CO not maintaining trackables inventory

[+cerberus1]

33 minutes ago, kunarion said:

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.

A simple solution to this is replace the quality ammo cans that some have been accustomed to place all those trackables in,  with match stick holders (or similar) , removing the problem that has nothing to do with maintenance on the cache itself. 

We have a couple dozen ammo cans left, but if this were to become an issue, we have more than that in match stick holders (leftovers from a series) ...

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

A simple solution to this is replace the quality ammo cans that some have been accustomed to place all those trackables in,  with match stick holders (or similar) , removing the problem that has nothing to do with maintenance on the cache itself. 

Why not - undermine another fun aspect of the game simply in order to stick it to the man - rather than simply check a box once every blue moon.

[+cerberus1]

10 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

A simple solution to this is replace the quality ammo cans that some have been accustomed to place all those trackables in,  with match stick holders (or similar) , removing the problem that has nothing to do with maintenance on the cache itself. 

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Why not - undermine another fun aspect of the game simply in order to stick it to the man - rather than simply check a box once every blue moon.

Actually, most times when doing maintenance, we find it's just wasted space anyway. 

Filled by us, and empty (including it's pencils/sharpeners) when we do maintenance.  That "fun aspect" kinda left a while ago, when swag somehow became a prize instead of a trade item...

 

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Actually, most times when doing maintenance, we find it's just wasted space anyway. 

Filled by us, and empty (including it's pencils/sharpeners) when we do maintenance.  That "fun aspect" kinda left a while ago, when swag somehow became a prize instead of a trade item...

 

True.

[+M 5]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

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?  

In my eyes. You are CLEARLY wrong. You say nobody is asking you to verify anything. Then how the heck will your cache page be accurate???? You say that if its actually there, the next person with automatically re-activate. For one, that isn't necessarily true at all and two, now the crowd that is beating the "keep your cache accurate" drum (not sure if your one of them, not going to reread all this thread, but they are on here), can say your cache isn't accurate since you marked a TB missing that wasn't. There is no logic in the "They would not have given the CO the ability to mark them missing otherwise" statement either. Just because you have the ability, doesn't make it mandatory or even right. Just an option. I've marked plenty of TB's missing, and I will continue to do so after what I consider a long enough time not logged. (everyones opinion will vary on that length as well). I will not worry about it or make a special trip to check. It's a side game that if you choose to participate in, you are going to have to deal with the flaws and disappointments associated with it. Just like all the other side games in geocaching.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, M 5 said:

It's a side game that if you choose to participate in, you are going to have to deal with the flaws and disappointments associated with it. Just like all the other side games in geocaching.

Side game - euphemism for an excuse to claim an exemption from something I don't like.

 

[+J Grouchy]

31 minutes ago, M 5 said:

In my eyes. You are CLEARLY wrong. You say nobody is asking you to verify anything. Then how the heck will your cache page be accurate???? You say that if its actually there, the next person with automatically re-activate. For one, that isn't necessarily true at all and two, 

Actually, it IS necessarily true.  If a trackable is marked missing and someone finds it and logs it online, they are given an option to grab it from somewhere.  That activates it and puts it into their own inventory.  So yes, if they pick it up and log it, it DOES automatically re-activate it.  

And no, you don't have to personally verify every trackable in your cache.  Do you personally verify every signature on the log?  Do you personally verify the difficulty and terrain every time it is found?  The info on the cache page has to rely on the finders to a fair degree.  If you have a T2 cache, but people mention in their logs that it's much more difficult to access and should be a 3 or 4, then you can rely on their info or you can go out and re-assess the terrain rating personally every time someone mentions it.  It's ridiculous to claim that you have to personally verify the trackables are in the cache every time.  If someone states there was nothing in the cache but the log, while your inventory says you have two TBs in there...mark them missing and move on.  Or you can come in here and complain about being asked to do something that takes five seconds and inconveniences absolutely nobody on earth.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 It's ridiculous to claim that you have to personally verify the trackables are in the cache every time.

If we're honest it doesn't belong in the discussion anyway - either in the context of the OP or in light of the guideline changes.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Why not - undermine another fun aspect of the game simply in order to stick it to the man - rather than simply check a box once every blue moon.

There's no "sticking it to the man" involved.

As a cache owner, placing larger containers is less fun than placing smaller containers. Therefore, cache owners will place smaller containers.

It's as simple as that.

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

There's no "sticking it to the man" involved.

As a cache owner, placing larger containers is less fun than placing smaller containers. Therefore, cache owners will place smaller containers.

It's as simple as that.

Really?

Are you privy to the results of some survey that the rest of us haven't seen?

 

[+justintim1999]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 0:56 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

Does anyone know of an instance where a NA was posted on a cache because the TB inventory wasn't up to date, and the cache was archived by a reviewer specifically because the CO didn't mark the TBs as missing?  Of course, a CO that has abandoned a cache wouldn't mark the TBs as missing but that's a separate issue.

The words "up to date" are very important.   I think cache owners should be more attentive to their TB inventory but there's way to many moving parts here to archive a cache because a TB may or may not be missing.  

 

 

[+niraD]

32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

35 minutes ago, niraD said:

There's no "sticking it to the man" involved.

As a cache owner, placing larger containers is less fun than placing smaller containers. Therefore, cache owners will place smaller containers.

It's as simple as that.

Really?

Really.

This isn't new. Certain cache owners have been placing smaller caches long before the latest revision of the guidelines. One of the reasons mentioned by some of them has been repeated requests to update the trackable inventory. Now those requests will have the authority of Groundspeak's guidelines behind them.

"Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Then I suggest you stop doing that!"

It isn't complicated.

[+J Grouchy]

24 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The words "up to date" are very important.   I think cache owners should be more attentive to their TB inventory but there's way to many moving parts here to archive a cache because a TB may or may not be missing.  

 

 

I don't think anyone suggested archiving a cache because of the inventory not being updated.  No, a cache is archived when maintenance is ignored, a CO is unresponsive...or a combination of the two.  Sure, a NM log that requests updates to the cache page may eventually lead to archival...but that is 100% the fault of the CO either ignoring the logs or not doing the bare minimum of maintenance needed. A Needs Maintenance log can be posted for any number of reasons, inventory is only one of many.

[+justintim1999]

6 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I don't think anyone suggested archiving a cache because of the inventory not being updated.  No, a cache is archived when maintenance is ignored, a CO is unresponsive...or a combination of the two.  Sure, a NM log that requests updates to the cache page may eventually lead to archival...but that is 100% the fault of the CO either ignoring the logs or not doing the bare minimum of maintenance needed. A Needs Maintenance log can be posted for any number of reasons, inventory is only one of many.

I've never posted a NM because of a missing trackable.   If I had to respond to a NM every time someone didn't find a trackable in one of my caches I'd eventually throw up my hands and give up being a cache owner.  That doesn't mean I don't try to keep the inventory accurate but  I don't think my feet should be held to the fire if at any point in time it isn't.        

[+cerberus1]

22 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The words "up to date" are very important.   I think cache owners should be more attentive to their TB inventory but there's way to many moving parts here to archive a cache because a TB may or may not be missing.  

I can't see a Reviewer or HQ being silly enough to archive a cache with few issues simply  because of someone else's trackable error, but I kinda agree.

Too many variables...  

Just a few weeks ago I found one in a cache that wasn't logged in the cache I found it in, or at an event another discovered it from, yet it traveled across states.    Logging errors from others...   Guess we blame that on the COs not paying enough attention too...

A simple search in the forums shows numerous examples  where TOs  stated they have, and would NM caches over their missing trackable.

Also just as many of TOs  with an odd habit of "replacing" their trackables into caches that they were marked missing from.

 Guess we'll be  sure to mark trackables in ours simply  to cover our own cans, and refer irate emails from TOs to Groundspeak.  

[+J Grouchy]

40 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I've never posted a NM because of a missing trackable.   If I had to respond to a NM every time someone didn't find a trackable in one of my caches I'd eventually throw up my hands and give up being a cache owner.  That doesn't mean I don't try to keep the inventory accurate but  I don't think my feet should be held to the fire if at any point in time it isn't.        

A - the likelihood of people actually posting NM logs for this reason are virtually nonexistent, whether they should or not.

B - I suspect you are exaggerating the instances of this sort of thing.  I have a fair number of caches big enough to hold trackables and I'm not even sure I recall EVER reading any logs mentioning missing trackables in the almost 5 years I've been doing this.

[+bflentje]

Sorry Groundspeak and geocaching community, I am not likely to ever be a part of managing someone else's trackable. In my useless opinion, it falls into the Not My Problem category. Now, if I happen to audit a cache during maintenance I'd happily mark something missing if it's not there. But I won't be making special trips to do it and I certainly will NOT be doing anything as silly as contacting previous finders trying to determine who "may have" grabbed it.

Edited September 6, 2017 by bflentje

[+bflentje]

7 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

A - the likelihood of people actually posting NM logs for this reason are virtually nonexistent, whether they should or not.

B - I suspect you are exaggerating the instances of this sort of thing.  I have a fair number of caches big enough to hold trackables and I'm not even sure I recall EVER reading any logs mentioning missing trackables in the almost 5 years I've been doing this.

I get logs often suggesting a trackable is missing (from the cache). They inevitably turn up somewhere, most of the time.

[+J Grouchy]

4 minutes ago, bflentje said:

I get logs often suggesting a trackable is missing (from the cache). They inevitably turn up somewhere, most of the time.

I call BS on your claim of actually following up on all those trackables.

[+cerberus1]

13 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

A - the likelihood of people actually posting NM logs for this reason are virtually nonexistent, whether they should or not.

Less than a minute search...  Remove TBs  

[+Team Christiansen]

9 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I call BS on your claim of actually following up on all those trackables.

A good place to start would be Halloween Hoopla XII Geocoin in an archived cache Cruising the Cannon - Laura. Quite a few more like this in that CO's profile.

[+justintim1999]

30 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

A - the likelihood of people actually posting NM logs for this reason are virtually nonexistent, whether they should or not.

B - I suspect you are exaggerating the instances of this sort of thing.  I have a fair number of caches big enough to hold trackables and I'm not even sure I recall EVER reading any logs mentioning missing trackables in the almost 5 years I've been doing this.

A - You indicated in a previous post that a NM can be posted for many reasons, inventory being one of them.  Now I've never had a NM posted on one of my caches because of inventory issues but from your comments you must think that the idea is valid.   I don't.  

B - I've marked many travel bugs missing over the years.  I've also tracked some of them down and helped the cacher log them correctly.  I have a hard time believing you've never seen a post on one of your caches mentioning a missing trackable.

If that's true then it has to be some kind of record.

Edited September 6, 2017 by justintim1999
spelling

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

2 hours ago, niraD said:

There's no "sticking it to the man" involved.

As a cache owner, placing larger containers is less fun than placing smaller containers. Therefore, cache owners will place smaller containers.

It's as simple as that.

Really?

Really.

This isn't new. Certain cache owners have been placing smaller caches long before the latest revision of the guidelines. One of the reasons mentioned by some of them has been repeated requests to update the trackable inventory. Now those requests will have the authority of Groundspeak's guidelines behind them.

"Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Then I suggest you stop doing that!"

It isn't complicated.

Sorry - I thought you were speaking more broadly than the small number of cases where you claim to fully understand the entire motivation behind people not hiding larger containers, that you were making some grand prediction about how being forced to tick a box once every blue moon would be the sole cause of the demise of larger cache containers.

I think you may have over-simplified.

 

[+bflentje]

48 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I call BS on your claim of actually following up on all those trackables.

I would expect nothing less from you but you can call whatever you want.. I don't watch trackables but I do watch my own caches. And I am not checked out enough where I wouldn't notice a trackable gone once I'd seen it in my cache, specifically after it had been claimed as missing.

[+niraD]

3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I think you may have over-simplified.

Very possibly. And it's purely anecdotal, based on the reasons expressed by a few cache owners. Still, I'm not convinced that increasing the expectations placed upon cache owners will have the desired result.

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I think you may have over-simplified.

Very possibly. And it's purely anecdotal, based on the reasons expressed by a few cache owners. Still, I'm not convinced that increasing the expectations placed upon cache owners will have the desired result.

I can only hope that your apathy isn't infectious.

[+bflentje]

51 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

A good place to start would be Halloween Hoopla XII Geocoin in an archived cache Cruising the Cannon - Laura. Quite a few more like this in that CO's profile.

Stalking me has nothing to do with my original statement.

That cache in question NEVER actually contained a coin as it was a tube 1" in diameter and 3" in length. And Boreal Walker is super intelligent enough to not drop a coin into a river cache, especially when he was with me during it's hide.

So, not only does your stalking demonstrate your political tendencies, it proves you are capable of making false claims about something you know nothing about. And attempting to pile it on with your "a few more in that CO's profile" says more about your character than it does about anything I originally stated (which perhaps you should go re-read my post).

Edited September 6, 2017 by bflentje

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I can only hope that your apathy isn't infectious.

Huh... I can see how my attitude might be called pessimism (which a pessimist would call pragmatism ).

But if I were apathetic, I wouldn't bother posting. (There are plenty of threads I don't even read because I truly don't care about the topic in question.)

[+Team Microdot]

6 minutes ago, niraD said:

16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I can only hope that your apathy isn't infectious.

Huh... I can see how my attitude might be called pessimism (which a pessimist would call pragmatism ).

But if I were apathetic, I wouldn't bother posting. (There are plenty of threads I don't even read because I truly don't care about the topic in question.)

I'm guilty of thinking one step ahead inasmuch as pessimism all too often leads to apathy and the belief that it probably won't work so it isn't worth trying which I reckon is a considerably worse form of rot in terms of the damage it could do than any that might arise from asking people to tick a box once in a blue moon.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

17 hours ago, bflentje said:

... and I certainly will NOT be doing anything as silly as contacting previous finders trying to determine who "may have" grabbed it.

I don't see that as silly.  I see that as helping another geocacher that may want to know where their TB might be.

[+cerberus1]

18 hours ago, bflentje said:

...and I certainly will NOT be doing anything as silly as contacting previous finders trying to determine who "may have" grabbed it.

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I don't see that as silly.  I see that as helping another geocacher that may want to know where their TB might be.

I kinda agree with bflentje,  and those we know are usually good with trackable movement.

We maintain our caches.  Mark trackables missing when doing that maintenance too.

 - But I feel if there's any "playing detective" involved,  it should be the person who owns that trackable doing it. 

It's not mine... 

We've received enough intrusive messages from buttinskies on subjects having nothing to do with us over the years, thanks.   

 

[+usyoopers]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I don't see that as silly.  I see that as helping another geocacher that may want to know where their TB might be.

I'm sorry but I don't have time to play detective to try and find all of our own missing TB's let alone someone else's, I won't be participating in that.

[+bflentje]

3 hours ago, usyoopers said:

I'm sorry but I don't have time to play detective to try and find all of our own missing TB's let alone someone else's, I won't be participating in that.

This. I have about 25 trackables in circulation and I can only account for about two of them. When my countless hours of research of my own trackables comes up empty, why would I put that kind of effort into someone else's?

But don't misunderstand me.. I posted only what I intend on doing.. or rather, not doing. I don't care what y'all do. But I do know that if there's ever a point where me or my caches are penalized because of other's trackables, that is when I geo-cide and my 12 year streak of Premium Membership will come to an end.

[+thebruce0]

I might play detective if I have the time and it looks like a great TB that I would hate to see go missing. "Playing detective" or not is entirely one's personal choice.

[SicilianCyclops]

On 9/7/2017 at 1:29 PM, bflentje said:

This. I have about 25 trackables in circulation and I can only account for about two of them. When my countless hours of research of my own trackables comes up empty, why would I put that kind of effort into someone else's?

But don't misunderstand me.. I posted only what I intend on doing.. or rather, not doing. I don't care what y'all do. But I do know that if there's ever a point where me or my caches are penalized because of other's trackables, that is when I geo-cide and my 12 year streak of Premium Membership will come to an end.

That's a perfectly valid approach which I think many cache owners would agree with. Yet there are some here who would say you're stirring up drama and probably shouldn't be a cache owner aside from the fact that you care enough to  come to these forums and discuss the matter which over 99% of cache owners wouldn't do.

[+bflentje]

On 9/10/2017 at 7:44 AM, SicilianCyclops said:

That's a perfectly valid approach which I think many cache owners would agree with. Yet there are some here who would say you're stirring up drama and probably shouldn't be a cache owner aside from the fact that you care enough to  come to these forums and discuss the matter which over 99% of cache owners wouldn't do.

Stirring up drama by stating what I will or will not do, all the while stating I don't care what others do? I am pretty sure my approach avoids the drama. Your reply to me is far more dramatic.  [eye-roll of the week award].

[SicilianCyclops]

9 hours ago, bflentje said:

Stirring up drama by stating what I will or will not do, all the while stating I don't care what others do? I am pretty sure my approach avoids the drama. Your reply to me is far more dramatic.  [eye-roll of the week award].

No, I'm AGREEING with you. But when I said something similar about not wanting to deal with NMs for trackables I was accused of starting drama. Read back a bit in the thread. 

[+Team Microdot]

7 hours ago, SicilianCyclops said:

16 hours ago, bflentje said:

Stirring up drama by stating what I will or will not do, all the while stating I don't care what others do? I am pretty sure my approach avoids the drama. Your reply to me is far more dramatic.  [eye-roll of the week award].

No, I'm AGREEING with you. But when I said something similar about not wanting to deal with NMs for trackables I was accused of starting drama. Read back a bit in the thread. 

Probably more to do with your claim that you'd geocide rather than tick a box once every blue moon.

[SicilianCyclops]

11 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Probably more to do with your claim that you'd geocide rather than tick a box once every blue moon.

Yawn. You're still on that even though it's been explained and clarified TWICE.

[+Mn-treker]

Ok cache cop I have solution. You log NM, I simply log owner maint.

Now prove  me wrong. Owner maint. Log keeps reviewer and Groundspeak off my back. Prove maint not done.