Jump to content

Archiving Popular Caches


Recommended Posts

In this thread folks were discussing the recently archived, and perhaps most popular LC, Yellow Jeep Fever. YJF was archived for this reason: "It was having a negative impact on the site and on the Pocket Query Generator. The site was not designed to accommodate caches with 1200 logs."

 

This raises the question:

As far as site constraints, does that mean all older caches will be eventually pushed off the site to accommodate newer caches? If this happens to one cache, does this mean that any cache listing a large number of finds will be archived for the same reason?

 

With the ever increasing number of caches on the site, is it foreseeable that even caches with 100 logs may be forced to be archived?

 

Without any arguments about the validity of any type of cache on the site, post your thoughts as to what impact this forced archive of a popular cache will have on other popular caches, and what you think may be done about it.

 

I would first post the question to Jeremy and kindly ask for his comments. Jeremy? The floor is yours.

Edited by Sparky-Watts
Link to comment

Well this answers the Jeep question for me. Now for the long list of logs item. I guess I would have to ask how many actually go back and read logs past say 100? Maybe the owner of the cache could download them if they so desire to keep the count controllable.

 

Just my thoughts. I know you are looking for admin thoughts. I too would like to hear them.

Link to comment

I'm guessing this is one of the reasons the site hasn't accepted any new locationless caches, and I would guess it will be addressed when the new locationless section comes online. Since Jeremy has also indicated that the rest of the website is being revamped as well, I would think this is something that will be addressed in the new website. I would also say that a new YJ cache can wait for the new LC section.

Link to comment

It just doesn't seem right to me to archive any cache because "too many people liked/logged it" which is what happened here. If it was too popular, perhaps instead of a simple archive, it should have been reborn as a new cache somehow. Of course, then all the people who logged it originally would want to log the new one, too, so that may not work, either......still, it doesn't seem right to archive a cache because it was popular.

Link to comment
still, it doesn't seem right to archive a cache because it was popular.

You're right IV, it doesn't. But it does seem like a reasonable action to archive one cache if that one cache is causing website and pocket query problems for all the users.

It is reasonable to archive it. I'm sure it will reappear when the site is revamped but it would be nice to make an exception for this cache since it's the most popular logged cache in history.

 

And it took me two months to log it. So for some it was as easy as going into your garage, for me, living in a rural area it took forever.

Link to comment

Thanks for quote'n me Sparky. I can understand why they did archive Yellow Jeep, but I don't think it's fair to the cachers. Traditional caches may have a way around this by being "reborn" after being archived, but because of the difficulty or unwillingness to allow new locationless or virtuals, I can see these types of caches dissappearing completely in the next few years. I know some cachers don't care for these, but I don't think discarding these caches will help the site at all. I know several handicapped cachers that wouldn't be able to do much caching at all if any if it wasn't for virtuals and locationless. Has anyone thought about that aspect?

Link to comment
Thanks for quote'n me Sparky.  I can understand why they did archive Yellow Jeep, but I don't think it's fair to the cachers.  Traditional caches may have a way around this by being "reborn" after being archived, but because of the difficulty or unwillingness to allow new locationless or virtuals, I can see these types of caches dissappearing completely in the next few years.  I know some cachers don't care for these, but I don't think discarding these caches will help the site at all.  I know several handicapped cachers that wouldn't be able to do much caching at all if any if it wasn't for virtuals and locationless.  Has anyone thought about that aspect?

There is not an unwillingness to approve locationless caches, there is a moratorium on new ones until the website is revamped to better handle them. From the many forum threads on the subject, as well as comments made by TPTB and admins in the chatroom, they have every intention on bringing back LC's as well as more virtuals, once the website to handle them is built. I have no reason to doubt this is not true, I can't see what would be gained by lying about it to us.

I also know some cachers that society might consider "handicapped". They enjoy finding physical caches as much as anyone, and in general resent the idea that they "need" virtuals or LCs to geocache. Looking at their finds, you probably don't even know they have some form of disability. The only thing they really need is for cache hiders to accurately rate their caches. I've seen caches rated a one star terrain (which should be wheelchair accessible) where I had to hike a narrow dirt trail, jump over a small stream, then bushwack 50ft over fallen trees up a hillside to get to the cache.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
I know several handicapped cachers that wouldn't be able to do much caching at all if any if it wasn't for virtuals and locationless. Has anyone thought about that aspect?

I place handicapped caches but if virutals and locationless were allowed they could participate so much more. It's a shame.

 

We just had a thread drop off about lame urban micros. They are lame to someone who isn't stuck in a wheelchair. Too bad these forum elitists don't think about others less fortunate.

Link to comment

Once again, someone beats the drum of what should be.

 

Those who believe in the message will come and anoint themselves in the cool waters of what we want.

 

Those who own the site will turn their backs and return to the forests of what we plan to do.

 

In some cases, the forest grows from these waters.

 

In other cases, it does not.

 

Since no regular cache of the does it have a logbook mountain range will ever likely reach the plateau of over 1000+ finds my guess is that the river will never reach the forest on this one.

Edited by ju66l3r
Link to comment
Well I see people keep logging finds on YJF after it has been disabled. I agree, it shouldn't be dropped because it's popular. That kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it? ;)

It was dropped because the popularity of it was causing issues with the rest of the website, not just because it was popular. I don't get it. What good is allowing one cache to stay if it's going to effect ALL caches? And if it is effecting the overall performance of the website (part of the reason given for archiving it) continuing to log it sure isn't going to improve that. Those people are just gonna keep pushing the limits until all the logs need to be deleted or we no longer have the ability to log ANY archived caches. WTG, people.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Well I see people keep logging finds on YJF after it has been disabled. I agree, it shouldn't be dropped because it's popular. That kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it? ;)

It wasn't archived because it was popular it was archived because the number of logs on the cache were causing problems with the PQ's and other issues.

 

This makes it a necessary evil as the saying goes. Unfortunate but it needed to happen. This does not mean that those that did it rejoiced in the act. It simply means it had to happen

Link to comment
Well I see people keep logging finds on YJF after it has been disabled. I agree, it shouldn't be dropped because it's popular. That kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it? ;)

It was dropped because the popularity of it was causing issues with the rest of the website, not just because it was popular. I don't get it. What good is allowing one cache to stay if it's going to effect ALL caches? And if it is effecting the overall performance of the website (part of the reason given for archiving it) continuing to log it sure isn't going to improve that. Those people are just gonna keep pushing the limits until all the logs need to be deleted or we no longer have the ability to log ANY archived caches. WTG, people.

Hey I didn't log it. What is the log limit for a cache? Why not allow a new YJF?

Link to comment

I believe there is a 'simple' solution to the problem of caches like 'yellow jeep'.

 

Once a month the site could archive all logs that are at least 6 months old. They could then be stored like all the threads from the old forums. By doings this you restrict the number of logs called up by a PQ. Any log older than 6 months could be accessed just like the threads of the old forums.

 

Just my opinion and some food for thought.

 

John

Link to comment
Without any arguments about the validity of any type of cache on the site, post your thoughts as to what impact this forced archive of a popular cache will have on other popular caches, and what you think may be done about it.

 

Back to the topic, please. :D

Sparky has a topic? ;):P:D

Frightening, isn't it? And I'm following your lead!

 

So far, it's been a good discussion, and I appreciate that. Nobody like me to come along and derail it. I'm still waiting to hear an opinion from Jeremy, not that I'm looking to overturn the decision, nor am I wanting more caches archived. I was just curious where this is going, if it is a coming trend, or if it is an isolated incident that will be taken care of with the "revamped" website.

Link to comment
If it is a Pocket Query problem how about setting the reference coordinates for all locationless caches to the North or South Poles? Wouldn't this sort out the problem?

That would also solve another problem with locationless caches...having them show up in searches and PQ's when you're not really interested in them, but are too lazy to click all the buttons except locationless, so you just leave it at "all types" for the PQ's.

Link to comment

There is always more than one way to look at a problem.

 

Since I don't see a viable cache of any kind as a problem, that leaves the real problem as something with the site. A temporary solution would be to archive the cache, but thats just a symptom and the problem will come up again unless it's solved.

 

So what's the solution? How long will it take? Will YJF come back when the problem is solved?

Link to comment

Computers have limited resources.

 

If there is a practical limit as to the number of entries that can be efficiently porocessed, means must be designed to limit the number of entries to a manageable quantity.

 

All systems have limits. All systems eventually come up against those limits if heavily used.

 

Someone once said if we could just amke a computer with 16K memory, it would be as much as would ever be needed.

 

GC.com has become an absolutely HUGE operation.

 

When you hit the wall, you have several choices:

 

-build a bigger wall (takes time and money)

-prevent people from hitting it (set a hard limit for file size or # of entries)

-live with it (and let more and more things get bogged down)

-brainstorm (this is where new things get invented)

 

Simply archiving the overloaded cache and opening a new one is the easiest (temporary) solution. It's kinda like archiving your old Outlook data.

Link to comment
Then there is this cache, which has also been archived for no apparent reason.

No apparent reason? Looking at that cache and at the hider's other caches it appears he abandoned his caches. He has one cache that sat for 18 months after it was reported missing, and when a different admin archived that one, he mentioned the hider hadn't even logged into the site for 4 months. I suspect the virtual you mention probably got complaints about it not being maintained, or else I doubt it would have been archived.

Link to comment
Maybe I'm missing something, but if a PQ only sends 5 most recent logs, how can this be a problem?

You're missing something. The pocket query generator has to crank through all 1,200 logs to see if you have found the cache, if you ask for a query that picks up that cache (like "all caches I've found, of all types" or "all locationless caches" or "all caches I haven't found, of all types").

 

I can't hazard a guess on the timetable for the return of locationless caches in their own separate section of the website, other than to say it will be sometime after pocket queries and the benchmark section are re-coded. I would rather have the programming efforts focused on getting us to the point where a better solution for locationless can be coded, rather than on putting a band-aid on it now. That last part is just my personal opinion.

Link to comment

Being a software guy, I can understand where TPTB are coming from. Maybe it's blind optimism, but I tend to think they didn't archive it for malicious reasons, and in fact the reason they gave it valid.

 

With that in mind, its also most likely true this "problem" has now been brought to their attention and they will "fix" it. In the mean time, we have to deal with the growing pains.

 

This site is very software intensive. Things are by no means as easy as they appear. I think we as community (aka end users) ought to cut them some slack and hang in there, even if it takes months or years. $3 a month by 30% of the community only goes so far, after all.

Link to comment
Maybe I'm missing something, but if a PQ only sends 5 most recent logs, how can this be a problem?

You're missing something. The pocket query generator has to crank through all 1,200 logs to see if you have found the cache, if you ask for a query that picks up that cache (like "all caches I've found, of all types" or "all locationless caches" or "all caches I haven't found, of all types").

Thanks, KA. That's what I was missing. ;)

Link to comment
Not to stir the pot BUT- this sounds like the same excuse used to get rid of the Keenpeople tag lines.....

That is the exact same thing I was thinking when I read about this.

 

As we all know at this point the KeenPeople thing was a smoke screen. It never was a problem. But that was what was put out there and the lap dogs eat it up.

 

Why is it that after the outright lies we have seen here from TPTB folks are still willing to just accept the anything they say.

 

And mrkablooey my thoughts exactly. When I see things like that I just have to think to myself that the people doing the backend database either do not know what they are doing, or just was not designed to scale. It may also be a problem with the equipment or whatever is being used as a database server. Whatever it is that is just a silly way to deal with the problem. The people in charge of the database are just not staying on top of potential problems.

 

This is actually one thing I can address with some small bit of experience. One of the programs I worked with in the past was a real time web based system for physician billing and insurance information. It had several hundred thousand master records and a couple million detail records. And it all ran on a PC that had less power than the tablet PC I am using now. Never a problem with returning information that was requested which often involved lots of different filters and sorting options.

 

So how many caches will it take before we can no longer post caches because there are too many in the system?

Link to comment
One of the programs I worked with in the past was a real time web based system for physician billing and insurance information. It had several hundred thousand master records and a couple million detail records. And it all ran on a PC that had less power than the tablet PC I am using now. Never a problem with returning information that was requested which often involved lots of different filters and sorting options.

 

Well, as I sit here sipping koolaid, I gotta wonder just how many millions of hits a day your PC based database handles??

A year ago, it was mentioned that the site was getting over 30mil pageviews a month, and that's not taking into account the PQs and emails etc. One would suspect the site has grow since then. As someone who first became of geocaching back in 2000 (a year before I registered a user name on the site), I remember how it was. NOBODY back then had any clue it would take off like this. When this site was brought online, nobody expected this to grow beyond a few thousand users or caches. The fact that it's scaled this well is pretty amazing. If you get bored, play around with the user IDs for 15 minutes. find the last user to join, then wait a few minutes. Every time I've tried that, I've seen this site's userbase growing, often several new users every single minute on weekends. Truly amazes me that the place runs at all.

Link to comment
Then there is this cache, which has also been archived for no apparent reason.

No apparent reason? Looking at that cache and at the hider's other caches it appears he abandoned his caches. He has one cache that sat for 18 months after it was reported missing, and when a different admin archived that one, he mentioned the hider hadn't even logged into the site for 4 months. I suspect the virtual you mention probably got complaints about it not being maintained, or else I doubt it would have been archived.

And as you can see he responded to the archiving of the cache I mentioned on the very day it was archived. It seems to me there is a thread regarding holding the cache hider responsible for maintaining their caches. The starter suggests to have the hider be required to post a note every 4 months to show that they are taking care of their caches. It seems that most people who posted to that topic would be opposed to that. That is all well and good, BUT the admin specifically mentions that maybe now a traditional can be placed, that to me shows a bias that MAY have had to do with it being archived- and THAT would be wrong.

 

Does anyone know that there is a SPECIFIC requirement to log onto this site to keep your caches from getting archived?

 

KA- thnx for the info, that should clear up any questions anyone may have.

Link to comment

YJF is an anomaly. I don't think it is likely that many other caches will follow suit. I think the site has and will continue to evolve to accommodate the increased volume. That's what I pay my 3 bucks for. Not every issue can be handled immediately so sometimes a band-aid (archival or moratorium) is the temporary solution.

 

OT, Sorry Sparky: If LCs get moved to a separate place like benchmarks, what happens to the stats? Do those finds get removed from your overall find count? I wouldn't think so, but I'm just wondering.

Link to comment
This is actually one thing I can address with some small bit of experience

 

If you actually had the experience of implementing such a system, you would never make such a comment. You simply cannot compare like that. There are no parallels and to make such a statement unfortunately promotes a misinformed opinion.

 

They will work this out. They will grow. They will continue to improve and expand. They will have problems, and they will fix them. I'd suggest you get used to it, and enjoy, because what's coming will be amazing.

 

Users never change. They want it yesterday, they want it perfect and they want it for free. If they only knew...

Link to comment

Does anyone know that there is a SPECIFIC requirement to log onto this site to keep your caches from getting archived?

 

Well, I see this in the guidelines under virtual caches:

Virtual Cache Maintenance Guidelines

 

Although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries and periodically check the location. You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.  The poster will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged “finds” for the virtual cache, and will agree to delete any “find” logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

So, going by that, it looks like not logging into the site for 4 months is a reason for having a virtual archived. I also suspect that there were probably complaints about the cache in the 1st place, leading up to it being archived.

Link to comment

Does anyone know that there is a SPECIFIC requirement to log onto this site to keep your caches from getting archived?

 

Well, I see this in the guidelines under virtual caches:

Virtual Cache Maintenance Guidelines

 

Although the virtual cache is not something you physically maintain, you must maintain your virtual cache's web page and respond to inquiries and periodically check the location. You should also return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show you are still active. Virtual caches posted and "abandoned" may be archived by the site.  The poster will assume the responsibility of quality control of logged “finds” for the virtual cache, and will agree to delete any “find” logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

So, going by that, it looks like not logging into the site for 4 months is a reason for having a virtual archived. I also suspect that there were probably complaints about the cache in the 1st place, leading up to it being archived.

Point taken on the GUIDELINES (not RULES), and that they do say you SHOULD (not MUST) log on at least once a month.

Edited by Corp Of Discovery
Link to comment

Point taken on the GUIDELINES (not RULES), and that they do say you SHOULD (not MUST) log on at least once a month.

and was that line always there, or was it recently added?

 

And if the cache owner truely is responding to every finder, as he/she states, shouldn't the cache be un-archived? Nobody had posted a SBA to the page....

Link to comment

Point taken on the GUIDELINES (not RULES), and that they do say you SHOULD (not MUST) log on at least once a month.

and was that line always there, or was it recently added?

 

And if the cache owner truely is responding to every finder, as he/she states, shouldn't the cache be un-archived? Nobody had posted a SBA to the page....

its been there at least since the 11/05/03 revision that was publicized in the weekly new cache letter and posted on the website.

Link to comment
Point taken on the GUIDELINES (not RULES), and that they do say you SHOULD (not MUST) log on at least once a month.

Valid point, and I'll raise you one. ;)

It also says if you don't log in, your cache MAY be archived.

 

I'm still gonna go with my gut and say this cache wasn't archived JUST because the hider hadn't logged in. I've talked to the admin who archived it online and in person it enough times to know he is as fair and impartial about caches as they get. I don't picture him just cruising the caches all over the country looking for a cache to kill. I'll bet any amount of money there were enough complaints about this hider to warrant his caches being archived.

Link to comment
and was that line always there, or was it recently added?

 

And if the cache owner truely is responding to every finder, as he/she states, shouldn't the cache be un-archived? Nobody had posted a SBA to the page....

Through the wonders of the wonderful internet wayback machine, we can look to see what the old guidelines page looked like all the way back to July, 2002 here.

As you can see, even back then, that was in fact in the guidelines.

Link to comment
and was that line always there, or was it recently added?

 

And if the cache owner truely is responding to every finder, as he/she states, shouldn't the cache be un-archived?  Nobody had posted a SBA to the page....

Through the wonders of the wonderful internet wayback machine, we can look to see what the old guidelines page looked like all the way back to July, 2002 here.

As you can see, even back then, that was in fact in the guidelines.

how did you run that search??

Link to comment

I do not at all agree that logging into the site should even be in the guidelines. A person doesn't have to log in to maintain their cache. All logging in does is give an indication of presence. That presences doesn't necessarily mean a person will, or won't maintain a cache.

 

The larger guideline about maintaining a cache covers it. No need for more rule clutter.

 

As for the other cache in question, I would only be speculating on the specifics but if he responded that quickly after it was archived, I can only say its rather odd to have such a quick response on an otherwise 'abandoned' cache.

Link to comment
Through the wonders of the wonderful internet wayback machine, we can look to see what the old guidelines page looked like all the way back to July, 2002 here.

As you can see, even back then, that was in fact in the guidelines.

Ahhhh.... July 2002.... such fond memories of the days when Mitsuko ruled the forums, I was a newbie bragging about my 25th cache find, and Mopar was busy kissing the collective behinds of TPTB.

 

18 months later, half the people on the forums don't know who Mitsuko is, I'm now a forum moderator disciplining wet cats with 25 cache finds, and Mopar .... well, at least some things never change. ;)

Link to comment

Ahhhh.... July 2002.... such fond memories of the days when Mitsuko ruled the forums, I was a newbie bragging about my 25th cache find, and Mopar was busy kissing the collective behinds of TPTB.

 

18 months later, half the people on the forums don't know who Mitsuko is, I'm now a forum moderator disciplining wet cats with 25 cache finds, and Mopar .... well, at least some things never change. :D

ROFL!!!! ;):D

 

All right, Keystone...get it back on topic, or I'll shut this thread down!! I mean it!!! :P

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...