Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Doc_musketeers

How to deal with negligent CO

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I suggest to calculate the time span between disable log and the last visitor's log before it, if there is no better information available from TFTCs.

I’ll let you catalog such info. That judgement is meaningless if the cache is still disabled! 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If you're a local you can, if you don't die of old age in the meantime, but visitors to the area aren't likely to be able to just wait around for a few months or years.

Visitors may have plenty of other caches available because they are visitors. For me, it takes many visits to explore the entire town. I would'n be worried about this theoretical problem.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Example: someone is visiting our town. They are at a hotel. They have an hour to spare and want to grab some caches. In the neighborhood, within the distance they’d have time to walk, are 4 hide locations. Two contain disabled caches. They now only have two to find. If the caches that inhabit those locations are disabled for long stretches of time, it effects the game in that neighborhood. Visitors have a lower quality caching experience and local cachers are frustrated because they know this is an area where tourists might cache but the “real estate” is taken up by what are essentially abandoned caches. 

I see no reason to think it would make any difference at all whether the caches are disabled or archived. Either way, it's two less caches for your hotel friend to find. You assume that if the disabled caches are archived, two new caches will pop up in their place, but I don't see that happen.

Too often when I hear people arguing for fixing caches as soon as possible instead of leaving them disabled, I realize their arguments are really supporting the idea that more caches should be planted. After all,  your specific complaint is that your hotel friend doesn't have enough caches to find. That could be solved as easily by you planting new caches as by that other CO fixing his old caches. Disabled caches are just special cases of non-existent caches -- they are non-existent caches that, nevertheless, have an identity and location -- but too often people think of disabled caches as a special case of existing caches. If they existed, they wouldn't be disabled.

If you're worried about specific locations that must always have an available cache, then the solution isn't a general purpose way of dealing with bad COs or a CO score that helps automatically identify problems; the solution is to talk to the CO and explain why you think there needs to be a cache there pronto and volunteer to plant one if he wants to archive his. In most cases, though, there's no rush, which is why you don't do that every time someone disables a cache.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Visitors may have plenty of other caches available because they are visitors. For me, it takes many visits to explore the entire town. I would'n be worried about this theoretical problem.

That doesn’t eliminate each CO’s responsibility to maintain their own caches. As Barefootjeff said awhile back, that argument only holds up if you and your caches are the exception. If your argument is “my cache isn’t important because there are others nearby” then why do you own the cache? We are supposed to choose hide locations that have merit beyond a cubby or lamppost skirt. If it isn’t worth your time to maintain the cache that gave me a reason to come here, why should it be worth my time in the first place?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

arisoft, you keep missing the point. You may not worry as a finder. You may feel that disabled caches aren't a problem. But again and again we reiterate: A disabled cache a one less cache that can be found. It doesn't matter that "there are others to find" - you're projecting your own find ethic on others. You have no knowledge of why someone may be around or for how long or even why they may want to find any specific cache. The whole point of having a listing and published cache is that it can be found at any one point. Disabled caches are there to let people know, specifically, that the cache is not available to be found and the owner's intent is to reactivate it for finding once any outstanding issue is resolved (else the option is archival) - and so because of that restriction, it is highly, strongly encouraged that their owners get out there and do something about it in a timely manner - typically, as quoted from the guidelines, within a month or a few weeks. Or in other words, as soon as possible. Whether that's maintaining to have it active again, or archiving to make room for other active caches. The whole point is to have active caches. Not caches sitting around being unfindable owned by people who aren't thinking about providing active caches for people to find - in the time that they may wish to find them, not the CO.

If an owner doesn't care about their caches being findable by people, then they should not be cache owners. It's that simple.  It's not the same as an owner being unable to maintain in a timely manner - that's a different issue regarding maintenance plans, discussed elsewhere.  We're talking about owners who couldn't be concerned with their disabled caches and having them reactivated as soon as they are able.

15 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

If your argument is “my cache isn’t important because there are others nearby” then why do you own the cache?

Yup.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I see no reason to think it would make any difference at all whether the caches are disabled or archived. Either way, it's two less caches for your hotel friend to find. You assume that if the disabled caches are archived, two new caches will pop up in their place, but I don't see that happen...

In most cases, though, there's no rush, which is why you don't do that every time someone disables a cache.

I suppose it really does depend on your vicinity. In our area there are perhaps 4 or 5 very active cachers right now. Our team only owns a dozen or so caches and could easily maintain quite a few more around our section of town. So yes, if the example caches were archived there WOULD be new caches quite quickly. 

And again, I don’t think anyone has said “rush.” Is a month a rush? In some circumstances. Those are allowed for. But  it’s not just my opinion or desire, it’s a clear part of Cache Owner responsibility according to he Guidelines.

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Not sure what fuidelines are or why my phone doesn’t autocorrect when I actually need it to.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Too often when I hear people arguing for fixing caches as soon as possible instead of leaving them disabled, I realize their arguments are really supporting the idea that more caches should be planted.

It's about participating in a responsible pastime with members who take pride in the overall quality of the activity, and the components of that activity. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Visitors may have plenty of other caches available because they are visitors. For me, it takes many visits to explore the entire town. I would'n be worried about this theoretical problem.

Not all towns are as equally blessed with caches. Patonga, a popular spot for visitors during the summer holidays, has six caches, four of them mine, and the Woy Woy / Ettalong / Umina Beach peninsula where I live has about twenty, roughly half of which are P&Gs that could be easily knocked over in half a day by a visitor and the rest well within a week. Forster, a large town and popular holiday destination on the mid north coast, has about a dozen caches.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

arisoft, you keep missing the point.

I think that there are as many point as there are geocachers with a point. This debate does not end with consensus because there are different experiences, goals and values. But it does not prevent to discuss about the matter. But when it comes to logic, it is no longer a matter of opinion. Logical problems can be solved and proofed.

When you say that disabled cache is one cache less to find you actually mean that missing cache is one cache less to find. I have found many disabled caches which proofs this interpretation better. The cache must be missing to be one less to be able to find. I guess you agree because it is logical. And now the question: To whom it is important that this particular cache is not missing just now? Does this link to challenges?

Share this post


Link to post

So we know what the Guidelines state, at least as, um, well, a guideline: 4 weeks.

Those who’ve been debating, do you feel there should be no timetable? A cache could stay disabled for years?

GS is a listing service. Isn’t it their obligation to keep that listing accurate and meaningful? You can claim that a disabled cache is accurately listed but if it’s been disabled for years that’s about as meaningful as me insisting my WW1 great grandpa is still really just MIA.

I’m sorry Arisoft but considering a CO a good owner just because they are quick to Disable their cache is like lauding a Doctor for quickly shouting “Oh! You have a hemorrhaging aorta!” Then standing by proudly as you expire.

So what ARE your expectations?

 

Edited by Doc_musketeers
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

When you say that disabled cache is one cache less to find you actually mean that missing cache is one cache less to find. I have found many disabled caches which proofs this interpretation better.

I will now Disable all my caches and change their names to “Schrödinger's cat” since it will hereafter be unclear whether they are findable or not until the observer opens the cache (if there’s even a container).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Not all towns are as equally blessed with caches. Patonga, a popular spot for visitors during the summer holidays, has six caches, four of them mine, and the Woy Woy / Ettalong / Umina Beach peninsula where I live has about twenty, roughly half of which are P&Gs that could be easily knocked over in half a day by a visitor and the rest well within a week. Forster, a large town and popular holiday destination on the mid north coast, has about a dozen caches.

I think that there is plenty of room for new caches even in that case that you suddenly disable but not archive all of them while you are six weeks on world tour and could not respond immediately to NM requests. How do you think yourself in that particular situation - Which way is better?

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

So what ARE your expectations?

I do not care if some cache is disabled for years. I know one mystery cache which was actually disabled for years and then archived after the CO stopped responding to reviewer notes. Now it is one find less for me because it will never be back.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I think that there is plenty of room for new caches even in that case that you suddenly disable but not archive all of them while you are six weeks on world tour and could not respond immediately to NM requests. How do you think yourself in that particular situation - Which way is better?

Now we are in a different discussion!  Until now your argument seemed to be “why should I have to?” which is totally different from “what if I couldn’t?”

So if you CANNOT get to your caches because you aren’t there, you copy and paste that explanation onto the Disable note. I don’t know of any Reviewer that would challenge that, and as a player I’d respect you more!

Now, what happens in the 6 weeks when you are back home is the other question.

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Somehow erased 1/2 my comment

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I do not care if some cache is disabled for years. I know one mystery cache which was actually disabled for years and then archived after the CO stopped responding to reviewer notes. Now it is one find less for me because it will never be back.

But again, if this is to be a long term game, that can’t happen. I’ve looked through a lot of archiving notes. Most are initiated by a Reviewer after a lengthy period of “No Response From Owner.” If I added up all of the neglected caches that would still be sitting there living off permanent disability without SOME time limit being enforced, we’d have a very sparse playing field. Perhaps in your area that’s not the case and you even feel that negates the Owner Responsibilities listed in the Guidelines. Not for my area. At least in my view.

Share this post


Link to post

The reason this is largely only a hypothetical problem is that most CO’s do maintain their caches and view Disabling as a stopgap not a life stage. And Reviewers enforce the pertinent guidelines. If a “who cares” attitude spread it wouldn’t stay hypothetical. 

Its kind of like arguing “it’s ok if I litter because there are lots of other people who don’t.”

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Again from the guidelines: 

  • 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.

pretty clear. 

2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

And while there aren’t any strict deadlines, the guidelines are, as I already stated in quoting them, pretty clear. No one said immediately, the guidelines do state “generally up to four weeks.” 

"pretty clear"  -  Have you seen the threads where forum posters are arguing that not having "only if" in a guideline means that the "if" statement is meaningless?

At least this guideline (the one you quoted) is clearly vague.  It says "generally".  TPTB know that a specific timeline for ALL caches is not reasonable. There are issues with terrain, season, construction, etc that mean a longer timeline is completely reasonable for some caches. It's up to the Reviewer to apply their local knowledge and geocaching experience to evaluate each cache individually, not to apply a 4 week timeline across the board.

 

2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Again the question: if a CO has no reason not to maintain his cache, why don’t they? If the answer is they have something better to do with their time, then they shouldn’t be engaging in this part of the game. Go find some caches! 

What if the "something better to do with their time" is "finding some caches"?   :P

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I think that there is plenty of room for new caches even in that case that you suddenly disable but not archive all of them while you are six weeks on world tour and could not respond immediately to NM requests. How do you think yourself in that particular situation - Which way is better?

But you're not on a world tour, you're sitting in front of your computer a hundred metres away from a disabled cache that you can't be bothered fixing.

The guidelines and reviewers are quite happy to accomodate exceptions like someone being away from home for a few months or in hospital or whatever. But as a general rule, when none of things are happening, a responsible CO ought to repair disabled caches in a timely manner which, the guidelines and reviewers say, is within three or four weeks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

To an extent I agree. As in the two quotes I used, the reviewer said things like “well beyond.” But in our experience disabled and/or neglected caches DO take up valuable real estate.

19 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

If I added up all of the neglected caches that would still be sitting there living off permanent disability without SOME time limit being enforced, we’d have a very sparse playing field. Perhaps in your area that’s not the case and you even feel that negates the Owner Responsibilities listed in the Guidelines. Not for my area. At least in my view.

Again, this is another issue where I wish cachers wouldn't use their local area as an example of why strict rules should be applied to everyone else in a "global" game.

In my area, there are easily-accessible greenspace areas that haven't had another cache placed after caches were archived 2+ years ago. I don't think it's accurate to assume that ALL locations will see a new cache placed after archival of another one. Again, different local areas have different experiences. Reviewers are the best judges of what is appropriate for a local/regional area.

 

6 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

”Extra careful” doesn’t include a time limit, but passing by your nearby, easily accessible cache for months doesn’t seem to fit that description. And frankly, if maintenance is such a hassle that it takes months to get around to maintaining such a cache, yeah, don’t bother placing them.

This attitude would eliminate plenty of hiking caches or other caches that are seasonally not accessible (snow, flood, etc).  I hope this statement never becomes a universal theme. I do think it's a valid sentiment in cases of easily accessible, urban areas.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, noncentric said:

What if the "something better to do with their time" is "finding some caches"?   :P

For me, fixing my broken caches ought to take priority over going out and finding others, even if there's a FTF up for grabs, unless the reason for the delay is something outside of my control like waiting for an ordered container to arrive or for roadworks to be completed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, noncentric said:

"pretty clear"  -  Have you seen the threads where forum posters are arguing that not having "only if" in a guideline means that the "if" statement is meaningless?

At least this guideline (the one you quoted) is clearly vague.  It says "generally".  TPTB know that a specific timeline for ALL caches is not reasonable. There are issues with terrain, season, construction, etc that mean a longer timeline is completely reasonable for some caches. It's up to the Reviewer to apply their local knowledge and geocaching experience to evaluate each cache individually, not to apply a 4 week timeline across the board.

 

What if the "something better to do with their time" is "finding some caches"?   :P

I’m not advocating strict time limits. I think the Guidelines are intended as principles. The fact this one lists a time period AT ALL means they want to paint a picture if not create an exact equation.

again, “why should I?” Is different than “I haven’t been able to.”

Your cache is your baby. By choice. You can’t CONSISTENTLY ignore it because you’re bored with it now and want to do something else.

I totally get “I was just about to replace the cache when the Notification for a new cache came in, so ...” But if you get new caches everyday for months on end in your area, start looking for an apartment for me.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

But you're not on a world tour, you're sitting in front of your computer a hundred metres away from a disabled cache that you can't be bothered fixing.

Yes, this is so funny because it is real situation. I have the cache here and it shoud be about a hundred meters away to be enabled. Franky, I am waiting for the right feeling to bring it back. I am not maintainig it because a guideline says so but because it is my hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Again, this is another issue where I wish cachers wouldn't use their local area as an example of why strict rules should be applied to everyone else in a "global" game.

In my area, there are easily-accessible greenspace areas that haven't had another cache placed after caches were archived 2+ years ago. I don't think it's accurate to assume that ALL locations will see a new cache placed after archival of another one. Again, different local areas have different experiences. Reviewers are the best judges of what is appropriate for a local/regional area.

 

This attitude would eliminate plenty of hiking caches or other caches that are seasonally not accessible (snow, flood, etc).  I hope this statement never becomes a universal theme. I do think it's a valid sentiment in cases of easily accessible, urban areas.

We specifically listed seasonal accessibility as a non issue. I’m not sure you’ve followed the entire day’s thread. I don’t think anyone is advocating a strict rule. But there are some who feel there’s no harm in ignoring their caches for extended periods of time. There’s a lot of ground in between.

and my statement “not in my area” was precisely to point out the limitations of my experience. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, noncentric said:

This attitude would eliminate plenty of hiking caches or other caches that are seasonally not accessible (snow, flood, etc).

I don't think anyone's concerned about caches disabled for those reasons, it's ones that are left disabled for extended periods of time for no other reason than the CO can't be bothered fixing them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't think anyone's concerned about caches disabled for those reasons, it's ones that are left disabled for extended periods of time for no other reason than the CO can't be bothered fixing them.

Yep. I think a common problem on these forums is that once a back-and-forth dynamic starts, no one is restating their original thesis and all the exceptions and allowances. If someone jumps in and sees isolated comments, they can easily misconstrue the whole discussion. I’ve done it, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Not all towns are as equally blessed with caches. Patonga, a popular spot for visitors during the summer holidays, has six caches, four of them mine.

I think that there is plenty of room for new caches even in that case that you suddenly disable but not archive all of them while you are six weeks on world tour and could not respond immediately to NM requests. How do you think yourself in that particular situation - Which way is better?

Just on this, those four caches of mine, along with one of the others, lock up pretty much all the bushland around Patonga that isn't national park. If I were to archive them, someone else might or might not come along and place new caches there, that's outside my control, but if I was to just disable them indefinitely then no-one could. For this reason alone, I'm especially vigilent of these caches and make sure as best I can that they're always in top condition and available to be found.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, noncentric said:

 

 

8 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

”Extra careful” doesn’t include a time limit, but passing by your nearby, easily accessible cache for months doesn’t seem to fit that description. And frankly, if maintenance is such a hassle that it takes months to get around to maintaining such a cache, yeah, don’t bother placing them.

This attitude would eliminate plenty of hiking caches or other caches that are seasonally not accessible (snow, flood, etc).  I hope this statement never becomes a universal theme. I do think it's a valid sentiment in cases of easily accessible, urban areas.

 

 

So, if you’ll notice: In the sentence you highlighted, I said “such a cache.” That was meant to refer to the situation described in the sentence directly above it (which you included in your quote but didn’t bold). The “easily accessible cache” in that sentence referred back to Arisoft who stated they owned a cache 100m from their home that they left Disabled for two months for (apparently) no reason besides they had better things to do.

So my statement was even more specific than for caches in “easily accessible, urban areas” which you felt was valid.

It most definitely was NOT intended to discourage placements in hard to reach locations, etc.

 


 

 
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, arisoft said:

This is a good example. Most likely, the visitor would choose another city but maybe the visitor is here because someone else bring him to this bad located hotel. But I see a flaw in your calculations. If there are only 4 caches around the hotel it means that it takes at least 644 m (4/10 mile) to walk when one of them is in the reception. But it is not the only possible configuration because there can be six caches around the hotel at 161m (1/10 mile) range and many more if you are not forced to circulate your hotel only. Of course it will cost a little longer walk. At least you can collect 3 caches instead of 2 if two of the nearest caches are disabled. But you are right, if the time for finding the caches is very limited, you may actually find less caches.

Can you estimate how many finds the visitor could get if the two disabled caches were archived faster?

I stayed at a hotel in Costa Rica a few years ago for a couple of days of meetings.  There were three caches nearby but based on the recent logs  (in once case over two years) it was obvious that all three were missing.  Instead of trying to find caches near the hotel I drove to the other side of the city, up through coffee plantations to an active volcano where I found a traditional and an earthcache.  Yes,  the disabled caches meant I found fewer caches, but I found geocaches on a volcano instead.  To me, that was much better than having a higher find count.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I stayed at a hotel in Costa Rica a few years ago for a couple of days of meetings.  There were three caches nearby but based on the recent logs  (in once case over two years) it was obvious that all three were missing.  Instead of trying to find caches near the hotel I drove to the other side of the city, up through coffee plantations to an active volcano where I found a traditional and an earthcache.  Yes,  the disabled caches meant I found fewer caches, but I found geocaches on a volcano instead.  To me, that was much better than having a higher find count.  

That must have been an awesome experience! There’s no doubt that some caches offer a richer experience than others. In this case it’s a story of “All’s well as ends well.” But you did investigate those closer caches at least to the point of reading the logs. Another cacher at that hotel who didn’t have as much time would have missed out entirely.

I don’t think the fact that there are “better” caches in an area excuses CO’s from the responsibility to maintain their caches. We have descriptions and favorite points that let us choose caches that will (hopefully) give us the caching experience we desire.

Yours was obviously a great experience in a beautiful location, but if we applied the subtext to caching as a whole the argument is basically: “I’m glad that CO was so obviously neglecting their cache because it led me to find a better one.” 

Wouldn’t it have been better to either have functioning caches nearby, or none at all? Your time was wasted by reading the logs of those defunct caches. Maybe not much time, but as a CO I try to respect other players’ time and expect the same respect back.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

In the last few years we have frequently traveled overseas, usually on organised tours. My wife now has mobility issues so we look for caches close to our hotels. Many times during pre holiday preparation I check for caches in close proximity to our hotels. We have come across many caches which we could not do due to long standing maintenance issues, strings of unchecked DNFs, languishing NMs. Mexico was a good example where cache numbers are low. In one city there were three caches a reasonable within distance (I think they were the only ones in the whole city). One was disabled before we got there and the other two had DNFs so a month before we got there I logged NMs on them hoping the CO could check on them. It didn't happen and they were eventually archived. Many caches in Mexico are vacation caches with no maintenance plans. In two weeks we only found 8 caches, most of which were in Playa del Carmen, a couple of them were memorable but most were 5th or 6th generation throwdowns.

Tardiness or neglect by COs does affect the geocaching pleasure of others.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 10.2.2018 at 2:12 AM, barefootjeff said:

But you're not on a world tour, you're sitting in front of your computer a hundred metres away from a disabled cache that you can't be bothered fixing.

Good news! :) After a new FTF hunt today, I decided to bring the cache back and now it is enabled again. I would say that everything happened as I planned. Maybe I did it slightly ahead of time because you were so concerned about geocachers ability to find enough geocaches.

The cache was disabled at the same day when a NM was posted but it took 2 months and one week to "shedule" the maintenance. I know that some of you may see here negligence and guideline violation. I raised this case on this thread just to give a real life example to be evaluated. What happens if the guideline is put in the practice and disabled geocaches will be archived after 4 weeks. The theory is that after archiving the missing cache, an another geocacher will bring a brand new geocache instead and fills the loss. Is there anyone who believe that this theory would really work? I mean the overall impact and not the rating of individual geocacher or COS.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

What happens if the guideline is put in the practice and disabled geocaches will be archived after 4 weeks.

The guideline is intended to be “put into practice” by the CO. Should it be enforced to the hour by TPTB? Probably not. It isn’t even worded precisely enough for that. I never saw anyone arguing for that exact scenario. The guidelines mention a “few weeks” as an indication of reasonable timescale. Numerous posters have repeatedly pointed out that this vagueness allows plenty of flexibility for the CO and the Reviewer. Is your 2 month period excessive? Not necessarily. Is a year? A few years?

You keep debating from your perspective. You are obviously active, at least on the forums, so it’s a reasonable assumption that you do, eventually, repair or replace your disabled caches. But there are plenty of COs with disabled caches that will NEVER be enabled again. The guideline is written in terms of “weeks” so a Reviewer has grounds to act when they deem appropriate on a case by case basis. I wouldn’t want it any other way. 

I’m not suggesting Archival to enforce responsible cache ownership, I’m beseeching CO’s to take their ownership seriously, as defined by the guidelines. The idea of the game is to have active caches for players to find. You very vigorously defended the need for accurate coordinates on another thread. But the most precise coordinates don’t matter if the cache is unavailable. A Cache obviously doesn’t contribute to the game while it’s disabled. 

Its not a debate whether someone else will put a new cache at a particular location, although that is one consideration. 

The question I’ve asked a number of times now is WHY you wouldn’t WANT to repair a cache? I understand that “life gets in the way” sometimes, but you seem less to be requesting leniency then promoting apathy. If you put thought and effort into your cache when you first hid it, why do you have so little concern for it now? It’s just as valuable to a cacher today as it was when it was first published. Don’t you WANT people to find it? You described sitting there with it in your hand “not feeling” like putting it out. You are right, it’s your hobby. You aren’t obligated to place a cache. But once you placed it you DID agree to keep it findable to the best of your ability.

That’s part of the game.

If I hit the ball in pesäpallo or baseball, I must run the bases to continue playing. If I just hit the ball then decide I don’t want to run, no one can force me, but I’m not really playing if I don’t follow through.

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post

Here’s another aspect. Reviewers are volunteers. One of their responsibilities is to monitor cache status in their area. Disabled caches require their attention. How often do they survey those lists? I guarantee it’s more often than every few months. The longer a cache sits Disabled, the more times a reviewer will need to view the cache page and decide if intervention is needed. It’s part of the obligation they agreed to, just like you agreed to maintain your cache, by choice. Whose time do you view to be more valuable? Your time in following through on what is clearly your responsibility? Or the volunteer who had to deal with neglected caches instead of reviewing submissions or going out on their own hunt?

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

The theory is that after archiving the missing cache, an another geocacher will bring a brand new geocache instead and fills the loss. Is there anyone who believe that this theory would really work? I mean the overall impact and not the rating of individual geocacher or COS.

Well, yes, I've seen it happen a number of times. A cache goes missing, it's either archived by the owner or left disabled until the reviewer posts a warning note and, after another month of no CO response, archives it. Some time later, it might be months or years or whatever, someone else comes along with a fresh idea and places a new cache in that general area. It doesn't have to be the exact same spot or the same style of cache, but there's an ongoing cycle of renewal that keeps the game interesting.

An example in point is one of my Patonga caches. There used to be a couple of others in the general vicinity, one only 20 metres or so from my GZ, that had been archived by their owner in the mid 2000s. They were both trads whereas mine's a themed multi, and my GZ is different, but the location's been reused in a new way.

Share this post


Link to post

We have often had a deja vu moment when finding a cache then recalling that we had previously found one (or DNF'd) at the same location. As recent as yesterday a new cache was published 20 miles from here on the same structure where we had previously searched (another DNF). Within 1 klm from my house there is a spot that has, in the last 5 years, had at least 3 or 4 caches placed. It's now free again after the last one was archived about a year ago.

All of the above examples were replaced by a different CO.  I think many cachers here have probably had the same experience.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

That’s part of the game.

If I hit the ball in pesäpallo or baseball, I must run the bases to continue playing. If I just hit the ball then decide I don’t want to run, no one can force me, but I’m not really playing if I don’t follow through.

We all have different reasons to play and different goals and personal rules we follow while playing this game. We have to respect other ways to play even though it is different from ours.Especially if it does not really matter. Geocaching is not a competition, it allows more liberal rules and more pragmatic implementation than pesäpallo or baseball.

Waiting for repairing or archiving a disabled cache, owned by a negligent owner, is like waiting for christmas eve. You are waiting so anxiously that you may not sleep well, but inevitably the day comes and your eagerness is suddenly gone. The only problem in the end was just impatience.

I have done this myself. I saw a geocache which was disabled a long time. I prepared a new listing and pushed it to queue with a note that the other cache is going to be archived soon. And it happened at the same day, when the other cache was archived, my cache was published. Please, follow my example and make your listings ready. Your local reviewer helps you with the process. I can not promise that this will encourage the reviewer to archive the problematic cache any sooner than usually but it will bring your cache faster to the map.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

We all have different reasons to play and different goals and personal rules we follow while playing this game. We have to respect other ways to play even though it is different from ours.Especially if it does not really matter. Geocaching is not a competition, it allows more liberal rules and more pragmatic implementation than pesäpallo or baseball.

Waiting for repairing or archiving a disabled cache, owned by a negligent owner, is like waiting for christmas eve. You are waiting so anxiously that you may not sleep well, but inevitably the day comes and your eagerness is suddenly gone. The only problem in the end was just impatience.

I have done this myself. I saw a geocache which was disabled a long time. I prepared a new listing and pushed it to queue with a note that the other cache is going to be archived soon. And it happened that the same day, when the other cache was archived, my cache was published. Please, follow my example and make your listings ready. Your local reviewer helps you with the process. I can not promise that this will encourage the reviewer to archive the problematic cache any sooner than usually but it will bring your cache faster to the map.

Christmas Eve has a set time of arrival. You cannot make the calander move faster. But you can encourage more responsive cache ownership. The guidelines do. They’ve even been recently amended to make that encouragement clearer.

you keep stating that cache maintenance “doesn’t really matter” but again, that’s your standpoint. Numerous players have commented that neglected caches effect their enjoyment of the game. Are we being impatient? Perhaps. Do we have some obsessive issue? Most likely, lol. But the fact is, the statement “there are no real rules to the game and everyone plays differently” breaks down when your style of play effects others. If I decide to find every cache within 100 miles in one non-stop hunt it doesn’t effect anyone else. Same if I choose not to hunt caches for an entire year.

But Cache OWNERSHIP is a bit different. A CO isn’t just playing, they become part of the structure of the game. They clearly agree to keep any cache they own findable to the best of their ability. That’s a vague statement, but the “who cares anyway?” Attitude clearly conflicts with the purpose of that statement.

And I’m still not sure why Archiving keeps coming up. I’m not waiting on bated breath for caches to be archived (well, I am for a few, lol.)

I’d much rather see such caches maintained. Again, if a CO lets a cache languish until a Reviewer has to archive it, how in the world can you argue that’s an acceptable way to play the game? They’ve wasted the Reviewer’s time and likely that of numerous players.

We have feedback mechanisms (NM, NA) so that players can help keep the game active. If maintenance wasn’t an issue, we wouldn’t have those mechanisms.

You seem to have two simultaneous arguments:

1) A CO should be able to leave a cache disabled as long as they wish with no enforced time limit.

2) Don’t worry, Eventually an ignored cache will be Archived. 

Those two arguments are oxymoronic. The middle ground that resolves the conflict is that a Reviewer has to use case by case judgement. But a CO with a “I’ll get to it when I feel like it” obviously makes it harder to make that judgement. 

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Typo, clarity.

Share this post


Link to post

Finished up a 50 mile radius in the OP's area.  Hopefully that will improve the situation a bit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Nomex said:

Finished up a 50 mile radius in the OP's area.  Hopefully that will improve the situation a bit.

Oh, dear. I wasn’t complaining about current situations locally, just discussing general attitudes toward maintenance, but if it needed another sweep, thanks!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Christmas Eve has a set time of arrival. You cannot make the calander move faster. But you can encourage more responsive cache ownership.

It seems that your christmas eve is today, if the previous post from Nomex is what I believe it is. Now you have the opportunity to prove your responsive cache ownership and start planning responsive replacement caches. The playground is yours now!

Share this post


Link to post

 

13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It seems that your christmas eve is today, if the previous post from Nomex is what I believe it is. Now you have the opportunity to prove your responsive cache ownership and start planning responsive replacement caches. The playground is yours now!

2

Depends if any were archived within a comfortable radius of the OP's location. 

Also depends on whether the OP, who from all counts cares deeply about responsible cache ownership, has enough caches in their care that adding another may be too much. 

It does open up areas for others to hide.

But more importantly, it sends the message that responsible cache ownership, monitoring and maintenance is important to keep the game vibrant. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It seems that your christmas eve is today, if the previous post from Nomex is what I believe it is. Now you have the opportunity to prove your responsive cache ownership and start planning responsive replacement caches. The playground is yours now!

Nothing archived, just a request for response for some caches in need of attention. Again, I do not have an army of cache containers lined up ready for invasion. With few exceptions I’m not personally excited about a particular location. I still argue that even the potential for a new active cache is better than the false promise of a badly maintained cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Depends if any were archived within a comfortable radius of the OP's location. 

This batch only involved Disabling.  I typically give 30 days before Archiving.  I think the majority of Reviewers do likewise.    A previous batch back in December, provoked by this thread, were Archived in January.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Nomex said:

Finished up a 50 mile radius in the OP's area.  Hopefully that will improve the situation a bit.

 How many did you end up archiving? How many reviewer disables? 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Nomex said:

This batch only involved Disabling.  I typically give 30 days before Archiving.  I think the majority of Reviewers do likewise.    A previous batch back in December, provoked by this thread, were Archived in January.

That's how it is in my area. Our reviewers are great about sweeping monthly. Responding to NA logs within a week and monthly disables and archivals. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Nothing archived, just a request for response for some caches in need of attention. Again, I do not have an army of cache containers lined up ready for invasion. With few exceptions I’m not personally excited about a particular location. I still argue that even the potential for a new active cache is better than the false promise of a badly maintained cache.

Do not miss this opportunity. Find the best places, open listings and wait your turn. You know that it will come soon. Maybe you already know when, if there is a deadline. You have plenty of time to upgrade your container storage.

Share this post


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

How many reviewer disables? 

About 20 on this go around, with a PQ for Disabled and NM Attributes.   The batch back in December was probably 3X that size.  Most of those received no response from the CO's, so were Archived.  A couple of people wrote back a week or two later with requests to Unarchive, after maintenance was performed.

I'll readily admit that my usual PQ's kind of miss the Northern sections of the State where the OP is from, due to the large metropolitan and urban areas around SF and Sacramento that tend to consume most of my available time.   The Health Score has been helping in some degree with this issue, as it helps pick up some of the areas that I might not otherwise capture in a PQ.

My Watchlist typically hovers in the 300 range in a consistent fashion, with boosts to 500 or more when I do a Statewide sweep of Disabled Listings.  Just an interesting aside.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Incidentally, one of the caches Nomex Disabled was one with a WN that made it clear conditions had changed at GZ. That was followed by a “Found” log which explained that the cache was there but a new fence had placed it in private property. Those cachers moved it to the “public” side of the fence and alerted the CO complete with new coordinates. That was July, 2016. There’s been no update or ANY response from the CO. In this case, if CO trusted the other cachers’ placement, all he had to do was post the supplied coordinates. If he didn’t like it, he could have disabled or archived the cache or, best option: gone and fixed it himself. How long should that have gone on? Should it have had to fall to the other cachers to try aiding this situation? Should have fallen to me to start to search for his cache (the last log was technically a Find, after all), figure out there was a problem and post a NM? And should Nomex have had to Disable it to (hopefully) get the CO’s attention?

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Nomex said:

About 20 on this go around, with a PQ for Disabled and NM Attributes.   The batch back in December was probably 3X that size.  Most of those received no response from the CO's, so were Archived.  A couple of people wrote back a week or two later with requests to Unarchive, after maintenance was performed.

I'll readily admit that my usual PQ's kind of miss the Northern sections of the State where the OP is from, due to the large metropolitan and urban areas around SF and Sacramento that tend to consume most of my available time.   The Health Score has been helping in some degree with this issue, as it helps pick up some of the areas that I might not otherwise capture in a PQ.

My Watchlist typically hovers in the 300 range in a consistent fashion, with boosts to 500 or more when I do a Statewide sweep of Disabled Listings.  Just an interesting aside.

Thanks for the behind the scenes look, Nomex. Your efforts are appreciated.

Can anyone actually claim that Nomex having to deal with 300-500 troubled caches on a regular basis has “no effect?” If nothing else it’s putting a burden on our volunteer Reviewers. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

Do not miss this opportunity. Find the best places, open listings and wait your turn. You know that it will come soon. Maybe you already know when, if there is a deadline. You have plenty of time to upgrade your container storage.

I’m unclear if this is meant facetiously, or you still don’t understand that (a) I don’t want these caches to disappear, And I certainly am not wanting them Archived because I think we can do better. (b) It doesn’t matter if a cache is archived and not replaced by a new hide. That argument was only one small point to show that languishing caches DO have an effect on the game.

Stop viewing it from your point of view, or guessing at mine. Nomex explained that this “issue” as he phrased it, is something that he has to deal with and it can be overwhelming. This is an issue that effects the game.

GS created the Health Score and people are debating a CO score. Such tools may be needed to catch situations that “fall between the cracks” such as an inactive (or dead!) CO, but Reviewers shouldn’t have to be dealing with living, breathing, active COs who just don’t feel motivated.

The second someone even thinks a true “limit” is being discussed some people baulk. The truth is Rules are only needed when people refuse to follow the principles of Guidelines. If you want your “right” to choose how and when to maintain your cache, do so in a responsible way that shows you understand and respect the guidelines.

Maintaining existing caches doesn’t become less important as the number of cachers (and caches) grows, it becomes more important!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...