Ban placements by maintenance shirkers

[+lee737]

 

My reasoning wasn't so much to trap busy COs, but to just make a process more efficient. It is almost a 100% kill rate on these neglected caches, once a reviewer disables a cache after the NM and then an NA. Seems a waste of time waiting for 2 months to clear the spot. If the CO was active, and had an interest in maintaining the cache, then they should reply to the initial NM, or better still, the problems that sparked it, and explain the situation, fix it, or provide a reasonable timeframe when it will be fixed. Then a reviewer can decide if this is reasonable, and not drop the axe after 14d......

 

Efficiency at the expense of humanity isn't an improvement.

 

Classic!!

[+narcissa]

Around here (SW OH) the reviewers give a 30 day notice for most NM logs which are being unattended. Then they simply archive the hide.

 

NMs?

Or do you mean NAs?

In Ontario it's NAs. Once the cache gets an NA, the reviewer responds with a 30 day disable, then there's a 99% chance that that cache will end up archived by the reviewer.

Problem is, I think I'm the only one who posts NAs.

 

There are at least 2 of us! Not many, but if warranted, I have been known to pull the trigger.

I just wish people would log NMs, even. Time and again I've seen logs that would warrant NM but not posted as such. If people would get over the idea that they're going to offend the CO if they post either log, the caching world would be a better place.

 

I post NMs and NAs as needed and go back once in a while to see what came of it. When I DNF a cache I also keep an eye on it and eventually NM/NA if the DNFs continue to pile up.

 

Usually reviewers give more than 30 days from their final warning, from what I've noticed.

 

Giving people time to respond is not only kind, it ensures that the cache really is abandoned before it's archived. Even if 49 out of 50 NAs ends in archival, giving that one person the benefit of the doubt and a chance to fix things is worth the extra time and lack of efficiency. We're all just people trying to do our best out there.

 

Save the urgency for situations where it's really needed. A cracked ziplock container isn't an emergency.

[+lee737]

......

 

Giving people time to respond is not only kind, it ensures that the cache really is abandoned before it's archived. Even if 49 out of 50 NAs ends in archival, giving that one person the benefit of the doubt and a chance to fix things is worth the extra time and lack of efficiency. We're all just people trying to do our best out there.

 

Save the urgency for situations where it's really needed. A cracked ziplock container isn't an emergency.

 

Neither is a cache archived a week before Joe Bloggs CO could fix it......

 

 

[+narcissa]

......

 

Giving people time to respond is not only kind, it ensures that the cache really is abandoned before it's archived. Even if 49 out of 50 NAs ends in archival, giving that one person the benefit of the doubt and a chance to fix things is worth the extra time and lack of efficiency. We're all just people trying to do our best out there.

 

Save the urgency for situations where it's really needed. A cracked ziplock container isn't an emergency.

 

Neither is a cache archived a week before Joe Bloggs CO could fix it......

 

If the extra time means the cache gets fixed, all the better. That's the best outcome possible.

[cezanne]

In the real world cases I've been watching caches and reporting NM/NA, the 14 days is not the 1st time it's been reported. It's always already been reported for months without a follow-up. The NM or NA by another cacher eventually gets the attention of a review who then posts his own TA giving the CO one final shot. In the end, the CO often had months to address and has not done anything so it's absolutely not 14 days.

 

 

I do not have any issue if such cases are handled in the way discussed here. However such an approach requires human judgement to look at the history of a cache. However an automatic rule that 14 days after a NM log a NA log should follow would do no good in my opinion and create more harm.

 

The reviewer is already providing human judgement before he initiates the TA. It's 14 days after a reviewer posts a TA (not a NM) without further posts especially by the CO.

 

Right now typically yes (which is good). However what lee377 seems to suggest is rigid and automatic. In my opinion it also depends a lot on the nature of the NM log. There are long overdue NM logs and there are NM logs that report recent issues and they should not be treated the same way. If someone posts a NM log and mentions log book almost full and it is not an urban nano cache that receives 10 visits per week, I do not see any issue at all if the cache owner needs more than 14 days to react.

[+lee737]

 

Right now typically yes (which is good). However what lee377 seems to suggest is rigid and automatic. In my opinion it also depends a lot on the nature of the NM log. There are long overdue NM logs and there are NM logs that report recent issues and they should not be treated the same way. If someone posts a NM log and mentions log book almost full and it is not an urban nano cache that receives 10 visits per week, I do not see any issue at all if the cache owner needs more than 14 days to react.

 

Actually, what I suggested was to keep the exact same system, but move things forward a bit, I can barely recall seeing a CO chime in and fix a cache after a cacher posted NA and a subsequent reviewer TD log. Why wait another 4 weeks? Nothing more rigid than is in place now, just faster.

 

 

[cezanne]

 

Right now typically yes (which is good). However what lee377 seems to suggest is rigid and automatic. In my opinion it also depends a lot on the nature of the NM log. There are long overdue NM logs and there are NM logs that report recent issues and they should not be treated the same way. If someone posts a NM log and mentions log book almost full and it is not an urban nano cache that receives 10 visits per week, I do not see any issue at all if the cache owner needs more than 14 days to react.

 

Actually, what I suggested was to keep the exact same system, but move things forward a bit, I can barely recall seeing a CO chime in and fix a cache after a cacher posted NA and a subsequent reviewer TD log. Why wait another 4 weeks? Nothing more rigid than is in place now, just faster.

 

Your suggestion was also to reduce the interval between NM and NA logs to 14 days which is pretty extreme.

Right now many reviewers do not even monitor NM logs and only act upon NA logs or being contacted by cachers.

If reviewers act upon NM logs upon their own initiative, that's ok but providing 14 days between a NM log and a NA log is too short.

 

Let's get concrete: How much days are you willing to wait until a cache owner reacts to a NM with a newly reported problem (which is not urgent)? Only 14 days?

Edited February 11, 2017 by cezanne

[+lee737]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing. Caches don't get archived (here anyway) for non-urgent problems (full logs/cracked containers), and still wouldn't if time periods were shortened.

[+Team DEMP]

When i mark a cache as NM, I always add to my watchlist. I regularly go thru my watchlist and see if any NMs have been outstanding without a follow-up by the CO. I also factor in their last visit date before posting a NA.

 

This isn't a NM for a full log out cracked container that eventually escalates to a NA but a missing cache or a cache that immediately needs attention.

 

A NM followed by NA is usually 6+ months of a CO being initially aware there might be a problem DNFs pulling up and then at least 1 month aware it's been flagged at least once and often multiple times that their cache needs attention. There's months of notice and all it takes is a simple note log posted by the CO and nothing further would be done by me or any automated process. It's a very kind approach that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside and I just want to go out and hug puppies and unicorns.

[+MartyBartfast]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

Not if the CO is on holiday with no Internet access.

 

I don't see that reducing the intervention time from ~4 weeks to ~2 weeks is necessary, or would make a positive difference to the situation.

[+on4bam]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

What about a CO on holiday for 4 weeks? 14 days may be plenty in "normal" conditions but a reviewer's note followed by disabling a cache 4 weeks later if there is no interaction with the CO and another 4 weeks before archival seems a lot more reasonable.

In any case, human intervention is a must before disabling or archiving since no algorithm can be trusted 100%.

[cezanne]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

SO you indeed expect a cache owner to fix a reported issue (e.g. damp log sheet) or to write a note when they react within 14 days regardless of the circumstances? Let's leave reviewers and archival aside. That's a different matter.

 

I'm often behind with logging more than 14 days and I would not change my priorities e.g. for mentioning something which I do not regard as time-critical. If ever the general expectation would be that one has to act as cacher (finder/hider) immediately in all cases, I'd instantly quit geocaching.

 

Dealing with absent cache owners or cache owners who never react to maintenance issues is something different than putting unnecessary pressure on cache hiders which take care of their caches but do not regard geocaching as their top priority in life.

Edited February 11, 2017 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing. Caches don't get archived (here anyway) for non-urgent problems (full logs/cracked containers), and still wouldn't if time periods were shortened.

 

And there is an experienced reviewer in the thread with very good comments about the impact that sort of change would have on him and other geocachers.

 

There's no need to add to the reviewers' burden and no need to be so impatient with fellow geocachers.

[+Mudfrog]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

What about a CO on holiday for 4 weeks? 14 days may be plenty in "normal" conditions but a reviewer's note followed by disabling a cache 4 weeks later if there is no interaction with the CO and another 4 weeks before archival seems a lot more reasonable.

In any case, human intervention is a must before disabling or archiving since no algorithm can be trusted 100%.

 

Here's one of those excuses again. Do you really believe this happens very often?

 

The present system seems to be the best we've had since the beginning. The 30 days is a good all around number to use as it gives all cache owners plenty of time to take some kind of action. If for some reason, a responsible cache owner isn't able to react in that time, then no harm is really done since an archived cache can be always be reinstated.

 

Back on topic, repeat maintenance shirkers don't need to be hiding new caches. I would certainly support a decision from Groundspeak to stop new cache placements when it was obvious a cache owner wasn't taking care of business. If a CO doesn't have time to take care of his existing caches, then how does he have the time to place new?

Edited February 11, 2017 by Mudfrog

[+narcissa]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

What about a CO on holiday for 4 weeks? 14 days may be plenty in "normal" conditions but a reviewer's note followed by disabling a cache 4 weeks later if there is no interaction with the CO and another 4 weeks before archival seems a lot more reasonable.

In any case, human intervention is a must before disabling or archiving since no algorithm can be trusted 100%.

 

Here's one of those excuses again. Do you really believe this happens very often?

 

The present system seems to be the best we've had since the beginning. The 30 days is a good all around number to use as it gives all cache owners plenty of time to take some kind of action. If for some reason, a responsible cache owner isn't able to react in that time, then no harm is really done since an archived cache can be always be reinstated.

 

Back on topic, repeat maintenance shirkers don't need to be hiding new caches. I would certainly support a decision from Groundspeak to stop new cache placements when it was obvious a cache owner wasn't taking care of business. If a CO doesn't have time to take care of his existing caches, then how does he have the time to place new?

 

My main concern, not objection, is that this once again puts a burden on reviewers who will have to spend more time looking at the cache owner's other hides and making judgment calls about whether or not someone is a maintenance shirker. That's a time drain and will lead to unpleasant back-and-forth that occasionally escalates. Reviewers don't need that.

 

If it's a system as simplistic as "wrench = no new cache," that's going to be highly vulnerable to abuse in many ways. Don't like a power hider? NM her caches with a sock puppet account. Want to hide a new cache? OM the others without checking them.

 

I really wish the forum could try to wrap its head around solutions that are collaborative, not punitive. Every idea seems to revolve around punishing wrong-doers, overhauling the website, and making reviewers do more work. And people wonder why their suggestions go unheeded.

[+L0ne.R]

 

Back on topic, repeat maintenance shirkers don't need to be hiding new caches. I would certainly support a decision from Groundspeak to stop new cache placements when it was obvious a cache owner wasn't taking care of business. If a CO doesn't have time to take care of his existing caches, then how does he have the time to place new?

 

It's an addiction with some. They need limits placed on them. They can't do it themselves.

You see their caches everywhere including hours away in popular vacation spots. I imagine they tell the reviewers they've got cottages and family in those areas. But those caches end up propped up or archived by the owner once an NM gets logged.

And there's plenty of co-dependent finders who will "help" that addiction by throwing down caches. They often get a public high-five when the owner posts an OM. It sets a bad example. And in some places it becomes the norm.

[+Mudfrog]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

What about a CO on holiday for 4 weeks? 14 days may be plenty in "normal" conditions but a reviewer's note followed by disabling a cache 4 weeks later if there is no interaction with the CO and another 4 weeks before archival seems a lot more reasonable.

In any case, human intervention is a must before disabling or archiving since no algorithm can be trusted 100%.

 

Here's one of those excuses again. Do you really believe this happens very often?

 

The present system seems to be the best we've had since the beginning. The 30 days is a good all around number to use as it gives all cache owners plenty of time to take some kind of action. If for some reason, a responsible cache owner isn't able to react in that time, then no harm is really done since an archived cache can be always be reinstated.

 

Back on topic, repeat maintenance shirkers don't need to be hiding new caches. I would certainly support a decision from Groundspeak to stop new cache placements when it was obvious a cache owner wasn't taking care of business. If a CO doesn't have time to take care of his existing caches, then how does he have the time to place new?

 

My main concern, not objection, is that this once again puts a burden on reviewers who will have to spend more time looking at the cache owner's other hides and making judgment calls about whether or not someone is a maintenance shirker. That's a time drain and will lead to unpleasant back-and-forth that occasionally escalates. Reviewers don't need that.

 

If it's a system as simplistic as "wrench = no new cache," that's going to be highly vulnerable to abuse in many ways. Don't like a power hider? NM her caches with a sock puppet account. Want to hide a new cache? OM the others without checking them.

 

I really wish the forum could try to wrap its head around solutions that are collaborative, not punitive. Every idea seems to revolve around punishing wrong-doers, overhauling the website, and making reviewers do more work. And people wonder why their suggestions go unheeded.

 

I too, dislike the idea of adding more to a reviewer's already busy plate. The way i see it though is that this could actually help in the long run. If a person is allowed to keep placing caches without thought to maintenance, then it's conceivable that many of those caches will probably cause headaches later. In all actuality, a reviewer shouldn't need to focus on this. He goes to review a cache, gives the CO a quick look over, then gives the cache a yea or nay. If nay, then the appropriate form letter/log gets sent as well.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Mudfrog

[+narcissa]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

What about a CO on holiday for 4 weeks? 14 days may be plenty in "normal" conditions but a reviewer's note followed by disabling a cache 4 weeks later if there is no interaction with the CO and another 4 weeks before archival seems a lot more reasonable.

In any case, human intervention is a must before disabling or archiving since no algorithm can be trusted 100%.

 

Here's one of those excuses again. Do you really believe this happens very often?

 

The present system seems to be the best we've had since the beginning. The 30 days is a good all around number to use as it gives all cache owners plenty of time to take some kind of action. If for some reason, a responsible cache owner isn't able to react in that time, then no harm is really done since an archived cache can be always be reinstated.

 

Back on topic, repeat maintenance shirkers don't need to be hiding new caches. I would certainly support a decision from Groundspeak to stop new cache placements when it was obvious a cache owner wasn't taking care of business. If a CO doesn't have time to take care of his existing caches, then how does he have the time to place new?

 

My main concern, not objection, is that this once again puts a burden on reviewers who will have to spend more time looking at the cache owner's other hides and making judgment calls about whether or not someone is a maintenance shirker. That's a time drain and will lead to unpleasant back-and-forth that occasionally escalates. Reviewers don't need that.

 

If it's a system as simplistic as "wrench = no new cache," that's going to be highly vulnerable to abuse in many ways. Don't like a power hider? NM her caches with a sock puppet account. Want to hide a new cache? OM the others without checking them.

 

I really wish the forum could try to wrap its head around solutions that are collaborative, not punitive. Every idea seems to revolve around punishing wrong-doers, overhauling the website, and making reviewers do more work. And people wonder why their suggestions go unheeded.

 

I too, dislike the idea of adding more to a reviewer's already busy plate. The way i see it though is that this could actually help in the long run. If a person is allowed to keep placing caches without thought to maintenance, then it's conceivable that many of those caches will probably cause headaches later. In all actuality, a reviewer shouldn't need to focus on this. He goes to review a cache, gives the CO a quick look over, then gives the cache a yea or nay. If nay, then the appropriate form letter/log gets sent as well.

 

I don't think it could be that simple. And as we know from so many other issues, Groundspeak really tries to avoid putting reviewers in the position of making subjective judgment calls. They review the cache, not the person.

[+Team Microdot]

I really wish the forum could try to wrap its head around solutions that are collaborative, not punitive.

 

Could you elaborate on what those collaborative solutions might look like - so that 'the forum' can have a go it wrapping its head around them?

 

It's easy to shoot holes in someone else's suggestions while offering no alternative ideas yourself and indeed some posters seem to adopt this completely unproductive stance as standard...

 

I'm especially curious about who you see collaborating and how.

[+Team Microdot]

In all actuality, a reviewer shouldn't need to focus on this. He goes to review a cache, gives the CO a quick look over, then gives the cache a yea or nay. If nay, then the appropriate form letter/log gets sent as well.

 

I don't think it could be that simple.

 

It absolutely could be that simple.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Back on topic, repeat maintenance shirkers don't need to be hiding new caches. I would certainly support a decision from Groundspeak to stop new cache placements when it was obvious a cache owner wasn't taking care of business. If a CO doesn't have time to take care of his existing caches, then how does he have the time to place new?

 

It's an addiction with some. They need limits placed on them. They can't do it themselves.

You see their caches everywhere including hours away in popular vacation spots. I imagine they tell the reviewers they've got cottages and family in those areas. But those caches end up propped up or archived by the owner once an NM gets logged.

And there's plenty of co-dependent finders who will "help" that addiction by throwing down caches. They often get a public high-five when the owner posts an OM. It sets a bad example. And in some places it becomes the norm.

 

^^^ This

[+on4bam]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

What about a CO on holiday for 4 weeks? 14 days may be plenty in "normal" conditions but a reviewer's note followed by disabling a cache 4 weeks later if there is no interaction with the CO and another 4 weeks before archival seems a lot more reasonable.

In any case, human intervention is a must before disabling or archiving since no algorithm can be trusted 100%.

 

Here's one of those excuses again. Do you really believe this happens very often?

 

The present system seems to be the best we've had since the beginning. The 30 days is a good all around number to use as it gives all cache owners plenty of time to take some kind of action. If for some reason, a responsible cache owner isn't able to react in that time, then no harm is really done since an archived cache can be always be reinstated.

 

I'm confused. 4 weeks is an excuse but 30 days is a good all round number? A full 2 days difference, wow, that will do it.

 

And yes, 4 weeks holiday is normal for us but rest assured, I'm not a CO but if I would be chances are a two week deadline is too short.

[+narcissa]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

What about a CO on holiday for 4 weeks? 14 days may be plenty in "normal" conditions but a reviewer's note followed by disabling a cache 4 weeks later if there is no interaction with the CO and another 4 weeks before archival seems a lot more reasonable.

In any case, human intervention is a must before disabling or archiving since no algorithm can be trusted 100%.

 

Here's one of those excuses again. Do you really believe this happens very often?

 

The present system seems to be the best we've had since the beginning. The 30 days is a good all around number to use as it gives all cache owners plenty of time to take some kind of action. If for some reason, a responsible cache owner isn't able to react in that time, then no harm is really done since an archived cache can be always be reinstated.

 

I'm confused. 4 weeks is an excuse but 30 days is a good all round number? A full 2 days difference, wow, that will do it.

 

And yes, 4 weeks holiday is normal for us but rest assured, I'm not a CO but if I would be chances are a two week deadline is too short.

 

It's not worth nitpicking really, because reviewers tend to look at these cases in batches. So it might be 30 days or 35 days or even more depending on when they get to it.

[+Mudfrog]

I would say 14d is plenty of time to do either - 1. rectify a problem, or 2. at least comment on what they plan on doing or not doing.

 

What about a CO on holiday for 4 weeks? 14 days may be plenty in "normal" conditions but a reviewer's note followed by disabling a cache 4 weeks later if there is no interaction with the CO and another 4 weeks before archival seems a lot more reasonable.

In any case, human intervention is a must before disabling or archiving since no algorithm can be trusted 100%.

 

Here's one of those excuses again. Do you really believe this happens very often?

 

The present system seems to be the best we've had since the beginning. The 30 days is a good all around number to use as it gives all cache owners plenty of time to take some kind of action. If for some reason, a responsible cache owner isn't able to react in that time, then no harm is really done since an archived cache can be always be reinstated.

 

I'm confused. 4 weeks is an excuse but 30 days is a good all round number? A full 2 days difference, wow, that will do it.

 

And yes, 4 weeks holiday is normal for us but rest assured, I'm not a CO but if I would be chances are a two week deadline is too short.

 

It's not worth nitpicking really, because reviewers tend to look at these cases in batches. So it might be 30 days or 35 days or even more depending on when they get to it.

Just saying that whether it's a week, two weeks, or a month, most people on holiday have access the internet. I'd even bet that the vast majority check their email, post on fb, and/or do some surfing while on vacation. I agree with everyone that vacationing people probably aren't thinking about their geocaches. Still, it shouldn't be hard for the majority to log a note to their cache page if a needs maintenance type email comes through.

 

Thing is, none of this matters. I'm maintaining it's a lame excuse for most that might try to use it but in all actuality, i imagine it's rarely used as an excuse.

[cezanne]

 

Just saying that whether it's a week, two weeks, or a month, most people on holiday have access the internet.

 

I have often been on vacation and had no access to internet at all or at most once for a few minutes. I also had no access to internet when I was in hospital for about 2 weeks (not planned in advance).

I also do not have access to internet when hiking in the mountains.

[+L0ne.R]

Just saying that whether it's a week, two weeks, or a month, most people on holiday have access the internet.

 

I have often been on vacation and had no access to internet at all or at most once for a few minutes. I also had no access to internet when I was in hospital for about 2 weeks (not planned in advance).

I also do not have access to internet when hiking in the mountains.

 

Would you say that was true for most cache owners with NMs placed on their caches? My guess, maybe true for 1% of cache owners. And after 2-4 weeks without internet access that cache owner might come home to a cache with an NM. It's unlikely that anything else will happen. A reviewer is unlikely to disable a cache with one NM. But if it were disabled, then that cache owner can log a note saying they will get to the cache within a few weeks. Then do nothing. They could probably string things along for another 4 months. At which point maybe someone will post another NM. And maybe a month or two or 6 later someone will post an NA. The reviewer will disable the cache. Then the CO can post a note saying...sorry I'll get to the cache this month. Then after a month the reviewer may archive the cache. So there is a good chance that a cache owner has 6 months to a year (or longer) before a reviewer will archive their cache for non-maintenance.

Edited February 12, 2017 by L0ne.R

[cezanne]

I have often been on vacation and had no access to internet at all or at most once for a few minutes. I also had no access to internet when I was in hospital for about 2 weeks (not planned in advance).

I also do not have access to internet when hiking in the mountains.

 

Would you say that was true for most cache owners with NMs placed on their caches?

 

I just keep saying that providing 14 days between a NM log (the first one) and a NA log (which currently is not the case but has been argued by some that it is long enough) is too short.

 

If someone does not react within 14 days, do not assume that they lost interest and do not care about their caches.

Edited February 12, 2017 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

I just keep saying that providing 14 days between a NM log (the first one) and a NA log (which currently is not the case but has been argued by some that it is long enough) is too short.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for that.

[cezanne]

I just keep saying that providing 14 days between a NM log (the first one) and a NA log (which currently is not the case but has been argued by some that it is long enough) is too short.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for that.

 

At least one cacher in this thread did.

Edited February 12, 2017 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

I just keep saying that providing 14 days between a NM log (the first one) and a NA log (which currently is not the case but has been argued by some that it is long enough) is too short.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for that.

 

One cacher in this hread did.

 

OK - so you've made your point to that cacher. Now you can drop it.

[+lee737]

I just keep saying that providing 14 days between a NM log (the first one) and a NA log (which currently is not the case but has been argued by some that it is long enough) is too short.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for that.

 

One cacher in this hread did.

 

We can all come up with various reasons/excuses why a CO may not get to a NM/NA in the allotted time, be it 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 4 months - they could be on holidays, in a body cast, in jail, their budgie may have died - the list goes on and on.... as it has been pointed out in the thread, these dead/dying caches have been on life support, or completely MIA for months (with no CO action) prior to the final act of plug pulling starts, why drag it on further? I am yet to see a cache archived against the wishes (being voiced) of any CO, unless it completely contravenes the rules.....

Frankly I don't even feel THAT strongly about it, just threw my 2c into a discussion. I look after my caches, we do regular OM visits just to check in, so none of this applies to us personally.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

I just keep saying that providing 14 days between a NM log (the first one) and a NA log (which currently is not the case but has been argued by some that it is long enough) is too short.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for that.

 

Yes.

I think what the problem is is not the length of time after one NM, but more about all those caches out there with multiple 'this cache is in need of attention' in the found logs, often multiple NM logs, and nothing gets done until eventually (months, sometimes years) the reviewer archives it.

And fighting for abandoned caches is reflected in the forums -- the majority of people arguing that disabling a cache 2 weeks earlier will result in undue stress on the significant number of otherwise responsible cache owners, on an expedition deep in the jungles of the amazon or incapacitated in hospital for weeks.

[cezanne]

And fighting for abandoned caches is reflected in the forums -- the majority of people arguing that disabling a cache 2 weeks earlier will result in undue stress on the significant number of otherwise responsible cache owners, on an expedition deep in the jungles of the amazon or incapacitated in hospital for weeks.

 

I'm not fighting for abandoned caches that require maintenance.

I'm fighting against unrealistic expectations on how fast a cache hider has to react. Some cachers out there think that cachers have to be constantly online. This is also reflected when it comes to logging finds (some complain if someone found a new cache as first but logged later), logging trackables, replying to questions regarding caches etc.

[+Team Microdot]

I've just read back through the thread to see where it morphed from the idea of the reviewer having the means to ban further placements by an obvious maintenance shirker to talking about reducing the period of time between an NA and a reviewer archiving a cache.

 

Taking the thread off onto a completely unintended tangent seems to have been a fairly gradual process with a sort of ping-pong rhythm, with the gaps between the pings and the pongs increasing in length until it ended on a ping.

 

I'm not advocating any change to how a volunteer reviewer chooses to exercise their expertise and local knowledge in order to decide when to pull the plug on a cache - I'd rather they kept that flexibility.

 

In addition to that flexibility I'd like them to have the flexibility to block further placements by repeated maintenance shirkers.

[+Team Microdot]

And fighting for abandoned caches is reflected in the forums -- the majority of people arguing that disabling a cache 2 weeks earlier will result in undue stress on the significant number of otherwise responsible cache owners, on an expedition deep in the jungles of the amazon or incapacitated in hospital for weeks.

 

I'm not fighting for abandoned caches that require maintenance.

I'm fighting against unrealistic expectations on how fast a cache hider has to react. Some cachers out there think that cachers have to be constantly online. This is also reflected when it comes to logging finds (some complain if someone found a new cache as first but logged later), logging trackables, replying to questions regarding caches etc.

 

That isn't what this thread is about.

 

If you could steer yourself back on topic that would be good

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've just read back through the thread to see where it morphed from the idea of the reviewer having the means to ban further placements by an obvious maintenance shirker to talking about reducing the period of time between an NA and a reviewer archiving a cache.

 

Taking the thread off onto a completely unintended tangent seems to have been a fairly gradual process with a sort of ping-pong rhythm, with the gaps between the pings and the pongs increasing in length until it ended on a ping.

 

I'm not advocating any change to how a volunteer reviewer chooses to exercise their expertise and local knowledge in order to decide when to pull the plug on a cache - I'd rather they kept that flexibility.

 

In addition to that flexibility I'd like them to have the flexibility to block further placements by repeated maintenance shirkers.

 

It does make me wonder. I remember a cacher from the old days who hid a number of caches, but never maintained them. Theey were all archived, eventually.

Then I see some modern cachers. Hundreds of hides. 30% archived. Some great caches. Very occasional maintenance. For the most part: There's a problem? Good bye.

To me, that isn't what geocaching used to be about.

[+dprovan]

I think what the problem is is not the length of time after one NM, but more about all those caches out there with multiple 'this cache is in need of attention' in the found logs, often multiple NM logs, and nothing gets done until eventually (months, sometimes years) the reviewer archives it.

If no one from the community posts an NA and, instead, the community waits for the reviewer to archive the cache unilaterally, then that tells me the community is fine with the cache being on the books for all that time. I have a hard time seeing that as a problem.

[+dprovan]

Then I see some modern cachers. Hundreds of hides. 30% archived. Some great caches. Very occasional maintenance. For the most part: There's a problem? Good bye.

To me, that isn't what geocaching used to be about.

I've only been caching for a few years, so I can't say what geocaching used to be about, but I suspect you're right in that when there were a limited number of caches, then each one was considered precious.

 

And, furthermore, I agree that that has changed. Geocaching has been around long enough for experienced cachers to recognize that caches have a life cycle, and all caches will eventually be archived. I think for many cachers in my area, 30% archived is probably fairly typical for both people with tens of caches and people with hundreds of caches. I don't see that as a problem. I like to find new caches, so I can't really fault a CO that likes to hide new caches.

 

We do have a couple COs in my area that routinely archive caches instead of replacing them. I admit that I'm not entirely comfortable with that approach, but since those COs tend to have the best maintained caches and the least likely to disappear for no good reason, I can't really say that a better approach is to doggedly replacing caches that go missing after having a good run of a year or two.

[+BCandMsKitty]

I think what the problem is is not the length of time after one NM, but more about all those caches out there with multiple 'this cache is in need of attention' in the found logs, often multiple NM logs, and nothing gets done until eventually (months, sometimes years) the reviewer archives it.

If no one from the community posts an NA and, instead, the community waits for the reviewer to archive the cache unilaterally, then that tells me the community is fine with the cache being on the books for all that time. I have a hard time seeing that as a problem.

 

Does this mean the community is OK with the cache on the books, or could that just be another example of people being reluctant to post NM and NA? I see that as being the biggest problem with caches in need of attention "hanging around".

 

people need to get over thinking NA will mean the cache is automatically archived.

Many times it is the wake-up call some COs need. If the CO still doesn't respond then the cache will be gone, as it should be, under the present system.

I don't think we need some arbitrary time frame for the reviewers to have to worry about, but rather cachers just use the NM and NA properly.

Edited February 13, 2017 by BC & MsKitty

[+barefootjeff]

I've just read back through the thread to see where it morphed from the idea of the reviewer having the means to ban further placements by an obvious maintenance shirker to talking about reducing the period of time between an NA and a reviewer archiving a cache.

 

Taking the thread off onto a completely unintended tangent seems to have been a fairly gradual process with a sort of ping-pong rhythm, with the gaps between the pings and the pongs increasing in length until it ended on a ping.

 

I'm not advocating any change to how a volunteer reviewer chooses to exercise their expertise and local knowledge in order to decide when to pull the plug on a cache - I'd rather they kept that flexibility.

 

In addition to that flexibility I'd like them to have the flexibility to block further placements by repeated maintenance shirkers.

 

It does make me wonder. I remember a cacher from the old days who hid a number of caches, but never maintained them. Theey were all archived, eventually.

Then I see some modern cachers. Hundreds of hides. 30% archived. Some great caches. Very occasional maintenance. For the most part: There's a problem? Good bye.

To me, that isn't what geocaching used to be about.

Perhaps I'm misreading this, but if it's the CO archiving those caches, I don't see what the problem is. Better that than just leaving them out there rotting away.

 

I archived my first two hides a couple of years after placing them. In one case, the pleasant bushland reserve became an overgrown rubbish tip and then a tree fell over, blocking access to GZ, so I cut my losses. The other was washed out to sea in a severe storm. I could've replaced it, but it would've eventually suffered the same fate, so goodbye. In due course I'll no doubt archive others too when the burden of maintenance exceeds the enjoyment the diminishing trickle of finders get from them, but it's the caching cycle of life, with new caches appearing to make up for those lost.

 

Knowing when a cache's time is up, pulling the plug and moving on isn't maintenance-shirking in my book.

[Keystone]

In addition to that flexibility I'd like them to have the flexibility to block further placements by repeated maintenance shirkers.

An indirect means for this already exists. One example of this ordinarily private discipline was the subject of a recent forum thread in which you participated.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've just read back through the thread to see where it morphed from the idea of the reviewer having the means to ban further placements by an obvious maintenance shirker to talking about reducing the period of time between an NA and a reviewer archiving a cache.

 

Taking the thread off onto a completely unintended tangent seems to have been a fairly gradual process with a sort of ping-pong rhythm, with the gaps between the pings and the pongs increasing in length until it ended on a ping.

 

I'm not advocating any change to how a volunteer reviewer chooses to exercise their expertise and local knowledge in order to decide when to pull the plug on a cache - I'd rather they kept that flexibility.

 

In addition to that flexibility I'd like them to have the flexibility to block further placements by repeated maintenance shirkers.

 

It does make me wonder. I remember a cacher from the old days who hid a number of caches, but never maintained them. Theey were all archived, eventually.

Then I see some modern cachers. Hundreds of hides. 30% archived. Some great caches. Very occasional maintenance. For the most part: There's a problem? Good bye.

To me, that isn't what geocaching used to be about.

Perhaps I'm misreading this, but if it's the CO archiving those caches, I don't see what the problem is. Better that than just leaving them out there rotting away.

 

Knowing when a cache's time is up, pulling the plug and moving on isn't maintenance-shirking in my book.

 

My opinion is that most of these caches were hidden with no plan for maintenance. "Oh, it's gone? Or had a couple of DNFs? Not going to bother checking on it. Archive." That's not maintenance. That's throw-downs.

[+Mudfrog]

I just keep saying that providing 14 days between a NM log (the first one) and a NA log (which currently is not the case but has been argued by some that it is long enough) is too short.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for that.

 

One cacher in this hread did.

 

We can all come up with various reasons/excuses why a CO may not get to a NM/NA in the allotted time, be it 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 4 months - they could be on holidays, in a body cast, in jail, their budgie may have died - the list goes on and on.... as it has been pointed out in the thread, these dead/dying caches have been on life support, or completely MIA for months (with no CO action) prior to the final act of plug pulling starts, why drag it on further? I am yet to see a cache archived against the wishes (being voiced) of any CO, unless it completely contravenes the rules.....

Frankly I don't even feel THAT strongly about it, just threw my 2c into a discussion. I look after my caches, we do regular OM visits just to check in, so none of this applies to us personally.

This is it! We shouldn't be talking about a cacher that is on vacation, or one that takes a month to get back to his cache duties. Any cacher can experience this type of situation. The more dedicated, more responsible cachers will take care of any problems when they can. The reviewer will work with us when problems like this develop. The premise of this thread is aimed at those cachers who don't take care of business at all. Their caches sit with multiple DNFs and they ignore NMs when they come up. They do nothing to rectify the problem. These are the ones that need to stop hiding new until they take care of their existing old.

Edited February 13, 2017 by Mudfrog

[+bflentje]

 

Just saying that whether it's a week, two weeks, or a month, most people on holiday have access the internet.

 

I have often been on vacation and had no access to internet at all or at most once for a few minutes. I also had no access to internet when I was in hospital for about 2 weeks (not planned in advance).

I also do not have access to internet when hiking in the mountains.

 

My wife has been on vacation all week to Cuba and she has ZERO internet access. I couldn't even tell you if she was safe.

[+dprovan]

Does this mean the community is OK with the cache on the books, or could that just be another example of people being reluctant to post NM and NA?

It means that the community prefers the cache on the books to whatever negative they think an NA carries. Yes, in some communities, posting an NA can be a real problem, and I feel bad about that, but, in the end, that just means the ante is a little higher: instead of not feeling responsibility to post an NA, which is typically the problem, the members of the community don't feel a responsibility to take on the admittedly much harder task of straightening out a bully that doesn't accept NAs gracefully.

 

people need to get over thinking NA will mean the cache is automatically archived.

This is definitely the main thing, and I agree people should be clear on this in exactly these terms, but I think it's even better to recognize that NAs are primarily input to the CO, a friendly and non-judgemental way to point out to the CO how serious a problem has become. It's really only a secondary function of the NA that the reviewer is also alerted to the problem even though, unfortunately, it's more often than not the reviewer that will end up taking action.

[+Team Microdot]

In addition to that flexibility I'd like them to have the flexibility to block further placements by repeated maintenance shirkers.

An indirect means for this already exists. One example of this ordinarily private discipline was the subject of a recent forum thread in which you participated.

 

Really? I wish I could remember - do you have a link you could share?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just saying that whether it's a week, two weeks, or a month, most people on holiday have access the internet.

 

I have often been on vacation and had no access to internet at all or at most once for a few minutes. I also had no access to internet when I was in hospital for about 2 weeks (not planned in advance).

I also do not have access to internet when hiking in the mountains.

 

I have never not had access to internet for more than two weeks, but was only able to get about 20 minutes while at a hotel during a week long stay in Cuba. The place I was staying, like pretty much every other residence in Cuba didn't have internet access. I've been to several places in Africa where I didn't have access for a few days, and when I did, the connectivity was very poor. On on trip I stayed in a fairly modern hotel near Johannesburg, South Africa and asked about wireless access. I could of purchase a 1 hour voucher, but they had all been sold out. The next day I flew to Tanzania and stayed in another hotel that didn't have any internet access at all before driving 4 hours to where I would be spending the next week. That hotel didn't have internet access either, but the university I was visiting did. They had a 2MBs satellite connection that they shared with 5 other universities. When the power wasn't out, I was able to check my email, but that was about it.

 

 

[Keystone]

In addition to that flexibility I'd like them to have the flexibility to block further placements by repeated maintenance shirkers.

An indirect means for this already exists. One example of this ordinarily private discipline was the subject of a recent forum thread in which you participated.

 

Really? I wish I could remember - do you have a link you could share?

The thread was about a cache hider that shared private emails from Geocaching HQ that were part of a conversation about the hider being blocked from making any further cache placements for a period of time. The HQ email mentioned a focus on "cache quality" in 2017.

 

In the past few years I have told three different hiders that they could not place additional caches until they resolved the maintenance issues with their existing caches. I took that action with explicit backing from Geocaching HQ. In two cases, the owners met the conditions. The third owner never had another cache published.

[+Team Microdot]

In addition to that flexibility I'd like them to have the flexibility to block further placements by repeated maintenance shirkers.

An indirect means for this already exists. One example of this ordinarily private discipline was the subject of a recent forum thread in which you participated.

 

Really? I wish I could remember - do you have a link you could share?

The thread was about a cache hider that shared private emails from Geocaching HQ that were part of a conversation about the hider being blocked from making any further cache placements for a period of time. The HQ email mentioned a focus on "cache quality" in 2017.

 

In the past few years I have told three different hiders that they could not place additional caches until they resolved the maintenance issues with their existing caches. I took that action with explicit backing from Geocaching HQ. In two cases, the owners met the conditions. The third owner never had another cache published.

 

Ah - ok - that one - thanks

 

Two out of three getting their act together - I'd class that as a success

[+Mudfrog]

 

Just saying that whether it's a week, two weeks, or a month, most people on holiday have access the internet.

 

I have often been on vacation and had no access to internet at all or at most once for a few minutes. I also had no access to internet when I was in hospital for about 2 weeks (not planned in advance).

I also do not have access to internet when hiking in the mountains.

 

My wife has been on vacation all week to Cuba and she has ZERO internet access. I couldn't even tell you if she was safe.

I did say "most",, not everyone, and not on every vacation. This is silly,, of course we can come up with times when we have no internet access. But i maintain that for the "most" part, people on vacation can and do access the internet.

 

As i said though, none of this matters anyway. We're given plenty of time to take care of problems. Cachers that care will take care of them in this time. If for some reason they can't, then they can always work with their reviewer to get their cache reinstated. This is fun to debate but at the same time, nothing at all to worry about.