Jump to content

Newbie cachers hiding caches.


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

You can't address that, other than with NM/NA etc.     Some cachers will actively maintain their caches, some won't.   Some, who are active for years, will decide to quit.   Or have something happen in their life which forces them to quit.     Those abandoned caches will eventually be archived if there are issues with them.     

That doesn't make the idea of a 3 month period before cachers can hide a cache a bad idea.   

 

 

You can apply that same logic to someone who discovers geocaching for the first time, hides a cache and quits all in one weekend. Eventually, the cache will be archived and life goes on. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

In those 45 countries the find requirements can be lowered.  For the other 151 countries a required find count seems reasonable.

 

Experience is a good thing.   

Excluding a list of countries would be a programming/support headache.  The number of total caches in a country is changing all the time.  

The number of finds one has is not always a good measure of experience.    One cacher opens an account and goes out with a buddy on a power trail and racks up 1000 finds in a weekend.  Nothing found was rated higher than a 1.5/1/5 and they're all hidden in a similar manner by a single "team". Another geocacher, after playing the game for 10 years, has only found 200 caches, but has found many puzzle, multi caches and a few virtual, earthcaches, and letterbox hybrids.  Rather than only caching in one area, they've found caches in a dozen states or countries by a lot of different hiders.  Which one has more experience.

I noticed that you didn't comment at all to my second paragraph.  If the ability to hide a cache is based on the number of finds one has, areas which already have a lot of caches will get more caches, while areas which have very few caches won't grow because it will be difficult to qualify as a hider.

This idea of implementing something which doesn't allow cachers to hide a cache unless they have a minimum number of finds has been brought up quite a few times in the past.  It's shot down every time and GS hasn't done anything to implement it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Excluding a list of countries would be a programming/support headache.  The number of total caches in a country is changing all the time.  

The number of finds one has is not always a good measure of experience.    One cacher opens an account and goes out with a buddy on a power trail and racks up 1000 finds in a weekend.  Nothing found was rated higher than a 1.5/1/5 and they're all hidden in a similar manner by a single "team". Another geocacher, after playing the game for 10 years, has only found 200 caches, but has found many puzzle, multi caches and a few virtual, earthcaches, and letterbox hybrids.  Rather than only caching in one area, they've found caches in a dozen states or countries by a lot of different hiders.  Which one has more experience.

I noticed that you didn't comment at all to my second paragraph.  If the ability to hide a cache is based on the number of finds one has, areas which already have a lot of caches will get more caches, while areas which have very few caches won't grow because it will be difficult to qualify as a hider.

This idea of implementing something which doesn't allow cachers to hide a cache unless they have a minimum number of finds has been brought up quite a few times in the past.  It's shot down every time and GS hasn't done anything to implement it.

I thought that my suggestion to lower the find requirements in countries that have fewer caches addressed just that.  I'm all for more caches.  I'm also for trying to curb the "flash in the pan" cache hiders from placing caches one week and walking away from the game the next.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I thought that my suggestion to lower the find requirements in countries that have fewer caches addressed just that.  I'm all for more caches.  I'm also for trying to curb the "flash in the pan" cache hiders from placing caches one week and walking away from the game the next.  

As I said, your suggestion to lower the requirements for specific countries might sound reasonable in theory, but the implementation and support isn't quite so simple.  Cache density throughout countries varies significantly.  Look at the geocaching map for China.  The vast majority of caches are in/near Beijing or Shanghai.  Go 100 miles west of Beijing and there are very few caches within an area about the same size as Europe.  If you really wanted to create a limit which accounted for the number of caches in the area it would have to be based upon the number of caches within proximity of ones home location.   I only used countries as example as it illustrates that when someone throws out an arbitrary number like 100 minimum finds before one can find a cache it's pretty easy to demonstrate how many areas in the world would be impacted by such a simple "solution" to the "problem".  IMHO, a limit based upon finds would create more problems than it would solve.  

Why are you you cherry picking what you're responding to?   I gave a good example of how experience can't accurately be measured based upon the number of finds one has but you just ignored that part.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

You can apply that same logic to someone who discovers geocaching for the first time, hides a cache and quits all in one weekend. Eventually, the cache will be archived and life goes on. 

Yes, but we can do something about that.    

Look, I don't really have an axe to grind here.   If Groundspeak had wanted to do this they would have by now.   It's not going to happen.

But the way I see it - when people start geocaching, some "get it" and stay for a long time, while others very quickly realize it isn't for them.   They quickly lose interest.  

If someone "gets it" and becomes a geocacher, they will likely hide at some point.  Some will be good COs, some will be bad.   Some will stay active for 10 years, others will drop out after 5 years.  Etc.   

I see the newbie who wants to hide a cache on day 1 as a special case which can be managed.     Yes, months or years later all can still go wrong, but at least be exposed to the game for long enough time for the CO to really see if this is for them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

As I said, your suggestion to lower the requirements for specific countries might sound reasonable in theory, but the implementation and support isn't quite so simple.  Cache density throughout countries varies significantly.  Look at the geocaching map for China.  The vast majority of caches are in/near Beijing or Shanghai.  Go 100 miles west of Beijing and there are very few caches within an area about the same size as Europe.  If you really wanted to create a limit which accounted for the number of caches in the area it would have to be based upon the number of caches within proximity of ones home location.   I only used countries as example as it illustrates that when someone throws out an arbitrary number like 100 minimum finds before one can find a cache it's pretty easy to demonstrate how many areas in the world would be impacted by such a simple "solution" to the "problem".  IMHO, a limit based upon finds would create more problems than it would solve.  

Why are you you cherry picking what you're responding to?   I gave a good example of how experience can't accurately be measured based upon the number of finds one has but you just ignored that part.

So the more experience you gain finding caches will have no effect what-so-ever on your being a better cache owner?   

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So the more experience you gain finding caches will have no effect what-so-ever on your being a better cache owner?   

Let me put this in the format you seem to prefer:

 

"experience can't accurately be measured based upon the number of finds one has" != "the more experience you gain finding caches will have no effect what-so-ever on your being a better cache owner"

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, niraD said:

Let me put this in the format you seem to prefer:

 

"experience can't accurately be measured based upon the number of finds one has" != "the more experience you gain finding caches will have no effect what-so-ever on your being a better cache owner"

I don't believe that for one second.    Every cacher gains valuable insight the longer they cache.   

 

The more cheap plastic containers I encounter while learning to cache, the less likely I'm am to hide one.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, redsox_mark said:

If Groundspeak had wanted to do this they would have by now.   It's not going to happen.

This was true a year or two ago, but in the last year, I've lost count of how many things GS has added that were requested over and over through the years but only suddenly just now implemented. And, like this one, most of them were ideas I wish they'd kept ignoring.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, niraD said:

Let me put this in the format you seem to prefer:

 

"experience can't accurately be measured based upon the number of finds one has" != "the more experience you gain finding caches will have no effect what-so-ever on your being a better cache owner"

 

32 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't believe that for one second.    Every cacher gains valuable insight the longer they cache.   

 

The more cheap plastic containers I encounter while learning to cache, the less likely I'm am to hide one.  

"the longer they cache" - you mean longer time they are a cacher?  As already noted by others in this thread, the mere count of finds doesn't mean much.  Someone signing up to join their caching friend on a pill bottle power trail doesn't necessarily gain "valuable insight" just because they have so many more finds than someone that finds 1-2 non-PT caches a day.

 

Here's an example:

Cacher A - signed up July 18th - found 10 caches on the 18th, 12 caches on the 19th, then 80 cache PT on the 20th. Places a hide on July 21st.

Cacher B - signed up April 1st - found 30 caches in April, 14 caches in May, 16 caches in June, 3 caches in July.  Places a hide on July 21st.

 

Cacher A found 102 caches, Cacher B found 63 caches.

 

Do you think that Cacher A has more 'right' to place a cache, since Cacher A has 100+ finds?

The "minimum find count" proposal you support would rule that Cacher A can hide a cache, but Cacher B cannot.

The "waiting period" proposal you don't support would rule that Cacher B can hide a cache, but Cacher A cannot.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

 I'm also for trying to curb the "flash in the pan" cache hiders from placing caches one week and walking away from the game the next.  

 

How much of this have you actually encountered? And what difference does it make, anyway? So someone joins, logs a find or two, places a cache and decides "hey, this isn't for me" and bails. The cache is still active until it's not then it's archived. 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, noncentric said:

 

"the longer they cache" - you mean longer time they are a cacher?  As already noted by others in this thread, the mere count of finds doesn't mean much.  Someone signing up to join their caching friend on a pill bottle power trail doesn't necessarily gain "valuable insight" just because they have so many more finds than someone that finds 1-2 non-PT caches a day.

 

Here's an example:

Cacher A - signed up July 18th - found 10 caches on the 18th, 12 caches on the 19th, then 80 cache PT on the 20th. Places a hide on July 21st.

Cacher B - signed up April 1st - found 30 caches in April, 14 caches in May, 16 caches in June, 3 caches in July.  Places a hide on July 21st.

 

Cacher A found 102 caches, Cacher B found 63 caches.

 

Do you think that Cacher A has more 'right' to place a cache, since Cacher A has 100+ finds?

The "minimum find count" proposal you support would rule that Cacher A can hide a cache, but Cacher B cannot.

The "waiting period" proposal you don't support would rule that Cacher B can hide a cache, but Cacher A cannot.

I think the more experience you have caching the better prepared you'll be if you decide to some day hide one. .

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

 

How much of this have you actually encountered? And what difference does it make, anyway? So someone joins, logs a find or two, places a cache and decides "hey, this isn't for me" and bails. The cache is still active until it's not then it's archived. 

I see it as a problem and I'm sure reviewers do to.   I'm not going to get into the ownerless cache debate here.     

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Good non-answer.  Thanks.

It was an answer just not the one you wanted.

 

If the required find count were 100 than cacher A could hide a cache and cacher B would have 37 more to go.   I had over 600 finds before I hid my first cache and I still made mistakes.  But two things are certain.   I knew I was in it for the long haul and I had seen enough caches to know what I liked and what worked.      I have no idea how many finds are enough but I do know that more experience is better than less experence.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I see it as a problem and I'm sure reviewers do to.   I'm not going to get into the ownerless cache debate here.     

 

How many new members join in your area a month, place a cache on their first or second day, and then walk away from the game leaving their cache behind? Any ideas? 

 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, SeattleWayne said:

 

How many new members join in your area a month, place a cache on their first or second day, and then walk away from the game leaving their cache behind? Any ideas? 

 

 

No idea what-so-ever.  It took me a couple of days to find my first cache let alone hide one.   How many in your area have joined an hidden a cache within the first 6 months?

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

 

How many new members join in your area a month, place a cache on their first or second day, and then walk away from the game leaving their cache behind? Any ideas? 

 

 

This might be a better question for Community Volunteer Reviewers, since we see all the Needs Archived logs for our regions, and most of us do supplemental work to enforce the cache maintenance standards (aided in part by the "Cache Health Score").  When I see a cache "in trouble,"  one of the many things I look at is the owner's overall experience level, their join date and the date of their most recent cache find.  Each month, I'll see a handful of caches needing maintenance whose owners were only active for a few weeks.  It's not an overwhelming number, but it's there.  As a percentage of total caches in trouble, my sense is that the overall trend is downward since the peak of the "new intro app smartphone users" phenomenon a few years ago.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I have no idea how many finds are enough but I do know that more experience is better than less experence.

And what some of us are trying to explain is that "how many finds" is the wrong thing to measure.

Yes, "more experience is better", but that doesn't mean that "how many finds" will ever tell you whether someone is ready to own and maintain a geocache.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Cache density throughout countries varies significantly.  Look at the geocaching map for China.  The vast majority of caches are in/near Beijing or Shanghai.  Go 100 miles west of Beijing and there are very few caches within an area about the same size as Europe.

It's much the same here in Australia. There are plenty of caches in the capital cities and along the eastern seaboard, but go inland and they're very sparse and someone living in one of those rural towns would have to do a lot of long distance travelling to notch up a hundred finds. Even here on the coast it's taken me over four years to get to 700 finds.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

It was an answer just not the one you wanted.

 

If the required find count were 100 than cacher A could hide a cache and cacher B would have 37 more to go.   I had over 600 finds before I hid my first cache and I still made mistakes.  But two things are certain.   I knew I was in it for the long haul and I had seen enough caches to know what I liked and what worked.      I have no idea how many finds are enough but I do know that more experience is better than less experence.

How do you know what answer I wanted?  I didn't realize you were psychic.

 

The questions in my post were:

  • "the longer they cache" - you mean longer time they are a cacher?
  • Do you think that Cacher A has more 'right' to place a cache, since Cacher A has 100+ finds?

Your answer was "I think the more experience you have caching the better prepared you'll be if you decide to some day hide one."

 

Do you see how your answer was not an answer to either of my questions?  If you don't see it, then I think we're at an impasse.  I actually agree with your answer statement.  Yes - more experience translates to being better prepared to hide a cache, but the core question is "what constitutes experience".  You seem to think that a high find count is enough?  So you'd allow Cacher A to hide a cache 3 days after joining the site, but deny Cacher B because they still need to find more caches even though they've been caching regularly for 4 months?  I'm making these assumptions because you didn't answer my actual questions.  And if these assumptions are true, then we just aren't on the same page. Fair enough.

 

 

41 minutes ago, niraD said:

And what some of us are trying to explain is that "how many finds" is the wrong thing to measure.

Yes, "more experience is better", but that doesn't mean that "how many finds" will ever tell you whether someone is ready to own and maintain a geocache.

Exactly this!

 

 

 

Edited by noncentric
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I work in health care. I was NEVER required to complete a certain number of a particular procedure before doing it myself.I learned the pathophysiology, the rationale, the process and if I was lucky, I got to practice a time or two. It certainly wasn't mandatory.  If a cacher wants to set minimums for him/herself, that's great. Mandatory minimums will not work across the board.  No matter how many cook books I receive/buy/read, I still can't cook well!

I do think that finding a variety of caches exposes us to what we like, and don't like, to find with regard to cache style, etc. That may be beneficial for some.

Edited by LizzyRN
content added
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Yeah, it really sucks, but trust me - there's no way to control this. The amount of caches found does not show experience of the cacher. I had like 50 finds, but just because I couldn't go geocaching at that moment, but I was reading forums and watching videos about it, so that's how I got to know more about this game, even I haven't got 100 finds, I knew everything about it. Other people just go and cache and everything they see are only physical containers, but they do not understand that owning a cache is responsibility and you need to care for it. It's like beside the game - just because you're older, doesn't mean you're smarter..

 

If there's newbie hider in your area, just give him some tips while logging a find. If it gets really annoying (he starts hiding caches everywhere and anytime) just don't hesitate to critize his cache. That what happened in my town - when he saw everyone are pissed off of his bad hides, he just stopped doing it.

Edited by Gstyler91
Link to comment
17 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

No idea what-so-ever.  It took me a couple of days to find my first cache let alone hide one.   How many in your area have joined an hidden a cache within the first 6 months?

I don't know. And I don't care. I'm not the one concerned about new cacher signing up, finding one cache then hiding one cache and then moving on with their life never to think about geocaching ever again. 

 

I found a cache today placed by a member who signed up in 2009. The cache was placed in 2012. It was in bad condition so I placed a NM log. I also clicked on the member's profile and saw that they've only logged eight finds since 09'. Their other cache they placed was archived after several DNF's went unchecked. So I suspect the NM will also be ignored on this other cache, and eventually (if no one tends to the needs of the cache for the member who is MIA) the cache will be disabled and then archived. And the severely damaged container will stay in its hiding spot until the city grounds crew comes along and hits it with a weed eater or a lawn mower sending the container into a million shards of plastic which will eventually find their way into the local water stream which empties out into the Puget Sound and then either fish or seabirds will eat the small pieces of plastic which then the fish or sea bird will eventually either die from ingesting too much plastic or be swallowed up by an apex predator. So the cycle continues. 

 

It's just a game. Life goes on. 

Edited by SeattleWayne
Link to comment
4 hours ago, LizzyRN said:

I work in health care. I was NEVER required to complete a certain number of a particular procedure before doing it myself.I learned the pathophysiology, the rationale, the process and if I was lucky, I got to practice a time or two. It certainly wasn't mandatory.  If a cacher wants to set minimums for him/herself, that's great. Mandatory minimums will not work across the board.  No matter how many cook books I receive/buy/read, I still can't cook well!

I do think that finding a variety of caches exposes us to what we like, and don't like, to find with regard to cache style, etc. That may be beneficial for some.

I'd also like to add onto this. There are certain cachers out there that have a very creative mind which results in great caches. Then you have some cachers that love to saturate their hide count with lamp post caches and guard rail caches. To each their own. Creativity doesn't all of a sudden come after someone finds 100 caches. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, niraD said:

And what some of us are trying to explain is that "how many finds" is the wrong thing to measure.

Yes, "more experience is better", but that doesn't mean that "how many finds" will ever tell you whether someone is ready to own and maintain a geocache.

Thanks.  That's exactly what 'was trying to say.  I'd also say that a breadth of experience is more important than "more" experience.   If someone only finds caches that are essentially the same (all film pots next to a bush within 50' of a road) they may have a lot of experience but their breadth of experience is low compared to someone that has found caches with a variety of d/t ratings, hide styles, container sizes and cache types.  When it comes time to hide a cache, having seen what makes for a good hide compared to what makes for a sub-par hide is more important than simply how many times they've found a cache.  

Link to comment
11 hours ago, niraD said:

And what some of us are trying to explain is that "how many finds" is the wrong thing to measure.

Yes, "more experience is better", but that doesn't mean that "how many finds" will ever tell you whether someone is ready to own and maintain a geocache.

Your right maybe a find count is not the way to go although I do think there should be some sort of vetting process when it comes to owning a cache. 

 

I believe everyone should be able to try finding caches.  The app made that possible.  There's no long term effects if someone tries it and discovers it's not for them.  They can simply walk away.

 

Being able to join up and instantly start hiding caches doesn't make sense to me. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Being able to join up and instantly start hiding caches doesn't make sense to me. 

 

But then I know cachers who have been in the game for years, have over 10,000 finds and still throw out more caches than they could ever hope to maintain, caches which are no more than a scrap of paper in a crappy container, and then leave them to rot.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Gstyler91 said:

Yeah, it really sucks, but trust me - there's no way to control this. The amount of caches found does not show experience of the cacher. I had like 50 finds, but just because I couldn't go geocaching at that moment, but I was reading forums and watching videos about it, so that's how I got to know more about this game, even I haven't got 100 finds, I knew everything about it. Other people just go and cache and everything they see are only physical containers, but they do not understand that owning a cache is responsibility and you need to care for it. It's like beside the game - just because you're older, doesn't mean you're smarter..

 

If there's newbie hider in your area, just give him some tips while logging a find. If it gets really annoying (he starts hiding caches everywhere and anytime) just don't hesitate to critize his cache. That what happened in my town - when he saw everyone are pissed off of his bad hides, he just stopped doing it.

You make a couple of good points.  You have less than 100 finds but it sounds like you took the time to research how to hide a cache and what's required to maintain it.   Most new cache hiders learn what's required to get a cache published because they have to.  What's lacking is a sense of the overall commitment required to maintain them properly.   

 

To me a cache that's being cared for is a good one no matter how plain or ordinary it may be.   I may not give it a favorite point but I understand and appreciate the commitment involved in the upkeep. 

 

I don't think people are signing up on a Monday and hiding caches on Wednesday.  I do think some cachers view  ownership as a novelty which is where the problem lies.  

 

Most things discussed here in the forums and not huge problems but they do exist.   Whether or not it's worth making changes to correct some of those problems is another matter.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

But then I know cachers who have been in the game for years, have over 10,000 finds and still throw out more caches than they could ever hope to maintain, caches which are no more than a scrap of paper in a crappy container, and then leave them to rot.

 

I've seen the same thing although most experienced cachers I know respect the game and  uphold their end of the deal right to the end.   I know of four cachers,  that in my opinion,  have more caches than I think they can properly maintain.   I understand everyone's different and some independently wealthy, retired cacher can own and maintain more caches than I can.   I also understand that "proper maintenance" is viewed differently by each owner.   I own 25 caches and for me that's more than enough to keep me entertained.    If I owned 200 caches and was receiving the nagging e-mail a couple of time a day I would probably  be on the forums ripping the Health Score.

 

It's not hard to see why some cache owners, after they realize their in over their heads, abandon their caches and leave them to rot.   In the past it could take years for a cache to get to the point of being archived.  Now it seems that process is being sped up and the days of putting off cache maintenance is becoming more and more difficult to do.  

Edited by justintim1999
spelling of course
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's not hard to see why some cache owners, after they realize their in over their heads, abandon their caches and leave them to rot.  

 

It is though hard to see why some cache owners who are in over their heads continue to throw out caches in the knowledge that they've already abandoned some to rot - and how the systems in place continue to allow that to happen.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

It is though hard to see why some cache owners who are in over their heads continue to throw out caches in the knowledge that they've already abandoned some to rot - and how the systems in place continue to allow that to happen.

I agree but that's probably another issue for another thread. 

 

Sometimes rules and guidelines are implemented to protect ourselves from ourselves.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I agree but that's probably another issue for another thread. 

 

Sometimes rules and guidelines are implemented to protect ourselves from ourselves.

 

It's fundamentally relevant to this thread.

 

Sometimes rules and guidelines fail to provide any protection at all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

What's lacking is a sense of the overall commitment required to maintain them properly.   

 

 

It's been said many, many times over. There are seasoned members on Geocaching.com who have managed to hide way more caches then they are able to maintain. 

There are also seasoned members on Geocaching.com who have hid one or two caches, and have decided to go inactive for whatever reason, and have left their trash in the forest for a chipmunk to choke on. 

Fortunately, none of this has hindered my game play in any way. So I'm not overly worried about any of it. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

It's been said many, many times over. There are seasoned members on Geocaching.com who have managed to hide way more caches then they are able to maintain. 

There are also seasoned members on Geocaching.com who have hid one or two caches, and have decided to go inactive for whatever reason, and have left their trash in the forest for a chipmunk to choke on. 

Fortunately, none of this has hindered my game play in any way. So I'm not overly worried about any of it. 

I think that's what Microdot was eluding to earlier.  Should there be a limit on how many caches one person can own? 

 

I'm concerned about the trash that's left behind.   These caches may not hinder your gameplay but I'd bet they're of concern to GS.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 Should there be a limit on how many caches one person can own? 

 

I'm concerned about the trash that's left behind.     

No, there shouldn't be a limit on hides. Cacher A (who is retired) can hide and maintain way more than Cacher B (who is working 40 hours a week at a regular job).

 

GS has allowed cachers to create CITO events who are concerned with the trash left behind. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

No, there shouldn't be a limit on hides. Cacher A (who is retired) can hide and maintain way more than Cacher B (who is working 40 hours a week at a regular job).

 

GS has allowed cachers to create CITO events who are concerned with the trash left behind. 

I agree that no limits on hides would be preferable if people new their limitations and hid caches accordingly.  In some instances that's not the case.   One crazed cache hider can do more damage than a dozen newbies ever could.

 

CITO events are great but geared more toward picking up miscellaneous trash and not abandoned containers.   A single abandoned cache is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of trash out there,,  I know.   For me it's more about the general message these containers convey.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I agree that no limits on hides would be preferable if people new their limitations and hid caches accordingly.  In some instances that's not the case.   One crazed cache hider can do more damage than a dozen newbies ever could.

 

 

The cache is not considered abandoned until the Cacher is afforded the opportunity to fix what's wrong with it after it's been disabled by a reviewer. After the cache has been archived it is then considered abandoned if the Cacher has decided to do nothing with it. You can go pick up the trash for them if you want to. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

The cache is not considered abandoned until the Cacher is afforded the opportunity to fix what's wrong with it after it's been disabled by a reviewer. After the cache has been archived it is then considered abandoned if the Cacher has decided to do nothing with it. You can go pick up the trash for them if you want to. 

It may not be officially abandoned but in most cases we know differently.  

 

I've collected up a few over the years but the idea is to get the owner to do it.  

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

...   If I owned 200 caches and was receiving the nagging e-mail a couple of time a day I would probably  be on the forums ripping the Health Score....

Maybe my attitiude will change when/if I get to the point I own 200 caches (I own 2 right now!), but IF I did own 200 caches, and was receiving nagging emails, I would be out checking the caches, doing needed maintenance, and posting the OM logs to stop the emails.  :::shrug:::  That's just me.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Here's an interesting scenario I came across:

 

Cache was placed in 2010 by a cacher with 158 finds (as of today)  the owner last visited the site in 2012

 

Here's the order of events:

3 dnf's

1 NM

1 dnf

1 NA

The next post was by a reviewer temporarily disabling the cache.

A note by a cacher (not the owner)  who would be visiting the area and would replace the cache.

This cacher posted a find about three weeks later and explained in the log that they couldn't find the cache and replaced it.

Two more people found the new cache

Two days after the last find the reviewer posted this:

 

Greetings from Geocaching.com,

I am in the process of conducting my monthly maintenance checks for the state and archiving abandoned listings. In order to make sure that this cache is processed properly, I need to know, what is the status of this listing?

Please respond in the form of a note on the cache page. I will be checking back in a couple of weeks, failure to respond may result in archival of this listing.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

When looking at it I realized that the first three dnf's were all  within a month of each other in 2013.  The NM was a year later (2014) .    The fourth dnf was posted about a year after that (2015) .   The NA was posted almost two years to the day of the last dnf (2017) .    Two days after the NA was posted the reviewer disabled the cache.   Two months later the above note was posted.

 

What's more amazing is back in 2012 two cachers posted a NM on the cache which was never addressed by the owner. 

 

My question is this.   Would this cache have been flagged by the Health Score after the NM was posted in 2014,  a full 3 years before it was actually disabled?

Going back even further would the Health Score have caught the two NM's in 2012 and placed this cache on a reviewers radar?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Here's an interesting scenario I came across:

 

Cache was placed in 2010 by a cacher with 158 finds (as of today)  the owner last visited the site in 2012

 

Here's the order of events:

3 dnf's

1 NM

1 dnf

1 NA

The next post was by a reviewer temporarily disabling the cache.

A note by a cacher (not the owner)  who would be visiting the area and would replace the cache.

This cacher posted a find about three weeks later and explained in the log that they couldn't find the cache and replaced it.

Two more people found the new cache

Two days after the last find the reviewer posted this:

 

Greetings from Geocaching.com,

I am in the process of conducting my monthly maintenance checks for the state and archiving abandoned listings. In order to make sure that this cache is processed properly, I need to know, what is the status of this listing?

Please respond in the form of a note on the cache page. I will be checking back in a couple of weeks, failure to respond may result in archival of this listing.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

When looking at it I realized that the first three dnf's were all  within a month of each other in 2013.  The NM was a year later (2014) .    The fourth dnf was posted about a year after that (2015) .   The NA was posted almost two years to the day of the last dnf (2017) .    Two days after the NA was posted the reviewer disabled the cache.   Two months later the above note was posted.

 

What's more amazing is back in 2012 two cachers posted a NM on the cache which was never addressed by the owner. 

 

My question is this.   Would this cache have been flagged by the Health Score after the NM was posted in 2014,  a full 3 years before it was actually disabled?

Going back even further would the Health Score have caught the two NM's in 2012 and placed this cache on a reviewers radar?  

 

What's more curious - if I've understood the sequence of events properly, is that the suggestion that the reviewer seems happy to allow the throwdown to stand!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

No, there shouldn't be a limit on hides. Cacher A (who is retired) can hide and maintain way more than Cacher B (who is working 40 hours a week at a regular job).

 

GS has allowed cachers to create CITO events who are concerned with the trash left behind. 

Yes, there should be a limit on hides and it should be linked to the CO's application to maintaining their existing hides.

You might think CITO is all about cleaning up the mess left behind by other cachers. I don't.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

The cache is not considered abandoned until the Cacher is afforded the opportunity to fix what's wrong with it after it's been disabled by a reviewer. After the cache has been archived it is then considered abandoned if the Cacher has decided to do nothing with it. You can go pick up the trash for them if you want to. 

Your artbitrary standard of what constitutes abandoned is no substitute for facts.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 The reviewer did disabled the cache 2 days after the NA.   In the 2 months it's been disabled 2 cachers have found the throw down. 

Ah - OK - I might have misread.

It might be that the reviewer is following up on the earlier disablement - with no regard to the throwdown or the subsequent finds on it.

Link to comment

Here's something more in line with the original post.

 

I show 75 caches that are disabled within 30 miles of where I live. 

 

16 of them were disabled by a reviewer.   Here is the owner's find counts on those 16.

 

56 (2 caches)

21

178

128

6 (2 caches)

82

41

124

251

82 

3

531

27

44

 

What'smore  interesting is of the remaining 60 caches (that were disabled by the owner)  almost half of them have been so for over 6 months.   Some of them for more than a year.

 

Edited by justintim1999
spelling
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...