Needs To Be Archived

February 18, 2004

There's a new cache in my area that is buried below ground. Not a hollow or an existing hole, its a freshly dug hole. The cache is outside of town on a hillside. GC's rules are pretty clear on digging - it ain't allowed.

I emailed the owner Friday afternoon and asked that he archive or modify the cache. He hasn't responded as of yet. For the record, I used my best "I'm not a softie but please don't" that I could muster. I hope it came across that way.

So my question: Whats the best way of having an approver check it? Logging a needs to be archived seems harsh (IMO necessary though) but I can't come up with another way to get it reviewed. I'll probably wait another day and read your responses.

Thanks

1.6k · February 18, 2004

I know what you mean.

Logging an archived note on a cache could be taken the wrong way.

I have done a cache near a playground that is underneath a building, and it is in a big PVC pipe, and you have to remove a board from the building to retrieve it. It apparently had 'permission' to be there, but I felt it was an extremely inappropriate place (simply because of the playground aspect alone).

I asked an admin to review, but I never heard back.

I left it as it was - never logged the archive note. It already had 15-20 finds though.

9.4k · February 18, 2004

If you don't feel comfortable logging "should be archived", then send a private email to your approver (or any approver you are comfortable with)

February 18, 2004

If you don't feel comfortable logging "should be archived", then send a private email to your approver (or any approver you are comfortable with)

Yup, did just that.

My post prompted an email from another approver with the same suggestion.

2.3k · February 18, 2004

1 person hit the "Cache should be archived" button because they could not find one of my caches, and now it's archived. Sweet, ain't it? 1 person! Thanks a lot!

Oh, I know you will say, "Yes, but there were 2 no-finds on it before they got there".

Big whoop. Go take a good look at my "Northern Edge of Insanity" cache. A half a dozen no-finds on that one, and it WAS there. Not my fault that I am a great hider of caches!

Edited February 18, 2004 by TEAM 360

7.2k · February 18, 2004

TEAM 360, if your cache is there it can be easily unarchived. Just send an email to the person that archived it.

6.4k · February 18, 2004

1 person hit the "Cache should be archived" button because they could not find one of my caches, and now it's archived. Sweet, ain't it? 1 person! Thanks a lot!

Oh, I know you will say, "Yes, but there were 2 no-finds on it before they got there".

Big whoop. Go take a good look at my "Northern Edge of Insanity" cache. A half a dozen no-finds on that one, and it WAS there. Not my fault that I am a great hider of caches!

Hmmm, i see one that sounds like the one you describe, except it's disabled, not archived.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, considering 2 of the 3 DNFs are triple digit cachers, and it's rated 1.5/1. If you've hid it so great that it takes hours and hours to find, then its not really a 1.5 difficulty, is it?

Edited February 18, 2004 by Mopar

9.4k · February 18, 2004

TEAM 360, if your cache is there it can be easily unarchived. Just send an email to the person that archived it.

"Should be archived" should mean that the approver at least attempts to contact the cache owner before archiving the cache. It shouldn't be an automatic archival.

I made a "should be archived" log to a cache this week. The cache was placed in October, but didn't show up on searches until mid-January. A half-dozen cachers tried to find it with no luck. I sent an email to the owner with no response. So did another cacher. CO_Admin disabled the cache after my log saying not to go looking for the cache until the owner is contacted. If he doesn't hear back within a reasonable amount of time, I expect that cache will be archived.

360's case is why many people don't post "did not find"...they don't want to send the wrong signal and get the cache archived just because they couldn't find it.

6.4k · February 18, 2004

I made a "should be archived" log to a cache this week. The cache was placed in October, but didn't show up on searches until mid-January. A half-dozen cachers tried to find it with no luck. I sent an email to the owner with no response. So did another cacher. CO_Admin disabled the cache after my log saying not to go looking for the cache until the owner is contacted. If he doesn't hear back within a reasonable amount of time, I expect that cache will be archived.

360's case is why many people don't post "did not find"...they don't want to send the wrong signal and get the cache archived just because they couldn't find it.[/color]

If it's the cache it looks like it is, that's exactly what happened here too. Disabled until the owner could check on it, not archived.

7.2k · February 18, 2004

Sax, I have to agree with Mopar on this one. I don't see any archived cache for TEAM360 that matches his description, and I can see all of his caches. For the caches that are archived, none of them have the original archive notes on the cache anymore so you cannot tell who archived any of them. All of the notes archiving the caches have been deleted and only found it logs or notes are left.

TEAM360, if you want to email specifics to me I would be happy to help if I can.

I just don't see the problem your describing.

Sax, you are correct about that being a great procedure to follow. I try to do the same unless the cacher is apparently gone. Even still, if they show back up and can fix the cache I am always happy to unarchive it so other cachers can find it.

9.4k · February 18, 2004

Sax, I have to agree with Mopar on this one. I don't see any archived cache for TEAM360 that matches his description, and I can see all of his caches. For the caches that are archived, none of them have the original archive notes on the cache anymore so you cannot tell who archived any of them. All of the notes archiving the caches have been deleted and only found it logs or notes are left.

TEAM360, if you want to email specifics to me I would be happy to help if I can.

I just don't see the problem your describing.

Sax, you are correct about that being a great procedure to follow. I try to do the same unless the cacher is apparently gone. Even still, if they show back up and can fix the cache I am always happy to unarchive it so other cachers can find it.

After posting, I went and read the link Mopar provided. I think CO should have sent an email to Team 360 asking him to post a note or disable the cache before doing anything to it. We all know Team 360 lurks around here often, so he probably checks his email regularly also. If there is no response to an email after so many days, then the approver should feel free to disable the cache.

I had someone log DNF on one of my really easy caches yesterday. They claim to have found the remains of the cache. I went out and checked the cache today. It was right where it was supposed to be, although more exposed than I would like. I didn't feel the need to disable the cache before checking on it. Had they posted Should Be Archived instead, would I have gotten a courtesy email from CO before disabling it?

6.4k · February 18, 2004

Im going to disable this untill the owner can check on this cache.
Thanks

CO Admin

That note would also be emailed to the cache hider. Disabling a cache is not the same as archiving it. If you really know the cache is there, just click on enable again. End of problem. No harm done. The fact that several different experienced cachers could not find a 1.5/1 cache probably means the hider either rating the cache wrong, or its missing. Either way it does need to be checked out before more people go looking for it, IMNHO.

Edited February 18, 2004 by Mopar

9.4k · February 18, 2004

One more thing in support of the approver's actions, this cache is a few hours away from Team 360's home, so it isn't like he can just "swing by" on his way home from work (You do work, don't you 360?) like I can with mine. Given this fact, and that the cache is rated 1.5 for difficulty, I'll have to side with CO_Admin for disabling it. If this was a typical Team 360 devious-micro (rated 3 or higher), then I'd go the other way on it.

3.1k · February 18, 2004

Ummm was it placed a long time ago? Before such rules as no burying caches? Or was that rule always around?

Personally I worry more about what I do than what others do.

38.2k · February 18, 2004

The fact that several different experienced cachers could not find a 1.5/1 cache probably means the hider either rating the cache wrong, or its missing. Either way it does need to be checked out before more people go looking for it, IMNHO.

Agreed. If I see a 1.5 star difficulty cache skunk 3 consecutive geocachers, two of whom are experienced, I'd assume that the cache is a goner. But if it was rated 3, or 4 stars then I'd assume its simply a well hidden cache.

2.3k · February 18, 2004

Disabled, then. My mistake.

I will swing on by and check on the disabled cache in question just to make sure it is still there, but I still don't like the fact that one person can hit the button and it gets disabled. I keep up with my cache pages. If I see a lot of DNFs, like on the "Worlds Easiest Cache" or "Edge of Insanity", I take them out of the game myself.

Meanwhile, THIS GUY hasn't even logged onto here in over a year and a half, doesn't respond to his emails, and his caches are still active. Hmmmm.

Edited February 18, 2004 by TEAM 360

3.1k · February 18, 2004

Disabled, then. My mistake.

I will swing on by and check on the disabled cache in question just to make sure it is still there, but I still don't like the fact that one person can hit the button and it gets disabled. I keep up with my cache pages. If I see a lot of DNFs, like on the "Worlds Easiest Cache" or "Edge of Insanity", I take them out of the game myself.

Meanwhile, THIS GUY hasn't even logged onto here in over a year and a half, doesn't respond to his emails, and his caches are still active. Hmmmm.

I guess it takes more than one guy to archive a cache. The complainer and then the mod.

I just wonder what the problem was. Hidden illegally so I have to take it to the forums???'

sheesh

9.4k · February 18, 2004

Disabled, then. My mistake.

I will swing on by and check on the disabled cache in question just to make sure it is still there, but I still don't like the fact that one person can hit the button and it gets disabled. I keep up with my cache pages. If I see a lot of DNFs, like on the "Worlds Easiest Cache" or "Edge of Insanity", I take them out of the game myself.

Meanwhile, THIS GUY hasn't even logged onto here in over a year and a half, doesn't respond to his emails, and his caches are still active. Hmmmm.

I'd say that a known active cacher should get an email from the approver asking that the cache be disabled before any other action is taken. *

That said, since your cache was only disabled (not archived) by CO_Admin, what harm was done? There were 3 DNF's and a note saying the cache needs to be checked. I doubt many people would go out of their way to look for a cache with that on the page anyway. Especially one that is so far out of town.

* "Oh, you want special tratment just because you hang out in the forums, don't you?"

No, that's not what I'm saying. There are certain cachers that are always attached to their computer. They read their email regularly. They can take care of their own caches. The "forum regulars" can be contacted at just about any time, where someone else might only check email once a day or once a week. I'm just saying that when an approver knows they can get ahold of someone that easily, they should.

6.4k · February 18, 2004

Meanwhile, THIS GUY hasn't even logged onto here in over a year and a half, doesn't respond to his emails, and his caches are still active. Hmmmm.

Maybe because nobody logged a SBA on them? Are the admins supposed to check every cache page in the world every day to see if it looks like there is a problem?

7.2k · February 18, 2004

Disabled, then. My mistake.

I will swing on by and check on the disabled cache in question just to make sure it is still there, but I still don't like the fact that one person can hit the button and it gets disabled. I keep up with my cache pages. If I see a lot of DNFs, like on the "Worlds Easiest Cache" or "Edge of Insanity", I take them out of the game myself.

Meanwhile, THIS GUY hasn't even logged onto here in over a year and a half, doesn't respond to his emails, and his caches are still active. Hmmmm.

I have to say I'm a bit surprised by this post.

I took a look at the caches owned by the cacher you have called out. One was clearly gone so I archived it. It would have been nice if you would have posted a SBA note on the cache rather than the method you have chosen to complain about it. In any case, that cache listing has been taken care of. One of the caches only has one no find and no SBA notes. You have stated that caches like that should not be archived. I agree, so I don't understand your concerns about that cache. To be proactive I have added it to my watch list and will watch to see what happens. His last cache is fine. If someone wants to adopt it I would imagine that there could be an arrangement made.

5.3k · February 18, 2004

1 person hit the "Cache should be archived" button because they could not find one of my caches, and now it's archived. Sweet, ain't it? 1 person! Thanks a lot!

Oh, I know you will say, "Yes, but there were 2 no-finds on it before they got there".

Big whoop. Go take a good look at my "Northern Edge of Insanity" cache. A half a dozen no-finds on that one, and it WAS there. Not my fault that I am a great hider of caches!

Hmmm, i see one that sounds like the one you describe, except it's disabled, not archived.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, considering 2 of the 3 DNFs are triple digit cachers, and it's rated 1.5/1. If you've hid it so great that it takes hours and hours to find, then its not really a 1.5 difficulty, is it?

It is not reasonable to archive a cache because a couple of tripled digit cachers have not found the cache. I have geocahes that a hard to find and that some tripled digit cachers have had trouble with. I'm a triple digit cacher and there are some I have had trouble with, I will go back three times sometimes to find one before I enter a DNF. One of my caches that is very hard to find I had to make very hard to spot because it is in a spot that quite a few people visit and there is a high risk of it being found and taken by a non cacher ( this has already happened). I would have rather dod a virtual but they are not allowed in in my part of the country.

Edited February 18, 2004 by JohnnyVegas

6.4k · February 18, 2004

1 person hit the "Cache should be archived" button because they could not find one of my caches, and now it's archived. Sweet, ain't it? 1 person! Thanks a lot!

Oh, I know you will say, "Yes, but there were 2 no-finds on it before they got there".

Big whoop. Go take a good look at my "Northern Edge of Insanity" cache. A half a dozen no-finds on that one, and it WAS there. Not my fault that I am a great hider of caches!

Hmmm, i see one that sounds like the one you describe, except it's disabled, not archived.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, considering 2 of the 3 DNFs are triple digit cachers, and it's rated 1.5/1. If you've hid it so great that it takes hours and hours to find, then its not really a 1.5 difficulty, is it?

It is not reasonable to archive a cache because a couple of tripled digit cachers have not found the cache. I have geocahes that a hard to find and that some tripled digit cachers have had trouble with. I'm a triple digit cacher and there are some I have had trouble with, I will go back three times sometimes to find one before I enter a DNF. One of my caches that is very hard to find I had to make very hard to spot because it is in a spot that quite a few people visit and there is a high risk of it being found and taken by a non cacher ( this has already happened). I would have rather dod a virtual but they are not allowed in in my part of the country.

I quoted everything, and even made a few parts bold for you. I would think a triple digit cacher like yourself would know the difference between a cache that's archived, and a cache that's disabled. But I guess I would be wrong to assume that, especially since every chance you get you mention your line about virtuals not being allowed where you live, yet most other triple digit cachers would know how to do a search for virtuals in your area and see you have plenty of recent approvals.

February 18, 2004

There was one cache I had about 4-5 DNFs on. It said it was hidden under a bush in a neighborhood park. There were about 5 juniper bushes in a clump and where my GPSr zeroed out was the freshly cut stump of one. I had looked all over the place for that one and several other people had DNFs. There were no finds for several months and original cache owner had left the area and had another person take it over. I posted a needs to be archived notice. The next day someone found it!

I went back the next week and finally found it. I had spotted it and decided that it would be easier to reach from the other side of the bush. It blended in so well that when I went to the other side, I couldn't find it!. Had to go back to my original place to see it.

2.3k · February 19, 2004

Meanwhile, THIS GUY hasn't even logged onto here in over a year and a half, doesn't respond to his emails, and his caches are still active. Hmmmm.

Maybe because nobody logged a SBA on them? Are the admins supposed to check every cache page in the world every day to see if it looks like there is a problem?

Of course they can't check every cache page in the world every day, but how tough would it be to get flagged if you don't sign on within 6 months? Come on now, that would be about adding one extra line of code into the website. Or do you think that would be too difficult, too? Wasn't there talk about having to log onto this site every so often to keep your caches active? I see all this talking about archiving caches, great! Let's start with the ones that have turned into "geo-trash" because they have obviously been abandoned by cachers who have long since left the game.

February 19, 2004

Changing the subject only a bit:

I'd hate to see people stop posting skunks out of fear of getting caches archived. Especially with tougher caches, watching for skunks is part of the game -- whether you are the cache owner, another cacher who was skunked and is watching the cache, or were a cacher who managed to find it.

As an owner, I take a string of skunks to be an indication that I should check the cache; that responsibility should not be abdicated to the moderators.

If emails directly to the cache owner are not productive, then (and IMO only then) should GC.com or the moderators become involved.

*clink* *clink* Two cents deposited.

SkinGuy

5.3k · February 19, 2004

1 person hit the "Cache should be archived" button because they could not find one of my caches, and now it's archived. Sweet, ain't it? 1 person! Thanks a lot!

Oh, I know you will say, "Yes, but there were 2 no-finds on it before they got there".

Big whoop. Go take a good look at my "Northern Edge of Insanity" cache. A half a dozen no-finds on that one, and it WAS there. Not my fault that I am a great hider of caches!

Hmmm, i see one that sounds like the one you describe, except it's disabled, not archived.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, considering 2 of the 3 DNFs are triple digit cachers, and it's rated 1.5/1. If you've hid it so great that it takes hours and hours to find, then its not really a 1.5 difficulty, is it?

It is not reasonable to archive a cache because a couple of tripled digit cachers have not found the cache. I have geocahes that a hard to find and that some tripled digit cachers have had trouble with. I'm a triple digit cacher and there are some I have had trouble with, I will go back three times sometimes to find one before I enter a DNF. One of my caches that is very hard to find I had to make very hard to spot because it is in a spot that quite a few people visit and there is a high risk of it being found and taken by a non cacher ( this has already happened). I would have rather dod a virtual but they are not allowed in in my part of the country.

I quoted everything, and even made a few parts bold for you. I would think a triple digit cacher like yourself would know the difference between a cache that's archived, and a cache that's disabled. But I guess I would be wrong to assume that, especially since every chance you get you mention your line about virtuals not being allowed where you live, yet most other triple digit cachers would know how to do a search for virtuals in your area and see you have plenty of recent approvals.

A

As far as virtuals in my area, they are no longer approved in this area, the ones we have now have been here for quite some time and are not new. I do my caching in the San Francisco bay area, an area larger than R.I.. Perhaps you you think the entire state of ca. is my area. It is not. the state is to large, unlike some smaller states. I am not the only geocacher who has not been able to get a virtual approved in MY AREA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6.4k · February 19, 2004

As far as virtuals in my area, they are no longer approved in this area, the ones we have now have been here for quite some time and are not new. I do my caching in the San Francisco bay area, an area larger than R.I.. Perhaps you you think the entire state of ca. is my area. It is not. the state is to large, unlike some smaller states. I am not the only geocacher who has not been able to get a virtual approved in MY AREA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, I have to know what just exactly what your area is. Maybe you can't drive and can't afford public transportation, so your area is a mile or 2 from your home. Then maybe you have a point. Assuming you have a car and travel a bit (looking at your finds seems to support this) I ran a query for virts centered on San Francisco and spreading out 75 miles. That seems a reasonable defination of most cacher's "area". I got back hundreds uf virtuals, dozens placed in the last year since the guidelines for virtuals were tightened, and plenty within even the last 6 months, well within the time period of the regional approver you usually accuse of not approving virtuals. I even see a few placed this year.

The guidelines for hiding virtuals have changed, most cachers know this. You have WAY more virtuals approved in the last year then some other areas of similar cache density (like mine) which pretty much blows your claim out of the water.

Edited February 19, 2004 by Mopar

21.9k · February 19, 2004

JohnnyVegas and Mopar -

This topic is about the use of the "Needs to be Archived" feature. Bringing up one volunteer's record for approving or disapproving virtual cache submissions is off-topic. If you wish to continue your discussion, please open a separate topic or take your conversation to PM's or e-mail. Thanks!

Needs To Be Archived

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

Join the conversation