Suggestion:Prevention of old caches being archived

[+J Grouchy]

Because it would be nice to cache owners who would like to place a cache at a nice spot.

But if no one replaces it, then it's one less cache at a nice spot. I'll take a known good cache in a nice spot with an inactive owner over the potential of a cache of unknown quality by some other cacher (who, for all we know, might soon be equally inactive) any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

I'm fine with you archiving your cache, and I'm glad some up put a new one there, but I don't see that it makes sense to anticipate that possibility as a justification for archiving caches because the owners are inactive.

 

Seems like you are implying that any nice spot NEEDS a cache. Just because there's an abandoned cache in a nice spot, it doesn't follow that any cache at all needs to come in to replace it after it's archived. Seems like if a place is "calling for a cache", one will eventually be there and the previous existence of a cache is not - and should not be - a factor.

[+dprovan]

But if no one replaces it, then it's one less cache at a nice spot. I'll take a known good cache in a nice spot with an inactive owner over the potential of a cache of unknown quality by some other cacher (who, for all we know, might soon be equally inactive) any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

I'm fine with you archiving your cache, and I'm glad some up put a new one there, but I don't see that it makes sense to anticipate that possibility as a justification for archiving caches because the owners are inactive.

Seems like you are implying that any nice spot NEEDS a cache.

Of course not. I don't care if he archives his cache. I just disagree that a good reason to archive a cache is because someone else might want to place one there. And I have no problem with him archiving his cache-in-a-nice-spot for other reasons and merely consoling himself by telling himself the nice spot will soon get another cache. But that line of thinking doesn't apply to the original case, where a community archives a cache owned by an inactive user and justifies it by arguing that someone active probably wants to plant a cache there.

 

Seems like if a place is "calling for a cache", one will eventually be there and the previous existence of a cache is not - and should not be - a factor.

Yes, exactly my point: the potential for a replacement cache shouldn't be a factor, one way or the other.

[+L0ne.R]

1409939330[/url]' post='5423843']

1409922920[/url]' post='5423753']

1409776749[/url]' post='5423052']

But if no one replaces it, then it's one less cache at a nice spot. I'll take a known good cache in a nice spot with an inactive owner over the potential of a cache of unknown quality by some other cacher (who, for all we know, might soon be equally inactive) any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

I'm fine with you archiving your cache, and I'm glad some up put a new one there, but I don't see that it makes sense to anticipate that possibility as a justification for archiving caches because the owners are inactive.

Seems like you are implying that any nice spot NEEDS a cache.

Of course not. I don't care if he archives his cache. I just disagree that a good reason to archive a cache is because someone else might want to place one there. And I have no problem with him archiving his cache-in-a-nice-spot for other reasons and merely consoling himself by telling himself the nice spot will soon get another cache. But that line of thinking doesn't apply to the original case, where a community archives a cache owned by an inactive user and justifies it by arguing that someone active probably wants to plant a cache there.

 

Seems like if a place is "calling for a cache", one will eventually be there and the previous existence of a cache is not - and should not be - a factor.

Yes, exactly my point: the potential for a replacement cache shouldn't be a factor, one way or the other.

 

It's not about the potential for a replacement cache, it's about not hogging a nice spot to keep an abandoned cache alive.

[+dprovan]

Yes, exactly my point: the potential for a replacement cache shouldn't be a factor, one way or the other.

It's not about the potential for a replacement cache, it's about not hogging a nice spot to keep an abandoned cache alive.

You can't really call it "hogging" when the other cache is hypothetical.

[+NeverSummer]

Groundspeak does not own our caches. Groundspeak does not own our listings. And for liability reasons, Groundspeak does not want to own either.

 

Groundspeak is a listing service. A listing service can disable a listing (either temporarily or permanently), but they can't give away things that they don't own. I don't see this changing anytime soon, because Groundspeak does not want to own our caches or our listings.

 

And personally, I think it's better to archive a missing, unmaintained cache. If it's a significant location, then someone else can hide a new cache with some sort of tribute reference to the original one. Then you have the best of both worlds: the tribute maintains the history, and the new cache has an active owner who can maintain it.

Saving derelict or unmaintained caches is not something that should be encouraged, simply because a cache is "old" or "historic".

[+Team Monkeyboy]

It's not about the potential for a replacement cache, it's about not hogging a nice spot to keep an abandoned cache alive.

 

But what constitutes "abandoned"? If people are finding it, and it's not in bad shape (conditions which would eventually lead to it's archival by an astute reviewer anyway), why archive it for the sake of archiving it? There are plenty of places I'd like to put caches that are already occupied... should I request that they be archived simply because those cache owners starting caching before I did? After all, it's "not fair" that there's already a cache in the area I wanted to place one. Maybe they only check on the cache every few months, or once a year, or once every other year... does that really effect the quality of the cache? If it's a good container, and a good hide, and a good location... theoretically you should NEVER have to check on it again.

 

Unless, of course, there's several DNF or "Needs Maintenance" logs... which would go unheeded... which will lead to it's eventual archival ANYWAY.

[+Panther&Pine]

It's not about the potential for a replacement cache, it's about not hogging a nice spot to keep an abandoned cache alive.

 

But what constitutes "abandoned"? If people are finding it, and it's not in bad shape (conditions which would eventually lead to it's archival by an astute reviewer anyway), why archive it for the sake of archiving it? There are plenty of places I'd like to put caches that are already occupied... should I request that they be archived simply because those cache owners starting caching before I did? After all, it's "not fair" that there's already a cache in the area I wanted to place one. Maybe they only check on the cache every few months, or once a year, or once every other year... does that really effect the quality of the cache? If it's a good container, and a good hide, and a good location... theoretically you should NEVER have to check on it again.

 

Unless, of course, there's several DNF or "Needs Maintenance" logs... which would go unheeded... which will lead to it's eventual archival ANYWAY.

In another thread the suggestion was caches who's owners haven't logged into the site in 3 years should have their caches disabled then archived in 6 months.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

[+dprovan]

In another thread the suggestion was caches who's owners haven't logged into the site in 3 years should have their caches disabled then archived in 6 months.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

What about that's reasonable? What matters is the condition of the cache. It's completely irrelevant whether the owner logs in.

[+Panther&Pine]

In another thread the suggestion was caches who's owners haven't logged into the site in 3 years should have their caches disabled then archived in 6 months.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

What about that's reasonable? What matters is the condition of the cache. It's completely irrelevant whether the owner logs in.

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

[+dprovan]

In another thread the suggestion was caches who's owners haven't logged into the site in 3 years should have their caches disabled then archived in 6 months.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

What about that's reasonable? What matters is the condition of the cache. It's completely irrelevant whether the owner logs in.

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

If I produced the counter example you ask for, I'd prove that the proposal bad because it is based on an invalid assumption. If I can't produce a counter example, thus proving that all caches by absentee owners are in bad shape, that would prove the proposal is unnecessary since caches in bad shape can be archived through the established procedures based on the cache's condition without looking at the owner's condition. Either would show that the proposal should not be implemented.

[+MartyBartfast]

In another thread the suggestion was caches who's owners haven't logged into the site in 3 years should have their caches disabled then archived in 6 months.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

What about that's reasonable? What matters is the condition of the cache. It's completely irrelevant whether the owner logs in.

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

 

almost 6 years :

 

http://coord.info/GC1644H

[+Panther&Pine]

In another thread the suggestion was caches who's owners haven't logged into the site in 3 years should have their caches disabled then archived in 6 months.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

What about that's reasonable? What matters is the condition of the cache. It's completely irrelevant whether the owner logs in.

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

 

almost 6 years :

 

http://coord.info/GC1644H

Well color me impressed. A kid cacher with 12 finds places an ammo can with decent coords and it is still going 7 years later (6 years after the CO stopped logging in).

[+ecanderson]

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

A 30 cal ammo can in the mountains lasts pretty much forever here. Doesn't matter who has logged on or when.

[+Team Monkeyboy]

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

http://coord.info/GC1F414

[+Panther&Pine]

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

http://coord.info/GC1F414

Uh that one has an uncleared NM log, which is one of the things that community supported caches can't have fixed.

[+tozainamboku]

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

http://coord.info/GC1F414

Uh that one has an uncleared NM log, which is one of the things that community supported caches can't have fixed.

Volunteer reviewers have the ability to clear NM logs.

[+Panther&Pine]

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

http://coord.info/GC1F414

Uh that one has an uncleared NM log, which is one of the things that community supported caches can't have fixed.

Volunteer reviewers have the ability to clear NM logs.

But do they? Again curious not attacking.

[+fbingha]

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

http://coord.info/GC1F414

Uh that one has an uncleared NM log, which is one of the things that community supported caches can't have fixed.

Volunteer reviewers have the ability to clear NM logs.

But do they? Again curious not attacking.

 

Yes, I have seen caches that are supported by guarding angels to have had their NM flags cleared. Either by someone asking or just by the reviewer noticing a log where someone mentions that they fixed the cache. Of course, that sets no precedent for it ever happening to any other cache that one may hope that it happens to.

Edited October 17, 2014 by fbingha

[+K13]

In another thread the suggestion was caches who's owners haven't logged into the site in 3 years should have their caches disabled then archived in 6 months.

Seems fairly reasonable to me.

What about that's reasonable? What matters is the condition of the cache. It's completely irrelevant whether the owner logs in.

Can you find an example of a cache that is acceptable condition that the cache owner hasn't logged in for that amount of time?

I'm not picking a fight, just curious since it seemed fairly reasonable to me.

 

almost 6 years :

 

http://coord.info/GC1644H

Well color me impressed. A kid cacher with 12 finds places an ammo can with decent coords and it is still going 7 years later (6 years after the CO stopped logging in).

 

It's not quite as impressive when you read this part of the profile information,

I am 10 years old, I love horses and have riding lessons every week. I go Geocaching with my dad MartyBartfast ......

and notice who posted the example.

 

However, it must be a pretty good cache, if it hasn't needed any maintenance for all those 250+ finds in the 7 years.