Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Doc_musketeers

How to deal with negligent CO

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Are you still arguing that procrastination is a legitimate third option? Because that’s the only debate I really have on this thread.

It is not an option, it is part of the process. If the deadline from a disable to the fix is too short, COs will not disable the cache to buy more time for fixing. It is worse case than allowing longer time to fix the disabled cache.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, arisoft said:

In the last post I just listed my observations. The most important observation is that NA is factually ND. It may be too late to change the official title of the log type put this is the most used reason to post a NA. (Of course it is not too late as it was not too late to change field notes to drafts)

Think about the effect. Posting a ND instead of NA could be the psychological breakthrough in the process. No cache cop effect.

I agree that NA has a psychological effect. I’m. not sure “needs disabled” is always the correct request, since as you’ve mentioned, sometimes Archival IS what’s needed. Sometimes just a note form a reviewer is enough. 

I think a wonderful phrase would be “needs Reviewer attention”’or something of that nature. But I’m pretty sure that this subject has been (is being?) debated elsewhere.

But at least we sorta found something to agree on, for the moment, I think?

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I agree that NA has a psychological effect.

Yes, both when you post it and when you receive it. It is like a request to kill someone's dog just because it barks.

17 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I think a wonderful phrase would be “needs Reviewer attention”’

That would be a very good choise because it tells what is the intention and the effect.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, arisoft said:

In the last post I just listed my observations. The most important observation is that NA is factually ND. It may be too late to change the official title of the log type put this is the most used reason to post a NA. (Of course it is not too late as it was not too late to change field notes to drafts)

Think about the effect. Posting a ND instead of NA could be the psychological breakthrough in the process. No cache cop effect.

When I post an NA, the last thing I want is for it to be just disabled. I want it either repaired or replaced by the CO (unlikely since they didn't respond to the earlier NM), so that people can find it again, or archived if they don't, so it disappears from the maps and allows the possibility of someone else utilising the area for a new cache.

Our reviewers will only entertain an NA if there's already a long-standing NM on the cache with no response from the owner, so all the ones I've logged were on defunct caches with long-gone COs. How is just disabling the cache going to fix anything?

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It is not an option, it is part of the process. If the deadline from a disable to the fix is too short, COs will not disable the cache to buy more time for fixing. It is worse case than allowing longer time to fix the disabled cache.

I’m remembering you mentioned that your local reviewers were pretty relaxed about timescale of repairs? Maybe when I quoted Nomex’s typical notes it seemed “short” but perhaps you missed that one option was posting a note to the cache. Even doing that before the “deadline” would probably be enough to satisfy the reviewer that the CO was at least active and reading correspondence. Like you mentioned awhile back, communication is sometimes the real issue.

And my choice of the word “procrastination” was carefully considered. The overarching discussion was “how does a Reviewer decide when a CO isn’t properly maintaining their cache?” The answer is when they stop responding. From that point how is the Reviewer supposed to know whether the CO is simply “not feeling like fixing the cache ... YET” versus inactive, dead, or unlikely to ever fix the cache. Remember Keystone’s use of the word “obligation?”

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:
25 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Yes, both when you post it and when you receive it. It is like a request to kill someone's dog just because it barks.

That would be a very good choise because it tells what is the intention and the effect.

Just upvoted this, lol.

More like I'm asking someone to bury their dog because it's dead.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Yes, both when you post it and when you receive it. It is like a request to kill someone's dog just because it barks.

That would be a very good choise because it tells what is the intention and the effect.

Just upvoted this, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

How is just disabling the cache going to fix anything?

A disabled cache is near equivalent to an archived cache. The only difference is that you can not publish a new cache in the same place. I guess that this has never been an issue in your life. Did I guess correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

A disabled cache is near equivalent to an archived cache. The only difference is that you can not publish a new cache in the same place. I guess that this has never been an issue in your life. Did I guess correctly?

No. If the two old caches at Patonga had just been disabled rather than archived, I'd have never been able to create my multi there. Eventually, and especially in areas with limited cache hiding places (Patonga is a good example as it's surrounded by water on one side and national park on the other), it'd be filled up with disabled caches blocking all possible hiding places and there'd be no caches at all to find and no prospect of any new ones.

Temporary Disable means temporary, as in up to four weeks as stated in the guidelines. If you can't be bothered fixing it, archive it and let someone else use that 161 metre radius of exclusively that you're hanging onto.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

perhaps you missed that one option was posting a note to the cache. Even doing that before the “deadline” would probably be enough to satisfy the reviewer that the CO was at least active and reading correspondence

I did not miss this because it is how it works. The actual procedure is not literally following the guideline as can you see. And here is the point. You can speed up this authoritative request by posting those "Need Attention" messages if you have plans for a new cache in the same place. If not - then forget it because it is not your business.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

When I post an NA, the last thing I want is for it to be just disabled. I want it either repaired or replaced by the CO (unlikely since they didn't respond to the earlier NM), so that people can find it again, or archived if they don't, so it disappears from the maps and allows the possibility of someone else utilising the area for a new cache.

Our reviewers will only entertain an NA if there's already a long-standing NM on the cache with no response from the owner, so all the ones I've logged were on defunct caches with long-gone COs. How is just disabling the cache going to fix anything?

That’s pretty much what I’ve gathered from Reviewer comment and from scanning archived local caches. 

So in my case, the 3 NAs I posted were more to help the CO with their expressed wish to leave the game.

In any other situation, posting an NM is likely to be just as effective as an NA without the “phychological” impact. Within a couple months, if there’s no CO response, a Reviewer will Disable the Cache and give the CO an additional 30-60 days to at least respond. At that point it’s likely to be archived. If that scenario plays out, I don’t feel guilty for posting an NM nor do I feel I should have done more. And frankly, I still argue that until a Reviewer comments otherwise 2-4 months without response is hardly “rushing.”

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

In any other situation, posting an NM is likely to be just as effective as an NA without the “phychological” impact. Within a couple months, if there’s no CO response, a Reviewer will Disable the Cache and give the CO an additional 30-60 days to at least respond. At that point it’s likely to be archived. If that scenario plays out, I don’t feel guilty for posting an NM nor do I feel I should have done more. And frankly, I still argue that until a Reviewer comments otherwise 2-4 months without response is hardly “rushing.”

So in effect an NM becomes the new NA, and we already have DNFs being treated by the CHS and others as effectively NMs, and hence people being urged to log WN rather than DNF if they can't find the cache for any reason other than it's most likely missing. At the end of the day no-one's any better off, except all those very useful and distinct log types have lost their meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

No. If the two old caches at Patonga had just been disabled rather than archived, I'd have never been able to create my multi there. Eventually, and especially in areas with limited cache hiding places (Patonga is a good example as it's surrounded by water on one side and national park on the other), it'd be filled up with disabled caches blocking all possible hiding places and there'd be no caches at all to find and no prospect of any new ones.

I find some contradictions here. If your time window to place the multi-cache was so short that you could not wait any longer, how in the earth you can demonstrate your ability to maintain it when needed?

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I find some contradictions here. If your time window to place the multi-cache was so short that you could not wait any longer, how in the earth you can demonstrate your ability to maintain it when needed?

Huh? The old caches were archived ten years before I placed my multi. But if they'd just been left permanently disabled instead of archived, as you're advocating, I'd have never been able to place that multi. And how does that affect my ability to maintain it? It's ten minutes' drive away and a short walk.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Huh? The old caches were archived ten years before I placed my multi. But if they'd just been left permanently disabled instead of archived, as you're advocating, I'd have never been able to place that multi. And how does that affect my ability to maintain it? It's ten minutes' drive away and a short walk.

 

27 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
35 minutes ago, arisoft said:

A disabled cache is near equivalent to an archived cache. The only difference is that you can not publish a new cache in the same place. I guess that this has never been an issue in your life. Did I guess correctly?

No.

So your answer was not correct, right?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

So your answer was not correct, right?

Which answer? You keep saying that there's no need to archive dead caches, they should just be left disabled forever more, and I tried to provide an example of where that would be problematic. Diasbled caches block new caches. Archived caches don't.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Which answer?

This answer

32 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

No.

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

This answer

 

I took your question to mean had I ever been in a situation where, had an archived cache just been left disabled, it would've been a problem. As I said earlier, around here the reviewers are pretty strict about caches that are left disabled for too long, so that situation doesn't arise, but in your proposed world where caches are left disabled indefinitely rather than being archived, then yes it would be very problematic in places like Patonga with limited room for caches.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So in effect an NM becomes the new NA, and we already have DNFs being treated by the CHS and others as effectively NMs, and hence people being urged to log WN rather than DNF if they can't find the cache for any reason other than it's most likely missing. At the end of the day no-one's any better off, except all those very useful and distinct log types have lost their meaning.

 

Well, I try to use DNFs and NMs according to their literal meaning, trusting that any erroneous effects on CHS will eventually be remedied. As Nomex’ example showed, it’s iseful in helping him monitor my area. The last thing he needs is false alarms and I’m sure he’d bring those to the attention of GS.

But NAs rarely seem to match my actual feelings toward a cache. If the cache location clearly violates guidelines for placement (haven’t seen this yet) then I wouldn’t hesitate to post an NA.   I suppose if I ever noticed a cache with a long-standing unresolved NM (Nomex has already dealt with those locally) I might post an NA. 

But most times, the cache needs maintenance. I’ve seen caches with Find logs and WNs detailing maintenance issues but no one posted a NM. If the condition still exists when I arrive at GZ, I post a NM precisely because it is the most distinct log type to fit the situation.

If I post an NA on a cache in dire need of maintenance and the CO actually steps up and does the maintenance, does it still need Archived? Probably not. 

Share this post


Link to post

Arisoft, you continue to focus on your guess as to my and bfjs motives and personal caching styles and to try picking apart any examples provided. But you haven’t yet responded to the elephants in the chat room (no offense Nomex and Keystone). We had two Reviewers comment not only on their interpretation and implementation of the Guidelines, but on how large the issue of neglected caches/ non-responsive COs is and how it effects them.

If you simply want to state that apathy is just the new norm for COs I guess their data and your personal perspective prove you right.

But if you are trying to justify that attitude, I’m still waiting for a meaningful argument not just a hypothetical challenge to hypothetical situations. This isn’t about one-offs and what-ifs. I’m talking about the 500 real caches Nomex has to deal with. The 71 caches Keystone dealt with last weekend.

Can we, as a community, find ways to help reduce that burden?

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I took your question to mean had I ever been in a situation where, had an archived cache just been left disabled, it would've been a problem. As I said earlier, around here the reviewers are pretty strict about caches that are left disabled for too long, so that situation doesn't arise, but in your proposed world where caches are left disabled indefinitely rather than being archived, then yes it would be very problematic in places like Patonga with limited room for caches.

Here's a better example. GC4Z214 was muggled and disabled by its owner in July 2014, then archived by the owner a month later after a note from the reviewer about it being left disabled for too long. Because it was archived, it then opened up a circle of land in which, a year and a bit later, I placed a new cache GC690V4 which continues to provide enjoyment to cachers to this very day. However, if the reviewer hadn't intervened, it might well have just been left disabled indefinitely, blocking my cache.

Edited by barefootjeff
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 You can speed up this authoritative request by posting those "Need Attention" messages if you have plans for a new cache in the same place. If not - then forget it because it is not your business.

Just to quibble with this. No where is it stated or implied that a cacher must be prepared to place a new cache somewhere before calling attention to a problem. This goes back to implied motive. When I post an NM, my desire is to alert the CO that their attention is needed. I do it with the desire for that cache to remain in play.

As I’ve mentioned, the most likely reason I would post an NA on any cache is that it appeared to seriously violate guidelines. Under those circumstances I almost certainly would not be planning to replace it with my own.

But it would be my business. Because that’s why we’ve been given that log type.

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Can we, as a community, find ways to help reduce that burden?

As a geocacher and cache owner I don't feel a "burden". In Finland we have a specialized reviewer for archiving geocaches. The process seems to be mostly automated. I am following all archivement nearby to find some good hides, so I have good touch how it is going. The process is the same for every CO. There is no discrimination by CHS etc. I think that it works with the same basic principle all over the world with some local adaptations.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

You can speed up this authoritative request by posting those "Need Attention" messages if you have plans for a new cache in the same place. If not - then forget it because it is not your business.

Just to quibble with this. No where is it stated or implied that a cacher must be prepared to place a new cache somewhere before calling attention to a problem. This goes back to implied motive. When I post an NM, my desire is to alert the CO that their attention is needed. I do it with the desire for that cache to remain in play.

As I’ve mentioned, the most likely reason I would post an NA on any cache is that it appeared to seriously violate guidelines. Under those circumstances I almost certainly would not be planning to replace it with my own.

But it would be my business. Because that’s why we’ve been given that log type.

Ditto. With all the NAs I've posted, it's been on a defunct cache with a year or more since the last find and at least one outstanding NM of several months standing that the CO hasn't responded to. The cache isn't findable, the CO's gone, what's the point in it hogging an area where potentially a new cache could go?

This is what our reviewer says when he posts a note on a cache that's been disabled for too long (more than a few weeks):

Quote

Please either repair/replace this cache, or archive it (using the archive listing link in the upper right) so that someone else can place a cache in the area, and geocachers can once again enjoy visiting this location.

It has nothing to do with wanting to muscle in on someone else's territory, it's just clearing the board of abandoned cache listings so places are opened up for anyone to hide new ones.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Here's a better example. GC4Z214 was muggled and disabled by its owner in July 2014, then archived by the owner a month later after a note from the reviewer about it being left disabled for too long.

Good example of a reponsive cache owner. Do you have any unresposive examples? Any case when your intentions were blocked by an unresponsive cache owner or someone evil geocacher who repaired the cache against the owner's will and unnecessarily slowed down the natural disappearance of the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, arisoft said:

In Finland we have a specialized reviewer for archiving geocaches.

Here we don't have that luxury. As far as I know, our reviewers currently don't scan for NMs or DNFs, they only look at NAs and caches that are disabled for too long. If they had to add NM and DNF scanning to their workload, which can't be automated as it requires log-reading to determine whether an NM is for, say, a missing cache or a missing pencil (hopefully a cache wouldn't be archived for the latter), or whether a DNF even implies anything about the cache (it might have been a bunch of muggles in the way, a sudden storm or flat GPSr batteries), they'd either have to allocate more time to their reviewer duties or reduce the amount of time spent on their primary function which is reviewing and publishing new caches.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:
40 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Here's a better example. GC4Z214 was muggled and disabled by its owner in July 2014, then archived by the owner a month later after a note from the reviewer about it being left disabled for too long.

Good example of a reponsive cache owner. Do you have any unresposive examples? Any case when your intentions were blocked by an unresponsive cache owner or someone evil geocacher who repaired the cache against the owner's will and unnecessarily slowed down the natural disappearance of the cache.

As I keep saying, the reviewers here are strict on how long a cache can be left disabled for, so we simply don't have caches sitting around disabled for six months, a year or more. So how can I give you any examples of that?

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, arisoft said:

As a geocacher and cache owner I don't feel a "burden". In Finland we have a specialized reviewer for archiving geocaches. The process seems to be mostly automated. I am following all archivement nearby to find some good hides, so I have good touch how it is going. The process is the same for every CO. There is no discrimination by CHS etc. I think that it works with the same basic principle all over the world with some local adaptations.

First, I understand you aren’t personally feeling burdened. I was referring to the two Reviewers who commented earlier.

Im also confused because I thought what you were worried about was lack of flexibility for COs, and that you thought applying the terms of the guidelines seemed “strict” and “rushed. The notes I quoted (from Nomex) sounded harsh to you. 

But now you are describing a system that’s “almost automatic” and “the same for every CO.” That sounds less flexible and inherently stricter than what I’ve experienced. 

So what is that “mostly automated process?”

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

someone evil geocacher who repaired the cache against the owner's will and unnecessarily slowed down the natural disappearance of the cache.

Yes, this one (GC1PXBA). The evil geocacher who replaced the cache was me, and a few months later it came back to bite me when mother nature demonstrated why the original cache was problematic and I had to log an NA. I learnt my lesson big time from that one about propping up dead caches.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Here we don't have that luxury. As far as I know, our reviewers currently don't scan for NMs or DNFs, they only look at NAs and caches that are disabled for too long. If they had to add NM and DNF scanning to their workload, which can't be automated as it requires log-reading to determine whether an NM is for, say, a missing cache or a missing pencil (hopefully a cache wouldn't be archived for the latter), or whether a DNF even implies anything about the cache (it might have been a bunch of muggles in the way, a sudden storm or flat GPSr batteries), they'd either have to allocate more time to their reviewer duties or reduce the amount of time spent on their primary function which is reviewing and publishing new caches.

It sounds like your area is more liberal with NAs. I really don’t see them used that often here (northern California) hence my hesitation to post them personally.

And there appears to be an aversion to posting NMs. I see a lot of maintenance issues described in Found logs. Are cachers afraid to post them? Maybe it’s just the extra effort to enter a second post?  As Nomex’ comment explained, he typically has to search for NMs or his own previous Temporary Disables. I noticed he wrote a note on one local cache that the CO had disabled but not yet repaired. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

So what is that “almost automated process?”

It seems to be the same as described here but I have not heard any burden on reviewer's shoulders. When cache has been disabled long enough, the four week letter is posted, and as long as the CO is responsive, the delay is negotiable even for years. I can not see any essential difference in the wording etc.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It seems to be the same as described here but I have not heard any burden on reviewer's shoulders. When cache has been disabled long enough, the four week letter is posted, and as long as the CO is responsive, the delay is negotiable even for years. I can not see any essential difference in the wording etc.

So when your reviewer disables and archives caches because of NMs or DNFs, how is that process automated? How does the automation distinguish between a DNF that says "I'm with previous finder who confirms the cache is missing" and one that says "there were too many muggles today"? Surely that would require the reviewer to read back through the logs to try to figure out what the situation is. Or an NM that says "the whole forest burned down and the cache is a molten lump of charred plastic" and one that says "the pen doesn't work", or, these days with the new logging page and its canned NMs, "this cacher has reported a problem with this cache"?

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, this one (GC1PXBA). The evil geocacher who replaced the cache was me, and a few months later it came back to bite me when mother nature demonstrated why the original cache was problematic and I had to log an NA. I learnt my lesson big time from that one about propping up dead caches.

At least you thought that the cache was worth preserving and you earned 22 finds. And now there is a better cache nearby GC690V4. Without your intervention Opa Shrek would have done the same mistake. :)

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It seems to be the same as described here but I have not heard any burden on reviewer's shoulders. When cache has been disabled long enough, the four week letter is posted, and as long as the CO is responsive, the delay is negotiable even for years. I can not see any essential difference in the wording etc.

So, Nomex and Keystone both expressed that they do regular sweeps of their areas and address unresolved issues. I don’t think they only do that in response to specific complaints. They consider it part of their responsibilities. Apparently barefootjeff sees similar actions from his Australian Reviewers. I’ve never cached outside of the United States. I do understand that I’m only seeing a small piece of the game board.

Maybe conditions are different for you and your Reviewers in Finland. But please realize that in some areas, a cache remaining disabled for years IS considered a problem by enough players that the local Reviewers feel obligated to deal with it. They are simply applying the Guidelines. So non-responsive COs ARE a burden for them. That’s the situation we are dealing with. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:
38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, this one (GC1PXBA). The evil geocacher who replaced the cache was me, and a few months later it came back to bite me when mother nature demonstrated why the original cache was problematic and I had to log an NA. I learnt my lesson big time from that one about propping up dead caches.

At least you thought that the cache was worth preserving and you earned 22 finds. And now there is a better cache nearby GC690V4. Without your intervention Opa Shrek would have done the same mistake. :)

But had the area not flooded again and the cache remained viable for some time longer, who would've been responsible for looking after it long term or maintaining the cache page if anything changed? If someone logged an NM, I couldn't clear it with an OM, or if someone wanted help with it and needed to contact the CO, who could they call? The CO was long gone. No, dead caches should stay dead.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So when your reviewer disables and archives caches because of NMs or DNFs, how is that process automated?

This part of the process is more heterogenic. NA seems to alert the reviewer and sometimes many DNFs which relates to CHS. Automated e-mails from CHS seems to handle many or the most problems if the CO is responsive. Disabling the cache is the primary goal when there is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

This part of the process is more heterogenic. NA seems to alert the reviewer and sometimes many DNFs which relates to CHS. Automated e-mails from CHS seems to handle many or the most problems if the CO is responsive. Disabling the cache is the primary goal when there is a problem.

No, archiving the cache is the primary goal when there's a problem and the CO isn't responding. What's the point of having a disabled cache when the CO's no longer around to ever fix it or re-enable it?

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

They are simply applying the Guidelines. So non-responsive COs ARE a burden for them. That’s the situation we are dealing with. 

Are you sure about this? Any example of applying the strictest guideline interpretation against the cache owner's will.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, arisoft said:

At least you thought that the cache was worth preserving and you earned 22 finds. And now there is a better cache nearby GC690V4. Without your intervention Opa Shrek would have done the same mistake. :)

Our team considered just taking over maintenance on the 3 caches we eventually posted NAs on. But there are lots of issues with that. No administrative rights, no way to clear NMs, no way to see if a cacher tried messaging the CO, etc. it really does leave a cache in limbo. If the CO really isn’t around (as in our case) who are you preserving it for? If you like the cache and want it to stay as-is, this is a case where posting an NA and then basically submitting the exact (existing) cache under your name is probably the best move.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

If I post an NA on a cache in dire need of maintenance and the CO actually steps up and does the maintenance, does it still need Archived? Probably not. 

You post an NA on a cache that needs maintenance and hasn't gotten any. Someone before you pointed out the cache needed fixed, and it wasn't. Yes, it's sad, but in that case, there's no choice but to point out that the cache has to be removed from the books.

Caches go away. It's a natural part of the life cycle. Often the CO recognizes that a cache needs to go away and archives it themselves. Sometimes a CO, for one reason or another, doesn't end a cache's life when it needs to end, and that's when someone else posts an NA. No big deal. It annoys me no end that anyone ever parrots the idea that NAs are bad. If a CO disagrees with an NA, he simply corrects it with an OM. COs that react badly to NAs are a serious problem that need to be faced and dealt with, not coddled by pretending the NA log type doesn't exist. I keep hearing about COs like that, but I've never run into one because NAs are a natural part of my area.

Which, by the way, is also Nomex's area, so thanks to your area's problem with no NAs, my area now gets regular sweeps, too, so very few people here now feel any need to post NAs anymore, either. Thanks a lot.

17 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

So, Nomex and Keystone both expressed that they do regular sweeps of their areas and address unresolved issues. I don’t think they only do that in response to specific complaints. They consider it part of their responsibilities.

It's true that sweeps have been (we hear, unofficially) made part of a reviewer's responsibilities, but that's only because geocaching has lost its sense of community, so most geocachers have accepted the police state model that says it's the reviewers' jobs to monitor cache health. I'm sorry that's happened. I think geocaching's the worse for it, and I don't really think it's improved cache quality one iota.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

No, archiving the cache is the primary goal when there's a problem and the CO isn't responding.

No... I wrote " Disabling the cache is the primary goal when there is a problem. " 

Archiving is never a goal, it's just the end.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

If the CO really isn’t around (as in our case) who are you preserving it for?

The only possible answer is for the next visitor.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

No... I wrote " Disabling the cache is the primary goal when there is a problem. " 

Archiving is never a goal, it's just the end.

No, in the case of an NA, archiving or repair is the goal, disabling is just the last ditch chance for the CO to reappear and do something. Disabling a cache doesn't fix anything - if the CO is still active, he or she should get out there and fix it, and if they're not, archiving is the only solution.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It's true that sweeps have been (we hear, unofficially) made part of a reviewer's responsibilities, but that's only because geocaching has lost its sense of community, so most geocachers have accepted the police state model that says it's the reviewers' jobs to monitor cache health. I'm sorry that's happened. I think geocaching's the worse for it, and I don't really think it's improved cache quality one iota.

It’s precisely a sense of community that I and others here are trying to promote. I’m sorry that the Reviewers are having to “sweep” our areas. I think COs should be responsible enough for their caches that the Reviewers can focus on more meaningful things. I’m not advocating some form of rule enforcement, I’m wondering what the community can do to inspire better ownership practices.

as for NAs, and your “thanks a lot” to me, I’ve been playing less than a year with a whopping 163 Finds so I doubt I’ve personally affected all of California, but I do see your point. Being new, I learn the game from watching the way others play, how else? I haven’t seen NAs used so how would I know to use them. I’m on this forum to learn the perspectives I don’t get from my local caching experience.

My only strongly stated opinion is that COs should do their best to keep their caches findable and try to respond to issues before Reviewers feel the obligation to step in.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

56 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

They are simply applying the Guidelines. So non-responsive COs ARE a burden for them. That’s the situation we are dealing with. 

Are you sure about this? Any example of applying the strictest guideline interpretation against the cache owner's will.

 

I don’t understand why you are asking for examples of strict enforcement. Where does that keep coming from? The Guidelines mention a few weeks, Nomex listed his timeframe: If he disables he waits 30 days or so for at least a response. If the CO disables their cache and it’s been over 30 days he posts a note and if it goes another 30 he may Archive the Cache. So at most a couple of months, not years.

But the statement you quoted wasn’t even about HOW the Reviewer dealt with the CO, it was pointing out that the process isn’t beneficial. As Dprovan recently commented the “sweeps” can affect other COs as well, and if players worry that certain log types will trigger Reviewer attention they change their logging style.

do we blame the Reviewers? GS? At worst they are imperfectly reacting to the situation, not causing it.

And the whole discussion of NA logs wouldn’t matter as much either if there weren’t so many neglected caches. If there’s an attitude that COs shouldn’t be expected to maintain their caches in a timely manner, how does the average player know when it’s appropriate to post an NA based on poor maintenance?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

No, in the case of an NA, archiving or repair is the goal, disabling is just the last ditch chance for the CO to reappear and do something. Disabling a cache doesn't fix anything - if the CO is still active, he or she should get out there and fix it, and if they're not, archiving is the only solution.

Have you ever visited in Finland to know it so detailed how thing are working here? I assure that in Finland, disabling a missing cache, really fix the problem that geocachers are unnecessarily trying to find it. We have plenty of caches here so it is not important to find just that particular cache when it is missing. I am keen to hear your report from your own country.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Have you ever visited in Finland to know it so detailed how thing are working here? I assure that in Finland, disabling a missing cache, really fix the problem that geocachers are unnecessarily trying to find it. We have plenty of caches here so it is not important to find just that particular cache when it is missing. I am keen to hear your report from your own country.

Are you saying no caches are ever archived in Finland? As I've repeatedly said, if we just disabled missing caches and left it at that, there'd soon be nowhere to put new caches in many local places because all the available hiding places would be blocked. My area here on the Central Coast has ocean on one side and large national parks occupy most of the hinterland on the other, so bushland areas where caches are permitted are fairly small in area.

I just see no point in leaving a permanently disabled cache with no CO sitting on the map with no prospect of it ever being re-enabled.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I am keen to hear your report from your own country.

Barefootjeff, Keystone, Nomex, and me have all given our perspectives. That’s part of what I don’t understand. It’s great that Finland has so many caches and a system that lets caches stay disabled for years without it being an issue. Not so here in California, and apparently not so in barefootjeff’s part of Australia.

Just look at Dprovans comments to me recently and back on page one.  The community is expected to self-patrol neglected caches, and if they don’t it falls to Reviewers. That’s why we keep saying it DOES matter, at least in some areas 

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I don’t understand why you are asking for examples of strict enforcement.

Just a misconception from applying guidelines you mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

 The community is expected to self-patrol neglected caches, and if they don’t it falls to Reviewers

You must understand that this kind of patrol is not familiar to me. I must confess that I have never patrolled neglected caches but couple of times I have given a hint to a reviewer about some sort of problem I have seen.

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...