Jump to content

Needs Archived


Recommended Posts

You again argue in the other direction. Of course there a different options a cache owners has but archiving a cache is one of them and if the only feedback is one of someone who feels entitled for a check just because only this person could not find a cache, and noone else expresses interest into the cache, then a quite natural reaction is to archive the cache and collect the container.

 

What you suggest is one valid approach. Another one is archiving the cache right away if the NA log does not express any interest into visiting the cache and nor does any other log.

...

I just think that if someone has an interest that a cache stays alive, they should communicate so. If not, then there is no need of course to take into account what I write.

It seems like you're saying that cachers aren't interested in a cache if they don't post notes about their interest to the cache page, or otherwise contact the CO to let them know that they're interested in the cache. Really?

 

There are plenty of caches that I'm interested in. The mountains around Washington and Oregon are full of them, and I hope to find some of them when the weather dries/warms up. Does that mean I should put them all on my Watchlist and add notes about my interest if one of them gets a NM or NA log? It sounds like that is what you expect cachers to do.

 

Just because cachers don't post "I'm still interested" notes to a cache page doesn't mean that there aren't cachers out there that would enjoy that cache. You've posted several comments about how 'new cachers' aren't really interested in the "old" type of caches. How can they become interested if the CO's of such caches give up and hit "Archive"? I've read all the posts in this thread and the impression I get, which could be wrong, is that you don't like the direction the hobby is going and that you feel 'new' cachers are interested in entirely different things than "old time" cachers. That's fine to think that way, but I don't entirely agree. Sure, there are new cachers that don't know the history, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't like it if they were exposed to it.

 

You've said that the way NA logs are worded is an issue. I can agree with that, to an extent. There are also Found It logs that could be worded in a way that isn't encouraging to the CO. But it's up to the CO to determine how they react to such logs. Let's face it, some people are just not as polite as some of us would like. It's like that in logs and in everyday life. Don't just give up though.

 

ETA: I thought this was going to post #198. Page 5 anyone?

Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

If the only log you ever receive is "Needs Archived," it's a sign that your cache is low quality or has a serious problem.

 

If you are placing geocaches because you need constant reassurance and praise, perhaps you aren't placing them for the right reasons.

 

Apparently you are not familiar with the experience that it can well happen that a cache was well received in the past and then at some point

all cachers with a real interest have been there. So the past logs are not important in my opinion when making decisions for the future.

That's not a question of needings constant reassurance and praise.

 

I started to geocache in a time when even for the first find it could take quite some time before a finder got any feedback at all.

None of the hiders from those times needs constant reassurance and praise apart from the fact that I did not talk about praise but something

that makes the cache owner feel that there are still cachers out there who are interested into visiting the cache.

 

I don't really see how one person's "Needs Archived" log indicates that nobody else in the world is interested in finding a cache. "Needs Archived" means there is a serious issue with the cache that needs attention. It doesn't generally mean "This cache is worthless and nobody else will ever like it again."

Link to comment

You again argue in the other direction. Of course there a different options a cache owners has but archiving a cache is one of them and if the only feedback is one of someone who feels entitled for a check just because only this person could not find a cache, and noone else expresses interest into the cache, then a quite natural reaction is to archive the cache and collect the container.

 

What you suggest is one valid approach. Another one is archiving the cache right away if the NA log does not express any interest into visiting the cache and nor does any other log.

...

I just think that if someone has an interest that a cache stays alive, they should communicate so. If not, then there is no need of course to take into account what I write.

It seems like you're saying that cachers aren't interested in a cache if they don't post notes about their interest to the cache page, or otherwise contact the CO to let them know that they're interested in the cache. Really?

 

No, I'm saying that if there is NA log that does not express interest into a cache and if after the NA noone of the watchers and other cachers who become aware of the NA express any sort of interest,

it's something that can be discouraging. Of course even in that setting one can never assume that there is really noone interested.

 

The easiest thing still would be that all NA loggers that have an interest into the cache they log a NA for, communicate this in their NA log (no extra log required).

 

There are plenty of caches that I'm interested in. The mountains around Washington and Oregon are full of them, and I hope to find some of them when the weather dries/warms up. Does that mean I should put them all on my Watchlist and add notes about my interest if one of them gets a NM or NA log? It sounds like that is what you expect cachers to do.

 

No, I do not expect you to that do that (I do not watch any caches at all), but there are lot of people out there you watch caches and/or have notifications for NA logs and if noone reacts, that's also some sort of message that will play a role for many cache owners when making their decision. I did not say that a cache should be archived after a NA log.

 

What I do not understand is this. Is it really so costly to write a considerate NA log if one likes to see a cache kept alive?

 

Just because cachers don't post "I'm still interested" notes to a cache page doesn't mean that there aren't cachers out there that would enjoy that cache.

 

Of course not, but it could be the last drop for the decision of some cachers to archive one of their caches.

 

You've posted several comments about how 'new cachers' aren't really interested in the "old" type of caches.

 

Most, not all. For example there is an elderly couple who started to cache about 14 months ago and they have a true old caching soul and attitude. By the way they have done all my active caches and most of them quite early in their career though many of my caches are not set up for beginners and they told me recently that without my caches they would have soon stopped and would never have become geocachers. So sure there are exceptions, but they are rare.

 

How can they become interested if the CO's of such caches give up and hit "Archive"?

 

Actually, I'm one of the few in my area who has not yet given up and I'm still hiding new caches - that's extremely uncommon around here.

I'm concerned however that even more cache owners and also more and more of those of the second, third and fourth generations give up.

 

I've read all the posts in this thread and the impression I get, which could be wrong, is that you don't like the direction the hobby is going and that you feel 'new' cachers are interested in entirely different things than "old time" cachers. That's fine to think that way, but I don't entirely agree. Sure, there are new cachers that don't know the history, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't like it if they were exposed to it.

 

The history and knowing about it plays no rule in my statement. Someone who hates hiking will not start to enjoy hiking. Someone who prefers film cans in dirty urban hideouts to forest hideouts where one could encounter ticks, will not start to appreciate the caches that outdoor fans appreciate. Someone with a low level of education will not appreciate caches which appeal to intellectually oriented people etc

 

The caching scene in my country in the early times was not at all representative of the whole population.

 

 

You've said that the way NA logs are worded is an issue. I can agree with that, to an extent. There are also Found It logs that could be worded in a way that isn't encouraging to the CO. But it's up to the CO to determine how they react to such logs. Let's face it, some people are just not as polite as some of us would like. It's like that in logs and in everyday life. Don't just give up though.

 

I agree with you to some extent. However my stress was not so much about politeness and personal style. I have encountered much less issues with find and DNF logs than with NA and NM logs which often rather sound like orders or they are per se only addressed to the reviewer and ignoring the fact that they are in the first line addressed to the cache owner. Find and DNF logs are much less misunderstood than NA logs.

 

If someone is not able or not willing to be polite, ok let be it. If someone is however filing a NA log of the type they often see it from the example of other cachers and is then surprised that the cache owner does exactly what the log asks for, I think that some prior reflection might make sense. Many times the NA loggers and others who have not cared before the NA, the write logs after the archival and express their disappointment. Then it's too late and something went wrong which probably could be avoided the next times - that's the point I tried to make which apparently seems very hard to understand.

Link to comment

You again argue in the other direction. Of course there a different options a cache owners has but archiving a cache is one of them and if the only feedback is one of someone who feels entitled for a check just because only this person could not find a cache, and noone else expresses interest into the cache, then a quite natural reaction is to archive the cache and collect the container.

 

What you suggest is one valid approach. Another one is archiving the cache right away if the NA log does not express any interest into visiting the cache and nor does any other log.

...

I just think that if someone has an interest that a cache stays alive, they should communicate so. If not, then there is no need of course to take into account what I write.

It seems like you're saying that cachers aren't interested in a cache if they don't post notes about their interest to the cache page, or otherwise contact the CO to let them know that they're interested in the cache. Really?

 

No, I'm saying that if there is NA log that does not express interest into a cache and if after the NA noone of the watchers and other cachers who become aware of the NA express any sort of interest,

it's something that can be discouraging. Of course even in that setting one can never assume that there is really noone interested.

 

The easiest thing still would be that all NA loggers that have an interest into the cache they log a NA for, communicate this in their NA log (no extra log required).

 

There are plenty of caches that I'm interested in. The mountains around Washington and Oregon are full of them, and I hope to find some of them when the weather dries/warms up. Does that mean I should put them all on my Watchlist and add notes about my interest if one of them gets a NM or NA log? It sounds like that is what you expect cachers to do.

 

No, I do not expect you to that do that (I do not watch any caches at all), but there are lot of people out there you watch caches and/or have notifications for NA logs and if noone reacts, that's also some sort of message that will play a role for many cache owners when making their decision. I did not say that a cache should be archived after a NA log.

 

What I do not understand is this. Is it really so costly to write a considerate NA log if one likes to see a cache kept alive?

 

Just because cachers don't post "I'm still interested" notes to a cache page doesn't mean that there aren't cachers out there that would enjoy that cache.

 

Of course not, but it could be the last drop for the decision of some cachers to archive one of their caches.

 

You've posted several comments about how 'new cachers' aren't really interested in the "old" type of caches.

 

Most, not all. For example there is an elderly couple who started to cache about 14 months ago and they have a true old caching soul and attitude. By the way they have done all my active caches and most of them quite early in their career though many of my caches are not set up for beginners and they told me recently that without my caches they would have soon stopped and would never have become geocachers. So sure there are exceptions, but they are rare.

 

How can they become interested if the CO's of such caches give up and hit "Archive"?

 

Actually, I'm one of the few in my area who has not yet given up and I'm still hiding new caches - that's extremely uncommon around here.

I'm concerned however that even more cache owners and also more and more of those of the second, third and fourth generations give up.

 

I've read all the posts in this thread and the impression I get, which could be wrong, is that you don't like the direction the hobby is going and that you feel 'new' cachers are interested in entirely different things than "old time" cachers. That's fine to think that way, but I don't entirely agree. Sure, there are new cachers that don't know the history, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't like it if they were exposed to it.

 

The history and knowing about it plays no rule in my statement. Someone who hates hiking will not start to enjoy hiking. Someone who prefers film cans in dirty urban hideouts to forest hideouts where one could encounter ticks, will not start to appreciate the caches that outdoor fans appreciate. Someone with a low level of education will not appreciate caches which appeal to intellectually oriented people etc

 

The caching scene in my country in the early times was not at all representative of the whole population.

 

 

You've said that the way NA logs are worded is an issue. I can agree with that, to an extent. There are also Found It logs that could be worded in a way that isn't encouraging to the CO. But it's up to the CO to determine how they react to such logs. Let's face it, some people are just not as polite as some of us would like. It's like that in logs and in everyday life. Don't just give up though.

 

I agree with you to some extent. However my stress was not so much about politeness and personal style. I have encountered much less issues with find and DNF logs than with NA and NM logs which often rather sound like orders or they are per se only addressed to the reviewer and ignoring the fact that they are in the first line addressed to the cache owner. Find and DNF logs are much less misunderstood than NA logs.

 

If someone is not able or not willing to be polite, ok let be it. If someone is however filing a NA log of the type they often see it from the example of other cachers and is then surprised that the cache owner does exactly what the log asks for, I think that some prior reflection might make sense. Many times the NA loggers and others who have not cared before the NA, the write logs after the archival and express their disappointment. Then it's too late and something went wrong which probably could be avoided the next times - that's the point I tried to make which apparently seems very hard to understand.

 

I agree, some logs can be down right nasty which should never happen. A N/A log in and of itself is not rude unless it's done with some ulterior motive. N/A & N/M logs are actually a good thing. Most of the time people who post these are very interested in the cache and it's well being. Why else would they take the time to post one. They are telling you that there is something wrong with your cache and they want to let you know about it so you can fix it. Simple as that. As for how tactfully logs are written, well there is not much you can do about that. As a cache owner you should expect some negative feedback, justified or not.

 

The one thing I can't get my mind around is how a cache owner would ever let a N/A stand and fester to the point that their cache actually gets archived. If you want to keep the cache than you do what's necessary to keep it. If you do nothing and allow it to get archived than it probably should be anyway.

 

I think noncentric hit it right on the head. As cache owners I think we hide caches we'd like to find. Seems like your frustrated that more cachers today don't like or hide what you do.

Link to comment

Some posts in this thread highlight the importance of useful logs on DNFs and NAs. Did you search for 5 minutes or 1 hour? Do you often have trouble with this kind of hide? Has the area been bulldozed or burned or flooded, or the trees trimmed back?

 

(I've warned some local COs not to panic if I DNF their easy micros because I am terrible at many such hides.)

 

The other thought is personal philosophy on something Cezanne brought up: when I log NA am I hoping the cache listing will be fixed or removed? Yes. I'm not usually particular as to which. I'm fine with the CO disabling the cache for an extended period of time to check or resolve the issues. Unless I encounter a trespassing or similar issue, NA means "the CO should have done something about their cache, but hasn't. CO please do something, and Reviewer please intervene if they don't."

Edited by Joshism
Link to comment

The one thing I can't get my mind around is how a cache owner would ever let a N/A stand and fester to the point that their cache actually gets archived. If you want to keep the cache than you do what's necessary to keep it. If you do nothing and allow it to get archived than it probably should be anyway.

 

 

I wonder about that too, especially when the owner is still active. There are lots of active owners that never archive their own cache, they let the reviewer do it. Why?

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

when I log NA am I hoping the cache listing will be fixed or removed? Yes. I'm not usually particular as to which. I'm fine with the CO disabling the cache for an extended period of time to check or resolve the issues. Unless I encounter a trespassing or similar issue, NA means "the CO should have done something about their cache, but hasn't. CO please do something, and Reviewer please intervene if they don't."

 

That's certainly fine. However if that's the general attitude, then why as a cache owner decide for the "keep the cache variant" and not archive it if the potential finders out there do not really care if a cache gets fixed or archived and do not express a preference.

 

If you only log NA logs in cases of trespassing or similar or when a cache has been disabled for an extended period, it's of course true that you will less frequently cause the cases I'm most concerned with, namely NA logs that arrive much too early and are very demotivating.

Link to comment

The one thing I can't get my mind around is how a cache owner would ever let a N/A stand and fester to the point that their cache actually gets archived. If you want to keep the cache than you do what's necessary to keep it. If you do nothing and allow it to get archived than it probably should be anyway.

 

I wonder about that too, especially when the owner is still active. There are lots of active owners that never archive their own cache, they let the reviewer do it. Why?

+1

More than a couple here though active, won't act on that NA, often finally archived by a Reviewer due to, "no response".

- But next week five more's out.

Weird.

I personally think less of those people...

Link to comment

As cache owners I think we hide caches we'd like to find.

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some of my early caches have not been hidden with that in mind for a good reason (they still exist and one of them is my caches with the highest number of FPs).

 

Seems like your frustrated that more cachers today don't like or hide what you do.

 

Actually, I'm much more frustrated about how the majority of cachers today behave, what kind of undue expectations many have and who many lack respect (for a lot of things).

I'm still submitting caches at gc.com - many others have given up. Just very recently someone told me (and it's by far not the only example I have heard) "I have three hiking multis ready out there which are ready for submission, but I'm so annoyed about what's going on that I will not send them for review". I'm quite pessimistic that I will manage to change his mind.

Link to comment

The one thing I can't get my mind around is how a cache owner would ever let a N/A stand and fester to the point that their cache actually gets archived. If you want to keep the cache than you do what's necessary to keep it. If you do nothing and allow it to get archived than it probably should be anyway.

 

 

I wonder about that too, especially when the owner is still active. There are lots of active owners that never archive their own cache, they let the reviewer do it. Why?

 

You bring up a good point. A cache owner will jump through every hoop to get a cache published. When they decide to leave the game they completely forget the part about retrieving the container and archiving the cache. If the importance of cleaning up before leaving the game was emphasized, especially to new cachers, than most of the flash cachers (maybe we should call them flashers) wouldn't be that much of an issue.

Link to comment

As cache owners I think we hide caches we'd like to find.

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some of my early caches have not been hidden with that in mind for a good reason (they still exist and one of them is my caches with the highest number of FPs).

 

Seems like your frustrated that more cachers today don't like or hide what you do.

 

Actually, I'm much more frustrated about how the majority of cachers today behave, what kind of undue expectations many have and who many lack respect (for a lot of things).

I'm still submitting caches at gc.com - many others have given up. Just very recently someone told me (and it's by far not the only example I have heard) "I have three hiking multis ready out there which are ready for submission, but I'm so annoyed about what's going on that I will not send them for review". I'm quite pessimistic that I will manage to change his mind.

 

We'll collect them up and send the containers to me. I'm sure I'll find a use for them. Or you could just check that little box and see what happens.

 

If a person's first cache is one of mine and they discover a lifetime of joy in this activity than to me it's worth every maintenance run.

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

We'll collect them up and send the containers to me. I'm sure I'll find a use for them. Or you could just check that little box and see what happens.

 

I cannot do anything as I do not know where his containers are hidden (as has not yet submitted them). He is not a beginner, caches for several years and has more finds than myself and

continued to search for caches at a much higher rate than I do. There are those who leave geocaching completely and there are much more who just decide to stop hiding or owning caches out of frustration.

Link to comment

when I log NA am I hoping the cache listing will be fixed or removed? Yes. I'm not usually particular as to which. I'm fine with the CO disabling the cache for an extended period of time to check or resolve the issues. Unless I encounter a trespassing or similar issue, NA means "the CO should have done something about their cache, but hasn't. CO please do something, and Reviewer please intervene if they don't."

That's certainly fine. However if that's the general attitude, then why as a cache owner decide for the "keep the cache variant" and not archive it if the potential finders out there do not really care if a cache gets fixed or archived and do not express a preference.

You're reading Joshism's comment wrong. His point is that it doesn't matter to him whether the CO decides to fix it or not. That's because Joshism recognizes it's up to the CO, not to the seeker, to decide. You have to be really negative to read this as not caring about the cache itself. Could it be that negativity is what's making you think everyone dislikes your caches? From your reaction here, it seems as if the nicer someone is in an NA log about whether you might have good reasons for not addressing the issues with the cache, the more you'll interpret their comments as saying your cache is not worth maintaining.

 

And surely COs recognize that not all people like all caches, so I can't see why a negative comment by one cacher would lead them to the conclusion that no one is interested in the cache.

Link to comment

You're reading Joshism's comment wrong. His point is that it doesn't matter to him whether the CO decides to fix it or not. That's because Joshism recognizes it's up to the CO, not to the seeker, to decide.

 

I'm not sure whether I read it wrong. I understood his point. My point is that if neither the NA logger nor any other cachers express somewhere that they would like to see the cache kept alive, that definitely will influence some cacher owners in their decision.

 

You have to be really negative to read this as not caring about the cache itself.

 

Of course there is a difference between not caring and creating the impression of not caring to the cache owner. It's the latter that I'm writing about. The examples where NA logger end up disappointed if a cache owner archives a cache as a result to a NA log that asked for archival shows that there are indeed cases where the intended message was rather "I'd like to see this cache fixed as I would like to visit it". In such cases this should be communicated. If a NA logger is neutral about which of the two ways the decision of the cache owner will go, that's perfectly fine too and I'm not interpreting a neutral thing as negative - however it can have consequences on the cache owner's decision.

 

Note however that with caring I mean an explicit interest into visiting a cache and not an interest into the cache in the sense that one looked at the description and realized that there might be an issue and is equally happy with archival and the situation that the cache stays alive (or even a preference towards archival).

 

 

Could it be that negativity is what's making you think everyone dislikes your caches?

 

I do not think so. First, I mentioned that I have not received a NA log. So I rather mirror here how affected cache owners who are close to giving up (for many reasons) feel and often react based on things that for themselves might be small ones.

 

The example I provided quite a number of posts ago where I took the route to add a note to a cache with a discouraging NA, should demonstrate that my line of arguing is not directed by negativity. Moreover, it's not at all about disliking caches. In the example I provided, I'm sure that the cache owners would not have thought that the cachers out there dislike their cache - it received many FPs and positive logs. However first sometimes after a while all people interested into a cache have visited it and the ones that remain do not really care whether they visit cache A or B and do not miss a cache that gets archived. So once again, if fixing a cache is taking a lot of effort and the only message that comes across is that someone wants the cache to be archived, it's very tempting to press the archive button.

 

 

From your reaction here, it seems as if the nicer someone is in an NA log about whether you might have good reasons for not addressing the issues with the cache, the more you'll interpret their comments as saying your cache is not worth maintaining.

 

Where did you conclude this from?

 

I'm not even recommending a particular form of writing a NA log. I just say that if someone prefers that a cache stays alive and would like to go for a cache, they increase the chances that the cache stays alive if they say so in their log. If they decide to use a different form of NA log, well, that has to be accepted too. Those people should then however not be surprised or disappointed when the scenario they ask for takes actually place.

 

 

And surely COs recognize that not all people like all caches, so I can't see why a negative comment by one cacher would lead them to the conclusion that no one is interested in the cache.

 

NA logs are a level higher to me than normal logs. I do not like tons of caches but I do not wish that they get archived.

 

There will never be a proof that no one is interested (that's the falsification topic) as we cannot ask all people on the world. It suffices as source of demotivation if a NA log is filed that shows no interest and noone else stands up and expressed interest into the cache. Of course there is no requirement in such a situation to archive a cache, but for many cache owners it's a push into the archive direction. I'm saying just that. Some cachers might consider to take it into account when logging NA logs, others won't.

Link to comment

There will never be a proof that no one is interested (that's the falsification topic) as we cannot ask all people on the world. It suffices as source of demotivation if a NA log is filed that shows no interest and noone else stands up and expressed interest into the cache. Of course there is no requirement in such a situation to archive a cache, but for many cache owners it's a push into the archive direction. I'm saying just that. Some cachers might consider to take it into account when logging NA logs, others won't.

 

How much interest do you expect other cachers to take in cache listings they aren't imminently planning to visit? It's simply unreasonable to expect a chorus of praise and reassurance, especially when you've allowed a cache to deteriorate to the point that someone posts an NA log.

Link to comment

The one thing I can't get my mind around is how a cache owner would ever let a N/A stand and fester to the point that their cache actually gets archived. If you want to keep the cache than you do what's necessary to keep it. If you do nothing and allow it to get archived than it probably should be anyway.

 

 

I wonder about that too, especially when the owner is still active. There are lots of active owners that never archive their own cache, they let the reviewer do it. Why?

 

You bring up a good point. A cache owner will jump through every hoop to get a cache published. When they decide to leave the game they completely forget the part about retrieving the container and archiving the cache. If the importance of cleaning up before leaving the game was emphasized, especially to new cachers, than most of the flash cachers (maybe we should call them flashers) wouldn't be that much of an issue.

 

Is not that simple, when someone starts a hobby like this they have a definate start date, the day they find their first cache.

Leaving a hobby though is completely different. It starts to tail off until is the last thing on their mind. Or something happens, say a divorce, and it is immediately pushed to the very bottom of the list of what's important in the world.

 

As nice as it would be too see everyone clean up their game pieces themselves reality just doesn't work that way.

Link to comment

There will never be a proof that no one is interested (that's the falsification topic) as we cannot ask all people on the world. It suffices as source of demotivation if a NA log is filed that shows no interest and noone else stands up and expressed interest into the cache. Of course there is no requirement in such a situation to archive a cache, but for many cache owners it's a push into the archive direction. I'm saying just that. Some cachers might consider to take it into account when logging NA logs, others won't.

 

How much interest do you expect other cachers to take in cache listings they aren't imminently planning to visit? It's simply unreasonable to expect a chorus of praise and reassurance, especially when you've allowed a cache to deteriorate to the point that someone posts an NA log.

 

A single person expressing interest that a cache stays alive is not a chorus of praise and reassurance. A lot of caches for which I've seen NA logs are not deteriorated at all.

If not a single cacher is planning a visit, then the NA is just an attempt to get the cache removed from the cache map anyway and that's certainly not the kind of scenario that provides a push to a cache owner towards keeping the cache alive (which of course they still are free to do). This mindset of clearing the map and taking actions for caches I do not want to plan to visit relatively soon has never been understandable to me (of course I'm not referring to cases where the cache involves a legal issue, or someone wants to hide a new cache and the old cache has been disabled for a long time).

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The one thing I can't get my mind around is how a cache owner would ever let a N/A stand and fester to the point that their cache actually gets archived. If you want to keep the cache than you do what's necessary to keep it. If you do nothing and allow it to get archived than it probably should be anyway.

 

 

I wonder about that too, especially when the owner is still active. There are lots of active owners that never archive their own cache, they let the reviewer do it. Why?

 

You bring up a good point. A cache owner will jump through every hoop to get a cache published. When they decide to leave the game they completely forget the part about retrieving the container and archiving the cache. If the importance of cleaning up before leaving the game was emphasized, especially to new cachers, than most of the flash cachers (maybe we should call them flashers) wouldn't be that much of an issue.

 

Is not that simple, when someone starts a hobby like this they have a definate start date, the day they find their first cache.

Leaving a hobby though is completely different. It starts to tail off until is the last thing on their mind. Or something happens, say a divorce, and it is immediately pushed to the very bottom of the list of what's important in the world.

 

As nice as it would be too see everyone clean up their game pieces themselves reality just doesn't work that way.

 

I realize that life can get in the way and caching can become a luxury. I also realize that people who decide to become cache owners tend to rush into it not realizing the time and dedication involved.

 

There's no reason why you can't disable a cache and ask your reviewer for some extra time to get it fixed or cleaned up. I would think that most reviewers would be more than willing to work with you.

 

At least take a minute or two to archive it so other cachers don't waist their time.

Link to comment

There will never be a proof that no one is interested (that's the falsification topic) as we cannot ask all people on the world. It suffices as source of demotivation if a NA log is filed that shows no interest and noone else stands up and expressed interest into the cache. Of course there is no requirement in such a situation to archive a cache, but for many cache owners it's a push into the archive direction. I'm saying just that. Some cachers might consider to take it into account when logging NA logs, others won't.

 

How much interest do you expect other cachers to take in cache listings they aren't imminently planning to visit? It's simply unreasonable to expect a chorus of praise and reassurance, especially when you've allowed a cache to deteriorate to the point that someone posts an NA log.

 

A single person expressing interest that a cache stays alive is not a chorus of praise and reassurance. A lot of caches for which I've seen NA logs are not deteriorated at all.

If not a single cacher is planning a visit, then the NA is just an attempt to get the cache removed from the cache map anyway and that's certainly not the kind of scenario that provides a push to a cache owner towards keeping the cache alive (which of course they still are free to do). This mindset of clearing the map and taking actions for caches I do not want to plan to visit relatively soon has never been understandable to me (of course I'm not referring to cases where the cache involves a legal issue, or someone wants to hide a new cache and the old cache has been disabled for a long time).

 

I would think that most logs on a cache page indicates interest. I don't know how else you can measure it.

 

I can't ever recall a cacher notifying me of an impending visit. How do you know for sure someone is going to visit your cache? Is there a way to tell?

Link to comment

I would think that most logs on a cache page indicates interest. I don't know how else you can measure it.

 

Most NA logs in my area don't.

 

I can't ever recall a cacher notifying me of an impending visit. How do you know for sure someone is going to visit your cache? Is there a way to tell?

 

You will never know for sure. However if a NA arrives that does not express interest and none of the watchers and noone else expresses interest, then it

decreases the chances that the cache will stay alive (it still does not mean that noone is interested into a visit but those who are then have bad luck finally).

Link to comment

The one thing I can't get my mind around is how a cache owner would ever let a N/A stand and fester to the point that their cache actually gets archived. If you want to keep the cache than you do what's necessary to keep it. If you do nothing and allow it to get archived than it probably should be anyway.

 

 

I wonder about that too, especially when the owner is still active. There are lots of active owners that never archive their own cache, they let the reviewer do it. Why?

 

You bring up a good point. A cache owner will jump through every hoop to get a cache published. When they decide to leave the game they completely forget the part about retrieving the container and archiving the cache. If the importance of cleaning up before leaving the game was emphasized, especially to new cachers, than most of the flash cachers (maybe we should call them flashers) wouldn't be that much of an issue.

 

Is not that simple, when someone starts a hobby like this they have a definate start date, the day they find their first cache.

Leaving a hobby though is completely different. It starts to tail off until is the last thing on their mind. Or something happens, say a divorce, and it is immediately pushed to the very bottom of the list of what's important in the world.

 

As nice as it would be too see everyone clean up their game pieces themselves reality just doesn't work that way.

 

I'm talking about the people that actively cache. Some even organize geocaching events. Go out 3-4 times a month to do 50+ caches. Keep hiding caches. Yet never attend to their caches. They may occasionally post a note about how they will get around to it, but in the end the reviewer does the archive. And occasionally those COs tell people they can log a find on the cache that went missing, rather then go out and replace it or archive it themselves. I don't understand their thinking and have seen it happen with at least 10 power cachers.

Link to comment

I guess this is the tread to post this: GC1KP8X. What's everyone's opinion on this one? My opinion is in the log.

I think you have the right to post your opinion, but posting it as a Note will have very little or no impact on people continuing to log Finds on it. If you really intended to get the attention of someone who could take action on the Listing (other than the CO, who apparently isn't active anymore), you should have chosen the correct log type.

Link to comment

I would think that most logs on a cache page indicates interest. I don't know how else you can measure it.

 

Most NA logs in my area don't.

 

I can't ever recall a cacher notifying me of an impending visit. How do you know for sure someone is going to visit your cache? Is there a way to tell?

 

You will never know for sure. However if a NA arrives that does not express interest and none of the watchers and noone else expresses interest, then it

decreases the chances that the cache will stay alive (it still does not mean that noone is interested into a visit but those who are then have bad luck finally).

 

Cezanne, The N/A log has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the cache is wanted or unwanted. It's a red flag to the cache owner and the reviewer that the there is something wrong with the cache and the cache owner needs to fix it or archive it. If I post a N/A I'm saying that I think the cache should be removed. I wouldn't post one if the information on the cache page didn't support it. If my N/A is not responded to by the cache owner than the cache is going to and should be archived. The cache owner has no one to blame but themselves. Forget about all the other cachers wanting the cache. The cache owner has to want the cache.

Link to comment

If I post a N/A I'm saying that I think the cache should be removed. I wouldn't post one if the information on the cache page didn't support it. If my N/A is not responded to by the cache owner than the cache is going to and should be archived. The cache owner has to want the cache.

 

Again: Why should the cache owner feel motivated to want the cache when someone like you posts a NA because you think that the cache should be removed and noone else says anything contradictory?

Just for my own sake I would not maintain a single of my caches and I would not hide new ones.

 

Your formulation "should be removed" makes it quite clear that "keeping a cache alive" is apparently not what you are interested in when posting a NA log.

Link to comment

I guess this is the thread to post this: GC1KP8X. What's everyone's opinion on this one? My opinion is in the log.

 

 

One question? Wow do you know that it's an ownerless cache. I don't see that on the cache page. Just because the cache owner hasn't logged onto geocaching.com doesn't mean they are not taking care of the cache. Seems like most of the trouble is recent, within the last week or so. Other than that the logs look pretty clean. The last owners maintenance log was back in 2010.

Link to comment

If I post a N/A I'm saying that I think the cache should be removed. I wouldn't post one if the information on the cache page didn't support it. If my N/A is not responded to by the cache owner than the cache is going to and should be archived. The cache owner has to want the cache.

 

Again: Why should the cache owner feel motivated to want the cache when someone like you posts a NA because you think that the cache should be removed and noone else says anything contradictory?

Just for my own sake I would not maintain a single of my caches and I would not hide new ones.

 

Your formulation "should be removed" makes it quite clear that "keeping a cache alive" is apparently not what you are interested in when posting a NA log.

 

No one else should have to say anything to the contrary. The cache owner should. The formulation "should be removed" makes it clear that the cache is not being taken care of and should be put out of it's misery. If the negative or perceived negative opinions of a N/A log are your only motivation in hiding and maintaining caches then maybe you should archive them.

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

I did a throughout reading of owner intervention on his caches. Noting when he was active and maintaining them when problems arised. I've read this excuse for absentee cache owners numerous times before, fact of the matter is his cache is listed in geocaching.com. If he were active and concerned about his caches condition then he would communicate that on geocaching.com where his cache is listed.

Link to comment

No one else should have to say anything to the contrary. The cache owner should. The formulation "should be removed" makes it clear that the cache is not being taken care of and should be put out of it's misery.

 

I have seen many NA logs posted after a single DNF for a cache that does not get searched often and is challenging. Such caches are definitely not in a misery.

 

Likewise, if a cache is disabled for say 4 months and noone so far posted a reminder, then it's also the first reaction I would have "Dear owner, I'd like to visit your cache. I would appreciate if you activate soon." or "is there an update on the cache?"

 

The message "Should be removed" is nothing I have ever felt for a cache that I wanted to visit and where I wished that the owner kept the cache alive.

Link to comment

Again: Why should the cache owner feel motivated to want the cache when someone like you posts a NA because you think that the cache should be removed and noone else says anything contradictory?

Just for my own sake I would not maintain a single of my caches and I would not hide new ones.

I personally would be motivated by the past nice logs and possible future nice logs if the cache goes on.

 

Do I get you right, Cezanne, that in this theoretical situation when your cache is in a bad condition or lost for a longer time and someone finally posts NA, you expect other cachers begging you to fix it?

Link to comment

I did a throughout reading of owner intervention on his caches. Noting when he was active and maintaining them when problems arised. I've read this excuse for absentee cache owners numerous times before, fact of the matter is his cache is listed in geocaching.com. If he were active and concerned about his caches condition then he would communicate that on geocaching.com where his cache is listed.

 

Not an excuse just a question. In fact I've run into this situation before only to discover that the cache owner was indeed maintaining the cache but not logging onto geocaching.com. I guess that's why I'm cautious. Part of the problem looks to be caused by a few cachers (not the owner) who have taken it upon themselves to fix up the cache a few times. At least up to the point the lock went missing. Obviously the lack of a lock hasn't stopped anyone from enjoying the cache. If I had to guess I'd say the cache owner is gone and the cache will slowly deteriorate. Too bad the last two finders didn't post a needs maintenance log as well.

Link to comment

No one else should have to say anything to the contrary. The cache owner should. The formulation "should be removed" makes it clear that the cache is not being taken care of and should be put out of it's misery.

 

I have seen many NA logs posted after a single DNF for a cache that does not get searched often and is challenging. Such caches are definitely not in a misery.

 

And it is absolutely in the cache owner's power to write an Owner Maintenance log. Try something like this:

 

"It's unfortunate that so-and-so was not able to find it, but this cache is in place and it is in good condition. Reviewer, please disregard the erroneous Needs Archived log."

 

If the owner can't be bothered to respond, the owner isn't maintaining the cache listing and the archival is justified.

Link to comment

There will never be a proof that no one is interested (that's the falsification topic) as we cannot ask all people on the world. It suffices as source of demotivation if a NA log is filed that shows no interest and noone else stands up and expressed interest into the cache. Of course there is no requirement in such a situation to archive a cache, but for many cache owners it's a push into the archive direction. I'm saying just that. Some cachers might consider to take it into account when logging NA logs, others won't.

 

How much interest do you expect other cachers to take in cache listings they aren't imminently planning to visit? It's simply unreasonable to expect a chorus of praise and reassurance, especially when you've allowed a cache to deteriorate to the point that someone posts an NA log.

 

A single person expressing interest that a cache stays alive is not a chorus of praise and reassurance. A lot of caches for which I've seen NA logs are not deteriorated at all.

If not a single cacher is planning a visit, then the NA is just an attempt to get the cache removed from the cache map anyway and that's certainly not the kind of scenario that provides a push to a cache owner towards keeping the cache alive (which of course they still are free to do). This mindset of clearing the map and taking actions for caches I do not want to plan to visit relatively soon has never been understandable to me (of course I'm not referring to cases where the cache involves a legal issue, or someone wants to hide a new cache and the old cache has been disabled for a long time).

 

Some caches just don't get visits very often. Responsible and reasonable cache owners understand this and don't expect an outpouring of support when there's an issue with the cache.

 

If you don't want to own a cache anymore because you were hoping it would get more visits, then don't own the cache anymore. That's your choice.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

No one else should have to say anything to the contrary. The cache owner should. The formulation "should be removed" makes it clear that the cache is not being taken care of and should be put out of it's misery.

 

I have seen many NA logs posted after a single DNF for a cache that does not get searched often and is challenging. Such caches are definitely not in a misery.

 

Likewise, if a cache is disabled for say 4 months and noone so far posted a reminder, then it's also the first reaction I would have "Dear owner, I'd like to visit your cache. I would appreciate if you activate soon." or "is there an update on the cache?"

 

The message "Should be removed" is nothing I have ever felt for a cache that I wanted to visit and where I wished that the owner kept the cache alive.

 

the first situation is unreasonable. No one should post a N/A after a single DNF as long as there is no issue with the cache. What were the notes on the N/A's you refer to?

 

All the wishing in the world isn't going to get a cache owner to maintain a cache. No real geocacher wants to see a cache archived but most responsible cachers understand that it's something that needs to be done.

Link to comment

No one else should have to say anything to the contrary. The cache owner should. The formulation "should be removed" makes it clear that the cache is not being taken care of and should be put out of it's misery.

 

I have seen many NA logs posted after a single DNF for a cache that does not get searched often and is challenging. Such caches are definitely not in a misery.

 

And it is absolutely in the cache owner's power to write an Owner Maintenance log. Try something like this:

 

Yes, it is.

 

"It's unfortunate that so-and-so was not able to find it, but this cache is in place and it is in good condition. Reviewer, please disregard the erroneous Needs Archived log."

 

Of course one can do that though for a remote cache I would not expect anyone to run out after every DNF unless there is a special situation (e.g. recent tree cutting activities reported) Without a cache check you cannot write however what you suggest above.

 

One could either at the latest after the second iteration make the cache trivial by spoiler photos, hints etc or give up and archive the cache. Often this concerns caches that are older than a decade and have not changed - it's just the attitude of those going for the cache that changed. It's this "we are entitled for a find" and "we have searched for 45 minutes - so the owner needs to react and help us etc".

 

 

If the owner can't be bothered to respond, the owner isn't maintaining the cache listing and the archival is justified.

 

The question is just whether the owner wants to join that game. A form of owner response is also archiving the cache themselves.

 

What reviewers can do is completely out of my perspective. I'm just talking about the connection logger of NA and cache owner.

 

NA logs are for me primarily a message to the cache owner. The reviewers come much later.

Link to comment

No one else should have to say anything to the contrary. The cache owner should. The formulation "should be removed" makes it clear that the cache is not being taken care of and should be put out of it's misery.

 

I have seen many NA logs posted after a single DNF for a cache that does not get searched often and is challenging. Such caches are definitely not in a misery.

 

And it is absolutely in the cache owner's power to write an Owner Maintenance log. Try something like this:

 

Yes, it is.

 

"It's unfortunate that so-and-so was not able to find it, but this cache is in place and it is in good condition. Reviewer, please disregard the erroneous Needs Archived log."

 

Of course one can do that though for a remote cache I would not expect anyone to run out after every DNF unless there is a special situation (e.g. recent tree cutting activities reported) Without a cache check you cannot write however what you suggest above.

 

One could either at the latest after the second iteration make the cache trivial by spoiler photos, hints etc or give up and archive the cache. Often this concerns caches that are older than a decade and have not changed - it's just the attitude of those going for the cache that changed. It's this "we are entitled for a find" and "we have searched for 45 minutes - so the owner needs to react and help us etc".

 

 

If the owner can't be bothered to respond, the owner isn't maintaining the cache listing and the archival is justified.

 

The question is just whether the owner wants to join that game. A form of owner response is also archiving the cache themselves.

 

What reviewers can do is completely out of my perspective. I'm just talking about the connection logger of NA and cache owner.

 

NA logs are for me primarily a message to the cache owner. The reviewers come much later.

 

You sound like your upset at the cacher for posting the N/A. The owner should be embarrassed that they've let there cache deteriorate to the point they've forced the cacher to do it.

Link to comment

I did a throughout reading of owner intervention on his caches. Noting when he was active and maintaining them when problems arised. I've read this excuse for absentee cache owners numerous times before, fact of the matter is his cache is listed in geocaching.com. If he were active and concerned about his caches condition then he would communicate that on geocaching.com where his cache is listed.

 

Not an excuse just a question. In fact I've run into this situation before only to discover that the cache owner was indeed maintaining the cache but not logging onto geocaching.com. I guess that's why I'm cautious. Part of the problem looks to be caused by a few cachers (not the owner) who have taken it upon themselves to fix up the cache a few times. At least up to the point the lock went missing. Obviously the lack of a lock hasn't stopped anyone from enjoying the cache. If I had to guess I'd say the cache owner is gone and the cache will slowly deteriorate. Too bad the last two finders didn't post a needs maintenance log as well.

There's no doubt about it in my mind, he's long gone. I would be willing to adopt this one if the owner were willing and active. That's not going to happen either. This one will be destined to be a propped up ownerless cache that is no longer a proper multi and safe TB hotel. A rusting ammo can chained to a mesquite tree with the occasional scrap of paper thrown inside for a log and where TB's routinely get muggeled.

Link to comment

I did a throughout reading of owner intervention on his caches. Noting when he was active and maintaining them when problems arised. I've read this excuse for absentee cache owners numerous times before, fact of the matter is his cache is listed in geocaching.com. If he were active and concerned about his caches condition then he would communicate that on geocaching.com where his cache is listed.

 

I agree.

I looked at the CO's profile. They haven't logged in since 2014. Many of their hides have been reviewer archived. They are not responding on their cache listings. It is their responsibility as a cache owner to not only maintain their cache but also their listing. The only thing I would have done differently is post an NA (needs archived), not a note. An NA helps future finders too. A red cross attribute will show up in their attribute list. I filter out caches with the red cross attribute, I'm guessing others do too.

 

Addendum: I looked again, and see you already posted the NM previously. That's good. The red cross was then activated. Still the NA is necessary to move the cache along the process of archival and to let future finders know.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

One could either at the latest after the second iteration make the cache trivial by spoiler photos, hints etc or give up and archive the cache. Often this concerns caches that are older than a decade and have not changed - it's just the attitude of those going for the cache that changed. It's this "we are entitled for a find" and "we have searched for 45 minutes - so the owner needs to react and help us etc".

 

Or you can simply insist that the cache is fine and go about your business. You are not obligated to change your cache or your cache listing to make it easier for anyone. You are not obligated to give hints to anyone. It's totally your call. If someone is so upset at the difficulty level of a cache that they will send an NA log over it, it's just a nuisance log from a nuisance cacher.

 

A cache owner is certainly entitled to archive a cache at any time, for any reason. But you can't blame others for that decision. It is yours alone.

Link to comment

One could either at the latest after the second iteration make the cache trivial by spoiler photos, hints etc or give up and archive the cache. Often this concerns caches that are older than a decade and have not changed - it's just the attitude of those going for the cache that changed. It's this "we are entitled for a find" and "we have searched for 45 minutes - so the owner needs to react and help us etc".

 

Or you can simply insist that the cache is fine and go about your business. You are not obligated to change your cache or your cache listing to make it easier for anyone. You are not obligated to give hints to anyone. It's totally your call. If someone is so upset at the difficulty level of a cache that they will send an NA log over it, it's just a nuisance log from a nuisance cacher.

I agree that the CO should not encourage the "entitled for a find" philosophy. There's no need to 'give away' the hiding spot just because cachers are having trouble finding it -- assuming the difficulty is rated correctly and the cache is actually in place. If someone logs an NA because they can't find a high difficulty cache, then an OM log could say something like:

"This cache is rated D4 and is not easy to locate. A single DNF log is not unusual and doesn't necessarily indicate that the cache is indeed missing. I will watch for additional activity and check the cache if there indeed seems to be a problem with the cache."

 

Kids may feel like they should get a candy bar every time they go to the grocery store with their parents. It's up to their parents to tell them "no". Just tell these cachers "no" when they ask for hints or for log permission. Telling them "no" is better than not responding at all, and may help 'train' them to stop asking for finds on all the caches they can't find. If CO's are currently giving them log permission every time they ask, then of course they are going to continue asking. I'd suggest to stop encouraging the behavior that you don't like. If a CO encourages the 'bad' behavior, then they have no one to blame but themselves when that behavior continues.

Link to comment

You sound like your upset at the cacher for posting the N/A. The owner should be embarrassed that they've let there cache deteriorate to the point they've forced the cacher to do it.

I haven't seen cezanne complain about NA logs on caches that really need to be archived because they are in bad shape. What I've inferred after reading this entire thread is that cezanne's main complaints are:

-- Cachers posting NA on caches after just a single DNF. A single DNF does not mean a cache has deteriorated, as the cacher may have just not found it. No reason for a CO to be embarrassed by a cache that has a single DNF log on it.

-- Cachers posting NA on caches that really need maintenance and wording those NA logs in such a way that it discourages the CO from fixing that cache.

Link to comment

I did a throughout reading of owner intervention on his caches. Noting when he was active and maintaining them when problems arised. I've read this excuse for absentee cache owners numerous times before, fact of the matter is his cache is listed in geocaching.com. If he were active and concerned about his caches condition then he would communicate that on geocaching.com where his cache is listed.

 

Not an excuse just a question. In fact I've run into this situation before only to discover that the cache owner was indeed maintaining the cache but not logging onto geocaching.com. I guess that's why I'm cautious. Part of the problem looks to be caused by a few cachers (not the owner) who have taken it upon themselves to fix up the cache a few times. At least up to the point the lock went missing. Obviously the lack of a lock hasn't stopped anyone from enjoying the cache. If I had to guess I'd say the cache owner is gone and the cache will slowly deteriorate. Too bad the last two finders didn't post a needs maintenance log as well.

There's no doubt about it in my mind, he's long gone. I would be willing to adopt this one if the owner were willing and active. That's not going to happen either. This one will be destined to be a propped up ownerless cache that is no longer a proper multi and safe TB hotel. A rusting ammo can chained to a mesquite tree with the occasional scrap of paper thrown inside for a log and where TB's routinely get muggeled.

I agree with the assumption that the CO is gone from the game. Their last login was 12/2014, the last find they logged was 7/2014, and this isn't their only cache that has been propped up. Their hides that only get a few visits each year seem to be doing okay, but probably because they are more isolated. For this particular cache, the lock has been missing for at least 3 years and TB's have been noted as missing several times since then. The cache description is certainly misleading when it describes this cache as a safe place for trackables.

 

Good to see the NM logged. An NA log in mid-March noting the lack of maintenance and the throwdown logs is probably appropriate.

Link to comment

You sound like your upset at the cacher for posting the N/A. The owner should be embarrassed that they've let there cache deteriorate to the point they've forced the cacher to do it.

I haven't seen cezanne complain about NA logs on caches that really need to be archived because they are in bad shape. What I've inferred after reading this entire thread is that cezanne's main complaints are:

-- Cachers posting NA on caches after just a single DNF. A single DNF does not mean a cache has deteriorated, as the cacher may have just not found it. No reason for a CO to be embarrassed by a cache that has a single DNF log on it.

-- Cachers posting NA on caches that really need maintenance and wording those NA logs in such a way that it discourages the CO from fixing that cache.

 

Exactly you got it. By the way: I did not intend to complain at all. It's just that I'm unhappy with what you summsarized above and moreover I think that it could be worthwhile to think twice how to formulate a NA log (that does not cost much and it can bring a lot of gain). I still feel that sa lot of NA loggers see their message just as a message to a reviewer and do not take the hider into account at all.

Link to comment

You sound like your upset at the cacher for posting the N/A. The owner should be embarrassed that they've let there cache deteriorate to the point they've forced the cacher to do it.

I haven't seen cezanne complain about NA logs on caches that really need to be archived because they are in bad shape. What I've inferred after reading this entire thread is that cezanne's main complaints are:

-- Cachers posting NA on caches after just a single DNF. A single DNF does not mean a cache has deteriorated, as the cacher may have just not found it. No reason for a CO to be embarrassed by a cache that has a single DNF log on it.

-- Cachers posting NA on caches that really need maintenance and wording those NA logs in such a way that it discourages the CO from fixing that cache.

 

Exactly you got it. By the way: I did not intend to complain at all. It's just that I'm unhappy with what you summsarized above and moreover I think that it could be worthwhile to think twice how to formulate a NA log (that does not cost much and it can bring a lot of gain). I still feel that sa lot of NA loggers see their message just as a message to a reviewer and do not take the hider into account at all.

 

Let me know if I got this straight? Your the owner of a cache that someone has posted Needs Archived log on. Your upset because the log wasn't written in a way that gives you the encouragement to go out and fix it. Dose that sum it up?

Link to comment

I did a throughout reading of owner intervention on his caches. Noting when he was active and maintaining them when problems arised. I've read this excuse for absentee cache owners numerous times before, fact of the matter is his cache is listed in geocaching.com. If he were active and concerned about his caches condition then he would communicate that on geocaching.com where his cache is listed.

 

Not an excuse just a question. In fact I've run into this situation before only to discover that the cache owner was indeed maintaining the cache but not logging onto geocaching.com. I guess that's why I'm cautious. Part of the problem looks to be caused by a few cachers (not the owner) who have taken it upon themselves to fix up the cache a few times. At least up to the point the lock went missing. Obviously the lack of a lock hasn't stopped anyone from enjoying the cache. If I had to guess I'd say the cache owner is gone and the cache will slowly deteriorate. Too bad the last two finders didn't post a needs maintenance log as well.

There's no doubt about it in my mind, he's long gone. I would be willing to adopt this one if the owner were willing and active. That's not going to happen either. This one will be destined to be a propped up ownerless cache that is no longer a proper multi and safe TB hotel. A rusting ammo can chained to a mesquite tree with the occasional scrap of paper thrown inside for a log and where TB's routinely get muggeled.

I agree with the assumption that the CO is gone from the game. Their last login was 12/2014, the last find they logged was 7/2014, and this isn't their only cache that has been propped up. Their hides that only get a few visits each year seem to be doing okay, but probably because they are more isolated. For this particular cache, the lock has been missing for at least 3 years and TB's have been noted as missing several times since then. The cache description is certainly misleading when it describes this cache as a safe place for trackables.

 

Good to see the NM logged. An NA log in mid-March noting the lack of maintenance and the throwdown logs is probably appropriate.

That's the plan.

Link to comment

Let me know if I got this straight? Your the owner of a cache that someone has posted Needs Archived log on. Your upset because the log wasn't written in a way that gives you the encouragement to go out and fix it. Dose that sum it up?

 

No and I have explained it many times. I do not own a cache for which a NA has been logged. I'm not upset. I however have seen very nice caches that got archived by the cache owner due to being frustrated and this would have went another route if the cases where dealt with differently. I also have numerous times encountered NA loggers that after a cache owner really decided to archive a cache reacted with diasppointment which is a contradiction - one cannot at the same time ask for archival and wish that a cache is kept alive.

Link to comment

Let me know if I got this straight? Your the owner of a cache that someone has posted Needs Archived log on. Your upset because the log wasn't written in a way that gives you the encouragement to go out and fix it. Dose that sum it up?

 

No and I have explained it many times. I do not own a cache for which a NA has been logged. I'm not upset. I however have seen very nice caches that got archived by the cache owner due to being frustrated and this would have went another route if the cases where dealt with differently. I also have numerous times encountered NA loggers that after a cache owner really decided to archive a cache reacted with diasppointment which is a contradiction - one cannot at the same time ask for archival and wish that a cache is kept alive.

 

Why not? The N/A log is a last ditch effort to get the cache fixed isn't it? I'm assuming that there has already been numerous unanswered DNF's and Needs Maintenance logs. If not, then were talking about something totally different.

 

If the owner decides to fix the problems I'm happy. If the cache gets archived due to lack of interest by the cache owner I'm happy. An abandoned cache is now gone, but I'm sad to see it go. I'd rather see it fixed.

 

Don't you think that most cachers feel this way?

 

It's kind of silly when you think about it. As if one negative log would cause me to throw up my hands and quit.

 

Some cache owners simply get tired of the game. If that's the case than why not just end it and archive the caches yourself? Why let them deteriorate to the point where there archived for you? Meanwhile cachers are searching for something that may not even be there or finding a cache that's a mess.

Link to comment

Why not? The N/A log is a last ditch effort to get the cache fixed isn't it? I'm assuming that there has already been numerous unanswered DNF's and Needs Maintenance logs. If not, then were talking about something totally different.

 

I have already explained that are numerous cases where there this definitely is not the case.

 

The single DNF NA are one example, another example are NA logs when a cache is disabled for a longer time and noone has ever reminded the cache owner of the cache. It's a different thing if a reviewer after some time posts a reviewer note and asks for a reaction of the cache owner and a NA log that asks for archival and does not send out any message in the contents that anything other than archival might be in the interest of the NA logger.

The typical reviewer notes are much more friendly than the typical NA logs - they ask for a reaction and not for archival.

 

 

Meanwhile cachers are searching for something that may not even be there or finding a cache that's a mess.

 

In none of the cases I have in mind and talk about this is the case any more than for every cache. Also a cache I check yesterday may not be there tomorrow

 

The risk that a cache that persisted for more than a decade and that is not easy to find suddenly is gone is not very high if nothing in the area has changed.

So it's quite crazy to expect a reaction for a single DNF for such a cache. If the expectation of some cachers out there is that after searching in vain for 45 minutes they are entitled for a cache

check by the owner or getting hints, spoiler photos etc, and more and more cachers start to think this way, it's tempting to give up caches that are still in perfect order.

 

Also in case of disabled caches none of the issues you address can occur.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...