Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool

Recommended Posts

We could take this to the extreme. I believe if Reviewer X involuntarily disabled 2,000 caches with a "check your cache and respond in 30 days or else" note on caches in their fiefdom, a full 1,000, or 50% of the cache owners would not respond. It wouldn't take much for the archival rate to exceed the new placement rate, and see that number of active caches in the world on the main page start dropping. Especially with new cache placements down 23% in the United States overall in 2014 vs. 2013, and down 35% in November 2014 vs. November 2013. :blink:

 

I'm not sure how I would feel about that. On one foot, we'd end up losing lots of caches. On the other foot, there'd be lots of new spots opened up for new caches to be placed. The area I live in is pretty saturated right now and good spots are hard to come by unless you opt for private property (I have a couple) or you venture farther from home to place a cache.

 

Must be a regional thing...but isn't it usually "on one hand...on the other hand..." ?

Let's face it - you don't see eye to eye. But don't go toe-to-toe waiting for the other shoe to drop. These similar phrases fit like hand and glove. Don't boot his wording.

Link to comment

We could take this to the extreme. I believe if Reviewer X involuntarily disabled 2,000 caches with a "check your cache and respond in 30 days or else" note on caches in their fiefdom, a full 1,000, or 50% of the cache owners would not respond. It wouldn't take much for the archival rate to exceed the new placement rate, and see that number of active caches in the world on the main page start dropping. Especially with new cache placements down 23% in the United States overall in 2014 vs. 2013, and down 35% in November 2014 vs. November 2013. :blink:

 

I'm not sure how I would feel about that. On one foot, we'd end up losing lots of caches. On the other foot, there'd be lots of new spots opened up for new caches to be placed. The area I live in is pretty saturated right now and good spots are hard to come by unless you opt for private property (I have a couple) or you venture farther from home to place a cache.

 

Must be a regional thing...but isn't it usually "on one hand...on the other hand..." ?

Let's face it - you don't see eye to eye. But don't go toe-to-toe waiting for the other shoe to drop. These similar phrases fit like hand and glove. Don't boot his wording.

 

And for you sci-fi fans...

 

On the gripping hand...

Link to comment

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?

 

I think that should be OK.. but thinking this through, it means the reviewer will need to look again and make a judgement call.

 

The ones O Reviewer called "average" rather than outlier clearly do need to be physically checked on. E.g. a difficulty 1.5 cache which had 124 consecutive finds, then 7 DNFs over the past months. If that cache owner were to post that they see no need to check on it, I expect the reviewer will disagree and disable it again. And that is OK.

 

With the "NA" method, the process seems pretty clear. A cacher posts a NA because a cache is being neglected. (Not the only reason for an NA, but a common one). The reviewer then makes a judgement - they can agree with the NA, and disable the cache with the "fix it or lost it" note - or they can disagree and post a note saying they see no need to archive. If the reviewer posts the "fix it or lose it" note, the cache owner is clear they need to physically check on it and fix it if needed.

 

With the "proactive reviewer" method, the process isn't so clear. Has the reviewer already concluded that this cache must be physically checked on? Or is it more of "the data suggests there may be a problem here, can the cache owner please look at the logs and make a proposal of what if anything needs to be done".

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

We could take this to the extreme. I believe if Reviewer X involuntarily disabled 2,000 caches with a "check your cache and respond in 30 days or else" note on caches in their fiefdom, a full 1,000, or 50% of the cache owners would not respond. It wouldn't take much for the archival rate to exceed the new placement rate, and see that number of active caches in the world on the main page start dropping. Especially with new cache placements down 23% in the United States overall in 2014 vs. 2013, and down 35% in November 2014 vs. November 2013. :blink:

 

I'm not sure how I would feel about that. On one foot, we'd end up losing lots of caches. On the other foot, there'd be lots of new spots opened up for new caches to be placed. The area I live in is pretty saturated right now and good spots are hard to come by unless you opt for private property (I have a couple) or you venture farther from home to place a cache.

 

Must be a regional thing...but isn't it usually "on one hand...on the other hand..." ?

Let's face it - you don't see eye to eye. But don't go toe-to-toe waiting for the other shoe to drop. These similar phrases fit like hand and glove. Don't boot his wording.

 

And for you sci-fi fans...

 

On the gripping hand...

 

You guys do realize you're setting Harry Dolphin to come in here and say "on the other fin".

Link to comment

We could take this to the extreme. I believe if Reviewer X involuntarily disabled 2,000 caches with a "check your cache and respond in 30 days or else" note on caches in their fiefdom, a full 1,000, or 50% of the cache owners would not respond. It wouldn't take much for the archival rate to exceed the new placement rate, and see that number of active caches in the world on the main page start dropping. Especially with new cache placements down 23% in the United States overall in 2014 vs. 2013, and down 35% in November 2014 vs. November 2013. :blink:

 

I'm not sure how I would feel about that. On one foot, we'd end up losing lots of caches. On the other foot, there'd be lots of new spots opened up for new caches to be placed. The area I live in is pretty saturated right now and good spots are hard to come by unless you opt for private property (I have a couple) or you venture farther from home to place a cache.

 

Must be a regional thing...but isn't it usually "on one hand...on the other hand..." ?

 

I'm a volleyball coach and have to focus on footwork, now that we're introducing proper approach mechanics. I usually do use "hands" but feet have been on the mind!

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?

 

I agree, nicely written post by redsox mark.

 

On the bolded part,, i'm not sure that this would suffice for all reviewers. I'd bet many would want more than "i, the cache owner, knows about this and am watching".

 

Sorry, but my opinion is that oreviewer is jumping the gun with these single DNF caches. A disable might be in order if the DNf log lists a particuler concern (ie: the DNFer believes the cache is on private property), but a lonely cache with one DNF shouldn't automatically be disabled.

Link to comment

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

Couldn't agree more!

 

The hardcore stance of "place a cache, take care of it" is totally unrealistic. Don't get me wrong, I hate the fact that it is too. They're not going to archive half of more of the freaking caches in the world because they're not being taken care of. "Half or more" being a personal guess, but probably pretty accurate. :)

 

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.

 

Of course we're focusing on the DNF angle, and not the involuntarily disabling of the cache and automatic archival without a response angle, as the later is standard operating procedure, and has been for years. For example, an LPC with about 5 DNF's, a "concerned Geocacher" contacting the reviewer, and the reviewer posting the same copy and paste note OReviewer is using disabling and threatening to archive the cache after 30 days.

 

Per the bold, yeah right. :laughing: I think I've seen about 4 caches in my 11+ year Geocaching career that were involuntarily archived by a reveiwer and the owner asked for unarchival. People just need to realize that again, "half or more" of all caches are essentially abandoned, whether we like it or not.

Link to comment

Per the bold, yeah right. :laughing: I think I've seen about 4 caches in my 11+ year Geocaching career that were involuntarily archived by a reveiwer and the owner asked for unarchival.

And I've posted an example of a cache I unarchived just this week after I unilaterally took action to disable and archive the listing. It's one of a half dozen or so similar examples from the past year, and I am just one reviewer out of hundreds.

 

Just because you aren't aware of the many caches that get unarchived at the owner's request does not give you the right to be disrespectful to another participant in the discussion.

Link to comment

People just need to realize that again, "half or more" of all caches are essentially abandoned, whether we like it or not.

I'm not sure if this would make a difference. There are always those people who will read the guidelines literally when Groundspeak says that cache ownership is a long-term relationship and the cache owners are responsible to visit there caches to address maintenance issue in a reasonable time. The "strict constructionists" may feel that any lack of maintenance is a guidelines violations and that is fair enough reason to archive the cache - even if this mean mass archiving of all cache. However, I not seeing many with such an extreme position. Instead we are looking at cache where there is some sort of problem. A string of DNFs, reports of containers in bad conditions, a cache in an area where there has been a wild fire or a flood, etc. The reviewer makes an attempt to get the owner to perform maintenace by disabling the cache and allowing a certain amount of time for the issues to addressed. And only then is the cache archived.

 

The issue in question is not whether the current system works to deal with problem caches. The issue is whether lack of finds and one DNF is an indication of a problem on a remote cache that doesn't get searched for very often. If a cache is easy to get to, the expectation of a visit for every report of a problem, even every DNF, may be reasonable. For remote caches, owners may decide that a single DNF is not yet a sign the cache is missing. More than once I've hiked out to find my cache is still there. (More embarassing are the times I couldn't find my own cache, but on a subsequent visit I find the original container along with my replacement). So I can reasonably conclude that a single DNF is more likely just a DNF than a missing cache. But I'll go further. A remote cache, particularly an old one, that has been abandoned by its owner, with a single DNF, is likely still there. 1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner is not yet a problem cache requiring reveiwer intervention.

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.

 

Perhaps because:

Hey, good list. Although it's a little off topic, I want to look at it in detail:

 

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.

The best NMs and NAs are from previous finders revisiting a cache. If they aren't interested in doing that, I don't see why they're relevant to the issue.

 

They might not want to be labelled a cache cop.

If the community labels people "cache cop" for filing a justified log, then the community needs to be fixed. I actually consider this one of the worst examples, since what you're saying is that it's better for the reviewer to be labeled a cache cop than some individual in the community. That's just the opposite of what I want for two reasons. First of all, it encourages seeing reviewers in general as being the cache cops. Second, when outsiders visit your town and report problems, unaware of this broken attitude, they'll get the grief because you haven't done anything to reduce that reaction.

 

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

If you mean they're friends, then that should be even more reason to feel comfortable reporting a problem. Worst case, this is a good chance for personal communications to improve the community's attitude towards problem reports, one friend at a time.

 

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).

Good riddance. He wasn't maintaining his caches, anyway. What do we care if he archives them all? Frankly, I would assume he'd already planned to archive them all and was just looking for an excuse to blame it on someone else.

 

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).

You're looking at this completely backwards! An event is a great opportunity to seek out those COs and discuss the problem report with them personally to insure they didn't have a negative reaction. Or else patching things up by showing that you weren't being judgmental and genuinely want to be helpful. This is a perfect way to improve a community's attitude towards problem reports, both by you and the CO respectfully discussing it as friends, and as the other people at the event seeing that that's how problem reports should be treated.

 

Even beyond that, assuming you're going to meet the CO at an event will make you more likely to imagine his reaction and phrase your problem report in a way that will make it the most helpful. When I'm writing up a problem event, I always write as if I'm going to meet the CO at the next cache.

Link to comment
Second, you can replace the cache with a new listing, and can even back-date the "hidden on" date so long as NOTHING has changed for the cache location and container. (That much is debatable on the forums, but really isn't that controversial outside of this echo chamber)

That's also a "It depends" situation.

 

I hid a cache on my birthday in November. It ended up being too close to a stage of a Multi I had forgotten about so it never got published. It was March before I got back out to the location to move it. When I contacted the reviewer to let him/her know the cache was ready to be reviewed again, I was told the listing wouldn't get published until I changed the date on it from November to March.

 

Depending on the reviewer, you could have real problems back dating the hide date on a cache by several years. And modifying it after publication would be a cheap one-way ticket into the "go over with a fine tooth comb" reviewer queue.

Link to comment

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 would hope that a well written enable log with a clear explanation is exactly what the reviewer is hoping for, regardless of whether it describes a physical trip to GZ. If such a log causes bad feelings, that's a different issue. In my experience, though, reviewers don't get bad feelings unless you kick them.

Link to comment

 

...

An event is a great opportunity to seek out those COs and discuss the problem report with them personally to insure they didn't have a negative reaction. Or else patching things up by showing that you weren't being judgmental and genuinely want to be helpful. This is a perfect way to improve a community's attitude towards problem reports, both by you and the CO respectfully discussing it as friends, and as the other people at the event seeing that that's how problem reports should be treated.

 

Even beyond that, assuming you're going to meet the CO at an event will make you more likely to imagine his reaction and phrase your problem report in a way that will make it the most helpful. When I'm writing up a problem event, I always write as if I'm going to meet the CO at the next cache.

 

Based on limited experience, a NM is enough of a reminder for most active, involved cachers. The people who are active, going to events, etc., do not need a NA in *most* cases. So the fear of meeting someone you just "NA-ed" is less than you think. When I've seen or used NAs, it *generally* involves a CO who is dropping out of the game or is already gone.

Link to comment

Is it just me or has anyone else considered the possibility that if the DNF might trigger reviewer scrutiny on a cache not found very often that there might be an increase in the number of caches for which a CO will allow throwdowns? Can't find my cache? Don't post a DNF but just stuff a piece a paper in a plastic baggie, leave it at GZ and log your find!

 

 

Link to comment

Is it just me or has anyone else considered the possibility that if the DNF might trigger reviewer scrutiny on a cache not found very often that there might be an increase in the number of caches for which a CO will allow throwdowns? Can't find my cache? Don't post a DNF but just stuff a piece a paper in a plastic baggie, leave it at GZ and log your find!

I'm sure that's possible as it's already scaring off people from posting DNFs. For others it has the opposite effect and increased the use of the NM and NA logs in place of DNFs. In the example I posted previously, 2 cachers posted an NA with their DNF. There had been no other DNFs posted at all. I was going to send a friendly email advising them that it was not appropriate in that situation, and tell them where I had found it, but since the reviewer catered to their whim and disabled it, I hardly think that I would be taken seriously.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Is it just me or has anyone else considered the possibility that if the DNF might trigger reviewer scrutiny on a cache not found very often that there might be an increase in the number of caches for which a CO will allow throwdowns? Can't find my cache? Don't post a DNF but just stuff a piece a paper in a plastic baggie, leave it at GZ and log your find!

I'm sure that's possible as it's already scaring off people from posting DNFs. For others it has the opposite effect and increased the use of the NM and NA logs in place of DNFs. In the example I posted previously, 2 cachers posted an NA with their DNF. There had been no other DNFs posted at all. I was going to send a friendly email advising them that it was not appropriate in that situation, and tell them where I had found it, but since the reviewer catered to their whim and disabled it, I hardly think that I would be taken seriously.

Why you are so dead set to save all the caches? If the CO is history, let it die a peaceful death.

 

If I was a banker that loan money to GS, I will be mad that they "lies" to me about their database stats when there are tons of inactive cache owners that dont care about their caches and many of them are missing. I want a honest report if GS is slowing down or going faster. Junky database will be the last thing I want to be lied about.

Link to comment

Is it just me or has anyone else considered the possibility that if the DNF might trigger reviewer scrutiny on a cache not found very often that there might be an increase in the number of caches for which a CO will allow throwdowns? Can't find my cache? Don't post a DNF but just stuff a piece a paper in a plastic baggie, leave it at GZ and log your find!

I'm sure that's possible as it's already scaring off people from posting DNFs. For others it has the opposite effect and increased the use of the NM and NA logs in place of DNFs. In the example I posted previously, 2 cachers posted an NA with their DNF. There had been no other DNFs posted at all. I was going to send a friendly email advising them that it was not appropriate in that situation, and tell them where I had found it, but since the reviewer catered to their whim and disabled it, I hardly think that I would be taken seriously.

Why you are so dead set to save all the caches? If the CO is history, let it die a peaceful death.

 

If I was a banker that loan money to GS, I will be mad that they "lies" to me about their database stats when there are tons of inactive cache owners that dont care about their caches and many of them are missing. I want a honest report if GS is slowing down or going faster. Junky database will be the last thing I want to be lied about.

 

I've become jaded from easy caches in simple spots. The best ones are difficult, or in remote locations. The owner in this situation is not MIA either, just not responding. Plus the database will never be "clean". I'll bet that right now there is someone, somewhere, naively leaving a ziplock or similar container in a spot where it will be discovered or broken within a month.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Why you are so dead set to save all the caches?

No one wants to save caches that are toast. (Go ahead, take that sound bite to Out of Context & insert photo. ;) ) But the worry is that the "get tough" policy may be archiving good caches.

 

Its really simple, its call communication with your awesome and friendly reviewers. If you wanna ignore your reviewers, than that mean you dont care about your caches even its there waiting to be found.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

Its really simple, its call communication with your awesome and friendly reviewers. If you wanna ignore your reviewers, than that mean you dont care about your caches even its there waiting to be found.

 

I'm not sure that it is that simple. So far none of the reviewers taking part in this thread commented upon whether they accept a note like "I will keep an eye on this cache and wait for further logs." and will not disable the cache soon again when it does not get a find soon (which rarely will be the case for a cache not found often).

 

To me those reviewer notes do not sound like "just show that you react", but they ask for a maintenance check.

 

For me it is a matter of principle that in cases with no reported problems (1 DNF is not a problem for me) it's up to the cache owner and not to the reviewers or cachers who want to have a guarantee that all with a cache is fine to decide when a check is in order.

 

I do care about my caches, but if a reviewer disabled a cache of mine on the basis of a single DNF, I would immediately archive it on gc.com, but maybe keep it living on another platform.

It's just a pity that too many rely on gc.com exclusively. In my opinion, the trend on gc.com favours caches that are in principle checkable every day and which need only 5 minutes effort for the searcher to go there and to find them and to sucessfully log them. Everything that takes longer, is more difficult, includes a risk of failure that is not extremly small causes an issue.

Fore example, many more challenging multi caches get NM logs even though everything is all right. It's just that most modern cachers are not willing to invest the required time and effort, they just call someone and then most logs read like we needed to call someone for Stage x who helped us. The reality that everything is still fine with Stage x will just get ignored.

After a few NM logs and clearing them all the time and explaining that everything is as intended, most cache owners give up - either by archival or by making everything much simpler. I do not think however that this is what should happen. The development endagers all caches which are considerably more time consuming than the average regardless of whether it is the trip, the tasks or whatever.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Why you are so dead set to save all the caches?

No one wants to save caches that are toast. (Go ahead, take that sound bite to Out of Context & insert photo. ;) ) But the worry is that the "get tough" policy may be archiving good caches.

 

Its really simple, its call communication with your awesome and friendly reviewers. If you wanna ignore your reviewers, than that mean you dont care about your caches even its there waiting to be found.

 

Communication is great, but not much communicating is going on when basic boilerplate logs are posted in reaction to opaque algorithms and imaginary DNFs. I'll estimate about 700 geocaches were archived in the past year within my notification range. This is probably a conservative estimate, based on an average of 10 per week and periodic batches of 50 at a time. Out of that, there are likely around 3 dozen unarchivals. It appears that the attempt to spur maintenance is not working too well and education about quality containers would work better.

Link to comment
I'm not sure that it is that simple. So far none of the reviewers taking part in this thread commented upon whether they accept a note like "I will keep an eye on this cache and wait for further logs." and will not disable the cache soon again when it does not get a find soon (which rarely will be the case for a cache not found often).

 

To me those reviewer notes do not sound like "just show that you react", but they ask for a maintenance check.

Lets go with the ever favorite "it depends". Personally, I feel it is too open ended but depending on the situation, I would probably be okay with that.

 

I would prefer something akin to:

 

"I will keep an eye on this cache and wait for further logs. Please check back on this in 6 months."

 

"Its winter, I'll check this in April."

 

I think most or all reviewers are willing to work with give and take but it has to be two sided.

Link to comment
I'm not sure that it is that simple. So far none of the reviewers taking part in this thread commented upon whether they accept a note like "I will keep an eye on this cache and wait for further logs." and will not disable the cache soon again when it does not get a find soon (which rarely will be the case for a cache not found often).

 

To me those reviewer notes do not sound like "just show that you react", but they ask for a maintenance check.

Lets go with the ever favorite "it depends". Personally, I feel it is too open ended but depending on the situation, I would probably be okay with that.

 

I would prefer something akin to:

 

"I will keep an eye on this cache and wait for further logs. Please check back on this in 6 months."

 

"Its winter, I'll check this in April."

 

I think most or all reviewers are willing to work with give and take but it has to be two sided.

 

Are you talking about instances where a reviewer has disabled a cache for no other reason than it hasn't been found for a while, or instances where there are better reasons to disable the cache i.e. many DNF's, logs about mugglings etc.?

Link to comment
Are you talking about instances where a reviewer has disabled a cache for no other reason than it hasn't been found for a while, or instances where there are better reasons to disable the cache i.e. many DNF's, logs about mugglings etc.?

Either; although, your reason is wrong. I don't think any cache has been disabled for not having been found in a while.

Link to comment

Team Microdot, since we haven't established that reviewers are disabling caches just because they haven't been found for awhile, your question is similar to the classic "Are you still beating your wife?"

 

There's not been a memo issued, telling reviewers to hunt down caches that haven't been found for a long time. Something else is needed. For example, regarding the Oregon cache brought up several times in this thread, the initial factors were "last log DNF" and "no finds for a long time." But what tipped the scales towards disabling was "owner doesn't have a valid email address." That overcame any concern about the "legitimacy" of the DNF log.

Link to comment
Are you talking about instances where a reviewer has disabled a cache for no other reason than it hasn't been found for a while, or instances where there are better reasons to disable the cache i.e. many DNF's, logs about mugglings etc.?

Either; although, your reason is wrong. I don't think any cache has been disabled for not having been found in a while.

 

Wasn't there one in this thread which had been disabled on the basis of a DNF by someone who never even made it to GZ?

 

That would amount to being disabled for not having been found in a while.

Link to comment

Team Microdot, since we haven't established that reviewers are disabling caches just because they haven't been found for awhile, your question is similar to the classic "Are you still beating your wife?"

 

There's not been a memo issued, telling reviewers to hunt down caches that haven't been found for a long time. Something else is needed. For example, regarding the Oregon cache brought up several times in this thread, the initial factors were "last log DNF" and "no finds for a long time." But what tipped the scales towards disabling was "owner doesn't have a valid email address." That overcame any concern about the "legitimacy" of the DNF log.

 

Hey Keystone, how are you? Good I hope :)

 

Thanks for the clarification B)

Link to comment
I'm not sure that it is that simple. So far none of the reviewers taking part in this thread commented upon whether they accept a note like "I will keep an eye on this cache and wait for further logs." and will not disable the cache soon again when it does not get a find soon (which rarely will be the case for a cache not found often).

 

To me those reviewer notes do not sound like "just show that you react", but they ask for a maintenance check.

Lets go with the ever favorite "it depends". Personally, I feel it is too open ended but depending on the situation, I would probably be okay with that.

 

I would prefer something akin to:

 

"I will keep an eye on this cache and wait for further logs. Please check back on this in 6 months."

 

"Its winter, I'll check this in April."

 

I think most or all reviewers are willing to work with give and take but it has to be two sided.

 

Thanks.

 

So I assume the "it depends" is partially based on the amount of evidence of a problem. I.e. with an obvious case (low difficulty cache which gets found a lot, suddenly has a long string of DNFs) you will want to see a clear action plan. But a outlier/borderline case (cache is not searched for very often, only one DNF) a response of "I'll keep an eye on it, but don't feel the need to check it now" might be OK.

 

What most of us who have some concerns about this are saying (I believe) is please tread carefully with respect to caches where there is little evidence of a problem (1 DNF), and to take into account the caches history (for a cache with a history of low number of visits, not being found for 2-3 years may not be unusual).

Link to comment

But what tipped the scales towards disabling was "owner doesn't have a valid email address." That overcame any concern about the "legitimacy" of the DNF log.

What's a "legitimate" DNF?

 

I'm not seeing how whether the owner is active or has a validated email has any effect on whether a single DNF means the cache is missing. I can see a reviewer make a judgment call that 1 DNF + inactive owner = there might be other problems (and eventually there will be other problems) that would tip the scale toward archiving. I think the objection is that for remote caches that are really not interfering with other caches why not give the benefit and assume the cache is still viable - at least till there are some more DNFs or some prior finder indicates they can't find the cache. I can understand that a if someone wants to place a new cache in the area, the reviewer is in a more difficult spot - allow the new cache or reject it because of a rarely found and now once DNFd cache.

Link to comment
Are you talking about instances where a reviewer has disabled a cache for no other reason than it hasn't been found for a while, or instances where there are better reasons to disable the cache i.e. many DNF's, logs about mugglings etc.?

Either; although, your reason is wrong. I don't think any cache has been disabled for not having been found in a while.

 

That might well be, but you also mentioned the case of owners not responding to cachers asking for confirmation that a cache is still there or having some issues with a stage based on their own failure.

 

Suppose e.g. someone has a difficult puzzle cache (which has already been found) with no geochecker supplied and the cache is hidden in a forest area and a DNF log or a mail sent to the owner writes about a search in an urban area. In my opinion, the cache owner can ignore such DNF logs and also is not required to reply to mails asking for help or confirmation (it's a different issue whether a cache owner decides to do so).

 

What you wrote sounds to me like if a cacher writes a DNF for a cache with not many visits and writes an e-mail to the cache owner and does not get a reply and then complains to a reviewer, this might be a reason for you to disable a cache that is perfectly ok.

 

Answering mail requests is not part of the maintenance duties.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Team Microdot, since we haven't established that reviewers are disabling caches just because they haven't been found for awhile, your question is similar to the classic "Are you still beating your wife?"

 

There's not been a memo issued, telling reviewers to hunt down caches that haven't been found for a long time. Something else is needed. For example, regarding the Oregon cache brought up several times in this thread, the initial factors were "last log DNF" and "no finds for a long time." But what tipped the scales towards disabling was "owner doesn't have a valid email address." That overcame any concern about the "legitimacy" of the DNF log.

And that the previous find logs stated that the container was leaking and the cache needed maintenance--even though a NM was not logged. When you add the need for attention with the fact that an owner is unreachable (unverified email, e.g.), then we're really "tipping the scales".

 

Now, a user could go out there and replace the container and help maintain the cache to a point. But the fact remains that there is a container sans active owner out there, and the cache cannot be adopted formally. This adds work to the Reviewer's queue, and also more work to a remote cache for any informal adoption (maintaining the cache without owning it--can work for some caches, but remote caches with little-to-no visitation are going to be a harder sell when the scales are tipped one way...)

 

If having a cache at that spot in Oregon is that important, then someone should head out there, fix the container and logbook, and create a new listing. Then there's a cache out there with an active owner, and a new container that will last another handful of years. That is a better situation that the current one, so long as everyone can get over the "hidden on" date of the cache listing.

Link to comment
That might well be, but you also mentioned the case of owners not responding to cachers asking for confirmation that a cache is still there or having some issues with a stage based on their own failure.

 

It was no response from direct email to owner after a multi-person DNF that actually looked for it at the site. They were there, they looked a lot based on their log.

Link to comment
That might well be, but you also mentioned the case of owners not responding to cachers asking for confirmation that a cache is still there or having some issues with a stage based on their own failure.

 

It was no response from direct email to owner after a multi-person DNF that actually looked for it at the site. They were there, they looked a lot based on their log.

 

I do not know the concrete situation, but it happened more than once to me that I DNF-ed a cache together with others after having invested quite some time and in some cases we did not even look at the right place despite the long searching time. I typically do not write the owner in such cases, but if I contacted the owner and it turned out that I searched at the wrong places, a reply would be polite, but not required.

Link to comment

But what tipped the scales towards disabling was "owner doesn't have a valid email address." That overcame any concern about the "legitimacy" of the DNF log.

What's a "legitimate" DNF?

 

 

To define "legitimate" DNF, you'd first have to have some agreement on what constitutes a search.

 

If I arrive at GZ and look for the cache for 15 minutes, but don't find it, I think it's safe to say that's a legitimate DNF.

 

Some people won't post a DNF if they didn't do a "thorough search". That suggests that one should spend a certain amount of time looking for the cache before the DNF is "legitimate".

 

Some people will post a DNF if they've started navigated to the cache, but for some reason did not reach GZ. If someone starts navigating up a 2 mile trail and twists their ankle after 100 feet, I wouldn't consider that a "legitimate" DNF. However, if someone gets close to GZ and encounters a large mudslide the DNF might still be legitimate, even if the seeker never conducted a search.

 

Rather than debating the semantics of "legitimate", if a reviewer is going include the fact that cache as a DNF as criteria for hitting the buttons which send the canned "your cache might be archived" message there has to some evaluation of the contents of the DNF look to determine whether there may actually be some correlation between the DNF and whether or not the cache is actually still findable.

Link to comment

Team Microdot, since we haven't established that reviewers are disabling caches just because they haven't been found for awhile, your question is similar to the classic "Are you still beating your wife?"

 

There's not been a memo issued, telling reviewers to hunt down caches that haven't been found for a long time. Something else is needed. For example, regarding the Oregon cache brought up several times in this thread, the initial factors were "last log DNF" and "no finds for a long time." But what tipped the scales towards disabling was "owner doesn't have a valid email address." That overcame any concern about the "legitimacy" of the DNF log.

 

The cache probably should have been archived for lack of maintenance. But it wasn't. The reviewer note says that it is disabled for possibly being missing, indicating that he did not read either the DNF or the find logs. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8EDF_wallowa-view

 

Good Day,

 

Based on the information on the cache page and logs, I suspect this cache may be missing. I'm temporarily disabling it to give the owner the opportunity to check on the cache and repair it if necessary OR confirm it remains in play to be found. If the owner feels they will not be able to address this in a timely manner (i.e., within two weeks), let me know, and I'll archive it. This will keep the cache from continually showing up in search lists.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you,

 

GeoCrater

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

Now we are being told that the reviewer checked to see if his e-mail was viable. So he probably didn't read the logs, but yet he checked his profile? The problem is not this individual cache, but a larger issue of overactive disabling. The impression is that the reviewer is jumping at the chance to disable a lonely cache over a single DNF. It also seems that e-mails were intentionally disabled for inactive users.

Link to comment

Why you are so dead set to save all the caches?

the worry is that the "get tough" policy may be archiving good caches.

 

Nothing lasts forever. If an owner can't/won't/doesn't respond to a reviewer disabling the cache, then perhaps it's time for that cache to be archived. An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache.

 

 

Link to comment

Nothing lasts forever. If an owner can't/won't/doesn't respond to a reviewer disabling the cache, then perhaps it's time for that cache to be archived.

 

And turned into litter over a DNF?

 

An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache.

 

 

If litter is your concern, form a cache rescue group for any cache that gets archived by a reviewer. Then someone from the group can go and collect the litter.

 

 

Link to comment

Nothing lasts forever. If an owner can't/won't/doesn't respond to a reviewer disabling the cache, then perhaps it's time for that cache to be archived.

 

And turned into litter over a DNF?

 

An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache.

 

If litter is your concern, form a cache rescue group for any cache that gets archived by a reviewer. Then someone from the group can go and collect the litter.

 

You can do what this guy did

 

Just the tip of the iceberg (no doubt) for so many irresponsible CO's out there...

Link to comment

 

Nothing lasts forever. If an owner can't/won't/doesn't respond to a reviewer disabling the cache, then perhaps it's time for that cache to be archived. An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache.

 

I think it's never a good idea to archive the cache that is physically there, even if the owner doesn't play since 5 years.

 

The container is there, and people have fun finding it. Unless it's missing (and you can't say that on basis of a single DNF) it's not reasonable to remove the listing, but leaving the container.

 

You can still log archived caches, and if they still exist, I don't see any objection agaist it, so the rescue mission is still possible.

Link to comment

 

Nothing lasts forever. If an owner can't/won't/doesn't respond to a reviewer disabling the cache, then perhaps it's time for that cache to be archived. An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache.

 

I think it's never a good idea to archive the cache that is physically there, even if the owner doesn't play since 5 years.

 

The container is there, and people have fun finding it. Unless it's missing (and you can't say that on basis of a single DNF) it's not reasonable to remove the listing, but leaving the container.

 

You can still log archived caches, and if they still exist, I don't see any objection agaist it, so the rescue mission is still possible.

 

If the cache is in terrible condition and nobody is maintaining the physical cache or the online log, then yes, it should be archived.

Link to comment

Nothing lasts forever. If an owner can't/won't/doesn't respond to a reviewer disabling the cache, then perhaps it's time for that cache to be archived.

 

And turned into litter over a DNF?

 

An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache.

 

If litter is your concern, form a cache rescue group for any cache that gets archived by a reviewer. Then someone from the group can go and collect the litter.

 

You can do what this guy did

 

Just the tip of the iceberg (no doubt) for so many irresponsible CO's out there...

 

Based on the photo, most of those containers should NOT have been put back out there...only the ammo cans look like they were worthy...

 

Noble quest, though. I respect the retrieval effort, just not sure if I agree with the re-use of all those.

Link to comment

Nothing lasts forever. If an owner can't/won't/doesn't respond to a reviewer disabling the cache, then perhaps it's time for that cache to be archived.

 

And turned into litter over a DNF?

 

An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache.

 

If litter is your concern, form a cache rescue group for any cache that gets archived by a reviewer. Then someone from the group can go and collect the litter.

 

You can do what this guy did

 

Just the tip of the iceberg (no doubt) for so many irresponsible CO's out there...

 

Based on the photo, most of those containers should NOT have been put back out there...only the ammo cans look like they were worthy...

 

Noble quest, though. I respect the retrieval effort, just not sure if I agree with the re-use of all those.

 

The milk crate is still in good shape.?

Link to comment

Nothing lasts forever. If an owner can't/won't/doesn't respond to a reviewer disabling the cache, then perhaps it's time for that cache to be archived.

 

And turned into litter over a DNF?

 

An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache.

 

If litter is your concern, form a cache rescue group for any cache that gets archived by a reviewer. Then someone from the group can go and collect the litter.

 

You can do what this guy did

 

Just the tip of the iceberg (no doubt) for so many irresponsible CO's out there...

 

Based on the photo, most of those containers should NOT have been put back out there...only the ammo cans look like they were worthy...

 

Noble quest, though. I respect the retrieval effort, just not sure if I agree with the re-use of all those.

 

That's the first thing I noticed, several of those were plastic Folgers Coffee cans. They are horrible containers, every bit as bad as disposable gladware. They are especially bad in the sub-arctic climate I live in.

 

Secondly, no I do NOT respect the retrieval effort. They were not his caches to pick up and re-use.

Link to comment

Nothing lasts forever. If an owner can't/won't/doesn't respond to a reviewer disabling the cache, then perhaps it's time for that cache to be archived.

 

And turned into litter over a DNF?

 

An active, involved owner is the best way to ensure that it will continue living on as a good cache.

 

If litter is your concern, form a cache rescue group for any cache that gets archived by a reviewer. Then someone from the group can go and collect the litter.

 

You can do what this guy did

 

Just the tip of the iceberg (no doubt) for so many irresponsible CO's out there...

 

Based on the photo, most of those containers should NOT have been put back out there...only the ammo cans look like they were worthy...

 

Noble quest, though. I respect the retrieval effort, just not sure if I agree with the re-use of all those.

 

That's the first thing I noticed, several of those were plastic Folgers Coffee cans. They are horrible containers, every bit as bad as disposable gladware. They are especially bad in the sub-arctic climate I live in.

 

Secondly, no I do NOT respect the retrieval effort. They were not his caches to pick up and re-use.

 

I see a couple of disposable gladware/ziploc in the bunch too. dry.gif

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

If the cache is in terrible condition and nobody is maintaining the physical cache or the online log, then yes, it should be archived.

 

A single DNF does not mean it's in terrible condition.

 

Of course not. My comment was in response to the preposterous suggestion that all caches should be left active as long as they are physically out there.

Link to comment

If the cache is in terrible condition and nobody is maintaining the physical cache or the online log, then yes, it should be archived.

 

A single DNF does not mean it's in terrible condition.

 

Of course not. My comment was in response to the preposterous suggestion that all caches should be left active as long as they are physically out there.

 

The vast majority of geocaches do not have active owners. Historically most people do this part time or drop out.

 

The thread is also not about caches that need maintenance, but ones that only have 1 DNF. Your reply was the only one in that chain of quotes to mention "terrible condition". An inactive owner does not deem it to be in terrible condition. Endangered perhaps, if it eventually needs maintenance, but terrible condition if he doesn't log in? No.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...