Archived cache logged 14 years later

[+Team DEMP]

https://www.geocachi...ache/GC6D_g32-1 is an old cache that was archived in 2002. Over the summer of 2016, 14 years after archived, 2 different cachers log as found on 2 different dates.

 

What are the constraints the site/application applies to archived caches?

 

I wasn't looking for a problem but instead, looking at a friends oldest finds and noticed these 2 wonky logs. I then looked at the profile of one of the cachers [edited to remove a cacher's direct profile link] and it looks like they likely falsely logged a mega event in NJ which I attended yesterday. I'm saying it's likely falsely logged because who would travel from Arizona to NJ and not log anything else other then the event. There were dozens of no-brainer caches in the immediate area to log in addition to the event.

 

Though I can't understand the point, I don't care about others and the validity of their finds, but it seems like these old caches are being tainted when the system might be able to prevent this false logging.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Team DEMP

[+cerberus1]

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6D_g32-1 is an old cache that was archived in 2002. Over the summer of 2016, 14 years after archived, 2 different cachers log as found on 2 different dates.

 

What are the constraints the site/application applies to archived caches?

 

I wasn't looking for a problem but instead, looking at a friends oldest finds and noticed these 2 wonky logs. I then looked at the profile of one of the cachers who has https://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=26079151-ded6-496d-9a56-ec1588066660 and it looks like they likely falsely logged a mega event in NJ which I attended yesterday. I'm saying it's likely falsely logged because who would travel from Arizona to NJ and not log anything else other then the event. There were dozens of no-brainer caches in the immediate area to log in addition to the event.

Though I can't understand the point, I don't care about others and the validity of their finds, but it seems like these old caches are being tainted when the system might be able to prevent this false logging.

I personally know one, and they travel between PA & AZ regularly.

A simple profile search would have shown you they also own caches in a few States, but mostly in PA and AZ...

Do you know whether or not they already did the surrounding caches?

[+Team DEMP]

I personally know one, and they travel between PA & AZ regularly.

A simple profile search would have shown you they also own caches in a few States, but mostly in PA and AZ...

Do you know whether or not they already did the surrounding caches?

There's at least 1 cache 110ft from the event that is unfound by the person that logged just the event yesterday. Still doesn't address the main point - logging an old cache 14 years after it is archived. Maybe you can check with your friend on that.

 

My main question was what site constraints are implemented on archived caches to prevent what would seem to be bogus logging. I understand people might want not immediately log a cache, but I would have thought there would be some specific timeframe in which any further updates to the cache would be blocked.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Team DEMP

[+cerberus1]

My main question was what site constraints are implemented on archived caches to prevent what would seem to be bogus logging. I understand people might want not immediately log a cache, but I would have thought there would be some specific timeframe in which any further updates to the cache would be blocked.

We've seen caches blocked when it's been shown folks are abusing the system ( often with an inactive owner).

 

We know many cachers with kids, some caching well over a dozen years.

At what age do you think these kids should split from their family account (if they'd wish)?

Shouldn't they be allowed to log the ones done with family, on this family-friendly site?

Almost half our finds are archived, I'd expect many of theirs would be too.

[+Team DEMP]

My main question was what site constraints are implemented on archived caches to prevent what would seem to be bogus logging. I understand people might want not immediately log a cache, but I would have thought there would be some specific timeframe in which any further updates to the cache would be blocked.

We've seen caches blocked when it's been shown folks are abusing the system ( often with an inactive owner).

 

We know many cachers with kids, some caching well over a dozen years.

At what age do you think these kids should split from their family account (if they'd wish)?

Shouldn't they be allowed to log the ones done with family, on this family-friendly site?

Almost half our finds are archived, I'd expect many of theirs would be too.

The site could provide a clone option that allows one cacher's finds to be used to create another users finds with both being authenticated/logged in. There could be functionality to allow a limited number of exception cases, one of which you referenced. I was wondering if anything is in place, and if so, what limits were placed on an archived cache. It seems more meaningful to have the accuracy, as best as possible, for the data within the system. If it was not yet archived, that responsibility could be considered that of the cache owner. Once archived, it seems the responsibility moves away from the cache owner.

 

Not sure if there's a trick, but you can' log other disabled/discontinued caches such as https://www.geocachi...5_radio-k-a-o-s . Your child couldn't now log that cache if split from you and wanted to re-log all the families finds.

Edited October 30, 2016 by Team DEMP

[Keystone]

To the extent that the original post was reporting a website bug or making a feature suggestion, that intent is muddied by the primary focus of the post on an example of logging habits which the OP found questionable. Moving thread to the Geocaching Topics forum to join its brother and sister threads on logging habits.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Well, the website bug is that long archived caches are not locked. This one has been missing for fourteen years!

And I think that the guidelines on the fora are that the cacher should not be called out by name. Just the situation.

It is possible that the cacher in question entered the wrong cache code. I even did that once and had to get a lackey to remove the souvenir for Bremen.

The mega-event is an entirely different question... Probably not done in error.

[+mlplatt]

I usually like to keep my nose out of other cachers logging habits. But I have to call bogus on the mega logging. I was also there yesterday and I say no one would fly in for the mega and not do some, if not all ten lab caches they had set up. One using water guns about 50 ft. from the logbook.

[+narcissa]

I usually like to keep my nose out of other cachers logging habits. But I have to call bogus on the mega logging. I was also there yesterday and I say no one would fly in for the mega and not do some, if not all ten lab caches they had set up. One using water guns about 50 ft. from the logbook.

 

Some cachers choose not to log lab caches because they behave strangely in statistics.

[+cerberus1]

I usually like to keep my nose out of other cachers logging habits. But I have to call bogus on the mega logging. I was also there yesterday and I say no one would fly in for the mega and not do some, if not all ten lab caches they had set up. One using water guns about 50 ft. from the logbook.

Some cachers choose not to log lab caches because they behave strangely in statistics.

+1

Or (like us) simply don't care for that sorta-cache type.

We've passed on quite a few already-found moving caches brought to events too.

[+Team DEMP]

Lets focus on the main concern - a cache archived 14 years earlier. What can be done to prevent inappropriate or accidental logging of an archived cache?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Lets focus on the main concern - a cache archived 14 years earlier. What can be done to prevent inappropriate or accidental logging of an archived cache?

 

The appropriate decision would be for Groundspeak to lock caches that have been archived for a certain number of years. Perhaps five years? I notice a cacher who is logging all the Virtual Caches in some state. Whether they've beeen archived. Whether the reason for the Virtual has been destroyed/removed or not. This is why this thread should be in the website discussion area. But I will not call out that cacher by user name.

[+Minyakano]

When I first started geocaching with the then girlfriend, We found a few premium caches. I simply kept a list of all those I'd found with her, and then, years later, Once I upgraded to Premium, went back and logged those caches, even though some had since been archived.

 

Could these people simply be doing something similar?

[+narcissa]

Lets focus on the main concern - a cache archived 14 years earlier. What can be done to prevent inappropriate or accidental logging of an archived cache?

 

If someone inappropriately logs your archived cache, delete the log.

 

If someone logs someone else's archived cache, it's up to the owner to determine whether or not the log is inappropriate.

 

If you very strongly believe that abuse is occurring somewhere on the site, report it to Groundspeak and move on.

[+narcissa]

When I first started geocaching with the then girlfriend, We found a few premium caches. I simply kept a list of all those I'd found with her, and then, years later, Once I upgraded to Premium, went back and logged those caches, even though some had since been archived.

 

Could these people simply be doing something similar?

 

There are all sorts of legitimate, honest reasons for logging archived caches. It's also possible it was a mistake.

 

It certainly doesn't warrant a name-and-shame forum post.

[+Team DEMP]

 

If someone inappropriately logs your archived cache, delete the log.

 

If someone logs someone else's archived cache, it's up to the owner to determine whether or not the log is inappropriate.

 

If you very strongly believe that abuse is occurring somewhere on the site, report it to Groundspeak and move on.

 

Please re-read my posts. An archived cache could be because there cache owner is no longer active so relying on the owner isn't valid once the cache is archived. I've specifically addressed this above.

 

This discussion isn't about any 1 log or cache but about an approach to deal with this common situation across the site.

[+narcissa]

 

If someone inappropriately logs your archived cache, delete the log.

 

If someone logs someone else's archived cache, it's up to the owner to determine whether or not the log is inappropriate.

 

If you very strongly believe that abuse is occurring somewhere on the site, report it to Groundspeak and move on.

 

Please re-read my posts. An archived cache could be because there cache owner is no longer active so relying on the owner isn't valid once the cache is archived. I've specifically addressed this above.

 

This discussion isn't about any 1 log or cache but about an approach to deal with this common situation across the site.

 

Here's how to deal with this uncommon and inconsequential issue.

 

If someone inappropriately logs your archived cache, delete the log.

 

If someone logs someone else's archived cache, it's up to the owner to determine whether or not the log is inappropriate.

 

If you very strongly believe that abuse is occurring somewhere on the site, report it to Groundspeak and move on.

[+Team DEMP]

[There are all sorts of legitimate, honest reasons for logging archived caches. It's also possible it was a mistake.

 

It certainly doesn't warrant a name-and-shame forum post.

Over 3 hours before you posted, the link to a cachers profile page was removed from the original post. It would only take someone 10 seconds to determine the cacher based on the archived cache. Regardless, this isn't about the individual but what appears to be site functionality that could curb the situation.

 

Please post valid reasons to log a brand new find on a cache that was archived over 14 years earlier. I posted above an archived cache that cannot be logged so why not apply a consistent approach across the site.

[+Touchstone]

At this point in time, the only way to prevent such accidental/intentional logging practices is to Lock the Listing. This is usually done by Groundspeak or by a Reviewer. It's usually an action of last resort, and I'm not sure your example rises to the level of concern that would get the attention of Groundspeak or a Reviewer.

 

As far as the "valid reasons" question, it was alluded to earlier, but the obvious one is when a shared account is split (usually family members want their own account), so conceivably, if someone has been caching that long with a partner, and decided to split off on their own, and had signed the original logbook/sheet, then they would have a legitimate claim to logging the Listing some years later.

 

Seriously, you've been around since 2003 and you haven't encountered this sort of thing before?

[+narcissa]

[There are all sorts of legitimate, honest reasons for logging archived caches. It's also possible it was a mistake.

 

It certainly doesn't warrant a name-and-shame forum post.

Over 3 hours before you posted, the link to a cachers profile page was removed from the original post. It would only take someone 10 seconds to determine the cacher based on the archived cache. Regardless, this isn't about the individual but what appears to be site functionality that could curb the situation.

 

Please post valid reasons to log a brand new find on a cache that was archived over 14 years earlier. I posted above an archived cache that cannot be logged so why not apply a consistent approach across the site.

 

Yes, linking to the specific cache still constitutes name-and-shame. You've needlessly accused these fellow geocachers of wrongdoing on someone else's cache.

 

If it's your cache, delete the log. If it's not your cache, you should probably stay in your lane.

 

No need to invent a complicated, punitive "approach" to a non-problem. The consistent approach is to assume that most geocachers are behaving honestly, and deal with actual issues on an individual basis.

 

Archived caches are occasionally locked due to abuse. They aren't locked automatically because abuse isn't actually that common and it isn't actually that problematic. Your subjective perception that somebody else's cache is "tainted" by a log you don't like is not important.

 

These logs certainly do not warrant the creepy forensic investigation of their profiles and logs. I really hope these poor geocachers don't end up being harangued by other site users because of this careless forum post.

Edited October 31, 2016 by narcissa

[+Team DEMP]

Seriously, you've been around since 2003 and you haven't encountered this sort of thing before?

 

I don't typically look at old archived caches. Your comment though seems to contradict other posts and even your own - if it's so common that you'd expect everyone knows and should just sweep it under there rug, why not discuss a solution? It's very possible to address this site behavior which would help the data be more accurate and prevent errors/mistakes with someone logging the wrong cache, so what's the downside?

 

Besides the 1 and so far only 1 reason given that someone might want to possibly recreate their own finds under a new account which I addressed above, what are other valid reasons to log a find on a cache 14 years after it's archived?

 

Because nothing had been done in the past doesn't mean the current situation is optimal. How long did it take for the site to allow corrected coordinates on all caches? Just because some folks might not have saw a need or considered the benefit doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed and considered.

[Keystone]

Besides the 1 and so far only 1 reason given that someone might want to possibly recreate their own finds under a new account which I addressed above, what are other valid reasons to log a find on a cache 14 years after it's archived?

Ummm, because they found it?

 

Read the prior logs on the cache. ALL of them. Note that a muggle found the cache and the next finder found it in disarray. They gathered up what they could, MINUS the logbook, and hid the remains at the alternate coordinates provided in their log. Then the owner posts to say they found some cache bits, INCLUDING the log, and removed them. It's entirely possible that the other half of the cache remained in place.

 

You do know that some geocachers make it a side game to seek out old, archived caches and log finds if they are in place?

[+narcissa]

Seriously, you've been around since 2003 and you haven't encountered this sort of thing before?

 

I don't typically look at old archived caches. Your comment though seems to contradict other posts and even your own - if it's so common that you'd expect everyone knows and should just sweep it under there rug, why not discuss a solution? It's very possible to address this site behavior which would help the data be more accurate and prevent errors/mistakes with someone logging the wrong cache, so what's the downside?

 

Besides the 1 and so far only 1 reason given that someone might want to possibly recreate their own finds under a new account which I addressed above, what are other valid reasons to log a find on a cache 14 years after it's archived?

 

Because nothing had been done in the past doesn't mean the current situation is optimal. How long did it take for the site to allow corrected coordinates on all caches? Just because some folks might not have saw a need or considered the benefit doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed and considered.

 

Legitimate logs on old caches are common and not a problem.

 

Cachers are not obligated to prove/validate/justify logs to anyone other than the cache owner.

 

Some people create new accounts. Some people are behind on logging. Some people make mistakes and realize a long time after that they forgot to log a cache. Sometimes, a cache owner gives someone permission to log a find for some reason that's nobody else's business. Sometimes the cache is still out there.

 

When caches are locked, all of these people are unable to log the cache at all. In a community-based game that largely operates on trust, it's better, philosophically, to assume the best of people and treat occasional issues as they occur. Treating everyone badly and operating from a position of mistrust is a poor way to run things.

Edited October 31, 2016 by narcissa

[+BlackRose67]

Lets focus on the main concern - a cache archived 14 years earlier. What can be done to prevent inappropriate or accidental logging of an archived cache?

If the cache was archived and the container was never retrieved, and if the cache truly is still in place, it's fair game.

[+fbingha]

Besides the 1 and so far only 1 reason given that someone might want to possibly recreate their own finds under a new account which I addressed above, what are other valid reasons to log a find on a cache 14 years after it's archived?

You do know that some geocachers make it a side game to seek out old, archived caches and log finds if they are in place?

 

^^^This. I've used Project-GC to look at every archived cache in my area, back to the beginning. Any cache that I thought had the potential to still be out there, I went and looked for it. I only found a couple and they were at most 2 or 3 years archived but it is highly likely that there are 14 year old archived caches still sitting out there somewhere.

[+justintim1999]

Besides the 1 and so far only 1 reason given that someone might want to possibly recreate their own finds under a new account which I addressed above, what are other valid reasons to log a find on a cache 14 years after it's archived?

Ummm, because they found it?

 

Read the prior logs on the cache. ALL of them. Note that a muggle found the cache and the next finder found it in disarray. They gathered up what they could, MINUS the logbook, and hid the remains at the alternate coordinates provided in their log. Then the owner posts to say they found some cache bits, INCLUDING the log, and removed them. It's entirely possible that the other half of the cache remained in place.

 

You do know that some geocachers make it a side game to seek out old, archived caches and log finds if they are in place?

 

How do you find a cache that's not suppose to be there? If your allowing an actual find on an archived cache than your condoning the practice of not picking up the container when archived.

 

Are the rules of the game so widely abused we can make a side game out of them.

[+narcissa]

Let's try to stay away from the silly and offensive notion that a geocache is only legitimate when it has an active listing on Geocaching.com.

[+justintim1999]

Considering I believe that caches listed on geoacahing.com shouldn't be listed on other sites, the comment isn't silly at all.

[+narcissa]

Considering I believe that caches listed on geoacahing.com shouldn't be listed on other sites, the comment isn't silly at all.

 

Even if Groundspeak ever decided to impose such a heinous and unnecessary restriction on its members, a cache archived on Geocaching.com would then be fair game for another site. And, staying on topic, there is no need to prevent people from writing legitimate logs in caches that are archived (and no reason to treat all others in such a ghastly manner as to assume their logs are not legitimate).

[+justintim1999]

Considering I believe that caches listed on geoacahing.com shouldn't be listed on other sites, the comment isn't silly at all.

 

Even if Groundspeak ever decided to impose such a heinous and unnecessary restriction on its members, a cache archived on Geocaching.com would then be fair game for another site. And, staying on topic, there is no need to prevent people from writing legitimate logs in caches that are archived (and no reason to treat all others in such a ghastly manner as to assume their logs are not legitimate).

 

ghastly mannor? What are you talking about? Are you reading into things again?

 

Other than transferring history to a new account what other legitimate reason is there to log an archived cache that was suppose to be removed?

[+narcissa]

Considering I believe that caches listed on geoacahing.com shouldn't be listed on other sites, the comment isn't silly at all.

 

Even if Groundspeak ever decided to impose such a heinous and unnecessary restriction on its members, a cache archived on Geocaching.com would then be fair game for another site. And, staying on topic, there is no need to prevent people from writing legitimate logs in caches that are archived (and no reason to treat all others in such a ghastly manner as to assume their logs are not legitimate).

 

ghastly mannor? What are you talking about? Are you reading into things again?

 

Other than transferring history to a new account what other legitimate reason is there to log an archived cache that was suppose to be removed?

 

Cache removal is up to the owner and the land manager. Geocaching.com does not own caches. While they can gently suggest that unwanted caches be removed, they can't require it.

 

Many reasons for logging: splitting accounts, being behind on logging, forgetting to log, cache is still there, private arrangement with cache owner, and who knows what else.

 

Cachers are not required to justify or validate finds with anyone other than the cache owner. The suggested restrictions are needless and based on destructive impulses that are hurtful and not in keeping with the community and family-oriented spirit of the game.

[+Team DEMP]

I read the entire set of logs for the referenced cache and don't see anything that indicates any piece of the cache remained for someone to find 14 years later. The cache owner wrote the cache is gone and contacted Jeremy directly, who then archived the cache. So I'm not sure what anyone else is finding/logging since the person that attempted the cache shortly after it was gone/archived logged it was gone.

I also notice this morning that someone, and I don't expect the cache owner since the site reports they haven't visited for 2 years, modified the log entries on that page altering the "finds" to "notes". Kudos to whoever did that.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Team DEMP

[+Team DEMP]

Since the logic that someone could have a need to recreate all their finds, that's already not possible unless they never logged caches which the website already no longer allows to be logged. See above replies for existing references to caches which can no longer be logged. If the perceived purpose was to account for this situation, the websites functionality already disagrees.

 

A cache that is archived due to appropriate reasons by the gc.com rep that archived it is sometimes a cache where the owner is no longer active. The original posts referenced cache owner hasn't visited the site in 2 years. Continuously posting that it is the cache owners responsibility to maintain the web page log goes out the window when the owner no longer participates. The integrity of the data falls onto GC.com and why a consistent & automated approach seems a prudent approach.

 

The initial post asked a question - What are the constraints the site/application applies to archived caches?

It appears from various poking the constraints are currently different across cache types. It's also different constraints on the web site vs the mobile application. I haven't noticed a single reply which indicated someone felt an archived cache should immediately prevent a found log. Is 1 month enough? 1 year enough? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

 

I participate in other hobbies which have adapted over time. In one hobby, the rules used to allow you to send your results in up to 6 weeks after an event was completed and that's now been changed to 10 days based on how technology and the hobby itself has evolved. These changes came through discussions with the community participants like we're trying to discuss here. I'm sure there were folks that felt "I won't participate any longer if you change or you'll hurt someone so we shouldn't do it" but it was done and the hobby is better off, participation is up, etc.

 

So how about a meaningful discussion on the topic - what can the community suggest as options to consider regarding an approach to long time archived caches?

[+narcissa]

I read the entire set of logs for the referenced cache and don't see anything that indicates any piece of the cache remained for someone to find 14 years later. The cache owner wrote the cache is gone and contacted Jeremy directly, who then archived the cache. So I'm not sure what anyone else is finding/logging since the person that attempted the cache shortly after it was gone/archived logged it was gone.

I also notice this morning that someone, and I don't expect the cache owner since the site reports they haven't visited for 2 years, modified the log entries on that page altering the "finds" to "notes". Kudos to whoever did that.

 

It was likely the cachers themselves, and I would guess it was in response to harassment they've received from lurkers who were drawn to them based on your posts that needlessly and aggressively outed people for something that could have had many logical explanations.

[+narcissa]

So how about a meaningful discussion on the topic - what can the community suggest as options to consider regarding an approach to long time archived caches?

 

Why don't you start with a meaningful explanation of why this is a problem that actually needs a solution. At the moment, it appears to be nothing more than a personal pet peeve.

 

The easiest solution would be to stop auditing other people's profiles and looking for reasons to be bothered.

[+Team DEMP]

It was likely the cachers themselves, and I would guess it was in response to harassment they've received from lurkers who were drawn to them based on your posts that needlessly and aggressively outed people for something that could have had many logical explanations.

 

Why don't you start with a meaningful explanation of why this is a problem that actually needs a solution. At the moment, it appears to be nothing more than a personal pet peeve.

 

The easiest solution would be to stop auditing other people's profiles and looking for reasons to be bothered.

 

You seem to be angry and maybe should just ignore the thread as you can't seem to engage in a discussion on website functionality without considering it a personal attack, though your responses to me seem extremely personal.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Team DEMP

[+narcissa]

It was likely the cachers themselves, and I would guess it was in response to harassment they've received from lurkers who were drawn to them based on your posts that needlessly and aggressively outed people for something that could have had many logical explanations.

 

Why don't you start with a meaningful explanation of why this is a problem that actually needs a solution. At the moment, it appears to be nothing more than a personal pet peeve.

 

The easiest solution would be to stop auditing other people's profiles and looking for reasons to be bothered.

 

You seem to be angry and maybe should just ignore the thread as you can't seem to engage in a discussion on website functionality without considering it a personal attack, though your responses to me seem extremely personal.

 

Yes, when someone deliberately puts other geocachers at risk of harassment over something so petty, it's frustrating. The people actually facing personal attack are the ones who had their logs needlessly posted and criticized in the forum over something that is, at worst, a misunderstanding or a mistake.

[+Mudfrog]

It was likely the cachers themselves, and I would guess it was in response to harassment they've received from lurkers who were drawn to them based on your posts that needlessly and aggressively outed people for something that could have had many logical explanations.

 

Why don't you start with a meaningful explanation of why this is a problem that actually needs a solution. At the moment, it appears to be nothing more than a personal pet peeve.

 

The easiest solution would be to stop auditing other people's profiles and looking for reasons to be bothered.

 

You seem to be angry and maybe should just ignore the thread as you can't seem to engage in a discussion on website functionality without considering it a personal attack, though your responses to me seem extremely personal.

 

Yes, when someone deliberately puts other geocachers at risk of harassment over something so petty, it's frustrating. The people actually facing personal attack are the ones who had their logs needlessly posted and criticized in the forum over something that is, at worst, a misunderstanding or a mistake.

 

Well, if people do wrong, then, imo, they're fair game to being called out. I have not looked at the cache page but from reading here, it sounds as though those few loggers knew they did wrong, got caught, and then corrected their logs. For a change, it looks like right triumphed over wrong.

 

I know, i know, this is just a game for most, hobby for some. Even so, and i know this is a crazy thought, honesty and integrity should come into play. There's not a whole lot that honest people can do to alleviate the goofiness but one thing we should NOT do is condone it.

[cezanne]

So how about a meaningful discussion on the topic - what can the community suggest as options to consider regarding an approach to long time archived caches?

 

Leave it the way it is right now. The cache owner can ask for an archived cache to become locked and Groundspeak can do it too in cases where the situation warrants it.

 

A found it log just reports that someone has found a cache. There are many cases not yet mentioned where such logs make sense. For example, some caches get archived as the owner cannot them and

later it turns out that the cache has been there.

 

Also it can happen that someone deliberately archives a cache at gc.com (for example to make room for a new cache) and still allow logs for the archived cache (e.g. it could be the bonus cache for a

very challenging series or the final of a very challenging puzzle cache that received only 2 logs in several years). There are no strict rules about that and I see no reason for strict rules when it does

not involve an unwanted cache (unwanted by GS, the land manager, locals etc).

 

With rules like you have to log within 10 days, you would make many dedicated cachers in my area move out of geocaching without winning anything with the exception of making cachers like you happy.

[+narcissa]

It was likely the cachers themselves, and I would guess it was in response to harassment they've received from lurkers who were drawn to them based on your posts that needlessly and aggressively outed people for something that could have had many logical explanations.

 

Why don't you start with a meaningful explanation of why this is a problem that actually needs a solution. At the moment, it appears to be nothing more than a personal pet peeve.

 

The easiest solution would be to stop auditing other people's profiles and looking for reasons to be bothered.

 

You seem to be angry and maybe should just ignore the thread as you can't seem to engage in a discussion on website functionality without considering it a personal attack, though your responses to me seem extremely personal.

 

Yes, when someone deliberately puts other geocachers at risk of harassment over something so petty, it's frustrating. The people actually facing personal attack are the ones who had their logs needlessly posted and criticized in the forum over something that is, at worst, a misunderstanding or a mistake.

 

Well, if people do wrong, then, imo, they're fair game to being called out. I have not looked at the cache page but from reading here, it sounds as though those few loggers knew they did wrong, got caught, and then corrected their logs. For a change, it looks like right triumphed over wrong.

 

I know, i know, this is just a game for most, hobby for some. Even so, and i know this is a crazy thought, honesty and integrity should come into play. There's not a whole lot that honest people can do to alleviate the goofiness but one thing we should NOT do is condone it.

 

If they were "wrong," the correct course of action is to let the cache owner maintain her own cache, or, if it's something really irksome and you just can't let it go, contact Groundspeak directly to deal with it. This name-and-shame nonsense in the forum, deliberately inviting people to directly harass other geocachers, is far more "wrong" than logging an archived cache.

 

It's extremely hypocritical to go on about "honesty and integrity," while asking for the system to be re-designed to assume dishonesty and wrongdoing. For me, a big part of practicing honesty and integrity means assuming that most other geocachers are honest people who deserve the benefit of the doubt. Hanging people up to dry over a petty logging issue - on someone else's cache, no less - is not honest and does not demonstrate any kind of integrity. It's just malicious.

[+niraD]

With rules like you have to log within 10 days, you would make many dedicated cachers in my area move out of geocaching without winning anything with the exception of making cachers like you happy.

Yeah, 10 days would be completely unworkable. If I'm offline camping for a week, that would give me only 3 days after I return to log the caches I found at the beginning of my trip. When I return from a week of camping, I have much more important things to take care of than my online geocaching logs.

[+hzoi]

The initial post asked a question - What are the constraints the site/application applies to archived caches?

It appears from various poking the constraints are currently different across cache types. It's also different constraints on the web site vs the mobile application. I haven't noticed a single reply which indicated someone felt an archived cache should immediately prevent a found log. Is 1 month enough? 1 year enough? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

...

So how about a meaningful discussion on the topic - what can the community suggest as options to consider regarding an approach to long time archived caches?

From my experience, the default setting is that archived caches are archived but not locked. A reviewer or Groundspeak lackey can lock a listing, I've seen listings locked either at the owner's request or sua sponte.

 

The exception appears to be locationless caches, which were apparently locked when that cache type was archived en masse at the end of 2006. I don't believe anyone was allowed to log a locationless cache on or after January 1, 2007.

 

As far as when a lackey or reviewer will lock a listing even absent a cache owner's request, it seems to come down to whether the listing is being, or has the potential to be, abused. Webcams are an increasingly rare cache type, and desperate cachers who really "need" that webcam find have been known to keep logging finds with selfies even when the webcam link has gone deader than disco. So I see more locked archived webcams these days.

 

I don't think there needs to be a hard and fast rule, because archived caches can still be out there. I've found a couple myself.

 

One was archived by the owner after muggles took it, but the muggles apparently put it back later. I happened across the container two years after it had been archived, so I signed the log, and logged my find. The cache owner ended up getting the cache unarchived, and it is still around today, 8 years after I found it.

 

Another was archived by Groundspeak because it was hidden along the Appalachian Trail. Somehow it had survived the initial Park Service purge, even though it was hidden in Shenandoah NP, but the Park Service saw the listing was still around in 2008 and wanted it gone. The cache owner hadn't been around for a few years and apparently didn't bother to pick up the cache container, as it was still getting found and logged. I went out a year after the cache was archived, found it, signed the log, and then removed the cache.

 

I know that fake logs happen on archived caches, but it's far from common. I think instituting some automatic policy is a solution in search of a problem.

[+dprovan]

Well, if people do wrong, then, imo, they're fair game to being called out.

How ghastly to call claiming a fake find "wrong". Even if I stipulate the most outrageously unjustifiable motive for claiming this find, the action still only ranks as high as "silly". It certainly doesn't rate calling out a posse.

 

I have not looked at the cache page but from reading here, it sounds as though those few loggers knew they did wrong, got caught, and then corrected their logs.

More likely they made a mistake, or they had a legitimate find, but it wasn't that important to them, so when someone complained, they just withdrew the claim instead of fighting about it. If they thought they were wrong and got caught, wouldn't they'd just delete their logs instead of changing the log type but leaving the logs there for all to see?

 

Anyway, to go back to the topic: there are valid reasons for filing logs against archived caches, including finds. Not only is there no time limit to that possibility, the longer the time after archival, the more interesting the log is likely to be. Invalid finds are stupid, but they can happen on active and archived caches alike. As dumb as invalid finds are, they don't hurt anyone, and it's vanishingly unlikely they'd even mislead someone on an archived cache. So I see no justification for blocking the possibility of legitimate logs just because you're worried about this one tiny, insignificant problem.

[+qtbluemoon]

Since the logic that someone could have a need to recreate all their finds, that's already not possible unless they never logged caches which the website already no longer allows to be logged. See above replies for existing references to caches which can no longer be logged. If the perceived purpose was to account for this situation, the websites functionality already disagrees.

 

A cache that is archived due to appropriate reasons by the gc.com rep that archived it is sometimes a cache where the owner is no longer active. The original posts referenced cache owner hasn't visited the site in 2 years. Continuously posting that it is the cache owners responsibility to maintain the web page log goes out the window when the owner no longer participates. The integrity of the data falls onto GC.com and why a consistent & automated approach seems a prudent approach.

 

The initial post asked a question - What are the constraints the site/application applies to archived caches?

It appears from various poking the constraints are currently different across cache types. It's also different constraints on the web site vs the mobile application. I haven't noticed a single reply which indicated someone felt an archived cache should immediately prevent a found log. Is 1 month enough? 1 year enough? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

 

I participate in other hobbies which have adapted over time. In one hobby, the rules used to allow you to send your results in up to 6 weeks after an event was completed and that's now been changed to 10 days based on how technology and the hobby itself has evolved. These changes came through discussions with the community participants like we're trying to discuss here. I'm sure there were folks that felt "I won't participate any longer if you change or you'll hurt someone so we shouldn't do it" but it was done and the hobby is better off, participation is up, etc.

 

So how about a meaningful discussion on the topic - what can the community suggest as options to consider regarding an approach to long time archived caches?

I'm still in the middle of this thread, but I have to just say here - What difference does all this really make?

Edited October 31, 2016 by qtbluemoon

[+Team DEMP]

I'm still in the middle of this thread, but I have to just say here - What difference does all this really make?

 

Why have any status?

Why display a message on an archived cache page that says "This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes"?

 

Why show who found the cache to everyone and instead just show the cache owner who found it?

Why disallow logging of archived locationless caches yet allow logging of archived virtuals and other cache types?

 

 

 

[+Mudfrog]

Well, if people do wrong, then, imo, they're fair game to being called out.

How ghastly to call claiming a fake find "wrong". Even if I stipulate the most outrageously unjustifiable motive for claiming this find, the action still only ranks as high as "silly". It certainly doesn't rate calling out a posse.

 

I have not looked at the cache page but from reading here, it sounds as though those few loggers knew they did wrong, got caught, and then corrected their logs.

More likely they made a mistake, or they had a legitimate find, but it wasn't that important to them, so when someone complained, they just withdrew the claim instead of fighting about it. If they thought they were wrong and got caught, wouldn't they'd just delete their logs instead of changing the log type but leaving the logs there for all to see?

 

Anyway, to go back to the topic: there are valid reasons for filing logs against archived caches, including finds. Not only is there no time limit to that possibility, the longer the time after archival, the more interesting the log is likely to be. Invalid finds are stupid, but they can happen on active and archived caches alike. As dumb as invalid finds are, they don't hurt anyone, and it's vanishingly unlikely they'd even mislead someone on an archived cache. So I see no justification for blocking the possibility of legitimate logs just because you're worried about this one tiny, insignificant problem.

 

But you know what i'm getting at. You call it silly, i call it wrong,,, it all equates to someone trying to be deceitful. People who purposely log falsely know that it's not right. It's just a shame that, even in this silly hobby, that some feel the need to do these things.

 

I agree, we shouldn't automatically assume guilt when we come across something like this. There are a number of reasons why someone would back log. But at the same time, we all know it happens from time to time. As has been said, we need to take care of our own caches and leave it to other cache owners take care of theirs.

[+niraD]

I'm still in the middle of this thread, but I have to just say here - What difference does all this really make?

Why have any status?

Why display a message on an archived cache page that says "This cache has been archived, but is available for viewing for archival purposes"?

 

Why show who found the cache to everyone and instead just show the cache owner who found it?

Why disallow logging of archived locationless caches yet allow logging of archived virtuals and other cache types?

The answer my friend

Is blowin' in the wind

The answer is blowin' in the wind

 

(SICNR)

[ohgood]

I read the entire set of logs for the referenced cache and don't see anything that indicates any piece of the cache remained for someone to find 14 years later. The cache owner wrote the cache is gone and contacted Jeremy directly, who then archived the cache. So I'm not sure what anyone else is finding/logging since the person that attempted the cache shortly after it was gone/archived logged it was gone.

I also notice this morning that someone, and I don't expect the cache owner since the site reports they haven't visited for 2 years, modified the log entries on that page altering the "finds" to "notes". Kudos to whoever did that.

 

maybe even with all the hand wringing and arguing here on the Interwebles, there is still a cache at the location?

[+igator210]

A cache is place.

 

The cache is found

 

The cache is archived.

 

The cache is not picked up.

 

I find the cache.

 

I claim a find.

 

I don't understand how people can object to this. As far as the specific topic that started this thread... yes 14 years seems excessive. So what? Are we now publicly shaming people when we don't agree with what they do?

[+hzoi]

I also notice this morning that someone, and I don't expect the cache owner since the site reports they haven't visited for 2 years, modified the log entries on that page altering the "finds" to "notes". Kudos to whoever did that.

Cache owners can't change log types. They can permanently encrypt a log, they can delete photos, and they can delete the log itself, but they can't change a found it log to a note.