CO not maintaining trackables inventory

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, SicilianCyclops said:

Well, if that's the case then perhaps that CO or trackable owner shouldn't be in the game.

Agreed  - along with CO's who throw a blue fit and threaten geocide at something as innocuous as a NM log - even if it does turn out to be an idle threat for the sake of drama.

[+J Grouchy]

1 hour ago, SicilianCyclops said:

Well, if that's the case then perhaps that CO or trackable owner shouldn't be in the game.

Yeah well, good luck with that.  

Until all the lazy, unresponsive owners quit the game, I'll continue posting NM logs when and where I see fit.

[+Team Christiansen]

1 hour ago, SicilianCyclops said:

Well, if that's the case then perhaps that CO or trackable owner shouldn't be in the game.

By the same token, maybe the CO shouldn't be in the game if they are going to be offended simply by another player posting a needs maintenance log when a trackable is missing.

[+Team Christiansen]

1 minute ago, Team Christiansen said:

By the same token, maybe the CO shouldn't be in the game if they are going to be offended simply by another player posting a needs maintenance log when a trackable is missing.

Sorry, Microdot had already expressed that sentiment (I hadn't finished reading all the posts).

[+MartyBartfast]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

I've done the Note thing countless times to no effect.  Notes are worthless for getting things done, in my opinion.  I've never had anything get fixed after posting a Note.

Well I've had notes, or mention of missing trackables in found logs, on some of my caches and I took action to mark them missing. I've never had an NM/NA posted for it, and I don't think missing trackables warrant an NM let alone an NA.

[SicilianCyclops]

42 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Agreed  - along with CO's who throw a blue fit and threaten geocide at something as innocuous as a NM log - even if it does turn out to be an idle threat for the sake of drama.

Are you serious? Now I'm throwing a "blue fit"? I simply said that posting a NM for a missing trackable is not appropriate. J Grouchy and I began having a nice conversation about it but you keep going on and on. It seems like YOU may be the one fishing for drama.

[SicilianCyclops]

11 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

By the same token, maybe the CO shouldn't be in the game if they are going to be offended simply by another player posting a needs maintenance log when a trackable is missing.

When did I ever say I would be offended? Some posters here really know how to put words in other people's mouths. 

[SicilianCyclops]

33 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Yeah well, good luck with that.  

Until all the lazy, unresponsive owners quit the game, I'll continue posting NM logs when and where I see fit.

Fair enough, and cogent point. Nice to see someone knows how to have a normal conversation.

[+Team Christiansen]

6 minutes ago, SicilianCyclops said:

When did I ever say I would be offended?

Never said anything about you.

 

7 minutes ago, SicilianCyclops said:

Some posters here really know how to put words in other people's mouths.

Agreed.

[SicilianCyclops]

5 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

Never said anything about you.

 

Agreed.

You were speaking directly to me. But ok.

Edited August 31, 2017 by SicilianCyclops

[+nutlady]

On 8/29/2017 at 10:55 AM, kanchan said:

Trackables belong to their owners, not the cache owners. I see it as a trackable owners' responsibility to mark their trackables missing, not the cache owners'. This kind of discussion discourages some cache owners to put larger containers which can hold trackables.

I do have a large TB hotel. And twice I have had people take way more TBS then they admitted too, and tracked. I have no idea really, do people collect TBs? Is that a "thing"? But I always give a month for the TBs to be taken, or " in the hands of" type logs , after that I post that they are MIA.

[kanchan]

8 hours ago, nutlady said:

I do have a large TB hotel. And twice I have had people take way more TBS then they admitted too, and tracked. I have no idea really, do people collect TBs? Is that a "thing"? But I always give a month for the TBs to be taken, or " in the hands of" type logs , after that I post that they are MIA.

It's great that you take care of trackables in your TB hotel so well, but not every cache owner is interested in trackables as much as you are, and my understanding is that nothing is wrong with that.

[+J Grouchy]

10 minutes ago, kanchan said:

It's great that you take care of trackables in your TB hotel so well, but not every cache owner is interested in trackables as much as you are, and my understanding is that nothing is wrong with that.

You don't have to be "interested in trackables" to properly maintain your cache listing.  In fact, you don't have to care even a little bit about trackables...but still ought to acknowledge that the owner and many cachers ARE interested in trackables and that keeping the inventory up-to-date is a part of cache ownership.

[+Team Microdot]

11 minutes ago, kanchan said:

8 hours ago, nutlady said:

I do have a large TB hotel. And twice I have had people take way more TBS then they admitted too, and tracked. I have no idea really, do people collect TBs? Is that a "thing"? But I always give a month for the TBs to be taken, or " in the hands of" type logs , after that I post that they are MIA.

It's great that you take care of trackables in your TB hotel so well, but not every cache owner is interested in trackables as much as you are, and my understanding is that nothing is wrong with that.

Maintaining an accurate cache inventory is a maintenance requirement under the official guidelines.

Personal interest levels do not alter that requirement.

[kanchan]

I don't consider the trackable inventory as a part of my own listing as they belong to the owners of the trackables, not me. The guidelines are not explicit here though, so I may be wrong.

For record: I do maintain my cache listings including trackable inventory mysef.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, kanchan said:

I don't consider the trackable inventory as a part of my own listing as they belong to the owners of the trackables, not me. The guidelines are not explicit here though, so I may be wrong.

For record: I do maintain my cache listings including trackable inventory mysef.

It is very much part of the listing.

[+J Grouchy]

7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

It is very much part of the listing.

Absolutely...the fact that the CO has the ability to mark it missing absolutely backs that up.

[+Team Christiansen]

1 hour ago, kanchan said:

The guidelines are not explicit here though, so I may be wrong.

Guidelines seem "Pretty explicit" to me. See the language in red:

Quote

6.4. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

• Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
• Replace broken or missing containers.
• Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
• Replace full or wet logbooks.
• Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
• Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
• Delete inappropriate logs.
• Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.

 

[Keystone]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 11:58 AM, Keystone said:

While the Help Center article mentions maintenance of the trackable inventory as a best practice, the subject is not mentioned in the Listing Guidelines for Geocache Maintenance.  

Like I said...

[+narcissa]

1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:

Guidelines seem "Pretty explicit" to me. See the language in red:

 

Those aren't the guidelines. The title of the document is explicit.

[+cerberus1]

28 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Like I said...

+1

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

4 hours ago, kanchan said:

13 hours ago, nutlady said:

I do have a large TB hotel. And twice I have had people take way more TBS then they admitted too, and tracked. I have no idea really, do people collect TBs? Is that a "thing"? But I always give a month for the TBs to be taken, or " in the hands of" type logs , after that I post that they are MIA.

It's great that you take care of trackables in your TB hotel so well, but not every cache owner is interested in trackables as much as you are, and my understanding is that nothing is wrong with that.

Maintaining an accurate cache inventory is a maintenance requirement under the official guidelines.

Personal interest levels do not alter that requirement.

I asked before but didn't get an answer, but can anyone show an example of a cache that was archived *specifically* because they didn't update the cache inventory after someone that plays the trackable game has posted a NM?

Would a failure to update the trackable inventory in a "timely manner" impact the cache health score?

 

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:

Quote

6.4. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

• Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
• Replace broken or missing containers.
• Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
• Replace full or wet logbooks.
• Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
• Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
• Delete inappropriate logs.
• Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.

I don't think I've ever compared the maintenance section in the Guidelines and  Requirements and the Maintenance expectations so hadn't notice that "Mark Trackables as missing" is not mentioned in the guidelines.  I also see that "Update Coordinates if the cache location has changed"  doesn't appear in the maintenance section of the Guidelines/Requirements page.   

In the context of this thread, the use of a NM log for a perceived maintenance issue that is *not* a requirement is the issue.  I know that NM or NA logs are frequently posted on caches with bad coordinates, but if "Mark trackables as missing" (and by association, "update coordinates") is a best practices rather than a requirement is a CO obligated to take that maintenance step?

[+Team Christiansen]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I don't think I've ever compared the maintenance section in the Guidelines and  Requirements and the Maintenance expectations so hadn't notice that "Mark Trackables as missing" is not mentioned in the guidelines.  I also see that "Update Coordinates if the cache location has changed"  doesn't appear in the maintenance section of the Guidelines/Requirements page.   

In the context of this thread, the use of a NM log for a perceived maintenance issue that is *not* a requirement is the issue.  I know that NM or NA logs are frequently posted on caches with bad coordinates, but if "Mark trackables as missing" (and by association, "update coordinates") is a best practices rather than a requirement is a CO obligated to take that maintenance step?

Great question!!

But I would disagree with these items being labeled as just "best practices".

Quote

II. LISTING Guidelines: Listing guidelines cover the requirements that you, as a geocache owner, need to adhere to in order for your geocache to be successfully published on Geocaching.com.

The listing guidelines include things we acknowledge that we must abide by in order to get the cache listed in the first place. That includes maintenance of the cache listing.

Quote

• Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance.

  As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

The guidelines mention specifically that log-quality control is "included" in this responsibility. This is not an all-inclusive listing.

Then, the help center lists "responsibilities" not "best practices".

Quote

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

• Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
• Replace broken or missing containers.
• Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
• Replace full or wet logbooks.
• Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
• Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
• Delete inappropriate logs.
• Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

It is not inappropriate for anyone to post an NM on any of the 8 bullets above.

Since both listing guidelines and help center are published by GS, one can't suggest that the listing guidelines are official but the help center is not (just as it would be silly to say that the listing guidelines aren't requirements, because the title says they are only "guidelines" or best practices).

Edited September 1, 2017 by Team Christiansen
Grammer and poor placement

[kanchan]

3 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

Guidelines seem "Pretty explicit" to me. See the language in red:

 

I guess you have different set of guidelines than I do.

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, kanchan said:

I guess you have different set of guidelines than I do.

And the Reviewer posting right afterwards.     

[+kunarion]

5 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I don't think I've ever compared the maintenance section in the Guidelines and  Requirements and the Maintenance expectations so hadn't notice that "Mark Trackables as missing" is not mentioned in the guidelines.  I also see that "Update Coordinates if the cache location has changed"  doesn't appear in the maintenance section of the Guidelines/Requirements page.   

In the context of this thread, the use of a NM log for a perceived maintenance issue that is *not* a requirement is the issue.  I know that NM or NA logs are frequently posted on caches with bad coordinates, but if "Mark trackables as missing" (and by association, "update coordinates") is a best practices rather than a requirement is a CO obligated to take that maintenance step?

Great question!!

But I would disagree with these items being labeled as just "best practices".

Quote

II. LISTING Guidelines: Listing guidelines cover the requirements that you, as a geocache owner, need to adhere to in order for your geocache to be successfully published on Geocaching.com.

The listing guidelines include things we acknowledge that we must abide by in order to get the cache listed in the first place. That includes maintenance of the cache listing.

Quote

• Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance.

  As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

The guidelines mention specifically that log-quality control is "included" in this responsibility. This is not an all-inclusive listing.

Then, the help center lists "responsibilities" not "best practices".

Quote

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

• Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
• Replace broken or missing containers.
• Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
• Replace full or wet logbooks.
• Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
• Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
• Delete inappropriate logs.
• Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

It is not inappropriate for anyone to post an NM on any of the 8 bullets above.

Since both listing guidelines and help center are published by GS, one can't suggest that the listing guidelines are official but the help center is not (just as it would be silly to say that the listing guidelines aren't requirements, because the title says they are only "guidelines" or best practices).

 

Yes, well done! (good questions, too).

And the start of that "help file" section states this exact text: "Unmaintained caches may be archived".  This is followed by the maintenance responsibilities listed (and highlighted here).  If TPTB truly intended to say "Caches never actually get archived due to Trackables not marked Missing, but hey, don't you think it's a good idea to mark them Missing anyway?", they should have said that.

 

Edited September 2, 2017 by kunarion

[+Team Microdot]

1. Requirements
2. Expectations
3. Guidelines

In terms of need to comply (for want of a better term - it's too early to be wracking my brains in that regard) this is how I would rank the above terms, with #1 being the strongest / most specific and #3 being the weakest / least specific.

Here on geocaching.com, if I'm understanding the direction of this thread, Guidelines trump Expectations and, in fact, we need to comply with Guidelines (even though they are only Guidelines) but we can ignore Expectations.

I'm not sure if any specific Requirements are defined anywhere.

Guidelines, here, seem to be enforcable.

What happens if we ignore an Expectation? Resigned disappointment?

 

[+narcissa]

On 01/09/2017 at 2:19 PM, Team Christiansen said:

Great question!!

But I would disagree with these items being labeled as just "best practices".

The listing guidelines include things we acknowledge that we must abide by in order to get the cache listed in the first place. That includes maintenance of the cache listing.

The guidelines mention specifically that log-quality control is "included" in this responsibility. This is not an all-inclusive listing.

Then, the help center lists "responsibilities" not "best practices".

It is not inappropriate for anyone to post an NM on any of the 8 bullets above.

Since both listing guidelines and help center are published by GS, one can't suggest that the listing guidelines are official but the help center is not (just as it would be silly to say that the listing guidelines aren't requirements, because the title says they are only "guidelines" or best practices).

If you take a moment to review what a reviewer has posted in this thread, it will help you better understand how these documents are distinct.

There is nothing wrong with pointing to either document in a discussion, but don't be disingenuous by conflating them. They are not the same thing.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, narcissa said:

On 9/1/2017 at 7:19 PM, Team Christiansen said:

Great question!!

But I would disagree with these items being labeled as just "best practices".

The listing guidelines include things we acknowledge that we must abide by in order to get the cache listed in the first place. That includes maintenance of the cache listing.

The guidelines mention specifically that log-quality control is "included" in this responsibility. This is not an all-inclusive listing.

Then, the help center lists "responsibilities" not "best practices".

It is not inappropriate for anyone to post an NM on any of the 8 bullets above.

Since both listing guidelines and help center are published by GS, one can't suggest that the listing guidelines are official but the help center is not (just as it would be silly to say that the listing guidelines aren't requirements, because the title says they are only "guidelines" or best practices).

If you take a moment to review what a reviewer has posted in this thread, it will help you better understand how these documents are distinct.

There is nothing wrong with pointing to either document in a discussion, but don't be disingenuous by conflating them. They are not the same thing.

As you seem to have grasped what still escapes some of us, perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain it for those of us still floundering even after the reviewer's posts.

That would be preferable to suggesting our lack of understanding is in some way deliberate or false.

[+Team Christiansen]

1 hour ago, narcissa said:

If you take a moment to review what a reviewer has posted in this thread, it will help you better understand how these documents are distinct.

Although I greatly appreciate your trying to "help" me "better understand," I assure you that I am acutely aware that the Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines and the Help Center are distinct, having separate names, purposes, and locations in the website. My post included their separate names, quotes from both (which were found at separate URLs), and even separate descriptions as to their purposes.

2 hours ago, narcissa said:

There is nothing wrong with pointing to either document in a discussion, but don't be disingenuous by conflating them. They are not the same thing.

I think "disingenuous" is pretty harsh. Are you really trying to suggest that I am somehow being dishonest, insincere, or even perhaps playing dumb pretending to not understand something? In addition to "disingenuous,"  I think "conflating" is another pretty big word. I'm glad I can spell it. Dare I say that it was "disingenuous" for someone to post that I was "conflating" or combining the two separate articles as if they were one? No, I dare not.

We can agree they are in fact separate and distinct. We can even agree they each have their place and different purpose. But I think where we may part ways is that despite their distinctions, I still see them both as authoritative.

[+magkirk]

I've done the Note thing a number of times myself and placed a watch on the trackable to see what happens. Sometimes the trackable owner marks it missing right away and, believe it or not, sometimes drops me a message thanking me for letting them know. I think if a lot of people would take the time to write a note on the TB page that the TB is missing, the TB owner or the cache owner would mark TB's missing more often and the information on cache inventories would be more accurate. I don't write many notes anymore, though. There are just too many TB's missing or the TB owner or cache owner are missing themselves and never log onto Geocaching.com anymore or don't do anything for whatever reason. 

[+nextlogicalstep]

9 hours ago, magkirk said:

 I think if a lot of people would take the time to write a note on the TB page that the TB is missing, the TB owner or the cache owner would mark TB's missing more often and the information on cache inventories would be more accurate.

I always do, and it doesn't seem to make any difference.

[+J Grouchy]

Updates to the Guidelines announced today.  

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#ownerresponsibility

 

 

Quote

 

Maintain cache page online

To keep the online cache page up-to-date, the cache owner must

• Monitor logs for reported problems.
• Post an Owner Maintenance log after doing maintenance.
• Update the cache page if conditions or coordinates change.
• Disable a cache page when the cache is not available or you need time to fix reported problems. A cache page can stay disabled for a reasonable amount of time - generally up to four weeks.
• Occasionally mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache.
• Delete logs that appear to be false or inappropriate.

 

That last one is a whole other topic...there's even a thread

[+Team Microdot]

15 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Occasionally mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache.

Excellent - MUST - that's a definite requirement now then - clears up that little ambiguity.

[+niraD]

21 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

37 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Occasionally mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache.

Excellent - MUST - that's a definite requirement now then - clears up that little ambiguity.

Well, yes, but the cache owner is required to do so only "occasionally". So there's still a bit of wiggle room.

[+J Grouchy]

3 minutes ago, niraD said:

Well, yes, but the cache owner is required to do so only "occasionally". So there's still a bit of wiggle room.

Yeah....that wording kinda bugged me.  It might have seemed less "wiggle room"-ish if they'd said "Mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache, which happens occasionally". 

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Yeah....that wording kinda bugged me.  It might have seemed less "wiggle room"-ish if they'd said "Mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache, which happens occasionally". 

When a log mentions that the finder did not see a particular trackable, does that mean that the trackable is now known to be missing, and the CO is now obligated to mark it missing?

Or is the CO allowed to wait, in case someone picked up the trackable but hasn't gotten around to logging the cache yet? Or in case the original reference to the trackable being missing was mistaken?

Or should the CO wait until an in-person maintenance visit confirms that the trackable is missing? And is the CO obligated to perform such an in-person maintenance visit within any specific timeframe?

[+Team Microdot]

18 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

21 minutes ago, niraD said:

Well, yes, but the cache owner is required to do so only "occasionally". So there's still a bit of wiggle room.

Yeah....that wording kinda bugged me.  It might have seemed less "wiggle room"-ish if they'd said "Mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache, which happens occasionally". 

It would be nice to have clear guidelines which avoid doubt / wiggle room.

Thinking about this one though it would be quite difficult to be more specific and still have that specificity apply to all geocaches.

If your cache is visited weekly I think it would be fair to expect you to respond to indications that the inventory needed to be corrected within a few weeks.

If you have a lonely cache though that's visited rarely then that specificity of time frame can't really apply to your cache.

[+barefootjeff]

56 minutes ago, niraD said:

When a log mentions that the finder did not see a particular trackable, does that mean that the trackable is now known to be missing, and the CO is now obligated to mark it missing?

Or is the CO allowed to wait, in case someone picked up the trackable but hasn't gotten around to logging the cache yet? Or in case the original reference to the trackable being missing was mistaken?

Or should the CO wait until an in-person maintenance visit confirms that the trackable is missing? And is the CO obligated to perform such an in-person maintenance visit within any specific timeframe?

I never mark a trackable as missing based solely on what someone said in the log, I visit the cache to confirm that it's gone and to see if there's anything in the logbook to suggest who might have taken it.

[+noncentric]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Well, yes, but the cache owner is required to do so only "occasionally". So there's still a bit of wiggle room.

Yeah....that wording kinda bugged me.  It might have seemed less "wiggle room"-ish if they'd said "Mark trackables as missing if they are not in the geocache, which happens occasionally". 

I think it's good that some wiggle-room exists. That gives Reviewers some discretion in whether they disable/archive a cache based on the CO not marking trackables as missing, even if another cacher logs an NM/NA with missing trackables as the issue.

I wouldn't be surprised if some CO's decide to place only micro/small caches so that no trackables are ever left in their caches, and consequently no inventory maintenance would be needed. IMO, such a side-effect would be unfortunate. I like finding larger containers when out on a hike or at another out-of-the-way location.

[+fizzymagic]

As a cache owner, I will not be in any way responsible for the belongings of others that Groundspeak has decided can use my caches as stopping places.  I am not a Groundspeak employee or contractor.  Groundspeak has no right to demand that I perform work for their trackable program without compensation.

I am willing to include language in my cache pages asking that others not place trackables in them. If a hider reports to me in an email that a trackable is missing from one of my caches, I usually mark it so as a favor to them.  But it is a favor, not compulsory.

I can understand why fewer and fewer regular-sized caches are being hidden, as the owner requirements for them become more and more burdensome. In this matter, Groundspeak has greatly overstepped the bounds of reasonableness.

Edited September 5, 2017 by fizzymagic

[+M 5]

Not CO's job to mark trackables missing. TB owner and whoever took it are responsible. I have and will occasionally mark them missing, if I check on the cache. I will not make a special trip just to check on trackables. As a matter of fact, I have had TB owners upset when I marked them missing and they turned up later. Some TB owners feel that if a TB is marked missing, it deters tardy TB loggers from fixing their tardiness.

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I never mark a trackable as missing based solely on what someone said in the log, I visit the cache to confirm that it's gone and to see if there's anything in the logbook to suggest who might have taken it.

Same here.  We've found too many still there after those "no trackable..." logs to think anyone really looks.

This part of the new guidelines is the only part (so far...) I'm not comfortable with.

But, rather than a most-of-the-day paddle, just to look for someone's proxy laminated piece of paper that might be missing, guess we'll have to mark all missing at the mention of it. 

Sheesh... 

Edited September 6, 2017 by cerberus1

[+Mn-treker]

On 9/1/2017 at 7:35 AM, Team Microdot said:

Maintaining an accurate cache inventory is a maintenance requirement under the official guidelines.

Personal interest levels do not alter that requirement.

Read again. It says occasionally mark as missing trackables that are listed but not in the cache. That word leaves it wide open. They are not going to flog the CO over that. But I would bet they would admonish the cacher who posts the NM log over a missing TB. Not an appropriate use of NM log.

[+Team Microdot]

5 hours ago, Mn-treker said:

On 01/09/2017 at 1:35 PM, Team Microdot said:

Maintaining an accurate cache inventory is a maintenance requirement under the official guidelines.

Personal interest levels do not alter that requirement.

Read again. It says occasionally mark as missing trackables that are listed but not in the cache. That word leaves it wide open. They are not going to flog the CO over that. But I would bet they would admonish the cacher who posts the NM log over a missing TB. Not an appropriate use of NM log.

Yes - in the updates announced yesterday Groundspeak do appear to have added the word occasionally to that guideline.

I too doubt Groundspeak will flog the CO over that. They are more likely to leave it to the community to post appropriate NM logs if and when the guideline isn't being followed.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

14 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

It would be nice to have clear guidelines which avoid doubt / wiggle room.

Thinking about this one though it would be quite difficult to be more specific and still have that specificity apply to all geocaches.

If your cache is visited weekly I think it would be fair to expect you to respond to indications that the inventory needed to be corrected within a few weeks.

If you have a lonely cache though that's visited rarely then that specificity of time frame can't really apply to your cache.

As I see it, if I visit one of my caches to perform maintenance (or just to confirm that no other maintenance is needed) then it doesn't seem like it would take much effort to note what's in the cache and mark any missing trackables.  I might contact a few recent finders to ask if they'd picked up a TB that I didn't see in the cache first though.  However,  I  might get a little peeved if one of my caches that was rarely visited and has *never* required maintenance was disabled or archived because I couldn't go out just to look at it's contents in a timely manner.

[+J Grouchy]

13 hours ago, M 5 said:

Not CO's job to mark trackables missing. TB owner and whoever took it are responsible. I have and will occasionally mark them missing, if I check on the cache. I will not make a special trip just to check on trackables. As a matter of fact, I have had TB owners upset when I marked them missing and they turned up later. Some TB owners feel that if a TB is marked missing, it deters tardy TB loggers from fixing their tardiness.

You are clearly wrong.  They would not have given the CO the ability to mark them missing otherwise. 

Nobody is asking for "special trips".  Nobody is asking you to "play the trackable side game".  Nobody is asking you to care one tiny little bit.  Nobody is asking you to verify anything.

Mark them missing and let the people who log them take care of keeping it in play.  If it's actually there, the next person who finds it will automatically re-activate it when they log it.  If it's NOT there, people who are expecting to find it there will know before they try that it's not in the cache after all because you've done your job and cleared it from YOUR CACHE PAGE.  How stinkin' hard is that?  

[+kunarion]

13 hours ago, M 5 said:

Not CO's job to mark trackables missing. TB owner and whoever took it are responsible. I have and will occasionally mark them missing, if I check on the cache. I will not make a special trip just to check on trackables. As a matter of fact, I have had TB owners upset when I marked them missing and they turned up later. Some TB owners feel that if a TB is marked missing, it deters tardy TB loggers from fixing their tardiness.

 

You are exactly right!  I like accuracy, I don't mind keeping my cache clean and tidy, nor even "Marking Missing".  But as a Cache Owner it must be my choice, not my responsibility at all.

By extension of this policy, if someone sees any improperly logged TB in your cache, now they can slap an NM on that and make you the Cache Owner go correct it...  an item that is most likely unlogged due to the logs being completely messed up.  If "It is the Cache Owner's responsibility" to Mark Missing, then it follows that ALL Trackables in the Cache Owner's cache must also be 110% accurate....  or else. 

Cache Owners have no control over Takers making incorrect logs or not making logs.  Yet Cache Owners now have the responsibility to do so.  It's way wrong, Groundspeak!  But that's exactly how it will work.

I'd have a lot to say about this situation except that at least two persons also deeply involved in Marking Trackables "Missing", are Forum Moderators.

Edited September 6, 2017 by kunarion

[+Team Microdot]

10 minutes ago, kunarion said:

I like accuracy, I don't mind keeping my cache clean and tidy, nor even "Marking Missing".  But as a Cache Owner it must be my choice, not my responsibility at all.

Your cache. Your cache inventory. Your responsibility.