Jump to content

Orphan Caches


GDad Souter

Recommended Posts

I'm relatively new to Geocaching (10 months and 314 caches) so go easy with me. This is my first posting too. I also expect this topic to have been covered before but, as I say, I'm new to this game. Thoroughly enjoying the experience apart from one thing. Read on.

 

When I first looked at the map as a newbie I couldn't believe how many caches were available. Trouble is, as I started to visit sites, I realised that a very large number of caches don't match the description, are damaged or have soggy logs. Not at all the experience I was expecting. I then realised, looking a little closer, that the owners of these caches gave up caching years ago. There are whole areas around where I live where caches have been sprinkled like confetti and left to rot.

 

Most cachers are happy to live with a soggy log or inaccurate description, and will even replace a container or log, thus perpetuating the situation of a cache without an owner. If someone doesn't find a cache they are unlikely to log a maintenance or archive request unless there have been a string of previous DNFs. The sequence to remove an orphan cache seems to require months of cachers finding a poor quality cache, followed by a string of DNFs and then input from the local reviewer. A poor experience for a lot of people.

 

Groundspeak seem to have made a lot of effort to improve the experience for cachers with a cache page providing lots of helpful information including terrain, difficulty, cache size, attributes, favourites etc. Why then, is there not a way to try and maintain this original high standard. Perhaps COs should be required to check their caches every so often with caches removed automatically if they are not checked or the owner gives up caching. If we don't want to be quite so Draconian then providing additional information on the cache page such as when the CO last logged on might be helpful. Or give cachers the option to flag the cache as a bad experience. If we had the opposite of favourites a cache could come to the attention of a reviewer if it had ten hits, or whatever.

 

I look forward to hearing what other people make of this, or hearing about what has been tried before.

Link to comment

I'm so tired of junk abandoned caches I've started to filter for only new caches less then 3 months old. Sometimes, on a caching day I end up logging NMs on half of my finds. I've spent hundreds of dollars on caching vacations only to cut them short and return home early because most were junk abandoned caches. There was no point staying another day and wasting time and money.

Link to comment

If you find a poorly-maintained cache, use the "Needs Maintenance" log to register your poor experience. Follow up with "Needs Archived" if the owner doesn't fix the cache. Eventually it will be removed from the database. It is up to the cache owner to physically remove his/her geocache.

 

It sounds like people in your area may not be doing this as effectively as they could. There is nothing stopping you from being more proactive than the norm in your area. Cache owners are required to maintain thir caches and respond to issues.

 

It is also important to have realistic expectations. If finding a cache with a damp log is going to ruin the day for you, it is up to you to be selective about the caches you search for. Look at the cache owner's profile details. Look at previous logs. Everything you are asking for is really already in place.

Link to comment

Perhaps COs should be required to check their caches every so often with caches removed automatically if they are not checked or the owner gives up caching.

 

Yep. Been discussed before. Not going to happen for a variety of reasons, which basically boils down to too many If, Then, Else types of scenarios to make it workable.

 

Or give cachers the option to flag the cache as a bad experience. If we had the opposite of favourites a cache could come to the attention of a reviewer if it had ten hits, or whatever.

 

Also discussed and generally rejected due to the likelihood (aka certainty) of such a feature getting abused (i.e. "let's dogpile on this cache owner"). Groundspeak is averse to any feature that isn't in the affirmative, and a "dislike" button would definitely not fit within that world vision.

 

For the most part, the available tools is what you're going to find to work with for the foreseeable future. In my area, people tend to wait for a handful of DNF's, or repeated mention of major issues (i.e. broken/leaking/missing container), followed up with a NM log, and finally a NA log if there's no response. The Reviewer steps in, gives a bit of time for the cache owner to respond with a plan, and then Archives it if there's no response or no plan.

 

Not a perfect system, but one that gives the benefit of the doubt to the cache owner. Maybe just not in the time frame you'd like to see things happen.

Link to comment

Around here, same as others have said. If the cache is really in bad shape, post a NM... if missing a DNF, and if no action then NA. Our reviewers are getting increasingly pro-active about giving "please take care of it or else" mails on troubled caches (before it gets to NA, based on NM or DNFs.).

 

If it is minor (the log is a bit damp), don't sweat it.

Link to comment

Or give cachers the option to flag the cache as a bad experience.

 

 

There's a third party tool that let's you do this, but it's not all that popular in North America......GC Vote

 

Some apps use GC Vote.

 

What other programs do connect to GCVote's database?

I do not use these tools myself, but I know of these:

 

c:geo

iCaching

Cachebox

MakeGoogleMap

CacheSense

Looking4Cache

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I guess I'm pretty lucky in my area. While I have found caches with soggy logs, most are in reasonable shape. Some of the caches have CO's that have been away from the game but are still in OK condition so I suppose it's not really an issue. I don't use the NM or NA button probably as much as I should. I chock some of the wet logs up to people not closing the cache back up properly.

 

In either case, I don't let things like that ruin my day and if it really needs maintenance I say so and log an NM.

Link to comment

I guess I'm pretty lucky in my area. While I have found caches with soggy logs, most are in reasonable shape. Some of the caches have CO's that have been away from the game but are still in OK condition so I suppose it's not really an issue. I don't use the NM or NA button probably as much as I should. I chock some of the wet logs up to people not closing the cache back up properly.

 

In either case, I don't let things like that ruin my day and if it really needs maintenance I say so and log an NM.

 

Within 30 miles of your archived cache there are 153 caches with the NM (red cross) attribute. Within 24 miles (40km) of me there are 498 caches with NM attributes, so yes your area is better off.

 

As an example, there is one cache hider in your area that has hidden almost 100 caches within that range, hides cheap leaky containers (e.g. cans, magnetic key holders), doesn't respond to wet/soaked log reports and his form of maintenance is to let the reviewer do the archiving.

 

I would guessitimate (based my experience) that at least half the hiders are the same way. They don't maintain their hides, never intend to. Their form of maintenance is to have the cache archived by a reviewer. Occasionally a cache gets archived by the cache owner, but that's rare and usually results in a huffy archive note along the lines 'You want the cache archived? Fine. Here you go. Are you happy now?'

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I'm relatively new to Geocaching (10 months and 314 caches) so go easy with me. This is my first posting too. I also expect this topic to have been covered before but, as I say, I'm new to this game. Thoroughly enjoying the experience apart from one thing. Read on.

 

When I first looked at the map as a newbie I couldn't believe how many caches were available. Trouble is, as I started to visit sites, I realised that a very large number of caches don't match the description, are damaged or have soggy logs. Not at all the experience I was expecting. I then realised, looking a little closer, that the owners of these caches gave up caching years ago. There are whole areas around where I live where caches have been sprinkled like confetti and left to rot.

 

Most cachers are happy to live with a soggy log or inaccurate description, and will even replace a container or log, thus perpetuating the situation of a cache without an owner. If someone doesn't find a cache they are unlikely to log a maintenance or archive request unless there have been a string of previous DNFs. The sequence to remove an orphan cache seems to require months of cachers finding a poor quality cache, followed by a string of DNFs and then input from the local reviewer. A poor experience for a lot of people.

 

Groundspeak seem to have made a lot of effort to improve the experience for cachers with a cache page providing lots of helpful information including terrain, difficulty, cache size, attributes, favourites etc. Why then, is there not a way to try and maintain this original high standard. Perhaps COs should be required to check their caches every so often with caches removed automatically if they are not checked or the owner gives up caching. If we don't want to be quite so Draconian then providing additional information on the cache page such as when the CO last logged on might be helpful. Or give cachers the option to flag the cache as a bad experience. If we had the opposite of favourites a cache could come to the attention of a reviewer if it had ten hits, or whatever.

 

I look forward to hearing what other people make of this, or hearing about what has been tried before.

 

Help Center → Finding a Geocache → Logging a Geocache

4.2. What log type should I use?

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=534

 

3.7. I found a geocache that needs maintenance

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=551

 

3.8. I found a geocache that needs to be archived

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=434

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

4.10. Maintenance Emails from Geocaching HQ

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=713

 

B.

Link to comment

I'm so tired of junk abandoned caches I've started to filter for only new caches less then 3 months old. Sometimes, on a caching day I end up logging NMs on half of my finds. I've spent hundreds of dollars on caching vacations only to cut them short and return home early because most were junk abandoned caches. There was no point staying another day and wasting time and money.

 

yup, it's a really good idea to check the logs and filter out nm / na /micro /old before heading out instead of including those caches in your search. there are a lot of caches that aren't being maintained, is part of the journey to filter them. .

Link to comment

Or give cachers the option to flag the cache as a bad experience.

 

 

There's a third party tool that let's you do this, but it's not all that popular in North America......GC Vote

 

Some apps use GC Vote.

 

What other programs do connect to GCVote's database?

I do not use these tools myself, but I know of these:

 

c:geo

iCaching

Cachebox

MakeGoogleMap

CacheSense

Looking4Cache

 

These sorts of tools are very limited in their usefulness as filters, because everyone has different criteria for rating a cache. Even with FPs, which are built into the site, my criteria for assigning them is "I enjoyed that experience overall" rather than "This cache is the epitome of what a cache should be."

 

I'm fairly diligent about noting cache maintenance issues and posting NM/NA logs, but even if I was inclined to participate in a cache rating system, I wouldn't automatically down-vote or rate negatively a cache just because the container had failed over time. For me the container is just a single touchpoint in a much larger overall experience. On a 10-point scale it might drag something down a couple of points if I was rating the cache.

 

My ratings might be useful to people who, like me, enjoy the entire experience of geocaching and aren't fussy about the container, but they would have limited usefulness for those with more specific requirements.

Link to comment

Or give cachers the option to flag the cache as a bad experience.

 

 

There's a third party tool that let's you do this, but it's not all that popular in North America......GC Vote

 

 

These sorts of tools are very limited in their usefulness as filters, because everyone has different criteria for rating a cache. Even with FPs, which are built into the site, my criteria for assigning them is "I enjoyed that experience overall" rather than "This cache is the epitome of what a cache should be."

 

I'm fairly diligent about noting cache maintenance issues and posting NM/NA logs, but even if I was inclined to participate in a cache rating system, I wouldn't automatically down-vote or rate negatively a cache just because the container had failed over time. For me the container is just a single touchpoint in a much larger overall experience. On a 10-point scale it might drag something down a couple of points if I was rating the cache.

 

My ratings might be useful to people who, like me, enjoy the entire experience of geocaching and aren't fussy about the container, but they would have limited usefulness for those with more specific requirements.

 

I think GCVote works well in Europe where lots of people use the tool. If 200 people vote and 85 percent vote it under 3 or under rating, what are the chances it's a quality cache experience?

 

people who, like me, enjoy the entire experience of geocaching and aren't fussy about the container

 

For me, the entire experience of geocaching is very important to me. But it includes the entire experience and that includes the container - a quality container with dry contents. It's the hope for the elusive all-round quality cache experience that keeps me going. But every year it gets harder and harder.

Link to comment

Or give cachers the option to flag the cache as a bad experience.

 

 

There's a third party tool that let's you do this, but it's not all that popular in North America......GC Vote

 

 

These sorts of tools are very limited in their usefulness as filters, because everyone has different criteria for rating a cache. Even with FPs, which are built into the site, my criteria for assigning them is "I enjoyed that experience overall" rather than "This cache is the epitome of what a cache should be."

 

I'm fairly diligent about noting cache maintenance issues and posting NM/NA logs, but even if I was inclined to participate in a cache rating system, I wouldn't automatically down-vote or rate negatively a cache just because the container had failed over time. For me the container is just a single touchpoint in a much larger overall experience. On a 10-point scale it might drag something down a couple of points if I was rating the cache.

 

My ratings might be useful to people who, like me, enjoy the entire experience of geocaching and aren't fussy about the container, but they would have limited usefulness for those with more specific requirements.

 

I think GCVote works well in Europe where lots of people use the tool. If 200 people vote and 85 percent vote it under 3 or under rating, what are the chances it's a quality cache experience?

 

people who, like me, enjoy the entire experience of geocaching and aren't fussy about the container

 

For me, the entire experience of geocaching is very important to me. But it includes the entire experience and that includes the container - a quality container with dry contents. It's the hope for the elusive all-round quality cache experience that keeps me going. But every year it gets harder and harder.

 

While I'm highly unlikely to use a rating system to grade caches, I'm even less likely to use one to select caches. Unless I know that the ratings I am seeing are from cachers very much like me, a low score has very little meaning to me.

 

There would have to be something extraordinarily bad about a container for it to really drag down the overall experience of a cache to a point where I felt that the entire experience was a waste or not worth my time. The container itself is just not something that is terribly important to me, in terms of my experience. While I feel it is my duty to report maintenance issues for the benefit of other geocachers, I am not generally inclined to let a maintenance issue affect my attitude toward geocaches.

 

It's particularly important to maintain a positive attitude and control my reaction to cache containers because we specifically seek out caches that are more likely to have minor maintenance issues, i.e. older caches, infrequently-found caches, caches on islands, etc. One has to have a grain of forgiveness for cache owners in those circumstances. For me, virtually every cache experience would be a write-off if I was heartbroken every time a cache was a bit damp or didn't have nice swag in it. I don't cache for the container or the swag, and it's just not an aspect of geocaching that has any power to make me particularly upset. A 10 out of 10 cache with a leaky container is still going to be an 8 or a 9 out of 10 for me, and that's still a top 3 box score.

Link to comment

Thanks to everyone who has commented on this topic. I would just like to add a few more comments of my own so everyone is clear where I am coming from.

 

I soon learned not to take Caches at face value and spend quite a lot of time checking the CO's profile, previous logs etc. I also study the terrain on iMaps and check all the information given on the description page. I agree that weeding out the dross can be part of the game and I get as much fun from planning trips as carrying them out. Generally, I am looking for safe, tidy caches that can be enjoyed by my toddler GDaughter, but I'm also willing to take on remote Caches which haven't been found for a long time, or even abandoned Caches if I need to complete a challenge. Either way, soggy logs etc. are part of the game. Yes, it can be disappointing but doesn't lessen the experience if you have been taken to a magical place with stunning views.

 

I guess my beef is mainly with the inconsistency of Groundspeak to have COs meet a number of criteria before being allowed to publish a Cache, but who then turn a blind eye to the fact that a very large percentage of Caches in their database have been left to rot by their owners. If there is no practical way of removing these Caches or offering them up for adoption, then at least information about their current status could be displayed on the Cache page.

 

There are at least two COs near to where I live who produced In excess of 50 Caches each and, according to their profile, have not visited the site for several years. It has to be assumed they are no longer active because they have not responded to maintenance requests and many of their Caches have been archived by the local Reviewer. Other Caches remain for the moment but make little sense, being once part of a series. It is frustrating that in my local area alone, there is probably about a third as many Caches unavailable for various reasons as the number I have found.

 

I have logged my share of NM and NA requests, but I don't want to end up being the local Cache policeman. One thing I will do, though, is highlight any abandoned Caches when I log a find. This is better than a TFTC to a nonexistent owner, and will make it easier for the next person. It might also give the CO a chance to challenge my assumption if they are still lurking around.

 

Ideally, Groundspeak should face up to this problem and get it sorted.

Link to comment
If there is no practical way of removing these Caches or offering them up for adoption, then at least information about their current status could be displayed on the Cache page.
As others have pointed out, there is a practical way of removing abandoned caches. It starts with NM log(s) when problems are observed, progresses to NA log(s) when those problems are not addressed, which leads to a volunteer reviewer disabling the cache, which leads to a volunteer reviewer archiving the cache. I've seen it work a number of times. I've also seen it lead to owners finally maintaining their caches, at which point they're no longer abandoned and they no longer need to be removed.

 

There will never be a practical way of offering abandoned caches for adoption, because adoption must start with the CO, and abandoned caches don't have an active CO to start the adoption process. Groundspeak provides a listing service, and does not have the authority to give away members' property. Don't expect this to change.

 

I have logged my share of NM and NA requests, but I don't want to end up being the local Cache policeman.
Well, if everyone's too afraid of being labeled a cache cop to use the process that Groundspeak has established, then I'm not sure what you expect Groundspeak to do.
Link to comment
If there is no practical way of removing these Caches or offering them up for adoption, then at least information about their current status could be displayed on the Cache page.
As others have pointed out, there is a practical way of removing abandoned caches. It starts with NM log(s) when problems are observed, progresses to NA log(s) when those problems are not addressed, which leads to a volunteer reviewer disabling the cache, which leads to a volunteer reviewer archiving the cache. I've seen it work a number of times. I've also seen it lead to owners finally maintaining their caches, at which point they're no longer abandoned and they no longer need to be removed.

 

There will never be a practical way of offering abandoned caches for adoption, because adoption must start with the CO, and abandoned caches don't have an active CO to start the adoption process. Groundspeak provides a listing service, and does not have the authority to give away members' property. Don't expect this to change.

 

I have logged my share of NM and NA requests, but I don't want to end up being the local Cache policeman.
Well, if everyone's too afraid of being labeled a cache cop to use the process that Groundspeak has established, then I'm not sure what you expect Groundspeak to do.

 

 

Exactly

But we have a problem.

I think it's true that most cachers are afraid of being labelled a busy-body party-pooper Cache Cop. Especially if they may meet up or have met the delinquent cache owners. I checked the OP's finds and s/he's been to a couple of events this year. I suspect (and understand) that posting NMs and NAs on COs who we've met, puts us in an awkward position. Some of those set-em-and-forget-em cache owners are revered by the folks who put no value on the cache itself, but put a lot of value on the smiley, stats, grid filling, challenge qualifying and competitiveness. The numbers crowd outnumber the quality seeker minority. You rarely see someone getting a pat on the back for placing well-deserved NAs.

 

And if the cache listing of the abandoned junk cache (or throwdown 5+ times over) is older then 5 years. There will be lots of cachers who will be angry that an "old" cache got archived -- they have a lot of value in terms of grid filling, stats collecting and challenge qualifiers. The numbers crowd will want those propped up.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

It's like that mostly everywhere. If you see a problem like a damaged container then do a NM. If you don't they won't know. Like Touchstone says many COs don't have time to constantly check their caches. Many times I will check mine while out caching. Some right after a NM was posted only to find nothing wrong with them. Some I had to replace the container or logsheets and then when I get home I find someone else posted NM on others of mine. I try to keep up as much as I can.

Link to comment

I'm so tired of junk abandoned caches I've started to filter for only new caches less then 3 months old. Sometimes, on a caching day I end up logging NMs on half of my finds. I've spent hundreds of dollars on caching vacations only to cut them short and return home early because most were junk abandoned caches. There was no point staying another day and wasting time and money.

 

yup, it's a really good idea to check the logs and filter out nm / na /micro /old before heading out instead of including those caches in your search. there are a lot of caches that aren't being maintained, is part of the journey to filter them. .

But why filter them out and leave them to fester? How about being proactive? Search them out and log NMs or whatever's needed. You may get some results and improve the experience of those coming after you. And, failing that, help in getting rid of the rubbish caches that are out there. Ignoring them wont make them go away.

You guys up there are spoiled for choice.

Link to comment

I'm so tired of junk abandoned caches I've started to filter for only new caches less then 3 months old. Sometimes, on a caching day I end up logging NMs on half of my finds. I've spent hundreds of dollars on caching vacations only to cut them short and return home early because most were junk abandoned caches. There was no point staying another day and wasting time and money.

 

yup, it's a really good idea to check the logs and filter out nm / na /micro /old before heading out instead of including those caches in your search. there are a lot of caches that aren't being maintained, is part of the journey to filter them. .

But why filter them out and leave them to fester? How about being proactive? Search them out and log NMs or whatever's needed. You may get some results and improve the experience of those coming after you. And, failing that, help in getting rid of the rubbish caches that are out there. Ignoring them wont make them go away.

You guys up there are spoiled for choice.

 

Nobody is obligated to seek out caches they know they won't enjoy. Geocaching is a game, not a duty.

Link to comment

1. Did you know there are several Community Volunteer Reviewers whose main job is to follow up on cache maintenance guideline issues?

2. Remember that a "Needs Maintenance" log is for the cache owner's information in the first instance. Reviewers are not automatically notified of a new "Needs Maintenance" log.

3. Did you know that Geocaching HQ sends out "your cache may need some attention" emails based on a complex algorithm, which takes into account negative logs like DNFs, NMs and NAs? When deciding what action to take against a cache listing, reviewers can take into account whether or not a cache owner responded to the automated reminder.

4. In addition to faithfully logging DNF's and logging NM or NA when appropriate, and in addition to the automated reminder emails, and in addition to reviewer-initiated cache maintenance "clean up" activities, don't forget that a geocacher can write privately to their Reviewer with an alert about a problem cache (or list of caches). A private email might work best when a CO has a reputation for reacting negatively to adverse logs on their cache page.

Link to comment

I think the current system just needs speeding up. Maybe Ground Speak should recruit some more volunteers to act as the Cache Police. If they just focused on Caches with the needs maintenance icon, they’d have plenty to do.

 

This is a community issue, not a Groundspeak issue. The system works pretty darn fast when community members use the NA log on neglected caches. People just need to follow up on their own NMs. We don't need to burden more reviewers with a task that can (and should) be done by responsible geocachers.

 

Every few weeks I scan through caches I've DNFed, and caches I have NMed. If I see DNFs accumulating after mine, and it's not a high difficulty cache, I'll use NM. I also use NM for obvious maintenance issues in the field. If more than a month has gone by on a cache I've NMed, with no response from the owner, I use NA. From there, reviewers usually give the owner a month (sometimes they archive immediately).

Link to comment

This is a community issue, not a Groundspeak issue. The system works pretty darn fast when community members use the NA log on neglected caches. People just need to follow up on their own NMs. We don't need to burden more reviewers with a task that can (and should) be done by responsible geocachers.

 

Every few weeks I scan through caches I've DNFed, and caches I have NMed. If I see DNFs accumulating after mine, and it's not a high difficulty cache, I'll use NM. I also use NM for obvious maintenance issues in the field. If more than a month has gone by on a cache I've NMed, with no response from the owner, I use NA. From there, reviewers usually give the owner a month (sometimes they archive immediately).

 

The problem is most Cachers won’t post a Needs Archived, so the process stalls.

 

Someone like yourself would make a perfect Cache Police Officer.

Link to comment

This is a community issue, not a Groundspeak issue. The system works pretty darn fast when community members use the NA log on neglected caches. People just need to follow up on their own NMs. We don't need to burden more reviewers with a task that can (and should) be done by responsible geocachers.

 

Every few weeks I scan through caches I've DNFed, and caches I have NMed. If I see DNFs accumulating after mine, and it's not a high difficulty cache, I'll use NM. I also use NM for obvious maintenance issues in the field. If more than a month has gone by on a cache I've NMed, with no response from the owner, I use NA. From there, reviewers usually give the owner a month (sometimes they archive immediately).

 

The problem is most Cachers won’t post a Needs Archived, so the process stalls.

 

Someone like yourself would make a perfect Cache Police Officer.

 

Again, not a Groundspeak issue. It's a community issue. Nobody needs to be specifically burdened with this task. We need to address the culture problem in the game that makes people hesitate to report issues.

Link to comment

Again, not a Groundspeak issue. It's a community issue. Nobody needs to be specifically burdened with this task. We need to address the culture problem in the game that makes people hesitate to report issues.

 

It’s in Groundspeaks interest to minimise the amount of unmaintained Caches listed on their website, because finding unmaintained caches could put customers (Cachers) off the hobby.

 

Recruiting more volunteer Cache Police is a much easier way of dealing with the problem than trying to change a culture problem in the game.

Link to comment

I think the current system just needs speeding up. Maybe Ground Speak should recruit some more volunteers to act as the Cache Police. If they just focused on Caches with the needs maintenance icon, they'd have plenty to do.

 

This is a community issue, not a Groundspeak issue.

 

It is a Groundspeak business issue if their database becomes full of junk, and difficult to use to find caches that are in reasonably good shape and not abandoned propped up junk. They may loose customers, they may not be able to convince new players to become PMs, or they may not retain premium membership customers.

Link to comment

Again, not a Groundspeak issue. It's a community issue. Nobody needs to be specifically burdened with this task. We need to address the culture problem in the game that makes people hesitate to report issues.

 

It’s in Groundspeaks interest to minimise the amount of unmaintained Caches listed on their website, because finding unmaintained caches could put customers (Cachers) off the hobby.

 

Recruiting more volunteer Cache Police is a much easier way of dealing with the problem than trying to change a culture problem in the game.

 

Do you know what kind of resources Groundspeak already invests in recruiting and training volunteer Reviewers? It's not insubstantial. Let's not pretend that this is an easy or cheap solution. It's been suggested before, it will be suggested again. It's not a good idea.

 

There are always a few squeaky wheels who like to blow this issue completely out of proportion. Most cachers have the capacity to manage the mild disappointment of a damp log without leaving the game in a huff.

Link to comment

I think the current system just needs speeding up. Maybe Ground Speak should recruit some more volunteers to act as the Cache Police. If they just focused on Caches with the needs maintenance icon, they'd have plenty to do.

 

This is a community issue, not a Groundspeak issue.

 

It is a Groundspeak business issue if their database becomes full of junk, and difficult to use to find caches that are in reasonably good shape and not abandoned propped up junk. They may loose customers, they may not be able to convince new players to become PMs, or they may not retain premium membership customers.

 

The solution to these imagined business woes is not likely to be setting up a police force that literally treats cache owners like criminals.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

We need to address the culture problem in the game that makes people hesitate to report issues.

 

It's not working via the forums. Those that don't want to use NMs and especially NAs never change their minds. I have yet to see a reluctant OP that wants GS to address the problem, change their mind and agree to post NAs.

I don't think they want that kind of aggravation in their lives. I can't blame them. Anyone who suggests posting of NAs eventually gets called a cache cop. If the OP is a social type of person they probably just want to get along with other cachers, maybe attend an event now and then, or have a friendly encounter with cachers on the trail. The angst associated with NMs and NAs is not worth it to them. Some of us can handle it, most would rather not.

Link to comment

As Keystone said on post #21, Groundspeak (with support of the reviewers) ARE working on this. I've seen a great increase in reviewers disabling caches based on cache issues (without a NA). In fact, we've had several threads "complaining" if sometimes the algorithm is too "tough". It will take time, and I'm not saying there aren't "orphan" caches out there needing cleaning up, but it is being addressed.

Link to comment

We need to address the culture problem in the game that makes people hesitate to report issues.

 

It's not working via the forums. Those that don't want to use NMs and especially NAs never change their minds. I have yet to see a reluctant OP that wants GS to address the problem, change their mind and agree to post NAs.

I don't think they want that kind of aggravation in their lives. I can't blame them. Anyone who suggests posting of NAs eventually gets called a cache cop. If the OP is a social type of person they probably just want to get along with other cachers, maybe attend an event now and then, or have a friendly encounter with cachers on the trail. The angst associated with NMs and NAs is not worth it to them. Some of us can handle it, most would rather not.

 

Deputizing people to actually be cache cops will not alleviate these issues (which are likely overstated in the forum).

Link to comment

Most cachers have the capacity to manage the mild disappointment of a damp log without leaving the game in a huff.

 

Hyperbole. laughing.gif

 

How is this hyperbole? The forum complains that people will leave the game because of maintenance issues. The forum complains that caches are a good/bad binary experience totally ruined by a damp log or McDonald's toy.

 

In reality this does not appear to be a widespread occurrence.

Link to comment

I guess I'm pretty lucky in my area. While I have found caches with soggy logs, most are in reasonable shape. Some of the caches have CO's that have been away from the game but are still in OK condition so I suppose it's not really an issue. I don't use the NM or NA button probably as much as I should. I chock some of the wet logs up to people not closing the cache back up properly.

 

In either case, I don't let things like that ruin my day and if it really needs maintenance I say so and log an NM.

 

Within 30 miles of your archived cache there are 153 caches with the NM (red cross) attribute. Within 24 miles (40km) of me there are 498 caches with NM attributes, so yes your area is better off.

 

As an example, there is one cache hider in your area that has hidden almost 100 caches within that range, hides cheap leaky containers (e.g. cans, magnetic key holders), doesn't respond to wet/soaked log reports and his form of maintenance is to let the reviewer do the archiving.

 

I would guessitimate (based my experience) that at least half the hiders are the same way. They don't maintain their hides, never intend to. Their form of maintenance is to have the cache archived by a reviewer. Occasionally a cache gets archived by the cache owner, but that's rare and usually results in a huffy archive note along the lines 'You want the cache archived? Fine. Here you go. Are you happy now?'

 

I didn't mean to say that my area is without issue, perhaps my "luck" is more that I don't seek out every hide on the map. I may be inadvertently filtering out some of the more common issues. I do agree however, that many people don't intend to maintain the hides. There are others though that perhaps fell out of the game for a few months (like happens to me on occasion). These people should be happy to receive a NM log so they know that there's an issue with thier cache. At least they can disable it until finding the time to check on it, as was the case with my archived cache.

Link to comment

I think part of the issue is that newer caches are being initiated into the game in a way that doesn't encourage them to take responsibility. We see so many newer caches who have no idea that there are things they can do to act on poorly maintained caches.

 

I just cringe at these excessively complex solutions that are based on aggressive antagonism of cache owners.

Link to comment
Most cachers have the capacity to manage the mild disappointment of a damp log without leaving the game in a huff.
Yeah, the first cache I ever found was damp inside, and most of the trade items had been ruined by moisture or mildew.

 

And now, more than ten years later, here I am...

Link to comment

This is a community issue, not a Groundspeak issue.

+1

 

The problem is most Cachers won’t post a Needs Archived, so the process stalls.

If a cacher isn't willing to participate in helping identify problem caches, then why should they expect other people (whether other cachers or volunteers or Lackeys) to do it for them? I've seen this in other real world scenarios as well. People complain about things, but they aren't willing to participate in fixing the problem.

 

Those that don't want to use NMs and especially NAs never change their minds. I have yet to see a reluctant OP that wants GS to address the problem, change their mind and agree to post NAs.

Then too bad for those OP's. If all of the reluctant OP's that complain end up cancelling their premium membership, then I don't think it will have much of an effect on GS's financials. The number is just so small.

Link to comment
Most cachers have the capacity to manage the mild disappointment of a damp log without leaving the game in a huff.
Yeah, the first cache I ever found was damp inside, and most of the trade items had been ruined by moisture or mildew.

 

And now, more than ten years later, here I am...

 

Honestly, most of the caches I consider true favourites were criminally neglected old caches that involved very long hikes, a canoe excursion, and/or puzzle sleuthing. When I first started, it was common to find caches made out of ABS pipe. They were moldy and slimy and smelly. We fondly named them after a local cacher who hid many of them. Those containers are rare now, and even though they're kind of gross, when I find one it's usually in a great spot, and it reminds me of those early days.

 

I've been playing the game for more than a decade. I met my husband playing this game. I still manage to genuinely enjoy 90% or more of the caches I find, even though a perfect cache is rare.

 

A cache can "need maintenance" and still be a good - or great - cache. Finding a good geocache is an experience with many elements, and it is really sad to hear that some people are so bothered by one particular shortcoming that they can't enjoy the cache at all. I don't think that has anything to do with cache maintenance. It's a matter of attitude.

 

When I report maintenance issues with caches, it's usually with the genuine hope that the owner will fix it, either so I can find the darn thing myself, or so it can live on for others to enjoy. I wish that more people would use these features in a collaborative way instead of treating cache owners like jerks who have intentionally set out to ruin someone's day. I don't think there is any hope of improving the game by finding new ways to antagonize cache owners for minor sins.

Link to comment

Can I add that as a newbie I have certainly not been put off by a few wet logs, and I have found some real junk Caches. I have also encountered my fair share of needles, broken glass, fly-tipping and dog poo. I also once opened a key box to be confronted with a dead fish. Remote locations selected by COs are often the same remote places frequented by less discerning members of society. None of this has put me off and I have always logged DNFs, NMs and NAs where appropriate, despite once being blanked by a local CO when I did NA one of their Caches. My good experiences have far outweighed the bad ones, and I am tough enough to deal with such things. However, being aware that there are dangers makes it even more important that I thoroughly assess Caches before taking my toddler GDaughter Geocaching. Although not the point I am making, there is a definite link between Orphan Caches and increased dangers; a conscientious CO might well spot some new hazard and take appropriate action, an absent CO is never likely to. Also, if I post an NM regarding needles, I would expect an active CO to take immediate action even it meant temporarily disabling the Cache. Again, this would not happen with Orphan Caches.

 

No, my point is simply that we all know there are Caches out there which do not have an active CO, and this can't be acceptable under GS rules. Also, I have to fathom out which COs are not active by looking at the date they last visited the site, the date of their last log, their status, which seems inconsistent, and their archived Caches to confirm they are not responding to NMs and NAs. I don't mind putting in the leg work but GS could make it easier and help to improve our overall experience. There was mention of a complicated algorithm used by Reviewers. Why couldn't GS use something like that to produce a CO rating which could be right up there on the Cache page alongside Favourites etc., and also be used to filter out Caches with a low CO rating? Such a system works well for sellers on eBay and people work hard to maintain their high rating.

 

There are Caches near where I live which have survived several years without a CO, apparently. They are in good condition with dry logs, possibly as a result of a Throwdown or replacement log. The description, terrain etc. Is often out of date, otherwise no problem. Yet this can't be acceptable under GS rules and may put Cachers at risk for reasons given above. The trouble is, whilst Cachers may be prepared to post NMs and NAs for damaged, missing or wet Caches, they are unlikely to post an NM because they suspect the CO has gone walkabout. Until the Orphan Cache finally starts to fall apart, it will continue for years.

Link to comment

Some random thoughts:

• if a cache can be found and is in a fairly good condition, the game still works. If the condition gets worse or the cache can't be found anymore, there are mechanisms like DNF, NM and NA

• the last login date doesn't tell access by API (apps or programs other than direct web access). So a user can be pretty active even if having an old "last access" date.

• beeing a cop is not a bad thing. Some of my friends are cops. Wouldn't take that as an insult... :)

 

All in all I think users should be encouraged to take care. As cache owners and as cache searchers. I agree with the "community viewpoint" and would vote for minimal regulation by Groundspeak. It's primarly our game, not theirs. Using the power of DNF, NM and NA without hassle and without being shot for the message would be a good thing.

Link to comment
No, my point is simply that we all know there are Caches out there which do not have an active CO, and this can't be acceptable under GS rules. Also, I have to fathom out which COs are not active by looking at the date they last visited the site, the date of their last log, their status, which seems inconsistent, and their archived Caches to confirm they are not responding to NMs and NAs. I don't mind putting in the leg work but GS could make it easier and help to improve our overall experience. There was mention of a complicated algorithm used by Reviewers. Why couldn't GS use something like that to produce a CO rating which could be right up there on the Cache page alongside Favourites etc., and also be used to filter out Caches with a low CO rating? Such a system works well for sellers on eBay and people work hard to maintain their high rating

 

An abandoned cache that has no issues will generally be left alone by Groundspeak. If it is in fine shape then there is no good reason to archive it. Though Groundspeak periodically sends out e-mails to deliquent cache owners and reviewers do make sweeps of caches with problems, it really is up to the community to start the process. If the cache is in poor shape, people need to log NMs. Many are hesitant to do so. If you find a cache in poor shape and there are already unaddressed NMs, then logging a NA is acceptable. NAs go directly to each reviewer and should be acted on eventually. Reviewers don't get NM logs, but they sometimes do look for caches with these and will give the CO time to repair the cache, and if it isn't done, the cache is archived. This is something that they do when they have the time. There are also reviewers who specialize in this task and will be invited in by local reviewers to identify caches with issues.

 

Bottom line is that Groundspeak does try to address the issue of abandoned caches in poor condition. However it's like the old game of Groundhog. Knock one off and more pop up. I'm currently sweeping a large state and there are over a thousand caches with NMs. I have to look at each one, determine what the issue is, then take the appropriate action (or not if it warrants). It is time consuming. You can help your local reviewer by logging NAs and NMs as the cache condition warrants.

 

Your suggestion about rating cache owners has some merit and some downsides. Why not suggest it over here and see what the community thinks about it.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Why couldn't GS use something like that to produce a CO rating which could be right up there on the Cache page alongside Favourites etc., and also be used to filter out Caches with a low CO rating? Such a system works well for sellers on eBay and people work hard to maintain their high rating.

 

Another solution that involves needless antagonism of cache owners.

 

Geocaching isn't eBay. You're not giving a cache owner money and hoping they'll ship you a Precious Moments figurine in its original packaging.

 

It seems like the solution that would make everyone happiest is for cache owners to stop placing caches entirely. No room for mistakes there.

Link to comment

I think part of the issue is that newer caches are being initiated into the game in a way that doesn't encourage them to take responsibility. We see so many newer caches who have no idea that there are things they can do to act on poorly maintained caches.

 

I just cringe at these excessively complex solutions that are based on aggressive antagonism of cache owners.

 

The app isn't helping matters any!

 

I sort of like the idea of a CO rating system but I feel it would be hard to accurately implement. It would need a number of metrics, such as how often the CO's post maintenance logs on there caches, how active they are, response time to NM's and NA's. I'm sure it could be done. Project-GC has the whole Cache Karma thing which is semi-useful I suppose.

Link to comment

I think part of the issue is that newer caches are being initiated into the game in a way that doesn't encourage them to take responsibility. We see so many newer caches who have no idea that there are things they can do to act on poorly maintained caches.

 

I just cringe at these excessively complex solutions that are based on aggressive antagonism of cache owners.

 

The app isn't helping matters any!

 

I sort of like the idea of a CO rating system but I feel it would be hard to accurately implement. It would need a number of metrics, such as how often the CO's post maintenance logs on there caches, how active they are, response time to NM's and NA's. I'm sure it could be done. Project-GC has the whole Cache Karma thing which is semi-useful I suppose.

 

I am sure it could be done. I don't think it has any value.

 

I would ignore such a thing, both as a cacher and a cache owner. Most cachers just aren't that discriminating about the caches they seek. The number of cachers who would look at a cache owner rating and skip a cache because of it would be quite low.

 

If it did actually lower traffic on caches I'd be inclined to artificially torpedo my rating for that purpose. Much easier to maintain a cache that gets 5 visits a year.

Link to comment
If it did actually lower traffic on caches I'd be inclined to artificially torpedo my rating for that purpose. Much easier to maintain a cache that gets 5 visits a year.

 

If the goal were to lower traffic there is always the archive button for that purpose. Much easier to maintain a cache with zero visits per year.

🤔

Link to comment

I think part of the issue is that newer caches are being initiated into the game in a way that doesn't encourage them to take responsibility. We see so many newer caches who have no idea that there are things they can do to act on poorly maintained caches.

 

I just cringe at these excessively complex solutions that are based on aggressive antagonism of cache owners.

 

The app isn't helping matters any!

 

I sort of like the idea of a CO rating system but I feel it would be hard to accurately implement. It would need a number of metrics, such as how often the CO's post maintenance logs on there caches, how active they are, response time to NM's and NA's. I'm sure it could be done. Project-GC has the whole Cache Karma thing which is semi-useful I suppose.

 

I would use a cache owner rating. Occasionally I'll stumble on a couple of good quality well maintained caches by the same owner. I'll then check their account to see what else they've hidden (I wish the app had a link to the CO's other cache hides). I'll even go back, plan a caching vacation to the area if they are a distance away. But I have to stumble upon quality owners, there's no good way of filtering for them.

 

Then again, knowing the caching community, if there's a way to abuse a system they will. Some delinquent but active COs will probably log OMs even though they never go back to fix their cache, will encourage throwdowns and then post OMs without checking the throwdown. Finders who post NMs will be even more berated.

Link to comment
If it did actually lower traffic on caches I'd be inclined to artificially torpedo my rating for that purpose. Much easier to maintain a cache that gets 5 visits a year.

 

If the goal were to lower traffic there is always the archive button for that purpose. Much easier to maintain a cache with zero visits per year.

🤔

 

Yes, that is an option if soneone wants no traffic, but not really relevant to the topic of owner ratings.

Link to comment

I think part of the issue is that newer caches are being initiated into the game in a way that doesn't encourage them to take responsibility. We see so many newer caches who have no idea that there are things they can do to act on poorly maintained caches.

 

I just cringe at these excessively complex solutions that are based on aggressive antagonism of cache owners.

 

The app isn't helping matters any!

 

I sort of like the idea of a CO rating system but I feel it would be hard to accurately implement. It would need a number of metrics, such as how often the CO's post maintenance logs on there caches, how active they are, response time to NM's and NA's. I'm sure it could be done. Project-GC has the whole Cache Karma thing which is semi-useful I suppose.

 

I would use a cache owner rating. Occasionally I'll stumble on a couple of good quality well maintained caches by the same owner. I'll then check their account to see what else they've hidden (I wish the app had a link to the CO's other cache hides). I'll even go back, plan a caching vacation to the area if they are a distance away. But I have to stumble upon quality owners, there's no good way of filtering for them.

 

Then again, knowing the caching community, if there's a way to abuse a system they will. Some delinquent but active COs will probably log OMs even though they never go back to fix their cache, will encourage throwdowns and then post OMs without checking the throwdown. Finders who post NMs will be even more berated.

 

Yes, the owner rating might be handy for a particular subset of geocachers, but I don't think we should create an adversarial, unforgiving, and punitive rating system to appease the very fussiest cachers who choose to see cache owners as relentless jerks, and have no sense of gratitude for their contribution to the game.

Edited by narcissa
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...