CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.

[+justintim1999]

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I disagree with nearly everything you're saying here. If people don't have fun searching for caches even though they sometimes find a stinky slimy mess, they should be playing a different game. Bad caches can happen with the best of COs doing a wonderful job of maintenance. This extreme posture that we seem to have adopted of pretending there's a way for geocachers to never experience a bad cache is just silly. In fact, I think this attitude is the biggest thing sucking the fun out of geocaching. It takes the whole process so seriously. I prefer the game as it was before GS starting holding our hands so we never have a bad experience. And I'm saying that from the seeker's point of view. It's just all the more obvious to me when I consider the point nivaD makes about so many of these ideas trying to make it more fun for seekers by explicitly making it less fun for hiders.

 

11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

What's obvious to me Is that we should ensure anyone deriving fun from the knowledge that they responsible for people finding a stinky, slimy mess should be weeded out and sent packing.

I have a hard time believing people hide caches with the intention of purposely letting them rot?   They're may be a few sick individuals out there like that but I think most cache owners start out with good intentions.   To me it's more like cleaning up after your kids.   "Clean up after yourself"  is not a concept a 3 year old understands well.  So you try different ways to get them to do it.   Rewards.  punishments.  Sometimes it's just a constant dose of nagging that gets the job done.    The key is to start early so you're not cleaning up messes when they're 21   

[+frostengel]

57 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I have a hard time believing people hide caches with the intention of purposely letting them rot?

 

No, but sometimes there are owners who put out big trails and forget that they have to maintain then. Or they think that the community will do the maintenance for them, for example change full logbooks and put out another container if the old one is missing.

But even if someone puts a new logbook in they rarely take the old one out - and a little later you only have a big thing made of paper in the little box. :-(

 

And therefore there may be people who hide a cache with the intention never to visit the place again - which is often true for vacation hides, too....

[+fizzymagic]

On 9/13/2018 at 12:05 PM, frostengel said:

 

Is it really that bad in your area!? I trust most cachers not to do so. And if they replaced the container most would tell in the logs...

I always thought we Germans were known for cheating but it seems it is not too bad here. :-)

 

You need to understand that the cacher to whom you are replying (and which is a sock puppet account with no hides) always assumes the worst about both hiders and finders, and spends an inordinate amount of time seeking out and then complaining about caches that don't meet their exacting specifications.   A look at their previous forum posts will be most enlightening.

 

What I see here is a split between a group that wants a guaranteed find of a cache in pristine condition, no matter what the cost in needlessly archived caches and hostile actions toward cache owners, and a group that wants to treat cache owners with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt, and to preserve caches, even at the cost of sometimes less-than pristine cache condition.

 

The former group behaves in what an entitled manner; believing that cache owners owe them a guaranteed find and pristine condition; the latter group behaves in a grateful manner, appreciating the fact that cache owners hide and maintain their caches at no cost to anyone but themselves.

 

I am as quick as anyone to report that a cache needs maintenance if I arrive at GZ and there is a problem.  What I do not like is an automated algorithm deciding that a cache with no identified problems needs maintenance and the accompanying automatic process that leads to archival unless the cache owner jumps through the mandated hoops.

 

I do not like the parental, disrespectful tone of the automated letters that are generated by the CHS and the subsequent requirement for the CO to prove their innocence under threat of having their cache archived.  I have tried, without success, to get Groundspeak to change the letter to be more adult and respectful in its tone.   But nothing has changed.

 

I am talking to more and more cachers who view HQ as an adversary, which I think is doing the activity great harm.  IMO, the recommendations of those who advocate for even harsher measures would only make the problem worse.

[+humboldt flier]

57 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

 

 

What I see here is a split between a group that wants a guaranteed find of a cache in pristine condition, no matter what the cost in needlessly archived caches and hostile actions toward cache owners, and a group that wants to treat cache owners with respect and give them the benefit of the doubt, and to preserve caches, even at the cost of sometimes less-than pristine cache condition.

 

The former group behaves in what an entitled manner; believing that cache owners owe them a guaranteed find and pristine condition; the latter group behaves in a grateful manner, appreciating the fact that cache owners hide and maintain their caches at no cost to anyone but themselves.

 

I do not like the parental, disrespectful tone of the automated letters that are generated by the CHS and the subsequent requirement for the CO to prove their innocence under threat of having their cache archived.  I have tried, without success, to get Groundspeak to change the letter to be more adult and respectful in its tone.   But nothing has changed.

 

I am talking to more and more cachers who view HQ as an adversary, which I think is doing the activity great harm.  IMO, the recommendations of those who advocate for even harsher measures would only make the problem worse.

Well stated

[+humboldt flier]

59 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

 

 

I am talking to more and more cachers who view HQ as an adversary, which I think is doing the activity great harm.  IMO, the recommendations of those who advocate for even harsher measures would only make the problem worse.

 

I have heard those sentiments as well

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

the accompanying automatic process that leads to archival unless the cache owner jumps through the mandated hoops

 

No automated process leads to archival -- without human action (which by definition is no longer automated).

[+humboldt flier]

Found this in a response to another topic and it relates to the subject at hand.   

 

In that it speaks to the issues which have evolved relative to the "cook book" options within the current system.

 

As follows:

    ">>It also allows you to log a real "Needs Maintenance log" from the field. Instead of the pre-generated "This cacher has reported a problem with this cache." line. I can go in and write an actual USEFUL log such as:

 

"This cache container has been found by a local scavenger; claw marks have pierced the container, log is saturated with water and mold is growing inside. This cache needs some TLC by the CO immediately." <<"

 

•  

[+dprovan]

23 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

No automated process leads to archival -- without human action (which by definition is no longer automated).

You're confusing "leads to archival" with "archives". This thread is about the automated CHS letter resulting in the CO archiving the cache. Yes, the CO archiving the cache was not an automated process, but, nevertheless, it is correct to say that the automated process led to the the CO archiving the cache.

 

Although I'd actually argue that the automated process does, in fact, archive the cache in that the cache is flagged and a reviewer will take action if nothing happens. That sounds entirely automatic to me, and I don't consider it less automatic because the reviewer could take a careful look and realize that the automated process made a mistake and abort it.

[+dprovan]

On 9/14/2018 at 2:02 PM, fizzymagic said:

I am talking to more and more cachers who view HQ as an adversary, which I think is doing the activity great harm. 

I'm more concerned about the fact that the CHS forces reviewers into the role of adversary.

[+frostengel]

32 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm more concerned about the fact that the CHS forces reviewers into the role of adversary.

 

Everyone who knows the system shouldn't think of reviewers as adversary. They are only doing their job and in fact I wouldn't want to do it. ;-)

But perhaps some cachers just need a bogeyman for what they do wrong themselves!?

 

I rarely see a forced archiving by a volunteer where it is not the owner's fault. Of course there are other examples but in most of the cases.... And I don't think the CHS does change anything here...

[+humboldt flier]

I may be wrong here, however, it is my feeling that much of the problems begin in the "APP based end of the activity".

 

Newer folks not fully understanding the "limited option sets" presented during their logging attempts.

 

Limited option sets might have inadvertently set up a "hair trigger" chain of events.

 

DISTRESSINGLY ... I do not believe that I have seen a representative from the "Lilly Pad" show their faces to address what many see as an area that is problematic and in need of some adjustment.

 

HUGGGGZZZZZ TO ALL, Cache On.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Although I'd actually argue that the automated process does, in fact, archive the cache in that the cache is flagged and a reviewer will take action if nothing happens. That sounds entirely automatic to me, and I don't consider it less automatic because the reviewer could take a careful look and realize that the automated process made a mistake and abort it.

 

If it gets archived because the reviewer took action, then a human archived the cache which, barring misjudgment by the reviewer, was due to be archived. Nothing wrong there.

 

1 hour ago, frostengel said:

I rarely see a forced archiving by a volunteer where it is not the owner's fault. Of course there are other examples but in most of the cases.... And I don't think the CHS does change anything here...

 

Yep. If it gets to a reviewer and everything ends up A-ok by their judgment (or was always A-ok other than the email), no archival happens.

 

The ONLY situation that leads to archival is if there IS a problem with the cache, or the cache owner.

The issue is not that the CHS leads to the potential archival of a cache, but that the CHS can speed the process which may otherwise take a very long time, if at all - and some people don't like that.

 

ETA: Which is, again, not to say that I think the CHS is flawless, or that the wording of the email should not be re-addressed. I've said as much in the numerous threads about the CHS.

Edited September 15, 2018 by thebruce0

[+justintim1999]

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 4:07 PM, frostengel said:

 

No, but sometimes there are owners who put out big trails and forget that they have to maintain then. Or they think that the community will do the maintenance for them, for example change full logbooks and put out another container if the old one is missing.

But even if someone puts a new logbook in they rarely take the old one out - and a little later you only have a big thing made of paper in the little box. :-(

 

And therefore there may be people who hide a cache with the intention never to visit the place again - which is often true for vacation hides, too....

I'm sure some people hide caches with the intent of never maintaining them.   I'm also sure that some new cachers don't realize the time required in being a cache owner.   I believe that most are willing to put in the time and effort.    I have no problems with power trails as long as there's a plan of maintenance.   There can be 5 or 6 people checking and fixing caches as long as there is one person who is accountable.    Most vacation caches are not allowed unless you can prove to the reviewer you're able to maintain them properly.  

 

I did a sample of 100 caches that I've found that are now archived.   70 of them were archived by the owner.   30 of them were archived by a reviewer.    Of the 70 almost 90% were owned by cachers with over 1000 finds.    Of the 30 about 60% were owned by cachers with fewer than 100 finds and another 30% with less than 300. 

 

IMO 70% owner archival is pretty good.   Problem is that 70% of those were owned by 5 individuals who are all considered good experienced cache owners who have been around for some time.    

 

Maybe part of the problem here is experience and longevity which indicates to me that being a cache owner shouldn't be automatic.    I admit that this approach isn't a recipe for growing the game but I believe it would be a winning formula for better maintained caches.   

[+justintim1999]

On ‎9‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 6:33 PM, frostengel said:

 

Everyone who knows the system shouldn't think of reviewers as adversary. They are only doing their job and in fact I wouldn't want to do it. ;-)

But perhaps some cachers just need a bogeyman for what they do wrong themselves!?

 

I rarely see a forced archiving by a volunteer where it is not the owner's fault. Of course there are other examples but in most of the cases.... And I don't think the CHS does change anything here...

I agree and would add that we've been told that using the CHS is not mandatory.   Reviewers can choose to use it or not.  

Edited September 17, 2018 by justintim1999

[+frostengel]

18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

being a cache owner shouldn't be automatic.

 

Hi Justin,

 

can you explain what that means? Perhaps it is a language problem but I cannot get the context between ownership and automatism.

Thanks - and thanks for the statistics. I find 30 percent of "bad archival" a little to high (should be zero...) - but the rest is how you would expect it.

 

Jochen

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 9/15/2018 at 5:55 PM, dprovan said:

I'm more concerned about the fact that the CHS forces reviewers into the role of adversary.

 

Reviewers are always going to be in an adversarial role because people hate getting told "no." It's their job to deny cache placements, require permission, ask CO's for maintenance under threat of archival. That's always going to rub some people the wrong way even if the reviewers were all perfect and experts in customer service. But they're human (or dogs), volunteers, and many of them probably have no background in customer service. A sizeable minority will always perceive them as an adversary to overcome (just like the police).

[+justintim1999]

2 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

Hi Justin,

 

can you explain what that means? Perhaps it is a language problem but I cannot get the context between ownership and automatism.

Thanks - and thanks for the statistics. I find 30 percent of "bad archival" a little to high (should be zero...) - but the rest is how you would expect it.

 

Jochen

If we come up with a system that only allows more experienced caches to become cache owners we could potentially eliminate many of the issues the CHS was designed to monitor and in the process allow reviewers to work on more productive things.   Seems most of the issues revolving around unmaintained caches that require reviewer intervention are caused by inexperienced cachers that are allowed to become cache owners before they even know if they intend to stick around.   

 

Case in point.   Someone found one of my caches in a series this past weekend.   I read the logs.   Here is an excerpt of the log.  "Blog wasn't fortunately wet and all I had was a pencil, so it didn't really write."    I take this as the logs wet and the pencil didn't write well on it.    Keep in mind that this was in the log of a find.    Point is I'm in this for the long haul and cache maintenance is important to me.   Even thought there is no reason for me to check up on this cache as no DNF or NM was posted I'll probably do so any way because I want to make sure the next finder isn't trying to sign a wet log.    Now I'm fanatical and I don't expect every cache owner to be as fanatical as I am.   I do think that many who try Geocaching get hooked fast and want to become a cache owner before they're really ready to be one. 

[+justintim1999]

5 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Reviewers are always going to be in an adversarial role because people hate getting told "no." It's their job to deny cache placements, require permission, ask CO's for maintenance under threat of archival. That's always going to rub some people the wrong way even if the reviewers were all perfect and experts in customer service. But they're human (or dogs), volunteers, and many of them probably have no background in customer service. A sizeable minority will always perceive them as an adversary to overcome (just like the police).

Why should a reviewer (or anybody)  be seen as an adversary for requiring someone to do what they agreed to do in the first place?    Seems like people also don't like being asked to uphold their end of the deal.     I can give the noobie a pass because in some cases they've bitten off more than they can chew but for the seasoned cache owner there's no excuse baring injury or illness.   If a cache owner dose all the work to get a cache properly placed.  Maintains it and picks up the container when they archive it,  the only time they'll see their reviewers name is when the cache was published.       

[+frostengel]

18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If we come up with a system that only allows more experienced caches to become cache owners we could potentially eliminate many of the issues the CHS was designed to monitor and in the process allow reviewers to work on more productive things.

 

Ah, now I understand. Thank you.

 

I often heard "There should be a rule that you must have found xxx caches before you may hide your own ones." (xxx varying from 100 upto 1,000 and more!) which I do not agree with. If someone (person A) found many caches in a team but didn't log them himself he may be the perfect hider; and if I find 1,000 caches of any trail and try to hide a multi cache afterwards that might go terribly wrong.

So it cannot be only about the numbers and it shouldn't be a strict rule but I agree with you that considering this (and giving an automatic warning by the website?) could prove helpful with the discussed problems.

 

Perhaps the website should automatically check the numbers of found caches of the type you're going to hide. And then - if you haven't found enough - it just gives a warning and asks you if you have understood the guidelines and what it really means to place such a cache type ("Don't forget the maintenance and...."). The number shouldn't be too high, but especially for multi caches and mysteries it should be higher than for traditionals - e. g. you should have found at least 20 multi caches to place an own one without getting the warning but in any case you should be allowed to do (person A for instance).

 

When you want to hide a new cache while an old one is deactivated or has the "needs maintenance" attribute you get a warning, too. I think this is a good start and the upcoming warning would be similar to that what I imagine...

 

Nice point, Justin, thank you!

[+justintim1999]

4 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

Ah, now I understand. Thank you.

 

I often heard "There should be a rule that you must have found xxx caches before you may hide your own ones." (xxx varying from 100 upto 1,000 and more!) which I do not agree with. If someone (person A) found many caches in a team but didn't log them himself he may be the perfect hider; and if I find 1,000 caches of any trail and try to hide a multi cache afterwards that might go terribly wrong.

So it cannot be only about the numbers and it shouldn't be a strict rule but I agree with you that considering this (and giving an automatic warning by the website?) could prove helpful with the discussed problems.

 

Perhaps the website should automatically check the numbers of found caches of the type you're going to hide. And then - if you haven't found enough - it just gives a warning and asks you if you have understood the guidelines and what it really means to place such a cache type ("Don't forget the maintenance and...."). The number shouldn't be too high, but especially for multi caches and mysteries it should be higher than for traditionals - e. g. you should have found at least 20 multi caches to place an own one without getting the warning but in any case you should be allowed to do (person A for instance).

 

When you want to hide a new cache while an old one is deactivated or has the "needs maintenance" attribute you get a warning, too. I think this is a good start and the upcoming warning would be similar to that what I imagine...

 

Nice point, Justin, thank you!

It's just a thought.    I think the invention of the app introduced many people to Geocaching and many of them started hiding caches at an alarming rate.   It defiantly increased the number of caches out there. it also increased the number of abandoned caches when many who were initially into geocaching moved on.  

[+frostengel]

4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's just a thought.    I think the invention of the app introduced many people to Geocaching and many of them started hiding caches at an alarming rate.   It defiantly increased the number of caches out there. it also increased the number of abandoned caches when many who were initially into geocaching moved on.  

 

Agreed and thumbs up!

All these "app things" seem to speed up anything... Smartphones make life easier - but not always better...

[+justintim1999]

5 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

Agreed and thumbs up!

All these "app things" seem to speed up anything... Smartphones make life easier - but not always better...

I'm sure the app has also added a bunch of great finders and hiders to the game too.   I like the idea of the app because I think it should be easy for everyone to

give finding a cache a try. 

[+L0ne.R]

13 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's just a thought.    I think the invention of the app introduced many people to Geocaching and many of them started hiding caches at an alarming rate.   It definitely increased the number of caches out there. it also increased the number of abandoned caches when many who were initially into geocaching moved on.  

 

The app was definitely a factor. Then there was the biggest factor, removing the Power Trail (don't hide a cache every .1 miles) guideline.

It gave tacit permission to hide more caches then a cache owner can manage and also implied that community maintenance is sanctioned. 

[+justintim1999]

12 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

The app was definitely a factor. Then there was the biggest factor, removing the Power Trail (don't hide a cache every .1 miles) guideline.

It gave tacit permission to hide more caches then a cache owner can manage and also implied that community maintenance is sanctioned. 

I agree but I think having an experience/longevity requirement on placing caches would help solve this problem.   I'd hope most experienced cachers would understand what they were getting into placing a power trail series.     We had a series of 62 caches that you were required to find to gather the info for a puzzle cache.  Those 62 were split up and hidden by 6 different people.   These were placed by experienced cachers who understood that maintaining a series like this couldn't reasonably be done by one person.     Sometimes it's necessary to place restrictions on things to keep good intentioned people from inadvertently going wild.        

[+L0ne.R]

25 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I agree but I think having an experience/longevity requirement on placing caches would help solve this problem.   I'd hope most experienced cachers would understand what they were getting into placing a power trail series.     We had a series of 62 caches that you were required to find to gather the info for a puzzle cache.  Those 62 were split up and hidden by 6 different people.   These were placed by experienced cachers who understood that maintaining a series like this couldn't reasonably be done by one person.     Sometimes it's necessary to place restrictions on things to keep good intentioned people from inadvertently going wild.        

 

You are lucky. Good culture in your area. 

[+thebruce0]

The problem is, for comething like a concept, like powertrail caches, rules rules and rules won't stop people finding ways around them. That's what happened, and eventually rather than having to subjectively judge whether someone had an "agenda" to create a powertrail without it breaking the rules of the powertrail, they just said 'ok here's the minimum ruleset, call it what you want' - and that's the .1mile proximity rule. Intent or purpose can't be accurately judged.  Add more rules and people will just find a way around them.  Again, it's not HQ's fault - it's the general community's overwhelming desire to push the limit of the rules in place. That's why we have "powertrails".  And that has nothign to do with smartphones. Most high-numbers powertrail-loving cachers I know in Ontario are long-career handheld GPS users. And I'm not kidding.

[+L0ne.R]

1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

Add more rules and people will just find a way around them.  Again, it's not HQ's fault - it's the general community's overwhelming desire to push the limit of the rules in place. That's why we have "powertrails".  And that has nothign to do with smartphones. Most high-numbers powertrail-loving cachers I know in Ontario are long-career handheld GPS users. And I'm not kidding.

 

I agree. This is the Ontario culture and style. 

 

I do blame HQ a little for opening the PT floodgates, then ignoring the consequences. 

[+frostengel]

Blaming powertrails - haven't you done them yourselves!? If we all would ignore them.... ;-)

I think it is - also! - a community problem, not only the HQ and the PT owners...

 

By the way there is a ~60 caches PT in this area (okay, it is about 60 kilometres away from here...) which I never wanted to do and refused to go there for years. But then we wanted to go search for some hidden creatures and suddenly I remembered these caches....

 

In fact it was a fun day but talking about Powertrails I do not throw the first stone. ;-)

 

Jochen

[+dprovan]

On 9/15/2018 at 3:33 PM, frostengel said:

Everyone who knows the system shouldn't think of reviewers as adversary. They are only doing their job and in fact I wouldn't want to do it. ;-)

Absolutely, that's the point. That's why I don't like this shift from the old approach, where fellow caches proposed when a cache should be archived and an impartial reviewer then ruled on the proposal, to the new approach where the reviewers end up being the bad guys making unilateral decisions with no first hand knowledge of the cache at all. That makes them adversaries whether you like it or not, and I agree with you that they shouldn't be.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Reviewers are always going to be in an adversarial role because people hate getting told "no." It's their job to deny cache placements, require permission, ask CO's for maintenance under threat of archival. That's always going to rub some people the wrong way even if the reviewers were all perfect and experts in customer service. But they're human (or dogs), volunteers, and many of them probably have no background in customer service. A sizeable minority will always perceive them as an adversary to overcome (just like the police).

Right, that's exactly the point. Reviewers have to work extra hard to always appear impartial. It's hard enough with the actual reviewing process, but they have specific rules to point to, so their rulings always seem reasonable to most people even as a CO here or there complains. Add to their job the task of declaring a cache bad and eliminating it unilaterally based on a secret numerical formula, and their job changes from the occasionally maligned saint to an active agent of punishment. I have no doubt they're all still saints, but it gets easier and easier for people less enlightened than you or I to start to see them as agents of the police state.

 

It might be worth the effort if it actually accomplished anything, but I'm seeing about as many problems as I ever did, which is no surprise because not even a rigid quality enforcement effort can stop stuff from happening.

[+niraD]

On 9/15/2018 at 2:55 PM, dprovan said:

I'm more concerned about the fact that the CHS forces reviewers into the role of adversary.

Yeah, once upon a time I heard the role of the volunteer reviewers described as helping cache owners getting their caches published.

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Yeah, once upon a time I heard the role of the volunteer reviewers described as helping cache owners getting their caches published.

 

Maybe that is all it should be.

 

Database management and the potential adversarial role go to a separate individual.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

5 hours ago, frostengel said:

 

Ah, now I understand. Thank you.

 

I often heard "There should be a rule that you must have found xxx caches before you may hide your own ones." (xxx varying from 100 upto 1,000 and more!) which I do not agree with. If someone (person A) found many caches in a team but didn't log them himself he may be the perfect hider; and if I find 1,000 caches of any trail and try to hide a multi cache afterwards that might go terribly wrong.

So it cannot be only about the numbers and it shouldn't be a strict rule but I agree with you that considering this (and giving an automatic warning by the website?) could prove helpful with the discussed problems.

 

Perhaps the website should automatically check the numbers of found caches of the type you're going to hide. And then - if you haven't found enough - it just gives a warning and asks you if you have understood the guidelines and what it really means to place such a cache type ("Don't forget the maintenance and...."). The number shouldn't be too high, but especially for multi caches and mysteries it should be higher than for traditionals - e. g. you should have found at least 20 multi caches to place an own one without getting the warning but in any case you should be allowed to do (person A for instance).

 

When you want to hide a new cache while an old one is deactivated or has the "needs maintenance" attribute you get a warning, too. I think this is a good start and the upcoming warning would be similar to that what I imagine...

 

Nice point, Justin, thank you!

 

The suggestion for a minimum number of finds has been made many times and there are usually a few responses that will be posted about how it's just a bad idea.

 

Even with a low number as a minimum it would effectively curtail the placement of new caches in many places which currently have very few caches.   There are 248 "official" countries in the GS list of countries.  Only 96 of them have more than 100 caches in the entire country.   So, while it would be relatively easy to accrue enough finds in an area that was already saturated, in cache sparse areas in would be much more difficult and severely limit the growth in places that need it the most.  

 

Total number of finds is often not an accurate indicator of experience.   Just out out and hit a power trail and one can easily get a '100 find minimum', but, more often than not each of those 100 finds is hidden in an identical manner, using the same type of container, and from one CO.  If the CO has used cheap containers that all leak, that's the experience the new caches is going to take away.

 

One can gain a lot more experience with just 20 finds, if  caches are found in different areas, with different COs, different hiding styles, and different containers.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

Yeah, once upon a time I heard the role of the volunteer reviewers described as helping cache owners getting their caches published.

 

That's what I thought.   That means that should someone submit a cache listing which has guideline issues, the reviewer might initially say "no", but will then try to help resolve those issues so that the cache can be published.  

[+frostengel]

6 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Even with a low number as a minimum it would effectively curtail the placement of new caches in many places which currently have very few caches. 

 

Have you read my post? That's why it shouldn't be a hard rule but you could get a "warning" by the website.

 

6 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Total number of finds is often not an accurate indicator of experience.   Just out out and hit a power trail and one can easily get a '100 find minimum'

 

I said the same, didn't I? ;-)

[+MNTA]

3 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

The suggestion for a minimum number of finds has been made many times and there are usually a few responses that will be posted about how it's just a bad idea.

 

Even with a low number as a minimum it would effectively curtail the placement of new caches in many places which currently have very few caches.   There are 248 "official" countries in the GS list of countries.  Only 96 of them have more than 100 caches in the entire country.   So, while it would be relatively easy to accrue enough finds in an area that was already saturated, in cache sparse areas in would be much more difficult and severely limit the growth in places that need it the most.  

 

Total number of finds is often not an accurate indicator of experience.   Just out out and hit a power trail and one can easily get a '100 find minimum', but, more often than not each of those 100 finds is hidden in an identical manner, using the same type of container, and from one CO.  If the CO has used cheap containers that all leak, that's the experience the new caches is going to take away.

 

One can gain a lot more experience with just 20 finds, if  caches are found in different areas, with different COs, different hiding styles, and different containers.

 

 

Regional difference do exist as it has been discussed many times.  Then I would request a lot more hand holding by the reviewers for first time hiders in general, and more so for new cachers.

 

One new cache in my area was clearly in back yard of a house. Another the coordinates were completely off. Both were archived without finds. Maybe confirming the cross streets or park name. It seems that when a new cache is published and I don't recognize them the first thing I do is check how many caches they have. If a low number I'll skip them for a few weeks let others get it straightened out. 

[+L0ne.R]

42 minutes ago, niraD said:

Yeah, once upon a time I heard the role of the volunteer reviewers described as helping cache owners getting their caches published.

 

The reviewer system at GC is their ‘secret sauce’. The site would probably be as popular as the other North American (I don’t know much about the popularity of other non-NA sites) geocaching sites, if it weren’t for the many roles of reviewers. Helping COs get their caches published is one important reviewer  role that keeps the site working and as popular as it is. 

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

It's just a thought.    I think the invention of the app introduced many people to Geocaching and many of them started hiding caches at an alarming rate.   It defiantly increased the number of caches out there. it also increased the number of abandoned caches when many who were initially into geocaching moved on.  

 

That's not true everywhere. I started caching in 2013 and didn't even have a smartphone then, let alone a caching app. Most of the cachers here were using Garmins of varying vintages. Here are the number of new caches hidden in my area (the New South Wales Central Coast, an area of about 600 square kilometres with a muggle population of just over 300,000):

• 2013 - 124 new caches
• 2014 - 171 new caches
• 2015 - 152 new caches
• 2016 - 78 new caches
• 2017 - 61 new caches
• 2018 - 32 new caches (excluding the geoart caches for the mega in April)

The most recent new caches were in hidden in July; there've been none in August or September.

 

I don't see any great explosion of caches hidden by newbies with apps, quite the reverse actually, the game is in steep decline here. The last thing this region needs is new restrictions making it harder for people to hide caches, or to prune those existing caches that are still quite servicable even if they get a few DNFs or have an outstanding NM.

 

Newbies hiding caches that perhaps don't last as well as they might is all part of the game, and part of the learning curve. COs losing interest or moving away is also part of the game. Finding worn-out caches, or not finding missing ones, happens from time to time and can be dealt with using NMs and NAs. Expecting every cache to last twenty years with its CO visiting it every few months will just result in very few caches to find.

 

As for archivals, the raw numbers don't tell the whole story. I've archived four of my hides, but does that make me a bad CO? The area where I hid my first cache went from a well-cared-for reserve to something of a garbage dump over its two year life then a tree fell right on top of the hide, making it untenable. The second to go was washed away in big seas, making me think it was probably a poor location. Number three was repeatedly muggled, so I archived it and created a new one with the same theme a few hundred metres away in more secluded bushland. The fourth to go was in a sea cave and was buried under a rockfall; I archived it out of safety concerns. All part of the learning curve for me and hopefully the lessons learnt from those four have made me a better CO.

[+cerberus1]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 I've archived four of my hides, but does that make me a bad CO?

 

Wow... I hope not.   I don't see in the help center where caches you've archived (without a Reviewer's "push") are negatives in the chs.

Many of ours were archived (by us)  for safety concerns.

Reasons are explained on all.

[+justintim1999]

24 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

That's not true everywhere. I started caching in 2013 and didn't even have a smartphone then, let alone a caching app. Most of the cachers here were using Garmins of varying vintages. Here are the number of new caches hidden in my area (the New South Wales Central Coast, an area of about 600 square kilometres with a muggle population of just over 300,000):

• 2013 - 124 new caches
• 2014 - 171 new caches
• 2015 - 152 new caches
• 2016 - 78 new caches
• 2017 - 61 new caches
• 2018 - 32 new caches (excluding the geoart caches for the mega in April)

The most recent new caches were in hidden in July; there've been none in August or September.

 

I don't see any great explosion of caches hidden by newbies with apps, quite the reverse actually, the game is in steep decline here. The last thing this region needs is new restrictions making it harder for people to hide caches, or to prune those existing caches that are still quite servicable even if they get a few DNFs or have an outstanding NM.

 

Newbies hiding caches that perhaps don't last as well as they might is all part of the game, and part of the learning curve. COs losing interest or moving away is also part of the game. Finding worn-out caches, or not finding missing ones, happens from time to time and can be dealt with using NMs and NAs. Expecting every cache to last twenty years with its CO visiting it every few months will just result in very few caches to find.

 

As for archivals, the raw numbers don't tell the whole story. I've archived four of my hides, but does that make me a bad CO? The area where I hid my first cache went from a well-cared-for reserve to something of a garbage dump over its two year life then a tree fell right on top of the hide, making it untenable. The second to go was washed away in big seas, making me think it was probably a poor location. Number three was repeatedly muggled, so I archived it and created a new one with the same theme a few hundred metres away in more secluded bushland. The fourth to go was in a sea cave and was buried under a rockfall; I archived it out of safety concerns. All part of the learning curve for me and hopefully the lessons learnt from those four have made me a better CO.

I don't think you can deny that overall the app introduced more people to geocaching than otherwise wouldn't have tried it.    

 

All caches should archived by the owner.  That's part of the deal and a sign of a good owner.      

 

Can anyone tell me when the App was released?

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Once again, there's no pruning of caches just for whatever reason, let alone because of an automated scoring system. If caches are being archived by human reviewers (or their COs), it means they've been judged as either having broken rules, having an inactive owner, or prompted to be archived legitimately for some reason by someone or the owner. That's not the CHS. That's not an automated system. That's a decline in cache quality and maintenance for whatever reason that may be. If caches used to be archived a lot less frequently in the past that's either because A] cache quality was higher and so the listings lasted longer without issue, or B] community judgment of caches that should be archived by NA logs was a lot more lax than it is now (and arguably of lesser quality but people felt that was "ok", ie a lower standard).  Either way, IF caches in various regions are being archived faster, and presuming it's because they have legitimately earned the archival (by the CO or a reviewer), it's because of the state of the geocaching community.

 

If anyone thinks caches are being wrongfully archived, that needs to be taken up with HQ and the reviewers.  A cache being brought to a reviewer's attention and being judged for archival isn't itself a wrongful archive, it's just faster than it would have been. And if it is wrongful, it can be reversed by appealing.

[+L0ne.R]

46 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Wow... I hope not.   I don't see in the help center where caches you've archived (without a Reviewer's "push") are negatives in the chs.

Many of ours were archived (by us)  for safety concerns.

Reasons are explained on all.

 

Same here.
All together I've hidden over 60 hides in 15+ years but on average I had 15 hides active per year. For me, that's enough to do regular maintenance without it feeling like a chore. Most of our caches stayed active for 5 years. At the 5 year mark, when we felt maintaining the cache was getting boring and even irksome, it was time to archive, open up the area, and try something new. Seemed to please the local finders too. Turn around (after a decent few years) can refresh an area. Often people would hide some very good caches (pre-2010, not so much now) in the spots we opened, which gave me the opportunity to go find something new. 

[+Isonzo Karst]

19 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Can anyone tell me when the App was released?

Caching from Smartphones by app dates from around 2008-09. Geocaching.com's own app release was a tad later than others. But I'd guess 2009?  

[+barefootjeff]

42 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Once again, there's no pruning of caches just for whatever reason, let alone because of an automated scoring system. If caches are being archived by human reviewers (or their COs), it means they've been judged as either having broken rules, having an inactive owner, or prompted to be archived legitimately for some reason by someone or the owner. That's not the CHS. That's not an automated system. That's a decline in cache quality and maintenance for whatever reason that may be. If caches used to be archived a lot less frequently in the past that's either because A] cache quality was higher and so the listings lasted longer without issue, or B] community judgment of caches that should be archived by NA logs was a lot more lax than it is now (and arguably of lesser quality but people felt that was "ok", ie a lower standard).  Either way, IF caches in various regions are being archived faster, and presuming it's because they have legitimately earned the archival (by the CO or a reviewer), it's because of the state of the geocaching community.

 

If anyone thinks caches are being wrongfully archived, that needs to be taken up with HQ and the reviewers.  A cache being brought to a reviewer's attention and being judged for archival isn't itself a wrongful archive, it's just faster than it would have been. And if it is wrongful, it can be reversed by appealing.

 

Take a look at GC18F90. Okay, it hasn't been archived yet but soon will be, as the reviewer proactively disabled it a few weeks back, presumably because of some outstanding NMs, and the owner is no longer active. But I found that cache in August and it was still quite servicable, okay maybe the log was a bit tattered and the container had lost its lid, but it was tucked up inside a guard rail where it was partly protected from the weather and I had no trouble signing the log. Sure, it's not a great cache in its present state and eventually would have decayed to the point where it had to go, but in the condition it was when I found it, it could easily have limped along for a few more years yet and still been a fun hide. But no, it had to go, so that's one less cache for people to find in an area with increasingly fewer caches.

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

That's not true everywhere. I started caching in 2013 and didn't even have a smartphone then, let alone a caching app. Most of the cachers here were using Garmins of varying vintages. Here are the number of new caches hidden in my area (the New South Wales Central Coast, an area of about 600 square kilometres with a muggle population of just over 300,000):

• 2013 - 124 new caches
• 2014 - 171 new caches
• 2015 - 152 new caches
• 2016 - 78 new caches
• 2017 - 61 new caches
• 2018 - 32 new caches (excluding the geoart caches for the mega in April)

The most recent new caches were in hidden in July; there've been none in August or September.

 

I don't see any great explosion of caches hidden by newbies with apps, quite the reverse actually, the game is in steep decline here. The last thing this region needs is new restrictions making it harder for people to hide caches, or to prune those existing caches that are still quite servicable even if they get a few DNFs or have an outstanding NM.

 

Newbies hiding caches that perhaps don't last as well as they might is all part of the game, and part of the learning curve. COs losing interest or moving away is also part of the game. Finding worn-out caches, or not finding missing ones, happens from time to time and can be dealt with using NMs and NAs. Expecting every cache to last twenty years with its CO visiting it every few months will just result in very few caches to find.

 

As for archivals, the raw numbers don't tell the whole story. I've archived four of my hides, but does that make me a bad CO? The area where I hid my first cache went from a well-cared-for reserve to something of a garbage dump over its two year life then a tree fell right on top of the hide, making it untenable. The second to go was washed away in big seas, making me think it was probably a poor location. Number three was repeatedly muggled, so I archived it and created a new one with the same theme a few hundred metres away in more secluded bushland. The fourth to go was in a sea cave and was buried under a rockfall; I archived it out of safety concerns. All part of the learning curve for me and hopefully the lessons learnt from those four have made me a better CO.

 

Sounds like this is an opportunity for you and other locals to get together and place more caches. Possible create an event to plan and share the activities and costs.It is pretty obvious to me that for things to continue volunteer effort on the part of everyone is needed to keep this going all over the place.

 

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

okay maybe the log was a bit tattered and the container had lost its lid

 

[+MNTA]

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Take a look at GC18F90. Okay, it hasn't been archived yet but soon will be, as the reviewer proactively disabled it a few weeks back, presumably because of some outstanding NMs, and the owner is no longer active. But I found that cache in August and it was still quite servicable, okay maybe the log was a bit tattered and the container had lost its lid, but it was tucked up inside a guard rail where it was partly protected from the weather and I had no trouble signing the log. Sure, it's not a great cache in its present state and eventually would have decayed to the point where it had to go, but in the condition it was when I found it, it could easily have limped along for a few more years yet and still been a fun hide. But no, it had to go, so that's one less cache for people to find in an area with increasingly fewer caches.

Your problem here is this is an abandoned cache and someone filed a NM log. Albeit lame one wet logs are par for the coarse here as well. 

 

So by the rules as written this is correct I wish our reviewers would follow this guys lead. Can't tell you how many caches I've been too with a open NM and many many DNFs for far worse problems.

 

Watch the cache and then when it gets archived go repurpose the container and provide a new log. Viola your local cachers now have a new cache to find. Everyone is happy.

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

Sounds like this is an opportunity for you and other locals to get together and place more caches. Possible create an event to plan and share the activities and costs.It is pretty obvious to me that for things to continue volunteer effort on the part of everyone is needed to keep this going all over the place.

 

 

 

 

I've hidden three new caches this year and hosted an event, so I reckon I'm doing my bit. One of my hides, placed back in February, only had two finds in the first few weeks of its life and none since, and my most recent one hidden in July has also only had two finds, so there's not much incentive for being a CO around here. There just aren't many active cachers any more - I could just about count them all on one hand.

[+MNTA]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I've hidden three new caches this year and hosted an event, so I reckon I'm doing my bit. One of my hides, placed back in February, only had two finds in the first few weeks of its life and none since, and my most recent one hidden in July has also only had two finds, so there's not much incentive for being a CO around here. There just aren't many active cachers any more - I could just about count them all on one hand.

 

Maybe try more PNG type caches like the GRC you referenced yours are all higher T finds. Some days I want a quick fix others I go for a multi-hour hike, all varies with the time I have and more importantly the weather. Winter time hike needs to be less than an hour incase it starts pouring down rain on me.  

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Your problem here is this is an abandoned cache and someone filed a NM log. Albeit lame one wet logs are par for the coarse here as well. 

 

So by the rules as written this is correct I wish our reviewers would follow this guys lead. Can't tell you how many caches I've been too with a open NM and many many DNFs for far worse problems.

 

Watch the cache and then when it gets archived go repurpose the container and provide a new log. Viola your local cachers now have a new cache to find. Everyone is happy.

 

Yes, its an abandoned cache with outstanding NMs, but the point is it's still quite servicable and didn't need to go. The area's not exactly saturated with caches:

 

 

It's about an hour's drive from home, in an area with high muggle density and, well, it's a guard rail micro, so no, I'm not going to repurpose it or hide a replacement there. If I was to hide such a cache it'd want to be a lot closer to home.