Resusitator cache

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Yeah, posting Found It logs on caches that you've found is purely selfish.

No.  Doing it on archived caches for no other reason than getting that smiley is.

[+cerberus1]

51 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

No.  Doing it on archived caches for no other reason than getting that smiley is.

We're seeing folks who used to go after archived caches and pick them up (we're one...), mostly from long-inactive COs, are  thinning lately and I believe for now it's simply the mediocre containers.  Ones we go after have usually been found by us years before.

 - Remove the "smiley" , the only other incentive for some, and then there is junk left in the woods. 

It may be just me, bit I'd like to see junk left in the woods go bye-bye.  If someone gets a "smiley" for doing it, how does that affect you or me?

[+justintim1999]

26 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We're seeing folks who used to go after archived caches and pick them up (we're one...), mostly from long-inactive COs, are  thinning lately and I believe for now it's simply the mediocre containers.  Ones we go after have usually been found by us years before.

 - Remove the "smiley" , the only other incentive for some, and then there is junk left in the woods. 

It may be just me, bit I'd like to see junk left in the woods go bye-bye.  If someone gets a "smiley" for doing it, how does that affect you or me?

I'm with ya.   I'm one of those people who would like to see the junk removed as well.   I'd just like to see the people who agreed to do it, do it. 

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

No.  Doing it on archived caches for no other reason than getting that smiley is.

In that case, maybe we should get rid of all Found It logs. After all, we wouldn't want people posting a Found It log for no other reason than getting that smiley.

 

50 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'd just like to see the people who agreed to do it, do it. 

In most cases, the CO ("the people who agreed to do it") will not do it.

So what's you're second choice?

[+justintim1999]

13 minutes ago, niraD said:

In that case, maybe we should get rid of all Found It logs. After all, we wouldn't want people posting a Found It log for no other reason than getting that smiley.

 

In most cases, the CO ("the people who agreed to do it") will not do it.

So what's you're second choice?

Pay me to do it.........Just kidding.  

Nothing much you can do except keep trying to change the perception of cache ownership and continue picking up the pieces (pun intended) until things change.

Maybe we don't make it quite so easy to become a cache owner in the first place.

[+niraD]

18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Maybe we don't make it quite so easy to become a cache owner in the first place.

One of the suggestions that has been tossed around is to allow new accounts to create new cache listings only after a specified waiting period. If the waiting period is three months, then that at least guarantees that they're interested enough in geocaching to stick around for the three-month minimum specified in the cache permanence guideline.

It wouldn't do anything for people who play for a few months and then get busy with life, or with other hobbies, or whatever. But when people walk away from the hobby, I doubt anyone within the hobby has any leverage over them.

[+L0ne.R]

41 minutes ago, niraD said:

In that case, maybe we should get rid of all Found It logs. After all, we wouldn't want people posting a Found It log for no other reason than getting that smiley.

I wish they would. But they need some mechanism to be able to filter out those caches we've actually found from those we would like to find.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

* If the cache was archived and indeed not missing than the owner should move to re-instate it.  Once it's active again it can be logged as a find.

In the case of the "missing" archived cache that I found ten years later, it was only about 30 metres from the final of my new multi so, if the owner had wanted it reinstated, I'd have had to archive mine.

For the two of mine that I've archived after they went missing (one washed away in a severe storm, the other repeatedly muggled), even if someone found the containers and returned them to me, I wouldn't be keen to reinstate the caches as, in hindsight, both sites turned out to be problematic.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

In that case, maybe we should get rid of all Found It logs. After all, we wouldn't want people posting a Found It log for no other reason than getting that smiley.

32 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I wish they would. But they need some mechanism to be able to filter out those caches we've actually found from those we would like to find.

I said a year after joining  that the "find count" was going to ruin the hobby, and got mail from locals over it.   

That "mechanism" for found caches would be the same, just remove a "count".   Now that the site's marketing is even relying on folks obsession with stats, and with third-party sites devoted to stats, that idea's long gone. 

 - But we wouldn't have multi-page threads on "smiley count" whinings if there wasn't one ...  

 

[+justintim1999]

15 hours ago, niraD said:

One of the suggestions that has been tossed around is to allow new accounts to create new cache listings only after a specified waiting period. If the waiting period is three months, then that at least guarantees that they're interested enough in geocaching to stick around for the three-month minimum specified in the cache permanence guideline.

It wouldn't do anything for people who play for a few months and then get busy with life, or with other hobbies, or whatever. But when people walk away from the hobby, I doubt anyone within the hobby has any leverage over them.

I've always said cache ownership should be a privilege not a right.   I know that sounds kind of harsh but it simply means just because you own  a smart phone and can sign up for a free account doesn't qualify you to be a cache owner.     It's like getting a drivers license.   They don't just hand you one for showing up at the registry.   When you think of how instrumental good cache ownership is to the overall success of the entire activity it's head scratching why people with little or no experience are allowed to become one.   I'm sure Years ago increasing the number of players & caches was the main focus.   The app did a wonderful job at that.  I think allowing all these new players the ability to jump right into cache ownership,  before really understanding the game and the commitment required in owning a cache,  was a mistake and a big factor in the changes we're experiencing today.    

Having some type of basic requirements for becoming a cache owner makes sense to me.

Anything you have to work at to obtain you tend to cherish.    You also tend to respect those who have obtained those things because you understand the work and commitment that was involved.     I believe these people would be more likely to respect the guidelines from start to finish.  

Why would someone who has no skin in the game care about retrieving there archived cache?   If they did have to invest a little more time and effort to become a cache owner I don't know If we'd even be having this discussion.   

 

[+justintim1999]

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In the case of the "missing" archived cache that I found ten years later, it was only about 30 metres from the final of my new multi so, if the owner had wanted it reinstated, I'd have had to archive mine.

For the two of mine that I've archived after they went missing (one washed away in a severe storm, the other repeatedly muggled), even if someone found the containers and returned them to me, I wouldn't be keen to reinstate the caches as, in hindsight, both sites turned out to be problematic.

In the first case the original cache owner is out of luck.    

What can you do about the second two.  All anyone can expect is for the cache owner to make a good faith effort to retrieve the container.  If they did that they're good in my book.   

[+justintim1999]

15 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I said a year after joining  that the "find count" was going to ruin the hobby, and got mail from locals over it.   

That "mechanism" for found caches would be the same, just remove a "count".   Now that the site's marketing is even relying on folks obsession with stats, and with third-party sites devoted to stats, that idea's long gone. 

 - But we wouldn't have multi-page threads on "smiley count" whinings if there wasn't one ...  

 

When I first read this I was like "No,  you can't take away the find count."   I immediately realized that I too had in some way fallen victim to the find count monster.   My find count really means very little to me but it's that inherent, competitive thing in our DNA that gives it life and won't allow us to let it go.           

[+barefootjeff]

On 12/13/2017 at 6:55 AM, barefootjeff said:

On 12/12/2017 at 0:06 AM, justintim1999 said:

It's been my experience that over time caches simply degrade so I'm not quite convinced that it's rare for a cache that's not been found in a year to be in need of maintenance.

It's not hard to make a cache that'll last many years or decades without having to be "maintained". Take this one for example: it's stainless steel so it's not going to rust, the hiding place is well inside a wind-eroded cave so it's not going to get wet or be exposed to the sun and it's in an area where the chance of a muggle stumbling across it is negligible. Being a long T3.5 hike, It probably won't get many visitors either - it had two vying for FTF on the first day, a third the day after and just one since then.

Many of the bushland caches around here use a similar approach - a sturdy container in a hiding place protected from the weather - and don't degrade even after many years of service.

Just a follow-up on this. I went out to this cache for a routine visit this morning, as the weather was nice for a long hike and it's been just over six months since I hid it. So in that six months has it degraded any? Well, not that I could see - the exterior still looked just like it did when I put it there and the interior was bone dry with no evidence of any water entry or condensation. Even the pencil was still sharp.

I'll go back in another six months when it's been out there for a full year, but I expect it'll look exactly the same then too, except maybe by then there'll be a couple more entries in the logbook.