Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
fizzymagic

Fraudulent "Performed Maintenance" logs

Recommended Posts

I've started noticing a new trend since the Cache Health Score (CHS) has come into play. When a Needs Maintenance log appears, the COs now seem to be responding with a Performed Maintenance log that indicates that no maintenance was actually performed.  Something to the effect of "I will check on the cache soon."  And in the case of at least three caches I sought this weekend, no such check ever took place (in the case of a couple of those caches, it has been over a year).

This development comes as no surprise whatsoever, of course.  It's a great example of completely foreseeable unintended consequences of new geocaching policies. What's interesting about this one is that is makes the situation worse than it was before.  Previously, unaddressed Needs Maintenance logs could be used to filter out caches that were likely to have problems; now, with the new perverse incentive, those caches look as if the maintenance issues were resolved when they were not.

It's a great lesson. Making what seem to be obvious changes to improve cache quality can have the exact opposite effect. Changes that have the potential to change the caching culture are especially tricky, because they can be impossible to reverse.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

I've started noticing a new trend since the Cache Health Score (CHS) has come into play. When a Needs Maintenance log appears, the COs now seem to be responding with a Performed Maintenance log that indicates that no maintenance was actually performed.  Something to the effect of "I will check on the cache soon."  And in the case of at least three caches I sought this weekend, no such check ever took place (in the case of a couple of those caches, it has been over a year).

This development comes as no surprise whatsoever, of course.  It's a great example of completely foreseeable unintended consequences of new geocaching policies. What's interesting about this one is that is makes the situation worse than it was before.  Previously, unaddressed Needs Maintenance logs could be used to filter out caches that were likely to have problems; now, with the new perverse incentive, those caches look as if the maintenance issues were resolved when they were not.

It's a great lesson. Making what seem to be obvious changes to improve cache quality can have the exact opposite effect. Changes that have the potential to change the caching culture are especially tricky, because they can be impossible to reverse.

It's certainly likely that what you say is occurring in some cases, but I suspect there's a simpler and less nefarious cause for the increased misuse of the OM log.

When you go to submit a new log for a cache you own, the new logging page defaults to "Owner Maintenance" as the log type. A CO would have to manually change it to "Write Note" if that would be the most appropriate log type. I suspect it's just a case of laziness and/or a lack of awareness of when to use the different log types.

Edit to add: Maybe this is good evidence for changing the default to "Write Note"?

Edited by The A-Team
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post

I've noticed some of this before, and perhaps even a little bit more of this now.  I think that when CO's use the OM log when it is clear that maintenance is needed and no actual maintenance has been performed it is an abuse of the system.  If they log a OM for a cache that may mistakenly have been caught by the CHS, but reasonably does not require a check, this seems like an appropriate use.  It would take the human reviewer to likely determine this distinction, in much the same way that they would determine the distinction between a legitimate NA posted by a cacher, and a mistaken one.

As a side note, I don't think it makes sense to log a OM for this purpose or stating " I will check on this cache soon".  I find the 'I will check on this cache soon' notes seem to be rarely followed up on.  Better to state such intentions in a note. 

Edited by m0bean

Share this post


Link to post

My very unscientific observations tell me that this isn't really something new, but maybe it's shown a slight uptick with the advent of the CHS.  My general sense of these non maintenance/owner maintenance type logs is a big meh!  I can appreciate the fact that these cache owners cared enough to come online and acknowledge the problem, but sooner or later, things will catch up with them.  For those that have the best intentions, but just lack the available time at that particular moment, I'm  good with letting them have some extra time to sort things out.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

I've started noticing a new trend since the Cache Health Score (CHS) has come into play. When a Needs Maintenance log appears, the COs now seem to be responding with a Performed Maintenance log that indicates that no maintenance was actually performed.  Something to the effect of "I will check on the cache soon."  And in the case of at least three caches I sought this weekend, no such check ever took place (in the case of a couple of those caches, it has been over a year).

 

 

It is nothing new, but a common technique used by slacker cache owners to remove a red wrench. I see this normally from the cache owners with 1000 + caches, and usually something about it's okay to replace the film pot somewhere on the cache page or their profile. B)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am not really blaming the COs; I generally believe that they should be given a break.  This is more about the incentive structure that has been created that encourages the behavior, and the negative result on one's ability to filter out bad or missing caches.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

When you go to submit a new log for a cache you own, the new logging page defaults to "Owner Maintenance" as the log type. A CO would have to manually change it to "Write Note" if that would be the most appropriate log type. I suspect it's just a case of laziness and/or a lack of awareness of when to use the different log types.

Given the number of times I accidentally logged a Find on my own caches (when I intended to log an OM or a Note, back before OM was the default), I don't think either laziness or lack of awareness is required. Simple human fallibility is sufficient to explain the behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

It's certainly likely that what you say is occurring in some cases, but I suspect there's a simpler and less nefarious cause for the increased misuse of the OM log.

When you go to submit a new log for a cache you own, the new logging page defaults to "Owner Maintenance" as the log type. A CO would have to manually change it to "Write Note" if that would be the most appropriate log type. I suspect it's just a case of laziness and/or a lack of awareness of when to use the different log types.

Edit to add: Maybe this is good evidence for changing the default to "Write Note"?

I kinda agree,  and one of the (many) reasons I still use the "old" log page, which leaves the log option to you.

We do act on logs, so leaving a Write Note of,  "Thanks for the heads-up, will check soon." makes a lot more sense.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

I am not really blaming the COs; I generally believe that they should be given a break.  This is more about the incentive structure that has been created that encourages the behavior, and the negative result on one's ability to filter out bad or missing caches.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by cache owners should be given a break, but I need a way to filter out bad caches with armchair maintenance without having to read the last logs from other finders. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

It is nothing new, but a common technique used by slacker cache owners to remove a red wrench. I see this normally from the cache owners with 1000+ caches

CO activity of any kind by someone with 1000 caches is kind of impressive, even false activity. Often by that point the CO is operating on a "publish it & forget it" mentality.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Agreeing with A Team, I think the uptick in empty OM logs is because OM is now the default. 

It is also good to notice that CO can not change the OM to a Note afterwards. If CO would like to conceal the action, he would delete the entire log.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I am not really blaming the COs; I generally believe that they should be given a break.  This is more about the incentive structure that has been created that encourages the behavior, and the negative result on one's ability to filter out bad or missing caches.

Based on what I've seen I blame the COs. Those I see do this over the years are slack owners who never go back to fix or replace the cache. It's just a delay tactic. I think they're hoping that someone throws down a cache in the time it takes for the next person to start the DNF>NM>NA>Reviewer Disable>Reviewer Archive cycle again. And yes, the tactic is increasing. I think it's because of more vigilant reviewers. 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Based on what I've seen I blame the COs. Those I see do this over the years are slack owners who never go back to fix or replace the cache. It's just a delay tactic. I think they're hoping that someone throws down a cache in the time it takes for the next person to start the DNF>NM>NA>Reviewer Disable>Reviewer Archive cycle again. And yes, the tactic is increasing. I think it's because of more vigilant reviewers. 

 

You are right, of course.  But assigning blame is often not very helpful.  It is far more effective to design an incentive system in which people are rewarded for doing the right thing. Unfortunately, I believe that at least part of the incentive system as it stands rewards people for doing the wrong thing.

Interestingly, on this topic I think you and I agree.  I am unhappy that I can't use the little red wrenches to filter out bad caches any more.  IMO, we should be thinking about how to design incentives for inactive players or people who won't do maintenance, so that by archiving and removing their own bad caches they would receive some kind of positive reward.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, The A-Team said:

It's certainly likely that what you say is occurring in some cases, but I suspect there's a simpler and less nefarious cause for the increased misuse of the OM log.

When you go to submit a new log for a cache you own, the new logging page defaults to "Owner Maintenance" as the log type. A CO would have to manually change it to "Write Note" if that would be the most appropriate log type. I suspect it's just a case of laziness and/or a lack of awareness of when to use the different log types.

Edit to add: Maybe this is good evidence for changing the default to "Write Note"?

I think it's an ever better reason to do away with default log types altogether and go back to the old system where you had to pick the log type. For the cost of one extra click it'd save mistakes like this and the increasingly common one of DNFs being logged as finds.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

I am not at all saying that the reason is the default for OM but it could be in some cases.  I have in the past went to log a note on one of my own caches and logged it as found on accident because that was the default.  I usually catch it and once had someone point it out to me.

Share this post


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

Based on what I've seen I blame the COs. Those I see do this over the years are slack owners who never go back to fix or replace the cache. It's just a delay tactic. I think they're hoping that someone throws down a cache in the time it takes for the next person to start the DNF>NM>NA>Reviewer Disable>Reviewer Archive cycle again. And yes, the tactic is increasing. I think it's because of more vigilant reviewers. 

Does this tactic work? I mean, does the community throw down a new cache or does this non-existent cache just block the release of a new cache in the same place?

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I've started noticing a new trend since the Cache Health Score (CHS) has come into play. When a Needs Maintenance log appears, the COs now seem to be responding with a Performed Maintenance log that indicates that no maintenance was actually performed.  Something to the effect of "I will check on the cache soon."  And in the case of at least three caches I sought this weekend, no such check ever took place (in the case of a couple of those caches, it has been over a year).

This development comes as no surprise whatsoever, of course.  It's a great example of completely foreseeable unintended consequences of new geocaching policies. What's interesting about this one is that is makes the situation worse than it was before.  Previously, unaddressed Needs Maintenance logs could be used to filter out caches that were likely to have problems; now, with the new perverse incentive, those caches look as if the maintenance issues were resolved when they were not.

It's a great lesson. Making what seem to be obvious changes to improve cache quality can have the exact opposite effect. Changes that have the potential to change the caching culture are especially tricky, because they can be impossible to reverse.

So before the CHS what were these people doing to avoid maintenance?  Answer:   The exact same thing.  Only now they're being forced to do it on a more regular basis.   Shady people are going to do shady things.   Nothing anyone can do will stop them from trying.   The CHS may help reviewers identify these arm chair cache owners and help them decide if they really want to own a cache or not.  

You've possibly identified one of these people yourself.   Why not let your reviewer know what you've seen and let them take it from there? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/19/2017 at 4:42 AM, arisoft said:

Does this tactic work? I mean, does the community throw down a new cache or does this non-existent cache just block the release of a new cache in the same place?

If certain cachers go in search of the cache they will leave a throwdown 'as a courtesy to the CO' aka to avoid a DNF. Some such cachers are locals, some aren't.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Joshism said:

If certain cachers go in search of the cache they will leave a throwdown 'as a courtesy to the CO' aka to avoid a DNF. Some such cachers are locals, some aren't.

So, the only real problem is that a presumably lost cache is not disabled in the hope that it will come back from itself. This seems to be very clever way to use the system for the good of all number oriented players. Is there any risk that these caches would attract other type of players to find them?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

This seems to be very clever way to use the system for the good of all number oriented players.

What's good for numbers-oriented players tends to be bad for geocaching as a whole.

Not to mention encouraging COs to shirk clearly defined responsibility is bad on it's face. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Joshism said:

What's good for numbers-oriented players tends to be bad for geocaching as a whole.

It seems that majority of players and HQ do not share your vision. It does not mean that I do not share your's but frankly, you have to admit this reality.

41 minutes ago, Joshism said:

Not to mention encouraging COs to shirk clearly defined responsibility is bad on it's face. 

Responsibility is only a merit. You can not demand responsibility without means. HQ has responsibility to keep cache quality high. The idea of reviewing is to keep it high. Practically reviewing focuses to distances between caches, not the quality of any cache. The responsibility chain is rotten from the beginning. It is obvious that a poor quality cache does not deserve maintenance from even its owner. But as long as there is someone who think that this poor cache deserves the opportunity to be discovered it may be worthy of its existence because someone still cares.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/18/2017 at 0:40 PM, The A-Team said:

It's certainly likely that what you say is occurring in some cases, but I suspect there's a simpler and less nefarious cause for the increased misuse of the OM log.

When you go to submit a new log for a cache you own, the new logging page defaults to "Owner Maintenance" as the log type. A CO would have to manually change it to "Write Note" if that would be the most appropriate log type. I suspect it's just a case of laziness and/or a lack of awareness of when to use the different log types.

Edit to add: Maybe this is good evidence for changing the default to "Write Note"?

Yes!

Some cachers, in the OP and other threads, have noticed an increase in 'premature' OM logs. I really wish that more cachers would consider reasons that don't cast CO's as maintenance shirkers that are simply trying to game the system. Realistically, most CO's have no idea what the CHS is and/or what factors affect it. Only the tiny proportion of cachers in these forums know much about it. How about, instead of presuming that the 'trend' is because of the CHS, it's considered that new processes are contributing to it.

With the old logging page, the user had to manually select the log type. The log type box said "Select Log Type" and the drop-down menu would present all the log type choices. This would prompt some consideration into which log type to choose.

With the new logging page, the log type is already filled in and the user is not presented with a drop-down, so they may not even realize that there are other log types to choose from. There is no need for them to consider other log type choices before submitting their log. And once they've submitted an OM, they cannot go back and change it to another type.

Similar to how "Found It" is the default for non-owned caches, some cachers are accidentally logging a find when the text of their logs clearly indicates that they did not. I Watch a challenge cache near me. A lot of Write Note logs are entered as people track their progress. I've seen numerous cases where someone accidentally logs a Found It, but then goes back and changes it to a Write Note soon after. With the OM, if someone accidentally submits an OM, they cannot go back and fix it without deleting the entire log and re-logging. This is true with either the new or old logging page.

Potential solutions?

  • Changing the new logging page to have "Write Note" as the default for Owned caches, or to have no default at all.
  • Allowing a CO to change an OM log type to something else after submitting it.

If these changes were made and there was still a 'trend' of CO's posting 'premature' OM logs, then I'd lean toward them trying to manipulate the CHS.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Potential solutions?

  • Changing the new logging page to have "Write Note" as the default for Owned caches, or to have no default at all.
  • Allowing a CO to change an OM log type to something else after submitting it.

If these changes were made and there was still a 'trend' of CO's posting 'premature' OM logs, then I'd lean toward them trying to manipulate the CHS.

This was raised right back when the new logging page was introduced, but ignored. Why does there have to be a default log type? If the default was changed to WN, all that would happen would be an upsurge of WN logs that really should've been something else. Is saving one keystroke by having a default preselected really that critical?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
49 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Potential solutions?

  • Changing the new logging page to have "Write Note" as the default for Owned caches, or to have no default at all.
  • Allowing a CO to change an OM log type to something else after submitting it.

If these changes were made and there was still a 'trend' of CO's posting 'premature' OM logs, then I'd lean toward them trying to manipulate the CHS.

This was raised right back when the new logging page was introduced, but ignored. Why does there have to be a default log type? If the default was changed to WN, all that would happen would be an upsurge of WN logs that really should've been something else. Is saving one keystroke by having a default preselected really that critical?

There are a lot of 'complaints' about new or changed features when they are first introduced, and I suppose it's easy to ignore many of them when they quiet down after a while and people get used to them. But with this default log type, I think that it should be revisited. Time has now passed and effects that might not have been 'believed' when we first brought them up are starting to reveal themselves as not being so unbelievable.

I don't know why there has to be a default. I'm not a web dev, but maybe there's something about the design that doesn't allow for a blank "Select log type" option. I think there is some tie-in between the web and app, so maybe that's a factor. I don't know why it's necessary to have a default pre-selected, but I'd personally prefer if there wasn't one.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I think there is some tie-in between the web and app, so maybe that's a factor.

Actualy the app doesn't have a default log type. It presents a list of types with a prompt to pick one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:
2 hours ago, noncentric said:

I think there is some tie-in between the web and app, so maybe that's a factor.

Actualy the app doesn't have a default log type. It presents a list of types with a prompt to pick one.

Ah yes, you're right. That shows how often I use the app to submit logs. So, it seems that only the new logging page uses a default, while the old logging page and app force a considered choice.

Certainly hope that TPTB will re-consider the way the new logging page defaults, especially before they take away the option to opt-out.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/21/2017 at 1:44 PM, arisoft said:

It is obvious that a poor quality cache does not deserve maintenance from even its owner. But as long as there is someone who think that this poor cache deserves the opportunity to be discovered it may be worthy of its existence because someone still cares.

They usually don't care about the cache; they care about getting that +1 Find.

Archiving a listing, especially aftet verifying the cache is gone or removing a damaged container, is a form of maintenance. All listings 'deserve' that much.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, noncentric said:

With the new logging page, the log type is already filled in and the user is not presented with a drop-down, so they may not even realize that there are other log types to choose from. There is no need for them to consider other log type choices before submitting their log. And once they've submitted an OM, they cannot go back and change it to another type.

Lovely.  So now if they make a mistake and log OM by accident, they would have to delete the log and enter a completely new one.  That's not gonna happen very often.

So I think it is fair to say that the system is now encouraging false OM logs.

As I said, lovely.

Share this post


Link to post

The current "tick a box to log NM" is also a step in the wrong direction in my opinion. I'm waiting to see a combo of "Yay, that's another find for me!" followed by "This cacher reported that the cache needs maintainance." logs. Great info for the owner.

I decided to log NM on a cache I DNF after I saw other cachers fail to find it and remembered some teardown already visible at the spot, but this is only possible when you opt for the old logging page. Dumbing down this hobby to the lowest common denominator won't help to get more people on board, it just disgruntles many of the veterans.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rebore said:

I decided to log NM on a cache I DNF after I saw other cachers fail to find it and remembered some teardown already visible at the spot, but this is only possible when you opt for the old logging page. Dumbing down this hobby to the lowest common denominator won't help to get more people on board, it just disgruntles many of the veterans.

Yes.  I am going to be very sad when I am forced to use the new pages.  They are just so wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:
2 hours ago, Rebore said:

I decided to log NM on a cache I DNF after I saw other cachers fail to find it and remembered some teardown already visible at the spot, but this is only possible when you opt for the old logging page. Dumbing down this hobby to the lowest common denominator won't help to get more people on board, it just disgruntles many of the veterans.

Yes.  I am going to be very sad when I am forced to use the new pages.  They are just so wrong.

FYI - The other option to enter NM/NA logs without the canned text, besides using the old logging page on the website, is to use the official app. If you open the cache details in the app, then you can select "Report a Problem" from the menu, select "Maintenance suggested"/"Needs Archived", and then enter your own text.

I'm not sure when the NM selection changed from "Needs Maintenance" to "Maintenance suggested". I'm pretty sure it used to say the former.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, noncentric said:

FYI - The other option to enter NM/NA logs without the canned text, besides using the old logging page on the website, is to use the official app. If you open the cache details in the app, then you can select "Report a Problem" from the menu, select "Maintenance suggested"/"Needs Archived", and then enter your own text.

I'm not sure when the NM selection changed from "Needs Maintenance" to "Maintenance suggested". I'm pretty sure it used to say the former.

What's an app?  I'm GPSr/website only.  Old curmudgeon.  Don't need no stinking cell phone.  I still pay for 'rotary service'.  

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:
23 minutes ago, noncentric said:

FYI - The other option to enter NM/NA logs without the canned text, besides using the old logging page on the website, is to use the official app. If you open the cache details in the app, then you can select "Report a Problem" from the menu, select "Maintenance suggested"/"Needs Archived", and then enter your own text.

I'm not sure when the NM selection changed from "Needs Maintenance" to "Maintenance suggested". I'm pretty sure it used to say the former.

What's an app?  I'm GPSr/website only.  Old curmudgeon.  Don't need no stinking cell phone.  I still pay for 'rotary service'.  

Ah. Fair enough.  I use my GPSr about 85% of the time, but have used the app for a few impromptu cache hunts. Although I have used it more lately for logging NM/NA, because otherwise I might not get around to it until days later (field notes) and then the NM/NA log date won't reflect the date of my actual visit. But if the app ever changes NM/NA to used canned messages, then I'll be very disappointed.

Edited by noncentric

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

What's an app?  I'm GPSr/website only.  Old curmudgeon.  Don't need no stinking cell phone.  I still pay for 'rotary service'.  

Whenever somebody tells me "There's an app for that", I show them my old Sonim XP3 phone. There's a lifetime guarantee promised by the manufactorer and I will use that if it breaks. :)

Share this post


Link to post

This is becoming more and more common, I have just come across another cache where the CO in his OM log stated that he had taken the cache home to dry it up.

He has about five hundred finds but only one hide so he is not an experienced owner and apparently just sticked with the default log type offered.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

"OM log stated that he had taken the cache home". Well that is actual maintenance. I assume that he did not ALSO disable the listing, however. ;-)

While there have always been OM logs that say something about the intention to do maintenance sometime, now with OM as the default log, it's epidemic.

On 1/27/2018 at 7:34 PM, noncentric said:

because otherwise I might not get around to it until days later (field notes) and then the NM/NA log date won't reflect the date of my actual visit

I use drafts a good bit, and they conserve date of log  from a Garmin gps. Just an observation. What i actually do is open the log from drafts - this is "new log" page - see what I wrote, if anything, then open the cache page from drafts, and log  from there (old logging)  This so I eyeball the page, see what the CO had to say about the cache. Sometimes this will stir my memory better than my obscure field note.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Isonzo Karst said:

"OM log stated that he had taken the cache home". Well that is actual maintenance. I assume that he did not ALSO disable the listing, however. ;-)

No, he did not. That's what he should have done instead.

https://coord.info/GC2VBZ7

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Pontiac_CZ said:

No, he did not. That's what he should have done instead.

https://coord.info/GC2VBZ7

I like that it’s been nearly 6 weeks, too. That sounds more like lack of understanding on the CO’s part, which it appears the next two logs explained (I can pick out the English phrases at least, lol).

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/9/2018 at 4:12 AM, Isonzo Karst said:
On 1/27/2018 at 4:34 PM, noncentric said:

because otherwise I might not get around to it until days later (field notes) and then the NM/NA log date won't reflect the date of my actual visit

I use drafts a good bit, and they conserve date of log  from a Garmin gps.

Yes, the original log date is conserved - but prior dates cannot be submitted with an NM/NA log. When submitting an NM/NA log, the "date logged" field is overwritten with the 'current' date. For that reason, I try to submit my NM/NA logs right away, so my NM/NA log doesn't show up in the cache's history with a date that's a week or more after my actual visit to the cache site.

 

Edited by noncentric

Share this post


Link to post

I have to believe that this type of behavior has been around forever.   Has the CHS caused an increase the practice of fraudulent OM"s?   Probably, but I see that as a positive thing.  If anything it's making lazy cache owners have to post these types of logs more often.  If that's the case than the system is obviously working.   

The more times a cache owner posts a fraudulent owners maintenance log the better chance they'll be exposed.   A one time NM....OM......NM event may be hard for a reviewer to identify "manually".    The CHS may be able to flag these situations and make it quicker and easier for a reviewer to identify.   

There may be reasons to post a OM log without actually visiting the cache.  As long as the reasons are agreed upon with a reviewer there's no issue.       

If you're a conscientious cache owner the chances of the CHS having any effect on you is low.

If nothing else these fraudulent cache owners are being forced to do something,  and that's a start.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

If nothing else these fraudulent cache owners are being forced to do something,  and that's a start.  

In my experience that's not true.

In my experience a cache long-since abandoned by the CO no longer in the game can live on indefinitely - so long as the reviewer thinks there's a dry piece of paper in there - even if the container has been leaking and turning 'logbooks' into mush for years.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

In my experience that's not true.

 

 

In my experience the fraudulent OM works. The listing sits in limbo until someone comes along and posts an NA to get the attention of the reviewer. I have a tough time posting yet another NA. Especially when that owner is popular and well-liked in the community.  I've posted, "Why is there an OM on this cache when the OM log says "I'll fix this soon"?". No response from the owner but the next finder says, 'The cache is findable if you get the answer to stage 2 from the owner, and you can log it even though [the Winter-Friendly attribute] cache is encased in ice'. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

In my experience that's not true.

 

 

In my experience the fraudulent OM works.

In my experience it doesn't even require a fraudulent OM - as long as a recent finder left a dry piece of paper in the obviously inadequate, long-term-leaking container.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

In my opinion that's a problem.   If a cache doesn't have a clear and active owner than it should be archived.   A cache being maintained by a "community" is fine as long as the listed owner is coordinating the effort and posting the OML's. 

NA logs by persons who have not recently visited the cache are disallowed - even when the cache logs clearly demonstrate that the cache is long past its best.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

In my experience that's not true.

In my experience a cache long-since abandoned by the CO no longer in the game can live on indefinitely - so long as the reviewer thinks there's a dry piece of paper in there - even if the container has been leaking and turning 'logbooks' into mush for years.

In my opinion that's a problem.   If a cache doesn't have a clear and active owner than it should be archived.   A cache being maintained by a "community" is fine as long as the listed owner is coordinating the effort and posting the OML's.    

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

In my experience it doesn't even require a fraudulent OM - as long as a recent finder left a dry piece of paper in the obviously inadequate, long-term-leaking container.

Yep. It does seem that some reviewers won't archive a cache unless it's missing. Maybe they're anti-geolitter and want the broken cache removed.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
22 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

In my experience it doesn't even require a fraudulent OM - as long as a recent finder left a dry piece of paper in the obviously inadequate, long-term-leaking container.

Yep. It does seem that some reviewers won't archive a cache unless it's missing. Maybe they're anti-geolitter and want the broken cache removed.

That's irrelevant.

Groundspeak has made it very clear that a cache is the legal property of its owner. That - and the fact it might be listed on another geocaching site - negate the right of anyone but the CO or the landowner to remove it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's more along the lines of what I saw with the Navi Cache site when it's member just left and their listings appeared active but were in fact missing and neglected. ;)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

In my opinion that's a problem.   If a cache doesn't have a clear and active owner than it should be archived.   A cache being maintained by a "community" is fine as long as the listed owner is coordinating the effort and posting the OML's.    

In my opinion, it's good to have a little flexibility.  I know of a cache that is obviously a vacation cache that was placed in 2001, has over 1100 finds and only 1 NM log in 17 years.   The fact that it's at a spot with a steady stream of new geocachers coming to the area (in a country with less than 10 geocaches) has lead to maintenance by the community that actually works.   Of course, in many areas someone will place a cache and quit the game, but once all the locals have found it, it might get very few visits by the community, thus it won't be maintained.  

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×