Jump to content

Inactive Caches


PILTY

Recommended Posts

I don't see what your problem is with automatic archiving! If somebody leaves there caches for a month, (set to unavailable), or more then they should automatically be archived or at the very least, be brought to the attention of a moderator. None of the reasons mentioned so far would affect this! If somebody leaves a cache in the available state and it is there then, fine. Why is it though that people make a cache unavailable and then forget about it? If it is unavailable then, nobody in there right mind is going to look for it. Either people are missing the point of this post or just looking for an argument. If an owner puts his site to the unavailable status then why not archive it after a month. Then when the owner of the cache wants to make it available again then they can do so!

Link to comment
I don't see what your problem is with automatic archiving! If somebody leaves there caches for a month, (set to unavailable), or more then they should automatically be archived or at the very least, be brought to the attention of a moderator. None of the reasons mentioned so far would affect this! If somebody leaves a cache in the available state and it is there then, fine. Why is it though that people make a cache unavailable and then forget about it? If it is unavailable then, nobody in there right mind is going to look for it. Either people are missing the point of this post or just looking for an argument. If an owner puts his site to the unavailable status then why not archive it after a month. Then when the owner of the cache wants to make it available again then they can do so!

Temporarily disabled means just that.

 

Archived means the cache is permanantly delisted (at least 95% of the time).

 

Temporarily disabled can be undone by the cache owner.

 

Archived cannot.

 

If you archive your cache, somebody can put one in the same place.

 

Again - see these reasons:

 

1. Cache has been pulled for the winter because the hiding spot is not accessible.

2. Cache is disabled because its owner is serving our country in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

3. Cache is disabled and the owner wasn't able to replace it promptly due to serious illness.

4. Cache is disabled because the owner is attempting to obtain a permit from the land manager for a cache placed prior to the land manager's permit process, which often takes well over a month to complete.

5. Cache is disabled because of the deer hunting seasons, which basically last from October to January in PA once you string together archery, standard rifle, muzzleloader/black powder and all the other special seasons.

6. Cache is disabled due to the presence of a cache thief in the area, and the owner is waiting for that scourge to blow over.

 

Plus:

 

7. Submerged due to seasonal flooding

 

Temporarily disabling is in place for all of those reasons.

 

If the cache is GONE and the owner is doing NOTHING after MONTHS - then use the "CACHE SHOULD BE ARCHIVED" log.

 

I'm beginning to think you can't understand that.

 

You'd think that after the 2 comments by Jeremy (the owner of the website) - which basically say use the Archive feature - you'd get the hint.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

I don't want to use the cache should be archived. I want for :-

 

1st The owner to remove them if they are missing and not going to be replaced

2nd If the owner isn't doing anything about it then an approver to remove them

3rd If that is too much trouble when a cache has been put unavailable for a month then for it to be removed automatically.

Link to comment
I don't want to use the cache should be archived. I want for :-

 

1st The owner to remove them if they are missing and not going to be replaced

2nd If the owner isn't doing anything about it then an approver to remove them

3rd If that is too much trouble when a cache has been put unavailable for a month then for it to be removed automatically.

Pithy, you STILL haven't addressed HOW the site will automatically know if the cache is disabled for a month because it is gone, or disabled for one one the hundreds of other legit reasons for disabling a cache while the cache is still out there?

Link to comment
I don't want to use the cache should be archived. I want for :-

 

1st The owner to remove them if they are missing and not going to be replaced

2nd If the owner isn't doing anything about it then an approver to remove them

3rd If that is too much trouble when a cache has been put unavailable for a month then for it to be removed automatically.

Just curious, How do you remove a cache that is missing?

 

Do the approvers have the time to go out and retrieve (remove) those caches?

 

Why do you choose not to use the 'archive button' and avoid all the conflict that is being created?

 

John

Link to comment
I don't want to use the cache should be archived. I want for :-

 

1st The owner to remove them if they are missing and not going to be replaced

2nd If the owner isn't doing anything about it then an approver to remove them

3rd If that is too much trouble when a cache has been put unavailable for a month then for it to be removed automatically.

1. You already have a tool for this: "CACHE SHOULD BE ARCHIVED".

 

2. You have TWO tools for this: "Cache should be archived" followed by an email to your local approver.

 

3. There is NO need for this - there are at least a half dozen listed reasons and countless others why automatic archival is a bad idea. 1 month is NOT a long time to me. There are plenty of geocachers who do not check their email daily (for various reasons) and when they do they are unable to get out to do maintainence for a variety of reasons.

 

From what I can tell - you have 2 solutions and 1 non-problem.

 

I also beleive Mopar has an excellent point. How do you know "why" it's disabled? Disabled does NOT always mean the cache is missing or needs repair. (See: buried under snow, hunting season, etc).

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

You win!

 

Ok. I shall "flag" the ones that should be archived and see what happens! Perhaps if the owner added the word soon to their note then it could be removed after a month. Until then I shall flag any that I see that the owner seems to have given up on!

Link to comment
Just curious, How do you remove a cache that is missing?

Either the owner or someone who's concerned about avoiding geo-litter would need to retrieve the archived cache. Avoiding geo-litter is one of the reasons why the volunteers take their time and try to get in touch with the cache owner by leaving notes on the cache page, prior to taking the more drastic step of archiving the cache, which removes it from the search results so that nobody can see the notes.

 

Do the approvers have the time to go out and retrieve (remove) those caches?

 

Not only do we not have the time, the volunteer reviewers have NO BUSINESS being the cache police, and going out to personally pick up caches. All we do as a listing service is bring these matters to the owners' attention and to the attention of the community if the owner is unresponsive.

 

Why do you choose not to use the 'archive button' and avoid all the conflict that is being created?

 

Perhaps PILTY is shy. Sometimes cache owners get pretty indignant when they see a note on their cache page suggesting that it should be archived. I would love to post some of the hate mail I've received about this issue, but my personal standards as well as the forums' naughty word filter preclude me from doing so. There is nothing wrong with being shy. If a cache is bugging you that much, write a note to the friendly volunteer cache reviewer for your area. Or, if you prefer, write an e-mail to the general address, contact at geocaching dot com.

Link to comment
Why is "Lake's edge" still there?

Because no one, until you today, reported it to Groundspeak. The owner appears to be absent.

 

Now, your argument is that the site should have automatically archived this in September. The question remains: how does Groundspeak know it needs to be archived until you posted your SBA note today?

Link to comment

PILTY, I'd like to encourage you to just log the "should be archived" notes as you did for "Lake's Edge." There's no need to list each disabled Oklahoma cache in a separate post to this thread.

 

Permit me to educate you on how the current process works for "should be archived" notes. Contrary to your request, the notes do not receive personal attention from Jeremy Irish. Rather, "should be archived" notes find their way into the mailboxes of several of the volunteer cache reviewers. A few of us act as traffic cops, taking care of the obvious archive candidates, and referring other requests to the reviewer who is responsible for the area where the cache is located. So, watch those cache pages. Within a day or two, you'll see notes from either the reviewer who received the archive request, or from the Oklahoma reviewer, asking the cache owner to take action.

Link to comment

I feel sure that there would be a way to remove unavailable caches that are unavailable for a certain period of time. If the owner of a cache is ill, vacationing, fighting the wars or for ANY other reason, if there cache is unavailable then it should be removed. If my cache is unavailable for for than 2 weeks then by all means remove it. There is NO excuse for leaving caches unavailable for as long as they do. With no explanation. If there is a line through it then give it a month. If a cacher is too bone idle to correct the problem it deserves to be removed. If it is unavailable due to circumstances beyond somebodies control then leave it as long as there is a post to it once a month. If it is LEFT unavailable for more than a month then it can safely be removed. Even if it belongs to one of the many fine soldiers that are in the war they have access to E-mail/net access. If for some reason the owner cannot get to a computer in a months time then surely they know somebody that can. Poverty is no excuse as computers are freely available in public libraries. If distance is too far then a note per month would not be unreasonable. Stop pity partying and get a life. These people are mainly lazy cachers that no longer wish to participate. If they were that interested in there caches then what is the problem with a note per month to keep it active?

 

Try this one too? WG?$1 Cash Cache #1 OKC

Link to comment

And while we are at it, what about, "Deep deuce"? Have I made my point clear enough yet? When will the morons that are here to argue get the point that I am trying to make? Do you REALLY consider 6+ months of inactivety on a cache that is marked as unavailable SOON? I'll let you know if I find a single one that is unavailable due to weather, danger, snow, ice, water, bullets, mad dogs, soldiers abroad, dead or dying cachers, etc.!

Link to comment

I appreciate your strong opinions on this issue, but I'll thank you for not calling me a moron. I have done my very best to respond to your questions in a professional manner. I would say the same for most, if not all, of the other posters to this topic. You'd be well-advised to give this topic a rest and enjoy a nice dinner.

Link to comment
I feel sure that there would be a way to remove unavailable caches that are unavailable for a certain period of time.

There is - it's the 'Archive' log.

 

That is why it's in place. Geocaching IS a community sport/game/whatever, and it's up to all of us to "police" it.

 

I don't think a single person here has said that EVERY cache that is disabled is for the reasons we stated - and just because the ones in YOUR area aren't don't mean that it's that way elsewhere.

 

I know plenty of disabled caches that are still out in the woods in GREAT condition but are disabled for a variety of reasons.

 

If you suspect there is a problem, email the owner or drop an archive note on the cache (and/or email your local approver).

 

There's no need for a new feature.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

I too feel that inactive caches need to be dealt with...

 

BUT

 

I also think that there area reasonable reasons for extended unavailables... I have created a PQ for myself of INACTIVE caches. By doing this I can help the approvers by trying to contact owners with email and a note to the cache page to ask about inactive caches and if it truly seems needed an archive note.

 

no need for automation... just cachers helping the site is all we need.

Link to comment
My points are valid and I do believe that I said morons that were here to argue not all of the posters to this topic. Check out my latest flags and then tell me that I am in the wrong!

I am not arguing. I am debating. My points are valid and supported by a large number of geocachers.

 

It's not arguing because you don't like what the other person is saying.

 

I agree this is old and needs to be locked. Either use the archive feature or don't.

Link to comment
We feel that all has been said about this subject that can be said...ready to lock the box on this one? What do you think Keystone?

 

Shirley & John

As the topic originator, PILTY may close this topic at any time. I cannot close it, for two reasons. First, I am not a moderator for this forum. Second, even if I was a moderator, I have been participating actively in the discussion. I would look like I was getting the final word if I either closed the topic (if I were able) or if I asked for it to be closed.

Link to comment
We feel that all has been said about this subject that can be said...ready to lock the box on this one? What do you think Keystone?

 

Shirley & John

As the topic originator, PILTY may close this topic at any time. I cannot close it, for two reasons. First, I am not a moderator for this forum. Second, even if I was a moderator, I have been participating actively in the discussion. I would look like I was getting the final word if I either closed the topic (if I were able) or if I asked for it to be closed.

Oh yeah, That is true...sorry. It's 'an old age thing' :smile:

 

So, Pilty...what do you say? Are Ya ready to close this one down?

 

Thank you.

 

~Shirley & John~

Link to comment

Wow, go work out at the gym for a bit, and all heck breaks loose! BRAVO! :smile:

I agree for everyone except one, this seems to be a debate, not an argument.

Most people, and more importantly, the people who own this website, DO care about the negative effects of automatically archiving disabled caches after a set time. Since I STILL have not heard HOW an automatic system would determine if the cache is gone or still out there, my vote is for the current system. A system where humans make reasoned decisions about each cache on a case by case basis. No computer software yet can do that.

Link to comment

I hope that this thread does not get locked, since I still have some constructive opinions and observations, but it's just too late at night to type them all right now.

 

Posting pictures of dead horses or other 1 line smart a** comments does not help the situation or the topic that is currently in debate.

 

Yes we have a system in place, yes it has faults, some suggestions have been made on how it can be improved. I say we work at trying to come up with a possible better solution than what is present now, even if it does not get implemented, but perhaps some good to the sport will come from it. And it doesn't hurt to debate it and throw around ideas. I bet anything that if Jeremy (I know the thought of automation makes him cringe :) ) suggested an automated system, there would be a lot more people supporting the idea, and probably even the same people that are shooting it down right now.

Link to comment

I agree with res2100 and if people want to have a shot at me personally then so be it. I was going to close the topic as soon as I knew how but while there are still intelligent people commenting with, "constructive ideas" then, I shall leave it open! It seems to me that people are not thinking of solutions but rather excuses to not change a possible flaw in the system!

Link to comment
I agree with res2100 and if people want to have a shot at me personally then so be it.

No, nobody has the right under our Forum Guidelines to have a shot at you personally. Your ideas, however, are fair game for debate.

 

It seems to me that people are not thinking of solutions but rather excuses to not change a possible flaw in the system!

 

Each of the eight caches for which you submitted a "cache should be archived" note was looked at by the designated reviewer on the same day that the reports were received. The same is true for the two dozen or so other archive requests received yesterday. Haven't acted on the one from a half hour ago, though. So, the system is working as it was designed to work. Each archive request is thoughtfully evaluated as promptly as possible after it is received. The current method is, in my opinion, far superior to the prior design for this process, which was changed last fall to spread the workload among more volunteers.

Link to comment

GreenBayPackersOKC Ammo Box #1 Was flagged to be archived in October last year and it is STILL there! This cache is obviously not there and the owner has not posted a note since the day after. This is not the only example of the "system" not working that I have seen. It can and should be improved!

Link to comment
GreenBayPackersOKC Ammo Box #1 Was flagged to be archived in October last year and it is STILL there!

It looks like this one fell through the cracks.

 

GCG6PA

 

(In the future, could you give the cache ID for those playing along at home?)

 

But I'm not sure listing every cache in your area that should be archived is going to be helpful.

 

As suggested earlier, there doesn't seem to be a good way to automate this. (And if Jeremy cringes at the thought, you really have an uphill battle there....)

 

I also think you'll find that after you've given the local approver a little bit of time to deal with the "should be archived" notes you've posted, that things will clear out.

 

I can see how things look like a mess in Oklahoma, but I think the current system allows some careful consideration before automatically making caches disappear from the website.

Link to comment

The cache you cite has cache remnants at the cache site. Could you help out by offering to clean up the remaining geo-litter? The owner does seem to be AWOL. We don't like archiving caches knowing full well that geo-litter remains at the site. By the way, I would hope that nobody frowns on claiming a smiley for packing out the remains of an archived cache.... it's kind of a reward for a good deed.

Link to comment
GreenBayPackersOKC Ammo Box #1  Was flagged to be archived in October last year and it is STILL there!

It looks like this one fell through the cracks.

 

GCG6PA

 

(In the future, could you give the cache ID for those playing along at home?)

 

But I'm not sure listing every cache in your area that should be archived is going to be helpful.

 

As suggested earlier, there doesn't seem to be a good way to automate this. (And if Jeremy cringes at the thought, you really have an uphill battle there....)

 

I also think you'll find that after you've given the local approver a little bit of time to deal with the "should be archived" notes you've posted, that things will clear out.

 

I can see how things look like a mess in Oklahoma, but I think the current system allows some careful consideration before automatically making caches disappear from the website.

Actually, it looks like it DIDN'T fall thru the cracks.

There was a problem with the cache, but it's obvious the cache is still there. Someone logged a SBA on it. The very next day an admin posted a note to the cache page, which also gets emailed to the cache owner (automatically!). I would guess that's when the cache was disabled. There is STILL a cache sitting out there, maybe if Pithy was not so self-centered, and only concerned with himself, he could have gone out there and repaired the cache, or offered to remove it for the owner, instead of sitting here complaining about it. Hopefully, not everyone in OK is as "it's all about me!" as Pithy. As long as there is still a cache out there, it should not be archived. Anyone who lives in or near a state that has banned or heavily regulated geocaching will tell you abandoned caches are a main reason given for banning them. Right now Pithy is here complaining about disabled caches, but if every disabled cache was automatically archived without retrieving the remains, I bet he would be the 1st one here complaining after geocaching has been banned in his state.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

I am far from listing ALL of the problem caches in my area. I am simply letting others see what I consider to be problem caches. 7 months for a cache to be flagged for archiving seems like a VERY long time to me.

 

The system can be programmed thus:-

 

Is cache unavailable - No - result=ignore

Is cache unavailable - Yes - start one month counter(1 month has been suggested as a reasonable amount of time)

Has there been a post to the page - Yes - Restart counter

If counter >= 1 month then archive page! (How difficult can it be?)

 

If the owner doesn't reactivate the page or post to the page within a month then the page is archived. It is simple to get to a machine or get a friend or fellow cacher to get to a web connection surely. This way if a page is neglected then it is the owners responsibility.

Link to comment

The cache has "needed attention" since October of last year. Looks like it isn't going to get it. Read the logs and they tell it's demise and 2 pencils do not constitute a cache or a whole lot of geotrache! There is no way that geocaching will get banned for littering when we pick up more than we leave. E-mail the owner of the cache and ask HIM to pick up HIS rubbish instead of using it as an excuse to disagree with the post. By the way Moper my name is PILTY. As I have said earlier I am simply trying to further the sport not malign it.

Link to comment

The system can be programmed thus:-

 

Is cache unavailable - No - result=ignore

Is cache unavailable - Yes - start one month counter(1 month has been suggested as a reasonable amount of time)

Has there been a post to the page - Yes - Restart counter

If counter >= 1 month then archive page! (How difficult can it be?)

 

If the owner doesn't reactivate the page or post to the page within a month then the page is archived. It is simple to get to a machine or get a friend or fellow cacher to get to a web connection surely. This way if a page is neglected then it is the owners responsibility.

It is impossible to have a serious written debate with someone who can not read.

You can NOT just archive cache listings if there is still a cache out there. Once that happens, there is almost zero chance of the cache ever being removed. Land managers start to get upset about having broken caches left in the parks.

New cachers who never found the archived cache may place a new cache a few feet away. Archived caches don't show up in searches, so they wouldn't know it's there. Now you have half the people searching for the new cache finding the old ruined cache, and posting SBA notices on the NEW cache. Over the years, you could end up with a pile of broken caches littering an area. I dobt it would ever get that far though, because under your system, geocaching would probably be outlawed long before it gets to that stage.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...