Jump to content

Reviewer is disabling my caches?


brendan714

Recommended Posts

Your earlier point (which is that geocachers see a disabled cache, assume that it's had something terrible happen to it, and look no further) seems to contradict other claims that mountain geocachers do not care about the condition or even the presence of the geocache in the first place, since they intend to bring a cache with them anyway.

In that case, I disagree. I don't know these people or this culture, but I would expect that when nothing seems to be wrong, they're willing come prepared to deal with possible problems, but if the cache is disabled, they'll go somewhere else. They don't come prepared because they want to encounter a problem or expect to encounter a problem. They come prepared because there might be a problem, and since they're already on scene, it will take very little effort for them to deal with it, but a great deal of effort for the CO to go out there to deal with it.

 

I don't see any reason, beyond sentimentality, why these geocaches actually should be treated much differently than others.

Well, I agree with you there, but for the opposite reason as you: I think it's wrong for reviewers to treat any cache, easy to reach or remote, as something they should monitor and clean up unilaterally. They shouldn't disable any cache just because they have some flimsy reason to guess it could possibly have a problem. And the fact that people who seek remote caches have a different attitude is a good example of why I say that: the reviewer shouldn't get involved unless someone in the local community who has the relevant perspective asks them to get involved.

Link to comment

Your earlier point (which is that geocachers see a disabled cache, assume that it's had something terrible happen to it, and look no further) seems to contradict other claims that mountain geocachers do not care about the condition or even the presence of the geocache in the first place, since they intend to bring a cache with them anyway.

In that case, I disagree. I don't know these people or this culture, but I would expect that when nothing seems to be wrong, they're willing come prepared to deal with possible problems, but if the cache is disabled, they'll go somewhere else. They don't come prepared because they want to encounter a problem or expect to encounter a problem. They come prepared because there might be a problem, and since they're already on scene, it will take very little effort for them to deal with it, but a great deal of effort for the CO to go out there to deal with it.

 

I don't see any reason, beyond sentimentality, why these geocaches actually should be treated much differently than others.

Well, I agree with you there, but for the opposite reason as you: I think it's wrong for reviewers to treat any cache, easy to reach or remote, as something they should monitor and clean up unilaterally. They shouldn't disable any cache just because they have some flimsy reason to guess it could possibly have a problem. And the fact that people who seek remote caches have a different attitude is a good example of why I say that: the reviewer shouldn't get involved unless someone in the local community who has the relevant perspective asks them to get involved.

 

I think the problem with these particular caches is that the rate of visit is so very scant that there just isn't any way to glean any information at all. There isn't a local community. The original owner is gone, nobody visits the caches, and even the current owner didn't have any relevant perspective to add before he visited.

 

If Groundspeak is trying to make the database a bit better in response to ongoing complaints about it, these caches are just as deserving of scrutiny as any others.

Link to comment

Your earlier point (which is that geocachers see a disabled cache, assume that it's had something terrible happen to it, and look no further) seems to contradict other claims that mountain geocachers do not care about the condition or even the presence of the geocache in the first place, since they intend to bring a cache with them anyway.

 

That's simply not true. I know many cachers (including myself) who never would log a find if they had to hide a new container. Moreover, many issues for mountain caches come from accessibility issues. That's why one often does only look at active ones when one has not time to look at all cache pages but only a selection.

 

What's true is that I do not care that much about whether the log book is in a nice condition as my fingers are most of the time dirty anyway after a hike and most summit logs are not in perfect condition either.

 

I don't see any reason, beyond sentimentality, why these geocaches actually should be treated much differently than others. It is clear that these cache owners are already granted a considerable amount of leeway for behaviour that wouldn't fly anywhere else, but that's just not good enough, apparently.

 

Sentimentality does not play the slightest role in why I care about remote caches and caches on mountains.

 

I do think that the time it takes to get to a cache and the number of people who visit it on average per time period should play a role as there cannot be any rigid rule regarding maintenance that makes sense in the same way for every type of cache.

Link to comment

I think the problem with these particular caches is that the rate of visit is so very scant that there just isn't any way to glean any information at all. There isn't a local community. The original owner is gone, nobody visits the caches, and even the current owner didn't have any relevant perspective to add before he visited.

 

If Groundspeak is trying to make the database a bit better in response to ongoing complaints about it, these caches are just as deserving of scrutiny as any others.

Even so, that goes back to the previous point - disabling implies a tangible problem with the cache, not that there may be an issue, effectively, with the owner (eg maintenance habits, or routine with the particular cache). It doesn't matter how long a cache goes unfound, whether it's wilderness or urban, there's no reason to disable it unless there's a known problem that must be addressed. Low rate of activity is not a problem; It's an acceptable risk that one addresses when deciding whether to go for a cache, whether to go prepared, or whether to contact the owner before attempting, etc. Let the cacher decide; the reviewer should not step in and disable it simply due to lack of activity (for 1 year or 8 years), forcing the owner to check on it to make the listing 'good to find' again. A Reviewer Note indicating the concern with the findability and status of the container should suffice.

Link to comment

I do think that the time it takes to get to a cache and the number of people who visit it on average per time period should play a role as there cannot be any rigid rule regarding maintenance that makes sense in the same way for every type of cache.

 

Well, you'll be pleased to know that in this case, the cache went unmolested for eight years, so it doesn't appear that there are rigid rules at issue here.

Link to comment

Let the cacher decide; the reviewer should not step in and disable it simply due to lack of activity (for 1 year or 8 years), forcing the owner to check on it to make the listing 'good to find' again. A Reviewer Note indicating the concern with the findability and status of the container should suffice.

 

It appears that the cache in question was inactive for a long time, had a DNF, originally belonged to an owner who had quit the game, and was recently adopted by an owner who did not ever find the cache or check on it after it was adopted. I don't think inactivity was the reason for the reviewer intervention, as the cache was left alone for a very long time before now.

 

"Force" is a ridiculous word to use here. Cache ownership and the responsibilities it entails are a choice.

Link to comment

Let the cacher decide; the reviewer should not step in and disable it simply due to lack of activity (for 1 year or 8 years), forcing the owner to check on it to make the listing 'good to find' again. A Reviewer Note indicating the concern with the findability and status of the container should suffice.

 

It appears that the cache in question was inactive for a long time, had a DNF, originally belonged to an owner who had quit the game, and was recently adopted by an owner who did not ever find the cache or check on it after it was adopted. I don't think inactivity was the reason for the reviewer intervention, as the cache was left alone for a very long time before now.

 

"Force" is a ridiculous word to use here. Cache ownership and the responsibilities it entails are a choice.

"Force" is a legitimate word to use. It's diabled. It won't be re-enabled until the CO physically goes and verifies the condition. ie, if the CO wants to keep it active, his hand is forced.

 

There were two caches in question. Both have DNFs from extreme beginners - this does not alone mean lack of capability in finding a cache, but one, or two, DNFs are most definitely not sufficient grounds alone to proactively disable a cache as if it has a known problem.

 

Your other reasons about specifically about ownership, not about the cache which has shown no indication of having a problem. Next?

 

I did say earlier that the reviewers have a right to make judgements for each and every decision they make. So it's unlikely anything is going to change in this specific case from this discussion. The concern here is that this seems to indicate a precedent that reviewers can arbitrarily disable, and force owners to make high-effort trips merely to verify the findability of a difficult cache without indication of it having any problems whatsoever, despite a current owner showing and having a history of good cache ownership habits - thus, it can very well cause fewer people to place caches such as this which many find very valuable and enjoyable as geocache listings.

 

If a good CO's ownership habit history can't be used as justification to not disable, then the fact that the current owner adopted a cache from a less-than-stellar owner shouldn't be used as justification to disable it. The status quo remains: The cache has shown no indication of having a problem. A DNF is not such an indication. Time unfound is not an indication.

They are concerns, and can rightly be addressed in a variety of alternate ways.

Link to comment

Let's also consider all the good that came from that disable.

 

The new cache owner now knows where the cache is if someone should report in detail where they looked.

The new cache owner is now familiar with the area if someone should contact him regarding what they can expect if they take the hike.

The CO included some important information in his log about a scree slope, that was not mentioned by the former owner or in the previous logs.

The CO added a lot of pictures that show the landscape and the container, which will help future finders.

And it looks like the CO had a great time.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=2989f887-b5f4-4b86-aa07-b0a077212585

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

If Groundspeak is trying to make the database a bit better in response to ongoing complaints about it, these caches are just as deserving of scrutiny as any others.

lel, The disabling of an rarely visited viable cache (with no demonstrable problems) counts as cleaning up the database...

 

If database cleanup is truly a goal there are certainly more effective and widespread targets (more bang for the buck)... that may actually make a difference to the casual cacher.

Link to comment

If Groundspeak is trying to make the database a bit better in response to ongoing complaints about it, these caches are just as deserving of scrutiny as any others.

lel, The disabling of an rarely visited viable cache (with no demonstrable problems) counts as cleaning up the database...

 

If database cleanup is truly a goal there are certainly more effective and widespread targets (more bang for the buck)... that may actually make a difference to the casual cacher.

 

I don't see why it needs to be either / or.

Link to comment

I think the problem with these particular caches is that the rate of visit is so very scant that there just isn't any way to glean any information at all.

If there's no information, the cache should be assumed to be good.

 

If Groundspeak is trying to make the database a bit better in response to ongoing complaints about it, these caches are just as deserving of scrutiny as any others.

GS should not try to make the database better. It should focus on getting rid of caches with identified problems. When they try to "make the database better", that means, by definition, that their actions are contrary to the desire of the community. If the local community doesn't want bad caches to be archived, then they can continue to refuse to file NA logs and they'll get their wish. GS shouldn't deny them that pleasure.

 

Really, caches like this are a perfect example: how does deleting a cache that is visited once every 2 years going to make any difference in the quality of the database even if it really is a bad cache? It's the most pointless of caches to waste their time on.

Link to comment

If Groundspeak is trying to make the database a bit better in response to ongoing complaints about it, these caches are just as deserving of scrutiny as any others.

 

Maybe this is a crucial point. I do not appreciate this focus on the database - what counts for me when it comes to geocaching is the outdoor experience.

A lot of trends that I do not appreciate are the result of attempts of some people to care much more about the database than about the caches themselves. Some e.g. would like to see every cache to be confirmed at least once a year even though there are tons of caches among those they never ever would want to go for.

 

Also the "in response to ongoing complaints" worries me. I have experienced many changes in how reviewers deal with caches in response to complaints by cachers who are into a completely different activity than what's geoaching for me. I'm concerned that the same will happen here.

 

I said it before and I repeat it. If I knew that the disable action happened here only due to the very special circumstances, I would be much less worried but that's not the case. I'm concerned that such actions some time will be carried over to all caches that get found very rarely. You will not be able to wipe away this concern by stressing over and over again the particulars of the two mentioned caches (8 years, owner change etc).

Link to comment

GS should not try to make the database better. It should focus on getting rid of caches with identified problems. When they try to "make the database better", that means, by definition, that their actions are contrary to the desire of the community. If the local community doesn't want bad caches to be archived, then they can continue to refuse to file NA logs and they'll get their wish. GS shouldn't deny them that pleasure.

 

Actually, volunteer reviewers should not be involved in any GS database cleanup. The reviewers work for the caching community, not GS. As I stated before, they cannot legally be agents for GS. IMO, the fact that GS selects them is already problematic.

 

If the reviewere have been directed by GS to look for these kinds of caches, then there is a serious problem. If they haven't, then I hope that they would respond to community raised problems (NA logs) instead of creating problems.

Link to comment

I think the problem with these particular caches is that the rate of visit is so very scant that there just isn't any way to glean any information at all.

If there's no information, the cache should be assumed to be good.

 

If Groundspeak is trying to make the database a bit better in response to ongoing complaints about it, these caches are just as deserving of scrutiny as any others.

GS should not try to make the database better. It should focus on getting rid of caches with identified problems. When they try to "make the database better", that means, by definition, that their actions are contrary to the desire of the community. If the local community doesn't want bad caches to be archived, then they can continue to refuse to file NA logs and they'll get their wish. GS shouldn't deny them that pleasure.

 

Really, caches like this are a perfect example: how does deleting a cache that is visited once every 2 years going to make any difference in the quality of the database even if it really is a bad cache? It's the most pointless of caches to waste their time on.

 

I'll leave it to the reviewers to determine how they spend their own time. These mountain caches are such a drop in the bucket, as you've pointed out, that the time spent getting them in order is minimal.

 

I don't think it's possible to claim any sort of consensus on this. While voices certainly rise when a "special" cache is threatened by neglect and reviewer intervention, there is also a lot of complaining about cache quality overall. Should we really give some caches special status because people like the idea that they're out there?

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

I don't think it's possible to claim any sort of consensus on this. While voices certainly rise when a "special" cache is threatened by neglect and reviewer intervention, there is also a lot of complaining about cache quality overall. Should we really give some caches special status because people like the idea that they're out there?

 

I think that the opinions of those who actually go for a certain type of cache or that would want to go for them if the quality would appeal to them should count more than the opinion of those who do not have any interest into them.

 

It's e.g. well known that those who hate puzzle caches, would rather like to see them go away (or et least they would like to get the final coordinates).

 

Those who do not go out for say a 30km hike regardless of whether at the end a cache waits that has been found the last time 10 days ago or 3 years ago, should not be those who should dictate how such caches are dealt with.

 

I'm too clumsy for rock climbing but I would feel extremely bad if I posted a NA log for a climbing caches with a damp log sheet where the cache is actually enjoyed by all its visitors.

 

There are many more examples.

 

Moreover, I do not think that a cache with no recent activity any more likely has a quality issue than one who is visited more often. Disabling a cache with no evidence for a quality issue does not contribute to cache quality. Forbidding power trails would however raise cache quality.

Link to comment

I don't think it's possible to claim any sort of consensus on this. While voices certainly rise when a "special" cache is threatened by neglect and reviewer intervention, there is also a lot of complaining about cache quality overall. Should we really give some caches special status because people like the idea that they're out there?

 

I think that the opinions of those who actually go for a certain type of cache or that would want to go for them if the quality would appeal to them should count more than the opinion of those who do not have any interest into them.

 

It's e.g. well known that those who hate puzzle caches, would rather like to see them go away (or et least they would like to get the final coordinates).

 

Those who do not go out for say a 30km hike regardless of whether at the end a cache waits that has been found the last time 10 days ago or 3 years ago, should not be those who should dictate how such caches are dealt with.

 

I'm too clumsy for rock climbing but I would feel extremely bad if I posted a NA log for a climbing caches with a damp log sheet where the cache is actually enjoyed by all its visitors.

 

There are many more examples.

 

Moreover, I do not think that a cache with no recent activity any more likely has a quality issue than one who is visited more often. Disabling a cache with no evidence for a quality issue does not contribute to cache quality. Forbidding power trails would however raise cache quality.

 

Apparently nobody goes for that type of cache.

Link to comment

I'll leave it to the reviewers to determine how they spend their own time.

Someone is demanding that something be done to clean up the database when the local community doesn't. Those people are telling the reviewers how to spend their time.

 

These mountain caches are such a drop in the bucket, as you've pointed out, that the time spent getting them in order is minimal.

You're basically making fizzymagic's case for him. These mountain caches are such a drop in the bucket, it's stupid to clean them up. Your attitude is that since no one visits them, it's OK to delete them whether there's a problem or not. That's exactly the type of marginalization that concerns people.

Link to comment

I'll leave it to the reviewers to determine how they spend their own time.

Someone is demanding that something be done to clean up the database when the local community doesn't. Those people are telling the reviewers how to spend their time.

 

These mountain caches are such a drop in the bucket, as you've pointed out, that the time spent getting them in order is minimal.

These mountain caches are such a drop in the bucket, it's stupid to clean them up. Your attitude is that since no one visits them, it's OK to delete them whether there's a problem or not. That's exactly the type of marginalization that concerns people.

 

By virtue of being customers, to a certain extent we're all making "demands." I think it's best to assume that the reviewers know what their priorities are supposed to be. Whether or not I like or agree with those priorities isn't relevant to this particular topic.

 

My attitude isn't that it's okay to "delete" anything. My attitude all along has been that remote caches don't need as much maintenance as others, but that eight years of inactivity and a new owner who has never been to the site is a unique situation where it is reasonable to call for some action. I'm not the one who absurdly suggested that these caches should be checked on once a year.

 

One way or another, it has very little impact on the game as a whole and I see no need to extrapolate this very unique situation into a larger crisis about the game.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Once a year or once every eight years - entirely arbitrary. Why the latter and not the former? As there is no clause in ownership requiring regular checkups for any period, then there's no reason for the reviewer to have disabled a cache that has no indication of any tangible problem. It keeps coming down to that one truth.

Link to comment

Once a year or once every eight years - entirely arbitrary. Why the latter and not the former? As there is no clause in ownership requiring regular checkups for any period, then there's no reason for the reviewer to have disabled a cache that has no indication of any tangible problem. It keeps coming down to that one truth.

 

I don't think anyone has suggested a mandatory eight year period; it's important that reviewers evaluate these situations individually. In this case, it looks like the reviewer looked at a number of factors and rightly decided that the new owner should confirm the placement in order to keep the listing active. I don't see why the reviewer should be expected to treat the cache differently than any other; disabling a cache when a reviewer has legitimate concerns about it is pretty par for the course.

Link to comment

I don't think anyone has suggested a mandatory eight year period; it's important that reviewers evaluate these situations individually. In this case, it looks like the reviewer looked at a number of factors and rightly decided that the new owner should confirm the placement in order to keep the listing active. I don't see why the reviewer should be expected to treat the cache differently than any other; disabling a cache when a reviewer has legitimate concerns about it is pretty par for the course.

 

What concerns about the cache (not the owner) imply that there is a problem with the cache requiring a maintenance run in order to have it active again?

Link to comment

I don't think anyone has suggested a mandatory eight year period; it's important that reviewers evaluate these situations individually. In this case, it looks like the reviewer looked at a number of factors and rightly decided that the new owner should confirm the placement in order to keep the listing active. I don't see why the reviewer should be expected to treat the cache differently than any other; disabling a cache when a reviewer has legitimate concerns about it is pretty par for the course.

 

What concerns about the cache (not the owner) imply that there is a problem with the cache requiring a maintenance run in order to have it active again?

 

The logged DNFs perhaps?

Thread has rambled on so long, I'm not sure anymore what caches most poster are referencing. But the OP had two caches disabled by reviewer, both with logged DNFs, neither with logged finds for a very long time, and neither every seen by the new owner.

 

I may be confusing the issue with the facts. If so, apologies.

Link to comment

The logged DNFs perhaps?

Thread has rambled on so long, I'm not sure anymore what caches most poster are referencing. But the OP had two caches disabled by reviewer, both with logged DNFs, neither with logged finds for a very long time, and neither every seen by the new owner.

 

I may be confusing the issue with the facts. If so, apologies.

 

That was discussed long ago. One, or two logged DNFs does not mean a problem with the cache. Every CO obviously weighs the value of the DNF in context of the cache difficulty and who logged the DNF. A DNF itself is not reason for a reviewer to proactively disable a cache.

 

I think what we have here really is, at best, IF the reviewer made a judgement call that a single DNF and no logged activity for 8 years was sufficient to require a CO check, then many of us here do not agree that it was a good judgement call. Whether on principle, or because it can set a precedent that can end up discouraging people from placing such high-effort caches (due to the right for reviewers to disable and force them at any arbitrary point to do a physical checkup).

 

If the reviewer had other reasons than purely for the cache status, then that's even worse.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Once a year or once every eight years - entirely arbitrary. Why the latter and not the former? As there is no clause in ownership requiring regular checkups for any period, then there's no reason for the reviewer to have disabled a cache that has no indication of any tangible problem. It keeps coming down to that one truth.

 

I don't think anyone has suggested a mandatory eight year period; it's important that reviewers evaluate these situations individually. In this case, it looks like the reviewer looked at a number of factors and rightly decided that the new owner should confirm the placement in order to keep the listing active. I don't see why the reviewer should be expected to treat the cache differently than any other; disabling a cache when a reviewer has legitimate concerns about it is pretty par for the course.

 

In the case of this cache, I fail to see the number of factors that led to a disabling of the cache. A single DNF from a cacher with 11 finds who complained about GPS bounce and nothing else other than the fact that it hadn't been found in quite some time. Nothing about the other found logs indicate any problems with this one. IMO, this one should have been left alone. I dislike the precedent that this might be setting.

 

The other cache in question has enough uncertainty surrounding it that the disable was warranted. I have no issues there.

Link to comment

I don't think anyone has suggested a mandatory eight year period; it's important that reviewers evaluate these situations individually. In this case, it looks like the reviewer looked at a number of factors and rightly decided that the new owner should confirm the placement in order to keep the listing active. I don't see why the reviewer should be expected to treat the cache differently than any other; disabling a cache when a reviewer has legitimate concerns about it is pretty par for the course.

 

What concerns about the cache (not the owner) imply that there is a problem with the cache requiring a maintenance run in order to have it active again?

 

The obvious reasons for concern have been listed ad nauseum. I won't even try to speculate about what other information the reviewer might have received that isn't on the cache page for us to see. I am inclined to trust that the reviewer acted within the parameters of his/her role and I don't think the cache was unduly disabled. It's hard to find comparators because the situation is so unique, but it isn't the first time I have seen a reviewer disable a cache because it was questionable even though there wasn't a specific, reported problem.

Link to comment

And thus the concerning precedent.

The CO has complained and provided his side of the story, and based on his caching, career, history, and ethic, I have no reason to believe he's lying. In this case, I still see zero reason for the disabling of the cache in question as if it has a problem that must be checked. The only other option is the reviewer forcing the CO to do a physical visit, which is the bad precedent.

Link to comment

The logged DNFs perhaps?

Thread has rambled on so long, I'm not sure anymore what caches most poster are referencing. But the OP had two caches disabled by reviewer, both with logged DNFs, neither with logged finds for a very long time, and neither every seen by the new owner.

 

I may be confusing the issue with the facts. If so, apologies.

 

That was discussed long ago. One, or two logged DNFs does not mean a problem with the cache. Every CO obviously weighs the value of the DNF in context of the cache difficulty and who logged the DNF. A DNF itself is not reason for a reviewer to proactively disable a cache.

 

I think what we have here really is, at best, IF the reviewer made a judgement call that a single DNF and no logged activity for 8 years was sufficient to require a CO check, then many of us here do not agree that it was a good judgement call. Whether on principle, or because it can set a precedent that can end up discouraging people from placing such high-effort caches (due to the right for reviewers to disable and force them at any arbitrary point to do a physical checkup).

 

If the reviewer had other reasons than purely for the cache status, then that's even worse.

 

Someone else earlier in the thread got very indignant at the suggestion that the cache hasn't been found because maybe people found it without logging it.

 

I accept that as a possibility, but isn't it also possible that it was attempted, not found, and not logged?

 

In fact, my general observation of the game suggests that there's a baked-in assumption that DNF + time with no finds = probably not there. While I'm not inclined to agree with that assumption in and of itself, it does seem to be an assumption that commonly informs reviewer activity. So to me, this particular situation appears to be in keeping with reviewer actions overall, insofar as it can be compared to other situations, and I don't find the reviewer's behaviour to be overstepping or unjust in that regard (especially considering that the amount of time appears to be scaled to the remoteness of the cache).

Link to comment

By virtue of being customers, to a certain extent we're all making "demands."

This is where we disagree entirely. We aren't customers. We're participants. Some of us -- not all of us -- pay GS some money, but the reviewers are just geoacachers that have volunteered to do extra duty and don't get paid a dime anyway.

 

I think it's best to assume that the reviewers know what their priorities are supposed to be. Whether or not I like or agree with those priorities isn't relevant to this particular topic.

For reasons I don't understand, reviewers seem to have decided that people like you have weighed in on what their priorities are, and my point is that I don't think they should listen to you.

 

The obvious reasons for concern have been listed ad nauseum.

A couple reasons for concern have been suggested and countered, but mostly it's just be vague hand waving about how obvious it is that this cache out in the middle of nowhere not causing a problem to anyone should be checked as soon as possible or face archival.

 

Someone else earlier in the thread got very indignant at the suggestion that the cache hasn't been found because maybe people found it without logging it.

I think you're talking about me and me mentioning, in passing, that we don't even know this much. "Indignant", indeed.

 

I accept that as a possibility, but isn't it also possible that it was attempted, not found, and not logged?

We don't know that, either. That's the point: in the absence of any information, we should assume the cache is fine. You want us to assume it's bad if we can't tell. But why? You yourself keep emphasizing that almost no one will look for this cache, so why should we be so concerned that when they do, it might possibly not be there. That will still be true after the CO goes out and checks it, since checking it doesn't magically keep it from future harm.

Link to comment

The reviewer said that since it's been so long without a find on both caches that I must check on their condition, hence the disabling.

 

My question - since when are one or two DNFs cause for alarm bells, especially when the DNFs are from beginners? In my opinion, the extended time period without any activity or DNFs should not matter.

Regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable under the given circumstances, this was an arbitrary disabling of a cache with an imposed "maintenance" visit. To this point there has been no general or specific rule or guideline cited that imposes that requirement on any cache owner nor that devolves that responsibility to a reviewer. Certainly, reviewers have an obligation to act on documented cache maintenance issues (NMs, NAs, and long streaks of DNFs) but "disabling" on a hunch just doesn't seem right...

Link to comment

By virtue of being customers, to a certain extent we're all making "demands."

This is where we disagree entirely. We aren't customers. We're participants. Some of us -- not all of us -- pay GS some money, but the reviewers are just geoacachers that have volunteered to do extra duty and don't get paid a dime anyway.

 

I think it's best to assume that the reviewers know what their priorities are supposed to be. Whether or not I like or agree with those priorities isn't relevant to this particular topic.

For reasons I don't understand, reviewers seem to have decided that people like you have weighed in on what their priorities are, and my point is that I don't think they should listen to you.

 

The obvious reasons for concern have been listed ad nauseum.

A couple reasons for concern have been suggested and countered, but mostly it's just be vague hand waving about how obvious it is that this cache out in the middle of nowhere not causing a problem to anyone should be checked as soon as possible or face archival.

 

Someone else earlier in the thread got very indignant at the suggestion that the cache hasn't been found because maybe people found it without logging it.

I think you're talking about me and me mentioning, in passing, that we don't even know this much. "Indignant", indeed.

 

I accept that as a possibility, but isn't it also possible that it was attempted, not found, and not logged?

We don't know that, either. That's the point: in the absence of any information, we should assume the cache is fine. You want us to assume it's bad if we can't tell. But why? You yourself keep emphasizing that almost no one will look for this cache, so why should we be so concerned that when they do, it might possibly not be there. That will still be true after the CO goes out and checks it, since checking it doesn't magically keep it from future harm.

 

Again, I'm being aggressively and willfully misinterpreted for reasons I can't begin to fathom.

 

All along, my personal point of view has been that I agree that remote caches need less minding than other geocaches, but that in this situation I think the reviewer's course of action was correct given the rather unique circumstances.

 

I have no opinion about what other geocachers should assume about a cache page. I myself am not inclined to assume that a cache is missing because of a DNF or a long period of time (and I'm not one to be deterred by a DNF or even a disabled cache, necessarily). I just don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a reviewer to ask for a status check now and then.

 

I don't know why this rather mundane viewpoint has triggered such an extreme reaction, but I'm a little concerned that the tone in here is going to be detrimental to the life of the thread.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

All along, my personal point of view has been that I agree that remote caches need less minding than other geocaches, but that in this situation I think the reviewer's course of action was correct given the rather unique circumstances.

 

I agree with this.

 

However, I do think the OP should be given more time. Ideally, since these caches are not really hurting anyone, it seems that rather than disabling multiple remote caches at once that they could have been spread out to give the CO more time to get to the remote caches.

Link to comment

All along, my personal point of view has been that I agree that remote caches need less minding than other geocaches, but that in this situation I think the reviewer's course of action was correct given the rather unique circumstances.

 

I agree with this.

 

However, I do think the OP should be given more time. Ideally, since these caches are not really hurting anyone, it seems that rather than disabling multiple remote caches at once that they could have been spread out to give the CO more time to get to the remote caches.

 

I think it would have been helpful for the CO to communicate directly with the reviewer about the situation. Perhaps something like this could have been worked out.

 

I've seen some situations where a reviewer asked for maintenance, but eased off after a bit of polite pushback and explanation from the cache owner. Perhaps other people have different experiences with reviewers, but I've always found them to be reasonable. As long as the cache owner is genuinely active and willing to respond, I don't see any reason why the reviewer disable note needs to be interpreted as a death knell for the cache.

Link to comment
I just don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a reviewer to ask for a status check now and then.

This is not the point under debate.

The issue is the disabling and thus the forcing of a CO to require a high-effort maintenance trip. Arbitrarily.

 

I think it would have been helpful for the CO to communicate directly with the reviewer about the situation. Perhaps something like this could have been worked out.

That much is true, as agreed much earlier.

Link to comment
I just don't think it's entirely unreasonable for a reviewer to ask for a status check now and then.

This is not the point under debate.

The issue is the disabling and thus the forcing of a CO to require a high-effort maintenance trip. Arbitrarily.

 

I would say that the terms "forcing" and "arbitrary" are also under debate here, but at this point I think it's well-established that we're not going to agree on this. Trying to be legalistic about something that's really up to a reviewer's discretion is pointless.

Link to comment
I think it's well-established that we're not going to agree on this. Trying to be legalistic about something that's really up to a reviewer's discretion is pointless.

On that we agree.

However

I would say that the terms "forcing" and "arbitrary" are also under debate here

"forcing": Your cache is disabled. It will not be re-enabled and made active again until you check on it. ie, forcing.

"arbitrary": There is no written guide for the maximum period of time a cache may sit before the CO is required to do a routine check. ie, arbitrary.

I don't think there's any debate about the use of the words. The debate is whether this is a reasonable action on the part of the reviewer. And we will have to disagree on that point.

Link to comment
I think it's well-established that we're not going to agree on this. Trying to be legalistic about something that's really up to a reviewer's discretion is pointless.

On that we agree.

However

I would say that the terms "forcing" and "arbitrary" are also under debate here

"forcing": Your cache is disabled. It will not be re-enabled and made active again until you check on it. ie, forcing.

"arbitrary": There is no written guide for the maximum period of time a cache may sit before the CO is required to do a routine check. ie, arbitrary.

I don't think there's any debate about the use of the words. The debate is whether this is a reasonable action on the part of the reviewer. And we will have to disagree on that point.

 

If this is "forcing," then I fail to see why people aren't up in arms about this alleged "force" any time a reviewer asks for anything. Are we all really being forced to maintain our caches?

Link to comment
I think it's well-established that we're not going to agree on this. Trying to be legalistic about something that's really up to a reviewer's discretion is pointless.

On that we agree.

However

I would say that the terms "forcing" and "arbitrary" are also under debate here

"forcing": Your cache is disabled. It will not be re-enabled and made active again until you check on it. ie, forcing.

"arbitrary": There is no written guide for the maximum period of time a cache may sit before the CO is required to do a routine check. ie, arbitrary.

I don't think there's any debate about the use of the words. The debate is whether this is a reasonable action on the part of the reviewer. And we will have to disagree on that point.

 

If this is "forcing," then I fail to see why people aren't up in arms about this alleged "force" any time a reviewer asks for anything. Are we all really being forced to maintain our caches?

 

If it's been disabled with a 30 day countdown clock to archival, yes, you're being forced. That is not a simple request.

Link to comment
I think it's well-established that we're not going to agree on this. Trying to be legalistic about something that's really up to a reviewer's discretion is pointless.

On that we agree.

However

I would say that the terms "forcing" and "arbitrary" are also under debate here

"forcing": Your cache is disabled. It will not be re-enabled and made active again until you check on it. ie, forcing.

"arbitrary": There is no written guide for the maximum period of time a cache may sit before the CO is required to do a routine check. ie, arbitrary.

I don't think there's any debate about the use of the words. The debate is whether this is a reasonable action on the part of the reviewer. And we will have to disagree on that point.

 

If this is "forcing," then I fail to see why people aren't up in arms about this alleged "force" any time a reviewer asks for anything. Are we all really being forced to maintain our caches?

 

If it's been disabled with a 30 day countdown clock to archival, yes, you're being forced. That is not a simple request.

 

One of the key misunderstandings here is this. The reviewer asked for a response in 30 days.

 

Nothing in my experience of geocaching indicates that a reviewer would archive the cache in 30 days if the owner chimes in with a plan. I have never ever seen a cache owner say "... but my cache is under 12 feet of snow and I can't get to it until May..." only to have the reviewer reply "Too bad, 30 days is up, sucker."

 

The 30 day countdown is only a problem if the owner doesn't respond at all, or doesn't respond with a reasonable plan for maintenance.

 

There is no reason at all for anyone to pretend that the reviewer wouldn't be willing to communicate with the cache owner, or that the reviewer wouldn't be willing to play ball if the cache owner had politely communicated the situation and his plan. Quite frankly, the lack of credit given to reviewers in this thread is really kind of appalling at this point.

Link to comment

 

One of the key misunderstandings here is this. The reviewer asked for a response in 30 days.

 

Nothing in my experience of geocaching indicates that a reviewer would archive the cache in 30 days if the owner chimes in with a plan. I have never ever seen a cache owner say "... but my cache is under 12 feet of snow and I can't get to it until May..." only to have the reviewer reply "Too bad, 30 days is up, sucker."

 

The 30 day countdown is only a problem if the owner doesn't respond at all, or doesn't respond with a reasonable plan for maintenance.

 

There is no reason at all for anyone to pretend that the reviewer wouldn't be willing to communicate with the cache owner, or that the reviewer wouldn't be willing to play ball if the cache owner had politely communicated the situation and his plan. Quite frankly, the lack of credit given to reviewers in this thread is really kind of appalling at this point.

The key misunderstanding is again, regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable under the given circumstances and timelines, this was an arbitrary disabling of a cache with an imposed "maintenance" visit.

 

I am fairly certain that we all recognise and appreciate the thankless hours our volunteer reviewers put in doing a great job, however to assume they are perfect is a little optimistic and to characterise respectful discussion questioning one action with a potential wide ranging precedent as "kind of appalling" is ridiculous.

Link to comment

All along, my personal point of view has been that I agree that remote caches need less minding than other geocaches, but that in this situation I think the reviewer's course of action was correct given the rather unique circumstances.

 

I agree with this.

 

However, I do think the OP should be given more time. Ideally, since these caches are not really hurting anyone, it seems that rather than disabling multiple remote caches at once that they could have been spread out to give the CO more time to get to the remote caches.

 

The CO did not ask for more time.

Link to comment
... and to characterise respectful discussion questioning one action with a potential wide ranging precedent ...

Actually, there's a pattern of similar actions over time by various reviewers, and we the forum people have been trying - in various angsty threads spanning years - to figure out exactly what the rule, the algorithm is.

 

The unwritten rule. Well, the written rule, but not for our eyes.

 

The email bot appears to follow this rule, as do (with some judgement) the reviewers. I'm sure Groundspeak has given them explicit direction on this. Which is why we're pounding on the walls of the forum, hoping The Frog might actually hear our pleas and rewrite the rule.

 

I can dream.

Edited by Viajero Perdido
Link to comment
... and to characterise respectful discussion questioning one action with a potential wide ranging precedent ...

Actually, there's a pattern of similar actions over time by various reviewers, and we the forum people have been trying - in various angsty threads spanning years - to figure out exactly what the rule, the algorithm is.

 

The unwritten rule. Well, the written rule, but not for our eyes.

 

The email bot appears to follow this rule, as do (with some judgement) the reviewers. I'm sure Groundspeak has given them explicit direction on this. Which is why we're pounding on the walls of the forum, hoping The Frog might actually hear our pleas and rewrite the rule.

 

I can dream.

 

How would you re-write the guidelines?

Link to comment
... and to characterise respectful discussion questioning one action with a potential wide ranging precedent ...

Actually, there's a pattern of similar actions over time by various reviewers, and we the forum people have been trying - in various angsty threads spanning years - to figure out exactly what the rule, the algorithm is.

 

The unwritten rule. Well, the written rule, but not for our eyes.

 

The email bot appears to follow this rule, as do (with some judgement) the reviewers. I'm sure Groundspeak has given them explicit direction on this. Which is why we're pounding on the walls of the forum, hoping The Frog might actually hear our pleas and rewrite the rule.

 

I can dream.

 

Algorithm is an interesting word.

 

In all the years I have played this game I have appreciated that reviewers apply personal judgment, rather than rigid rules.

 

That personal judgment is what allows flexibility so the game can accommodate special cases, like extremely remote mountain caches.

Link to comment

 

One of the key misunderstandings here is this. The reviewer asked for a response in 30 days.

 

Nothing in my experience of geocaching indicates that a reviewer would archive the cache in 30 days if the owner chimes in with a plan. I have never ever seen a cache owner say "... but my cache is under 12 feet of snow and I can't get to it until May..." only to have the reviewer reply "Too bad, 30 days is up, sucker."

 

The 30 day countdown is only a problem if the owner doesn't respond at all, or doesn't respond with a reasonable plan for maintenance.

 

There is no reason at all for anyone to pretend that the reviewer wouldn't be willing to communicate with the cache owner, or that the reviewer wouldn't be willing to play ball if the cache owner had politely communicated the situation and his plan. Quite frankly, the lack of credit given to reviewers in this thread is really kind of appalling at this point.

The key misunderstanding is again, regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable under the given circumstances and timelines, this was an arbitrary disabling of a cache with an imposed "maintenance" visit.

 

I am fairly certain that we all recognise and appreciate the thankless hours our volunteer reviewers put in doing a great job, however to assume they are perfect is a little optimistic and to characterise respectful discussion questioning one action with a potential wide ranging precedent as "kind of appalling" is ridiculous.

 

It wasn't arbitrary. There were several reasons why it would draw attention and the action was in keeping with normal reviewer tasks.

 

I don't assume reviewers are perfect and on other issues I have my criticisms. The attitude in this thread seems to be that the reviewer cannot be reasoned with, and that the "30 day countdown" is an inevitable death for the cache. Experienced geocachers should know better.

Link to comment
... and to characterise respectful discussion questioning one action with a potential wide ranging precedent ...

Actually, there's a pattern of similar actions over time by various reviewers, and we the forum people have been trying - in various angsty threads spanning years - to figure out exactly what the rule, the algorithm is.

 

The unwritten rule. Well, the written rule, but not for our eyes.

 

The email bot appears to follow this rule, as do (with some judgement) the reviewers. I'm sure Groundspeak has given them explicit direction on this. Which is why we're pounding on the walls of the forum, hoping The Frog might actually hear our pleas and rewrite the rule.

 

I can dream.

 

How would you re-write the guidelines?

 

The guidelines say nothing about disabling caches by reviewers and I appreciate that they say nothing about that matter. It however seems that recently there is a trend that reviewers take care about things which in my opinion they should not. Disabling the example cache in this thread which was perfectly fine is one such example. While it makes sense that the new cache owner sooner or later (better sooner) visits the caches he adopted there was no reason to disable the example caches. If we apply such standards (as cache owners and as reviewers) when it regards disabling caches, there would be way too many disabled caches and many among them would be disabled without any reason.

 

Disabling a cache sends out a message that either there it is known that there is a problem with the cache or that there is quite some evidence for a potential problem. Disabling of caches should not be used if it's just unknown whether a cache is still fine which is actually in some sense true for any cache which has not been visited in the second we make a status statement about the cache.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It wasn't arbitrary. There were several reasons why it would draw attention and the action was in keeping with normal reviewer tasks.

 

I don't assume reviewers are perfect and on other issues I have my criticisms. The attitude in this thread seems to be that the reviewer cannot be reasoned with, and that the "30 day countdown" is an inevitable death for the cache. Experienced geocachers should know better.

Again, regardless of whether you believe the check up to be reasonable, ascribe benevolent motivations to reviewers (and often the opposite to cache owners), there is no documented reason for any reviewer to impose that maintenance visit in this instance.

 

Frankly, there are only one or two posters who are ascribing motivations and assuming negative attitudes toward reviewers (frankly on the pro visit side), while the rest of us discuss a fine technical issue.

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...