Keyword: Mold

[fendmar]

 

I think you're forgetting what started this thread. The case brought up originally was that a reviewer stepped in without any NM posted, disabled the cache, and later archived it.

 

I think Groundspeak realizes that a database full of caches that look like these below, are detrimental to sustaining customers.

 

 

Full?

 

Is that a urine specimen?

 

I think it's safe to say that this is exactly what we all want to see addressed with whatever method we can all agree on.

Perhaps it's time to realize that the volunteer model for hides has run its course and it might be appropriate for GS to start placing caches for their customer base to find.

 

Problem solved.

[+justintim1999]

I must live in an alternate universe. I often cache on back roads in the country, by canoe, and when possible, in more remote areas where one would expect to find caches that are, perhaps, in worse shape than high traffic caches in urban areas, and yet I rarely ever find a cache that looks as bad as those pictures. They happen, but they are rare.

 

And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc. and not only claims that the database is "full" of these terrible, disgusting caches, somehow manages to find them at an alarming rate despite taking extreme measures to avoid such caches.

 

Something just isn't adding up here.

 

To be honest I've posted 9 NM's out of about 1100 finds. This doesn't include all the caches I'm guilty of "fixing up" before I realized that wasn't the way to go. Throw in a handful or two of caches I should have posted a NM on and didn't and I'd say that I've seen my share of these.

 

I'd have to say the caches you seek would be less likely to have problems like this. Not to many newbies are going to place a cache 7 miles up a mountain. If they were going to I'd hope they'd have the good sense to hide a container that would resist ending up like this. I'm sure most caches you find are hidden by people that have thought these things out.

[+L0ne.R]

And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc.

 

 

Examples please of these geocachers who are posting NMs/NAs, and the reviewers who are archiving these caches that are in perfect condition, with excellent swag, and positive logs (I assume you mean the cache has no logs stating the cache is in need of attention).

I can't think of one example that we've been talking about here, or anywhere on the site that fits that description.

[+narcissa]

And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc.

 

 

Examples please of these geocachers who are posting NMs/NAs, and the reviewers who are archiving these caches that are in perfect condition, with excellent swag, and positive logs (I assume you mean the cache has no logs stating the cache is in need of attention).

I can't think of one example that we've been talking about here, or anywhere on the site that fits that description.

 

I think you're replying to the wrong post. The text you quoted doesn't say anything about NM or NA. It's talking about an oft-described methodology for selecting caches to find.

[+L0ne.R]

And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc.

 

 

Examples please of these geocachers who are posting NMs/NAs, and the reviewers who are archiving these caches that are in perfect condition, with excellent swag, and positive logs (I assume you mean the cache has no logs stating the cache is in need of attention).

I can't think of one example that we've been talking about here, or anywhere on the site that fits that description.

 

I think you're replying to the wrong post. The text you quoted doesn't say anything about NM or NA. It's talking about an oft-described methodology for selecting caches to find.

 

Oh yes, I see now....I think you were referring to me spending an inordinate amount of time trying to find good caches but ending up at a lot of junk caches.

It's true. I've been filtering more and more over the years to try to find better caches.

First it was filtering out micros. It helped. Initially about 1/3 of the smalls were actually micros. But at least 2/3 were small and mostly were in decent condition. People generally looked after them (or maybe I got to them before they turned to junk).

Now, especially with the growing PT mentality, it's about 2/3 of smalls are actually micros (pill bottles, film canisters, matchstick containers, magnetic key holders). Regular and Large size followed up with at least a couple of favourite points almost always produced more than enough decent caches, many ammo cans.

Not anymore. Most of those caches are cheap/free throw away leaky containers. Probably a PT mentality thing again--hide lots, pay little or nothing for containers because you plant dozens, maybe 100s.

Favourite points are old. You can't tell when they were given. Some got their FPs when they were new. Now they're 3 years old and in bad shape because the owner never returned. And people love things screwed and drilled in to trees, fences, posts that do not belong to them. Those things get lots of FPs, and you don't know until you get there that they are a guideline breaker.

I could go on and on, but you've read my legitimate complaints (often with examples) about what geocaching is turning into and yet you insist "Something just isn't adding up here."

Edited May 4, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

I think Groundspeak realizes that a database full of caches that look like these below, are detrimental to sustaining customers.

Full of? I've found a lot of caches, and only found a handful like that.

 

Furthermore, since someone's been there to take those pictures and share them with us, the NMs must have been posted, so those caches aren't in the database anymore. Right?

 

Damage like that can happen in a season, so there's no reason to think the annual visit will prevent you from encountering something like that. But more to the point: why is it so terrible for you to encounter something like that that you're willing to sacrifice a bunch of other caches that haven't decayed like that simply because they haven't been visited in a year?

[+WearyTraveler]

 

Why do we even have NM's if we're not suppose to use them, even on the nice 10-year old cache with the great view?

 

You might scare some newbies away from issuing a dnf or NM using a sentimental mind game, but not me.

 

I don't see anyone saying not to log NMs if maintenance is needed.

 

I see ignore the leaky container because it's a 10 year old cache in a cool location. To me That's one step away from it's a bad thing to log a NM on a cache simply because it's been around a while. All of which I don't agree with.

 

Nah - I don't think that's the norm. Some cachers will ignore the condition and not NM it. Most experienced / responsible / put a word here cachers will try to resolve the issue (new log / new baddie / sharpen the pencil / ignore boring swag) or post a NM. I'll bet a good number of the cachers here wouldn't hesitate to log a NM and follow it up with details. I'm of the belief that the majority of the folks were talking about (don't go back and give details) are novice and don't know how or why.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

Caches like these will need to be handled carefully in order to keep them alive.

 

None of this changes a cache owners responsibility.

 

We need to promote the proper use of NM's not frighten people away from using them.

 

I agree on all counts.

 

Well said J

[+dprovan]

I think it's safe to say that this is exactly what we all want to see addressed with whatever method we can all agree on.

We've already agreed how to address it: NMs and NAs posted by people that find the problem. For some reason, that's no longer considered good enough. So we're throwing out that approach and inventing new approaches that no longer involve specific problems with specific caches but, rather, try to eliminate statistically any cache that might possibly someday be like, accepting the collateral damage on caches that will never have any problem at all.

[+WearyTraveler]

I must live in an alternate universe. I often cache on back roads in the country, by canoe, and when possible, in more remote areas where one would expect to find caches that are, perhaps, in worse shape than high traffic caches in urban areas, and yet I rarely ever find a cache that looks as bad as those pictures. They happen, but they are rare.

 

And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc. and not only claims that the database is "full" of these terrible, disgusting caches, somehow manages to find them at an alarming rate despite taking extreme measures to avoid such caches.

 

Something just isn't adding up here.

 

Congratulations- you're very fortunate!

 

These caches are out there. It's not whether the previous poster scrubbed through the DB or not. It's that these caches are it there. I've come across them as I'm sure others on this bread have. Those are the type of caches that need to be resolved / fixed / archived regardless if they're in a "cool spot."

 

I like to find clean, welll maintained caches as well as cool spots. No, a crappy cache doesn't completely negate a beautiful view, but it certainly makes the find less fun. It's certainly a turn off...

 

If I didn't want to find cool / maintained caches, I'd give up the hobby and just start hiking.

[+barefootjeff]

I must live in an alternate universe. I often cache on back roads in the country, by canoe, and when possible, in more remote areas where one would expect to find caches that are, perhaps, in worse shape than high traffic caches in urban areas, and yet I rarely ever find a cache that looks as bad as those pictures. They happen, but they are rare.

 

And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc. and not only claims that the database is "full" of these terrible, disgusting caches, somehow manages to find them at an alarming rate despite taking extreme measures to avoid such caches.

 

Something just isn't adding up here.

 

Congratulations- you're very fortunate!

 

These caches are out there. It's not whether the previous poster scrubbed through the DB or not. It's that these caches are it there. I've come across them as I'm sure others on this bread have. Those are the type of caches that need to be resolved / fixed / archived regardless if they're in a "cool spot."

 

I like to find clean, welll maintained caches as well as cool spots. No, a crappy cache doesn't completely negate a beautiful view, but it certainly makes the find less fun. It's certainly a turn off...

 

If I didn't want to find cool / maintained caches, I'd give up the hobby and just start hiking.

We already have a mechanism for resolving these sorts of problems, or at least did until the new logging page removed meaningful NMs and NAs.

 

I must also live in that alternative universe. In the course of my four years of caching, with 671 finds to date, I've logged a grand total of 8 NMs and yet I'm pretty fastidious about doing so when I think a cache is in need of some TLC from its owner. Most of the time these aren't fatal conditions, the cache can still be found and logged, after all an NM isn't, or shouldn't be, the equivalent of an NA. But if the cache deteriorates to the point where it can't be found and logged, those NMs might help expedite the ultimate NA.

 

Far and away the vast majority of caches I find are in good condition, with the log either bone dry or at worst just slightly damp, and often they've been out in the wilds for years without need of regular owner visits or any other propping up. They're just well-made and up to the job of surviving long-term in their hiding places.

 

In communities where mouldy lumps of pulp are the norm rather than the exception, something needs to be done locally to address that. Placing global impositions on COs to fix local problems isn't going to work and will end up just reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.

[+dprovan]

These caches are out there. It's not whether the previous poster scrubbed through the DB or not. It's that these caches are it there. I've come across them as I'm sure others on this bread have.

First of all, was it really that terrible when you've come across them? And, second, are you imagining that there are any rules or any enforcement that can be done which will prevent you from ever coming across them in the future?

 

If I didn't want to find cool / maintained caches, I'd give up the hobby and just start hiking.

I'm having a hard time understanding this. Are you saying that hiking and not looking for anything would be more satisfying than hiking, sometimes finding cool, maintained caches but sometimes finding caches in bad shape? If you enjoy hiking, I would think you'd continue to enjoy hiking regardless of any geocaching result that was added to it. I can understand saying geocaching isn't worth it, but you seem to be saying that the mere possibility of finding a bad cache would spoil the hike.

[+dprovan]

In communities where mouldy lumps of pulp are the norm rather than the exception, something needs to be done locally to address that.

Yes, I agree. In order to improve cache quality, your have to change the local community. These remote solutions, like the annual visit requirement, focus exclusively on eliminating caches. There's no reason to expect better ones will pop up in their place. If the solution doesn't focus on the community, you'll just end up with an area with no caches. I think people suggesting this type of "solution" imagine that the bad caches are somehow keeping out the good caches, but that hasn't been my experience. Where I see an inordinate number of bad caches, there's plenty of room for better caches already if there was anyone in the community interested in planting them.

 

These remote solutions may reduce bad caches -- although I'm not even convinced of that -- but they do nothing to improve cache quality, only the cache quality statistics. And, worse, it turns our attention away from the community towards even more centralized standards and enforcement.

[+narcissa]

I must live in an alternate universe. I often cache on back roads in the country, by canoe, and when possible, in more remote areas where one would expect to find caches that are, perhaps, in worse shape than high traffic caches in urban areas, and yet I rarely ever find a cache that looks as bad as those pictures. They happen, but they are rare.

 

And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc. and not only claims that the database is "full" of these terrible, disgusting caches, somehow manages to find them at an alarming rate despite taking extreme measures to avoid such caches.

 

Something just isn't adding up here.

 

Congratulations- you're very fortunate!

 

These caches are out there. It's not whether the previous poster scrubbed through the DB or not. It's that these caches are it there. I've come across them as I'm sure others on this bread have. Those are the type of caches that need to be resolved / fixed / archived regardless if they're in a "cool spot."

 

I like to find clean, welll maintained caches as well as cool spots. No, a crappy cache doesn't completely negate a beautiful view, but it certainly makes the find less fun. It's certainly a turn off...

 

If I didn't want to find cool / maintained caches, I'd give up the hobby and just start hiking.

 

Yes, they're out there.

 

Is the database really so "full" of them that a geocacher who claims to spend a considerable amount of energy avoiding them still can't manage to find a good cache? This is not what I find at all, and I do virtually nothing to avoid caches like this. I use NM when I come across them.

 

Do we really need to treat all cache owners like garbage because sometimes there's a bad cache?

[+narcissa]

And yet here is another cacher who claims to spend an inordinate amount of time painstakingly combing through the database trying to flag caches in perfect condition, with excellent swag, positive logs, etc.

 

 

Examples please of these geocachers who are posting NMs/NAs, and the reviewers who are archiving these caches that are in perfect condition, with excellent swag, and positive logs (I assume you mean the cache has no logs stating the cache is in need of attention).

I can't think of one example that we've been talking about here, or anywhere on the site that fits that description.

 

I think you're replying to the wrong post. The text you quoted doesn't say anything about NM or NA. It's talking about an oft-described methodology for selecting caches to find.

 

Oh yes, I see now....I think you were referring to me spending an inordinate amount of time trying to find good caches but ending up at a lot of junk caches.

It's true. I've been filtering more and more over the years to try to find better caches.

First it was filtering out micros. It helped. Initially about 1/3 of the smalls were actually micros. But at least 2/3 were small and mostly were in decent condition. People generally looked after them (or maybe I got to them before they turned to junk).

Now, especially with the growing PT mentality, it's about 2/3 of smalls are actually micros (pill bottles, film canisters, matchstick containers, magnetic key holders). Regular and Large size followed up with at least a couple of favourite points almost always produced more than enough decent caches, many ammo cans.

Not anymore. Most of those caches are cheap/free throw away leaky containers. Probably a PT mentality thing again--hide lots, pay little or nothing for containers because you plant dozens, maybe 100s.

Favourite points are old. You can't tell when they were given. Some got their FPs when they were new. Now they're 3 years old and in bad shape because the owner never returned. And people love things screwed and drilled in to trees, fences, posts that do not belong to them. Those things get lots of FPs, and you don't know until you get there that they are a guideline breaker.

I could go on and on, but you've read my legitimate complaints (often with examples) about what geocaching is turning into and yet you insist "Something just isn't adding up here."

 

Yes, thank you for reiterating the litany of complaints you have about this game and the people who play it.

 

I do virtually nothing to filter caches. I look for a spot that looks cool on the map and go for it. Yet I rarely find anything as bad as these horror photos you like to post.

[+Team Microdot]

Do we really need to treat all cache owners like garbage because sometimes there's a bad cache?

 

Has anybody suggested anything even remotely like that?

[+SerenitySearchers]

Finding a Moldy cache is simply not as fun as finding a well maintained cache.

 

We see no fault in what the Reviewer did in this situation, and actually thank them for their time and effort.

Heck, maybe the reviewer in question should get an award for going above and beyond to make Geocaching great!!! (of course this is only an opinion, which can clearly be seen, is not shared by all)

 

The cache was disabled, giving time for response to the perceived issue, no response the cache was archived.

Did ANYONE step up during the allotted time period and clean the cache up, or write the reviewer with intent to do so, if this cache was so important... why not? <<< none of this is sarcasm, but sincere thoughts.

 

The one thing worthy of noting here that could use evaluation regarding change by HQ is to find a better way to deal with the caches that are left behind by those who have passed on, or are no longer able to care for them. There are a couple instances of this issue in our direct area, caches that people would be happy to adopt but cannot(as far as I know). So some are taken care of on a regular basis by several cachers, while others are just left to become "moldy". Possibly once a reviewer is aware of a situation like this, a list of the caches could be made available for others to adopt, then if not adopted within a reasonable time period... archived.(just a thought)

[+cerberus1]

...The one thing worthy of noting here that could use evaluation regarding change by HQ is to find a better way to deal with the caches that are left behind by those who have passed on, or are no longer able to care for them. There are a couple instances of this issue in our direct area, caches that people would be happy to adopt but cannot(as far as I know). So some are taken care of on a regular basis by several cachers, while others are just left to become "moldy". Possibly once a reviewer is aware of a situation like this, a list of the caches could be made available for others to adopt, then if not adopted within a reasonable time period... archived.(just a thought)

Caches don't belong to Groundspeak, they're property of the CO who's account they're under. :

We know of at least one Reviewer who had an issue with a long-gone member returning, to find his property was given to another without his consent.

I believe that's why we have specific adoption guidelines today

[+dprovan]

Finding a Moldy cache is simply not as fun as finding a well maintained cache.

I do not believe that reviewers should do things to make sure all caches are as fun as possible. I don't think it's a good goal conceptually even before we start thinking about whose standard of "fun" they enforce or whether it's in practice possible for them to achieve that goal even if it were well defined. Besides, they aren't paid enough.

 

I also disagree with the implication that well maintained caches are never moldy.

[+SerenitySearchers]

I also disagree with the implication that well maintained caches are never moldy.

 

Yes, a maintained cache can become moldy, at which time it is time for more maintenance.. which is exactly what happened in this case, and a reviewer did the whole community a favor by bringing attention to it.

[+SerenitySearchers]

Caches don't belong to Groundspeak, they're property of the CO who's account they're under. :

We know of at least one Reviewer who had an issue with a long-gone member returning, to find his property was given to another without his consent.

I believe that's why we have specific adoption guidelines today

 

I am not talking about a member who will be returning, I am talking about members who have died, or are incapacitated permanently.

While the cache may be property of the member who placed it, there is still a responsibility to the world community on the part of Groundspeak to assure we are not creating litter, or ownerless caches (this creates a whole list of problems).

[+WearyTraveler]

Caches don't belong to Groundspeak, they're property of the CO who's account they're under. :

We know of at least one Reviewer who had an issue with a long-gone member returning, to find his property was given to another without his consent.

I believe that's why we have specific adoption guidelines today

 

I am not talking about a member who will be returning, I am talking about members who have died, or are incapacitated permanently.

While the cache may be property of the member who placed it, there is still a responsibility to the world community on the part of Groundspeak to assure we are not creating litter, or ownerless caches (this creates a whole list of problems).

Therein lies the problem... the reviewer has no idea whether the CO has died, become incapacitated, gone off to prison, or is just taking a break.

 

I left for a couple of years but restarted after retirement. And I didn't know whether I'd be back until I came back.

 

If we (ok - GS) could dependably get the CO (or their executor) to proactively let them know, they could more easily get the CO to adopt out the cache and we wouldn't be in this pickle...

 

But what I will say - is that if the CO becomes incommunicado, I don't think it's wrong to archive / remove / put the cache in foster care... I know that'll draw flames here...

[+cerberus1]

Caches don't belong to Groundspeak, they're property of the CO who's account they're under. :

We know of at least one Reviewer who had an issue with a long-gone member returning, to find his property was given to another without his consent.

I believe that's why we have specific adoption guidelines today

 

I am not talking about a member who will be returning, I am talking about members who have died, or are incapacitated permanently.

While the cache may be property of the member who placed it, there is still a responsibility to the world community on the part of Groundspeak to assure we are not creating litter, or ownerless caches (this creates a whole list of problems).

I understood that, however Groundspeak has said in their Terms of Use that caches belong to the CO who placed it.

In the event of my passing, I'm positive someone I know will take them away.

- A maintenance plan.

 

Though one I already know of will archive one in particular, and take it over as-is.

[+SerenitySearchers]

Caches don't belong to Groundspeak, they're property of the CO who's account they're under. :

We know of at least one Reviewer who had an issue with a long-gone member returning, to find his property was given to another without his consent.

I believe that's why we have specific adoption guidelines today

 

I am not talking about a member who will be returning, I am talking about members who have died, or are incapacitated permanently.

While the cache may be property of the member who placed it, there is still a responsibility to the world community on the part of Groundspeak to assure we are not creating litter, or ownerless caches (this creates a whole list of problems).

Therein lies the problem... the reviewer has no idea whether the CO has died, become incapacitated, gone off to prison, or is just taking a break.

 

I left for a couple of years but restarted after retirement. And I didn't know whether I'd be back until I came back.

 

If we (ok - GS) could dependably get the CO (or their executor) to proactively let them know, they could more easily get the CO to adopt out the cache and we wouldn't be in this pickle...

 

But what I will say - is that if the CO becomes incommunicado, I don't think it's wrong to archive / remove / put the cache in foster care... I know that'll draw flames here...

 

Fully agree, here.

Groundspeak would have to know someone had passed, which in several cases this is true...

and no flames from us.. this is how we feel as well.. ownerless caches or unresponsive owners create a gap in the responsibility circle of the game as a whole.

[+niraD]

But what I will say - is that if the CO becomes incommunicado, I don't think it's wrong to archive / remove / put the cache in foster care...

Archive the cache listing when the owner isn't meeting the requirements in the guidelines? Sure. Groundspeak controls whether someone can publish a listing on their site.

 

Remove the actual cache, or transfer ownership of the cache to another player? No, that assumes a level of ownership/responsibility that Groundspeak and its lawyers do not want to assume.

[+hzoi]

I left for a couple of years but restarted after retirement. And I didn't know whether I'd be back until I came back.

Out of curiosity, did you own any caches at the time you took a break? If so, what if anything did you do with them during your hiatus?

[+dprovan]

Yes, a maintained cache can become moldy, at which time it is time for more maintenance.. which is exactly what happened in this case, and a reviewer did the whole community a favor by bringing attention to it.

The seeker brought attention to it. The reviewer did nothing but usurp the local community's standards in order to apply his own. The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over. The reviewer applied his own standard which said that if the mold wasn't cleaned up in a few weeks, the functional cache should be archived.

[+WearyTraveler]

I left for a couple of years but restarted after retirement. And I didn't know whether I'd be back until I came back.

Out of curiosity, did you own any caches at the time you took a break? If so, what if anything did you do with them during your hiatus?

A couple were adopted by a neighbor that cached and a couple I archived...

Im not sure what he did with the onspes he adopted...

[+Team Microdot]

The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over.

 

As far as I can see a single inexperienced cacher with only five finds to their name spanning their brief dabble with geocaching (slightly over three months) didn't post an NM.

 

Nobody else seems to have voiced an opinion either way.

 

That doesn't strike me as a decision, tacit or otherwise, by the local community.

 

Given the complete lack of visible response from the local community we could argue that they tacitly decided that the CO's lack of response was sufficient basis for the pre-existing mechanisms for cleaning up abandoned caches to be allowed to do their work.

[+redsox_mark]

The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over.

 

As far as I can see a single inexperienced cacher with only five finds to their name spanning their brief dabble with geocaching (slightly over three months) didn't post an NM.

 

Nobody else seems to have voiced an opinion either way.

 

That doesn't strike me as a decision, tacit or otherwise, by the local community.

 

Given the complete lack of visible response from the local community we could argue that they tacitly decided that the CO's lack of response was sufficient basis for the pre-existing mechanisms for cleaning up abandoned caches to be allowed to do their work.

 

I'm struggling to get my head around this logic.

 

Here is how I see it.

 

In the beginning, there were the NM and NA logs. If a cache had "serious" maintenance issues, a NM log would be raised. If a cache had long ignored issues, a NA log would be raised. The reviewer would assess the situation, and if warranted, they would either archive the cache, or disable with notice to archive.

 

That worked reasonably well. But sometimes it took some time for the caches to be archived, as not everyone raised NM/NA logs.

 

Now, in this thread, we see reviewers being pro-active and looking for keywords to indicate possible issues. Here we have a cache where a single log said the logbook was getting moldy.

 

What I believe is meant here by the "local community" is simply that no cacher raised a NM or NA.

 

To me the debate is simply: is it a good thing for reviewers to search logs and disable caches in this way? I see and accept the argument that yes it is good as it speeds things up. We don't know if the cache was in a really horrible condition or just a little mold, but if we accept the log in good faith there was some issue, and there is not an active owner. So eventually this cache would get archived anyway.

 

But I also see and accept the view that this resulted in the earlier archiving of what seems to be a good cache overall, and maybe that's not such a good thing.

 

Personally, I'd rather we were slower to archive, as I don't think the state of the logbook is the most important thing.

 

What I ask myself is, "is this this a good trend, and how far should it go?" What if a log says "the logbook is a bit damp"? I would say 50% of the caches I find I could say that. If the logbook is damp or a bit moldy, I'll say that.. but if I consider these minor I won't log NM. If the logbook is a ball of wet pulp, I'll log NM. I.e. we already have a system where cachers, who have seen the cache in the field, decide if they think the issue is serious enough to warrant a NM. Now that is being augmented by a reviewer reading a log mentioning a keyword.

 

Again I'm not saying the reviewer is being unreasonable, but I prefer reviewers didn't search logs for signs of issues, but instead that they rely on the use of NM/NA logs to report issues.

Edited May 11, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+Team Microdot]

The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over.

 

As far as I can see a single inexperienced cacher with only five finds to their name spanning their brief dabble with geocaching (slightly over three months) didn't post an NM.

 

Nobody else seems to have voiced an opinion either way.

 

That doesn't strike me as a decision, tacit or otherwise, by the local community.

 

Given the complete lack of visible response from the local community we could argue that they tacitly decided that the CO's lack of response was sufficient basis for the pre-existing mechanisms for cleaning up abandoned caches to be allowed to do their work.

 

I'm struggling to get my head around this logic.

 

Which logic?

[+redsox_mark]

 

Which logic?

 

The comment "Given the complete lack of visible response from the local community"....

 

dprovan (and others) comment that no local cacher saw this as an issue to raise a NM log.

I can't get my head around the jump from that to the comment above.

 

If this cache was in my area, and the log had mold, but was minor, I might mention it. If the issue was major, I'd raise a NM log.

 

If the reviewer disabled the cache due to the word "mold" in someone's log, firstly most likely I would not see it. And even if I did, I would not post anything, unless perhaps I found the cache after the "mold" log and thought it was fine.

 

In summary:

 

- I understand this logic: "The lack of any NM log says nobody in the local community saw this as a serious issue." Of course we don't know what everyone thinks, maybe lots of people who found this cache thought it had serious issues. But we have no evidence of anyone reporting a serious issue using the tools.

 

- I don't think the reverse logic applies: "Because no cacher in the local community reacted to the reviewer action, the community doesn't care if this cache is archived". In fact the OP said if he had seen the reviewers log, he would have maintained the cache (and probably posted a note saying that). Of course it probably would have still been archived.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Which logic?

 

The comment "Given the complete lack of visible response from the local community"....

 

dprovan (and others) comment that no local cacher saw this as an issue to raise a NM log.

I can't get my head around the jump from that to the comment above.

 

Read the logs.

 

All there in black-and-white.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Read the logs.

 

All there in black-and-white.

 

The only thing the logs tell me (from the recent log) is the cache was smelly.

 

I don't see how that helps with the logic about "no response from the community".

 

There are special logs (NM and NA) for cachers to report issues.

There are no special logs for cachers to report "I don't agree with the reviewer disabling the cache". And even if there was:

1) Most local cachers would not have seen the disabled log

2) And even if they did, most will not argue with a reviewers action.

 

.

So the logs do not help me understand the logic.

 

To me, whether the log was smelly or not is not the point.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Read the logs.

 

All there in black-and-white.

 

The only thing the logs tell me (from the recent log) is the cache was smelly.

 

I don't see how that helps with the logic about "no response from the community".

 

 

The position seemed to be that the community had decided that the cache didn't need maintenance or rather it's need for maintenance was below whatever threshold deserved and NM log.

 

That seems to assume that the community looked at the facts and made a conscious decision - but I see no evidence to support that.

 

Does that make things any clearer?

[+redsox_mark]

 

The position seemed to be that the community had decided that the cache didn't need maintenance or rather it's need for maintenance was below whatever threshold deserved and NM log.

 

That seems to assume that the community looked at the facts and made a conscious decision - but I see no evidence to support that.

 

Does that make things any clearer?

 

Yes, I follow that logic. Communities don't evaluate caches.

 

Individual cachers decide if they report an issue via NM/NA or not. Then it is in the hands of the reviewer (unless the CO takes action first).

 

The change here with keyword searches is simply that it is getting to the hands of the reviewer quicker, and without anyone logging NM/NA.

 

I'll stop this thread too as I obviously can't make myself understood. I understand that there are advantages to reviewers doing such searches. Caches will either get fixed, or archived more quickly. Absent or non-responsive owners will be identified more quickly. I have been trying in vain to explain that there are also disadvantages, and a balance to be stuck. None of this matters as we can't stop this from happening.

 

I suppose all I would like is someone who thinks reviewers doing such keyword searches is a good thing to say: "Yes, I understand that some caches which still could be found and enjoyed will be archived more quickly, but I think that is a price worth paying to have caches in better condition".

 

And the reason I keep mentioning balance is this. Imagine 2 extremes. On one side, caches are never maintained. Most caches are horrible, smelly, broken things. On the other extreme, any cache which has any hint of non-perfect condition in the log gets disabled. I'm not a fan of horrible smelly caches. And I don't think keyword searching will get out of control to this other extreme. But the balance is how far do we go. Personally, I feel the process of NM/NA logs strikes the right balance. And that searching for keywords is unnecessary. I have no issues with those who think the old way wasn't good enough and we need more pro-active action like keyword searches. I just would like this balance to be recognised.

[+L0ne.R]

The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over.

 

The community has tacitly decided that they find NM/NA distasteful and won't use it. If the cache owner won't read and respond to the information in the Found log, then the reviewer should do something.

 

Very often someone comes in to the forums complaining that a cache is in bad shape and reviewers won't do anything, or that they should be allowed to adopt it.

When the NM/NA procedure is pointed out, they won't use it and instead complain that a reviewer should do something.

Edited May 11, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+thebruce0]

You know, after catching up on this thread, I don't have much to add

 

But one thing did come to mind:

This event happened months ago. Have there been any further instances?

Even assuming the worst and this was an unreasonable action by the reviewer, maybe the reviewer came to acknowledge that it wasn't such a good idea and has not done it since, and if so and there've been no other similar instances, then the discussion about this being a bad regular practice is moot.

[+Team Microdot]

...and if so and there've been no other similar instances, then the discussion about this being a bad regular practice is moot.

 

I suspect it always was moot.

 

Storm in a teacup.

[+narcissa]

The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over.

 

The community has tacitly decided that they find NM/NA distasteful and won't use it. If the cache owner won't read and respond to the information in the Found log, then the reviewer should do something.

 

Very often someone comes in to the forums complaining that a cache is in bad shape and reviewers won't do anything, or that they should be allowed to adopt it.

When the NM/NA procedure is pointed out, they won't use it and instead complain that a reviewer should do something.

 

The community is largely unaware of these options.

[+WearyTraveler]

You know, after catching up on this thread, I don't have much to add

 

But one thing did come to mind:

This event happened months ago. Have there been any further instances?

Even assuming the worst and this was an unreasonable action by the reviewer, maybe the reviewer came to acknowledge that it wasn't such a good idea and has not done it since, and if so and there've been no other similar instances, then the discussion about this being a bad regular practice is moot.

I posted a while ago in this (or another - who knows at this point...) that this was probably a corner case and not an epidemic.

 

But hey, it makes for good sparing on a thread!

 

We should probably all ignore this topic and allow it to die a peaceful death...

 

Perhaps this will get a moderator to lock this topic":

 

MOLD

[+justintim1999]

I think I'm going to just worry about my own caches. Up to this point I've had -0- negative experiences with Groundspeak or my reviewer. I applaud GS for stepping up and trying to make a difference. I'm sure at some point I'll be flagged for something and I'll deal with it when it happens.

 

If the day ever comes when I feel like outside interferences have become too much of a burden I'll simply gather up my caches and go home.

[+Team Microdot]

We should probably all ignore this topic and allow it to die a peaceful death...

 

Could we take the title of the thread and recycle it to create a new memorial thread so that people can continue to enjoy the history behind it?

[+redsox_mark]

You know, after catching up on this thread, I don't have much to add

 

But one thing did come to mind:

This event happened months ago. Have there been any further instances?

Even assuming the worst and this was an unreasonable action by the reviewer, maybe the reviewer came to acknowledge that it wasn't such a good idea and has not done it since, and if so and there've been no other similar instances, then the discussion about this being a bad regular practice is moot.

 

Well, one could say much of the discussion on this forum is moot.

 

Yes, it appears this one reviewer searched for mold in January. If he/she used the exact same wording, they haven't done it since, as far as I can tell.

 

I have no way to tell how many reviewers are searching for keywords and how often. It is probably not a widespread practice. However I think the discussion is interesting, that many on this forum think reviewers searching for keywords is a good thing, and reviewers should continue to do it. I haven't counted, but they seem to be in the majority. It is all moot as reviewers will do such searches or not as they think is best.

[+dprovan]

Nobody else seems to have voiced an opinion either way.

What would you expect to see? Even if everyone in the community sat down together and explicitly made this decision as a group, the result would be precisely what we see here: absolutely nothing posted in the log. There's no "there's no problem here" log type.

 

But I don't really care what happened. I claim the decision should be with the local community, not a remote reviewer that has no stake in the community's caches. It doesn't matter to me if no NM was posted through consensus or through a lack of attention or through disinterest or through a community-wide aversion to NM logs. They suffer the consequences if their actions lead to lower cache quality, either directly when they themselves go caching or indirectly because visitors do not enjoy caching in that community. There's no logical reason to override their decision just on the face of it. But if we then go on to consider practical matters such as the reviewer based analysis approach not scaling or the fact that reviewers know nothing about the community, so are more prone to make mistakes, then it goes past being merely ill-advised to being counterproductive.

 

But the worse thing isn't the conceptual or practical reasons against it. The worst thing is that it eliminates the local responsibility for quality and makes the local community pointless.

 

That doesn't strike me as a decision, tacit or otherwise, by the local community.

Being tacit means no explicit decision was made so the existing condition prevail. Besides, we know at least one person made a decision: the person that posted the found log but not an NM log. You can discount his decision because of his limited experience, but it is, nevertheless, an explicit decision regardless of how incompetent you think it is.

[+justintim1999]

Nobody else seems to have voiced an opinion either way.

What would you expect to see? Even if everyone in the community sat down together and explicitly made this decision as a group, the result would be precisely what we see here: absolutely nothing posted in the log. There's no "there's no problem here" log type.

 

But I don't really care what happened. I claim the decision should be with the local community, not a remote reviewer that has no stake in the community's caches. It doesn't matter to me if no NM was posted through consensus or through a lack of attention or through disinterest or through a community-wide aversion to NM logs. They suffer the consequences if their actions lead to lower cache quality, either directly when they themselves go caching or indirectly because visitors do not enjoy caching in that community. There's no logical reason to override their decision just on the face of it. But if we then go on to consider practical matters such as the reviewer based analysis approach not scaling or the fact that reviewers know nothing about the community, so are more prone to make mistakes, then it goes past being merely ill-advised to being counterproductive.

 

But the worse thing isn't the conceptual or practical reasons against it. The worst thing is that it eliminates the local responsibility for quality and makes the local community pointless.

 

That doesn't strike me as a decision, tacit or otherwise, by the local community.

Being tacit means no explicit decision was made so the existing condition prevail. Besides, we know at least one person made a decision: the person that posted the found log but not an NM log. You can discount his decision because of his limited experience, but it is, nevertheless, an explicit decision regardless of how incompetent you think it is.

 

Every cache owner that's had a cache involuntarily archived also make a decision. They decided not to monitor their caches for whatever reason. They also decided not to respond to the cache being temporarily disabled.

 

You can defend these actions all you want but I just can't sympathize.

[+WearyTraveler]

Nobody else seems to have voiced an opinion either way.

What would you expect to see? Even if everyone in the community sat down together and explicitly made this decision as a group, the result would be precisely what we see here: absolutely nothing posted in the log. There's no "there's no problem here" log type.

 

But I don't really care what happened. I claim the decision should be with the local community, not a remote reviewer that has no stake in the community's caches. It doesn't matter to me if no NM was posted through consensus or through a lack of attention or through disinterest or through a community-wide aversion to NM logs. They suffer the consequences if their actions lead to lower cache quality, either directly when they themselves go caching or indirectly because visitors do not enjoy caching in that community. There's no logical reason to override their decision just on the face of it. But if we then go on to consider practical matters such as the reviewer based analysis approach not scaling or the fact that reviewers know nothing about the community, so are more prone to make mistakes, then it goes past being merely ill-advised to being counterproductive.

 

But the worse thing isn't the conceptual or practical reasons against it. The worst thing is that it eliminates the local responsibility for quality and makes the local community pointless.

 

That doesn't strike me as a decision, tacit or otherwise, by the local community.

Being tacit means no explicit decision was made so the existing condition prevail. Besides, we know at least one person made a decision: the person that posted the found log but not an NM log. You can discount his decision because of his limited experience, but it is, nevertheless, an explicit decision regardless of how incompetent you think it is.

 

Every cache owner that's had a cache involuntarily archived also make a decision. They decided not to monitor their caches for whatever reason. They also decided not to respond to the cache being temporarily disabled.

 

You can defend these actions all you want but I just can't sympathize.

 

Exactly...

[+Team Microdot]

Nobody else seems to have voiced an opinion either way.

What would you expect to see? Even if everyone in the community sat down together and explicitly made this decision as a group, the result would be precisely what we see here: absolutely nothing posted in the log. There's no "there's no problem here" log type.

 

But I don't really care what happened. I claim the decision should be with the local community, not a remote reviewer that has no stake in the community's caches. It doesn't matter to me if no NM was posted through consensus or through a lack of attention or through disinterest or through a community-wide aversion to NM logs. They suffer the consequences if their actions lead to lower cache quality, either directly when they themselves go caching or indirectly because visitors do not enjoy caching in that community. There's no logical reason to override their decision just on the face of it. But if we then go on to consider practical matters such as the reviewer based analysis approach not scaling or the fact that reviewers know nothing about the community, so are more prone to make mistakes, then it goes past being merely ill-advised to being counterproductive.

 

But the worse thing isn't the conceptual or practical reasons against it. The worst thing is that it eliminates the local responsibility for quality and makes the local community pointless.

 

That doesn't strike me as a decision, tacit or otherwise, by the local community.

Being tacit means no explicit decision was made so the existing condition prevail. Besides, we know at least one person made a decision: the person that posted the found log but not an NM log. You can discount his decision because of his limited experience, but it is, nevertheless, an explicit decision regardless of how incompetent you think it is.

 

Every cache owner that's had a cache involuntarily archived also make a decision. They decided not to monitor their caches for whatever reason. They also decided not to respond to the cache being temporarily disabled.

 

You can defend these actions all you want but I just can't sympathize.

 

I don't think that's what's going on here.

 

What seems to be going on is an attempt to demonise a volunteer reviewer on the basis that he went against an imaginary decision by the geocaching community.

 

Reminds me a bit of

[+dprovan]

Very often someone comes in to the forums complaining that a cache is in bad shape and reviewers won't do anything, or that they should be allowed to adopt it.

When the NM/NA procedure is pointed out, they won't use it and instead complain that a reviewer should do something.

I'm sorry, but I reject the argument that says because a well designed system is not always used correctly, it should be replaced by a system that isn't well designed.

 

Indeed, I would go further and say that the people you describe who only complain about problems while taking no responsibility for solving those problems are the very last people the system should be designed around.

 

GS apparently disagrees with me because just about every change they've made lately is aimed at reducing complaints without regard to reason or good design.

[+dprovan]

What seems to be going on is an attempt to demonise a volunteer reviewer on the basis that he went against an imaginary decision by the geocaching community.

I find this comment offensive. I've made it quite clear I have nothing against the reviewer. I object to the change in policy, so please address that issue instead of pretending my comments are a personal attack.