Jump to content

Can CO have too many caches?


Followers 6

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If a trail is saturated with 300 cut-n-paste cache with no room for any others the geocacher that prefers to find caches which demonstrate a smidgen of creativity can't enjoy geocaching on that trail unless they hold their nose and find the PT caches.  How is that not affecting them?

The trail had no caches on it before the power trail. After the PT, it has no caches that geocacher prefers. How is that affecting them? Well, it clogs up their PQs, but nothing beyond that. The trail was just as useless to them as geocachers either way.

5 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

When power trails didn't exist what was the norm be for geocache hides? An ammo can in the woods.

What is the norm with power trails? Urban micros with no purpose but boosting numbers.

Correlation does not prove causation. I think it's clear that power trails and urban micros are both caused by the same shift that moved geocaching from the back country into the mainstream. I wasn't caching before power trails existed, but I'd guess there are two orders of magnitude more caches in my area today then there were back then, and I don't think any of them are in what could be considered a power trail. So if power trails led to that result, I guess I'm for them. And someday, I might get around to trying one.

Link to comment

Power trails have definitely curbed my enthusiasm for the game. I haven't quit completely but I know several cachers who have.

I visit several parts of the country frequently and it is discouraging to see the increase in green slime trails on the maps every time I plan a trip. Sometimes I just shut down my computer and then MAYBE I'll fire up the iphone app for a couple of random caches when I get to the area.

Also, I don't try to introduce anyone to the game anymore because I find the maps embarrassing. 

Another point, (and I admit this is vain and superficial) I don't want to be associated with that image. I don't want people who know about geocaching via powertrails  to think I'm part of  THAT game.

This condition ABSOLUTELY is the fault of HQ. At one time they prohibited powertrails and they could do it again if they wanted to. I'm afraid the truth is the game has changed and I am no longer part of the target demographic.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I think it's clear that power trails and urban micros are both caused by the same shift that moved geocaching from the back country into the mainstream.

I'm not so sure. Urban micros were around when I started. Many of my early finds were urban and suburban micros. They're often the only containers that will survive in an urban/suburban environment.

But for years after that, Groundspeak tried to block numbers run trails. But despite the objective criteria they and the volunteer reviewers tried to enforce, the geocachers who wanted numbers run trails were creating them anyway. Eventually, Groundspeak gave in and gave "us" what "we" wanted.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, hukilaulau said:

Power trails have definitely curbed my enthusiasm for the game. I haven't quit completely but I know several cachers who have.

I visit several parts of the country frequently and it is discouraging to see the increase in green slime trails on the maps every time I plan a trip. Sometimes I just shut down my computer and then MAYBE I'll fire up the iphone app for a couple of random caches when I get to the area.

Also, I don't try to introduce anyone to the game anymore because I find the maps embarrassing. 

Another point, (and I admit this is vain and superficial) I don't want to be associated with that image. I don't want people who know about geocaching via powertrails  to think I'm part of  THAT game.

This condition ABSOLUTELY is the fault of HQ. At one time they prohibited powertrails and they could do it again if they wanted to. I'm afraid the truth is the game has changed and I am no longer part of the target demographic.

This is exactly how I feel.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, hukilaulau said:

Power trails have definitely curbed my enthusiasm for the game. I haven't quit completely but I know several cachers who have.

I visit several parts of the country frequently and it is discouraging to see the increase in green slime trails on the maps every time I plan a trip. Sometimes I just shut down my computer and then MAYBE I'll fire up the iphone app for a couple of random caches when I get to the area.

Also, I don't try to introduce anyone to the game anymore because I find the maps embarrassing. 

Another point, (and I admit this is vain and superficial) I don't want to be associated with that image. I don't want people who know about geocaching via powertrails  to think I'm part of  THAT game.

This condition ABSOLUTELY is the fault of HQ. At one time they prohibited powertrails and they could do it again if they wanted to. I'm afraid the truth is the game has changed and I am no longer part of the target demographic.

Agree 101% on everything you stated.

 

Quote

Groundspeak gave in and gave "us" what "we" wanted.

Groundspeak gave in and gave some of us, what some of us wanted. And i figure some of those are wondering why the heck they wanted it in the first place. :P

Edited by Mudfrog
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, niraD said:

But for years after that, Groundspeak tried to block numbers run trails. But despite the objective criteria they and the volunteer reviewers tried to enforce, the geocachers who wanted numbers run trails were creating them anyway. Eventually, Groundspeak gave in and gave "us" what "we" wanted.

I don't recall discussions in the forums asking Groundspeak to get rid of the power trail clause. If there were any it was minor compared to all the "What the heck has happened to geocaching?!" discussions we now see which all trace back to the power trail ethic that has resulted. 

And Groundspeak didn't just open that gate a little, allowing limited power trails, they just swung those floodgates wide open.

And how has it made reviewers lives easier? Is it better to wake up to 200+ caches that need reviewing on at least a monthly basis. And the growing amount of archiving they have to do for all those caches that have adopted the set-em-and-forget-em ethic of PT style play?

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, hukilaulau said:

At one time they prohibited powertrails and they could do it again if they wanted to.

Okay, I'll bite. What objective criteria could be used to prohibit the numbers run trails?

Keep in mind that numbers run trails were being placed even when the guidelines included the "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" language.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, niraD said:

Keep in mind that numbers run trails were being placed even when the guidelines included the "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" language.

Examples?

And how big were they? 10 along a trail, maybe 200 meters apart? With different owners?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

They can apply the same criteria that they did pre-2010.

Yeah, that worked well...

15 minutes ago, niraD said:

Keep in mind that numbers run trails were being placed even when the guidelines included the "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" language.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't mean to sound naïve but I've never seen or witnessed the type of backlash your describing.  Why someone (whos'  clearly in the wrong) would attack a cache owner for deleting a log is beyond me.   I can see questioning why it was deleted and asking to have it re-instated but to verbally attack the cache owner over a find.....Mind boggling.

Some people can't peacefully disagree with another person. They fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. Some of them are geocachers.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, niraD said:
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

I think it's clear that power trails and urban micros are both caused by the same shift that moved geocaching from the back country into the mainstream.

I'm not so sure. Urban micros were around when I started. Many of my early finds were urban and suburban micros. They're often the only containers that will survive in an urban/suburban environment.

I stand corrected. I was echoing "urban micros" from a previous response which I took to be suggesting that urban micros have come to dominate the game because powertrails are allowed. I don't think the implication was that urban micros didn't exist back in the beginning, although most of the people moaning about the changes in geocaching make it sound like back before powertrails, when they still liked geocaching, all caches were ammo cans at least a mile into the woods.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I'll assume your reviewer is a straight shooter so is the problem more of a lack or fear of posting the correct logs by your local geocaching community?

 

It's more like our reviewer is a slacker or there is no such thing as a health score. Stacks of DNF's piling up over a span of two years. I believe that better management on the reviewer level would help. I've recently flagged NM and NA on a few listings but the reviewer must be too busy to be bothered. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't mean to sound naïve but I've never seen or witnessed the type of backlash your describing.  Why someone (whos'  clearly in the wrong) would attack a cache owner for deleting a log is beyond me.   I can see questioning why it was deleted and asking to have it re-instated but to verbally attack the cache owner over a find.....Mind boggling.

I have - for years.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I have - for years.

I believe you although I wish I didn't.   There are always people who just don't get it and would choose to foster resentment over something as trivial as a smiley.   My advice to everyone is don't hesitate to report people like this to Groundspeak.   There's no room in this game (or anywhere)  for this type of behavior. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Cacheism 500 said:

In the UK we have power trails but not that many and those that exist serve as a challenge to complete them in (say) a day.

 

  Some cachers like them, others wont. Horses for courses.

Yes, I agree. There doesn't seem to be quite the antipathy towards power trails in the UK, though there aren't that many. One of the larger trails, the Essex Way, which covered 80-odd miles, was archived a couple of years back but it seemed most people who did the whole thing made a point of doing it in a week or so and camping along the way. 

Link to comment

My guess is this CO is putting a lot of work into trying to make caching fun for others. I bet they are not thinking they are annoying anyone. I wish more people were putting out new caches in my area. If they are putting out more then they can handle in time it will correct itself. I am sure it will take longer, if people start dropping off throw downs but eventually it will happen.

Link to comment
On 2/22/2018 at 2:43 PM, L0ne.R said:

I don't recall discussions in the forums asking Groundspeak to get rid of the power trail clause. If there were any it was minor compared to all the "What the heck has happened to geocaching?!" discussions we now see which all trace back to the power trail ethic that has resulted. 

And Groundspeak didn't just open that gate a little, allowing limited power trails, they just swung those floodgates wide open.

And how has it made reviewers lives easier? Is it better to wake up to 200+ caches that need reviewing on at least a monthly basis. And the growing amount of archiving they have to do for all those caches that have adopted the set-em-and-forget-em ethic of PT style play?

I never even thought of it from a reviewers standpoint. At a minimum it has to make them rethink volunteering their time.

Link to comment
On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 2:43 PM, L0ne.R said:

And how has it made reviewers lives easier? Is it better to wake up to 200+ caches that need reviewing on at least a monthly basis. And the growing amount of archiving they have to do for all those caches that have adopted the set-em-and-forget-em ethic of PT style play?

I'd like to think that the site does learn from "better mistakes", and might not be thrilled on relaxing "placing every 600' because you can".  The site did act with Reviewers on COs pushing limits with challenges. I believe if an ongoing problem for Reviewers, "power trails" might eventually see the same.

Most Reviewer notes we see are pretty much the same.  For the few "power trails" in existence, a cut n paste archive note may not be that big a deal, as I don't believe entire series archiving by a Reviewer happens as often as some imply.

Link to comment
On 2/22/2018 at 2:43 PM, L0ne.R said:

I don't recall discussions in the forums asking Groundspeak to get rid of the power trail clause. If there were any it was minor compared to all the "What the heck has happened to geocaching?!" discussions we now see which all trace back to the power trail ethic that has resulted. 

And Groundspeak didn't just open that gate a little, allowing limited power trails, they just swung those floodgates wide open.

And how has it made reviewers lives easier? Is it better to wake up to 200+ caches that need reviewing on at least a monthly basis. And the growing amount of archiving they have to do for all those caches that have adopted the set-em-and-forget-em ethic of PT style play?

 

5 hours ago, Davros Von Skaro said:

I never even thought of it from a reviewers standpoint. At a minimum it has to make them rethink volunteering their time.

As a reviewer, it's actually easier to review and publish 200 caches today than it was to push back on them ten years ago.  While L0ne.R may not remember complaints in these forums about the former restrictions on power trails, I do - because some of those complaints were quite strong, and were targeted against me personally.

With "power cachers" complaining about being restricted in placing power trails, and reviewers being upset about the personal attacks against us for enforcing the "don't hide caches every 600 feet just because you can" principle, it's no surprise why Geocaching HQ gave in and relaxed the guidelines.  The most vocal in the community got what they asked for.

Since that time, HQ has made many improvements behind the scenes so that the reviewers now have a toolset easily capable of handling the mass processing of cache reviews.  So long as I'm given lots of advance notice about the upcoming power trail, it doesn't bother me to review them.  The anger and hate ten years ago - that bothered me.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Keystone said:

While L0ne.R may not remember complaints in these forums about the former restrictions on power trails, I do - because some of those complaints were quite strong

Pre-2010 I tried to submit 6 caches along a trail, 160-200m apart and was told to turn it into a multi-cache. I remember being initially surprised, disappointed and miffed, but once I understood why, I understood the benefit to the pastime. Same went for having to post an OM. I was initially confused and miffed about having to use OM. Once it was explained to me I understood the value.

People are constantly trying to challenge the structure of the pastime, most often in the name of numbers-style play. It's unfortunate Groundspeak succumbed to anger, greed, and selfishness. Then worked on tools to make it easier and quicker to get power trails posted.

 

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

People are constantly trying to challenge the structure of the pastime, most often in the name of numbers-style play. It's unfortunate Groundspeak succumbed to anger, greed, and selfishness. Then worked on tools to make it easier and quicker to get power trails posted.

 

 

Locally it's set em' and forget em' and let the community maintain em'. I believe Groundspeak has made their volunteers aware that this is acceptable from what I'm seeing. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Pre-2010 I tried to submit 6 caches along a trail, 160-200m apart and was told to turn it into a multi-cache. I remember being initially surprised, disappointed and miffed, but once I understood why, I understood the benefit to the pastime. Same went for having to post an OM. I was initially confused and miffed about having to use OM. Once it was explained to me I understood the value.

People are constantly trying to challenge the structure of the pastime, most often in the name of numbers-style play. It's unfortunate Groundspeak succumbed to anger, greed, and selfishness. Then worked on tools to make it easier and quicker to get power trails posted.

It's good you responded the way you did.

But when there's effectively a mob mentality against the volunteers who help keep the wheels turning in this hobby, there almost is no choice lest you risk losing your volunteers. As he said, the loudest most vocal in the community got what they asked for. What needs to happen is an equally vocal community not hesitant to be known, be clear, and be respectful in pushing for change --or non-change.

These discussions are a dime a dozen in the forums. GS keeps getting the brunt of the cricitism for letting things some people don't like happen.  Remember GS is a business, and many of these changes have come from heavy, heavy criticism from one side of a debate.  They relented, as a business, to keep going - they didn't choose to do something that seems in spite of people who don't like it.  I don't imagine any of these significant changes to guidelines or spirit of geocaching come without a LOT of internal discussion and weighing of risks, benefits and drawbacks.

GS gets a bucket loads of undeserved flack. (which is not to say they are perfect - obviously, admittedly, they are not)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Locally it's set em' and forget em' and let the community maintain em'. I believe Groundspeak has made their volunteers aware that this is acceptable from what I'm seeing. 

This is a flawed belief, on a number of levels.  To the contrary, Geocaching HQ has established heightened expectations for reviewers to keep tabs on cache maintenance issues.  This includes an obligation to monitor caches flagged through the Health Score algorithm, and caches that have been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time.

As part of the heightened expectations, volunteers are empowered, with approval from HQ, to push back and tell a cache owner that their ability to publish new caches will be restricted until their maintenance behavior improves.  I've personally taken advantage of that option on three occasions and I know that other reviewers have done the same. 

In addition, HQ has supported volunteers when we've pushed back on power trails, or individual caches, where the owner's stated maintenance plan was to let the community take care of any maintenance needs.  This is not an acceptable cache maintenance plan.  HQ has also issued public guidance regarding "throwdown" caches.

So, per the topic of the thread, when there's a sense that a CO has "too many caches," there are now remedies available whereas five years ago, there really weren't. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Keystone said:

This is a flawed belief, on a number of levels.  To the contrary, Geocaching HQ has established heightened expectations for reviewers to keep tabs on cache maintenance issues.  This includes an obligation to monitor caches flagged through the Health Score algorithm, and caches that have been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time.

As part of the heightened expectations, volunteers are empowered, with approval from HQ, to push back and tell a cache owner that their ability to publish new caches will be restricted until their maintenance behavior improves.  I've personally taken advantage of that option on three occasions and I know that other reviewers have done the same. 

In addition, HQ has supported volunteers when we've pushed back on power trails, or individual caches, where the owner's stated maintenance plan was to let the community take care of any maintenance needs.  This is not an acceptable cache maintenance plan.  HQ has also issued public guidance regarding "throwdown" caches.

So, per the topic of the thread, when there's a sense that a CO has "too many caches," there are now remedies available whereas five years ago, there really weren't. 

I welcome you to look at my recent NM and NA logs. They tell me different.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Keystone said:

As part of the heightened expectations, volunteers are empowered, with approval from HQ, to push back and tell a cache owner that their ability to publish new caches will be restricted until their maintenance behavior improves.  I've personally taken advantage of that option on three occasions and I know that other reviewers have done the same.

How many times in total has this option been taken advantage of?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

23 hours ago, Keystone said:

As part of the heightened expectations, volunteers are empowered, with approval from HQ, to push back and tell a cache owner that their ability to publish new caches will be restricted until their maintenance behavior improves.  I've personally taken advantage of that option on three occasions and I know that other reviewers have done the same.

How many times in total has this option been taken advantage of?

 

I would like to know the numbers too. And how many “too many” owners properly check and fix their caches when told they can't hide more, or do they simply archive them without removal? Or wait until Bob leaves a pill bottle and gives the CO the thumbs up to enable? And how much anger and push back happens when cachers with too many set-em-and-forget-em caches are told they have to stop?

PT style play infiltrated the pastime and  has resulted in more and more tools to help reign in the set-em-and-forget-em results.  

Edited by L0ne.R
clarity
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 2/26/2018 at 1:28 PM, Keystone said:

This is a flawed belief, on a number of levels.  To the contrary, Geocaching HQ has established heightened expectations for reviewers to keep tabs on cache maintenance issues.  This includes an obligation to monitor caches flagged through the Health Score algorithm, and caches that have been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time.

As part of the heightened expectations, volunteers are empowered, with approval from HQ, to push back and tell a cache owner that their ability to publish new caches will be restricted until their maintenance behavior improves.  I've personally taken advantage of that option on three occasions and I know that other reviewers have done the same. 

In addition, HQ has supported volunteers when we've pushed back on power trails, or individual caches, where the owner's stated maintenance plan was to let the community take care of any maintenance needs.  This is not an acceptable cache maintenance plan.  HQ has also issued public guidance regarding "throwdown" caches.

So, per the topic of the thread, when there's a sense that a CO has "too many caches," there are now remedies available whereas five years ago, there really weren't. 

This is interesting. It would be encouraging if I weren't so cynical. Recently I considered starting a thread asking if this was STILL an acceptable maintenance plan, as I have seen examples of this within the past two years or so in CT, TX, NV and NM. Has the original PT cancer that started this whole thing been archived yet? I haven't looked at it in awhile. Maybe I'll start posting NA notes on strings where the perpetrator has explicitly stated that they are not going to maintain their caches. I'll report back! Maybe the rank and file does have a way of clawing back and getting rid of some of this stuff. Like working together to clear a wetlands or river basin of invasive species! Could be fun...

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, hukilaulau said:

This is interesting. It would be encouraging if I weren't so cynical. Recently I considered starting a thread asking if this was STILL an acceptable maintenance plan, as I have seen examples of this within the past two years or so in CT, TX, NV and NM. Has the original PT cancer that started this whole thing been archived yet? I haven't looked at it in awhile. Maybe I'll start posting NA notes on strings where the perpetrator has explicitly stated that they are not going to maintain their caches. I'll report back! Maybe the rank and file does have a way of clawing back and getting rid of some of this stuff. Like working together to clear a wetlands or river basin of invasive species! Could be fun...

 

Now that spring is here I have been active geocaching and dared posting NA and NM on a few caches that the owners are not caring for which resulted in a PM to me from the local reviewer scolding me. I've came to expect this from cache owners that respond to nothing but an NA posted to their listings, but the local reviewer? :mad:

I'm just tired of seeing stacks of DNF's and NM on caches in my area that need a clean up. Most of the community here will just add a log or container and post that in their found log.

So good luck with your venture, I'll be interested in reading your report. B)

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Now that spring is here I have been active geocaching and dared posting NA and NM on a few caches that the owners are not caring for which resulted in a PM to me from the local reviewer scolding me. I've came to expect this from cache owners that respond to nothing but an NA posted to their listings, but the local reviewer? :mad:

Seriously? :o

Did said reviewer explain why they felt justified in scolding you?

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Seriously? :o

Did said reviewer explain why they felt justified in scolding you?

 

They asked by posting a reviewer note on a cache page that I posted NA on what the problem was and I responded there to the reviewer note that it was holding water and we needed help from a reviewer on flagged listings and less players that only add paper to the pile of mush. The reviewer said I was slamming him in a public forum. I don't see it that way.

 

Edited by Manville Possum
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

They asked by posting a reviewer note on a cache page that I posted NA on what the problem was and I responded there to the reviewer note that it was holding water and we needed help from a reviewer on flagged listings and less players that only add paper to the pile of mush. The reviewer said I was slamming him in a public forum. I don't see it that way.

 

Well, you are in a public forum now, so thanks for removing any doubt. <_<

After your recent posts, I checked to see if there were any unanswered "Needs Archived" requests from your account.  Every one of them had been actioned.  Submitting a Needs Archived log is not a guarantee that the underlying cache will be archived.  Sometimes a reviewer puts that cache on a bookmark list and checks again a month later.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Well, you are in a public forum now, so thanks for removing any doubt. <_<

After your recent posts, I checked to see if there were any unanswered "Needs Archived" requests from your account.  Every one of them had been actioned.  Submitting a Needs Archived log is not a guarantee that the underlying cache will be archived.  Sometimes a reviewer puts that cache on a bookmark list and checks again a month later.

 

I posted NM and better coordinates on that listing a few months ago, and I'm just not willing to maintain it for a player that is no longer active. I fail to see where I'm wrong in doing so.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Seriously? :o

Did said reviewer explain why they felt justified in scolding you?

 

They asked by posting a reviewer note on a cache page that I posted NA on what the problem was and I responded there to the reviewer note that it was holding water and we needed help from a reviewer on flagged listings and less players that only add paper to the pile of mush. The reviewer said I was slamming him in a public forum. I don't see it that way.

I can't help wondering why, if the reviewer considered your response in a public forum somehow out of order they asked the question in a public forum in the first place?

Can't help thinking it was an opportunity missed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

They asked by posting a reviewer note on a cache page that I posted NA on what the problem was and I responded there to the reviewer note that it was holding water and we needed help from a reviewer on flagged listings and less players that only add paper to the pile of mush. The reviewer said I was slamming him in a public forum. I don't see it that way.

It sounds to me that you didn't understand what was going on. Without seeing the exchange, I don't know what's going on, either, but if the reviewer had to ask what was wrong after you posted your NA, then you should start with discussing privately with the reviewer how your NA could have been more complete. Well, I'm betting you were using the new user interface, so your actual NA was just the modern canned NA, and the reviewer was having trouble figuring out what the problem was based on the Found or DNF log, but all the more reason to talk it over with him.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

I can't help wondering why, if the reviewer considered your response in a public forum somehow out of order they asked the question in a public forum in the first place?

Can't help thinking it was an opportunity missed.

I don't understand it myself, but because I flagged the cache NM a few months ago and corrected the coordinates for other players that posted problems with it being waterlogged in their logs that the reviewer note was addressed to me after posting NA so I responded to it there on the cache page

. I'll send you a PM of the GC code if you would like.

Edited by Manville Possum
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

I don't understand it myself, but because I flagged the cache NM a few months ago and corrected the coordinates for other players that posted problems with it being waterlogged in their logs that the reviewer note was addressed to me after posting NA so I responded to it there on the cache page

. I'll send you a PM of the GC code if you would like.

By all means :)

Can't quite understand why dprovan thinks the appropriate way to respond to a question in public forum is a private communication.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

By all means :)

Can't quite understand why dprovan thinks the appropriate way to respond to a question in public forum is a private communication.

 

Sorry, but they are on my ignore list and I won't respond to them, but did now that you mention it go back and take a look. They are wrong about my canned response via the app.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3GJH0_m-e-c-c-2

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

By all means :)

Can't quite understand why dprovan thinks the appropriate way to respond to a question in public forum is a private communication.

I thought Manville Possum said it was a PM, meaning Private Message. And, regardless, if I posted an NA and someone responded "Why do you think it needs archived?", I'd want to take the issue off line whether the question was asked publicly or not since it's already obvious my public declaration of NA was flawed.

Link to comment
On 2/26/2018 at 1:28 PM, Keystone said:

This is a flawed belief, on a number of levels.  To the contrary, Geocaching HQ has established heightened expectations for reviewers to keep tabs on cache maintenance issues.  This includes an obligation to monitor caches flagged through the Health Score algorithm, and caches that have been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time.

As part of the heightened expectations, volunteers are empowered, with approval from HQ, to push back and tell a cache owner that their ability to publish new caches will be restricted until their maintenance behavior improves.  I've personally taken advantage of that option on three occasions and I know that other reviewers have done the same. 

In addition, HQ has supported volunteers when we've pushed back on power trails, or individual caches, where the owner's stated maintenance plan was to let the community take care of any maintenance needs.  This is not an acceptable cache maintenance plan.  HQ has also issued public guidance regarding "throwdown" caches.

So, per the topic of the thread, when there's a sense that a CO has "too many caches," there are now remedies available whereas five years ago, there really weren't. 

Does make me wonder what GS actually does expect.  Working on a C&D series.  Most are throwdowns.  The CO does not seem to have done any maintenance.  A lot of the caches have DNFs.  Yet the series survives?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, dprovan said:
11 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

By all means :)

Can't quite understand why dprovan thinks the appropriate way to respond to a question in public forum is a private communication.

I thought Manville Possum said it was a PM, meaning Private Message. And, regardless, if I posted an NA and someone responded "Why do you think it needs archived?", I'd want to take the issue off line whether the question was asked publicly or not since it's already obvious my public declaration of NA was flawed.

We all make mistakes.

Still not seeing the point of taking this dialogue offline - it's not like the information is a state secret.

Taking it offline would be another missed opportunity to educate.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Sorry, but they are on my ignore list and I won't respond to them, but did now that you mention it go back and take a look. They are wrong about my canned response via the app.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3GJH0_m-e-c-c-2

I had a look at that last night and couldn't see any reason why the reviewer would get bent out of shape - maybe they just had a bad day - we all have those.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I had a look at that last night and couldn't see any reason why the reviewer would get bent out of shape - maybe they just had a bad day - we all have those.

 

It seems I have a bad day every time I post logs accordingly here locally. I posted NM on one cache with no finds in four years, which most likely was one of those little nano tubes pushed into the ground, the result was the owner posted: Archived!. Another listing with DNF's piling up over two years I posted NM, the result was the CO posted armchair maintenance that they would check it. These are experienced geocachers that own 300 + listings.

Many of the logs on some of the hiking caches which are micros in the woods have those canned copy/paste logs from group cachers that replace the missing ones along the trail as needed.

Another geocachers listing I flagged responded by archiving the caches and posted that they are physically unable to maintain their caches.

I understand what having a bad day is. If the reviewer had communicated to me and asked what's going on with the cache you posted NA on, I could have explained in detail, but they chose to ask on the cache page then got upset when I responded there. I was already having a bad day because I posted logs accordingly and did not give in to following the pattern of add a log or container.

I feel it's my fault as a veteran geocacher that placed and maintained high quality History caches that when this game degraded into PT's or so called geoart that it's just not the same game that attracted me 10 years ago. It's time that I move on and not let it bother me, it's just a game and it changed into something I don't enjoy anymore because I'm a solo cacher that don't play it for the numbers.

This game can't function properly without reviewers and players that will post DNF, NM, and NA accordingly. And truthfully, I don't see the same pattern in other areas. I see reviewers temp disable listings with several DNF's, but maybe players contact them by PM with the GC code to avoid what I encounter by posting NM or NA.

 

Link to comment

Another reason for taking it offline is to avoid the listing becoming a place for discussion. Technically, it was probably not best for the reviewer to ask another geocacher a loaded question in a reviewer note, but rather if anything post a RN saying either archival won't happen, or it's being considered, and then privately contact MP for more detail about why. Posting "Why?" publicly begs for a followup non-CO post to the log listory directed to answer the reviewer question, and should be obvious that the tone would be prompting a potentially downward spiral of controversy in the wrong place.  Or it's sort of like a teacher catching a student doing something out of place and halting the class to ask them publicly why they did it. Sure it could be a learning point, but in this context, I don't think it was the reviewer's best option.  But, reviewers do what they do with the authority they were given, so maybe that option was weighed and found wanting. *shrug*

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I have to say our local reviewer is pretty good. We have to log NM and give the CO a month to respond. If they don't then we can log it NA. Our reviewer then gives them another month to fix and reactivate. Very quick to. Never waited more than 2 days for response from reviewer whether I placed a cache or logged NA. Funny thing, I went through the process about a year ago with one cache. Finally got a message from the CO yesterday saying they hadn't checked on their cache in a while and that it was likely gone. I had about 9 caches archived last year because the CO never responded to NM or even to the reviewer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

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...
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...