Blanket throwdown permission

[+Team Microdot]

I'm seeing a bit of a trend locally of CO notes on the pages of caches requiring maintenance, or where the cache is actually missing granting, blanket permission for a throwdown or community maintenance.

 

Sounds like a good way to save myself the effort of actually maintaining any caches and means I can use my time more enjoyably by going out finding caches by others rather than maintaining my own.

 

I wondered if anyone else was seeing this and if it's something that's acceptable under the guidelines?

[Keystone]

If I see any sort of request for "community maintenance" on a cache page at the time it's submitted for review, I ask the cache owner to remove it. I don't publish the cache page until that happens. This is because cache maintenance is the owner's responsibility. Now, a friend might replace a container or logsheet with the CO's permission, and that's totally cool. But it ought not be advertised on the cache listing as a default maintenance plan.

 

Geocaching HQ has backed up my approach on appeal, so this isn't something I've made up on my own.

 

If someone adds text of this nature to their cache page post-publication, it would have to be brought to my attention.

[+cerberus1]

We've seen a few "feel free to..." (everything from logs to complete replacement) notes from COs, certain areas/groups, and know for a fact that message was entered after published, but they don't seem to last long here.

Some jerk like me comes along, says the cache has issues, and others either pile on, or all logs get deleted by the CO, causing a stir.

Heck, if he comes across as haughty, I may just mail the Reviewer myself.

 

- But our Reviewers often seem to catch this type of CO, maybe because of actions in the past, maybe from an email from another, and IIRC, believe a temp-disable usually follows.

[+CAVinoGal]

<sarcasm>

Sounds like a good way to save myself the effort of actually maintaining any caches and means I can use my time more enjoyably by going out finding caches by others rather than maintaining my own.

</sarcasm>

 

I hope that was intended as sarcasm ...

[+Team Microdot]

<sarcasm>

Sounds like a good way to save myself the effort of actually maintaining any caches and means I can use my time more enjoyably by going out finding caches by others rather than maintaining my own.

</sarcasm>

 

I hope that was intended as sarcasm ...

 

What makes you think it's sarcasm?

 

I see an opportunity to here to free myself of the shackles of cache maintenance - and there are other ways I've seen used to get others to maintain your caches for you including:

 

• Place the cache under threat of archival on the basis that there's no signs of anyone 'helping you out'
  
• Post notes after a few DNF's advising people not waste your time or theirs with DNF's and instead simply bring their own cache
  
• Post notes profusely thanking anyone who does your maintenance for you. Openly denigrate those who do not
   
   
  

[+J Grouchy]

<sarcasm>

Sounds like a good way to save myself the effort of actually maintaining any caches and means I can use my time more enjoyably by going out finding caches by others rather than maintaining my own.

</sarcasm>

 

I hope that was intended as sarcasm ...

 

What makes you think it's sarcasm?

 

I see an opportunity to here to free myself of the shackles of cache maintenance - and there are other ways I've seen used to get others to maintain your caches for you including:

 

• Place the cache under threat of archival on the basis that there's no signs of anyone 'helping you out'
  
• Post notes after a few DNF's advising people not waste your time or theirs with DNF's and instead simply bring their own cache
  
• Post notes profusely thanking anyone who does your maintenance for you. Openly denigrate those who do not
   
   
  

 

Ugh. Too much effort. Just publish it and forget about it. That is by far the easiest way to avoid the hassle of being a cache owner...aside from, you know, not hiding any caches at all.

[+niraD]

Assuming that you're serious...

 

Volunteer reviewers don't publish cache listings with requests for "community maintenance" until the request is removed. (See Keystone's post above.)

 

Therefore, such requests have historically been made somewhere other than the cache listing, for example, on this "info page":

DNF’s and Log / Container Replacement Policy:

We get some DNF's from time to time. The caches usually don't stay gone for too long because other cachers replace them as needed. We don’t mind cachers replacing logs or containers. It is a huge undertaking to maintain 2100+ caches, not to mention the gas it takes to drive 115 to 250 miles from our house depending on which one needs maintenance. We ask cachers to please help us maintain this trail. This helps everyone out, and hopefully makes your cache run a 100% success. We recommend picking up 5- 20 film canisters or more (you can get them for free at your local Wal-Mart, Costco, Sam’s, Wal-Greens, CVS or other places that develop 35mm film). Use the links below to make some logs for them. We also recommend making an extra 5- 20 logs. That way you can replace any caches or logs that might have been abducted or mutilated. This helps everyone and you are guaranteed no DNFs.

[+Manville Possum]

Blanket throwdown permission I mostly see is on the CO's profile page, and not on the cache page. That gets around the review process.

[+hzoi]

I've seen this condoned in the past on deployment caches, e.g., in Afghanistan. Were it not condoned, no cache on coalition bases would last any longer than a year without being adopted amd adopted and adopted...

 

Anyplace else, this is an inadequate approach to cache ownership.

Edited June 21, 2017 by hzoi

[+Team Microdot]

Blanket throwdown permission I mostly see is on the CO's profile page, and not on the cache page. That gets around the review process.

 

Why try to hide it?

 

New caches published today and right there on each cache page:

 

I am happy for wet logbooks to be replaced and any other general help with maintenance until I can get there.

[+Manville Possum]

Blanket throwdown permission I mostly see is on the CO's profile page, and not on the cache page. That gets around the review process.

 

Why try to hide it?

 

New caches published today and right there on each cache page:

 

I am happy for wet logbooks to be replaced and any other general help with maintenance until I can get there.

 

Carpet bomb the area with poor quality copy/paste 1-500 caches and never sign back in to the account?

[+Team Microdot]

Not exclusive to my area then...

 

Just been scoping caches a few thousand miles away for a potential up-coming trip, my PQ picked up a bit of a power trail and...

 

As always.. we appreciate all of our local cachers that help us maintain our caches. Thank you!

 

Seems to be the norm - why should I swim upstream?

[+GeoCrater]

Blanket throwdown permission I mostly see is on the CO's profile page, and not on the cache page. That gets around the review process.

 

Why try to hide it?

 

New caches published today and right there on each cache page:

 

I am happy for wet logbooks to be replaced and any other general help with maintenance until I can get there.

 

This would not be published in the area I manage. And - should this be edited later - and brought to my attention - I would disable the cache page immediately. Further issues would then be reported to Geocaching HQ for potential action.

[+Touchstone]

Why would I want to go to all the trouble and expense of placing a throwdown? An NA log is so much cheaper and easier for me. Thanks Groundspeak!

 

Seems to be the norm - why should I swim upstream?

 

A very apt metaphore. If you don't swim upstream where the female's lay their eggs, your genetic material will not be inherited by the next generation, effectively making the behavior of "community maintenance" an extinct concept. This may be the best solution for all. Carry on.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Touchstone

[+CAVinoGal]

<sarcasm>

Sounds like a good way to save myself the effort of actually maintaining any caches and means I can use my time more enjoyably by going out finding caches by others rather than maintaining my own.

</sarcasm>

 

I hope that was intended as sarcasm ...

 

What makes you think it's sarcasm?

 

I see an opportunity to here to free myself of the shackles of cache maintenance - and there are other ways I've seen used to get others to maintain your caches for you including:

 

• Place the cache under threat of archival on the basis that there's no signs of anyone 'helping you out'
  
• Post notes after a few DNF's advising people not waste your time or theirs with DNF's and instead simply bring their own cache
  
• Post notes profusely thanking anyone who does your maintenance for you. Openly denigrate those who do not
   
   
  

 

OK, I admit I am new to the sport/hobby/addiction of geocaching, and I am still getting a sense of the game. But this just sounds wrong to me. To place a cache with no intention of maintaining it and expecting others to do so for you doesn't sit well with me. IMO (and that's all it is, my opinion!) if you want to be "free of the shackles of cache maintenance", don't place any caches. Ownership of a cache, to me, implies maintenance.

 

My son is a long time geocacher, and has moved out of the area, so hubby and I are watching his local caches. Already we've had one (clumsy, tacky, and we've since redone it) throwdown claimed as a find, and one "replaced" by another cacher and logged by several cachers when the original was still in it's original location. We discovered this when our son was visiting and checking the cache and seeing none of the most recent finds in the log ... then found the alternate placed nearby. We removed the alternate, and left the original. I don't want my caches being duplicated or replaced just because someone couldn't find it - I much prefer to check and maintain it myself, and I expect maintenance to be part of the deal when I build and hide a cache.

 

Checking my profile will show 0 hides at this point, but that's about to change, I promise!!

Edited June 22, 2017 by CAVinoGal

[+Mama514]

Why would I want to go to all the trouble and expense of placing a throwdown? An NA log is so much cheaper and easier for me. Thanks Groundspeak!

 

Seems to be the norm - why should I swim upstream?

 

54

A very apt metaphore. If you don't swim upstream where the female's lay their eggs, your genetic material will not be inherited by the next generation, effectively making the behavior of "community maintenance" an extinct concept. This may be the best solution for all. Carry on.

Touchstone-- wow! You hit the nail on the head. Thank you. Love it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Assuming that you're serious...

 

Volunteer reviewers don't publish cache listings with requests for "community maintenance" until the request is removed. (See Keystone's post above.)

 

Therefore, such requests have historically been made somewhere other than the cache listing, for example, on this "info page":

DNF's and Log / Container Replacement Policy:

We get some DNF's from time to time. The caches usually don't stay gone for too long because other cachers replace them as needed. We don't mind cachers replacing logs or containers. It is a huge undertaking to maintain 2100+ caches, not to mention the gas it takes to drive 115 to 250 miles from our house depending on which one needs maintenance.

 

Owning more caches that one can adequately maintain (in order to create a power trail) isn't a valid excuse for not maintaining your caches. Guidelines are guidelines and creating a power trail isn't an exemption.

[+Team Microdot]

Volunteer reviewers don't publish cache listings with requests for "community maintenance" until the request is removed. (See Keystone's post above.)

 

Not true - see post #10

[+justintim1999]

Blanket throw down permission is wrong and I applaud Groundspeak for supporting the denial of publication because of it. If maintenance is seen as a burden by the cache owner than maybe they should reconsider hiding caches in the first place.

 

The fact that a cache owner would even think of allowing, never mind, encourage others to do this tells me everything I need to know.

[+redsox_mark]

Volunteer reviewers don't publish cache listings with requests for "community maintenance" until the request is removed. (See Keystone's post above.)

 

Not true - see post #10

 

Volunteer reviewers, whilst they all enforce the guidelines, make individual decisions. Keystone said what he does, and that Groundspeak supports his actions. That doesn't mean every reviewer in the world will make the same decision based on a given text as Keystone. Or even if they did, one reviewer could miss it. If one is concerned about a specific cache being published, they can contact that specific reviewer to query it.

 

I'm not a reviewer, but personally I don't see a problem with the text "I am happy for wet logbooks to be replaced and any other general help with maintenance until I can get there." The CO isn't saying they won't maintain. Obviously, the cacher who found the cache with the wet logbook has the opportunity, if they wish, to replace the log. If they do, that will be faster than the CO (who doesn't know about it yet). If the wet log was caused by a temporary condition (container not closed properly), it could be a "permanent" fix.

 

I also don't see that quote above as "blanket throwdown permission". I see that one can interpret "general help with maintenance" to include replacing a missing container, but that is not said explicitly.

 

As a finder, I like to help the CO if I can. If I know the CO personally, I'll generally know if my replacing a wet log (for example) will be appreciated or not. If I don't know the CO, I won't try to help, as I know some COs don't like it, they want to take care of it themselves. A statement such as the one above in the description is useful to me if I don't know the CO.

[+justintim1999]

Volunteer reviewers don't publish cache listings with requests for "community maintenance" until the request is removed. (See Keystone's post above.)

 

Not true - see post #10

 

Volunteer reviewers, whilst they all enforce the guidelines, make individual decisions. Keystone said what he does, and that Groundspeak supports his actions. That doesn't mean every reviewer in the world will make the same decision based on a given text as Keystone. Or even if they did, one reviewer could miss it. If one is concerned about a specific cache being published, they can contact that specific reviewer to query it.

 

I'm not a reviewer, but personally I don't see a problem with the text "I am happy for wet logbooks to be replaced and any other general help with maintenance until I can get there." The CO isn't saying they won't maintain. Obviously, the cacher who found the cache with the wet logbook has the opportunity, if they wish, to replace the log. If they do, that will be faster than the CO (who doesn't know about it yet). If the wet log was caused by a temporary condition (container not closed properly), it could be a "permanent" fix.

 

I also don't see that quote above as "blanket throwdown permission". I see that one can interpret "general help with maintenance" to include replacing a missing container, but that is not said explicitly.

 

As a finder, I like to help the CO if I can. If I know the CO personally, I'll generally know if my replacing a wet log (for example) will be appreciated or not. If I don't know the CO, I won't try to help, as I know some COs don't like it, they want to take care of it themselves. A statement such as the one above in the description is useful to me if I don't know the CO.

 

I would hope that every reviewer would see it the same way Keystone dose.

 

In my opinion the quote above says "feel free to fix my cache for me." The "until I can get there" just makes the request seem Innocuous.

 

I would appreciate having a full log replaced or some questionable swag removed from my cache. Replacing the container is my job and I wouldn't expect or want anyone else to do it.

 

To me the wording sends the wrong message.

[+Team Microdot]

Volunteer reviewers don't publish cache listings with requests for "community maintenance" until the request is removed. (See Keystone's post above.)

 

Not true - see post #10

 

I'm not a reviewer, but personally I don't see a problem with the text "I am happy for wet logbooks to be replaced and any other general help with maintenance until I can get there." The CO isn't saying they won't maintain. Obviously, the cacher who found the cache with the wet logbook has the opportunity, if they wish, to replace the log. If they do, that will be faster than the CO (who doesn't know about it yet). If the wet log was caused by a temporary condition (container not closed properly), it could be a "permanent" fix.

 

Are you surprised that the CO isn't overtly saying they won't maintain? I'm not. It would be silly for the CO to say they won't maintain - because then most people would be less likely to meet the CO's objective for them - willingly maintaining the caches the CO hasn't the time or inclincation to maintain.

 

I also don't see that quote above as "blanket throwdown permission". I see that one can interpret "general help with maintenance" to include replacing a missing container, but that is not said explicitly.

 

At least now we know which words to use for maximum impact

 

A statement such as the one above in the description is useful to me if I don't know the CO.

 

It's more useful to the CO

[+redsox_mark]

 

I would hope that every reviewer would see it the same way Keystone dose.

 

In my opinion the quote above says "feel free to fix my cache for me." The "until I can get there" just makes the request seem Innocuous.

 

I would appreciate having a full log replaced or some questionable swag removed from my cache. Replacing the container is my job and I wouldn't expect or want anyone else to do it.

 

To me the wording sends the wrong message.

 

Fair enough, but I still see it as a judgement call, and unrealistic to expect every reviewer to make the same decision for every specific wording in a cache page.

 

So, in your view, is "I am happy for wet or full logbooks to be replaced until I can get there" OK?

 

The only way I see the reviewer judgement to be 100% the same was if reviewers had clear guidelines that ANY indication that maintenance help would be appreciated - even if just replacing logs - is not allowed. Or maybe that is the case, and this reviewer missed it.

[+justintim1999]

 

I would hope that every reviewer would see it the same way Keystone dose.

 

In my opinion the quote above says "feel free to fix my cache for me." The "until I can get there" just makes the request seem Innocuous.

 

I would appreciate having a full log replaced or some questionable swag removed from my cache. Replacing the container is my job and I wouldn't expect or want anyone else to do it.

 

To me the wording sends the wrong message.

 

Fair enough, but I still see it as a judgement call, and unrealistic to expect every reviewer to make the same decision for every specific wording in a cache page.

 

So, in your view, is "I am happy for wet or full logbooks to be replaced until I can get there" OK?

 

The only way I see the reviewer judgement to be 100% the same was if reviewers had clear guidelines that ANY indication that maintenance help would be appreciated - even if just replacing logs - is not allowed. Or maybe that is the case, and this reviewer missed it.

 

Maintenance help is appreciated but is something that should be done freely and not solicited. The general message being sent here is that it's ok to ask others to maintain your caches. With all the debate surrounding owner maintenance I'd think this is something we should be avoiding.

[+edexter]

Gee, I wonder what would happen if we all did that: Instead of me maintaining my caches, you do it, and I'll use the time I've saved to go find your unmaintained caches and fix them. Let George do it. Yeah, that'll work Edited June 22, 2017 by edexter

[+JohnCNA]

We have a power trail in my area where the CO put an ammo can loaded with pill bottles at each end of the trail. That way, cachers can take a handful and replace any of the missing pill bottles along the way. If you still have some left at the end of the trail, put them in the ammo can at the other end.

 

That's about as obvious as it gets, regarding welcoming throw-downs.

[+Pond Bird]

If I see any sort of request for "community maintenance" on a cache page at the time it's submitted for review, I ask the cache owner to remove it. I don't publish the cache page until that happens. This is because cache maintenance is the owner's responsibility. Now, a friend might replace a container or logsheet with the CO's permission, and that's totally cool. But it ought not be advertised on the cache listing as a default maintenance plan.

 

Geocaching HQ has backed up my approach on appeal, so this isn't something I've made up on my own.

 

If someone adds text of this nature to their cache page post-publication, it would have to be brought to my attention.

 

Yup. If somebody offers to replace the cache for somebody and/or if an active CO is OKAY with people replacing any of their caches that is OK aka "totally cool." However, if it comes to the point where the caching community is given the maintenance responsibility and the CO is MIA then a Needs Archived should be posted in MOST cases. There are SOME circumstances where the CO is deceased and the community has "adopted" the cache in order for others to experience the fun of finding these caches that are still allowed to be at their respective locations.

[+Pond Bird]

We have a power trail in my area where the CO put an ammo can loaded with pill bottles at each end of the trail. That way, cachers can take a handful and replace any of the missing pill bottles along the way. If you still have some left at the end of the trail, put them in the ammo can at the other end.

 

That's about as obvious as it gets, regarding welcoming throw-downs.

 

Yup. Anybody could just put a logbook in those bottles and save themselves at least 2 minutes per cache site. If a cache really is MIA and people want to replace the cache to save the CO time thats one thing, but if they are just using the container as a throwdown to save themselves time finding the caches already there then thats another story.

[+Harry Dolphin]

And I see this on a short series of caches:

NOTE: There should NOT be any DNF's. Take a few spare micro containers and logs with you. If you find a cache is missing, just replace it (claiming a find) and move on--better for you and much less work for (us)

CO has not been active in three years. Rather sad that this can occur. But then again, the nearby Power Trail that I'm working on seems to be all throwdowns.

[+Team Microdot]

And I see this on a short series of caches:

NOTE: There should NOT be any DNF's. Take a few spare micro containers and logs with you. If you find a cache is missing, just replace it (claiming a find) and move on--better for you and much less work for (us)

CO has not been active in three years. Rather sad that this can occur. But then again, the nearby Power Trail that I'm working on seems to be all throwdowns.

 

It's not just power trails.

 

I've seen similar orders barked by local cachers who have more caches than they can be bothered to maintain.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Seems to be the norm - why should I swim upstream?

 

Just because it's the norm does mean it's right. Uber-short logs (sometimes blank) are also the norm.

 

And I see this on a short series of caches:

NOTE: There should NOT be any DNF's. Take a few spare micro containers and logs with you. If you find a cache is missing, just replace it (claiming a find) and move on--better for you and much less work for (us)

CO has not been active in three years. Rather sad that this can occur.

 

Sounds like a good candidate for NA logs!

[+Team Microdot]

Blanket throwdown permission is benign compared to what we have around here. For example, see all of the geocaches by this player:

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=MNRN

 

TL; DR: All of them have this disclaimer at the end:

ATTENTION: I accept photo log at the exact coordinates if you are not able to find the cache.

 

He really does not maintain them (I have searched a couple of them myself shortly after his "maintenance"). When confronted with a "Needs Archived" log he responds with a fake "Owner Maintenance" log and the reviewer looks the other way. See, for example, GC1JCP2 and GC39DTW.

 

There are other, less extreme, examples of similar behaviour around here.

 

This sort if thing is why I believe that maintenance shirkers should be banned from placing more caches.

[+Manville Possum]

Blanket throwdown permission is benign compared to what we have around here. For example, see all of the geocaches by this player:

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=MNRN

 

TL; DR: All of them have this disclaimer at the end:

ATTENTION: I accept photo log at the exact coordinates if you are not able to find the cache.

 

He really does not maintain them (I have searched a couple of them myself shortly after his "maintenance"). When confronted with a "Needs Archived" log he responds with a fake "Owner Maintenance" log and the reviewer looks the other way. See, for example, GC1JCP2 and GC39DTW.

 

There are other, less extreme, examples of similar behaviour around here.

 

This sort if thing is why I believe that maintenance shirkers should be banned from placing more caches.

 

I see it as a local reviewer problem when NA's are ignored.

[+Pond Bird]

Blanket throwdown permission is benign compared to what we have around here. For example, see all of the geocaches by this player:

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=MNRN

 

TL; DR: All of them have this disclaimer at the end:

ATTENTION: I accept photo log at the exact coordinates if you are not able to find the cache.

 

He really does not maintain them (I have searched a couple of them myself shortly after his "maintenance"). When confronted with a "Needs Archived" log he responds with a fake "Owner Maintenance" log and the reviewer looks the other way. See, for example, GC1JCP2 and GC39DTW.

 

There are other, less extreme, examples of similar behaviour around here.

 

Unfortunately, there was a cache that required people to send answers to a question because they placed a cache where the state keeps developing things for the state fair and the CO is unable to place a container now so its going to be archived if the owner doesn't find another location within 2 miles. In the case that the cache isn't being maintained and photo logs are the norm, thats definately not a traditional cache find. More of a "Visited a location." Tough scenarios exist I know, should I say more?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Blanket throwdown permission is benign compared to what we have around here. For example, see all of the geocaches by this player:

https://www.geocachi...est.aspx?u=MNRN

 

TL; DR: All of them have this disclaimer at the end:

ATTENTION: I accept photo log at the exact coordinates if you are not able to find the cache.

 

He really does not maintain them (I have searched a couple of them myself shortly after his "maintenance"). When confronted with a "Needs Archived" log he responds with a fake "Owner Maintenance" log and the reviewer looks the other way. See, for example, GC1JCP2 and GC39DTW.

 

There are other, less extreme, examples of similar behaviour around here.

 

This sort if thing is why I believe that maintenance shirkers should be banned from placing more caches.

 

I see it as a local reviewer problem when NA's are ignored.

 

Agreed. There have definitely been caches that have been archived after the CO effectively turned them into a virtual cache by allowing photo logs rather than maintaining the cache themselves.

[+Team Microdot]

Blanket throwdown permission is benign compared to what we have around here. For example, see all of the geocaches by this player:

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=MNRN

 

TL; DR: All of them have this disclaimer at the end:

ATTENTION: I accept photo log at the exact coordinates if you are not able to find the cache.

 

He really does not maintain them (I have searched a couple of them myself shortly after his "maintenance"). When confronted with a "Needs Archived" log he responds with a fake "Owner Maintenance" log and the reviewer looks the other way. See, for example, GC1JCP2 and GC39DTW.

 

There are other, less extreme, examples of similar behaviour around here.

 

This sort if thing is why I believe that maintenance shirkers should be banned from placing more caches.

 

I had a look at a few of these caches today, expecting the blatant invitation for virtual Found logs would have been picked up by TPTB from this thread and addressed.

 

I was wrong.

 

The message is still there on every page - advertising that this is OK

[+JL_HSTRE]

The message is still there on every page - advertising that this is OK

 

Have you tried logging a NA or contacting the local reviewer directly instead of assuming someone from Groundspeak would notice this thread and contact the right person for you?

[+Team Microdot]

The message is still there on every page - advertising that this is OK

 

Have you tried logging a NA or contacting the local reviewer directly instead of assuming someone from Groundspeak would notice this thread and contact the right person for you?

 

No.

[+cerberus1]

Blanket throwdown permission is benign compared to what we have around here. For example, see all of the geocaches by this player:

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=MNRN

 

TL; DR: All of them have this disclaimer at the end:

ATTENTION: I accept photo log at the exact coordinates if you are not able to find the cache.

 

He really does not maintain them (I have searched a couple of them myself shortly after his "maintenance"). When confronted with a "Needs Archived" log he responds with a fake "Owner Maintenance" log and the reviewer looks the other way. See, for example, GC1JCP2 and GC39DTW.

 

There are other, less extreme, examples of similar behaviour around here.

 

This sort if thing is why I believe that maintenance shirkers should be banned from placing more caches.

 

I had a look at a few of these caches today, expecting the blatant invitation for virtual Found logs would have been picked up by TPTB from this thread and addressed.

 

I was wrong.

 

The message is still there on every page - advertising that this is OK

Thought maybe added later, as I can't believe a cache in '08 even has that wording.

- Blatant, large, in red no less...

But seeing that NAs were placed and still there, guess I don't get it.

Now I sorta see why opinions on things that shouldn't differ come up so varied in these forums.

[+thebruce0]

Volunteer reviewers, whilst they all enforce the guidelines, make individual decisions. Keystone said what he does, and that Groundspeak supports his actions. That doesn't mean every reviewer in the world will make the same decision based on a given text as Keystone. Or even if they did, one reviewer could miss it. If one is concerned about a specific cache being published, they can contact that specific reviewer to query it.

 

I'm not a reviewer, but personally I don't see a problem with the text "I am happy for wet logbooks to be replaced and any other general help with maintenance until I can get there." The CO isn't saying they won't maintain. Obviously, the cacher who found the cache with the wet logbook has the opportunity, if they wish, to replace the log. If they do, that will be faster than the CO (who doesn't know about it yet). If the wet log was caused by a temporary condition (container not closed properly), it could be a "permanent" fix.

 

I also don't see that quote above as "blanket throwdown permission". I see that one can interpret "general help with maintenance" to include replacing a missing container, but that is not said explicitly.

 

As a finder, I like to help the CO if I can. If I know the CO personally, I'll generally know if my replacing a wet log (for example) will be appreciated or not. If I don't know the CO, I won't try to help, as I know some COs don't like it, they want to take care of it themselves. A statement such as the one above in the description is useful to me if I don't know the CO.

 

I would hope that every reviewer would see it the same way Keystone dose.

 

In my opinion the quote above says "feel free to fix my cache for me." The "until I can get there" just makes the request seem Innocuous.

 

I would appreciate having a full log replaced or some questionable swag removed from my cache. Replacing the container is my job and I wouldn't expect or want anyone else to do it.

 

To me the wording sends the wrong message.

 

"Until I get there" seems innocuous because you're inferring "fix my cache for me". Because the statement is "replace wet logs" (implying a scale of minimal common bandaid maintenance), "until I get there" is still perfectly valid - your replacement log may not be what I want to see or be insufficient or at worst the cache is not in the condition I've confirmed, therefore "I will still get there to properly maintain it". Whereas "fix my cache for me" implies complete restoration, making my followup visit effectively useless.

 

No, I could understand a reviewer accepting the existing wording. Wtih some reservation (the owner isn't nearby enough for reasonably quick maintenance run?), but using their reviewer judgement, and not interpreting it as permission for blanket throwndowns.

Edited July 7, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Volunteer reviewers, whilst they all enforce the guidelines, make individual decisions. Keystone said what he does, and that Groundspeak supports his actions. That doesn't mean every reviewer in the world will make the same decision based on a given text as Keystone. Or even if they did, one reviewer could miss it. If one is concerned about a specific cache being published, they can contact that specific reviewer to query it.

 

I'm not a reviewer, but personally I don't see a problem with the text "I am happy for wet logbooks to be replaced and any other general help with maintenance until I can get there." The CO isn't saying they won't maintain. Obviously, the cacher who found the cache with the wet logbook has the opportunity, if they wish, to replace the log. If they do, that will be faster than the CO (who doesn't know about it yet). If the wet log was caused by a temporary condition (container not closed properly), it could be a "permanent" fix.

 

I also don't see that quote above as "blanket throwdown permission". I see that one can interpret "general help with maintenance" to include replacing a missing container, but that is not said explicitly.

 

As a finder, I like to help the CO if I can. If I know the CO personally, I'll generally know if my replacing a wet log (for example) will be appreciated or not. If I don't know the CO, I won't try to help, as I know some COs don't like it, they want to take care of it themselves. A statement such as the one above in the description is useful to me if I don't know the CO.

 

I would hope that every reviewer would see it the same way Keystone dose.

 

In my opinion the quote above says "feel free to fix my cache for me." The "until I can get there" just makes the request seem Innocuous.

 

I would appreciate having a full log replaced or some questionable swag removed from my cache. Replacing the container is my job and I wouldn't expect or want anyone else to do it.

 

To me the wording sends the wrong message.

 

"Until I get there" seems innocuous because you're inferring "fix my cache for me". Because the statement is "replace wet logs" (implying a scale of minimal common bandaid maintenance), "until I get there" is still perfectly valid - your replacement log may not be what I want to see or be insufficient or at worst the cache is not in the condition I've confirmed, therefore "I will still get there to properly maintain it". Whereas "fix my cache for me" implies complete restoration, making my followup visit effectively useless.

 

No, I could understand a reviewer accepting the existing wording. Wtih some reservation (the owner isn't nearby enough for reasonably quick maintenance run?), but using their reviewer judgement, and not interpreting it as permission for blanket throwndowns.

 

In other words, it's carefully worded in order to pass under the RADAR.

 

Hardly surprising.

[+thebruce0]

In other words, it's carefully worded in order to pass under the RADAR.

 

Hardly surprising.

Half empty / half full.

Guilty / Innocent until proven guilty.

Black and gold / Blue and white.

Tomato / Potato.

 

Not our judgement call, it was the reviewer's.(and if the reviewer's radar is that weak, they shouldn't be a reviewer)

Edited July 7, 2017 by thebruce0

[+JL_HSTRE]

I had a look at a few of these caches today, expecting the blatant invitation for virtual Found logs would have been picked up by TPTB from this thread and addressed.

 

I was wrong.

 

The message is still there on every page - advertising that this is OK

 

Thought maybe added later, as I can't believe a cache in '08 even has that wording.

- Blatant, large, in red no less...

But seeing that NAs were placed and still there, guess I don't get it.

Now I sorta see why opinions on things that shouldn't differ come up so varied in these forums.

 

Looks like a Reviewer is taking care of the issue now.

[+Team Microdot]

I had a look at a few of these caches today, expecting the blatant invitation for virtual Found logs would have been picked up by TPTB from this thread and addressed.

 

I was wrong.

 

The message is still there on every page - advertising that this is OK

 

Thought maybe added later, as I can't believe a cache in '08 even has that wording.

- Blatant, large, in red no less...

But seeing that NAs were placed and still there, guess I don't get it.

Now I sorta see why opinions on things that shouldn't differ come up so varied in these forums.

 

Looks like a Reviewer is taking care of the issue now.

 

Result

[+SeattleWayne]

On 6/22/2017 at 10:59 AM, JohnCNA said:

We have a power trail in my area where the CO put an ammo can loaded with pill bottles at each end of the trail. That way, cachers can take a handful and replace any of the missing pill bottles along the way. If you still have some left at the end of the trail, put them in the ammo can at the other end.

 

That's about as obvious as it gets, regarding welcoming throw-downs.

That's actually a really great idea. 

[+SeattleWayne]

On 6/22/2017 at 10:59 AM, JohnCNA said:

We have a power trail in my area where the CO put an ammo can loaded with pill bottles at each end of the trail. That way, cachers can take a handful and replace any of the missing pill bottles along the way. If you still have some left at the end of the trail, put them in the ammo can at the other end.

 

That's about as obvious as it gets, regarding welcoming throw-downs.

And by saying what a great idea this is what I really meant to say is that I'd never do it. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by SeattleWayne

[+Sol seaker]

I'm not happy about the idea of throw-downs and cache owners who solicit throw-downs. We end up with a lot of broken containers with wet, soggy and moldy contents because the owner is hoping someone else will take care of it, and no one is replacing the container.

 

On the other hand, there is someone recently I noticed, that is replacing containers regularly as a matter of course.

 

If the cache owner is not maintaining their container, the cache should be archived, so someone interested in taking care of what is theirs can step in.

 

When a cacher keeps replacing containers it's another problem. This one guy does it constantly and seems to think it's a good idea. We can't archive him, and we end up with a lot of caches continuing that are not owner maintained, and many that have multiple cache containers because he assumed if he didn't find it, it must not be there.

 

One cache owner (who does maintain his caches) had a humorous response. He got tired of clearing out the throw-downs left when people couldn't find his cache, so he finally just left them all. His cache page now says that there are about 4 containers there. You are welcome to sign any of them and count it.  

Not a response I would endorse, but funny nonetheless.

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, Sol seaker said:

I'm not happy about the idea of throw-downs and cache owners who solicit throw-downs. We end up with a lot of broken containers with wet, soggy and moldy contents because the owner is hoping someone else will take care of it, and no one is replacing the container.

Well, no, you end up with a lot of broken containers with wet, soggy and moldy contents because people aren't posting NAs to get them off the books. The fact that the CO is hoping the container will be magically replaced before the cache gets archived is not the real cause of your problems.

[+Team Microdot]

12 hours ago, dprovan said:

Well, no, you end up with a lot of broken containers with wet, soggy and moldy contents because people aren't posting NAs to get them off the books. The fact that the CO is hoping the container will be magically replaced before the cache gets archived is not the real cause of your problems.

 

Well, no, you end up with a lot of broken containers with wet, soggy and moldy contents because the owners aren't maintaining them. That's the real cause of the problems.

 

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Well, no, you end up with a lot of broken containers with wet, soggy and moldy contents because the owners aren't maintaining them. That's the real cause of the problems.

 

...yet.

Sometimes you may be the first to find a wet, soggy, and moldy container. Or you may be the first to feel it's worth reporting. Then a responsible CO may actually come and fix it up. On one hand, you could be one of the 'lucky' ones to consistently find bad-condition caches which aren't due to irresponsible COs but apathetic cachers.  On the other hand, you may be one of the 'lucky' ones to consistently find caches that COs don't feel worth maintaining or are just by irresponsible COs.

There's no one-size-fits all. All we do is, if we feel a cache needs to be maintained when we find it, then report it, without jumping to a conclusion blaming the CO (unless evidence clearly points to negligence, such as multiple NM's or whatnot).

 

Or, better yet, encourage COs to put out better containers! (And encourage cachers to treat cache contents with more care when logging; like not signing in open rainfall, or making sure weather seals are tight, etc).

 

Isn't geocaching ettiquette fun?