Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?

[+L0ne.R]

And of course if the cache owner is ill or otherwise unable to respond in time, archiving may happen against their will.

 

It would be against our will if our caches were not archived.

I've added a note to our profile:

 

In the event of our demise, we would prefer our caches to be archived before they become junk. We always took pride in providing a good cache experience. Do not unofficially adopt or prop them up. Everything has its time, both people and caches. Thanks and happy trails.

 

This is interesting. Are you asking for someone to inform your reviewer of your untimely demise and authorizing the reviewer to archive your caches? If so do you think they will honor your wish?

 

I hope someone would stumble upon my note if they are checking our profile to see the last logged in date. Then they might inform a reviewer. Or perhaps a reviewer will be checking. After 15 years of maintaining our caches they might think something's not right.

Edited May 4, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+justintim1999]

And of course if the cache owner is ill or otherwise unable to respond in time, archiving may happen against their will.

 

It would be against our will if our caches were not archived.

I've added a note to our profile:

 

In the event of our demise, we would prefer our caches to be archived before they become junk. We always took pride in providing a good cache experience. Do not unofficially adopt or prop them up. Everything has its time, both people and caches. Thanks and happy trails.

 

This is interesting. Are you asking for someone to inform your reviewer of your untimely demise and authorizing the reviewer to archive your caches? If so do you think they will honor your wish?

 

I hope someone would stumble upon my note if they are checking our profile to see the last logged in date. Then they might inform a reviewer. Or perhaps a reviewer will be checking. After 15 years of maintaining our caches they might think something's not right.

 

Thanks. I really like the idea.

[+justintim1999]

Agreed - I don't thing the reviewers archive caches Willy nilly... if a string of DNFs without any comment / input from the CO, then maybe. But all a CO needs to do is comment in the logs... I know that after a couple of DNFs I'll check and log as such.

 

If a string of DNFs and an inactive CO, then it's the CO's fault for archival...

 

What if the first DNF is just a funny story about someone's ineptitude, and the next DNF is an aborted attempt due to muggles, and the next DNF just doesn't have any information at all? Why can't the CO have the discretion to quietly monitor the logs without acting on things that don't need action? The new "health" nonsense means that a cache like this could be flagged as a problem for no reason. It's actually taking responsibility away from cache owners. Why bother trying to be a mindful cache owner if the automated system is just going to steamroll our judgment anyway? If Geocaching.com doesn't want a cache listed anymore because a couple of newbies didn't realize it would be hard to reach, I don't think I would blame a cache owner for giving up on it.

 

It seems like your whole argument is based on one known example. Can you supply another instance where one dnf resulted in a cache getting archived. Now that I think of it please supply 100 examples to confirm that this is indeed a real issue.

Exactly...

 

As I said - I'm pretty sure that there's not a cron job on the server that greps for dnf in the log and auto archives it. There's a process that involves human intervention and CO intervention. If a CO quietly monitors the cache and sees the reviewer note, then doesn't do something (you know, like making a note or contacting the reviewer), then the CO has allowed the cache to be archived.

 

A responsible CO won't let a cache archive unless he wants it to. If you're too busy to monitor the emails, you're too busy to own the cache (I know I'll get hammered for that statement...).

 

Why would you? Like it or not everything you've just said is true.

I'm not part of TPTB, so I'd just do what the rules say... maintain my caches - just like I agreed to do when I signed up.

 

Couple things come to mind...

 

• 
   
  
• Maybe something similar to fav points - I get to add a fav point for every certain number of finds.
  
• How about we (TPTB) restrict new players (PM or not) from placing a cache until their first year, then only allow a new cache based upon how well they maintain their cache(s).
  
• Or based upon their find count - if they've found 10 - 20 - 100 or some number, they should know what a cache needs to be like.
  
• Or the response time to NMs?
  
• Or how often they log in - gotta be active to place caches...
   
  

Or how about we all just act responsible and we'd have many fewer problems...

 

The primary reason (only in my humble opinion) that the health score / NA / NM hoopla is to fix caches that are turning into trash in the environment. I'm sure someone is going to yank out a corner case and say I'm wrong, but again, my opinion...

 

If we cleaned up after ourselves, no one would have to clean up after us. Someone has to take action if a CO stops playing and his cache deteriorates.

 

Although I think your on the right track here you may want to locate the nearest fox hole and hunker down. There will be incoming.

[+dprovan]

For me this is all about honoring a commitment.

For me, it's all about a central authority enforcing a one-size-fits-all concept of what constitutes honoring the commitment. All the problems start when you buy off on the idea that someone that has no personal interest in that specific cache decides whether it should be archived.

[+justintim1999]

For me this is all about honoring a commitment.

For me, it's all about a central authority enforcing a one-size-fits-all concept of what constitutes honoring the commitment. All the problems start when you buy off on the idea that someone that has no personal interest in that specific cache decides whether it should be archived.

 

Regardless of how authoritarian you think Groundspeak may be we all agreed to their terms and conditions when decided to hide a cache.

 

We could try to micro manage the whole thing but then the guidelines would begin to look like the U.S. Tax code.

 

If I had no personal interest in a cache why would I bother to post a NM? I do it to inform the cache owner of the problem believing that they would care enough to want to know and hoping that the next person may find a nice clean cache.

 

When you think of it posting a NM is purely an altruistic act.

[+justintim1999]

Hold on a minute. Someone is logging one of my cache series right now...... Exciting!

[+niraD]

Regardless of how authoritarian you think Groundspeak may be we all agreed to their terms and conditions when decided to hide a cache.

And those guidelines specify "occasional visits", not once a week visits, not once a month visits, and not even once a year visits.

 

And those guidelines also specify "especially when someone reports a problem". So if no one has reported a real problem involving the cache, then there shouldn't be any sense of urgency.

[+justintim1999]

Regardless of how authoritarian you think Groundspeak may be we all agreed to their terms and conditions when decided to hide a cache.

And those guidelines specify "occasional visits", not once a week visits, not once a month visits, and not even once a year visits.

 

And those guidelines also specify "especially when someone reports a problem". So if no one has reported a real problem involving the cache, then there shouldn't be any sense of urgency.

 

But you do agree that the guidelines imply that a visit to your cache is expected even if there's no reported problem?

 

If so than it comes down to your definition of occasional.

[+narcissa]

Is central authority a new membership tier? Higher than platinum?

[+niraD]

How about we (TPTB) restrict new players (PM or not) from placing a cache until their first year, then only allow a new cache based upon how well they maintain their cache(s).

I think a year is an excessive wait, especially when the geocache permanence guidelines specify a period of only 3 months. A wait of only a month would eliminate the problem of people who discover geocaching one weekend, hide a cache, and then disappear before the next weekend. A wait of two or three months doesn't seem unreasonable, and demonstrates that the potential CO is willing to stick with the hobby at least long enough for the cache to meet the geocache permanence guidelines.

 

Or based upon their find count - if they've found 10 - 20 - 100 or some number, they should know what a cache needs to be like.

Find count is the wrong measure, especially now in this day of numbers run trails. Someone who has found hundreds of identical fungible containers along a single trail has learned less about geocaching than someone who has found a handful of varied containers in varied locations.

[+niraD]

If so than it comes down to your definition of occasional.

I visit the east coast occasionally. My last visit was a few years ago.

[+L0ne.R]

Regardless of how authoritarian you think Groundspeak may be we all agreed to their terms and conditions when decided to hide a cache.

And those guidelines specify "occasional visits", not once a week visits, not once a month visits, and not even once a year visits.

 

And those guidelines also specify "especially when someone reports a problem". So if no one has reported a real problem involving the cache, then there shouldn't be any sense of urgency.

 

What's your definition of a real problem?

It seems many would let the cache owner decide. And for many COs nothing is a real problem, including a missing cache. The listing provides visitors with a smiley and that, to many cache owners, is all that matters.

[+L0ne.R]

If so than it comes down to your definition of occasional.

I visit the east coast occasionally. My last visit was a few years ago.

 

Again the definition as applied by cache owners would mean that vacation caches would be acceptable. If you plan to visit the area again someday, then the cache and listing is viable.

[+justintim1999]

If so than it comes down to your definition of occasional.

I visit the east coast occasionally. My last visit was a few years ago.

 

I appreciate the humor but the comparison isn't the same.

 

Why am I telling you something you already know?

 

If your analogy make you feel like you've made your point who am I to steel your thunder.

[+niraD]

If so than it comes down to your definition of occasional.

I visit the east coast occasionally. My last visit was a few years ago.

I appreciate the humor but the comparison isn't the same.

 

Why am I telling you something you already know?

 

If your analogy make you feel like you've made your point who am I to steel your thunder.

On a more serious note, the definition of "occasional" depends on context.

 

For caches very close to home or to work or to somewhere else you travel to on a daily (or near-daily) basis, "occasional" might mean once a week.

 

For caches that are a little more out of your way, but still easily accessible, "occasional" might mean once a month.

 

For less accessible caches that require a day's hike (or a day's paddle, or whatever), "occasional" might mean once a year.

 

For even more remote caches that require a multi-day hike (or a multi-day paddle, or whatever), "occasional" might mean less frequently than once a year.

 

Of course, the above assumes that no one has reported a problem, and that you're just doing one of those "occasional visits", and not performing maintenance that you know needs to be done.

[+narcissa]

What's your definition of a real problem?

It seems many would let the cache owner decide. And for many COs nothing is a real problem, including a missing cache. The listing provides visitors with a smiley and that, to many cache owners, is all that matters.

 

And for some cachers, the logbook paper being a bit wrinkled, a broken pencil, or disappointing swag is a real problem.

 

I don't think we should be designing the game around people who have such a poor attitude that they honestly feel personally wronged because a cache didn't stand up to rain as well as it should have.

[+dprovan]

If I had no personal interest in a cache why would I bother to post a NM?

If you filed an NM, I would have no problem whatsoever. Posting an NM is, in fact, a good way for me to learn you have a personal interest in the cache. The proposal we've been discussing is a new standard by which reviewers can decide that the cache should be archived even when no NM has been filed, and it's precisely because no one's filed an NM that I say no one with a personal interest in the cache thinks it should be archived.

 

If so than it comes down to your definition of occasional.

I visit the east coast occasionally. My last visit was a few years ago.

I appreciate the humor but the comparison isn't the same.

Was niraD being funny? I thought he was, in all seriousness, showing a valid use of the word "occasionally". Do you disagree? I would also use "occasionally" to mean once every few years in the some contexts, and the context of cache maintenance is one of them. That doesn't mean I wouldn't visit more often, but it does mean that I'd consider every few years as fulfilling the guideline.

[+niraD]

What's your definition of a real problem?

It seems many would let the cache owner decide. And for many COs nothing is a real problem, including a missing cache. The listing provides visitors with a smiley and that, to many cache owners, is all that matters.

And for some cachers, the logbook paper being a bit wrinkled, a broken pencil, or disappointing swag is a real problem.

It's a cooperative process.

 

The CO can decide that there is a real problem based on Find/DNF/Note logs.

 

Others can decide that there's a real problem and post a NM/NA log. Then it's up to the CO to decide whether the reported lack of perfection is a real problem.

 

If no one thinks that a particular lack of perfection warrants a NM/NA log, and if the CO decides that a particular lack of perfection mentioned in the Find/DNF/Note logs doesn't require action, then it's safe to assume that it isn't a real problem.

 

And even when someone posts a NM/NA log, I think we should trust the CO who decides that wrinkled log paper or a pencil without an eraser or whatever doesn't require action.

[+L0ne.R]

What's your definition of a real problem?

It seems many would let the cache owner decide. And for many COs nothing is a real problem, including a missing cache. The listing provides visitors with a smiley and that, to many cache owners, is all that matters.

 

And for some cachers, the logbook paper being a bit wrinkled, a broken pencil, or disappointing swag is a real problem.

 

I don't think we should be designing the game around people who have such a poor attitude that they honestly feel personally wronged because a cache didn't stand up to rain as well as it should have.

 

Show me some cache listings that have been archived by a reviewer because of a wrinkled logbook/sheet, broken pencil or disappointing swag.

[+justintim1999]

If so than it comes down to your definition of occasional.

I visit the east coast occasionally. My last visit was a few years ago.

I appreciate the humor but the comparison isn't the same.

 

Why am I telling you something you already know?

 

If your analogy make you feel like you've made your point who am I to steel your thunder.

On a more serious note, the definition of "occasional" depends on context.

 

For caches very close to home or to work or to somewhere else you travel to on a daily (or near-daily) basis, "occasional" might mean once a week.

 

For caches that are a little more out of your way, but still easily accessible, "occasional" might mean once a month.

 

For less accessible caches that require a day's hike (or a day's paddle, or whatever), "occasional" might mean once a year.

 

For even more remote caches that require a multi-day hike (or a multi-day paddle, or whatever), "occasional" might mean less frequently than once a year.

 

Of course, the above assumes that no one has reported a problem, and that you're just doing one of those "occasional visits", and not performing maintenance that you know needs to be done.

 

Great. We agree that the majority of caches out there today should be visited at least once a year. An owners maintenance log in response to a NM could count as a visit.

 

So are we now down to discussing how to handling the multi day hiking caches?

[+niraD]

Was niraD being funny? I thought he was, in all seriousness, showing a valid use of the word "occasionally".

I was trying to make a serious point with a bit of humor. But once you explain the joke it stops being funny, so maybe I didn't make the point as well as I had hoped.

[+niraD]

Great. We agree that the majority of caches out there today should be visited at least once a year. An owners maintenance log in response to a NM could count as a visit.

might /mīt/ verb. past of may, used to express possibility or make a suggestion

 

So are we now down to discussing how to handling the multi day hiking caches?

First we might want to figure out how to handle the majority of caches out there today without detrimental effects on the outliers.

[+justintim1999]

If I had no personal interest in a cache why would I bother to post a NM?

If you filed an NM, I would have no problem whatsoever. Posting an NM is, in fact, a good way for me to learn you have a personal interest in the cache. The proposal we've been discussing is a new standard by which reviewers can decide that the cache should be archived even when no NM has been filed, and it's precisely because no one's filed an NM that I say no one with a personal interest in the cache thinks it should be archived.

 

If so than it comes down to your definition of occasional.

I visit the east coast occasionally. My last visit was a few years ago.

I appreciate the humor but the comparison isn't the same.

Was niraD being funny? I thought he was, in all seriousness, showing a valid use of the word "occasionally". Do you disagree? I would also use "occasionally" to mean once every few years in the some contexts, and the context of cache maintenance is one of them. That doesn't mean I wouldn't visit more often, but it does mean that I'd consider every few years as fulfilling the guideline.

 

Lets try this again. Explain to me how the reviewer, on their own, archived this cache? I thought they disabled it and it was the lack of a response from the owner that archived it.

 

I guess we interpret the word occasionally in the guidelines differently.

 

Since I am a covert undercover agent for the central authority I'll need to start working on getting the word occasional removed and replaced with something more specific.

[+justintim1999]

Great. We agree that the majority of caches out there today should be visited at least once a year. An owners maintenance log in response to a NM could count as a visit.

might /mīt/ verb. past of may, used to express possibility or make a suggestion

 

So are we now down to discussing how to handling the multi day hiking caches?

First we might want to figure out how to handle the majority of caches out there today without detrimental effects on the outliers.

 

That's all I'm trying to do, just can't seem to get through this wall of apprehension.

 

It's either the good ole boy syndrome, big brother trying to take over or "I don't care if it's a good idea or not if it's going to effect my cache than I'm against it."

 

Guess you keep throwing it against the wall and sooner or later something will stick.

 

In all seriousness how would requiring a cache owner to check in now and again have a detrimental effect?

[+narcissa]

What's your definition of a real problem?

It seems many would let the cache owner decide. And for many COs nothing is a real problem, including a missing cache. The listing provides visitors with a smiley and that, to many cache owners, is all that matters.

 

And for some cachers, the logbook paper being a bit wrinkled, a broken pencil, or disappointing swag is a real problem.

 

I don't think we should be designing the game around people who have such a poor attitude that they honestly feel personally wronged because a cache didn't stand up to rain as well as it should have.

 

Show me some cache listings that have been archived by a reviewer because of a wrinkled logbook/sheet, broken pencil or disappointing swag.

 

What is the relevance of this bizarre demand? My point is that the new features all seem to be catering to extremely negative cachers who subscribe to this notion that any issue, no matter how small, is extremely dire and the details don't matter. DNF is now a red flag. NMs no longer ask for details, because all that matters is the fact that someone complained. It doesn't matter if someone's complaining because the swag was disappointing, or if they're complaining because the cache is literally in pieces. The system doesn't care about anything but the fact of the discontent, and it's frustrating to see context forgotten simply because a vocal handful of anhedonic complainers can't cope with the minor disappointment of finding a pill bottle where they expected a sandwich sized LnL. I don't think the game should be catering to this impulse to exact revenge on every cache owner who didn't rush out to restock a cache with swag at the first whine.

Edited May 4, 2017 by narcissa

[+WearyTraveler]

 

Have you ever read the U.S. Tax code? Nether have I, but it's around 70,000 pages for a reason. Humans are designed to find a way over, around or through things. (edited)

 

If the GC rules were as convoluted as the tax code, I wouldn't be on this forum. I'd be on the gunbroker forums...

 

honestly, I'm not real affected by any of the Nm / NA changes and resultant hoopla. I maintain my caches and log DNFs and NMs as I see fit.

 

One of the reasons I'm able to do this is that I purposely plant caches where I can walk to them (4) and where I drive by (2) regularly. If there's a problem with my cache, I'll check it. If I get a couple of DNFs I'll check it. I've replaced missing caches as well as wrote note that "It's there...". I purposely keep the number low. I don't have hundreds of caches across the state, where maintaining them would be a chore. Fewer caches - more fun...

 

I've got a couple without any finds. Not sure whether tried and failed or just not tried. If I get a couple of DNFs, we'll, time for a stop on the way home from shopping. If the reviewer pings me about DNFs, I'll answer him with the status.

 

I've honestly not seen a "bad health" ping so I'm not sure how I'd be able to respond. But I'll respond appropriatly, and my "it's there..." notes in the cache will hopefully cover.

 

We all need to be responsible cachers - and those of us that consider ourselves good cachers should do what we can to help make any cache a good experience for the next finder, even if it's not our cache. We'll never rid ourselves of bad COs but we can do our best to maintain...

[+WearyTraveler]

And of course if the cache owner is ill or otherwise unable to respond in time, archiving may happen against their will.

 

It would be against our will if our caches were not archived.

I've added a note to our profile:

 

In the event of our demise, we would prefer our caches to be archived before they become junk. We always took pride in providing a good cache experience. Do not unofficially adopt or prop them up. Everything has its time, both people and caches. Thanks and happy trails.

 

This is interesting. Are you asking for someone to inform your reviewer of your untimely demise and authorizing the reviewer to archive your caches? If so do you think they will honor your wish?

 

I hope someone would stumble upon my note if they are checking our profile to see the last logged in date. Then they might inform a reviewer. Or perhaps a reviewer will be checking. After 15 years of maintaining our caches they might think something's not right.

 

Thanks. I really like the idea.

 

Holy cow! A DNR in the caching world! Now I've seen it all...

[+WearyTraveler]

Agreed - I don't thing the reviewers archive caches Willy nilly... if a string of DNFs without any comment / input from the CO, then maybe. But all a CO needs to do is comment in the logs... I know that after a couple of DNFs I'll check and log as such.

 

If a string of DNFs and an inactive CO, then it's the CO's fault for archival...

 

What if the first DNF is just a funny story about someone's ineptitude, and the next DNF is an aborted attempt due to muggles, and the next DNF just doesn't have any information at all? Why can't the CO have the discretion to quietly monitor the logs without acting on things that don't need action? The new "health" nonsense means that a cache like this could be flagged as a problem for no reason. It's actually taking responsibility away from cache owners. Why bother trying to be a mindful cache owner if the automated system is just going to steamroll our judgment anyway? If Geocaching.com doesn't want a cache listed anymore because a couple of newbies didn't realize it would be hard to reach, I don't think I would blame a cache owner for giving up on it.

 

It seems like your whole argument is based on one known example. Can you supply another instance where one dnf resulted in a cache getting archived. Now that I think of it please supply 100 examples to confirm that this is indeed a real issue.

Exactly...

 

As I said - I'm pretty sure that there's not a cron job on the server that greps for dnf in the log and auto archives it. There's a process that involves human intervention and CO intervention. If a CO quietly monitors the cache and sees the reviewer note, then doesn't do something (you know, like making a note or contacting the reviewer), then the CO has allowed the cache to be archived.

 

A responsible CO won't let a cache archive unless he wants it to. If you're too busy to monitor the emails, you're too busy to own the cache (I know I'll get hammered for that statement...).

 

Why would you? Like it or not everything you've just said is true.

I'm not part of TPTB, so I'd just do what the rules say... maintain my caches - just like I agreed to do when I signed up.

 

Couple things come to mind...

 

• 
   
  
• Maybe something similar to fav points - I get to add a fav point for every certain number of finds.
  
• How about we (TPTB) restrict new players (PM or not) from placing a cache until their first year, then only allow a new cache based upon how well they maintain their cache(s).
  
• Or based upon their find count - if they've found 10 - 20 - 100 or some number, they should know what a cache needs to be like.
  
• Or the response time to NMs?
  
• Or how often they log in - gotta be active to place caches...
   
  

Or how about we all just act responsible and we'd have many fewer problems...

 

The primary reason (only in my humble opinion) that the health score / NA / NM hoopla is to fix caches that are turning into trash in the environment. I'm sure someone is going to yank out a corner case and say I'm wrong, but again, my opinion...

 

If we cleaned up after ourselves, no one would have to clean up after us. Someone has to take action if a CO stops playing and his cache deteriorates.

 

Although I think your on the right track here you may want to locate the nearest fox hole and hunker down. There will be incoming.

Nah - Been married a couple times - I can take it...

[+WearyTraveler]

How about we (TPTB) restrict new players (PM or not) from placing a cache until their first year, then only allow a new cache based upon how well they maintain their cache(s).

I think a year is an excessive wait, especially when the geocache permanence guidelines specify a period of only 3 months. A wait of only a month would eliminate the problem of people who discover geocaching one weekend, hide a cache, and then disappear before the next weekend. A wait of two or three months doesn't seem unreasonable, and demonstrates that the potential CO is willing to stick with the hobby at least long enough for the cache to meet the geocache permanence guidelines.

 

Or based upon their find count - if they've found 10 - 20 - 100 or some number, they should know what a cache needs to be like.

Find count is the wrong measure, especially now in this day of numbers run trails. Someone who has found hundreds of identical fungible containers along a single trail has learned less about geocaching than someone who has found a handful of varied containers in varied locations.

 

Just ideas off the cuff... like I've said in other posts, I maintain my caches. And I purposely place them where a periodic / even weekly visit isn't that difficult. I know that placing them where I can't get to them would be irresponsible of me and I chose not to do so.

 

Bottom line, we, as cache owners, are the ones responsible for our caches remaining fun to find or turning into trash. If we choose to ignore (or silently monitoring) DNFs and NMs, then it's pretty much our own fault that they get archived.

[+niraD]

In all seriousness how would requiring a cache owner to check in now and again have a detrimental effect?

Personally, I think it would be fine to expect cache owners to interact with geocaching.com in some way at least once a year, maybe even once a quarter. If an account that owns a cache listing hasn't logged into the site or made an API request within the designated time frame, the system could send an email with a "confirm that you're still active" link. If the account remains inactive, then a 30-day countdown to archive its cache(s) and deactivate the account would begin.

 

But there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth if such a thing is implemented.

 

There are a lot of beloved caches that no longer have active owners, and such a system would be perceived as an attack on those beloved caches, and on the communities that have maintained them, and on the people who need them to complete their Fizzy/Jasmer/whatever challenge, and on those who have been looking forward to the grand adventure that these old beloved abandoned caches represent, and so on.

[+WearyTraveler]

Man... this thread has gone from "does a dnf really mean NM" to a global list of one offs...

 

If you haven't found it, how would you know that it needs maintenance?

 

To me, NM means that there's something wrong with the cache, not that it hasn't been found.

 

If a cache is found, then here can be a determination where there the cache needs something. And I'd really love to have some idiot (ok, I'm harsh) log a NM solely due to unimpressive swag. Broken pencil - = BYOP (tools of the trade). Wet or soaked log - yes NM...

 

If a cache hasn't been found in a while, evenenced by a string of DNFs from me and experienced cachers, I'd ping the CO with a PM and write a note that I have.

 

Many in the thread are complaining about caches that have been archived due to non responsive COs not fixing the caches. Well - archive them if they're in bad shape and no CO action. There are messages posted before any action is taken. COS - ignore them at your cache's peril!

 

I've only been caching for a short time, since 03, and in just a few countries, and I've yet to see a cache that's in good shape get archived unless the owner and community (for the dead owner) let it. I've seen no automated archiving happen. Granted, I'm sure that someone on this thread will find a corner case to argue.

[+justintim1999]

In all seriousness how would requiring a cache owner to check in now and again have a detrimental effect?

Personally, I think it would be fine to expect cache owners to interact with geocaching.com in some way at least once a year, maybe even once a quarter. If an account that owns a cache listing hasn't logged into the site or made an API request within the designated time frame, the system could send an email with a "confirm that you're still active" link. If the account remains inactive, then a 30-day countdown to archive its cache(s) and deactivate the account would begin.

 

But there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth if such a thing is implemented.

 

There are a lot of beloved caches that no longer have active owners, and such a system would be perceived as an attack on those beloved caches, and on the communities that have maintained them, and on the people who need them to complete their Fizzy/Jasmer/whatever challenge, and on those who have been looking forward to the grand adventure that these old beloved abandoned caches represent, and so on.

 

Isn't there any way of Groundspeak assigning those beloved caches to an owner? If a cache is in good shape and all it needs is a responsible party to assume the duties I'd have to think GS would work with that? I don't think they care who's doing the maintenance as long as it's getting done.

 

Passing ownership of a cache without the owners permission is problematic but there has to be a safe way to do that.

 

I agree that just knowing an owner is still active would solve some of the abandoned cache issues. Especially the issues generated by people who jump in and out of the game managing to hide a few caches in-between.

[+barefootjeff]

In all seriousness how would requiring a cache owner to check in now and again have a detrimental effect?

Personally, I think it would be fine to expect cache owners to interact with geocaching.com in some way at least once a year, maybe even once a quarter. If an account that owns a cache listing hasn't logged into the site or made an API request within the designated time frame, the system could send an email with a "confirm that you're still active" link. If the account remains inactive, then a 30-day countdown to archive its cache(s) and deactivate the account would begin.

 

But there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth if such a thing is implemented.

 

There are a lot of beloved caches that no longer have active owners, and such a system would be perceived as an attack on those beloved caches, and on the communities that have maintained them, and on the people who need them to complete their Fizzy/Jasmer/whatever challenge, and on those who have been looking forward to the grand adventure that these old beloved abandoned caches represent, and so on.

 

Isn't there any way of Groundspeak assigning those beloved caches to an owner? If a cache is in good shape and all it needs is a responsible party to assume the duties I'd have to think GS would work with that? I don't think they care who's doing the maintenance as long as it's getting done.

 

Passing ownership of a cache without the owners permission is problematic but there has to be a safe way to do that.

 

I agree that just knowing an owner is still active would solve some of the abandoned cache issues. Especially the issues generated by people who jump in and out of the game managing to hide a few caches in-between.

If a CO leaves the game but their caches are well made, not exposed to the weather and in places where they're unlikely to be muggled, what's the problem? Not all caches require constant maintenance - many of these will remain in good condition for years and years. Finders can still enjoy them just as much as before, and if eventually they do fall into disrepair, we already have a mechanism for dealing with that - log an NM and, if there's no response within a month or so, log an NA. Problem solved. If no-one in the community is prepared to do that, perhaps they deserve to have a landscape littered with abandoned caches.

 

There are also some COs who, while they no longer go out finding caches, are still prepared to look after the hides they've placed. Why archive their caches simply because they haven't logged in for a while? As long as they get the emails and will act on them if and when the need arises, where's the problem?

 

All these schemes to flush out inactive COs run the real risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and turning geocaching into just roadside P&Gs.

[+hzoi]

Man... this thread has gone from "does a dnf really mean NM" to a global list of one offs...

Especially since the clear answer to the original question is, "No." Yet over 230 posts later, here we are...

[+fizzymagic]

Great. We agree that the majority of caches out there today should be visited at least once a year.

 

Nope.

 

I think, rather, that your insistence on coming up with more and more hoops for cache owners to jump through to ensure that they guarantee you that the cache will be exactly as you want it is both ungrateful and unhelpful.

 

Remember: these people placed these caches at no cost to you. You are not paying them anything, yet you feel entitled to demand that they visit their caches on your schedule to maintain them according to your standards. I find that unacceptable.

 

In another topic I wrote about how seekers are acting more and more entitled, as if they are the "customers" and the cache owners are vendors of some kind. Your proposal nicely epitomizes what I was talking about.

 

I have some bad news for you: cache owners do not owe you a great debt just because you exist. On the contrary; you owe them a debt, one that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

[+fizzymagic]

My point is that the new features all seem to be catering to extremely negative cachers who subscribe to this notion that any issue, no matter how small, is extremely dire and the details don't matter. DNF is now a red flag. NMs no longer ask for details, because all that matters is the fact that someone complained. It doesn't matter if someone's complaining because the swag was disappointing, or if they're complaining because the cache is literally in pieces. The system doesn't care about anything but the fact of the discontent, and it's frustrating to see context forgotten simply because a vocal handful of anhedonic complainers can't cope with the minor disappointment of finding a pill bottle where they expected a sandwich sized LnL. I don't think the game should be catering to this impulse to exact revenge on every cache owner who didn't rush out to restock a cache with swag at the first whine.

 

+1

[+L0ne.R]

In all seriousness how would requiring a cache owner to check in now and again have a detrimental effect?

Personally, I think it would be fine to expect cache owners to interact with geocaching.com in some way at least once a year, maybe even once a quarter. If an account that owns a cache listing hasn't logged into the site or made an API request within the designated time frame, the system could send an email with a "confirm that you're still active" link. If the account remains inactive, then a 30-day countdown to archive its cache(s) and deactivate the account would begin.

 

But there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth if such a thing is implemented.

 

There are a lot of beloved caches that no longer have active owners, and such a system would be perceived as an attack on those beloved caches, and on the communities that have maintained them, and on the people who need them to complete their Fizzy/Jasmer/whatever challenge, and on those who have been looking forward to the grand adventure that these old beloved abandoned caches represent, and so on.

 

Isn't there any way of Groundspeak assigning those beloved caches to an owner? If a cache is in good shape and all it needs is a responsible party to assume the duties I'd have to think GS would work with that? I don't think they care who's doing the maintenance as long as it's getting done.

 

Passing ownership of a cache without the owners permission is problematic but there has to be a safe way to do that.

 

I agree that just knowing an owner is still active would solve some of the abandoned cache issues. Especially the issues generated by people who jump in and out of the game managing to hide a few caches in-between.

 

Again it's about definition. 'Beloved' to many cachers would be any cache that's old then 5 years, a grandfathered type, has a high D/T rating or a special combo D/T rating, or any cache that is required to complete and challenge cache or fill a grid.

[+justintim1999]

Great. We agree that the majority of caches out there today should be visited at least once a year.

 

Nope.

 

I think, rather, that your insistence on coming up with more and more hoops for cache owners to jump through to ensure that they guarantee you that the cache will be exactly as you want it is both ungrateful and unhelpful.

 

Remember: these people placed these caches at no cost to you. You are not paying them anything, yet you feel entitled to demand that they visit their caches on your schedule to maintain them according to your standards. I find that unacceptable.

 

In another topic I wrote about how seekers are acting more and more entitled, as if they are the "customers" and the cache owners are vendors of some kind. Your proposal nicely epitomizes what I was talking about.

 

I have some bad news for you: cache owners do not owe you a great debt just because you exist. On the contrary; you owe them a debt, one that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

 

I find your accusation of my perceived entitlement unacceptable. It's nothing more than a manifestation of your sour view on caching today.

 

And your wrong. Cache owners do have a debt. A debt that was born the second they chose to hit that submit button.

 

I've repaid my debt by placing caches of my own and maintaining them.

[+justintim1999]

Man... this thread has gone from "does a dnf really mean NM" to a global list of one offs...

Especially since the clear answer to the original question is, "No." Yet over 230 posts later, here we are...

 

You claim your not a moderator but you still try.

[+dprovan]

First we might want to figure out how to handle the majority of caches out there today without detrimental effects on the outliers.

I think first we might want to agree in what way we aren't already handling the majority of caches out there today. The more often we talk about all these proposed solutions, the more convinced I am that the plague of bad caches everyone's so desperate to cure is just a boogeyman people are using to push for a centralized police force. When I imagine a requirement for annual visits applied to the caches I've experienced, I think way more caches I enjoyed would disappear than caches that I wish I'd never looked for.

[+justintim1999]

First we might want to figure out how to handle the majority of caches out there today without detrimental effects on the outliers.

I think first we might want to agree in what way we aren't already handling the majority of caches out there today. The more often we talk about all these proposed solutions, the more convinced I am that the plague of bad caches everyone's so desperate to cure is just a boogeyman people are using to push for a centralized police force. When I imagine a requirement for annual visits applied to the caches I've experienced, I think way more caches I enjoyed would disappear than caches that I wish I'd never looked for.

 

Really? You can't see the correlation between the geocaching app and the general decline in cache condition? I wonder if Groundspeak sees it? If they do it would explain a lot now wouldn't it.

[+dprovan]

I've only been caching for a short time, since 03, and in just a few countries, and I've yet to see a cache that's in good shape get archived unless the owner and community (for the dead owner) let it. I've seen no automated archiving happen. Granted, I'm sure that someone on this thread will find a corner case to argue.

The length of time you've been geocaching works against you here: it's only been in the last year or two that reviewers have started to routinely seek out caches that look bad when viewed through some arbitrary measure, and then posting an NA on them (essentially) even though no one in the community has ever complained.

 

If you'd like an example, one's being discussed in Keyword: Mold.

[+barefootjeff]

honestly, I'm not real affected by any of the Nm / NA changes and resultant hoopla. I maintain my caches and log DNFs and NMs as I see fit.

 

One of the reasons I'm able to do this is that I purposely plant caches where I can walk to them (4) and where I drive by (2) regularly. If there's a problem with my cache, I'll check it. If I get a couple of DNFs I'll check it. I've replaced missing caches as well as wrote note that "It's there...". I purposely keep the number low. I don't have hundreds of caches across the state, where maintaining them would be a chore. Fewer caches - more fun...

 

I've got a couple without any finds. Not sure whether tried and failed or just not tried. If I get a couple of DNFs, we'll, time for a stop on the way home from shopping. If the reviewer pings me about DNFs, I'll answer him with the status.

 

I've honestly not seen a "bad health" ping so I'm not sure how I'd be able to respond. But I'll respond appropriatly, and my "it's there..." notes in the cache will hopefully cover.

 

We all need to be responsible cachers - and those of us that consider ourselves good cachers should do what we can to help make any cache a good experience for the next finder, even if it's not our cache. We'll never rid ourselves of bad COs but we can do our best to maintain...

If the only caches were ones I could walk to or drive by, I'd have given up caching after the first six months. The ones I love are those that take me off the beaten track into the wilds, to amazing places I would never have gone had it not been for the cache. I especially look for the ones with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute, and if there was a "takes more than 1 day" attribute I'd lap those up!

 

Remote caches like these tend to be well-made and hidden in dry places out of the weather, their logbooks are never going to be full and they're unlikely to be muggled, so why do they need rigid periodic maintenance visits? Sure, visiting one cache once a year mightn't sound like much of an impost, but if a CO has hidden a dozen or more such caches, that's a lot of rugged hiking their going to have to do for no perceivable benefit.

[+justintim1999]

I've only been caching for a short time, since 03, and in just a few countries, and I've yet to see a cache that's in good shape get archived unless the owner and community (for the dead owner) let it. I've seen no automated archiving happen. Granted, I'm sure that someone on this thread will find a corner case to argue.

The length of time you've been geocaching works against you here: it's only been in the last year or two that reviewers have started to routinely seek out caches that look bad when viewed through some arbitrary measure, and then posting an NA on them (essentially) even though no one in the community has ever complained.

 

If you'd like an example, one's being discussed in Keyword: Mold.

 

Do you really know how long it's been going on? How about next year. Will three years data be enough to know that the system isn't going to bring geocaching to it's knees?

 

You should clarify that the system doesn't do anything but identify potential problems and reviewers don't issue NA's. They can disable the cache and all the cache owner has to do is respond that all is well and nothing happens.

 

WearyTraveler, click on that link and read all about it. It may be the last time you ever hear of it.

Edited May 4, 2017 by justintim1999

[+dprovan]

First we might want to figure out how to handle the majority of caches out there today without detrimental effects on the outliers.

I think first we might want to agree in what way we aren't already handling the majority of caches out there today. The more often we talk about all these proposed solutions, the more convinced I am that the plague of bad caches everyone's so desperate to cure is just a boogeyman people are using to push for a centralized police force. When I imagine a requirement for annual visits applied to the caches I've experienced, I think way more caches I enjoyed would disappear than caches that I wish I'd never looked for.

Really? You can't see the correlation between the geocaching app and the general decline in cache condition? I wonder if Groundspeak sees it? If they do it would explain a lot now wouldn't it.

I have no idea what the geocaching app has to do with anything anyone's saying.

[+dprovan]

Do you really know how long it's been going on? How about next year. Will three years data be enough to know that the system isn't going to bring geocaching to it's knees?

I don't expect geocaching to be brought to it's knees, I just think a lot of geocaches that could have been enjoyed won't exist and the sense of community will be replaced with a focus on individual seekers. Kinda like that other game people play with their noses pressed up against their phone screens. The people that geocache primarily for those kinds of caches will leave the game, as will those that were in it for the community, and everyone else will be happy and have no idea what they're missing.

 

You should clarify that the system doesn't do anything but identify potential problems and reviewers don't issue NA's.

The effect of the reviewer disabling the cache was 100% exactly the same as what would have happened if I'd posted an NA. That's just a fact. Oh, wait, no, not exactly the same: if I'd posted an NA, there would have been a delay before the reviewer posted the disable, so what the reviewer did by skipping over that delay was even more extreme than posting an NA.

[+Team Microdot]

Man... this thread has gone from "does a dnf really mean NM" to a global list of one offs...

Especially since the clear answer to the original question is, "No." Yet over 230 posts later, here we are...

 

Looks like you've found yourself a job here

[+WearyTraveler]

Man... this thread has gone from "does a dnf really mean NM" to a global list of one offs...

Especially since the clear answer to the original question is, "No." Yet over 230 posts later, here we are...

Bingo!

[+WearyTraveler]

I've only been caching for a short time, since 03, and in just a few countries, and I've yet to see a cache that's in good shape get archived unless the owner and community (for the dead owner) let it. I've seen no automated archiving happen. Granted, I'm sure that someone on this thread will find a corner case to argue.

The length of time you've been geocaching works against you here: it's only been in the last year or two that reviewers have started to routinely seek out caches that look bad when viewed through some arbitrary measure, and then posting an NA on them (essentially) even though no one in the community has ever complained.

 

If you'd like an example, one's being discussed in Keyword: Mold.

No! no! Not the mold thread! Actually, I'm pretty active on the mold thread...

 

My point was that there's no cron, grep , autoarchive going on. The reviewers probably did a manual search, found what they considered problematic, and put the NM or NA on the resulting caches. Then waited.

 

There are probably a bunch of caches where the CO has stopped and the cache trash really does need to be archived.

 

I'm certain that the caches that are wrongly archived are fewer...

[+fizzymagic]

I think, rather, that your insistence on coming up with more and more hoops for cache owners to jump through to ensure that they guarantee you that the cache will be exactly as you want it is both ungrateful and unhelpful.

 

Remember: these people placed these caches at no cost to you. You are not paying them anything, yet you feel entitled to demand that they visit their caches on your schedule to maintain them according to your standards. I find that unacceptable.

 

In another topic I wrote about how seekers are acting more and more entitled, as if they are the "customers" and the cache owners are vendors of some kind. Your proposal nicely epitomizes what I was talking about.

 

I have some bad news for you: cache owners do not owe you a great debt just because you exist. On the contrary; you owe them a debt, one that you seem unwilling to acknowledge.

 

I find your accusation of my perceived entitlement unacceptable. It's nothing more than a manifestation of your sour view on caching today.

 

And your wrong. Cache owners do have a debt. A debt that was born the second they chose to hit that submit button.

 

I've repaid my debt by placing caches of my own and maintaining them.

 

First, I do not have a "sour view" of geocaching. I enjoy caching a great deal; I have steadily cached for a long time now and I have no idea where people get the idea that I don't like what it has become or that I am resistant to change.

 

My problem is not with caching; rather it is with whiners in the forums proposing new rules to make cache ownership more onerous in an ineffective attempt to solve minimally-important problems.

 

I've been in these forums for about 15 years now. The one constant is that there is always a group of people here proposing new rules in order to force everybody else to cache in the way they want. We've had people against power trails, people against cut-and-paste logs, people against challenge caches, people trying to get placement guidelines turned into hard-and-fast rules, etc. etc. etc. The latest iteration seems to be people who are so outraged at a cache that is not in perfect condition that they demand new rules for cache owners to guarantee them a perfect, pristine cache container.

 

My opinion is not that caching is going downhill, but rather that you are whining about a problem that is not very important. Your complete lack of gratitude for those who have placed caches for you to find is irritating, but hardly unprecedented; your willingness to punish those to who you should be grateful, however, is something I will do my best to resist. It's not acceptable for HQ to think that the majority of cachers out there are whiny, entitled little dictators who want new rules placed on cache hiders; thus, there is a need to speak out against the noisy few in the forums.