Auto-archiving?

[+Bluespreacher]

I just got this email from a 'no reply' address:

 

Log Date: 7/26/2004

Greetings from Geocaching.com

 

""It looks like your cache has been under the weather for some time.

While we feel that Geocaching.com should hold the location for you and

block other cachers from entering the area around this cache for a

reasonable amount of time, we can't do so forever. Please either repair/replace

this cache, or let it remain archived, so that someone else can place a

cache in the area, and geocachers can once again enjoy visiting this

location. Also, if you haven't done so already, please pick up any

remaining cache bits as soon as possible. ""

 

This Cache (Gorley Hill GC4467) has been out for a while and some have found it while others have had trouble. When I checked the cache page, I found it had been archived! I haven't checked it since December, but I have no reason to think that it has been damaged or scattered into 'remaining bits'.

 

Anyway, what's going on? I've not been as active as I once was, but this was news to me. I have five other hard to get to, seldom visited caches, will these all be archived? Why would anyone from Geocaching.com send me an email from a 'no reply address?

 

Any insight on this would be a help,

 

Bluespreacher

[+marmetion]

What the H***??? only 2 DNF and it get's archived? who did you piss off or on?

[+Bluespreacher]

What the H***??? only 2 DNF and it get's archived? who did you piss off or on?

Been Wonderin' myself

 

Bluespreacher

[+ke6n]

If you have replaced or done maintenance on this cache contact me and it will be unachieved

 

Heh, I think that is the problem... It HAS been unachieved.

 

It looks like it has been not found twice in 8 months. Personally, if it were me, I'd have gone and done a maintenance check on it sometime during that period. The message is considerate enough and requires you to go on out there to verify it is still there and the approver will unarchive it. I'm thinking the stretch of time is what caused the approver to question it. Did you not receive an email from the approver prior to the archival? Might have been an oversite on there part if you didn't. Still, it's not something that can't be corrected. -Ken

[+CompuCash]

didn't your no reply say who it was from -

 

mine always say who is writing - whether it is an apporver or someone logging one of my caches -

 

that might give you a clue to what is happening - you can go to that profile and write back and ask questions.

 

if you think it is a phony you should pass the whole message along to the P'sTB.

 

very strange -

Edited July 28, 2004 by CompuCash

[+Renegade Knight]

The approver who archived the cache gave their email address. Email them and ask what's up.

 

The archive note seems generic so I don't think it give an accurate picture of the exact reasons the cache was archived.

[+Milbank]

Gorley Hill GC4467

 

Why would anyone from Geocaching.com send me an email from a 'no reply address?

 

At the bottom of the note it reads:

Thanks for your understanding,

Tennessee Geocacher

Geocaching.com Admin

[E-mail address for Tennessee Geocacher removed by Moderator]

 

So was the email you got just letting you know someone posted a note about your cache?

 

Looking back at the email I get from my caches or one's I'm watching all the emails come from noreply@geocaching.com

Edited July 28, 2004 by Keystone Approver

[Keystone]

Bluespreacher,

 

There is no such thing as "auto-archiving." Rather, your cache was archived by the Groundspeak volunteer who gave his name and contact information in the archive log that the volunteer placed on your cache page. As the cache owner, you received a copy of this log from the "no reply" geocaching.com e-mail bot, just as you receive notices on all other logs left on your caches.

 

The volunteers are asked to stay on top of caches in their assigned territory which have maintenance issues. Posting a note or an archive log is done pursuant to the maintenance section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines, which state in relevant part as follows:

 

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for checking on your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.).  You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem.  This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache. In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

 

Normally, I go through all the disabled caches in my territory once each month, and I send out notices very similar to the one you received. For recently disabled caches (2 to 4 months), I usually give the owner quite a bit of notice before archiving the cache, to give the owner a chance to fix things up. For caches that have been under the weather for long time, such as yours which was last found in November 2003, sometimes the reviewer just goes ahead and archives the listing on the assumption that the owner is no longer active. Even then, all you need to do is follow the maintenance guideline. The reviewer wrote in the archive note:

 

If you have replaced or done maintenance on this cache contact me and it will be unarchived, and be sure to post a note to the cache page that you have.

 

If you follow these instructions, and confirm that the cache is in place and ready to be found, everything's cool.

 

I cannot tell if your cache was temporarily disabled because it has now been archived. But that is the most likely reason for it to come to a volunteer's attention. For caches that are NOT disabled, but have similar maintenance problems, we rely largely on reports from local geocachers.

 

I am sure that the volunteer reviewer who archived your cache can provide further details. In the meantime, I hope that this explanation was helpful.

 

Marmetian,

 

Tone it down a notch. The volunteer reviewers are only doing their job to make sure that the website's listing requirements are met. We are not "pissed off" except by comments like yours.

[+CompuCash]

Gorley Hill GC4467

 

Why would anyone from Geocaching.com send me an email from a 'no reply address?

 

At the bottom of the note it reads:

Thanks for your understanding,

Tennessee Geocacher

Geocaching.com Admin

[E-mail address for Tennessee Geocacher removed by Moderator]

 

So was the email you got just letting you know someone posted a note about your cache?

 

Looking back at the email I get from my caches or one's I'm watching all the emails come from noreply@geocaching.com

 

yes - but in the text there is a line that says who it is from -

 

Allwayslfinding found CandleScents (Traditional Cache) at 7/25/2004

 

This is a quick message to let you know that your cache has been approved by approver: WestCoastAdmin. You can visit your listing at the following location:

Edited July 28, 2004 by CompuCash

[+Bluespreacher]

If you have replaced or done maintenance on this cache contact me and it will be unachieved

 

Heh, I think that is the problem... It HAS been unachieved.

 

It looks like it has been not found twice in 8 months. Personally, if it were me, I'd have gone and done a maintenance check on it sometime during that period. The message is considerate enough and requires you to go on out there to verify it is still there and the approver will unarchive it. I'm thinking the stretch of time is what caused the approver to question it. Did you not receive an email from the approver prior to the archival? Might have been an oversite on there part if you didn't. Still, it's not something that can't be corrected. -Ken

Been meaning to get to it, but really, no one has said it was scattered. It is a tough cache, there are many like it in the area. I was not glad that some had trouble with it. I emailed some with more info. My thing is, 'Why was I not included in this process?

 

Bluespreacher

[+Bluespreacher]

Gorley Hill GC4467

 

Why would anyone from Geocaching.com send me an email from a 'no reply address?

 

At the bottom of the note it reads:

Thanks for your understanding,

Tennessee Geocacher

Geocaching.com Admin

[E-mail address for Tennessee Geocacher removed by Moderator]

 

So was the email you got just letting you know someone posted a note about your cache?

 

Looking back at the email I get from my caches or one's I'm watching all the emails come from noreply@geocaching.com

All I know is I get a message from someone I don't know, his profile shows -0- finds and he's archived my cache. I'm not happy. This is the first I've heard of any problem, and my cache is archived.

 

I'm just looking for a logical explanation.

 

Bluespreacher

[+Mudfrog]

Would be good if you can check on the cache to make sure its all in order. You havnt but that still doesnt explain why Tennessee Geocacher would/can just come along and archive it! Maybe he knows something that you dont? Maybe he received a letter from one of the disgruntled DNFers? Still seems strange that he wouldnt contact you first...

 

There are a couple of caches of ours that are tough to find and that have a few purple DNF faces on each. Ive checked on them a few times and they are allways in place. Just hope that someone with the "power" doesnt decide to do this sort of thing to us!

[Keystone]

The first you heard of problems concerning your caches were the DNF logs. When is the last time you visited this cache for a routine maintenance check? I check all of mine periodically, and certainly when there have been DNF's logged on a cache that isn't intended to be too difficult to find.

 

When you *do* pay your cache a maintenance visit -- and getting to Mudfrog's point -- it is a good idea to log a "note" saying that all is well with your cache. We do not go around archiving caches at random just because they receive a few DNF logs.

 

The reason that Tennessee Geocacher's account shows zero finds is because this volunteer chooses to use a separate account for performing reviewer duties on behalf of the website. Under this person's regular geocaching account, you'd see a very large number of finds in your neck of the woods. You may very well have met this hard working volunteer!

[+Bluespreacher]

Would be good if you can check on the cache to make sure its all in order. You havnt but that still doesnt explain why Tennessee Geocacher would/can just come along and archive it! Maybe he knows something that you dont? Maybe he received a letter from one of the disgruntled DNFers? Still seems strange that he wouldnt contact you first...

 

There are a couple of caches of ours that are tough to find and that have a few purple DNF faces on each. Ive checked on them a few times and they are allways in place. Just hope that someone with the "power" doesnt decide to do this sort of thing to us!

Of course, it's possible that some one knows something about my cache that I don't. Just clue me in! I've had caches that were scattered or damaged before and I got right out there to fix the problem. I will be out to this one as soon as possible to check on it, but I have no reason to think that there is any problem with it.

 

I just think that I should have been included before my cache was archived, that's all.

 

I've been asked to 'tone it down', and I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but I'm not sure what that means.

 

Bluespreacher

[+Bluespreacher]

The first you heard of problems concerning your caches were the DNF logs. When is the last time you visited this cache for a routine maintenance check? I check all of mine periodically, and certainly when there have been DNF's logged on a cache that isn't intended to be too difficult to find.

 

When you *do* pay your cache a maintenance visit -- and getting to Mudfrog's point -- it is a good idea to log a "note" saying that all is well with your cache. We do not go around archiving caches at random just because they receive a few DNF logs.

 

The reason that Tennessee Geocacher's account shows zero finds is because this volunteer chooses to use a separate account for performing reviewer duties on behalf of the website. Under this person's regular geocaching account, you'd see a very large number of finds in your neck of the woods. You may very well have met this hard working volunteer!

I'm done. I'll get out there as soon as possble to check on the cache. I'm sure that Tennesee Geocacher is someone I 'know' through Geocaching. Every one I've 'met' through Geocaching has been a great person, if I've offended a fellow cacher, I'm sorry. If he or any one that had actually had a problem with the cache emailed me with their concerns it would have been different.

 

But the facts (as I know them) are that there have been a couple of DNF's on the cache. I emailed one seeker with more info to try to help. I *have* logged notes when I did cache maintainance.

 

The rest has been said,

 

Keep on Caching,

 

Bluespreacher

[Keystone]

Fair enough! And like I said, a quick e-mail to Tennessee Geocacher and everything can be set straight, just like the reviewer said at the end of the archive log. Trust me, the vast majority of caches that are archived under the maintenance guideline, we never hear a *word* from the owner. In this case, you *are* still an active geocacher and that is a good thing!

 

Please note that my comment to "tone it down" was not directed to you, but to another person who posted to this thread. I combined my comments to you and to him into one post, and perhaps you read that part too quickly. My goal in writing to you, the cache owner, was to help you understand what happened, make you a happy cacher again, and get everything fixed up with your cache (which looks like a cool place and a challenging find, by the way).

Edited July 28, 2004 by Keystone Approver

[+JohnnyVegas]

I do not understand why the cache would have been archived with the approver contacting you first. the approver for my area had a concern about one of mine but he contacted me first so that I could check the cache.

[+briansnat]

I do not understand why the cache would have been archived with the approver contacting you first. the approver for my area had a concern about one of mine but he contacted me first so that I could check the cache.

I agree. Though the cache probably should have been checked on after the DNF's, some e communication from the approver before archiving it would have been appropriate.

 

I've seen so much worse out there; sometimes a year or more of logs complaining about the condition of the cache, so I don't see why this cache was singled out. I think the approver was a bit overzealous and too quick on the archive button here.

 

A little communication goes a long way toward avoiding hard feelings.

[+beejay&esskay]

Tennessee Geocacher recently began dealing with a lot of Indiana caches which had been "temporarily disabled" for quite some time.

 

(Is it possible this cache was disabled?)

 

There were about 100 caches in my 100 mile radius that were archived recently by him. (Which pleased me...if a cache owner disables a cache and takes no further action, I'd rather that cache be archived.)

 

Maybe TG should follow Keystone Approver's less aggressive approach and give the cache owner more than TG's stated 30 days, but since an e-mail to him will return the cache to active status, this doesn't seem to be anything to get too upset about.

[+CompuCash]

 

When you *do* pay your cache a maintenance visit -- and getting to Mudfrog's point -- it is a good idea to log a "note" saying that all is well with your cache. We do not go around archiving caches at random just because they receive a few DNF logs.

 

 

That is a good point. While I do check my caches regularly, it never occured to me that I should log that point on the cache page.

[Pipanella]

Tennessee Geocacher recently began dealing with a lot of Indiana caches which had been "temporarily disabled" for quite some time.

 

(Is it possible this cache was disabled?)

 

There were about 100 caches in my 100 mile radius that were archived recently by him. (Which pleased me...if a cache owner disables a cache and takes no further action, I'd rather that cache be archived.)

 

Maybe TG should follow Keystone Approver's less aggressive approach and give the cache owner more than TG's stated 30 days, but since an e-mail to him will return the cache to active status, this doesn't seem to be anything to get too upset about.

I agree. And I know one cache that was archived by him that the owner was........well.........let's just say he was more than mildly upset about it. While I did think the cache owner overreacted, he contacted TG and the cache has since been unarchived.

 

I agree, though. It seems to me that an attempt to contact the cache owner before archiving would be appropriate.

[Swagger]

IMHO, TG was out of line. Consider this very possible scenario:

 

Bluespreacher places a hard-to-find cache. Few people seek it and the last two cachers couldn't find it. TG archives the cache citing maintenance issues. While we're all chatting about it in the forums, another cacher sees that his favorite part of his favorite trail no longer has a cache on it and places one there, which gets approved in short order. Now we have a situation where a cache was unnecessarily archived and can not be unarchived because a new cache is blocking it.

 

I believe (based on the information provided in this thread) that TG should have e-mailed BP, and possibly disabled (NOT archived) the cache. BP should have some time (30 days?) to respond to the e-mail and/or do a maintenance check before the cache is archived. This would have achieved the same desired end-result (cache is either verified to be there and healthy or it gets archived) without generating any ill-will between the cachers and approvers.

 

Just my $.02...

[Max Cacher]

Over 10% of the caches were disabled in the state of Indiana, which is way high ( 165 ) now there is 47. The caches that were archived for poor maintenance, or lack of a note on the cache page that they were being worked on. Some of those disabled caches have not been found in two years with multiple DNF.

 

All were not archived but a note was placed on the page asking what the status of the cache was and for them to post a note to the cache page and to send me a note as well.

 

Less than 10% return an email to me after being asked, but if you archived it, you get a response back real quick and the matter is taken care of.

 

A lot of the caches were from people not playing the game anymore and have gone MIA with non activated status on there profile with no way to get email notifications about logs to their cache pages

 

After going through all the disabled caches and taking action on most, I received more emails of praise from local cachers in the area that were glad something was finally being done about these, as a lot showed on there next closes caches search and have been for over a year. Three cache owner that though this was a rude thing to do.

 

Is it not courteous to keep your cache maintained and up to date.

 

Tennessee Geocacher // Reviewer // Moderator

[Pipanella]

Just so you know, TG, I defended you in our local forums. The cache in question has had a problem since February, and really should have been taken care of, or at least a note on the listing as to why it hadn't been. Since this wasn't the case, I could see why you archived it. And for the record, I didn't think the note you posted when archiving was rude. I guess it's like they say, "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the the people all of the time." (Or something like that.)

[Max Cacher]

Bluespreacher did respond to the cache being archived:

 

“”I dont' know who you are, do you represent Groundspeak. If so, you should say so. Why did you "archive" my Gorley Hill Cache (GC4467)" It's true that some have not found this cache, but many have. There is no reason to imaginge that it has been damaged or moved or unavailable in any way.

 

Now I think about it, I'm not going to discuss this with you any more until I've contacted Geocaching.com about this. I mean, who the heck are you?

 

DON'T keep on caching, “”

 

 

Tennessee Geocacher // Reviewer // Moderator

[+Eric K]

Bluespreacher did respond to the cache being archived:

 

Now I think about it, I'm not going to discuss this with you any more until I've contacted Geocaching.com about this. I mean, who the heck are you?

 

DON'T keep on caching, “”

 

Same old song and dance. It's like listening to Paul Harvey. "Now, the rest of the story......."

 

http://www.travelbugraces.com

http://www.usageocoins.com

Edited July 28, 2004 by Eric K

[+beejay&esskay]

Bluespreacher did respond to the cache being archived:

 

“”I dont' know who you are, do you represent Groundspeak. If so, you should say so. Why did you "archive" my Gorley Hill Cache (GC4467)" “”

 

 

Tennessee Geocacher // Reviewer // Moderator

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

Bluespreacher wasn't the only person who didn't know why a person with 0 finds would archive his cache.

 

While most of us in this thread may have understood what Tennessee Geocacher's archive note meant, some clearly did not.

 

Maybe it should be a little more explicit about who TG is. ("Hi. I'm the volunteer reviewer for Indiana and I noticed this cache seems to be having difficulties...." or something like that?)

[Keystone]

Bluespreacher did respond to the cache being archived:

 

“”I dont' know who you are, do you represent Groundspeak. If so, you should say so. Why did you "archive" my Gorley Hill Cache (GC4467)" “”

 

 

Tennessee Geocacher  //  Reviewer  //  Moderator

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

 

Bluespreacher wasn't the only person who didn't know why a person with 0 finds would archive his cache.

 

While most of us in this thread may have understood what Tennessee Geocacher's archive note meant, some clearly did not.

 

Maybe it should be a little more explicit about who TG is. ("Hi. I'm the volunteer reviewer for Indiana and I noticed this cache seems to be having difficulties...." or something like that?)

The archive note begins:

 

Greetings from Geocaching.com,

 

and ends with:

Thanks for your understanding,

Tennessee Geocacher

Geocaching.com Admin

 

I guess I am having trouble understanding what is not clear about this.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Just so you know, TG, I defended you in our local forums. The cache in question has had a problem since February, and really should have been taken care of, or at least a note on the listing as to why it hadn't been. Since this wasn't the case, I could see why you archived it. And for the record, I didn't think the note you posted when archiving was rude. I guess it's like they say, "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the the people all of the time." (Or something like that.)

Having read the logs for the Gorley Hill caache. I did not see any reason for the cache to be archived. There are 2DNFs in a row that are several months apart. one DNF was from a cacher with only 10 finds (Lack of experiance) If I see a DNF on one of my caches by someone with just a few finds I am not going to run out and check it, I use to but the cache was always there. Just two weeks ago I found a cache on a second try that was hidden in a way I have nad not seen before, I think it was around numbe 470 or so for me. I had a cacher post a note on one of hard to find caches saying it was missing (It would have been his second find)

Two DNF does mean the cache is missing, it may just be hard to find.

 

I have a couple of Micros that cachers can park next but they are so well hidden most cachers have to make two or three trips to find them. I also have a cache that involves a bit of a hike so it gets very little action, because a cache has only a few finds is no reason to archive it. Where I live there are thousands of caches to chose from so lots of caches do not get hit on a regular basis because they are hard to find or require a long hike.

[Pipanella]

Just so you know, TG, I defended you in our local forums.  The cache in question has had a problem since February, and really should have been taken care of, or at least a note on the listing as to why it hadn't been.  Since this wasn't the case, I could see why you archived it.  And for the record, I didn't think the note you posted when archiving was rude.  I guess it's like they say, "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the the people all of the time."  (Or something like that.)

Having read the logs for the Gorley Hill caache. I did not see any reason for the cache to be archived. There are 2DNFs in a row that are several months apart. one DNF was from a cacher with only 10 finds (Lack of experiance) If I see a DNF on one of my caches by someone with just a few finds I am not going to run out and check it, I use to but the cache was always there. Just two weeks ago I found a cache on a second try that was hidden in a way I have nad not seen before, I think it was around numbe 470 or so for me. I had a cacher post a note on one of hard to find caches saying it was missing (It would have been his second find)

Two DNF does mean the cache is missing, it may just be hard to find.

 

I have a couple of Micros that cachers can park next but they are so well hidden most cachers have to make two or three trips to find them. I also have a cache that involves a bit of a hike so it gets very little action, because a cache has only a few finds is no reason to archive it. Where I live there are thousands of caches to chose from so lots of caches do not get hit on a regular basis because they are hard to find or require a long hike.

I wasn't referring to that cache. I was referring to this one:

 

Perfectly Perplexing Puzzles

 

Now, ignore the notes left yesterday (after archiving then unarchiving), and read what was before that. I can see why this was archived.

 

At the end of FEBRUARY, logs state that Stage 2 can't be found (and by experienced cachers). Several days later, the cache owner acknowledges that it is indeed missing. Then there is nothing until May 16th (over TWO months later).

 

On May 16th (TWO months ago), the owner states: "Stage 2 is still missing, so the cache remains unavailable, but Fuzzy has a new stage 2 made up and almost ready to place. Just needs a paint job."

 

This implies that the only thing he needs to do is paint it and place it. He says it's almost ready to place. Then two months later, it's still not done. Then you read his note he left yesterday. Why didn't he leave that note before?? I think four months is plenty long to either fix the cache or give a suitable explanation as to why it hasn't been fixed.

 

Like I said, I can see why it was archived.

Edited July 28, 2004 by Pipanella

[+Prime Suspect]

Just an FYI.

 

Anyone can post a Should Be Archived note to any cache.

 

Only a cache owner or a reviewer can post an Archived note, or a Review note. If you see either of these posted to a cache you own, and you didn't post it, you can be sure it was done by someone representing geocaching.com.

 

End of today's FYI.

[robertlipe]

I sometimes cache in IN, and I'd noticed the high number of disabled caches or abandonware. Would it have been nice for TG to start a dialogue with every placer? Sure. But it doesn't work. Ripping through a large list just applying some reasonable metrics (and sometimes you will get some "overspray" - but that's OK because the process is reversible and it's described HOW to reverse it in the note) is the only way I can imagine a human handling this in any cost-effective manner.

 

Of the ones I saw go away, they deserved it - 3 frownies in a row on a 1/1 with a drop-dead hint and the other 25 logs talk about how easy it was? Yeah, it's gone. Your case was a little fuzzier but I can totally see how, at a glance, it didn't look to be healthy. But that's OK - archiving a cache is like killing a soap opera character; they can be brought back from the dead relatively easily.

 

The note posted was pretty clar that it was from a reviewer & the profile is equally clear.

[+Markwell]

Just an FYI.

 

Anyone can post a Should Be Archived note to any cache.

 

Only a cache owner or a reviewer can post an Archived note, or a Review note. If you see either of these posted to a cache you own, and you didn't post it, you can be sure it was done by someone representing geocaching.com.

 

End of today's FYI.

Oops. Cache owners can post a Review note.

 

FYI...

 

 

[+Planet]

<snip>.......My thing is, 'Why was I not included in this process?

 

Bluespreacher

Bluespreacher, long time no see.

 

You were included in it, when you got the first DNF logs. But since you haven't been active lately you haven't had a chance to go back to check it, or post a note that all is ok on your cache page. Had you done that, all would be ok.

[+Prime Suspect]

Just an FYI.

 

Anyone can post a Should Be Archived note to any cache.

 

Only a cache owner or a reviewer can post an Archived note, or a Review note. If you see either of these posted to a cache you own, and you didn't post it, you can be sure it was done by someone representing geocaching.com.

 

End of today's FYI. 

Oops. Cache owners can post a Review note.

Uhm.. huh? You must have misread it. My message already said that: "Only a cache owner or a reviewer can post an Archived note, or a Review note."

[+Mudfrog]

As i stated above, Bluespreacher does need to get out and check on the cache. He hasnt yet but IMO this does not justify an automatic archiving. If it had been disabled for months then yes, that might be different.

 

To be honest, this cache with the two DNFs would be right up my alley. I like to sometimes make a cache find after seeing others have trouble. Its just another type of challenge for me. If it were archived then id never see it to even have that chance!

 

Looking at TG's side of the coin,,, I didnt think about the hassle it would be trying to get a hold of some people, so i can see your point in making a notation on the cache page. That would indeed be a good way to get someone's attention. Still, archiving this one was a bit much.

[+sbell111]

...Would it have been nice for TG to start a dialogue with every placer? Sure. But it doesn't work. Ripping through a large list just applying some reasonable metrics (and sometimes you will get some "overspray" - but that's OK ...

I have to disagree with you on this one. The most efficient way to handle this would be to use a two step process. The first time an approver 'rips through' the list, he can simply place a note on the cache page which asks whether the cache is OK. The next time he 'rips through' the list, he can check to see if any action has been noted since the note. If no action was taken, archive the cache.

 

This way, caches that are being properly monitored by the owners are not archived in error. Better service is given to the cache owners and the geocaching public. Remember, approvers are in a service business...

[+Renegade Knight]

...Would it have been nice for TG to start a dialogue with every placer?  Sure.  But it doesn't work.  Ripping through a large list just applying some reasonable metrics (and sometimes you will get some "overspray"  -  but that's OK ...

I have to disagree with you on this one. The most efficient way to handle this would be to use a two step process. The first time an approver 'rips through' the list, he can simply place a note on the cache page which asks whether the cache is OK. The next time he 'rips through' the list, he can check to see if any action has been noted since the note. If no action was taken, archive the cache.

 

This way, caches that are being properly monitored by the owners are not archived in error. Better service is given to the cache owners and the geocaching public. Remember, approvers are in a service business...

Most efficient, yes, with the problems robertlipe pointed out. Best? Not at all. Best would be the direct email to start a dialog. That the owner could email in return and start a dialoge is the best solution to the need to deal with problem caches en mass.

[robertlipe]

I can't speak for the reviewers, but the thought of having 150 async discussions with people (many of which are NLA and most of which have an incentive to ignore me) with the onus on me to RE-evaluate the list in 30 days doesn't sound like much fun to me.

 

If the site had infinite staffing, placer counselling might well be an option. I don't see that as viable today. Forcing the hands might be militant, but it solves the problem. Once in a while you'll get a collateral casuality in there and that's a drag. If Bluespreacher had just followed the instructions in the note, this would have likely been fixed quickly.

[+sbell111]

I agree with RK that email contact is optimal. I also see how that would be very cumbersome. Archiving first and expecting things to work themselves out happily on the back end is unrealistic, however. This type of heavy-handed action is never going to result in free dialogue and trust. I can't see how anyone would see how a shoot first and ask questions later attitude can be called acceptable service.

 

Lets take a closer look at the cache in question. Several months ago, a cacher with only 9 finds (at the time) failed to find it. This FF log likely wouldn't generate a visit from very many cache owners. The cache went several months without anyone searching for it. This isn't surprising since its not a drive-up. Another cacher looked for it on July 7. We have no way of knowing when the cacher entered his FTF log on GC.com so we can't determine how much opportunity the owner had to go check on it after the July 7 FTF. A little over two weeks later, the approver archived the cache without any prior communication with the owner. For all he knew, the cache owner had visited the site on July 6 and everything was fine.

[+Markwell]

Uhm.. huh? You must have misread it. My message already said that....

Ooooops...

[+sbell111]

I can't speak for the reviewers, but the thought  of having 150 async discussions with people (many of which are NLA and most of which have an incentive to ignore me) with the onus on me to RE-evaluate the list in 30 days doesn't sound like much fun to me.

 

...  Forcing the hands might be militant, but it solves the problem.  Once in a while you'll get a collateral casuality in there and that's a drag.  If Bluespreacher had just followed the instructions in the note, this would have likely been fixed quickly.

These comments bring up so many issues. The chief of which is that in all the postings I've read from approvers, I can't remember anyone ever mentioning that the took the gig because it would be fun. From my understanding, the overwhelming reason is to help out Jeremy and the caching community. Lets face it, being an approver is a job. The pay is just plain lousy, but it is work that the approvers have agreed to do. They should be expected to do it with an emphasis on good service to Groundspeak and the community.

 

In order to help Jeremy and the community, it is important to keep an eye on the level of service being given. I rather doubt that Jeremy wants cachers driven away from the site do to bad feelings due to heavy-handed actions. This type of preventable 'collateral damage' is not acceptable from a business standpoint. Perhaps a little communication on the front-end would have prevented this archival. Certainly, it would prevent the unneccessary archival of others like it.

 

Finally, one more reason not to archive caches so freely is to cut down on geolitter. Is anyone being contacted to check out the areas and remove any caches? If caches are found, are they removed or are the caches reactivated?

Edited July 28, 2004 by sbell111

[Keystone]

I agree with RK that email contact is optimal. I also see how that would be very cumbersome. Archiving first and expecting things to work themselves out happily on the back end is unrealistic, however. This type of heavy-handed action is never going to result in free dialogue and trust. I can't see how anyone would see how a shoot first and ask questions later attitude can be called acceptable service.

 

Lets take a closer look at the cache in question. Several months ago, a cacher with only 9 finds (at the time) failed to find it. This FF log likely wouldn't generate a visit from very many cache owners. The cache went several months without anyone searching for it. This isn't surprising since its not a drive-up. Another cacher looked for it on July 7. We have no way of knowing when the cacher entered his FTF log on GC.com so we can't determine how much opportunity the owner had to go check on it after the July 7 FTF. A little over two weeks later, the approver archived the cache without any prior communication with the owner. For all he knew, the cache owner had visited the site on July 6 and everything was fine.

I believe you meant "DNF" rather than "FTF."

 

We *never* know when an owner makes a maintenance check on a cache unless the owner says something on the cache page about it. This is why I recommended that in an earlier post to this topic. As a factual matter, the owner states that the cache was last checked in December. This visit was not noted on the cache page.

 

In his post, Tennessee Geocacher explains that he was going through the list of 160+ caches in Indiana that were temporarily disabled. He didn't say for certain, but from that I gathered that this cache was temporarily disabled. A temporarily disabled cache with no explanation and no finds since November 2003 certainly sounds like a cache calling for some action under the listing guidelines.

 

This was the first cut at the disabled cache problem in the State of Indiana. I've gone through the same process for three other states. It is extremely time-consuming the first time. Therefore, for certain caches the reviewers choose to archive the cache with an offer to unarchive it if the problem is solved - and at best 10% of the cache owners respond to that. It is a balance between "acceptable service" and efficient use of our volunteer time -- and I am not agreeing that an archival is unacceptable service.

 

Once the initial list has been culled down, however, it is much easier to keep up with the disabled caches going forward .... just a few hours per state, per month. In those circumstances I am more likely to leave a note first before archiving the cache, since the really really old problems have previously been resolved.

[+sbell111]

I believe you meant "DNF" rather than "FTF."

 

... As a factual matter, the owner states that the cache was last checked in December. This visit was not noted on the cache page.

 

In his post, Tennessee Geocacher explains that he was going through the list of 160+ caches in Indiana that were temporarily disabled. He didn't say for certain, but from that I gathered that this cache was temporarily disabled. ...

...

Once the initial list has been culled down, however, it is much easier to keep up with the disabled caches going forward .... just a few hours per state, per month. In those circumstances I am more likely to leave a note first before archiving the cache, since the really really old problems have previously been resolved.

I did meen DNF. Oops.

 

I didn't say that a amintenance check was done. I merely stated that the approver could not have known that one was not done at the time he archived the cache.

 

From the owners comments in his posts, I gathered that the cache was not disabled. Even if it had been, I don't beileve that it would be appropriate to archive the cache without communication if the cache was only disable for a short period. Take this hypothetical example. I noob doesn't find my cache. Oh well. The next person to try it is more experienced. He looks for it on 7/7 and posts his DNF on the 11th. I read my email on the 13th. Due to my work and family obligations, I can't get out to the cache immediately. I definitely will make sure it gets done before the end of the month. I temporarily disable the cache on the 12th so nobody else wastes their time if it is missing. Two weeks later, I find that it has been archived by someone I've never even heard of before. Did I receive good service? Not so much. Will I be bent? Probably.

 

The argument that it is OK to archive first since it is the 'first cut' at the problem is an interesting one. It reminded me of an experience I had a while ago. I was the Compliance Officer at a health insurance company. The Claims Department had fallen way behind on processing and the Claims Director wanted to implement an interesting solution. He suggested that we deny all outstanding claims. After all, if the claim should have paid, the provider would simply appeal the denial and any claims denied in error would pay. I didn't find that solution to be acceptable for the same reason I don't like this one. It is very poor service.

[+Ambrosia]

I'd be curious to know if the cache in question was temporarily disabled at the time of archival. That would make a big difference in this discussion.

 

I understand that it is a lot of work for the admins to go through all these caches and keep up with them.

 

But at the same time, I don't want to be worried that as soon as one of my caches have 2 DNFs, it might get archived suddenly.

[+sbell111]

I wanted to add that if you fall behind on your job, you don't do the job half as well. You either work twice as hard or get help.

[robertlipe]

Next time I'll be more blunt and replace "not much fun" with "a total pain in the ***"

 

For every one that really is there with an active placer involved, I'd bet there are a dozen like: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gcgtgv

 

If the placer has already received DNFs, had a cache disabled for an excessive period of time, and doesn't even respond to the archive note, it's already geo-litter if it is, in fact, still there.

 

Cleaning house is hard. Making it harder for the reviers makes it less likely that it'll happen.

[+sbell111]

I'd be curious to know if the cache in question was temporarily disabled at the time of archival. That would make a big difference in this discussion...

I'm not sure that it would. As cache owners, we can temporarily disable our caches for this very reason. It sends a message to cache hunters not to look for it. I don't think it is unreasonable for a cache to be disabaled for a few weeks.

[+sbell111]

Next time I'll be more blunt and replace "not much fun" with "a total pain in the ***"

 

For every one that really is there with an active placer involved, I'd bet there are a dozen like: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=gcgtgv

 

If the placer has already received DNFs, had a cache disabled for an excessive period of time, and doesn't even respond to the archive note, it's already geo-litter if it is, in fact, still there. 

 

Cleaning house is hard.    Making it harder for the reviers makes it less likely that it'll happen.

Now you're just clouding the issue. The fact is, this cache was not 'disabled for an excessive amount of time'.

 

Regarding the geolitter issue. Are you suggesting that the end justifies the means? Do you think land owners who find this geolitter would agree with you?

Edited July 28, 2004 by sbell111

[Keystone]

1. The "geo-litter" issue -- what happens to archived caches -- has been duly noted in this topic. Since the original poster's cache is happily NOT geo-litter, and because this is a whole separate topic that has been the subject of many forum threads, I'd like to ask that this aspect of the discussion be taken offline, to one of those existing threads, or to a new thread.

 

2. Let me offer a constructive suggestion. The volunteer reviewers have noted to Jeremy that it would be really, really helpful if we knew WHEN and WHY a cache had been temporarily disabled. There could be DNF's stretching back for six months, but the owner may have just disabled the cache recently. It would be nice if the system forced the cache owner to enter some sort of an explanation when disabling the cache, and to capture the date when that happened. Many do this, either in a note log or by editing the cache description, but in many other cases the reader is just left guessing.