New Owner Log Type: "Up For Adoption"

[+mrreet]

Unfortunately most of the true needs adoptions around here are from cache owners going AWOL. In this case the Up for adoption tags wouldn't help. It would be nice if we could implement a system that would allow a Reviewer to put up for adoption.

 

Suggested situation: Cache owner goes AWOL. Cache lives in the wild for a year or two. Cache now needs maintenance. (new log replace top ect.)

Right now we have two options. 1. Someone takes care of cache without ownership. 2. Post NA. Reviewer steps in and archives it. User puts new cache in its place. (sometimes identical).

If instead of a Needs Archived we post a Needs Adopted. If no one wants it let it be archived. However if some one wants to step in a take care of it, let them adopt it.

If it's the same cache why should it need a new cache ID?

[+L0ne.R]

Unfortunately most of the true needs adoptions around here are from cache owners going AWOL. In this case the Up for adoption tags wouldn't help. It would be nice if we could implement a system that would allow a Reviewer to put up for adoption.

 

Suggested situation: Cache owner goes AWOL. Cache lives in the wild for a year or two. Cache now needs maintenance. (new log replace top ect.)

Right now we have two options. 1. Someone takes care of cache without ownership. 2. Post NA. Reviewer steps in and archives it. User puts new cache in its place. (sometimes identical).

If instead of a Needs Archived we post a Needs Adopted. If no one wants it let it be archived. However if some one wants to step in a take care of it, let them adopt it.

If it's the same cache why should it need a new cache ID?

 

2. Post NA. Reviewer steps in and archives it. User puts new cache in its place. (sometimes identical).

 

This works. Otherwise junk caches will live on forever and locations will be saturated by them.

 

I also don't like the idea because I foresee some cache hoarders feeling they are doing something for the community by volunteering to adopt every cache on the map with an adoption icon. Again, leaving no room for cache turn-over in some areas.

Here's my example of why spots need to be cleared for other caches. I've got my eye on a location that I want to place a cache. It's near a road that has a name that will work perfectly for the theme of my cache. The cache that is currently there rarely gets any upkeep, the container is not in good shape but not worthy of an NA. I'm hoping that the owner will eventually grow tired of owning it and archive it. I've already set up my cache listing and have a watch on the cache. It may take awhile, I've been waiting for a year now. I'm willing to keep waiting. With the proposed adoption idea there's little chance that I'd ever get a chance to place my cache there.

[+mrreet]

If the cache is replaced identically by another owner why do you think it needs a new cache ID?

 

Unless your a all about the numbers cacher.

Edited September 9, 2014 by mrreet

[+ADKer]

A more likely solution is a 3rd party "adoption service" as a listing service to bring adoptees and adopters together, along the lines of the "tb-rescue" style.

I don't think a third party solution could be widely adopted enough to be effective.

[+L0ne.R]

If the cache is replaced identically by another owner why do you think it needs a new cache ID?

 

Unless your a all about the numbers cacher.

 

Why replace the cache identically? Personally, I finding a similar cache at the exact same location boring.

 

I'm hearing that a lot of people really want to save GC cache ID numbers. They can't go back in time to get those old numbers so they need to save them by forcing adoptions or at least putting more pressure on cache owners to adopt out their caches to save those numbers. This pastime is becoming more and more about statistics. The actual cache experience matters little.

[+cerberus1]

I'm hearing that a lot of people really want to save GC cache ID numbers. They can't go back in time to get those old numbers so they need to save them by forcing adoptions or at least putting more pressure on cache owners to adopt out their caches to save those numbers. This pastime is becoming more and more about statistics.

+1

We're seeing the same in our area.

People trying to maintain a molding piece a carp, placed by a long-inactive CO, often replacing it's container.

When asked, it's an old cache and they gotta keep those numbers.

Challenges, ya know...

[+mrreet]

Why replace the cache identically?

 

Because it's (they're) a cool cache that I (or someone) want to keep active for future cachers.

 

Personally, I finding a similar cache at the exact same location boring.

 

Which is why it should keep the old number, so you don't have to find it as you already have found it.

 

I am also going to through out there that you are suppose to place a cache for longevity. (per the guidelines "Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time.")

 

Why should a good cache die simply because a CO left the game or even died for that matter.

Edited September 9, 2014 by mrreet

[+L0ne.R]

 

Why should a good cache die simply because a CO left the game or even died for that matter.

 

Speaking as a co-owner (but essentially the one who creates and maintains them) of what I consider "good" caches (double digit fav points), and includes a couple of old caches, should I die suddenly I would want my caches archived not adopted. Over 12 years of geocache ownership, we have built a reputation for providing good caching experiences, I would expect anyone who maintains them to carry on and check caches seasonally. Don't wait for a report that there's something wrong with the cache. Clean out the caches and add some decent swag when maintaining. Always be on top of emails. Use disable when necessary so finders' time and gas money are not wasted. Keep the cache page up to date, etc. I think it would be quite rare that an adopter would live up to those standards. And I'm not keen on the idea that some of our more creative caches would be assumed by someone else. Also, the new owner could remove all references to the original owner and change the cache in every way (accept for the coveted GC#).

[+L0ne.R]

Why replace the cache identically?

 

Because it's (they're) a cool cache that I (or someone) want to keep active for future cachers.

 

Personally, I finding a similar cache at the exact same location boring.

 

Which is why it should keep the old number, so you don't have to find it as you already have found it.

 

I am also going to through out there that you are suppose to place a cache for longevity. (per the guidelines "Cachers will expect your cache to remain in place for a realistic and extended period of time.")

 

Why should a good cache die simply because a CO left the game or even died for that matter.

 

Longevity refers to at least 3 months. "Realistic extended period of time" I doubt includes a decade. A year would be the top end of realistic IMO.

 

Rest of the paragraph...

 

Therefore, caches that have the goal to move (traveling caches), or temporary caches (caches hidden for less than 3 months or for one-time events) will not be published.

 

[+ADKer]

I'd like to remind everyone that my process would not work if a CO has left the game. This isn't for holding on the every last cache that has started to deteriorate. It is instead a way for a CO to let people know that their cache is up for adoption. Perhaps they're leaving the game, perhaps they're not.

 

Also, if it's a crappy cache, why adopt it? If the CO doesn't want to deal with it, it'll get archived. Or if it's in really bad shape, leave a NA log.

[+L0ne.R]

Also, if it's a crappy cache, why adopt it?

 

I expect there will be some people who just won't let any cache, crappy or not, disappear and jump on the chance to adopt any and every cache.

[+cerberus1]

It would be nice if we could implement a system that would allow a Reviewer to put up for adoption.

Was tried before and didn't pan out. COs own the caches, not Groundspeak.

Here is the official statement on the matter.

 

I remember a post by a regular Reviewer here, of a personal experience of why it'd not a good idea, but can't find it.

- Cache was adopted through a Reviewer, original owner came back, wondering how his cache listing was stolen.

[+cerberus1]

Also, if it's a crappy cache, why adopt it?

 

I expect there will be some people who just won't let any cache, crappy or not, disappear and jump on the chance to adopt any and every cache.

I agree and the reason said earlier I'd not like an instant notification process, as stated in the original post.

- Hundreds of email notifications of unmaintained carp for a few that may be worth salvaging?

No thanks.

 

Didn't really think this was serious, as the OP has made suggestions in the website forums before, so should know to go there.

[+MKFmly]

A more likely solution is a 3rd party "adoption service" as a listing service to bring adoptees and adopters together, along the lines of the "tb-rescue" style.

I don't think a third party solution could be widely adopted enough to be effective.

Granted, its not easy to gain wide adoption, but GSAK, Project-GC, MyGeocachingProfile, cacherstats, TB-Rescue, and others are fairly successful at providing wanted/needed capability that GS does not, will not, or cannot provide. As third party options continue to gain traction and provide capability, GS will truly relegate itself to just a "listing service".

[+NeverSummer]

So..., don't strive to save good and memorable caches? I understand caches come and go. I chose to archive the only two I put out, albeit for reasons other than we're talking about. There are more than plenty caches near me that I would like to see gone (as mentioned in my earlier posts), but I'm thinking about caches such as ADKer was intending in his OP. A good, quality, memorable cache that people enjoy finding being archived without a chance at survival only to be replace by a critter chewed piece of broken plastic with a moldy water logged and ripped piece of unsignable paper that no one enjoys finding. I'd much rather see the former survive than have it replaced ASAP by someone who only cares about throwing out the first container they can salvage from their trash bin.

 

I see no problem with the local caching community keeping alive classic caches...in some cases CO's die.

 

Too true, and those are the ones I think ADKer is talking about. I agree with Dame though; there are plenty of caches in my neck of the woods that would be better off dead and gone.

This is a fundamentally bad idea. When a cache is not adopted out by and owner to a new owner, nobody has the ability to edit a listing, change or adjust D/T, post Owner Maintenance logs to remove "Needs Maintenance" attributes, and so on.

 

Community maintenance can work, however, when a cache hasn't yet fallen into disrepair. The issue is still that a listing can become inaccurate, and the NM attribute sticks with caches, rendering them off many people's cache visitation plans when traveling or creating a PQ for a cache outing. I know that, personally, I am less likely to visit a cache with an active NM attribute than I am a "clean" cache.

 

If a cacher dies (happend here in AK to some fun and poplular hides from Anchorage to Seward), communities can do a good job of keep caches alive. However, once a listing starts to fall into disrepair, it has as much an effect on seeking the caches as does a derelict container or logbook. Thus, "keeping caches alive as a community" can be a slippery slope.

 

An appeal for the my above example with "Raven's View Redux" to Groundspeak reinforced the idea that listings and caches that have no active owners will not be kept alive when someone else wants to hide their own cache within proximity. A NA log to that old cache can render it archived, and a new cache can be placed by a willing and active owner in the same area--even using the same coordinates and container if so chosen. That cache, as noted above, can also be listed with the former "hidden on" date if the new cache owner feels, and the Volunteer Reviewer accepts against the guidelines.

[+ADKer]

Also, if it's a crappy cache, why adopt it?

 

I expect there will be some people who just won't let any cache, crappy or not, disappear and jump on the chance to adopt any and every cache.

I agree and the reason said earlier I'd not like an instant notification process, as stated in the original post.

- Hundreds of email notifications of unmaintained carp for a few that may be worth salvaging?

No thanks.

 

Didn't really think this was serious, as the OP has made suggestions in the website forums before, so should know to go there.

 

Not every cache would get this log. It would only be posted by an owner, if they didn't want their cache to be archived, but no longer can maintain it themselves. This wouldn't be a "last chance! Who want's it???" event for every single archived cache.

 

And...what do you mean by that last sentence? Of course this is serious. What part of this discussion leads you to think otherwise? It isn't like Roman!'s recent suggestion. And yes, this should have been in the Website section. My bad.

[+NeverSummer]

Let me just be sure to add: I'm not against this idea, but rather I don't think that it will work in the way the OP (or myself, for that matter) think it will work. In fact, I don't think it will help the adoption cause at all.

 

Let's address the current situation:

Most people don't know that a cache can be adopted at all. Case in point, I once asked a person who hid caches in my home town on a vacation years ago i they might like their caches adopted. They had been out of the game for some time, and had not been back to maintain their caches. I had helped others find these caches, and had also tried to update logbooks and baggies when I could. Realizing that maintenance of someone else's cache is not my business, I asked to adopt them. Their response was, "Is that possible??"

 

So, the big issue here is knowledge of process. Most folks have no clue that they can ask someone to adopt their cache in an official manner. That would be a very good place to start if adoption is the goal for the OP, and others supporting a more effective way to see caches adopted by willing owners. Rather than starting with a suggestion that Groundspeak create a new log type, icon, or the like, perhaps the conversation should start at the beginning?

[+NeverSummer]

Also, if it's a crappy cache, why adopt it?

 

I expect there will be some people who just won't let any cache, crappy or not, disappear and jump on the chance to adopt any and every cache.

I agree and the reason said earlier I'd not like an instant notification process, as stated in the original post.

- Hundreds of email notifications of unmaintained carp for a few that may be worth salvaging?

No thanks.

 

Didn't really think this was serious, as the OP has made suggestions in the website forums before, so should know to go there.

 

Not every cache would get this log. It would only be posted by an owner, if they didn't want their cache to be archived, but no longer can maintain it themselves. This wouldn't be a "last chance! Who want's it???" event for every single archived cache.

 

And...what do you mean by that last sentence? Of course this is serious. What part of this discussion leads you to think otherwise? It isn't like Roman!'s recent suggestion. And yes, this should have been in the Website section. My bad.

See bolded:

Wouldn't that existing log type be the one to put on a watchlist if you're a willing adopter? Just watch for NA logs in your area, and you can jump on any adoption efforts you like.

[+ADKer]

Also, if it's a crappy cache, why adopt it?

 

I expect there will be some people who just won't let any cache, crappy or not, disappear and jump on the chance to adopt any and every cache.

I agree and the reason said earlier I'd not like an instant notification process, as stated in the original post.

- Hundreds of email notifications of unmaintained carp for a few that may be worth salvaging?

No thanks.

 

Didn't really think this was serious, as the OP has made suggestions in the website forums before, so should know to go there.

 

Not every cache would get this log. It would only be posted by an owner, if they didn't want their cache to be archived, but no longer can maintain it themselves. This wouldn't be a "last chance! Who want's it???" event for every single archived cache.

 

And...what do you mean by that last sentence? Of course this is serious. What part of this discussion leads you to think otherwise? It isn't like Roman!'s recent suggestion. And yes, this should have been in the Website section. My bad.

See bolded:

Wouldn't that existing log type be the one to put on a watchlist if you're a willing adopter? Just watch for NA logs in your area, and you can jump on any adoption efforts you like.

 

The problem with that is sometimes owners move/quit caching and just archive their caches. I've seen numerous "I hate to see this one go, but I'm ______" Archived logs. Not only would this special "write-note" log inform owners that adoptions exist, but it would also be a better way of getting a willing cacher to adopt the cache.

 

And again: it wouldn't be on every archived cache. It would be a special owner type that they could do as opposed to archiving it...at least until no one adopts it, then they could archive it.

Edited September 9, 2014 by ADKer

[+NeverSummer]

Also, if it's a crappy cache, why adopt it?

 

I expect there will be some people who just won't let any cache, crappy or not, disappear and jump on the chance to adopt any and every cache.

I agree and the reason said earlier I'd not like an instant notification process, as stated in the original post.

- Hundreds of email notifications of unmaintained carp for a few that may be worth salvaging?

No thanks.

 

Didn't really think this was serious, as the OP has made suggestions in the website forums before, so should know to go there.

 

Not every cache would get this log. It would only be posted by an owner, if they didn't want their cache to be archived, but no longer can maintain it themselves. This wouldn't be a "last chance! Who want's it???" event for every single archived cache.

 

And...what do you mean by that last sentence? Of course this is serious. What part of this discussion leads you to think otherwise? It isn't like Roman!'s recent suggestion. And yes, this should have been in the Website section. My bad.

See bolded:

Wouldn't that existing log type be the one to put on a watchlist if you're a willing adopter? Just watch for NA logs in your area, and you can jump on any adoption efforts you like.

 

The problem with that is sometimes owners move/quit caching and just archive their caches. I've seen numerous "I hate to see this one go, but I'm ______" Archived logs. Not only would this special "write-note" log inform owners that adoptions exist, but it would also be a better way of getting a willing cacher to adopt the cache.

 

And again: it wouldn't be on every archived cache. It would be a special owner type that they could do as opposed to archiving it...at least until no one adopts it, then they could archive it.

See my post 2 back, then. The idea here would be to get those owners aware of the ability to adopt out their caches if they are willing. They could then post a note, edit the listing, change the title, email locals to ask, etc. to get the word out before it gets archived.

 

If nobody bites, then there is nothing wrong with seeing that cache archived. Others may be bummed out, but that all passes. It's the many stages of loss...and eventually people move past step 1 and 2. Then they arrive at stage 3 (this thread), and then move onto stage 4 once they realize that bargaining won't get them the change they wish for. Then...well, then we get stage 5: acceptance.

 

I tried for years to get some of my old caches back in Oregon adopted. One of them is still active, but I'm actively seeking an adopter. Others in a well-received series were up for adoption, and eventually archived due to lack of interest. It just happens. And I'm one of the few owners you'll find amongst the millions that is aware of the fact that one can have a cache adopted to a new owner.

[+NeverSummer]

 

The problem with that is sometimes owners move/quit caching and just archive their caches. I've seen numerous "I hate to see this one go, but I'm ______" Archived logs.

And to point, isn't it up to the owner to do with their cache as they see fit? If they don't know or choose to have their cache(s) adopted, isn't that just fine?

 

One might feel some loss for that possibly "good", "historic", or "memorable" cache, but it isn't up to anyone but the owner to make the choice to end up with an archived cache (either archived by self, or by Reviewer for lack of action/activity).

[+ADKer]

The problem with that is sometimes owners move/quit caching and just archive their caches. I've seen numerous "I hate to see this one go, but I'm ______" Archived logs.

And to point, isn't it up to the owner to do with their cache as they see fit? If they don't know or choose to have their cache(s) adopted, isn't that just fine?

 

One might feel some loss for that possibly "good", "historic", or "memorable" cache, but it isn't up to anyone but the owner to make the choice to end up with an archived cache (either archived by self, or by Reviewer for lack of action/activity).

 

Yeah, it's their choice, they could choose to "put it up for adoption" or archive it.

[+TriciaG]

I like the idea. I do wonder about the unintended consequences, though.

[+NeverSummer]

The problem with that is sometimes owners move/quit caching and just archive their caches. I've seen numerous "I hate to see this one go, but I'm ______" Archived logs.

And to point, isn't it up to the owner to do with their cache as they see fit? If they don't know or choose to have their cache(s) adopted, isn't that just fine?

 

One might feel some loss for that possibly "good", "historic", or "memorable" cache, but it isn't up to anyone but the owner to make the choice to end up with an archived cache (either archived by self, or by Reviewer for lack of action/activity).

 

Yeah, it's their choice, they could choose to "put it up for adoption" or archive it.

Right. So wouldn't your suggestion be just as effective as a Note log on the cache page, a changed description containing the request that anyone willing get in touch about adoption, and perhaps a changed title to note that it is open for adoption...but with less programming and outreach work needed by the listing service Geocaching.com?

 

That's just as easy as a new log type or icon to use for cache owners, and needs much less effort from Groundspeak to implement.

 

What we can do is ask that Groundspeak makes the "adopt" option more clear to users, and add it to a future newsletter.

Edited September 10, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The problem with that is sometimes owners move/quit caching and just archive their caches. I've seen numerous "I hate to see this one go, but I'm ______" Archived logs.

And to point, isn't it up to the owner to do with their cache as they see fit? If they don't know or choose to have their cache(s) adopted, isn't that just fine?

 

One might feel some loss for that possibly "good", "historic", or "memorable" cache, but it isn't up to anyone but the owner to make the choice to end up with an archived cache (either archived by self, or by Reviewer for lack of action/activity).

 

Yeah, it's their choice, they could choose to "put it up for adoption" or archive it.

Right. So wouldn't your suggestion be just as effective as a Note log on the cache page, a changed description containing the request that anyone willing get in touch about adoption, and perhaps a changed title to note that it is open for adoption...but with less programming and outreach work needed by the listing service Geocaching.com?

 

That's just as easy as a new log type or icon to use for cache owners, and needs much less effort from Groundspeak to implement.

 

What we can do is ask that Groundspeak makes the "adopt" option more clear to users, and add it to a future newsletter.

 

As I see it, a "up for adoption" log type would have a couple of advantages over simply posting a Note.

 

One of the advantages It would have a unique icon. That would make it more visible anyone looking at the logs. Posting an "up for adoption" log could also trigger a change in the caches status (active, disabled, archived) such that one could search their local area and immediately see caches that were up for adoption.

 

 

[+TriciaG]

As I see it, a "up for adoption" log type would have a couple of advantages over simply posting a Note.

 

One of the advantages It would have a unique icon. That would make it more visible anyone looking at the logs. Posting an "up for adoption" log could also trigger a change in the caches status (active, disabled, archived) such that one could search their local area and immediately see caches that were up for adoption.

This, and also that members could set notifications to the new type and thus get notified when someone has put their cache up for adoption. Posting a note on the cache page would alert no one, unless someone were already watching each cache in their area.

[+NeverSummer]

The problem with that is sometimes owners move/quit caching and just archive their caches. I've seen numerous "I hate to see this one go, but I'm ______" Archived logs.

And to point, isn't it up to the owner to do with their cache as they see fit? If they don't know or choose to have their cache(s) adopted, isn't that just fine?

 

One might feel some loss for that possibly "good", "historic", or "memorable" cache, but it isn't up to anyone but the owner to make the choice to end up with an archived cache (either archived by self, or by Reviewer for lack of action/activity).

 

Yeah, it's their choice, they could choose to "put it up for adoption" or archive it.

Right. So wouldn't your suggestion be just as effective as a Note log on the cache page, a changed description containing the request that anyone willing get in touch about adoption, and perhaps a changed title to note that it is open for adoption...but with less programming and outreach work needed by the listing service Geocaching.com?

 

That's just as easy as a new log type or icon to use for cache owners, and needs much less effort from Groundspeak to implement.

 

What we can do is ask that Groundspeak makes the "adopt" option more clear to users, and add it to a future newsletter.

 

As I see it, a "up for adoption" log type would have a couple of advantages over simply posting a Note.

 

One of the advantages It would have a unique icon. That would make it more visible anyone looking at the logs. Posting an "up for adoption" log could also trigger a change in the caches status (active, disabled, archived) such that one could search their local area and immediately see caches that were up for adoption.

True; good points. I like the searchable option.

 

But, again, the issue will still be how well and accurately it would be implemented by cache owners. If Groundspeak puts in the work, what's going to make owners use it properly when they still can't grasp Owner Maintenance logs to remove Needs Maintenance attributes, or even how some still use "Found it" to log a note or update.

 

Also, this would remove some of the onus on the owner of a cache to do the legwork to get a cache adopted. The owner should be the one working to get their cache adopted, and I think that Groundspeak might argue that the programming load to add this to the website outweighs the benefits we might hope to see. Because Groundspeak is a business, they are going to weigh the benefits for users against the costs of programming and implementation.

 

The alternative for them will be to leave the system as is, and require owners to do the work to get their caches adopted--as it has always been.

 

This is where I still hold that the primary goal for "we the users" should be to get the word out that one can adopt a cache if they see one that might "go away", and that owners should know that there is an option other than outright archival for the caches they may leave behind.

 

I think that, from my own limited experience, most "notable" caches that have large community appreciation are eventually adopted. It's the more subjective, lesser known and appreciated caches that don't get the same attention. It's the old "one man's treasure is another's trash" mentality. Meaning, not everyone sees that "Geocache X" is worth adopting over possibly letting it just become archived (leaving room for another cache, or perhaps to just fade away into memory). If the OP, or others in this thread are willing and able to take over what they feel are "notable" or "memorable", or "historic" caches, then they can put caches on their watchlist, contact the owners of those caches and mention that, in the case where the cache might ever become archived, they would like to adopt those caches from them, then we have just what we're all after.

 

I'll say it again: I'm not against the idea presented here. It has its merits. However I don't think that Groundspeak is going to make a move on this idea for the reasons I and others mention herein. So, we have an opportunity to redirect this energy into things that will help the situation: Getting the word out ourselves (and hopefully via Groundspeak's newsletter?) that adoption exists for cache owners.

 

If Groundspeak miraculously adopts this idea and implements it, I'll await the future heated and recurring, "Owners don't use the 'Up for Adoption' log type properly or effectively" threads.

[cezanne]

The cache was one of the oldest in the county, over 13 years. Anyway, this log would give caches to be adopted out, instead of just archived. [/size]

 

I doubt that many would want to adopt out a 13 years old cache. I definitely would prefer archival for all my caches to adoption.

I never would want that my caches leave my profile.

Edited September 10, 2014 by cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

If Groundspeak miraculously adopts this idea and implements it, I'll await the future heated and recurring, "Owners don't use the 'Up for Adoption' log type properly or effectively" threads.

 

I think some are reading a lot more into this suggestion that is actually there. If a cache owner decided they want to put a cache up for adoption the can use the the log type. If they would rather let the cache be archived, don't use the log type. Nobody is forcing anyone to put up any of there caches up for adoption. It doesn't change the process for adoption. The CO still needs to initiate the adoption process the same way they do now. In fact, they can use the log type, and decide *not* to initiate the adoption processes for the first person that responds. If I post a car for sale on craiglist I'm not obligated to sell it to the first person that responds. This is no different.

 

Someone can even decide that they want to adopt out one or more of their caches and decide *not* to use the log type. They might prefer to post a message on their local geocaching group mailing list or forum rather than announce it to the world.

 

There really is no wrong way to use it.

 

 

[+ADKer]

As I see it, a "up for adoption" log type would have a couple of advantages over simply posting a Note.

 

One of the advantages It would have a unique icon. That would make it more visible anyone looking at the logs. Posting an "up for adoption" log could also trigger a change in the caches status (active, disabled, archived) such that one could search their local area and immediately see caches that were up for adoption.

This, and also that members could set notifications to the new type and thus get notified when someone has put their cache up for adoption. Posting a note on the cache page would alert no one, unless someone were already watching each cache in their area.

(Responding to the bold). I hadn't even though I thought about that. I'm not saying a agree or disagree with the idea, but perhaps an attribute would be what you're looking for?

 

And yes, the notifications what what I was thinking of.

 

 

If Groundspeak miraculously adopts this idea and implements it, I'll await the future heated and recurring, "Owners don't use the 'Up for Adoption' log type properly or effectively" threads.

 

I think some are reading a lot more into this suggestion that is actually there. If a cache owner decided they want to put a cache up for adoption the can use the the log type. If they would rather let the cache be archived, don't use the log type. Nobody is forcing anyone to put up any of there caches up for adoption. It doesn't change the process for adoption. The CO still needs to initiate the adoption process the same way they do now. In fact, they can use the log type, and decide *not* to initiate the adoption processes for the first person that responds. If I post a car for sale on craiglist I'm not obligated to sell it to the first person that responds. This is no different.

 

Someone can even decide that they want to adopt out one or more of their caches and decide *not* to use the log type. They might prefer to post a message on their local geocaching group mailing list or forum rather than announce it to the world.

 

There really is no wrong way to use it.

 

Exactly.

Edited September 10, 2014 by ADKer

[+cerberus1]

 

If Groundspeak miraculously adopts this idea and implements it, I'll await the future heated and recurring, "Owners don't use the 'Up for Adoption' log type properly or effectively" threads.

 

I think some are reading a lot more into this suggestion that is actually there. If a cache owner decided they want to put a cache up for adoption the can use the the log type. If they would rather let the cache be archived, don't use the log type. Nobody is forcing anyone to put up any of there caches up for adoption. It doesn't change the process for adoption. The CO still needs to initiate the adoption process the same way they do now. In fact, they can use the log type, and decide *not* to initiate the adoption processes for the first person that responds. If I post a car for sale on craiglist I'm not obligated to sell it to the first person that responds. This is no different.

 

Someone can even decide that they want to adopt out one or more of their caches and decide *not* to use the log type. They might prefer to post a message on their local geocaching group mailing list or forum rather than announce it to the world.

 

There really is no wrong way to use it.

- For the person who may want to have caches adopted maybe.

But for the rest of us who'd receive those emails, I'd like a way to filter out the caches I wouldn't want in my notifications (ranked by size first or course, followed by terrain).

 

Edited to add... You do realize we're talking instant notifications right?

Yeah, I deleted the rest.

Edited September 10, 2014 by cerberus1

[+ADKer]

 

If Groundspeak miraculously adopts this idea and implements it, I'll await the future heated and recurring, "Owners don't use the 'Up for Adoption' log type properly or effectively" threads.

 

I think some are reading a lot more into this suggestion that is actually there. If a cache owner decided they want to put a cache up for adoption the can use the the log type. If they would rather let the cache be archived, don't use the log type. Nobody is forcing anyone to put up any of there caches up for adoption. It doesn't change the process for adoption. The CO still needs to initiate the adoption process the same way they do now. In fact, they can use the log type, and decide *not* to initiate the adoption processes for the first person that responds. If I post a car for sale on craiglist I'm not obligated to sell it to the first person that responds. This is no different.

 

Someone can even decide that they want to adopt out one or more of their caches and decide *not* to use the log type. They might prefer to post a message on their local geocaching group mailing list or forum rather than announce it to the world.

 

There really is no wrong way to use it.

- For the person who may want to have caches adopted maybe.

But for the rest of us who'd receive those emails, I'd like a way to filter out the caches I wouldn't want in my notifications (ranked by size first or course, followed by terrain).

 

I don't think that there'd be such a plethora of caches with this log type in an instant notifications area that there'd be need for filtering. (Again, it wouldn't be on all caches, only if the owner wanted to advertise it as "up for adoption.")

[+cerberus1]

 

If Groundspeak miraculously adopts this idea and implements it, I'll await the future heated and recurring, "Owners don't use the 'Up for Adoption' log type properly or effectively" threads.

 

I think some are reading a lot more into this suggestion that is actually there. If a cache owner decided they want to put a cache up for adoption the can use the the log type. If they would rather let the cache be archived, don't use the log type. Nobody is forcing anyone to put up any of there caches up for adoption. It doesn't change the process for adoption. The CO still needs to initiate the adoption process the same way they do now. In fact, they can use the log type, and decide *not* to initiate the adoption processes for the first person that responds. If I post a car for sale on craiglist I'm not obligated to sell it to the first person that responds. This is no different.

 

Someone can even decide that they want to adopt out one or more of their caches and decide *not* to use the log type. They might prefer to post a message on their local geocaching group mailing list or forum rather than announce it to the world.

 

There really is no wrong way to use it.

- For the person who may want to have caches adopted maybe.

But for the rest of us who'd receive those emails, I'd like a way to filter out the caches I wouldn't want in my notifications (ranked by size first or course, followed by terrain).

 

I don't think that there'd be such a plethora of caches with this log type in an instant notifications area that there'd be need for filtering. (Again, it wouldn't be on all caches, only if the owner wanted to advertise it as "up for adoption.")

Dollar-to-a-donut good, quality caches would have the owners either bag it all and archive, or hand 'em over to friends (as they do know).

The rest would be caches not worthy of the email time to scan through.

 

Edited to add.. The reason I'd want a filter is the odd chance that one out of the rest would be worth it.

Edited September 10, 2014 by cerberus1

[+NeverSummer]

 

If Groundspeak miraculously adopts this idea and implements it, I'll await the future heated and recurring, "Owners don't use the 'Up for Adoption' log type properly or effectively" threads.

 

I think some are reading a lot more into this suggestion that is actually there. If a cache owner decided they want to put a cache up for adoption the can use the the log type. <snip>

 

There really is no wrong way to use it.

For the owner, yes. But my quote is about the non-owners; people who wish that owners would use this "new feature" more to their liking.

 

 

- For the person who may want to have caches adopted maybe.

But for the rest of us who'd receive those emails, I'd like a way to filter out the caches I wouldn't want in my notifications (ranked by size first or course, followed by terrain).

 

Edited to add... You do realize we're talking instant notifications right?

Yeah, I deleted the rest.

This is what I was getting at. We may not see threads from owners, but rather people like the OP who wish that owners would use this idea for a new tool "more effectively".

 

What I'm trying to say is that one can get the desired results by cultivating relationships in their community with other cachers, watching the caches they care about, and offer to adopt those caches when they find out that the owner may be moving, leaving the game, or the cache falls into disrepair.

 

Also, let's just add that adopting a cache is only as good as the general--and already existing--guidance on proximity to hide for a cache owner. Meaning, if you adopt what essentially is a "vacation cache" for you, are you really helping the issue? Are we going to see more and more adoptions of caches that are more or less "out of reasonable range" for a cacher to be a solid maintainer of that cache? Is sentimentality going to win out over the actual function of being a "good" cache owner?

 

Again, what I'm not seeing here is the OP realizing that there are steps that can be taken to work on this issue before asking for a completely new type of log, attribute, or notification. If one simply asks that Groundspeak make it more known that caches can be adopted, then adds the caches they hold near and dear to a watchlist, they can then work on adopting the caches as needed. No need for the new log type or notification. Awareness is the key issue currently--we can't just jump to lunar launch before we understand the physics of what it will take to get there.

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Don't put the cart before the horse.

 

Don't fix what ain't broken.

 

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Edited September 10, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+cerberus1]

I believe that most put out caches they're kinda proud of, whether it's a long hike ammo can in a rock crevice or a gazillion pill bottles strewn along (pick your favorite highway).

If it was as simple as clicking an "up for adoption" button, those pill bottle hiders can include theirs too (as quality isn't a requirement for cache hiding or adoption).

- I feel making it easy and simple to adopt, isn't helping us any and the end result could probably be far from the OP's original intent.

[+ADKer]

I believe that most put out caches they're kinda proud of, whether it's a long hike ammo can in a rock crevice or a gazillion pill bottles strewn along (pick your favorite highway).

If it was as simple as clicking an "up for adoption" button, those pill bottle hiders can include theirs too (as quality isn't a requirement for cache hiding or adoption).

- I feel making it easy and simple to adopt, isn't helping us any and the end result could probably be far from the OP's original intent.

 

I'm not asking to change the adoption process. Everything about that would work exactly the same.

[cezanne]

I'm not asking to change the adoption process. Everything about that would work exactly the same.

 

Still it might increase the pressure on cache owners to adopt out old caches instead of archiving them.

[+sholomar]

Why are old caches frowned upon? My favorite caches are ones where the logbooks are all there going back a decade... caches that stand the test of time.. do people just want a "new" cache to up their find count? I noticed a high volume cacher archiving his only to start a new one in the same spot at the same time. Not gonna go back and get that power trail again to pump up my finds....

Edited September 11, 2014 by sholomar

[+L0ne.R]

Why are old caches frowned upon? My favorite caches are ones where the logbooks are all there going back a decade... caches that stand the test of time..

 

Old and original is great. As long as they have an active owner. And if adopted, as a long as the new owner takes reasonable care of the cache and the listing. But if the original cache and logbook are long gone, what are we preserving? A spot on the earth that a decade ago once held an ammo can and a logbook full of interesting logs and signatures but now holds a dollar store container with a few pages torn from a notepad and a list of signatures.

[+rebelex]

The down side to adopting out caches is they disappear from your stats as caches you have hidden.

[+cerberus1]

Why are old caches frowned upon? My favorite caches are ones where the logbooks are all there going back a decade... caches that stand the test of time.. do people just want a "new" cache to up their find count?

My favorites are lonely and old. Not many of those left.

I don't see anyone here saying they're frowned upon.

[+cerberus1]

I believe that most put out caches they're kinda proud of, whether it's a long hike ammo can in a rock crevice or a gazillion pill bottles strewn along (pick your favorite highway).

If it was as simple as clicking an "up for adoption" button, those pill bottle hiders can include theirs too (as quality isn't a requirement for cache hiding or adoption).

- I feel making it easy and simple to adopt, isn't helping us any and the end result could probably be far from the OP's original intent.

 

I'm not asking to change the adoption process. Everything about that would work exactly the same.

True. I erred in wording.

- You're asking for a simpler means of getting the adoption message out.

 

With the present adoption methods here in regional forums and local sites, where folks offer their hides up for adoption (and I can hit their profile to see what I might be dealing with), I often ask the CO (and sometimes get flak) why he'd consider adopting 'em out, when half his hides have NM flags on 'em.

Nervy, I think...

With your plan, he could simply hit a button and now I've got carp hides I gotta search through, one-by-one on my notifications, because one, somewhere, may be a keeper.

[+CanadianRockies]

With your plan, he could simply hit a button and now I've got carp hides I gotta search through, one-by-one on my notifications, because one, somewhere, may be a keeper.

This is true only if you voluntarily opt to be notified about "Up For Adoption" caches. If you don't think the benefits are worth the costs, then you don't have to be notified about them.

[+cerberus1]

With your plan, he could simply hit a button and now I've got carp hides I gotta search through, one-by-one on my notifications, because one, somewhere, may be a keeper.

This is true only if you voluntarily opt to be notified about "Up For Adoption" caches. If you don't think the benefits are worth the costs, then you don't have to be notified about them.

"You don't have to..." doesn't fix anything.

Earlier, I asked about a filter that would allow one to figure whether the cache may be worth it (size, type, terrain...).

- That would fix it.

[+CanadianRockies]

With your plan, he could simply hit a button and now I've got carp hides I gotta search through, one-by-one on my notifications, because one, somewhere, may be a keeper.

This is true only if you voluntarily opt to be notified about "Up For Adoption" caches. If you don't think the benefits are worth the costs, then you don't have to be notified about them.

"You don't have to..." doesn't fix anything.

Earlier, I asked about a filter that would allow one to figure whether the cache may be worth it (size, type, terrain...).

- That would fix it.

An unfiltered, yes/no notification probably would be an improvement over the status quo for many people.

 

A filtered notification likely would be an even bigger improvement for even more people.