Inactive Cacher Question

[Keystone]

The secret is to get the "Needs Archived" log placed on a cache with numerous DNF's and/or "Needs Maintenance" logs, BEFORE someone "helps out" with a replacement log or container. Once the "Needs Archived" log is placed legitimately, as a Community Volunteer Reviewer I can temporarily disable the listing, asking the owner to fix the problem. Should someone toss down a throwdown after that, I can still say "but now the CO needs to decide if they're happy with that -- if so, they can enable their listing." But they rarely do. I can then archive the listing.

[+BaylorGrad]

1456030378[/url]' post='5566316']

1456026584[/url]' post='5566311']

But from what it sounds like, the consensus is that either (a) he should be reached out to, in which case he could hopefully allow adoption or clean up his 1,000+ abandoned caches, or (2) the local cachers can simply post "NA" logs to his caches.

I think #2 is the option that should be employed, but only for caches that are truly problematic. Skimming through the CO's caches, some seem to be in decent condition. That may be because other cachers are propping up his caches.

 

Some of his caches of have had NM's logged, in which case it would be appropriate to post an NA log on those if the problems haven't been resolved after some time.

 

I don't think it's appropriate to try and have all of his caches adopted out or archived. It starts to appear that you are targeting just this one cacher, while there is another CO that has 200+ hides and another with 350+ of the same style and many of those have NM attributes. Why target just this particular CO, instead of targeting specific caches regardless of the CO?

 

In some areas this is becoming a very noticeable problem.

There really does seem to be an addiction issue. Some people can not stop themselves from hiding. Once they get the bug, they keep hiding until they implode.

They push out the quality cache owners who want to hide one or two caches a year. Fewer and fewer quality cache owners are hiding caches.

They leave a lot of junk to rot, and active addicted cache owners will encourage the practice of throwdowns. Most will publicly thank the finder that reports the cache gone leaves a bison tube to claim a find.

Good luck BaylorGrad, those NM caches need to be NA'd before the next throwdown. Very few people will post an NA. You may have to live with the "cache cop" handle. But there will be others who will appreciate your efforts.

 

I think we're of the same mindset here. It's the littering that really gets to me. Destroyed geocaches just become litter--and that's something that many cachers actively work to reduce. I don't think I'd be labeled as a "cache cop" here--at least not in this town. And frankly, I think most local cachers would appreciate it.

[+BaylorGrad]

The secret is to get the "Needs Archived" log placed on a cache with numerous DNF's and/or "Needs Maintenance" logs, BEFORE someone "helps out" with a replacement log or container. Once the "Needs Archived" log is placed legitimately, as a Community Volunteer Reviewer I can temporarily disable the listing, asking the owner to fix the problem. Should someone toss down a throwdown after that, I can still say "but now the CO needs to decide if they're happy with that -- if so, they can enable their listing." But they rarely do. I can then archive the listing.

 

Thanks, Keystone. That makes perfect sense. As a reviewer, you can probably take a look at my profile/information and see that I did exactly this yesterday.

[Keystone]

Actually there's no easy way for a reviewer to find out any or all of the "needs archived" logs submitted by a particular account. We only see the logs as they come up on cache listings.

 

Though that's not a bad feature request...

[Nomex]

The secret is to get the "Needs Archived" log placed on a cache with numerous DNF's and/or "Needs Maintenance" logs, BEFORE someone "helps out" with a replacement log or container. Once the "Needs Archived" log is placed legitimately, as a Community Volunteer Reviewer I can temporarily disable the listing, asking the owner to fix the problem. Should someone toss down a throwdown after that, I can still say "but now the CO needs to decide if they're happy with that -- if so, they can enable their listing." But they rarely do. I can then archive the listing.

 

Thanks, Keystone. That makes perfect sense. As a reviewer, you can probably take a look at my profile/information and see that I did exactly this yesterday.

Along the same line of thought that Keystone brought up, I see this kind of behavior at an ever increasing frequency. When I see this sort of thing happening on a Listing page, I'll post my usual Archive Note after the traditional 30 day Disable, with the following link to this Help Center article:

 

How to handle Throwdowns

 

Kind of ironically, I had a "throwdown" on one of my own Listings, under my Player account. I ended up Archiving my Listing almost immediately, and contacting the User and told them not to do that again (they're a geo-friend, so I could be a bit more blunt than I usually am). They ended up submitting a Listing under their own account. Problem solved.

[Pup Patrol]

From another thread about archived caches...

 

found a great example of the "Archived" log not meaning a darned thing to some folks...

 

http://coord.info/GC17JAF

 

archived by owner 08/01/2015

 

found 02/04/2016

 

Highlights included finding more of zed' archived caches and visiting roe lookout which had fantastic views of the countryside.

 

Replaced container that had perished with no logbook too. Added logbook all good to go

 

Cache owners should have the ability to lock their cache listings once they've archived them.

 

B.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[jholly]

From another thread about archived caches...

 

found a great example of the "Archived" log not meaning a darned thing to some folks...

 

http://coord.info/GC17JAF

 

archived by owner 08/01/2015

 

found 02/04/2016

 

Highlights included finding more of zed' archived caches and visiting roe lookout which had fantastic views of the countryside.

 

Replaced container that had perished with no logbook too. Added logbook all good to go

 

Cache owners should have the ability to lock their cache listings once they've archived them.

 

B.

If that was mine I would delete the throwdown log and the bogus log of his buddy and ask GS to lock the listing.

[+J Grouchy]

The secret is to get the "Needs Archived" log placed on a cache with numerous DNF's and/or "Needs Maintenance" logs, BEFORE someone "helps out" with a replacement log or container. Once the "Needs Archived" log is placed legitimately, as a Community Volunteer Reviewer I can temporarily disable the listing, asking the owner to fix the problem. Should someone toss down a throwdown after that, I can still say "but now the CO needs to decide if they're happy with that -- if so, they can enable their listing." But they rarely do. I can then archive the listing.

 

Thanks, Keystone. That makes perfect sense. As a reviewer, you can probably take a look at my profile/information and see that I did exactly this yesterday.

Along the same line of thought that Keystone brought up, I see this kind of behavior at an ever increasing frequency. When I see this sort of thing happening on a Listing page, I'll post my usual Archive Note after the traditional 30 day Disable, with the following link to this Help Center article:

 

How to handle Throwdowns

 

Kind of ironically, I had a "throwdown" on one of my own Listings, under my Player account. I ended up Archiving my Listing almost immediately, and contacting the User and told them not to do that again (they're a geo-friend, so I could be a bit more blunt than I usually am). They ended up submitting a Listing under their own account. Problem solved.

 

Sooo...this isn't meant to be snarky, mind you...but couldn't you have just gone out and done maintenance on your own cache and taken the throwdown away instead of archiving?

[+L0ne.R]

From another thread about archived caches...

 

found a great example of the "Archived" log not meaning a darned thing to some folks...

 

http://coord.info/GC17JAF

 

archived by owner 08/01/2015

 

found 02/04/2016

 

Highlights included finding more of zed' archived caches and visiting roe lookout which had fantastic views of the countryside.

 

Replaced container that had perished with no logbook too. Added logbook all good to go

 

Cache owners should have the ability to lock their cache listings once they've archived them.

 

B.

 

Wow.

 

I thought maybe the finder was a newbie and might not understand what archival means. But nope, they are a premium member (since 2012) with over 5000 finds.

Why didn't they just take the find instead of littering? Those finds should be removed by Groundspeak if the CO won't do it.

 

 

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

From another thread about archived caches...

 

found a great example of the "Archived" log not meaning a darned thing to some folks...

 

http://coord.info/GC17JAF

 

archived by owner 08/01/2015

 

found 02/04/2016

 

Highlights included finding more of zed' archived caches and visiting roe lookout which had fantastic views of the countryside.

 

Replaced container that had perished with no logbook too. Added logbook all good to go

 

Cache owners should have the ability to lock their cache listings once they've archived them.

 

B.

 

Wow.

 

I thought maybe the finder was a newbie and might not understand what archival means. But nope, they are a premium member (since 2012) with over 5000 finds.

Why didn't they just take the find instead of littering? Those finds should be removed by Groundspeak if the CO won't do it.

 

 

 

I will heartily agree with you. Throwdowns on archived caches are inane, and should not be permitted.

[Pup Patrol]

That's just the one cache. I didn't continue on to see how many more they searched and threw down on.

 

They searched out caches they knew were archived. Archived the previous year. Archived because the CO no longer wanted to own caches.

 

ugh. Numbers really do mean more than integrity and honesty to some people.

 

 

B.

[Nomex]

The secret is to get the "Needs Archived" log placed on a cache with numerous DNF's and/or "Needs Maintenance" logs, BEFORE someone "helps out" with a replacement log or container. Once the "Needs Archived" log is placed legitimately, as a Community Volunteer Reviewer I can temporarily disable the listing, asking the owner to fix the problem. Should someone toss down a throwdown after that, I can still say "but now the CO needs to decide if they're happy with that -- if so, they can enable their listing." But they rarely do. I can then archive the listing.

 

Thanks, Keystone. That makes perfect sense. As a reviewer, you can probably take a look at my profile/information and see that I did exactly this yesterday.

Along the same line of thought that Keystone brought up, I see this kind of behavior at an ever increasing frequency. When I see this sort of thing happening on a Listing page, I'll post my usual Archive Note after the traditional 30 day Disable, with the following link to this Help Center article:

 

How to handle Throwdowns

 

Kind of ironically, I had a "throwdown" on one of my own Listings, under my Player account. I ended up Archiving my Listing almost immediately, and contacting the User and told them not to do that again (they're a geo-friend, so I could be a bit more blunt than I usually am). They ended up submitting a Listing under their own account. Problem solved.

 

Sooo...this isn't meant to be snarky, mind you...but couldn't you have just gone out and done maintenance on your own cache and taken the throwdown away instead of archiving?

Not taken as snarky at all. The cache in question was, what would be described as a "lonely cache", with only a handful of finds over a several year period. My friend described exactly where he looked, which was indeed the right place. It was near a tributary of a nearby river, and my guess is that I didn't place the cache above the high water mark far enough. There were no indications there was an issue prior to his search. Since there were several watchers on the Listing and my Reviewing roll is pretty well known in the community it seemed a bit unseemly to me to accept the replacement while holding others to a higher standard. Archiving and allowing my friend to take over the spot seemed like the most consistent solution.

[+colleda]

That's just the one cache. I didn't continue on to see how many more they searched and threw down on.

 

They searched out caches they knew were archived. Archived the previous year. Archived because the CO no longer wanted to own caches.

 

ugh. Numbers really do mean more than integrity and honesty to some people.

 

 

B.

I looked. They did a few archived caches but that was the only one mentioning leaving a throwdown.

[+L0ne.R]

That's just the one cache. I didn't continue on to see how many more they searched and threw down on.

 

They searched out caches they knew were archived. Archived the previous year. Archived because the CO no longer wanted to own caches.

 

ugh. Numbers really do mean more than integrity and honesty to some people.

 

 

B.

 

It worries me when people come in to the forums to ask how to locate archived caches. Something like this may be the next way for numbers-cachers to increase their find count and "find" old caches for challenges.

[+J Grouchy]

That's just the one cache. I didn't continue on to see how many more they searched and threw down on.

 

They searched out caches they knew were archived. Archived the previous year. Archived because the CO no longer wanted to own caches.

 

ugh. Numbers really do mean more than integrity and honesty to some people.

 

 

B.

 

It worries me when people come in to the forums to ask how to locate archived caches. Something like this may be the next way for numbers-cachers to increase their find count and "find" old caches for challenges.

 

And....?

 

Is there really anything wrong with that? There are plenty of archived caches that are still sitting out there. It's really up to the one looking to decide whether it's worth the time and effort looking for something that probably isn't there anymore. Logging a find on one that clearly isn't there is, of course, stupid and dishonest...so maybe THAT is what you are talking about?

Edited February 22, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+L0ne.R]

That's just the one cache. I didn't continue on to see how many more they searched and threw down on.

 

They searched out caches they knew were archived. Archived the previous year. Archived because the CO no longer wanted to own caches.

 

ugh. Numbers really do mean more than integrity and honesty to some people.

 

 

B.

 

It worries me when people come in to the forums to ask how to locate archived caches. Something like this may be the next way for numbers-cachers to increase their find count and "find" old caches for challenges.

 

And....?

 

Is there really anything wrong with that? There are plenty of archived caches that are still sitting out there. It's really up to the one looking to decide whether it's worth the time and effort looking for something that probably isn't there anymore. Logging a find on one that clearly isn't there is, of course, stupid and dishonest...so maybe THAT is what you are talking about?

 

In the case PupPatrol referred to, the cache wasn't there. It had been properly archived by the cache owner, i.e. the cache was removed.

But someone really wanted that cache on their list of finds. Enough to litter to get the smiley.

I can see some people wanting old listings, high D/T or unique D/Ts on their list of finds willing to throw down a cache and litter to claim a find.

 

Claiming a find on an archived cache that has been abandoned is another issue - a case where the cache owner littered. Littering is not good for the reputation of the pastime.

 

I know of 2 instances last year where people ran over to the missing cache location to plunk down a cache, after the NA and reviewer note but before the reviewer archive. One wanted to turn his DNF into a find before the archive. The other wanted to claim a find on a missing old (8 years old) cache to qualify for a challenge cache. 2 other people jumped in to claim the smiley on that throwdown and thanked the finder who threw down the cache. The reviewer archived that cache. Both of the throw-downers did not go back to retrieve their throw downs.

 

I have noticed a growing practice of throw downs and abandoned caches in the last 2 years. Which means a growing problem of geocaching litter.

Edited February 22, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+justintim1999]

That's just the one cache. I didn't continue on to see how many more they searched and threw down on.

 

They searched out caches they knew were archived. Archived the previous year. Archived because the CO no longer wanted to own caches.

 

ugh. Numbers really do mean more than integrity and honesty to some people.

 

 

B.

 

It worries me when people come in to the forums to ask how to locate archived caches. Something like this may be the next way for numbers-cachers to increase their find count and "find" old caches for challenges.

 

And....?

 

Is there really anything wrong with that? There are plenty of archived caches that are still sitting out there. It's really up to the one looking to decide whether it's worth the time and effort looking for something that probably isn't there anymore. Logging a find on one that clearly isn't there is, of course, stupid and dishonest...so maybe THAT is what you are talking about?

 

In the case PupPatrol referred to, the cache wasn't there. It had been properly archived by the cache owner, i.e. the cache was removed.

But someone really wanted that cache on their list of finds. Enough to litter to get the smiley.

I can see some people wanting old listings, high D/T or unique D/Ts on their list of finds willing to throw down a cache and litter to claim a find.

 

Claiming a find on an archived cache that has been abandoned is another issue - a case where the cache owner littered. Littering is not good for the reputation of the pastime.

 

I know of 2 instances last year where people ran over to the missing cache location to plunk down a cache, after the NA and reviewer note but before the reviewer archive. One wanted to turn his DNF into a find before the archive. The other wanted to claim a find on a missing old (8 years old) cache to qualify for a challenge cache. 2 other people jumped in to claim the smiley on that throwdown and thanked the finder who threw down the cache. The reviewer archived that cache. Both of the throw-downers did not go back to retrieve their throw downs.

 

I have noticed a growing practice of throw downs and abandoned caches in the last 2 years. Which means a growing problem of geocaching litter.

 

Good point. I thought that when a cache is archived the owner is suppose to retrieve the container.

[+cerberus1]

That's just the one cache. I didn't continue on to see how many more they searched and threw down on.

 

They searched out caches they knew were archived. Archived the previous year. Archived because the CO no longer wanted to own caches.

 

ugh. Numbers really do mean more than integrity and honesty to some people.

 

 

B.

 

It worries me when people come in to the forums to ask how to locate archived caches. Something like this may be the next way for numbers-cachers to increase their find count and "find" old caches for challenges.

 

And....?

 

Is there really anything wrong with that? There are plenty of archived caches that are still sitting out there. It's really up to the one looking to decide whether it's worth the time and effort looking for something that probably isn't there anymore. Logging a find on one that clearly isn't there is, of course, stupid and dishonest...so maybe THAT is what you are talking about?

 

In the case PupPatrol referred to, the cache wasn't there. It had been properly archived by the cache owner, i.e. the cache was removed. But someone really wanted that cache on their list of finds. Enough to litter to get the smiley.

I can see some people wanting old listings, high D/T or unique D/Ts on their list of finds willing to throw down a cache and litter to claim a find.

 

Claiming a find on an archived cache that has been abandoned is another issue - a case where the cache owner littered. Littering is not good for the reputation of the pastime.

 

I know of 2 instances last year where people ran over to the missing cache location to plunk down a cache, after the NA and reviewer note but before the reviewer archive. One wanted to turn his DNF into a find before the archive. The other wanted to claim a find on a missing old (8 years old) cache to qualify for a challenge cache. 2 other people jumped in to claim the smiley on that throwdown and thanked the finder who threw down the cache. The reviewer archived that cache. Both of the throw-downers did not go back to retrieve their throw downs.

 

I have noticed a growing practice of throw downs and abandoned caches in the last 2 years. Which means a growing problem of geocaching litter.

 

Good point. I thought that when a cache is archived the owner is suppose to retrieve the container.

Sounded (by LoneR.'s post) that the cache was removed by the CO, but jerks who had-to-have-that-smiley left a throwdown, creating litter where none was before.

The cache owner shouldn't have to go back and clean up an area he already cleared.

Weird and sad.

[+justintim1999]

That's just the one cache. I didn't continue on to see how many more they searched and threw down on.

 

They searched out caches they knew were archived. Archived the previous year. Archived because the CO no longer wanted to own caches.

 

ugh. Numbers really do mean more than integrity and honesty to some people.

 

 

B.

 

It worries me when people come in to the forums to ask how to locate archived caches. Something like this may be the next way for numbers-cachers to increase their find count and "find" old caches for challenges.

 

And....?

 

Is there really anything wrong with that? There are plenty of archived caches that are still sitting out there. It's really up to the one looking to decide whether it's worth the time and effort looking for something that probably isn't there anymore. Logging a find on one that clearly isn't there is, of course, stupid and dishonest...so maybe THAT is what you are talking about?

 

In the case PupPatrol referred to, the cache wasn't there. It had been properly archived by the cache owner, i.e. the cache was removed. But someone really wanted that cache on their list of finds. Enough to litter to get the smiley.

I can see some people wanting old listings, high D/T or unique D/Ts on their list of finds willing to throw down a cache and litter to claim a find.

 

Claiming a find on an archived cache that has been abandoned is another issue - a case where the cache owner littered. Littering is not good for the reputation of the pastime.

 

I know of 2 instances last year where people ran over to the missing cache location to plunk down a cache, after the NA and reviewer note but before the reviewer archive. One wanted to turn his DNF into a find before the archive. The other wanted to claim a find on a missing old (8 years old) cache to qualify for a challenge cache. 2 other people jumped in to claim the smiley on that throwdown and thanked the finder who threw down the cache. The reviewer archived that cache. Both of the throw-downers did not go back to retrieve their throw downs.

 

I have noticed a growing practice of throw downs and abandoned caches in the last 2 years. Which means a growing problem of geocaching litter.

 

Good point. I thought that when a cache is archived the owner is suppose to retrieve the container.

Sounded (by LoneR.'s post) that the cache was removed by the CO, but jerks who had-to-have-that-smiley left a throwdown, creating litter where none was before.

The cache owner shouldn't have to go back and clean up an area he already cleared.

Weird and sad.

 

In that case the cache owner did everything right.

 

Is there a way to make that cacher go back out there and retrieve the throwdown? If not there should be.

Edited February 23, 2016 by justintim1999

[+Sol seaker]

Hi Everyone (OP here)--

 

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful responses, and for being courteous to each other as well.

 

I'll address a few things that have been discussed, and add some more detail to the conversation:

 

1) Since I've first posted, I have verified that DrHogg is indeed still alive, and also teaches classes at the same university where I work. I might reach out to him by e-mail, but I haven't decided yet. I'm frankly not sure what I'd say to him: "Please clean up your mess?" Regardless, it would be awkward, because I have no interest in adopting his caches, and I suspect (but can't confirm) that others would agree with me. Which brings me to:

 

2) Admittedly, a part of the story with DrHogg is that his caches are generally regarded in the geocaching community in my town as the "lowest quality" caches in town. My desire is not to get into a long discussion about what qualifies as a "good" cache, because as we all know, that depends on the person you ask. However, regardless of the quality of the location of his caches (which we need not discuss), it is rather true that his containers tend to be those that fall apart quickly and easily--pill bottles, peanut butter jars, car key holders--you name it. The point is--the fact that he has been inactive for 2 years has simply resulted in a lot of litter, and that's the thing that really irks me, and makes me want to find a solution here. When a cacher simply replaces a DrHogg cache container, in my opinion, they aren't "keeping a good cache going"--they're contributing to the litter that neither they nor DrHogg will maintain. The cycle continues until someone mercifully posts a NA log.

 

But from what it sounds like, the consensus is that either (a) he should be reached out to, in which case he could hopefully allow adoption or clean up his 1,000+ abandoned caches, or (2) the local cachers can simply post "NA" logs to his caches.

 

(This makes me think of creating an event called "Clean Up DrHogg's Mess" and simply having local cachers go around to his caches and post "NA" logs where necessary... Now that I think of it, would something like that actually be allowed? Because that actually might work.)

 

Just thoughts; please no one burn me at the stake for my suggestions. Thank you for your insight and thoughts in advance,

 

BaylorGrad

 

I'm not sure if this question got answered or not.

 

Just in case it didn't:

 

I wouldn't reach out to the cacher. What would you say? "Your caches are junk, would you clean them up"? No, of course not. That would not be very nice.

 

Best to stick with the standard procedures of putting a "needs maintenance" on it if the container is in bad shape, and then put a "watch" on it. If it's in REALLY bad shape, and there is no response for a while (I usually give them at least a couple of months) then you can post a "needs archived." I wouldn't use that last one lightly though. You don't want to be stepping on cachers toes if there's really not much wrong with their cache.

 

If the cache is in good shape, no matter how crappy the container, then let it be. It's not for us to judge others containers. Maybe someone is nuts about finding peanut butter jar caches. You just never know.

 

Even if the cacher is deceased, if nothing is wrong with the cache, let people find it.

 

I know of a couple of instances where the cacher was no longer around and their caches lived on for a while. There was one in particular where people maintained one of their caches as a tribute to that cacher. It wasn't a special cache, people just wanted a way to memorialize the cacher. I think that went on for 6 months or a year before it got archived. Community maintenance isn't usually the best idea, although in some circumstances it can work. As long as the maintenance is only replacing a full log, checking on cache that got a few DNF's or something like that. I'm NOT talking about container replacement. That's not a good idea.

[+Celticsun85]

Archiving is all well and good but then you become a geocache litter when the container or parts of the container are still out in the wilderness/environment, it'd be great to have a way to log as retrieved ? or adopted (especially if it is a part of a wider series)

[+cerberus1]

Archiving is all well and good but then you become a geocache litter when the container or parts of the container are still out in the wilderness/environment, it'd be great to have a way to log as retrieved or adopted (especially if it is a part of a wider series)

These days of PQs and bookmarks (especially on a series), where that archived hide is often already listed in their gizmo, some in my area grab that container while passing through.

We've seen "Found and removed" found it logs on archived hides.

There used to be a cacher who made it a personal goal to remove archived hides here.

Sometimes a friend or I'll grab one or two if passing by, but only in woods.

Today, most of the archived hides are strewn along the road or in parking lots, far from any "wilderness" environment.

[+Ambrosia]

Hi Everyone (OP here)--

 

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful responses, and for being courteous to each other as well.

 

I'll address a few things that have been discussed, and add some more detail to the conversation:

 

1) Since I've first posted, I have verified that DrHogg is indeed still alive, and also teaches classes at the same university where I work. I might reach out to him by e-mail, but I haven't decided yet. I'm frankly not sure what I'd say to him: "Please clean up your mess?" Regardless, it would be awkward, because I have no interest in adopting his caches, and I suspect (but can't confirm) that others would agree with me. Which brings me to:

 

2) Admittedly, a part of the story with DrHogg is that his caches are generally regarded in the geocaching community in my town as the "lowest quality" caches in town. My desire is not to get into a long discussion about what qualifies as a "good" cache, because as we all know, that depends on the person you ask. However, regardless of the quality of the location of his caches (which we need not discuss), it is rather true that his containers tend to be those that fall apart quickly and easily--pill bottles, peanut butter jars, car key holders--you name it. The point is--the fact that he has been inactive for 2 years has simply resulted in a lot of litter, and that's the thing that really irks me, and makes me want to find a solution here. When a cacher simply replaces a DrHogg cache container, in my opinion, they aren't "keeping a good cache going"--they're contributing to the litter that neither they nor DrHogg will maintain. The cycle continues until someone mercifully posts a NA log.

 

But from what it sounds like, the consensus is that either (a) he should be reached out to, in which case he could hopefully allow adoption or clean up his 1,000+ abandoned caches, or (2) the local cachers can simply post "NA" logs to his caches.

 

(This makes me think of creating an event called "Clean Up DrHogg's Mess" and simply having local cachers go around to his caches and post "NA" logs where necessary... Now that I think of it, would something like that actually be allowed? Because that actually might work.)

 

Just thoughts; please no one burn me at the stake for my suggestions. Thank you for your insight and thoughts in advance,

 

BaylorGrad

 

I'm not sure if this question got answered or not.

 

Just in case it didn't:

 

I wouldn't reach out to the cacher. What would you say? "Your caches are junk, would you clean them up"? No, of course not. That would not be very nice.

 

Best to stick with the standard procedures of putting a "needs maintenance" on it if the container is in bad shape, and then put a "watch" on it. If it's in REALLY bad shape, and there is no response for a while (I usually give them at least a couple of months) then you can post a "needs archived." I wouldn't use that last one lightly though. You don't want to be stepping on cachers toes if there's really not much wrong with their cache.

 

If the cache is in good shape, no matter how crappy the container, then let it be. It's not for us to judge others containers. Maybe someone is nuts about finding peanut butter jar caches. You just never know.

 

Even if the cacher is deceased, if nothing is wrong with the cache, let people find it.

 

I know of a couple of instances where the cacher was no longer around and their caches lived on for a while. There was one in particular where people maintained one of their caches as a tribute to that cacher. It wasn't a special cache, people just wanted a way to memorialize the cacher. I think that went on for 6 months or a year before it got archived. Community maintenance isn't usually the best idea, although in some circumstances it can work. As long as the maintenance is only replacing a full log, checking on cache that got a few DNF's or something like that. I'm NOT talking about container replacement. That's not a good idea.

 

Community maintenance can work in some circumstances, as you said. But I think full maintenance is perfectly fine in that case, if the maintainer knows where the cache is supposed to be and has been doing the maintenance like a real owner, then it's not a throw down.

 

I've maintained two caches. The first was many years ago, and it turned into an adoption. The other one is for a cache owned by a local cacher (Allanon) who died, so that will never turn into an adoption. I replaced the container last year, and 30 people have enjoyed finding it since then. I like reading those logs, and having the excuse to remember my friend.