Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Doc_musketeers

How to deal with negligent CO

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, niraD said:

People die.

People get busy with more important things.

People decide that other activities are more interesting.

And they don't always clean up their caches beforehand. Unresponsive and inattentive cache owners have always been part of the game, and will continue to be part of the game. Refusing to accept this basic truth won't change it.

The question is, what do we do about it?

1

NMs, NAs, cache health scores,  reviewer sweeps for low CHS, NMs and long-standing strings of DNFs, reviewer disable when throwdowns are suspected (followed by archival if the owner doesn't respond saying they checked the throwdown). 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Frankly Blame rarely solves issues. Action does. 

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Dprovan mentioned relying on the already overworked volunteer Reviewers. That was indeed part of the question. How far do we go trying to settle something "in house" and is it better to flag within the log or alert a Reviewer to address the situation. That is what they have the authority to do, after all

I think it works best when the reviewers only get involve when they have to get involved. Specifically, none of us can archive someone else's cache, so if it comes to that, we need the reviewer to step in. Logging an NA calls in the reviewer to impartially consider the situation. Before that, I think cachers should interact with the CO, mainly through posting NMs so the owners get a chance to correct the problems. Unfortunately, that plan doesn't work if people in the community don't post NMs and NAs when necessary. Apparently that happens in a lot of places because GS no longer depends on the community and has added a few mechanisms so that reviewer are also now largely responsible for detecting problems in addition to the original role of only pronouncing judgement on them.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I think it works best when the reviewers only get involve when they have to get involved. Specifically, none of us can archive someone else's cache, so if it comes to that, we need the reviewer to step in. Logging an NA calls in the reviewer to impartially consider the situation. Before that, I think cachers should interact with the CO, mainly through posting NMs so the owners get a chance to correct the problems. Unfortunately, that plan doesn't work if people in the community don't post NMs and NAs when necessary. Apparently that happens in a lot of places because GS no longer depends on the community and has added a few mechanisms so that reviewer are also now largely responsible for detecting problems in addition to the original role of only pronouncing judgement on them.

Yeah, I guess I wish there was something between NM and NA. Again, a red wrench might just be a full or damaged log in an otherwise healthy cache. Posting a NM feels like I'm helping the CO do their job. Posting  "Needs Archived" feels like I'm already judging them to have failed. Too bad they don't phrase it "Needs Review." That's a more neutral phrase.

 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

 Too bad they don't phrase it "Needs Review." That's a more neutral phrase.

 

 

I have posted NA and write "needs reviewers attention". ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Yeah, I guess I wish there was something between NM and NA. Again, a red wrench might just be a full or damaged log in an otherwise healthy cache. Posting a NM feels like I'm helping the CO do their job. Posting  "Needs Archived" feels like I'm already judging them to have failed. Too bad they don't phrase it "Needs Review." That's a more neutral phrase.

There have been similar suggestions in the past, for example:

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Hmm. Well, most living COs in our area are responsive, hence my dilemma.

Why is that a dilemma? If they're responsive, then obviously you post the appropriate NMs and NAs so they know what they need to respond to.

3 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I'm not sure how I can simultaneously just "get used to it" which implies it's beyond my control, while also somehow taking personal blame for the situation.

Get used to COs not always maintaining caches. Get used to bad caches. Both happen. But by "get used to", I mean get used to dealing with it, not ignoring it or expecting someone else to do something about it. You don't have to be satisfied with bad COs, but the solution is to talk to them and try to convince them to do better. No reviewer or GS lackey is in a better position to do that than you are.

 

3 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

And this whole thread was HOW to solve the problem, not if I should.

HOW is to post the appropriate logs and let nature takes it's course.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, niraD said:

There have been similar suggestions in the past, for example:

 

Thanks! That's really interesting and there's some logical discussion. The fact is that NM is really only for the CO and isn't an automatic message to the Reviewer, so the next logical step is to alert the Reviewer, not necessarily tell them what to do. And the truth is, a Reviewers attention might be all that's needed to remind the CO of their responsibility and preserve the cache, which is usually what we want, not archival.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Yeah, I guess I wish there was something between NM and NA. Again, a red wrench might just be a full or damaged log in an otherwise healthy cache. Posting a NM feels like I'm helping the CO do their job. Posting  "Needs Archived" feels like I'm already judging them to have failed. Too bad they don't phrase it "Needs Review." That's a more neutral phrase.

Again, the reviewer has essentially one ability: to archive the cache. Regardless of what you want call the log, you are literally saying that you think the cache needs to be archived, so the reviewer should look to see if you're right. There's nothing neutral about it. It's just a fact that you are judging the cache, that's why you think the reviewer needs to decide if your judgement is correct.

Renaming the NA log to something less specific just lets you pretend you didn't make it happen if the reviewer ends up archiving the cache. But you did make it happen, and you should be proud of that because the cache was bad and now it's no longer wasting people's time.

By the way, you said you're judging the CO, but that's not true. Saints can have broken caches. A saint's cache can be archived without him having to turn in his halo. I recommend always assuming all COs are saints and focus only on what's wrong with the cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Again, the reviewer has essentially one ability: to archive the cache. Regardless of what you want call the log, you are literally saying that you think the cache needs to be archived, so the reviewer should look to see if you're right. There's nothing neutral about it. It's just a fact that you are judging the cache, that's why you think the reviewer needs to decide if your judgement is correct.

Renaming the NA log to something less specific just lets you pretend you didn't make it happen if the reviewer ends up archiving the cache. But you did make it happen, and you should be proud of that because the cache was bad and now it's no longer wasting people's time.

By the way, you said you're judging the CO, but that's not true. Saints can have broken caches. A saint's cache can be archived without him having to turn in his halo. I recommend always assuming all COs are saints and focus only on what's wrong with the cache.

I guess I view Temporarily Disabling the cache and requesting owner attention to be a good move. Which is what I see most the time. If a CO sees that situation and doesn't respond in a month or two then yes! I'm happy I played my role in calling out the problem. But a distracted CO might at least respond if not immediately remedy the situation.

 

as for judging the CO, I was only referring to my choice of words. We are on the same page that actions can be condemned without condemning the person. I felt like saying "neglected cache" would have been fairer and more accurate than saying "Negligent CO"

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Again, the reviewer has essentially one ability: to archive the cache. Regardless of what you want call the log, you are literally saying that you think the cache needs to be archived, so the reviewer should look to see if you're right. There's nothing neutral about it. It's just a fact that you are judging the cache.

I sorta replied to this already but I'd missed some of your exact phrasing. This is exactly why I dislike the phrase. Really what we want in this situation is for the CO to fix the problem. Maybe its been an ongoing issue, maybe I'm the only one who posted a NM or Messaged the CO, and they don't take my concerns seriously. I don't want it to be archived, and the CO apparently wants to keep it. Requesting a Reviewer to look at the situation, perhaps read some of the logs, and "demand" the CO fix or verify the cache's health is really what we are asking. That's like saying recommending euthanasia is the same as telling your friend he should take his injured dog to the vet. It's possible the outcome is the same but the intent is totally different.

Share this post


Link to post

If I'm confident there is in fact a problem, I wouldn't hesitate to post a NM. Typically I don't check back to see what happens after that, but if I did notice that the issue hadn't been resolved and a month or more had passed, I'd probably log NA, assuming the problem with the cache wasn't just something minor like a wet or full log sheet. 

As a cache owner, I do not at all mind when people log NM. I don't think cachers should be afraid to log NM. Some COs will read all logs and others won't, so problems mentioned in logs without anyone ever posting a NM can easily be missed by even a responsive CO.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, niraD said:

People die.

People get busy with more important things.

People decide that other activities are more interesting.

And they don't always clean up their caches beforehand. Unresponsive and inattentive cache owners have always been part of the game, and will continue to be part of the game. Refusing to accept this basic truth won't change it.

The question is, what do we do about it?

I knew the whole death, coma, amnesia thing would eventually creep into this discussion as if that's typically why we see these problems with cache maintenance.  

If the reason is option two or three than clean up your toys before you move on.  Show a little respect for the game. 

I'll tell you what I'd do about it.   Continue to push truth in logging and support reviewers by posting NM's.  Change the perception  of cache ownership from just being a novelty to something worthy of recognition.   Educate new cachers by getting involved and leading by example.

Oh, one other thing.  Stop beating around the bush and start calling people out when we see a problem regardless of how many cache finds they have.    

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I guess I view Temporarily Disabling the cache and requesting owner attention to be a good move. Which is what I see most the time. If a CO sees that situation and doesn't respond in a month or two then yes! I'm happy I played my role in calling out the problem. But a distracted CO might at least respond if not immediately remedy the situation.

 

as for judging the CO, I was only referring to my choice of words. We are on the same page that actions can be condemned without condemning the person. I felt like saying "neglected cache" would have been fairer and more accurate than saying "Negligent CO"

Thank you for mentioning disabling caches.   Without a doubt it's one of the most important and lea  least used tools.  Some where down the line disabling caches took on the same negative connotation as NMs.   It's the one log that works for everyone.  It buys the cache owner more time to get their cache squared away.   I stops unsuspecting cachers from finding a crappy cache or no cache at all and it lets your reviewer know your aware of the problem.  

It take about 30 seconds to use and eliminates many of the excuses cache owners use for not maintaining their hides. 

Edited by justintim1999
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I knew the whole death, coma, amnesia thing would eventually creep into this discussion as if that's typically why we see these problems with cache maintenance.  

If the reason is option two or three than clean up your toys before you move on.  Show a little respect for the game. 

I'll tell you what I'd do about it.   Continue to push truth in logging and support reviewers by posting NM's.  Change the perception  of cache ownership from just being a novelty to something worthy of recognition.   Educate new cachers by getting involved and leading by example.

Oh, one other thing.  Stop beating around the bush and start calling people out when we see a problem regardless of how many cache finds they have.    

 

This.

Even an acknowledgment in the form of a "Note" is enough.  Something...anything.  It's when no response is given, no acknowledgment of a potential problem or with what others perceive as a potential problem...THAT is a negligent owner.  Why would you let people post NMs and NAs completely unanswered?  Anyone can do that from a hospital bed or on a break from their highly demanding job.  If you are unwilling to even do the bare minimum, you should not be a CO. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yup.

And I find it strange when active cachers I know have a problem cache archived by a reviewer because of lack of response from DNFs, NM, NA, and Reviewer Disable, over the course of months. If what I know of this person is they're an active cacher and a good CO, how on earth did such a listing of theirs go ignored? Baffles sometimes... but it does happen.

Share this post


Link to post

As the CO of many caches and with friends who own many I don't know any of us who would be upset by a NM or even a NA.  My one friend asked another cacher to please mark some of his that need it with a NM so he would have a easier way to know what ones he needed to fix.

Well I should add it is great if you mark one that NM if it actually does NM.  The only time I see it can be annoying is if you mark it as NM when it doesn't.  I recently had this happen.  I went out of my way to fix up a cache that had a NM because log was full.  No problem...but when I replaced it and got home I noticed the book I had in there still had about 15 pages blank.  The front of the book was full as well as the back but there was still 15 pages blank that could be signed.  There was also other pages that had a bunch of room as well. Still not a huge problem but I would have liked to let those get filled up before making a visit.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/5/2017 at 11:58 AM, arisoft said:

It depends on situation. If I see guideline violation, I willl contact to reviewer instead of CO

It depends on the situation.  I found a cache a couple of years in the woods.  There was an obvious trail close to where I parked my car that I followed for awhile then decided to bushwack on a faint trail that took me through a homeless camp.  After finding the cache along a fence I bushwacked back next to the fence, where upon entering the area a couple of hundred feet from where I parked I saw a no trespassing sign at the edge of the woods. From the placement of the sign it was hard to tell where, exactly, the no trespassing boundary lied.   I sent a message to the CO indicating the homeless camp and the trespassing sign.  She wasn't aware of either when she placed the cache and contacting her first give her the opportunity to fix the problem without getting a reviewer involved.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

She wasn't aware of either when she placed the cache and contacting her first give her the opportunity to fix the problem without getting a reviewer involved.

Generally, Is there any advance to contact CO instead of the reviewer to report violations? You may think that you are helping the reviewer but is it really so?

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, arisoft said:
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

She wasn't aware of either when she placed the cache and contacting her first give her the opportunity to fix the problem without getting a reviewer involved.

Generally, Is there any advance to contact CO instead of the reviewer to report violations? You may think that you are helping the reviewer but is it really so?

If the CO doesn't respond, then contact the reviewer.  It's pretty bad to assume a CO knowingly trespassed (willful violation) if you judge, as in this case, there's uncertainty in the trespass boundary. Use your own judgement. No need to always contact the reviewer first, and it's not always prudent to only contact the CO first. Use common sense.

If NYP found the cache directly behind a no trespassing sign, then contacting the reviewer (while also informing the CO) to have it disabled before anyone else trespasses and gets in trouble would be the quickest and safest choice. In the case of uncertainty, assume the CO didn't know and is responsive. If there's no response and you think it's important enough to not leave untended for much longer, then take it to a reviewer to make the call.

Just make a reasonable judgement call for the immediate situation.

I will say though I think it's rare to only contact the reviewer about a cache issue and not keep the CO in the loop, unless the CO is being willfully ignorant.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 9:12 AM, thebruce0 said:

Yup.

And I find it strange when active cachers I know have a problem cache archived by a reviewer because of lack of response from DNFs, NM, NA, and Reviewer Disable, over the course of months. If what I know of this person is they're an active cacher and a good CO, how on earth did such a listing of theirs go ignored? Baffles sometimes... but it does happen.

I Agree with you 100% on this.   The problem with the given example is that I can clearly see how this particular cache could have slipped by everyone.  

I'd guess that this cache wouldn't have been picked up by the Health Score.   I'll also wager that a reviewer doing a sweep or an active cache owner monitoring their e-mail may have not identified the problem either.   It's only when a personal e-mail was sent to the cache owner questioning the condition of the cache and the validity of the finds is where I think the cache owner fell down.  It's at this point the cache should have at least been disabled.   There's absolutely no harm in disabling a cache until you have time to figure out what's up as long as you communicate why, when and how you'll deal with the problem with your reviewer.   

No one's perfect and mistakes happen but to blame this particular incident on the caching community is ludicrous.   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

It's only when a personal e-mail was sent to the cache owner questioning the condition of the cache and the validity of the finds is where I think the cache owner fell down.  It's at this point the cache should have at least been disabled...

No one's perfect and mistakes happen but to blame this particular incident on the caching community is ludicrous.   

Yep. And again, for us, it wasn't until we noticed the state of a few other caches by the same CO that we put the pieces together.

interestingly, in going back over our logs I found an example of what I see as a great exchange:

We arrived near GZ for the second stage of a multi to find that since the last logged find, a new trail construction project had been started. Besides our access to GZ being blocked by warning tape and "Do Not Enter" signs, based on the clue we thought the hide spot might have been bulldozed. We emailed the CO, including a pic of the location. The CO subsequently posted a note to the log mentioning the construction, the fact that the cache was still in place, and alerting us that it could be reached safely and legally from the other end of the loop trail.

There was no way we could have posted enough info to the log without too many spoilers, so in this case this seemed to have been the perfect remedy instead of immediately posting an unexplained NM or even a DNF.

Also, in reading through past logs with this discussion in mind, I realized that one of the worst responses is posting a DNF with the claim "Cache must be gone!" If you have concerns or evidence that strong, post a NM or contact the CO. All that sort of DNF does is dissuade other cachers from even trying and either proving your fears wrong or adding incentive for the CO to act. And that single DNF might not have been enough to catch the CO's eye.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/5/2017 at 4:44 PM, Doc_musketeers said:

I guess I view Temporarily Disabling the cache and requesting owner attention to be a good move.

A common sentiment, but temporarily disabling the cache is just part of the procedure reviewers follow when archiving the cache. Disabled is not a permanent condition, so I don't consider it an independent superpower.

And, of course, your NA requested the owner's attention, not anything the reviewer did. And, really, to me that's the point: when you post an NA, you really should believe the problem is so bad the cache might as well be archived. Yes, you might be wrong, and, yes, the owner might fix it now, but that doesn't change the fact that it was perfectly valid of you to say that at the point you filed the NA you thought it needed archived.

On 12/5/2017 at 5:03 PM, Doc_musketeers said:

I sorta replied to this already but I'd missed some of your exact phrasing. This is exactly why I dislike the phrase. Really what we want in this situation is for the CO to fix the problem. Maybe its been an ongoing issue, maybe I'm the only one who posted a NM or Messaged the CO, and they don't take my concerns seriously. I don't want it to be archived, and the CO apparently wants to keep it. Requesting a Reviewer to look at the situation, perhaps read some of the logs, and "demand" the CO fix or verify the cache's health is really what we are asking. That's like saying recommending euthanasia is the same as telling your friend he should take his injured dog to the vet. It's possible the outcome is the same but the intent is totally different.

The NM is telling your friend to take his dog to the vet. The NA is tells you friend that it looks like the dog is dead and, oh by the way, calls in the cleanup crew to gather up up the body. I don't care for the idea of a middle option because that implies your friend didn't listen to you but would listen to a policeman threatening to arrest him for animal cruelty. Caches aren't important enough to have such a middle option where you can force your no-longer-a-friend to do something by calling in the authorities.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/6/2017 at 4:59 AM, justintim1999 said:

If the reason is option two or three than clean up your toys before you move on.  Show a little respect for the game.

Somehow, this conversation always turns this way. The point here is how should I handle it if it happens. It's besides the point if not completely pointless to mention that a CO should never cause it to happen. It does happen. No matter how perfect your advice is, people are still imperfect.

15 hours ago, WarNinjas said:

As the CO of many caches and with friends who own many I don't know any of us who would be upset by a NM or even a NA.

I have this same problem when we discuss this. I'm told that some COs react badly, but I've never seen it happen, so I don't really understand why it happens. But if a CO reacts badly, that should be considered the problem, and that problem is only made worse by using a euphemism for "Needs Archived".

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, dprovan said:
On 12/6/2017 at 7:59 AM, justintim1999 said:

If the reason is option two or three than clean up your toys before you move on.  Show a little respect for the game.

Somehow, this conversation always turns this way. The point here is how should I handle it if it happens. It's besides the point if not completely pointless to mention that a CO should never cause it to happen. It does happen. No matter how perfect your advice is, people are still imperfect.

1

I see it differently. People are often imperfect because they are allowed to be, sometimes encouraged to be. I've seen many a Johnny-Appleseed cache hider patted on the back for hiding 100s of caches which they never return to. They get caches named after them. They get cachers emulating their style. 

It is not OK to leave litter. If it's repeated often enough then maybe more COs, will clean up their toys before they move on.  Maybe more finders will post NMs and NAs instead of leaving more litter in the form of throwdowns.

Share this post


Link to post

I spotted this in the description of a cache in an area I'm scouting for a potential job.

676b9671-dff1-4b7d-a34f-eda6d0300b4d.jpg

I'm hoping this is the exception and not the rule.  I also presume that this was not in the cache description when it was published.

For the record, the cache in question was only published in July and has already racked up three DNFs over the past two months.  Owner has yet to take action.

But to play devil's advocate, at least they stated up front that they weren't going to bother maintaining it...

Edited by hzoi
edit to imbed image

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Somehow, this conversation always turns this way. The point here is how should I handle it if it happens. It's besides the point if not completely pointless to mention that a CO should never cause it to happen. It does happen. No matter how perfect your advice is, people are still imperfect.

I have this same problem when we discuss this. I'm told that some COs react badly, but I've never seen it happen, so I don't really understand why it happens. But if a CO reacts badly, that should be considered the problem, and that problem is only made worse by using a euphemism for "Needs Archived".

I've already indicated how I'd deal with the situation. 

My point is we should stop dealing with the effects and start working toward fixing the cause because at the end of the day it's the cache owners responsibility to make sure their caches are in good shape.   The caching community posting DNFs,  NMs, and NAs' are simply online services provided by willing cachers to help COs and reviewers deal with cache issues.    I appreciate the feedback cachers willingly give because it makes maintaining my caches easier but I don't expect it nor rely on it.  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

The NM is telling your friend to take his dog to the vet. The NA is tells you friend that it looks like the dog is dead and, oh by the way, calls in the cleanup crew to gather up up the body. I don't care for the idea of a middle option because that implies your friend didn't listen to you but would listen to a policeman threatening to arrest him for animal cruelty. Caches aren't important enough to have such a middle option where you can force your no-longer-a-friend to do something by calling in the authorities.

I still don't fully agree, or at least I don't feel there's no room for improvement in the system, but I had to upvote your comment because the way you ran with my dog illustration made my afternoon.

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Shortened the quote

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

I spotted this in the description of a cache in an area I'm scouting for a potential job.

676b9671-dff1-4b7d-a34f-eda6d0300b4d.jpg

I'm hoping this is the exception and not the rule.  I also presume that this was not in the cache description when it was published.

For the record, the cache in question was only published in July and has already racked up three DNFs over the past two months.  Owner has yet to take action.

But to play devil's advocate, at least they stated up front that they weren't going to bother maintaining it...

Asking others to maintain a cache for the owner is not an acceptable maintenance plan under the cache maintenance section of the listing guidelines.  Accordingly, many reviewers will not publish a cache with this type of language or graphic present.  I am one of those reviewers.*  And, HQ will back up this approach if appealed.

If the language is added post-publication, I suppose I could disable the page and require that it must be fixed to the version I reviewed and published.  I can't recall having to deal with that.

*Many Reviewers are Dogs.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

If the language is added post-publication, I suppose I could disable the page and require that it must be fixed to the version I reviewed and published.  I can't recall having to deal with that.

*Many Reviewers are Dogs.

 

Too bad you can't ban that account from ever being used to hide another cache. Sure the CO could open another account but it's a pain-in-the-derriere enough that most won't. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Too bad you can't ban that account from ever being used to hide another cache. Sure the CO could open another account but it's a pain-in-the-derriere enough that most won't. 

Ordinarily the Reviewer's goal is not to punish someone by having them banned from the game, but rather to reform their behavior through coaching.  Reviewer notes, temp disable logs and even archive logs are all forms of coaching.

Why is that?  It's because reviewers are geocachers, too, and we want to see well-maintained caches out there for everyone to find, including ourselves.

Banning an account, suspending an account or suspending hiding privileges is a drastic measure of last resort.  A CO would need to behave really badly over a sustained period of time to receive that form of discipline.  It first requires that the CO has frustrated their reviewer to the point where the reviewer takes the time to write to HQ for help.  Then, HQ tries to work through the issue without imposing bans or suspensions.

Remember that the next time you read the latest Facebook posting about HQ's unprovoked, unwarranted and heavy handed actions against a poor innocent geocacher who has done nothing wrong and just wants to hide caches.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

676b9671-dff1-4b7d-a34f-eda6d0300b4d.jpg

I

Someone put together a nice graphic.  Spelling error aside, this is NOT a "SELF MAINTAINED" cache, it's a community maintained cache.  I don't know any cache that can maintain itself over the long haul.  

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Someone put together a nice graphic.  Spelling error aside, this is NOT a "SELF MAINTAINED" cache, it's a community maintained cache.  I don't know any cache that can maintain itself over the long haul.  

Actually a well-made cache hidden in a sheltered location away from any likelihood of muggles can easily last many years or decades without any maintenance. I've found some dating back to the early 2000s still with their original logbook and container and pretty much in mint condition, not to mention the one I stumbled across that had been archived for ten years (so obviously no maintenance in that time) yet was still as good as the day it was placed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Actually a well-made cache hidden in a sheltered location away from any likelihood of muggles can easily last many years or decades without any maintenance. I've found some dating back to the early 2000s still with their original logbook and container and pretty much in mint condition, not to mention the one I stumbled across that had been archived for ten years (so obviously no maintenance in that time) yet was still as good as the day it was placed.

OK, there are caches that don't need a lot or any maintenance over the long haul.  Point granted!

I still contend the title "Self Maintained" is a misnomer - it's community maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

OK, there are caches that don't need a lot or any maintenance over the long haul.  Point granted!

I still contend the title "Self Maintained" is a misnomer - it's community maintained.

Yep, there's no argument from me on that - it's a deplorable practice.

Share this post


Link to post

If a cache is in obvious disrepair which you can tell from the logs, this means the CO can tell as well.  If they haven't been paying attention, an NM log will bring it to their attention and the "red wrench" will alert the community there is a problem.  If a CO feels responsible for maintaining their cache, they will respond to the NM log.  This takes ten seconds.  Three quarters of the time an NM log will not get a response, the rest of the time the CO will repair the cache.  If no response, after 4 to 6 weeks, post an NA log.  This will result in one of two outcomes:  1, The CO will repair the cache  2, The Reviewer will disable the cache.  The second outcome if far more likely.  Once the cache is disabled your work is done.  Within a month or so the cache will either be archived, repaired/replaced or adopted.  90% of the time it will be archived.

After watching this process several hundred times, I can say that posting a NM log for a cache that is not being maintained results in the cache being archived roughly two thirds of the time, typically with no response from the CO at all.   A CO's repair history is there for all to see:  just review their placed caches and see how they are archived and whether they respond to NM logs.  If a cache isn't being maintained, it should go.  If a CO is unable to maintain their caches for whatever reason they can still choose to respond to an NM log. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, edexter said:

Three quarters of the time an NM log will not get a response, the rest of the time the CO will repair the cache.

What I'm seeing occur more often in my area is a third option. The CO will post an OM log saying 'I plan on replacing/fixing this cache.' I've seen this done by old-timers who know how to use OMs and have used OMs properly but have recently adopted this delay tactic (usually after many months, sometimes years of neglect). I tactic that I don't understand.  

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

What I'm seeing occur more often in my area is a third option. The CO will post an OM log saying 'I plan on replacing/fixing this cache.' I've seen this done by old-timers who know how to use OMs and have used OMs properly but have recently adopted this delay tactic (usually after many months, sometimes years of neglect). I tactic that I don't understand.  

I can understand this if disabling leads to premature archiving as told sometimes. I would not call it abusive, but adaptation to the prevailing practices. Or maybe the CO don't know better ways to handle too demanding expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

I can understand this if disabling leads to premature archiving as told sometimes. I would not call it abusive, but adaptation to the prevailing practices. Or maybe the CO don't know better ways to handle too demanding expectations.

Usually the CO is given "a reasonable time" around 30 days to respond to a Reviewer Disable. Obviously there might be distant caches or extenuating circumstances that keeps a CO from performing maintenance in such a time period, and even then the Archiving notes I've seen pretty much invite the CO to reinstate it right up until it can't meet guidelines or someone else uses the location. And most of the cases I've seen are pretty lenient and go well past 30 days. And communication works miracles. I have a hard time reconciling any of what I've seen locally with "premature archiving" nor does it seem to be overly demanding. I'm sure there are exceptions, but all the logs I've seen similar to LOne.R's example show long periods of ignored DNF's and NM's well before a Reviewer stepped in. If we are talking "Many months or even years" I don't think delay tactics are a valid option.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Usually the CO is given "a reasonable time" around 30 days to respond to a Reviewer Disable. Obviously there might be distant caches or extenuating circumstances that keeps a CO from performing maintenance in such a time period, and even then the Archiving notes I've seen pretty much invite the CO to reinstate it right up until it can't meet guidelines or someone else uses the location. And most of the cases I've seen are pretty lenient and go well past 30 days. And communication works miracles. I have a hard time reconciling any of what I've seen locally with "premature archiving" nor does it seem to be overly demanding. I'm sure there are exceptions, but all the logs I've seen similar to LOne.R's example show long periods of ignored DNF's and NM's well before a Reviewer stepped in. If we are talking "Many months or even years" I don't think delay tactics are a valid option.

 It was more then one year of neglect. 2 NMs from Aug 2016 to Aug 2017. No response from the CO. Then an NA and the CO responded the next day with a disable log.  2 more months of inaction.  Then a reviewer note was posted. Followed by an OM a month later stating they are going to replace the missing cache. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 It was more then one year of neglect. 2 NMs from Aug 2016 to Aug 2017. No response from the CO. Then an NA and the CO responded the next day with a disable log.  2 more months of inaction.  Then a reviewer note was posted. Followed by an OM a month later stating they are going to replace the missing cache. 

In this case, everything seems to be in order. Cache is disabled and no one is going after it until the maintenance is ready at some day in the future.

Is it possible that CO noticed the situation because the new CHS algorithm gave a hint on dashboard?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

In this case, everything seems to be in order. Cache is disabled and no one is going after it until the maintenance is ready at some day in the future.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it'll take to do maintenance? I will bet "over 6 months without further updates from the CO". :drama:

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, arisoft said:

In this case, everything seems to be in order. Cache is disabled and no one is going after it until the maintenance is ready at some day in the future.

Is it possible that CO noticed the situation because the new CHS algorithm gave a hint on dashboard?

When new players first start searching for caches in their area, what do they see? A cache that is briefly disabled by the CO for the right reasons shows an active community, and teaches new cachers how it should be done when they become CO's.

But caches that are disabled for long stretches with periods of neglect and unfulfilled promises of attention create the opposite effect. They are frustrating to players new and old and give the impression that "the game is dying."

I'd much prefer fewer well-maintained caches with room for vibrant new caches over a landscape filled with rotting forgotten caches that are nothing more than a 528 ft circle on the map.

Edited by Doc_musketeers
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

But caches that are disabled for long stretches with periods of neglect and unfulfilled promises of attention create the opposite effect. They are frustrating to players new and old and give the impression that "the game is dying."

What do you mean? Disabled cache is disabled and you shoud not worry about disabled caches at all.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, arisoft said:
16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 It was more then one year of neglect. 2 NMs from Aug 2016 to Aug 2017. No response from the CO. Then an NA and the CO responded the next day with a disable log.  2 more months of inaction.  Then a reviewer note was posted. Followed by an OM a month later stating they are going to replace the missing cache. 

In this case, everything seems to be in order. Cache is disabled and no one is going after it until the maintenance is ready at some day in the future.

Pardon my naivety, but isn't an OM supposed to be logged after the maintenance is performed? No, everything isn't in order, the cache is still disabled and will likely remain that way until some indeterminate time in the future, while blocking that vicinity from any new caches that people might actually be able to go and find.

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Pardon my naivety, but isn't an OM supposed to be logged after the maintenance is performed? No, everything isn't in order, the cache is still disabled and will likely remain that way until some indeterminate time in the future, while blocking that vicinity from any new caches that people might actually be able to go and find.

Disable log shoud be posted before the maintenance, not after. Enable log will be posted when maintenance is completed.

I'm sure there are plenty of other much better places for new caches than this particular place. Are you afraid that you are retired of the hobby before this cache has been maintained? In that case, I would be worried about other things than hurrying up this service. :D

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Disable log shoud be posted before the maintenance, not after. Enable log will be posted when maintenance is completed.

I'm sure there are plenty of other much better places for new caches than this particular place. Are you afraid that you are retired of the hobby before this cache has been maintained? In that case, I would be worried about other things than hurrying up this service. :D

I'm not talking about the disable and enable logs, I'm referring to this OM log:

Quote

Followed by an OM a month later stating they are going to replace the missing cache. 

In my book, posting an OM saying maintenance might be performed sometime in the future isn't acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

In my book, posting an OM saying maintenance might be performed sometime in the future isn't acceptable.

You suggest that CO shoud archive that log because it is not acceptable? I would not care about OM log if the cache is still disabled. It is just an informative note for followers.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, arisoft said:

You suggest that CO shoud archive that log because it is not acceptable? I would not care about OM log if the cache is still disabled. It is just an informative note for followers.

No, a WN is an informative note. An OM does other things as well - it clears the Needs Maintenance attribute yet the cache stlll needs maintenance and presumably it resets the cache health score. To me, logging an OM before the maintenance has actually been done seems like gaming the system.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
17 minutes ago, arisoft said:

You suggest that CO shoud archive that log because it is not acceptable? I would not care about OM log if the cache is still disabled. It is just an informative note for followers.

No, a WN is an informative note. An OM does other things as well - it clears the Needs Maintenance attribute yet the cache stlll needs maintenance and presumably it resets the cache health score. To me, logging an OM before the maintenance has actually been done seems like gaming the system.

From the Help Centre:

Quote

Owner Maintenance: Tell geocachers and reviewers that you have visited your geocache and performed maintenance.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×