Cache disabled by reviewer

[+rovers3]

I received an email this morning stating that one of my caches had been disabled by a reviewer for the following reasons

 

This cache listing has been Disabled due to:

- Issues raised in previous logs and/or

- There being a lack of visible actions by the cache owner after emailed maintenance requests from Geocaching HQ

 

My problem is that the issue raised by previous logs were

 

Needs Maintenance Needs Maintenance 07/31/2016

I think the location might be moved slightly by a previous person because of the failing magnets. It is now resting somewhere that probably wouldn't be reachable from above at all. Was it magnetised to something before?

 

This cache gets moved around a lot and I have replaced it many times as I walk past the area of the cache a few times a week.

The last two DNF logs were from 2 newbies, 1 with 5 finds and 1 with 19 finds.

 

As for emailed maintenance requests from Geocaching HQ

I did not receive this email

 

I emailed the reviewer the following

 

-- Copy of email sent to CacheShadow --

 

"Re my geocache Stairway to ... (GC2PYBF)

 

I think that it is ridiculous for a cache to be disabled due to 2 DNF's on the same date probably by the same group, 1 with 5 finds and 1 with 19 finds, esp when one of the posts stated "We had a crew of newbies and we're unable to find it."

 

The container for this cache gets moved around a lot, which is why the hint does not always apply, even though I replace it in it's original location often ."

 

This is a bit of a rant and I hope that the powers that be see it and stop this sort of nonsense.

 

I'd be interested in what others think.

[+rovers3]

Just received the following email response from the reviewer.

 

"Yup! I agree!

No idea why that one was caught in the list; please feel free to Enable if it's good to go."

 

Don't they check the status prior to taking an action like disabling a cache.

[+redsox_mark]

Reviewers are human (generally, some it seems are dogs).

I believe many of them use tools looking for patterns, like number of DNFs, NM logs, etc.

In this case, the reviewer's tool or process seems to have flagged this in error.

 

If you are checking the cache regularly I suggest doing a Owner Maintenance log to clear the NM attribute. Not that this caused the disabling, but it is good practice. The NM log I think is saying the hint doesn't match the location (due to the cache no longer being magnetic).

 

I have a couple of my own with NMs I need to see to.

[+CanadianRockies]

Just received the following email response from the reviewer.

 

"Yup! I agree!

No idea why that one was caught in the list; please feel free to Enable if it's good to go."

 

Don't they check the status prior to taking an action like disabling a cache.

As I understand it, there's a tool available to Volunteer Reviewers that will automatically check the "needs maintenance" status of caches, see how long it has been since any action has been taken, determine which caches should be disabled, and then disable them. No human interaction required. It would be great if someone double-checked the results of that program before any disabling occurred, but many reviewers already have lots of other reviewing responsibilities (not to mention, life responsibilities), so it isn't surprising that they don't always double-check these automatic disablings.

 

As the reviewer acknowledged, the program probably cast too wide a net when it caught your cache among those to be disabled. Just remember that there's always a trade-off between catching too many caches that shouldn't be disabled versus ignoring too many caches that should be disabled. Read about Type I and Type II errors, if you're interested.

Edited December 13, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+narcissa]

Sounds like a mistake that was easily resolved by clear communication with the reviewer. Thanks for posting this terrific example that shows how easy it is to work these things out.

[Pup Patrol]

If all is well, you should post an "owner maintenance" log. If the cache listing continues to display the "needs maintenance" icon, it may be caught up in the sweep again.

 

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

4.19. Remove the “Needs Maintenance” icon

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=404

 

Get in the habit of posting "owner maintenance" logs. Keep your listings clear of unnecessary NM icons. A lack of communication from the cache owner is one of the reasons that caches get disabled, then archived, by the Reviewers.

 

4.9. Maintenance Emails from Geocaching HQ

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

 

4.10. Manage your cache listing

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=234

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

Release Notes - September 8, 2015

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=334834&st=0&p=5537639&

 

 

B.

[Keystone]

As I understand it, there's a tool available to Volunteer Reviewers that will automatically check the "needs maintenance" status of caches, see how long it has been since any action has been taken, determine which caches should be disabled, and then disable them. No human interaction required. It would be great if someone double-checked the results of that program before any disabling occurred, but many reviewers already have lots of other reviewing responsibilities (not to mention, life responsibilities), so it isn't surprising that they don't always double-check these automatic disablings.

Your understanding is not correct. There is never an automated disabling done under a Community Volunteer Reviewer's account name. Certain other automated actions are taken by a Geocaching HQ account, like archiving "draft" cache pages that have sat around for a year without being submitted, or events that are 30 days past the event date.

 

It's true that there's an algorithm that generates email notifications to cache owners regarding listings which may have issues (as identified by the algorithm). The emails are just that -- they do not generate an automatic disablement of the cache listing. That requires human intervention.

 

In the case of GC2PYBF, the system algorithm never resulted in generating an email message to the Cache Owner. So, it appears that the algorithm behaved logically.

[Pup Patrol]

Our Reviewers have been known to run pq's to find caches with outstanding NM attributes. (I'm also in Ontario, Canada.) This happens during the "slow" season (winter).

 

Cache still displays the NM attribute:

 

https://coord.info/GC2PYBF

 

 

B.

[+JL_HSTRE]

What us the Difficulty rating of the cache?

[+rovers3]

The problem is that I don't know with 100% certainty that the cache is there without going to check on it so I am loath to enable the cache until I physically check on it which I am now bound to do since it was disabled.

This puts an added burden on a cache owner that may be indisposed for one reason or another or whose cache is some distance away.

[+narcissa]

The problem is that I don't know with 100% certainty that the cache is there without going to check on it so I am loath to enable the cache until I physically check on it which I am now bound to do since it was disabled.

This puts an added burden on a cache owner that may be indisposed for one reason or another or whose cache is some distance away.

 

Why? The reviewer said it was a mistake and you're okay to enable it.

 

If you didn't feel it needed to be checked on before, this minor mix-up shouldn't change that.

[+rovers3]

"Why? The reviewer said it was a mistake and you're okay to enable it.

 

If you didn't feel it needed to be checked on before, this minor mix-up shouldn't change that."

 

The cache was last found 10/02/16 which is over 2 months ago.

How can one be sure that it is still there after that time period?

Did the newbies with the DNF's not find it due to their ineptness or was it actually missing?

So, how can I in good conscience enable it without first checking on it?

Just saying!

[+MartyBartfast]

Considering you said in your OP

 

I walk past the area of the cache a few times a week.

 

It's hardly an onerous task to check in it.

 

If, shortly after the Needs Maintenance log was posted, you would have checked it on one of your bi weekly walk pasts;

You would then post an Owner Maintenance log stating that everything is in order; then this situation wouldn't have arisen.

 

Additionally, if it was mine I'd check it after the 2 recent DNFs (or just 1 for that matter) if I was walking past it twice a week, and would post another Owner Maintenance confirming that it was there.

[+narcissa]

"Why? The reviewer said it was a mistake and you're okay to enable it.

 

If you didn't feel it needed to be checked on before, this minor mix-up shouldn't change that."

 

The cache was last found 10/02/16 which is over 2 months ago.

How can one be sure that it is still there after that time period?

Did the newbies with the DNF's not find it due to their ineptness or was it actually missing?

So, how can I in good conscience enable it without first checking on it?

Just saying!

 

That is true regardless of whether or not the cache was the subject of reviewer intervention.

[+The A-Team]

After the current batch of country souvenirs is done and the holiday marketing season has passed, a good topic for a newsletter/blog post/social media would be a reminder to log your OMs when you do maintenance. It seems like there are quite a few COs that either forget to or are completely unaware of that necessity.

[+J Grouchy]

After the current batch of country souvenirs is done and the holiday marketing season has passed, a good topic for a newsletter/blog post/social media would be a reminder to log your OMs when you do maintenance. It seems like there are quite a few COs that either forget to or are completely unaware of that necessity.

 

Or they do, but post a "Found it" or "Note" log instead of a "Owner Maintenance" log.

[+colleda]

If you're not able to immediately check on it you should post a 'Write Note' to alert cachers of your action plan and time frame to fix it. This lets the reviewer know too.

What happened to the NM?

[Pup Patrol]

This cache gets moved around a lot and I have replaced it many times as I walk past the area of the cache a few times a week.

 

There was a "Needs Maintenance" logged on 07/31/2016. When you walked by it one of those few times a week, did you check on it then?

 

Without an appropriate "owner maintenance" log, that NM attribute will not go away.

 

https://coord.info/GC2PYBF

 

 

B.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Any time I check on a cache, I do an Owner's Maintenance log, whether there's a NM on it or not.

 

It shows others that you are checking your cache(s) regularly.

 

If you would adopt this practice, non of what you are stressing about would have happened. If you really do check a couple of times a week, then once in a while an Owner's Maintenance log would be easy to do.

 

You posted

The problem is that I don't know with 100% certainty that the cache is there without going to check on it so I am loath to enable the cache until I physically check on it which I am now bound to do since it was disabled.

 

But you also said you check on the cache as you walk by.

 

So which is it? you have a burden because you have to check on it? Or you will be past the location in a couple of days?

 

The reviewer you are dealing with is one of the reviewers that look after my area, and they have all always been more than fair, as evidence by the reply you got from him(her).

Edited December 13, 2016 by BC & MsKitty

[+L0ne.R]

 

The reviewer you are dealing with is one of the reviewers that look after my area, and they have all always been more than fair, as evidence by the reply you got from him(her).

 

+1 regarding the reviewer.