Should Be Archived

[+Mastifflover]

This was brought up in another thread and I think that it has some merit. I think some folks are hesitant to use the SBA log type because they do not want to offend the cache owner. I don't think that it should be a completely anonymous function or we would see some abuse of it. What would work, is if when you logged an SBA your username would be hidden from the cache page and cache owner but would be viewable by an approver. I for one would be much more comfortable with this system.

[+Sparky-Watts]

I like that idea, too. I have only filed two SBA's. On one, the owners were long gone, so I didn't worry too much about offending them. The other was by owners that had a lot of caches, and were still active. I still felt justified to file the SBA because if they are active, they should fix a cache that had been repeatedly muggled for two months with at least a dozen reports from previous finders that it had been muggled.

 

Bad thing about that cache, the people would log it as found, report that it had been cleaned out by muggles, yet log that they had left a trade item, and even a couple had left TB's!!! How stupid is that?!?!?

 

Back OT, I agree. I think more people would file SBA's when needed if they weren't afraid of offending the owners. Letting only the approvers see who filed it to cut back on abuse is an excellent idea.

[Keystone]

Pending any change in the website programming, if you have a concern about a cache, but you do not wish to log a "Should be Archived" note, then you should write an e-mail to your friendly local volunteer cache reviewer. If you do not know who your friendly local volunteer cache reviewer is, or if your local volunteer cache reviewer is not friendly, then send an e-mail to the general address: contact at geocaching dot com.

[+Imajika]

I only had concerns about a cache one time. I didn't post an SBA note. Instead, I emailed our local approver and they archived it a few days later. The approver added a note to the cache page stating why he did it and, apparently, I wasn't the first person to email him about it.

 

This particular cache needed to be archived or moved...not because the cache was damaged but because it violated several park rules (POSTED park rules) and was very dangerous to attempt.

 

I didn't want to use the SBA function because I didn't want the cacher thinking 'I was out to get him' or something.

[+Mastifflover]

I didn't want to use the SBA function because I didn't want the cacher thinking 'I was out to get him' or something.

Exactly why I am not comfortable about logging an SBA.

[thorin]

Try to find it. If you can't then log a DNF. If a bunch before you have logged DNFs then email the cache owner. If they don't respond or others continue to log DNFs then SBA it.

 

Thorin

Edited July 25, 2004 by thorin

[+hedberg]

...or if your local volunteer cache reviewer is not friendly, then send ...

dadgum, I just wanted to make a stupid joke about that... When I started to read your reply and saw all those "friendly" I thougt: I must ask what if the approver isn't friendly.. And then you wrote it

[+Bob Blaylock]

This was brought up in another thread and I think that it has some merit.  I think some folks are hesitant to use the SBA log type because they do not want to offend the cache owner.

  ·

  ·

  ·

  It seems to me that logging an SBA is a fairly serious thing to do, and that if you're going to do it, you should be willing to do so openly, putting your name to it.  There's something that seems to me to be cowardly and dishonorable about doing — or wanting to do — such a thing anonymously.  You should put your name to it, and be willing to stand by it.

 

  We should be hesitant to log an SBA, unless we're really sure it's called for; and if we're really sure it's called for, then we shouldn't worry that the cache owner will be offended.

[+Ambrosia]

This was brought up in another thread and I think that it has some merit.  I think some folks are hesitant to use the SBA log type because they do not want to offend the cache owner.

  ·

  ·

  ·

It seems to me that logging an SBA is a fairly serious thing to do, and that if you're going to do it, you should be willing to do so openly, putting your name to it.  There's something that seems to me to be cowardly and dishonorable about doing — or wanting to do — such a thing anonymously.  You should put your name to it, and be willing to stand by it.

 

  We should be hesitant to log an SBA, unless we're really sure it's called for; and if we're really sure it's called for, then we shouldn't worry that the cache owner will be offended.

It is not always cowardly. Sometimes you just don't want to dicourage someone from caching, and you don't want them to know which area cacher was the one that archived it, and create hard feelings between people who may have never even met before.

 

We had a cache that was the first cache placed by a noob, very possibly a younger person, at that. It was in a trash dump, and was seriously horrible. The people who found it or didn't find it kept saying that it was not the best, and a few of us said in very friendly ways that it should be archived by the owner.

 

We wrote to him, we even invited him to an event cache, where we told him that we would have a discussion on cache placement.

 

We didn't get responses, and we considered posting a SBA, but we didn't know the age of this cacher, and we didn't want to discourage a noob. Fortunately, it was finally archived by the cache owner.

[+Sparky-Watts]

This was brought up in another thread and I think that it has some merit.  I think some folks are hesitant to use the SBA log type because they do not want to offend the cache owner.

  ·

  ·

  ·

It seems to me that logging an SBA is a fairly serious thing to do, and that if you're going to do it, you should be willing to do so openly, putting your name to it. There's something that seems to me to be cowardly and dishonorable about doing — or wanting to do — such a thing anonymously. You should put your name to it, and be willing to stand by it.

 

We should be hesitant to log an SBA, unless we're really sure it's called for; and if we're really sure it's called for, then we shouldn't worry that the cache owner will be offended.

In a perfect world, that might work. Apparently you don't know human nature very well. Many cachers become upset, no matter how politely you address issues. Nothing cowardly about it. In fact, I resent the fact that you are implying that I am a coward. There's a difference between cowardice and courtesy, just as there is a difference between common sense and being an idiot.

[+Renegade Knight]

I think you should be willing to stand behind your SBA note. It's not something that should be taken lightly. I know where you are coming from with this (think of cache ratings and people not wanting to post "this cache sucks" first...) and that has merit, it's just that I don't want crank cachers doing SBA notes on my cache. We alredy have that with sock puppets.

[+Sparky-Watts]

I think you should be willing to stand behind your SBA note. It's not something that should be taken lightly. I know where you are coming from with this (think of cache ratings and people not wanting to post "this cache sucks" first...) and that has merit, it's just that I don't want crank cachers doing SBA notes on my cache. We alredy have that with sock puppets.

That's the point of having the name visible to the approver. That way, they can cull the obvious jerk reports.

[+Ambrosia]

I think you should be willing to stand behind your SBA note. It's not something that should be taken lightly. I know where you are coming from with this (think of cache ratings and people not wanting to post "this cache sucks" first...) and that has merit, it's just that I don't want crank cachers doing SBA notes on my cache. We alredy have that with sock puppets.

Well, that is a good point, too. It could cause people to be freer with posting archival notes.

[+Mastifflover]

There's something that seems to me to be cowardly and dishonorable about doing — or wanting to do — such a thing anonymously.  You should put your name to it, and be willing to stand by it.

 

  

Not cowardly at all. Just trying to keep it friendly. Some cache owners fly off the handle if you even slightly critisize their cach, let alone suggest that it be archived. Thanks for calling me a coward though, I needed a good laugh.

[+Jared_and_Tanis]

I think it's a good idea - I've only posted once SBA and I felt bad for logging it, although it was for an event cache long past. Of course, when a real SBA is logged, it has nothing to do with the owner, but it is something that can quickly become personal, especially taken the wrong way.

 

~Jared

[+PandyBat]

If you've got a good approver like I do, then you don't worry about it. He checks on caches in our area pretty often and if it looks like one is having problems, he contacts the owner and leaves a note on the cache page. Other than that, if you email him asking him to take a closer look at a cache that might need archived, he takes the appropriate action. I too would feel bad leaving an SBA on a cache for fear of insulting the owner. Even though they are in the wrong for neglecting their cache, I wouldn't want to create hard feelings between myself and another cacher.

An approver is the middle man between you and a fellow geocacher. Use them, but use them wisely. No one gets hurt feelings that way.

[CoyoteRed]

The anonymous function would be a good idea.

 

Might even be better if it didn't show up on the cache page either except for the owner, the approver, and those watching it (surrogate owners.) Only the approver can delete it.

 

This would solve many issues. I think folks are far too timid in issuing an SBA.

[thorin]

IMHO It's no big deal. As a cache owner/maintainer you should not be suprised if someone logs a SBA (especially after a group of DNFs). It's there, it's one of the valid options, as an owner you should be able to accept it and work through it or let it be archived. If not then it's just like asking a questions when there's only one acceptable answer, and if there's only one acceptable answer then why ask the question (own the cache) in the first place.

 

Further just like the owner has to be willing to accept a SBA you have to be willing to back it up.

 

In fact, I resent the fact that you are implying that I am a coward. There's a difference between cowardice and courtesy, just as there is a difference between common sense and being an idiot.

There's no courtesy in not logging a SBA when it's called for. In fact not logging one when you should is a discourtesy to the entire gc'ing community.

 

Of course this all assumes that a SBA is never logged without a few DNFs first. IMHO you shouldn't suggest a cache be archived if your simply the first person to DNF it.

 

Thorin

Edited July 26, 2004 by thorin

[+Mastifflover]

Of course this all assumes that a SBA is never logged without a few DNFs first. IMHO you shouldn't suggest a cache be archived if your simply the first person to DNF it.

 

This is just one scenario that you might have to log a SBA. A cache that is in a dangerous place or causing enviromental damage might need to be archived without a string of DNF's.

[thorin]

Hmmm never knew a cache would be approved that would encounter either of those situations.

 

However even in that case it's not as if the owner has any grounds to be offended by a SBA. At the same time I still believe that a SBA shouldn't be logged right off the bat without giving the owner a chance to correct the issue. Just like a string of DNFs ..... in this case a string of "you might want to move it away from the railroad tracks" etc... Perhaps it would have been better if I said:

Of course this all assumes that a SBA is never logged without a few DNFs or other indications of a problem first. IMHO you shouldn't suggest a cache be archived if your simply the first person to DNF it or comment on a potential problem (ie: dangerous location/environmental issue).

 

Thorin

[+CrimsonWrath]

  It seems to me that logging an SBA is a fairly serious thing to do, and that if you're going to do it, you should be willing to do so openly, putting your name to it.  There's something that seems to me to be cowardly and dishonorable about doing — or wanting to do — such a thing anonymously.  You should put your name to it, and be willing to stand by it.

 

  We should be hesitant to log an SBA, unless we're really sure it's called for; and if we're really sure it's called for, then we shouldn't worry that the cache owner will be offended.

I totally agree with this. If you are willing to report someone's cache and indicate that there is a problem, you should be able to stand by your report, just as I would stand by any of my Found logs, DNF logs, or anything else. If you worry about offending the cache owner, state that in your log.

 

If you want to do it anonymously, use the email like KA said. I see no need for this function.

[+Right Wing Wacko]

Perhaps a better solution and one that has been mentioned many times before is to change the wording of the "Should Be Archived" log to "Cache Needs Maintenance".

[+Sparky-Watts]

Perhaps a better solution and one that has been mentioned many times before is to change the wording of the "Should Be Archived" log to "Cache Needs Maintenance".

No, that won't cover all the areas needed. If a cache is improperly placed on private property, or puts cachers at serious risk, maintanence isn't going to fix it. It "Should Be Archived".....like the sign says.