Does a DNF really mean a cache needs maintenance?

[+WearyTraveler]

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.

Like I said - I know I won't do a periodic visit to any distant cache so I don't hide any that need a long maintenance run.

 

I'll do the occasional long one - a "one cache per day" cache. I'm going to try Chimney Top this weekend.

But if that cache goes missing, who's going to hump up there and replace it.

[+L0ne.R]

The one constant is that there is always a group of people here proposing new rules

 

What new rules proposal? We are merely applauding reviewers for enforcing old rules - i.e. maintenance guidelines.

Edited May 4, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

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.

I don't know where the "probably" comes from: we know exactly what the reviewer did because he said so in his log: he searched for "mold" and found it, then disabled the cache and archived it later. The disable log says he read the log, so I believe him, but we can all see for ourselves that there was nothing else in the log except the one word to support taking action, so the effect is pretty automated even if the actual process was not. Anyway, it's an example of precisely what you asked for.

 

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

If there are caches that are trash, they have no impact on anyone until someone discovers the problem, at which point it can be dealt with without impacting all the other caches that have no problem.

 

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

I'm not even convinced fewer caches are wrongly archived, but what's more important is that as we continue down this road where we accept caches being deleted based on nothing but "might" and "probably", more and more caches with no problem at all will be archived. The annual visit approach suggested in the mold thread specifically calls for archiving caches that have no known problem. Even if you imagine a lax CO, they'll still almost certainly have more good caches than bad.

[+narcissa]

The one constant is that there is always a group of people here proposing new rules

 

What new rules proposal? We are merely applauding reviewers for enforcing old rules - i.e. maintenance guidelines.

 

The container fetishists are constantly asking for ridiculous things, like:

 

- demanding cache owners be banned if a cache they own is disappointing

- wanting cachers and cache owners to be actively punished, somehow, for various container-related transgressions

- Groundspeak to expand reviewer responsibilities to include physically removing (i.e. stealing) archived caches

- forcing people to assign FPs based on container-related criteria rather than subjective personal enjoyment

- forcing people to revisit and reassign FPs if the container condition of a cache declined

 

I don't think there is ever a period of time where there the front page of this section doesn't have some new proposal for treating other geocachers like criminals.

 

None of these proposals ever actually seeks to address these issues in a constructive or collaborative fashion. It's all about punishment and retribution.

 

Let's replace "TFTC" with "HDYFMTFTC." HOW DARE YOU FORCE ME TO FIND THIS CACHE. Right?

[+Team Microdot]

The container fetishists are constantly asking for ridiculous things, like:

 

- demanding cache owners be banned if a cache they own is disappointing

- wanting cachers and cache owners to be actively punished, somehow, for various container-related transgressions

- Groundspeak to expand reviewer responsibilities to include physically removing (i.e. stealing) archived caches

- forcing people to assign FPs based on container-related criteria rather than subjective personal enjoyment

- forcing people to revisit and reassign FPs if the container condition of a cache declined

 

Constantly?

[+lee737]

 

The container fetishists are constantly asking for ridiculous things, like:

 

- demanding cache owners be banned if a cache they own is disappointing

- wanting cachers and cache owners to be actively punished, somehow, for various container-related transgressions

- Groundspeak to expand reviewer responsibilities to include physically removing (i.e. stealing) archived caches

- forcing people to assign FPs based on container-related criteria rather than subjective personal enjoyment

- forcing people to revisit and reassign FPs if the container condition of a cache declined

 

I don't think there is ever a period of time where there the front page of this section doesn't have some new proposal for treating other geocachers like criminals.

 

None of these proposals ever actually seeks to address these issues in a constructive or collaborative fashion. It's all about punishment and retribution.

 

 

Punishment, stealing, criminals, retribution?? I'm sorry narcissa, but the only person I have ever seen use such terms here, is you.

 

 

[+justintim1999]

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.

 

What kind of caches? Ownerless ones? You mean if we start removing caches that are not being maintained the people who enjoy finding those will more on? Splendid lets get started.

 

I'm sure that many of the people that play that other game are very nice. You should go over to that forum and make your case.

 

The reviewer identified a potential issue and disabled the cache. All that was required was an OM Log. If one of my caches were flagged and disabled it would be enabled the same day unless it had a serious issue. Either way It would be addressed immediately.

(spelling)

Edited May 5, 2017 by justintim1999

[+redsox_mark]

The one constant is that there is always a group of people here proposing new rules

 

What new rules proposal? We are merely applauding reviewers for enforcing old rules - i.e. maintenance guidelines.

 

The suggestion to require an annual maintenance visit is one such proposal.

[+L0ne.R]

1493979476[/url]' post='5652580']

1493941711[/url]' post='5652528']

1493940831[/url]' post='5652524']

The one constant is that there is always a group of people here proposing new rules

 

What new rules proposal? We are merely applauding reviewers for enforcing old rules - i.e. maintenance guidelines.

 

The suggestion to require an annual maintenance visit is one such proposal.

 

I thought that was in the guidelines. I'll have to check. I know that there's a suggestion to regularly check even if problems are not reported.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I thought that was in the guidelines. I'll have to check. I know that there's a suggestion to regularly check even if problems are not reported.

 

Guidelines say

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

The help center uses the word "periodically" instead of "occasionally"

6.4. Maintenance expectations

 

The suggestion for a mandatory once a year visit (regardless of issue or not) was just a suggestion. If GS were to implement that, we could debate if that is a new guideline, or a specific new interpretation/enforcement (i.e. occasional=at least once a year). I don't think it matters, the point it is a suggestion for more strict requirements on what a CO needs to do.

Edited May 5, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+narcissa]

 

The container fetishists are constantly asking for ridiculous things, like:

 

- demanding cache owners be banned if a cache they own is disappointing

- wanting cachers and cache owners to be actively punished, somehow, for various container-related transgressions

- Groundspeak to expand reviewer responsibilities to include physically removing (i.e. stealing) archived caches

- forcing people to assign FPs based on container-related criteria rather than subjective personal enjoyment

- forcing people to revisit and reassign FPs if the container condition of a cache declined

 

I don't think there is ever a period of time where there the front page of this section doesn't have some new proposal for treating other geocachers like criminals.

 

None of these proposals ever actually seeks to address these issues in a constructive or collaborative fashion. It's all about punishment and retribution.

 

 

Punishment, stealing, criminals, retribution?? I'm sorry narcissa, but the only person I have ever seen use such terms here, is you.

 

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

[+lee737]

 

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

 

[+narcissa]

 

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.

[+justintim1999]

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.

 

It's understandable that your generation of cachers wants everything to be like it was back in 2002. Back when people had to invest actual $$$ to get into the game. I'm sure most people playing back then didn't invest all that time and money unless they were reasonably sure it was something they wanted to do. It's different today. It costs nothing to geocache so the mildly curious can jump right in. Some try it and enjoy it. Many realize that it's not for them and quickly disappear. It's the ability of the latter to hide a geocache that I'm concerned with.

 

Some of these problems are self-inflicted. There are over 3 million caches out there now with a group of volunteers trying to monitor all of them. Anyone who expects that's possible without the use of technology is not being realistic.

 

Put yourself in Groundspeak's shoes for just a minute and remember that they are a business. We can all see that the app was designed to get more people into the game increasing the likelihood that some of them would become paid members. From their perspective that makes perfect business sense.

 

Like any business your ultimate success comes down to the quality of your product or in this case the experience. It's not hard to see why cache quality is important to their business model. Identifying unmaintained caches and removing them before they can become a potential bad cache experience would be a priority if they hope to maintain and grow their membership base.

 

When you look at it from this side of the table the things they are trying to do make sense.

 

Lets not pretend that northing should be done and the status quo is adequate. That horse has left the barn.

 

The only question now is how can these issues be handled in a way that will keep the game healthy and the players happy.

[+mertat]

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.

Well said. And, thank you.

[+barefootjeff]

Some of these problems are self-inflicted. There are over 3 million caches out there now with a group of volunteers trying to monitor all of them. Anyone who expects that's possible without the use of technology is not being realistic.

No, the primary role of the reviewers is to review and publish new caches, and to look at caches when someone logs an NA and take whatever action they deem fit. Around here I've never seen a reviewer take any action on an active cache that hasn't been NA'ed, although they do occasionally do a sweep for caches that have been disabled for an excessively long time.

 

Like any business your ultimate success comes down to the quality of your product or in this case the experience. It's not hard to see why cache quality is important to their business model. Identifying unmaintained caches and removing them before they can become a potential bad cache experience would be a priority if they hope to maintain and grow their membership base.

You seem to be under the impression that all caches need constant maintenance attention. Many (most?) don't if they're well designed for the location in which they're hidden, and can quite happily go on for years without the CO going anywhere near them. Sure, if they do develop a problem then something needs to be done, but as I keep saying, we already have a mechanism for that through the NM/NA logs.

 

Lets not pretend that northing should be done and the status quo is adequate. That horse has left the barn.

I'm not disputing there might be a problem in your area, but it isn't global. Yes, here we do get occasional newcomers hiding rubbish caches then disappearing, but the local community is quite effective in cleaning that up through the existing NM/NA system. Putting imposts on COs such as those suggested here will discourage the excellent remote rugged caches that our coastline and hinterland fosters, with little or no benefit to the community.

 

If the problem is one-day-wonders hiding rubbish caches, that's the issue you need to address. Stop them from hiding them in the first place. Maybe a probationary period before you can hide, or a qualification exam on the cache-hiding guidelines, or, um, I don't know, but forcing COs to make visits to caches that have nothing wrong with them, or archiving perfectly good caches because their owner is currently inactive, isn't the solution.

[+justintim1999]

Some of these problems are self-inflicted. There are over 3 million caches out there now with a group of volunteers trying to monitor all of them. Anyone who expects that's possible without the use of technology is not being realistic.

No, the primary role of the reviewers is to review and publish new caches, and to look at caches when someone logs an NA and take whatever action they deem fit. Around here I've never seen a reviewer take any action on an active cache that hasn't been NA'ed, although they do occasionally do a sweep for caches that have been disabled for an excessively long time.

 

Like any business your ultimate success comes down to the quality of your product or in this case the experience. It's not hard to see why cache quality is important to their business model. Identifying unmaintained caches and removing them before they can become a potential bad cache experience would be a priority if they hope to maintain and grow their membership base.

You seem to be under the impression that all caches need constant maintenance attention. Many (most?) don't if they're well designed for the location in which they're hidden, and can quite happily go on for years without the CO going anywhere near them. Sure, if they do develop a problem then something needs to be done, but as I keep saying, we already have a mechanism for that through the NM/NA logs.

 

Lets not pretend that northing should be done and the status quo is adequate. That horse has left the barn.

I'm not disputing there might be a problem in your area, but it isn't global. Yes, here we do get occasional newcomers hiding rubbish caches then disappearing, but the local community is quite effective in cleaning that up through the existing NM/NA system. Putting imposts on COs such as those suggested here will discourage the excellent remote rugged caches that our coastline and hinterland fosters, with little or no benefit to the community.

 

If the problem is one-day-wonders hiding rubbish caches, that's the issue you need to address. Stop them from hiding them in the first place. Maybe a probationary period before you can hide, or a qualification exam on the cache-hiding guidelines, or, um, I don't know, but forcing COs to make visits to caches that have nothing wrong with them, or archiving perfectly good caches because their owner is currently inactive, isn't the solution.

 

My entire post was based on the business side of what's going on. Obviously you've decided to make them my own personal views.

 

The problem is GS has all the data. I'm only guessing. Something in what they see has caused them to get more involved in cache maintenance. without the information it's hard to determine if the level of there involvement is justified. Of course any involvement to us is unjustified but we're not responsible for the companies bottom line.

[+coachstahly]

Like any business your ultimate success comes down to the quality of your product or in this case the experience. It's not hard to see why cache quality is important to their business model. Identifying unmaintained caches and removing them before they can become a potential bad cache experience would be a priority if they hope to maintain and grow their membership base.

You seem to be under the impression that all caches need constant maintenance attention. Many (most?) don't if they're well designed for the location in which they're hidden, and can quite happily go on for years without the CO going anywhere near them. Sure, if they do develop a problem then something needs to be done, but as I keep saying, we already have a mechanism for that through the NM/NA logs.

 

To add to this, by removing these caches, especially in more remote rural areas with very few caches, you're effectively removing the very thing that Groundspeak NEEDS to add to their potential paying customer base. In an area with good cache density, it's not an issue, but in a small town, back road, low population county, it reduces the opportunities for those that might become paying members.

Edited May 5, 2017 by coachstahly

[+coachstahly]

 

My entire post was based on the business side of what's going on.

So removing the very thing (the geocache) that your business depends upon is the answer?

[+justintim1999]

 

My entire post was based on the business side of what's going on.

So removing the very thing (the geocache) that your business depends upon is the answer?

 

Yes if it's a cache no longer being maintained. If it was your business and you knew that 10% of your inventory was trash would you rather have $3,000,000 or $2,000,000 worth? Up to this point increasing the number of active caches was the goal. Now it seems that the condition of those caches has become the focus.

[+coachstahly]

 

My entire post was based on the business side of what's going on.

So removing the very thing (the geocache) that your business depends upon is the answer?

 

Yes if it's a cache no longer being maintained. If it was your business and you knew that 10% of your inventory was trash would you rather have $3,000,000 or $2,000,000 worth? Up to this point increasing the number of active caches was the goal. Now it seems that the condition of those caches has become the focus.

1. You really believe that an unmaintained cache means it's a bad cache and needs to be purged from the system?

 

2. You believe 10% of the caches out there are trash? I've filed just over 60 NMs with roughly 6600 finds. That's about 1%. 13 NA logs. I think I could have considered posting more NMs on caches because they might have deserved it but they already had a recent one posted to the page. At most, I'd venture to guess that my general area has maybe a 5% rate of caches with problems. If the pictures that LoneR posted are what you're referring to, I think you're estimate is way too high. Most of the NM logs we see around here are related to damp/wet/full logs or wet containers. Very few are for caches like the pictures posted. Some certainly are. I'm not denying that. Those should be attended to, one way or another.

Edited May 5, 2017 by coachstahly

[+justintim1999]

 

My entire post was based on the business side of what's going on.

So removing the very thing (the geocache) that your business depends upon is the answer?

 

Yes if it's a cache no longer being maintained. If it was your business and you knew that 10% of your inventory was trash would you rather have $3,000,000 or $2,000,000 worth? Up to this point increasing the number of active caches was the goal. Now it seems that the condition of those caches has become the focus.

1. You really believe that an unmaintained cache means it's a bad cache and needs to be purged from the system?

 

2. You believe 10% of the caches out there are trash? I've filed just over 60 NMs with roughly 6600 finds. That's about 1%. 13 NA logs. I think I could have considered posting more NMs on caches because they might have deserved it but they already had a recent one posted to the page. At most, I'd venture to guess that my general area has maybe a 5% rate of caches with problems. If the pictures that LoneR posted are what you're referring to, I think you're estimate is way too high. Most of the NM logs we see around here are related to damp/wet/full logs or wet containers. Very few are for caches like the pictures posted. Some certainly are. I'm not denying that. Those should be attended to, one way or another.

 

I believe that an unmaintained cache is bad for the game and that every cache should have an owner that's accountable.

 

I don't have the data so the 10% was simply an example to illustrate what I believe Groundspeak's current mindset is. Maintaining the current cache base has become a priority.

 

Personally I don't think it's nearly that high but It's high enough to cause an attitude change by Groundspeak when it comes to cache maintenance.

 

Please understand, I don't think that this push on maintenance is the result of some catastrophic issue that's rampant in the game today. I think it's more of a proactive approach designed to address an issue before it becomes a real problem in the future.

[+narcissa]

What strikes me is that none of these measures are addressing the caches that are probably the most neglected of all, which are some (not all) power trails and other caches that are placed with the assumption that other cachers will take care of them by dropping replacements. The logs on those caches are generally monotonous copy-and-paste, so unless someone like me comes along and is willing to blow the whistle by saying NEEDS MAINTENANCE, THERE ARE FIFTEEN PILL BOTTLES ON THE GROUND HERE, nothing is done. Don't even get me started on the insidious trend of cut-and-paste logs that each say "Cache was in great condition."

 

Instead of raising the bar and holding power trail cache owners responsible for each and every cache they put out, Groundspeak is inventing measures that are placing a greater burden on cache owners who place more traditional-style caches. The cachers who go for those ones are more likely to leave wordy logs and post DNFs and NMs, but now, those logging practices are being weaponized in the name of "quality." But those logs are rarely applied to the caches that are actually bad!

 

For a long time I've made an effort to write informative logs (especially on caches that are infrequently found) and diligently log DNFs, NMs and NAs where needed. But now, I feel like these habits - which have long been touted, at least in my community, as best practice - seem like they're more like to harm than help. I don't want a cache owner to be hounded to check on a cache that's in perfectly good shape because I DNFed or used the word "trouble" or something in my log. And I can't even add detail to an NM without retracing steps and editing the log, so what is even the point if the notification the owner sees won't contain my notes anyway?

[+coachstahly]

 

Please understand, I don't think that this push on maintenance is the result of some catastrophic issue that's rampant in the game today. I think it's more of a proactive approach designed to address an issue before it becomes a real problem in the future.

Problem is, maintenance issues have been around since the beginning of caching and will continue to be around as long as caching is an activity. I really don't see a need to address an issue that has been around, is around, and will continue to be around but isn't something that really affects the activity that much, except to a minority of cachers. I don't notice an increase in messy caches that really need maintenance vs. what I found when I first started almost 7 years ago. I honestly believe the things we have/had in place (NM/NA) should have been encouraged more to address this issue rather than relying on the listing service and their volunteers to make the calls. Below are some examples I posted about maintenance issues being around from the very start and showing that things haven't really changed that much since geocaching first started. While all of us would prefer that caches we find are in really nice shape, many of us don't feel that the impetus on maintenance is warranted to the extent that some others do. It's always been an issue but not one that causes that many problems. All of these caches were found (so not really pertinent to the exact topic at hand) but the logs don't talk about disappointment with the condition of the cache. They mention it as a statement of fact and not an indictment on the CO's ability, or lack thereof, to maintain a cache. Unless I'm completely off base here, most of the finders of these caches were happy to have the opportunity to find a cache placed by someone else, regardless of the condition they might have found it in.

 

GC1D had some issues in its first year with no note or OM log (was that even an option back then) for some issues with the cache. First note of trouble was a cracked lid on 3/8/01, a full log on 7/14/01, a damp log and wet contents on 7/14/01, musty on 8/11/01, and rough shape, wet inside, lid cracked, might want to replace the container on 8/18/01. 5 months and no check on the cache to fix the issues listed in logs.

 

GC115C - 7/29/01 - contents damp, 10/31/01 - contents in pretty bad shape, 3/4 full of water, 12/25/01 - some swag frozen solid, 1/21/02 - no logbook, 4/1/02 - damp and logbook missing, 4/12/02 - wet inside, 5/25/02 - pretty damp inside. Over 6 months and no maintenance for a cache that obviously needed it.

 

GCFA - 11/22/02 - warped lid and bug "nest" inside, 2/10/03 - lid not sealing and damp inside, 2/22/03 - mildew, 10/26/03 - container is completely out of service and should be replaced soon, 11/2/03 - moldy and bad condition. 1 year and no maintenance since first issue.

 

GC189D - 8/29/01 - log damp, moisture inside, 9/10/01 - everything wet, 9/16/01 - wet inside, 9/23/01 - wet inside, 9/30/01 - damp inside, 10/17/01 - all damp inside, 11/10/01 - damp inside. 3 months and no mention of maintenance on a wet cache.

 

GC5C0 - 3/7/02 - gnaw marks on the lid, 3/9/03 - in plastic bag to keep water out from holes chewed through container, 7/13/03 - damp inside, 11/15/03 - damp inside, 2/21/04 - new container (NOT the CO but with their permission) placed almost a full year since the first issue was mentioned.

 

GCD4D - 6/20/02 - critter chewed a hole, 8/31/02 - hole from critter, 11/20/02 - container needs to be replaced, 1/5/03 - still has a hole, 8/7/03 - container needs some attention. Over a year and no maintenance.

 

GC1F78 - 2/17/02 - lid gone, chewed on and wet, 4/14/02 - chewed on bags and cache, 1/28/03 - maintenance finally done.

 

GC1676 - 11//27/01 - full of water, 12/29/01 - frozen swag, 1/10/02 - water in cache again, 3/23/02 - wet cache, 3/30/02 - damp inside, 6/26/02 - damp inside. 1 1/2 years and no maintenance on cache.

[+L0ne.R]

Like any business your ultimate success comes down to the quality of your product or in this case the experience. It's not hard to see why cache quality is important to their business model. Identifying unmaintained caches and removing them before they can become a potential bad cache experience would be a priority if they hope to maintain and grow their membership base.

You seem to be under the impression that all caches need constant maintenance attention. Many (most?) don't if they're well designed for the location in which they're hidden, and can quite happily go on for years without the CO going anywhere near them. Sure, if they do develop a problem then something needs to be done, but as I keep saying, we already have a mechanism for that through the NM/NA logs.

 

To add to this, by removing these caches, especially in more remote rural areas with very few caches, you're effectively removing the very thing that Groundspeak NEEDS to add to their potential paying customer base. In an area with good cache density, it's not an issue, but in a small town, back road, low population county, it reduces the opportunities for those that might become paying members.

 

I would think that it's a very small segment of their paying customer base. I could be wrong, but in my area I see very few >10km/significant hike caches when a do a PQ. 34 within 300 km. Of the 34 none have a red wrench, that's a great thing. They get very few visitors. About one a year.

[+coachstahly]

 

I would think that it's a very small segment of their paying customer base. I could be wrong, but in my area I see very few >10km/significant hike caches when a do a PQ. 34 within 300 km. Of the 34 none have a red wrench, that's a great thing. They get very few visitors. About one a year.

I'm talking about potential customers, not current paying members. I'm sure there's a much lower percentage of premium members in rural areas than in more urban areas, just like the population percentage plays out. The point is that by removing those caches, you restrict the possibility of attracting them to become paying members. No caches, no possibility of them becoming a paying member. Unless I'm mistaken, most businesses aren't in the business of reducing or restricting their reach to potential customers. I'm pretty sure they want to attract as many new customers as possible.

[+dprovan]

Some of these problems are self-inflicted. There are over 3 million caches out there now with a group of volunteers trying to monitor all of them. Anyone who expects that's possible without the use of technology is not being realistic.

This paragraph captures the disconnect perfectly. Anyone that expects it to be possible for a group of volunteers to monitor all of 3 million caches with technology is not being realistic, either. So step back and reconsider the idea that cache quality is the responsibility of a group of volunteers monitoring them all at a distance. The old scheme of the monitoring being done by seekers of the caches scales perfectly and is exactly as practical today as it was when the game was invented. What doesn't work is shifting the burden from other geocachers to a special group of monitors.

 

But you're right, the problems are self-inflicted. GS did it to themselves by caving into all the whining about bad caches.

[+hal-an-tow]

 

My entire post was based on the business side of what's going on.

So removing the very thing (the geocache) that your business depends upon is the answer?

 

Yes if it's a cache no longer being maintained. If it was your business and you knew that 10% of your inventory was trash would you rather have $3,000,000 or $2,000,000 worth? Up to this point increasing the number of active caches was the goal. Now it seems that the condition of those caches has become the focus.

 

Bur , the caches are NOT , in any way, part of Groundspeak's business inventory.

They belong to the cache owner. The cache owner chooses to allow Groundspeak to list their cache on the Groundspeak database in order to make that cache available to those cachers who use that particular database.

 

Groundspeak are an intermediary between cache setters and finders, nothing more. They have a weird business model predicated on the free labour and expense of cache setters, and hours of unpaid work by volunteer reviewers, with actual income down to our continued willingness to cough up for premium memberships and tracking codes for those amazing vanishing TBs, both are 'virtual' products.

 

Annoying cache setters (and possibly reviewers too) with officious and onerous maintenance regulations would be a very foolish business move. I don't know if the phrase gets used outside the UK, but , "It's my ball, and I'm not playing." stopped a lot of games in my childhood.

[+justintim1999]

 

My entire post was based on the business side of what's going on.

So removing the very thing (the geocache) that your business depends upon is the answer?

 

Yes if it's a cache no longer being maintained. If it was your business and you knew that 10% of your inventory was trash would you rather have $3,000,000 or $2,000,000 worth? Up to this point increasing the number of active caches was the goal. Now it seems that the condition of those caches has become the focus.

 

Bur , the caches are NOT , in any way, part of Groundspeak's business inventory.

They belong to the cache owner. The cache owner chooses to allow Groundspeak to list their cache on the Groundspeak database in order to make that cache available to those cachers who use that particular database.

 

Groundspeak are an intermediary between cache setters and finders, nothing more. They have a weird business model predicated on the free labour and expense of cache setters, and hours of unpaid work by volunteer reviewers, with actual income down to our continued willingness to cough up for premium memberships and tracking codes for those amazing vanishing TBs, both are 'virtual' products.

 

Annoying cache setters (and possibly reviewers too) with officious and onerous maintenance regulations would be a very foolish business move. I don't know if the phrase gets used outside the UK, but , "It's my ball, and I'm not playing." stopped a lot of games in my childhood.

 

If Groundspeak was a non profit I'd agree totally but they do have a financial stake in the health of the game.

[+niraD]

Bur , the caches are NOT , in any way, part of Groundspeak's business inventory.

They belong to the cache owner. The cache owner chooses to allow Groundspeak to list their cache on the Groundspeak database in order to make that cache available to those cachers who use that particular database.

 

Groundspeak are an intermediary between cache setters and finders, nothing more. They have a weird business model predicated on the free labour and expense of cache setters, and hours of unpaid work by volunteer reviewers, with actual income down to our continued willingness to cough up for premium memberships and tracking codes for those amazing vanishing TBs, both are 'virtual' products.

 

Annoying cache setters (and possibly reviewers too) with officious and onerous maintenance regulations would be a very foolish business move. I don't know if the phrase gets used outside the UK, but , "It's my ball, and I'm not playing." stopped a lot of games in my childhood.

If Groundspeak was a non profit I'd agree totally but they do have a financial stake in the health of the game.

At its heart, geocaching is about cache owners inviting others to look for the geocaches they've hidden. Groundspeak is an intermediary between cache owners and cache seekers, the same way that Evite is an intermediary between me and the friends I invite to my BBQ or game night.

 

The fact that Groundspeak and Evite are for-profit companies doesn't change that.

[+justintim1999]

Bur , the caches are NOT , in any way, part of Groundspeak's business inventory.

They belong to the cache owner. The cache owner chooses to allow Groundspeak to list their cache on the Groundspeak database in order to make that cache available to those cachers who use that particular database.

 

Groundspeak are an intermediary between cache setters and finders, nothing more. They have a weird business model predicated on the free labour and expense of cache setters, and hours of unpaid work by volunteer reviewers, with actual income down to our continued willingness to cough up for premium memberships and tracking codes for those amazing vanishing TBs, both are 'virtual' products.

 

Annoying cache setters (and possibly reviewers too) with officious and onerous maintenance regulations would be a very foolish business move. I don't know if the phrase gets used outside the UK, but , "It's my ball, and I'm not playing." stopped a lot of games in my childhood.

If Groundspeak was a non profit I'd agree totally but they do have a financial stake in the health of the game.

At its heart, geocaching is about cache owners inviting others to look for the geocaches they've hidden. Groundspeak is an intermediary between cache owners and cache seekers, the same way that Evite is an intermediary between me and the friends I invite to my BBQ or game night.

 

The fact that Groundspeak and Evite are for-profit companies doesn't change that.

 

I doubt GS sees it in exactly the same light. I know if it were my company I wouldn't.

[+niraD]

At its heart, geocaching is about cache owners inviting others to look for the geocaches they've hidden. Groundspeak is an intermediary between cache owners and cache seekers, the same way that Evite is an intermediary between me and the friends I invite to my BBQ or game night.

 

The fact that Groundspeak and Evite are for-profit companies doesn't change that.

I doubt GS sees it in exactly the same light. I know if it were my company I wouldn't.

That would be unfortunate.

[+dprovan]

At its heart, geocaching is about cache owners inviting others to look for the geocaches they've hidden. Groundspeak is an intermediary between cache owners and cache seekers, the same way that Evite is an intermediary between me and the friends I invite to my BBQ or game night.

Your description -- and I particularly like the word "heart" -- is an accurate description of the game I fell in love with. But I don't think that's the way it is anymore. Since the consensus is now that GS is responsible for cache quality, GS is no longer an impartial intermediary that gets involves as little as possible: it's a middleman that takes every cache in hand and presents it to the customer. Suddenly things that used to be run-of-the-mill become Groundspeak failing. What used to be a friend finding a cache with problems which he then discussed with the owner becomes a shocked customer finding a spoiled fruit and demanding satisfaction. It's like Evite being responsible for whether your parties are good enough.

[+justintim1999]

At its heart, geocaching is about cache owners inviting others to look for the geocaches they've hidden. Groundspeak is an intermediary between cache owners and cache seekers, the same way that Evite is an intermediary between me and the friends I invite to my BBQ or game night.

 

The fact that Groundspeak and Evite are for-profit companies doesn't change that.

I doubt GS sees it in exactly the same light. I know if it were my company I wouldn't.

That would be unfortunate.

 

The rent comes due the end of the month. Even for listing sites. It's not unfortunate. It's just how it is.

 

Membership dues are a part of what keep the doors open. I know there are other sites that offer the same service free. I pay because I happen to like this one.

 

considering the cost of a membership I can't imagine they're getting rich but even if they were I wouldn't begrudge them that. I feel my $30.00 is money well spent.

 

So how do you add new members, retain current members and insure the game stays healthy and growing? I have no idea, but I do know one thing. What ever happens, not everybody's going to like it.

[+niraD]

The rent comes due the end of the month. Even for listing sites. It's not unfortunate. It's just how it is.

And yet Evite manages to keep the lights on without claiming to be any more than an intermediary between me and my guests.

[+WearyTraveler]

I'm on an iPad - makes this type of quote difficult... but - responses inline...

 

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.

I don't know where the "probably" comes from: we know exactly what the reviewer did because he said so in his log: he searched for "mold" and found it, then disabled the cache and archived it later. The disable log says he read the log, so I believe him, but we can all see for ourselves that there was nothing else in the log except the one word to support taking action, so the effect is pretty automated even if the actual process was not. Anyway, it's an example of precisely what you asked for.

- I said "probably" because neither you nor I watched over the shoulder. And I've got to assume that there's no automated (meaning without human intervention) process going out and archiving caches. If he did archive the cache incorrectly, then he made a mistake. If he made that mistake with good intentions, well, we all make mistakes. But again, there's no automated search and archive process going on. A reviewer has to take action.

 

The CO, if he reads the notification emails, and doesn't throw a "wait - don't archive" note, then he's at fault toot. He let something happen that he could have prevented. If he's inactive and has been offline for years, well, it was a cache waiting to die...

 

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

If there are caches that are trash, they have no impact on anyone until someone discovers the problem, at which point it can be dealt with without impacting all the other caches that have no problem.

 

- they have an impact. They're trash in the environment and should be picked up. One of the things we're supposed to be mindful of is not to trash the environment - you know, that whole CITO thing they keep mentioning... I'm not talking about caches in good shape, I'm again referring to trash caches... they're nothing more than litter now...

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

I'm not even convinced fewer caches are wrongly archived, but what's more important is that as we continue down this road where we accept caches being deleted based on nothing but "might" and "probably", more and more caches with no problem at all will be archived. The annual visit approach suggested in the mold thread specifically calls for archiving caches that have no known problem. Even if you imagine a lax CO, they'll still almost certainly have more good caches than bad.

I'm certain that if there was an epidemic of wrongfully archived caches, there'd be a lot more forum discussion about it. It's not a regularly occurring problem, let alone an emidemic requiring all this teeth gnashing.

[+narcissa]

I'm on an iPad - makes this type of quote difficult... but - responses inline...

 

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.

I don't know where the "probably" comes from: we know exactly what the reviewer did because he said so in his log: he searched for "mold" and found it, then disabled the cache and archived it later. The disable log says he read the log, so I believe him, but we can all see for ourselves that there was nothing else in the log except the one word to support taking action, so the effect is pretty automated even if the actual process was not. Anyway, it's an example of precisely what you asked for.

- I said "probably" because neither you nor I watched over the shoulder. And I've got to assume that there's no automated (meaning without human intervention) process going out and archiving caches. If he did archive the cache incorrectly, then he made a mistake. If he made that mistake with good intentions, well, we all make mistakes. But again, there's no automated search and archive process going on. A reviewer has to take action.

 

The CO, if he reads the notification emails, and doesn't throw a "wait - don't archive" note, then he's at fault toot. He let something happen that he could have prevented. If he's inactive and has been offline for years, well, it was a cache waiting to die...

 

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

If there are caches that are trash, they have no impact on anyone until someone discovers the problem, at which point it can be dealt with without impacting all the other caches that have no problem.

 

- they have an impact. They're trash in the environment and should be picked up. One of the things we're supposed to be mindful of is not to trash the environment - you know, that whole CITO thing they keep mentioning... I'm not talking about caches in good shape, I'm again referring to trash caches... they're nothing more than litter now...

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

I'm not even convinced fewer caches are wrongly archived, but what's more important is that as we continue down this road where we accept caches being deleted based on nothing but "might" and "probably", more and more caches with no problem at all will be archived. The annual visit approach suggested in the mold thread specifically calls for archiving caches that have no known problem. Even if you imagine a lax CO, they'll still almost certainly have more good caches than bad.

I'm certain that if there was an epidemic of wrongfully archived caches, there'd be a lot more forum discussion about it. It's not a regularly occurring problem, let alone an emidemic requiring all this teeth gnashing.

 

Obviously, the forum is not a representative sample of the geocaching population, so it would be unwise to make any calculations or projections about the prevalence of these issues based on their presence here.

 

But for what it's worth, there is often discussion of archived and threatened caches in the forum, on community Facebook groups, and other places where geocachers converge to discuss these issues.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

The reviewer identified a potential issue and disabled the cache. All that was required was an OM Log. If one of my caches were flagged and disabled it would be enabled the same day unless it had a serious issue. Either way It would be addressed immediately.

(spelling)

 

Well, hells belles - I agree with you!

[+WearyTraveler]

 

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.

 

COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood.

 

If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period.

I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do.

 

If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment.

 

And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it.

 

And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions...

[+WearyTraveler]

What strikes me is that none of these measures are addressing the caches that are probably the most neglected of all, which are some (not all) power trails and other caches that are placed with the assumption that other cachers will take care of them by dropping replacements. The logs on those caches are generally monotonous copy-and-paste, so unless someone like me comes along and is willing to blow the whistle by saying NEEDS MAINTENANCE, THERE ARE FIFTEEN PILL BOTTLES ON THE GROUND HERE, nothing is done. Don't even get me started on the insidious trend of cut-and-paste logs that each say "Cache was in great condition."

 

Instead of raising the bar and holding power trail cache owners responsible for each and every cache they put out, Groundspeak is inventing measures that are placing a greater burden on cache owners who place more traditional-style caches. The cachers who go for those ones are more likely to leave wordy logs and post DNFs and NMs, but now, those logging practices are being weaponized in the name of "quality." But those logs are rarely applied to the caches that are actually bad!

 

For a long time I've made an effort to write informative logs (especially on caches that are infrequently found) and diligently log DNFs, NMs and NAs where needed. But now, I feel like these habits - which have long been touted, at least in my community, as best practice - seem like they're more like to harm than help. I don't want a cache owner to be hounded to check on a cache that's in perfectly good shape because I DNFed or used the word "trouble" or something in my log. And I can't even add detail to an NM without retracing steps and editing the log, so what is even the point if the notification the owner sees won't contain my notes anyway?

 

Nothing has changed in the ability to leave long and detailed found logs. We can leave a paragraph or TFTC depending on how we feel at the time (or when we get home and upload). The primary change to logging is the consolidation (for lack of a better word) of the found, NM, NA , may be missing log type. I plan to continue logging NM as needed. Fortunately my app allows me to create a separate NM log and fill in as much text as I want. I try to put detailed information so that CO and subsequent finders have a clue about my reasoning. If I ever log from home on the laptop I'll have to remember to make a conscious effort to remember to go back and edit my NM...

 

Again - there's no autoarchive - so mentioning trouble or mold or fubar in the log may get a reviewer's attention, but I'd doubt we'll have an epidemic of caches incorrectly archived because my log mentions that "I had trouble finding my car in the way back." Maybe a few overzealous reviewers, but a CO can easily fix that...

[+dprovan]

If he made that mistake with good intentions, well, we all make mistakes.

I have a hard time wrapping my head around it when someone says something like this. It goes without saying that the reviewer is acting with good intentions. I can't even imagine thinking otherwise. The point isn't to lay blame. The point is to ask whether he should be using this technique in the future and, more to the point, whether he should be encouraged to think it's his responsibility to take this kind of action in general.

 

The CO, if he reads the notification emails, and doesn't throw a "wait - don't archive" note, then he's at fault toot. He let something happen that he could have prevented.

A good cache is gone. I don't care why the CO didn't say anything. I'm not trying to figure out who's at fault. I just trying to avoid losing good caches.

 

they have an impact. They're trash in the environment and should be picked up.

No, sorry, that claim is illogical. Until someone discovers that they're trash, they have exactly the same impact on the environment as any other geocache. Furthermore, they continue to have this impact even after the reviewer's magic procedure archives them. In fact, I think the better claim is the reverse: it's more likely that a cache will be left out in the environment decaying if it gets archived through one of these reviewer based actions.

 

I'm certain that if there was an epidemic of wrongfully archived caches, there'd be a lot more forum discussion about it. It's not a regularly occurring problem, let alone an emidemic requiring all this teeth gnashing.

The point isn't that the sky is falling. The people gnashing their teeth are the people on the other side insisting that bad caches are ruining the game so GS must eliminate them at any cost. My point is that you have to take into account these good caches that you're archiving when you evaluate the new approaches you're supporting. The claim is that bad caches are bad enough to justify archiving good caches as collateral damage, but I feel the reverse: the bad caches are not a big deal even when you run into them, so killing off good caches just to be sure you get rid of all the bad caches is not warranted.

[+narcissa]

What strikes me is that none of these measures are addressing the caches that are probably the most neglected of all, which are some (not all) power trails and other caches that are placed with the assumption that other cachers will take care of them by dropping replacements. The logs on those caches are generally monotonous copy-and-paste, so unless someone like me comes along and is willing to blow the whistle by saying NEEDS MAINTENANCE, THERE ARE FIFTEEN PILL BOTTLES ON THE GROUND HERE, nothing is done. Don't even get me started on the insidious trend of cut-and-paste logs that each say "Cache was in great condition."

 

Instead of raising the bar and holding power trail cache owners responsible for each and every cache they put out, Groundspeak is inventing measures that are placing a greater burden on cache owners who place more traditional-style caches. The cachers who go for those ones are more likely to leave wordy logs and post DNFs and NMs, but now, those logging practices are being weaponized in the name of "quality." But those logs are rarely applied to the caches that are actually bad!

 

For a long time I've made an effort to write informative logs (especially on caches that are infrequently found) and diligently log DNFs, NMs and NAs where needed. But now, I feel like these habits - which have long been touted, at least in my community, as best practice - seem like they're more like to harm than help. I don't want a cache owner to be hounded to check on a cache that's in perfectly good shape because I DNFed or used the word "trouble" or something in my log. And I can't even add detail to an NM without retracing steps and editing the log, so what is even the point if the notification the owner sees won't contain my notes anyway?

 

Nothing has changed in the ability to leave long and detailed found logs. We can leave a paragraph or TFTC depending on how we feel at the time (or when we get home and upload). The primary change to logging is the consolidation (for lack of a better word) of the found, NM, NA , may be missing log type. I plan to continue logging NM as needed. Fortunately my app allows me to create a separate NM log and fill in as much text as I want. I try to put detailed information so that CO and subsequent finders have a clue about my reasoning. If I ever log from home on the laptop I'll have to remember to make a conscious effort to remember to go back and edit my NM...

 

Again - there's no autoarchive - so mentioning trouble or mold or fubar in the log may get a reviewer's attention, but I'd doubt we'll have an epidemic of caches incorrectly archived because my log mentions that "I had trouble finding my car in the way back." Maybe a few overzealous reviewers, but a CO can easily fix that...

 

I didn't ever say anything about auto-archive. I just get the distinct impression that any kind of log that isn't a cheerful Found It! is likely to result in hassle for the cache owner. I am less concerned about truly absent cachers than I am about good cache owners being nagged and not permitted to apply their own expertise and knowledge in the maintenance of their own caches.

 

Cache owners and watchers receive a notification when the cache is logged. The new system that requires separately editing to add detail to an NM means that anything I add is obviously unimportant to the new system, and essentially lost in the ether.

[+barefootjeff]

Nothing has changed in the ability to leave long and detailed found logs. We can leave a paragraph or TFTC depending on how we feel at the time (or when we get home and upload). The primary change to logging is the consolidation (for lack of a better word) of the found, NM, NA , may be missing log type. I plan to continue logging NM as needed. Fortunately my app allows me to create a separate NM log and fill in as much text as I want. I try to put detailed information so that CO and subsequent finders have a clue about my reasoning. If I ever log from home on the laptop I'll have to remember to make a conscious effort to remember to go back and edit my NM...

What has changed is the ability to add more than one photo or even put a caption on the one we're now allowed. I use photography a lot to relate my experience, especially with the remote long-distance multi-stage ones that make up many of my favourites. Worse still is we can't add any photos to NM or NA logs, at least not without going back and editing them (and the edit page is part of the old code they're getting rid of and is likely to replaced with the new system and same restrictions soon). Showing the CO photos of what the cache's problem is would make it far easier for them to fix it without having to make multiple visits to GZ.

Edited May 6, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+hal-an-tow]

 

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.

 

COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood.

 

If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period.

I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do.

 

If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment.

 

And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it.

 

And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions...

 

Cachers are not the life blood - cache setters are the life blood.

 

If COs don't set caches, then cachers have got nothing to complain about find Period.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

One cache placed (hopefully a good one, the sort that accumulates favourite points) will be dozens, if not hundreds of finds for happy cachers. But one find is just one find.

 

Oh, and by the way, "picking up and removing a cache that's become trash" just because it has been archived as a groundpeak listing could easily be theft of a cache which has been moved to another listing site.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.

 

COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood.

 

If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period.

I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do.

 

If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment.

 

And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it.

 

And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions...

 

Cachers are not the life blood - cache setters are the life blood.

 

If COs don't set caches, then cachers have got nothing to complain about find Period.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

One cache placed (hopefully a good one, the sort that accumulates favourite points) will be dozens, if not hundreds of finds for happy cachers. But one find is just one find.

 

Oh, and by the way, "picking up and removing a cache that's become trash" just because it has been archived as a groundpeak listing could easily be theft of a cache which has been moved to another listing site.

 

Cache seekers and cache owners are both necessary, but there is another even more important group that is necessary: land managers. If land managers won't allow caches to be placed on the property they manage the neither caches seekers nor cache owners will be able to play their role. Leaving trash where a land manager may find it may just be enough for a land manager to prohibit the placement of caches in a park or other body of land.

[+narcissa]

 

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.

 

COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood.

 

If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period.

I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do.

 

If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment.

 

And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it.

 

And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions...

 

Cachers are not the life blood - cache setters are the life blood.

 

If COs don't set caches, then cachers have got nothing to complain about find Period.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

One cache placed (hopefully a good one, the sort that accumulates favourite points) will be dozens, if not hundreds of finds for happy cachers. But one find is just one find.

 

Oh, and by the way, "picking up and removing a cache that's become trash" just because it has been archived as a groundpeak listing could easily be theft of a cache which has been moved to another listing site.

 

Seriously, the game did not start with someone looking for a cache, it started with someone hiding a cache and inviting others to look for it.

 

The sense of entitlement is really disheartening. I honestly don't know how someone can come into this game and treat cache owners as though they're an imposition. It's so illogical.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

Taking other peoples caches because they no longer have an active listing on this listing site is stealing.

 

Putting cachers on probation or parole for allowing a container to get shabby is punishing them and treating them like criminals.

 

The general attitude that cache maintenance efforts must involve punishment for the cache owner, rather than simply delisting or suspending the cache itself, suggests a desire for retribution. These cachers talk about their experience being ruined and their time being wasted and they want someone else to hurt for it.

 

All of the items I listed in my previous are earnest suggestions that have been made or supported by people who are still participating in the forum and who continue to promote this vision for the game.

 

We see things the way we want to see them.....

 

Indeed. It's a shame that we have this vocal cadre of cachers who don't understand that cache owners are the life blood of the game.

 

COs are not the life blood - cachers are the life blood.

 

If COs don't do their jobs (maintaining their caches, as they've agreed to when they placed the cache) then they've got nothing to complain about when their cache gets archived. Period.

I'm not saying that if they don't make their annual pilgrimage, that they should be cast from the game. But if their cache needs maintenance and they're not doing it - well, they're not doing what they agreed to do.

 

If a finder trashes a cache (for whatever reason - accidental or out of negligence) then they're not doing their nod - playing responsibly.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

As with cache owners that don't hold up their end, well, stop them from placing new caches. If you can't maintain 1, you probably can't maintain 2... and eventually we've got 2 pieces of trash in the environment.

 

And I can't recall anyone suggesting taking someone's cache - but I'm certain you'll grab a corner case to show that it's an epidemic. I do, however, fully agree with picking up and removing a cache that's become trash if the CO is too irresponsible to maintain it.

 

And nowhere have I said to remove caches in good condition. Only ones that meet the above conditions...

 

Cachers are not the life blood - cache setters are the life blood.

 

If COs don't set caches, then cachers have got nothing to complain about find Period.

 

Without one, the other is useless and the game stops...

 

One cache placed (hopefully a good one, the sort that accumulates favourite points) will be dozens, if not hundreds of finds for happy cachers. But one find is just one find.

 

Oh, and by the way, "picking up and removing a cache that's become trash" just because it has been archived as a groundpeak listing could easily be theft of a cache which has been moved to another listing site.

 

Seriously, the game did not start with someone looking for a cache, it started with someone hiding a cache and inviting others to look for it.

 

The sense of entitlement is really disheartening. I honestly don't know how someone can come into this game and treat cache owners as though they're an imposition. It's so illogical.

 

Very true - without one, the other is useless...

 

You can hide a thousand caches, but if no one looks, they just sit.

You can hide 0 caches, and you get seekers bumping into each other but finding nothing.

 

Cachers - both COs and seekers - are the lifeblood. It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

We all try (or should) to be responsible cachers...

[+lee737]

Just had a DNF on one of my mysteries - from a cacher with 2 finds, the cache has had 3 logs in the past 5 days (2 yesterday) from cachers with an aggregate 40,000 finds. I'm not going to assume the cache is missing.... but will probably check in on it anyway, as I quite like checking our caches

I am going to message them and check if they know how mysteries work....

[+redsox_mark]

Just had a DNF on one of my mysteries - from a cacher with 2 finds, the cache has had 3 logs in the past 5 days (2 yesterday) from cachers with an aggregate 40,000 finds. I'm not going to assume the cache is missing.... but will probably check in on it anyway, as I quite like checking our caches

I am going to message them and check if they know how mysteries work....

 

I've had DNFs on two of my puzzle caches recently from the same new cacher. The first one I was pretty sure they were looking at the posted coordinates, the second one I am certain. I mailed/messaged them both times but no reply. I'm not too worried, eventually they will figure out how puzzles work.

[+lee737]

Just had a DNF on one of my mysteries - from a cacher with 2 finds, the cache has had 3 logs in the past 5 days (2 yesterday) from cachers with an aggregate 40,000 finds. I'm not going to assume the cache is missing.... but will probably check in on it anyway, as I quite like checking our caches

I am going to message them and check if they know how mysteries work....

 

I've had DNFs on two of my puzzle caches recently from the same new cacher. The first one I was pretty sure they were looking at the posted coordinates, the second one I am certain. I mailed/messaged them both times but no reply. I'm not too worried, eventually they will figure out how puzzles work.

 

I did get a reply - they were looking at the posted coords.... in a storm water drain! Which is about 50m (150') away anyway.....