Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Again, my comment was in reply to the preposterous suggestion that caches should never ever be archived as long as they are still physically in place.

 

I don't agree with archiving caches at the drop of a hat, and I have, on more than one occasion, successfully stood up to reviewers who were overzealous in archiving perfectly good caches when an owner was not responsive to a single DNF or NM log.

 

But the comment I was replying to stated that caches should never be archived as long as people are finding them, and I disagree with that. Sometimes, caches do fall into extreme states of disrepair and neglect, and archival makes sense. A single DNF does not indicate extreme disrepair. I have never stated that it does. There is middle ground between this trigger happy archiving, and leaving a slimy old cache active forever.

Link to comment

My question is, is your cache is a "vacation" cache if you aren't able to check on it in reasonable time due to one DNF log? I am talking about remote caches that dont get find very often. More often, I am seeing that searchers are more likely to use the throw down method of those kind of caches.

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.

 

Perhaps an update to the guidelines is in order here. If reviewers are to disable caches simply based on DNF logs, maybe there should be a new statement under the "cache maintenance" section stating that if you receive one DNF on your cache, then you must make a visit to check on it.

 

I don't support the idea of that being in the cache maintenance guidelines, but if that's the course of action being taken now, then cachers should be made aware of that before they place a cache.

 

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...

 

You could do that, however it depends on how your reviewer feels about it. For example, I found GC1NQKG after it was archived in perfect condition and decided to revive it as opposed to removing it - GC4G9P4. I was told that unless I had the permission from the original owner to use the container that he didn't want or care to maintain, it wouldn't be published. I was lucky enough to be able to track down the original CO and get his blessing but most inactive users are just that. Unreachable and inactive....so there's not always a chance to save those caches and re list them.

Link to comment

My question is, is your cache is a "vacation" cache if you aren't able to check on it in reasonable time due to one DNF log? I am talking about remote caches that dont get find very often. More often, I am seeing that searchers are more likely to use the throw down method of those kind of caches.

 

It's not reasonable to expect a cache owner to check on any cache after a single DNF log. Sometimes people don't find the cache. That's part of geocaching.

Link to comment

My question is, is your cache is a "vacation" cache if you aren't able to check on it in reasonable time due to one DNF log? I am talking about remote caches that dont get find very often. More often, I am seeing that searchers are more likely to use the throw down method of those kind of caches.

 

It's not reasonable to expect a cache owner to check on any cache after a single DNF log. Sometimes people don't find the cache. That's part of geocaching.

 

Again...whats the name of this thread?????? Reviewers are archived caches with only one DNF log and asking CO to check up on their caches.

Link to comment

My question is, is your cache is a "vacation" cache if you aren't able to check on it in reasonable time due to one DNF log? I am talking about remote caches that dont get find very often. More often, I am seeing that searchers are more likely to use the throw down method of those kind of caches.

 

It's not reasonable to expect a cache owner to check on any cache after a single DNF log. Sometimes people don't find the cache. That's part of geocaching.

 

Again...whats the name of this thread?????? Reviewers are archived caches with only one DNF log and asking CO to check up on their caches.

"1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival"? :unsure:

 

A response of any kind would do. "I'll go check in a week." "Cache should still be there, I'll wait and check if there's another DNF." "I'm alive. I'm here. No worries, I've got this."

 

Then, if after archival, "The cache is in place, and I have checked on it. Could you please unarchive it? It should still be approved under the current guidelines."

 

There is a structure to this game that we all really should be aware of. There's a process, and there are people who help run this site so we can keep playing here. If we can't be civil and simply respond kindly to those whose volunteer job it is to review caches and keep the game on the up-and-up, then perhaps we should take our toys and play elsewhere? There's plenty of listserves one could start up and publish caches any way they like and anywhere they like. But so long as they're published here, the caches will get reviewed and held to the guidelines. Being a responsive owner is key. Objective, clear communication to the Reviewer (and thereby other cachers who read the cache page and logs) will be helpful in the long run. And then we'd not have this much angst about such a simple thing as writing a note on our cache pages.

Link to comment

 

A response of any kind would do. "I'll go check in a week." "Cache should still be there, I'll wait and check if there's another DNF." "I'm alive. I'm here. No worries, I've got this."

 

 

That may not be enough; see post 273. Of course, "it depends". But the cache owner can try, and the examples which were archived the owner didn't respond at all.

 

To me, the more interesting debate isn't about archiving due to lack of response. Of course if the reviewer disables a cache with such a note, and the cache owner doesn't respond, it will be archived.

 

The question I've been struggling with is: "Is a reviewer disabling a cache due to 1 DNF (and not having been found for some time) a good thing?

 

I think we would all agree that a reviewer should not (and would not) disable a cache without good reason. But is a single DNF on a cache which doesn't get found much in the first place a good enough reason?

Does it improve the game (as it weeds out unresponsive cache owners and caches which might be missing)?

Or does it hurt the game as caches which are seldom found are lost when many may actually be there?

Link to comment

 

A response of any kind would do. "I'll go check in a week." "Cache should still be there, I'll wait and check if there's another DNF." "I'm alive. I'm here. No worries, I've got this."

 

 

That may not be enough; see post 273. Of course, "it depends". But the cache owner can try, and the examples which were archived the owner didn't respond at all.

 

To me, the more interesting debate isn't about archiving due to lack of response. Of course if the reviewer disables a cache with such a note, and the cache owner doesn't respond, it will be archived.

 

The question I've been struggling with is: "Is a reviewer disabling a cache due to 1 DNF (and not having been found for some time) a good thing?

 

I think we would all agree that a reviewer should not (and would not) disable a cache without good reason. But is a single DNF on a cache which doesn't get found much in the first place a good enough reason?

Does it improve the game (as it weeds out unresponsive cache owners and caches which might be missing)?

Or does it hurt the game as caches which are seldom found are lost when many may actually be there?

To the bolded: Meh. An active owner can enable the cache and say the same things as I mentioned above.

 

Now, as forpost 273 from OReviewer, I'm not sure what you mean. Sounds like what they said are possible options, not unlike the examples I used. Sheesh...it's not like there's a script here. "It depends", so the response from an active owner will depend on the circumstances of the hide, the note from the Reviewer, and the circumstances leading to the disabled/archived cache.

 

To the last part of your post, I don't think it matters. If people want to dwell on it, then it is a negative impact. But if people just move along and be communicative and responsive to issues with their caches, there's nothing to worry about.

Link to comment

 

Now, as forpost 273 from OReviewer, I'm not sure what you mean. Sounds like what they said are possible options, not unlike the examples I used. Sheesh...it's not like there's a script here. "It depends", so the response from an active owner will depend on the circumstances of the hide, the note from the Reviewer, and the circumstances leading to the disabled/archived cache.

 

I simply was referring to the statement from the reviewer to a owner response "I will keep an eye on this cache and wait for further logs" was "I feel it is too open ended but depending on the situation, I would probably be okay with that".

 

So the reviewer may or may not accept a comment like "I'm alive. I'm here. No worries, I've got this."

 

That is all I was saying there. The reviewer might be OK with a general comment. Or they may want a firmer plan for the owner to actually check on it.

Link to comment

 

Now, as forpost 273 from OReviewer, I'm not sure what you mean. Sounds like what they said are possible options, not unlike the examples I used. Sheesh...it's not like there's a script here. "It depends", so the response from an active owner will depend on the circumstances of the hide, the note from the Reviewer, and the circumstances leading to the disabled/archived cache.

 

I simply was referring to the statement from the reviewer to a owner response "I will keep an eye on this cache and wait for further logs" was "I feel it is too open ended but depending on the situation, I would probably be okay with that".

 

So the reviewer may or may not accept a comment like "I'm alive. I'm here. No worries, I've got this."

 

That is all I was saying there. The reviewer might be OK with a general comment. Or they may want a firmer plan for the owner to actually check on it.

Yikes. Ok, next time I won't be so jovial and goofy with my examples. <_<

 

I'll be sure my TARS gets updated for 99% seriousness parameters, and 100% honesty parameters.

Link to comment

Yikes. Ok, next time I won't be so jovial and goofy with my examples. <_<

 

I'll be sure my TARS gets updated for 99% seriousness parameters, and 100% honesty parameters.

 

I guess I'm not expressing myself well. There was nothing goofy about your examples. I'm not commenting on your wording. My point was that the reviewer may want more than a response which says (in whatever words you want) that they aren't going to check on it now as they don't think it is needed. They may want the owner to check on it and provide a commitment to do that within a certain time.

Link to comment

Well, i was hoping we wouldn't be seeing this over this way. Was looking at a list of "longest since found" caches and stumbled across this one.

 

GC1WXMZ

 

One DNF in January of 2014 then a reviewer disable this month.

 

Yikes.

 

Aside from the 6 disabled on the same day that I posted in NJ, and the one in Oregon, there are likely to be plenty more, and well over a few hundred. Keystone has stated that it's an ongoing policy which I suspected from the beginning, and I certainly did not intend to pick on OReviewer who seems to be doing a good job otherwise, but just bring attention to the process. We can only hope that they might use a little more discretion before disabling, although they have made no indication of that so far. Lonely caches are more challenging and enjoyable IMO, and I hate seeing the game dumbed down to the age level of kids who are too young to use the site in the first place..

Link to comment

Well, i was hoping we wouldn't be seeing this over this way. Was looking at a list of "longest since found" caches and stumbled across this one.

 

GC1WXMZ

 

One DNF in January of 2014 then a reviewer disable this month.

 

Yikes.

 

Aside from the 6 disabled on the same day that I posted in NJ, and the one in Oregon, there are likely to be plenty more, and well over a few hundred. Keystone has stated that it's an ongoing policy which I suspected from the beginning, and I certainly did not intend to pick on OReviewer who seems to be doing a good job otherwise, but just bring attention to the process. We can only hope that they might use a little more discretion before disabling, although they have made no indication of that so far. Lonely caches are more challenging and enjoyable IMO, and I hate seeing the game dumbed down to the age level of kids who are too young to use the site in the first place..

 

I realize there is a good chance the cache is missing. Even so, i just don't think the trigger should be pulled so quickly. Like our justice system, these caches should be looked at as being innocent until proven guilty (or at least until there is a more substantial indication that something may be wrong). Imo, one DNF is not enough to go on in most instances.

 

On your second half of your statement, my feelings are that gc.com's main objective these days is to cater to the newer phone savvy, entitled to find every cache crowd. Maybe they're thinking that shutting down those "iffy" caches might help to keep newer cachers from becoming too discouraged too quick. From my perspective, i see it as only helping to discourage some of the more dedicated cachers out there.

Link to comment

My question is, is your cache is a "vacation" cache if you aren't able to check on it in reasonable time due to one DNF log? I am talking about remote caches that dont get find very often. More often, I am seeing that searchers are more likely to use the throw down method of those kind of caches.

 

It's not reasonable to expect a cache owner to check on any cache after a single DNF log. Sometimes people don't find the cache. That's part of geocaching.

 

Again...whats the name of this thread?????? Reviewers are archived caches with only one DNF log and asking CO to check up on their caches.

"1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival"? :unsure:

 

A response of any kind would do. "I'll go check in a week." "Cache should still be there, I'll wait and check if there's another DNF." "I'm alive. I'm here. No worries, I've got this."

 

Then, if after archival, "The cache is in place, and I have checked on it. Could you please unarchive it? It should still be approved under the current guidelines."

 

There is a structure to this game that we all really should be aware of. There's a process, and there are people who help run this site so we can keep playing here. If we can't be civil and simply respond kindly to those whose volunteer job it is to review caches and keep the game on the up-and-up, then perhaps we should take our toys and play elsewhere? There's plenty of listserves one could start up and publish caches any way they like and anywhere they like. But so long as they're published here, the caches will get reviewed and held to the guidelines. Being a responsive owner is key. Objective, clear communication to the Reviewer (and thereby other cachers who read the cache page and logs) will be helpful in the long run. And then we'd not have this much angst about such a simple thing as writing a note on our cache pages.

 

This issue is not about the cache with an active owner who can't take the time to inform a reviewer what their maintenance plans are. There are many reasons an owner many choose to delay a maintenance visit, particularly on a remote cache whose only issues are that it is rarely sought after and on the most recent occasion it was not found. Even if a cache owner doesn't think his putting off checking on the cache needs a be explained to the reviewer, it doesn't seem to be that hard to contact the review and explain your plans/reasons.

 

The issue are the many caches placed years ago where the owner has left the game (perhaps even passed away). For years, those cachers who enjoy finding a remote hard to get to cache, have continued to go and search for the cache. Now there is one DNF.

 

When Groundspeak decided to no longer allow no consensual adoption they created a problem with these caches. Prior to change, someone who saw the reviewer disable the cache could step up an volunteer to adopt the cache. The reviewer had some discretion, but if the cache owner had not been active for some time, they could change the ownership. Even when they left the ownership alone, the reviewer could decide that the good samaritan was taking care of the cache and it did not need to be archive.

 

If you find the announcement it the forum of the decision to end non-consensual adoptions, you will see that I asked what would happen to cache just like this. The response from Groundspeak was that reviewers would have discretion on what to do. The input from reviewers in this thread indicates this is still the policy. The argument may be whether in a specific case people agree with the reviewer's decision. I understand that reviewers are human beings (except for the ones that are dogs) and may make a different decision than I would have. I want to thank the reviewers who have participated for explaining how they determine when an abandoned cache should be archived. I see a lot of "it depends" so I realize that there there is no clear answer. I have no suggestion for what can be done so this is less subjective. I said above where I would like lonely remote caches to be treated differently than urban hides, that I realize any definition like this is just as subjective and what the reviewers are currently using.

 

What I object to is the strict interpretation of the guideline so that absent owner = lack of maintenance by owner = cache must be archived. In my reading, the maintenance guideline does not say that. Instead I see this as one of several guidelines that can be invoked if a cache becomes a problem. An active listing for a cache that isn't there is a problem - at least for cachers who expect to be able to score a WIGAS point. In order to appease these cachers, reviewers routinely try to archive listings where there is no cache. In the cases we see here, the reviewer does not know the cache is missing and they may be trying to use the maintenance guideline to force a visit (surprisingly this works in many cases). But when it fails, the reviewers hands are tied. I've seen cases where during the 30 days someone finds the cache (I've seen both actual finds was well as throwdowns), but since the missing cache owner hasn't replied, some reviewers feel it necessary to archive the cache.

Link to comment

On your second half of your statement, my feelings are that gc.com's main objective these days is to cater to the newer phone savvy, entitled to find every cache crowd. Maybe they're thinking that shutting down those "iffy" caches might help to keep newer cachers from becoming too discouraged too quick. From my perspective, i see it as only helping to discourage some of the more dedicated cachers out there.

To me, it's an unhealthy step away from the community deciding what caches are in the field and towards the reviewers and GS deciding what caches should be in the field.

Link to comment

On your second half of your statement, my feelings are that gc.com's main objective these days is to cater to the newer phone savvy, entitled to find every cache crowd. Maybe they're thinking that shutting down those "iffy" caches might help to keep newer cachers from becoming too discouraged too quick. From my perspective, i see it as only helping to discourage some of the more dedicated cachers out there.

 

Exactly. Not every cache is potentially going to be someone's first, and especially lonely caches. If it is, they need to learn to read the logs.

 

When I watched Splinterhead, I was surprised to see that the movie included a screenshot of the website. That seemed to go beyond the premise of simply introducing geocaching, to promoting it. Now, I don't think there is anything wrong with that, only that it indicates that someone was using the movie as a promotion tool. The next thing I noticed was the girl, Galaxie, had hidden a cache on the ground. Justin wanted to hide it in a tree, but Galaxie said that she wanted people to find it. Seemed pretty much that there was an agenda there, and they were catering to enticing people to join, making them believe that it was simple. They could have had them embark on a 5/5 adventure with highly evolved cache containers, but that never happened. That would have enticed some real creativity, but instead we have a movie geared towards 14-24 year olds, with the 24 year olds likely being stoners. Rotten tomatoes rates it a 1.5 There's much more than keeping everything in first or second gear with ammo cans full of toys for tots.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

My question is, is your cache is a "vacation" cache if you aren't able to check on it in reasonable time due to one DNF log? I am talking about remote caches that dont get find very often. More often, I am seeing that searchers are more likely to use the throw down method of those kind of caches.

 

It's not reasonable to expect a cache owner to check on any cache after a single DNF log. Sometimes people don't find the cache. That's part of geocaching.

 

Again...whats the name of this thread?????? Reviewers are archived caches with only one DNF log and asking CO to check up on their caches.

 

And that's not reasonable.

Link to comment

My question is, is your cache is a "vacation" cache if you aren't able to check on it in reasonable time due to one DNF log? I am talking about remote caches that dont get find very often. More often, I am seeing that searchers are more likely to use the throw down method of those kind of caches.

 

It's not reasonable to expect a cache owner to check on any cache after a single DNF log. Sometimes people don't find the cache. That's part of geocaching.

 

Again...whats the name of this thread?????? Reviewers are archived caches with only one DNF log and asking CO to check up on their caches.

"1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival"? :unsure:

 

A response of any kind would do. "I'll go check in a week." "Cache should still be there, I'll wait and check if there's another DNF." "I'm alive. I'm here. No worries, I've got this."

 

Then, if after archival, "The cache is in place, and I have checked on it. Could you please unarchive it? It should still be approved under the current guidelines."

 

There is a structure to this game that we all really should be aware of. There's a process, and there are people who help run this site so we can keep playing here. If we can't be civil and simply respond kindly to those whose volunteer job it is to review caches and keep the game on the up-and-up, then perhaps we should take our toys and play elsewhere? There's plenty of listserves one could start up and publish caches any way they like and anywhere they like. But so long as they're published here, the caches will get reviewed and held to the guidelines. Being a responsive owner is key. Objective, clear communication to the Reviewer (and thereby other cachers who read the cache page and logs) will be helpful in the long run. And then we'd not have this much angst about such a simple thing as writing a note on our cache pages.

 

This issue is not about the cache with an active owner who can't take the time to inform a reviewer what their maintenance plans are. There are many reasons an owner many choose to delay a maintenance visit, particularly on a remote cache whose only issues are that it is rarely sought after and on the most recent occasion it was not found. Even if a cache owner doesn't think his putting off checking on the cache needs a be explained to the reviewer, it doesn't seem to be that hard to contact the review and explain your plans/reasons.

 

The issue are the many caches placed years ago where the owner has left the game (perhaps even passed away). For years, those cachers who enjoy finding a remote hard to get to cache, have continued to go and search for the cache. Now there is one DNF.

 

When Groundspeak decided to no longer allow no consensual adoption they created a problem with these caches. Prior to change, someone who saw the reviewer disable the cache could step up an volunteer to adopt the cache. The reviewer had some discretion, but if the cache owner had not been active for some time, they could change the ownership. Even when they left the ownership alone, the reviewer could decide that the good samaritan was taking care of the cache and it did not need to be archive.

 

If you find the announcement it the forum of the decision to end non-consensual adoptions, you will see that I asked what would happen to cache just like this. The response from Groundspeak was that reviewers would have discretion on what to do. The input from reviewers in this thread indicates this is still the policy. The argument may be whether in a specific case people agree with the reviewer's decision. I understand that reviewers are human beings (except for the ones that are dogs) and may make a different decision than I would have. I want to thank the reviewers who have participated for explaining how they determine when an abandoned cache should be archived. I see a lot of "it depends" so I realize that there there is no clear answer. I have no suggestion for what can be done so this is less subjective. I said above where I would like lonely remote caches to be treated differently than urban hides, that I realize any definition like this is just as subjective and what the reviewers are currently using.

 

What I object to is the strict interpretation of the guideline so that absent owner = lack of maintenance by owner = cache must be archived. In my reading, the maintenance guideline does not say that. Instead I see this as one of several guidelines that can be invoked if a cache becomes a problem. An active listing for a cache that isn't there is a problem - at least for cachers who expect to be able to score a WIGAS point. In order to appease these cachers, reviewers routinely try to archive listings where there is no cache. In the cases we see here, the reviewer does not know the cache is missing and they may be trying to use the maintenance guideline to force a visit (surprisingly this works in many cases). But when it fails, the reviewers hands are tied. I've seen cases where during the 30 days someone finds the cache (I've seen both actual finds was well as throwdowns), but since the missing cache owner hasn't replied, some reviewers feel it necessary to archive the cache.

Well, we have to deal with the situation we're dealt. If we can't adopt formally (http://www.geocaching.com/adopt/), then the cache and its listing go unmaintained. This is where one could let the cache get archived, and then create a new listing.

 

Placed on dates and scenic locations are not treated with preference under the guidelines. I think what people are having a problem is with the "discretion" of the reviewer going against their own personal preferences. Sadly, one can only really come here and voice yourself as a malcontent. There are ways, however, to rid oneself of the attachment to the "old" or "historic" caches and work within the guidelines to see a cache continue to be at that site.

 

Old, unmaintained, inactive-owned caches are no different than any other unmaintained and inactively owned cache out there. If there is no one to respond to a (yes, single) DNF, Note, NM, Reviewer-TDed, or NA log, then the owner is not able to maintain the listing AND the cache. This is against the guidelines, and the owner has options: Respond to the logs, respond to the Reviewer, and/or adopt the cache to someone else. If they are not responsive in the first place, the cache is breaking the guidelines. (Don't forget, it's not just the cache, but also it's listing that must be maintained.)

 

A Reviewer Note, Reviewer TD, or other contact from the Reviewer, it is a firm tap on the shoulder of the owner to demonstrate that they are alive, awake, alert, and enthusiastic about being a geocache owner on Geocaching.com. Turn your head and acknowledge the tap from "TPTB", or you otherwise help prove the case that you are not alive, awake, alert, or able to maintain the cache and its listing.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Old, unmaintained, inactive-owned caches are no different than any other unmaintained and inactively owned cache out there. If there is no one to respond to a (yes, single) DNF, Note, NM, Reviewer-TDed, or NA log, then the owner is not able to maintain the listing AND the cache. This is against the guidelines, and the owner has options: Respond to the logs, respond to the Reviewer, and/or adopt the cache to someone else. If they are not responsive in the first place, the cache is breaking the guidelines. (Don't forget, it's not just the cache, but also it's listing that must be maintained.)

 

I wasn't aware the guidelines required the CO to respond to each and every DNF, particularly if there's nothing in the contents of the DNF to indicate that the cache needs maintenance. That's what an NM is for, isn't it, or am I just being naive?

Link to comment

Old, unmaintained, inactive-owned caches are no different than any other unmaintained and inactively owned cache out there. If there is no one to respond to a (yes, single) DNF, Note, NM, Reviewer-TDed, or NA log, then the owner is not able to maintain the listing AND the cache. This is against the guidelines, and the owner has options: Respond to the logs, respond to the Reviewer, and/or adopt the cache to someone else. If they are not responsive in the first place, the cache is breaking the guidelines. (Don't forget, it's not just the cache, but also it's listing that must be maintained.)

 

I wasn't aware the guidelines required the CO to respond to each and every DNF, particularly if there's nothing in the contents of the DNF to indicate that the cache needs maintenance. That's what an NM is for, isn't it, or am I just being naive?

I believe the important part of the above quote is 'If there is no one to respond'. This discussion continues to focus on the single DNF aspect as the sole reason for disabling.

Link to comment

Old, unmaintained, inactive-owned caches are no different than any other unmaintained and inactively owned cache out there. If there is no one to respond to a (yes, single) DNF, Note, NM, Reviewer-TDed, or NA log, then the owner is not able to maintain the listing AND the cache. This is against the guidelines, and the owner has options: Respond to the logs, respond to the Reviewer, and/or adopt the cache to someone else. If they are not responsive in the first place, the cache is breaking the guidelines. (Don't forget, it's not just the cache, but also it's listing that must be maintained.)

 

I wasn't aware the guidelines required the CO to respond to each and every DNF, particularly if there's nothing in the contents of the DNF to indicate that the cache needs maintenance. That's what an NM is for, isn't it, or am I just being naive?

I believe the important part of the above quote is 'If there is no one to respond'. This discussion continues to focus on the single DNF aspect as the sole reason for disabling.

+1 Actually the number of DNF's can be irrelevant sometimes. I've seen folks log a piece of velcro :blink:

Link to comment

Old, unmaintained, inactive-owned caches are no different than any other unmaintained and inactively owned cache out there. If there is no one to respond to a (yes, single) DNF, Note, NM, Reviewer-TDed, or NA log, then the owner is not able to maintain the listing AND the cache. This is against the guidelines, and the owner has options: Respond to the logs, respond to the Reviewer, and/or adopt the cache to someone else. If they are not responsive in the first place, the cache is breaking the guidelines. (Don't forget, it's not just the cache, but also it's listing that must be maintained.)

 

I wasn't aware the guidelines required the CO to respond to each and every DNF, particularly if there's nothing in the contents of the DNF to indicate that the cache needs maintenance. That's what an NM is for, isn't it, or am I just being naive?

I believe the important part of the above quote is 'If there is no one to respond'. This discussion continues to focus on the single DNF aspect as the sole reason for disabling.

Right. What I was saying includes the complete quote--not just the DNF...or the single DNF that people seem to latch onto. What I am trying to clarify (and others over and over do the same) is that it isn't the log type or frequency that is causing archivals. Rather, it is not responding to that "tap on the shoulder" from TPTB, in this case a Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Then we're right back to the guidelines about the listing and the cache needing to be maintained by the owner according to those pesky boxes we all check when we submit a cache for publication.

Link to comment

Old, unmaintained, inactive-owned caches are no different than any other unmaintained and inactively owned cache out there. If there is no one to respond to a (yes, single) DNF, Note, NM, Reviewer-TDed, or NA log, then the owner is not able to maintain the listing AND the cache. This is against the guidelines, and the owner has options: Respond to the logs, respond to the Reviewer, and/or adopt the cache to someone else. If they are not responsive in the first place, the cache is breaking the guidelines. (Don't forget, it's not just the cache, but also it's listing that must be maintained.)

 

I wasn't aware the guidelines required the CO to respond to each and every DNF, particularly if there's nothing in the contents of the DNF to indicate that the cache needs maintenance. That's what an NM is for, isn't it, or am I just being naive?

I believe the important part of the above quote is 'If there is no one to respond'. This discussion continues to focus on the single DNF aspect as the sole reason for disabling.

Right. What I was saying includes the complete quote--not just the DNF...or the single DNF that people seem to latch onto. What I am trying to clarify (and others over and over do the same) is that it isn't the log type or frequency that is causing archivals. Rather, it is not responding to that "tap on the shoulder" from TPTB, in this case a Volunteer Reviewer.

 

Then we're right back to the guidelines about the listing and the cache needing to be maintained by the owner according to those pesky boxes we all check when we submit a cache for publication.

 

In most cases, a lonely cache with one DNF should not even get a tap on the shoulder in the first place.

Link to comment
In most cases, a lonely cache with one DNF should not even get a tap on the shoulder in the first place.

 

+1

In my region we like to keep the older placements going. The CO may be in a part of the lifecycle where maintenace is a secondary concern but for the rest of us that's OK. The cache is still there, none of us want to pick it up for full-time maintenance purposes but I am confident that anyone who heads out there is happy it's there and we keep it going in a reasonable fashion. So why interfere?

Different horses, different courses.

I may need to don a fireproof suit....

 

Link to comment

Right. What I was saying includes the complete quote--not just the DNF...or the single DNF that people seem to latch onto. What I am trying to clarify (and others over and over do the same) is that it isn't the log type or frequency that is causing archivals. Rather, it is not responding to that "tap on the shoulder" from TPTB, in this case a Volunteer Reviewer.

This logic suggests that it would make sense to "tap" any cache, no matter how free of problems, and archive it if there's no response. Is that what you're thinking?

Link to comment
In most cases, a lonely cache with one DNF should not even get a tap on the shoulder in the first place.

 

+1

In my region we like to keep the older placements going. The CO may be in a part of the lifecycle where maintenace is a secondary concern but for the rest of us that's OK. The cache is still there, none of us want to pick it up for full-time maintenance purposes but I am confident that anyone who heads out there is happy it's there and we keep it going in a reasonable fashion. So why interfere?

Different horses, different courses.

I may need to don a fireproof suit....

You both ignore the "it depends" of the cases. If an owner is inactive, does not respond to logs (DNF, NM, e.g.), does not respond to Reviewer notes (including a TD), and does not respond to a NA log, there is a pretty clear example of a cache owner who cannot take care of their listing--and their cache.

 

I don't think you need a fireproof suit. There are certainly cases where "community adoption" can happen to keep an "old cache" alive. But, when a NM gets posted, there is nobody to remove the attribute. When a listing is inaccurate for D/T, or a hint needs a change, there is nobody who can edit the listing. Then you have a container at a spot with possibly bad information attached to the listing. This is why Groundspeak wants owners to take care of both the cache at its location, as well as the listing itself.

 

It really is up to the discretion of the Reviewer to enforce the guidelines in their jurisdiction. If an owner is unresponsive, there is nothing other than sentiment lost when that cache ends up as archived.

 

Also, adoptions are not permanent. If someone is gravely ill and can't maintain their caches, they can have someone adopt it until they are better. Either that, or you risk the above scenario where a listing can go unmaintained, leaving a cache with bad info for seekers.

Link to comment
In most cases, a lonely cache with one DNF should not even get a tap on the shoulder in the first place.

 

+1

In my region we like to keep the older placements going. The CO may be in a part of the lifecycle where maintenace is a secondary concern but for the rest of us that's OK. The cache is still there, none of us want to pick it up for full-time maintenance purposes but I am confident that anyone who heads out there is happy it's there and we keep it going in a reasonable fashion. So why interfere?

Different horses, different courses.

I may need to don a fireproof suit....

You both ignore the "it depends" of the cases. If an owner is inactive, does not respond to logs (DNF, NM, e.g.), does not respond to Reviewer notes (including a TD), and does not respond to a NA log, there is a pretty clear example of a cache owner who cannot take care of their listing--and their cache.

 

I don't think you need a fireproof suit. There are certainly cases where "community adoption" can happen to keep an "old cache" alive. But, when a NM gets posted, there is nobody to remove the attribute. When a listing is inaccurate for D/T, or a hint needs a change, there is nobody who can edit the listing. Then you have a container at a spot with possibly bad information attached to the listing. This is why Groundspeak wants owners to take care of both the cache at its location, as well as the listing itself.

 

It really is up to the discretion of the Reviewer to enforce the guidelines in their jurisdiction. If an owner is unresponsive, there is nothing other than sentiment lost when that cache ends up as archived.

 

Also, adoptions are not permanent. If someone is gravely ill and can't maintain their caches, they can have someone adopt it until they are better. Either that, or you risk the above scenario where a listing can go unmaintained, leaving a cache with bad info for seekers.

 

In this thread, we're not talking about caches with existing NMs, NAs, and reviewer notes. I believe everyone here would agree that caches with these things going on might deserve a tap on the shoulder. Just because a cache doesn't get found often and has one DNF does not mean that it is in trouble and needs to be disabled.

Link to comment

Our son just received a DNF on NUR NEDYAH. It's lonely, has a high percentage of DNF logs, but has evidence that he has been checking it once or twice a year. I offer this cache for scrutiny by any reviewers in the spirit of learning through discussion and avoiding the theoretical. Would you (will you for Mr. Olivander :) ) disable this cache? What are the key drivers behind your decision? I'm particularly interested in understanding if regularly documented CO visits factor into the decision and if the expectation is more often than 1 or 2 a year.

Link to comment

Our son just received a DNF on NUR NEDYAH. It's lonely, has a high percentage of DNF logs, but has evidence that he has been checking it once or twice a year. I offer this cache for scrutiny by any reviewers in the spirit of learning through discussion and avoiding the theoretical. Would you (will you for Mr. Olivander :) ) disable this cache? What are the key drivers behind your decision? I'm particularly interested in understanding if regularly documented CO visits factor into the decision and if the expectation is more often than 1 or 2 a year.

 

I fail to see this cache as in the same league as the others posted by 4Wheelin. This cache has an active owner. The listing is regularly reviewed, maintained and updated. The cache is there. Looks fine, apart from the low terrain rating for a cache that is so difficult to get to that some get part way up the tree and give up. Using the rating system should be at least a -- T4 - very steep elevation (requiring use of hands).

Link to comment
In most cases, a lonely cache with one DNF should not even get a tap on the shoulder in the first place.

 

+1

In my region we like to keep the older placements going. The CO may be in a part of the lifecycle where maintenace is a secondary concern but for the rest of us that's OK. The cache is still there, none of us want to pick it up for full-time maintenance purposes but I am confident that anyone who heads out there is happy it's there and we keep it going in a reasonable fashion. So why interfere?

Different horses, different courses.

I may need to don a fireproof suit....

You both ignore the "it depends" of the cases. If an owner is inactive, does not respond to logs (DNF, NM, e.g.), does not respond to Reviewer notes (including a TD), and does not respond to a NA log, there is a pretty clear example of a cache owner who cannot take care of their listing--and their cache.

 

I don't think you need a fireproof suit. There are certainly cases where "community adoption" can happen to keep an "old cache" alive. But, when a NM gets posted, there is nobody to remove the attribute. When a listing is inaccurate for D/T, or a hint needs a change, there is nobody who can edit the listing. Then you have a container at a spot with possibly bad information attached to the listing. This is why Groundspeak wants owners to take care of both the cache at its location, as well as the listing itself.

 

It really is up to the discretion of the Reviewer to enforce the guidelines in their jurisdiction. If an owner is unresponsive, there is nothing other than sentiment lost when that cache ends up as archived.

 

Also, adoptions are not permanent. If someone is gravely ill and can't maintain their caches, they can have someone adopt it until they are better. Either that, or you risk the above scenario where a listing can go unmaintained, leaving a cache with bad info for seekers.

 

In this thread, we're not talking about caches with existing NMs, NAs, and reviewer notes. I believe everyone here would agree that caches with these things going on might deserve a tap on the shoulder. Just because a cache doesn't get found often and has one DNF does not mean that it is in trouble and needs to be disabled.

Well, that depends. And the title does say, "unresponsive". So really, it is all about not responding to any "tap on the shoulder" from anyone, for any log type, or any email through their profile. I mention the other log types as examples of unresponsive issues when logged to their cache page.

 

Point being: Have any of the owners of the caches mentioned in this thread responded on the cache page or to the Reviewer directly to enable or unarchive their cache? If yes, great. If no, case in point. Either way, the lesson here is to be responsive, have a valid email address, and be responsible for your caches and their listings as required by the guidelines.

 

Edit to add: I'm not convinced you read my post beyond keying in on NMs, NAs, and reviewer notes. I spoke in a logical flow from the point of the original DNF (doesn't really need a response from an owner; we can agree on that), then a Reviewer TD or Note...that goes without owner response. Then, the only thing we're waiting for is a response from the owner. If no response, then it moves on to a possible NA or Reviewer archival...according to the guidelines that one must maintain their caches and listings. If they can't respond, they likely won't see any other logs to their cache, including a NM, NA, Note, string of DNFs, Reviewer Note, blah blah blah. You dig?

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Edit to add: I'm not convinced you read my post beyond keying in on NMs, NAs, and reviewer notes. I spoke in a logical flow from the point of the original DNF (doesn't really need a response from an owner; we can agree on that), then a Reviewer TD or Note...that goes without owner response.

 

There is a structure to this game that we all really should be aware of. There's a process, and there are people who help run this site so we can keep playing here.

 

The original DNF doesn't really need a response from the CO, but it gets a response from a reviewer in the form of a disabling. How is that following the structure to this game that we should be aware of? The reviewer has circumvented the structure we're supposed to follow and that's the issue I think most of us have with these disablings by a reviewer.

 

We all understand the archivals were due to unresponsive COs and that we, as responsible COs, can re-enable it and post a log to remove it from the reviewer watchlist or contact the reviewer to get it un-archived. That's not the point of the debate, contrary to the title of the thread (at least for me). It's the very first step a reviewer has taken that some of us think is questionable and is being debated here.

Link to comment

I spoke in a logical flow from the point of the original DNF (doesn't really need a response from an owner; we can agree on that), then a Reviewer TD or Note...that goes without owner response. Then, the only thing we're waiting for is a response from the owner. If no response, then it moves on to a possible NA or Reviewer archival...according to the guidelines that one must maintain their caches and listings.

So if there is one DNF, the owner does not have to respond, unless for some unspecified reason a reviewer decides to disable the cache and ask for the owner to take care of some problem. Sure if there is no response at that point the reviewer has the the maintenance guidelines to justify archiving the cache. I think the complaint is what caused the reviewer to disable the cache in the first place.

 

The reviewers who have replied, have indicated that they knew of other problems from the logs that combined with the DNF, led them to determine that the cache should be disabled and archived if no action is taken in a reasonable time.

 

But the appearance is that reviewers are looking for caches that are rarely found and have a DNF without a subsequent find or owner maintenance log and disabling these caches. Whats more is that many of these caches are old caches where the original cache owner is no longer active. If there is a cache at the location, even though the owner is not active, that cache is viable. People will search for it regardless of the DNF. There is a good chance of finding it. There is nothing that needs to be done. Only after there are several DNFs or a DNF that reports evidence the cache is not longer there (broken pieces of a plastic container, swag scattered on the ground, a piece of paper with part of the cache note, etc.), then maybe the reviewer should act. The objections here are to reviewers acting too early.

Link to comment

Edit to add: I'm not convinced you read my post beyond keying in on NMs, NAs, and reviewer notes. I spoke in a logical flow from the point of the original DNF (doesn't really need a response from an owner; we can agree on that), then a Reviewer TD or Note...that goes without owner response.

 

There is a structure to this game that we all really should be aware of. There's a process, and there are people who help run this site so we can keep playing here.

 

The original DNF doesn't really need a response from the CO, but it gets a response from a reviewer in the form of a disabling. How is that following the structure to this game that we should be aware of? The reviewer has circumvented the structure we're supposed to follow and that's the issue I think most of us have with these disablings by a reviewer.

 

We all understand the archivals were due to unresponsive COs and that we, as responsible COs, can re-enable it and post a log to remove it from the reviewer watchlist or contact the reviewer to get it un-archived. That's not the point of the debate, contrary to the title of the thread (at least for me). It's the very first step a reviewer has taken that some of us think is questionable and is being debated here.

It depends. In some (not all) of the OP cases, there are circumstances where a Reviewer's note was really not out of order.

 

Plus...you all keep ignoring the fact that an unresponsive owner is not maintaining their cache and online listing according to the guidelines. So no need to get kickers in a twist..

:yikes: <Let it goooooo...Let it goooo-oooo

Link to comment

But the appearance is that reviewers are looking for caches that are rarely found and have a DNF without a subsequent find or owner maintenance log and disabling these caches. Whats more is that many of these caches are old caches where the original cache owner is no longer active. If there is a cache at the location, even though the owner is not active, that cache is viable. People will search for it regardless of the DNF. There is a good chance of finding it. There is nothing that needs to be done. Only after there are several DNFs or a DNF that reports evidence the cache is not longer there (broken pieces of a plastic container, swag scattered on the ground, a piece of paper with part of the cache note, etc.), then maybe the reviewer should act. The objections here are to reviewers acting too early.

The physical cache may be "viable", but the listing is not. Without an adoption (or a an active owner) the listing will not be able to be cleared of NM attributes, updates on new containers from the replacements or throwdowns, changes to D/T as they might need, owner cannot confirm that it is still there or in the place it should be, etc etc etc.

 

If it gets archived, someone can adopt the container and create a new listing. Bam. Cache back in play. 1 more smiley

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

But the appearance is that reviewers are looking for caches that are rarely found and have a DNF without a subsequent find or owner maintenance log and disabling these caches. Whats more is that many of these caches are old caches where the original cache owner is no longer active. If there is a cache at the location, even though the owner is not active, that cache is viable. People will search for it regardless of the DNF. There is a good chance of finding it. There is nothing that needs to be done. Only after there are several DNFs or a DNF that reports evidence the cache is not longer there (broken pieces of a plastic container, swag scattered on the ground, a piece of paper with part of the cache note, etc.), then maybe the reviewer should act. The objections here are to reviewers acting too early.

The physical cache may be "viable", but the listing is not. Without an adoption (or a an active owner) the listing will not be able to be cleared of NM attributes, updates on new containers from the replacements or throwdowns, changes to D/T as they might need, owner cannot confirm that it is still there or in the place it should be, etc etc etc.

 

If it gets archived, someone can adopt the container and create a new listing. Bam. Cache back in play. 1 more smiley

I refer you to this thread from 2006

Geocache Adoption Policy

In particular the question I asked in post #2 and the response from Groundspeak in post #5

 

From fairly early on there has been the question of what to do with caches when a cache owner abandons them or is unable to maintain them. Prior to the policy change in 2006, there was the option for Groundspeak or a reviewer to assign ownership of the listing to another cacher (non-consensual adoption). The policy changed remove that option, so now we have these limbo cache.

 

Sure, you can take the approach that caches are generic. If there is no owner, archive it and someone can come along and leave and new cache for people to find. Or even, once the listing is removed, Groundspeak can't stop someone from using the abandon cache and submitting it as a new listing.

 

Hey, for the generic smiley motivated, that means someone who found the original cache can find it again and get another WIGAS point. That's got to be good.

 

For some remote hides however, this isn't what happens. The cache is archived and the area remains without a cache for a very long time. When a new cache does get placed, the new hider often has no idea there used to be a cache nearby. I've found caches and then walked a few hundred feet to find the old abandoned archive cache that I had found years before.

 

I agree that caches that have been abandon where the community is not stepping in to keep the cache viable will eventually reach the condition where the listing should be archived. While guidelines provide the necessary rationale for reviewers to archive the listing, I don't believe that lack of owner response or logging into the website is a sufficient alone to archive. I believe the Groundspeak policy is the one articulated by Bryan in 2006. Reviewers to have discretion in determining whether to archive abandoned caches when maintenance issues are reported. "But, it does not stand to say that because a cache needs maintenance and the owner is absent that it 'must' be archived."

Link to comment

But the appearance is that reviewers are looking for caches that are rarely found and have a DNF without a subsequent find or owner maintenance log and disabling these caches. Whats more is that many of these caches are old caches where the original cache owner is no longer active. If there is a cache at the location, even though the owner is not active, that cache is viable. People will search for it regardless of the DNF. There is a good chance of finding it. There is nothing that needs to be done. Only after there are several DNFs or a DNF that reports evidence the cache is not longer there (broken pieces of a plastic container, swag scattered on the ground, a piece of paper with part of the cache note, etc.), then maybe the reviewer should act. The objections here are to reviewers acting too early.

The physical cache may be "viable", but the listing is not. Without an adoption (or a an active owner) the listing will not be able to be cleared of NM attributes, updates on new containers from the replacements or throwdowns, changes to D/T as they might need, owner cannot confirm that it is still there or in the place it should be, etc etc etc.

 

If it gets archived, someone can adopt the container and create a new listing. Bam. Cache back in play. 1 more smiley

I refer you to this thread from 2006

Geocache Adoption Policy

In particular the question I asked in post #2 and the response from Groundspeak in post #5

 

From fairly early on there has been the question of what to do with caches when a cache owner abandons them or is unable to maintain them. Prior to the policy change in 2006, there was the option for Groundspeak or a reviewer to assign ownership of the listing to another cacher (non-consensual adoption). The policy changed remove that option, so now we have these limbo cache.

 

Sure, you can take the approach that caches are generic. If there is no owner, archive it and someone can come along and leave and new cache for people to find. Or even, once the listing is removed, Groundspeak can't stop someone from using the abandon cache and submitting it as a new listing.

 

Hey, for the generic smiley motivated, that means someone who found the original cache can find it again and get another WIGAS point. That's got to be good.

 

For some remote hides however, this isn't what happens. The cache is archived and the area remains without a cache for a very long time. When a new cache does get placed, the new hider often has no idea there used to be a cache nearby. I've found caches and then walked a few hundred feet to find the old abandoned archive cache that I had found years before.

 

I agree that caches that have been abandon where the community is not stepping in to keep the cache viable will eventually reach the condition where the listing should be archived. While guidelines provide the necessary rationale for reviewers to archive the listing, I don't believe that lack of owner response or logging into the website is a sufficient alone to archive. I believe the Groundspeak policy is the one articulated by Bryan in 2006. Reviewers to have discretion in determining whether to archive abandoned caches when maintenance issues are reported. "But, it does not stand to say that because a cache needs maintenance and the owner is absent that it 'must' be archived."

Well...You say it's the "WIGAS" crowd that is well served if a new cache is published with the abandoned container. Sure. Yeah.

 

But I can say the same dismissive thing about those who attach sentiment to "old caches", and want to see them preserved at whatever cost.

 

The whole thing is that we can look at the guidelines and do away with WIGAS fun-poking, and the sentimentality that "old caches are more important". If the listing and cache have a non-present or unresponsive owner, the cache can (and likely will) be archived.

 

Now, as for Bryan's topic linked in your response, we can only look at the link he provides in post #1. Apart from that you are taking a liking to Bryan's "I" statement about how he would handle such a case. This doesn't mean it is policy or guideline. It just means that he personally thinks that situation would be fine. BUT, when using the guidelines, a listing and cache are equal when considering their archival due to an inactive or unresponsive owner.

 

I'm all for a cache being community maintained if it can be. But so long as nobody has the password for the cache owner's account, there's nobody to change, update, or remove NM attributes from the listing. Then the listing is derelict, just like an abandoned leaky cache is derelict.

Link to comment

The physical cache may be "viable", but the listing is not.

 

Plus...you all keep ignoring the fact that an unresponsive owner is not maintaining their cache and online listing according to the guidelines. So no need to get kickers in a twist..

:yikes: <Let it goooooo...Let it goooo-oooo

The listing IS viable in the sense that it's still listed in the database. Cachers can still visit the listing page to be able to get what they need to find the physical cache. What isn't viable is the ability to edit the cache page like you've mentioned. If all those things you mentioned are listed in the logs, and nothing was done to remove them, change the cache page, edit D/T, then it's probable and likely that it will or eventually will draw the attention of a reviewer, who will go through the the ladder, eventually leading to a well-deserved archival. It's the cache with a single DNF that has no other discernible reason for a reviewer to disable it that we're questioning.

 

NO one is ignoring the unresponsive CO and their lack of maintenance per the guidelines (well, I"m not). However, when it fails to adequately address the question about a single DNF drawing a reviewer's attention, it does no good to point to this as the answer. This is the answer to what happens once a cache with or without a CO gets flagged as it's gone down the appropriate channels - NM, no response, NA, no response, archival. I get that and have NO problem with it. It's not an answer to the slightly changed topic we're discussing now, when a single DNF leads to a disabling by a reviewer, regardless of whether or not the CO is active and also completely skipping a step (NM) that we're encouraged to do before heading to the NA stage. THAT single step is the big one that could lead somewhere most of us probably don't want to go.

 

Let's use your adopted cache, 12 days V, as an example. It's not been found since 10/2013 and the only note posted about it is from you (beside the adoption transfer). Three straight DNFs which include logs from some seasoned cachers, and a note that you posted (while not the CO) saying it's a tricky hide but you think it's there though. Next DNF triggers a reviewer to disable it. Is it a valid tap on the shoulder to get you to pay attention to a cache that you're pretty sure is there? Does it need your attention? The reviewer thinks so but that's based solely on their interpretation of the logs, not on actual evidence and not on any NM logs or evidence of a cache needing some TLC. That's what has happened to a few (not all) of the OP caches listed and that's where we could be headed, although I'm pretty sure that TPTB don't want to go too far in that direction either. The difference here is that you, as a responsible CO, will get it taken care of while an absentee CO won't and this puzzle, while technically still there and in fine working shape, won't be. I'm fine with that, but not fine with the reviewer's decision to disable it in the first place. There's nothing there that makes me think it's gone or in need of some maintenance but the reviewer thinks so, so it's disabled. What happened to the NM step?

Link to comment

 

Well...You say it's the "WIGAS" crowd that is well served if a new cache is published with the abandoned container. Sure. Yeah.

 

But I can say the same dismissive thing about those who attach sentiment to "old caches", and want to see them preserved at whatever cost.

 

The whole thing is that we can look at the guidelines and do away with WIGAS fun-poking, and the sentimentality that "old caches are more important". If the listing and cache have a non-present or unresponsive owner, the cache can (and likely will) be archived.

If you read further in that thread you will see I am not a fan of preserving a listing just because it is old. I'm opposed to unnecessarily removing listings that people can find and that some people actually prefer to find over some powertrail with tons of caches.

 

Now, as for Bryan's topic linked in your response, we can only look at the link he provides in post #1. Apart from that you are taking a liking to Bryan's "I" statement about how he would handle such a case. This doesn't mean it is policy or guideline. It just means that he personally thinks that situation would be fine. BUT, when using the guidelines, a listing and cache are equal when considering their archival due to an inactive or unresponsive owner.

I don't know where you are reading. Bryan doesn't say what he would do. You are right that he says "I believe", rather than just straight out saying "it is well within the volunteer reviewer's discretion to remove the needs maintenance attribute." Since Bryan is the #2 man at Groundspeak one would think he could state policy and not have to make it conditional on what he believes. However later comments in that thread from Keystone and actual cases that I know involving other reviewers indicate that this is in fact the policy.

 

I'm all for a cache being community maintained if it can be. But so long as nobody has the password for the cache owner's account, there's nobody to change, update, or remove NM attributes from the listing. Then the listing is derelict, just like an abandoned leaky cache is derelict.

Keystone indicates that he might remove a NM attribute if there are no other reasons for archiving the cache, and I know of several actual cases where a reviewer has removed this attribute and even made other minor changes to a listing to keep it up to date. But it is up to the discretion of the reviewer in each case to decide whether to do so.

Link to comment

IMHO....

I looked at several of the listings the reviewer in question archived, and noticed that they were all on the same dates, the same date that they were temporarily disabled and then they were all archived on the same date. What this says to me is that, the reviewer did some type of random query to find caches that matched his/her guideline, and then automatically disabled them (at least that is how it appears). This I don't agree with. Perhaps the reviewer should have performed their query, then independently reviewed each cache to determine what is going on with each and then decided what actions to take after reading the logs and emailing the owners.

 

I don't think there is a blanket query that all caches can fall under. I live in a rural area and the caches near me are just not that active and sometimes are under 3 feet of snow. It would be a shame for someone to use a blanket query and start disabling them, especially since there might be several dnf, then winter hits and it would then be months for people to get back out to look for them.

 

I definitely think all caches should be reviewed and disabled based on their individual merits and characteristics.

Link to comment

Or maybe, rather than doing a random query, the reviewer had those caches on a watch list for a while, but disabled them on the same day because they had "Geocaching tasks" on their to do list for that day.

 

You can speculate until the cows come home, but unless you talk to the reviewer, you don't know by the single-day actions what was going on.

 

It would be a shame for someone to use a blanket query and start disabling them, especially since there might be several dnf, then winter hits and it would then be months for people to get back out to look for them.

IF this were a blanket query and disable, the CO would only have to post and note the current conditions (i.e. "I'll check on this when the snow isn't 3 feet deep"), and the archival wouldn't happen. Disable does NOT equal automatic archival.

Link to comment

Needs Maintenance

 

11/06/2014

 

 

Looking for caches for our AC getaway but this poor guy looks like he needs some attention?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1ZDWF_welcome-to-atlantic-city?guid=41ae84fe-01d1-4bee-90cf-63d361563f4d

 

This is a log entry for one the caches a "reviewer" noted that was more typical of what he deals with. While this cache does have a lot of dnfs, this particular geocacher listed a NM and never even went to the cache, so he did arm chair this NM from his home. So this did trigger the reviewer....doesn't seem right.

Link to comment

It doesn't seem right to you, but the CO could simply post a note, and the archival wouldn't have happened. Go ahead and argue about whether the initial disablement should have happened; until I'm a reviewer, I don't want to do armchair quarterbacking. :)

Link to comment

IMHO....

I looked at several of the listings the reviewer in question archived, and noticed that they were all on the same dates, the same date that they were temporarily disabled and then they were all archived on the same date. What this says to me is that, the reviewer did some type of random query to find caches that matched his/her guideline, and then automatically disabled them (at least that is how it appears). This I don't agree with. Perhaps the reviewer should have performed their query, then independently reviewed each cache to determine what is going on with each and then decided what actions to take after reading the logs and emailing the owners.

 

I don't think there is a blanket query that all caches can fall under. I live in a rural area and the caches near me are just not that active and sometimes are under 3 feet of snow. It would be a shame for someone to use a blanket query and start disabling them, especially since there might be several dnf, then winter hits and it would then be months for people to get back out to look for them.

 

I definitely think all caches should be reviewed and disabled based on their individual merits and characteristics.

 

I looked at several of the listings the reviewer in question archived, and noticed that they were all on the same dates, the same date that they were temporarily disabled and then they were all archived on the same date. Yep, one day one month, and another day a month later, precisely as mentioned in the revewer's log. What this says to me is that, the reviewer did some type of randomdesigned query to find caches that matched his/her guideline, and then automatically disabled them after looking at the caches and the logs. ... Perhaps the reviewer should have performed their query, then independently reviewed each cache to determine what is going on with each and then decided what actions to take after reading the logs and emailing the owners. Yes, as actually happened. The reviewers logs to the cache page are "emailing the owners". Owners are supposed to be reading and responding to those logs.

 

I definitely think all caches should be reviewed and disabled based on their individual merits and characteristics. Agreed, yes, as actually happened.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

IMHO....

I looked at several of the listings the reviewer in question archived, and noticed that they were all on the same dates, the same date that they were temporarily disabled and then they were all archived on the same date. What this says to me is that, the reviewer did some type of random query to find caches that matched his/her guideline, and then automatically disabled them (at least that is how it appears). This I don't agree with. Perhaps the reviewer should have performed their query, then independently reviewed each cache to determine what is going on with each and then decided what actions to take after reading the logs and emailing the owners.

 

I don't think there is a blanket query that all caches can fall under. I live in a rural area and the caches near me are just not that active and sometimes are under 3 feet of snow. It would be a shame for someone to use a blanket query and start disabling them, especially since there might be several dnf, then winter hits and it would then be months for people to get back out to look for them.

 

I definitely think all caches should be reviewed and disabled based on their individual merits and characteristics.

 

I looked at several of the listings the reviewer in question archived, and noticed that they were all on the same dates, the same date that they were temporarily disabled and then they were all archived on the same date. Yep, one day one month, and another day a month later, precisely as mentioned in the revewer's log. What this says to me is that, the reviewer did some type of randomdesigned query to find caches that matched his/her guideline, and then automatically disabled them after looking at the caches and the logs. ... Perhaps the reviewer should have performed their query, then independently reviewed each cache to determine what is going on with each and then decided what actions to take after reading the logs and emailing the owners. Yes, as actually happened. The reviewers logs to the cache page are "emailing the owners". Owners are supposed to be reading and responding to those logs.

 

I definitely think all caches should be reviewed and disabled based on their individual merits and characteristics. Agreed, yes, as actually happened.

 

Apparently we cannot add our own opinions with out them getting picked apart....Did that make you feel better...you with so many more posts....geeze...taking this a little personal are you?

 

This post has been edited by The Lost Orfin's: Today, 08:53 AM

Edited by The Lost Orfin's
Link to comment

Apparently we cannot add our own opinions with out them getting picked apart....Did that make you feel better...you with so many more posts....geeze...taking this a little personal are you?

 

Yes, I realize I posted this twice in error...please don't line it out...LOL!

Edited by The Lost Orfin's
Link to comment

Needs Maintenance

 

11/06/2014

 

 

Looking for caches for our AC getaway but this poor guy looks like he needs some attention?

 

http://www.geocachin...cf-63d361563f4d

 

This is a log entry for one the caches a "reviewer" noted that was more typical of what he deals with. While this cache does have a lot of dnfs, this particular geocacher listed a NM and never even went to the cache, so he did arm chair this NM from his home. So this did trigger the reviewer....doesn't seem right.

 

Here's why I am not sympathetic with the cache you link to:

  1. It's a micro
  2. It's a logsheet in a ziploc baggie (no container)
  3. The coordinates are bad - several people mention the bad coords in their logs
  4. Jan 15 2014 - found it log says bag is ripped and log soaked
  5. Feb 16 2014 - NM
  6. Apr 18 - found it log says the ziplock is holey
  7. June through Aug - 6 DNFs
  8. Aug 10 - the CO says s/he will check it in a week
  9. Oct 10 - no visitor for a month until this one visitor, no action from the CO, DNF posted
  10. Nov 6 - another NM
  11. Nov 10 - Reviewer Note
  12. Dec 10 - Archived
  13. The cache owners are active (last visited the site on Dec 14)

Link to comment

Apparently we cannot add our own opinions with out them getting picked apart....Did that make you feel better...you with so many more posts....geeze...taking this a little personal are you?

 

Yes, I realize I posted this twice in error...please don't line it out...LOL!

Isonzo Karst posted an accurate description of how reviewers actually do their jobs. Unless you have proof that OReviewer did as you described, your opinion is just that. And it deserved to be picked apart because of its factual inaccuracy. I know I felt better after reading Isonzo Karst's post. Cuz yeah, we reviewers do take it personally. Except for the reviewers who are dogs. They don't much care what you type.

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