Promoting caches that will be abandoned/unmaintained?

[+Pond Bird]

Sometimes accounts are for "Groups" and after a while, only one of the geocachers in the group actually maintains the caches so many of them get archived.

 

What I would like to see done is reviewers monitoring who is in each group that submits cache listings if its not under a player account.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Pond Bird

[+cerberus1]

Sometimes accounts are for "Groups" and after a while, only one of the geocachers in the group actually maintains the caches so many of them get archived.

 

What I would like to see done is reviewers monitoring who is in each group that submits cache listings if its not under a player account.

Team/group placements already have one person responsible for the caches placed.

- The person who submitted the cache...

[+Manville Possum]

Guidelines allow bad caches. Two things we can do.

 

1. Is post NM's and NA's accordingly and risk being frowned upon by the CO or community.

 

2. Toss out a throwdown and be a GeoHero for keeping caches alive even after the CO left the game.

 

I think it's time that the community post needed NM's and NA's so we can keep geocaching fun. Our local reviewers only publish new listings, it's up to the community to flag bad ones.

[+Team Microdot]

Guidelines allow bad caches. Two things we can do.

 

1. Is post NM's and NA's accordingly and risk being frowned upon by the CO or community.

 

2. Toss out a throwdown and be a GeoHero for keeping caches alive even after the CO left the game.

 

I think it's time that the community post needed NM's and NA's so we can keep geocaching fun. Our local reviewers only publish new listings, it's up to the community to flag bad ones.

 

Isn't it weird that 1 and 2 above seem to be true?

 

I guess I just don't get people.

[+dprovan]

Maybe....my main point is, I can list Cacher A-Z and each can have a slightly different series of factors that will play into whether they will or won't regularly place and maintain quality caches. A few sentances added/ammended/or removed from the guidelines aren't going to change this (IMO).

OK. I read your example as suggesting that quality containers did not imply good maintenance, but I find they correlate pretty well.

[+Pond Bird]

Sometimes accounts are for "Groups" and after a while, only one of the geocachers in the group actually maintains the caches so many of them get archived.

 

What I would like to see done is reviewers monitoring who is in each group that submits cache listings if its not under a player account.

Team/group placements already have one person responsible for the caches placed.

- The person who submitted the cache...

 

But if the person who submitted the cache doesn't log into that account, reviewers should contact their player account to report problems that may not be addressed by the group itself.

[+igator210]

Sometimes accounts are for "Groups" and after a while, only one of the geocachers in the group actually maintains the caches so many of them get archived.

 

What I would like to see done is reviewers monitoring who is in each group that submits cache listings if its not under a player account.

Team/group placements already have one person responsible for the caches placed.

- The person who submitted the cache...

 

But if the person who submitted the cache doesn't log into that account, reviewers should contact their player account to report problems that may not be addressed by the group itself.

 

Ummm.. how would a reviewer know who is part of this "group account" in order to contact them? The reviewer can only contact the account that owns the cache.

 

I only know of one "group account" locally that is inactive, and that is because they got divorced.

Edited July 22, 2016 by igator210

[+Uncle Alaska]

Maybe....my main point is, I can list Cacher A-Z and each can have a slightly different series of factors that will play into whether they will or won't regularly place and maintain quality caches. A few sentances added/ammended/or removed from the guidelines aren't going to change this (IMO).

OK. I read your example as suggesting that quality containers did not imply good maintenance, but I find they correlate pretty well.

Would you consider an ammo can a quality container? I have found many of them abandoned and/or empty and a mess. Certainly, I have found many more flimsy/cheap containers in a state of decay. But still truly surprising at the number of good containers (solid, watertight, well hidden) that are in poor shape on the inside. I still think correlation follows the individual CO and/or their willingness to act responsibly, and not whether they paid more for a container.

[+Pine and Poplar]

Maybe....my main point is, I can list Cacher A-Z and each can have a slightly different series of factors that will play into whether they will or won't regularly place and maintain quality caches. A few sentances added/ammended/or removed from the guidelines aren't going to change this (IMO).

OK. I read your example as suggesting that quality containers did not imply good maintenance, but I find they correlate pretty well.

Would you consider an ammo can a quality container? I have found many of them abandoned and/or empty and a mess. Certainly, I have found many more flimsy/cheap containers in a state of decay. But still truly surprising at the number of good containers (solid, watertight, well hidden) that are in poor shape on the inside. I still think correlation follows the individual CO and/or their willingness to act responsibly, and not whether they paid more for a container.

I would agree with that. Most of my hides are cheap (free) peanut butter jars and I have yet to have any trouble with any of them. I just replaced a cache I adopted with a $12 dollar Locknlock container and the second finder said it was full of water and everything was soaked. Cheap containers can work fine, the biggest thing is just taking the time to maintain the cache.

[+cerberus1]

Sometimes accounts are for "Groups" and after a while, only one of the geocachers in the group actually maintains the caches so many of them get archived.

 

What I would like to see done is reviewers monitoring who is in each group that submits cache listings if its not under a player account.

Team/group placements already have one person responsible for the caches placed.

- The person who submitted the cache...

 

But if the person who submitted the cache doesn't log into that account, reviewers should contact their player account to report problems that may not be addressed by the group itself.

No.

You expect a Reviewer to keep a roster of team member names?

It doesn't work that way...

Edited July 22, 2016 by cerberus1

[+L0ne.R]

Maybe....my main point is, I can list Cacher A-Z and each can have a slightly different series of factors that will play into whether they will or won't regularly place and maintain quality caches. A few sentances added/ammended/or removed from the guidelines aren't going to change this (IMO).

OK. I read your example as suggesting that quality containers did not imply good maintenance, but I find they correlate pretty well.

Would you consider an ammo can a quality container? I have found many of them abandoned and/or empty and a mess. Certainly, I have found many more flimsy/cheap containers in a state of decay. But still truly surprising at the number of good containers (solid, watertight, well hidden) that are in poor shape on the inside. I still think correlation follows the individual CO and/or their willingness to act responsibly, and not whether they paid more for a container.

I would agree with that. Most of my hides are cheap (free) peanut butter jars and I have yet to have any trouble with any of them. I just replaced a cache I adopted with a $12 dollar Locknlock container and the second finder said it was full of water and everything was soaked. Cheap containers can work fine, the biggest thing is just taking the time to maintain the cache.

 

Yes. There are a few cheap containers that work fine. And there are more expensive containers that get compromised - baggie caught in the seal, tab(s) left open, tab falls off after 5 years outdoors, someone leaves bubble liquid which leaks out. Maintenance is the key to keeping the contents dry and clean and fun to find.

 

There are no consequences when cache owners don't maintain their caches. They can continue to hide more caches. They can leave their caches in the database for years until it's brought to the attention of a reviewer.

 

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

 

[+cerberus1]

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

I haven't seen this.

Curious, so searched here under "purge the database" and got zip.

Have a link? Thanks.

[+narcissa]

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

I haven't seen this.

Curious, so searched here under "purge the database" and got zip.

Have a link? Thanks.

 

I am not entirely opposed to this idea, but I fear that the biggest maintenance offenders are still actively placing caches whilst ignoring the ones that need maintenance.

[+L0ne.R]

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

 

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

 

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

 

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

I haven't seen this.

Curious, so searched here under "purge the database" and got zip.

Have a link? Thanks.

 

Hmmm. Maybe it was some other terminology. I'll see if I can find examples.

[+L0ne.R]

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

 

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

 

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

 

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

I haven't seen this.

Curious, so searched here under "purge the database" and got zip.

Have a link? Thanks.

 

I am not entirely opposed to this idea, but I fear that the biggest maintenance offenders are still actively placing caches whilst ignoring the ones that need maintenance.

 

Yes, that is probably the biggest issue. Active owners who ignore their cache hides. But purging might help get rid of some of the abandoned stuff and send a message that might shake the current active delinquent owners. Then again, they may just plant and abandon in all the spots that are now available after the purge.

 

Yep, geocaching.com is doomed.

[+Pine and Poplar]

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

I don't really like that idea because there are some abandoned hides that survive for years without problems. I suppose the opposite is also true where 1 year or 2 years is way too long and some caches should be archived long before that.

 

I'd rather have a system for current active hiders where you are limited in what you can do if a reviewer archives any of your caches. If it is too much trouble to open a listing and archive it yourself, you probably have too many active hides or too much other stuff going on and should not be placing new caches.

[+narcissa]

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

 

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

 

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

 

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

I haven't seen this.

Curious, so searched here under "purge the database" and got zip.

Have a link? Thanks.

 

I am not entirely opposed to this idea, but I fear that the biggest maintenance offenders are still actively placing caches whilst ignoring the ones that need maintenance.

 

Yes, that is probably the biggest issue. Active owners who ignore their cache hides. But purging might help get rid of some of the abandoned stuff and send a message that might shake the current active delinquent owners. Then again, they may just plant and abandon in all the spots that are now available after the purge.

 

Yep, geocaching.com is doomed.

 

I don't think it's doomed. Poor maintenance is a bit of a nuisance but for most cachers, a bit of condensation or low quality swag isn't a complete deal-breaker. The site will never be great for cachers who are more persnickety in their tastes. The very nature of the game requires a bit of patience. Demonizing cache owners en masse is counterproductive.

[+niraD]

I'd rather have a system for current active hiders where you are limited in what you can do if a reviewer archives any of your caches. If it is too much trouble to open a listing and archive it yourself, you probably have too many active hides or too much other stuff going on and should not be placing new caches.

Keep in mind that cache owners can just create new accounts if you make it too difficult for them to list new caches using their "tainted" accounts.

[+L0ne.R]

I'd rather have a system for current active hiders where you are limited in what you can do if a reviewer archives any of your caches. If it is too much trouble to open a listing and archive it yourself, you probably have too many active hides or too much other stuff going on and should not be placing new caches.

 

Keep in mind that cache owners can just create new accounts if you make it too difficult for them to list new caches using their "tainted" accounts.

 

Some will open up new accounts but it's a pain in the butt to juggle more accounts and more emails. It's a speed bump that might slow some people down or make them consider taking care of their current hides under their current account.

[+niraD]

I'd rather have a system for current active hiders where you are limited in what you can do if a reviewer archives any of your caches. If it is too much trouble to open a listing and archive it yourself, you probably have too many active hides or too much other stuff going on and should not be placing new caches.

 

Keep in mind that cache owners can just create new accounts if you make it too difficult for them to list new caches using their "tainted" accounts.

Some will open up new accounts but it's a pain in the butt to juggle more accounts and more emails. It's a speed bump that might slow some people down or make them consider taking care of their current hides under their current account.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a good idea to encourage cache owners to seriously consider the responsibility of cache ownership, and whether they're really prepared for it.

 

But the law of unintended consequences applies, and "overly rigorous" restrictions can be circumvented by creating new accounts. It's something to keep in mind when designing the system.

[+fizzymagic]

I don't think it's doomed. Poor maintenance is a bit of a nuisance but for most cachers, a bit of condensation or low quality swag isn't a complete deal-breaker. The site will never be great for cachers who are more persnickety in their tastes. The very nature of the game requires a bit of patience. Demonizing cache owners en masse is counterproductive.

 

+1

 

Said far better than I ever could. Thanks!

[+L0ne.R]

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

 

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

 

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

 

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

I haven't seen this.

Curious, so searched here under "purge the database" and got zip.

Have a link? Thanks.

 

I am not entirely opposed to this idea, but I fear that the biggest maintenance offenders are still actively placing caches whilst ignoring the ones that need maintenance.

 

Yes, that is probably the biggest issue. Active owners who ignore their cache hides. But purging might help get rid of some of the abandoned stuff and send a message that might shake the current active delinquent owners. Then again, they may just plant and abandon in all the spots that are now available after the purge.

 

Yep, geocaching.com is doomed.

 

I don't think it's doomed. Poor maintenance is a bit of a nuisance but for most cachers, a bit of condensation or low quality swag isn't a complete deal-breaker. The site will never be great for cachers who are more persnickety in their tastes. The very nature of the game requires a bit of patience. Demonizing cache owners en masse is counterproductive.

 

I'm definitely not talking about "a bit of condensation or low quality swag". I'm talking about the increasing amount of moldy junk. It includes all cache sizes. It's almost guaranteed with bison tubes, film canisters, centrifuge tubes, pill bottles, dollar store containers, upcycled food containers (unless it was just recently published or a new throwdown) that it will have a tattered wet moldy log inside and the cache owner hasn't visited the cache since the cache was listed.

 

 

Unless something is done, more and more caches will be poor containers, hidden then abandoned, then replaced by equally poor containers by finders looking for a more "legitimate" smiley (they feel they must litter in order to legitimize their "find", then pass the responsibility for their litter back to the original owner). When those caches do eventually get archived by a reviewer they will be replaced by another CO who contributes to the game by hiding poor quality containers and then never goes back to maintain it.

 

Unless something is done at the source: the cache owner, nothing will change.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

 

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

 

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

 

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

I haven't seen this.

Curious, so searched here under "purge the database" and got zip.

Have a link? Thanks.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=334840&st=0&p=5536346&hl=mass%20archival&fromsearch=1entry5536346

 

[+dprovan]

There are no consequences when cache owners don't maintain their caches.

Their reputation suffers.

 

They can leave their caches in the database for years until it's brought to the attention of a reviewer.

Whose fault is that? In my area, a broken cache will have an NA filed within a month or two.

 

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

I'd rather people filed the appropriate NMs and NAs. That approach works for all caches that are broken instead of only working for the ones that happen to be owned by a CO that hasn't logged in lately. And it has the happy side effect of not affecting caches that don't deserve to be archived.

[+Pond Bird]

Sometimes accounts are for "Groups" and after a while, only one of the geocachers in the group actually maintains the caches so many of them get archived.

 

What I would like to see done is reviewers monitoring who is in each group that submits cache listings if its not under a player account.

Team/group placements already have one person responsible for the caches placed.

- The person who submitted the cache...

 

But if the person who submitted the cache doesn't log into that account, reviewers should contact their player account to report problems that may not be addressed by the group itself.

No.

You expect a Reviewer to keep a roster of team member names?

It doesn't work that way...

 

The Berkshire Geobash Committee and ASP committee both have the usernames of those in the group. Other groups should list their members, but some do not and eventually nobody logs in to the account.

[+narcissa]

One idea that has been mentioned from time to time but gets shouted down. Purge the database.

 

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

 

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

 

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

I haven't seen this.

Curious, so searched here under "purge the database" and got zip.

Have a link? Thanks.

 

I am not entirely opposed to this idea, but I fear that the biggest maintenance offenders are still actively placing caches whilst ignoring the ones that need maintenance.

 

Yes, that is probably the biggest issue. Active owners who ignore their cache hides. But purging might help get rid of some of the abandoned stuff and send a message that might shake the current active delinquent owners. Then again, they may just plant and abandon in all the spots that are now available after the purge.

 

Yep, geocaching.com is doomed.

 

I don't think it's doomed. Poor maintenance is a bit of a nuisance but for most cachers, a bit of condensation or low quality swag isn't a complete deal-breaker. The site will never be great for cachers who are more persnickety in their tastes. The very nature of the game requires a bit of patience. Demonizing cache owners en masse is counterproductive.

 

I'm definitely not talking about "a bit of condensation or low quality swag". I'm talking about the increasing amount of moldy junk. It includes all cache sizes. It's almost guaranteed with bison tubes, film canisters, centrifuge tubes, pill bottles, dollar store containers, upcycled food containers (unless it was just recently published or a new throwdown) that it will have a tattered wet moldy log inside and the cache owner hasn't visited the cache since the cache was listed.

 

 

Unless something is done, more and more caches will be poor containers, hidden then abandoned, then replaced by equally poor containers by finders looking for a more "legitimate" smiley (they feel they must litter in order to legitimize their "find", then pass the responsibility for their litter back to the original owner). When those caches do eventually get archived by a reviewer they will be replaced by another CO who contributes to the game by hiding poor quality containers and then never goes back to maintain it.

 

Unless something is done at the source: the cache owner, nothing will change.

 

To be honest I don't think the mold issues are proportionately worse than they were say, 8 years ago. At least in my community, any new cache is quickly inundated with feedback about the quality of the container. If I find a moldy old cache it's because I seek out older caches in remote areas. I just can't find it in my heart to flip my lid on the owner of a cache that was put on top of a mountain in 02 and gets 1 visit a year. So what if it's a bit moldy if the experience of getting to it is so great?

 

The maintenance issues I encounter more often involve multiple containers / throw-downs, containers that have been obviously cracked or otherwise compromised due to poor container quality, long strings of DNFs with no communication from the owner, poor coordinates and other issues that more directly impact my ability to find or log the cache. And still, I think these issues have increased in volume because caches have increased in volume. I don't think they are proportionately worse.

 

Overall, the vast majority of caches I find result in a positive experience for me. This game is ultimately for people, by people, and expecting perfection isn't reasonable.

Edited July 23, 2016 by narcissa

[+fizzymagic]

See this post in another thread for evidence that cachers interpret the guidelines as discouraging the hiding of hard-to-reach caches.

 

Since, in my book, "hard to reach" == "awesome," my interpretation is that the guidelines discourage the hiding of awesome caches.

[+on4bam]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

I adopted this method a few years back. Only thing is, almost everyone is hiding easy peasy lame container micro caches that aren't to my liking. People want easy and since that's what they like, that's what they hide. I would have to do a lot of driving and flying to get to caches that i find interesting. There's not a one within 50 miles so walking ain't happening.

 

I ignore the ones I don't like but complain anyway as the amount of caches I don't like is getting so high that it's getting very difficult to go caching close to home. 50-100 Km driving (one way) is no exception in order to be able to plan a full day caching without having to drive to several starting points during the day. We prefer to park in the morning to cycle/walk all day and return by evening. It's getting more and more difficult each week.

[+Ben0w]

I like the thing about community responsibility. After all, Groundspeak is just the maintainer of one of all those cache databases out there.

 

Encourage others to tell the truth in their logs. Encourage them to log valid NM and NA if appropriate. Encourage them to place good containers in nice places with interesting cache listings. Support them. Lead by example.

 

You may take fire for that. But you already stand your stand in these forums, so you should be hard enough...

 

Have fun making more fun!

Edited August 20, 2016 by Ben0w

[+redsox_mark]

I'm coming around a bit to the premise of this thread. I was looking at the guidelines again:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

If one hides a cache which (for example) can only be reached by canoe trip which takes 7 days, going out within 4 weeks because someone reported it missing may not be practical.

 

In reality; I believe reviewers take the remoteness of a cache into consideration when deciding when to force a CO to take action. But perhaps a statement that the "reasonable amount of time" can vary depending on factors such as cache location could be added.

[+cerberus1]

I'm coming around a bit to the premise of this thread. I was looking at the guidelines again:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

If one hides a cache which (for example) can only be reached by canoe trip which takes 7 days, going out within 4 weeks because someone reported it missing may not be practical.

 

In reality; I believe reviewers take the remoteness of a cache into consideration when deciding when to force a CO to take action. But perhaps a statement that the "reasonable amount of time" can vary depending on factors such as cache location could be added.

Are you in the right thread?

This one is on "promoting bad caches".

"Reviewer is disabling..." is about time to access for maintenance.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Are you in the right thread?

This one is on "promoting bad caches".

"Reviewer is disabling..." is about time to access for maintenance.

 

Maybe. I was reacting to post 77. "See this post in another thread for evidence that cachers interpret the guidelines as discouraging the hiding of hard-to-reach caches.

 

Since, in my book, "hard to reach" == "awesome," my interpretation is that the guidelines discourage the hiding of awesome caches"

[+cerberus1]

 

Are you in the right thread?

This one is on "promoting bad caches".

"Reviewer is disabling..." is about time to access for maintenance.

 

Maybe. I was reacting to post 77. "See this post in another thread for evidence that cachers interpret the guidelines as discouraging the hiding of hard-to-reach caches.

 

Since, in my book, "hard to reach" == "awesome," my interpretation is that the guidelines discourage the hiding of awesome caches"

Yeah, he did link to that other thread.

Just struck me funny I guess.

[+fizzymagic]

 

Are you in the right thread?

This one is on "promoting bad caches".

"Reviewer is disabling..." is about time to access for maintenance.

 

Maybe. I was reacting to post 77. "See this post in another thread for evidence that cachers interpret the guidelines as discouraging the hiding of hard-to-reach caches.

 

Since, in my book, "hard to reach" == "awesome," my interpretation is that the guidelines discourage the hiding of awesome caches"

Yeah, he did link to that other thread.

Just struck me funny I guess.

 

This thread was about how the guidelines encourage the placement of lame urban micros that will be abandoned. The notion that you can't place a good cache in a hard-to-reach spot is quite intimately tied in to the general theme of the guidelines reducing the quality of caches hidden. That's why I put it in this thread.

[+Harry Dolphin]

This thread was about how the guidelines encourage the placement of lame urban micros that will be abandoned. The notion that you can't place a good cache in a hard-to-reach spot is quite intimately tied in to the general theme of the guidelines reducing the quality of caches hidden. That's why I put it in this thread.

 

Hunted a series placed by an eight-grade teacher and some of her students. They all had ecological propaganda. "Plastic is bad. That's why I hid a plastic container." None were maintained, since they moved on to high school.

[+dprovan]

In reality; I believe reviewers take the remoteness of a cache into consideration when deciding when to force a CO to take action. But perhaps a statement that the "reasonable amount of time" can vary depending on factors such as cache location could be added.

From what I've seen, reviewers are universally reasonable people that are quite capable of taking special cases into account, just as you say. The problem is when a guideline or procedure ties their hands. For example, while the guidelines leave room for slack, GS might decide that they are getting too many complaints about unmaintained caches and react by instructing reviewers to enforce the 4 weeks limit rigidly. I don't mean to speak for fizzymagic, but the way I'm reading his position, I think he'd go even further, suggesting that giving a specific time limit at all in itself already discourages COs from planting caches requiring a 7 day canoe trip: it's not that important how reviewers would react to that scenario if there won't be any such caches to begin with.

[+gpsblake]

A far greater problem is caused by cachers who join, hide a bunch of caches in their newfound enthusiasm, and then lose interest in the game and abandon the caches.

 

It's the opposite in South Carolina, it's geocachers with 1,000s of finds that are very active who place geocaches then abandon them.

[+fizzymagic]

I don't mean to speak for fizzymagic, but the way I'm reading his position, I think he'd go even further, suggesting that giving a specific time limit at all in itself already discourages COs from planting caches requiring a 7 day canoe trip: it's not that important how reviewers would react to that scenario if there won't be any such caches to begin with.

 

You read my position correctly. All the reviewers I know are very reasonable people and I have never had any trouble. AFAIK, we get on fine.

 

But the reviewers are not the issue. The guidelines are. And saying that there is a 4-week expected response time for caches very clearly discourages the placement of caches where that time frame would not be reasonable.

[+redsox_mark]

 

But the reviewers are not the issue. The guidelines are. And saying that there is a 4-week expected response time for caches very clearly discourages the placement of caches where that time frame would not be reasonable.

 

I agree, and that is why I posted in this thread.

 

I still don't think the guidelines "promote caches that will be abandoned/maintained". But I agree they discourage remote caches, and encourage easy to maintain caches. Which is a bad thing for those who like the challenge of a long hike/paddle to a remote cache.

[cezanne]

Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches.

Put the message in the submission form, front and center. You don't log in at least every 2 years (personally I'd make it every year), you caches will be disabled and archived 6 months after a disable.

It will mean geojunk, but that's not the responsibility of Groundspeak. They need to consider the reputation of their database and provide viable actively owned listings.

 

There are active cache owners (some even regularly search for caches and log them) who do not log into the site. That's definitely not a requirement and not at all connected to cache maintenance.

 

What you propose will it make also very hard to deal with multiple accounts (which make sense in many contexts e.g. team hides, adoptions etc). What's important is that cache maintenance issues are dealt with and not how often someone logs into an account. Logging into an account is not required to stay informed about a cache. Why use it as a requirement? Sending out messages would be slightly better but still bad as so many GS messages get lost.

 

 

Moreover I do think that geojunk should also be something everyone should have in mind who cares about the reputation of geocaching.

[+The Magna Defender]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

+1

 

The best statement in this thread.

 

agreed completely. Theres a local fellow who sticks an NM, NA or an insult with every log he writes. Numerous times he has said my caches are rubbish. But on perusal through his finds, my dross is all he is finding.

[+justintim1999]

 

Are you in the right thread?

This one is on "promoting bad caches".

"Reviewer is disabling..." is about time to access for maintenance.

 

Maybe. I was reacting to post 77. "See this post in another thread for evidence that cachers interpret the guidelines as discouraging the hiding of hard-to-reach caches.

 

Since, in my book, "hard to reach" == "awesome," my interpretation is that the guidelines discourage the hiding of awesome caches"

Yeah, he did link to that other thread.

Just struck me funny I guess.

 

This thread was about how the guidelines encourage the placement of lame urban micros that will be abandoned. The notion that you can't place a good cache in a hard-to-reach spot is quite intimately tied in to the general theme of the guidelines reducing the quality of caches hidden. That's why I put it in this thread.

 

I understand your point and it actually makes some sense. The problem is the world has changed and so has the number of caches & cachers. I would guess that a large majority of the hides out there today are less than an hour from a trail head and I'm probably being generous with the hour. The current maintenance guidelines are designed to deal with this situation. There should be some wiggle room when it comes to caches that don't fit into this criteria and I think reviewers probably take things like this into consideration.

 

I just can't get past the notion that the current guidelines have that much effect on the quality of caches. It definitely effects the distance a cache hider is willing to travel. The ease at which someone can start caching today has much more to do with quality issue than the maintenance guidelines.

 

Distance doesn't necessary equal quality.

Edited October 5, 2016 by justintim1999

[+Team Microdot]

it seems like people aren't hitting the caches they like, but instead complaining about the caches they do not like.

 

why not keep on walking/driving/flying by the caches you don't like instead of making a big deal about them?

 

+1

 

The best statement in this thread.

 

agreed completely. Theres a local fellow who sticks an NM, NA or an insult with every log he writes. Numerous times he has said my caches are rubbish. But on perusal through his finds, my dross is all he is finding.

 

Fascinating - tell us more do!

[+JeepFreak81]

In another thread, fizzymagic stated that the guidelines create an incentive for hiding caches that will be abandoned and/or will have maintenance problems. To avoid taking that thread off-topic, let's discuss this issue here.

 

The premise of your topic makes a faulty assumption (e.g. that people read the Guidelines)

 

This!