Abandoned Cachers

[+Lostboy1966]

I’m sure this has been bought up somewhere before, but I’m too inept to find the thread.

 

So, I am trying to find places in my area to place new hides. All of my local parks are taken by hides from users with active accounts; such is life. As I expand my search radius for areas I may be able to place something I am seeing caches that are in NM or Disabled status, or have recent Logs reporting problems with the hide. I am fine with that if the CO is still active after a quick Profile check, but what about cases where the CO has not logged into the site for years (not months, but years)?

 

I would not expect Reviewers to have to deal with this kind of minutia, but it seems to me some kind of bot comparing NM/Disabled status vs. CO activity might help clear real estate for new hides. Am I off base here? Thoughts?

Edited July 22, 2020 by Lostboy1966
Edit for paragraph spacing

[RuideAlmeida]

Reviewers are not notified about Needs Maintenance log, but if a given cache has a durable problem, you (or anybody else) may log a Need Archive... that they will see.

After a while, the cache will be Archived, for sure... if the owner doesn't do anything.

Another reminder... if a geocacher uses an app instead of the homepage, it may seems that he's inactive for months or years as you put it.

[+barefootjeff]

12 minutes ago, Lostboy1966 said:

 

I would not expect Reviewers to have to deal with this kind of minutia, but it seems to me some kind of bot comparing NM/Disabled status vs. CO activity might help clear real estate for new hides. Am I off base here? Thoughts?

 

You mean like the Cache Health Score?

 

In the meantime, if a cache has an outstanding NM on it that the CO hasn't addressed, just log an NA and start the archival ball rolling.

[+colleda]

13 minutes ago, Lostboy1966 said:

I’m sure this has been bought up somewhere before, but I’m too inept to find the thread.

 

So, I am trying to find places in my area to place new hides. All of my local parks are taken by hides from users with active accounts; such is life. As I expand my search radius for areas I may be able to place something I am seeing caches that are in NM or Disabled status, or have recent Logs reporting problems with the hide. I am fine with that if the CO is still active after a quick Profile check, but what about cases where the CO has not logged into the site for years (not months, but years)?

 

I would not expect Reviewers to have to deal with this kind of minutia, but it seems to me some kind of bot comparing NM/Disabled status vs. CO activity might help clear real estate for new hides. Am I off base here? Thoughts?

There is a "bot'. It's called a CHS or Cache Health Score, an algorithm that determines if a cache may be in need of some form of maintenance which then messages the cache owner and alerts a reviewer for follow up. However, it could be a long wait for action to take place.

 

[+colleda]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

In the meantime, if a cache has an outstanding NM on it that the CO hasn't addressed, just log an NA and start the archival ball rolling.

This too. It would, most likely, be quicker option.

[+Lostboy1966]

1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

You mean like the Cache Health Score?

Oh yeah, that thing I was griping about a post or two ago after it flagged my brand new 3/1.5 hide after a couple of DNFs. Yeah, I suppose it was silly of me to suggest bots, but a fella can dream, can't he?

[Keystone]

Please know that the Cache Health Score notification emails were paused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Reviewers have been asked to provide extra latitude (i.e. time) for owners to respond to cache maintenance issues in the current public health environment.  As a result, there may be more cache maintenance issues apparent to you when reviewing cache pages than would normally be the case. 

 

For my review territories, unaddressed cache issues quadrupled from pre-pandemic levels.  I am gradually nudging these caches and their owners along, and the backlog is now down to triple the normal level.

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, Lostboy1966 said:

Oh yeah, that thing I was griping about a post or two ago after it flagged my brand new 3/1.5 hide after a couple of DNFs. Yeah, I suppose it was silly of me to suggest bots, but a fella can dream, can't he?

 

Yeah, the same thing that pinged my 6-week-old 2/5 multi after just 1 DNF a few years back. But if you want a bit of software to try to second-guess which caches need maintenance instead of having an active community on the ground logging NMs and NAs, false positives like these are going to keep happening.

[+colleda]

6 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Please know that the Cache Health Score notification emails were paused as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Reviewers have been asked to provide extra latitude (i.e. time) for owners to respond to cache maintenance issues in the current public health environment.  As a result, there may be more cache maintenance issues apparent to you when reviewing cache pages than would normally be the case. 

 

For my review territories, unaddressed cache issues quadrupled from pre-pandemic levels.  I am gradually nudging these caches and their owners along, and the backlog is now down to triple the normal level.

Someone should triple your pay?

[+Lostboy1966]

13 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

Reviewers are not notified about Needs Maintenance log, but if a given cache has a durable problem, you (or anybody else) may log a Need Archive... that they will see.

After a while, the cache will be Archived, for sure... if the owner doesn't do anything.

Another reminder... if a geocacher uses an app instead of the homepage, it may seems that he's inactive for months or years as you put it.

Thanks for the info. I've never posted an NA, and might do so, but not until I attempt to directly reach out to the COs via messaging. Seems the best way to go about it I suppose. For clarity, I was on the homepage.

[+ecanderson]

1 hour ago, Lostboy1966 said:

 I am fine with that if the CO is still active after a quick Profile check, but what about cases where the CO has not logged into the site for years (not months, but years)?

@Keystone

Am I correct in my understanding that the activity date on the profile page still doesn't update if someone is using the app instead of the web site?

Some time ago I ceased making any judgments about CO activity using the "Last Visit" date.  I find checking the most recent find date is better, but even that isn't bulletproof.

[+barefootjeff]

1 minute ago, ecanderson said:

Am I correct in my understanding that the activity date on the profile page still doesn't update if someone is using the app instead of the web site?

Some time ago I ceased making any judgments about CO activity using the "Last Visit" date.  I find checking the most recent find date is better, but even that isn't bulletproof.

 

That seems to be the case as I'm seeing a fair few new cachers around here with dozens or even a hundred or more finds whose profile shows the "Last Visit" date as Never.

[+ecanderson]

Personal opinion -- any interaction with gc.com over any platform (including everything using the API login, even Project-GC) should show up somewhere in the profile as "Last Visit".  It's the only way any of us mortals have a clue about whether a cacher / owner is actually still active.

[+barefootjeff]

40 minutes ago, Lostboy1966 said:

Thanks for the info. I've never posted an NA, and might do so, but not until I attempt to directly reach out to the COs via messaging. Seems the best way to go about it I suppose. For clarity, I was on the homepage.

 

Really if a CO has ignored an NM for many months then, regardless of whether they're still active or not, that cache deserves an NA. An NA doesn't mean it will be archived, it just means a reviewer is notified who will then, if they consider it justified, disable the cache and give the CO a period of time in which to respond. If that's enough to prompt the CO into fixing the cache, that's a win for the community, and if they don't and the cache is archived, that's also a win for the community. I really don't understand this reluctance to log NAs on derelict caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

 

For my review territories, unaddressed cache issues quadrupled from pre-pandemic levels. 

 I am gradually nudging these caches and their owners along, and the backlog is now down to triple the normal level.

•  

 

That should not come as a surprise.   We've been told to stay at home during the pandemic.  That kinds makes it hard to address any issues. I wouldn't expect cache maintenance to get back to normal when things are still far from normal.   There are a lot of places that are setting daily number of confirmed cases  records everyday.   Two weeks ago there was one active case in my county.  Today there are 35 actives cases.  Most of those are related to people returning to the area from places where there are still significant issues.  The list of states from which people have visited and are required to self-quarantine is now up to 31 states. If I went geocaching in Ohio (about a 4.5 hour drive away) and stayed over night I'd be required to self-quarantine for 14 days. There were also a couple of large parties over the 4th of July where social distancing the wearing of masks was observed to not exist.  The pandemic is not over.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, Lostboy1966 said:

So, I am trying to find places in my area to place new hides.

All of my local parks are taken by hides from users with active accounts; such is life.

As I expand my search radius for areas I may be able to place something I am seeing caches that are in NM or Disabled status, or have recent Logs reporting problems with the hide. I am fine with that if the CO is still active after a quick Profile check, but what about cases where the CO has not logged into the site for years (not months, but years)?

 

I would not expect Reviewers to have to deal with this kind of minutia, but it seems to me some kind of bot comparing NM/Disabled status vs. CO activity might help clear real estate for new hides. Am I off base here? Thoughts?

 

If people would place a  NM once in a while, maybe caches needing maintenance would get it.  We don't see that happening...

That's why we act on logs.  If some wait until a NM is posted, that cache is probably already shot when they finally get there.

Folks want to gripe n moan, but don't want someone upset with them.      

If some see a few NM and no response whatsoever from the CO, it's acceptable to be the first to place a NA.

 

We have a few friends who rarely, if ever enter the website.  You can do that now.  If you didn't realize that, AFAYK they're "inactive".

We have some who don't cache at all anymore, and just keep keep track of their hides n watch their trackables.  They're still active.

Another has given a link to the cache health score, no NMs probably the reason it was created.

Many folks were given a break during the virus.  Some states/areas are closing down again.

[+TmdAndGG]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Really if a CO has ignored an NM for many months then, regardless of whether they're still active or not, that cache deserves an NA. An NA doesn't mean it will be archived, it just means a reviewer is notified who will then, if they consider it justified, disable the cache and give the CO a period of time in which to respond. If that's enough to prompt the CO into fixing the cache, that's a win for the community, and if they don't and the cache is archived, that's also a win for the community.

Yup. That's why it really should be called Needs Reviewer Attention, instead of Needs Archived, which sounds too much like an immediate death sentence to a lot of players.

Edited July 23, 2020 by TmdAndGG

[+Viajero Perdido]

22 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:

Yup. That's why it really should be called Needs Reviewer Attention, instead of Needs Archived, which sounds too much like an immediate death sentence to a lot of players.

 

It has been suggested many times over the years.

 

Maybe they're waiting for the art team to design a souvenir for it, I dunno. 

[+Lynx Humble]

57 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

 

It has been suggested many times over the years.

 

It was even part of the recommandations in the geocache quality survey results published more than 1 yr ago.

 

It is one of the easiest to implement but Groundspeak refuse to do it for unknown reason.

 

I am still waiting for Groundspeak to implement any of those recommandations 2 yrs after launching the survey....

[Keystone]

34 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

I am still waiting for Groundspeak to implement any of those recommandations 2 yrs after launching the survey....

 

Among other things, you should check out the new Cache Owner Dashboard.

[+Lynx Humble]

9 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

Among other things, you should check out the new Cache Owner Dashboard.

Its nice they introduced it but if a CO ignored notifications email about maintenance issues I wonder how many will take action now.

 

Nothing still prevents a CO to hide hundreds of crappy leaking containers in crappy places with inaccurate listing even if they have issues with their previous hides...

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Its nice they introduced it but if a CO ignored notifications email about maintenance issues I wonder how many will take action now.

You can lead a horse to water...

 

The cache owner dashboard is a tool for owners who want to do a better job. It won't force negligent owners to do a better job; nothing will.

[+cerberus1]

13 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

That's why it really should be called Needs Reviewer Attention, instead of Needs Archived, which sounds too much like an immediate death sentence to a lot of players.

 

Maybe since "Needs Reviewer Attention" means the same thing,  someone feels it's just like putting lipstick on a pig.

If someone says "this cache needs a Reviewers attention", is there really anyone who doesn't get what you're insinuating ?   

[+TmdAndGG]

2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Maybe since "Needs Reviewer Attention" means the same thing,  someone feels it's just like putting lipstick on a pig.

If someone says "this cache needs a Reviewers attention", is there really anyone who doesn't get what you're insinuating ?   

True, but Needs Reviewer Attention is still more accurate of a name. 

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, Lynx Humble said:

Nothing still prevents a CO to hide hundreds of crappy leaking containers in crappy places with inaccurate listing even if they have issues with their previous hides...

 

Other measures include the Cache Health Score, which (in normal times) sends notifications to cache owners about caches which might require maintenance, and a Reviewer's ability to ask Geocaching HQ for approval to stop publishing new caches hidden by owners who demonstrate a chronic inability to maintain their existing caches.  Sometimes geocachers are temporarily or permanently restricted from hiding new caches, and sometimes they are allowed to hide new caches again after completing a list of maintenance issues on their existing caches.

[+dprovan]

15 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

Yup. That's why it really should be called Needs Reviewer Attention, instead of Needs Archived, which sounds too much like an immediate death sentence to a lot of players.

Well, no. This discussion is all about how to make bad caches go away by posting Needs Archived so the reviewer will consider the situation. Watering down the declaration to pretend that this cache might not really needs to be archived if nothing is done is the opposite of what we want from NA. I don't have much patience for the "Needs Archived" argument to begin with, but it seems completely out of place here in a discussion of how to get bad caches cleaned up. We want people to be thinking that when they encounter a bad cache, they should feel responsible for standing up and saying why it needs to be archived.

 

1 hour ago, TmdAndGG said:

True, but Needs Reviewer Attention is still more accurate of a name. 

No, Needs Reviewer Attention really isn't more accurate. The only official action the reviewer can take is archive the cache, so Needs Archived is entirely accurate: I think this cache needs to be archived, so the reviewer should look into the question of whether to archive it. "Needs Reviewer Attention" undermines our responsibility here and pretends that we as seekers aren't empowered to say that, in our opinion, the correct action is to archive the cache.

[+Lynx Humble]

53 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The only official action the reviewer can take is archive the cache

That statement is inaccurate, normally a reviewer Disable a geocache first to give more time to the CO to do something.

 

So, Need Reviewer Attention is more accurate than NA.