Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
coachstahly

New Groundspeak policy?

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

Who cares the what the T rating of the plastic box is if you had a good time on your boat? If that plastic box was the excuse you needed to ride your boat that day, isn’t that the relevant aspect of the cache to you? Not what that cache might represent to a number-chaser.

It's not just number chasers. It's people who want to use difficulty and terrain ratings to communicate with those who might seek their caches. It's people who want to use attributes to communicate with those who might seek their caches.

 

For reference:

Ratings for difficulty and terrain (D/T)
Getting Started with Geocaching > Attributes

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This area probably has more of a shortfall in P&Gs than it does bushland adventure caches. This is all that's available on the peninsula to a basic member using the app:

 

image.png.2ec19264174706a4447104ece5c92b29.png

 

 

 

For comparison, these are all the terrain 2.5 and higher caches in the same area:

 

image.png.f3d0dd24abdda3381850040d40f292eb.png

 

It's a much more interesting place to cache if you're prepared to do a bit of walking away from the roads, but most of those caches don't get found very often.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

It's a much more interesting place to cache if you're prepared to do a bit of walking away from the roads, but most of those caches don't get found very often.

 

In the context of this thread, the longest unfound time of those terrain 2.5+ caches is over a year and a half (last found in May 2018), with ten having no finds at all last year (or this). Any thought of reviewers targeting caches that simply haven't been found in over a year would be worrying.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, niraD said:

It's not just number chasers. It's people who want to use difficulty and terrain ratings to communicate with those who might seek their caches. It's people who want to use attributes to communicate with those who might seek their caches.

I know what D and T ratings mean and what attributes are available. I know P&G is a common nickname for a specific type of cache. But as you might see if you read your own links it’s just that, an unofficial nickname. And I’m trying to point out that it’s not a very good nickname for people who do not like to park and grab. It makes CYOA caches sound unappealing, like you’d have to cache in a way you dislike to find them, when the reality is just the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Keystone said:

You correctly used the "Owner Maintenance" log type, to which the algorithm gives great credit.  That cache's health score is now the equivalent of getting an A+ on a test.

Had you used the "Write Note" log type, the algorithm would not recognize that as the basis for improving the health score.

 

Then it almost seems as though the New Policy is not that lonely caches are archived, more that Cache Owners are to go inspect their caches regularly.  Almost. B)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

But as you might see if you read your own links it’s just that, an unofficial nickname. And I’m trying to point out that it’s not a very good nickname for people who do not like to park and grab.

 

Actually it's not an unofficial nickname, there's an attribute officially called Park and Grab which looks like this:

 

parkngrab-yes.png

 

A cache with that attribute set is officially a P&G cache. But it doesn't mean you have to park a motor vehicle next to it, just like the Takes less than an hour attribute doesn't mean you can't dilly-dally along the way or take the scenic route and spend more than an hour getting to it. Attributes like this one are a guide, not a restriction. It means it's just an easy cache to get to and find if you're in a hurry and that's all you want from a cache.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

As barefootjeff indicated, the P&G attribute is a description of the cache, not a restriction on those who seek the cache.

 

2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

It makes CYOA caches sound unappealing, like you’d have to cache in a way you dislike to find them, when the reality is just the opposite.

 

And now you've completely lost me. What does a CYOA challenge have to do with using the P&G attribute for P&G caches?

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

here's an attribute officially called Park and Grab which looks like this:

Ok, I did forget that existed. But you know, I checked some of the caches from the first picture you posted and most don't even have that attribute. So why go out of your way to call them P&G if P&G is an official attribute that those caches don't have and P&G caching isn't something you care for? Why not just take those caches as they are and find a way to have fun with them?

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Attributes like this one are a guide, not a restriction.

 

17 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

It makes CYOA caches sound unappealing, like you’d have to cache in a way you dislike to find them

 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, niraD said:

What does a CYOA challenge have to do with using the P&G attribute for P&G caches?

I'm fairly sure I have never in my life used the words "CYOA challenge", and this is the first time I've seen them written. Googling didn't reveal much either, something about crafts? Anyway, I used CYOA after spelling it out in 2 of my 3 previous posts in this thread. Did you actually read those posts you responded to? Try to understand what I'm saying? Try to have a discussion instead of explain things to me?

 

I'll quote the most relevant sentence from my very first post:

 

"So from now on, I choose to think of simple trads as Choose Your Own Adventure caches instead."

 

Why are you responding to me with links to guidelines? What do the guidelines have to do with me trying to be positive about caches that don't have built in appeal?

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, kunarion said:

Then it almost seems as though the New Policy is not that lonely caches are archived, more that Cache Owners are to go inspect their caches regularly.  Almost. B)

Indeed. One might wonder, though, about the way that New Policy is enforced. There are caches going on 10+ years without a find or maintenance...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Your issue seems to be with the nature of attributes in general. The P&G attribute is as much a required aspect of the cache as "Short Hike", or "Scenic View", or "Dangerous Animals", or "Stealth Required", or... No attribute is required (other than Wheelchair Accessible for T1's), and no attribute identifies a required method of cache retrieval.

 

But, attributes do (or are intended) to indicate the intended experience in arriving at and/or retrieving the cache container.  A cache may have no attributes added, and a cache may have false attributes added (though one would be justified, in reporting false attributes as they can be misleading).

Park & Grab does not mean you must park your vehicle nearby and grab the cache quickly. But it is an indicator of the CO's intended experience. It is possible to park and grab it quickly; it's an easy find.  Someone who doesn't have a vehicle is not required to park a vehicle - it would be best for them to understand what the attribute implies about the cache finding experience. I knew what P&G for the many many years I was geocaching and didn't have a car. Why on earth would I complain? Heck for many of those I biked across the city to get to it. Should it have had a ">10km bike ride" attribute? :P  But I knew that on arrival, it would be near parking, and be a relatively quick find (if I was lucky or observant).

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

I'm fairly sure I have never in my life used the words "CYOA challenge", and this is the first time I've seen them written.

I did a search for "CYOA geocaching" and the top results were CYOA challenge caches. I assumed that was what you were referring to.

 

2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

I'll quote the most relevant sentence from my very first post:

 

"So from now on, I choose to think of simple trads as Choose Your Own Adventure caches instead."

Yep. Clear as mud. I honestly have no idea what you mean by "Choose Your Own Adventure caches".

 

To me, the phrase refers to the game books I read as a kid, where you read a page, choose an option and go to the associated page, and repeat. You don't read the whole book; you read just a fraction of it, based on the choices you made.

 

But you don't seem to be saying that one should choose to do some caches and not others. And I don't see how calling a P&G cache a P&G cache relates to any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, niraD said:

 I honestly have no idea what you mean by "Choose Your Own Adventure caches".

 

This post  sorta explains it I guess.   "CYOA" sounded (to me) to simply be against the term "park & grabs", claiming the term isn't accurate....    :rolleyes:

We call simple hides like that a "cache n dash".  

 

We did go for a "choose your own adventure" cache once, about 70 miles SW.

Each container found had "options", so you could be lucky and get through to the final quick, or it could take all day.

 - Of course with my luck, we never completed it...   :D

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2020 at 4:45 PM, mustakorppi said:

I don’t care about cache’s popularity, I care about effectively promoting nice locations with geocaches...

 

So if you don't care about popularity, then why should an unpopular cache be "targeted" by a reviewer?  The location is there regardless but what you seem to be implying is that an easier cache, that will get visited more, will draw more cachers to the location than the currently placed, infrequently visited cache which is placed there to draw cachers to the location.  The number of increased visits to the location due to the easier cache seems to be the only difference in these two scenarios, yet that's exactly how you defined popularity.  It's not about the location; it's about the ease of the cache to get more people to visit the location.  It's about the +1. If the new cache is just as unpopular as the previous cache, then how can it be effectively promoting that nice location?  It boils down to the fact that popularity drives the number of visitors to a location you want a cache to highlight.  You seem to want more people to visit, not less.  If you don't care about the popularity of the cache, then your entire point is rendered invalid.  

 

Think about it this way.  A cache that was created to highlight a particular location isn't receiving frequent visitors.  Perhaps it's too hard or too challenging.  The reviewer contacts you to ask if you'd consider changing your cache to make the cache more enticing so that more visitors will see the location your current cache appears not to be doing.  It obviously can't be more challenging or you're stuck in the exact same situation so that means that it must mean the reviewer believes that it should be an easier cache.  An easier cache means more people are likely to come visit the cache and by default, visit the location.  If they know nothing about the location (which is somewhat common in my experience since I often find myself thanking COs for bringing me to a location of such interest), then that means the only thing that drew them in initially was the opportunity to claim an easy find, a +1.  That also means that they chose to ignore the previous cache that was there because it was too hard, too challenging, or a non-traditional instead of traditional cache. The location is not what's important to the finder; it's the cache and the easier find. The cache is what got them there while the location is an added bonus.

 

On 1/10/2020 at 4:45 PM, mustakorppi said:

The waterfall is more important than the preform.

 

One of the things that this topic addresses is the difference between what a finder is looking to do vs. what a CO is looking to do (and then also whether or not a reviewer should step in and offer up suggestions as to how to more effectively utilize the location).  The CO knows about the location so they believe it to be nice enough to bring someone there.  The finder, typically, knows very little to nothing about the location so the main draw is the cache, not the location.  The harder (or more different) the cache, the less likely the area will get visited by cachers.  That's the nature of geocaching, especially now, 20 years later, when the number of finds seems to be on the upswing while the overall experience seems to be on the downswing.  Why should a reviewer step in and offer up a suggestion to a CO about archiving/changing/creating their cache so the new one can enhance the location by being made easier and therefore getting more finds?  Since when is it their concern about the number of finds a cache has or how frequently a cache is found?  Why does that even matter to them other than from the aspect that it might be missing or need of a visit/health check?

 

More and more non-traditional and harder D/T caches are going longer between finds because a majority of cachers want easier finds and less "work" to be able to claim a find on a cache.  I am not going to "dumb down" my caches just because that's what it appears people want.  There are plenty of those out there to begin with and more being added daily.  Why do we need more just so "that caching could be better used for the location"?

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2020 at 4:45 PM, mustakorppi said:

You want to shield COs from anything that could be constituted as an attack on their creation, and by extension themselves, unless the CO forces the situation by ignoring guidelines and rules. I understand that consideration, and I know of COs that have flat out said they’d quit if they had to receive negative feedback (e.g. review score feature, or just negative logs).

 

That's not it at all.  I realize that my caches are for a smaller subset of geocachers and that sometimes someone who finds my caches doesn't like the experience and writes a negative log.  I'm fine with that.  My caches aren't for everyone and I realize that not every log I get will be complimentary.  I can't control whether or not they "like" my caches so it's not really an issue for me if someone really dislikes my cache, for whatever reason.

 

However, I'm not OK with the notion that it might be in caching's best interest to allow a reviewer to offer up a suggestion to a CO that their cache might be enjoyed better, visited more often,  found more frequently, or that it could make better use of the location simply because a cache isn't getting found regularly.  If they're going to interject their subjective opinions into this particular topic, then what's wrong with them interjecting their opinions into every other aspect that is subjective in nature about geocaching?

 

Power trails - they appear to cause quite a bit of angst here amongst the regular forum members.  Just because you can hide them, does it mean you should?  If they can encourage a CO to look at making a cache that is better for the location, then they can discourage COs from placing power trails and suggest that they do something else because it would be better for geocaching.

 

Containers - If the CO is using a pill bottle, then the reviewer should be able to comment that this isn't the best container to use and suggest a better container because that would be better for finders.

 

Puzzle caches - You're publishing a harder puzzle that's not going to get found very much and it's going to take up a location that might be better suited for some other type of cache.  Maybe you should reconsider because I believe finders deserve something that will better highlight the location and get found more often?

 

Multis - You're publishing a type of cache that doesn't get found very often and it has a lot of physical waypoints that are taking up lots of space and leaving almost no space for anyone else to put out any other type of cache.  Maybe you should reconsider?

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2020 at 4:45 PM, mustakorppi said:

I think that the reason for a reviewer to contact a CO isn’t really because a rule was broken, it’s because their cache is in such a state that the negative effect it has on the caching community overrides whatever enjoyment the CO might get from owning the cache.

 

The negative effect being that it's not found regularly - not that it's not maintained, not that it's missing, not that it's in violation of the guidelines.  That's not on the CO.  That's on the community who has chosen not to find it because that's not the type of cache they want to find.

 

Therefore, it's apparently OK for the reviewer to contact the CO and suggest they archive or change the cache so that the community won't ignore it any longer and come find it.  Make it something more like a cache that the community wants to find.  That often means making it an easier traditional cache.  That's exactly what we need more of.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2020 at 5:33 PM, The A-Team said:

Addressing your first paragraph, I'm not saying anything about what conditions are appropriate for a reviewer to step in. The conditions vary, so it's up to each reviewer's judgement to determine whether action needs to be taken or not.

 

Addressing your second paragraph, I think you're reading too much into the reviewer's log. Most reviewers use boilerplate logs for situations like this. Even though it only mentions the time period, that doesn't mean that this was the only factor that went into their decision to disable the cache. In all likelihood, there were many additional factors in play.

 

Additionally, I don't see any reason why a reviewer shouldn't be able to take appropriate action if the CHS hasn't reached the threshold for the automated notification. If the reviewers were prevented from doing so, we probably wouldn't need the reviewers at all. The reason we have them is to look at all of the available evidence (much of which the CHS can't process, such as the content of DNF logs, external factors like weather, etc.) and use their judgement.

 

I don't disagree with any of your points.  As it's written, it's a very crappy boilerplate log because the only thing mentioned in this log is the duration of time between finds.  The reviewer disabled this cache using this wording.  They didn't post a note saying that it might be in the CO's best interest to check on the cache because it hasn't been found in a long time.  They mandated, by disabling it, that the CO MUST do something in order to prevent this cache from being archived and the only reason provided is that it's a lonely cache. There's nothing about the notion that it might be due to more than just this one factor at play.  Tell me, in that same disable note, that there were other factors at play because this isn't something I can ignore and hope that it goes away (like a CHS email that I believe to be a false positive, which I can ignore if I wish).  I have to do something to prevent my cache from being archived and as it's written, the only reason I know, for a fact, that this cache was disabled was because it hadn't been found in over a year.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

If you don't care about the popularity of the cache, then your entire point is rendered invalid.  

I only care about the popularity of the cache as a means to an end. A power trail cache’s popularity is meaningless to the point I’m trying to make, because the power trail cache typically doesn’t serve the purpose of making people visit a nice location.

 

38 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

The location is not what's important to the finder; it's the cache and the easier find. The cache is what got them there while the location is an added bonus.

I mean, that is exactly what it means to use geocaching as a way to bring people to a location. Yes the finders get their +1 just like they wanted, but the CO also made them visit a location they otherwise wouldn’t have considered worth visiting. Isn’t that pretty much why some pay real money to Groundspeak for the priviledge of creating a Geotour?
 

Last spring I had a business trip to Belgium and I used the opportunity to do a 5 countries in 1 day challenge and grab some old caches while at it. https://coord.info/GC26C was one of those caches; I only drove there to get a find from 2001. Probably wouldn’t have even tried if it had been some puzzle written in German. Here’s my find log: https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=159bd64d-a4f8-414d-9a01-35d023e0d6fc (Please do a google image search for Elz castle for context; I have no words to describe what it looks live.)

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 I am not going to "dumb down" my caches just because that's what it appears people want.  There are plenty of those out there to begin with and more being added daily.  Why do we need more just so "that caching could be better used for the location"?

If the amount of dumbed down caches is a concern, I’m perfectly fine with archiving 100 power trail caches for each new simple cache in a great location. And again, I’m only even thinking about this at all when the location is particularly scenic, it’s completely blocked by a cache that hardly anyone visits, it’s near an active caching area, and there are no equivalent locations nearby (or they’re all similarly blocked).

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Therefore, it's apparently OK for the reviewer to contact the CO and suggest they archive or change the cache so that the community won't ignore it any longer and come find it.  Make it something more like a cache that the community wants to find.  That often means making it an easier traditional cache.  That's exactly what we need more of.

Well, is caching about participating in a community or is it about doing your own thing. Ideally it would both, no? If you only cared about what you want, why publish on geocaching.com at all.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

then they can discourage COs from placing power trails and suggest that they do something else because it would be better for geocaching.

Well, yeah wasn’t that in the guidelines before? Don’t place a cache everywhere just because you can or something like that? Or am I thinking of "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." That’s still there. 
 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

If the CO is using a pill bottle, then the reviewer should be able to comment that this isn't the best container to use and suggest a better container because that would be better for finders.

”The ideal container is waterproof.” ”Hide your cache to have a long life.” ”The logbook must be easy to sign.”

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

You're publishing a harder puzzle that's not going to get found very much and it's going to take up a location that might be better suited for some other type of cache.  Maybe you should reconsider because I believe finders deserve something that will better highlight the location and get found more often?

I have not suggested being proactive with this, but yeah, otherwise this is the same thing (assuming all the disclaimers I’ve put up apply).

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

Multis - You're publishing a type of cache that doesn't get found very often and it has a lot of physical waypoints that are taking up lots of space and leaving almost no space for anyone else to put out any other type of cache.  Maybe you should reconsider?

How is this supposed to be subjective? That kind of cache should be flat out refused.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

I'm fairly sure I have never in my life used the words "CYOA challenge", and this is the first time I've seen them written. Googling didn't reveal much either, something about crafts? Anyway, I used CYOA after spelling it out in 2 of my 3 previous posts in this thread. Did you actually read those posts you responded to? Try to understand what I'm saying? Try to have a discussion instead of explain things to me?

 

I'll quote the most relevant sentence from my very first post:

 

"So from now on, I choose to think of simple trads as Choose Your Own Adventure caches instead."

 

Why are you responding to me with links to guidelines? What do the guidelines have to do with me trying to be positive about caches that don't have built in appeal?

 

When I saw the acronym  I though it stood for "Cover Your Own A###", which might be what a throwdowner does to ensure they get a find.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, mustakorppi said:
On 1/13/2020 at 6:43 AM, barefootjeff said:

here's an attribute officially called Park and Grab which looks like this:

Ok, I did forget that existed. But you know, I checked some of the caches from the first picture you posted and most don't even have that attribute. So why go out of your way to call them P&G if P&G is an official attribute that those caches don't have and P&G caching isn't something you care for? Why not just take those caches as they are and find a way to have fun with them?

 

You make it sound like I use P&G as an insult. That's not true, it's just a quick (and commonly understood) way to describe a style of cache. I don't hate them, I've found lots of them particularly when travelling, some of my friends place them or even specialise in them, it's just that as a CO it's not the style of cache I'm interested in placing. I think the game is at its best when it has a broad spectrum of caches, not just to cater for everyone's tastes but to provide a variety of experiences to any individual cacher, and it's also at its best when each CO hides the style of cache they enjoy the most because that way we end up with the best caches of all types.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:
3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Multis - You're publishing a type of cache that doesn't get found very often and it has a lot of physical waypoints that are taking up lots of space and leaving almost no space for anyone else to put out any other type of cache.  Maybe you should reconsider?

How is this supposed to be subjective? That kind of cache should be flat out refused.

 

Why should it be refused? My multi in the gully at Patonga (GC664DZ), with its four physical waypoints plus final, takes up a lot of the space in the Patonga Wetlands Reserve and certainly precludes placing any other caches along that watercourse from where it emerges from the national park to where it enters Patonga Creek.

 

image.png.6b8983c0b0e6cbd17071f0a76a47f1ce.png

 

But the only other caches that have ever been in that reserve were a couple placed in the early 2000s that had been archived a decade before I started planning my multi, and as of now the only caches in the whole village of Patonga and surrounding area are mine. Cachers rarely visit there, except those staying in the camping ground over the holidays who only seem interested in my two traditionals down the other end of the beach, and none of the local cachers have shown any interest in placing new hides there. If my multi wasn't there, I doubt there'd be anything at all in that reserve and no-one would get to experience that interesting cascade of waterfalls.

 

The multi was my way of showcasing that feature, as story-telling multis are the style of cache I enjoy creating. Those who've done it seem to have enjoyed it, with 10 FPs from 17 finds over its 4 years of life. Would an easy traditional at just one of the waterfalls in that gully (there's not room for more than one) have been as enjoyable for them?

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Why should it be refused? My multi in the gully at Patonga (GC664DZ), with its four physical waypoints plus final, takes up a lot of the space in the Patonga Wetlands Reserve and certainly precludes placing any other caches along that watercourse from where it emerges from the national park to where it enters Patonga Creek.

 

image.png.6b8983c0b0e6cbd17071f0a76a47f1ce.png

 

But the only other caches that have ever been in that reserve were a couple placed in the early 2000s that had been archived a decade before I started planning my multi, and as of now the only caches in the whole village of Patonga and surrounding area are mine. Cachers rarely visit there, except those staying in the camping ground over the holidays who only seem interested in my two traditionals down the other end of the beach, and none of the local cachers have shown any interest in placing new hides there. If my multi wasn't there, I doubt there'd be anything at all in that reserve and no-one would get to experience that interesting cascade of waterfalls.

 

The multi was my way of showcasing that feature, as story-telling multis are the style of cache I enjoy creating. Those who've done it seem to have enjoyed it, with 10 FPs from 17 finds over its 4 years of life. Would an easy traditional at just one of the waterfalls in that gully (there's not room for more than one) have been as enjoyable for them?

 

"Cachers rarely visit there".  Cachers like me for example on my annual ride to Patonga with the Vintage Japanese Motorcycle Club to savour the beautiful area and, of course, the great fish and chips. Unfortunately I'm not properly dressed for geocaching on those days. One day though, who knows? There was one on the jetty but it kept disappearing so I never got it. A micro on a popular jetty is not Jeff's style, eh?:P

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, colleda said:

"Cachers rarely visit there".  Cachers like me for example on my annual ride to Patonga with the Vintage Japanese Motorcycle Club to savour the beautiful area and, of course, the great fish and chips. Unfortunately I'm not properly dressed for geocaching on those days. One day though, who knows? There was one on the jetty but it kept disappearing so I never got it. A micro on a popular jetty is not Jeff's style, eh?:P

 

When I started caching there was a micro on the jetty but it was muggled just before I could get to it. A few years later another appeared, luckily I got to it quickly as it also got muggled a few months later. That CO replaced it a couple of times before giving up. Nup, not my style of hide.

 

BTW, the old fish and chips shop has gone, with it and the adjoining pub remodelled into a restaurant that's part of the Boat House chain from Sydney's northern beaches.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

When I started caching there was a micro on the jetty but it was muggled just before I could get to it. A few years later another appeared, luckily I got to it quickly as it also got muggled a few months later. That CO replaced it a couple of times before giving up. Nup, not my style of hide.

 

BTW, the old fish and chips shop has gone, with it and the adjoining pub remodelled into a restaurant that's part of the Boat House chain from Sydney's northern beaches.

Yeh, saw that it had changed last time there. Had a good feed at the pub but it seems a bit too trendy for an old biker like me.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

How is this supposed to be subjective? That kind of cache should be flat out refused.

If that's even considered it should be decided by region or on a case by case basis. In urban situations I can see a multi limiting new places to hide a cache but the majority of my caches are miles from any other cache, one is over 25 miles away from the nearest cache. Are you saying I shouldn't be able to place a multi because other parts of the world are over saturated or is it because you don't like multis?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Therefore, it's apparently OK for the reviewer to contact the CO and suggest they archive or change the cache so that the community won't ignore it any longer and come find it.  Make it something more like a cache that the community wants to find.  That often means making it an easier traditional cache.  That's exactly what we need more of.

 

Just re-reading the last paragraph of this post and the last sentence comes off as snarky and/or condescending.  Sarcasm was my goal.  Sorry about that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

I only care about the popularity of the cache as a means to an end. A power trail cache’s popularity is meaningless to the point I’m trying to make, because the power trail cache typically doesn’t serve the purpose of making people visit a nice location.

 

While I mentioned power trails, they weren't specifically addressing the issue you were raising, about a good location with a rarely visited cache.  You're saying that you'd rather have a more frequently visited cache in that location to highlight the location.  I get the point you're raising but that should be a CO's issue to decide, not something prompted by a reviewer.  You seem to think that reviewers know about every location for every cache they're responsible for and that they should have a responsibility to encourage COs of infrequently found caches (in busy areas) to consider changing/archiving their cache in order to allow for what they believe might be a better use of the location.  I've yet to hear a reviewer tell me that one of their jobs is to concern themselves about caches that aren't being found frequently and what they think they can do to encourage COs to "fix" them that so something can go in those locations that will get found more frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

If the amount of dumbed down caches is a concern, I’m perfectly fine with archiving 100 power trail caches for each new simple cache in a great location. And again, I’m only even thinking about this at all when the location is particularly scenic, it’s completely blocked by a cache that hardly anyone visits, it’s near an active caching area, and there are no equivalent locations nearby (or they’re all similarly blocked).

 

Except that's not going to happen, archiving PT caches for simple caches in great locations. I get why you want more cachers to visit a nice location.  I really do.   I just don't understand why you think a reviewer should step in to encourage the CO of that cache to archive/change their cache and put out something more likely to get found, which typically means easier.  I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face - It's not the CO's fault that cachers are choosing not to visit that cache.  It's the community's fault for opting to value numbers (easy finds) over experiences (the overall experience from the journey/hike/walk, to the find, to the location, to the difficulty in solving/finding).  Your suggestion, should the CO heed the reviewer's suggestion, removes yet another possible experience cache from play and places one more easy traditional +1 cache in play.  

 

You're not removing some PT cache with a pill bottle for the container.  You're probably removing a higher D/T cache (any type) or some non-traditional cache, which are already in the minority to begin with. What if this active area is severely lacking in higher D/T and/or non-traditional caches?  What if this active area already has lots of 1.5/1.5 caches?  Why does it need another at the expense of a perfectly good cache that has the unfortunate luck to be rarely found? 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get the "completely blocked" concept - put out a cache more than 0.1 mile from that amazing spot, invite cachers to visit the amazing spot while they're around, if there's a cache inconveniently where you want to put one.

 

I'm as much a fan of "resuscitating" caches (finding more than a year since last find) as I am of FTFs... 

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post

And as mentioned, you can use additional virtual waypoints to make a Multi, Mystery, Earthcache, or even make an instructional letterbox to encourage someone to visit a place where there already exists a physical geocache.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

Well, yeah wasn’t that in the guidelines before? Don’t place a cache everywhere just because you can or something like that? Or am I thinking of "When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." That’s still there. 

 

Yes it is but the key word is "was".  Past tense.  I don't see PTs being stopped from being published.  That appears to be what a somewhat large portion of the community wants so reviewers publish them, assuming they meet the guidelines to be published.  I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak isn't telling the reviewers to suggest to PT COs that perhaps they shouldn't publish PTs because it used to be in the guidelines, some people don't like them, they have a tendency to be poorly maintained, and they encourage throwdowns.  While those things have a tendency to be true (not in all cases), it's not up to the reviewer to offer up those types of suggestions.  They determine whether or not the cache meets the guidelines to be published, not whether or not they should be published based on the subjective merits of these types of caches.  

 

21 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

”The ideal container is waterproof.” ”Hide your cache to have a long life.” ”The logbook must be easy to sign.”

 

Of course those are there.  My point is that if a CO uses a pill bottle as the container, it will get published.  While it's certainly not the best container, it meets the guidelines for publication.  However, it's not up to the reviewer to tell them that they're typically not very good containers and that they should consider using a better container, which is the point I was raising.  Reviewers would be stepping over the boundaries a bit if they told a CO, in a reviewer note or an email or face to face, that their cache that has been submitted and uses a pill bottle as a container should be a different container because it's not quite good enough.  That's not grounds for non-publication.  That's a statement of personal preference.  While it's certainly a valid point and doesn't mean the reviewer is wrong, I believe it oversteps the boundaries of what a reviewer should be able to do.

 

21 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

I have not suggested being proactive with this, but yeah, otherwise this is the same thing (assuming all the disclaimers I’ve put up apply).

 

So a reviewer telling you that your cache might not get found that often means it's automatically a poor use of a neat location?  What if the puzzle ties directly into the location?  What if it asks you to wander around the area, find a couple signs that highlight some aspects of the area otherwise not immediately noticeable, plug in some numbers from those signs and then find the cache?  Let's say it's a 3/1.5 that doesn't lead you by the hand from spot to spot.  A puzzle, on its own, is already reason for many cachers to ignore it.  Add in the highlighted locations that are required to visit to get what you need and now that little bit of extra work means more cachers will ignore it.  It's a higher D rating (not due to the hide but for the "work" entailed to solve it) so that will also lead to more cachers ignoring it.  It's not going to receive nearly the same amount of visitors an easier traditional cache will despite the fact that it actually focuses on more areas of this location.  And you think it's OK for a reviewer to suggest to the CO that they create something else more seeker friendly?  Again, I see that as overstepping their boundaries.

 

21 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

How is this supposed to be subjective? That kind of cache should be flat out refused.

 

What?  Seriously?  I have a multi along a rails to trails stretch near my home. The stretch of the trail that opened up due to the archival of an unmaintained cache could have held 2 traditional caches, maybe 3 if someone really squeezed them in and/or fudged the coordinates a bit.  I opted to hide an 11 stage multi (all physical waypoints) with lots of various styles of hides, a couple field puzzles, one really neat location I wanted to highlight that isn't immediately noticeable, and some hand crafted containers related to the old telegraph/telephone poles that ran along the old railroad line and ties in thematically with this rails to trails spot.  So you're saying that my reviewer should have refused to publish my multi on the grounds that I'm blocking 1-2 other possible cache placements, not that it doesn't meet the guidelines.  You're saying that this type of cache shouldn't even be allowed to be considered to be published.  I don't even know what to say to this other than to tell you that it is allowed and they can't refuse to publish it on those grounds.

 

You're also saying that my reviewer should feel free to reach out to me because it hasn't been found in over a year and tell me to consider archiving this cache in order to get myself or other cachers to place easier caches along this section of the trail to highlight the two main places that are worth visiting, despite the fact that my multi takes you to both of them.  I'm not using this stretch of the trail to the best of its potential.  I don't mind taking up a 2-3 potential cache stretch of this busy trail (cachers and non-cachers alike) when the other 20 miles is predominately filled in with almost all traditional caches placed roughly every .10 miles apart.  Thankfully, many of those traditional caches are hidden in different ways, with different containers, and with different D/T ratings so it's not really a power trail, even though it contains lots of caches packed in rather densely.

Edited by coachstahly
Spelling
  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/13/2020 at 9:25 AM, coachstahly said:

However, I'm not OK with the notion that it might be in caching's best interest to allow a reviewer to offer up a suggestion....

Basically, the Volunteer Reviewers should "stay in their own lane".  Got it.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Basically, the Volunteer Reviewers should "stay in their own lane".  Got it.

 

When it comes to personal preferences and/or subjective comments or suggestions about a cache, yes.  You believe it's OK for a reviewer to reach out to a CO of an infrequently found cache to suggest archiving and redoing their cache so it gets found more often even though there's nothing else wrong with it?  Or it's OK for a reviewer to reach out to a CO of a submitted cache that will most likely get found rarely to suggest that they redo their cache so it gets found more often?  When is the find frequency of a cache any of their concern, other than as it pertains to whether or not a cache might be missing or CHS related (or both)?

 

While we may prefer not seeing pill bottles as containers, it's not a reviewer's call to suggest a different container (even though most of us would probably prefer a different container).  While we may prefer not seeing new PT caches being published, it's not a reviewer's call to make regarding whether or not they should be published based on a personal or community dislike for them.  While we may prefer seeing more difficult puzzles published less often, it's not a reviewer's call to suggest to the CO that they make it easier.  While we may prefer seeing 2-3 stage multis over 6 stage or longer multis, it's not their call to suggest that they cut down the number of stages. As long as all of these caches meet the guidelines, the reviewer should publish them, even though they (and their community) may have personal issues with the container, a PT, a difficult puzzle or a long multi.  Their personal issues may be very similar to what you and I believe about certain types of caches or containers but those issues can't be grounds for making a cache unpublishable.  If publication is about meeting the guidelines, not about how good or bad the cache might be as it's currently set up, then I don't believe a reviewer should add their two cents about what they think about the cache.

 

When it comes to issues related to missing caches, saturation, CHS, NA, NM, publishing, archiving, event stacking, tracking potential problem caches, or any other facet of geocaching guidelines that doesn't involve personal/subjective preferences, be my guest.  How often a cache is found or visited is out of anyone's control.

Edited by coachstahly
clarification
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I'm fine for Volunteer Reviewers to make suggestions that might improve the experience for both the Cache Owner and subsequent Finders.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but if you feel that you must bludgeon me into submission, have at it!

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

You believe it's OK for a reviewer to reach out to a CO of an infrequently found cache to suggest archiving and redoing their cache so it gets found more often even though there's nothing else wrong with it?  Or it's OK for a reviewer to reach out to a CO of a submitted cache that will most likely get found rarely to suggest that they redo their cache so it gets found more often?  When is the find frequency of a cache any of their concern, other than as it pertains to whether or not a cache might be missing or CHS related (or both)?

 

Maybe I missed it in all of these posts, but are you saying that there are reviewers actually doing these? If so, I would consider that over-reach.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The A-Team said:
11 hours ago, coachstahly said:

You believe it's OK for a reviewer to reach out to a CO of an infrequently found cache to suggest archiving and redoing their cache so it gets found more often even though there's nothing else wrong with it?  Or it's OK for a reviewer to reach out to a CO of a submitted cache that will most likely get found rarely to suggest that they redo their cache so it gets found more often?  When is the find frequency of a cache any of their concern, other than as it pertains to whether or not a cache might be missing or CHS related (or both)?

 

Maybe I missed it in all of these posts, but are you saying that there are reviewers actually doing these? If so, I would consider that over-reach.

 

I've seen geocachers-who-are-reviewers make suggestions like that, but as geocachers, not as reviewers.  I too don't recall reviewers making subjective recommendations. At least in my region, they've become very very objective and robotic precisely because there are people that hate when they're subjective and human-like, lol

Share this post


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

 

Maybe I missed it in all of these posts, but are you saying that there are reviewers actually doing these? If so, I would consider that over-reach.

 

No but it's part of the premise that mustakorrpi stated on the first page.  Unlike mustakorrpi and Touchstone, I disagree with reviewers making suggestions like these.  These are examples of caches that aren't found frequently that they believe might be (suggested, not actually done) worth a reviewer's time to reach out to the CO to archive/change the cache because it's blocking an otherwise popular or scenic area.  There's nothing wrong with the cache other than the fact that it's not found frequently.

 

Ignoring remote locations for a while, is there any merit to this type of targeting of unpopular caches in otherwise busy caching areas?

  • If the cache that has multiple physical waypoints and thus blocks a large area?
  • If the cache blocks a large area together with other unpopular caches? That is, any single cache in the group would be fine but their combined effect blocks a large area from a large number of cachers.
  • Is in a particularly scenic spot and is unobtainable to most cachers for a reason that isn't related to the location (e.g. a run-of-the-mill T5 tree climb near a waterfall)

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Personally, I'm fine for Volunteer Reviewers to make suggestions that might improve the experience for both the Cache Owner and subsequent Finders.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, but if you feel that you must bludgeon me into submission, have at it!

 

I'm not saying that anything they might suggest is wrong.  I'm saying that it's not really their place to do so, particularly as it applies to the specific example of a cache that has nothing wrong with it other than it's not found frequently.  Why should reviewers concern themselves with how often a cache is found? 

 

I'll use one of your caches as an example.  TMA-1 was placed in 2004 and has been found 53 times, but not since 2015.  Based on what you stated, you'd be OK with your local reviewer reaching out to you and suggesting that you archive it and instead place something else that will get found more often.  There are a lot of caches in the area found much more frequently and this one is "blocking" the placement of other possible cache placements that might get found more frequently.

 

I understand you don't have to do what is suggested.  However, I'm of the belief that I don't think it's a reviewer's job to even suggest something like this.  It's based on the premise that an infrequently found cache has something "wrong" with it, which is why it's not getting found regularly.  It's too hard, it's "dangerous", or it's a non-traditional.  However, there's nothing actually "wrong" about a hard, dangerous, or non-traditional cache.  The only thing that is keeping them from being found frequently is that most cachers choose to ignore them because they're hard, dangerous, or non-traditional.  Yet a suggestion has been posited that it might be in the best interest of geocaching for reviewers to "target" these infrequently found caches and contact the CO to suggest they archive/change the cache so that a new cache can make "better" use of the site and have a cache that gets found more frequently.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/14/2020 at 4:49 PM, coachstahly said:

You seem to think that reviewers know about every location for every cache they're responsible for and that they should have a responsibility

My assumption was that reviewers might only do this when they happen to know the exact location, e.g. probably not all that often. I don't really know how much responsibility any individual reviewer has to enforce any particular rule, so I perhaps wouldn't go there.

 

On 1/14/2020 at 6:33 PM, coachstahly said:

So you're saying that my reviewer should have refused to publish my multi on the grounds that I'm blocking 1-2 other possible cache placements, not that it doesn't meet the guidelines.

Well no, I was assuming the multi was blocking large area, as that was the premise. (somewhere between a single waypoint and an entire town)

 

On 1/14/2020 at 6:33 PM, coachstahly said:

What if the puzzle ties directly into the location?

Addressed in my premise: "unobtainable to most cachers for a reason that isn't related to the location (e.g. a run-of-the-mill T5 tree climb near a waterfall) ".

 

There's also been talk of "dumbing down" things, which I haven't perhaps properly addressed after that premise, but I did mean unobtainable in a fairly literal sense here. The argument wasn't for popularity at all costs, and that wouldn't be an argument I could ever see myself supporting.

 

Take your example puzzle cache, almost anyone can go look some letters in a sign if they choose to; it's just that some don't want to. But the skill and gear for T5 climbing or scuba diving, or the intelligence/domain-specific knowledge required for certain types of puzzle present a barrier that can't be overcome by simple choice. In fact there's probably a very finite set of people in any area that can ever do those caches.

 

The few hour hikes and boat caches that don't require an actual seaworthy boat and skill fall somewhere in the grey area in my mind. I'm still healthy enough to do that kind of thing fairly effortlessly, and I kinda like doing them, so I might easily come to think that anyone could. But that might be biased.

 

On 1/14/2020 at 6:33 PM, coachstahly said:

My point is that if a CO uses a pill bottle as the container, it will get published.  

It will but the reviewer wouldn't normally even know what the container is. So what was the scenario you imagined that this would come up in? I imagined a perhaps inexperienced CO asking the reviewer, typically a more experienced cacher, if their container of choice was fine, and getting an answer like "that container type has the following known issues: [...] so it might be a good idea to consider something else if those issues apply to your hiding place."

 

On 1/14/2020 at 6:33 PM, coachstahly said:

Yes it is but the key word is "was". Past tense.  I don't see PTs being stopped from being published.

I'm getting the idea that you think reviewers shouldn't be able to talk about this kind of thing at all, so I thought it relevant to point out that the example you chose is something reviewers were arguably meant to enforce at one point. E.g. that the "allowed topics" can change. Of course now that it's been agreed that PTs are ok, individual reviewers have to stick to that.

 

On 1/14/2020 at 5:41 PM, Oxford Stone said:

I don't get the "completely blocked" concept - put out a cache more than 0.1 mile from that amazing spot,

If that's trivially possible, then I guess the location isn't completely blocked.

On 1/14/2020 at 5:14 PM, coachstahly said:

What if this active area is severely lacking in higher D/T and/or non-traditional caches?  What if this active area already has lots of 1.5/1.5 caches?  Why does it need another at the expense of a perfectly good cache that has the unfortunate luck to be rarely found?

I guess I'm assuming either the reviewer would notice that and not ask, or the CO would notice that and point it out in their response to the reviewer and that would be the end of it.

 

On 1/13/2020 at 11:38 PM, 31BMSG said:

Are you saying I shouldn't be able to place a multi because other parts of the world are over saturated or is it because you don't like multis?

I own a multi, the last time I found a multi was today. But my premise to this was "Ignoring remote locations for a while, is there any merit to this type of targeting of unpopular caches in otherwise busy caching areas?" And I said I have not decided what my own opinion on this is, but acknowledged that I'd play the devil's advocate if need be. So if you'd like to discuss this further, could you perhaps do it without making it be about me personally?

 

On 1/13/2020 at 10:34 PM, barefootjeff said:

Why should it be refused?

I was taking "leaving almost no space for anyone else" to entail that there in fact is someone else. From this response, and your many others, I understand this generally doesn't seem to be the case in your area. So if these were the rules and I were a reviewer in your area, I probably wouldn't think they apply. (As a side note, that kind of location would have been great use of one of the new virtual caches.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

Take your example puzzle cache, almost anyone can go look some letters in a sign if they choose to; it's just that some don't want to. But the skill and gear for T5 climbing or scuba diving, or the intelligence/domain-specific knowledge required for certain types of puzzle present a barrier that can't be overcome by simple choice. In fact there's probably a very finite set of people in any area that can ever do those caches.

 

I would say this moves into "local reviewer judgment" territory, which is not something most reviewers want to keep taking on. What if that hide style is popular in an area and quite often visited? There could be an outcry if such an "inaccessible" cache is removed for the sake of a 'boring' 'typical' 'simple' cache, despite it being next to a beautiful waterfall.  That's not saying one or the other is objectively, or even generally accepted as being "better", but rather than trying to decide what is and isn't "better" isn't really something on the reviewer's list of obligations, let alone responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

What if that hide style is popular in an area and quite often visited?

How would it then fit the premise of an unvisited cache?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

By the way, I tried looking for other threads where this might already be discussed and couldn't find any (the actual search appears to be broken right now), but there's a somewhat relevant and possibly new section in cache maintenance guidelines that is somewhat relevant here as it deals with the HQ disabling caches that don't necessarily have anything wrong with the physical container or cache page:

 

Cache maintenance is an important (and required) component of geocache ownership. In January 2020, as part of Geocaching HQ’s efforts to keep the geocaching game board fresh and encourage well maintained caches, we began a test in the U.S. states of Georgia and North Carolina.

In these states, Geocaching HQ has disabled physical caches owned by players whose Geocaching account has not shown activity in more than five (5) years. We asked them to perform any required maintenance on their cache and enable the cache page. Or, if the cache owner no longer wishes to own and maintain the cache, they can archive the cache or adopt it to an active geocacher. If the cache owner takes no action within 30 days, HQ will archive the cache.

This test does not apply to:

  • Caches placed before January 1, 2004
  • Caches with trackables
  • Other special circumstances

Only 1-3% of geocaches in these states are impacted by the test. Geocaching HQ will closely analyze the results before deciding whether to expand the test to additional regions.

Edited by mustakorppi
clarification
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

In these states, Geocaching HQ has disabled physical caches owned by players whose Geocaching account has not shown activity in more than five (5) years.

How would this fit the premise of an unvisited cache? ;)

 

If the CO is no longer active, that's one thing. If someone thinks the cache isn't being visited often enough, that's another.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

How would this fit the premise of an unvisited cache? ;)

 

If the CO is no longer active, that's one thing. If someone thinks the cache isn't being visited often enough, that's another.

 

Maybe it's both. The policy may be that COs must be active.  Constant Finds only help people decide the condition, Finds or No Finds don't keep the cache maintained.  Zero Finds plus inactive Cache Owner compounds the problem.

 

I've been wondering if this Thread's premise of the “less found cache” is incorrect.  HQ has not English good, so it's tough to know what they mean at times.  I guessed that the New Policy was less about “Finds”, more about maintenance.  That is, if nobody, including the Cache Owner, lays eyes on the cache anymore we don't know what the condition of the cache is.  But this thread has a lotta posts that it's only about cache visitors. 

 

This is the New Policy that started this Thread:
"I see that your cache has not been found in over a year.  I'm going to disable it to remove it from the list of active caches.  Please stop by and check on your geocache and see if it still there.  If it is, the please leave a note for geocachers and re-enable it.  This will let people know they can look for it again.
 
If you can't verify your cache is still in place, or replace and repair it in a timely manner then it might be time to archive it.”

 

If you compare the above to the “Test”, you see, again, that the new policy/policies are all about the absent Cache Owner.

 

The Test:
“In these states, Geocaching HQ has disabled physical caches owned by players whose Geocaching account has not shown activity in more than five (5) years. We asked them to perform any required maintenance on their cache and enable the cache page. Or, if the cache owner no longer wishes to own and maintain the cache, they can archive the cache or adopt it to an active geocacher. If the cache owner takes no action within 30 days, HQ will archive the cache.”

 

If HQ means that the CO is in fact regularly visiting the cache and keeping it in great shape, and “No Finds” is specifically why it's being disabled, the whole policy is goofy.  But if HQ means that there's the Absent CO plus a lot of “Find” activity, that's still a problem worth addressing.  The Absent CO caches tend to be in terrible shape, I can't remember finding any self-sustaining ones.  After the unmaintained cache has many Finds sometimes mentioning the bad condition, eventually there's a NM.  But it's been bad for a very long time, typically propped up by all those Finders, but almost as bad as if there were no Finders.  The policy is about the absent CO.  Or that's what it should be about.

 

By the way, I live in Georgia and hadn't heard of this Test.  Does anyone have a cache example?  I've seen a bunch of caches adopted to active players, but that's been ongoing.  If the Test is about absent Cache Owners (and if we insist that This Current Thread is NOT about absent Cache Owners), it might be better as a New Topic.

 

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

It will but the reviewer wouldn't normally even know what the container is.

 

We've been asked to indicate what type of container is being used for our cache submissions - bison tube, ammo can, pill bottle - as well as the manner in which it's hidden - hanging, under a geopile, in a log, magnetic.  I don't know if all reviewers do it this way or not.

 

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

Well no, I was assuming the multi was blocking large area, as that was the premise. (somewhere between a single waypoint and an entire town)

 

It's blocking a location where 2 caches could easily fit and a third might be able to be squeezed in.  I don't know if you consider that a large area or not.

 

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

I imagined a perhaps inexperienced CO asking the reviewer, typically a more experienced cacher, if their container of choice was fine, and getting an answer like "that container type has the following known issues: [...] so it might be a good idea to consider something else if those issues apply to your hiding place."

 

I don't have an issue with this as it was CO initiated vs. reviewer initiated.  While the reviewer would be right in their assessment that it's not a reliably "good" container, I don't think they should voluntarily offer up that type of assessment/critique/personal preference when considering whether or not to publish the cache since pill bottles, as much as I think they aren't good containers, are an established container that allows for publication.

 

I don't really see any potential benefit of reviewers targeting lonely caches to encourage COs to consider archiving them and then coming up with some other cache that will receive more visitors other than the notion that the location will get visited more often.  It probably will but it will come at the expense of a cache that's typically harder, more dangerous, or a non-traditional.  I really don't think the trade-off is worth that.  There is already a plethora of traditional caches with easier D/T combos so I'm not sure another one is really needed, even if the location is worth the visit.  If the only thing that can fit at the location is a micro and there's an option between a 1.5/1.5 and a 2.5/4.5 tree climb, then I would personally prefer the latter.  Perhaps that explains, in large part, my thoughts about this idea.  I honestly believe that I'm in the small minority amongst the general population of geocachers but perhaps not amongst the forum regulars.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, kunarion said:

By the way, I live in Georgia and hadn't heard of this Test.  Does anyone have a cache example?

https://coord.info/GC3G3YT

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, kunarion said:

This is the New Policy that started this Thread:

 

I wasn't actually sure if this was a new policy or not, which is why I posted the "?" at the end of the title.  I do think that these two could dovetail but I honestly don't know.

 

The examples of the log I quoted were from caches in California.  All of the cachers were still actively visiting the site (as far as I can tell) and did address the reviewer disable by either replacing it or checking on it to verify it was still in place.  That's why I'm not sure they're quite the same.  They did have previous DNFs but the disable log didn't mention that as a possible reason, only that they were 1 year lonely or longer.  It's my assumption that the combination of them being lonely caches with consecutive DNFs as their last logs was what led to their disablement but I don't think a reviewer would want to leave that type of assumption up to the CO.  The only thing the CO knows with certainty is that the reviewer disabled it because it hasn't been found in over a year.

 

15 minutes ago, kunarion said:

But if HQ means that there's the Absent CO plus a lot of “Find” activity, that's still a problem worth addressing.  The Absent CO caches tend to be in terrible shape, I can't remember finding any self-sustaining ones.  After the unmaintained cache has many Finds sometimes mentioning the bad condition, eventually there's a NM.  But it's been bad for a very long time, typically propped up by all those Finders, but almost as bad as if there were no Finders

 

It certainly IS an issue but I'm not certain how well it can be addressed unless they unilaterally apply this across the board, which I suspect could happen.  I'm curious to know what percentage of caches this might "catch". 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

 

The Finders are gone, and the Cache Owner is gone (and very likely, the container is gone).  For 5 years.  It might get archived.

 

That seems like a good New Policy. :ph34r:

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...