Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool

Recommended Posts

So if the CO is sick, in the hospital, on vacation, etc, and didn't respond as quick as the cacher liked, you are going to disable a cache just because a finder wants to know for sure a cache is still there?! That makes no sense. He didn't even go out and try to find it!

 

You forgot no longer cares about caching (as well as dead) for reasons for no response. There is already a DNF on the page from someone who did look for it.

 

It is about communications; someone (in this case, a cacher), tried to contact the CO, no response. They contacted me. I do what I feel is right in this situation; now it is back on the cache owner.

 

They can:

-Respond with something and extend the life to near infinity as long as they keep responding with reasonable responses.

 

-They can not respond and it gets archived (with the ability to have it unarchived; assuming it meets the current guidelines).

Link to comment

Ugh...the whole 'non-responsive' CO issue actually really bothers me. I understand that life happens and all that, but it seems to me that taking part in an activity like this that requires a certain amount of year-round attention on the part of the cache owners means being able to respond on occasion to emails.

 

I'm almost of the mind to say that perhaps there ought to be a system in place to require periodic verifications by COs that, if ignored, would lead to automatic disabling of their caches. It's not about DNFs or anything like that...it's about whether the CO is even in the game and paying attention.

 

+1

 

I also wonder if we're heading for some type of automatic disabling for caches 3 years or older. There are a lot of abandoned caches and cache listings. I think it could be a good thing, except for the number of abandoned containers that will be left out there. In the end it's the fault of the cache owner that abandons their container and leaves it to become junk. I can see how Groundspeak wouldn't want their database to be filled with ever increasing abandoned and most often junk caches, or throw downs. Reminds me of the LBNA site (the first North American letterboxing site) that many have stopped using. It's often referred to sarcastically as "LetterBox Not Available". They've started cleaning up the database, but once you lose your audience it's tough to get them back.

Link to comment

Ugh...the whole 'non-responsive' CO issue actually really bothers me. I understand that life happens and all that, but it seems to me that taking part in an activity like this that requires a certain amount of year-round attention on the part of the cache owners means being able to respond on occasion to emails.

 

I'm almost of the mind to say that perhaps there ought to be a system in place to require periodic verifications by COs that, if ignored, would lead to automatic disabling of their caches. It's not about DNFs or anything like that...it's about whether the CO is even in the game and paying attention.

 

+1

 

I also wonder if we're heading for some type of automatic disabling for caches 3 years or older. There are a lot of abandoned caches and cache listings. I think it could be a good thing, except for the number of abandoned containers that will be left out there. In the end it's the fault of the cache owner that abandons their container and leaves it to become junk. I can see how Groundspeak wouldn't want their database to be filled with ever increasing abandoned and most often junk caches, or throw downs. Reminds me of the LBNA site (the first North American letterboxing site) that many have stopped using. It's often referred to sarcastically as "LetterBox Not Available". They've started cleaning up the database, but once you lose your audience it's tough to get them back.

 

I wonder how many Virtual Caches would disappear if such a system were implemented. I would guess that many old virtuals no longer have active COs, but exist because they are ... virtual. They are much less likely to have a DNF or container issue that brings it to a reviewers attention, but then there aren't that many of them to begin with. This to me gets to the heart of the issue. If people can continue to find the geocache even if the CO is not responsive, should the listings be allowed to persist? I've always felt that they should. Just because a CO is no longer responsive doesn't mean you can't have a fun geocaching outing searching for something they hid. The counter argument is that this preserves too much of the junk which is already plaguing the site. Funny, I haven't considered it much of a plague, but maybe I'm just not caching in "the right places". I would agree though that requiring an annual validation from COs in order to maintain the listings on the site would make for a much leaner and cleaner geocaching game, maybe even better overall quality as well. Guess I'll have to keep playing for a few more years to see how things turn out cool.gif.

Link to comment
So if the CO is sick, in the hospital, on vacation, etc, and didn't respond as quick as the cacher liked, you are going to disable a cache just because a finder wants to know for sure a cache is still there?! That makes no sense. He didn't even go out and try to find it!

 

You forgot no longer cares about caching (as well as dead) for reasons for no response. There is already a DNF on the page from someone who did look for it.

 

It is about communications; someone (in this case, a cacher), tried to contact the CO, no response. They contacted me. I do what I feel is right in this situation; now it is back on the cache owner.

 

They can:

-Respond with something and extend the life to near infinity as long as they keep responding with reasonable responses.

 

-They can not respond and it gets archived (with the ability to have it unarchived; assuming it meets the current guidelines).

 

Knowing that the majority of people do not respond to these messages, I would think that posting them should be done only if absolutely necessary, not over a single DNF, or even 3 DNFs on anything with a difficulty of 3 or higher. Why not just skip that step and auto archive them, as they can always have them unarchived? Eagerly doing anything so quickly likely may turn off anyone completely to do any type of maintenance. Forcing someone to comply when they believe that it's probably not necessary may cause people to stubbornly respond in the opposite way as intended. A kid comes home and starts to think about his homework, next his parent yells at him to do it now. He then goes outside. Any surprise?

 

If someone is asking about a underwater cache with 1 DNF in the middle of winter, there are certainly other options beyond immediately disabling it, such as waiting for spring, or waiting for more activity. I can certainly understand reviewer involvement over maintenance, but not DNFs. Someone who didn't find anything at all has no idea if it needs to be maintained or not.

 

Another issue is that Groundspeak has cut off communications to people who have not logged in for some time. Such as this user http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=ab6feec7-4452-4523-b506-6ae8c7ed984a&wid=55a96e2c-86cc-4f43-abb2-22876c22f2cf&ds=2 that I wanted to contact. Don't really know if he is getting any emails at all.

Link to comment

Ugh...the whole 'non-responsive' CO issue actually really bothers me. I understand that life happens and all that, but it seems to me that taking part in an activity like this that requires a certain amount of year-round attention on the part of the cache owners means being able to respond on occasion to emails.

 

I'm almost of the mind to say that perhaps there ought to be a system in place to require periodic verifications by COs that, if ignored, would lead to automatic disabling of their caches. It's not about DNFs or anything like that...it's about whether the CO is even in the game and paying attention.

 

+1

 

I also wonder if we're heading for some type of automatic disabling for caches 3 years or older. There are a lot of abandoned caches and cache listings. I think it could be a good thing, except for the number of abandoned containers that will be left out there. In the end it's the fault of the cache owner that abandons their container and leaves it to become junk. I can see how Groundspeak wouldn't want their database to be filled with ever increasing abandoned and most often junk caches, or throw downs. Reminds me of the LBNA site (the first North American letterboxing site) that many have stopped using. It's often referred to sarcastically as "LetterBox Not Available". They've started cleaning up the database, but once you lose your audience it's tough to get them back.

 

I wonder how many Virtual Caches would disappear if such a system were implemented. I would guess that many old virtuals no longer have active COs, but exist because they are ... virtual. They are much less likely to have a DNF or container issue that brings it to a reviewers attention, but then there aren't that many of them to begin with. This to me gets to the heart of the issue. If people can continue to find the geocache even if the CO is not responsive, should the listings be allowed to persist? I've always felt that they should. Just because a CO is no longer responsive doesn't mean you can't have a fun geocaching outing searching for something they hid. The counter argument is that this preserves too much of the junk which is already plaguing the site. Funny, I haven't considered it much of a plague, but maybe I'm just not caching in "the right places". I would agree though that requiring an annual validation from COs in order to maintain the listings on the site would make for a much leaner and cleaner geocaching game, maybe even better overall quality as well. Guess I'll have to keep playing for a few more years to see how things turn out cool.gif.

 

Just because it's a virtual does not mean it's necessarily maintenance-free. Everything changes. One recent thread brought to light the fact that Google Street View has made armchair logging of one particular cache much more likely. How many other virtuals out there that depend on visual observations at GZ have been compromised by Street View since their publication? How many webcams have gone out of service since publication of caches linked to them? Virtuals are by no means "set it and forget it" caches and the COs ought to be held to the same standards as COs of traditional caches, meaning they need to be accessible to anyone trying to reach them via Groundspeak/Geocaching.com at bare minimum. Just because that scenic overlook will probably be there for decades to come doesn't mean the sign I'm supposed to read won't get destroyed or the nearby trees I'm supposed to count won't get uprooted by storms or construction vehicles.

Link to comment

I won't quote Fugads, but I'm responding to them. Heck, they could probably kill 90% of virtual caches for inactive owners. Shoot, they could probably kill half the listings worldwide period if they went after "inactive owners". Who wants to see the number of caches drop drastically? Perhaps there would never be a 3,000,000 active caches celebration like there was for 1,000,000 and 2,000,000. :blink: There wasn't really celebrations, but the 1,000,000th cache was named (a cache in Australia), and there was a little celebratory blog post when they went over 2,000,000. Who wants to see the overall number of caches drop? Not TPTB, or the 80 or so people who work there for a living. At least I would think not. :huh:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment
I encourage OReviewer to continue doing the work that he's doing as I have seen him clean up some abandoned listings that really needed to be archived. On another note, I also encourage him to use better judgement at times based on the difficulty, terrain, log history and remote locations of some of these hides that are not oft found.

 

Agreed.

 

Although archiving just 1 cache in good condition due to owner inaction is 1 cache too many. Having a side effect of further discouraging DNFs is even worse.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

But why would Reviewers be taking it upon themselves to do this? What goal does it serve?

It opens up (what could be prime) areas to people that are actually still caching and/or are responsible cache owners. The situation you described is also prominent in my area with a few puzzle caches. Even though I know that some of the owners are not really active anymore (some respond to emails from time to time). I only post NM (and rarely NA) when the container is truly gone or needs serious repair work. I have no mixed feelings for doing so. But, I do so, after researching as much as possible...including attempts to reach the CO as well. When CO's have not logged into GC.com for 6 plus years and their history is littered with evidence of abandoned caches, then I am even more so inclined to post a NM/NA log.

It makes sense to me for you to post NMs and NAs to free up a bad cache. I'm disappointed when a reviewer has to jump in before any NMs or NAs, presumably because no seeker is willing to publicly point out the problems. The worst case is like the one in the OP where you and I wouldn't dream of posting an NM or NA, yet the reviewer steps in anyway.

 

I'm really in the minority here, but I am of the opinion that whatever "algorithm" is being used for this current push, the utility of the action will clean-up (on the system) more dead caches than it will archive well maintained remote caches.

Are you seriously suggesting it's OK to kill good caches via friendly fire? If a cache has a problem, I'm all for NMs and NAs that explain why it should be killed it off. But I don't support the idea that caches fitting some arbitrary criteria should be killed off just because they're more likely to have trouble.

 

I might understand this if I could really imagine a cache that was anywhere popular enough that would do harm not being cleaned up, yet doesn't get enough traffic in the logs to justify archiving it with publicly available information. My attitude is that if I think there might be a problem with a cache, and I'm interested in seeing it cleaned up but there isn't already enough evidence in the logs, the very least I can do it go try to find it before I take action. If I'm not willing to do that, then I don't really care enough about the cache to make any suggestions about its future.

 

Funny timing, I just received this e-mail.

Here is a cache that I'd like to have you check out: Cache Page

 

It has not been found since 2010. Also, the way the description reads it takes snorkeling gear and yet the ratings are 2 and 2.

 

The main issue is the length of time since it was found and the fact it was placed by a "troop"....and they have not been online in over a year. I have sent messages about whether this UNDERWATER cache has ever had maintenance and such. There has been no response.

 

I know it is winter, but I was going to attempt earlier this fall but wanted reassurance that the cache was still there....and my request was ignored.

 

Thanks for checking it,

If you see me disable it, with only one DNF on the page, this thread happens. You may not know the full story.

I'm disappointed that reviewers don't generally respond with "Gee, good points. Why don't you post an NM or NA explaining that?" But it's been explain to me that some cachers don't want to post NMs and NAs, so sad as it is, I understand why you feel the need to act unilaterally. But what causes threads like this is that, because you're allowing the other cacher to remain anonymous, you can't explain your actions, so we can't tell the difference between a secret background that would justify your actions and an automated process running without human intervention. But I assume you feel it would be saying to much to even say, "I've been privately asked to..."

Link to comment

I won't quote Fugads, but I'm responding to them. Heck, they could probably kill 90% of virtual caches for inactive owners. Shoot, they could probably kill half the listings worldwide period if they went after "inactive owners". Who wants to see the number of caches drop drastically? Perhaps there would never be a 3,000,000 active caches celebration like there was for 1,000,000 and 2,000,000. :blink: There wasn't really celebrations, but the 1,000,000th cache was named (a cache in Australia), and there was a little celebratory blog post when they went over 2,000,000. Who wants to see the overall number of caches drop? Not TPTB, or the 80 or so people who work there for a living. At least I would think not. :huh:

 

I would think not as well, which is exactly the point I was trying to make. Whether people think about it or not, they most likely seek out and find caches by inactive users. And there are probably many beloved and classic caches that fall under this as well. The fact that reviewers are archiving caches for their owners being inactive should be troubling. I don't want to see overall cache numbers drop for this reason, but it seems like that may be the direction that things are going. Or maybe the caches brought up in this topic are just a few insignificant examples in the grand scheme of overall cache listings out there. These few caches that are being archived because COs aren't responsive may not represent a trend or even serious action by the reviewer community at large. Just a thing that has happened.

Link to comment

I'm really in the minority here, but I am of the opinion that whatever "algorithm" is being used for this current push, the utility of the action will clean-up (on the system) more dead caches than it will archive well maintained remote caches.

Are you seriously suggesting it's OK to kill good caches via friendly fire? If a cache has a problem, I'm all for NMs and NAs that explain why it should be killed it off. But I don't support the idea that caches fitting some arbitrary criteria should be killed off just because they're more likely to have trouble.

 

I'm kinda on the fence here, but I think it could be a price worth paying.

 

There have been several posts from local cachers who appreciate the bulk of the cleanup being done. Because reviewers have a limited amount of time to dedicate to this task, they are likely to need to rely on tools for much of it. And however much they tweak the algorithm, there may be caches which get targeted which probably shouldn't have been - or even would not have been if the reviewer had time to look at each case in great depth.

 

I don't like the idea of a cache getting disabled that doesn't deserve it, but it could be for the greater good - as long as the algorithm used made these cases rare.

Link to comment

Difficult caches (that may get DNF more often) that are also difficult or challenging to get to (high terrain and therefore sought after less often) are ones that appeal to a small number of cachers for whom the adventure and challenge is more important than getting another smiley. Many of these caches have been around a long time and the cache owner no longer participates in geocaching and who may not even have the same email account that they used for geocaching.

 

So while the guidelines/policy of allowing the reviewer to disable or achive caches that may be missing and that have an unresponsive owner sounds great for cleaning up the myriad of listings for caches that no longer exist, it is bound to cause issues for people who are looking for lonely caches that provide this extra adventure.

 

In the past, I had the impression that reviewers would not start this process on their own unless someone had posted a Needs Archive or perhaps if someone want to place a new cache in the area that was being blocked by the cache. The caches dicussed in this thread indicate that some reveiwers are now proactively looking for old, abandoned, and potentially missing caches. It could be that, in fact, someone wants to place a cache, maybe in a more easily accesible location nearby, and this is bringing the cache to the attention of the reviewer. That could be a tough call: preserve a more difficult but potentially missing cache or allow a new cache.

 

The main issue with reviewers proactively achiving caches so "they don't show up in searches", is that it tends to confirm that the game has changed to one where people have a sense of entitlement that they aren't going to look for a cache that might be missing, instead of one where people cared less about finding the cache and more about the adventure of going to a new place. There has always be a dichomoty between these two motivations for caching, and clearly the arrow has moved toward the "it's all about the smiley" camp over the years. Could this thread be a response to what appears to be taking sides in the debate?

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
In the past, I had the impression that reviewers would not start this process on their own unless someone had posted a Needs Archive or perhaps if someone want to place a new cache in the area that was being blocked by the cache. The caches dicussed in this thread indicate that some reveiwers are now proactively looking for old, abandoned, and potentially missing caches.

Two different things here:

 

-Proactive disabling is not recent. I've been doing it since 2006 and I learned it from the other reviewers so it is nothing new.

-When I am looking for problems, I am not looking for old or abandoned. I am just looking for potentially missing and/or a different problem (moldy log, broken container, no trespass signs, security complaints, etc).

 

So an old or abandoned cache may be potentially missing (determined from one or more DNF/NM or other mental algorithm) or it may have a different problem but being old and/or abandoned does not factor at all.

Link to comment

Are you seriously suggesting it's OK to kill good caches via friendly fire?

I'm kinda on the fence here, but I think it could be a price worth paying.

I guess that's my problem: I don't really find bad caches to be that much of a problem, so I'm not interested in sacrificing good caches to clean them up. I suppose that's mainly because bad caches get cleaned up in my area without the reviewers acting unilaterally. They rarely do anything until an NA is posted.

 

There have been several posts from local cachers who appreciate the bulk of the cleanup being done.

What I can't figure out is why those local cachers don't do the work themselves if they appreciate it so much. Why do they let it get to the point where the reviewer feels a need to run an automated script just in case it might kill a bad cache? It makes more work for the reviewer and it also makes the reviewers, that I consider the ultimate good guys, be the bad guys.

Link to comment

Two different things here:

 

-Proactive disabling is not recent. I've been doing it since 2006 and I learned it from the other reviewers so it is nothing new.

-When I am looking for problems, I am not looking for old or abandoned. I am just looking for potentially missing and/or a different problem (moldy log, broken container, no trespass signs, security complaints, etc).

 

I'm not concerned about the case of no trespass signs, security complaints and comparable issues.

 

I do not think however that's the duty of a cache owner to necessarily act after a single DNF or to reply to each question asked by a cacher.

 

There are many older multi caches in my country which are in reasonable condition, but are a bit more challenging than what the majority of newer cachers appreciate.

Some of them happen to come up with requests like "This question needs to be modified" or "Stage A is missing and needs to be replaced" (though it is still there etc).

 

It is not too uncommon that at some point the cache owners give up and archive their caches which are still perfectly ok because they neither want to change their caches considerably

so that they lose their character nor deal with inappropriate requests all the time.

 

If also reviewers start to intervene in such caches, the motivation of owners of such old caches to keep them will decrease even further.

I'm much more concerned about losing more and more of those caches and their owners than that newcomers who select caches which are intended to provide a challenge

might perhaps give up. There is some reason why a standard recommendation to beginners and those who do not want to deal with challenges is to select easy

caches and stay away from the complex/difficult ones.

 

In my country there are many cachers who think that they have right to get help up to the solutions of very difficult puzzle caches whenever they want to do a cache.

In my opinion not every cache is for everyone.

 

There is a difference between a request for maintenance/archival if a cache has a real issue or it is just a cache more difficult than the average.

 

There are caches where everyone who knows the cache can already deduce from DNF logs mentioning certain things that the searchers ended up at wrong places and so that a DNF does not have any implication of the cache being there or not. I do not think that it is the duty of the cache owner to comment on this on the cache page every time it occurs.

The guidelines ask for proper maintenance and not for making things so easy that noone could fail and to comment on every failure.

 

If some cachers filter out caches with a DNF or where the last find is long ago, that's their business. As a cache owner I find it interesting for some caches to see who will dare to go for a cache that has went unfound for an extended period (not a 1/1 cache that suddenly gets not visit) and I rather would not report on a cache check if no issues have been reported on the cache page to increase the suspense.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I'm really in the minority here, but I am of the opinion that whatever "algorithm" is being used for this current push, the utility of the action will clean-up (on the system) more dead caches than it will archive well maintained remote caches.

Are you seriously suggesting it's OK to kill good caches via friendly fire? If a cache has a problem, I'm all for NMs and NAs that explain why it should be killed it off. But I don't support the idea that caches fitting some arbitrary criteria should be killed off just because they're more likely to have trouble.

 

I might understand this if I could really imagine a cache that was anywhere popular enough that would do harm not being cleaned up, yet doesn't get enough traffic in the logs to justify archiving it with publicly available information. My attitude is that if I think there might be a problem with a cache, and I'm interested in seeing it cleaned up but there isn't already enough evidence in the logs, the very least I can do it go try to find it before I take action. If I'm not willing to do that, then I don't really care enough about the cache to make any suggestions about its future.

 

I'm saying that after 14 years, the game may need a cleansing. I've seen reviewers respond to individual NA logs with a sheepish "there is nothing in the logs that prove to me it is not there" on caches from COs that I know are no longer involved in GC. Once again, from a utilitarian standpoint, a more systematic approach that requires COs to confirm will clear the system of neglected caches while allowing lonely yet maintained caches to remain via a CO reply. I see it as spreading some of the work from the reviewers to the COs. We have a couple of multi's that get very few visits. They could easily fall within the algorithm and I would simply understand that the reviewer's idea of maintenance is a tad more often than my 1, 2 or 3 times a year. Keep in mind that I see the CO requirement as communicated maintenance meaning log periodic visits. Some do not see it that way and the game is left with no one watching the store.

Link to comment

Difficult caches (that may get DNF more often) that are also difficult or challenging to get to (high terrain and therefore sought after less often) are ones that appeal to a small number of cachers for whom the adventure and challenge is more important than getting another smiley. Many of these caches have been around a long time and the cache owner no longer participates in geocaching and who may not even have the same email account that they used for geocaching.

 

So while the guidelines/policy of allowing the reviewer to disable or achive caches that may be missing and that have an unresponsive owner sounds great for cleaning up the myriad of listings for caches that no longer exist, it is bound to cause issues for people who are looking for lonely caches that provide this extra adventure.

 

In the past, I had the impression that reviewers would not start this process on their own unless someone had posted a Needs Archive or perhaps if someone want to place a new cache in the area that was being blocked by the cache. The caches dicussed in this thread indicate that some reveiwers are now proactively looking for old, abandoned, and potentially missing caches. It could be that, in fact, someone wants to place a cache, maybe in a more easily accesible location nearby, and this is bringing the cache to the attention of the reviewer. That could be a tough call: preserve a more difficult but potentially missing cache or allow a new cache.

 

The main issue with reviewers proactively achiving caches so "they don't show up in searches", is that it tends to confirm that the game has changed to one where people have a sense of entitlement that they aren't going to look for a cache that might be missing, instead of one where people cared less about finding the cache and more about the adventure of going to a new place. There has always be a dichomoty between these two motivations for caching, and clearly the arrow has moved toward the "it's all about the smiley" camp over the years. Could this thread be a response to what appears to be taking sides in the debate?

 

I personally think we can't treat remote/difficult caches any different than a lamp-post hide, when it comes to owner responsibilities. Just because it is a remote/difficult hide, doesn't mean the owner gets a pass on the upkeep. I think there is a balance that can and should be made between the reviewers and CO's that is reasonable for how often an owner needs to check on a remote cache. However, there needs to be a track record that shows the CO is maintaining their cache over time. I often see remote caches that are 6 plus years old with no owner maintenance logs or notes from the CO at all. I look at their account and see that they haven't logged into GC.com for five years. I see logs with the finders repairing and maintaining the cache. To me these are vacation caches or "throwdowns" and they should be fair game for archival no matter how long they have been out there or how beloved they might be. On a similar note, I have noticed that many webcam caches have been in this situation for a while now. I see so many webcams that no longer operate or are not accessible via the web anymore. Yet, they are still being logged by everyone with an attached picture that the finder took from their phone/camera and not the actual webcam itself. In my opinion these caches should be rooted out and archived by the reviewers as well. They are no longer being maintained.

Edited by Uncle Alaska
Link to comment

I personally think we can't treat remote/difficult caches any different than a lamp-post hide, when it comes to owner responsibilities. Just because it is a remote/difficult hide, doesn't mean the owner gets a pass on the upkeep.

I admit that I may be arguing for a "wow" requirment here. I see a difference between a cache in a location that I may enjoy just for the challenge of getting to even if I end up with a DNF and cache in location that I have no interest in going to even if I know for sure there is a cache to find. But asking a reviewer to make the distinction is a "wow" judgment that I suspect few would volunteer to make. So I have to accept the current state where Reviewers can make a judgment of when to archive a cache and even that Groundspeak may provide guidance to treat lack of owner response the same regardless of the remoteness or age of the cache.

Link to comment

I'm saying that after 14 years, the game may need a cleansing.

I have nothing against cleansing, I just want it to be driven by the local community, not the reviewers, and I want it to be focused on the status of the cache. Bad caches should go. In my area, they go because people post NMs and NAs. Good caches should not go for some arbitrary reason such as you don't feel like the owner is participating enough.

 

A few geocachers in my area have passed away without their caches being adopted out, but since they were good caches to begin with, they continue to be good, and they'll likely remain good for years to come. I see no reason to kill their legacy just because the they can't answer their e-mail. There's plenty of time to kill a cache after it has a problem.

Link to comment

I'm saying that after 14 years, the game may need a cleansing.

I have nothing against cleansing, I just want it to be driven by the local community, not the reviewers, and I want it to be focused on the status of the cache. Bad caches should go. In my area, they go because people post NMs and NAs. Good caches should not go for some arbitrary reason such as you don't feel like the owner is participating enough.

 

A few geocachers in my area have passed away without their caches being adopted out, but since they were good caches to begin with, they continue to be good, and they'll likely remain good for years to come. I see no reason to kill their legacy just because the they can't answer their e-mail. There's plenty of time to kill a cache after it has a problem.

 

I believe caches can be adopted, with proper communication...And in the situation you mention I think it would be great. But in my experience, there are not tons of caches being forgotten from the death of the CO...They are just being forgotten.

Link to comment

I'm saying that after 14 years, the game may need a cleansing.

I have nothing against cleansing, I just want it to be driven by the local community, not the reviewers, and I want it to be focused on the status of the cache. Bad caches should go. In my area, they go because people post NMs and NAs. Good caches should not go for some arbitrary reason such as you don't feel like the owner is participating enough.

 

A few geocachers in my area have passed away without their caches being adopted out, but since they were good caches to begin with, they continue to be good, and they'll likely remain good for years to come. I see no reason to kill their legacy just because the they can't answer their e-mail. There's plenty of time to kill a cache after it has a problem.

I understand, there is just a lot of built-up neglect out there that the local community, for whatever reason, could not prevent. I believe it will continue to deteriorate. I don't have an answer for legacy caches...wish I did.

Link to comment
I personally think we can't treat remote/difficult caches any different than a lamp-post hide, when it comes to owner responsibilities. Just because it is a remote/difficult hide, doesn't mean the owner gets a pass on the upkeep.

 

Translation: you want to encourage lamp-post hides and discourage remote/difficult hides.

 

Well, seems to me you are getting your way.

Link to comment

It's a shame that at the end of some conversations I had at this recent event, folks were discouraging DNF logs. I regularly post my DNFs and feel that it's pertinent to my caching history. I also regularly post needs maintenance and needs archive logs as I feel necessary. I don't think that anybody should be discouraged from doing so. I especially feel that cachers shouldn't feel discouraged about posting DNFs in fear that a difficult cache may be disabled and ultimately archived. Unfortunately, that's the general consensus among our community as of late.

 

I encourage OReviewer to continue doing the work that he's doing as I have seen him clean up some abandoned listings that really needed to be archived. On another note, I also encourage him to use better judgement at times based on the difficulty, terrain, log history and remote locations of some of these hides that are not oft found.

I post my DNFs as well. What is discouraging about our area though (not sure how it is in other regions) is that MANY geocachers don't post DNFs. However, when a cache goes unfound you start to see the "watch" list swell in number. I've seen so many lonely caches with upwards of 8-10 watchers. Those I can almost guarantee a DNF. Not too surprisingly though, the lonely caches without many watchers I'm able to find. Notice the pattern?

 

It is unfortunate that some quality caches have been disabled and eventually archived. But I think the lack of maintenance in our general area has caused some of these caches to get lost in the shuffle of all the other unmaintained/abandoned caches. Frankly, I think the reviewer is becoming overwhelmed.

 

Keep posting your DNF folks and maintain your caches COs! Problem solved.

Link to comment
I personally think we can't treat remote/difficult caches any different than a lamp-post hide, when it comes to owner responsibilities. Just because it is a remote/difficult hide, doesn't mean the owner gets a pass on the upkeep.

 

Translation: you want to encourage lamp-post hides and discourage remote/difficult hides.

 

Well, seems to me you are getting your way.

 

Nope...Translation: Place a Cache, Take Care of it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment
I personally think we can't treat remote/difficult caches any different than a lamp-post hide, when it comes to owner responsibilities. Just because it is a remote/difficult hide, doesn't mean the owner gets a pass on the upkeep.

 

Translation: you want to encourage lamp-post hides and discourage remote/difficult hides.

 

Well, seems to me you are getting your way.

 

Nope...Translation: Place a Cache, Take Care of it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Couldn't agree more!

Link to comment

I'm saying that after 14 years, the game may need a cleansing.

 

Bad vibes man, bad vibes. They are in no position to go on cleansing witch hunts, and messing with cache owners. Especially not now, with new cache placements down in most places in the world in 2014 vs. 2013, and probably for the first time ever, although I doubt TPTB would publicly verify it's the first time ever. Let the fact that many, if not most caches have inactive and/or disinterested cache owners remain a dirty little secret. Not unlike the fact that almost all parking lot micros are on private property without permission is a dirty little secret. :huh:

Link to comment

 

What I can't figure out is why those local cachers don't do the work themselves if they appreciate it so much. Why do they let it get to the point where the reviewer feels a need to run an automated script just in case it might kill a bad cache? It makes more work for the reviewer and it also makes the reviewers, that I consider the ultimate good guys, be the bad guys.

 

Perhaps because:

 

They may have found the cache when it wasn't abandoned and was in good shape, but has become neglected and abandoned, taking up space where a new cache could go.

They might not want to be labelled a cache cop.

They may have met the delinquent cache owner(s) and don't feel comfortable openly reporting one of their caches.

They may worry that an active but delinquent cache owner will get angry (happened to me - I logged an NA, the CO wrote an angry note on his cache page then archived all of his caches).

They want to continue going to events and not feel awkward around other cachers (those that think they are cache cops, and those who had their caches reported).

 

Link to comment

This thread makes me ask myself am I doing GS a favor by submitting a cache to their site or are they doing me a favor by listing my cache.

 

As a forester/botanist I think of the relationship similar to a Lichen. A symbiotic partnership between an algae and fungus. The algae provides photosynthetic food for itself and the fungus, while the fungi provide structure and protection for the algae. I am guessing that there would be a wide variety of opinion as to which life-form represents whom between the cacher and GC.com.

Link to comment

Funny timing, I just received this e-mail.

 

Here is a cache that I'd like to have you check out: Cache Page

 

It has not been found since 2010. Also, the way the description reads it takes snorkeling gear and yet the ratings are 2 and 2.

 

The main issue is the length of time since it was found and the fact it was placed by a "troop"....and they have not been online in over a year. I have sent messages about whether this UNDERWATER cache has ever had maintenance and such. There has been no response.

 

I know it is winter, but I was going to attempt earlier this fall but wanted reassurance that the cache was still there....and my request was ignored.

 

Thanks for checking it,

 

If you see me disable it, with only one DNF on the page, this thread happens. You may not know the full story.

 

My question is when did we become entitled to guaranteed finds. If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying it's possible that action may be taken because someone didn't get a response to their question as to whether or not it is there.

 

Why not suggest to this person that they go look and if they don't find it then contact you again and maybe something can be done?

 

I wasn't aware that CO's were required to respond to enquiries. Is great if they do, but when did it become a requirement?

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

I have to admit that this is one of the best thread I saw on this forum for a long time.

 

I do know that reviewers are human and they do make mistake by archived caches when its really there. Like that one in Oregon. But seriously, the CO is really history. If that CO really care, he will post a note and everything will be fine.

 

One helpful way to keep your remote caches from getting an "unnecessary" DNF log is to post spoiler pictures on the cache page. Plus really good hints for those that cant see the pictures.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

Funny timing, I just received this e-mail.

 

Here is a cache that I'd like to have you check out: Cache Page

 

It has not been found since 2010. Also, the way the description reads it takes snorkeling gear and yet the ratings are 2 and 2.

 

The main issue is the length of time since it was found and the fact it was placed by a "troop"....and they have not been online in over a year. I have sent messages about whether this UNDERWATER cache has ever had maintenance and such. There has been no response.

 

I know it is winter, but I was going to attempt earlier this fall but wanted reassurance that the cache was still there....and my request was ignored.

 

Thanks for checking it,

 

If you see me disable it, with only one DNF on the page, this thread happens. You may not know the full story.

 

My question is when did we become entitled to guaranteed finds. If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying it's possible that action may be taken because someone didn't get a response to their question as to whether or not it is there.

 

Why not suggest to this person that they go look and if they don't find it then contact you again and maybe something can be done?

 

I wasn't aware that CO's were required to respond to enquiries. Is great if they do, but when did it become a requirement?

 

Yes. I'm not down with this either. The full story is someone who never looked for the cache told you the cache owner didn't respond to emails? How is this a "call for action"?

Link to comment

This thread makes me ask myself am I doing GS a favor by submitting a cache to their site or are they doing me a favor by listing my cache.

Seem that GS has two customers. Sure the provide a service to cache owners by listing cache. But these listing are only valuable so as their other customers have something to find.

 

There are too many cases of hide-and-forget cache hiders. They put out the cache and then forget about it. They may quit geocaching after a short time. Eventually these caches need some sort of maintenance. Sometimes, the community may take over and keep the cache viable. But often the reviewer must decide that the cache isn't being maintained or that it has problems that can only be addressed by an owner (e.g. corrections on the cache page to indicate the cache is no longer an ammo can).

 

The issue with caches like this thread is that we know that caches in difficult locations are not sought very often, that sometimes these caches are hard to find, so they may get DNFd, that caches with DNFs are in turn searched for less often. Lonely caches that aren't sought often and haven't been found in two years and get one DNF may very well be viable. It isn't clear what makes the reviewer decide otherwise.

 

Funny timing, I just received this e-mail.

 

Here is a cache that I'd like to have you check out: Cache Page

 

It has not been found since 2010. Also, the way the description reads it takes snorkeling gear and yet the ratings are 2 and 2.

 

The main issue is the length of time since it was found and the fact it was placed by a "troop"....and they have not been online in over a year. I have sent messages about whether this UNDERWATER cache has ever had maintenance and such. There has been no response.

 

I know it is winter, but I was going to attempt earlier this fall but wanted reassurance that the cache was still there....and my request was ignored.

 

Thanks for checking it,

 

If you see me disable it, with only one DNF on the page, this thread happens. You may not know the full story.

 

My question is when did we become entitled to guaranteed finds. If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying it's possible that action may be taken because someone didn't get a response to their question as to whether or not it is there.

This seems to indicate that someone who asks for confirmation of a cache being there and gets no response because the owner is absent is enough to decide a cache is not viable. Many cachers would say that that if the cache owner isn't around, instead of a needs archive or even needs maintenance, one should look for the cache themselves. Maybe after several DNFs there is some indication the cache is missing.

 

The truth is there is a dichotomy among cachers between those who will go look for a difficult cache because there is an adventure and those who will shun any cache they believe they might DNF because the cache hasn't be found in awhile. I suspect there is a dichotomy among reviewers as well and depending on where they stand they make their decision.

 

In the forum, there are yet another group who will argue that the maintenance requirements mean any cache with an absent owner should be archived. I specifically asked about this, with difficult seldom found caches in mind, when GS decide to no longer support non-consensual adoption. The response from Bryan was that it is within the discretion of the reviewer whether the cache needs to be archived or can exist without an active owner. In this respect, it appears that the answer I got back then is still the answer I would get today.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I think folks are focusing too much on the DNF angle of the situation and not enough on how simply the situation can be mitigated by the Cache Owner responding to a Reviewer's action with a simple note to the effect of "thanks for your note, I'm on it!" Even if the Cache Owner misses the first electronic nudge and a cache gets archived, the Cache Owner can ask for unarchival simply by contacting the Reviewer. In the disablement examples given, there is nothing stopping the Cache Owner from Re-enabling the cache.

 

Folks seem to looking for absolutes when there are none. Every Reviewer Note/Reviewer Disable/Reviewer Archival has its own unique circumstances behind it.

Link to comment

I think folks are focusing too much on the DNF angle of the situation and not enough on how simply the situation can be mitigated by the Cache Owner responding to a Reviewer's action with a simple note to the effect of "thanks for your note, I'm on it!" Even if the Cache Owner misses the first electronic nudge and a cache gets archived, the Cache Owner can ask for unarchival simply by contacting the Reviewer. In the disablement examples given, there is nothing stopping the Cache Owner from Re-enabling the cache.

 

Folks seem to looking for absolutes when there are none. Every Reviewer Note/Reviewer Disable/Reviewer Archival has its own unique circumstances behind it.

 

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

 

You keep re-stating this over and over as if it is absolute fact across every single case. I just don't buy it. I have seen many, many notes from CO's that have specific information as to when or if they will go check on a cache after DNF/NM/NA logs. Including some going on 5 months due to construction in the area of a cache etc. If the CO puts the proper information in their note, I just don't see a reviewer ignoring it (at least not in my area). That means it is not absolute fact as you keep stating it as. :blink:

Link to comment

So let me ask this, what exactly is the motivation for archiving "lonely caches" with just one DNF?, and in some cases not even a legitimate DNF.

 

Even if the CO doesn't respond can it not wait for more confirmation that the cache is actually missing, are there people beating down the door to place a cache at these remote locations?

 

I get the owner maintenance thing and if a cache in need of maintenance is not being maintained then by all means archive it but why archive a cache that really doesn't need maintenance, why create the issue, the end result is one less cache and One more piece of litter.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

 

You keep re-stating this over and over as if it is absolute fact across every single case. I just don't buy it. I have seen many, many notes from CO's that have specific information as to when or if they will go check on a cache after DNF/NM/NA logs. Including some going on 5 months due to construction in the area of a cache etc. If the CO puts the proper information in their note, I just don't see a reviewer ignoring it (at least not in my area). That means it is not absolute fact as you keep stating it as. :blink:

 

The reviewer is not ignoring it, but the facts are that it only delays another reviewer note for 30 days or more. Eventually the CO has to do something other than posting notes. This is not in dispute, and what happens. The reviewer has disabled the cache, and most caches can not be disabled forever. This former TB hotel was disabled due to construction at the end of 2011. There are 5 reviewer boilerplate logs in 2012 asking what's up, followed by 5 copy and pasted responses. In 2013 there were 2 more, until someone posted an NA. At that point the CO turned it into a LPC out of frustration.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

So let me ask this, what exactly is the motivation for archiving "lonely caches" with just one DNF?, and in some cases not even a legitimate DNF.

 

Even if the CO doesn't respond can it not wait for more confirmation that the cache is actually missing, are there people beating down the door to place a cache at these remote locations?

 

In some areas, possibly.

 

I get the owner maintenance thing and if a cache in need of maintenance is not being maintained then by all means archive it but why archive a cache that really doesn't need maintenance, why create the issue, the end result is one less cache and One more piece of litter.

 

In my opinion, this leads to the finders keeping the cache alive with maintenance (whether or not they actually report it in the logs) while the CO gets a complete pass. A good example is the "Large" sized caches I run into that used to be a 5 gallon bucket. The CO no longer plays and the cache continues because someone placed a "small" cache in its place. Who knows what happened to the bucket (hopefully a geocacher hauled it out).

Edited by Uncle Alaska
Link to comment

I think folks are focusing too much on the DNF angle of the situation and not enough on how simply the situation can be mitigated by the Cache Owner responding to a Reviewer's action with a simple note to the effect of "thanks for your note, I'm on it!" Even if the Cache Owner misses the first electronic nudge and a cache gets archived, the Cache Owner can ask for unarchival simply by contacting the Reviewer. In the disablement examples given, there is nothing stopping the Cache Owner from Re-enabling the cache.

 

Folks seem to looking for absolutes when there are none. Every Reviewer Note/Reviewer Disable/Reviewer Archival has its own unique circumstances behind it.

 

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

...or you can just re-enable the cache. I know one CO in our area who does this without even checking on the placement.

 

It goes back to the poor CO maintenance issue. If we want viable caches, we need COs that actually care.

Link to comment

So let me ask this, what exactly is the motivation for archiving "lonely caches" with just one DNF?, and in some cases not even a legitimate DNF.

 

Even if the CO doesn't respond can it not wait for more confirmation that the cache is actually missing, are there people beating down the door to place a cache at these remote locations?

No. Most lonely caches have absolutely nothing nearby.

 

 

I get the owner maintenance thing and if a cache in need of maintenance is not being maintained then by all means archive it but why archive a cache that really doesn't need maintenance, why create the issue, the end result is one less cache and One more piece of litter.

 

Correct.

 

Disabling a cache with a wet logbook or broken container guarantees that it will get maintained or archived. Disabling a cache with 1 DNF, means that it could be in fine condition, which is often the case. Nobody knows if it needs maintenance or not.

Link to comment

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

 

You keep re-stating this over and over as if it is absolute fact across every single case. I just don't buy it. I have seen many, many notes from CO's that have specific information as to when or if they will go check on a cache after DNF/NM/NA logs. Including some going on 5 months due to construction in the area of a cache etc. If the CO puts the proper information in their note, I just don't see a reviewer ignoring it (at least not in my area). That means it is not absolute fact as you keep stating it as. :blink:

 

The reviewer is not ignoring it, but the facts are that it only delays another reviewer note for 30 days or more. Eventually the CO has to do something other than posting notes. This is not in dispute, and what happens. The reviewer has disabled the cache, and most caches can not be disabled forever. This former TB hotel was disabled due to construction at the end of 2011. There are 5 reviewer boilerplate logs in 2012 asking what's up, followed by 5 copy and pasted responses. In 2013 there were 2 more, until someone posted an NA. At that point the CO turned it into a LPC out of frustration.

 

How do you know the CO was frustrated? Did they talk to you about it back in 2013? Seems the NA post opened the CO eyes to the fact that the on ramp/road was a permanent fixture and the cache would not be able to be placed there any more? Some of those Reviewer posts were well in excess of the 30 days you keep holding up as an absolute value. And I am fine with how it went down. I don't think a CO should get a pass after one note for years of disabled status (especially since the first one talked about temporary construction). The CO copied and pasted, thus it took very little of his/her time.

 

Single instances dug up don't equal absolute fact in every situation. There could be several emails going on in the background you are not aware of.

Edited by Uncle Alaska
Link to comment

I think folks are focusing too much on the DNF angle of the situation and not enough on how simply the situation can be mitigated by the Cache Owner responding to a Reviewer's action with a simple note to the effect of "thanks for your note, I'm on it!" Even if the Cache Owner misses the first electronic nudge and a cache gets archived, the Cache Owner can ask for unarchival simply by contacting the Reviewer. In the disablement examples given, there is nothing stopping the Cache Owner from Re-enabling the cache.

 

Folks seem to looking for absolutes when there are none. Every Reviewer Note/Reviewer Disable/Reviewer Archival has its own unique circumstances behind it.

 

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

...or you can just re-enable the cache. I know one CO in our area who does this without even checking on the placement.

 

It goes back to the poor CO maintenance issue. If we want viable caches, we need COs that actually care.

 

Most COs feel an obligation to check on it and do not realize that they can just reenable it without running out, which probably might annoy the reviewer. Viable caches are ones that are hidden in decent containers, and in places not likely to be found accidentally. I have micros which have been out nearly 10 years with their original 100 page tiny logbook without maintenance. I recently tried doing maintenance on one and could not locate it, but others were still finding it. Education about lousy containers goes much farther than checking up on singular DNFs.

Link to comment

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

 

You keep re-stating this over and over as if it is absolute fact across every single case. I just don't buy it. I have seen many, many notes from CO's that have specific information as to when or if they will go check on a cache after DNF/NM/NA logs. Including some going on 5 months due to construction in the area of a cache etc. If the CO puts the proper information in their note, I just don't see a reviewer ignoring it (at least not in my area). That means it is not absolute fact as you keep stating it as. :blink:

 

The reviewer is not ignoring it, but the facts are that it only delays another reviewer note for 30 days or more. Eventually the CO has to do something other than posting notes. This is not in dispute, and what happens. The reviewer has disabled the cache, and most caches can not be disabled forever. This former TB hotel was disabled due to construction at the end of 2011. There are 5 reviewer boilerplate logs in 2012 asking what's up, followed by 5 copy and pasted responses. In 2013 there were 2 more, until someone posted an NA. At that point the CO turned it into a LPC out of frustration.

 

How do you know the CO was frustrated? Did they talk to you about it back in 2012? Seems the NA post opened the CO eyes to the fact that the on ramp/road was a permanent fixture and the cache would not be able to be placed there any more? Some of those Reviewer posts were well in excess of the 30 days you keep holding up as an absolute value. And I am fine with how it went down. I don't think a CO should get a pass after one note for years of disabled status(especially since the first one talked about temporary construction). The CO copied and pasted, thus it took very little of his/her time.

 

Single instances dug up don't equal absolute fact in every situation. There could be several emails going on in the background you are not aware of.

 

So you don't believe me, but you don't want me to dig up any examples either? :rolleyes: Disabling after 1 DNF is imagining other DNFs, and now we should imagine background activity also. If there were emails going on, then it wouldn't incur 7 reviewer notes. Disabling for wet and broken containers makes sense, but for imaginary DNFs does not.

Link to comment

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

 

You keep re-stating this over and over as if it is absolute fact across every single case. I just don't buy it. I have seen many, many notes from CO's that have specific information as to when or if they will go check on a cache after DNF/NM/NA logs. Including some going on 5 months due to construction in the area of a cache etc. If the CO puts the proper information in their note, I just don't see a reviewer ignoring it (at least not in my area). That means it is not absolute fact as you keep stating it as. :blink:

 

The reviewer is not ignoring it, but the facts are that it only delays another reviewer note for 30 days or more. Eventually the CO has to do something other than posting notes. This is not in dispute, and what happens. The reviewer has disabled the cache, and most caches can not be disabled forever. This former TB hotel was disabled due to construction at the end of 2011. There are 5 reviewer boilerplate logs in 2012 asking what's up, followed by 5 copy and pasted responses. In 2013 there were 2 more, until someone posted an NA. At that point the CO turned it into a LPC out of frustration.

 

How do you know the CO was frustrated? Did they talk to you about it back in 2012? Seems the NA post opened the CO eyes to the fact that the on ramp/road was a permanent fixture and the cache would not be able to be placed there any more? Some of those Reviewer posts were well in excess of the 30 days you keep holding up as an absolute value. And I am fine with how it went down. I don't think a CO should get a pass after one note for years of disabled status(especially since the first one talked about temporary construction). The CO copied and pasted, thus it took very little of his/her time.

 

Single instances dug up don't equal absolute fact in every situation. There could be several emails going on in the background you are not aware of.

 

So you don't believe me, but you don't want me to dig up any examples either? :rolleyes: Disabling after 1 DNF is imagining other DNFs, and now we should imagine background activity also. If there were emails going on, then it wouldn't incur 7 reviewer notes. Disabling for wet and broken containers makes sense, but for imaginary DNFs does not.

 

You mean like imagining that the CO was "frustrated" from this log:

"based upon the requests below i will convert this to a traditional parking lot cache and dash. look for updated description and coords within the next few days."

:rolleyes:

Link to comment

It's not as simple as that. Posting a reply only puts off another reviewer note in another 30 days. Eventually someone has to go out and check on it. If it's a 5 mile hike up steep terrain, or requiring a boat or climbing gear, is it really necessary after just 1 DNF?

 

You keep re-stating this over and over as if it is absolute fact across every single case. I just don't buy it. I have seen many, many notes from CO's that have specific information as to when or if they will go check on a cache after DNF/NM/NA logs. Including some going on 5 months due to construction in the area of a cache etc. If the CO puts the proper information in their note, I just don't see a reviewer ignoring it (at least not in my area). That means it is not absolute fact as you keep stating it as. :blink:

 

The reviewer is not ignoring it, but the facts are that it only delays another reviewer note for 30 days or more. Eventually the CO has to do something other than posting notes. This is not in dispute, and what happens. The reviewer has disabled the cache, and most caches can not be disabled forever. This former TB hotel was disabled due to construction at the end of 2011. There are 5 reviewer boilerplate logs in 2012 asking what's up, followed by 5 copy and pasted responses. In 2013 there were 2 more, until someone posted an NA. At that point the CO turned it into a LPC out of frustration.

 

How do you know the CO was frustrated? Did they talk to you about it back in 2012? Seems the NA post opened the CO eyes to the fact that the on ramp/road was a permanent fixture and the cache would not be able to be placed there any more? Some of those Reviewer posts were well in excess of the 30 days you keep holding up as an absolute value. And I am fine with how it went down. I don't think a CO should get a pass after one note for years of disabled status(especially since the first one talked about temporary construction). The CO copied and pasted, thus it took very little of his/her time.

 

Single instances dug up don't equal absolute fact in every situation. There could be several emails going on in the background you are not aware of.

 

So you don't believe me, but you don't want me to dig up any examples either? :rolleyes: Disabling after 1 DNF is imagining other DNFs, and now we should imagine background activity also. If there were emails going on, then it wouldn't incur 7 reviewer notes. Disabling for wet and broken containers makes sense, but for imaginary DNFs does not.

 

You mean like imagining that the CO was "frustrated" from this log:

"based upon the requests below i will convert this to a traditional parking lot cache and dash. look for updated description and coords within the next few days."

:rolleyes:

 

And how do you know that there was no emails behind the scenes between me and the CO? :D

 

You can certainly imagine DNFs...

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

 

And how do you know that there was no emails behind the scenes between me and the CO? :D

 

You can certainly imagine DNFs...

 

In that situation the CO removed their cache and disabled it, I hope there were DNF's... if anybody tried to find it while it was disabled.

 

I have never claimed to imagine DNF's anywhere in this thread, I have always stated, that if a CO can't take care of their cache, it should be removed as the geotrash it is.

Link to comment

Most COs feel an obligation to check on it and do not realize that they can just reenable it without running out, which probably might annoy the reviewer.

 

This is probably true, and is the thing that bothers me most (and puts me on the other side of the fence). The situation with an active cache owner, whose cache is disabled (due to one DNF and not being found for some time).

 

When someone logs a DNF (and/or a NM), the good cache owner looks at it and makes a judgement. They either check on it, or they decide not to check on it. In a case like the Oregon example (where the only DNF didn't even get to GZ), it is perfectly valid to decide not to check on it.

 

When they see a reviewer - someone in a position of some power - disable their cache with such a note:

 

The cache appears to be in need of owner intervention. I'm temporarily disabling it, to give the owner an opportunity to check on the cache, and take whatever action is necessary. Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 30 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness.

 

They likely will read this as they must check on their cache.

 

The owner of a difficult cache may just decide to give up and let it go. They set a cache which takes a 12 hour hike or whatever as a physical challenge for those who like caches like that. That doesn't mean they should be forced to check it each time there is a DNF. I hate the idea of a cache owner letting such a cache be archived because they feel forced to check it when they do not feel it is warranted.

 

If I'm the cache owner and I have my cache disabled when I feel it is not warranted, I would re-enable it. I would tell the truth that I'm not checking on the cache now but am monitoring it. But that action could be seen as rejecting the decision of the reviewer, and many cache owners would not do it. And yes, it could also create bad feelings with my reviewer.

 

I guess it depends on how the cache owner interprets "check on the cache". Is looking at the listing, deciding not to do maintenance, and enabling, it, "checking"?

Link to comment
I personally think we can't treat remote/difficult caches any different than a lamp-post hide, when it comes to owner responsibilities. Just because it is a remote/difficult hide, doesn't mean the owner gets a pass on the upkeep.

 

Translation: you want to encourage lamp-post hides and discourage remote/difficult hides.

 

Well, seems to me you are getting your way.

 

Nope...Translation: Place a Cache, Take Care of it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Can you really not see how applying the same response expectations to urban hides and remote/difficult hides will discourage people from placing the latter?

 

Wow. Just wow.

 

Gotta love those absolutes you have there. And thanks for doing what you can to degrade the game.

Link to comment

Most COs feel an obligation to check on it and do not realize that they can just reenable it without running out, which probably might annoy the reviewer.

 

This is probably true, and is the thing that bothers me most (and puts me on the other side of the fence). The situation with an active cache owner, whose cache is disabled (due to one DNF and not being found for some time).

 

When someone logs a DNF (and/or a NM), the good cache owner looks at it and makes a judgement. They either check on it, or they decide not to check on it. In a case like the Oregon example (where the only DNF didn't even get to GZ), it is perfectly valid to decide not to check on it.

 

When they see a reviewer - someone in a position of some power - disable their cache with such a note:

 

The cache appears to be in need of owner intervention. I'm temporarily disabling it, to give the owner an opportunity to check on the cache, and take whatever action is necessary. Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 30 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness.

 

They likely will read this as they must check on their cache.

 

The owner of a difficult cache may just decide to give up and let it go. They set a cache which takes a 12 hour hike or whatever as a physical challenge for those who like caches like that. That doesn't mean they should be forced to check it each time there is a DNF. I hate the idea of a cache owner letting such a cache be archived because they feel forced to check it when they do not feel it is warranted.

 

If I'm the cache owner and I have my cache disabled when I feel it is not warranted, I would re-enable it. I would tell the truth that I'm not checking on the cache now but am monitoring it. But that action could be seen as rejecting the decision of the reviewer, and many cache owners would not do it. And yes, it could also create bad feelings with my reviewer.

 

I guess it depends on how the cache owner interprets "check on the cache". Is looking at the listing, deciding not to do maintenance, and enabling, it, "checking"?

 

Well written :)

 

This post illustrates clearly and logically why the net result of routinely disabling and then archiving lonely caches after a single DNF is likely to be a gradual decline of such caches in favour of easily checked / maintained caches in parking lots. Do we need more of those? I'd say not.

 

On the other hand Ladybugkids point is equally fair - that CO's who care enough about their lonely caches can halt the process with comparative ease by posting a note, and as long as that note can take the form of Yes - I've seen the DNF and am monitoring the cache and if there are more of them I might think it necessary to disable it myself until I can go out and check on it and be accepted by TPTB as a valid indicator that the cache is being well looked after then things should balance out OK?

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