Inactive Cachers And The Caches Left Behind

9.4k · January 26, 2004

Rather than derail Sparky's thread, I'm moving the discussion over here.

If a cacher is no longer active on this site, and his caches are becoming geo-litter (not maintained, full of water, missing, etc.) should all of his caches be archived? By active, I mean that they have not logged onto the site in a few months. Their caches are getting logs like: This cache is full of water, this cache needs a new logbook, this cache is out in the open, there are trails heading right for the cache, etc.

I realize the cache owner receives an email every time someone logs one of their caches. In many cases, the owner doesn't need to say anything in response to these logs (I found it, cache is in good shape, I added a new logbook/pencil, etc). When the logs are negative, the responsible thing for the cache owner to do would be to post a note to the cache saying they will fix it. Someone else suggested making the cache owner log a note every 4 months to keep the cache "active". As long as the cache is receiving postitive comments, there is no need to force a maintenence check.

So if a cache is brought to the attention of the approvers for being ill-maintained, they will send an email to the owner. If the owner doesn't respond and hasn't logged onto the site in say, 4 months, what should happen to their cache? Should the same fate befall all of their caches?

My personal feelings are that any unmaintained cache with an inactive owner be placed up for adoption. The cache owner has refused to reply to several emails by this point and is obviously unwilling to maintain the cache. Adopton would allow another cacher in the area to keep the cache in good condition. If the original owner shows up later, they can request to have ownership reinstated.

One other part of this discussion is what if a cache owner only maintains his virtual caches and lets his physical caches go to waste?

January 26, 2004

I agree with you totally on this Sax!! We have had several caches by one ex-cacher in the area get adopted by others in my area. Just because the cacher gave up, doesn't mean that the cache was bad. Kinda like real adoption in a way I guess. Just because the parents were deadbeats or not ready for the responsability, doesn't mean that their kids are. Just my 2 cents.

Edited January 26, 2004 by The Weasel

4.8k · January 26, 2004

After I got upset about an abandoned cache in an area that personally meant alot to me, Tahosa adopted it. I would recommend aiming for adoption when possible. especially if the cache has the potential to be quite nice if maintained properly.

January 26, 2004

I'm with you, Sax. We just adopted two--one full of pond slime and one wiped out by Hurricane Izzy. I'm absolutely against them being archived by anyone other than the owner. Another example of "big government geocaching."

Edited January 26, 2004 by cacheKidds

January 26, 2004

We often carry a spare box, and will maintain a wet/broken cache even if it has an owner. Especially if previous logs mention its condition.

Sometimes we don't need to adopt - the finders can do the maintenance if they're so inclined.

3.1k · January 26, 2004

We often carry a spare box, and will maintain a wet/broken cache even if it has an owner. Especially if previous logs mention its condition.

Sometimes we don't need to adopt - the finders can do the maintenance if they're so inclined.

It's that simple isn't it. Most of our active local cachers will handle such problems themselves. One of our best local caches has been handled by locals since the original owner hasn't logged on in a couple of years.

Many times the zero find one hide cacher puts out a pretty good cache.

January 26, 2004

We often carry a spare box, and will maintain a wet/broken cache even if it has an owner. Especially if previous logs mention its condition.

Sometimes we don't need to adopt - the finders can do the maintenance if they're so inclined.

Thats a great Idea. I do the same. Except for when the actual owner takes exception of you replaing their stuff w/o asking them.

9.4k · January 26, 2004

I don't carry a spare box with me, but I do carry extra logbooks and pens. Actually, our signature item is a pen with "Geocaching.com" and "Team GPSaxophone" on it. It's both our sig and functional.

4k · January 26, 2004

So what's the answer about virtual caches? If the hider (as in the case mentioned in my thread) isn't maintaining his traditional caches, should the virtuals of that hider be archived? The hider in question posted a note immediately the same day his virtual was archived, yet there were no complaints registered against the virtual itself before being archived. If one cache is not maintained, but 20 are still good, do we archive all of them? Perhaps it's a wake up call for the hider, but I don't like it.

3.1k · January 26, 2004

The replacement box we carry is nothing more than a tupperware sandwich container with a logbook and pencil inside of it. Easy to haul around and it's better than the next cacher coming up empty.

9.4k · January 26, 2004

One of our best local caches has been handled by locals since the original owner hasn't logged on in a couple of years.

In this case, is there any need for archiving the cache? I don't think so. Your caching community, as a whole, has virtually adopted this cache and it is being maintained.

We have a cacher in our area that placed some very good caches in the early days of Geocaching (2+ years ago). I have found a few of them and have always been impressed by either the location or the cache itself. This cacher has been overseas for quite some time and was unable to maintain his caches. They were either hidden well enough to not need maintenance, or the locals have taken care of any problems (he's one of our "local legends"). Now he's back in the area (more or less) and just placed a new cache. I have yet to solve the puzzle, but I told him at our last event that we would take care of it once we found it in case he's out of the area again.

9.4k · January 26, 2004

So what's the answer about virtual caches? If the hider (as in the case mentioned in my thread) isn't maintaining his traditional caches, should the virtuals of that hider be archived? The hider in question posted a note immediately the same day his virtual was archived, yet there were no complaints registered against the virtual itself before being archived. If one cache is not maintained, but 20 are still good, do we archive all of them? Perhaps it's a wake up call for the hider, but I don't like it.

If only one cache in 20 isn't being maintained, I'd say leave his others alone. In this case, both of his traditional caches were in bad shape, so his virtual was archived. It had the end result of getting his attention, something the emails didn't seem to do.

1.4k · January 26, 2004

I once adopted a cache after the owner hadn't logged into the site for about 5 months and the container needed to be replaced. After 6 months of taking care of this cache the owner sent me an E-mail asking why I had adopted his cache. I dashed off a quick note and asked Groundspeak to return ownership to the original owner.

4 months is in some cases to short a time and in others to long a time. Each case must be taken on a case by case basis. In short there should be no hard fast rule

I carry a small repair kit with me also. Duct tape, pencils, GC.com note and plastic baggies. Carrying a spare ammo can isn't an option and anything less won't stand up to the weather for very long.

January 26, 2004

adopted it and make it better.

4k · January 26, 2004

So what's the answer about virtual caches? If the hider (as in the case mentioned in my thread) isn't maintaining his traditional caches, should the virtuals of that hider be archived? The hider in question posted a note immediately the same day his virtual was archived, yet there were no complaints registered against the virtual itself before being archived. If one cache is not maintained, but 20 are still good, do we archive all of them? Perhaps it's a wake up call for the hider, but I don't like it.

If only one cache in 20 isn't being maintained, I'd say leave his others alone. In this case, both of his traditional caches were in bad shape, so his virtual was archived. It had the end result of getting his attention, something the emails didn't seem to do.

Ok...I'll throw another twist in that question for ya, smurf-boy: If a cacher has 20 traditionals, and only maintains 10, then what? I agree with Harrald (?!?!?) that it should be a case-by-case decision. But at what point and what percentage of non-maintenance should all the caches be archived? And why all including virtuals, since the majority (though obviously not all) of virtuals are self-maintaining (aside from maintaining the logs to eliminate false entries in regards to the guidelines)?

Edited January 26, 2004 by Sparky-Watts

9.4k · January 26, 2004

So what's the answer about virtual caches? If the hider (as in the case mentioned in my thread) isn't maintaining his traditional caches, should the virtuals of that hider be archived? The hider in question posted a note immediately the same day his virtual was archived, yet there were no complaints registered against the virtual itself before being archived. If one cache is not maintained, but 20 are still good, do we archive all of them? Perhaps it's a wake up call for the hider, but I don't like it.

If only one cache in 20 isn't being maintained, I'd say leave his others alone. In this case, both of his traditional caches were in bad shape, so his virtual was archived. It had the end result of getting his attention, something the emails didn't seem to do.

Ok...I'll throw another twist in that question for ya, smurf-boy: If a cacher has 20 traditionals, and only maintains 10, then what? I agree with Harrald (?!?!?) that it should be a case-by-case decision. But at what point and what percentage of non-maintenance should all the caches be archived? And why all including virtuals, since the majority (though obviously not all) of virtuals are self-maintaining (aside from maintaining the logs to eliminate false entries in regards to the guidelines)?

If they're only maintaing 10 or their 20 traditionals, then they shouldn't have so many caches. I would not approve any new caches for them unless they took care of the old ones. Archiving is one way they can "take care" or those.

Some cachers are capabe of maintaining 2 or 3 caches, others can handle 40-50. Your track record speaks volumes and should be considered when you want to place more caches.

3.1k · January 26, 2004

I give each of my cache containers a nice coat of hand rubbed canuba wax monthly.

24.7k · January 26, 2004

1) Only worry about it if it becomes a problem.

2) If it does become a problem figure out if it's actually abandoned.

3) if it's abandoned adopte it out.

4) If it can't be adopted out, then and only then launch a Cache Rescue Mission.

9.4k · January 26, 2004

Good suggestion, RK. But what of virtuals? Should they be automatically archived at the first hint or trouble?

Just kidding, I'm sure (certain cachers) will flame me for that suggestion

In Sparky's thread, Mtn-Man had archived someone's virtual due to the owner not maintaining his physical caches. He hadn't logged in for 4 months, which is against the guidelines for virtual maintenance. The owner suddenly logged in once he read the archive email and complained. Was it right to archive the virtual since it did appear as if the owner had abandoned the site?

January 26, 2004

Was it right to archive the virtual since it did appear as if the owner had abandoned the site?

I certainly do not think it was right.

2.1k · January 26, 2004

RK's post is exactly what I was about to add.

If you can't write in the logbook and the container is no longer a "contain"er, then you have a problem. If the owner does not solve that problem when contacted, then put it up for adoption. If nobody wants to adopt it, then it needs to be cleaned out.

At any point in this, the owner can rein in the problems and recover the cache for themselves. Archiving caches should be what you do when there's no cache there anymore. Simply because a hider does not maintain *some* of their caches should not be a reason to remove *all* of their caches. In Sparky's thread, mtn-man responded to me that the virtual owner did not respond to his e-mail concerning the caches. He did however post a note to the archived virtual on the same day. Since his responsibility of that virtual is to read verification mails and weed out bad logs, where or when has that not happened for that cache.

I agree that it may be necessary to disallow caches if the person has a bad track record (although, how can they prove themselves if they can't get a new one listed and all their previous badly maintained ones are adopted out?).

January 26, 2004

What if there was a state between active and archived that was applied on a cache by cache basis. It could serve as a buffer period that would allow the owner time to respond and repair, or once the time expired it would be archived until adopted. We could call it "Scheduled for Archiving".

So instead of the logger selecting "Needs Archiving" the logger would select "Found, but needs attention" for example. This could alert TPTB of potential neglect.

Some parameters could be a certain number of DNF's, a certain time period of inactivity, a log similar to the one above, or some combo. The admin could, on a case by case basis, place the cache in a "Scheduled for Archiving" state, and 90 days (for example) later, the cache would be archived or adopted out. During that 90 days the owner can respond or not, adoption requests can be made or not... I think you get the idea. Its a sort of probationary period for the cache. Its not inactive, but rather under observation (and no this wouldn't add to the Admin's work significantly. A software back end could be written to handle most all of this automatically thereby removing the subjectivity that so frustrates folks).

Would this solve the problem?

Edited January 26, 2004 by CacheCreatures

2.1k · January 26, 2004

In Sparky's thread, Mtn-Man had archived someone's virtual due to the owner not maintaining his physical caches. He hadn't logged in for 4 months, which is against the guidelines for virtual maintenance. The owner suddenly logged in once he read the archive email and complained. Was it right to archive the virtual since it did appear as if the owner had abandoned the site?

No. The cache was obviously not abandoned.

The 4 month logging-in rule is somewhat absurd and a misplaced effort to determine a user's "activity" as a cacher. Considering some people may not even use GC.com as their primary listing source, why should they be required to look at their cache page 3x a year to prove to someone here that they still exist?

A more appropriate solution (especially for virtuals) would be an e-mail bounce (are you alive -> a reply = yes -> 4 month timer reset) after 4 months of not logging in.

January 26, 2004

What's the procedure when a cacher dies?

4k · January 26, 2004

A more appropriate solution (especially for virtuals) would be an e-mail bounce (are you alive -> a reply = yes -> 4 month timer reset) after 4 months of not logging in.

Yes, I would prefer the "poke'em with a stick" email option to just looking to see when they last logged into the site.

I also like the idea presented by the cache creatures of having a "scheduled for archive" queue for unattended caches. Apparently, this could have saved the virtual from being archived, since the owner did respond to the archive notice. And responding to the archive notice obviously showed that they do still exist, though it's still no excuse for not responding to complaints on their other caches.

4k · January 26, 2004

What's the procedure when a cacher dies?

Notify next of kin, embalm, and bury.

3.1k · January 26, 2004

What's the procedure when a cacher dies?

We hire lawyers and fight over his things

January 26, 2004

What if there was a state between active and archived that was applied on a cache by cache basis. It could serve as a buffer period that would allow the owner time to respond and repair, or once the time expired it would be archived until adopted. We could call it "Scheduled for Archiving".

So instead of the logger selecting "Needs Archiving" the logger would select "Found, but needs attention" for example. This could alert TPTB of potential neglect.

Some parameters could be a certain number of DNF's, a certain time period of inactivity, a log similar to the one above, or some combo. The admin could, on a case by case basis, place the cache in a "Scheduled for Archiving" state, and 90 days (for example) later, the cache would be archived or adopted out. During that 90 days the owner can respond or not, adoption requests can be made or not... I think you get the idea. Its a sort of probationary period for the cache. Its not inactive, but rather under observation (and no this wouldn't add to the Admin's work significantly. A software back end could be written to handle most all of this automatically thereby removing the subjectivity that so frustrates folks).

Would this solve the problem?

Excellent suggestion here, IMHO. Something like this has been mentioned before (by BrianSnat possibly?) a few months ago.

9.4k · January 26, 2004

In Sparky's thread, Mtn-Man had archived someone's virtual due to the owner not maintaining his physical caches. He hadn't logged in for 4 months, which is against the guidelines for virtual maintenance. The owner suddenly logged in once he read the archive email and complained. Was it right to archive the virtual since it did appear as if the owner had abandoned the site?

No. The cache was obviously not abandoned.

The cache was abandoned. The owner had not logged on to the site in 4 months and was not responding to emails from the approver. Therefore, the cache was abandoned just like the physical caches he had placed. Mtn-Man has also said that the owner only responded to the archive note and not any subsequent emails (If I read it correctly on the other thread).

It doesn't matter if the cache is listed somewhere else, even as the primary listing site. This thread is about archiving as it pertains to Geocaching.com and not geocaching in general.

Was it right to archive the virtual since it did appear as if the owner had abandoned the site?

I certainly do not think it was right.

Why not?

2.7k · January 26, 2004

Be courteous and give the owner the benefit of doubt. But if they fail to respond to communication then they should be adopted. But now you have to find an adopter that is willing to take on the responsibility. What might be a feasible solution, but might make more work for the approvers would be to temporarily put the caches in a so called orphans house. Then those that would be interested in adoption could contact their admin and see if there was one available for adoption.

But if they sit and sit and sit for a long time then with the assistance of the PTB they should be pulled and thrown out.

There is a lot more responsibility involved when you plant versus just look for them. And from my own perspective it takes a lot of work to keep them going, I have to make the choice to hunt or go maintain the cache. And maintenance usually wins out.

January 26, 2004

What was recommended to us was to post a Needs Archived message on the cache page and give a brief reason why it needs archived. i.e. "Past 3 logs says cache needs fixed up, and no response from the owner after 5 months". Then let TPTB look into it. If it is a good cache put that it should be adopted. Your frieldly local approver will assist you or someone else in adopting a cache. My local approver, Keystone, is always more then happy to handle these type of caches.

7.2k · January 26, 2004

The 4 month logging-in rule is somewhat absurd and a misplaced effort to determine a user's "activity" as a cacher. Considering some people may not even use GC.com as their primary listing source, why should they be required to look at their cache page 3x a year to prove to someone here that they still exist?

Why? Because they agreed to do that when they listed the cache.

It has been in the guidelines for quite some time. It is not 3 times a year, it is 12. If not, then the cache may be archived. That is what the cache owner agreed to do. I'll quote it again...

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.

6.4k · January 26, 2004

What might be a feasible solution, but might make more work for the approvers would be to temporarily put the caches in a so called orphans house. Then those that would be interested in adoption could contact their admin and see if there was one available for adoption.

I don't know if this is everywhere, but the 2 regional forums here I frequent, New England and North East, both have a pinned topic that works sort of like you mention. Either a cacher will post a cache that needs maintaining, or a admin will post a cache that's been abandoned asking if anyone is able to maintain or adopt it.

7.2k · January 26, 2004

Renegade Knight, good post. That is pretty much what is done with traditional caches now. As a community many of us help out traditional caches by adding pencils and logbooks, etc. As cache reviewers we work to get others to help correct them or try to get them adopted.

CacheCreatures, good idea. I don't know if it could work based on the way the site administrators have built the site but it is indeed an interesting idea.

7.2k · January 26, 2004

There is a lot more responsibility involved when you plant versus just look for them. And from my own perspective it takes a lot of work to keep them going, I have to make the choice to hunt or go maintain the cache. And maintenance usually wins out.

Well said.

January 26, 2004

Every once in a while Snat makes a good post, but then again, this post was from back in March!

Seems like the good ideas get recycled as new people arrive.

Would be great if someone could look into the suggestion further.

2.1k · January 26, 2004

What's the procedure when a cacher dies?

We put them in a small flask and pass them around as a Travel Bug spreading their ashes all over the country.

Uncle Elwyn

January 26, 2004

1) Only worry about it if it becomes a problem.
2) If it does become a problem figure out if it's actually abandoned.

3) if it's abandoned adopte it out.

4) If it can't be adopted out, then and only then launch a Cache Rescue Mission.

I agree with R.K. fully on this subject.Makes sence to me.

9.4k · January 26, 2004

There is a lot more responsibility involved when you plant versus just look for them. And from my own perspective it takes a lot of work to keep them going, I have to make the choice to hunt or go maintain the cache. And maintenance usually wins out.

I posted notes to 3 of my caches today and will be going out to replace the logsheet in one of them. I don't have any nearby caches to keep me from doing maintenance. I have one in the mountains, but I can't check on it very easily until spring. I don't expect anyone to look for it before then anyway.

January 26, 2004

Was it right to archive the virtual since it did appear as if the owner had abandoned the site?

I certainly do not think it was right.

Why not?[/color]

Because the cache owner was not the one doing the archiving. If people would log that they failed to find the cache or that it had become unsafe to visit, I'd hope that they would say so by logging a DNF. I realize that many don't put DNF, which is a shame really. I do not like the idea of someone lording over caches with the ability to take them away without the express permission of the owner. If that permission has not been granted--even if emails have not been answered-- then leave it alone. If cachers see lots of logs saying that there is a problem, then they may want to avoid looking for it. I prefer a self-policed caching community and not one where when problems get dicey, they turn to Big Brother to do things that they should do themselves. That's just my opinion, which is of course worthless.

January 26, 2004

Ack! Had I known I most certainly would have paid credit elsewhere.

One thing though; while these ideas are similar, they are not quite identical. I think the key concept I'm trying to get across is the logger has the power, and no special effort is required by the owner, if is all is well. The other idea is a kind of heartbeat. The renew concept might be a whole lot more overhead for the admins, the owners, and this site.

I'm not trying to sell anyone anything here, but conceptually it makes sense to me to have the logger (the person out there most recently with the cache) report on its status. If its in great shape great! If not, wouldn't it be nice to know there is a system in place to ensure no one else ends up frustrated like you, one way or another?

January 26, 2004

I'm not trying to sell anyone anything here, but conceptually it makes sense to me to have the logger (the person out there most recently with the cache) report on its status. If its in great shape great! If not, wouldn't it be nice to know there is a system in place to ensure no one else ends up frustrated like you, one way or another?

I like! You sold me!

6.4k · January 26, 2004

[because the cache owner was not the one doing the archiving. If people would log that they failed to find the cache or that it had become unsafe to visit, I'd hope that they would say so by logging a DNF. I realize that many don't put DNF, which is a shame really. I do not like the idea of someone lording over caches with the ability to take them away without the express permission of the owner. If that permission has not been granted--even if emails have not been answered-- then leave it alone.

When you list a cache on GC.com, you agree to follow their guidelines. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to list a cache here. The guidelines say they can archive a virtual cache listing if the owner doesn't maintain it, or if the owner is inactive on the website. Since we ARE talking about a virtual here, there is no physical cache to remove, or geolitter left behind. Since when does person A have the right to tell Person B what should or should not be listed on Person B's privately owned website?

Since logging in once a month was an agreed upon condition placed on the hider before listing his virtual here, and he failed to abide by it, where is the problem?

Now, looking at the same cacher's physical hides, some of them had been having problems for a year and a half AFTER the hider said he would fix them. Obviously he was ignoring the problem, and not maintaining them. Only after his virtual was archived did he post notes saying he would repair the other caches.

9.4k · January 26, 2004

Was it right to archive the virtual since it did appear as if the owner had abandoned the site?

I certainly do not think it was right.

Why not?

Because the cache owner was not the one doing the archiving.

If the owner is not logging onto the site, how is he supposed to archive the cache? Many people "quit" geocaching and leave their caches abandoned. Once a cache is proven to be abandoned, shouldn't it be either archived or adopted by someone will take care of it?

January 26, 2004

edited

Edited January 26, 2004 by cacheKidds

6.4k · January 26, 2004

OK, this might be going slightly off topic, but I think it relates.....

Inactive cachers and the caches left behind are one of the major worries land managers have about caching. Cache hiders like this one are the guys that got caches banned or regulated in many places all over the world already, and are getting caching restricted in more and more places every day. Why is ANYONE defending what they are doing as right, or healthy for the sport?

Edited January 26, 2004 by Mopar

January 26, 2004

Inactive cachers and the caches left behind are one of the major worries land managers have about caching.

That's a very good point, sir. And, I apologize for being snippy. I have no wish to defend dubious caches and careless folks who placed them. I'm just not a fan of loads of regulations in government or geocaching.

6.4k · January 26, 2004

Inactive cachers and the caches left behind are one of the major worries land managers have about caching.

That's a very good point, sir. And, I apologize for being snippy. I have no wish to defend dubious caches and careless folks who placed them. I'm just not a fan of loads of regulations in government or geocaching.

dadgum! I had this really great reply all ready to send, and you go and do this!

I totally understand where you are coming from, and to a large extent, I feel the same way. But I also see very few rules here now, and most of them seem to be for the general good of the game. According to my local forums, NY state just this month banned geocaching in 3 million acres of prime caching locations, and requires a permit for millions of acres more. PA is the same way, I'm sure other states are also.

January 26, 2004

So what's the answer about virtual caches? If the hider (as in the case mentioned in my thread) isn't maintaining his traditional caches, should the virtuals of that hider be archived? The hider in question posted a note immediately the same day his virtual was archived, yet there were no complaints registered against the virtual itself before being archived. If one cache is not maintained, but 20 are still good, do we archive all of them? Perhaps it's a wake up call for the hider, but I don't like it.

How does one maintain a virtual cache? you can't really go out and maintain most of the ones I've done.

24.7k · January 26, 2004

...But what of virtuals? Should they be automatically archived at the first hint or trouble? ...

That's certainly a good point. Virtuals and locationless can't follow this pattern because there is no box. But the process should be pretty much the same.

Leave it alone if it's not broke. If there is a problem contact the owner and see if the cache is 'abandoned' and if it is adopt it out. the only real difference is that there is no litter created when it's archived so you don't need the Cache Rescue Mission.

Inactive Cachers And The Caches Left Behind

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment