the 4th "loging a find" option?

[+welch]

this has most likely be asked before but my quick search came up with nothing.

when someone picks "Cache should be archived" when logging a visit, what exactly happens?

 

i would assume that the cache owner gets the usual note this cacher has post this to your cache, and the administers get a red flag, which they review to see if the cache should really be archived or not. but i never seen it explained what really happens.

 

[+unclerojelio]

You've got the concept. It was covered in a thread not to long ago. I'll look around for it. BRB

 

... Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by, ...

 

unclerojelio

[+Markwell]

Here's the link.

 

Especially read Jeremy's comment:

quote:

---

Human Element:

 

When an archive request comes through it goes to a special email account where the cache is reviewed. If it looks as though the cache is missing it will be archived. The cache owner can always email the web site and ask that it be unarchived.

 

We take into account the experience of the finders, the response by the cache owner, and any other info in the logs. If any remnants exist we disable the cache and ask for someone to recover the pieces if the cache owner is unresponsive.

---

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+welch]

thanks Markwell thats exactly what i was looking for.

 

[+Jamie Z]

I've used that option twice.

 

For this cache, I commented that the cache should be archived after seeing a log from a previous finder that the cache was missing. The cache was archived less than a day later. ( I deleted my log )

 

For this cache, I personally went and checked on it, and after I couldn't find it, I posted a comment that it should be archived. Well... the cache is still active three days later.

 

I don't know how often they check the "archive this cache" email.

 

Jamie

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I had a user with under 10 finds put a request to archive one of my caches. It was missing and I went out the same day and replaced it. He claimed the area was full of broken glass. There was no broken glass. Then he tells me he removed all the broken glass and has a video to prove it.

 

???????????????

 

I'm glad the mods don't move all that fast in this area.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

[+Mudfrog]

I dont know if i would ever use the "Archive this Cache" button. I have run across a couple where i felt that i had to have been right on the mark and the cache simply had to be missing. Seeing others log ahead of me saying they couldnt find doesnt make a difference either. Even if ive found a cache and then went back and it wasnt in the same place i would think its possible that the cache's owner may have moved it a few feet for some reason. I simply leave a note if i feel that i was dead on and it wasnt there. Hopefully the cache owner will see the log and check on it him/herself...

[LazyLeopard]

I've used it once, for the UK Project Ape cache "Meridian Snake", which has clearly been removed. (I found it once, so I know where it was hidden, and it isn't there now...)

 

Purrs... LazyLeopard http://www.lazyleopard.org.uk

[+welch]

even if they had archived, you could have replaced the cache, and fixed anyother problems that caused the cache to be archived, and then request that the admins unarchive the cache.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

I had a user with under 10 finds put a request to archive one of my caches. It was missing and I went out the same day and replaced it. He claimed the area was full of broken glass. There was no broken glass. Then he tells me he removed all the broken glass and has a video to prove it.

 

???????????????

 

I'm glad the mods don't move all that fast in this area.

 

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

---

 

[Team Wallace]

How does the owner un-archive it?

[+Markwell]

A quick e-mail to contact at goecashing.com (I know, I spelled it wrong). Admins will take care of it.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Markwell]

A quick e-mail to contact at goecashing.com (I know, I spelled it wrong). Admins will take care of it.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Salvelinus]

I'm not sure the archieve option is totally working. Here's a Cache that has had four no-finds, a negative response from the cache owner and two request to archieve it. However it still exists.

 

I understand some will slip through the cracks, so I'm not really concerned that admin. has not acted on this one. I do wonder if they have reviewed it. To me, this cache should be archieved immediatly. Especially since the owner has been contacted (by me) and agreed that it is probably gone and offered no future attempt to check it out. He said he lives too far away to do so. Any other opinions?

 

Smoochnme

 

"When your learning to take, the path at your pace...

 

Every road is worth your while"

[+Jamie Z]

Smooch,

 

I looked at that cache page... and to me, it seems that the cache just has a series of no-finds. My conclusion is that the cache is probably gone, but unless someone who has found it previously goes to check on it, I wouldn't be 100% sure.

 

It could be that Jeremey et al have not gotten around to archiving it, or they may have decided that they cache isn't archival material simply because several cachers can't find it.

 

Jamie

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie Z:

Smooch,

 

I looked at that cache page... and to me, it seems that the cache just has a series of no-finds. My conclusion is that the cache is probably gone, but unless someone who has found it previously goes to check on it, I wouldn't be 100% sure.

 

It could be that Jeremey et al have not gotten around to archiving it, or they may have decided that they cache isn't archival material simply because several cachers can't find it.

 

Jamie

---

 

You may be correct in that it does still exist. And I do believe the admin. may have a backlog of these to deal with.

 

However, wouldn't it be better to archive caches that have numerous no finds and have had some confirmation of being abandoned by the owner? If a previous finder verifies its existence...the owner can make it active again.

 

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong, but to me its like cleaning out all the junk. Sometimes you may accidently throw something away that somebody wanted, but you can usually go to the trash and get it back out. And if someone isn't paying attention to the notices that their stuff may be thrown out if they don't take care of it...then its their loss.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

Smoochnme

 

"When your learning to take, the path at your pace...

 

Every road is worth your while"

[+Jamie Z]

Smooch,

 

Mostly I agree with you...and I do think it makes sense, but there's something in the back of my mind that says that we shouldn't be going around archiving a caches just because several people couldn't find them.

 

We had a situation like that around here. There was a cache that had a couple no-finds and a note logged stating that the cache was probably not there.

 

I saw that the owner hasn't logged into the site for more than two months... and he hasn't had any activity since last year.

 

Anyway, before I posted my "This cache should be archived" log, I went out there to make sure it really wasn't there since I'd found it previously.

 

I just feel better knowing that the cache has been justifiably archived.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with your view that abandoned caches that seem to be missing ought to be archived, but I feel a little better knowing that someone has actually verified that it's not there.

 

Jamie

[+Markwell]

But if it's there and then archived (because the cache owner doesn't care enough to respond), then the box is still in the wilderness - never to be found again, unless by a ranger with a chip on his shoulder.

 

I'd think it'd be better to err on the side of leaving it up until it is absolutely verified as not there or in an inappropriate spot if for no other reason than to have people continuing to go out there to make sure the cache isn't strewn around the ground making trash.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocachers

[+Salvelinus]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamie Z:

Smooch,

 

Mostly I agree with you...and I _do_ think it makes sense, but there's something in the back of my mind that says that we shouldn't be going around archiving a caches just because several people couldn't find them.

 

Jamie

---

 

I agreed that just a couple of no-finds is no reason to warrent archieving. However, I did not request it to be archieved for that reason only.

 

Keep in mind that..

 

1. I've e-mailed the owner and he responded that he lives too far away to check up on it. Thus, he basically has abandoned it and has not archieved it himself. I think I angered him when I suggested he do so.

 

2. I've tried contacting the people watching the cache by posting a note to the page asking them (the watchers) to verify it. As of yet, nobody seems to have tried.

 

3. Many of the logs have noted that the soil at the cache area was recently disturbed by machinery. Hmmmm.

 

4. In addition to three previous no-finds last summer, another cacher recently tried to find it and couldn't.

 

5. It may be difficult for a previous finder to actually verify it since the last finder was there 11 months ago. But I guess its possible. I've only been doing this for 7 months and the caches I have returned to with other cachers were just like hunting them all over again. Each time I found myself saying "Oh yea, that's where it was"

 

I think we just have a different way of looking at it and responding to it. I believe there is enough evidence here to justify archieving it even though there is a remote chance it still exists. The owner has already given up on it, so IMO it has already become trash.

 

I can really see your point about letting it stay active unless verified missing, but if for some reason it's not ever verified, when do we yank it from the site? Is 11 months long enough, coupled with the efforts of at least two other cachers to resolve it? I guess that's a decision to be made by admin. and not either of us. I can live with whatever they decide.

 

I guess for now we'll see what happens.

 

Thanks for your insights!

 

Smoochnme

 

BTW. Any good caches that you've visited and can recommend near Cookville, TN? I have some friends at Tennessee Tech who keep asking me to come down and visit. I may finally make it there later this summer.

 

"When your learning to take, the path at your pace...

 

Every road is worth your while"

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by smoochnme:

if for some reason it's not ever verified, when do we yank it from the site? Is 11 months long enough, coupled with the efforts of at least two other cachers to resolve it?

---

That's a good question.

quote:

---

I guess that's a decision to be made by admin. and not either of us. I can live with whatever they decide.

---

That's a good answer.

 

quote:

---

BTW. Any good caches that you've visited and can recommend near Cookville, TN? I have some friends at Tennessee Tech who keep asking me to come down and visit.

---

I haven't any idea... that's too far east for me. Actually, the easternmost cache that I've found is just west of Nashville. I won't be able to help you with this one. I know there are a lot of cachers out that way, though. Somebody ought to have a few suggestions.

 

Jamie

[+Jamie Z]

Smooch,

 

Well... I just found a local cache that is similar to the one you are describing.

 

This cache had four not found logs before Bitbrain (a local cacher who hadn't logged a find for the cache) posted a "This cache should be archived" log. It was archived two days later.

 

This is a case where I don't know for sure that the cache is no longer there... it probably isn't, but in any case, admin archived it.

 

So... if you truly think that the cache you of which you speak ought to be archived, log a "This cache should be archived" note. If precedent is any indication, it will probably be archived.

 

Jamie