Auto-archiving?

[+fly46]

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.

Actually it would. If the cache has been temporarily disabled for - say - four months, then I'd say that's a little bit longer than temporary. In fact, with this sport and six month permits available in certain areas, I'd say more than a month is too long for it to be 'temporarily' disabled except in special circumstances (ie, the road is closed for six weeks, the circus is here for two months, etc).

 

 

Now then, I'm not sure why this argument is still going on. If you've read the initial post, we're not talking days or weeks here, we're talking months upon months. The cache in question has been not found for the better part of a year - and NOT SEARCHED FOR for months on end. Why in the world would we want to keep it open? Let someone else have the spot for a cache that will be maintained - if, in fact, there should be one in that place to begin with.

 

 

Now then, for anyone else who's read this post and is confused... Most approvers use a separate account to approve from. Hence the zero finds/zero hides if you look at their stats. Tennessee Geocacher and Keystone Approver are two perfect examples of this.

[+Mudfrog]

Now then, I'm not sure why this argument is still going on. If you've read the initial post, we're not talking days or weeks here, we're talking months upon months. The cache in question has been not found for the better part of a year - and NOT SEARCHED FOR for months on end. Why in the world would we want to keep it open? Let someone else have the spot for a cache that will be maintained - if, in fact, there should be one in that place to begin with.

 

That attitude doesnt "fly" with me. Caching is slow around my area and many caches go months without being found. I dont care how long it goes with a no find, they should'nt be archived until there is a legitimate problem. Two DNFs doesnt indicate a problem in my book.

 

Also, i definitely side with sbell111. To shoot first then ask questions isnt the way to go!

[+Renegade Knight]

...Caching is slow around my area and many caches go months without being found. I dont care how long it goes with a no find, they should'nt be archived until there is a legitimate problem. Two DNFs doesnt indicate a problem in my book...

Exactly. My remote caches can go 6 months or more between finds. One of my urban caches is over a year. On another cache a DNF is not uncommon because it's a hard hide. I know my caches and I know when there might be a problem and when it's probably just newbie inexperience.

Edited July 29, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+The Jester]

Now then, I'm not sure why this argument is still going on. If you've read the initial post, we're not talking days or weeks here, we're talking months upon months. The cache in question has been not found for the better part of a year - and NOT SEARCHED FOR for months on end. Why in the world would we want to keep it open? Let someone else have the spot for a cache that will be maintained - if, in fact, there should be one in that place to begin with.

This sounds to me to be an arguement for arguements sake. You seem to equate a cache that isn't searched for with an unmaintained cache. I have caches that went several months without anyone looking for them. Does that they should be archived? It's not how long since some looked for it that indicates a problem. I just found one a couple of weeks ago that hadn't been found since last Aug! There was one DNF in Nov caused by conditions. Should it have been archived? It was in great shape.

 

And what makes you think if someone else had the spot that people would search for that cache? "Hmm, no one has seached for xyz cache for months, let archive it and put another there so people will search for it." Am I the only one that thinks this sounds stupid? Is a FTF the only reason people will search a cache? Then we better start archiving a whole lot of caches...

 

If it had been disabled for "months and months" (which is doesn't sound like) why was someone searching for it on the 7th, just 16 days before it was archived?

 

A lot of people here seem to think a DNF means a cache needs maintenance - why? I just got a FTF on a cache placed 8 & 1/2 months ago, with 5 or 6 DNFs.

[+southdeltan]

I tend to keep up with the cache situation in my state. TNGeocacher is our state approver. He has archived quite a few caches - but I'd say that 95% of the time he posts at LEAST one note, and sometimes two notes, to the page before archiving the caches. In my experience, I'd say the lack of communication is an exception, rather than the rule. Approvers are human, they make mistakes. Cut TNG some slack, they do a great job the vast majority of the time.

 

I know that some parts of the world have seasonal caching. I know that remote caches don't get as often as drive-up micros - but I also know that if *I* had a cache like this I would post the occasional NOTE to let people know it was still there.

 

sd

[+Torry]

Our long-time approver in Indiana has been seriously under the weaher the last 8 months and has had to pass on some of his duties.

 

Also, there were a lot of cachers that came on board about a year ago that played a while and got right out again, leaving a lot of orphaned caches.

 

I speculae that TG stepped up to help clear out the backlog that had developed in Indiana and is trying to get some of the players to do their job better.

 

I know the area the cache is hidden and its chock full of orphaned caches. Its also a very popular park for finders and I can' help but wonder if there weren't a few DNF's that weren't posted.

 

Was TG a tad over-zealous? Maybe. But I'd rather have a strong, alert approver than a lot of disappointments.

[Max Cacher]

When I go in an play catch up with disabled caches the first run through in a state that has not been looked at for poor maintenance, yes there are more archivals than notes, then its always a note first asking about the status of the cache, if there is no reply to the note further action is taken.

 

There were a lot of cachers doing poor or no maintenance to there caches for an extended period of time. This how I dealt with the caches

 

As a few have said it’s about customer service, and I couldn’t agree more below are a few of the many emails received from local cachers in the state. The only one’s that though that it was a bad way to do it were the one that did the poor maintenance. All it takes is a simple note on the cache page explaining “ WHAT’S UP” with their cache

 

Tennessee Geocacher

 

Emails,

 

Thanks for archiving a couple temporarily unavailable caches in my area. We live in a small town with few possibe locations & this feller had 2 of them tied up, one for 4 months & 1 for about 11 months . Thanks for cleaning things up...

 

I applaud you efforts. Nothing irks me more than having watched caches not be maintained and the owner say, "I need to check this one" while they continue to "throw" out more caches for a year or more all over the state while they can't seem to find the time to maintain the ones they have currently.

 

I'm glad you are dealing with the Indiana caches that have been disabled "forever".

 

Got your automated messages regarding my caches… I’m searching and searching on the cache page and can’t figure out where to permanently archive those things. I’m pretty much out of the caching business for now and several of my caches have either been raided, gotten wet, or stolen. So when I start back, I’ll start fresh.

So I need to archive ALL those caches please. Can you do this for me?

 

 

EDIT to add note: I was fair all the way through the process and even archived one cache belonging to the local approver, bet he was surprised

Edited July 29, 2004 by Tennessee Geocacher

[+sbell111]

When I go in an play catch up with disabled caches the first run through in a state that has not been looked at for poor maintenance, yes there are more archivals than notes, then its always a note first asking about the status of the cache, if there is no reply to the note further action is taken. ...

I don't agree that just because no approver has gone through the list of caches recently is a good reason to give such bad service. Perhaps you could have asked other approvers to help you if the job was too large to do in your preferred manner.

 

Has any anyone been contacted to check on these archived caches? Perhaps previous finders could check to see if they are still there. I'd hate to think that there is old archived caches sitting in the woods waiting to be found by soon-to-be angry managers.

[CoyoteRed]

Sadly, the only suggestion I can make is go and lay hands on the cache. Then report back to TNG and hope for a timely response.

 

Glad I'm not in your shoes and that I've been making notes (which BTW could push important logs off the 5 log limits in PQs) on THIS cache to show folks I'm checking up on it. Otherwise, it might have been archived, as well.

 

Some caches are just hard to find. Plus, given the fact that some folks like to disable a cache that has a couple of DNFs, this is a bad situation.

 

What I don't understand is why anyone would be complaining about a cache they've not logged a DNF on. Just because someone else didn't find it? I'm not going to bitch about a cache that I haven't given it a good shot at finding--I'm talking a good hour search. Even after 500+ finds we still miss some easy ones and I know of cachers well into the 4 digits that completely goofed a 1/1.5!

 

So, no, this is not cool.

[Keystone]

When I go in an play catch up with disabled caches the first run through in a state that has not been looked at for poor maintenance, yes there are more archivals than notes, then its always a note first asking about the status of the cache, if there is no reply to the note further action is taken. ...

I don't agree that just because no approver has gone through the list of caches recently is a good reason to give such bad service. Perhaps you could have asked other approvers to help you if the job was too large to do in your preferred manner.

 

Has any anyone been contacted to check on these archived caches? Perhaps previous finders could check to see if they are still there. I'd hate to think that there is old archived caches sitting in the woods waiting to be found by soon-to-be angry managers.

1. Tennessee Geocacher is not the regular volunteer reviewer for the State of Indiana. As noted above, for personal reasons the Indiana reviewer needed some assistance. Unlike neighboring states such as Tennessee, Ohio, Illinois, etc., for Indiana nobody had been monitoring for compliance with this site's listing rules concerning caches that are temporarily disabled. It was Tennessee Geocacher who stepped up and has offered to help out in Indiana, as has also been the case on a number of other occasions when this reviewer has pinch hit for other volunteers who needed a break, went on vacation or gotten overloaded.

 

2. I asked nicely once before to steer clear of the separate topic of what happens to archived caches that might still be in place. There will be no further informal reminders.

[+sbell111]

First, I am not suggesting that Tennessee Geocacher was the regular reviewer or that he fell behind and caused the situation. Nor am I suggesting that it was through malice or laziness that this backlog was created. I am merely suggesting that the solution that was used was not the appropriate one.

 

Second, the issue of geolitter is appropriate to this topic as there was an unknown amount of it created by how the situation was handled. I'm somewhat surprised that you suggest that it is not inherent to this topic.

[+briansnat]

The cache in question has been not found for the better part of a year - and NOT SEARCHED FOR for months on end. Why in the world would we want to keep it open?

 

So other people can look for it.

Edited July 29, 2004 by briansnat

[Keystone]

If you would like to discuss the relative responsibilities of cache owners, local geocaching groups and site volunteers for archived caches that remain in place, please open another topic or bump up one of the existing ones. The concerns about the original poster's cache have been addressed and I am sure that the original poster will attend to his cache.

 

Closing this topic.