Geocache has a new log

[+cash king]

An email was sent by Geocaching HQ stating my geocache has a new log. But it has not shown up on the geocaching website. Email  Log states it was found which I need it to show because it has not been found for three years and many people quit looking because they think it probably is not there. Does anyone know why?

[+MartyBartfast]

Probably someone logged it and then deleted the found log, perhaps the found log was a mistake. You will get notified of the original log, but not the deletion.

[+kunarion]

21 minutes ago, cash king said:

An email was sent by Geocaching HQ stating my geocache has a new log. But it has not shown up on the geocaching website. Email  Log states it was found which I need it to show because it has not been found for three years and many people quit looking because they think it probably is not there. Does anyone know why?

 

I guess "Goose Marsh"?  You can check your own caches yourself, them make a log that's fine and ready to be found.

 

The email told you who found it.  The "Goose Marsh" cache page shows that it was "updated" yesterday, so that may be the one that had a new log.  Usually when I get those, it's a back-dated log where someone "found it a while ago and is catching up on logs".  So you may expect it was found today, but actually it's an old log.

 

You're in Florence, Oregon?  Cool!  I have relatives there.

[+cerberus1]

25 minutes ago, cash king said:

An email was sent by Geocaching HQ stating my geocache has a new log. But it has not shown up on the geocaching website.

Email  Log states it was found which I need it to show because it has not been found for three years and many people quit looking because they think it probably is not there. Does anyone know why?

 

Have you checked and entered an Owner Maintenance ?  People may not want to look if the CO isn't maintaining it.

Similar to others,  the log was maybe an error,  someone back-dated it (a notice you'd get, but have to investigate to find...) , or attempted to get you interested enough to check it is still there.    

[+Isonzo Karst]

a back-dated log

 

The email provides all the info you need:

NAME of Cache (GC CODE) <- link to cache

Logged by: username <- link to user profile

Log Type: found it

DATE: MM/DD/YYYY

Location:  where your cache

Type:  the cache type

Log:  <--- link to log

text of log

 

 I'm pretty sure the log IS on your cache page. It's just not at the top, it doesn't reflect a current find.

 

On "people quit looking", you should visit the cache,  make sure all is well - then log Owner Maintenance. 

 

 

 

 

[+cash king]

31 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

I guess "Goose Marsh"?  You can check your own caches yourself, them make a log that's fine and ready to be found.

 

The email told you who found it.  The "Goose Marsh" cache page shows that it was "updated" yesterday, so that may be the one that had a new log.  Usually when I get those, it's a back-dated log where someone "found it a while ago and is catching up on logs".  So you may expect it was found today, but actually it's an old log.

 

You're in Florence, Oregon?  Cool!  I have relatives there.

I have lived in Florence since 1948 I might know your relatives. Thank For the info I will check a little closer and check the location while it is not raining.

[+kunarion]

2 minutes ago, cash king said:

I have lived in Florence since 1948 I might know your relatives. Thank For the info I will check a little closer and check the location while it is not raining.

 

There are times when it's not raining?!  Awesome!  

[+cash king]

5 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

There are times when it's not raining?!  Awesome!  

You guys are correct. They just logged it but dated  it 4 years ago. 

[+barefootguru]

On 2/23/2020 at 6:00 AM, cash king said:

You guys are correct. They just logged it but dated  it 4 years ago. 

I’ve seen that on a cache on my watch list.  Given the owner is inactive and the log was TFTC, an armchair boosting of numbers is the most likely (but not only) explanation.

[+cerberus1]

On 2/22/2020 at 12:00 PM, cash king said:

You guys are correct. They just logged it but dated  it 4 years ago. 

 

We see that a lot.   Teens breaking away from the family account mostly, back-dating caches found.     

[+MNTA]

So maybe I'm stepping onto my soap box here....

 

This highlights one of the problems I see with true puzzle caches or any caches really. But for puzzles the target audience is smaller than traditionals. Once the local group of FTFers signs your log, you get the random few ,may be new to the area just not in a rush or just passing through. Eventually unless you have a killer cache, they do exist, the number of potential finds dwindles. 

 

I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space. Have a possible an expiration date with the ability to renew, or relist in the same spot. Besides half of those old containers are nasty and the other half brambles have covered the spot or spiders/bees taken up residence. 20 feet away is now a better spot.

 

Think about it most cachers (not us crazy types that will drive 500 miles for a challenge and a great road trip oh wait that's me, Potters Pond here I come) want to have fun nearby their homes. Maybe go on an evening walk and grab a cache in the park down the street.Oh wait I logged that one 5 years ago. They don't want to go 10 miles down the road to a simple png or lpc. Well that's my experience. 

 

So back to the OP. The number of locals to find your cache is a smaller subset of the whole geocaching community. One plus about your cache is it has a checker. Though as pointed out do an OM a little more often and you might get a few tourist types. I for one don't do a lot of true puzzles, so if I do really want assuredness that the cache is still in play, I made that mistake one too many times. Sorry I do it for the smiley and a little for the experience. Look at nearby similar hides and compare look at why one is more successful than others. Might be difficulty, might be proximity to parking, long vs short walk, across from a big draw. Who knows. Consider refreshing,

 

 

 

As for Florence. I'm still disappoint with those Sea Lion caves. I remember getting a little metal sea lion as a young kid, don't remember going there. Took my son there he was real bored at his sisters horse show in Eugene. I was let down definitely realize why I forgot about that experience.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

So maybe I'm stepping onto my soap box here....

 

This highlights one of the problems I see with true puzzle caches or any caches really. But for puzzles the target audience is smaller than traditionals. Once the local group of FTFers signs your log, you get the random few ,may be new to the area just not in a rush or just passing through. Eventually unless you have a killer cache, they do exist, the number of potential finds dwindles. 

 

I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space. Have a possible an expiration date with the ability to renew, or relist in the same spot. Besides half of those old containers are nasty and the other half brambles have covered the spot or spiders/bees taken up residence. 20 feet away is now a better spot.

 

Think about it most cachers (not us crazy types that will drive 500 miles for a challenge and a great road trip oh wait that's me, Potters Pond here I come) want to have fun nearby their homes. Maybe go on an evening walk and grab a cache in the park down the street.Oh wait I logged that one 5 years ago. They don't want to go 10 miles down the road to a simple png or lpc. Well that's my experience.

 

Maybe you should start your own thread for your soap box so it can be debated more fully without hijacking other threads, but I'll just reiterate that over half the active caches in my region are more than five years old and most are still in good condition even if they don't get many finds now. That includes seven of mine (two I adopted, the rest of my own making), and none are "nasty" or "covered in brambles or spiders/bees taken up residence". Here's an example, one which I hid just on six years ago, with the photos taken on my most recent visit in mid January this year:

 

 

It's still the original hiding place with the original container and logbook, and not a bramble or bee in sight, although there are probably swarms of mosquitoes at the moment. That cache was most recently found last August by a visitor from Canberra.

 

But my newest caches aren't faring any better. Take the last three:

• GC8BXVN published in August 2019 has had 6 finds, the most recent on the 31st of January and the one before that on the 20th of October
• GC8DQXK published in October 2019 has had 2 finds on the 11th and 14th of October
• GC8JGWN published in January 2020 has had 1 find on the 29th of January.

By your reasoning, I should archive those too since they aren't attracting many finders, but the locations I used for them had been empty spots on the map since I started caching in 2013 (and were probably empty spots on the map since caching began) and are extremely unlikely to be filled by new caches if I did kill them off. In fact, over the years I've archived 6 of my hides and none has had a new cache appear anywhere near where they were.

 

Archiving old or unpopular caches in an area like this won't rejuvinate the game, it'll just reduce the number of caches available for newcomers and visitors to the area.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

 

I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space.

 

 

I'm thinking about one of my oldest and least frequently found hides.  I very strongly suspect that if that cache were archived the freed up space would not be refilled or rejuvenated.   Even though it's only about 5 miles from town there hasn't been another cache placed within a mile in 10 years.  Just because an area is free, doesn't mean there is someone that wants to put a cache there.

[+Isonzo Karst]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space.

 

I owned 58 archived caches placed since March 10 2010.  Of those 58 archived, none have a new cache placed near them. Only my caches placed and archived prior to 2009 had 'rejuvenated" hides by others.  Many of those are gone now as well.

 

You own a suburban cache archived about 18 months. There's nothing new in the area since.

 

[+coachstahly]

7 hours ago, MNTA said:

I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space.

 

Nope.  It's taking up a .10 area of space.  Why must a cache be visited frequently in order to remain in play?  Caches should be placed with permanence in mind, not transience.

 

I archived a cache in a city park where I live 9 months ago and nothing has replaced it yet, LBH.  

 

Another one in another city park where I live I archived 6 years ago and no new cache in the area it covered, challenge.

 

Three in a different city (bigger city) and different city parks were archived 6 1/2 years ago and nothing placed, all puzzles/unknowns.

 

One in a city park where I live archived 6 1/2 years ago and nothing new, puzzle/unknown

 

4 years archived cache, nothing new in its place, traditional.

 

One of my all time favorite puzzles was archived a few years ago and no one (not even me, although I know the location is a good one) has placed a cache at the final spot.

 

I could go on.  I live in a suburb of Indianapolis (where many of the caches I archived were placed) that's large in its own right and only 1 or 2 of my archived caches (which weren't found that frequently) have since been replaced with new hides.  Not all of the locations were truly desirable spots but many of them were in city parks in decent locations and I live in a busy caching area (which isn't quite as busy as it used to be in the early part of the 2010 decade).

 

 

[+coachstahly]

7 hours ago, MNTA said:

Look at nearby similar hides and compare look at why one is more successful than others. Might be difficulty, might be proximity to parking, long vs short walk, across from a big draw. Who knows. Consider refreshing,

 

Why must a cache be found frequently to be "successful"?  Do you define a "successful" cache as a cache that has a lot of finds and, by default, that an "unsuccessful" cache is one that doesn't get found often? That appears to be the entire point of your post here - a cache should be found frequently or it should be archived/refreshed.  You know what gets found frequently so is therefore apparently "successful" by your definition?  1.5/1.5 P&Gs that are a dime a dozen.

[+cerberus1]

8 hours ago, MNTA said:

So maybe I'm stepping onto my soap box here....

 

I remember you saying similar earlier, just last month IIRK, so not new...      

Like Isonzo Karst,  none of our archived (by us...) hides have ever had another place one at it's location.  Most were good locations too... 

 - Even on a rail trail, where we had another place a power trail in-between our hides when they were there, no one ever came back to "fill-in" those spots.

 

We know of more than a few folks who've made plans to go for a cache that's not found often (we're one), most there for many years now.

 - We want to head to another country for one, isn't wasted space, and more than a few miles from anyone's "evening walk"...

 

[+L0ne.R]

8 hours ago, MNTA said:

I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space. Have a possible an expiration date with the ability to renew, or relist in the same spot. Besides half of those old containers are nasty and the other half brambles have covered the spot or spiders/bees taken up residence. 20 feet away is now a better spot.

 

People keep quoting the first sentence without the rest of the statement. 

 

 

 

[+Isonzo Karst]

You're right L0ne.R people do quote only part of what MNTA wrote.

 

  The 5 years to renew thing is similar to the experiment run recently in Georgia (USA) and North Carolina.  Caches where the CO had no activity on geocaching.com for 5 years were disabled by HQ, with  a month for the CO to log on and enable.   A few were enabled by owner.  Less than 2%. So  5 years of zero activity seems to be a pretty good indicator of whether there's an owner paying any attention.

 

It's going to take a while to see if this action "refreshes" the game board.  It's cleaned it up some.  I ran a query for those  in North Carolina, filtered in GSAK, roughly a third were clearly in bad shape, roughly a third a tad iffy (either NM set or some DNFs in the last 5 logs) and 220 had no NM and only Found it! logs. 

 

 There were 21,111 caches in NC when this experiment ended with 639 caches archived by HQ. Current number is lower.  Right now, it's still winter, which suppresses caching. 

 Over time, cleaning up caches without owners may well help the game. Too soon to tell. 

(The experiment excluded boxless caches, which is where I'd have started. They need owners, virts, earthcaches, webcams... )

[+cerberus1]

25 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

People keep quoting the first sentence without the rest of the statement. 

 

True.   I suppose it's because the rest was generalizations that aren't true in any areas we've been.   

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

53 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

True.   I suppose it's because the rest was generalizations that aren't true in any areas we've been.   

 

It also describes a cache which might be in need of maintenance, not archival.  

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

The 5 years to renew thing is similar to the experiment run recently in Georgia (USA) and North Carolina.  Caches where the CO had no activity on geocaching.com for 5 years were disabled by HQ, with  a month for the CO to log on and enable.   A few were enabled by owner.  Less than 2%. So  5 years of zero activity seems to be a pretty good indicator of whether there's an owner paying any attention.

Except that "an owner paying attention" is of absolutely no use to any of us. What matters is enjoyable caches. The number I want to see is how many of the killed caches were still enjoyable. We have that many fewer caches in the environment. Whether the owner is paying attention doesn't matter to me until the cache needs maintenance.

[+barefootjeff]

 

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

13 hours ago, MNTA said:

I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space. Have a possible an expiration date with the ability to renew, or relist in the same spot. Besides half of those old containers are nasty and the other half brambles have covered the spot or spiders/bees taken up residence. 20 feet away is now a better spot.

 

People keep quoting the first sentence without the rest of the statement. 

 

I did respond to the rest of the statement, I even included a photo of what is pretty typical for the older caches around here: intact, clean and dry with its original container, original logbook and no brambles or colonies of spiders/bees anywhere near it. Here's a T4 traditional from 2007 that I found with a group while visiting the south coast a few weeks ago:

 

 

This is part of what I wrote in my log:

 

Quote

The cache is in excellent condition and well stocked with all manner of goodies. And of course amazing views from both GZ and a vantage point just before it. Many thanks for this classic hide.

 

If that had been archived simply because of its age or the little bit of surface rust on the ammo can, we wouldn't have experienced the spectacular location as it's pretty unlikely anyone else would put a cache there. The next nearest cache is almost a kilometre away and that one was placed in 2004. If it wasn't for the old caches like these, there'd likely be nothing there apart from maybe some guard rail P&Gs along the highway.

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

On 2/23/2020 at 4:00 AM, cash king said:

You guys are correct. They just logged it but dated  it 4 years ago.

I was going to suggest checking the date.

 

I regularly photograph my logs so I can see old ones. If it were my cache I would check the old photographs and look for this signature. If I didn't find it I would send a message and ask for an explanation. If I got an okay answer the log could stay; otherwise I would delete it.

[+Goldenwattle]

16 hours ago, MNTA said:

I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space. Have a possible an expiration date with the ability to renew, or relist in the same spot.

There's still plenty of room out there for new caches.  If a cache is not being maintained and has fallen into disrepair, people need to start logging those NMs and NAs. I looked at one cache recently where I mentioned in my log there was only space for two more signatures. Well, many logs later, no one else has mentioned that the log is full, which it obviously is. The fault lies with everyone of those finders, at the least not mentioning the full log, and at the worst not logging a NM.

[+coachstahly]

20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

People keep quoting the first sentence without the rest of the statement. 

 

Because the point raised does NOT take into account the maintenance status of the cache, only the apparent frequency of it being found.  While it's possible that some are in bad shape and should be archived (or at the least, tagged with a NM log), it's also possible that there's nothing wrong with the cache but it's not just found frequently.  Why must the standard be about find frequency rather than what it should be about, which is the maintained state of the cache? 

 

On 3/10/2020 at 3:04 AM, MNTA said:

Have a possible an expiration date with the ability to renew, or relist in the same spot.

 

It seems to me that this goes against what GS currently has in place.  I believe cache permanence is stressed (as is maintenance).  If the landowner wishes caches to be renewed, then that's a different issue but to apply it to every geocache?  If it were required, you can bet that many COs would either place less caches (who really wants to go through a renewal/resubmission process for a cache that was already cleared?) or let their current ones run until the expiration date.  Most likely, you'd see a drop off in the number of caches being placed/maintained.

 

On 3/10/2020 at 3:04 AM, MNTA said:

Besides half of those old containers are nasty and the other half brambles have covered the spot or spiders/bees taken up residence.  20 feet away is now a better spot.

 

And this is a proven fact?  100% of all the caches that aren't found frequently are in bad shape or have limited access or critters taking up residence where the cache is.  I'm sure there are some that are in bad shape.  I'm also sure that there are some in great shape.  This suggestion doesn't take into account the maintained state of the cache at all, only the find frequency.  There's no guarantee that 20 feet away is a better spot.  It could be or it might not be.  

 

I'm curious to know if you read all of the post to understand the point raised or if you only saw the part about what most of us focused on.  MNTA's point is initially focusing on puzzle caches but I would find it hard to believe that they don't feel the same way about all types of caches that aren't found frequently.  It's specifically addressing how often a cache is found as one of the main priority factors in determining whether or not a cache should be archived (either by the CO or, if the suggestion is implemented, by a reviewer or GS automatically if the CO doesn't opt to renew their "lease" on the cache).  

 

"...the number of potential finds dwindles...." 

 

Since the number of finds and the frequency of finds has tailed off (and that's the only reason given), you get this paragraph that many of us focused on.  "I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space. Have a possible an expiration date with the ability to renew, or relist in the same spot.Besides half of those old containers are nasty and the other half brambles have covered the spot or spiders/bees taken up residence. 20 feet away is now a better spot."  It's NOT about the health or maintained state of the cache.  It's strictly limited to the fact that it's not found frequently enough.  Are you OK with that being the primary reason for possible archival?

 

"The number of locals to find your cache is a smaller subset of the whole geocaching community."  So?  That means it needs to be on a timed archival/renewal program?  Why does it matter what type of cache is placed?  Since when does a cache need to appeal to the entire geocaching community? 

 

"Look at nearby similar hides and compare look at why one is more successful than others. Might be difficulty, might be proximity to parking, long vs short walk, across from a big draw. Who knows. Consider refreshing,"  What defines success?  If you understand that this post is mostly about caches not found frequently enough (whatever that frequency might be), then it appears the success that's being discussed is the find frequency of a cache as it relates to puzzle caches and their apparent lack of appeal to the general geocaching community.

[+barefootjeff]

On 3/11/2020 at 3:52 AM, Isonzo Karst said:

  The 5 years to renew thing is similar to the experiment run recently in Georgia (USA) and North Carolina.  Caches where the CO had no activity on geocaching.com for 5 years were disabled by HQ, with  a month for the CO to log on and enable.   A few were enabled by owner.  Less than 2%. So  5 years of zero activity seems to be a pretty good indicator of whether there's an owner paying any attention.

 

It's going to take a while to see if this action "refreshes" the game board.  It's cleaned it up some.  I ran a query for those  in North Carolina, filtered in GSAK, roughly a third were clearly in bad shape, roughly a third a tad iffy (either NM set or some DNFs in the last 5 logs) and 220 had no NM and only Found it! logs. 

 

These three maps are of caches within 5km of my home, the left being all my finds within that area since I started caching 7 years ago, the middle one is the current caches in that area, and on the right is all the current caches that are less than 5 years old.

 

 

Apart from my own hides, there are a whole 9 caches in this area that were placed within the last five years. Where is this rejuvenation that removal of old hides is supposed to create?

[+Harry Dolphin]

On 3/10/2020 at 3:04 AM, MNTA said:

I think caches should be archived and free up the space or really rejuvenate the space. Have a possible an expiration date with the ability to renew, or relist in the same spot. 

 

My brother-in-law dared me to put out a Geoart series.  Twenty-four caches on six miles of a walking trail on the river.  When my partner died, I archived them.  I don't go to that area anymore, and they did need a lot of maintenance.  They were well loved with a lot of finds and favorite points.  Since I archived them, only one new cache was hidden in the area.

I archived my caches in state parks for political reasons.  No new caches have been hidden anywhere nearby.

So:  Nope.  Freeing up the area does not see new caches hidden.

[+MNTA]

 

My advice for the CO is to archive the cache. And relist, tweak the puzzle or not. Or a new puzzle. Or a traditional. If you want more finds which he had initially start over. Few out of the area folks are going to go after a stagnate cache let alone one that requires more of an effort which puzzle caches do.

 

This pattern I have witnessed on cache after cache, and even on my own caches. 

 

As for replacement well my personal archivals I'll share. The first was I placed it during the summer it went missing on the first day of school there was a bus stop right there. Needless It is still vacant. The second my waterproofing failed and I could not come up with a better replacement the area remains unfilled. I have made use twice of existing areas once the previous was archived. 

 

My apologies for highjacking, at the time that was not my intent, in reflection I can see how it can be viewed that way. It was meant as supporting the refresh of his area since the people that have already solved it are the only ones in that area that are going to solve it.

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

Few out of the area folks are going to go after a stagnate cache let alone one that requires more of an effort which puzzle caches do.

I agree with the puzzle comment, but if a cache had not been found for awhile (presuming there are no recent DNFs or maintenance issues) that makes it more attractive. I would target that cache; as I know many others would too. There are challenge caches that can be earned by finding such caches, so of course people want to find them. If I travel to a place with too many caches to find and I want to whittle them down, I would likely bypass the micros, especially if I know I will be looking for a ghastly nano, and try to select those in interesting places. If driving, add in easy parking. Shorts walks are good too, especially if that involves a mini trail. A cache not found for awhile is great.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 3/10/2020 at 6:04 PM, MNTA said:

not us crazy types that will drive 500 miles for a challenge

I drove 12,000 kms for a cache. (Although I did detour a few times).

[+barefootjeff]

46 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

On 3/10/2020 at 6:04 PM, MNTA said:

not us crazy types that will drive 500 miles for a challenge

I drove 12,000 kms for a cache. (Although I did detour a few times).

 

Perhaps not in the same league, but most of my caching now involves travel of at least 50km each way. Last year I did a round trip of over 400km just for a new virtual, and earlier in the year a 500km round trip for a friend's new cache in a spot that held a lot of fond memories for me from the 1970s.

 

The same works in reverse; a lot of the finds on my caches now, including the new ones, are from people outside the area who are either passing through, holidaying here or just come up from Sydney or down from Newcastle to do a bunch of Central Coast caches. That will continue to happen almost regardless of the age of the cache. Some of the older pre-2010 caches around here are getting more visitors than my newest ones. Maybe in ten years time some of my surviving ones might start attracting those old-cache hunters too.

 

There's plenty of room here for new caches to be placed by anyone who wants to do so, in fact there's a lot more empty space on the map than there was six or seven years ago, but there's also plenty of room for the old caches to remain whether or not they're getting any finds.

Edited March 12, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+coachstahly]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

My advice for the CO is to archive the cache.

 

Again, I ask why, if the overriding factor is to get more finds. Why does it matter so much that a cache get found more frequently, especially if the CO doesn't mind low find numbers?

 

If you truly meant it was just COs, then why include the part about the expiration date with the possiblity of renewing or relisting?  That implies that TPTB should be involved rather than the CO making the decision to do so on their own.  Cache permanence was one of the things all the more experienced cachers mentioned when I was thinking about placing my first cache all those years ago.  They also let me know that since I was planning on hiding a multi that I wasn't going to have a lot of finders, which I was fine with.  It's still active and doesn't have many finders but I'd rather have that out than 12 simpler and easier traditional caches I could put out to draw more cachers to my caches because I get more satisfaction out of this cache than I would for those. 

 

Using your logic, the only cachers to find any puzzles will only ever be the small subset of local cachers who solve them to begin with.  That means that this "refreshing" of the spot will only affect that small subset of puzzle solvers as they solve and find each subsequent puzzle.  If the CO wants to use the spot for another cache or feels that it's run its course, then they're more than welcome to archive the old one at any time, as has been the case since I started.  

 

As to your notion that archival will lead to others putting out new caches either close or in the same spot, there are many of us who have posted examples of our situations where we've done what you suggested but no one has stepped up to provide the community with any new caches.  As I've mentioned, based on my examples, only 1-2 of my archived caches have had a cache placed there by someone other than myself.  I've used some of my previous locations for MY new caches but not that often and it's not increased the find frequency from the previous cache that was there, beyond the initial surge of finders locally.

 

As to the OP, an occasional note or OM log would suffice to let cachers know it's still there, which might draw a few more visitors.  I don't see where you're clamoring for more finders, only asking about a back dated log that didn't make much sense to you.  If you're truly concerned about getting more finders, then feel free to do what MNTA has suggested.  Otherwise, realize that caches that go longer stretches of time between finds do so because cachers nowadays are trending more toward easier traditional caches than other types of experiences.  That doesn't mean that there aren't cachers out there that will give your cache a go.  It just means that those cachers are getting fewer and fewer as the activity has evolved.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Using your logic, the only cachers to find any puzzles will only ever be the small subset of local cachers who solve them to begin with.  That means that this "refreshing" of the spot will only affect that small subset of puzzle solvers as they solve and find each subsequent puzzle.  If the CO wants to use the spot for another cache or feels that it's run its course, then they're more than welcome to archive the old one at any time, as has been the case since I started. 

 

For me, puzzle caches I look at rarely become quick finds. The more difficult ones might take me months (or even years) to solve, with them going on the back-burner until I get that flash of inspiration or maybe hear something at an event that points to a way forward, and even those I've solved are often outside my usual stamping ground so will wait until I happen to be visiting that area. It would be disappointing if a CO were to regularly delete their puzzles and create new ones in the same vicinity just to supposedly "rejuvenate" the area. What's the point of trying to solve a puzzle cache if it's going to be archived before I can complete it?

[+ecanderson]

Ouch.  I can relate to that, Jeff.

I've gotten to where, once solved, I now waste as little time as possible finding the physical of a solved puzzle cache.  I've had more than one instance where the inspiration finally hits after hours spent over some months, only to have the cache archived before I get to it to make the actual find.  Frustrating!