Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
MysteryGuy1

Unusual Reason For Archiving Caches?

18 posts in this topic

Over the past few months, the local reviewer has been archiving caches like crazy.  I'm perfectly fine with that when the caches aren't being taken care of.  However, I'm also seeing what appear to be perfectly good, active caches being archived as well.  And one reason I keep hearing about is that the cache pages contain a link to a website that's no longer in existence.  Can anyone here explain to me why that's a valid reason?  I realize it's an indication that the CO is no longer active, but it really bugs me when caches that are still in good shape and being found regularly are being taken out of commission.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Are any of them puzzle caches?  I know that some in my area can no longer be solved because the puzzle was visual, and the pictures no longer appear on the cache page due to problems with the site that hosted those pictures.  If the no longer active CO doesn't fix that, then the cache should be archived because you can no longer get the final coords..

5

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, MysteryGuy1 said:

Over the past few months, the local reviewer has been archiving caches like crazy.  I'm perfectly fine with that when the caches aren't being taken care of.  However, I'm also seeing what appear to be perfectly good, active caches being archived as well.  And one reason I keep hearing about is that the cache pages contain a link to a website that's no longer in existence.  Can anyone here explain to me why that's a valid reason?  I realize it's an indication that the CO is no longer active, but it really bugs me when caches that are still in good shape and being found regularly are being taken out of commission.

I am quite amazed about this, because there is nothing about broken links in guidelines. There is also some mystery caches with intented errors in links. And finally, the content of the description is not part of the reviewing process. Any misspelled words must be left as written. Empty description is also ok. Only links to commercial sites are forbidden.

Sometimes images are served from 3th site which may lead to not intended results as ads instead of the original image when the user account is terminated from the service. This is different situation and definitely violates guidelines.

Edited by arisoft
0

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, MysteryGuy1 said:

I realize it's an indication that the CO is no longer active, but it really bugs me when caches that are still in good shape and being found regularly are being taken out of commission.

 

Are we talking about community maintained caches where the owner is absent? Could you provide us a GC code of the listing in question?

2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm guessing these are puzzle caches. There is a requirement in the guidelines that says, essentially, that puzzle caches must have puzzles that are solvable, and many puzzle caches went bad when photobucket stopped allowing links from third party pages such as geocache descriptions. In our area, I was kinda surprised that instead of moving the pictures, a few COs with lots of puzzles just archived them. A few were fixed, and I think I've seen maybe one or two archived by a reviewer.

It makes sense for those caches to be fixed or archived, although, unfortunately, if they're archived that means that they won't be available for anyone that's already solved the puzzle and, hence, doesn't need the pictures. (It turns out just a few weeks ago, by chance I happened to notice that I'd be near GZ of a cache like that, so I got a chance to grab that one, but that's not likely to happen again since most of our COs will eventually get around to recovering the container or reusing the location for something else.)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps you are referring to links from hosting sites like PhotoBucket which are not longer valid to be used as a free photo hosting site? I have seen a few cache pages where the photo link is no longer valid and is not part of the cache information needed to solve a puzzle. If that is the only reason it was archived, I would suspect the real reason is that the owner is no longer active so instead of posting a note asking the CO to fix the cache page, the reviewer simply archives it.

1

Share this post


Link to post

I believe these are the caches I have seen in the poster's state where the web hosting for a local caching group seems to have expired, so there's now a button going to what looks like a fraudulent/malware type site on the cache pages instead. It affects an awful lot of caches, and many of the owners are not responding and editing the pages to remove the bad links.

4

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, RecipeForDisaster said:

I believe these are the caches I have seen in the poster's state where the web hosting for a local caching group seems to have expired, so there's now a button going to what looks like a fraudulent/malware type site on the cache pages instead. It affects an awful lot of caches, and many of the owners are not responding and editing the pages to remove the bad links.

Yep.  There was something similar posted here a while ago, where pics turned into web host ads on the cache page. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CaverScott said:

Perhaps you are referring to links from hosting sites like PhotoBucket which are not longer valid to be used as a free photo hosting site? I have seen a few cache pages where the photo link is no longer valid and is not part of the cache information needed to solve a puzzle. If that is the only reason it was archived, I would suspect the real reason is that the owner is no longer active so instead of posting a note asking the CO to fix the cache page, the reviewer simply archives it.

 

I don't think that active geocaches are archived anymore just because the owner exited the game as long as the community maintains them. B)

0

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, MysteryGuy1 said:

Over the past few months, the local reviewer has been archiving caches like crazy.  I'm perfectly fine with that when the caches aren't being taken care of.  However, I'm also seeing what appear to be perfectly good, active caches being archived as well.  And one reason I keep hearing about is that the cache pages contain a link to a website that's no longer in existence.  Can anyone here explain to me why that's a valid reason?  I realize it's an indication that the CO is no longer active, but it really bugs me when caches that are still in good shape and being found regularly are being taken out of commission.

My sympathies, but a few observations based on the short search I made of Archived Listings in your area:

1. One of the first ones I clicked on was a Traditional that was Archived by a Reviewer for non responsiveness, which did indeed have some recent Finds.   That part of your story is factually correct.

2. Looking at the Listing page, one of the images did appear to be a broken link from some offsite service like photobucket or something.  The image was replaced by an ad inviting to click to claim a prize.

3. Maintenance of the Listing page is just as essential as the physical cache, regardless of the cache type.

In my humble opinion, I think abandoned Listing pages like this, which inadvertently turn into advertisements for another website, are just as likely to get Archived for no longer meeting the spirit of the Guidelines as post publication shenanigans of the same ilk.  This is implied, I think, in the following portion of the Guidelines:

" If you make changes to your cache page or container after publication, and it no longer complies with guidelines, your cache may be disabled or archived. "

4

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, RecipeForDisaster said:

I believe these are the caches I have seen in the poster's state where the web hosting for a local caching group seems to have expired, so there's now a button going to what looks like a fraudulent/malware type site on the cache pages instead. It affects an awful lot of caches, and many of the owners are not responding and editing the pages to remove the bad links.

I believe this is the sort of thing I was hearing about.  I wasn't sure of all the details.  I suppose it makes sense that they want to remove the bad links, but it still seems wrong to me that dozens of perfectly good caches will now sit idle forever over this.

0

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, MysteryGuy1 said:

I believe this is the sort of thing I was hearing about.  I wasn't sure of all the details.  I suppose it makes sense that they want to remove the bad links, but it still seems wrong to me that dozens of perfectly good caches will now sit idle forever over this.

Why not to publish new caches at the same location? Just copy the description (without missing images) and it's done. You may ask the FTF finder to write the new GC-code to the logbook if you care about the details.

Edited by arisoft
1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MysteryGuy1 said:

but it still seems wrong to me that dozens of perfectly good caches will now sit idle forever over this

What's wrong is the owner who abandoned their listing and left a good cache to rot.

1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, dprovan said:

... but that's not likely to happen again since most of our COs will eventually get around to recovering the container or reusing the location for something else.)

Many, many owners all arount the world just don't care about the geolitter once they are no longer participating (or even if they are still out finding and hiding caches). I know, your area is different.

21 hours ago, CaverScott said:

 If that is the only reason it was archived, I would suspect the real reason is that the owner is no longer active so instead of posting a note asking the CO to fix the cache page, the reviewer simply archives it.

I think that would be a strange approch, since I know some owners who haven't found a cache in years and did not log in the website for a long time, too. Still, they are monitoring their hides, answering questions and doing maintainance if necessary.

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MysteryGuy1 said:

I believe this is the sort of thing I was hearing about.  I wasn't sure of all the details.  I suppose it makes sense that they want to remove the bad links, but it still seems wrong to me that dozens of perfectly good caches will now sit idle forever over this.

I agree. It is a shame that a small number of people don't clean up after themselves, but rather leave it to HQ and the Volunteers to clean up after them. 

5

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/12/2017 at 8:12 AM, MysteryGuy1 said:

I believe this is the sort of thing I was hearing about.  I wasn't sure of all the details.  I suppose it makes sense that they want to remove the bad links, but it still seems wrong to me that dozens of perfectly good caches will now sit idle forever over this.

Some of those may still be findable but that doesn't mean that they are "perfectly good" caches. There are a few times when something beyond a cache owner's control gets in the way but it normally comes down to him or her not caring enough to take care of business.

Except for those rare times when a cache is on a person's to do list, i've never understood why a person gets saddened over an archival of a cache.

Edited by Mudfrog
1

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 9:12 AM, MysteryGuy1 said:

 I suppose it makes sense that they want to remove the bad links, but it still seems wrong to me that dozens of perfectly good caches will now sit idle forever over this.

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 11:58 AM, Touchstone said:

I agree. It is a shame that a small number of people don't clean up after themselves, but rather leave it to HQ and the Volunteers to clean up after them. 

The sad part of this is HQ or Volunteers aren't (really)  "cleaning up after them" at all.  They merely archive hides.  Those caches, "perfectly good" or not, now do often sit idle forever. 

For some time a couple friends and I would go out after archival and pick them up (sometimes even an ammo can in the deal), if one of us emailed the CO with no reply.  One reused many quality containers that were perfectly good, usually with just wet contents.  Used to think that another game might be in play, but that's beyond rare these days...

Now  there are so many out there, it's simply not fun anymore.  A couple dozen pill bottles and outright carp isn't a good enough lure to ask others to go with us either.  We'll still grab some (so far, all pill bottles ...sheesh...)  if we're hiking an area and on the way.   :)

0

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