Ban placements by maintenance shirkers

[+thebruce0]

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.

This.

 

Secondly, vacation issues? Really not an issue. At worst, if a cache does get archived, the CO can request its unarchived when they return.

But if a CO goes away for whatever reason to a place they know they won't or may not have internet for more than 2-4 weeks (how much of an outlier is that?!), then if they haven't devised a means of dealing with their potential cache issues (eg proxy/partner maintenance, posting notes to their upcoming absense, etc), then I really don't have an issue with standard steps being taken. The number of times an unintended/unnecessary archival occurs because of this situation must be so unbelievably insignificant that changing the general rules to accomodate them would most certainly put more work and stress on the reviewers than dealing with those highly rare circumstances.

 

Thirdly, has everyone forgotten the disabling step? So much talk of NM to archival... Coming back to SW Ontario, from the point of NM or a reviewer's personal checking of caches with numerous DNFs, it's a month until disbaling with a clear time warning. After that point, if no satisfactory response is received (an acceptable reason for delay, or maintenance), then either the archival is followed through or perhaps there's a 2nd or 3rd month-warning (that's the reviewer's call depending on the cache or owner).

All that to say there is a whole lot of subjective reviewer judgement in the owner maintenance process. I think automating any of these steps would cause more headaches than they'd solve, and I don't think 1 month is too long or too short. But 14 days? Maybe one or two steps in the process, as a rule, which the reviewer could override if they want, but that really would depend on region and community.

 

But definitely not straight up archival 14 days after a NM. That's ludicrous. Maybe I misunderstood some of the comments, but I don't think anyone was advocating for that.

I really do think the SWO process is an excellent balance of objective and subjective reviewer process with the community in mind. Yet still no headache-free. =P

[+Touchstone]

Secondly, vacation issues? Really not an issue. At worst, if a cache does get archived, the CO can request its unarchived when they return.

 

Relevant Help Center reference:

 

Archiving a geocache is meant to be a permanent action. Only community volunteer reviewers and Geocaching HQ can unarchive caches. This is done only in rare circumstances....

 

Link for reference:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=70

 

I'm assuming that the wording in the HC article is deliberate, so that Reviewers can make an appropriate response to such requests based on past behavior.

[+hzoi]

Secondly, vacation issues? Really not an issue. At worst, if a cache does get archived, the CO can request its unarchived when they return.

 

Relevant Help Center reference:

 

Archiving a geocache is meant to be a permanent action. Only community volunteer reviewers and Geocaching HQ can unarchive caches. This is done only in rare circumstances....

 

Link for reference:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=70

 

I'm assuming that the wording in the HC article is deliberate, so that Reviewers can make an appropriate response to such requests based on past behavior.

 

All the more reason for cache owners to post notes to the cache page advising of their progress in getting a cache back on line. If this is unreasonably burdensome, perhaps the cache owner should consider whether they really have the time to keep their cache active.

[+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.

 

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.

 

Don't worry. Cuba is quite safe. She *could* get internet access if she really needed it. Public Internet access is primarily limited to larger hotels, and a few wifi spots, mostly near the government controlled communications company (ETECSA) facilities where locals pay their phone/cellular bill and where anyone can purchase an ETECSA card for wireless access. The lines are fairly long and it feels more like a bank than an AT&T or Verizon store. I got a bit of laugh when I was walking around old Havana, I walked past a bunch of younger people leaning up against a wall using their cell phones. Then I realized that it was just outside a hotel which had wifi access for it's patrons. Wifi access is growing a bit as ETECSA builds out wifi hotspots in various parks in many of the larger cities. It's still pretty much still unavailable in residents homes though. If the lack of internet challenge wasn't enough, it's illegal to bring a handheld GPS into the country. They don't seem to care that pretty much every smart phone has a built in GPS and there are several good offline map solutions.

 

 

[+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.

 

Don't worry. Cuba is quite safe. She *could* get internet access if she really needed it. Public Internet access is primarily limited to larger hotels, and a few wifi spots, mostly near the government controlled communications company (ETECSA) facilities where locals pay their phone/cellular bill and where anyone can purchase an ETECSA card for wireless access. The lines are fairly long and it feels more like a bank than an AT&T or Verizon store. I got a bit of laugh when I was walking around old Havana, I walked past a bunch of younger people leaning up against a wall using their cell phones. Then I realized that it was just outside a hotel which had wifi access for it's patrons. Wifi access is growing a bit as ETECSA builds out wifi hotspots in various parks in many of the larger cities. It's still pretty much still unavailable in residents homes though. If the lack of internet challenge wasn't enough, it's illegal to bring a handheld GPS into the country. They don't seem to care that pretty much every smart phone has a built in GPS and there are several good offline map solutions.

 

LOL. I know you know what I meant.

[+Team Microdot]

Another slew of abandoned caches cleared up by the local volunteer reviewer this morning - some by cachers who are still actively finding

 

One of them had become nothing more than an empty bag (assuming the bag that people were finding ever actually had anything to do with the cache) and still people were logging finds on it

 

Is this really what it's come to?

[+Mudfrog]

Another slew of abandoned caches cleared up by the local volunteer reviewer this morning - some by cachers who are still actively finding

 

One of them had become nothing more than an empty bag (assuming the bag that people were finding ever actually had anything to do with the cache) and still people were logging finds on it

 

Is this really what it's come to?

As i replied in another thread, the rate of existing caches being archived is higher than the rate new ones are being published. In the 14 years i've geocached, this has only come to be this last year. The procedure being used seems to be working well. The Reviewer posts a note on a questionable cache and if no response comes from its owner, it gets archived 30 days later. I would imagine that some of the COs have complained under their breath but i doubt any of them were overly concerned.

[+Team Microdot]

Another slew of abandoned caches cleared up by the local volunteer reviewer this morning - some by cachers who are still actively finding

 

One of them had become nothing more than an empty bag (assuming the bag that people were finding ever actually had anything to do with the cache) and still people were logging finds on it

 

Is this really what it's come to?

As i replied in another thread, the rate of existing caches being archived is higher than the rate new ones are being published. In the 14 years i've geocached, this has only come to be this last year. The procedure being used seems to be working well. The Reviewer posts a note on a questionable cache and if no response comes from its owner, it gets archived 30 days later. I would imagine that some of the COs have complained under their breath but i doubt any of them were overly concerned.

 

I think I must be missing your point.

[+L0ne.R]

Another slew of abandoned caches cleared up by the local volunteer reviewer this morning - some by cachers who are still actively finding

 

One of them had become nothing more than an empty bag (assuming the bag that people were finding ever actually had anything to do with the cache) and still people were logging finds on it

 

Is this really what it's come to?

 

Yes. The almighty smiley rules the game.

I placed an NM on a cache that had a string of DNFs (and a smattering of founds (cache is not there found logs).

Since I found it before, still remembered the cache, a small jar hanging in a bush, and since the cache was nearby, I went to check.

BTW, the cache owner was long gone. They placed the cache then stopped playing.

The cache was gone. I logged the NM.

The next couple of finders logged a find, saying they found a bottle and thought they found it. I went back....there was a discarded Nestle water bottle under the bush. No log in the bottle. Just junk under the bush. The things people will log to justify a smiley .

I logged an NA.

[+Team Microdot]

Just junk under the bush. The things people will log to justify a smiley .

 

Because they've come to expect junk under bushes perhaps?

[+hzoi]

I get email notifications for archivals as well as new caches. Just saw one this morning for a cache placed by staff for one of the Virginia state parks in the area -- account had been idle since 2014. Zing!

[+justintim1999]

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.

 

I too think that 14 days is plenty of time.

 

You hit on the most important aspect of this whole thing. If for some reason you can't meet the 14 day requirement at least take 5 minutes to contact your reviewer and let them know what your maintenance plans are. I'm quite sure most of the opposition here is coming from cache owners who have hides placed in remote locations. I get it and I'm sure your reviewer will get it too.

 

To me this is about speeding up the process of removing the majority of non-maintained caches.

[+dprovan]

Another slew of abandoned caches cleared up by the local volunteer reviewer this morning - some by cachers who are still actively finding

 

One of them had become nothing more than an empty bag (assuming the bag that people were finding ever actually had anything to do with the cache) and still people were logging finds on it

 

Is this really what it's come to?

What do you mean by "come to"? What's different than it ever was? All I can imagine is that with so many fewer cachers back in the day, you didn't see enough dubious finds to take note of them. I find it hard to believe that there was a time when all caches were perfectly maintained or that remnants of badly damaged caches haven't always been logged by some people.

[+niraD]

I'm quite sure most of the opposition here is coming from cache owners who have hides placed in remote locations.

Some of it is from those who enjoy finding caches in remote locations, who understand that pressuring the owners of such caches to maintain them within 14 days will lead to fewer caches in remote locations for them to find.

[+justintim1999]

I'm quite sure most of the opposition here is coming from cache owners who have hides placed in remote locations.

Some of it is from those who enjoy finding caches in remote locations, who understand that pressuring the owners of such caches to maintain them within 14 days will lead to fewer caches in remote locations for them to find.

 

I get it and I don't have a problem with allowing more time for these type of caches. As long as your communicating with your reviewer It shouldn't be a problem.

[+fbingha]

Fourteen days?!?

 

It takes THREE standard NM messages to get a response from our reviewers so if your cache manages three of them and you still don't do anything, I would be overcome with joy if you were given three months to fix it. As it is now, a cache won't ever get archived unless (1) three people say it is missing (2) three people post a NM, or (3) it breaks a rule.

Edited February 14, 2017 by fbingha

[+niraD]

I'm quite sure most of the opposition here is coming from cache owners who have hides placed in remote locations.

Some of it is from those who enjoy finding caches in remote locations, who understand that pressuring the owners of such caches to maintain them within 14 days will lead to fewer caches in remote locations for them to find.

I get it and I don't have a problem with allowing more time for these type of caches. As long as your communicating with your reviewer It shouldn't be a problem.

What if the owner of such a cache is on a backpacking trip and is offline for a couple weeks? And when they get back, they might have higher priorities than getting caught up on their email from Groundspeak and communicating with the volunteer reviewer.

 

I would expect the owners of such caches to be more likely to do such things than the owners of your typical urban/suburban hide.

[+Team Microdot]

I'm quite sure most of the opposition here is coming from cache owners who have hides placed in remote locations.

Some of it is from those who enjoy finding caches in remote locations, who understand that pressuring the owners of such caches to maintain them within 14 days will lead to fewer caches in remote locations for them to find.

 

Again - this is not what this thread is about.

[+justintim1999]

I'm quite sure most of the opposition here is coming from cache owners who have hides placed in remote locations.

Some of it is from those who enjoy finding caches in remote locations, who understand that pressuring the owners of such caches to maintain them within 14 days will lead to fewer caches in remote locations for them to find.

I get it and I don't have a problem with allowing more time for these type of caches. As long as your communicating with your reviewer It shouldn't be a problem.

What if the owner of such a cache is on a backpacking trip and is offline for a couple weeks? And when they get back, they might have higher priorities than getting caught up on their email from Groundspeak and communicating with the volunteer reviewer.

 

I would expect the owners of such caches to be more likely to do such things than the owners of your typical urban/suburban hide.

 

What if the cache were on the moon?

 

I can see this being an issue for a select number of caches but something needs to be done to weed out the slackers and speed up the archival process.

[+Team Microdot]

Another slew of abandoned caches cleared up by the local volunteer reviewer this morning - some by cachers who are still actively finding

 

One of them had become nothing more than an empty bag (assuming the bag that people were finding ever actually had anything to do with the cache) and still people were logging finds on it

 

Is this really what it's come to?

What do you mean by "come to"? What's different than it ever was? All I can imagine is that with so many fewer cachers back in the day, you didn't see enough dubious finds to take note of them. I find it hard to believe that there was a time when all caches were perfectly maintained or that remnants of badly damaged caches haven't always been logged by some people.

 

You might be guilty of over-estimating the length of time I've been in the game. I'd say there's been roughly the same number of cachers in the game in my locality for the duration of my caching career. Sure, there's been churn - the assemblage of local cachers has changed over time, but the numbers are still roughly the same. If dubious finds are on the increase, I couldn't say that it was anything to do with increased numbers of cachers.

 

Nor do I recall alluding to a time when all caches were perfectly maintained or that nobody ever logged the remnants of a badly damaged cache in days of yore. In fact I can't see how that is even relevant as it isn't what the thread is about.

[+on4bam]

I can see this being an issue for a select number of caches but something needs to be done to weed out the slackers and speed up the archival process.

 

In our area, when there are problems with a cache there's a reviewer's note, a month later the cache is disabled and another month later it's archived. All this time the CO can communicate with the reviewer.

No need to speed anything up.

[+justintim1999]

I can see this being an issue for a select number of caches but something needs to be done to weed out the slackers and speed up the archival process.

 

In our area, when there are problems with a cache there's a reviewer's note, a month later the cache is disabled and another month later it's archived. All this time the CO can communicate with the reviewer.

No need to speed anything up.

 

Then this should be standard practice throughout all of geocaching. Great, lets get it implemented and move on.

[+dprovan]

Another slew of abandoned caches cleared up by the local volunteer reviewer this morning - some by cachers who are still actively finding

 

One of them had become nothing more than an empty bag (assuming the bag that people were finding ever actually had anything to do with the cache) and still people were logging finds on it

 

Is this really what it's come to?

What do you mean by "come to"? What's different than it ever was? All I can imagine is that with so many fewer cachers back in the day, you didn't see enough dubious finds to take note of them. I find it hard to believe that there was a time when all caches were perfectly maintained or that remnants of badly damaged caches haven't always been logged by some people.

 

You might be guilty of over-estimating the length of time I've been in the game. I'd say there's been roughly the same number of cachers in the game in my locality for the duration of my caching career. Sure, there's been churn - the assemblage of local cachers has changed over time, but the numbers are still roughly the same. If dubious finds are on the increase, I couldn't say that it was anything to do with increased numbers of cachers.

 

Nor do I recall alluding to a time when all caches were perfectly maintained or that nobody ever logged the remnants of a badly damaged cache in days of yore. In fact I can't see how that is even relevant as it isn't what the thread is about.

When you asked "what's it come to?", I naturally assumed that you were comparing today to some identifiable past. Since you're not, then I'll simply deny your claim that those things are happening more today than yesterday without trying to explain why you might be getting a mistaken impression to the contrary.

 

Sorry for accusing you of being an old timer. I see old timers make the mistake I described all the time.

[+hzoi]

I can see this being an issue for a select number of caches but something needs to be done to weed out the slackers and speed up the archival process.

 

In our area, when there are problems with a cache there's a reviewer's note, a month later the cache is disabled and another month later it's archived. All this time the CO can communicate with the reviewer.

No need to speed anything up.

 

Then this should be standard practice throughout all of geocaching. Great, lets get it implemented and move on.

 

Perhaps I missed it; what's the turnaround time in your area?

[+justintim1999]

I can see this being an issue for a select number of caches but something needs to be done to weed out the slackers and speed up the archival process.

 

In our area, when there are problems with a cache there's a reviewer's note, a month later the cache is disabled and another month later it's archived. All this time the CO can communicate with the reviewer.

No need to speed anything up.

 

Then this should be standard practice throughout all of geocaching. Great, lets get it implemented and move on.

 

Perhaps I missed it; what's the turnaround time in your area?

 

You didn't miss it, I didn't say. I'd be happy with the turnaround om4bam described as the standard.

[+on4bam]

You didn't miss it, I didn't say. I'd be happy with the turnaround on4bam described as the standard.

 

That's why it surprises me that this (3 page!) thread goes on and on. Since things are running smoothly here (for years) there's no reason for extra rules and regulations. All that's needed is GBV (look it up, in Dutch ).

Just ran a status check on my Belgian database and refreshed all archived caches (161 this week). Almost all reviewer archived caches were handled with 1. a reviewers note, 2. disabled a month later and 3. archived another month later (give or take 1-2 days).

 

Database is up-to-date again ready for the next cache outing

[+Mudfrog]

Another slew of abandoned caches cleared up by the local volunteer reviewer this morning - some by cachers who are still actively finding

 

One of them had become nothing more than an empty bag (assuming the bag that people were finding ever actually had anything to do with the cache) and still people were logging finds on it

 

Is this really what it's come to?

As i replied in another thread, the rate of existing caches being archived is higher than the rate new ones are being published. In the 14 years i've geocached, this has only come to be this last year. The procedure being used seems to be working well. The Reviewer posts a note on a questionable cache and if no response comes from its owner, it gets archived 30 days later. I would imagine that some of the COs have complained under their breath but i doubt any of them were overly concerned.

 

I think I must be missing your point.

Yea, i started my reply with an agreement to what you're seeing. But then i read what i typed, decided to add more, and edited to the point where i got off track. Went ahead and posted, was hoping no one noticed...

[+Team Microdot]

Another slew of abandoned caches cleared up by the local volunteer reviewer this morning - some by cachers who are still actively finding

 

One of them had become nothing more than an empty bag (assuming the bag that people were finding ever actually had anything to do with the cache) and still people were logging finds on it

 

Is this really what it's come to?

As i replied in another thread, the rate of existing caches being archived is higher than the rate new ones are being published. In the 14 years i've geocached, this has only come to be this last year. The procedure being used seems to be working well. The Reviewer posts a note on a questionable cache and if no response comes from its owner, it gets archived 30 days later. I would imagine that some of the COs have complained under their breath but i doubt any of them were overly concerned.

 

I think I must be missing your point.

Yea, i started my reply with an agreement to what you're seeing. But then i read what i typed, decided to add more, and edited to the point where i got off track. Went ahead and posted, was hoping no one noticed...

 

That tickled me

 

(secretly glad it wasn't just me being thick )

[+Team Microdot]

Another slew of dead and dying cleared out this morning thanks to the munificence and dedication of our local volunteer reviewer

 

I'll try to post a picture of my favoruite one here...

 

 

On a positive note:

 

• People posted informative NM's and NA's
  
• No obvious community backlash was observed
  

 

Discounting the fact that the reviewer shouldn't really be forced to dedicate time to clearing up the mess left behind by others, everything seems to have gone very nicely

[+coachstahly]

Quick question for you. How many of the recently archived caches were from active cachers who opted not to perform maintenance despite the NMs and NA logs and how many were from those who placed caches but are no longer active in the game? I'm curious to know the percentages for both sides.

[+Team Microdot]

Quick question for you. How many of the recently archived caches were from active cachers who opted not to perform maintenance despite the NMs and NA logs and how many were from those who placed caches but are no longer active in the game? I'm curious to know the percentages for both sides.

 

I don't have those numbers.

[+coachstahly]

I was just wondering if the recent archivals validated your belief that active COs who don't maintain caches are a big part of the problem and should be banned from placing new caches. If a majority the archived caches were from active COs, it would support your opinion but if a majority of them were from COs who have left the game, it wouldn't support it. I fully agree with you (on another thread) about poorly maintained caches without active owners being an issue. It is, somewhat, in my area as well and it would certainly free up some new/old locations as well. To be clear, I'm not trying to be a PITA. I'm just curious to see some statistics.

[+Team Microdot]

I was just wondering if the recent archivals validated your belief that active COs who don't maintain caches are a big part of the problem and should be banned from placing new caches. If a majority the archived caches were from active COs, it would support your opinion but if a majority of them were from COs who have left the game, it wouldn't support it. I fully agree with you (on another thread) about poorly maintained caches without active owners being an issue. It is, somewhat, in my area as well and it would certainly free up some new/old locations as well. To be clear, I'm not trying to be a PITA. I'm just curious to see some statistics.

 

It's a fair question - although probably not an easy one to answer well.

 

It might not be easy to decide if / when a particular CO transitioned from active to inactive.

 

In all fairness though, from the briefest of flick-throughs on this morning's slew, my hunch would be that most if not all of them were inactive cachers

[+Team Microdot]

I was just wondering if the recent archivals validated your belief that active COs who don't maintain caches are a big part of the problem and should be banned from placing new caches. If a majority the archived caches were from active COs, it would support your opinion but if a majority of them were from COs who have left the game, it wouldn't support it. I fully agree with you (on another thread) about poorly maintained caches without active owners being an issue. It is, somewhat, in my area as well and it would certainly free up some new/old locations as well. To be clear, I'm not trying to be a PITA. I'm just curious to see some statistics.

 

It's a fair question - although probably not an easy one to answer well.

 

It might not be easy to decide if / when a particular CO transitioned from active to inactive.

 

In all fairness though, from the briefest of flick-throughs on this morning's slew, my hunch would be that most if not all of them were inactive cachers

 

Actually, I mis-remembered.

 

One archive was following an active CO failing to get around to delivering promised maintenance.

 

One archive was on a cache that had still not been maintained after the reviewer had un-archived the cache at the CO's behest.

[+L0ne.R]

I was just wondering if the recent archivals validated your belief that active COs who don't maintain caches are a big part of the problem and should be banned from placing new caches. If a majority the archived caches were from active COs, it would support your opinion but if a majority of them were from COs who have left the game, it wouldn't support it. I fully agree with you (on another thread) about poorly maintained caches without active owners being an issue. It is, somewhat, in my area as well and it would certainly free up some new/old locations as well. To be clear, I'm not trying to be a PITA. I'm just curious to see some statistics.

 

I had a look at a few of the last 10 2016 caches that I posted an NA on and were archived:

 

LABS

Owner was active when a string of DNFs on an easy find started. He deleted at least one DNF - the person he deleted then left a note inquiring why.

More DNFs. (Owner no longer logging in). My NM. More DNFs. My NA. Reviewer disabled. Reviewer archived.

 

TQ

Active owner.

No response to DNFs. My NM. My NA. Reviewers disable. Reviewers archive. Then he posts a note 3 days after archival saying the cache will be back in the spring.

 

ICFB

Active owner.

Long string of DNFs on easy find. An NM. Owner posts note that he will check in a few days. 3 months and 3 DNFs later, no check by owner. My NM. A month later my NA. Reviewer disable. A month later reviewer archive.

 

GP

Inactive owner. Placed one and quit playing 2 months later.

Reviewer archived.

 

L

Inactive owner.

Reviewer archived

 

CC

Inactive owner. Posted the cache then never came back to the site.

Reviewer archived

 

LL

Inactive owner. Hasn't logged in since 2014. Cache missing since 2015

Reviewer archived in 2016

 

SDRW

Inactive owner

Reviewer disables. Someone writes a note saying they would like to adopt it. Reviewer archives the listing. The person willing to adopt the missing abandoned cache does not seem to want to own a cache there, he does not hide his own in the rest area.

 

QE

Inactive owner.

CO placed 3 caches. All reviewer archived.

 

LC (not archived)

Active owner.

Caches reporting wet/soaked log and broken container go back to 2013. First NM 2013. 2 NMs in 2013. 1 NM in 2014. 1 NM in 2015. My NM/NA in 2016 pointing out the earlier photo showing a baggie full of water with a completely soaked mush logbook. No response from the owner in all this time. Reviewer disabled. CO posts OM a few days later saying the cache is good to go and enables the cache. 20 days later the second subsequent finder reports that the log is wet. Every other log afterwards reports that the log is soaked and unusable. No NMs posted in 2017.

Edited February 28, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

On a positive note:

 

• People posted informative NM's and NA's
  
• No obvious community backlash was observed
  

Discounting the fact that the reviewer shouldn't really be forced to dedicate time to clearing up the mess left behind by others, everything seems to have gone very nicely

It's the reviewer's job to archive the cache when all else fails, so I'd say even that part went very nicely. I'd only say the reviewer was forced into action if the NAs hadn't been posted.

 

Anyway, I'm glad it worked out. This is how it always works in my area, so I'm glad you got a chance to experience it.

[+colleda]

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

 

I guess it would rise. If someone would set me a deadline to fix a maintenance problem within 14 days, I'd archive my cache immediately. geocaching is a hobby and not a job.

I don't see it like that. To me it is not a deadline to fix it but an opportunity to log a maintenance plan to fix acceptable to the reviewer to prevent it from being archived, that is, if you want the cache to stay in play.

[+WearyTraveler]

I do encourage some caution here. As a CO of a couple hundred caches, I do try to get to them in a timely manner, but sometimes work and other concerns outweigh maintenance. I do try to keep up with every log on every cache, so can identify which require a visit and perhaps inactivated temporarily. That said, I think in the past few years the most caches I have issues with are not by veteran cachers, but with newbs who show great enthusiasm to have some hides, but then take terrible containers and hide them - only to abandon the game within three months - their contribution lingers on until finally archival process finishes them.

 

Be a good cacher and when you see a cache which clearly is in need, give it a little assistance (i.e. it's been left out by a muggle or last finder) or post a Needs Maintenance. I'm not a fan of people who recommend the nuclear setting on first hand - "Needs to be archived" because they couldn't find it. I've seen a few of these and wonder what motivated that.

I don't think you're one of the problems - as you said, you try to keep up.

But I know of a couple of COs that hide a boatload of caches far from home and expect / hope that cachers will maintain them for them. That's BS (ok, in my opinion only...). If you're going to place a cache, maintain it. If you're not going to maintain the 5 you place, no, you can't place a 6th.

 

Another issue is the newbie that places 3, finds 10, then doesn't log on to the site and forgets about the hobby. I've got several local caches that are 1/1 and have numerous DNFs by experienced cachers. I can't "clean out" ny local area because the caches are most likely gone and the CO is ignoring NM emails. I've posted NA on multiples ones in this area. Hopefully the gone caches can get cleaned up...

[+cerberus1]

Another issue is the newbie that places 3, finds 10, then doesn't log on to the site and forgets about the hobby. I've got several local caches that are 1/1 and have numerous DNFs by experienced cachers. I can't "clean out" ny local area because the caches are most likely gone and the CO is ignoring NM emails. I've posted NA on multiples ones in this area. Hopefully the gone caches can get cleaned up...

+1

My biggest issue with this new crowd placing "monkey see..." caches after only a few (often) "no permission" hides, is the carp left behind when they move on to yet another app.

We notice that some in this grouping think alike though, placing almost the same spot as the last.

- Hopefully they at least swap out the past carp for new, rather than attempt to recycle.

[+WearyTraveler]

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

 

I guess it would rise. If someone would set me a deadline to fix a maintenance problem within 14 days, I'd archive my cache immediately. geocaching is a hobby and not a job.

I don't see it like that. To me it is not a deadline to fix it but an opportunity to log a maintenance plan to fix acceptable to the reviewer to prevent it from being archived, that is, if you want the cache to stay in play.

 

Agreed - not a deadline to fix... a deadline to take action. Post an "ive got it" and temp disable. I've seen many responsible COs who post notes saying they're busy etc... and will repair on next trip etc... but they should temp disable the cache so that cachers will know not to search in vain...

[+edexter]

Just noticed this string and thought I would add my observations about "maintenance shirking" in the South Eastern Massachusetts area.  As I understand it, it is the CO's responsibility to monitor the condition of their cache and to repair it as necessary.  The purpose of an NM log is to alert the CO and other cachers that there is a problem with the cache.   It is the CO's responsibility to respond to the NM log in a timely fashion.  Since CO's are notified when someone posts an NM log, and since responding to an NM log takes about 15 seconds, when a month goes by without any response from the CO you can be pretty sure they don't feel responsible to a, acknowledge the problem or b, fix it.  Fewer than half of NM logs are ever responded to.  If a CO has dropped out, that's understandable, they aren't paying attention any more.  If a CO is active (continuing to place and find caches) the failure to respond is less understandable.  If you have the time and energy to find someone else's cache, you have the 15 seconds it takes to reply "I will check this out in the next few weeks" or "Real busy now, will get to it as soon as I can".  It is also simple to disable your cache and say something like "On hold until I can check this out".  Or one could go fix it and post an OM log to remove "the red wrench". (Many red wrenches are never cleared which is another way to tell who is interested in maintenance and who isn't)   What I notice in my area most often is that when a CO ignores an NM log the cache does not get repaired until after an NA log has been posted and the Reviewer has disabled the cache and warned the CO it will be archived.  At that point the CO will either repair the cache, archive the cache or ignore the Reviewer who will eventually archive the cache.  Only about 10%-15% of caches where the CO ignores the initial NM are eventually repaired.  Not infrequently the CO will complain that there never should have been an NA log for various reasons. However the next time someone posts an NM log, they typically ignore that too.  

After playing the game for a long time in the same area, you begin to see who repairs their caches and who doesn't.  When long time cachers lose interest in the game, or folks become "too busy" to maintain their caches, the first step is often to ignore NM logs.  Few cachers take the step fr asking for maintenance help or adopting out their caches.  If the expectation of the game is that you repair your caches, then requiring a response to an NM log within 30 days seems like a simple procedure that the listing service could empoly to encourage folks to do so.

edexter

[+simpjkee]

A dude in my area was placing caches dozens at a time about 6 years ago. Even while he was placing new caches, his previously placed caches were already being filled with NM and NA logs by other cachers due to his shirking. At the time, I found many of them and knew that eventually they'd all be left to rot. Nothing was done and now he has not signed in to the site for 2 years. Meanwhile all of his geotrash is still littering our roads waiting to be archived by the community. Shameful behavior.

[+jellis]

Not sure if was mentioned but instead of banned but restricted until they have actually repaired all their caches.

Me I would love to see a way to filter your owned caches by DNFs or NM so I can see it in "My Hides" page. I know I can see it on GSAK but I am not always near by computer and would love to see them when I am out.

[+SeattleWayne]

Why one would decide to over-extend themselves with hides and turn their hobby into a full-time job is beyond me. 

[+thebruce0]

Maybe it's a job they enjoy

We have a few people in my region who have at least a couple hundred hides. And it seems to me like they very much enjoy providing caches for people to find. Some of them focused on unique, fun, entertaining containers (tho requiring fairly consistent maintenance and/or relatively short-lived), and some focused on providing great experiences, like river paddle series, geoarts, earthcache discoveries and exploration... some just like to cycle their caches almost yearly for major annual events.

But I think the one thing in common that I find with high count hiders is that they sincerely enjoy the ownership and responsibility that comes with it (or at least, the fun they provide others outweighs the extra work required).  In my area at least, bad maintenance ethic for such high count hiders is the exception rather than the rule. It's unfortunate in places where shirking is more common, or high count hiders treat it more like an unenjoyable job than a fun hobby

Edited September 5, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Maintenance shirking isn't restricted to high count hiders.

Although I've known CO's with over 1000 hides who, if the ranting is anything to go by, patently don't enjoy the responsibility that comes with it.

 

[+Team Microdot]

Historic day 

Quote

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 9/5/2017 at 10:15 AM, thebruce0 said:

But I think the one thing in common that I find with high count hiders is that they sincerely enjoy the ownership and responsibility that comes with it (or at least, the fun they provide others outweighs the extra work required).  In my area at least, bad maintenance ethic for such high count hiders is the exception rather than the rule. It's unfortunate in places where shirking is more common, or high count hiders treat it more like an unenjoyable job than a fun hobby

It's great when that happens.  What's not so great is when cache owners justify not maintaining their caches because they have placed too many caches for them to maintain.