Archived caches

[+on4bam]

In an ideal world we should not see found logs after a cache is archived. Just in case a CO didn't "clean up after him/her self" we should see just one more log "Container was still here, removed it" (after checking it's not on any other listing). Several found it logs after a cache is archived "smells fishy".

 

[+arisoft]

47 minutes ago, on4bam said:

In an ideal world we should not see found logs after a cache is archived. Just in case a CO didn't "clean up after him/her self" we should see just one more log "Container was still here, removed it" (after checking it's not on any other listing). Several found it logs after a cache is archived "smells fishy".

There is something wrong with your ideal world if the cache needs to be archived. In an ideal world, caches should not be archived at all. Hunting for archived caches is an exciting side game. There are many challenges that must be overcome. For example, can you find the cache before some garbage picker finds it and declares it removed.They also offers a great sense of accomplishment when you find a cache that has not been found for many years. A good geocacher will never rule out how others should play the game. Everyone plays it in their own way.

[+justintim1999]

11 minutes ago, arisoft said:

There is something wrong with your ideal world if the cache needs to be archived. In an ideal world, caches should not be archived at all. Hunting for archived caches is an exciting side game. There are many challenges that must be overcome. For example, can you find the cache before some garbage picker finds it and declares it removed.They also offers a great sense of accomplishment when you find a cache that has not been found for many years. A good geocacher will never rule out how others should play the game. Everyone plays it in their own way.

Having containers left behind on caches that have been archived and removed from the game is not a good idea for many reasons.   The biggest being the fact that we received permission to place the cache with the understanding that someone would be specifically responsible for it.

[+arisoft]

9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Having containers left behind on caches that have been archived and removed from the game is not a good idea for many reasons.   The biggest being the fact that we received permission to place the cache with the understanding that someone would be specifically responsible for it.

As I said, there are many challenges that must be overcome. This is just one of them, which makes this so exciting. In the worst case, you will be shot for trespassing.

[+on4bam]

24 minutes ago, arisoft said:

There is something wrong with your ideal world if the cache needs to be archived.

Nope, there isn't. There are plenty of good reasons for archiving. And, as said, there should only be one going after an archived cache, the CO or the first one to "find" it after archiving to take the container.

You know some will log archived caches for the +1 because they know the CO is no longer active or the log can no longer be checked?

 

[+arisoft]

19 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Nope, there isn't. There are plenty of good reasons for archiving.

According to the guidelines, your good reasons are not allowed.

Must be accessible

• Long term
  • Hide your cache to have a long life.

As you see this is a "must", not a recommendation. Archiving a cache is a failure you should try to avoid.

Edited January 22, 2018 by arisoft

[+justintim1999]

12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

According to the guidelines, your good reasons are not allowed.

Must be accessible

• Long term
  • Hide your cache to have a long life.

As you see this is a "must", not a recommendation. Archiving a cache is a failure you should try to avoid.

Long life meaning plan on maintaining the cache for more than a few months.    It doesn't mean design your cache so it will survive long after you've abandoned it.  

[+on4bam]

18 minutes ago, arisoft said:

According to the guidelines, your good reasons are not allowed.

Must be accessible

• Long term
  • Hide your cache to have a long life.

As you see this is a "must", not a recommendation. Archiving a cache is a failure you should try to avoid.

Define "long life"

A cache is supposed to be available for at least 3 months, now, again, define "long life".

Good reasons: gets stolen, property owner changed his/her mind, disrespectful cachers damaging container, CO health issues, ... I could go on. Which good reasons are not allowed? Link to guidelines/rules please. Thank you.

 

[+arisoft]

12 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Define "long life"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/long-term

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/long-life

13 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Link to guidelines/rules please.

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#accessible

[+on4bam]

Good to see there's no argument

 

[+Rebore]

@justintim1999 I think you are fighting against windmills. Even if I ignore all the consequences of your proposal I don't see how that would make things any better. Why do you think the behaviour of careless owners would change if coordinates are obfuscated or the listing gets automatically locked once it's archived? I don't follow your "Allowing a find on an archived cache is encouraging owners to leave geotrashes behind" argument.

[WW41]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

There is something wrong with your ideal world if the cache needs to be archived. In an ideal world, caches should not be archived at all. Hunting for archived caches is an exciting side game. There are many challenges that must be overcome. For example, can you find the cache before some garbage picker finds it and declares it removed.They also offers a great sense of accomplishment when you find a cache that has not been found for many years. A good geocacher will never rule out how others should play the game. Everyone plays it in their own way.

I get the feeling you are playing devil’s advocate. 

[+arisoft]

12 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Good to see there's no argument

 

There is nothing to prove unless you find the guideline you are looking for.

[+justintim1999]

I was taught that if you think somethings wrong try to fix it regardless of how insignificant your efforts may seem to be.    

I don't know if it would make any impact at all but at least it would reinforce the notion that we expect caches to be removed and we're not going to allow finds on caches that we believe shouldn't be there in the first place. 

 

[+L0ne.R]

49 minutes ago, Rebore said:

Why do you think the behaviour of careless owners would change

It probably won't change careless owners behavior much, but it sends a message that Groundspeak believes in responsible cache ownership and good stewardship by all participants (assuming GS does believe in responsible stewardship, as indicated in their guidelines).

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't know if it would make any impact at all but at least it would reinforce the notion that we expect caches to be removed and we're not going to allow finds on caches that we believe shouldn't be there in the first place. 

If "we" wouldn't allow finds on archived caches then "we" would prevent them from being found. The problem is that "we" are a company and "we" do business. No one is asking from us. Maybe, at some day, "we" deside to lock archived caches as "we" did for multiple finds after "we" messed things badly with "our" app. Does this make any sense?

Edited January 22, 2018 by arisoft

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

We have problems when one side doesn't hold up their end of the deal.   

So when one side doesn't hold up their end of the deal (e.g., by not removing an archived cache), why should we impose consequences on the other side (e.g., by not allowing them to log their geocache activity)?

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

If "we" wouldn't allow finds on archived caches then "we" would prevent them from being found. The problem is that "we" are a company and "we" do business. No one is asking from us. Maybe, at some day, "we" deside to lock archived caches as "we" did for multiple finds after "we" messed things badly with "our" app. Does this make any sense?

You shouldn't find archived caches because there shouldn't be anything for you to find.   If you want to make your game better, than support the guidelines.  You'll find that leading by example is the best thing you can do to influence change in your geocaching community.  

[+bflentje]

4 hours ago, on4bam said:

In an ideal world we should not see found logs after a cache is archived. Just in case a CO didn't "clean up after him/her self" we should see just one more log "Container was still here, removed it" (after checking it's not on any other listing). Several found it logs after a cache is archived "smells fishy".

 

This. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.

[+justintim1999]

57 minutes ago, niraD said:

So when one side doesn't hold up their end of the deal (e.g., by not removing an archived cache), why should we impose consequences on the other side (e.g., by not allowing them to log their geocache activity)?

In my opinion we're condoning the practice by taking advantage of  a situation that is violating the guidelines.   To me it's two faced.

"Look at this,  someone left their cache here to rot.....I think I'll log it as a find though."

I guess I'm just not wired that way.

[+bflentje]

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC9F88_past-life?guid=664ed7ca-aa1b-4519-87b5-0d346ac89c72

Edited January 22, 2018 by bflentje

[+niraD]

35 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

In my opinion we're condoning the practice by taking advantage of  a situation that is violating the guidelines.

I guess I don't see how it's "taking advantage of a situation" to post an accurate log of my geocaching activity.

[+arisoft]

46 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You shouldn't find archived caches because there shouldn't be anything for you to find.   If you want to make your game better, than support the guidelines.  You'll find that leading by example is the best thing you can do to influence change in your geocaching community.  

Maybe my message was too covert. I tried to say that this is not our game. This game is controlled by a company which sets rules how to play. This ruling prevent us to find a cache twice but not to find an archived cache. I am not referring to guidelines because guidelines are just recommendations. I mean the rules what you can do and what you can not do. Players are opportunistic and will play according to these rules, not by recommendations (guidelines). Sometimes it happens that a recommendation is upgraded to a rule. This is not the situation yet and maybe never. Leading by example does not work because practically no player is following any "leading player", trying to mimic how someone else is playing.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, bflentje said:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC9F88_past-life?guid=664ed7ca-aa1b-4519-87b5-0d346ac89c72

It was very responsible of you to save the trackable and remove the geolitter. Good example of helping the integrity of the game, when a cache owner doesn't.

Out of curiousity, would you have searched for it if you were only able to log a Note? 

Edited January 22, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+L0ne.R]

46 minutes ago, niraD said:

I guess I don't see how it's "taking advantage of a situation" to post an accurate log of my geocaching activity.

The way I see it, it does send a message to COs that if you leave the container someone else will enjoy finding the archived cache, and get a reward for it.

[+Rebore]

I found it.

32 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

The way I see it, it does send a message to COs that if you leave the container someone else will enjoy finding the archived cache, and get a reward for it.

Might be just me, but I don't see a found it log as a "reward". It's jus the proper type of log for what has happened. I found it.

[+justintim1999]

21 minutes ago, bflentje said:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC9F88_past-life?guid=664ed7ca-aa1b-4519-87b5-0d346ac89c72

And in the short term that's what we'll have to continue doing with these caches to make any difference. 

Long term I hope cache owners will be doing this themselves and your involvement won't be necessary.

1 hour ago, niraD said:

I guess I don't see how it's "taking advantage of a situation" to post an accurate log of my geocaching activity.

  How is it an accurate log?  You found a cache that was suppose to have been removed.   The fact that it was still there doesn't change that fact.    The would you or wouldn't you log it is a moral question.  The real issue is why are you even allowed to?   

[+J Grouchy]

33 minutes ago, Rebore said:

I found it.

Might be just me, but I don't see a found it log as a "reward". It's jus the proper type of log for what has happened. I found it.

Pretty much.  

Though it sure would be nice if rewards were offered for archived caches!  That would certainly go a long way towards clearing out the "geotrash".

[+justintim1999]

10 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Pretty much.  

Though it sure would be nice if rewards were offered for archived caches!  That would certainly go a long way towards clearing out the "geotrash".

You may have hit upon something.   Have to think about that.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

6 hours ago, on4bam said:

In an ideal world we should not see found logs after a cache is archived. Just in case a CO didn't "clean up after him/her self" we should see just one more log "Container was still here, removed it" (after checking it's not on any other listing). Several found it logs after a cache is archived "smells fishy".

 

I can't be the only one that has created a PQ, downloaded cache listings to my GPS, then found a cache that was archived at some point in time (could just be a day or two) between when I ran the PQ and when I found the cache.   That could easily happen with a group of geocachers as well and result in several found it logs after the cache is archived.  It seems to me that a CO that leaves the container in place a few days to allow those that may have cache data in their GPS that was accurate when they downloaded it (within reason) would be more ideal.  

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

In my opinion we're condoning the practice by taking advantage of  a situation that is violating the guidelines.   To me it's two faced.

"Look at this,  someone left their cache here to rot.....I think I'll log it as a find though."

I guess I'm just not wired that way.

For someone who doesn't really care much about this issue, you're certainly determined.  Although it may be in violation of a guideline, there's no way to ENFORCE that guideline.  Your argument that the cache shouldn't be there (even though there's actually a cache container with a log at that location) makes sense in a world where enforcement can and does take place.  In an activity that gets so many cachers who join, stay active for a few months, and then disappear, it's an unrealistic expectation to think that those types of cachers will develop a sense of responsibility whereby they go and pick up their caches when they're done.  You and I (and most of those on the forums) have been around long enough to develop that sense of responsibility and can set that expectation, but even with that, there's no way to make sure that they do what we have made our normal mode of operation.  Your continual insistence that it shouldn't be there flies in the face of the fact that they ARE actually there.  

Since they are actually there, not allowing a cacher to log an archived cache is also in violation of a guideline that states that if you find a cache and sign the log, you're allowed to claim the find online.  

 

11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

 How is it an accurate log?  You found a cache that was suppose to have been removed.   The fact that it was still there doesn't change that fact.    The would you or wouldn't you log it is a moral question.  The real issue is why are you even allowed to?   

It's accurate because it accurately reflects the basic premise of the activity - find a cache, sign the log, claim the find.  The fact that it's archived does not negate the fact that a cache was found and there's no argument you can make that invalidates this fact.  You're allowed to log an archived cache because you followed the basic premise behind this entire activity.  Find something, sign the log to prove you found it, and then log it online. 

Should it have been removed? Yes.  I'm not arguing that point and agree with you but the fact is that it wasn't removed.  What I'm debating is the validity of a find for an archived cache that's still in place, for whatever reason it might still be in place, be it the death of a CO, a CO who has quit for whatever reason and can't retrieve their cache, or an irresponsible CO (I suspect this is the majority of the archived, abandoned caches out there).  The fact still remains that a cache was found.  I fail to understand why you would deny a find when all a cacher has done is find a cache that, for whatever reason, was archived and not removed like it should have been.  It goes against the very premise of what makes geocaching, well, geocaching.  That's why I believe you're allowed to log a find on an archived cache.

[+niraD]

43 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

How is it an accurate log?  You found a cache

and therefore I posted a Found It log. That sounds pretty accurate to me.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

6 hours ago, on4bam said:

Nope, there isn't. There are plenty of good reasons for archiving.

According to the guidelines, your good reasons are not allowed.

Must be accessible

• Long term
  • Hide your cache to have a long life.

As you see this is a "must", not a recommendation. Archiving a cache is a failure you should try to avoid.

Eventually I'll become too old to maintain my caches, especially the higher T ones, so will either archive them or adopt them out. More eventually I'll die and won't be able to look after them at all, so I'd prefer them to be archived then. Maybe I should stipulate that in my will.

There are also natural calamities that can destroy caches, like floods, falling rocks/trees or landslides. What's better, to have the cache there for people to enjoy before that happens, or err on the side of extreme caution and not place a cache anywhere there's the remotest chance of it ever being destroyed (or muggled for that matter)?

I've archived three of my caches to date (not counting events): one had a tree fall on it, blocking access, one was washed out to sea in an extreme storm, and the third suffered repeated mugglings so I archived it at that location and recreated it at a new one. All three had many finds, between them acquired 18 FPs and provided enjoyment to the local caching community and visitors. I don't consider them failures.

[+coachstahly]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

As you see this is a "must", not a recommendation. Archiving a cache is a failure you should try to avoid.

I completely disagree.  It's not a failure if something out of your control creates an issue with your cache that changes some parameter of the experience.  Muggles, severe weather, construction, safety, new land management guidelines, etc... all play a role in whether or not I'll archive the cache and my archival won't determine if the cache was a failure or a success.  I leave that to the cachers who found it.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, Rebore said:

I found it.

Might be just me, but I don't see a found it log as a "reward". It's jus the proper type of log for what has happened. I found it.

Very few people see a found it log as a tool. These days it's a tally or score. Why do so many people do PT trails? Because they really like them? Would they would do them even if they got only one multicache smiley point?

Edited January 22, 2018 by L0ne.R
Corrected a sentence

[+L0ne.R]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

Archiving a cache is a failure

I've retrieved and archived around 50 of our caches over the years and never once thought of it as a failure. It was the right thing to do.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I can't be the only one that has created a PQ, downloaded cache listings to my GPS, then found a cache that was archived at some point in time (could just be a day or two) between when I ran the PQ and when I found the cache.   That could easily happen with a group of geocachers as well and result in several found it logs after the cache is archived.  It seems to me that a CO that leaves the container in place a few days to allow those that may have cache data in their GPS that was accurate when they downloaded it (within reason) would be more ideal.  

That's why I disable a cache for a couple of weeks with a note saying I'm going to pick up and archive the cache shortly. I archive after I've picked up the cache.

[+arisoft]

27 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I've archived three of my caches to date (not counting events): one had a tree fall on it, blocking access, one was washed out to sea in an extreme storm, and the third suffered repeated mugglings so I archived it at that location and recreated it at a new one. All three had many finds, between them acquired 18 FPs and provided enjoyment to the local caching community and visitors. I don't consider them failures.

I haven't archived caches for this kind of reasons. Couple of my caches were exploded, many has been muggled. Some have run away to sea. I have made a maintenance visit and fixed the problem. Sometimes I have slightly moved the cache to avoid future problems or building which have been appeared to the location. Reviewers call it churning when CO archives cache and publish a new one to the same place. it is (secretly) forbidden behaviour even though it is not mentioned in the guidelines.

 

Edited January 22, 2018 by arisoft

[+niraD]

24 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Very few people see a found it log as a tool.

So should we force everyone to treat a Found It log as a tally/score?

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

24 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I've archived three of my caches to date (not counting events): one had a tree fall on it, blocking access, one was washed out to sea in an extreme storm, and the third suffered repeated mugglings so I archived it at that location and recreated it at a new one. All three had many finds, between them acquired 18 FPs and provided enjoyment to the local caching community and visitors. I don't consider them failures.

I haven't archived caches for thins kind of reasons. Couple of my caches were exploded, many has been muggled. Some have run away to sea. I have made a maintenance visit and fixed the problem. Sometimes I have slightly moved the cache to avoid future problems or building which has been appeared to the location. Reviewers call it churning when CO archives cache and publish a new one to the same place. it is (secretly) forbinned behaviour even though it is not mentioned in the guidelines.

In the case of the one that had the tree fall on it, the once pleasant reserve where I'd hidden it had become weed-infested and then people started using it as a rubbish dump, so really the falling tree was a blessing as the location was one I no longer wanted to bring people to. Hence my decision to archive rather than replace.

The one that was washed out to sea was probably a poor choice of location as these extreme east coast lows are becoming more frequent (there've been three in the last five years causing widespread flooding and destruction). So again, I decided to archive rather than replace.

The muggled one (The Rememberer of Secrets) I moved to a new home a kilometre away (The Rememberer's New Secret). It uses the same physical waypoint object (a little elephant) but has a different story associated with it. Is that what you'd consider churning?

[+coachstahly]

34 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Very few people see a found it log as a tool. These days it's a tally or score. Why do so many people do PT trails? Because they really like them? Would they would do them even if they got only one multicache smiley point?

Even for you this is rather cynical.  Even those people doing the PTs see the found it log and use it to add to their list for the day because the last log was a found it.  I think more use it than you give credit for, if only to ensure it's a cache that's there.

[+arisoft]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Is that what you'd consider churning?

I'm not going to judge but I have solved the problems in similar situations. For example, I've learned the hard way that the cache of the sea must be heavier than water.

[+barefootjeff]

8 minutes ago, arisoft said:

17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Is that what you'd consider churning?

I'm not going to judge but I have solved the problems in similar situations. For example, I've learned the hard way that the cache of the sea must be heavier than water.

Don't the guidelines say that if you're moving a cache more than 161 metres it's better to archive the original and create a new one?

Quote

If the nature of the hide and hunt has fundamentally changed, submit a new cache page. If the nature of the hide and hunt has not changed, or if the original coordinates are wrong, you can ask a community volunteer reviewer to change the coordinates.

The nature of the hide had changed from a suburban park to bushland at the top of a cliff. To me, that's a fundamental change.

The east coast low that washed my cache away shifted boulders considerably bigger than my fake rock (which was heavier than water). It had had a good life (3 years) but all the locals had found it and by then it was only getting the odd find from visitors to the area. Time to cut my losses and move on to something different.

In my view, a community needs a steady cycle of archived old caches and fresh new ones to keep it vibrant and interesting. I'm not talking about archiving a cache and putting an identical new one in its place, I mean new ideas over time replacing the older ones. If nothing else, an archived cache frees up 81,433 square metres of blank canvass for a new hider to exploit and delight visitors with.

[+arisoft]

15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

In my view, a community needs a steady cycle of archived old caches and fresh new ones to keep it vibrant and interesting

I am not interested in visiting the same place again but a "community" may not care, if there is any possibility to earn a find. Have you thought, that geocachers will retire and to newcomers every cache is a new one.

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, arisoft said:

27 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

In my view, a community needs a steady cycle of archived old caches and fresh new ones to keep it vibrant and interesting

I am not interested in visiting the same place again but a "community" may not care, if there is any possibility to earn a find. Have you thought, that geocachers will retire and to newcomers every cache is a new one.

There are lots of different ways another cacher could use the same general area in creating a new hide, particularly when you add multis and puzzles into the mix, which many of mine are. The location is just one element in the overall experience of finding a cache.

Sadly we're getting very few newcomers in this area that last more than a week or two as muggles with apps. It's an area hemmed in with water on two sides and national parks on the other two, so there are no new housing estates and not much turnover of population. Six of my hides have now gone more than six months without a find and two now have more than a year clocked up.

[+on4bam]

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I can't be the only one that has created a PQ, downloaded cache listings to my GPS, then found a cache that was archived at some point in time (could just be a day or two) between when I ran the PQ and when I found the cache. 

Some here go after caches that were archived for months/years. I always use data that was refreshed the evening before a caching day, worst case is Friday evening data for Saturday AND Sunday. Caches that are perfectly OK normally are not "suddenly" archived either, although it might happen occasionally.

[+WarNinjas]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

I am not interested in visiting the same place again but a "community" may not care, if there is any possibility to earn a find. Have you thought, that geocachers will retire and to newcomers every cache is a new one.

I am with you and very impressed that you have not archived a cache! We felt the same way.  We didn't archive a cache we placed for the first 5 years. (Well one on accident and then had it published again) That one always bothered me and I asked a reviewer if there was something I could do to not have it on our profile. I hated to look at someones hides and see that there were many archived.  Kind of felt like there wasn't much planning put into it.

 Then after the 5 year mark I started noticing that there were fewer new caches being placed in the area.   I have many friends who like to go find new caches and I do as well.  I have decided to go ahead and start archiving some as I feel it is needed.  Not that I have seen many putting hides near where I archived them but the place is now open for them to do so.  I am not going to archive any of my favorite ones but if it is not one of our first hides or one that is favorited a lot I am thinking of archiving them.  

Again your way of not archiving them is awesome but just something I am starting to do now.

 

Edit: WOW!  Looking threw your favorite points you shouldn't archive any of your hides.  Well done! I need to take a trip to Finland!

Edited January 23, 2018 by WarNinjas

[+NYPaddleCacher]

14 hours ago, arisoft said:

I haven't archived caches for this kind of reasons. Couple of my caches were exploded,

Whoa.  When I found one of yours near Helsinki airport I had no idea I was putting my life at risk.

[+bflentje]

20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It was very responsible of you to save the trackable and remove the geolitter. Good example of helping the integrity of the game, when a cache owner doesn't.

Out of curiousity, would you have searched for it if you were only able to log a Note? 

In this case, yes, since it was my trackable. ;-)

[+J Grouchy]

20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It was very responsible of you to save the trackable and remove the geolitter. Good example of helping the integrity of the game, when a cache owner doesn't.

Out of curiousity, would you have searched for it if you were only able to log a Note? 

This morning I did just that.  I'd already found the cache and noticed it had been archived.  I drive by there all the time, so today I stopped to check and, sure enough, it was still there (despite a string of four DNFs).  I grabbed the cache and sent the CO an email offering to get it to him...but no telling if he'll want it back.  It was a very clever hide for an ammo can in an urban area, so if he doesn't respond, I plan to put it to good use!  Since I'd already found it, I posted a Note to the cache page explaining.  We shall see...