Jump to content

1 DNF + 1 unresponsive owner = archival


4wheelin_fool
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

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)

 

I agree this may have been a bad example in the sense it does/did have other problems, as I clearly pointed out, however, my point was, which I think you might have missed, that someone who had never been there placed a NM. IMO, with that being allowed, it opens the door up for others merely reading through logs and placing a NM or NA on any other cache (whether for the good of the game or other, unscrupulous reasons), I think a person should actually visit a cache before placing a NM or NA.

Link to comment

Likely the cache was disabled mainly to the 7 DNFs, not the NM, although it is fairly common for someone to post a NM based solely on a string of DNFs without visiting.

 

However, this thread is supposed to be about disabling after only 1 DNF. There are plenty of examples of NAs posted on caches with just 3 DNFs, let alone NMs based on many DNFs.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
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.

 

As the OP of this topic was questioning the occurrences of one dnf and disabling, and this particular reviewer, as his examples were of this reviewer, and the act they appeared to be disabled after 1 dnf, I went and actually looked at several of the ones that where mentioned and gave my opinion on what I saw, which I clearly stated was my opinion...I was thoughtful and certainly not disrespectful in the post of my opinion and my observation and my suggestions. I did not deserve to be attacked because of my opinion.

 

Your comment "Unless you have proof that OReviewer did as you described, your opinion is just that." I'm wondering...Do you have actual proof that how Oreviewer actually did his job, as mentioned by Karst? Or is it JUST YOUR OPINION... based on "how reviewers actually do their jobs" as you know it? If you were not sitting there next to him, then how he did his job is really nothing more than just your opinion also....

 

Anyways, as it seems this topic has hit quite a nerve and as a peace offering, I'll leave it with just a simple "Happy New Years" and Happy Geocaching!

Edited by The Lost Orfin's
Link to comment

I'm wondering...Do you have actual proof that how Oreviewer actually did his job, as mentioned by Karst?

Yes. I've worked with OReviewer since the day he became a fellow reviewer in my home state more than eight years ago. I know how he does his job, since I helped train him (he has since published more caches than I have!). I've also corresponded privately with him since this thread was started. We also have a private reviewers' forum where we discuss best practices for reviewer duties, including maintenance sweeps, and OReviewer and I are both quite active in those discussions. OReviewer's work methods are well known to me personally. He does an awesome job.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

 

...

 

I think a person should actually visit a cache before placing a NM or NA.

 

With the rarest exceptions, IMO it's best to visit the cache before posting *anything.*

Not so fo NM. Many geocachers plan visits to interesting places and, in our case we will be visiting Mexico in March. There aren't a lot of caches in Mexico and, in one of the cities we will be staying at there were only 2 that looked somewhere near our hotel. Both of these had multiple DNFs. We posted NMs on them and one has been fixed (GC4TQJ7) and the other (GC4TQJ0)was disabled in July (and is still disabled with a reviewer note posted 31/10).

Posting the NM has saved at least one for others who may be visiting.

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. :)

If every cache had an active and responsive owner, then you could make the argument that when a reviewer disables the cache and give 30 days to take care of the problem that the owner simply has to respond to prevent archiving.

 

The problem is that not every cache has as active or responsive owner. For most people geocaching a light fun activity that they may participate in only a few times each year. The rest of the time they are not thinking about geocaching. They may not check their geocaching email all the time, and when they do check, they might not respond in what you would consider reasonable time. After all, if one cache is missing or needs attention, that doesn't prevent people from going out and enjoying a day of geocaching. I rarely spend a day where I find more than 5 or 6 caches where I don't get a at least one DNF and where I don't find on cache with a wet log or a cracked container. Yet I still enjoyed that day geocaching. Despite the guidelines, cache maintenance is a low priority compared to other things I do.

 

And there are caches with no owner at all. People who place caches lose interest in caching, move away, or die. The cache is still there and people can find it. Sometimes someone DNFs the cache or reports a minor maintenance issue. It doesn't mean that the cache is no longer viable.

 

Some of the elitist in forums will no doubt say that people who only cache once or twice a year and are not obsessed to check their geocaching email every day and bump geocaching to the top of their priorities when they get notified their cache needs maintenance shouldn't be cache owners. And there have already been others who say if the owner has lost interest in geocaching or died, the cache should be archived because it has no owner. I don't believe this is Groundspeak's position or even the majority opinion of geocachers. For caches in remote hard-to-get-to locations, there is a desire to keep the listings active so long as people are willing to go and look for the cache there. In general a single DNF or a minor maintenance issues that can be fixed by someone with a fresh log sheet and some duct tape shouldn't be reason for archiving the cache and may not even be reason for disabling the cache.

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. :)

If every cache had an active and responsive owner, then you could make the argument that when a reviewer disables the cache and give 30 days to take care of the problem that the owner simply has to respond to prevent archiving.

 

The problem is that not every cache has as active or responsive owner. For most people geocaching a light fun activity that they may participate in only a few times each year. The rest of the time they are not thinking about geocaching. They may not check their geocaching email all the time, and when they do check, they might not respond in what you would consider reasonable time. After all, if one cache is missing or needs attention, that doesn't prevent people from going out and enjoying a day of geocaching. I rarely spend a day where I find more than 5 or 6 caches where I don't get a at least one DNF and where I don't find on cache with a wet log or a cracked container. Yet I still enjoyed that day geocaching. Despite the guidelines, cache maintenance is a low priority compared to other things I do.

 

And there are caches with no owner at all. People who place caches lose interest in caching, move away, or die. The cache is still there and people can find it. Sometimes someone DNFs the cache or reports a minor maintenance issue. It doesn't mean that the cache is no longer viable.

 

Some of the elitist in forums will no doubt say that people who only cache once or twice a year and are not obsessed to check their geocaching email every day and bump geocaching to the top of their priorities when they get notified their cache needs maintenance shouldn't be cache owners. And there have already been others who say if the owner has lost interest in geocaching or died, the cache should be archived because it has no owner. I don't believe this is Groundspeak's position or even the majority opinion of geocachers. For caches in remote hard-to-get-to locations, there is a desire to keep the listings active so long as people are willing to go and look for the cache there. In general a single DNF or a minor maintenance issues that can be fixed by someone with a fresh log sheet and some duct tape shouldn't be reason for archiving the cache and may not even be reason for disabling the cache.

 

Interesting...because I see giving certain caches and/or owners preferential treatment and/or a free pass on maintenance as elitist. Go figure. :ph34r:

Link to comment

 

...

 

I think a person should actually visit a cache before placing a NM or NA.

 

With the rarest exceptions, IMO it's best to visit the cache before posting *anything.*

Not so fo NM. Many geocachers plan visits to interesting places and, in our case we will be visiting Mexico in March. There aren't a lot of caches in Mexico and, in one of the cities we will be staying at there were only 2 that looked somewhere near our hotel. Both of these had multiple DNFs. We posted NMs on them and one has been fixed (GC4TQJ7) and the other (GC4TQJ0)was disabled in July (and is still disabled with a reviewer note posted 31/10).

Posting the NM has saved at least one for others who may be visiting.

We'll agree to disagree. The same reading of logs that leads an armchair cacher to decide that a cache they've never visited needs maintenance would discourage someone from making an out-of-the-way trip to the cache. I think it's going too far to decide that a location you've never seen needs maintenance.

Link to comment

If it's too elitist to expect that 30 days is a reasonable amount of time that responsible cache owners should be able to respond to NM logs on their caches, then how long should casual COs get before non-response would be considered irresponsible? 60 days? 90 days? 6 months? A year?

 

I think 30 days is about right, and whoever decided those guidelines have their reasons. If they can't respond to a simple log on the website in a month, how long does it take them to repair a full log or replace a misplaced cache?

 

I mean if you own 400 caches across the state, I can't imagine you would check on them all every month without getting alerted that there was a problem. The least they can do is let people know they're not ignoring the alert, even if it's just to say you'll take care of it after spring thaw.

 

Some of the elitist in forums will no doubt say that people who only cache once or twice a year and are not obsessed to check their geocaching email every day and bump geocaching to the top of their priorities when they get notified their cache needs maintenance shouldn't be cache owners.

 

I've been caching off and on (casually) since 2007 and I know I am no where near involved enough with the hobby to be a cache owner. If I ever do get the combination of the right location, the right container, and enough time to devote to the hobby to feel that it wouldn't be irresponsible of me to be a cache owner, then maybe I'll hide one. In the mean time, I'll just go seeking out other caches.

 

Even so if I did own a cache right now, I bet I could still manage to be bothered enough to at least reply to any logs that needed attention within a week or so. If I owned more than one cache and it'd take me more than 30 days to respond to any issues, I'd say I'd be owning more caches than I could responsibly maintain.

 

Ah, who cares? I guess I can just slap a film can under a LPC and forget about other than once or twice a year.

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment

+1 on TopShelfRob's post.

 

Apparently I'm an elitist cacher, too. But if a CO only geocaches every 6 months, he can at least respond to NM/NA/Disablement notifications. That's part of the responsibility of being a cache owner, and can be done from the comfort of his home. If he cannot do even that, then yeah - he shouldn't be a CO.

Link to comment

+1 on TopShelfRob's post.

 

Apparently I'm an elitist cacher, too. But if a CO only geocaches every 6 months, he can at least respond to NM/NA/Disablement notifications. That's part of the responsibility of being a cache owner, and can be done from the comfort of his home. If he cannot do even that, then yeah - he shouldn't be a CO.

 

It's more than just responding with a note that's involved. It implies that the CO has to physically check on the cache before re enabling it. Every note saying "I'll check on it", is followed by another reviewer note 30 days later.

 

Plenty of part time cachers do respond the first time around, but by the second note they often let it go.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

The forum elitist may not have children who they have to take care of and provide transport to, they may not have a chronic disease the occasionally confines them to bed, they may not have to take care of a sick spouse or parent, they may not have a demanding job where they have to be on call 24/7, then may not be in the military and subject to oversea deployments. 30 days is more than enough time to read emails and to respond (even by saying "I can't fix this right now because my child is in the hospital with a serious illness, I'll get to it right after the funeral.")

 

Drop everything because, if you're cache owner, nothing is more important then responding to issues with your cache.

 

And if it happens to be your funeral, and your cache is still sitting there where it can be found, well we can't has some crybaby cacher who won't even go to look because there is one DNF; the reviewer should archive the cache if you can't check on it.

Link to comment

The forum elitist may not have children who they have to take care of and provide transport to, they may not have a chronic disease the occasionally confines them to bed, they may not have to take care of a sick spouse or parent, they may not have a demanding job where they have to be on call 24/7, then may not be in the military and subject to oversea deployments. 30 days is more than enough time to read emails and to respond (even by saying "I can't fix this right now because my child is in the hospital with a serious illness, I'll get to it right after the funeral.")

 

Drop everything because, if you're cache owner, nothing is more important then responding to issues with your cache.

 

And if it happens to be your funeral, and your cache is still sitting there where it can be found, well we can't has some crybaby cacher who won't even go to look because there is one DNF; the reviewer should archive the cache if you can't check on it.

 

Well there's many reasons why people can be too busy to be a responsible cache owner... You don't need to drop everything -- that's what so beautiful about the system, if you're too busy to fulfill your duties, just wait 30 days after getting a NM, and it'll get archived, you won't have to lift a finger.

 

If there's all that going on in your life, then maintaining your caches should certainly take a back seat to such important matters... it's okay, we understand. When things lighten up a little, you can always hide more caches.

 

If I'm dead you should archive it -- I won't be able to maintain it anymore!

 

If I happen to be a cache owner when I die, I hope my caches get archived on the 31st day after they put me in the groud. If you hear that TopShelfRob has died, please post a NM on my caches the next day -- I apologize in advance, but even if nothing's wrong with them right now, they will need maintaining in the future and I'll be unable to do it.

 

I'd hate to think there'd a bunch of ninnys arguing in the forums about whether or not they should archive my post-mortem caches. Please, archive them... if I'm six feet deep, I assure you I won't be replying to any NMs from the beyond. If I'm not dead and get too busy to reply, then I'll adopt them out or archive 'em myself. If I quit the game or I'm dead, and you don't hear from me, then archive them. If I am too busy to reply in 30 days then don't hesitate to archive them: If I'm dead then I can't maintain them, and if I'm not dead but too busy, I'm obviously not maintaining them either... When I get time I can always hide more.

 

Hint: If I'm still posting in the forum, I'm not dead.

 

If it's elitist to not encourage geolitter, then I guess I'm an elitist.

Edited by TopShelfRob
Link to comment

 

If I'm dead you should archive it -- I won't be able to maintain it anymore!

 

Same here. If I'm dead I want my cache hides to be archived. In my area I've built up a reputation for providing good cache experiences included timely maintenance visits. I would hate to see one of our hand-built swag-size caches turn into a dollar store micro container with a moldy wet logsheet, that only gets maintained by the occasional finder who tosses one of their bag-full of micro replacements so the GC# stays alive.

Link to comment

 

If I'm dead you should archive it -- I won't be able to maintain it anymore!

 

...

 

If it's elitist to not encourage geolitter, then I guess I'm an elitist.

If your caches are archived 31 days after you die, then you will have left geolitter.

 

Do you really think that anyone will see that your caches have been archived and will go collect the containers?

 

The cache is there, it can be found, and people will log it. Only when there are multiple DNFs and/or logs reporting problems like the cache site is no longer accessible does the reviewer even need to get involved.

 

I was FTF on a cache someone hid in a place they knew previously had a cache. The owners of the first cache had stopped geocaching and after a few DNFs over a relatively short period, someone posted a NA and the reviewer archived it. Here's my log

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

A few months ago I did maintenance on a genuine BigBill6 cache, who passed away a few years ago. It was nice to save the original logbook from 2001, and getting a thank you from his non caching brother.

Thank you to 4wheelin fool for a nice dose of reality. That is a good way of handling the caches of a deceased geocacher, and reviewers do notice this. I hope you posted a note to the page. With evidence of strong community maintenance, a reviewer should be willing to do minor tasks like removing a "needs maintenance" attribute.

 

Groundspeak has a written policy on how to handle caches and trackables owned by a geocacher who passes on. It's part of the adoption policy. So, enough of the speculative talk about dying geocachers, and back to the subject at hand. Thanks.

Link to comment

Here is a casualty of this 'new' policy. GC2XDYE. Story here is a tornado struck the preserve in July 2014, and caused heavy treefalls along a large section of trails. The park service closed all the trails in that area on a long-term basis until the trails can be repaired and deadfall can be cleared. That section is still closed today, per the request of the park service. This CO was responsive to their request and disabled his cache until the trails reopen. GC wants to archive it because it's been disabled too long. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Link to comment

What policy?

 

There has never been confirmation that any policy has changed.

 

As for this particular cache, I wonder if the reviewer read the disable note. Even if they did, I could see them wanting an update on a cache that had been disabled for 4 months. I think the wording of the reviewer's note is boilerplate and doesn't particularly apply to this specific situation, though.

 

So no, I don't think this cache is one that relates to the topic of this thread.

Link to comment
Here is a casualty of this 'new' policy. GC2XDYE. Story here is a tornado struck the preserve in July 2014, and caused heavy treefalls along a large section of trails. The park service closed all the trails in that area on a long-term basis until the trails can be repaired and deadfall can be cleared. That section is still closed today, per the request of the park service. This CO was responsive to their request and disabled his cache until the trails reopen. GC wants to archive it because it's been disabled too long. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
It seems to me that this is a different issue. The CO disabled the cache because the area was closed, and the volunteer reviewer is just scanning for caches that have been disabled for longer than a certain threshold. I was in a similar situation when a cache of mine was disabled for several months due to construction. But that was initiated by the CO in response to the situation at the cache site.

 

This thread is about the process being started by the volunteer reviewer, by disabling a cache in response to a single DNF log, in some cases a single DNF log that offers no indication that there is anything wrong at the cache site.

Link to comment

Ah, I see the difference in that it was not triggered by a DNF post. I thought it was similar enough due to the appearance of an overzealous reviewer.

 

With a dozen or more disabled caches in the preserve due to temporary but long trail closures, it was surprising to only see this one get threatened with archiving. It has ended well enough and the CO just enabled it again.

Link to comment

Ah, I see the difference in that it was not triggered by a DNF post. I thought it was similar enough due to the appearance of an overzealous reviewer.

 

The thread is not about an overzealous reviewer either, as the practice is occurring in other places as well. This is a general discussion about something completely different. As I already mentioned, this particular reviewer appears to be doing a fine job otherwise and is only doing as instructed.

Link to comment

Ah, I see the difference in that it was not triggered by a DNF post. I thought it was similar enough due to the appearance of an overzealous reviewer.

 

The thread is not about an overzealous reviewer either, as the practice is occurring in other places as well. This is a general discussion about something completely different. As I already mentioned, this particular reviewer appears to be doing a fine job otherwise and is only doing as instructed.

 

Thought i read every post and even if so, may have just missed it. I didn't realize that our reviewers were instructed to do this. If so, maybe we need to write directly to headquarters to let them know of our concern.

Link to comment

 

The thread is not about an overzealous reviewer either, as the practice is occurring in other places as well. This is a general discussion about something completely different. As I already mentioned, this particular reviewer appears to be doing a fine job otherwise and is only doing as instructed.

 

Thought i read every post and even if so, may have just missed it. I didn't realize that our reviewers were instructed to do this. If so, maybe we need to write directly to headquarters to let them know of our concern.

 

Maybe so.

 

 

 

Here is a new one in Oregon, soon to be archived for 1 DNF. It was disabled a week after this thread was started, so there doesn't appear to be any new inclination to change.

 

http://coord.info/GCY3ZG

 

And another:

 

http://coord.info/GC1JD6G

 

:sad:

Link to comment

It seems evident now that there is not much concern after people have accepted the archivals. The two I just posted above in Oregon should certainly have a bit more search history before taking them down. New hides may have dropped 24%, but the amount of people searching for remote hides is off much more than that. The lack of activity is presumed to be silent DNFs, but rather it only reflects the current trend of easy finds for smileys.

Link to comment

 

The thread is not about an overzealous reviewer either, as the practice is occurring in other places as well. This is a general discussion about something completely different. As I already mentioned, this particular reviewer appears to be doing a fine job otherwise and is only doing as instructed.

 

Thought i read every post and even if so, may have just missed it. I didn't realize that our reviewers were instructed to do this. If so, maybe we need to write directly to headquarters to let them know of our concern.

 

Maybe so.

 

 

 

Here is a new one in Oregon, soon to be archived for 1 DNF. It was disabled a week after this thread was started, so there doesn't appear to be any new inclination to change.

 

http://coord.info/GCY3ZG

 

And another:

 

http://coord.info/GC1JD6G

 

:sad:

I don't read either TD log from the Reviewer as following the OP formula. The language is directed at the owner, and it says that the owner can contact the Reviewer and let them know if they don't think they can perform maintenance on their cache(s). When those caches get archived by the Reviewer, then bring them up.

 

And, just perhaps, there is something more going on with the cache owner(s) that the Reviewer is aware of that we are not by looking only at the outside.

 

Also, if a cache hasn't been found in 3 years and the owner hasn't checked on it, then there's a DNF and details saying that things are overgrown, etc...I would, as a cache owner, take some action and go out to my cache and make sure that the cache is ok and the vegetation and other conditions haven't changed. It's not that hard.

 

So, if the owner(s) decide not to take any action, I really have no sympathy--even if these caches could have been left alone. Who knows...But come on, is it that big a deal to ask an owner to check on a cache?

Link to comment

I realize reviewers argue that this can be avoided by responding to the reviewer note. But this can also be avoided by the reviewer reading the DNF. Geesh, this is really ridiculous.

It could also be avoided if people posted DNF logs when they looked and could not find and wrote notes when they couldn't search.

Link to comment

I realize reviewers argue that this can be avoided by responding to the reviewer note. But this can also be avoided by the reviewer reading the DNF. Geesh, this is really ridiculous.

It could also be avoided if people posted DNF logs when they looked and could not find and wrote notes when they couldn't search.

 

Speaking of the underwater cache in NE Pa., what's up with that note lecturing the cache owner it should be a terrain 5, and culminating with (paraphrasing), "I'm not going to do your cache unless you change the terrain to 5". That's pretty bizarre, in my opinion. No matter, cache owner hasn't logged in since 2013, or logged a find since 2009. That cache will be gone forever in about 5 days, by my estimation. :(

Link to comment

 

The thread is not about an overzealous reviewer either, as the practice is occurring in other places as well. This is a general discussion about something completely different. As I already mentioned, this particular reviewer appears to be doing a fine job otherwise and is only doing as instructed.

 

Thought i read every post and even if so, may have just missed it. I didn't realize that our reviewers were instructed to do this. If so, maybe we need to write directly to headquarters to let them know of our concern.

 

Maybe so.

 

 

 

Here is a new one in Oregon, soon to be archived for 1 DNF. It was disabled a week after this thread was started, so there doesn't appear to be any new inclination to change.

 

http://coord.info/GCY3ZG

 

And another:

 

http://coord.info/GC1JD6G

 

:sad:

I don't read either TD log from the Reviewer as following the OP formula. The language is directed at the owner, and it says that the owner can contact the Reviewer and let them know if they don't think they can perform maintenance on their cache(s). When those caches get archived by the Reviewer, then bring them up.

 

And, just perhaps, there is something more going on with the cache owner(s) that the Reviewer is aware of that we are not by looking only at the outside.

 

Also, if a cache hasn't been found in 3 years and the owner hasn't checked on it, then there's a DNF and details saying that things are overgrown, etc...I would, as a cache owner, take some action and go out to my cache and make sure that the cache is ok and the vegetation and other conditions haven't changed. It's not that hard.

 

So, if the owner(s) decide not to take any action, I really have no sympathy--even if these caches could have been left alone. Who knows...But come on, is it that big a deal to ask an owner to check on a cache?

 

We almost always agree, but you really support the reviewer's actions in those two cases? Especially the 2nd one, where there is no mention of the actual cache search by the DNF'er? I look at those two examples and say "you have to be freaking kidding me". I'm not going to read 8 pages of posts, but are there any examples of such reviewer lonely cache witch hunts by any reviewers besides these two? :huh:

Link to comment

Can NeverSummer at least agree that the underwater cache should have never been disabled? Yes, communication on the CO's part will rectify all these situations. We get that. The problem I have (and others as well) is that the CO is being REQUIRED to reply based on the disabling of a cache that probably should have never been disabled in the first place. Why this one when there are so many others in the area that need attention? There are 68 caches with NM logs within 10 miles of this cache. However, THIS one, without a NM log, gets disabled. Only a few of the 68 are disabled.

Link to comment

I looked at that one years ago (never attempted). Thought it was a vacation cache.

To me, it looked like it had possible private property issues (the CO's other hide did too) and the rating was incorrect since the day it came out, but no one who attempted wanted to place a NM or NA years earlier to try to get anything fixed by the (now inactive) CO.

Surprised it lasted this long...

Link to comment

I'm appreciative too, don't get me wrong, but when these things aren't being applied equally to all caches, it indicates subjective application instead of objective application of the guidelines and the procedures to follow. 68 caches with a NM attribute within 10 miles of the underwater cache, yet this one, without a NM log gets attention. How about clearing up the other 68 with known issues before tackling caches that MIGHT have an issue?

Link to comment

I don't believe Reviewers are disabling hides over a single DNF, while intentionally skipping over hides in the same area that need maintenance.

Seems (around here anyway...) whenever one's "picked" over another, someone who couldn't man-up on the cache page, emailed a concern to the Reviewer, making him the bad guy.

Link to comment

I know I am in the minority in this thread, but I am among those who appreciate the fact that reviewers periodically sift through the cache flotsam and jetsam. I think they do a great job.

 

No, you might actually be a majority. Amongst the Forum Elistists, to coin a new term invented by Toz in this thread. :laughing:

 

I'd love to see the Oregon reviewer and the Eastern Pa./Southern N.J. reviewer come here and tell us what percentage of the "lonely cache" owners who have received "check on your cache in 30 days, or it's history" notes have responded. I'll bet it's at best 10%. We could take this to the extreme, you know. Every reviewer world wide could post "check on your cache in 30 days, or it's history" notes to every cache in the world. Assuming I'm mostly correct about the 10%, we could prune this "there are over 3,000,000 caches world wide" thing on the bottom of the main page to about 300,000. I'll bet Jeremy Irish, and his 70 or so full time employees, would be estatic. :ph34r:

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

To Mr. Yuck:

 

1. There is no such thing as a Western PA/ Southern NJ reviewer.

 

2. There are many, many reviewers who have stepped up their efforts in recent months to ensure that caches listed here are available to be found and are well-maintained. It's inappropriate to single out two reviewers.

 

3. Very few CO's who receive reviewer reminder logs on their cache page ever respond. Over time, I'd estimate the average to be 15%. In the batch of disabled caches that "came due" yesterday after four weeks since my last note, 23 were archived. The four CO's who left an "I'll get to this soon" note on their pages got "passed over."

 

To Cheech Gang: Stay tuned, the reaper will be roaming around your home area while watching the Broncos/Colts game. Thanks for noticing our efforts to keep the cornfields and cemeteries of Northwest Ohio clear of unmaintained caches!

Link to comment

I know I am in the minority in this thread, but I am among those who appreciate the fact that reviewers periodically sift through the cache flotsam and jetsam. I think they do a great job.

 

No, you might actually be a majority. Amongst the Forum Elistists, to coin a new term invented by Toz in this thread. :laughing:

Even I have said in this thread that if a cache is missing and there is no one maintaining it, reviewers should go through the process of archiving it.

 

Please look at the topic of the thread. If you have a cache that is rarely found or searched for, 1 DNF should not trigger the process.

 

Those of us who look for rarely searched for cache know that one with a single DNF the cache is likely to still be there. This is true even if the last find was over a year ago.

 

The forum elitists that I refer to are those who think that abandoned caches should be archive because nobody will check on the DNF. I've found a few caches I've checked on after they were archived by over zealous reviewers. I'd rather see the reviewers wait for a second or third DNF or a comment from a previous finder that verifies the cache is missing.

Link to comment

To Mr. Yuck:

 

1. There is no such thing as a Western PA/ Southern NJ reviewer.

 

2. There are many, many reviewers who have stepped up their efforts in recent months to ensure that caches listed here are available to be found and are well-maintained. It's inappropriate to single out two reviewers.

 

3. Very few CO's who receive reviewer reminder logs on their cache page ever respond. Over time, I'd estimate the average to be 15%. In the batch of disabled caches that "came due" yesterday after four weeks since my last note, 23 were archived. The four CO's who left an "I'll get to this soon" note on their pages got "passed over."

 

To Cheech Gang: Stay tuned, the reaper will be roaming around your home area while watching the Broncos/Colts game. Thanks for noticing our efforts to keep the cornfields and cemeteries of Northwest Ohio clear of unmaintained caches!

 

Awesome, I'm impressed that my post was somehow even acknowledged, rather than being deleted without comment. I was too fast for you though, I changed Western Pa. to Eastern Pa. :P

Link to comment

I might add, my obviously farcical situation regarding every cache in the world having a "check on your cache in 30 days or it's history" note posted to it was not aimed at the Oregon or Western Eastern Pa. reviewer, but rather at some of the Forum Elitists who have posted to this thread. Really, people? This is a game. There's like 70 people in the whole world who make their living off of it. OK, Maybe like 100 if you count Cache-Advance, and a few Geocoin vendors. :)

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.

Link to comment

Can NeverSummer at least agree that the underwater cache should have never been disabled? Yes, communication on the CO's part will rectify all these situations. We get that. The problem I have (and others as well) is that the CO is being REQUIRED to reply based on the disabling of a cache that probably should have never been disabled in the first place. Why this one when there are so many others in the area that need attention? There are 68 caches with NM logs within 10 miles of this cache. However, THIS one, without a NM log, gets disabled. Only a few of the 68 are disabled.

I wasn't aware I'm on trial here... :blink:

 

Which cache are you referencing (GC Code, if you could help me weed it out of the myriad of posts with caches listed; thanks.)?

 

Let's be honest here. This is a game that is run by a company. They have rules that we need to follow. They also "employ" volunteers to help with review of caches to be sure that the millions of submissions and published caches out there meet the guidelines they provide for listing of a cache on their website. Those Reviewers have a lot to do, and sometimes that might mean they zero in on some specific caches or areas of their jurisdiction.

 

I have no problem whatsoever if a person who signs up to use this listing service decides not to respond to concerns on their cache page; they're not required to post a log in response to each DNF, or even go look at their cache after each DNF. But where problems arise is when an owner doesn't respond or appear to be checking on their caches. I have no problem with seeing a Reviewer nudge a cache owner to make it at least appear that they're involved in their cache(s)--posting OM logs from time to time, Notes to check in with questions on the listing page, etc. But when someone appears to be uninvolved, and then a Reviewer nudges them and they remain silent, I have little sympathy for them and their listing.

 

That's just me. I have nothing to say here that doesn't involve the guidelines, and then my personal opinions about certain caches listed in this thread. Forgive me if I play devil's advocate, or simply think of things on the blacker side of one's black-or-white feeling on the subject. I like to give the volunteer Reviewers the benefit of the doubt, and believe that they are acting in the best interest of the game, and under directives from the company they volunteer for. If people are really that miffed about this, then they can contact Groundspeak directly and voice their concern about a specific cache, Reviewer, or guideline.

Link to comment

 

Can NeverSummer at least agree that the underwater cache should have never been disabled? Yes, communication on the CO's part will rectify all these situations. We get that. The problem I have (and others as well) is that the CO is being REQUIRED to reply based on the disabling of a cache that probably should have never been disabled in the first place. Why this one when there are so many others in the area that need attention? There are 68 caches with NM logs within 10 miles of this cache. However, THIS one, without a NM log, gets disabled. Only a few of the 68 are disabled.

I'm guessing this is the one you're referencing?

 

My best guess as an outsider is this:

  1. This cache appears to be owned by a Girl Scout/Boy Scout troop
  2. This cache should have been rated a 5* for terrain
  3. The cache owner has not responded to the notes that began right after the cache was published mentioning the edit to the T rating
  4. The Reviewer may have not read this listing completely and published it solely on the idea that the cache did not break any guidelines
  5. Cache owner's only other hide was found to be on private property. They did not respond to that NM log, or to the Reviewer when it was Archived. This makes a case to me that their other, newer hide will possibly see the same level of understanding and appreciation for the guidelines and required involvement of a cache owner

 

But this is just me, and a good reason you can claim for why you personally wouldn't want me as your Reviewer. :anibad::laughing:

Link to comment

I feel we as cache owners should stay in the game if we want our caches going.

 

Here is a cache that went the other way around and still got another DNF log and the "owner" finally archived it. Base on that cache page, its a good size cache and not many hiding places for it. I can tell that cache is missing with only one DNF log. The owner is no longer playing but someone got her password and trying to keep all her caches "alive".

Link to comment

 

Can NeverSummer at least agree that the underwater cache should have never been disabled? Yes, communication on the CO's part will rectify all these situations. We get that. The problem I have (and others as well) is that the CO is being REQUIRED to reply based on the disabling of a cache that probably should have never been disabled in the first place. Why this one when there are so many others in the area that need attention? There are 68 caches with NM logs within 10 miles of this cache. However, THIS one, without a NM log, gets disabled. Only a few of the 68 are disabled.

I'm guessing this is the one you're referencing?

 

My best guess as an outsider is this:

  1. This cache appears to be owned by a Girl Scout/Boy Scout troop
  2. This cache should have been rated a 5* for terrain
  3. The cache owner has not responded to the notes that began right after the cache was published mentioning the edit to the T rating
  4. The Reviewer may have not read this listing completely and published it solely on the idea that the cache did not break any guidelines
  5. Cache owner's only other hide was found to be on private property. They did not respond to that NM log, or to the Reviewer when it was Archived. This makes a case to me that their other, newer hide will possibly see the same level of understanding and appreciation for the guidelines and required involvement of a cache owner

 

But this is just me, and a good reason you can claim for why you personally wouldn't want me as your Reviewer. :anibad::laughing:

 

First of all, thanks for the report, Cascade reviewer. Don't want to quote all that text. :)

 

Second of all, Cerberus1 (whom I know to be somewhat local to that cache) mentioned most of those things as well. That does sound like a crappy cache on a small lake with no public access. Perhaps the reviewer did take some of that stuff into account. I still don't like the road that's being traveled here though with the involuntarily disabling of some of the examples in this thread.

Link to comment

I realize reviewers argue that this can be avoided by responding to the reviewer note. But this can also be avoided by the reviewer reading the DNF. Geesh, this is really ridiculous.

It could also be avoided if people posted DNF logs when they looked and could not find and wrote notes when they couldn't search.

+1 Posting a DNF is a useful part of the game and I support it - in the right situation. Being too hasty to post DNF if you've done less than a thorough search jeopardizes caches and causes stress for COs, especially under the current regimen. If post-publication review is getting heavy-handed, then cachers will feel the need to go extra-light with DNFs to counteract the perceived reviewers' excesses.

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