Jump to content

How long is long enough


TX Stephens
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I've been debating whether or not to post this, but I think it would be best to get some input from the experts. Let me preface this post with some facts:

I've been caching for just shy of a year;

I have about 130 finds;

I have not hidden any caches, though I want to.

 

Now that the formalities are out of the way, here is my issue:

Over the past few months, I have noticed that a number of caches from one owner have several DNF's for the most recent finds. I have not clicked through his or her caches to see how many do, but this person has a decent amount of hides in my area, so my cohort and I are naturally trying to tackle some. Let me provide you with two specific examples:

 

In April, we attempted to find a 1.5/1.5 regular sized cache in a local park. I visited twice (once with my better half) and searched for at least an hour each time to no avail. We logged our DNF's and moved on, almost certain it was gone. We returned in June to give it another try, same results. This time, my better half requested maintenance on the cache since it was missing. About a month passed with no update in the log on the cache. At that point, I sent the CO a message requesting help on the cache to see if we were looking in the correct place. I have not yet heard anything back from that.

 

My second example is from a cache I tried to find more recently in a city park. This one is also a 1.5/1.5, but I was not able to locate after searching for 30 minutes and using the hint. Additionally, the 7 logs before mine were DNF's, starting in June. I have not logged a maintenance request or contacted the CO on this one yet.

 

So, here is my question: What should I do now? I know there are several routes I can take:

 

-Just forget about it and move on

-Continue to try and reach the CO

-Log a needs archived. I am hesitant on this one, because I feel like it may not be my business to get the reviewer involved. And I'm not sure if enough time has passed to get them involved.

 

I am not sure why this person isn't checking. They may have personal stuff to attend to or something. I know they are experienced with over 10k finds and over 100 hides.

 

If anyone could provide advice on how I should proceed, I would certainly appreciate it.

 

Thanks

Link to comment

It is really up to you. I would probably check to see if the CO has been active at all in caching in the last few months. If they have and also have out over 100 hides I would probably cut them some slack but that is just me. I might post a Needs Maintenance. That wont alert the reviewers but will add that to the cache page that might make them want to fix it. Just saying "it seems to be missing and might need to be checked."

As a CO of over 100 hides I wouldn't take it personally at all if you did go with a needs archiving. I wouldn't let that many DNF's go without at least posting a note or something. It wouldn't be out of line. It is all up to how you want to handle it.

One cacher came to our area and posted some needs archiving on caches that needed it but none of the locals did it. They were finally archived and I was actually glad that they were taken care of.

Link to comment

Others have looked for these and have logged their DNFs. Now you've gone out and ended up with the same results. You've emailed and posted a NM on one of the caches with no reply from the CO. Whether the CO has visited the site or not, it doesn't look like he/she is interested in checking on these caches.

 

I feel that we all have some responsibility here. As finders, we need to report potential problems that we come across. First step is to give the CO a heads up by posting your DNFs, along with NMs, on both of the caches. You've already done most of this. It's been months with no response from the CO so i'd say it's about time to get a reviewer involved. I agree, "Needs Archived" doesn't seem to be the best choice of words but it's the type of log needed to get a reviewer's attention.

Link to comment

Others have looked for these and have logged their DNFs. Now you've gone out and ended up with the same results. You've emailed and posted a NM on one of the caches with no reply from the CO. Whether the CO has visited the site or not, it doesn't look like he/she is interested in checking on these caches.

 

I feel that we all have some responsibility here. As finders, we need to report potential problems that we come across. First step is to give the CO a heads up by posting your DNFs, along with NMs, on both of the caches. You've already done most of this. It's been months with no response from the CO so i'd say it's about time to get a reviewer involved. I agree, "Needs Archived" doesn't seem to be the best choice of words but it's the type of log needed to get a reviewer's attention.

 

I agree. String of DNFs. I'd post the NM. If an NM as already been posted with no response from the CO, time to consider an NA. If an NA worries you because of the implied "I think this cache should be archived", you might want to write NA log "Needs Attention. Perhaps this cache should be disabled until the CO can get out to check if it's still there." The reviewer will likely disable it with a reviewer note and then archive it in a month if there's no response from the CO. In my area, that's the normal course of action for a string of DNFS, followed up with an NM then an NA (assuming no response from the owner).

Link to comment

Why bother looking for a 1.5/1.5 cache with more than a couple DNF? If you skip those low D/T caches with numerous recent DNF, you will have more success finding more caches, due in part to not wasting time on caches that are not likely available.

 

As to what advice regarding these caches you mentioned? Let it go, move on, look for other caches.

Link to comment

Why bother looking for a 1.5/1.5 cache with more than a couple DNF? If you skip those low D/T caches with numerous recent DNF, you will have more success finding more caches, due in part to not wasting time on caches that are not likely available.

 

As to what advice regarding these caches you mentioned? Let it go, move on, look for other caches.

 

I disagree. Do the community a favor and add at least an NM if there's a string of DNFs on a 1.5/1.5. Why waste other cachers' time. A string of DNFs may not be realized until the finder goes to look for it. When they can't find it, that's usually when many finders resort to looking at the logs.

Link to comment

You're asking lots of good questions, questions many yearlings wouldn't think to ask, so I'm confident that you would have done something reasonable even without the good advice you've gotten from other responses. So I'm not going to answer so much as offer some sense of how I look at this issue.

 

The first question is, "If not me, who?" Some people don't have enough experience to take action, and that's fine, but I feel safe in saying that you know what you're doing here, so it's good that you're taking the bull by the horns. Some people -- and some areas -- think that it's the job of a reviewer to step in, but the idea is that geocaches are policed by seekers.

 

If enough DNFs have been filed to convince you it's missing, and you looked yourself and couldn't find it, then the cache needs maintenance, so you should file a Need Maintenance log. Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

You're already on this path, so I wasn't so much telling you what to do as making sure you understand you've done the right thing. If nothing happens -- and it probably won't -- now it's time for a Needs Archived log.

 

I normally avoid logging an NA on a cache that I've logged the NM for. Instead, I let the system wait for a second opinion, someone else looking at the information and my NM and deciding independently that the jig's up. In my area, that always happens. Similarly, if I see an NM by someone else, I'll consider filing the NA. There's no particular time on this, but the 6 weeks number someone else mentioned is fine. For a second opinion situation, I'm comfortable after a couple weeks, if the case is obvious.

 

If no one else files the NA, though, it's OK to do it yourself. And then work on the local culture however you can to encourage more participation in the monitoring of your local caches.

 

All of this is independent of contacting the CO privately. Feel free to do that if you want. If he does come back to life, he sounds like a good person to know in your local community. And certainly write all your logs with awareness that they are also a form of personal communication even though they aren't private. But take action against the caches without considering the CO's status and whether you can get a reaction from him. Personally, I always imagine the CO is paying attention but is content to silently let nature takes its course.

Link to comment

I remember having 130 finds and being "certain" that a cache was gone. Hah!

 

Cachers with 1,300 or even 13,000 finds can miss a cache that is indeed present. If you are the 8th cacher in a row, over a six month period, to DNF a particular 1.5/1.5 cache than I think you can post a "Needs Maintenance" log.

Edited by Michaelcycle
Link to comment

I remember having 130 finds and being "certain" that a cache was gone. Hah!

 

Cachers with 1,300 or even 13,000 finds can miss a cache that is indeed present. If you are the 8th cacher in a row, over a six month period, to DNF a particular 1.5/1.5 cache than I think you can post a "Needs Maintenance" log.

 

You certainly can.

 

It still doesn't mean it's not there. I don't place much value on a DNF unless it's posted by a trusted, experienced cacher.

Link to comment

I remember having 130 finds and being "certain" that a cache was gone. Hah!

 

Cachers with 1,300 or even 13,000 finds can miss a cache that is indeed present. If you are the 8th cacher in a row, over a six month period, to DNF a particular 1.5/1.5 cache than I think you can post a "Needs Maintenance" log.

 

You certainly can.

 

It still doesn't mean it's not there.

 

After 8 DNFs in a row and a NM log it certainly should tell the CO that they should go out and check to see if it is there.

 

I don't place much value on a DNF unless it's posted by a trusted, experienced cacher.

How does one enter into your elite group of trusted, experienced cachers? The cache is rated 1.5/1.5. Even a geocacher, whether you trust them or not, with a minimum amount of experience ought to be able to find it if the cache is actually there. I suppose that it's possible that it is still there, but the evidence is pretty compelling that it isn't.

Link to comment

After 8 DNFs in a row and a NM log it certainly should tell the CO that they should go out and check to see if it is there.

 

It really depends on the cache, what the NM log says, and who posted it. Some caches are just prone to DNFs, and after a couple of DNF logs, subsequent cachers tend to pile-on instead of really look. Often, with inexperienced DNFers, all that's necessary from the owner is a note.

 

The owner is the one best positioned to determine if the DNFs are legitimate. The owner is the one who knows the cache best.

 

How does one enter into your elite group of trusted, experienced cachers? The cache is rated 1.5/1.5. Even a geocacher, whether you trust them or not, with a minimum amount of experience ought to be able to find it if the cache is actually there.

 

Because of the pile-on effect, I don't see any real difference between three DNFs and eight. DNFers four through eight probably took a quick glance and assumed it wasn't there.

 

If the DNF is posted by a cacher I know to be a thorough searcher who puts thought and consideration into their logging, I'll give more weight to their log. I'll also place more value on a log that details the search effort, as opposed to a brief DNF log that doesn't give me any information to go on.

Link to comment

Why waste other cachers' time. A string of DNFs may not be realized until the finder goes to look for it. When they can't find it, that's usually when many finders resort to looking at the logs.

If someone wants to filter the caches they look for based on whether or not the last few logs are DNF, they certainly may do this. On the other hand, if you choose to go to caches without looking at the logs, and then when you see the last few logs are DNFs, you blame the previous hider for wasting your time by not posting a NM or NA is arrogant. You personally may feel that some number of DNFs or some number of DNFs by "experienced" cachers is enough to convince you the cache isn't there. Other people may have a different opinion of how long to wait before escalating the issue with a Needs Archive. I happen not to look at a DNF as a waste of time, even if there are a few DNFs just before I looked; there is a chance I might find it and at least I got to visit the place and think about why someone thought it would be a good place to put a cache - even if I don't agree.

Link to comment

Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision.

There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right.

That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Long shot, but perhaps the CO is waiting for someone to leave a throwdown then they don't have to worry about anymore. I've seen this happen and it only confuses the situation particularly when another throwdown appears. Nip it in the bud early by leaving an NM, watch it for a month or so then NA. Especially as they are only D1.5.

Link to comment

Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision.

There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right.

That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare.

Naturally there are exceptions, but in my experience, if a handful of people DNF a cache, other cachers stop going there to look for it. That's often obvious in the logs: 5 DNFs in a month, then complete silence for 2 months. Yes, it's possible that people are looking and not bothering to post a DNF because there are already 5 posted, but I think it's more typical -- at least in my area -- that people just stop bothering.

 

An NM alerts the CO that I've come to that conclusion, so he might want to think about whether everyone else has come to that conclusion, too. Worst case, he posts an OM saying, "No, I'm sure it's still there, so I don't have to go check," although frankly I can't imagine a reasonable CO that wouldn't just go check unless that cache typically has that kind of pattern.

Link to comment

Why waste other cachers' time. A string of DNFs may not be realized until the finder goes to look for it. When they can't find it, that's usually when many finders resort to looking at the logs.

If someone wants to filter the caches they look for based on whether or not the last few logs are DNF, they certainly may do this. On the other hand, if you choose to go to caches without looking at the logs, and then when you see the last few logs are DNFs, you blame the previous hider for wasting your time by not posting a NM or NA is arrogant. You personally may feel that some number of DNFs or some number of DNFs by "experienced" cachers is enough to convince you the cache isn't there. Other people may have a different opinion of how long to wait before escalating the issue with a Needs Archive. I happen not to look at a DNF as a waste of time, even if there are a few DNFs just before I looked; there is a chance I might find it and at least I got to visit the place and think about why someone thought it would be a good place to put a cache - even if I don't agree.

 

I don't want to give the impression that I blame the previous DNFers for not posting an NM. I don't. The DNFers do a service for the community too. I'm just encouraging the OP to post an NM after a string of DNFs to also contribute a service to the community and start the process of getting something done, like getting the COs attention and if not the CO, then eventually the Reviewer.

Link to comment

Long shot, but perhaps the CO is waiting for someone to leave a throwdown then they don't have to worry about anymore. I've seen this happen and it only confuses the situation particularly when another throwdown appears. Nip it in the bud early by leaving an NM, watch it for a month or so then NA. Especially as they are only D1.5.

 

Yes. Good point. I've seen plenty of abandoned caches with a few DNFs in a row and an owner that doesn't play anymore suddenly get "found" by a finder with the next finders having no problem locating it. Yet the CO never visited the site. The longer an abandoned cache festers the more likely someone will throwdown (they got to have that smiley). And usually the container is a leaky throw-away junk container that festers for months or years before someone finally posts an NM and then an NA. I agree, nip this practice in the bud.

Link to comment

Long shot, but perhaps the CO is waiting for someone to leave a throwdown then they don't have to worry about anymore. I've seen this happen and it only confuses the situation particularly when another throwdown appears. Nip it in the bud early by leaving an NM, watch it for a month or so then NA. Especially as they are only D1.5.

 

Yes. Good point. I've seen plenty of abandoned caches with a few DNFs in a row and an owner that doesn't play anymore suddenly get "found" by a finder with the next finders having no problem locating it. Yet the CO never visited the site. The longer an abandoned cache festers the more likely someone will throwdown (they got to have that smiley). And usually the container is a leaky throw-away junk container that festers for months or years before someone finally posts an NM and then an NA. I agree, nip this practice in the bud.

 

Just so I understand, is a "throwdown" when someone logs a smiley when they actually didn't find the cache? If so, I could totally see how that would confuse the situation. Not to mention, it's just plain wrong. I could be mistaken of the meaning though...

Link to comment

You're asking lots of good questions, questions many yearlings wouldn't think to ask, so I'm confident that you would have done something reasonable even without the good advice you've gotten from other responses. So I'm not going to answer so much as offer some sense of how I look at this issue.

 

The first question is, "If not me, who?" Some people don't have enough experience to take action, and that's fine, but I feel safe in saying that you know what you're doing here, so it's good that you're taking the bull by the horns. Some people -- and some areas -- think that it's the job of a reviewer to step in, but the idea is that geocaches are policed by seekers.

 

If enough DNFs have been filed to convince you it's missing, and you looked yourself and couldn't find it, then the cache needs maintenance, so you should file a Need Maintenance log. Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

You're already on this path, so I wasn't so much telling you what to do as making sure you understand you've done the right thing. If nothing happens -- and it probably won't -- now it's time for a Needs Archived log.

 

I normally avoid logging an NA on a cache that I've logged the NM for. Instead, I let the system wait for a second opinion, someone else looking at the information and my NM and deciding independently that the jig's up. In my area, that always happens. Similarly, if I see an NM by someone else, I'll consider filing the NA. There's no particular time on this, but the 6 weeks number someone else mentioned is fine. For a second opinion situation, I'm comfortable after a couple weeks, if the case is obvious.

 

If no one else files the NA, though, it's OK to do it yourself. And then work on the local culture however you can to encourage more participation in the monitoring of your local caches.

 

All of this is independent of contacting the CO privately. Feel free to do that if you want. If he does come back to life, he sounds like a good person to know in your local community. And certainly write all your logs with awareness that they are also a form of personal communication even though they aren't private. But take action against the caches without considering the CO's status and whether you can get a reaction from him. Personally, I always imagine the CO is paying attention but is content to silently let nature takes its course.

 

I appreciate the input, dprovan. In fact, I appreciate the input of all. I think I am going to move forward with a NA. Hopefully that will help the situation move forward. (fingers crossed)

Link to comment

Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision.

There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right.

That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare.

 

For whatever reason, I'm attracted to recent DNF caches as it is. I see them as a challenge I guess. I'm always fine with adding another DNF to my stats if I am unable to locate.

Edited by TX Stephens
Link to comment

Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision.

There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right.

That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare.

 

For whatever reason, I'm attracted to recent DNF caches as it is. I see them as a challenge I guess. I'm always fine with adding another one on if I am unable to locate.

 

That would be a throw down - adding another cache when the original cache appears to be missing. People usually do this in order to claim a smiley and not a DNF. And usually when someone throws a cache container they too abandon it and never go back to maintain it when problems occur.

Link to comment

Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision.

There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right.

That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare.

 

For whatever reason, I'm attracted to recent DNF caches as it is. I see them as a challenge I guess. I'm always fine with adding another one on if I am unable to locate.

 

That would be a throw down - adding another cache when the original cache appears to be missing. People usually do this in order to claim a smiley and not a DNF. And usually when someone throws a cache container they too abandon it and never go back to maintain it when problems occur.

 

So THATS what a throw down is! SO sorry, I meant I'm always fine with logging a DNF when I can't find it. I would never just put a new cache down on someone else's territory. Thanks for the info, though!

Link to comment

Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision.

There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right.

That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare.

 

For whatever reason, I'm attracted to recent DNF caches as it is. I see them as a challenge I guess. I'm always fine with adding another one on if I am unable to locate.

 

Warning, you just stepped into the lion's den in this forum! :drama:

 

Ah, just saw the later post. You mean you'd add another DNF. Gotcha.

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision.

There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right.

That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare.

 

For whatever reason, I'm attracted to recent DNF caches as it is. I see them as a challenge I guess. I'm always fine with adding another one on if I am unable to locate.

 

Warning, you just stepped into the lion's den in this forum! :drama:

 

Yes, I can see how the comment could be read out of context. I meant I'm fine with having another DNF under my belt... not that I'm cool with adding a new cache in that location. That's wrong in my book. I updated that post to ensure I won't be eaten alive.... :unsure:

Link to comment
1420688405[/url]' post='5461815']
1420687979[/url]' post='5461814']
1420686924[/url]' post='5461808']
1420665609[/url]' post='5461727']
1420655677[/url]' post='5461690']

Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision.

There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right.

That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare.

 

For whatever reason, I'm attracted to recent DNF caches as it is. I see them as a challenge I guess. I'm always fine with adding another one on if I am unable to locate.

 

That would be a throw down - adding another cache when the original cache appears to be missing. People usually do this in order to claim a smiley and not a DNF. And usually when someone throws a cache container they too abandon it and never go back to maintain it when problems occur.

 

So THATS what a throw down is! SO sorry, I meant I'm always fine with logging a DNF when I can't find it. I would never just put a new cache down on someone else's territory. Thanks for the info, though!

 

Phew. Glad we cleared up the misunderstanding. biggrin.gif

Link to comment

Although you don't know for sure the cache is missing, it still needs to be checked because with a lot of failures and no successes lately, people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

 

If those people stop looking for it, that's their decision.

There might be reasons to check a cache, but that people might stop looking for it is not a legitimate reason for a cache check for me in its own right.

That's a bit like if you'd argue that someone who has a very difficult puzzle cache where the locals who can solve it have already visited the cache should be made easier or archiv it once the visits become very rare.

 

For whatever reason, I'm attracted to recent DNF caches as it is. I see them as a challenge I guess. I'm always fine with adding another one on if I am unable to locate.

 

Warning, you just stepped into the lion's den in this forum! :drama:

 

Yes, I can see how the comment could be read out of context. I meant I'm fine with having another DNF under my belt... not that I'm cool with adding a new cache in that location. That's wrong in my book. I updated that post to ensure I won't be eaten alive.... :unsure:

It has often been said the forums don't reflect the general geocaching community. For many people leaving a replacement for a missing cache is seen as a good deed.

 

There are people out there whom I refer to as generic cachers. To them the enjoyment is not in the searching for caches but is instead tied to finding caches. For each cache you find your find count goes up one. Doesn't matter if the cache was a difficult well camoed cache at the end of a long hike or an LPC in the supermarket parking lot. They all count the same. And if a cache happens to be missing, that not only denies you a point, but it denies a point to everyone who comes after you. Since the cache owner doesn't seem to be paying attention to the DNFs, these cachers figure they are doing the right thing by replacing the cache. They help out other cachers by ensuring there is a cache and they help the cache owner by maintaining the cache. And other cachers and most cache owners encourage this by thanking them and allowing them to log a find.

 

Now, the forum regulars will argue that altruism has nothing to do with leaving throwdowns. It's all about getting a smiley. But I contend that they have never had a serious discussion with people leaving a throwdown. If a cache owner declares "no find" or deletes their log, they seem quite able to suck-it-up and accept that there are people who play different. However, they view anyone who says a throwdown is always a bad thing as an ungrateful bastard that doesn't understand how the game is played.

 

In the early days of geocaching when there were few caches to be found, the community viewed helping out other cachers as a good thing. In particular as cachers left the game, others would take over maintenance of some caches (before Groundspeak even had adoption, and even afterward without adopting the cache). People were quite happy as this kept more caches in play and attracted more players. Nowadays, in many areas there are more caches than most people will ever find and not much reason to keep old caches in play. So many people now are more likely to argue it's preferable to log NM and NA to clean up old unmaintained listings. But many people long for the old days when being helpful was encouraged and not referred to as "cheating".

Link to comment

After 8 DNFs in a row and a NM log it certainly should tell the CO that they should go out and check to see if it is there.

 

It really depends on the cache, what the NM log says, and who posted it. Some caches are just prone to DNFs, and after a couple of DNF logs, subsequent cachers tend to pile-on instead of really look. Often, with inexperienced DNFers, all that's necessary from the owner is a note.

 

The owner is the one best positioned to determine if the DNFs are legitimate. The owner is the one who knows the cache best.

 

How does one enter into your elite group of trusted, experienced cachers? The cache is rated 1.5/1.5. Even a geocacher, whether you trust them or not, with a minimum amount of experience ought to be able to find it if the cache is actually there.

 

Because of the pile-on effect, I don't see any real difference between three DNFs and eight. DNFers four through eight probably took a quick glance and assumed it wasn't there.

If the DNF is posted by a cacher I know to be a thorough searcher who puts thought and consideration into their logging, I'll give more weight to their log. I'll also place more value on a log that details the search effort, as opposed to a brief DNF log that doesn't give me any information to go on.

 

That is an extraordinary assumption. You could just as well assume (since you didn't witness any of those searches) that the cachers that decided to hunt for the cache in spite of the string of DNFs would look even more thoroughly. There is no data to support either assumption.

What we DO know is that this is a 1.5/1.5 cache. It should be findable (in its original condition and location) with a short search. Any bayesian analysis of 8 DNFs from 8 different searchers on 8 different occasions results in a very low probability that the cache is still there.

Link to comment

That is an extraordinary assumption. You could just as well assume (since you didn't witness any of those searches) that the cachers that decided to hunt for the cache in spite of the string of DNFs would look even more thoroughly. There is no data to support either assumption.

What we DO know is that this is a 1.5/1.5 cache. It should be findable (in its original condition and location) with a short search. Any bayesian analysis of 8 DNFs from 8 different searchers on 8 different occasions results in a very low probability that the cache is still there.

 

The assumption that a 1.5/1.5 cache should be easy to find is exactly why there tends to be a pile-on effect. Unless I see evidence of a failed search by a cacher I trust, I'm not going to avoid a cache with DNFs on it just because a few n00bs assumed it wasn't there after a quick glance.

Link to comment

It absolutely is every cacher's duty to bring caches with issues to the local Reviewer's attention. If everyone thinks it's someone else's job to write the NA log, long non-viable caches continue to not be viable.

 

DNF - The Cacher looked and Did Not Find. Reviewers look for caches with growing strings of DNFs when checking cache health in their territories.

 

NM (Needs Maintenance) - Written in addtion to a "found it' log. The Cacher found the cache and the container and/or logbook need Cacher Owner attention. The Cacher can't possibly know if the cache needs maintenance unless the cacher finds the cache and sees there are specific problems. Exceptions to this could include the hiding place indicated by the hint or other information on the cache page has clearly been compromised. This log type does not automatically bring the cache to the local Reviewer's attention, but some Reviewers will filter on caches needing maintenance when checking caches in their review territory, especially since some/many cache owners do not know how to clear the Needs Maintenance attribute from their cache page.

 

NA (Needs Archived) - Written to get the local Reviewer's attention for a cache with clear Guideline violation(s), growing string of DNFs, or other issue(s) requiring Reviewer and Cache Owner attention. Reviewers aren't normally quick to archive in response to an NA log, preffering to give the Cache Owner time to do the right thing after subjectively assessing whether there really is an issue with the cache, the last time the Cache Owner has logged into the site, etc.

Edited by Ladybug Kids
Link to comment

NM (Needs Maintenance) - Written in addtion to a "found it' log. The Cacher found the cache and the container and/or logbook need Cacher Owner attention. The Cacher can't possibly know if the cache needs maintenance unless the cacher finds the cache and see there are specific problems.

No?

 

Let's say a hypothetical cache is hidden up a lone tree in the middle of an open field, as stated in the description. A cacher arrives to find the tree has been cut down and there's no sign of the container. Are you saying a Needs Maintenance would be inappropriate in such a situation? Similar real-world occurrences are not rare.

 

If not a NM, what log would you suggest? To me, such a cache certainly "needs maintenance".

Link to comment

NM (Needs Maintenance) - Written in addtion to a "found it' log. The Cacher found the cache and the container and/or logbook need Cacher Owner attention. The Cacher can't possibly know if the cache needs maintenance unless the cacher finds the cache and see there are specific problems.

No?

 

Let's say a hypothetical cache is hidden up a lone tree in the middle of an open field, as stated in the description. A cacher arrives to find the tree has been cut down and there's no sign of the container. Are you saying a Needs Maintenance would be inappropriate in such a situation? Similar real-world occurrences are not rare.

 

If not a NM, what log would you suggest? To me, such a cache certainly "needs maintenance".

Agree. I modified my post accordingly.
Link to comment

New wrinkle from the Old Dawg.

 

I think that the "heritage / legacy caches" **(2000 & 2001)** and their CO's should be given a bit of leeway. In some extreme cases a LOT of leeway.

 

Caches from 2002 onward not so much.

 

O.K. I am going to put my Nomex on in preparation for the flames.

 

That's silly. No flames...just wanting to understand the logic. So, all other conditions being equal, one cache published on 1/1/2002 might be archived while another published on 12/31/2001 might not be? Is there some other arbitrary date you'd use? Is the latter somehow more "valuable" than the former? Is the CO of the latter less responsible for the condition of his cache than the CO of the former? Assuming there is not a hard date, but rather a "gray area", do you think reviewers want to make judgement calls like this?

Link to comment

New wrinkle from the Old Dawg.

 

I think that the "heritage / legacy caches" **(2000 & 2001)** and their CO's should be given a bit of leeway. In some extreme cases a LOT of leeway.

 

Caches from 2002 onward not so much.

 

O.K. I am going to put my Nomex on in preparation for the flames.

Or, as was done with the true heritage/legacy cache, a tribute can be placed when the first "real" one is archived. That honorary "tribute" cache will still get someone a smiley, still take them to the GZ of the previous edition, and will likely have an owner who will maintain it--or someone will be able to adopt it and be a good example of a cache owner taking maintenance as seriously as they should.

Link to comment

Or, as was done with the true heritage/legacy cache, a tribute can be placed when the first "real" one is archived. That honorary "tribute" cache will still get someone a smiley, still take them to the GZ of the previous edition, and will likely have an owner who will maintain it--or someone will be able to adopt it and be a good example of a cache owner taking maintenance as seriously as they should.

But it won't count for the Jasmer challenge :ph34r:

Link to comment

It absolutely is every cacher's duty to bring caches with issues to the local Reviewer's attention.

I'm really big on cacher's monitoring caches, but I don't consider it a duty. Some people need to do it, but I'm OK if someone doesn't feel qualified.

 

If everyone thinks it's someone else's job to write the NA log, long non-viable caches continue to not be viable.

Yes, everyone needs to be aware that monitoring caches isn't the reviewer's job.

 

DNF - The Cacher looked and Did Not Find. Reviewers look for caches with growing strings of DNFs when checking cache health in their territories.

Well, they shouldn't. Reviewers should look at caches when they're called in because someone thinks a cache needs archived. Reviewers should stay out of it until then. (Reviewers look for caches, too, so they'll sometimes be the one to notice a problem in their day-to-day caching activities, and naturally that's reasonable.) When I hear about a reviewer acting unilaterally, I typically assume it's because the community isn't doing its job to notify the reviewer of problems, so he's forced to go looking for them himself.

 

NM (Needs Maintenance) - Written in addtion to a "found it' log. The Cacher found the cache and the container and/or logbook need Cacher Owner attention. The Cacher can't possibly know if the cache needs maintenance unless the cacher finds the cache and sees there are specific problems.

Nope, sorry. Even with the exceptions you've added, I don't think this is the right way to look at it. The cache needs maintenance. That could be a physical problem observed after finding the container, but it can also be problems beyond issues with the physical container. As just one example, after a string of DNFs, with most caches the cache needs to be checked. That's not a declaration that the cache is missing, just pointing out that people are going to stop looking for it whether it's there or not.

Link to comment

It absolutely is every cacher's duty to bring caches with issues to the local Reviewer's attention. If everyone thinks it's someone else's job to write the NA log, long non-viable caches continue to not be viable.

 

I do not agree. First, I do not see it as a duty and second, there are many cases where in my opinion waiting and having more patience is a much better option than posting a NA log if one has a real interest into a certain cache and not just wants to get rid of it on the map. There are disabled caches which are well worth to wait for many months or even a year and more until they get enabled again. If such a cache does not block any new placement of comparable quality, I see no reason whatsoever to write a NA log.

 

I also do not regard reviewer sweeps for caches with NM logs, strings of DNF etc as a favour to me, but rather the contrary. I know that I belong to a minority and I know that the reviewers are volunteers and invest a lot of their spare time in their job. This does not necessarily mean however that everyone has to appreciate the outcome.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Or, as was done with the true heritage/legacy cache, a tribute can be placed when the first "real" one is archived. That honorary "tribute" cache will still get someone a smiley, still take them to the GZ of the previous edition, and will likely have an owner who will maintain it--or someone will be able to adopt it and be a good example of a cache owner taking maintenance as seriously as they should.

But it won't count for the Jasmer challenge :ph34r:

 

If they used that excuse for not archiving caches, then we'd have A LOT of old, unmaintained caches that were falling apart, giving geocaching a bad name. At some point, no matter how much folks protest, there will be some blank spots in the Jasmer grid. If it's that important to someone, they should either fill it up now or just accept that at some point in the future the Jasmer will have to be modified to account for those gaps.

Link to comment

Or, as was done with the true heritage/legacy cache, a tribute can be placed when the first "real" one is archived. That honorary "tribute" cache will still get someone a smiley, still take them to the GZ of the previous edition, and will likely have an owner who will maintain it--or someone will be able to adopt it and be a good example of a cache owner taking maintenance as seriously as they should.

But it won't count for the Jasmer challenge :ph34r:

 

If they used that excuse for not archiving caches, then we'd have A LOT of old, unmaintained caches that were falling apart, giving geocaching a bad name. At some point, no matter how much folks protest, there will be some blank spots in the Jasmer grid. If it's that important to someone, they should either fill it up now or just accept that at some point in the future the Jasmer will have to be modified to account for those gaps.

 

Points all valid.

 

A relaxation of the rules for adoption of heritage / legacy caches might:

 

1. forestall the inevitability of "Jasmer Gaps" due to loss of the "Old Timers"

 

2. Mitigate the "Geo-litter".

 

O.K., O.K. I am looking at pie in the sky through rose colored / coloured glasses.

Link to comment

Or, as was done with the true heritage/legacy cache, a tribute can be placed when the first "real" one is archived. That honorary "tribute" cache will still get someone a smiley, still take them to the GZ of the previous edition, and will likely have an owner who will maintain it--or someone will be able to adopt it and be a good example of a cache owner taking maintenance as seriously as they should.

But it won't count for the Jasmer challenge :ph34r:

 

If they used that excuse for not archiving caches, then we'd have A LOT of old, unmaintained caches that were falling apart, giving geocaching a bad name. At some point, no matter how much folks protest, there will be some blank spots in the Jasmer grid. If it's that important to someone, they should either fill it up now or just accept that at some point in the future the Jasmer will have to be modified to account for those gaps.

Of course my comment on Jasmer challenges was tongue-in-check, but I will say that I'm not so much of a stickler to expect every cache I find is perfectly maintained. Geocaching is just a game.

 

There seems to be a rather vocal group posting now in several forum threads who think that any "abandoned" caches should be archived immediately. In the past, the common practice was just the opposite. Instead of trying to archive as many caches as possible just because the owner wasn't logging in to Geocaching.com, people went out of their way to help out the old caches, even so far as replacing containers. The more caches to find, the better.

 

I think nowadays there are area with more caches than anyone will ever find, so there isn't so much of a reason to help out old caches to keep them listed. Some people may even view archiving old caches as creating space for new caches to be placed. If you've been caching for a long time, you might have found the old cache many years ago. Archiving it and replacing with a new cach meant you have another cache to find.

 

While I can see that in many places the old arguments for helping out with maintenace of old caches aren't as strong as they used to be, I still miss the good old days when being helpful was a good thing.

Like when I replaced this

e635148a-8821-47d7-941e-7748bb03bfe2_l.jpg

with this

fb9ccc28-bf01-45b7-a284-06eff2b6db7c_l.jpg

Link to comment

Or, as was done with the true heritage/legacy cache, a tribute can be placed when the first "real" one is archived. That honorary "tribute" cache will still get someone a smiley, still take them to the GZ of the previous edition, and will likely have an owner who will maintain it--or someone will be able to adopt it and be a good example of a cache owner taking maintenance as seriously as they should.

But it won't count for the Jasmer challenge :ph34r:

 

If they used that excuse for not archiving caches, then we'd have A LOT of old, unmaintained caches that were falling apart, giving geocaching a bad name. At some point, no matter how much folks protest, there will be some blank spots in the Jasmer grid. If it's that important to someone, they should either fill it up now or just accept that at some point in the future the Jasmer will have to be modified to account for those gaps.

Of course my comment on Jasmer challenges was tongue-in-check, but I will say that I'm not so much of a stickler to expect every cache I find is perfectly maintained. Geocaching is just a game.

 

There seems to be a rather vocal group posting now in several forum threads who think that any "abandoned" caches should be archived immediately. In the past, the common practice was just the opposite. Instead of trying to archive as many caches as possible just because the owner wasn't logging in to Geocaching.com, people went out of their way to help out the old caches, even so far as replacing containers. The more caches to find, the better.

 

I think nowadays there are area with more caches than anyone will ever find, so there isn't so much of a reason to help out old caches to keep them listed. Some people may even view archiving old caches as creating space for new caches to be placed. If you've been caching for a long time, you might have found the old cache many years ago. Archiving it and replacing with a new cach meant you have another cache to find.

 

While I can see that in many places the old arguments for helping out with maintenace of old caches aren't as strong as they used to be, I still miss the good old days when being helpful was a good thing.

Like when I replaced this

e635148a-8821-47d7-941e-7748bb03bfe2_l.jpg

with this

fb9ccc28-bf01-45b7-a284-06eff2b6db7c_l.jpg

And I (and I'm absolutely sure others) don't mind this type of thing one bit. I think most community members would encourage this behavior still today for an old cache that might have "fallen under the weather." Knowing that a Reviewer can remove a NM attribute (but I've not seen this done since the early days of my time here on this site), it can clear the way for a cache to be maintained by someone other than the owner, and outside of theformal adoption process.

 

Then, the concern really only comes down to if that listing is also still accurate (slight change in container is one thing, but swapping a regular for a micro is just...well...lame). If the D/T and hint are looked over and still accurate, and the listing doesn't have any glaring issues with description, then "there's nothing to see here...". It's when a cache listing is also neglected; D/T are inaccurate, coordinates are off, hints are no longer accurate, a Reviewer has not/will not remove the NM attribute, etc. that we have an example of a cache that falls under the axe blade of the Guidelines.

 

However, going back to my first paragraph, how long will a Reviewer be willing to take on the extra cache maintenance task of removing that next NM attribute that comes along? If someone has informally adopted the cache, there's no way for them to clear the NM attribute once again, and they'd have to ask their Reviewer to jump in and help again. Really, the only way to reduce the likelihood of another NM log showing up is if the informal adopter checks the cache with diligent regularity, and can assure that the D/T, hint, description, attributes, and coordinates are all as accurate as possible for the actual hide. And, unfortunately, that's just not possible to do in most cases when you're the informal caretaker/adopter of that cache; you can't informally adopt a listing.

 

That said, I think it's a risk worth taking for a while on "old" or "historic" caches that might be under scrutiny or the "axe". If one fixes it once (replaces that old grimey and leaky plastic container with an ammo can, e.g.), it will hopefully stave off other maintenance issues for a while that would otherwise create a NM or NA scenario again. I, and others, have certainly seen where this can happen with great effectiveness. And yet, there are caches (often those few examples that are dragged onto the forums and paraded as exemplars of the whole of the current local geocaching climate) which will simply need to die.

 

And, if that cache is "old" or "historic" or of "heritage" or a "legacy", we can have a wake and let it slip off into archival. We all grieve in our own ways, and with geocaches my timeframe for grieving is mighty short, no matter how old and special that cache might be. I shrug my shoulders and say, "Meh...," if that cache no longer meets the guidelines and the container and listing are both without active ownership and owner maintenance.

 

Edit to add: A leaky film pot placed a month ago with a now-absent owner could last 15 years if nobody reported it. That cache would then be an example of an old and "special for my Jasmer grid" cache by then.

 

The circumstances for GC12 are no different today than they were on May 13, 2000: If the cache needed maintenance the day after it was placed, it needed maintenance. If it went without owner attention for too long, someone could post a NA. When that NA is logged, there's little stopping that cache from being archived. But, here we are 15 years later, and we're supposed to treat it differently?

 

Maintaining caches just for the legacy is not how this game goes. Good caches last, the bad don't. And how old they are has everything to do with how well the container holds up, how well the owner maintains their cache and listing, and how that cache does not break the guidelines.

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

Or, as was done with the true heritage/legacy cache, a tribute can be placed when the first "real" one is archived. That honorary "tribute" cache will still get someone a smiley, still take them to the GZ of the previous edition, and will likely have an owner who will maintain it--or someone will be able to adopt it and be a good example of a cache owner taking maintenance as seriously as they should.

But it won't count for the Jasmer challenge :ph34r:

 

If they used that excuse for not archiving caches, then we'd have A LOT of old, unmaintained caches that were falling apart, giving geocaching a bad name. At some point, no matter how much folks protest, there will be some blank spots in the Jasmer grid. If it's that important to someone, they should either fill it up now or just accept that at some point in the future the Jasmer will have to be modified to account for those gaps.

Of course my comment on Jasmer challenges was tongue-in-check, but I will say that I'm not so much of a stickler to expect every cache I find is perfectly maintained. Geocaching is just a game.

 

There seems to be a rather vocal group posting now in several forum threads who think that any "abandoned" caches should be archived immediately. In the past, the common practice was just the opposite. Instead of trying to archive as many caches as possible just because the owner wasn't logging in to Geocaching.com, people went out of their way to help out the old caches, even so far as replacing containers. The more caches to find, the better.

 

I think nowadays there are area with more caches than anyone will ever find, so there isn't so much of a reason to help out old caches to keep them listed. Some people may even view archiving old caches as creating space for new caches to be placed. If you've been caching for a long time, you might have found the old cache many years ago. Archiving it and replacing with a new cach meant you have another cache to find.

 

While I can see that in many places the old arguments for helping out with maintenace of old caches aren't as strong as they used to be, I still miss the good old days when being helpful was a good thing.

Like when I replaced this

e635148a-8821-47d7-941e-7748bb03bfe2_l.jpg

with this

fb9ccc28-bf01-45b7-a284-06eff2b6db7c_l.jpg

 

There's "helping a cache out" and then there's "taking over 'cause the CO doesn't bother anymore". Folks slow down, cache's are out in distant places and take time and effort to maintain...so in those cases I don't take issue with the former. But when a cache is clearly just abandoned and the CO has no intention of maintaining it, propping it up occasionally is just "kicking the can" down the road, prolonging its inevitable death.

 

As you said, "geocaching is just a game". No need to go to great effort or get overly sentimental about a cache just because it was placed in 2001.

Link to comment

Or, as was done with the true heritage/legacy cache, a tribute can be placed when the first "real" one is archived. That honorary "tribute" cache will still get someone a smiley, still take them to the GZ of the previous edition, and will likely have an owner who will maintain it--or someone will be able to adopt it and be a good example of a cache owner taking maintenance as seriously as they should.

But it won't count for the Jasmer challenge :ph34r:

 

If they used that excuse for not archiving caches, then we'd have A LOT of old, unmaintained caches that were falling apart, giving geocaching a bad name. At some point, no matter how much folks protest, there will be some blank spots in the Jasmer grid. If it's that important to someone, they should either fill it up now or just accept that at some point in the future the Jasmer will have to be modified to account for those gaps.

Of course my comment on Jasmer challenges was tongue-in-check, but I will say that I'm not so much of a stickler to expect every cache I find is perfectly maintained. Geocaching is just a game.

 

There seems to be a rather vocal group posting now in several forum threads who think that any "abandoned" caches should be archived immediately. In the past, the common practice was just the opposite. Instead of trying to archive as many caches as possible just because the owner wasn't logging in to Geocaching.com, people went out of their way to help out the old caches, even so far as replacing containers. The more caches to find, the better.

 

I think nowadays there are area with more caches than anyone will ever find, so there isn't so much of a reason to help out old caches to keep them listed. Some people may even view archiving old caches as creating space for new caches to be placed. If you've been caching for a long time, you might have found the old cache many years ago. Archiving it and replacing with a new cach meant you have another cache to find.

 

While I can see that in many places the old arguments for helping out with maintenace of old caches aren't as strong as they used to be, I still miss the good old days when being helpful was a good thing.

Like when I replaced this

e635148a-8821-47d7-941e-7748bb03bfe2_l.jpg

with this

fb9ccc28-bf01-45b7-a284-06eff2b6db7c_l.jpg

 

Very generous of you. Most throwdowns are cheap leaky containers.

 

As a finder, when I thank the cache owner I assume I am thanking the cache owner listed on the cache page. So it irks me a little to find out that, in effect I'm thanking the cache owner for listing a cache and then abandoning it, letting it become a junk, making geocaching look bad and making it the community's problem to clean it up.

Guess it doesn't sting just a touch when you see "Thanks dave85 for this hide :)" - Dave gets the credit for your container and maintenance efforts. Personally, I would have NM'd then NA'd the cache, then plant my own cache up there. But then the old GC code GC1ED wouldn't be saved.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Guess it doesn't sting just a touch when you see "Thanks dave85 for this hide :)"

Sure, after awhile nobody noticed that this cache was maintained by me and kept thanking dave85 - who apparently geocached one weekend back in 2001.

 

And of course people were giving dave85 favorite points for an ammo can when he had only left some cheap tupperware.

 

This cache was a favorite to me because of the hike. When I found it it was the only cache on the top of a rarely climbed mountain. I had to figure out the trailhead from dave's hint and then figure out the approach on primitive trails and climbing. It was a real adventure. Those who find this today have a different experience. The route is now 'marked' with caches every .1 miles. A reviewer even updated the coordinates (originally dave had put the coordinates for the summit and in the hint says the cache is south of the summit), so people don't have to spend time searching a large area like I did.

 

One can argue that none of the finders who came after me, didn't really find dave's cache or experiences what he may have wanted them to experience. Yet people still get excited when they go after this cache. It is a hike they would not have done except for geocaching; and they get to find the oldest active cache in Los Angeles county. If the cache were to have been archived when I found the broken tupperware, eventually there may have been another cache. Perhaps even one of the new style cachers would have left his signature trail of pill bottles up to the summit. A few people would climb, but it would not likely attract nearly as many as the current cache.

 

One can pooh-pooh the notion of historic caches all you want and argue that if the original owner is no longer active the cache should be archived. The fact is that many people will look for old listings even if the original container has beem replaced by a cheap pill bottle. (BTW someone took my ammo can and left a small tupperware). Maybe it is to qualify for a Jasmer challenge or maybe it just because they think older caches were in more interesting places. Sure you could have a new cache in the same place as an old cache, but I'd guess that just seeing the date placed be 14 years ago is enough for people to feel that there is something special.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I would give it another go. After that, post a maint. message/archive request again. Then, after a month, move on. I usually give a search time 30-45 minutes give or take 10 minutes with kids in tow. Eventhough I don't get enough Caching time in like I want, this works for me. Hope this helps.

RwendyR [8D]

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...