Archive instead of adopt?

[+CCFsmile]

Hello Folks,

Thoughts on this please.
I have caches in a foreign country where I used to live. When I moved back to my country of birth, I adopted them out to friends. Most of the friends maintained those caches and some we both agreed should be archived a couple of years later. I am only sentimentally attached to three of the caches. One is maintained well and has occasional finds and is fine. Two were maintained until the friend had to retire from caching and so adopted them to another cacher I had been friendly with. Now that cacher wants to archive them (one might well be missing, has a few DNFs, never has gone missing in the past ~10 years, not flagged NM, yet). The other is possibly there but the current CO has not checked. That one has a NM on it plus a CO note that they might let it go. Despite being caching "friends" online, they have not replied to my messages since last year. They adopted these 9 months ago, did maintenance on one then and none on the other since.

Today another very good friend there has offered to adopt both and been turned down. So my question is - why would they do that? They've not had them long and inherited some FPs (maybe 25+ total). I know that if they archive then they keep the FPs. In all honesty the fair thing (IMHO) would be to let me adopt back and archive. YES I KNOW THEY ARE THE CO ON RECORD ETC. (Please no preaching at me. ) But if anyone has an enlightened idea? I am making the assumption that if archived despite me being the original CO, a reviewer cannot unarchive and give them to the person willing to maintain. I'm sad because they are in unique and special places that both carry a lot of personal meaning for me. I have expressed this to the current CO but no reply, as mentioned. Maybe the lesson is to not place caches in spots you have attachment to! Thanks anyone who has read this far - hopefully I do not sound whiny! LOL :-) 

 

[+cerberus1]

Maybe it's just me, and I've been tempted a couple times, but all the spots I have attachments to, I'm not sharing with others.  

We archived all our land hides because of the situation you're in now.  We don't (really) know people...

 - Our hides possibly turning into a steaming pile o' you-know-what with locals still associating them with us.  

Most were well-before there was such a thing as FP though.

 

Edited September 23, 2024 by cerberus1
want...

[+CCFsmile]

Thanks @cerberus1 👍

 

Edit to add that I sent a last ditch pleading message and they were instantly archived. Not very nice, IMHO.

Edited September 23, 2024 by CCFwasG

[+Max and 99]

It's such a shame that you were treated like that. I'm sorry that happened to you. 

 

Any chance they just wanted that spot to place their own cache?

[+CCFsmile]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

It's such a shame that you were treated like that. I'm sorry that happened to you. 

 

Any chance they just wanted that spot to place their own cache?

Thanks and sadly definitely not. And worse the potential adopter cared about the sites too, not the FPs!

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, CCFwasG said:

And worse the potential adopter cared about the sites too, not the FPs!

Perhaps the potential adopter can now place new caches there, and reference the ones that got archived?  Tribute caches?

[+JL_HSTRE]

There's no obligation to let someone adopt a cache.

[+CCFsmile]

On 9/24/2024 at 7:50 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

There's no obligation to let someone adopt a cache.

 

Well, yes. I was pretty clear I KNOW the rules. It was the principle. An original CO asks you to not archive a cache that the not original CO passed on to you a few months ago and you refuse to adopt out - why? ONLY reason is for the FPs, IMHO.

[+CCFsmile]

On 9/24/2024 at 12:00 AM, CAVinoGal said:

Perhaps the potential adopter can now place new caches there, and reference the ones that got archived?  Tribute caches?

 

They might but unlikely - they offered as a favor to me and because they like the sites, but they're getting older and trying to reduce their CO "portfolio".

[+CCFsmile]

On 9/23/2024 at 7:50 PM, Max and 99 said:

It's such a shame that you were treated like that. I'm sorry that happened to you. 

 

Any chance they just wanted that spot to place their own cache?

 

Definitely not, that was clear...  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Sorry I didn't do a multi-reply. I forget it exists sometimes. :-) 

[+JL_HSTRE]

18 minutes ago, CCFwasG said:

 

Well, yes. I was pretty clear I KNOW the rules. It was the principle. An original CO asks you to not archive a cache that the not original CO passed on to you a few months ago and you refuse to adopt out - why? ONLY reason is for the FPs, IMHO.

 

Maybe, but that's a big assumption.

 

That said, anyone who adopts a cache just so they can archive it and boost their "FPs on owned caches" stat are almost as pathetic than the cachers who include a huge wall of meaningless boilerplate text in their logs to pump their "average log length" stat.

[+Mausebiber]

From my point of view:

 

FPs are not for the cache owner, but for the cache itself.  FPs give the following cacher an idea what they have to expect, therefore, you can search for cache (not cache owner) with a specific or minimum number of FPs.

The Cache owner gets his award by the log cachers writing.  A good cache will get FPs for the cache and good found-logs for the owner.