4 Strikes And You’re Out !

July 24, 2004

Just a random thought that might have some mileage …….I suspect that there are many “ unmaintained” caches, where the owners are no longer active, and historic “holliday caches” still in existence .

Now its possible / probable that over a period of time , these caches will be destroyed or lost or whatever …and on the assumption that a lot of cachers don’t log DNF , isn’t it sensible that after say 4 consecutive DNF’s the cache automatically becomes “temporary unavailable” and if there isn’t a a find for a month …or confirmation of its existence by the owner ..it becomes archived ?..shouldnt be "beyond the wit of man" to trigger this .

Ok ..so some caches which are hard to find might be affected …but the owner should be able to confirm their existence….

Just a thought ….may relieve some wasted journeys and frayed tempers

Edited July 24, 2004 by Flyfishermanbob

9.4k · July 24, 2004

If you notice a cache that has been "missing" for quite some time, email the owner. If you don't get a response, post a "should be archived" note and an approver will look into it for you.

Some people only log on once a month, so try and be patient while waiting for a response.

5.3k · July 24, 2004

This has been discussed before, and the main objection is that an automatic archival of a chache without confirmation that is actually missing could create geo-litter. Imagine if the cache was still there and it was no longer listed...it would just rot in place.

The system as is is now works pretty well. If you see a cache listing that has multiple DNF's in a row and the owner seems to be MIA, post a Needs Archived log to the page. That will notify the owner and an admin that there is a problem. Hopefully, a past finder will confirm that it is indeed missing and then the cache can be archived.

Edited July 24, 2004 by Stunod

July 24, 2004

This has been discussed before, and the main objection is that an automatic archival of a chache without confirmation that is actually missing could create geo-litter. Imagine if the cache was still there and it was no longer listed...it would just rot in place.

The system as is is now works pretty well. If you see a cache listing that has multiple DNF's in a row and the owner seems to be MIA, post a Needs Archived log to the page. That will notify the owner and an admin that there is a problem. Hopefully, a past finder will confirm that it is indeed missing and then the cache can be archived.

Perfectly true ...but isnt an ownerless cache Geo litter ?

5.3k · July 24, 2004

This has been discussed before, and the main objection is that an automatic archival of a chache without confirmation that is actually missing could create geo-litter. Imagine if the cache was still there and it was no longer listed...it would just rot in place.

The system as is is now works pretty well. If you see a cache listing that has multiple DNF's in a row and the owner seems to be MIA, post a Needs Archived log to the page. That will notify the owner and an admin that there is a problem. Hopefully, a past finder will confirm that it is indeed missing and then the cache can be archived.

Perfectly true ...but isnt an ownerless cache Geo litter ?

No...because we still know it's there and somebody will still look for it. There are MANY "ownerless" caches that survive just fine with community upkeep. Don't take this statement as meaning we don't need to take care of our own caches, but until someone confirms that the cache really isn't there it should remain listed.

Edited July 25, 2004 by Stunod

July 24, 2004

I guess we are saying the same thing ...the suggestion was that say 4 cachers who couldn’t find was sufficient evidence that the owner ( or whoever ) needed to confirm its existence .

The “proof of the pudding” is to look at how many caches have 3 ; 4 ; or more DNF without being reported as “needs archiving”

I can see quite a few in the area I look at with GSAK...so I suspect the problem is generic ..hence the suggestion that the process is "automated"

2.5k · July 25, 2004

The problem with any "automatic" response is that not all cases fit the preconceptions that went along with the program. For example: four new cachers go out together for a group learning experience. They tackle a level four cache in a nearby city. Since they are just learning what they are doing and they have never done an evil level four micro before, they don't find it. They have read some of the material on the gc.com site and each independently decide that they should post a DNF on the cache. Since four DNF's come in the cache is automatically listed as unavailable even though the logs indicate that the group was together in the search.

I have also seen caches with four or more DNF's listed before the FTF got there. Maybe the coords were way off or it was just a difficult find. Whatever the reason the cache is still there waiting for a determined cacher to find it. Check out the early logs on In a tree by the brook for a case of five no finds before the first finder got to the cache.

5.3k · July 25, 2004

I guess we are saying the same thing ...the suggestion was that say 4 cachers who couldn’t find was sufficient evidence that the owner ( or whoever ) needed to confirm its existence .

The “proof of the pudding” is to look at how many caches have 3 ; 4 ; or more DNF without being reported as “needs archiving”

I can see quite a few in the area I look at with GSAK...so I suspect the problem is generic ..hence the suggestion that the process is "automated"

I think there a lot of people afraid to log that SBA note. I think an anonymous option on the SBA log should be created...the admin would be the only one able to see who logged the SBA.

4.1k · July 25, 2004

This has been discussed before, and the main objection is that an automatic archival of a chache without confirmation that is actually missing could create geo-litter. Imagine if the cache was still there and it was no longer listed...it would just rot in place.

The system as is is now works pretty well. If you see a cache listing that has multiple DNF's in a row and the owner seems to be MIA, post a Needs Archived log to the page. That will notify the owner and an admin that there is a problem. Hopefully, a past finder will confirm that it is indeed missing and then the cache can be archived.

If you see a cache with several DNFs then Maybe you should go look for it before posting a 'Should be Archived'. If you can't find it then maybe it really is gone and you can go ahead and post an SBA for it.

John

1.2k · July 25, 2004

It can be a really challenging cache also, that a lot of people have logged DNF to show that they have tried to find.

July 25, 2004

Whatever the reason the cache is still there waiting for a determined cacher to find it. Check out the early logs on In a tree by the brook for a case of five no finds before the first finder got to the cache.

An excellent example Weight Man , clearly the owner was responsible and responded after the first couple of DNFs ... which is all that would be required of them with an "automated" system.

My concern is where the owner is no longer active or it was an old holiday cache.

9.1k · July 25, 2004

Yuck. I would hate for this to be an automated process. It would discourage people from logging that fourth DNF, and I *like* DNF logs, both as a hider and a finder. They are often far more interesting to read than a simple "found it, TNLN, thanks" log.

I can think of at least two caches where I logged several consecutive DNF's before ultimately scoring a find on a difficult cache: Foreign Finance Fund 2 (16 DNF logs, including four from me), and Brainbuster Cache (3 consecutive DNF's because of a problem with the cache). Or, look at Grove-Pin Cache, a tough micro very near my house, where several geocachers have combined on two occasions to produce four consecutive DNF's, while the cache has been there all along.

In addition, several of my own caches regularly receive DNF's because they are just plain evil. They are designed that way, and I want to read the DNF logs. Don't put me to any extra work because an automated process decides that X consecutive DNF's means there is something wrong with the cache.

So, in conclusion, while action would be nice if the issue with the cache is a maintenance problem, it is entirely inappropriate, IMHO, for a cache that is just plain hard to find.

9.2k · July 25, 2004

Now its possible / probable that over a period of time , these caches will be destroyed or lost or whatever …and on the assumption that a lot of cachers don’t log DNF , isn’t it sensible that after say 4 consecutive DNF’s the cache automatically becomes “temporary unavailable” and if there isn’t a a find for a month …or confirmation of its existence by the owner ..it becomes archived ?..shouldnt be "beyond the wit of man" to trigger this .

Automatically disabling caches because they may be difficult to find? Not a good idea. Check out the December logs on this cache. 4 in a row, even with the cache IN PLAIN SIGHT. And 3 of the last 5 logs were DNFs.

It would discourage people from putting out difficult or innovative caches, if they though they would be constantly getting deactivated when, in fact, the cache is still there.

July 25, 2004

I think there a lot of people afraid to log that SBA note. I think an anonymous option on the SBA log should be created...the admin would be the only one able to see who logged the SBA.

As I said in the other thread that was created to expand on this subject, I very much disagree. I think that if you're going to SBA a cache, you should be willing to do so openly, putting your name to this action, and standing by it.

7.3k · July 25, 2004

Wow. This would be a very bad thing to do, for so many reasons, some of which have already been discussed. I could also think of the abuse this could create. Yeah, it is true that people may be afraid to log that fourth DNF, but also the converse could be true if cachers are having personal problems, they could post the fourth to be spiteful.

Probably that's a little stretch, but you get my meaning. There are so many ways that this could cause strife, confusion, and much more work on the part of the cache owner, finders, and approvers.

July 26, 2004

If you feel the the cache is missing, and the owner is not responding - that's what the SBA flag is for.

Many of the difficult caches could have many more than four DNFs w/o there being a problem.

24.7k · July 26, 2004

I've hidden caches that hard, with that many skunks, with zero cache maintance issues, and had that many skunks (of my own) on a single cache I was looking for. It's not a one size fits all solution though it looks good at the surface.

7.2k · July 26, 2004

There are some things that should not be automated. This is one of them. Many points already discussed, no need to repeat them.

4k · July 26, 2004

There are some things that should not be automated. This is one of them. Many points already discussed, no need to repeat them.

Yeah, this and the manufacturing of robots!

7.2k · July 26, 2004

Yeah, this and the manufacturing of robots!

You saw the movie, too?

4k · July 26, 2004

Yeah, this and the manufacturing of robots!

You saw the movie, too?

July 26, 2004

Yeah, this and the manufacturing of robots!

You saw the movie, too?

http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20040725

9.5k · July 26, 2004

There are some things that should not be automated. This is one of them. Many points already discussed, no need to repeat them.

Yeah, this and the manufacturing of robots!

...by robots.

July 26, 2004

Before the thread disintegrates completely , It would appear that of the 400 views , 10 cachers foresee problems with difficult to find caches , I agree this could be a problem.

Perhaps if the original post had been read, it would have been noticed that the suggestion was to trigger a “temporary unavailable”…to allow the owner to respond….

( Owners can change the status back …. So there shouldn’t be a problem for hard caches ….unless the owner has stopped caching???? )

Slightly disappointed not to have found some constructive suggestions .

4 Strikes And You’re Out !

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