they're worried that a CO or another cacher will hassle them for it.

It seems weird so many would note the maint issues in their logs, but not post a NM. Maybe because the log is still viable?

 

I think they just don't want flack for being the one who is responsible for the wrench appearing.

 

Why is "the wrench appearing" such an issue? As soon as the owner posts an Owner Maintenance log the wrench disappears again.

[team tisri]

Remember too that if a CO only uses the app, they will not show up as active on the website.

 

Cache owners are responsible to maintain caches. NEVER throw down a replacement cache......NEVER (that is from Groundspeak)

 

Always be considerate when posting a NM and NA cache. I've learned through my own somewhat abrupt postings, it is more affective and efficient to post with consideration that caches, cache owners, etc. may have or need time, awareness, etc. Geocaching still doesn't have the best design and means for alerting about issues.

 

Whatever the CO has been doing, if their cache needs maintenance it needs maintenance.

 

It really is silly the way some people regard a NM log as being publicly berated for a personal failing. All the NM says is that the cache needs some attention. Assuming the owner doesn't spend their life camped out by their cache there's no way they can be expected to know as soon as something happens to their cache, and the NM log lets them know there's an issue.

 

I see an NM log as being more akin to letting a neighbour know their car has a flat tyre.

[+Team Microdot]

Why is "the wrench appearing" such an issue? As soon as the owner posts an Owner Maintenance log the wrench disappears again.

 

Because it's something of an... emotional wrench?

 

(Although fist time around I thought it said wench and was thinking - well I've never seen her! )

[team tisri]

Why is "the wrench appearing" such an issue? As soon as the owner posts an Owner Maintenance log the wrench disappears again.

 

Because it's something of an... emotional wrench?

 

(Although fist time around I thought it said wench and was thinking - well I've never seen her! )

 

Time to overlook your typo there

 

For British readers, "why is the spanner appearing such an issue?"

[+Team Microdot]

Time to overlook your typo there

 

And yet... you didn't

[+dprovan]

Always be considerate when posting a NM and NA cache.

Well, I hope you're always considerate, not only when posting NMs and NAs. But you're right that consideration is a good start for NMs and NAs. Too often people forget that NMs are useful tools for telling the CO about specific problems that must be clearly spelled out, not declaring a cache broken and demanding it be fixed.

[+copperisblue]

I went to upload my pictures, but the our local reviewer beat me to it. Disabled for a couple of weeks, prior to archiving. We have a good and active reviewer. He has archived a couple of caches in the area that were well known favorites, but falling into disrepair. That's why I wanted to ask for good protocol here, without the name of the cache before I did anything. But, as I said, he's a good and active reviewer.

 

I'll walk the geocache out, when it's archived.

[+Don_J]

This one?

 

Wet. Slimy. Water damaged. Items in it beyond repair. But apparently no one thinks the CO should be alerted with an NM.

 

People are hesitant to post NM or NA logs, because they're worried that a CO or another cacher will hassle them for it.

It seems weird so many would note the maint issues in their logs, but not post a NM. Maybe because the log is still viable?

 

I think they just don't want flack for being the one who is responsible for the wrench appearing.

 

What's more likely is that they just don't know about "needs maintenance" logs.

 

The focus has been so much on "found it", that newer cachers have no idea that there are ways to alert the cache owners, and the Reviewers, about caches that are in dire need of maintenance. There's been a lot of discussion of how cachers will post a "found it" log that says quite clearly that they did not find it at all. They don't know about the other log types, it's as simple as that.

 

It would be prudent to post the appropriate "needs maintenance" log first, with photos, before jumping to the "needs archived". Because of the lack of NM logs, it would look odd for a Needs Archived log to suddenly appear. Perhaps when the Reviewer does see the NA, he/she will review the log history and see that the cache has been a disgusting, slimy mess for quite some time.

 

I wouldn't worry at all about posting NM, or NA. I guess I'm not that bothered by what other "local" cachers or cache owners think of what I log.

 

To not log Needs Maintenance is doing a disservice to your fellow cache seekers. If one wants to filter their searches to not include those caches with maintenance issues, they are being misled by the lack of honesty and correct logging by other finders.

 

 

B.

I know what the typical protocol is, but if I found a cache in such a condition and then read the logs and saw that it had been this way for almost three years, I'd go straight to posting a NA log. The CO hasn't logged in for four and a have years and hasn't found a cache in five. In such a situation, posting a NM and waiting 30 days seems silly.

 

Lately, when our local reviewers see a NA log on such a cache, they have been archiving them outright without giving the 30 day waiting period.

[+Team Microdot]

I know what the typical protocol is, but if I found a cache in such a condition and then read the logs and saw that it had been this way for almost three years, I'd go straight to posting a NA log. The CO hasn't logged in for four and a have years and hasn't found a cache in five. In such a situation, posting a NM and waiting 30 days seems silly.

 

Lately, when our local reviewers see a NA log on such a cache, they have been archiving them outright without giving the 30 day waiting period.

 

Sounds like good common sense all round to me

[+DanOCan]

My approach in these situations consists of three easy steps:

 

1) Log my Find

2) Log the NM

3) Move on

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Geocaching still doesn't have the best design and means for alerting about issues.

 

What improvements would you suggest?

Decide when, where, how, I get notification. Have the option to turn off notifications by email when someone finds my cache so the 130 caches I have don't dominate my email and only things like DNF, NM, NA logs come through.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

My approach in these situations consists of three easy steps:

 

1) Log my Find

2) Log the NM

3) Move on

Except GS has asked for assistance with NA logs as well. Reviewers often don't see NM logs. Some more than others, but in general, it should never be depended upon for them to do all that work. We as players need to assist in pointing out bad caches that have been ignored or have potential issues (in some cases an immediate NA needs to be posted for reasons other than maintenance.

[+narcissa]

Decide when, where, how, I get notification. Have the option to turn off notifications by email when someone finds my cache so the 130 caches I have don't dominate my email and only things like DNF, NM, NA logs come through.

 

What about find logs that warn you about potential issues before they warrant a NM?

[+Team Microdot]

Geocaching still doesn't have the best design and means for alerting about issues.

 

What improvements would you suggest?

Decide when, where, how, I get notification. Have the option to turn off notifications by email when someone finds my cache so the 130 caches I have don't dominate my email and only things like DNF, NM, NA logs come through.

 

There may be some mileage in your suggestions.

 

It strikes me that if you're only interested in DNF, NM and NA logs (or things like them) that Groundspeak could save themselves some bandwidth sending out emails you're not interested in.

 

One issue of course is the fact that, as is highly evident - problems with caches are frequently reported via logs other than DNF, NM and NA - so there's a strong possibility that selective email delivery of the type you describe would result in issues which need CO attention going unnoticed

 

So I'm afraid I can't vote for your suggestions as the best design and means for alerting about issues

 

In fact I would go so far as to say what is in place now is better overall.

[+dprovan]

I know what the typical protocol is, but if I found a cache in such a condition and then read the logs and saw that it had been this way for almost three years, I'd go straight to posting a NA log. The CO hasn't logged in for four and a have years and hasn't found a cache in five. In such a situation, posting a NM and waiting 30 days seems silly.

This is a good example of why we shouldn't take any of these ideas as hard and fast rules. This case is certainly way past needing an NM.

 

Since no one posted an NM 2 years ago even though they should have, it's reasonable to skip the NM step.

[+NanCycle]

Geocaching still doesn't have the best design and means for alerting about issues.

 

What improvements would you suggest?

Decide when, where, how, I get notification. Have the option to turn off notifications by email when someone finds my cache so the 130 caches I have don't dominate my email and only things like DNF, NM, NA logs come through.

 

Easy way (even I can do it) to keep your email neat & tidy is to use filters to send all your geocaching emails to a separate folder. You could probably even figure out how to auto-delete the ones you've decided in advance that you're not interested in.

[+Don_J]

Geocaching still doesn't have the best design and means for alerting about issues.

 

What improvements would you suggest?

Decide when, where, how, I get notification. Have the option to turn off notifications by email when someone finds my cache so the 130 caches I have don't dominate my email and only things like DNF, NM, NA logs come through.

 

Easy way (even I can do it) to keep your email neat & tidy is to use filters to send all your geocaching emails to a separate folder. You could probably even figure out how to auto-delete the ones you've decided in advance that you're not interested in.

 

There is an even easier way to avoid all those pesky emails. Don't be a cache owner. Owning a cache is a responsibility. Part of that is reading the logs, all of the logs.