Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

How can you tell that there isn't some other, off-the-logs factor causing this? Yes, you see two DNFs, but maybe there are circumstances brought up to the reviewer by email that are causing the note.

 

Some people see conspiracy; others figure there's some more positive explanation.

 

An off-the-logs, behind the scenes scenario is the very definition of conspiracy. :)

 

There may be some wacko removing caches and leaving notes, and that could be the reason, as to not give them any attention, but there's nothing positive about that either.

 

 

I think a reviewer note versus disablement is an overall improvement.

Link to comment

How can you tell that there isn't some other, off-the-logs factor causing this? Yes, you see two DNFs, but maybe there are circumstances brought up to the reviewer by email that are causing the note.

 

Some people see conspiracy; others figure there's some more positive explanation.

 

An off-the-logs, behind the scenes scenario is the very definition of conspiracy. :)

 

There may be some wacko removing caches and leaving notes, and that could be the reason, as to not give them any attention, but there's nothing positive about that either.

 

I think a reviewer note versus disablement is an overall improvement.

 

In a way, yes, but it means... if there is no improvement about the cache, it will get disable. I fear that this will increase throwdowns on unresponsive owner caches. However, about this cache in question, I am pretty sure its still there because the bridge is out, its pretty hard for anyone to be on the other side. Only the crazy people will try to get on the other side! I am one of those! LOL! To get there from the other trailhead will be around 5 to 6 miles one way and I dont see many people crossing this creek, so the chances of muggles finding it will be very low. Its a solid rock bottom creek with fast moving water. Very dangerous.

Link to comment

How can you tell that there isn't some other, off-the-logs factor causing this? Yes, you see two DNFs, but maybe there are circumstances brought up to the reviewer by email that are causing the note.

 

Some people see conspiracy; others figure there's some more positive explanation.

 

An off-the-logs, behind the scenes scenario is the very definition of conspiracy. :)

 

Good one. :P And don't forget, all cache pages that contain blatant admissions of guideline violations, or "take one leave one" Travel Bug Prison rules, were all "changed after publication". :ph34r:

 

Not being disabled with a threat of archival in the latest case is most definitely a positive development.

Link to comment
1423277968[/url]' post='5471066']

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

It might be that someone contacted the reviewer because they want to hide a cache on the accessible side of the trail but this inaccessible abandoned cache is blocking the placement.

 

Link to comment
1423277968[/url]' post='5471066']

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

It might be that someone contacted the reviewer because they want to hide a cache on the accessible side of the trail but this inaccessible abandoned cache is blocking the placement.

 

That's the conspiracy theory. Occam's razor would say that it was the result of a PQ for a DNF and no finds in 2 years.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
1423277968[/url]' post='5471066']

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

It might be that someone contacted the reviewer because they want to hide a cache on the accessible side of the trail but this inaccessible abandoned cache is blocking the placement.

 

That's the conspiracy theory. Occam's razor would say that it was the result of a PQ for a DNF and no finds in 2 years.

 

Wait a minute. Which one's the conspiracy theory here? :P

Link to comment
1423277968[/url]' post='5471066']

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

It might be that someone contacted the reviewer because they want to hide a cache on the accessible side of the trail but this inaccessible abandoned cache is blocking the placement.

 

That's the conspiracy theory. Occam's razor would say that it was the result of a PQ for a DNF and no finds in 2 years.

 

Wait a minute. Which one's the conspiracy theory here? :P

 

Someone emailing the reviewer behind the scenes in an attempt for archival is the conspiracy theory. The simplest explanation is the DNFs and no recent finds PQ.

Link to comment

...And the description and D/T are likely inaccurate now, and should be addressed by the cache owner. That could be reason enough--the cache page and cache itself need to be maintained.

 

It's a stretch, but I do think that this is something very easy for people to forget: that the cache page and the cache itself need to be maintained by the owner. If a bridge goes out, and the owner doesn't address the change to their page, it isn't really that big of a conspiracy to see a Reviewer holding a cache to the guidelines. Now, we can be upset about consistency, but I'd rather see it more consistent on both sides of the maintenance requirement than weighted to one side over the other. Meaning, I personally think that cache maintenance is very much related to cache quality, and if an owner of a cache doesn't maintain the physical hide and/or the page, the cache and its listing need to be "dealt with".

 

It's hard for many among us (even me stating this personal view) to think a cache should be archived if the listing is inaccurate, but the cache is "just fine". But the guidelines are written to keep caches and their listings active and in good repair (accurate and viable). If someone decides not to update their cache page after people log that a vital piece of transportation infrastructure to get to the cache location is missing, that's a sign that they're not the most involved cache owner. A nudge by the Reviewer to update people on the conditions of the hide and hunt on the cache page is certainly within the realm of reason. If the owner then still decides to ignore (or isn't active anymore) the note or disable log, then the cache and its listing can go away.

 

If someone is really bummed that this cache is still viable, and the site is worth having a cache, then create a new listing and just re-use the container once the cache is archived.

Link to comment

...And the description and D/T are likely inaccurate now, and should be addressed by the cache owner. That could be reason enough--the cache page and cache itself need to be maintained.

 

It's a stretch, but I do think that this is something very easy for people to forget: that the cache page and the cache itself need to be maintained by the owner. If a bridge goes out, and the owner doesn't address the change to their page, it isn't really that big of a conspiracy to see a Reviewer holding a cache to the guidelines. Now, we can be upset about consistency, but I'd rather see it more consistent on both sides of the maintenance requirement than weighted to one side over the other. Meaning, I personally think that cache maintenance is very much related to cache quality, and if an owner of a cache doesn't maintain the physical hide and/or the page, the cache and its listing need to be "dealt with".

 

It's hard for many among us (even me stating this personal view) to think a cache should be archived if the listing is inaccurate, but the cache is "just fine". But the guidelines are written to keep caches and their listings active and in good repair (accurate and viable). If someone decides not to update their cache page after people log that a vital piece of transportation infrastructure to get to the cache location is missing, that's a sign that they're not the most involved cache owner. A nudge by the Reviewer to update people on the conditions of the hide and hunt on the cache page is certainly within the realm of reason. If the owner then still decides to ignore (or isn't active anymore) the note or disable log, then the cache and its listing can go away.

 

If someone is really bummed that this cache is still viable, and the site is worth having a cache, then create a new listing and just re-use the container once the cache is archived.

I've seen reveiwers make minor changes to T/D or even fix coordinates for "abandoned" caches.

 

Put me down with those who find it hard to accept disabling or archiving a viable cache just because the T/D is off or the container has been replaced with one of a different size. I do understand that some people will use PQ or search to find (or eliminate) caches with particular T/D or size (and not just to fill in a challenge grid). If they go looking for a 1.5/1.5 and discover it is now a 3/3 that may result in disappointment. So I understand the need for some control. The problem is that if the owner were active, and insisted that their original rating or coordinates were still accurate, no reviewer would archive the cache.

 

If the official line from Groundspeak has changed from Bryan's response I got when non-consensual adoptions were ended and the goal now is to archive abandon caches for reasons that reviewers would not apply to a cache with an active owner, they should state this is the new policy. I beleive the policy has not changed and that reviewers have descretion. Some will make the changes to the cache page, some may leave the page as is so long people can still find the cache, and some may feel the conditions have changed enough to warrant the cache be archived.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

If the official line from Groundspeak has changed from Bryan's response I got when non-consensual adoptions were ended and the goal now is to archive abandon caches for reasons that reviewers would not apply to a cache with an active owner, they should state this is the new policy. I beleive the policy has not changed and that reviewers have descretion. Some will make the changes to the cache page, some may leave the page as is so long people can still find the cache, and some may feel the conditions have changed enough to warrant the cache be archived.

We talked about this before. I think the policy is clear on non-consensual adoptions: No. I also think the "policy" on listing a geocache on Geocaching.com is clear: Maintain your listing and the cache container; place and create a listing in accordance with the stated guidelines.

 

I'll contact GS personally and see what they have to say. Perhaps we can finally put this to bed then?

 

Bryan's post was not GS policy; it was a personal post. (Ok, ok...part was policy, and part was noted as personal opinion.)

 

I also "believe the policy has not changed, and reviewers have discretion." I don't think this is a policy issue when we're talking about some Reviewers holding caches to the guidelines and dealing with disable logs and archival because of a non-responsive cache owner. I also believe that we all should hold caches to some level of a standard, regardless of intrinsic (subjective) appraisals. Meaning, just because a cache is "old" or "historic", it should not be saved. Just because an owner is active (to any level) doesn't mean that they can ignore the maintenance guidelines for listing caches on Geocaching.com. Now, some Reviewers can take action by posting a Reviewer Note, some with a Temporarily Disable, and others (with enough evidence from previous logs and other context which may not be on the face of the cache page, but is still very relevant to the cache's demise) with an Archived log.

 

If people are bent out of shape at caches getting archived which they believe to be "special", then they can create a new listing and maintain that cache according to the guidelines. It's that simple. Personal beliefs, community involvement, and the like can be factors which lead to a cache "living on". What can't happen according to the guidelines is to have an owner who will not maintain their caches. There can be exceptions--the community involvement line--where a cacher may have died or "retired", and the cache lives on. But that's a case where the listing and the cache itself are taken care of by the community, and DNFs/NM/NA logs are dealt with in context of the "behind the scene" agreements which may be in place between the dead or "retired" cacher and their cache(s), and with the Reviewer.

 

When a cache such as those mentioned in the OP and mostly throughout is "under the weather" (inactive owner, circumstances in logs or other communication to Reviewer, etc. which lead to action being taken), there isn't already community involvement or other action being taken to "adopt" the cache. Plus, if someone were to "adopt" (read: not formally adopt via www.geocaching.com/adopt) said cache, would their ownership fall under tha guidelines? Do they live close enough to actually maintain the cache? Is the listing also in order, or does it need to be changed? Etc, etc, etc.

 

I personally have never encountered a Reviewer who has changed D/T or other specific aspects of a cache (other than a few special exceptions with removing an NM attribute...which I haven't seen in many, many years). If this is a "shift" in "policy", that's not clear. I think what it may be is the same policy (they have discretionary latitude), but that personal discretions have narrowed in light of the interpretation of the maintenance requirements of hosting a cache listing on geocaching.com. I think some Reviewers may have realized that the listing is just as important on Geocaching.com as the cache iteself. I mean, this is a listing service, and there are guidelines and a related need to keep listings and caches on the up-and-up...know what I mean?

Link to comment
1423277968[/url]' post='5471066']

Here is another one...

 

http://coord.info/GC49B1

 

I am one of the last finder of this cache.

 

The last two DNF logs didnt get to GZ. Sigh...

 

The major problem of this cache is that the bridge is out(and still is as far I know) and you need to cross a dangerous creek to get to the other side.(best to cross it in the summer)

 

Is the cache still there? Very likely as long they didnt do any bridge work there. The cache is location at the footing of the bridge and its right where anyone can see it.

 

It might be that someone contacted the reviewer because they want to hide a cache on the accessible side of the trail but this inaccessible abandoned cache is blocking the placement.

Sometimes cachers do e-mail the local Reviewer because of negative backlash in some communities for logging a "Needs Archived" or other log that while simply informative is viewed as negative by others.

 

In this case, the cache appears to be essentially abandonned because the Cache Owner has not been on the site since June 2014 and may not even be receiving the logs. The Cache Owner can very simply head off possible archival by proving s/he has a pulse and posting a note to the cache page about plans to check on the cache by hiking or driving in from the Kentucky Trailhead on NF-23 (longer hike, but not unreasonable for a day hike) or wading the creek (we don't have many bridges up here) or disabling the cache until the bridge is repaired.

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

I recently did a sweep of long disabled caches in Washington State. I decided to keep some statistics on the results this time (although I didn't do the best job at it).

 

Owner response came out to about 50%. I had to recheck my numbers after seeing Keystone's response, because it's a hugely different percentage. Perhaps it's a regional thing, although I'm sure my results will differ each time I do a sweep.

 

When I say owner response, this includes owners either archiving their caches, fixing and enabling their caches, or leaving a note with their intentions for the cache on the cache page.

I found this report very interesting, when contrasted against my estimate of 15%. So, I decided to keep closer track of the caches I placed maintenance notes on last month. This was a mix of caches that had been disabled for too long (more than two months), and caches with a bad history of DNF's and/or maintenance requests, etc. All owners were given four weeks to respond in some way.

 

Out of the 100 caches I tracked, eleven were enabled by the owner, five were archived by the owner, and three escaped the reaper because the owner posted a progress note. Earlier this week, I archived the remaining 81 caches. :(

 

On the bright side, geocachers in my review territory are marginally less likely to waste time hunting for caches that weren't being maintained. :)

Link to comment

I recently did a sweep of long disabled caches in Washington State. I decided to keep some statistics on the results this time (although I didn't do the best job at it).

 

Owner response came out to about 50%. I had to recheck my numbers after seeing Keystone's response, because it's a hugely different percentage. Perhaps it's a regional thing, although I'm sure my results will differ each time I do a sweep.

 

When I say owner response, this includes owners either archiving their caches, fixing and enabling their caches, or leaving a note with their intentions for the cache on the cache page.

I found this report very interesting, when contrasted against my estimate of 15%. So, I decided to keep closer track of the caches I placed maintenance notes on last month. This was a mix of caches that had been disabled for too long (more than two months), and caches with a bad history of DNF's and/or maintenance requests, etc. All owners were given four weeks to respond in some way.

 

Out of the 100 caches I tracked, eleven were enabled by the owner, five were archived by the owner, and three escaped the reaper because the owner posted a progress note. Earlier this week, I archived the remaining 81 caches. :(

 

On the bright side, geocachers in my review territory are marginally less likely to waste time hunting for caches that weren't being maintained. :)

 

Perhaps it's because it's Washington State. Pressure from being so close to the Lily Pad. ;)

Link to comment

On the bright side, geocachers in my review territory are marginally less likely to waste time hunting for caches that weren't being maintained. :)

On the dark side, an adverturous cacher who might enjoy the option to look for an unmaintained cache and possibly find it despite several recent DNFs, may not know of that opportunity because it has been archived.

 

I know that more people claim that it is a "waste of time" to look for a cache that may not be there than feel, as I do, that the adventure is more important that whether you get a WIGAS point. And I suspect that people who like taking a risk looking for unmaintained caches may keep a bookmark list of such caches or not remove them from their GSAK database when they are archived. I suspect as well that most of the caches you archived were mundane urban hides of which there are plenty to find and not much an adventure to go look for. So I'll grant that at some point it makes sense to archive these caches and allow active geocachers in your review territory to hide new caches.

Link to comment

On the bright side, geocachers in my review territory are marginally less likely to waste time hunting for caches that weren't being maintained. :)

On the dark side, an adverturous cacher who might enjoy the option to look for an unmaintained cache and possibly find it despite several recent DNFs, may not know of that opportunity because it has been archived.

 

I know that more people claim that it is a "waste of time" to look for a cache that may not be there than feel, as I do, that the adventure is more important that whether you get a WIGAS point. And I suspect that people who like taking a risk looking for unmaintained caches may keep a bookmark list of such caches or not remove them from their GSAK database when they are archived. I suspect as well that most of the caches you archived were mundane urban hides of which there are plenty to find and not much an adventure to go look for. So I'll grant that at some point it makes sense to archive these caches and allow active geocachers in your review territory to hide new caches.

I mean, if a cache on a beautiful, adventurous hike is still there after archival, you can still log the find.

 

And, if you like it enough, you can adopt that location and publish a new cache using that same container.

Link to comment

I mean, if a cache on a beautiful, adventurous hike is still there after archival, you can still log the find.

 

But it first requires that I need to be aware of the cache and there is no reasonable way to search for archived caches.

Logging the find is not what I care about.

 

For example, if a cache with a damp or full log sheet gets archived and the cache is at the end of a nice hike, I feel it's a real shame.

The log sheet is maybe influencing 0.0001% of my experience.

 

And, if you like it enough, you can adopt that location and publish a new cache using that same container.

 

I never ever would do that for many reasons.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I mean, if a cache on a beautiful, adventurous hike is still there after archival, you can still log the find.

 

But it first requires that I need to be aware of the cache and there is no reasonable way to search for archived caches.

 

Now there is. Use Project-GC. It maps the results, so if there's an area you want to hike in you can check the area on P-GC. Example.

Link to comment

I mean, if a cache on a beautiful, adventurous hike is still there after archival, you can still log the find.

 

But it first requires that I need to be aware of the cache and there is no reasonable way to search for archived caches.

Logging the find is not what I care about.

 

For example, if a cache with a damp or full log sheet gets archived and the cache is at the end of a nice hike, I feel it's a real shame.

The log sheet is maybe influencing 0.0001% of my experience.

Well, so? If you know it's there, then you can visit. If it's archived, you won't know. Life. Goes. On.

 

Then there's always Project-gc...

 

And, if you like it enough, you can adopt that location and publish a new cache using that same container.

 

I never ever would do that for many reasons.

Well, and that's your prerogative.

Link to comment

And, if you like it enough, you can adopt that location and publish a new cache using that same container.

 

I never ever would do that for many reasons.

I almost managed to do this once. And in a situation where cezanne would never have done so.

 

The cache was the final of a multi. Part I involved getting some information from a nearby sign and working a field puzzle to get the final's coordinates. I believe the sign was destroyed in a forest fire and never replaced. The original owner had moved away but allowed the cache to be adopted by someone who said they would try to fix the problem. But after being disabled for over a year the local reviewer archived the cache. When I got the archive notice, I saw that you could figure out the final without the information from the sign, so I went off and found the cache. I made an attempt to contact the adoptive owner and while I was waiting, the reviewer contacted me that someone else tried to place a cache near where the orignal stage 1 was and my unsubmitted entry was blocking this cache. So I removed my listing and when I went to get FTF on the new cache, I grabbed the container from the archived one, which I later hid elsewhere.

Link to comment

 

The cache was the final of a multi. Part I involved getting some information from a nearby sign and working a field puzzle to get the final's coordinates. I believe the sign was destroyed in a forest fire and never replaced. The original owner had moved away but allowed the cache to be adopted by someone who said they would try to fix the problem.

 

But in that case at least it was clear that the person who came up with the idea and the original write up apparently was ok with someone else taking over which settles two issues, namely first whether the container is still used for a cache listed somewhere else and

second it removes the issue of being respectless by reusing the idea and work of someone else without permission.

Link to comment

I found this report very interesting, when contrasted against my estimate of 15%. So, I decided to keep closer track of the caches I placed maintenance notes on last month. This was a mix of caches that had been disabled for too long (more than two months), and caches with a bad history of DNF's and/or maintenance requests, etc. All owners were given four weeks to respond in some way.

 

Out of the 100 caches I tracked, eleven were enabled by the owner, five were archived by the owner, and three escaped the reaper because the owner posted a progress note. Earlier this week, I archived the remaining 81 caches. :(

 

On the bright side, geocachers in my review territory are marginally less likely to waste time hunting for caches that weren't being maintained. :)

 

Are we alone in wondering how many owners of those 81 now archived caches are still actively out finding caches?

Link to comment

Are we alone in wondering how many owners of those 81 now archived caches are still actively out finding caches?

Why would that matter?

I know a few who still hide, but no longer find caches.

We also know of many who still find caches (some into the thousands) who do no maintenance on their hides.

Link to comment
This example caused quite a stir on Facebook last night/this morning in a local geocaching group page. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the reviewer and his supposed "power trip" and folks saying this doesn't happen anywhere but in Georgia. I was tempted to direct them here...but I figured they just didn't really want to calmly discuss it and give it rational thought... Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

This example caused quite a stir on Facebook last night/this morning in a local geocaching group page. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the reviewer and his supposed "power trip" and folks saying this doesn't happen anywhere but in Georgia. I was tempted to direct them here...but I figured they just didn't really want to calmly discuss it and give it rational thought...

Looks like your garden variety of geocide to me. Like I've always said, not everyone is cut out for cache ownership.

Link to comment

I was tempted to direct them here...but I figured they just didn't really want to calmly discuss it and give it rational thought...

 

And if they did, you would have directed them *here*?

 

Well...based on what I saw there, the discussion here is calm and rational in comparison.

Link to comment

I'm bothered more that folks may now (since given a big hint) destroy roofing on private property, thinking a "slim bob" may be involved in that tough-to-find hide.

 

"a cache commonly referred to as a "Slim Bob" and it was between the shingle and felt paper of the structure on which most of you had been searching.

 

Sheesh.

Link to comment

I'll also add, that your example has 5 DNF's and the CO Archived the Listing, so it's off topic ;)

 

Perhaps a bit...but the discussion had already widened a bit to talk about disabling on DNFs in general.

The CO got four or five DNF logs over the course of 18 months (and that's just the folks that actually posted logs...surely there were more). In all that time, nothing. Then it gets disabled and that very same day the CO runs out, checks on it...and instead of re-enabling it and moving on, he rage quits and threatens to archive all his caches. Once again, instead of taking the opportunity to communicate with the reviewer and make the game enjoyable for the finders, a person decides a public tantrum is the best way to deal with matters.

Link to comment

I'll also add, that your example has 5 DNF's and the CO Archived the Listing, so it's off topic ;)

 

Perhaps a bit...but the discussion had already widened a bit to talk about disabling on DNFs in general.

The CO got four or five DNF logs over the course of 18 months (and that's just the folks that actually posted logs...surely there were more). In all that time, nothing. Then it gets disabled and that very same day the CO runs out, checks on it...and instead of re-enabling it and moving on, he rage quits and threatens to archive all his caches. Once again, instead of taking the opportunity to communicate with the reviewer and make the game enjoyable for the finders, a person decides a public tantrum is the best way to deal with matters.

But more than a couple earlier hides, after a few DNFs or issues, were simply archived by him anyway.

Seems (to me) it was only because a Reviewer did it for him that's the issue.

Link to comment

I'll also add, that your example has 5 DNF's and the CO Archived the Listing, so it's off topic ;)

 

Actually, it provides a sharp contrast to the issue of disabling after a single DNF. This one had multiple DNFs, but was still there, and brings the silliness of disabling over 1 DNF into context. Granted, the CO grossly overreacted and should have checked on it sooner, but it shows that many of these archived caches are likely still out there.

Link to comment

I'm not defending his hide (questionable based on what was posted) or his actions (throwing a fit certainly). It's a 4 D cache that hasn't been found since Sep 13 (not even 1 1/2 years ago) and has 5 DNFs. Why does this cache deserved to be tagged by a reviewer? It has several series of strings of DNFs (3 at most in a row) and one time the CO went to replace it and found it there, showing that the CO does maintain the cache. I can't tell how long it's been since the CO has been on the site (since it's obvious it was yesterday) so I'm not sure if that's a factor either.

 

Why hasn't this cache been disabled? Same duration without a find, a string of 3 DNFs but only a 2D hide, meaning it should be easier.

 

This one?

 

Or this one?

 

This one?

 

This one?

 

How about this one, with a note from the CO from June?

 

How about this high D cache with nothing apparently wrong?

 

This one? Or this?

 

This one too?

 

Or finally, this one.

 

All of them with a small string of DNFs, most of them last found 6 months or longer, some with NM attributes and all within 10 miles of the cache that the CO archived. Where's the continuity in the application a reviewer has when disabling a cache?

Link to comment

In my area, and judging from posts in the forum from other areas, Reviewers, for the most part, will only respond to NA log types. They don't tend to go looking for Listings with multiple DNFs or NM log types. It's generally up to the Community to bring these issues to the attention of the local Reviewer by posting an NA.

Link to comment

I'm not defending his hide (questionable based on what was posted) or his actions (throwing a fit certainly). It's a 4 D cache that hasn't been found since Sep 13 (not even 1 1/2 years ago) and has 5 DNFs. Why does this cache deserved to be tagged by a reviewer? It has several series of strings of DNFs (3 at most in a row) and one time the CO went to replace it and found it there, showing that the CO does maintain the cache. I can't tell how long it's been since the CO has been on the site (since it's obvious it was yesterday) so I'm not sure if that's a factor either.

 

Why hasn't this cache been disabled? Same duration without a find, a string of 3 DNFs but only a 2D hide, meaning it should be easier.

 

This one?

 

Or this one?

 

This one?

 

This one?

 

How about this one, with a note from the CO from June?

 

How about this high D cache with nothing apparently wrong?

 

This one? Or this?

 

This one too?

 

Or finally, this one.

 

All of them with a small string of DNFs, most of them last found 6 months or longer, some with NM attributes and all within 10 miles of the cache that the CO archived. Where's the continuity in the application a reviewer has when disabling a cache?

 

Most of those would be disabled in this area. In fact, a few local geocachers have gotten accustomed to it and post NAs after 2 or 3 DNFs. If something has 1 existing DNF, and they can't find it as well, they post a NA . Since the reviewer obliges them, it only reinforces their actions.

Link to comment

Pair this with the hissy fit about 30-minute minimum event requirements, and it's yet another example of variations between Reviewers.

 

Groundspeak might be looking at more ways to right the ship, get back on the tracks, or whatever other way we want to put it.

 

Within this thread, I see a common thread with everyone--consistency is important, and perhaps oft-overlooked when we have variations between individual users' personalities and decisions, compounded by Reviewer intentional or unintentional biases, and held to general and non-specific guidelines.

 

Grab your pitchforks...there's always something to be hacked off about with this game... <_<

Link to comment

I mean, if a cache on a beautiful, adventurous hike is still there after archival, you can still log the find.

 

Not necessarily. I recently found an archived cache and logged the find, only to receive an email from the CO that he was deleting my find and had confirmed that this was acceptable for him to do. I tried emailing him asking why he would bother, but never got a response. Of course, this doesn't detract from my nice hike or the pleasant thrill of finding an old (and broken) geocache container that had been sitting as litter for 12 years. I wish I had simply carried it out with me now, but given the COs mysterious behavior, perhaps it is best that I didn't mess with his broken plastic container abandoned in the woods.

Link to comment

I mean, if a cache on a beautiful, adventurous hike is still there after archival, you can still log the find.

 

Not necessarily. I recently found an archived cache and logged the find, only to receive an email from the CO that he was deleting my find and had confirmed that this was acceptable for him to do. I tried emailing him asking why he would bother, but never got a response. Of course, this doesn't detract from my nice hike or the pleasant thrill of finding an old (and broken) geocache container that had been sitting as litter for 12 years. I wish I had simply carried it out with me now, but given the COs mysterious behavior, perhaps it is best that I didn't mess with his broken plastic container abandoned in the woods.

And...did you appeal? I would have...

Link to comment

I'm not defending his hide (questionable based on what was posted) or his actions (throwing a fit certainly). It's a 4 D cache that hasn't been found since Sep 13 (not even 1 1/2 years ago) and has 5 DNFs. Why does this cache deserved to be tagged by a reviewer? It has several series of strings of DNFs (3 at most in a row) and one time the CO went to replace it and found it there, showing that the CO does maintain the cache. I can't tell how long it's been since the CO has been on the site (since it's obvious it was yesterday) so I'm not sure if that's a factor either.

 

Why hasn't this cache been disabled? Same duration without a find, a string of 3 DNFs but only a 2D hide, meaning it should be easier.

 

This one?

 

Or this one?

 

This one?

 

This one?

 

How about this one, with a note from the CO from June?

 

How about this high D cache with nothing apparently wrong?

 

This one? Or this?

 

This one too?

 

Or finally, this one.

 

All of them with a small string of DNFs, most of them last found 6 months or longer, some with NM attributes and all within 10 miles of the cache that the CO archived. Where's the continuity in the application a reviewer has when disabling a cache?

 

I believe one difference is the CO of the one I originally posted was not always good at responding to NM logs in the past and rarely was attentive to his caches. I'm fairly certain they take that stuff into account with whatever new disabling kick they're on. "Business as usual" doesn't appear to cut it anymore.

Link to comment

I mean, if a cache on a beautiful, adventurous hike is still there after archival, you can still log the find.

 

Not necessarily. I recently found an archived cache and logged the find, only to receive an email from the CO that he was deleting my find and had confirmed that this was acceptable for him to do. I tried emailing him asking why he would bother, but never got a response. Of course, this doesn't detract from my nice hike or the pleasant thrill of finding an old (and broken) geocache container that had been sitting as litter for 12 years. I wish I had simply carried it out with me now, but given the COs mysterious behavior, perhaps it is best that I didn't mess with his broken plastic container abandoned in the woods.

And...did you appeal? I would have...

 

No I didn't appeal. I may feel that my found log is legitimate and should stand, but the CO obviously feels otherwise, and appealing to higher powers and potentially going over the CO's head seems like a bad idea, something that would only serve to create discord. I may disagree with that COs decision, but I'll respect it. I merely wanted to point out that finding archived caches is not the same as finding caches that are in play. Hard to say that there are "guidelines" for things that are not included in the game anymore.

Link to comment

I mean, if a cache on a beautiful, adventurous hike is still there after archival, you can still log the find.

 

Not necessarily. I recently found an archived cache and logged the find, only to receive an email from the CO that he was deleting my find and had confirmed that this was acceptable for him to do. I tried emailing him asking why he would bother, but never got a response. Of course, this doesn't detract from my nice hike or the pleasant thrill of finding an old (and broken) geocache container that had been sitting as litter for 12 years. I wish I had simply carried it out with me now, but given the COs mysterious behavior, perhaps it is best that I didn't mess with his broken plastic container abandoned in the woods.

And...did you appeal? I would have...

 

No I didn't appeal. I may feel that my found log is legitimate and should stand, but the CO obviously feels otherwise, and appealing to higher powers and potentially going over the CO's head seems like a bad idea, something that would only serve to create discord. I may disagree with that COs decision, but I'll respect it. I merely wanted to point out that finding archived caches is not the same as finding caches that are in play. Hard to say that there are "guidelines" for things that are not included in the game anymore.

 

The cache owner left 12-year old litter out there in the woods, and you are concerned about what he thinks of you?

Link to comment

 

No I didn't appeal. I may feel that my found log is legitimate and should stand, but the CO obviously feels otherwise, and appealing to higher powers and potentially going over the CO's head seems like a bad idea, something that would only serve to create discord. I may disagree with that COs decision, but I'll respect it. I merely wanted to point out that finding archived caches is not the same as finding caches that are in play. Hard to say that there are "guidelines" for things that are not included in the game anymore.

 

I don't know what is to respect there. The listing is archived, but the cache is still there. The owner doesn't care about removing it, but do care about removing the logs. If he want no logs on the cache, why don't he remove it from the place?

 

I can understand when someone leaves the container and allows it to be found and logged (altough it's usually going over the reviewer decision, for any reason it might be). I can't understand why leaving the container and not allowing to log.

 

Can you check the archive reason? Maybe the cache was archived, because the owner was deleting the logs without reason? In that case, I'd consider silently removing the container from the outdoor.

Link to comment

No I didn't appeal. I may feel that my found log is legitimate and should stand, but the CO obviously feels otherwise, and appealing to higher powers and potentially going over the CO's head seems like a bad idea, something that would only serve to create discord. I may disagree with that COs decision, but I'll respect it. I merely wanted to point out that finding archived caches is not the same as finding caches that are in play. Hard to say that there are "guidelines" for things that are not included in the game anymore.

 

I don't know what is to respect there. The listing is archived, but the cache is still there. The owner doesn't care about removing it, but do care about removing the logs. If he want no logs on the cache, why don't he remove it from the place?

 

I can understand when someone leaves the container and allows it to be found and logged (altough it's usually going over the reviewer decision, for any reason it might be). I can't understand why leaving the container and not allowing to log.

 

Can you check the archive reason? Maybe the cache was archived, because the owner was deleting the logs without reason? In that case, I'd consider silently removing the container from the outdoor.

 

Yeah, I was pretty baffled by the whole thing. For anyone's curiosity, here is the cache listing GCC8AD. And I'm not sure it'll work, but here is/was my deleted log, http://coord.info/GLGN01VE. Reading the existing logs doesn't provide much of a story, I would guess other logs have been deleted, or maybe back in 2003 that is just how things looked. Getting back to the topic on hand though... I enjoy searching for archived caches when I go on hikes, they are kind of like finding secret caches since most geocachers don't bother to to go through the effort to find out about them. And since many of the reasons that caches are archived have little bearing on whether the cache is there (unresponsive CO after DNFs!?), they aren't as rare as you might think. Some of the ones I've found have been in pretty good shape, since not being found helps preserve a cache's condition (same goes for Lonely caches). Still, I'd rather see caches stay listed if they are viable, and only archived when it there is real evidence that they are not there, or there are real problems with the location, but that's just my two cents.

Link to comment

No I didn't appeal. I may feel that my found log is legitimate and should stand, but the CO obviously feels otherwise, and appealing to higher powers and potentially going over the CO's head seems like a bad idea, something that would only serve to create discord. I may disagree with that COs decision, but I'll respect it. I merely wanted to point out that finding archived caches is not the same as finding caches that are in play. Hard to say that there are "guidelines" for things that are not included in the game anymore.

 

I don't know what is to respect there. The listing is archived, but the cache is still there. The owner doesn't care about removing it, but do care about removing the logs. If he want no logs on the cache, why don't he remove it from the place?

 

I can understand when someone leaves the container and allows it to be found and logged (altough it's usually going over the reviewer decision, for any reason it might be). I can't understand why leaving the container and not allowing to log.

 

Can you check the archive reason? Maybe the cache was archived, because the owner was deleting the logs without reason? In that case, I'd consider silently removing the container from the outdoor.

 

Yeah, I was pretty baffled by the whole thing. For anyone's curiosity, here is the cache listing GCC8AD. And I'm not sure it'll work, but here is/was my deleted log, http://coord.info/GLGN01VE. Reading the existing logs doesn't provide much of a story, I would guess other logs have been deleted, or maybe back in 2003 that is just how things looked. Getting back to the topic on hand though... I enjoy searching for archived caches when I go on hikes, they are kind of like finding secret caches since most geocachers don't bother to to go through the effort to find out about them. And since many of the reasons that caches are archived have little bearing on whether the cache is there (unresponsive CO after DNFs!?), they aren't as rare as you might think. Some of the ones I've found have been in pretty good shape, since not being found helps preserve a cache's condition (same goes for Lonely caches). Still, I'd rather see caches stay listed if they are viable, and only archived when it there is real evidence that they are not there, or there are real problems with the location, but that's just my two cents.

 

All of his caches (except Earthcaches) have been archived. Looks like something angered him on 04/18/2009, when he posted an NA "Bye-bye" on many of his caches. Maybe he doesn't want it advertised that he didn't pick up his archived cache.

Link to comment

How about zero DNFs + 1 unresponsive owner?

 

Oh so blue

 

Four years since the last find, what's the big deal? Four years is nothing in wilderness areas.

 

BTW, I think this was the oldest-unfound cache at one time...

 

Oh.... THAT cache?!? In Belize? There is an old thread here somewhere about that. A vacation cache left in the care of a resort owner who died, and somebody that went down there with a throwdown to give to the new resort owner, or something like that. Glad it was finally put out of its misery.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...