Jump to content

Don't Approve New Caches


BassoonPilot

Recommended Posts

Why do cache reviewers routinely approve new caches for people who have failed to take corrective action regarding "temporarily disabled" caches they own? Seems like a "high-risk" proposition to me; if people can't/won't take care of the caches they already own, why approve more caches for them? I suggest that new cache placements by such people should remain "unapproved" until any/all problems with their other caches have been corrected/eliminated.

 

I'm not referring to "temporarily disabled" caches that are inaccessible due to seasonal conditions or other extenuating circumstance. I'm referring to those caches that remain "temporarily disabled" for months on end for no apparent reason; the walk to the location is short and the cache could be repaired/replaced in a matter of minutes. Or any remaining detritus removed and the cache archived.

Link to post
BP.

No offense--really---but I am curious...Why is it that all 19 of your personal caches are not active?

No offense taken. I archived my caches as they disappeared or otherwise outlived their usefulness. It's irrelevant to the present topic, but I think it is better to archive and remove caches once they've been logged by most of the "local regulars." Other people seem to think caches should stay in place forever, regardless of their condition or continued interest of owner. I think it's sort of irresponsible to leave caches in place hoping that people from outside the area will travel here to log those caches two or three times a year.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to post
...I think it is better to archive and remove caches once they've been logged by most of the "local regulars."

I'm in general agreement with you here.

 

Joani and I actually thought up a new idea about how caches could be made to last longer (not that this is necessarily a good thing). In Volkswalking, one of our pre-geocaching passtimes, there is the concept of being able to do the same walk once a year and get credit for it (actually, it then changed and now you can do it every 6 months).

 

So basically, we were thinking that if your find was more than 1 year ago, the cache would show back up on your list of findable caches, and you could go back and log it again. And often, after a year, the cache placement has changed enough so that it wouldn't be completely straightforward to find (it might have drifted 10 to 20 feet, depending on the hide style). Plus, you get the opportunity to revisit neat locations. We also feel that since this would cause caches to be less neglected by active cachers, it would possibly increase it's longevity.

 

Any thoughts on this? I would have probably made this into it's own topic if I thought there was a chance that it might get implemented...

 

--Marky

Link to post
It's irrelevant to the present topic, but I think it is better to archive and remove caches once they've been logged by most of the "local regulars.".... I think it's sort of irresponsible to leave caches in place hoping that people from outside the area will travel here to log those caches two or three times a year.

 

Maybe it isn't completely irrelevant to the topic here. Having quality caches is important for all of us. I can see that having caches that no longer attract a reasonable number of visitors is a watse of space that could be used for new caches...but...Isn't that assuming that there is only a fixed number of cachers in an area? And that there is no flutuation as old members leave and new ones join?

 

Both archived caches and neglected caches are disappointing to new members. I began caching just after my husband's birthday in June. There are some caches that were once available in this area that I would very much like to have done, but they are now either neglected or archived, and therefore no longer available. One part of me says "Great! Someone else can put one there now" and another one of me says "Gee, I wish I gotten to try that one!"

 

If people are repairing caches in order to qualify to open new caches, at least that leaves them out and ready to go for us newbies that have not yet hit all the local caches.

(Edited for grammar errors)

Edited by Neos2
Link to post
Why do cache reviewers routinely approve new caches for people who have failed to take corrective action regarding "temporarily disabled" caches they own?  Seems like a "high-risk" proposition to me; if people can't/won't take care of the caches they already own, why approve more caches for them?  I suggest that new cache placements by such people should remain "unapproved" until any/all problems with their other caches have been corrected/eliminated.

 

I'm not referring to "temporarily disabled" caches that are inaccessible due to seasonal conditions or other extenuating circumstance.  I'm referring to those caches that remain "temporarily disabled" for months on end for no apparent reason; the walk to the location is short and the cache could be repaired/replaced in a matter of minutes.  Or any remaining detritus removed and the cache archived.

There's no date tag set anywhere when a cache is disabled. Sometimes people leave a note, most times they don't. That means that for every cache submission, the approvers would have to go through any disabled caches belonging to the submitter, and make some sort of evaluation on each one. That entails making educated guesses on how long it's been disabled, and whether or not there's a valid reason for it still being disabled.

 

Then when people ask why they can no longer get approvals within 72 hours, we'll just tell them it's due to the "BassoonPilot Rule". :D

Edited by Prime Suspect
Link to post
Nice idea. However, I expect people will just enable their caches to bypass this feature, then disable them after their caches are approved.

I agree that could happen ... but I have great faith that the crack team of cache reviewers would quickly catch on, or be alerted, to those people abusing the privileges and responsibilities of cache ownership.

Link to post
There's no date tag set anywhere when a cache is disabled.

I don't know if that is true, or if such a "tag" is merely invisible to "the general public."

 

... That entails making educated guesses on how long it's been disabled, and whether or not there's a valid reason for it still being disabled.

 

Again, I don't know if any of that is true, but I would think having the cache reviewers make such determinations a regular part of the review process would be a positive, rather than a negative, development.

Link to post

What would keep them from just creating a new account to hide under then? Maybe log a few finds online for caches they already did so the online log looks believable, then go hide some.

 

Don't get me wrong; I agree that the site SHOULDN'T list new caches for people that don't maintain their current hides. I just think it's a pretty easy rule to sidestep.

Edited by Mopar
Link to post
What would keep them from just creating a new account to hide under then? ... Don't get me wrong; I agree that the site SHOULDN'T list new caches for people that don't maintain their current hides. I just think it's a pretty easy rule to sidestep.

I agree that could also happen; I also have faith the crack team of cache reviewers and TPTB would quickly catch on to any such scheme. You shouldn't sell them short, Mopar. :D

Link to post
What would keep them from just creating a new account to hide under then? Maybe log a few finds online for caches they already did so the online log looks believable, then go hide some.

(I wanted to address the other part of that.) I can think of at least a half-dozen ways TPTB would be able to sort that out; I'll bet you can think of even more. Of course, people could maintain a "sterile" computer and ISP for each account, but who's going to go to such extremes for a silly game? :D

 

Getting back to your statement, many people DO have multiple accounts under which they hide (or don't hide) and seek (or don't seek) caches. For example, people create "team accounts" solely for hiding caches. (The same people also seek caches together, but they invariably claim their finds to their individual accounts. I think that's really funny.) So similarly, if someone creates an additional username and revists caches and signs the logbook, I don't see any problem. In almost every case, TPTB will know who owns the account.

Link to post
people create "team accounts" solely for hiding caches. (The same people also seek caches together, but they invariably claim their finds to their individual accounts. I think that's really funny.)

 

Are you the only cacher in your household?

The idea of having both team and separate accounts does not seem odd to me. My husband and I each have out own account. We have thought about creating a joint account and putting all of our hides under that one account. ...but we each have our own hides that the other one has never even seen. In fact, I hope to try to find one of his hides this weekend while I am on a quick trip. If that hide was under the team name, it would not look good in the log when I count my find.

We usually cache together, but we both have cached with other people, or alone while traveling for work. It would make no sense to log the "team find" if only one of us were there.

 

How would TPTB know if in fact we are one, two, or three people? As far as I can tell, they know only that we use the same computer.

Link to post
What would keep them from just creating a new account to hide under then? ... Don't get me wrong; I agree that the site SHOULDN'T list new caches for people that don't maintain their current hides. I just think it's a pretty easy rule to sidestep.

I agree that could also happen; I also have faith the crack team of cache reviewers and TPTB would quickly catch on to any such scheme. You shouldn't sell them short, Mopar. :lol:

Gee its nice to see that sometimes you think we are a crack team. Of course there are those other times when you think we are just cracked :D:D:D Make up your mind BP either we are good or bad, you cant have it both ways.

Link to post
...So basically, we were thinking that if your find was more than 1 year ago, the cache would show back up on your list of findable caches, and you could go back and log it again. And often, after a year, the cache placement has changed enough so that it wouldn't be completely straightforward to find (it might have drifted 10 to 20 feet, depending on the hide style). Plus, you get the opportunity to revisit neat locations. We also feel that since this would cause caches to be less neglected by active cachers, it would possibly increase it's longevity.

 

Any thoughts on this? I would have probably made this into it's own topic if I thought there was a chance that it might get implemented...

 

--Marky

Locally we have had the cache maggot problem. A side effect is that a lot of caches were archived.

 

A spate of new cachers have started the game and are going great gonzo's on hiding new caches. It's interesting to see what they do. In one case they hid their cache within 2' of an old one that had been archived but not removed. In another there was a stand of trees on either side of a canal road. The old cache that was stolen was on one side. The new cache on the other, but both close together.

 

Another cache was about 200' from an old cache but a different hide with a different feel.

 

This is interesting to me. You see how people gravitate to the same thing, and how they don't. It gives you a better perspective of the bigger picture of geocaching. I've tended to rotate my local caches out of circulation and try out new ideas. With the churn I've seen I think this is the best way to keep caching fresh. The ones in the boonies that get 5 hits a year, are another story. They don't need to be archived anywhere nearly as fast as urban caches.

Link to post
Gee its nice to see that sometimes you think we are a crack team. Of course there are those other times when you think we are just cracked :lol:

Yes, I agree with that statement.

 

Make up your mind BP either we are good or bad, you cant have it both ways.

I think that, in general, the cache reviewers do a very good job. But it is also my opinion that several of the cache reviewers have a tendency to be slow to react or quick to overreact in unusual or exceptional situations. So I can have it both ways.

Link to post
Gee its nice to see that sometimes you think we are a crack team. Of course there are those other times when you think we are just cracked :lol:

Yes, I agree with that statement.

 

Make up your mind BP either we are good or bad, you cant have it both ways.

I think that, in general, the cache reviewers do a very good job. But it is also my opinion that several of the cache reviewers have a tendency to be slow to react or quick to overreact in unusual or exceptional situations. So I can have it both ways.

Guilty of the charge of being Human. Jeremy is working on Reviewers 2.0 but those pesky positronic brains are still backordered.

Link to post
Guilty of the charge of being Human.

You know CO, that opens another can-o'-beans (required geocaching reference) ... are some people guilty of being MORE human or LESS human than others? :lol:

 

Jeremy is working on Reviewers 2.0 but those pesky positronic brains are still backordered.

 

I heard about that ... If I remember correctly, geocachers were supposed to "run like heck" if they noticed a Reviewer v2.0 glowing red ... :D

Link to post
Guilty of the charge of being Human.

You know CO, that opens another can-o'-beans (required geocaching reference) ... are some people guilty of being MORE human or LESS human than others? :D

 

Jeremy is working on Reviewers 2.0 but those pesky positronic brains are still backordered.

 

I heard about that ... If I remember correctly, geocachers were supposed to "run like heck" if they noticed a Reviewer v2.0 glowing red ... :D

Yep, thats one of those minor quirks he has to work out :lol:

Link to post
Why do cache reviewers routinely approve new caches for people who have failed to take corrective action regarding "temporarily disabled" caches they own? Seems like a "high-risk" proposition to me; if people can't/won't take care of the caches they already own, why approve more caches for them? I suggest that new cache placements by such people should remain "unapproved" until any/all problems with their other caches have been corrected/eliminated.

 

I'm not referring to "temporarily disabled" caches that are inaccessible due to seasonal conditions or other extenuating circumstance. I'm referring to those caches that remain "temporarily disabled" for months on end for no apparent reason; the walk to the location is short and the cache could be repaired/replaced in a matter of minutes. Or any remaining detritus removed and the cache archived.

I would have to agree with this. If someone can't maintain his or her caches then they shouldn't be allowed to make any more until they've been reactivated. I can't imagine hiding more then 20 because with that many there is an increased chance of having it stolen.

Link to post

First off let me answer the topic starter's original question:

 

Why do cache reviewers routinely approve new caches for people who have failed to take corrective action regarding "temporarily disabled" caches they own?

 

I routinely do this because the guidelines don't say anything that gives me the authority NOT to do it. I only follow the listing guidelines - whether I agree with their scope and content or not. I enforce the maintenance guideline as a separate matter. My *personal* opinion -- which matters not -- is that one needs to take care of their existing caches first before they hide new ones. That is why I haven't hidden a new cache since last November. There always seems to be one or two that need my attention; I fixed one today. So, I don't personally disagree with the sentiment, but as a cache reviewer I follow only the rules that are given to me to follow.

 

I'm surprised nobody's yet brought up the point that there are many reasons for a cache to be temporarily disabled. Suppose you are the owner of a cache up in the mountains, and you disable it each winter when the road to the cache area is closed due to snow. Further suppose that you get cabin fever, and you hide a nifty cache near the skating rink in your neighborhood park, that's hidden so that it can be found no matter HOW hard it snows.

 

The alternatives, if this idea is adopted:

 

1. The reviewer says no, and gives the cache owners BassoonPilot's e-mail address if they have any complaints.

 

2. The reviewer adds a step to the review process and launches the owner's list of owned caches, pausing to examine each and every one of the owner's disabled caches to find out *why* each one is disabled. This ficitonal owner's snowbound cache would not preclude his suburban hide, but add delay to the reviewer turnaround time.

 

3. Jeremy figures out a way to automate part or all of step 2, as part of the reviewer toolset.

Link to post

I noticed a strong majority (everyone) agreeing with establishing a linkage between disabled and new caches. I find that very narrowminded.

 

I strongly disagree with the notion that when a hider has a disabled cache, that no new caches should be approved for that person until the disabled one is archived or reactiveated. There are several very good reasons:

1. We want as many caches out there as possible and don't need any disincentives for cache placement. The hobby depends on new caches to come on line to avoid losing the clients that have already found most of the local caches.

2. We also absolutely don't want to put any disincentives in place to disabling caches that need service. We all hate hunting for caches that have disappeared where the owner hasn't bothered to disable.

3. This is a hobby for everyone and everyone does it a little differently. Imposing the proposed rule takes away from the enjoyment of some and adds nothing to the enjoyment of others. Imposing anything punitive will cause folks to go away. Can GC afford to have paying folks going away?

 

The only thing I agree with in this thread is that bad disabled caches should be archived and good disabled caches should be reactiivated as soon as possible.

Link to post

So... I must risk my life in the wintertime to change a missing container on a cliff, when there is a lot of ice on the mountain, before I can place a cache downtown on a roadsign?

 

There can be many reasons WHY a cache is temporary disabled! For example:

The area is closed due to a rock festival, or the area is closed due to hunting season, or a big scale military exercise, or flooding or whatever...

 

We have one cache that is temporary disabled about 3,5 months every year, it is placed within an extremely beautiful area in the archipelago, but for 3,5 months every year is the area not allowed to enter because it is a protected area for birds. It is okay to hid caches there, but you can not go searching for them under 3.5 months every year. So we should not be allowed to place new caches during this time? We put the cache on temporary disabled for these 3.5 months and writes also on the cache description and in a note (log), that we will not accept logs during this time.

 

I think it is better that the users and reviewers contact other users that have caches that are temporary disabled during a long time, and ask them "Why?". I think that is a better way...

Link to post

well that nutty CO Admin, just archived 75 caches in Arizona that had been listed with SBA's (and warrented it) or were disabled for a long time with no action for the owner. That should help cache approvals in AZ. of course I would not want to be his e-mail account when the hate mail starts.

Link to post
1. We want as many caches out there as possible and don't need any disincentives for cache placement. The hobby depends on new caches to come on line to avoid losing the clients that have already found most of the local caches.

Maybe you do, but I don't. I want as many QUALITY caches as possible, not just a bunch of soggy junk tossed where ever by someone who has no intention of maintaining it.

 

I know, however, that putting something like this into place would likely put WAY too much strain on the approvers. As some have mentioned, there are some caches that are disabled for reasons beyond the control of the cache owner, and it'll be reactivated as soon as conditions allow. To make the approvers try and determine if this is the case, or if it's just an owner who doesn't intend on maintaining their caches would put WAY too much delay into cache approvals for everyone.

Link to post

I think the original post is reasonable and should have some thought put into implementing it. Granted, if one cache has been disabled for a week or two I don't know if a new cache should be prevented, but if there are multiple disabled caches or some have been disabled for a long time, the reviewer should question the placement of a new cache.

 

The only reason I think it needs to be a bit subjective is that folks do own caches that aren't within a quick drive of their home and though they will get to maintaining it, it might not be immediate. And I don't think that scenario should prevent other caches from being placed.

 

But in general, yes, I think it's a good idea and would likely get disabled caches to be attended to more rapidly.

Link to post
I routinely do this because the guidelines don't say anything that gives me the authority NOT to do it. I only follow the listing guidelines - whether I agree with their scope and content or not.

 

Okay, I accept that you are "only following the guidelines." You must not be one of the cache reviewers that believes in being "proactive." But you also offered a personal opinion that appears to be in agreement with the premise of the thread ... it is therefore reassuring to know that you are working hard behind the scenes to amend the guidelines. Otherwise, your "only doin' my job" position is a cop-out.

 

I'm surprised nobody's yet brought up the point that there are many reasons for a cache to be temporarily disabled.

 

Probably because I specifically stated this in the opening post of the thread:

 

I'm not referring to "temporarily disabled" caches that are inaccessible due to seasonal conditions or other extenuating circumstance. I'm referring to those caches that remain "temporarily disabled" for months on end for no apparent reason; ...
Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to post
I know, however, that putting something like this into place would likely put WAY too much strain on the approvers.

I've seen something similar to this stated a couple of times in the thread, but I haven't seen any information that would tend to substantiate it.

 

Do most cache owners own so many caches, so many of which are temporarily disabled at the time they submit new caches for approval, that this suggestion would prove to be such an odious task? Smells like a cop-out to me.

 

But if it were true, there is a simple solution that I recommended over a year ago that should lighten their work load significantly: Allow the site volunteers to decide how they want to serve the site. Cache reviewers don't need to be forum moderators, and forum moderators don't need to be cache reviewers.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to post
well that nutty CO Admin, just archived 75 caches in Arizona that had been listed with SBA's (and warrented it) or were disabled for a long time with no action for the owner. That should help cache approvals in AZ. of course I would not want to be his e-mail account when the hate mail starts.

Hey, maybe he'll luck out and receive some fan e-mail, too. :lol:

Link to post
I'm not referring to "temporarily disabled" caches that are inaccessible due to seasonal conditions or other extenuating circumstance. I'm referring to those caches that remain "temporarily disabled" for months on end for no apparent reason; ...

 

Any idea how many of these there are?

If this is just a case of one (or ten) cache hiders who aren't being responsible, then isn't it easier to:

1) Make sure that the approvers are aware that there is a problem with this persons cache by logging SBA on those ill-maintained accounts

2) Let the approvers tell them that they need to clean up some of the old caches with issues before putting out more

3) Have a guideline amendment that says that cache hiders with a history of having problem caches might find new submissions put on hold until existing caches are tended to in some way

 

I agree with you---I really do--that this situation should not exist (Having lots of hides, many in a state of disrepair, but continuing to place new hides)...but I can't imagine that ALL approvers ROUNTINELY approve caches for people who are sloppy with their cache maintainence. I would hate to see the approval process slowed because approvers have to wade through each and every temporarily disabled cache a person has to judge whther or not it has been disabled too long and for valid reasons.

And I guess that I don't really think that there are many cache hiders that want to have so many caches out there that they don't care if we nominate them for "Cache Hider with the Most Caches that Should be Archived" award.

Link to post

Thought: An easier to enforce solution...This may already exist...but

 

Temporarily archived caches need a date and reason posted to the page explaining the situation and the approximate date it will be in operation again. Since in some cases that would give away important hide information, maybe there ought to be a way to post the full info so that only approvers can see it? The general public could be advised via a note as to when the cache might be open again.

If an approver could sort out the "temporarily disabled approver notes" for one cacher, it seems to me that it would be easier to see the whole picture that way.

 

The approver pulls up a persons cache list, see that 50% of the caches are temporarily disabled, reads a few of those only to realize that most of them are disabled because of seasonal conditions (flooding for example) and goes on about his/her job of approving a new cache for that person.

 

The approver pulls up the list, sees that the person has 35 caches that could be fixed today if they weren't busy putting out new caches and tells them to fix those first, putting new caches on hold until that time.

Link to post
We want as many caches out there as possible and don't need any disincentives for cache placement. The hobby depends on new caches to come on line to avoid losing the clients that have already found most of the local caches.

In my opinion, that statement is false. Who wants, or needs, more and more caches of lower and lower quality? You might want that; I absolutely do not.

 

This is a hobby for everyone and everyone does it a little differently. Imposing the proposed rule takes away from the enjoyment of some and adds nothing to the enjoyment of others.

:D The ultimate geocaching cop-out. It can be found in practically every thread. :lol:

 

Can GC afford to have paying folks going away?

In a word, "yes." In some cases, they have even been known to encourage it.

Link to post

Speak out. Why not just email the cache owner and, if no result, email an approver to have a cache archived if the cache owner is neglecting them? Seems to me that you can already get to a win-win situation for everyone without a "rule" just by sending a few emails and some discussion.

 

The more rules we add, the more pointless crap everyone will have to go through - new cache owners and approvers.

 

It's a hobby run by people for people. Rules are for computers; less pointless communication and work for good caches and more communication between people about bad caches will improve caching for everyone.

Link to post

That's a novel idea Caderoux.

 

"Heya, I (or some friends if you've already found it) would really like to look for your cache, any idea when it'll be active again?"

 

or even

 

"Excuse me, but I've noticed your cache has been disabled for a while, do you need some help maintaining it?"

 

Get to know the cachers in your area. There may be a good reason the cache is disabled or an oppurtunity for you to help. The person may have just forgotten...

 

Perhaps approvers could just say "Hey, I'm gonna approve this cache but you really need to check on this cache too".

 

-----

 

I, of course, don't think people should be hiding new caches when the ones they already have are in disarray.

 

southdeltan

Link to post
Okay, I accept that you are "only following the guidelines." You must not be one of the cache reviewers that believes in being "proactive." But you also offered a personal opinion that appears to be in agreement with the premise of the thread ... it is therefore reassuring to know that you are working hard behind the scenes to amend the guidelines. Otherwise, your "only doin' my job" position is a cop-out.

 

Put more precisely, my personal opinion is that cache owners ought to impose this rule upon themselves -- not have the site do it for them -- and for the pressure to do that to be peer pressure -- not site pressure. See Caderoux's post above for a clearer statement of this.

 

Do not presume to know what goes on behind the scenes, and to place labels on people based on your assumptions. Also do not presume that there are no site design changes underway that deal with the issue of cache maintenance and disabled caches.

 

BassoonPilot said:

 

I'm surprised nobody's yet brought up the point that there are many reasons for a cache to be temporarily disabled.

 

Probably because I specifically stated this in the opening post of the thread:

 

I'm not referring to "temporarily disabled" caches that are inaccessible due to seasonal conditions or other extenuating circumstance. I'm referring to those caches that remain "temporarily disabled" for months on end for no apparent reason; ...

 

No, I expected others to ask: "How would you propose to distinguish between the two?" exactly as Hedberg has done in his post above. You are advocating a new rule to be imposed on geocaching, but only to have it a apply to a subset of the caches covered by the label that's bothering you. A more rigorous analysis would have addressed this; for example, by suggesting that the site create a new "long term disability" status to differentiate those caches from "temporarily disabled" caches. But hey, I'm not the one asking for this particular rule change.

Link to post

You know, all of you at the beginning of the post who thought that people would reinable caches or make new accounts are forgetting one thing... If someone is too lazy to go put a new container out there, or fix the leg of a multi, or whatever else, then what makes you think that they'll put enough energy into enable their caches for a week, even if it's just on the website?

 

I agree... I want more quality caches, and I don't want more from people that aren't taking care of the ones they have.

 

If your cache is disabled for construction or something, then say so when you temporarily disable the cache. How hard is it, really, for you to post a little note when you disable it? "Cache disabled due to ice" "the bridge will be out until 3 June, 2005" "until flood season is over, the cache will be out of commission"

 

If you don't say so, then all the cachers think you're a boob and wonder why your cache has been disabled for months and months and months. For instance, this cache has been disabled for at least eight or nine months. The last person looking for it was in November. Of course, that cache is required to find This Cache, so it's also a good argument against having multiple caches instead of hiding a multi, since there are two caches in the system that are not being found but will come up on everyone's searches and everything else.

Link to post

If you don't say so, then all the cachers think you're a boob and wonder why your cache has been disabled for months and months and months.  For instance, this cache has been disabled for at least eight or nine months.  The last person looking for it was in November.  Of course, that cache is required to find This Cache, so it's also a good argument against having multiple caches instead of hiding a multi, since there are two caches in the system that are not being found but will come up on everyone's searches and everything else.

Actually, sounds like that guy has abandoned all his caches. He hasn't logged into the site in 3 months. Several of his caches have been disabled for a long time. The target of one of his virtuals is long gone and people are still "finding" it, and the target of another sounds like it may be gone too.

He has 2 moving caches, one the coords haven't been updated in 5 months, the other they haven't been updated in 7 months. He has a multi were the info to find it changed at least a year ago. It's been found once by someone who knew someone else who remembered the old clue. That cache was moldy and in need of repair back in January; wonder what it looks like now? Maybe some of the locals in GA need to start posting SBA's and making some of Keystone's "magic" happen.

 

However, he hasn't placed a new cache in 2yrs. So while his caches appear to be a problem, they would not be addressed by this "solution". He hasn't found a cache in over a year, or even logged into the site for months. If the real problem of abandoned and unmaintained caches is addressed, there would be no need for this new rule.

Edited by Mopar
Link to post

GC.Com has a lot of work to do to keep track valid cache locations. To add the responsibility of tracking cachers and cache contents would be inundating. This whole discussions brings up another thread... who can remove a cache? ;) Surely the property owner can, and the cache owner. Should the local GA be involved? Assume some authority? I doubt it.

 

Could we add "co-hiders" to that list of people can archive a cache? That's also a different thread, isn't it :lol:

Link to post
Put more precisely, my personal opinion is that cache owners ought to impose this rule upon themselves -- not have the site do it for them -- and for the pressure to do that to be peer pressure -- not site pressure.

 

You mean in the same way people take it upon themselves to follow all the other rules and guidelines? You mean in the same way people exercise "peer pressure" on their geocaching friends to follow the rules and guidelines? You've got it backwards. Oh, there is "peer pressure," all right. But the nature of it is to see how far the rules/guidelines can be stretched/evaded before someone says anything.

 

Also do not presume that there are no site design changes underway that deal with the issue of cache maintenance and disabled caches.

Roll 'em out. They are way overdue.

No, I expected others to ask: "How would you propose to distinguish between the two?" exactly as Hedberg has done in his post above

 

I would expect that such information, if not displayed on a cache page in a "Note" (visible or archived but viewable by cache reviewers), could be obtained via a quick e-mail from the cache reviewer. Naturally, because the individual is interested in their new cache being approved, they would immediately provide the reviewer any and all information requested.

 

A more rigorous analysis would have addressed this; for example, by suggesting that the site create a new "long term disability" status to differentiate those caches from "temporarily disabled" caches.

Is that one of the "design changes going on behind the scenes that we don't know about?" Go for it. If it were my decisiion, I would allow caches to be disabled for 30 days only. After that, the cache would be flagged for removal and archival.

Edited by BassoonPilot
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...