Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool

Recommended Posts

The cache owner most recently logged into the site on Sunday, 07 December 2014

 

And logged a "found it" as recently as 11/29/2014

 

So, it's not an absentee cache owner.

 

DNF posted 04/28/2012 (Last found 2 years prior)

Disbled by the Reviewer 11/10/2014 "Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 30 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness."

Archived by the Reviewer 12/10/2014

 

Yeah, wow.

 

 

B.

Link to comment

Honestly, all the CO had to do was enable them again. He or she had a month to do so. Yeah, it's stupid to disable it based on one DNF...but the archival only happened when the CO ignored the reviewer disabling it.

 

Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 30 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

http://coord.info/GC1DGKM

 

C'mon do you really expect someone to check up on a paddle to in December? There seems to be a local pattern of this, along with cachers posting NM and NAs instead of DNFs. Don't see how any new or part time cachers would be enchanted by this.

 

I bet if the owner left a note saying they'd check on it in the Spring 2015, it wouldn't get archived. Sometimes all it takes is for the owner to respond with an estimated maintenance plan.

But a micro in a remote location - maybe it's not much of a loss.

Link to comment

I would state that the problem here is active cachers not fulfilling the obligations of cache ownership. All the CO needs to do is confirm their maintenance plan to the Reviewer (they have had a month). They didn't need to go out in the Winter they just needed to confirm when they planned to check it out.

 

You and grouchy squeezed in your reply before mine. Great minds think alike. tongue_animated.gif

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I would state that the problem here is active cachers not fulfilling the obligations of cache ownership. All the CO needs to do is confirm their maintenance plan to the Reviewer (they have had a month). They didn't need to go out in the Winter they just needed to confirm when they planned to check it out.

 

You and grouchy squeezed in your reply before mine. Great minds think alike. tongue_animated.gif

 

A note saying it will be checked on will only be followed by another boilerplate reviewer note a month later.

 

It's like a form of harassment over a single DNF. Many of these COs are now playing the QR code game now. I wonder why.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

I would state that the problem here is active cachers not fulfilling the obligations of cache ownership. All the CO needs to do is confirm their maintenance plan to the Reviewer (they have had a month). They didn't need to go out in the Winter they just needed to confirm when they planned to check it out.

 

You and grouchy squeezed in your reply before mine. Great minds think alike. tongue_animated.gif

 

A note saying it will be checked on will only be followed by another boilerplate reviewer note a month later.

 

It's like a form of harassment over a single DNF. Many of these COs are now playing the QR code game now. I wonder why.

 

Have you got an example of where they posted a specific note confirming their maintenance proposals which was subsequently ignored by the Reviewer?

Link to comment

I would state that the problem here is active cachers not fulfilling the obligations of cache ownership. All the CO needs to do is confirm their maintenance plan to the Reviewer (they have had a month). They didn't need to go out in the Winter they just needed to confirm when they planned to check it out.

 

You and grouchy squeezed in your reply before mine. Great minds think alike. tongue_animated.gif

 

A note saying it will be checked on will only be followed by another boilerplate reviewer note a month later.

 

I have a cache that sometimes gets iced in during the winter. Last year was particularly bad. The first iced-in report came in late December. Each month I disabled the cache and posted a note to let the reviewer know that I was not asleep at the wheel. Didn't get one reviewer note the 4 months it was disabled.

 

However, it does surprise me that no NM or NAs were posted before the reviewer note. Not unhappy or worried about it though. I'm happy when reviewers send the message that caches - remote or not, need to be responded to - not necessarily physically but at least with an owner note.

Link to comment

http://coord.info/GC1DGKM

 

C'mon do you really expect someone to check up on a paddle to in December? There seems to be a local pattern of this, along with cachers posting NM and NAs instead of DNFs. Don't see how any new or part time cachers would be enchanted by this.

 

I bet if the owner left a note saying they'd check on it in the Spring 2015, it wouldn't get archived. Sometimes all it takes is for the owner to respond with an estimated maintenance plan.

But a micro in a remote location - maybe it's not much of a loss.

 

I'm not sure that such a note would suffice.

 

Moreover, to be honest a reviewer disabling a cache on a basis of a single DNF would make me so furious as cache owner that except in case of a cache to which I'm attached emotionally to a very high extent I would either archive the cache instantly by myself or let the reviewer archive the cache. It would be my own form of protest against something which I regard as overreaction of a reviewer. There are no clear rules what reviewers can do, but there are no rules when cache owners can decide to let their caches go.

 

I'm definitely not someone who is not taking responsibility for my caches, but I'm glad that the local reviewer is not yet acting in such a manner which instantly would let me lose all my energy and motivation to take care of a cache. I do not have the slightest understanding for the case when reviewers act based on some automatic criteria (i.e. no found log for a longer time and the last log being a DNF log) and do not take the situation of the cache into account. I often end up with DNF logs for caches and I also visit lonely caches. It would be awful for me to have to avoid writing DNF logs or to have to fear that I'm forcing the cache owner of a remote cache to go for an unneeeded maintenance trip. I sometimes give up after 3 minutes and write a DNF log in cases when I estimate the probability that the cache is still there to be >0.99.

Link to comment

http://coord.info/GC1DGKM

 

C'mon do you really expect someone to check up on a paddle to in December? There seems to be a local pattern of this, along with cachers posting NM and NAs instead of DNFs. Don't see how any new or part time cachers would be enchanted by this.

 

I bet if the owner left a note saying they'd check on it in the Spring 2015, it wouldn't get archived. Sometimes all it takes is for the owner to respond with an estimated maintenance plan.

But a micro in a remote location - maybe it's not much of a loss.

 

I'm not sure that such a note would suffice.

 

Moreover, to be honest a reviewer disabling a cache on a basis of a single DNF would make me so furious as cache owner that except in case of a cache to which I'm attached emotionally to a very high extent I would either archive the cache instantly by myself or let the reviewer archive the cache. It would be my own form of protest against something which I regard as overreaction of a reviewer. There are no clear rules what reviewers can do, but there are no rules when cache owners can decide to let their caches go.

I'm definitely not someone who is not taking responsibility for my caches, but I'm glad that the local reviewer is not yet acting in such a manner which instantly would let me lose all my energy and motivation to take care of a cache. I do not have the slightest understanding for the case when reviewers act based on some automatic criteria (i.e. no found log for a longer time and the last log being a DNF log) and do not take the situation of the cache into account. I often end up with DNF logs for caches and I also visit lonely caches. It would be awful for me to have to avoid writing DNF logs or to have to fear that I'm forcing the cache owner of a remote cache to go for an unneeeded maintenance trip. I sometimes give up after 3 minutes and write a DNF log in cases when I estimate the probability that the cache is still there to be >0.99.

 

Wow...that's some powerful silent and unresponsive protest there. :anitongue:

Link to comment

Moreover, to be honest a reviewer disabling a cache on a basis of a single DNF would make me so furious as cache owner that except in case of a cache to which I'm attached emotionally to a very high extent I would either archive the cache instantly by myself or let the reviewer archive the cache. It would be my own form of protest against something which I regard as overreaction of a reviewer. There are no clear rules what reviewers can do, but there are no rules when cache owners can decide to let their caches go.

 

Wow...that's some powerful silent and unresponsive protest there. :anitongue:

 

No, it would not be unresponsive and silent though of course it would not change the attitude of the involved reviewer. I would write a comment and explain my archival with the action of the reviewer and I also would visit the location and take the container home and report that it was still there (if this case applies) or report that the cache has been gone since my last check and this new check.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Last found in 2010 and a very unfavorable DNF log in 2012.

 

Last found in 2009 and a DNF in 2014.

 

Last found in 2010 and the 2013 DNF log from someone with thousands of finds reports a thorough one-hour search for a two-star difficulty cache.

 

Last found in 2011; DNF'd in 2013 by someone with thousands of finds.

 

Last found in 2012; cache is a tenth of a mile off a road.

 

Last found in 2010; DNF log in 2013 by someone with thousands of finds.

 

If there were examples of a single DNF in October 2014 by a newbie, followed by a reviewer disablement in October, then I think there'd be fodder for a forum thread. If there were examples where the owner posted a note saying "I'm in the hospital / on vacation / unable to paddle a canoe over ice" and the cache were archived by the reviewer four weeks later, there'd be fodder for a forum thread. The only forum thread I see a need for here would be one titled "Great Job, OReviewer!" for serving the community as he is doing.

 

I am really not seeing the problem here, other than "more people should log their DNF's" because surely there were other visits. Even a single DNF by a respected, experienced cacher is a "kiss of death" for many caches; sophisticated seekers will exclude these caches from loading onto the GPS unless and until there is Owner Maintenance or a "found it" log. So, they sit there untouched for years.

 

All of the threads over the years saying "somebody should do something about all those unmaintained caches out there, taking up space" are hereby incorporated into this response by reference as if fully set forth herein.

Link to comment

 

Last found in 2010; DNF log in 2013 by someone with thousands of finds.

 

If there were examples of a single DNF in October 2014 by a newbie, followed by a reviewer disablement in October, then I think there'd be fodder for a forum thread.

 

That's the point I do not agree upon. I know several new cachers from whom a DNF would mean much more than a DNF from me as the risk is regarded that the cache is not any longer there.

They are much more ambitious than I'm to find a container. Of course for a tricky hide they might lack the required experience, but for a hide which just requires patience and time, they are typically much better suited to be successful than someone like me who hates to search. I want to be able to still write DNF logs whenever I end up unsuccessful.

 

Of course there are cases where other DNFs have been in between and have not been logged, but this cannot be assumed automatically.

 

What I really, really dislike is the implication that if a cacher with more experience writes a DNF log for a very rarely visited cache, this log is attached a lot of (in my opinion too much) importance regardless of the situation and of how much time and effort have been invested.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I would state that the problem here is active cachers not fulfilling the obligations of cache ownership. All the CO needs to do is confirm their maintenance plan to the Reviewer (they have had a month). They didn't need to go out in the Winter they just needed to confirm when they planned to check it out.

 

You and grouchy squeezed in your reply before mine. Great minds think alike. tongue_animated.gif

 

A note saying it will be checked on will only be followed by another boilerplate reviewer note a month later.

 

It's like a form of harassment over a single DNF. Many of these COs are now playing the QR code game now. I wonder why.

 

Have you got an example of where they posted a specific note confirming their maintenance proposals which was subsequently ignored by the Reviewer?

 

What, you don't believe me? There's dozens of examples. Here's one over 2 DNFs:

 

http://coord.info/GC2V73R

 

It started with 3 DNFs triggering automatic disabling. Then a few locals picked up on that and started posting Needs Maintenance notes after 2 DNFs. Now it has escalated to just a single DNF, and not being found in awhile.

 

Not really surprised to learn that new cache placements are off 24% from last year.

Link to comment

Last found in 2010 and a very unfavorable DNF log in 2012.

 

Last found in 2009 and a DNF in 2014.

 

Last found in 2010 and the 2013 DNF log from someone with thousands of finds reports a thorough one-hour search for a two-star difficulty cache.

 

Last found in 2011; DNF'd in 2013 by someone with thousands of finds.

 

Last found in 2012; cache is a tenth of a mile off a road.

 

Last found in 2010; DNF log in 2013 by someone with thousands of finds.

 

If there were examples of a single DNF in October 2014 by a newbie, followed by a reviewer disablement in October, then I think there'd be fodder for a forum thread. If there were examples where the owner posted a note saying "I'm in the hospital / on vacation / unable to paddle a canoe over ice" and the cache were archived by the reviewer four weeks later, there'd be fodder for a forum thread. The only forum thread I see a need for here would be one titled "Great Job, OReviewer!" for serving the community as he is doing.

 

I am really not seeing the problem here, other than "more people should log their DNF's" because surely there were other visits. Even a single DNF by a respected, experienced cacher is a "kiss of death" for many caches; sophisticated seekers will exclude these caches from loading onto the GPS unless and until there is Owner Maintenance or a "found it" log. So, they sit there untouched for years.

 

All of the threads over the years saying "somebody should do something about all those unmaintained caches out there, taking up space" are hereby incorporated into this response by reference as if fully set forth herein.

 

These aren't LPCs in parking lots. Caching activity in remote areas has dropped drastically in the last few years. There is no reason for someone to check on a remote cache after 1 DNF. Especially a paddle-to in December.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Have you got an example of where they posted a specific note confirming their maintenance proposals which was subsequently ignored by the Reviewer?

What, you don't believe me? There's dozens of examples. Here's one over 2 DNFs:

 

http://coord.info/GC2V73R

I don't see a problem. The CO posted a note saying that they'd check on it in the non-specific "soon" timeframe. After a month of no further activity, the reviewer posted another reminder. If the CO's interpretation of "soon" is longer than a month*, they should be more specific about their schedule. Say something like "I'll be able to check it in January". Use ambiguous wording and you're leaving it up to the reviewer to interpret what you're saying, which may not match the intended meaning.

 

*my personal interpretation, and apparently also that of the reviewer, is that it's far less than a month

Edited by The A-Team
Link to comment
I am really not seeing the problem here, other than "more people should log their DNF's" because surely there were other visits. Even a single DNF by a respected, experienced cacher is a "kiss of death" for many caches; sophisticated seekers will exclude these caches from loading onto the GPS unless and until there is Owner Maintenance or a "found it" log. So, they sit there untouched for years.

 

A single DNF does not necessarily result in going to check on a difficult-to-reach cache, and that giving the CO only 30 days to check on it or have it archived is unrealistic.

 

The true problem here is that placement of difficult-to-reach caches is effectively punished by Groundspeak. As a result, the placement of lame urban caches is incentivized, and we will continue to see more and more of those.

Link to comment

The only forum thread I see a need for here would be one titled "Great Job, OReviewer!" for serving the community as he is doing.

Agreed.

While I do also agree that disabling a cache after one or two DNFs may in some cases be a bit hasty, these COs didn't make any attempt to respond to the reviewer and the caches were justifiably archived for non-maintenance. Even if the cache is still okay, the COs have demonstrated through their inaction that they can't be trusted to respond and maintain their cache if a real problem does arise.

 

Some of the caches/COs in this discussion are also examples of one of my biggest caching pet peeves: COs who find all the time in the world to go looking for caches, but never find the time to maintain their own. <_<

Link to comment
I am really not seeing the problem here, other than "more people should log their DNF's" because surely there were other visits. Even a single DNF by a respected, experienced cacher is a "kiss of death" for many caches; sophisticated seekers will exclude these caches from loading onto the GPS unless and until there is Owner Maintenance or a "found it" log. So, they sit there untouched for years.

A single DNF does not necessarily result in going to check on a difficult-to-reach cache, and that giving the CO only 30 days to check on it or have it archived is unrealistic.

At least in the case of OReviewer, COs are not being given only 30 days to check on the cache. The cache is disabled so that the CO can check on it, and they're asked to respond within 30 days, not check on it within 30 days. As someone else posted earlier in this discussion, a note detailing the CO's plans to check on the cache is usually sufficient.

 

...at least it is in my area. YMMV

Link to comment

What I really, really dislike is the implication that if a cacher with more experience writes a DNF log for a very rarely visited cache, this log is attached a lot of (in my opinion too much) importance regardless of the situation and of how much time and effort have been invested.

 

True...especially when you take a look at the seriously high-number cachers out there that are (in)famous for leaving throwdowns instead of taking the DNF. Is there some supposed "sweet spot" range where the cacher can be trusted?

Link to comment

At least in the case of OReviewer, COs are not being given only 30 days to check on the cache. The cache is disabled so that the CO can check on it, and they're asked to respond within 30 days, not check on it within 30 days. As someone else posted earlier in this discussion, a note detailing the CO's plans to check on the cache is usually sufficient.

 

...at least it is in my area. YMMV

 

And do you think that writing something like "A single DNF for this cache does not make a visit to the cache necessary. I will wait for the next visitor's log." would suffice to keep the cache from being archived? In my opinion, disabling a lonely cache with a single DNF and a still active owner goes beyond what I like reviewers to do.

 

This indeed favours urban hides of which already too many exist.

Link to comment

At least in the case of OReviewer, COs are not being given only 30 days to check on the cache. The cache is disabled so that the CO can check on it, and they're asked to respond within 30 days, not check on it within 30 days. As someone else posted earlier in this discussion, a note detailing the CO's plans to check on the cache is usually sufficient.

 

...at least it is in my area. YMMV

 

And do you think that writing something like "A single DNF for this cache does not make a visit to the cache necessary. I will wait for the next visitor's log." would suffice to keep the cache from being archived? In my opinion, disabling a lonely cache with a single DNF and a still active owner goes beyond what I like reviewers to do.

 

This indeed favours urban hides of which already too many exist.

 

I think any response at all - a "Note" or an "Enable Cache" log - would have saved any of those. "non-responsive" is pretty self-explanatory. The archival was not due to the DNF...it was due to there being no activity on that cache page by the CO in the 30 days given. That's kind of all there really is to say about it.

Link to comment

I think any response at all - a "Note" or an "Enable Cache" log - would have saved any of those. "non-responsive" is pretty self-explanatory. The archival was not due to the DNF...it was due to there being no activity on that cache page by the CO in the 30 days given. That's kind of all there really is to say about it.

 

I'm not so sure because it appears to me that those caches got on the radar because they had a DNF as last log and the last find log took place long ago.

 

That's a different situation than if someone posts a NM log and the cache owner does not react. There is not necessarily a reason to react on the cache page to a single DNF and thus also no reason

for temporarily disabling such caches according to some automatic procedure.

 

I do not think that a reenablement of the caches without a cache check would change anything. In the best case the cache soon would get on the radar again.

 

To be honest, it really terrifies me to see how much importance is assigned to a single DNF log. In this manner someone easily could kill hundreds of lonely caches (there are many such caches in my country which are so much more beautiful than many of those caches that get many hundreds of visits each year) that sometimes do not get a visit within 2-3 years by simply writing DNF logs and waiting that some time passes ............

 

Consider a cache like that one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC34WG7_steirischer-02-bonus?guid=edceb90c-7504-4e94-8c3b-70588c575212

In order to be able to log this cache one needs to go for a demanding hike (31 km, 15 hours or more) and have finished five long distance hiking caches

before. The number of cachers being physically able to finish alle those caches (e.g. I'm not) and willing to invest the required time is very small.

 

The thought that someone could kill such a cache with a single DNF is extremely terrifying for me.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
I am really not seeing the problem here, other than "more people should log their DNF's" because surely there were other visits. Even a single DNF by a respected, experienced cacher is a "kiss of death" for many caches; sophisticated seekers will exclude these caches from loading onto the GPS unless and until there is Owner Maintenance or a "found it" log. So, they sit there untouched for years.

 

A single DNF does not necessarily result in going to check on a difficult-to-reach cache, and that giving the CO only 30 days to check on it or have it archived is unrealistic.

 

 

I agree. I'm kind of surprised by all the pro reviewer posts here. What I see here is a lonely cache massacre. :lol:

 

And of course the inconsistency that very few, if any other members of the volunteer reviewer team anywhere else in the world are embarking on lonely cache massacres after one DNF. :ph34r:

Link to comment

If I were ever to receive a 30 day notice from a reviewer (regardless of its genesis or validity) the last thing I would do is ignore it. I may or may not leave the house, but I would at least respond to the reviewer notice.

 

I certainly am not "terrified" over archival of a cache due to my inaction.

Link to comment

Just my opinion, and I did not look at all of the linked caches other than the first one, if the CO had documented maintenance (confirmation)a few times over the years, this would not have been archived. The occasional maintenance is required.

 

In my opinion it depends on the cache. A cache that requires hours to reach should not be treated in the same way than an easily reachable cache.

Most of those willing to go for such caches are not discouraged by the absence of finds for a long time or by a single DNF log (even less if it comes from someone they

know to log DNfs frequently like e.g. myself). Such caches will always attract only a small audience and some will even find it more interesting and rewarding to go hunt for such

a cache that long went unfound.

Link to comment

As someone who enjoys seeking lonely caches, it is sad to see that the owners of said caches do not appear to be putting much effort into keeping them active. For the examples cited in NJ, my gut feeling is that the reviewer is being particularly (and maybe unnecessarily) proactive in clearing out caches that aren't being found or have little interest. I can understand that this is acceptable if the COs are not stepping up to vouch for their cache listings. It appears that the COs are being given a chance to keep the listings active, and just aren't exercising that option. But maybe we aren't seeing the whole story from just the logs on the geocache listings? On another note, are all the examples from the same Reviewer? I'll admit I did not click on every link from the OP, but am guessing that they are mostly local to that OP's area. Is this widespread Reviewer behavior or just the actions of one Reviewer? Maybe it's more of a regional thing/culture?

Link to comment

The caches listed above where not archived due to being missing, or even due to a DNF. They were archived because the cache owner didn't take 30 seconds to post a note on the page.

 

It appears to me that the reviewer expects a statement about a cache check and not just an arbitrary note/reaction.

 

I do not agree with the step of automatically disabling lonely caches with a single DNF and a last found it log some longer time ago. That step comes before the archival and before any attempt to force the cache owner to make a public statement.

Link to comment

I do not agree with the step of automatically disabling lonely caches with a single DNF and a last found it log some longer time ago. That step comes before the archival and before any attempt to force the cache owner to make a public statement.

 

Who said a public statement was required? If I want to explain to my reviewer that "my dog ate my homework" I would probably do it with an email. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I think any response at all - a "Note" or an "Enable Cache" log - would have saved any of those. "non-responsive" is pretty self-explanatory. The archival was not due to the DNF...it was due to there being no activity on that cache page by the CO in the 30 days given. That's kind of all there really is to say about it.

 

I'm not so sure because it appears to me that those caches got on the radar because they had a DNF as last log and the last find log took place long ago.

 

That's a different situation than if someone posts a NM log and the cache owner does not react. There is not necessarily a reason to react on the cache page to a single DNF and thus also no reason

for temporarily disabling such caches according to some automatic procedure.

 

I do not think that a reenablement of the caches without a cache check would change anything. In the best case the cache soon would get on the radar again.

 

To be honest, it really terrifies me to see how much importance is assigned to a single DNF log. In this manner someone easily could kill hundreds of lonely caches (there are many such caches in my country which are so much more beautiful than many of those caches that get many hundreds of visits each year) that sometimes do not get a visit within 2-3 years by simply writing DNF logs and waiting that some time passes ............

 

Ah... Hmm... No. I do not think that one DNF on a cache not found in a few years is a reason to disable it. I only check on my caches if I'm in the neighborhood, or have a reason to thin it needs maintenance. Otherwise, I would not have time to go geocaching!

Many of my caches have nice hikes, and are not found very often. (Of course, many of my caches are urban caches.)

A smaller percentage of local cachers are interested in hiking. So the hiking caches get fewer and fewer finds. I have two caches last found in 2011, one with the last a DNF. Eight last found in 2102, one with the last a DNF. And five last found in 2013. Do I plan on checking on those two? Nope! I do not see any reason to.

The reviewer in question has been one of my reviewers for a number of years. He has posted notes on at least three on my caches that were disable for a few months. And, of course, I posted a note on each. That may be the key here. On all three, at different times, the park was closed for major renovation. (I don't understand why it takes six months to rebuild a quarter acre park...) My note that the park was still closed for renovations proved satisfactory. When the park was reopened, I checked on it and the cache was re-enabled.

Hey! People working on Lonely Cache Challenges love some of my caches!

No. I do not think that one DNF on a cache not found in years is a reason to disable it. But, for me, a note that I will check on it when I get the chance usually works. I do care about my caches!

Link to comment

The caches listed above where not archived due to being missing, or even due to a DNF. They were archived because the cache owner didn't take 30 seconds to post a note on the page.

 

Well, I know "you guys" stick together like glue whenever one of your brethren steps over the line and enacts a personal policy in their territory. :laughing: And I believe this one is way over the line. There's most likely a bookmark list of lonely caches, and as soon as the first DNF comes in, they get disabled, with threat of archival? Whatever, I guess I'll roll with the minority opinion on this one.

Link to comment

Just my opinion, and I did not look at all of the linked caches other than the first one, if the CO had documented maintenance (confirmation)a few times over the years, this would not have been archived. The occasional maintenance is required.

 

In my opinion it depends on the cache. A cache that requires hours to reach should not be treated in the same way than an easily reachable cache.

Most of those willing to go for such caches are not discouraged by the absence of finds for a long time or by a single DNF log (even less if it comes from someone they

know to log DNfs frequently like e.g. myself). Such caches will always attract only a small audience and some will even find it more interesting and rewarding to go hunt for such

a cache that long went unfound.

cezanne,

I agree that I would give some slack on certain caches, but not the first cache listed (only one I looked at). It's only a couple of km from a road and has been found on foot. My point was that maintenance checks are required and I would not grant this one the same lienency as say GC1EAM6 which does not have maintenance but at least an occasional check-in.

Link to comment

The caches listed above where not archived due to being missing, or even due to a DNF. They were archived because the cache owner didn't take 30 seconds to post a note on the page.

Sorry to argue, but I think the caches were archived because the reviewer disabled them for no reason. (The DNF would have been insufficient reason, but I say "no reason" since the reviewer didn't even cite the DNF as justification.) Without the disable, the CO wouldn't have had to respond, 30 seconds or not.

 

But I recognize my objection to the reviewer's action is cultural: in my local caching culture, it would be up to someone else to post an NM suggesting that perhaps after 4 years, no one's looking for the cache anymore, and that might be reason enough to check on it. I'm guessing the reviewer stepped in because no one else pointed this problem out, so he felt forced to act.

 

And the example reveals the problem with that culture: the reviewer's complaint implies no investment, hence the somewhat silly example of demanding a check on a paddle cache just as winter sets in and no one, including the reviewer, would have any interest in going out there for 6 months, anyway. A user posting an NM would be implying, at least conceptually, that they're interested in looking for the cache, perhaps even willing to join the CO on a maintenance run. (Naturally, that might be an empty threat in practice, but the reviewer's action doesn't even suggest that much.)

 

A single DNF does not necessarily result in going to check on a difficult-to-reach cache, and that giving the CO only 30 days to check on it or have it archived is unrealistic.

I agree, even before we consider the 30 days apparently wasn't during a good time of year to check on the cache.

 

The true problem here is that placement of difficult-to-reach caches is effectively punished by Groundspeak. As a result, the placement of lame urban caches is incentivized, and we will continue to see more and more of those.

Honestly I don't think the intention is to punish, but still I think you're point is accurate. I would put it that the way to handle caches in general is now skewed towards the common, which are easy to reach caches, so a month is almost too long to wait. With that as standard practice, it then gets used even in cases where it's not appropriate.

Link to comment

I agree that I would give some slack on certain caches, but not the first cache listed (only one I looked at). It's only a couple of km from a road and has been found on foot. My point was that maintenance checks are required and I would not grant this one the same lienency as say GC1EAM6 which does not have maintenance but at least an occasional check-in.

 

That's why I stressed the point that it depends on the actual cache. It can well be that among the cited examples there are caches where a check is in order and could easily be done.

In my experience, however the nature of a cache does not play a role in such automatic cleaning actions and that's what I have an issue with and what causes my concerns.

 

The argument that some cachers might ignore lonely caches with a single DNF and complain that such caches use up space, also applies to difficult puzzle caches and other caches which get only few visits. Somehow I start to become worried whether the line will move some time in the future towards the point where a cache only has a right to stay if it gets enough visits.

It is very simple to kill a cache by writing a single DNF log. One does not even need to visit the cache for that purpose. And as soon cachers learn that they can get rid of unwanted caches in this way, some will exploit this in any case. Just imagine that someone like Harry Dolphin would have to visit his lonely caches once a year or once every two years just because many don't like such caches - being dependent on a single DNF makes lonely caches quite vulnerable.

 

Such incidents also make me worry whether I still can dare to write DNF logs for caches that do not get many visits or rather better should mail my experiences to the cache owner.

If no public logs are written, at least the criterion "1 DNF and last found long time ago" would not be satisfied. Of course more severe criterions might follow. It is somehow strange: On the one hand, Groundspeak wants to encourage that DNF logs are written and on the other hand they really punish lonely caches and discourage writing DNF logs.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...