Keyword: Mold

[+Team Microdot]

But I don't get the feeling either that anyone is firmly against the practice; that is, that reviewers should not ever be allowed to do keyword searches.

I do not want reviewers as a matter of course to try to track down bad caches, whether it's through a search or through a "good cache" measure or even just reading cache logs one by one. That puts the reviewers into the position of police searching for criminals and DAs deciding the criminals should be prosecuted, sacrificing their reputation as impartial arbiters regardless of how impartial they actually are.

 

It's possible there are specific areas where there are problems that aren't being handled by seeker reporting, and I can imagine reviewers feeling a need to jump in to sort things out. But that's not the case here: someone looked and discovered that this "mold" search turned up 10 problem caches. That's not a plague that calls for the reviewer to step it and correct things.

 

Which is why it's more about the judgement they use, where the line is over which they should not step.

I really liked the original line where they limited their judgements to black and white: does this cache follow the rules? Has that seeker made the case that this cache needs to be taken off the books? When they change to deciding if there's enough evidence in the logs to support saying the cache fails to meet a vaguely defined standard of cache quality, they automatically bring in their own biases, and that's going to lead to arguments no matter how sincere and fair they are.

 

Not wanting them to police and not wanting them to be in that position is two different things.

 

Like it or not they're already in that position. What happens to the current system when sneakers aren't routinely reporting cache issues?

 

So is searching for bad caches bad? Or is searching ok but acting on the information bad?

 

In my mind the Mold search identified 10 caches that should have been flagged by other cachers and as a result 90% of those issues were properly resolved.

 

I think the argument has now switched to reviewers shouldn't be doing that sort of thing at all because that sees them acting as cache police for The Powers That Be when they are supposed to be acting on behalf of us, the cachers instead

[+thebruce0]

I think the argument has now switched to reviewers shouldn't be doing that sort of thing at all because that sees them acting as cache police for The Powers That Be when they are supposed to be acting on behalf of us, the cachers instead

 

Yup. And it's a perception thing. If TPTB didn't tell them to do that, and they did it of their own volition, is that a Bad Thing? If so, should GS limit what they can do a reviewers in that regard? Can of worms... Reviewers have been granted the ability to act on a cache for any reason they see fit. It's always been that way. Community reporting has been a surefire way to raise issues to their attention, but they have never been restricted to only responding to community reports.

[+Team Microdot]

I think the argument has now switched to reviewers shouldn't be doing that sort of thing at all because that sees them acting as cache police for The Powers That Be when they are supposed to be acting on behalf of us, the cachers instead

 

Yup. And it's a perception thing. If TPTB didn't tell them to do that, and they did it of their own volition, is that a Bad Thing? If so, should GS limit what they can do a reviewers in that regard? Can of worms... Reviewers have been granted the ability to act on a cache for any reason they see fit. It's always been that way. Community reporting has been a surefire way to raise issues to their attention, but they have never been restricted to only responding to community reports.

 

Indeed.

 

The idea that reviewers seeking to help clean up old, junky and abandoned caches not being community spirited I also find strange.

[+WearyTraveler]

 

In my mind the Mold search identified 10 caches that should have been flagged by other cachers and as a result 90% of those issues were properly resolved.

 

Exactly - if finders and COs won't hold up their ends of the bargain, then reviewers shouldn't be blasted for trying to make sure that what's out there is in the condition that COs agreed to keep their caches in.

 

If my cache has mold, soaked log, leaky baggie, chewed container, bad attitude, then I have not kept my cache in good condition and have not upheld my end of the bargain.

 

I don't have any issue with a reviewer (or any other cacher) proactively looking for caches in poor condition and reaching out to CO to correct.

 

Now - if they archive it and it's still in good condition, that's bad. But if it's in poor condition and the CO hasn't responded to the "hey, something's wrong with your cache" emails, he gets what he deserves.

 

Sure - GS can't legally remove / take custody of the physical container. They're limited to the GC listing.

 

To me, the only thing left would be for a Good Samaritan to head out and pick up the trash after the fact. Unfortunately, there's no way for a cacher to search for archived caches to get the location of the trash.

 

Perhaps if said Good Samaritan notes the location when the reviewer disables it? I don't know...

 

And - before the flaming begins - has anyone on this thread had his / her cache unjustly archived because of a reported issue? Those COs are really the only ones who have all the details. Everyone else is just on the outside looking in...

[+dprovan]

Not wanting them to police and not wanting them to be in that position is two different things.

 

Like it or not they're already in that position. What happens to the current system when sneakers aren't routinely reporting cache issues?

What happens is that the people that don't report problems end up caching in an area where bad caches aren't cleaned up. I have no problem with that, and I certainly don't want to risk the integrity of the institution to save them from themselves when the solution is already in their hands.

 

So is searching for bad caches bad? Or is searching ok but acting on the information bad?

 

In my mind the Mold search identified 10 caches that should have been flagged by other cachers and as a result 90% of those issues were properly resolved.

As I said, I can see GS or reviewers searching areas to see if there's rampant problem that's not being addressed, but the result of 10 caches with "mold" in the logs is a clear indication that there is not a problem with mold in the area, so there's no reason for them to take action. As soon as you cheer because you can count a handful of individual problems resolved, you've decided the reviewers should be the police, the exact opposite of making the case that they're already in that position.

 

This brings up a point that's always bubbling just under the surface: is there really a problem? Sure, people come here and complain all the time, and GS has accepted the premise and declared war on a lack of quality. But I've cached in several places, and I've never found one where quality was universally bad. And when people bring up examples and I look -- including the time someone "proved" that quality was bad in my area -- it always seems to me I'm just seeing the normal cache life cycle, in some cases with the death process slowed because people aren't prompt about reporting problems, but it never seems like there's an area where the caching is dominated by bad caches.

[+dprovan]

Yup. And it's a perception thing. If TPTB didn't tell them to do that, and they did it of their own volition, is that a Bad Thing?

It's a Bad Thing in the sense that they should feel that the problem is one they should leave to others to solve because they have a Larger Purpose. They aren't bad for thinking they should to it.

 

If so, should GS limit what they can do a reviewers in that regard?

Absolutely not. I trust reviewers implicitly. I claim that this approach is misguided and hasn't been thought through, and I've explained why. I don't think you can really claim the reviewers have done this "on their own volition" since, regardless of whether it's an official edict or just discussions in the forums, the approach is well understood and often called for. It's the standard I'm arguing against, not the reviewers' capability to apply it.

[+justintim1999]

Not wanting them to police and not wanting them to be in that position is two different things.

 

Like it or not they're already in that position. What happens to the current system when sneakers aren't routinely reporting cache issues?

What happens is that the people that don't report problems end up caching in an area where bad caches aren't cleaned up. I have no problem with that, and I certainly don't want to risk the integrity of the institution to save them from themselves when the solution is already in their hands.

 

So is searching for bad caches bad? Or is searching ok but acting on the information bad?

 

In my mind the Mold search identified 10 caches that should have been flagged by other cachers and as a result 90% of those issues were properly resolved.

As I said, I can see GS or reviewers searching areas to see if there's rampant problem that's not being addressed, but the result of 10 caches with "mold" in the logs is a clear indication that there is not a problem with mold in the area, so there's no reason for them to take action. As soon as you cheer because you can count a handful of individual problems resolved, you've decided the reviewers should be the police, the exact opposite of making the case that they're already in that position.

 

This brings up a point that's always bubbling just under the surface: is there really a problem? Sure, people come here and complain all the time, and GS has accepted the premise and declared war on a lack of quality. But I've cached in several places, and I've never found one where quality was universally bad. And when people bring up examples and I look -- including the time someone "proved" that quality was bad in my area -- it always seems to me I'm just seeing the normal cache life cycle, in some cases with the death process slowed because people aren't prompt about reporting problems, but it never seems like there's an area where the caching is dominated by bad caches.

 

The reviewer just happened upon the only 10 caches in the system with no NM posted to them that were actually in need of maintenance?

 

That reviewer has some scary magical powers.