Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool

Recommended Posts

Well there's a cache in Alaska that needs archival then. 1 DNF and no finds in 14 years. Should the map be cleaned up to protect potential finders?

A hard to reach cache in Alaska or Brazil is different than a hard to reach cache in New Jersey or The Netherlands. Reviewers are empowered with the discretion to know when to place maintenance request logs.

 

Someone who cares more could look at the linked New Jersey caches and provide statistics on how far away the nearest caches are, and how often those other caches have been found during the period where the linked caches had no finds. Without looking, my bet is there are multiple caches within five miles that have been found at least a few times in 2013 and 2014. In Alaska or Brazil, the nearest cache might be 50 miles away.

Link to comment

Without looking, my bet is there are multiple caches within five miles that have been found at least a few times in 2013 and 2014. In Alaska or Brazil, the nearest cache might be 50 miles away.

 

That could well be, but is not really a criterion that should be used.

 

As I said before I regard this cache as a lonely cache and explained why this is the case (I'm not even sure if it ever will reach 10 finders)

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC34WG7_steirischer-02-bonus

Within 5 miles are however popular and easy (and easy to maintain) caches like this one

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2A9D7_riesachwasserfall

Link to comment

Without looking, my bet is there are multiple caches within five miles that have been found at least a few times in 2013 and 2014. In Alaska or Brazil, the nearest cache might be 50 miles away.

 

That could well be, but is not really a criterion that should be used.

 

I'm going to try to follow your thought.

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.

Are you arguing that nearby finds is not a criterion to determine if a cache is remote enough to warrant leniency on documented maintenance? I thought we had agreeance that a check is in order for most caches except extreme cases.

Link to comment

I'm going to try to follow your thought.

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.

Are you arguing that nearby finds is not a criterion to determine if a cache is remote enough to warrant leniency on documented maintenance? I thought we had agreeance that a check is in order for most caches except extreme cases.

 

I meant that nearby finds (for caches within 5 miles) are not an argument to disable a cache on the sole basis of 1 DNF and the last find a longer time ago. I do not think that in this situation a check is in order for any such cache (of course there might exist cases where a single DNF can warrant a check). Whether a check can be done is a different issue.

 

It also worries me that DNF logs I write in 2014 might have affects on the survival of caches in 2016 or 2017. When the lines of how the reviewers act, move constantly it is very hard to decide today how to act while not knowing the future.

If I think that a check for a cache I visited might be in order (e.g. because I found the hideout shown on the spoiler picture empty)

I write this in my DNF log. The majority of my DNF logs are just based on my failure to find a cache and often on the fact that I lose the motivation to search. I do not think that a cache check is any more in order if I happened to have visited a cache and happened to give up after 3 minutes than if no cacher visited the cache. I do not expect the poors owner of caches that for whichever reasons (be it location, length, required time, difficulty etc) gets few visits to set out and check them whenever a cacher like me shows up and logs a DNF due to not being motivated to spend a longer time with searching. The longer I think about this, the more I'm inclined to change my log behaviour too if a single DNF log can kill a cache or can cause the situation that the cache owners gets forced by a reviewer to go for a check. I do not want to be such a source of inconvenience.

It also makes me wonder whether it made a difference to the reviewers if the DNF-er would add something like "I only searched for 3 minutes and then left. In my opinion, there is no need to check the cache. I guess the next visitor will be more successful. I tend to DNF caches that are right where they are supposed to be."

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

A hard to reach cache in Alaska or Brazil is different than a hard to reach cache in New Jersey or The Netherlands. Reviewers are empowered with the discretion to know when to place maintenance request logs.

 

Guess I do not understand this. I thought all caches were created equal?

A cache in Alaska is better than a cache in New Jersey? That concerns me.

Link to comment

I'm going to try to follow your thought.

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.

Are you arguing that nearby finds is not a criterion to determine if a cache is remote enough to warrant leniency on documented maintenance? I thought we had agreeance that a check is in order for most caches except extreme cases.

 

I meant that nearby finds (for caches within 5 miles) are not an argument to disable a cache on the sole basis of 1 DNF and the last find a longer time ago. I do not think that in this situation a check is in order for any such cache (of course there might exist cases where a single DNF can warrant a check). Whether a check can be done is a different issue.

 

It also worries me that DNF logs I write in 2014 might have affects on the survival of caches in 2016 or 2017. When the lines of how the reviewers act, move constantly it is very hard to decide today how to act while not knowing the future.

If I think that a check for a cache I visited might be in order (e.g. because I found the hideout shown on the spoiler picture empty)

I write this in my DNF log. The majority of my DNF logs are just based on my failure to find a cache and often on the fact that I lose the motivation to search. I do not think that a cache check is any more in order if I happened to have visited a cache and happened to give up after 3 minutes than if no cacher visited the cache. I do not expect the poors owner of caches that for whichever reasons (be it location, length, required time, difficulty etc) gets few visits to set out and check them whenever a cacher like me shows up and logs a DNF due to not being motivated to spend a longer time with searching. The longer I think about this, the more I'm inclined to change my log behaviour too if a single DNF log can kill a cache or can cause the situation that the cache owners gets forced by a reviewer to go for a check. I do not want to be such a source of inconvenience.

It also makes me wonder whether it made a difference to the reviewers if the DNF-er would add something like "I only searched for 3 minutes and then left. In my opinion, there is no need to check the cache. I guess the next visitor will be more successful. I tend to DNF caches that are right where they are supposed to be."

 

 

Cezanne

OK, I see the disconnect. You are focused on a DNF being the catalyst for archive. My point was that periodic owner maintenance (maybe just once a year) on the first cache would have prevented archive.

Link to comment

Well there's a cache in Alaska that needs archival then. 1 DNF and no finds in 14 years. Should the map be cleaned up to protect potential finders?

A hard to reach cache in Alaska or Brazil is different than a hard to reach cache in New Jersey or The Netherlands. Reviewers are empowered with the discretion to know when to place maintenance request logs.

 

Someone who cares more could look at the linked New Jersey caches and provide statistics on how far away the nearest caches are, and how often those other caches have been found during the period where the linked caches had no finds. Without looking, my bet is there are multiple caches within five miles that have been found at least a few times in 2013 and 2014. In Alaska or Brazil, the nearest cache might be 50 miles away.

 

First of all, I now know what you meant by "lines can move, you know". Seeing as you didn't quote me, I forgot that I had said I considered these actions "over the line". :P

 

OK, the hard to reach cache in Alaska or Brazil thing gives me a better understanding of the motive here. But I'm still not down with it. Is this being applied consistently? Do all the reviewers in most of the United States, urban areas in Canada and Germany, and all of The Netherlands, seeing as you brought it up as an example, have bookmark lists of lonely caches, and disable them after one DNF with threat of archival? Is this cache placements down by 23% in 2014 vs. 2013 boredom? :ph34r:

Link to comment

It's interesting that the reviewer simply communicated and was ignored, yet some in here think that is acceptable. It isn't. A response is always required from the cache owner, that is part of the listing guidelines.

 

If a reviewer didn't respond in a timely fashion, someone would be ranting in the forums and several others would be jumping on that band wagon. But again, some people in here seem to suggest that a cache owner doesn't need to respond to a reviewer. That is pretty far from consistent.

 

Periodically check on your cache, like it says in the guidelines. Respond to concerns in a timely fashion, like it says in the guidelines. You're not the victim when you don't do anything after being asked.

 

:cool: CD

Link to comment

We have a local cacher who has been active for a long time. For some reason he stopped being interested in placing or maintaining his caches so when someone posts DNF, NM or NA, he doesn't respond but is still active in finding caches. A few times he has actually archived his cache. I don't know if he has retrieved them. A few of his locations I placed new caches there.

Link to comment

You have to wonder how many DNFs there were that were not posted. Some of them seemed to be fairly easy to get to and find, yet no DNFs for quite some time. Just shows how helpful a DNF can be.

 

Don't know how helpful that would be if it triggers an archival process. Most geocachers do not log on every day and go out in the winter. Here is another http://coord.info/GC1KCTY. No activity for 5 years, then a DNF followed with a disablement a month later.

 

I suppose there are reviewers imagining non posted DNFs, but rather the latest trend is ignoring remote hides. Briansnat is a good example, as he has quite a few hides in out of the way places. Many had regular finds every year, but lately the visits have dropped off. The newer cachers like playing in parking lots and don't like hiking a few miles for a find. Now with disablement after a single DNF, these type of hides will simply disappear. It's rather easy for someone to sit at a computer and disable them, while tasking the owner to trek out there and verify it. Most don't want to be bothered with the inane, as it's a part time hobby, not a hand holding game. The hand holding for PAFs at puzzles and difficult hides, as well as shared FTFs, has now escalated to tasking the owner to hold their hand while they look for something that probably is buried under a few years of leaves. I don't see how this disablement/archive trend could make the game more popular, but only to aggravate and annoy. It appears to reached a new level of anal retentiveness.

 

It's like the vascular system in a human body. When the blood circulates less, the extremities are affected first, like remote hides. A drop of 24% of new hides in a single year is nothing to be ignored.

 

It's one thing to disable a cache after 3 DNFs, as it still may be there. Now the disablement occurs after 1 DNF and several invisible imagined DNFs. :mad:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

It's one thing to disable a cache after 3 DNFs, as it still may be there. Now the disablement occurs after 1 DNF and several invisible imagined DNFs. :mad:

 

Or, it is disabled because the CO is no longer maintaining it, not communicating about the maintenance or status of said cache, nor showing any intent to do any of this?? Just because it is Winter, doesn't mean the CO can't put a simple note about their plans to check the cache in the future... :blink:

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.

 

 

You're right, Cezanne, but J Grouchy is as well. All those mentioned caches have one thing in common - owner non-responsiveness.

 

4wheelin fool: give us an example of a cache that got archived by OReviewer even though the CO had responded in any way. Now that would be interesting.

Link to comment

It's interesting that the reviewer simply communicated and was ignored, yet some in here think that is acceptable. It isn't. A response is always required from the cache owner, that is part of the listing guidelines.

 

As I said before the part I regard as inacceptable is that caches with a single DNF and the last find a long time ago get automatically disabled by a reviewer. Everything else comes after that step.

It would comfort me to learn that this approach is not applied automatically without having a careful look at the cache and will not soon become the standard approach of reviewers.

 

I also would like to know whether replies not providing a concrete plan to check on such caches very soon would be accepted. Right now we can only speculate. So take Harry Dolphin's examples or suppose that one of briansnat's remote caches get a single DNF and those experienced and still active cachers do not think that it is necessary to check on the involved caches. Do you really think that the reviewer should disable such caches?

 

I know one case (which is not comparable however as the cache has been disabled by the owner himself and has been disabled for an extended period) where the reviewer asked for a response and the owner wrote something like "Here is my response to avoid archival to a lack of response" (obviously the cache owner wanted to try out the limits), but the cache got archived soon afterwards (not surprising for me).

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.

 

I'm going to join Mr.Yuck in the minority opinion.

 

Based on what we know so far about the situation, and comparing the actions of the reviewer in question to reviewers in my local area, the action of disabling and then archiving a cache after a single DNF seems way outside common practice and unless there's some other supporting reasons that we are not aware of I would consider this excessive use of force.

 

It is possible of course that the CO in question has failed to live up to a previously agreed maintenance commitment which contributed toward the cache being published in the first place?

Link to comment

Personally, I think the reviewer has been a bit over zealous.

 

Taking GC1DGKM for example. Found in 2009. One find in 2010. Then a single DNF in 2012. Yes, it's not been found for 4 years. But it hasn't had many visits.

 

Recall the excitement about the finding of the "4.5 Walleye" cache some time back. If they didn't find it should it have been disabled until the owner could make that journey to check on it? (Edit: I missed some posts about Alaska and Brazil... OK I see now that New Jersey is treated differently).

 

True, the cache owners could have responded. Evidence shows a note saying "I'll check on it soon" isn't enough unless it is within 30 days. Though a note which says "I'll check on it in the spring" may have worked.

 

I wonder what would have happened if the cache owner simply enabled the cache, with a truthful but polite note saying something like "This is a difficult remote cache which requires access by boat, and is not often searched for. I will continue to monitor this cache but I don't see need for maintenance or disabling this cache at this time". In other words, does the act of a reviewer disabling a cache require that maintenance be done before enabling, or can the owner enable it without maintenance if they judge it is not needed at this time?

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

From a few thousand miles away it just seems wrong and rather concerning to take these god like decisions. It is pure conjecture what would have happened if a note was written. Maybe a confusing interchange of pointless logs would have ensued. Remember it wasn't the CO who created the issue and I would say the reviewer action has just increased the chance of geo litter since others will not now see the cache listing.

Edited by lodgebarn
Link to comment

 

Someone who cares more could look at the linked New Jersey caches and provide statistics on how far away the nearest caches are, and how often those other caches have been found during the period where the linked caches had no finds. Without looking, my bet is there are multiple caches within five miles that have been found at least a few times in 2013 and 2014. In Alaska or Brazil, the nearest cache might be 50 miles away.

 

Yes, looking at GC1DGKM there are loads of caches in the area. The closest one less than .1 of a mile away. But GC1DGKM requires a paddle (even if it is a short one), and only has 15 total logs (13 finds, 2 DNFs) in 6 years. The one nearest is accessible from the road, and has 177 logs in the same time period. GC1EN7K

Link to comment

It's interesting that the reviewer simply communicated and was ignored, yet some in here think that is acceptable. It isn't. A response is always required from the cache owner, that is part of the listing guidelines.

 

If a reviewer didn't respond in a timely fashion, someone would be ranting in the forums and several others would be jumping on that band wagon. But again, some people in here seem to suggest that a cache owner doesn't need to respond to a reviewer. That is pretty far from consistent.

 

Periodically check on your cache, like it says in the guidelines. Respond to concerns in a timely fashion, like it says in the guidelines. You're not the victim when you don't do anything after being asked.

 

:cool: CD

 

Good morning CD, long time no talk, either in person or on the interwebs. This is a cause and effect situation, and you're defending the effect. Of course these cache owners were non responsive to the involuntary disabling of their caches, and this happens all the time. We have to look at the cause here. I think "targeting" lonely caches by having a bookmark list of them, and involuntarily disabling them after one DNF is way outside the norm. The volunteer reviewer system has always been inherently inconsistent in my opinion. You guys can't go around making stuff up in your fiefdom's. Otherwise, it takes on the appearance of Feudalism. :P

Link to comment

It's interesting that the reviewer simply communicated and was ignored, yet some in here think that is acceptable.

 

It's also interesting that the reviewer seemed to expect the CO to jump to attention purely because a single person didn't find their cache on a single occasion - and then went on to archive a number of caches on that same basis.

 

In fairness though if this happened to me I would rather quickly post a note to the effect that a single DNF was not a valid basis for someone disabling a cache they don't own - just so the the reviewer knew I was paying attention.

Link to comment

It's interesting that the reviewer simply communicated and was ignored, yet some in here think that is acceptable. It isn't. A response is always required from the cache owner, that is part of the listing guidelines.

 

 

Well the reviewer didn't just communicate, they disabled the cache.

 

Yes the cache owners should have responded. And as they didn't, the caches were archived. Fair enough.

 

It still leaves a valid question to debate (in my view) if disabling a cache with 1 DNF is the right thing to do.

 

I am in no doubt the reviewer has done this with the best intentions. And I suspect that the method they are using to identify the caches to disable works well 95% of the time. A typical cache in New Jersey with this profile (not found for 4 years, one DNF 2.5 years ago) probably "deserves" this treatment. For some of these examples where the cache is hard to access and doesn't get many visits anyway, it might not be so appropriate.

 

Taking the larger picture, one could conclude that overall what the reviewer is doing is a positive thing; and for the 5% which are questionable but get caught in the net, that is an acceptable "price to pay" - and the owners of those caches can keep them alive if they respond appropriately.

 

(The 95%/5% numbers are not based on real data... just use them as a guide).

Link to comment

Communication between the Cache Owner and both the Reviewer and local Caching Community through Notes to the cache page is key. Groundspeak does not have anything against remote, lonely caches. However, Groundspeak does not support remote, lonely caches, where the Cache Owner does not respond to a Reviewer checking up on the status of the cache. No communication is tantamount to abandonment.

Link to comment

Communication between the Cache Owner and both the Reviewer and local Caching Community through Notes to the cache page is key. Groundspeak does not have anything against remote, lonely caches. However, Groundspeak does not support remote, lonely caches, where the Cache Owner does not respond to a Reviewer checking up on the status of the cache. No communication is tantamount to abandonment.

 

Thanks for your reply. It does not explain however why disabling a cache on the sole basis of a single DNF and the last find a longer time ago is the right thing to do.

 

I would certainly reply if a reviewer would disable my cache in such a situation, but I would be very annoyed by the fact that such a harmless situation triggers an automatic disablement.

Disabling a cache is a rather severe step in my opinion and goes beyond asking for the status of a cache.

 

In my understanding the acting reviewer did not leave any choice for a reply by an owner saying that they think that a cache check at this stage is not required. The formulation forces them to go for a check and to provide a time plan when they will do so. That makes a huge difference.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It's two separate issues:

 

1 - Disabling for one DNF log. I suppose the time since the last find was a big factor in that. If it had been found four month prior to the DNF, I suspect the reviewer wouldn't have bothered. It still seems like an over-reach to me and a reviewer note would have been more appropriate...perhaps to let the CO know that one is "on the radar" now.

 

2 - Archiving for non-responsiveness. This one is clear to me. Once it's disabled by the reviewer and the 30 day notice given, there really is no reason for it to actually be archived unless the CO just decides to completely ignore it (assuming they are paying attention at all). Either way - whether they are ignoring it or not paying attention to the cache - archival is perfectly reasonable and really the only way to go at that point.

 

One can debate the first point and I don't really have a strong opinion about that one. Seems more like a different discussion for each cache.

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.

 

I guess another form of responsiveness would be a 4WF suggested and just delete DNFs.

Link to comment

Well there's a cache in Alaska that needs archival then. 1 DNF and no finds in 14 years. Should the map be cleaned up to protect potential finders?

A hard to reach cache in Alaska or Brazil is different than a hard to reach cache in New Jersey or The Netherlands. Reviewers are empowered with the discretion to know when to place maintenance request logs.

 

Someone who cares more could look at the linked New Jersey caches and provide statistics on how far away the nearest caches are, and how often those other caches have been found during the period where the linked caches had no finds. Without looking, my bet is there are multiple caches within five miles that have been found at least a few times in 2013 and 2014. In Alaska or Brazil, the nearest cache might be 50 miles away.

 

For me this argument only works if those other nearby caches are similar in terrain and difficulty. Fact is you could have a hiking cache which hasn't been found in years surrounded by tons of easy to get to caches found often and that would not tell you a thing about the viability of the hiking cache. Frankly, people are more interested in the quick find than they are in going for a hike.

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.

 

I guess another form of responsiveness would be a 4WF suggested and just delete DNFs.

 

A question I have...how did the reviewer even come across the caches in question? They don't DNF notifications (like they do NAs). Was he going through all caches in his area looking for these things?

Link to comment

 

For me this argument only works if those other nearby caches are similar in terrain and difficulty. Fact is you could have a hiking cache which hasn't been found in years surrounded by tons of easy to get to caches found often and that would not tell you a thing about the viability of the hiking cache. Frankly, people are more interested in the quick find than they are in going for a hike.

 

Yeah, that is what I found at the ones I looked at. Caches nearby accessible by road getting lots of visits. Cache needing a boat paddle or difficult hike getting very few visits.

Link to comment

A question I have...how did the reviewer even come across the caches in question? They don't DNF notifications (like they do NAs). Was he going through all caches in his area looking for these things?

 

I know that some reviewers are running specialized queries periodically.

Link to comment

A question I have...how did the reviewer even come across the caches in question? They don't DNF notifications (like they do NAs). Was he going through all caches in his area looking for these things?

 

Our local reviewers will sometimes run what we call LTD queries - looking for Long Term Disabled caches - and might then follow up with actions similar to those which gave rise to this thread.

 

I would have to say that routine housekeeping on LTD's is fair enough.

 

Routine housekeeping on LTU's though (Long Term Unfound) where CO's are still active really smacks of use of excessive and un warranted force.

Link to comment

I can't see how anyone could benefit by this. Annoying a hider over a single DNF on a lonely cache, or annoying finders, such as myself, who enjoy finding such caches. Most people would likely check the logs before heading out, and if they didn't then they know it's their own fault. Personally I don't need to be protected from a potential DNF. I've found a cache that had accumulated a chain of 7 DNFs, and a Needs Maintenance. Disabling after 3 DNFs is a bit excessive, and appears to be pushing the game towards easy finds in parking lots. I hardly think such hides are blocking any new ones. The practice gives the appearance of looking for excuses to archive, rather than looking for excuses to keep it going.

 

So someone checks on it. Then what? Another DNF and they have to run out again and check on it?

Link to comment

 

So someone checks on it. Then what? Another DNF and they have to run out again and check on it?

 

Quite possibly. It depends on what criteria is being used (or programmed into a query/tool, if that is used).

 

If the cache is disabled because it hasn't been found in X years and the last log is a DNF... then if you check on it and there is a subsequent DNF, at that pont it still hasn't been found in X years and the last log is a DNF - so it could get flagged again. Though maybe the criteria will take into account the recent Owner Maintenance.

Link to comment

It's two separate issues:

 

1 - Disabling for one DNF log. I suppose the time since the last find was a big factor in that. If it had been found four month prior to the DNF, I suspect the reviewer wouldn't have bothered. It still seems like an over-reach to me and a reviewer note would have been more appropriate...perhaps to let the CO know that one is "on the radar" now.

 

2 - Archiving for non-responsiveness. This one is clear to me. Once it's disabled by the reviewer and the 30 day notice given, there really is no reason for it to actually be archived unless the CO just decides to completely ignore it (assuming they are paying attention at all). Either way - whether they are ignoring it or not paying attention to the cache - archival is perfectly reasonable and really the only way to go at that point.

 

One can debate the first point and I don't really have a strong opinion about that one. Seems more like a different discussion for each cache.

Thanks for breaking these down into the two separate issues. Regarding issue 1, you are correct - the long period since the date of the last find is highly relevant. I would be very surprised if any reviewer saw a single DNF in October, disabled on their own initiative in November, and archived in December. In this thread we are talking about caches that haven't been found in 2 to 4 years despite being in a cache-dense region.

 

As to whether a "warning note" would have been better than disabling the listing, I see your point, but view it as a waste of time. For example, I just today archived 11 caches that I disabled a month ago on my own initiative (i.e., NOT in response to a "Needs Archived" log or an email complaint). Zero of the eleven cache owners responded and that's consistent with my past experience -- maybe 10 to 15% of owners ever respond. Why add an extra step? Had any of the owners replied, like "I will visit this cache soon once the holiday season is over" or "I have ordered a new container and am waiting for it to be shipped," I would have left it out from the batch of archive logs. I am sure OReviewer would do the same. Furthermore, if someone emails me tomorrow and says "gosh, I missed your last note while I was sick, can I fix this cache up?" I would likely unarchive the listing if it otherwise meets the current listing guidelines. I am sure OReviewer would do the same.

Link to comment

 

Thanks for breaking these down into the two separate issues. Regarding issue 1, you are correct - the long period since the date of the last find is highly relevant. I would be very surprised if any reviewer saw a single DNF in October, disabled on their own initiative in November, and archived in December. In this thread we are talking about caches that haven't been found in 2 to 4 years despite being in a cache-dense region.

 

But difficult or time consuming caches can lie in cache-dense areas.

 

So let me ask again. Does it mean that a single DNF suffices for getting a cache disabled by a reviewer for a cache that gets a very small number of finds?

 

I can imagine caches that will never get 5 finds or more and I can come up with such caches in some of the cache densest areas I could imagine.

 

I guess that without the DNFs nothing would have happened on the side of the reviewer, right? If so, this suggests not to log DNFs or to write notes instead if one does not want to create potential extra issues for the cache owner. Up to now I've always defended DNFs, but I'm close to changing my mind. I do not want to send the owner out for a trip for a cache that gets very few visits just because I'm anything than a motivated searcher and do not have doubts about the cache still being there. Up to now I have always thought that a single DNF would never have much significance, but several things that have been written in this thread made me concerned, in particular your statement that a DNF counts more if the logger has a higher find count/is caching for a long time (that's what you apparently call experienced).

Link to comment

So let me ask again. Does it mean that a single DNF suffices for getting a cache disabled by a reviewer for a cache that gets a very small number of finds?

It depends.

Exactly. Some people here are viewing the (apparent*) actions of a single reviewer and extrapolating that to apply to all caches in all situations. In reality, the action any given reviewer will take will depend on the specific circumstances surrounding the cache, the CO, any relevant logs, and likely many other factors.

 

Just log your DNFs. That's what I'm going to do. If all cachers did this consistently, the caches in this discussion may actually have more than one DNF, making the reviewer's actions even more justified.

 

*I say this because we don't know the whole story behind each cache

Link to comment

I'm from the area in question and I have to say that the reviewer is doing a good job. I have seen far too many COs ignore NM posts to the point of totally ignoring the cache. It seems that many of the COs in the area EXPECT others to maintain and replace their hides when they get into trouble. Replace a soaked log? Not the COs problem! Cracked lid? The next finder can hang a bison tube anywhere he/she likes. TD my hide? I don't care..I can't be bothered to respond to the reviewer and I have 500 caches to find before I can get out that way to fix it. Its gotten to the point where missing caches trigger throwdowns so searchers can claim smilies, rather than posting DNFs that will simply get ignored. The prevailing culture in the area is to claim a smilie at all costs and be damned the geocaching guidelines. This is in stark contrast to SE PA where I work and also cache. For the most part, COs in SE PA maintain their hides and I rarely/if ever see the reviewer (who happens to be the same reviewer for the area in question) TD a hide.

 

NJ state parks have adopted a new policy with some pretty strict guidelines requiring routine maintenance of caches, and I for one like that aspect of the policy. It may ruin the "lonely cache" aspect of the game, but at least we'll have a pretty good idea whether a hide is worry of a visit.

 

If more COs in the area would maintain their hides, I think the reviewer would be less apt to tap the TD button and the community as a whole would be more apt to adhere to the geocaching guidelines.

 

This isn't a reviewer problem, it is a CO problem!

 

P.S. 4wheelin_fool is one of the few COs in the area who maintains ALL his hides. It would be a pleasure if more COs would follow his example!

Link to comment

Well there's a cache in Alaska that needs archival then. 1 DNF and no finds in 14 years. Should the map be cleaned up to protect potential finders?

To the point of the "it depends" above, not only are these caches a little more different than other caches in other locations, but oftentimes the seek rate is low, and there is little to support any idea that the cache isn't there.

 

Now, if a user comes along and wants to hide a cache there (or in proximity), Greatland Reviewer posts the similar note to the cache to ask the owner to check on it (usually only after it has been established that the owner is no longer active), yadda yadda.

 

So, if you want that AK cache "cleaned up", go for it! You can post a NM or NA log to it if you like. But then you'll be hard up to explain why that one needs to be archived if you 1. haven't looked for it, and 2. don't have plans to place you own at that spot or within proximity.

 

So, you see...it depends!

Link to comment

A question I have...how did the reviewer even come across the caches in question? They don't DNF notifications (like they do NAs). Was he going through all caches in his area looking for these things?

 

Our local reviewers will sometimes run what we call LTD queries - looking for Long Term Disabled caches - and might then follow up with actions similar to those which gave rise to this thread.

 

I would have to say that routine housekeeping on LTD's is fair enough.

 

Routine housekeeping on LTU's though (Long Term Unfound) where CO's are still active really smacks of use of excessive and un warranted force.

 

I agree completely. I welcome housekeeping on LTD caches. I don't have a problem taking action after a number of DNFs, though i think NM or NA should be encouraged before such action.

 

But taking action after a single DNF is uncalled for. Unless you have previously found the cache and therefore are certain it is missing, a single DNF does not constitute disabling a cache and therefore should ultimately not turn into an archived cache.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

Here is one in Oregon that got archived...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8EDF_wallowa-view

 

I believe the cache is still there base on the DNF log.

 

The listed CO has not logged into GC.com since 2006...Are they even maintaining the cache anymore? Obviously they did not respond to the reviewer note in a 30 day window...

 

The single DNF indicates that they likely did not reach ground zero and were on the wrong trail. The archival looks like a new pattern of fixing things that aren't broken. 4 finds in 10 years and suddenly the owner needs to run out to check on it?

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Archival due to CO unresponsiveness to a note posted, disabling, NA- fine. That's on the CO.

 

Disabling due to a single DNF on a long unfound cache - not fine. I've DNFed 1/1s only to see a log the next day saying that their 5 year old found it in less than a minute. It didn't mean that it wasn't there - just that I couldn't find it. We've been told (as players of the game) to go through the progression and not jump the gun on a NA log. We've all seen it from a new cacher -"Looked and looked. Not there. This one needs to be archived." Look for it - log the DNF. Based on past logs, a change in the situation at GZ, and future logs, a NM log should be the next step, either while there or shortly thereafter. If we don't see any action from the CO or the reviewer, we've been told to post a NA log. The reviewer gets this notification, disables the cache at some point in time, posts the form note and waits 30 days before archiving it. The reviewers get to skip a step that we've been told not to skip because they think it might not be there since it's been a long time since the last find? I didn't find the 1/1 but the next few logs clued me into the fact that it WAS still there, I just missed it.

 

The cache SF posted is a prime example. All the finds, with the exception of one, were spaced out roughly two years apart, telling me that this one is infrequently visited at best. The reviewer disabled the cache on the premise that it's missing, even though the last searchers didn't even make it to GZ to look for the cache.

 

I've seen a shift in caching over these past 4 1/2 years since I started. It really doesn't matter with regard to either difficulty or terrain. The more stars, the less visitors a cache gets.

 

Uncle Alaska

Posted Today, 06:39 PM

 

The listed CO has not logged into GC.com since 2006...Are they even maintaining the cache anymore? Obviously they did not respond to the reviewer note in a 30 day window...

 

That's NOT the point though. J Grouchy hit the nail on the head. It's two separate issues we're addressing here. No one is disputing the right of the reviewer to archive the cache due to CO unresponsiveness. What CAUSED the archival process to be started? A DNF log (from a cacher who wasn't even at the location of the hide) that the reviewer took to mean that it might be missing. What gives the reviewer the discretion to disable a cache that's been found every time a cacher has made it to GZ? Both times it was DNFed, they didn't even make it to GZ to start looking.

Link to comment

Here is one in Oregon that got archived...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8EDF_wallowa-view

 

I believe the cache is still there base on the DNF log.

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

This is just wrong. Definitely shows that you should not DNF lonely caches since it is obvious the reviewer did not read the DNF. Looks like someone just running down an arbitrary list. So much for that "depends" we heard about earlier.

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