Proposed Disabled Cache Guidelines

[+bflentje]

On 7/9/2020 at 8:37 AM, hostanut said:

As far as finding caches that are still "there".....does finding an empty baggie, just a plastic lid,  a busted birdhouse with no container or log, a piece of velcro, some sort of container (that was not the cache), a tether to a cache but no container, etc constitute a "find"? 

 

 

Using a rare fringe example where the answer is obvious is a false argument. I've found MANY archived caches where the container was fully in tact with a viable paper log.. one as long as five years after archival. I get the feeling that someone left an archived cache in the woods and is upset because someone found it and logged it.

[+dimwit61]

I have found at least 3 disabled caches in the last year (including one last week). In all cases, they were in good condition but were sneaky hides that had been disabled by the automatic disabling Gods because a bunch of TikTok newbies couldn't find them. And I think that sums up the problem. In the past, caches were disabled by the owners largely because they were not there etc. but nowadays it is based on health score which doesn't seem to take into account the difficultly level of the cache which are in many cases still there but tricky. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by dimwit61

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, dimwit61 said:

I have found at least 3 disabled caches in the last year (including one last week). In all cases, they were in good condition but were sneaky hides that had been disabled by the automatic disabling Gods because a bunch of TikTok newbies couldn't find them. And I think that sums up the problem. In the past, caches were disabled by the owners largely because they were not there etc. but nowadays it is based on health score which doesn't seem to take into account the difficultly level of the cache which are in many cases still there but tricky. 

 

That odd, I asked about this shortly after the CHS came out, and was assured that HQ and Reviewers take D/T and the persons that didn't find them into consideration.

Curious though, before it gets to a Reviewer or HQ to be disabled, a member's given notice that their hide has issues.

Were any of these addressed by the COs beforehand ?  Thanks.  

[+dimwit61]

One cache is still active but disabled but the other two are archived so I am not sure if anything was done. There was nothing in the logbooks.

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Curious though, before it gets to a Reviewer or HQ to be disabled, a member's given notice that their hide has issues.

 

The CHS email is currently turned off due to the COVID situation, so the only notice COs now get it the dashboard banner.

[+cerberus1]

Just now, barefootjeff said:

The CHS email is currently turned off due to the COVID situation, so the only notice COs now get it the dashboard banner.

 

I realize that, but I didn't think they all ...

2 hours ago, dimwit61 said:

I have found at least 3 disabled caches in the last year (including one last week).

... would have been included...

[+L0ne.R]

10 hours ago, dimwit61 said:

I have found at least 3 disabled caches in the last year (including one last week). In all cases, they were in good condition but were sneaky hides that had been disabled by the automatic disabling Gods because a bunch of TikTok newbies couldn't find them. And I think that sums up the problem. In the past, caches were disabled by the owners largely because they were not there etc. but nowadays it is based on health score which doesn't seem to take into account the difficultly level of the cache which are in many cases still there but tricky. 

 

A cache owner is responsible for their cache and listing. That has never changed. A cache doesn’t get archived unless the cache owner is unresponsive. The usually get multiple alerts and warnings, often taking months sometimes years. 

 

It it is not the fault of the CHS, but rather the fault of the cache owner. 

Edited August 2, 2020 by L0ne.R

[+barefootjeff]

31 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A cache owner is responsible for their cache and listing. That has never changed. A cache doesn’t get archived unless the cache owner is unresponsive. The usually get multiple alerts and warnings, often taking months sometimes years. 

 

Okay, maybe it's different where you are, but there are no multiple warnings here. This is the boilerplate TD log the reviewer here posts when a cache fails the CHS:

 

Quote

The cache appears to be in need of owner intervention. I'm temporarily disabling it, to give the owner an opportunity to check on the cache, and take whatever action is necessary. Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 28 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness.

If you require more time please be sure to post a note (not an email) explaining the situation and how much more time you require. For ongoing issues please ensure you visit the listing and post a new note every 28 days to keep everyone up to date, if you do not then you cache may be archived without further note from a reviewer. Caches archived due to lack of maintenance are no longer unarchived and you will need to submit a replacement as a new cache.

 

There's no second warning, if the CO hasn't responded within 28 days, or hasn't posted a note every 28 days if there's an ongoing issue, the cache is summarily archived. So not months, not years, no multiple warnings, just 28 days. Maybe that's fair enough, but I've seen some good servicable caches archived simply because the CO missed that 28-day deadline, which in a cache-poor region is probably not the best outcome for the community.

[+coachstahly]

6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

The usually get multiple alerts and warnings, often taking months sometimes years. 

 

I brought this up in a separate thread.  If a cache has issues unaddressed by the CO, it's on the finders to file the NA in order to significantly reduce the allotted time from years to a month, especially if there are current outstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed by the CO.  The reason a cache can take years to get fixed or archived is that finders aren't doing their part to alert COs and reviewers that their lack of attention to NM logs means a reviewer needs to become involved to rectify the situation.  

 

6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It it is not the fault of the CHO, but rather the fault of the cache owner.

 

Although it's a generalization and there are exceptions that don't fall into any of these categories (or span two categories), I find that there are 4 types of COs.  

 

The first type are the proactive COs who "proactively" note issues mentioned in logs and go out to take care of a developing problem.  Occasionally, they may even get a NM log that was filed due to some sudden issue that popped up but they'll go out and take care of it.  They rarely, if ever, get NA logs because they don't let it get to that point.

 

The second type are the active reactive COs.  These COs usually wait until they get notified, via a NM log but occasionally by a found log that mentions an outstanding issue, that their cache has issues before they head out to fix it.  These COs aren't as attentive to potential issues in found logs, instead relying on finders to alert them when their cache is in need of something. They might occasionally get NA logs due to a cache slipping out of their mind but they typically archive it themselves rather than let a reviewer do it.

 

The third type are the passive reactive COs.  These COs absolutely wait until they get notified, via a NM log or a NA log, to consider doing anything to fix up their cache.  Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.  They're perfectly fine with a reviewer archiving their cache (but will occasionally do it themselves) because it's become a cache that they don't particularly care about anymore and don't want to put forth the effort to maintain it.  They might have a couple caches they will still maintain but they won't do so until such time as the NM or NA log is filed.  Many times these COs rely on others maintaining their caches for them. 

 

The fourth type are the COs who have abandoned their caches (either through leaving the activity for a variety of reasons or willful negligence/abandonment) and have no interest in taking care of their caches, either because they can't or they won't.  The NM logs go unattended, as do the NA logs and the end result is the archival of their caches.

 

This constant attention on COs and their responsibilities only addresses part of the problem you outline here. For the lack of maintenance it is the primary fault of the CO but for a cache to linger for years in some sort of limbo of unmaintained but active status, it is also the fault of finders not logging the necessary NA logs to address unresponsive COs to their filed NM logs (or to caches whose finders should have filed NMs but didn't).   Problematic caches shouldn't be sticking around for years if finders filed the requisite NM/NA logs in a timely manner.  These "examples" you post of caches taking years to get maintained or get archived wouldn't take years if finders held up their end of the bargain as well and used the tools that we have at our disposal.  The 3rd and 4th type of COs are the ones that finders need to stay on top of in order to prevent the cache that supposedly takes years to get maintained or archived.  If finders filed the appropriate logs as needed, these caches that take a long time to get settled would disappear much quicker, leaving us in a much better state than we apparently are in now.

 

However, I'm not sure it's as bad as this poster makes it out to be.  I'm certain there are caches out there that resemble the caches that are posted.  I've know because I've found some like that.  At least where I've been fortunate enough to cache, those types of caches are found infrequently by me and are the outliers rather than the norm.  Instead I find a few caches with much more minor maintenance issues, some of which can be rectified by myself because the container is still in good shape and I happen to have materials and time to help out.  If I can't help out because I don't have the materials or time, then I make note of the issue in my found log.  Those that can't be helped at all due to the container get the requisite NM log to alert the CO that this issue needs addressing before it really becomes a problem or the requisite NA log because the previous NM log went unattended.  The majority of the caches I find are fine.  I went to Michigan two weeks ago and didn't find a single cache in real need of maintenance.  I found one partially crushed container but the contents were still dry and in great shape, despite the fact that it had rained quite a bit previous to my find.  A few of the caches were in original containers (over 15 years old) with original logs still inside and while the containers weren't in pristine shape, they were still doing the job well enough to keep the contents in good shape.