CACHE COP... on abandoned caches!

[+JPreto]

Hi all!!

 

Looking at the oldest caches never found that I posted in another topic I found some caches that the COs are long gone but the FTFs on them seem highly suspicious or were not FOUND IT according to the guidelines:

 

http://coord.info/GC366C

http://coord.info/GCG2ZQ

 

Should GS or the reviewers of these areas take some action about these FOUND IT logs? I think someone should...

 

PS: I will update the list in this first post!

Edited August 1, 2014 by JPreto

[+Walts Hunting]

The only action that should be taken is if someone tries to find it and then logs a NA based on prior logs. Basically no one is in charge of taking out the trash it is a communal responsibility.

 

If they bother you put them on your ignore list and you will never see them again.

[+Manville Possum]

Hi all!!

 

Looking at the oldest caches never found that I posted in another topic I found some caches that the COs are long gone but the FTFs on them seem highly suspicious:

 

http://coord.info/GC366C

 

Should GS or the reviewers of these areas take some action? I think someone should...

 

PS: I will update the list in this first post!

You could just post an NA and let a reviewer take care of it, but there would be no drama for you to feed on.

[+JPreto]

You could just post an NA and let a reviewer take care of it, but there would be no drama for you to feed on.

 

No drama here... just doing a community job, i think! Or maybe not...

[Keystone]

I do not see a listing guidelines issue that would require reviewer action, or a ToU issue that would require Geocaching HQ action.

 

If the cache owner feels the FTF log is bogus they can check the physical logbook and delete the log, if desired. Or not.

[Andronicus]

I do not see a listing guidelines issue that would require reviewer action, or a ToU issue that would require Geocaching HQ action.

 

If the cache owner feels the FTF log is bogus they can check the physical logbook and delete the log, if desired. Or not.

The point is that the CO is not in the game anymore. The last time the CO was on the site was in 2003. The CO clearly can/will not take action. The question is, is there some one who can/should take any action? Or are these old ownerless caches just free game for fake logging?

[+htomc42]

I do not see a listing guidelines issue that would require reviewer action, or a ToU issue that would require Geocaching HQ action.

 

If the cache owner feels the FTF log is bogus they can check the physical logbook and delete the log, if desired. Or not.

The point is that the CO is not in the game anymore. The last time the CO was on the site was in 2003. The CO clearly can/will not take action. The question is, is there some one who can/should take any action? Or are these old ownerless caches just free game for fake logging?

 

You could always take a picture of the cache log, and call out the fakes on a public forum.

[+JPreto]

The point is that the CO is not in the game anymore. The last time the CO was on the site was in 2003. The CO clearly can/will not take action. The question is, is there some one who can/should take any action? Or are these old ownerless caches just free game for fake logging?

Thanks, this is exactly my point...

[+Lil Devil]

It's the one and only "find" for this sock puppet. It's pretty obvious it's bogus so just ignore it and consider the cache unfound. No big deal.

[Andronicus]

It's the one and only "find" for this sock puppet. It's pretty obvious it's bogus so just ignore it and consider the cache unfound. No big deal.

Exept that now automated tools for finding old unfound caches will not pull this one out.

[+sbell111]

I do not see a listing guidelines issue that would require reviewer action, or a ToU issue that would require Geocaching HQ action.

 

If the cache owner feels the FTF log is bogus they can check the physical logbook and delete the log, if desired. Or not.

The point is that the CO is not in the game anymore. The last time the CO was on the site was in 2003. The CO clearly can/will not take action. The question is, is there some one who can/should take any action? Or are these old ownerless caches just free game for fake logging?

Historically, tptb took action against a cache if the owner allowed widespread couch logging, but they would not step in the case of one bogus log. Surely, it is in no ones best interest for them to to be second guessing every cache log.

 

Regarding this cache, go look for it log your experience.

[+funkymunkyzone]

It's the one and only "find" for this sock puppet. It's pretty obvious it's bogus so just ignore it and consider the cache unfound. No big deal.

Exept that now automated tools for finding old unfound caches will not pull this one out.

 

Modify the automated tool so it's a little smarter?

[+Walts Hunting]

I do not see a listing guidelines issue that would require reviewer action, or a ToU issue that would require Geocaching HQ action.

 

If the cache owner feels the FTF log is bogus they can check the physical logbook and delete the log, if desired. Or not.

The point is that the CO is not in the game anymore. The last time the CO was on the site was in 2003. The CO clearly can/will not take action. The question is, is there some one who can/should take any action? Or are these old ownerless caches just free game for fake logging?

Historically, tptb took action against a cache if the owner allowed widespread couch logging, but they would not step in the case of one bogus log. Surely, it is in no ones best interest for them to to be second guessing every cache log.

 

Regarding this cache, go look for it log your experience.

 

Now that provides a creative solution. The OP can get a herd of his friends to log the cache with silly logs then report himself for the violation to get it archived. Personally I am more interestd in finding caches then spending time doing creative searches for caches I will never get to.

 

Edited July 31, 2014 by Walts Hunting

[+J Grouchy]

Our local reviewer will regularly archive abandoned caches due to COs not being around anymore. If nobody is around to do maintenance, it ought to be archived...assuming the CO is not paying attention anymore and won't even adopt it out to someone else.

 

What's the big deal? Post an NA log, saying it's abandoned. If it truly isn't, the CO can save it. If it is, there's no reason to keep it around.

[Keystone]

As of this moment, I've archived 9,945 cache listings. Many of these archivals were due to non-compliance with the "Cache Maintenance" section of the listing guidelines. I do not see a maintenance issue that justifies this cache being #9946. Where are the DNF's from seekers? Where are the logs saying "there's a hole in the container and everything's wet?" Where are the unaddressed "Needs Maintenance" logs? Once a reviewer sees things like that, they can take action.

 

There's nothing on this cache listing except one "found it" log that some believe to be suspect, and a few note logs.

 

For all I know, the owner's account is still connected to an email that he checks daily. Perhaps he plays with a smartphone app and never signs into the website on a computer. Lack of a site visit recorded on the profile is no longer meaningful.

[+colleda]

As of this moment, I've archived 9,945 cache listings. Many of these archivals were due to non-compliance with the "Cache Maintenance" section of the listing guidelines. I do not see a maintenance issue that justifies this cache being #9946. Where are the DNF's from seekers? Where are the logs saying "there's a hole in the container and everything's wet?" Where are the unaddressed "Needs Maintenance" logs? Once a reviewer sees things like that, they can take action.

 

There's nothing on this cache listing except one "found it" log that some believe to be suspect, and a few note logs.

 

For all I know, the owner's account is still connected to an email that he checks daily. Perhaps he plays with a smartphone app and never signs into the website on a computer. Lack of a site visit recorded on the profile is no longer meaningful.

It appears this CO has a few placements which look to be joint with others. Most of them are so far unfound. Unless there is a genuine maitenance problem then leave them be.

[+The_Incredibles_]

As far as I can tell, nobody's even made it to GZ yet. Who knows, the cache may still be there and in great shape. A bogus Found log doesn't mean a cache should be archived.

[+JPreto]

There's nothing on this cache listing except one "found it" log that some believe to be suspect, and a few note logs.

 

For all I know, the owner's account is still connected to an email that he checks daily. Perhaps he plays with a smartphone app and never signs into the website on a computer. Lack of a site visit recorded on the profile is no longer meaningful.

From 2003 the CO is using a smartphone, he never found a single cache and placed 5 caches between Jan 2002 and May 2003... I´m sure he is a avid geocacher and if you really look at his geocaching profile you can see that another of his caches http://coord.info/GCG2ZQ has a bigger problem, NA from 2010 and the FOUND is not a found by the Geocaching guidelines!!!!

 

As far as I can tell, nobody's even made it to GZ yet. Who knows, the cache may still be there and in great shape. A bogus Found log doesn't mean a cache should be archived.

 

I´m not talking about archiving caches, I´m talking about DELETING BOGUS FOUND LOGS!!!! But if the case the caches could also be archived if it is demonstrated they are not there and the CO is absent!

 

Gezzz... Am I the only one that doesn´t like when people lie about logging a FOUND IT in a cache the CO is absent?

 

So, back to my first question: "Who is the responsibility of taking care of caches that the CO abandoned? GS, reviewers, the community? And how should this process be done when bogus FOUND IT logs are registered in abandoned caches?"

[+gonzogunner]

why not replace the cache and post you did so? I do it when I can myself.

[+JPreto]

why not replace the cache and post you did so? I do it when I can myself.

 

That is a THROWDOWN!!!! You should really read the GUIDELINES and learn how to play the game!!!!

 

I don´t know what is worse, logging fake FOUND IT or placing a THROWDOWN...

[+Manville Possum]

why not replace the cache and post you did so? I do it when I can myself.

 

That is a THROWDOWN!!!! You should really read the GUIDELINES and learn how to play the game!!!!

 

I don´t know what is worse, logging fake FOUND IT or placing a THROWDOWN...

I think a self appointed cache cop is worse. Let us play the game how we want to, not how you think we should.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Manville Possum Hunters

[4wheelin_fool]

why not replace the cache and post you did so? I do it when I can myself.

 

That is a THROWDOWN!!!! You should really read the GUIDELINES and learn how to play the game!!!!

 

I don´t know what is worse, logging fake FOUND IT or placing a THROWDOWN...

 

It's also what girly men do. Real men post DNFs.

[+Viajero Perdido]

COUGHhttp://coord.info/GCNTZJCOUGH

[+The_Incredibles_]

Are you actually getting that upset over 1 bogus log? Dude, you're not going to live long.

[+Touchstone]

COUGHhttp://coord.info/GCNTZJCOUGH

 

Meh....could be more to the story than what's posted in the Log entry. You should really have that cough looked at

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

Gezzz... Am I the only one that doesn´t like when people lie about logging a FOUND IT in a cache the CO is absent?

 

 

No, you're not alone. But, most people have the sense to not get so worked up over something so trivial.

[+tozainamboku]

 

I´m not talking about archiving caches, I´m talking about DELETING BOGUS FOUND LOGS!!!!

Ouch! Those twisted knickers must be real uncomfortable.

Gezzz... Am I the only one that doesn´t like when people lie about logging a FOUND IT in a cache the CO is absent?

There's a difference between not liking and appointing yourself the judge, jury, and executioner when you haven't actually been harmed.

 

I'm not sure how to respond to someone who for reasons of statistical curiosity is looking for old caches that have never been found and discovers that some caches have what might be bogus logs. Clearly it raises the issue as to whether a log that appears to be bogus should count when determining if an old cache has ever been found; particularly when the log might well be deleted by an active cache owner but the owner of the cache appears to be inactive. My guess is that you will have to decide for yourself whether to include this cache in your statistics.

 

In the meantime, try wearing more comfortable underwear.

[+nosynellies]

why not replace the cache and post you did so? I do it when I can myself.

 

That is a THROWDOWN!!!! You should really read the GUIDELINES and learn how to play the game!!!!

 

I don´t know what is worse, logging fake FOUND IT or placing a THROWDOWN...

 

Well I for one have had enough! I want Groundspeak to do a complete overhaul of the rules micromanaged to a resemblance of a movie script so that we can all know our cues and where our marks are to stand on. That way everything is done exactly as predicted and just as everyone else does it. In fact, we wouldn't even have to leave the house. We could simply pick up our dictionary sized rulebook while relaxing in our easy chair and read through the whole adventure. Then wrap the whole thing up with a "That’s one more find for me! Thanks so much for hiding this geocache."

[+JPreto]

Let us play the game how we want to, not how you think we should.

If you think like this, great you are free to whatever you want... Don´t respect the GS guidelines and be happy about it. I prefer to play by the game rules!!!!

[+JPreto]

Gezzz... Am I the only one that doesn´t like when people lie about logging a FOUND IT in a cache the CO is absent?

No, you're not alone. But, most people have the sense to not get so worked up over something so trivial.

If more took a stand about things like this maybe, just maybe, the game could be better... and my better means more players being honest and don´t lying about founds or placing Throwdowns just to have another found. DNFs are there, so people can use them... no shame about that!!!

[+JPreto]

Well I for one have had enough! I want Groundspeak to do a complete overhaul of the rules micromanaged to a resemblance of a movie script so that we can all know our cues and where our marks are to stand on. [...]

No need for that kind of detail, but I feel that some guidelines could be more explicit and not leave to reviewers the power to determine what cache should or shouldn´t be archived, just to put an example... You can read more about this HERE!

[+redsox_mark]

The second example has a NA log from 4 years ago. I'm not judging if the NA is warranted or not, but there is no visible response from the reviewer. The found log in the second one admits they didn't find it - it's one of those "found it/didn't find it" examples.

 

But anyway... I agree with the OP that bogus logs aren't good (and these found logs appear to be). But there is nothing you can do about it.

[Mr.Yuck]

why not replace the cache and post you did so? I do it when I can myself.

 

That is a THROWDOWN!!!! You should really read the GUIDELINES and learn how to play the game!!!!

 

I don´t know what is worse, logging fake FOUND IT or placing a THROWDOWN...

I think a self appointed cache cop is worse. Let us play the game how we want to, not how you think we should.

 

Well he may be a cache cop in this thread (and even refers to himself as one in the title), but here he is responding to a newbie who apparently believes in throwing down caches, and implies that they've done so "when they can".

 

How you think that one would go over if it had it's own thread?

[+wmpastor]

Are you actually getting that upset over 1 bogus log? Dude, you're not going to live long.

Maybe he's trying to get us that upset over one bogus log - in which case we aren't going to live long.

[+hzoi]

why not replace the cache and post you did so? I do it when I can myself.

 

That is a THROWDOWN!!!! You should really read the GUIDELINES and learn how to play the game!!!!

 

I don´t know what is worse, logging fake FOUND IT or placing a THROWDOWN...

 

 

Relax there, Barney Fife. You'll live longer.

[+sbell111]

Well I for one have had enough! I want Groundspeak to do a complete overhaul of the rules micromanaged to a resemblance of a movie script so that we can all know our cues and where our marks are to stand on. [...]

No need for that kind of detail, but I feel that some guidelines could be more explicit and not leave to reviewers the power to determine what cache should or shouldn´t be archived, just to put an example... You can read more about this HERE!

Im not sure that it's helping you out to link to a thread where you were way too worked up over a very small issue from another one where you are way too worked up over a very small issue. You are just giving everyone the impression that you feel that it's your place to micromanage everyone else's behavior even when it doesn't effect you in any way.

[+K13]

In the title of this thread, JPreto asks "Who is responsible?" I may not know the correct answer (my guess is the cache owner), but I do know the answer is not JPreto.

[+JPreto]

In the title of this thread, JPreto asks "Who is responsible?" I may not know the correct answer (my guess is the cache owner), but I do know the answer is not JPreto.

According to the guidelines is the CO but if the CO is absent from the game?

 

Everybody gives opinions about my actions or my opinions but I put up a fairly simple question... And up until now got no answer. No one knows?

 

So, if GS is a listing service and the cache (property of the CO) is not being maintained by the CO (and please, let´s not debate what is considered maintenance because guidelines are very clear on this subject) shouldn´t it be removed from the listing service or, at least, controlled by GS or the local reviewers by removing bogus logs from the listing service?

 

This is my question.

[+ngrrfan]

In the title of this thread, JPreto asks "Who is responsible?" I may not know the correct answer (my guess is the cache owner), but I do know the answer is not JPreto.

According to the guidelines is the CO but if the CO is absent from the game?

 

Everybody gives opinions about my actions or my opinions but I put up a fairly simple question... And up until now got no answer. No one knows?

 

So, if GS is a listing service and the cache (property of the CO) is not being maintained by the CO (and please, let´s not debate what is considered maintenance because guidelines are very clear on this subject) shouldn´t it be removed from the listing service or, at least, controlled by GS or the local reviewers by removing bogus logs from the listing service?

 

This is my question.

How do you know the CO isn't still maintaining the cache? Just because they don't log in, or participate online, doesn't mean that they are not actively participating. Maybe they have made arrangements with someone to do routine maintenance yet that person can't do anything to the listing.

[Andronicus]

In the title of this thread, JPreto asks "Who is responsible?" I may not know the correct answer (my guess is the cache owner), but I do know the answer is not JPreto.

According to the guidelines is the CO but if the CO is absent from the game?

 

Everybody gives opinions about my actions or my opinions but I put up a fairly simple question... And up until now got no answer. No one knows?

 

So, if GS is a listing service and the cache (property of the CO) is not being maintained by the CO (and please, let´s not debate what is considered maintenance because guidelines are very clear on this subject) shouldn´t it be removed from the listing service or, at least, controlled by GS or the local reviewers by removing bogus logs from the listing service?

 

This is my question.

How do you know the CO isn't still maintaining the cache? Just because they don't log in, or participate online, doesn't mean that they are not actively participating. Maybe they have made arrangements with someone to do routine maintenance yet that person can't do anything to the listing.

That is just wishfull thinking strate out of a fairytail.

[+Touchstone]

So, if GS is a listing service and the cache (property of the CO) is not being maintained by the CO (and please, let´s not debate what is considered maintenance because guidelines are very clear on this subject) shouldn´t it be removed from the listing service or, at least, controlled by GS or the local reviewers by removing bogus logs from the listing service?

 

Actually, the Guidelines are quite flexible on the subject, and not as rigid as you portray.

 

From my point of view, there are two issues that need to be considered first:

 

1. Is there a viable container/logbook in play.

2. Is there no cache any longer, or is it in such a state of disrepair that it's really not much of a geocache, but merely a broken, leaky container with a wad of useless paper in it.

 

If #2 comes into play, then it's merely a matter of posting an NA log to bring it to the Reviewers attention (pretty much the only way they'll "see" the Listing unless they actively search these things out).

 

If #1, then a couple of issues need to be considered:

 

1. Are the Log Entries valid.

2. Are the Log Entries apparently bogus.

 

If #1, obviously no action required.

 

If #2, some judgement/research needs to come into play to resolve the following issues:

 

1. Is it a single/small number of Log Entries.

2. Is it rampant abuse by multiple Users.

 

If #1....meh...move on. Not a big deal worth loosing sleep over.

If #2, Disable and Archive after an appropriate amount of time for the cache owner to respond (i.e. ~30 days).

 

Edit to add third option...

 

I've seen Listings Locked for a brief period of time to let things "cool down" after a string of apparent bogus logs, but it usually is pretty rare case.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Touchstone

[Mr.Yuck]

In the title of this thread, JPreto asks "Who is responsible?" I may not know the correct answer (my guess is the cache owner), but I do know the answer is not JPreto.

According to the guidelines is the CO but if the CO is absent from the game?

 

Everybody gives opinions about my actions or my opinions but I put up a fairly simple question... And up until now got no answer. No one knows?

 

So, if GS is a listing service and the cache (property of the CO) is not being maintained by the CO (and please, let´s not debate what is considered maintenance because guidelines are very clear on this subject) shouldn´t it be removed from the listing service or, at least, controlled by GS or the local reviewers by removing bogus logs from the listing service?

 

This is my question.

 

I think people are in fact being a little rough on you, and even to the point of implying you may die of a stroke or heart attack at an early age. I for one, will stick up for you for 2 reasons. 1) Automated methods for determining an old unfound cache are no longer valid, and 2) There are dozens of examples of this "listing service", as they and many people around here like to refer to them as, locking accounts of people who post bogus find logs, and a few examples (not dozens) of them actually wiping out the finds of a bogus logger.

 

How do you know the CO isn't still maintaining the cache? Just because they don't log in, or participate online, doesn't mean that they are not actively participating. Maybe they have made arrangements with someone to do routine maintenance yet that person can't do anything to the listing.

 

Well, I can (but won't unless I'm inundated by requests) give an example of DOZENS of caches being archived by a reviewer based last log in date, and lack of response to a threatening note on their cache page to post their own note saying the cache is being maintained. True it was a few years ago, and it was just one reviewer, but they did not get fired, and were even defended by a couple of their brethren here.

[+JPreto]

Actually, the Guidelines are quite flexible on the subject, and not as rigid as you portray.

From my point of view... [...]

Thanks, this is an answer!!!!

 

So it really doesn´t matter if the CO is absent or no... only when "many" people abuse a single cache is a problem, when "some" people abuse "some" caches is OK!

 

Just to make it clear, this is actually my interpretation of the guidelines, a flowchart to explain... If I use it? No! It´s just my interpretation...

 

[4wheelin_fool]

Gezzz... Am I the only one that doesn´t like when people lie about logging a FOUND IT in a cache the CO is absent?

 

No, most people don't like that either, however you are the only one obsessed over it.

 

I don't know what the motivation is to open a sock account and log a fake FTF on a geocache that has been published for over 10 years, but I suppose the person may have the same motivation that you do - to get it archived. How about waiting for a few DNFs to pile up first?

[+JPreto]

Gezzz... Am I the only one that doesn´t like when people lie about logging a FOUND IT in a cache the CO is absent?

 

No, most people don't like that either, however you are the only one obsessed over it.

 

I don't know what the motivation is to open a sock account and log a fake FTF on a geocache that has been published for over 10 years, but I suppose the person may have the same motivation that you do - to get it archived. How about waiting for a few DNFs to pile up first?

 

Actually I would be pleased if the FOUND IT log would be removed (if in fact the person didn´t find it), that would be enough.

 

I would really like that the GS listing service would be that, a listing service, with the caches on it be available to be found.

 

If the cache is not there, and the CO knows about it or doesn´t care about it, is the same as having the phone of a dead person listed in the Yellow Pages... what is the use of that?!?!?!?

 

So, if we all help removing bad logs or inform GS about caches that are no longer there, the listing will be more accurate and we can all do what we like, go and find caches, visiting new places and having new experiences!!!

[+nosynellies]

Ok, so that first post was in jest. But seriously, I understand what you are saying and even agree...to a point. Once there is 100% undeniable proof that there is an issue, there needs to be a way for someone to run clean-up. But after reading a couple threads similar to this one, my stand is that if it is that big of a deal to you, then you need to get out of your easy chair, away from your computer, make the trip and find the cache. If the log isn't signed or the cache is missing, log the issue and by all means push forth. That is my understanding of how the system works. Until someone (self proclaimed cache cop or not) is willing to put out the effort and actually do the homework (maybe even get outside and find a cache) to find the proof, I can't bring myself to take the "problem" to seriously. I believe that honesty and integrity make games like this more enjoyable for everyone, but by armchair quarterbacking caches you have not seen and making accusations you can't back up, I believe you add to the problem (as well as the drama, maybe) rather than bringing a solid case against these issues that you can stand on and create new guidelines for action if needed. Once you're willing to do the leg work, I'll stand behind you fully. Til then, don't worry about them. And yes, these are just my opinions, take 'em for what they're worth.

[+JPreto]

I believe that honesty and integrity make games like this more enjoyable for everyone, but by armchair quarterbacking caches you have not seen and making accusations you can't back up, I believe you add to the problem (as well as the drama, maybe) rather than bringing a solid case against these issues that you can stand on and create new guidelines for action if needed.

Thanks for the words... And believe me, not a armchair geocacher!!!!

 

Here in Brazil (Country Stats), where I currently live, there are nowadays 1919 active caches and 73 disabled, so almost 2000 caches in a 8,515,767 km2 (3,287,597 sq mi) it´s the 5th biggest country in the world. In São Paulo, the state I´m in, there are a bit over 1000 caches and I have found almost 700 of them in less than 12 months... I´ve also been to all the states that surround my state. So really, not the armchair kind... more the motorbike, 700km ride per day, to find caches and travel around the country!!!!

 

I have had big issues with cases like this one, here in Brazil, and complained to reviewers and complained to GS, what I got... many caches archived (100-150 caches, in Brazilian numbers around 5-10% of all existing caches at the time) because COs wouldn´t do maintenance because of far away from home placements or caches abandoned by COs that were no longer active. At some point my found stats were 1 DNF in every 3 caches because caches were missing and people here don´t like to DNF and almost never post a NM because "there are so few caches, it´s better to keep them listed even if they aren´t there".

 

I tried to change things around, almost all geocachers criticize me, including the Brazilian Geocaching.com Forum moderator... But I am still here and still trying to make my point, that is... geocaching is fun and even better if the listings are accurate and the caches are maintained. If we all did the effort of trying to do this there weren´t so many problems, I think.

 

Some people like it one way, others like it other way, the fact is... THERE ARE GUIDELINES and if people don´t agree with them it´s their problem, I try to respect the game guidelines because I feel that they were made to protect the game and the players. Even if sometimes I may not agree with them I don´t try and break them or do workarounds...

Edited August 1, 2014 by JPreto

[+nosynellies]

And I tip my GPSr to you for all you have done for the game. My "armchair" statement wasn't against you as a cacher, just that unless I missed something, this particular cache is one you have not looked for. I have not pulled your profile and sorted through everything you have ever done as a cacher like many on the forums do. I'm not a cache cop, nonetheless the cache FBI! It's great that you have taken a proactive approach, but oftentimes that can grow into something else before we know it. I will assume the previous archivals were completed under standard guidelines of you found the cache, it had issues, you reported, the system worked. By the way, I hope when those were archived, you re-hid legit caches to share with more people. Also, I hope that you cleared the geotrash from the caches that were archived.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Sorry. I'm going to agree with OP. Member ecotegus was a user from 15 January 2002 until 29 October 2003. S/he found no caches, and hid five in Honduras, between 01/01/2002 and 5/04/2003. One cache has a "I did not find I, but I am logging a find anyway". An other has a suspicious 'find'.

Certainly, the CO, after ten years of absence might be now using modern means of accessing geocaching. Yeah. Really!

One archived after a DNF.

Yes. These are cache potato/Cache Cop observations. Eleven years without a valid find. Eleven years without owner maintenance. Almost eleven years since the CO has visited the site.

Groundspeak is a listing service for geocaches. These have not existed in eleven years. They should be archived. They are not 'caches'!

[+wmpastor]

Sorry. I'm going to agree with OP. Member ecotegus was a user from 15 January 2002 until 29 October 2003. S/he found no caches, and hid five in Honduras, between 01/01/2002 and 5/04/2003. One cache has a "I did not find I, but I am logging a find anyway". An other has a suspicious 'find'.

Certainly, the CO, after ten years of absence might be now using modern means of accessing geocaching. Yeah. Really!

One archived after a DNF.

Yes. These are cache potato/Cache Cop observations. Eleven years without a valid find. Eleven years without owner maintenance. Almost eleven years since the CO has visited the site.

Groundspeak is a listing service for geocaches. These have not existed in eleven years. They should be archived. They are not 'caches'!

Maybe so, but this sounds like more work for reviewers. And most importantly, where do you draw the line?

 

The existing system works well for caches that are sought often. Caches that go unfound/unsought-after for years are problematic.