Jump to content

Reviewer is disabling my caches?


brendan714

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I don't know where experienced geocachers have acquired this notion that they are only responsible for cache maintenance when there's a complaint.

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.

 

THIS is the cache in question, at least for me. I can see three reasons for a reason to possibly disable the cache.

 

1. There was a single DNF from a cacher with 11 finds at the time. If this is given weight as a valid reason, then EVERY cache with a DNF should immediately be flagged. That's unreasonable, regardless of where a cache is located.

 

2. It has a new CO. Has some merit but not enough weight to disable the cache and force (yes, the CO was forced - even if a note was posted saying a trip is scheduled 2 months later for maintenance ,it still would NOT be enabled without the visit) the CO to visit the cache to get it active again.

 

3. It hasn't been found in a long time. So? Again, if this is given weight as a valid reason, then EVERY cache that hasn't been found in a long time (and who determines how long the gap of time should be before a disable) should immediately be flagged.

 

Taken together, with the specific cache I'm referencing, a disable from the reviewer is setting a precedent that A) disables a cache that appears to be just fine for a combination of reasons I believe (and others) to be insufficient and B) REQUIRES a visit from the CO to enable it, regardless of whether or not a note was posted stating the maintenance plan, on a cache that should not have been disabled in the first place.

 

The CO was NOT blameless in the initial actions that took place. It certainly didn't help his cause. One of the two most certainly should have been disabled but the one I reference had no reason, IMO, to be disabled. Post a reviewer note or send a private email instead.

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.

 

I don't know where experienced geocachers have acquired this notion that they are only responsible for cache maintenance when there's a complaint.

 

Seriously? If there's not a problem with the cache, why would it need maintenance?

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.

 

THIS is the cache in question, at least for me. I can see three reasons for a reason to possibly disable the cache.

 

1. There was a single DNF from a cacher with 11 finds at the time. If this is given weight as a valid reason, then EVERY cache with a DNF should immediately be flagged. That's unreasonable, regardless of where a cache is located.

 

2. It has a new CO. Has some merit but not enough weight to disable the cache and force (yes, the CO was forced - even if a note was posted saying a trip is scheduled 2 months later for maintenance ,it still would NOT be enabled without the visit) the CO to visit the cache to get it active again.

 

3. It hasn't been found in a long time. So? Again, if this is given weight as a valid reason, then EVERY cache that hasn't been found in a long time (and who determines how long the gap of time should be before a disable) should immediately be flagged.

 

Taken together, with the specific cache I'm referencing, a disable from the reviewer is setting a precedent that A) disables a cache that appears to be just fine for a combination of reasons I believe (and others) to be insufficient and B) REQUIRES a visit from the CO to enable it, regardless of whether or not a note was posted stating the maintenance plan, on a cache that should not have been disabled in the first place.

 

The CO was NOT blameless in the initial actions that took place. It certainly didn't help his cause. One of the two most certainly should have been disabled but the one I reference had no reason, IMO, to be disabled. Post a reviewer note or send a private email instead.

 

Again, I don't think the legalistic nitpicking really adds much value to this. Reviewers make judgment calls, not precedent-setting court decisions.

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.

 

I don't know where experienced geocachers have acquired this notion that they are only responsible for cache maintenance when there's a complaint.

 

Seriously? If there's not a problem with the cache, why would it need maintenance?

 

There's no way to know if there's a problem or not unless you're getting reports from other cachers, or checking it yourself.

 

It's pretty common to see a busier cache get weeks or months of "TFTC" type logs, and then suddenly a good geocacher comes along and notes the catastrophic container failure that nobody else has bothered to mention. Relying on complaints alone doesn't work for any cache. Owners need to put their eyes on their own caches once in a while. This isn't new.

Link to comment

 

Again, I don't think the legalistic nitpicking really adds much value to this. Reviewers make judgment calls, not precedent-setting court decisions.

 

They make judgment calls on what is apparently WRONG with the cache in order to determine whether or not to disable it. I gave the reasons for why the cache I referenced might be questionable and find them lacking. If one reviewer is going to do this then others are going to follow suit. It's already happened. Look at the thread someone linked to earlier in this thread. No discernible reasons given, other than the fact that it hadn't been found in a long time. I have NO problems when a cache has a wrench that indicates an issue AND hasn't been found in long time, especially when there's nothing in the logs to indicate that the problem has been fixed. That's not the case in this situation. There were no problems with the cache other than the fact that it hadn't been found in a long time.

 

Going slightly off topic, but precedent was set when someone put out the very first power trail and the reviewer allowed them to be published. Yes, it's a legal term but it certainly can be used in a non-legal manner.

 

Link to thread from earlier

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

 

There's no way to know if there's a problem or not unless you're getting reports from other cachers, or checking it yourself.

 

It's pretty common to see a busier cache get weeks or months of "TFTC" type logs, and then suddenly a good geocacher comes along and notes the catastrophic container failure that nobody else has bothered to mention. Relying on complaints alone doesn't work for any cache. Owners need to put their eyes on their own caches once in a while. This isn't new.

 

That's the loggers' fault, not the fault of the CO. Without negative feedback (via logs or emails or messages), I assume that my cache is just fine and isn't in need of a visit from me. I schedule my own maintenance runs and do them perhaps once a year but if no one has any complaints, there's no reason for me to put my eyes on my cache just because.

Link to comment

 

Again, I don't think the legalistic nitpicking really adds much value to this. Reviewers make judgment calls, not precedent-setting court decisions.

 

They make judgment calls on what is apparently WRONG with the cache in order to determine whether or not to disable it. I gave the reasons for why the cache I referenced might be questionable and find them lacking. If one reviewer is going to do this then others are going to follow suit. It's already happened. Look at the thread someone linked to earlier in this thread. No discernible reasons given, other than the fact that it hadn't been found in a long time. I have NO problems when a cache has a wrench that indicates an issue AND hasn't been found in long time, especially when there's nothing in the logs to indicate that the problem has been fixed. That's not the case in this situation. There were no problems with the cache other than the fact that it hadn't been found in a long time.

 

Going slightly off topic, but precedent was set when someone put out the very first power trail and the reviewer allowed them to be published. Yes, it's a legal term but it certainly can be used in a non-legal manner.

 

It's just such a unique situation, and such a very long period of time, that I am not at all concerned about the reviewer's actions here. I'm more concerned that experienced geocachers are jumping all over this situation with strange assumptions and radical conclusions that they very well know to be untrue (or at least ought to).

 

It seems pretty obvious that the real issue at the heart of this crazy thread is that many of us hold sentimental ideals about remote caches and don't like to see them threatened. At least, that's the only slightly reasonable excuse I can see for the behaviour here. I don't think anyone would be accusing reviewers of illegal activity or making weird personal attacks over a roadside micro.

 

The very first power trail and many subsequent power trails were denied because they were against the guidelines. Power trails started to proliferate when the guidelines changed. I assume that change was based on user demand and reviewer feedback.

Link to comment

 

There's no way to know if there's a problem or not unless you're getting reports from other cachers, or checking it yourself.

 

It's pretty common to see a busier cache get weeks or months of "TFTC" type logs, and then suddenly a good geocacher comes along and notes the catastrophic container failure that nobody else has bothered to mention. Relying on complaints alone doesn't work for any cache. Owners need to put their eyes on their own caches once in a while. This isn't new.

 

That's the loggers' fault, not the fault of the CO. Without negative feedback (via logs or emails or messages), I assume that my cache is just fine and isn't in need of a visit from me. I schedule my own maintenance runs and do them perhaps once a year but if no one has any complaints, there's no reason for me to put my eyes on my cache just because.

 

When one of my caches goes unfound for a long time, I worry that people are having trouble with it and aren't writing logs, and eventually I check on it and write an owner maintenance log that says everything is okay (or I fix the problem that nobody was talking about). It's not up to visitors to maintain my caches for me. When I chose to be a cache owner, I agreed to the terms that said I would maintain my cache.

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.

 

I don't know where experienced geocachers have acquired this notion that they are only responsible for cache maintenance when there's a complaint.

 

Good point. And again, for those who think otherwise:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order...

 

Link to comment

 

There's no way to know if there's a problem or not unless you're getting reports from other cachers, or checking it yourself.

 

It's pretty common to see a busier cache get weeks or months of "TFTC" type logs, and then suddenly a good geocacher comes along and notes the catastrophic container failure that nobody else has bothered to mention. Relying on complaints alone doesn't work for any cache. Owners need to put their eyes on their own caches once in a while. This isn't new.

 

That's the loggers' fault, not the fault of the CO. Without negative feedback (via logs or emails or messages), I assume that my cache is just fine and isn't in need of a visit from me. I schedule my own maintenance runs and do them perhaps once a year but if no one has any complaints, there's no reason for me to put my eyes on my cache just because.

 

Why do you schedule these yearly maintenance runs?

Link to comment

 

It's just such a unique situation, and such a very long period of time, that I am not at all concerned about the reviewer's actions here. I'm more concerned that experienced geocachers are jumping all over this situation with strange assumptions and radical conclusions that they very well know to be untrue (or at least ought to).

 

It seems pretty obvious that the real issue at the heart of this crazy thread is that many of us hold sentimental ideals about remote caches and don't like to see them threatened. At least, that's the only slightly reasonable excuse I can see for the behaviour here. I don't think anyone would be accusing reviewers of illegal activity or making weird personal attacks over a roadside micro.

 

The very first power trail and many subsequent power trails were denied because they were against the guidelines. Power trails started to proliferate when the guidelines changed. I assume that change was based on user demand and reviewer feedback.

 

I could care less about the fact that it's a remote cache and in no way am I assuming that the reviewer is attacking the CO or doing anything against the guidelines the reviewers enforce. I'm questioning the logic behind disabling a cache due to the fact that it hasn't been found in a long time, with apparently nothing wrong.

 

Radical conclusions? I've heard fizzymagic called out for embellishing language for something almost as funny. The thread I linked to shows that this is something that, for whatever reason, is happening and has happened and apparently is going to keep happening.

 

What "strange assumptions" are you referring to? Most of the assumptions I've seen are logical assumptions, on both sides of this debate.

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.

 

I don't know where experienced geocachers have acquired this notion that they are only responsible for cache maintenance when there's a complaint.

 

Good point. And again, for those who think otherwise:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order...

 

 

I find it startling that long-time cachers appear to be completely unaware of this expectation.

 

I guess it's another situation where the power trail culture has led to general complacence about cache maintenance. What's ironic is that cacher logs are far less reliable than they used to be.

 

No wonder, though, that cachers who do report issues so often receive abusive emails or have their logs deleted. No complaints = no maintenance, apparently. :unsure:

Link to comment

 

It's just such a unique situation, and such a very long period of time, that I am not at all concerned about the reviewer's actions here. I'm more concerned that experienced geocachers are jumping all over this situation with strange assumptions and radical conclusions that they very well know to be untrue (or at least ought to).

 

It seems pretty obvious that the real issue at the heart of this crazy thread is that many of us hold sentimental ideals about remote caches and don't like to see them threatened. At least, that's the only slightly reasonable excuse I can see for the behaviour here. I don't think anyone would be accusing reviewers of illegal activity or making weird personal attacks over a roadside micro.

 

The very first power trail and many subsequent power trails were denied because they were against the guidelines. Power trails started to proliferate when the guidelines changed. I assume that change was based on user demand and reviewer feedback.

 

I could care less about the fact that it's a remote cache and in no way am I assuming that the reviewer is attacking the CO or doing anything against the guidelines the reviewers enforce. I'm questioning the logic behind disabling a cache due to the fact that it hasn't been found in a long time, with apparently nothing wrong.

 

 

What "strange assumptions" are you referring to? Most of the assumptions I've seen are logical assumptions, on both sides of this debate.

 

I can see why you feel that way, given your interpretation of the guidelines and expectations for cache maintenance. I don't think this is something that can be reconciled through further discussion because our starting points are so very different.

 

I find the following assumptions and conclusions to be strange and not at all in keeping with my experience of the game and reviewer actions (which I have played for more than 11 years):

 

1. The 30 day "countdown" is an inevitable death sentence for the cache unless maintenance itself occurs within 30 days.

 

2. Reviewers cannot be communicated with or reasoned with. Reviewers will never back down or change a stance on an issue even when presented with reasonable discussion and good information.

 

3. The fate of one unique mountain-top cache that nobody ever looks for is a precedent-setting disaster for the entire game.

 

4. Reviewers only ever disable caches when there are explicit and detailed complaints about the cache.

 

5. Reviewers treat all caches the same. They are robots who make no allowances for differences in situation.

Link to comment

When one of my caches goes unfound for a long time, I worry that people are having trouble with it and aren't writing logs, and eventually I check on it and write an owner maintenance log that says everything is okay (or I fix the problem that nobody was talking about). It's not up to visitors to maintain my caches for me. When I chose to be a cache owner, I agreed to the terms that said I would maintain my cache.

 

I never said that anyone should maintain my caches, if that's what you're implying. Visitors to the cache should give information about their experience and issues with the cache, even though many do not.

 

As far as long time unfound caches go, I don't worry that people are having trouble with mine. Most of mine ARE difficult. I'll offer assistance and will go check on it if someone contacts me, either through a log/note or email/message. Otherwise, I assume it's there and in good shape because I placed it there so it wouldn't be easily discovered/muggled. I have 8 that are unfound in over a year or more, two of which are disabled (by me) due to construction. My longest unfound cache had a stage disappear, which is why I check it a bit more frequently (6 times in 5 years). The others I don't bother checking unless I schedule a maintenance run on my own or have a possible problem reported via a log/email/message.

Link to comment
Good point. And again, for those who think otherwise:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order...

 

 

 

I find it startling that long-time cachers appear to be completely unaware of this expectation.

 

I guess it's another situation where the power trail culture has led to general complacence about cache maintenance. What's ironic is that cacher logs are far less reliable than they used to be.

 

No wonder, though, that cachers who do report issues so often receive abusive emails or have their logs deleted. No complaints = no maintenance, apparently. :unsure:

 

Once again, it's not about the responsibility of visiting caches. The CO has demonstrated this responsibility. The issue is the disabling of a non-problematic cache.

Link to comment

 

I find it startling that long-time cachers appear to be completely unaware of this expectation.

 

I guess it's another situation where the power trail culture has led to general complacence about cache maintenance. What's ironic is that cacher logs are far less reliable than they used to be.

 

No wonder, though, that cachers who do report issues so often receive abusive emails or have their logs deleted. No complaints = no maintenance, apparently. :unsure:

 

Again, the passive-aggressive nature of your post leads to the inference that "long-time cachers" are blissfully unaware of the expectation regarding a visit to their caches. That's far from the truth, at least as it applies to me as I can only speak for myself and don't make sweeping generalizations regarding the caching community. I'm not debating the importance of maintenance with regard to a cache, as you are implying, apparently. I'm debating the reviewer's course of action on a cache that, to me, did not warrant an immediate disable. One CERTAINLY did. I have no arguments about that one. It's the other one, that ended up being perfectly fine, that I had an issue with. Your talking points focus on maintenance etiquette while instead the OP started the thread with regard to the reason for the disabling of a cache. The disablement is the question that should be discussed, not the maintenance that's needed, which in this case turned out to NOT be needed.

 

How many times do I need to say this? MAINTENANCE IS IMPORTANT FOR COs TO TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES!

 

The issue raised by the OP is whether or not the cache should have been disabled. You've made it abundantly clear, without actually rebutting the opposing side's points of emphasis, that the reviewer is infallible in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, and made the correct choice. Many of us disagree and find that the reviewer could/should have opted for a different approach. There was a better way, in the case of this particular cache, to get the COs attention to at least ask for a maintenance plan, rather than the disabling of a cache without any obvious issues. I agree that something probably needed to be done, but you believe the disabling was fine while I and others feel something else might have been more appropriate and just as effective.

Link to comment

 

I find it startling that long-time cachers appear to be completely unaware of this expectation.

 

I guess it's another situation where the power trail culture has led to general complacence about cache maintenance. What's ironic is that cacher logs are far less reliable than they used to be.

 

No wonder, though, that cachers who do report issues so often receive abusive emails or have their logs deleted. No complaints = no maintenance, apparently. :unsure:

 

The issue raised by the OP is whether or not the cache should have been disabled. You've made it abundantly clear, without actually rebutting the opposing side's points of emphasis, that the reviewer is infallible in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, and made the correct choice. Many of us disagree and find that the reviewer could/should have opted for a different approach. There was a better way, in the case of this particular cache, to get the COs attention to at least ask for a maintenance plan, rather than the disabling of a cache without any obvious issues. I agree that something probably needed to be done, but you believe the disabling was fine while I and others feel something else might have been more appropriate and just as effective.

 

I don't find that the reviewer is "infallible." I find that, to the extent that this situation can be compared with others, the reviewer's actions are well in line with what I am used to seeing.

 

If the cache owner felt that the cache was disabled in error, the correct action would be to discuss it with the reviewer. While I don't believe the reviewer was out of line in disabling the cache based on the information at hand, I am also not convinced that the reviewer is an impenetrable force that can't be reasoned with.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

 

Good point. And again, for those who think otherwise:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order...

 

 

First, occasional is fuzzy and can be interpreted and definitely not says once a year or even more often.

Second, there is nothing in the guidelines which requires logging maintenance visits. I can check my cache and not log it and still fulfill the above.

Third and most importantly, the disagreement in this thread is not about the maintenance visits - it's about disabling a cache on the basis of no evidence of a problem.

 

I never ever would disable a cache based on such weak evidence and when I adopt a cache that I have found a longer time ago and have not visited it recently I certainly would visit it again when it is convenient for me but it would not occur to me to disable such a cache or any of my own just because it has not been found for a long time.

 

Would you like to have that many disabled caches around? I would not. I prefer if only caches are disabled where there is strong evidence that there is an issue.

Link to comment

 

I find it startling that long-time cachers appear to be completely unaware of this expectation.

 

I guess it's another situation where the power trail culture has led to general complacence about cache maintenance. What's ironic is that cacher logs are far less reliable than they used to be.

 

No wonder, though, that cachers who do report issues so often receive abusive emails or have their logs deleted. No complaints = no maintenance, apparently. :unsure:

 

The issue raised by the OP is whether or not the cache should have been disabled. You've made it abundantly clear, without actually rebutting the opposing side's points of emphasis, that the reviewer is infallible in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, and made the correct choice. Many of us disagree and find that the reviewer could/should have opted for a different approach. There was a better way, in the case of this particular cache, to get the COs attention to at least ask for a maintenance plan, rather than the disabling of a cache without any obvious issues. I agree that something probably needed to be done, but you believe the disabling was fine while I and others feel something else might have been more appropriate and just as effective.

 

I don't find that the reviewer is "infallible." I find that, to the extent that this situation can be compared with others, the reviewer's actions are well in line with what I am used to seeing.

 

If the cache owner felt that the cache was disabled in error, the correct action would be to discuss it with the reviewer. While I don't believe the reviewer was out of line in disabling the cache based on the information at hand, I am also not convinced that the reviewer is an impenetrable force that can't be reasoned with.

 

Which is why I bolded my actual statement that applies to this situation only. No one is infallible. In this situation, you believe the reviewer did the right thing and haven't wavered from that point. Hence, in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, infallible.

 

I'm sure the OP has been busy and would be interested to see where this has headed, but perhaps he did contact the reviewer. In fact, he did, right here. I'm sure it wasn't fully fleshed out but it still didn't get the situation resolved until he visited the cache.

Link to comment

 

I find it startling that long-time cachers appear to be completely unaware of this expectation.

 

I guess it's another situation where the power trail culture has led to general complacence about cache maintenance. What's ironic is that cacher logs are far less reliable than they used to be.

 

No wonder, though, that cachers who do report issues so often receive abusive emails or have their logs deleted. No complaints = no maintenance, apparently. :unsure:

 

The issue raised by the OP is whether or not the cache should have been disabled. You've made it abundantly clear, without actually rebutting the opposing side's points of emphasis, that the reviewer is infallible in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, and made the correct choice. Many of us disagree and find that the reviewer could/should have opted for a different approach. There was a better way, in the case of this particular cache, to get the COs attention to at least ask for a maintenance plan, rather than the disabling of a cache without any obvious issues. I agree that something probably needed to be done, but you believe the disabling was fine while I and others feel something else might have been more appropriate and just as effective.

 

I don't find that the reviewer is "infallible." I find that, to the extent that this situation can be compared with others, the reviewer's actions are well in line with what I am used to seeing.

 

If the cache owner felt that the cache was disabled in error, the correct action would be to discuss it with the reviewer. While I don't believe the reviewer was out of line in disabling the cache based on the information at hand, I am also not convinced that the reviewer is an impenetrable force that can't be reasoned with.

 

Which is why I bolded my actual statement that applies to this situation only. No one is infallible. In this situation, you believe the reviewer did the right thing and haven't wavered from that point. Hence, in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, infallible.

 

I'm sure the OP has been busy and would be interested to see where this has headed, but perhaps he did contact the reviewer. In fact, he did, right here. I'm sure it wasn't fully fleshed out but it still didn't get the situation resolved until he visited the cache.

 

I just don't think the reviewer is some sort of monolith that won't listen to reason. I don't think it's horrendously wrong that the reviewer disabled the cache under the circumstances, but if the cache owner had engaged in a reasonable discussion, made plans for maintenance, and had the cache reenabled in the meantime, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. The excessive emotional response to a cache being disabled continues to baffle me, but that's true of a lot that goes on here.

Link to comment

I just don't think the reviewer is some sort of monolith that won't listen to reason. I don't think it's horrendously wrong that the reviewer disabled the cache under the circumstances, but if the cache owner had engaged in a reasonable discussion, made plans for maintenance, and had the cache reenabled in the meantime, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. The excessive emotional response to a cache being disabled continues to baffle me, but that's true of a lot that goes on here.

 

If there's no reason to disable the cache, then the reviewer taking that step due to mitigating indirect circumstances with the user is taking it a step too far and the reviewer acted out of place (by our opinion, even though they are given the right to do so, and we are then given the right to take the issue to appeals). Not significantly, but enough to raise a stir in this forum, because, as repeated, it sets a precedent.

However, if there was legitimate reason to disable the cache due to a problem with it that we were not privy to, then the reviewer acted accordingly and properly.

 

We are attempting to demonstrate that there was no reason to disable the cache according to what we know. From what we read, the CO did attempt to reason, despite starting on the wrong foot and likely not progressing in the best manner, but it was denied - thus disabling the cache resulted in an unneeded, yet forced maintenance run. And that is the problem that we have.

 

The only emotion I sense in this thread is mild annoyance at the discussion, not anger or anything derogatory towards the reviewer or CO.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

 

I find it startling that long-time cachers appear to be completely unaware of this expectation.

 

I guess it's another situation where the power trail culture has led to general complacence about cache maintenance. What's ironic is that cacher logs are far less reliable than they used to be.

 

No wonder, though, that cachers who do report issues so often receive abusive emails or have their logs deleted. No complaints = no maintenance, apparently. :unsure:

 

The issue raised by the OP is whether or not the cache should have been disabled. You've made it abundantly clear, without actually rebutting the opposing side's points of emphasis, that the reviewer is infallible in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, and made the correct choice. Many of us disagree and find that the reviewer could/should have opted for a different approach. There was a better way, in the case of this particular cache, to get the COs attention to at least ask for a maintenance plan, rather than the disabling of a cache without any obvious issues. I agree that something probably needed to be done, but you believe the disabling was fine while I and others feel something else might have been more appropriate and just as effective.

 

I don't find that the reviewer is "infallible." I find that, to the extent that this situation can be compared with others, the reviewer's actions are well in line with what I am used to seeing.

 

If the cache owner felt that the cache was disabled in error, the correct action would be to discuss it with the reviewer. While I don't believe the reviewer was out of line in disabling the cache based on the information at hand, I am also not convinced that the reviewer is an impenetrable force that can't be reasoned with.

 

Which is why I bolded my actual statement that applies to this situation only. No one is infallible. In this situation, you believe the reviewer did the right thing and haven't wavered from that point. Hence, in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, infallible.

 

I'm sure the OP has been busy and would be interested to see where this has headed, but perhaps he did contact the reviewer. In fact, he did, right here. I'm sure it wasn't fully fleshed out but it still didn't get the situation resolved until he visited the cache.

 

I just don't think the reviewer is some sort of monolith that won't listen to reason. I don't think it's horrendously wrong that the reviewer disabled the cache under the circumstances, but if the cache owner had engaged in a reasonable discussion, made plans for maintenance, and had the cache reenabled in the meantime, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. The excessive emotional response to a cache being disabled continues to baffle me, but that's true of a lot that goes on here.

 

I think in the case of at least one of the caches the reviewer was pretty clear that the cache must be visited before it would be allowed to be reenabled.

 

Ralshar has 709 finds - much more than 20.

The cache has not been found since 2010.

An owners maintenance visit is in order.

Please pay a visit to the cache before you enable it again.

Thanks!

Cache Effect

 

The OP has just posted maintenance logs after visiting several of the caches. I found it interesting that the original owner apparently thought yearly visits were in order since he wrote this maintenance log in one of the log books about a year after publication.

 

f70375c8-da8c-4bc8-b5ed-8a119a76f80c_l.jpg

Link to comment

 

I find it startling that long-time cachers appear to be completely unaware of this expectation.

 

I guess it's another situation where the power trail culture has led to general complacence about cache maintenance. What's ironic is that cacher logs are far less reliable than they used to be.

 

No wonder, though, that cachers who do report issues so often receive abusive emails or have their logs deleted. No complaints = no maintenance, apparently. :unsure:

 

The issue raised by the OP is whether or not the cache should have been disabled. You've made it abundantly clear, without actually rebutting the opposing side's points of emphasis, that the reviewer is infallible in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, and made the correct choice. Many of us disagree and find that the reviewer could/should have opted for a different approach. There was a better way, in the case of this particular cache, to get the COs attention to at least ask for a maintenance plan, rather than the disabling of a cache without any obvious issues. I agree that something probably needed to be done, but you believe the disabling was fine while I and others feel something else might have been more appropriate and just as effective.

 

I don't find that the reviewer is "infallible." I find that, to the extent that this situation can be compared with others, the reviewer's actions are well in line with what I am used to seeing.

 

If the cache owner felt that the cache was disabled in error, the correct action would be to discuss it with the reviewer. While I don't believe the reviewer was out of line in disabling the cache based on the information at hand, I am also not convinced that the reviewer is an impenetrable force that can't be reasoned with.

 

Which is why I bolded my actual statement that applies to this situation only. No one is infallible. In this situation, you believe the reviewer did the right thing and haven't wavered from that point. Hence, in this situation, with regard to this particular cache, infallible.

 

I'm sure the OP has been busy and would be interested to see where this has headed, but perhaps he did contact the reviewer. In fact, he did, right here. I'm sure it wasn't fully fleshed out but it still didn't get the situation resolved until he visited the cache.

 

I just don't think the reviewer is some sort of monolith that won't listen to reason. I don't think it's horrendously wrong that the reviewer disabled the cache under the circumstances, but if the cache owner had engaged in a reasonable discussion, made plans for maintenance, and had the cache reenabled in the meantime, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. The excessive emotional response to a cache being disabled continues to baffle me, but that's true of a lot that goes on here.

 

I think in the case of at least one of the caches the reviewer was pretty clear that the cache must be visited before it would be allowed to be reenabled.

 

Ralshar has 709 finds - much more than 20.

The cache has not been found since 2010.

An owners maintenance visit is in order.

Please pay a visit to the cache before you enable it again.

Thanks!

Cache Effect

 

The OP has just posted maintenance logs after visiting several of the caches. I found it interesting that the original owner apparently thought yearly visits were in order since he wrote this maintenance log in one of the log books about a year after publication.

 

f70375c8-da8c-4bc8-b5ed-8a119a76f80c_l.jpg

 

And that's fine, but keep in mind that reviewer note was added after the cache owner re-enabled the cache without doing anything.

 

The reviewer says a maintenance visit is in order - that's the reason for the disable, and that's something that has happened to other caches and will likely happen to others in the future. This isn't some new thing that has just happened. It isn't setting a precedent. It's not unusual for a reviewer to make this sort of judgment call on a cache that is rarely found.

 

And there's still no reason to think that the visit itself needed to take place in 30 days or the cache would be archived. The 30 day window is for a response. I can't predict exactly how the reviewer would respond, and I don't know what other information the reviewer has that we're not privy to, but I have never known a reviewer to brush off a cache owner who honestly states an intention to maintain the cache within a reasonable amount of time. This 30 days to doomsday silliness just isn't at all in keeping with anything I have ever seen in this game. The only caches that actually die in 30 days are the ones with completely absent owners.

Link to comment

 

I just don't think the reviewer is some sort of monolith that won't listen to reason. I don't think it's horrendously wrong that the reviewer disabled the cache under the circumstances, but if the cache owner had engaged in a reasonable discussion, made plans for maintenance, and had the cache reenabled in the meantime, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. The excessive emotional response to a cache being disabled continues to baffle me, but that's true of a lot that goes on here.

 

Wasn't going to happen without a cache visit (bolded above). That's part of the problem I have here. The CO was on vacation and sent off a note to the reviewer but the reviewer did not allow the cache to be enabled without a physical visit. It should never have gotten to the point of a disable in the first place because the only thing any of us can see is wrong with the cache is that it hasn't been found in a long time.

 

Why should he be required to visit it when there are no listed problems besides the fact that it hasn't been found in over 8 years? Why 8? Why not 3? Why not 6? Why not when it was owned by the original CO and unfound at 7 years?

 

It's not horrendous. It's not something I believe will ruin the game but I do believe it was the wrong choice in this situation, based on the information we have been given. If something else comes to light that we currently aren't privy to that might change my mind, that's fine. That's not the case right now and so, like you, I will stick to my guns and point out that the disable of an otherwise perfectly fine cache (the duration of the time since found being the only problem) was not needed.

Link to comment
And that's fine, but keep in mind that reviewer note was added after the cache owner re-enabled the cache without doing anything.

If we're talking about Mount Chester, that's not the case.

 

The owner re-enabled the cache after climbing the mountain to check, but only wrote a quick "it's fine" type of note at the time. Reviewer didn't believe that. He posted the proof a few weeks later.

Link to comment

 

And that's fine, but keep in mind that reviewer note was added after the cache owner re-enabled the cache without doing anything.

 

The reviewer says a maintenance visit is in order - that's the reason for the disable, and that's something that has happened to other caches and will likely happen to others in the future. This isn't some new thing that has just happened. It isn't setting a precedent. It's not unusual for a reviewer to make this sort of judgment call on a cache that is rarely found.

 

And there's still no reason to think that the visit itself needed to take place in 30 days or the cache would be archived. The 30 day window is for a response. I can't predict exactly how the reviewer would respond, and I don't know what other information the reviewer has that we're not privy to, but I have never known a reviewer to brush off a cache owner who honestly states an intention to maintain the cache within a reasonable amount of time. This 30 days to doomsday silliness just isn't at all in keeping with anything I have ever seen in this game. The only caches that actually die in 30 days are the ones with completely absent owners.

 

Of course we all know that the visit doesn't need to happen within the 30 days. You've decided that we all believe this to be true while only one person actually stated that it was on the road to archival. I don't know why you keep bringing this up because it does not address the issue raised in the OP, which is why a cache is disabled due to a single DNF from a new cacher and a long time between finds. The CO sent a note off to the reviewer but apparently that wasn't enough to get things enabled, for whatever reason (which we do not know).

 

The listed reasons provided are that it hasn't been found in a long time and has a DNF. I can think of quite a few caches that meet this criteria but they're not disabled. These have NEVER been found but have at least one DNF.

 

https://coord.info/GC19Q3B

 

https://coord.info/GC1GRY9

 

https://coord.info/GC2RE45

 

https://coord.info/GC3MJM7

 

https://coord.info/GC2GMJ4

 

https://coord.info/GC18N0Z

 

These haven't been found in over 5 years and have been found previously but with a DNF as well.

 

https://coord.info/GC13GW3

 

https://coord.info/GC52DB

 

https://coord.info/GC27E93

 

https://coord.info/GC1VWZF

 

https://coord.info/GC2GHDG

 

https://coord.info/GC2ZFPN

Link to comment

 

And that's fine, but keep in mind that reviewer note was added after the cache owner re-enabled the cache without doing anything.

 

The reviewer says a maintenance visit is in order - that's the reason for the disable, and that's something that has happened to other caches and will likely happen to others in the future. This isn't some new thing that has just happened. It isn't setting a precedent. It's not unusual for a reviewer to make this sort of judgment call on a cache that is rarely found.

 

And there's still no reason to think that the visit itself needed to take place in 30 days or the cache would be archived. The 30 day window is for a response. I can't predict exactly how the reviewer would respond, and I don't know what other information the reviewer has that we're not privy to, but I have never known a reviewer to brush off a cache owner who honestly states an intention to maintain the cache within a reasonable amount of time. This 30 days to doomsday silliness just isn't at all in keeping with anything I have ever seen in this game. The only caches that actually die in 30 days are the ones with completely absent owners.

 

Of course we all know that the visit doesn't need to happen within the 30 days. You've decided that we all believe this to be true while only one person actually stated that it was on the road to archival. I don't know why you keep bringing this up because it does not address the issue raised in the OP, which is why a cache is disabled due to a single DNF from a new cacher and a long time between finds. The CO sent a note off to the reviewer but apparently that wasn't enough to get things enabled, for whatever reason (which we do not know).

 

The listed reasons provided are that it hasn't been found in a long time and has a DNF. I can think of quite a few caches that meet this criteria but they're not disabled. These have NEVER been found but have at least one DNF.

 

https://coord.info/GC19Q3B

 

https://coord.info/GC1GRY9

 

https://coord.info/GC2RE45

 

https://coord.info/GC3MJM7

 

https://coord.info/GC2GMJ4

 

https://coord.info/GC18N0Z

 

These haven't been found in over 5 years and have been found previously but with a DNF as well.

 

https://coord.info/GC13GW3

 

https://coord.info/GC52DB

 

https://coord.info/GC27E93

 

https://coord.info/GC1VWZF

 

https://coord.info/GC2GHDG

 

https://coord.info/GC2ZFPN

 

GC52DB has a note after the DNF showing that the cache is fine. Not the same situation as the OP.

 

GC3MJM7 is a relatively low difficulty/low terrain cache which was DNF'd even with help from the CO. The CO should check on that one.

Link to comment

Why should he be required to visit it when there are no listed problems besides the fact that it hasn't been found in over 8 years? Why 8? Why not 3? Why not 6? Why not when it was owned by the original CO and unfound at 7 years?

 

I don't think it would be reasonable to set a specific time frame that applies to all caches across the board. If there was, it certainly wouldn't work in favour of these remote caches.

 

Now I'm just watching from the cheap seats, but to me it looks like reviewers have always had some discretion to make judgment calls in cases like this. I really don't know why everyone is suddenly acting like this is something new.

Link to comment

Just a quick note to say that the two caches in question, GCH0T7 and GC1DRKG, were both found in perfect condition all along. After a chat with the reviewer, I gather the disabling was due to the DNFs. My argument is that one or two DNFs should not be the cause of a disabling (and eventual archival), especially when the DNFers had fewer than 20 finds. The reviewer also said that s/he was alerted to these caches because of the automated message from HQ that I neglected to respond to (because I figured the caches were fine - they were).

 

I'm disappointed because had I not adopted these caches, they would have been archived, never to return (the land manager is not allowing new caches in these locations). Fortunately, they are alive and in great shape with a caring owner for others to find!

Link to comment

Just a quick note to say that the two caches in question, GCH0T7 and GC1DRKG, were both found in perfect condition all along. After a chat with the reviewer, I gather the disabling was due to the DNFs. My argument is that one or two DNFs should not be the cause of a disabling (and eventual archival), especially when the DNFers had fewer than 20 finds. The reviewer also said that s/he was alerted to these caches because of the automated message from HQ that I neglected to respond to (because I figured the caches were fine - they were).

 

I'm disappointed because had I not adopted these caches, they would have been archived, never to return (the land manager is not allowing new caches in these locations). Fortunately, they are alive and in great shape with a caring owner for others to find!

 

I'm not a fan of the automated thing because I think reviewer judgment on a case-by-case basis has always been very important, and it's disappointing to see them moving away from that.

 

When it comes to the DNFs, I see two sides. On one hand, I'm not personally inclined to give much credence to a DNF from an unknown cacher. On the other hand, it really seems suspicious that someone would go to the effort to climb all the way up there and strike out on the find.

 

As a cacher evaluating whether or not I will try for a cache, the amount of time since the last find is a far greater deterrent than the DNFs (or even the cache being disabled due to reviewer request). It will be interesting to see if there's an increase in activity now that there's some reassurance that it's there.

 

It does seem rather miraculous that these came to the reviewer's notice after you adopted them and not while they were abandoned.

Link to comment

The reviewer also said that s/he was alerted to these caches because of the automated message from HQ that I neglected to respond to (because I figured the caches were fine - they were).

 

This just further reinforces the concerns voiced in the thread linked to by redsox.

 

This has been happening for quite a while now. Here is one such thread.

Link to comment

I'm not a fan of the automated thing because I think reviewer judgment on a case-by-case basis has always been very important, and it's disappointing to see them moving away from that.

Then I guess we've all been in agreement all along, since that's essential what everyone objecting to the disable has been saying from the beginning.

 

I just don't think the reviewer is some sort of monolith that won't listen to reason.

Which is why I and others are hoping reviewers listen to us when we say we're disappointed that they're moving away from applying their judgement on a case-by-case basis and, instead, disabling caches based on an automated mechanisms that told them one DNF was sufficient cause.

 

I don't think it's horrendously wrong that the reviewer disabled the cache under the circumstances, but if the cache owner had engaged in a reasonable discussion, made plans for maintenance, and had the cache reenabled in the meantime, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. The excessive emotional response to a cache being disabled continues to baffle me, but that's true of a lot that goes on here.

I don't think it's horrendously wrong, either. I just think it's wrong. And I'm not being emotional about it, I'm just explaining -- quite calmly, I claim -- why I think it's wrong.

Link to comment

I'm not a fan of the automated thing because I think reviewer judgment on a case-by-case basis has always been very important, and it's disappointing to see them moving away from that.

Then I guess we've all been in agreement all along, since that's essential what everyone objecting to the disable has been saying from the beginning.

 

I just don't think the reviewer is some sort of monolith that won't listen to reason.

Which is why I and others are hoping reviewers listen to us when we say we're disappointed that they're moving away from applying their judgement on a case-by-case basis and, instead, disabling caches based on an automated mechanisms that told them one DNF was sufficient cause.

 

I don't think it's horrendously wrong that the reviewer disabled the cache under the circumstances, but if the cache owner had engaged in a reasonable discussion, made plans for maintenance, and had the cache reenabled in the meantime, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. The excessive emotional response to a cache being disabled continues to baffle me, but that's true of a lot that goes on here.

I don't think it's horrendously wrong, either. I just think it's wrong. And I'm not being emotional about it, I'm just explaining -- quite calmly, I claim -- why I think it's wrong.

 

I fail to see why this is in reply to my comments specifically. Your points are as valid as anybody else's and didn't need to use inflammatory phrasing ("people like you" - really?).

Link to comment
... it really seems suspicious that someone would go to the effort to climb all the way up there and strike out on the find.

Some people are mountaineers first, and cachers only incidentally. And sometimes, it can be truly miserable on top, and all you really want is to get down quickly, to heck with the cache.

 

~~~

 

I give a virtual high five to the CO for doing a fine job on maintenance.

Link to comment

I'm not a fan of the automated thing because I think reviewer judgment on a case-by-case basis has always been very important, and it's disappointing to see them moving away from that.

Then I guess we've all been in agreement all along, since that's essential what everyone objecting to the disable has been saying from the beginning.

 

I just don't think the reviewer is some sort of monolith that won't listen to reason.

Which is why I and others are hoping reviewers listen to us when we say we're disappointed that they're moving away from applying their judgement on a case-by-case basis and, instead, disabling caches based on an automated mechanisms that told them one DNF was sufficient cause.

 

I don't think it's horrendously wrong that the reviewer disabled the cache under the circumstances, but if the cache owner had engaged in a reasonable discussion, made plans for maintenance, and had the cache reenabled in the meantime, I wouldn't think that was wrong either. The excessive emotional response to a cache being disabled continues to baffle me, but that's true of a lot that goes on here.

I don't think it's horrendously wrong, either. I just think it's wrong. And I'm not being emotional about it, I'm just explaining -- quite calmly, I claim -- why I think it's wrong.

I fail to see why this is in reply to my comments specifically. Your points are as valid as anybody else's and didn't need to use inflammatory phrasing ("people like you" - really?).

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Link to comment

....never to return...

 

A bit dramatic. It's not like someone else can't place a cache at the same location at some point.

Incorrect. The land managers (Alberta Parks) are refusing new geocache hides in locations such as these. Existing caches are adopted in. Ergo, if it gets archived, it's gone forever. No second chance or new cache. That was my motive for adopting in the first place. The reviewer is very aware of this issue, which is why I'm surprised a more reasonable approach wasn't taken rather than "do something in 30 days or it gets archived" (there's also the issue of why they were disabled in the first place).

Link to comment

....never to return...

 

A bit dramatic. It's not like someone else can't place a cache at the same location at some point.

Incorrect. The land managers (Alberta Parks) are refusing new geocache hides in locations such as these. Existing caches are adopted in. Ergo, if it gets archived, it's gone forever. No second chance or new cache. That was my motive for adopting in the first place. The reviewer is very aware of this issue, which is why I'm surprised a more reasonable approach wasn't taken rather than "do something in 30 days or it gets archived" (there's also the issue of why they were disabled in the first place).

Maybe your information is not up to date:

 

At this time the local reviewer has been asked to pass on all cache submissions to a contact at Alberta Parks who will contact the local land manager so that they can look at the location and decide whether a cache will be permitted or not.

 

Link for reference:

 

https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Alberta

 

I'm assuming that if the cache were in one of these sensitive areas of concern to the Park Management, it would already be Archived without much ceremony.

Link to comment

....never to return...

 

A bit dramatic. It's not like someone else can't place a cache at the same location at some point.

Incorrect. The land managers (Alberta Parks) are refusing new geocache hides in locations such as these. Existing caches are adopted in. Ergo, if it gets archived, it's gone forever. No second chance or new cache. That was my motive for adopting in the first place. The reviewer is very aware of this issue, which is why I'm surprised a more reasonable approach wasn't taken rather than "do something in 30 days or it gets archived" (there's also the issue of why they were disabled in the first place).

Maybe your information is not up to date:

 

At this time the local reviewer has been asked to pass on all cache submissions to a contact at Alberta Parks who will contact the local land manager so that they can look at the location and decide whether a cache will be permitted or not.

 

Link for reference:

 

https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Alberta

 

I'm assuming that if the cache were in one of these sensitive areas of concern to the Park Management, it would already be Archived without much ceremony.

I'm not sure if you're a reviewer or what, but unfortunately your information is out of date. There is a contact who works for Alberta Parks who is responsible for geocache placements. Caches off established trails (like these two) will now be rejected. This is a new development as of about a few months ago. The documents (like the one you linked to) haven't been updated yet to reflect this. I've already had several cache placements rejected myself, and several other online requests rejected. Existing caches, however, are grandfathered in.

Link to comment

I've already had several cache placements rejected myself, and several other online requests rejected. Existing caches, however, are grandfathered in.

 

Apparently the Land Managers to the North are much more forgiving. Down my way there's no meaning to the word "grandfathered". The only word they understand is Archive :(

Link to comment

I've already had several cache placements rejected myself, and several other online requests rejected. Existing caches, however, are grandfathered in.

 

Apparently the Land Managers to the North are much more forgiving. Down my way there's no meaning to the word "grandfathered". The only word they understand is Archive :(

I guess we should feel lucky then... Although the last few months have been major steps backwards :(

Link to comment

The reviewer also said that s/he was alerted to these caches because of the automated message from HQ that I neglected to respond to (because I figured the caches were fine - they were).

 

 

Interesting. This is the first direct link I've seen between the HQ reminders and subsequent reviewer action. I've seen other discussions where someone complains about the HQ reminder (if they think no action needed), and advice they can ignore it, as it is just a "friendly" reminder.

Link to comment

 

I'm not a fan of the automated thing because I think reviewer judgment on a case-by-case basis has always been very important, and it's disappointing to see them moving away from that.

 

It does seem rather miraculous that these came to the reviewer's notice after you adopted them and not while they were abandoned.

 

These were exactly the points many of us raised, although the automated part wasn't as emphasized, rather the DNF, which apparently triggered the message. I still don't understand the reasoning behind the message in the first place. I'm assuming there's some sort of algorithm that is in place (?) that sends out a note for long unfound caches with DNFs but it's certainly an inconsistent one that might need to be re-examined.

 

Thanks for the update from the OP.

Link to comment
I'm assuming there's some sort of algorithm that is in place (?) that sends out a note for long unfound caches with DNFs but it's certainly an inconsistent one that might need to be re-examined.

 

Flash forward two years ....

 

"The automated algorithm that sends out maintenance reminders is too complicated for anyone to understand. Why can't we just rely on the judgment of human volunteers to look at cache listings and decide if intervention is needed?'

 

Flash forward two more years ...

 

"Human reviewers are too inconsistent in how they choose caches that need intervention. Why can't we have automated algorithms that make that decision more consistently?"

 

Flash forward still two more years ...

 

"The automated algorithm that sends out maintenance reminders is too complicated for anyone to understand. Why can't we just rely on the judgment of human volunteers to look at cache listings and decide if intervention is needed?'

 

Link to comment

I'm assuming there's some sort of algorithm that is in place (?) that sends out a note for long unfound caches with DNFs but it's certainly an inconsistent one that might need to be re-examined.

I don't have a lot of data to draw from, but here's my closest guess as to how the algorithm is coded:

 

If last log = DNF OR if last log = Needs Maintenance;

And if last found > 2 years (maybe less);

And if no recent user maintenance;

Then flag for maintenance.

 

It does not seem that there is any weight given to the experience of the DNFer, the contents of the DNF log, or the potential difficulty or local conditions during the DNF. Of course, this would be much too difficult to program, and that's where the reviewer steps in. It seems that the reviewer is automatically alerted when the note is sent.

 

Unfortunately the reviewer also did not seem to consider the inexperience of the DNFers in my case - it only mattered that there were DNFs. It turns out that the inexperience of the DNFers meant they were not able to find caches that I (relatively speaking, a much more experienced cacher), found with ease.

 

However, as seen with a cache like GC2XY1B, even a single DNF from a very experienced cacher does not necessarily mean there is cause for concern.

Link to comment

I'm assuming there's some sort of algorithm that is in place (?) that sends out a note for long unfound caches with DNFs but it's certainly an inconsistent one that might need to be re-examined.

I don't have a lot of data to draw from, but here's my closest guess as to how the algorithm is coded:

 

If last log = DNF OR if last log = Needs Maintenance;

And if last found > 2 years (maybe less);

And if no recent user maintenance;

Then flag for maintenance.

 

It does not seem that there is any weight given to the experience of the DNFer, the contents of the DNF log, or the potential difficulty or local conditions during the DNF. Of course, this would be much too difficult to program, and that's where the reviewer steps in. It seems that the reviewer is automatically alerted when the note is sent.

 

Unfortunately the reviewer also did not seem to consider the inexperience of the DNFers in my case - it only mattered that there were DNFs. It turns out that the inexperience of the DNFers meant they were not able to find caches that I (relatively speaking, a much more experienced cacher), found with ease.

 

However, as seen with a cache like GC2XY1B, even a single DNF from a very experienced cacher does not necessarily mean there is cause for concern.

 

Especially when one of those DNFs made it clear that the finder was getting a lot of gps drift and it appeared they were more concerned with getting to the summit than wasting time looking for the cache.

Link to comment

Unfortunately the reviewer also did not seem to consider the inexperience of the DNFers in my case - it only mattered that there were DNFs. It turns out that the inexperience of the DNFers meant they were not able to find caches that I (relatively speaking, a much more experienced cacher), found with ease.

 

Of course, there's a debate as to what "experienced" means. As revealed by the notes on the cache ... the reviewer at least looked at the find count. However, as the CO noted, the find count of the DNFer was substantially lower at the time of the DNF log than at the time the reviewer intervened.

 

So ... when is a veteran not a veteran? :)

 

 

 

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.

 

I don't know where experienced geocachers have acquired this notion that they are only responsible for cache maintenance when there's a complaint.

 

Wait a minute here: aren't you the one who has been claiming that people are misrepresenting your arguments? Yet you feel OK with turning around and misrepresenting others? Nice double standard.

 

You are consistently conflating the disabling of a cache with "requesting cache maintenance." That is dishonest, and you know it. The reviewer could easily have requested that the CO perform cache maintenance without disabling the cache. So your repeated claim that the reviewer was simply requesting maintenance is false. Objectively false.

 

If you find yourself unable to argue a situation in good faith, without misrepresentation, then perhaps it might be helpful to take a step back. The entire discussion here is at cross-purposes.

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...