Jump to content

Newbie cachers hiding caches.


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

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.

you didn't miss it.  I don't think I explained it in the original post.

 

Your right though.  The reviewer has ignored the current finds and even a note by the throw downer that the cache is fine.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

you didn't miss it.  I don't think I explained it in the original post.

 

Your right though.  The reviewer has ignored the current finds and even a note by the throw downer that the cache is fine.

Which is precisely what the reviewer should do.

The only thing worse than an abandoned cache is a throwdown by a cacher who can't bear the thought of a DNF who justifies the throwdown as a service to the community.

My favourite was a throw-downer who claimed to have gone to the effort of contacting the long absent CO for permission to replace the cache for them - it was painfully obvious from the CO's profile that they'd completely abandoned geocaching and all their caches years earlier.

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

 

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!

 

I know of a case where a hard to reach (boat access only....over 3 miles from the nearest boat launch spot) cache had a throwdown, but because the person that replaced it didn't know the original location, they hid it in a nearby spot and posted "updated coordinates" in their log.  The reviewer posted a note asking the CO to update the coordinates using a "change coordinates" log (he didn't asked the CO to actually confirm the coordinates by visiting the cache), but because the CO had left the game, there wasn't a response and the reviewer archived the cache.   In the scenario described, how long ago was the reviewer note posted?   If the reviewer note was less than a month ago the reviewer might not be happy about the throwdown, but is giving the CO a chance to respond.  No response within a month and the cache may be archived.

 

I have not idea how, specifically the CHS notification system works (and GS isn't telling us the details) but I'd  find it hard to believe that it worked retroactively with logs prior to it being implemented.   I suspect DNF, NM, NA logs posted after the implementation trigger an event to the CHS system, which flags a specific GC code.  If a GC has a CHS over/below (we don't even know if a light or low score is bad) threshold it can look at other criteria such as the D/T rating to determine if the email message will be sent.  It may or may not look at previous logs but I doubt that it's crawling through the database, looking at cache logs prior to the implementation of the system.  

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

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?

My question is, "Why didn't anyone post an NA three years ago?" It was obvious in 2014 that this needed to be archived, no health score needed. Except for that, everything about this scenario is exactly what would happen to a missing cache in my area. I consider it all a perfectly reasonable example of the system working smoothly, including the fact that it looks like this dead cache will still be archived even though someone tried to revive it with a throwdown.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

 

 

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.

 

Why not log a NA on those remaining 60 in your area instead of waiting for a reviewer to come around and do it? That way it'll speed up the archival process, and eventually open up those spots for new caches. If the cachers who've hid the caches are serious about staying in the game, they'll do something about their caches needing attention. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

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.

Don't your local reviewer post a note on listings disabled for more than 30 days? I have seen similar in my area, but things didn't used to be this way.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Don't your local reviewer post a note on listings disabled for more than 30 days? I have seen similar in my area, but things didn't used to be this way.

There's been plenty of caches in my area that have been disabled for 6 months or longer, and I do not hesitate to hit the NA button. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
On 7/20/2017 at 3:24 PM, 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. 

The "some sort of vetting process" that was mentioned several times in this thread is a "waiting period"  (such as Cacher B in my earlier example).  A cacher would have to wait X Months before they could have a cache published.  I'd suggest that the waiting period be "X Months from their first find, rather than just their account opening date".

Of course, this wouldn't eliminate the various problems with abandoned caches and cachers could lose interest in the game a few weeks after their hide is published, but at least this could help with some "fly-by-night" or "summer fling" cachers.

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

Why not log a NA on those remaining 60 in your area instead of waiting for a reviewer to come around and do it? That way it'll speed up the archival process, and eventually open up those spots for new caches. If the cachers who've hid the caches are serious about staying in the game, they'll do something about their caches needing attention. 

Since these were disabled by the cache owners themselves voluntarily I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and let the my local reviewer handle it.  

 

Looks like this month our local reviewer has been busy.  

Link to comment
5 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

There's been plenty of caches in my area that have been disabled for 6 months or longer, and I do not hesitate to hit the NA button. 

You probably could do just that  although I'd like to think that the reviewer is aware of those caches and there are legitimate reasons why they've been disabled so long. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, noncentric said:

The "some sort of vetting process" that was mentioned several times in this thread is a "waiting period"  (such as Cacher B in my earlier example).  A cacher would have to wait X Months before they could have a cache published.  I'd suggest that the waiting period be "X Months from their first find, rather than just their account opening date".

Of course, this wouldn't eliminate the various problems with abandoned caches and cachers could lose interest in the game a few weeks after their hide is published, but at least this could help with some "fly-by-night" or "summer fling" cachers.

Hey we found some common ground...... Lets hide a cache on it.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, dprovan said:

My question is, "Why didn't anyone post an NA three years ago?" It was obvious in 2014 that this needed to be archived, no health score needed. Except for that, everything about this scenario is exactly what would happen to a missing cache in my area. I consider it all a perfectly reasonable example of the system working smoothly, including the fact that it looks like this dead cache will still be archived even though someone tried to revive it with a throwdown.

 

My question is - why does your quote attribute words to me that I didn't say?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

You probably could do just that  although I'd like to think that the reviewer is aware of those caches and there are legitimate reasons why they've been disabled so long. 

 

If there's a legitimate reason as to why they cache has been down for so long, the CO should write a note explaining the reason. 

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

There's been plenty of caches in my area that have been disabled for 6 months or longer, and I do not hesitate to hit the NA button. 

 

It used to be that local reviewers would post a reviewer note on listings disabled for more than 30 days and we had good fresh data we could depend was accurate.

Maybe things have changed at HQ and that is not the community volunteers agenda to keep a check on neglected listings and just sit and wait for someone to post that NA?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

It used to be that local reviewers would post a reviewer note on listings disabled for more than 30 days and we had good fresh data we could depend was accurate.

Maybe things have changed at HQ and that is not the community volunteers agenda to keep a check on neglected listings and just sit and wait for someone to post that NA?

 

Either that or the work load for the reviewers has increased.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

 

Either that or the work load for the reviewers has increased.

 

I can't see that being the case, with geocaching on a decline. I do think that without our community volunteers help we will see more of the throwdown mentality to keep the game going, which only degrades my geocaching experience. 

I once found a cache placed by a new player that was 200 + feet off and the coordinates were to a tree in a neighbors yard but the clue was good. Both are missing from the game now, but the cache is still listed and is being DNF'd now. I'm sure that I have an extra cache container I could drop off, but is that geocaching?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

I can't see that being the case, with geocaching on a decline. I do think that without our community volunteers help we will see more of the throwdown mentality to keep the game going, which only degrades my geocaching experience. 

I once found a cache placed by a new player that was 200 + feet off and the coordinates were to a tree in a neighbors yard but the clue was good. Both are missing from the game now, but the cache is still listed and is being DNF'd now. I'm sure that I have an extra cache container I could drop off, but is that geocaching?

 

If you are for certain the cache is missing, and the CO is MIA, I'd log a NA and move on. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, SeattleWayne said:

 

If you are for certain the cache is missing, and the CO is MIA, I'd log a NA and move on. 

 

It's not really up to me to be the community cache Poilce, so I'll just watch and see what becomes of the listing. I've met the CO, know for a fact that they have permission for the hide, but just don't play the game anymore.  Reminds me of Navi-Cache in the direction we are heading. There were several listings in my area where the owners just left and the game.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

 

If there's a legitimate reason as to why they cache has been down for so long, the CO should write a note explaining the reason. 

I had three caches that I disabled because the parks were undergoing renovation.  I explained that in my 'Disabled' log.  My reviewer would post a notice every month or so asking about what was happening.  I would check and post a reply.  I think one of them took six months to be reopened.  One I had to move a bit.  Two I re-enabled when the park was reopened.  The third:  almost everything (including the hide) was destroyed during renovation.  I archived all three (plus many others) when my partner died.  I would not be going back to that area for maintenance.  So, my reviewer stays on top of such things as 'disabled caches.'

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

It's not really up to me to be the community cache Poilce, so I'll just watch and see what becomes of the listing. I've met the CO, know for a fact that they have permission for the hide, but just don't play the game anymore.  Reminds me of Navi-Cache in the direction we are heading. There were several listings in my area where the owners just left and the game.

Curious as to who's going to pick up the trash left behind by the CO? Probably no one. <_<

Edited by SeattleWayne
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

It's not really up to me to be the community cache Poilce, so I'll just watch and see what becomes of the listing. I've met the CO, know for a fact that they have permission for the hide, but just don't play the game anymore.  Reminds me of Navi-Cache in the direction we are heading. There were several listings in my area where the owners just left and the game.

"Community - Cache -  Police."  To me all three words taken sepratly are positive.   When you put them together they transform into something unspeakable.   
Why?   Why is policeing your cache community such a bad thing   Isn't that pretty much what we do now when we post a dnf or a needs maintanance?    

 

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

"Community - Cache -  Police."  To me all three words taken sepratly are positive.   When you put them together they transform into something unspeakable.   
Why?   Why is policeing your cache community such a bad thing   Isn't that pretty much what we do now when we post a dnf or a needs maintanance?    

 

 

 

I don't see many NM logs. I see a growing trend of people explaining what's wrong with the cache in their Found it! logs. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Generally speaking. Who cleans up after COs who abandon their cache, is what I was meaning. Not specific to this situation we were discussing. B)

Years ago, we'd get a group of cachers to do a  cache cleanup.   Not many seem interested anymore.  Kinda like what's happening with CITOs.

One lady did a cleanup, called me for backup (and a pack),  as many of the guy's caches (he moved to boot...) were ammo cans.   :)

Today, it seems if it was spot, a new cacher's  gonna place there eventually too, maybe  finding the piece of carp left behind.

Hopefully they pitch it.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

 

 

I don't see many NM logs. I see a growing trend of people explaining what's wrong with the cache in their Found it! logs. 

In my area I do see them used often and correctly.    Usually when a NM is not posted and should have been I find the information in a "Found it"  log.     It's as if finding the cache and getting the smiley trumps the need to properly inform the cache owner of any problems or by posting a NM  they are some how burdening the cache owner. 

 

It's this mentality that needs to change.     

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

In my area I do see them used often and correctly.    Usually when a NM is not posted and should have been I find the information in a "Found it"  log.     It's as if finding the cache and getting the smiley trumps the need to properly inform the cache owner of any problems or by posting a NM  they are some how burdening the cache owner. 

 

It's this mentality that needs to change.     

 

Along with the mentality that sees some CO's actively berating people for even logging DNF's, let alone NM's on that CO's caches.

 

Allowing these abusive CO's to continue to throw out more junky caches while failing to perform maintenance AND abusing those who log in a responsible and informative manner is pure poison.

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

 

Along with the mentality that sees some CO's actively berating people for even logging DNF's, let alone NM's on that CO's caches.

 

Allowing these abusive CO's to continue to throw out more junky caches while failing to perform maintenance AND abusing those who log in a responsible and informative manner is pure poison.

That's true.  An experienced cacher would probably just laugh it off but a new cacher may hesitate posting  a NM or DNF after experiencing  an abusive response to their log by a cache owner. 

I have never received a negative e-mail in response to one of my logs but I'm sure it's happened.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

That's true.  An experienced cacher would probably just laugh it off but a new cacher may hesitate posting  a NM or DNF after experiencing  an abusive response to their log by a cache owner. 

I have never received a negative e-mail in response to one of my logs but I'm sure it's happened.

 

Not in email, no, but ... in March, I travelled to Seattle (yes, I visited HQ :) ) and did some caching in the area.    I posted a NM log on a cache with a full log and the CO posted a rather ... um ... "hostile" note in response about my use of NM for that purpose.   (Of course, full logs are an explicit reason noted by the Frog in the new logging interface for NM logs. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Team Hugs said:

Not in email, no, but ... in March, I travelled to Seattle (yes, I visited HQ :) ) and did some caching in the area.    I posted a NM log on a cache with a full log and the CO posted a rather ... um ... "hostile" note in response about my use of NM for that purpose.   (Of course, full logs are an explicit reason noted by the Frog in the new logging interface for NM logs. 

 

We have similar here.

 

Full log? It's just piece of paper - replace it - stop bothering me

 

Wet log? It's England - it rains - get over it

 

DNF? Stop wasting my time - just replace the cache

 

 

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

Maybe you should have turned around and posted a NA in top of the NM.  Let them argue with a reviewer.  

 

Yes, and last time I posted NM I got a nasty gram from the CO. Same CO deleted a found log of my a few days later. Cache ownership is not for everyone, and tossed out junk is not just a newbie problem.

 

And a side point, you don't argue with reviewers here. Bad idea.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Yes, and last time I posted NM I got a nasty gram from the CO. Same CO deleted a found log of my a few days later. Cache ownership is not for everyone, and tossed out junk is not just a newbie problem.

 

And a side point, you don't argue with reviewers here. Bad idea.

My thought was more along the lines of exposing the cache owner by posting a NA in the hopes of getting a reviewer involved.  They may think they can bully me around with a nasty e-mail but I don't think they'd try it on a reviewer.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 7/22/2017 at 9:23 AM, Manville Possum said:
On 7/22/2017 at 8:49 AM, SeattleWayne said:

 

Either that or the work load for the reviewers has increased.

 

I can't see that being the case, with geocaching on a decline. I do think that without our community volunteers help we will see more of the throwdown mentality to keep the game going, which only degrades my geocaching experience. 

 

It may be that there are less caches being published, but wouldn't necessarily mean that Reviewers are less busy. Remember, it's only the caches that ultimately get published that we see. There may be a whole bunch of caches being denied and taking up Reviewer time.  Also, it may be that the caches being published are requiring more back-and-forth between the CO and Reviewer. There's no way to know for certain, without hearing from Reviewers themselves.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, noncentric said:

 

It may be that there are less caches being published, but wouldn't necessarily mean that Reviewers are less busy. Remember, it's only the caches that ultimately get published that we see. There may be a whole bunch of caches being denied and taking up Reviewer time.  Also, it may be that the caches being published are requiring more back-and-forth between the CO and Reviewer. There's no way to know for certain, without hearing from Reviewers themselves.

For an absolutely unscientific response, here are the logs I've written so far today:

22 - Archive logs for published caches with maintenance issues

20 - Disable or Reviewer Note logs for published caches with maintenance issues

10- Disable or Reviewer Note logs for unpublished caches with listing guideline issues

7 - Publish logs for new caches

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

As illustrated by my unscientific snapshot, in general I am just as busy as ever, but proportionately more of my time is spent on maintenance issues than on new cache reviews, compared to five years ago.  In part this is due to an overall slowdown in new cache submissions in my territory.  (The reviewers for Poland and France would not share in this observation.)  But it's also due in part to the additional tools made available to Reviewers by Geocaching HQ to assist in maintenance issues.  The majority of my disable logs on published caches today were because of the Cache Health score, where I'm following up on caches whose owners received a reminder email one to four weeks ago, but have not responded.  I gave them another month to fix the issue or post an explanation.  It is way easier to identify and act on these caches today vs. five years ago, and the cache owner receives at least two prompts instead of one.

Also, back on-topic to newbie hiders, improvements to Geocaching.com have made it easier for Reviewers to deal with inexperienced cache owners.  This is a combination of upgrades to the Reviewer toolset, the Cache Submission Process, and the logging process.  Many of those upgrades are "behind the scenes" and thus don't get a lot of air time in these Forums. 

Edited by Keystone
Added On-topic Stuff
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Keystone said:

For an absolutely unscientific response, here are the logs I've written so far today:

22 - Archive logs for published caches with maintenance issues

20 - Disable or Reviewer Note logs for published caches with maintenance issues

10- Disable or Reviewer Note logs for unpublished caches with listing guideline issues

7 - Publish logs for new caches

 

If you had to guess, how many of the 20 that were disabled will go on to be archived?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you had to guess, how many of the 20 that were disabled will go on to be archived?

Out of any "batch" of caches that I disable, on average 75 to 85 percent of them will eventually be archived, and mostly by me because the owner never responds.

The odds for not receiving any response at all are higher for new hiders, lower for mainstream active cache owners, and then higher again for older veteran cachers who may have dropped out of the game.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Keystone said:

Out of any "batch" of caches that I disable, on average 75 to 85 percent of them will eventually be archived, and mostly by me because the owner never responds.

The odds for not receiving any response at all are higher for new hiders, lower for mainstream active cache owners, and then higher again for older veteran cachers who may have dropped out of the game.

Do you think that part of the reason for the all time high percentage of archived caches is somehow related to the cache boom of a few years ago?  Maybe things are cycling out and returning to a more "normal" level?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Keystone said:

Out of any "batch" of caches that I disable, on average 75 to 85 percent of them will eventually be archived, and mostly by me because the owner never responds.

The odds for not receiving any response at all are higher for new hiders, lower for mainstream active cache owners, and then higher again for older veteran cachers who may have dropped out of the game.

What about older veteran cachers who are still active but think they are above maintaining their caches?

Link to comment

The thread topic is "newbie hiders," but when a cache is in bad shape, a reviewer does not discriminate between veterans and newbies when reminding cache owners of their maintenance obligations, or in archiving cache pages where those expectations aren't met (i.e., non-responsive owners).

Link to comment
On 7/25/2017 at 10:16 AM, justintim1999 said:
On 7/25/2017 at 8:48 AM, Keystone said:

Out of any "batch" of caches that I disable, on average 75 to 85 percent of them will eventually be archived, and mostly by me because the owner never responds.

The odds for not receiving any response at all are higher for new hiders, lower for mainstream active cache owners, and then higher again for older veteran cachers who may have dropped out of the game.

Do you think that part of the reason for the all time high percentage of archived caches is somehow related to the cache boom of a few years ago?  Maybe things are cycling out and returning to a more "normal" level?

Bolding is mine.

I didn't see where Keystone said it is an "all time high".  I saw where Keystone is spending more time on maintenance than publication compared to 5 years ago, but I don't see how that implies there is an 'all time high percentage of archived caches'.   Am I missing something?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, noncentric said:

Bolding is mine.

I didn't see where Keystone said it is an "all time high".  I saw where Keystone is spending more time on maintenance than publication compared to 5 years ago, but I don't see how that implies there is an 'all time high percentage of archived caches'.   Am I missing something?

I thought I read that in the original post but looking at it now I must have been mistaken.   I'll stick buy it though as I do believe that, in the last 5 years,  more caches have being archived than at any time in the games history.     The more caches there are the more archrivals they'll be.   I'm sure during the boom reviewers were spending more time with new cache submissions.  Now that it's peaked and coming down they're seeing more and more maintenance issues on all those new caches.   

Link to comment
On 7/8/2017 at 0:39 AM, Scaber said:

Should there be some minimum number of finds before a new geocacher is allowed to hide their own geocache? Recently in my area, we have had difficulty with brand new cachers hiding caches and not quite knowing how the game works. This includes caches being published before the new cachers actually get out to place the cache, terrible coordinates which are far off, or cache containers such as cardboard boxes. In all these cases it seems like lack of geocaching experience seems to be the problem. This could be solved by not allowing geocachers to publish caches until they have some experience to know how the activity works. Perhaps you could not publish a cache until you had 50 or 100 finds. What say you?

I totally understand the thought behind this post.  Last week I found a micro almost 12 miles from the posted coordinates, even though the new cacher insisted her coordinates were right. Don't worry-I've been helping her since then.

But my favorite puzzle cache of all time was a FIRST cache created by a college student. It was fantastic!  I might not have gotten to enjoy that one if a min. # found was required before placing a cache.

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I totally understand the thought behind this post.  Last week I found a micro almost 12 miles from the posted coordinates, even though the new cacher insisted her coordinates were right. Don't worry-I've been helping her since then.

But my favorite puzzle cache of all time was a FIRST cache created by a college student. It was fantastic!  I might not have gotten to enjoy that one if a min. # found was required before placing a cache.

 

12 miles???  how on Earth did you even find it?? This is a story that I think we all deserve to hear. 

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

12 miles???  how on Earth did you even find it?? This is a story that I think we all deserve to hear. 

We've found a couple now that were miles off.  Often it's simply a description that's only one spot (and you're aware of it). 

Our furthest was over a hundred miles. 

 - The description was perfect ... for an area in another zip code, and I was first and last to find it (placed on park service property).      :)

Odd though that the cache  that finally made the other 2/3rds pretty-much give up this hobby was only around 500 feet off.

  • 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...