Cache Re-approval

2k · January 4, 2005

I'm a little scared to start this one, but here it goes. Hopefully we can keep this serious and on topic.

Okay.....

What are folks thoughts on the suggestion of a cache RE-Approval system?

The idea being that once a cache is approved, every 6 months or so (purely arbitrary), a "heartbeat" e-mail is sent to the cache owner? If the owner responds in the affirmative that they are continuing to maintain ownership, the cache remains alive. If the owner fails to respond, then a "possible orphan" flag is raised. What happens after that I don't know.

It strikes me that the above would not impose any new rules, would not require a great administrative effort, and would not negate any of the other mechanisms in use currently.

The benefit? A filter criteria that allows me to see caches that may not have had any visits for awhile, but still have an active owner and be a viable trip.

I know there are many heated topics on what is a maintained cache, the finder raising the SBA flag, etc, etc.

What I am trying to find is a workable, respectful system that ensures caches are "owned" by someone responsible.

As a note: If one person asks me to close this thread, for any reason, I will. Just post "I think we're off-topic, please close" and I will. Also, if this has been discussed intelligently elsewhere, please let me know and I will close this topic.

I am VERY concerned that this could become a philospohical debate on what a cache "should" be and "how" it should be maintained. I just want to know if the "heartbeat" idea has any merit.

2k · January 4, 2005

I guess I should add what I have been doing in the absence of the "heartbeat"

I visit each of my caches at least every 6 months and post a note as to their condition. The only acception is if I have had a recent visit to one of my back-country caches.

22k · January 4, 2005

I'm happy with the current process.

Edit: Removed original thought.

Edited January 4, 2005 by BlueDeuce

1.8k · January 4, 2005

You must have a real problem with caches in your area. Around here, I seldom see an orphan cache, though sometimes the owners' standards aren't where I would like to see them. I'm not sure what you're trying to fix.

2k · January 4, 2005

We're actually pretty good for caches here in both condition and responsibility. I've gotten a little beaten in the forums when I advocate that simple, responsible cache-ownership is the best way to avoid having people take ownership upon themseleves (hence, my initial fear of off-topicness). So what I am getting at is a simple:

"let's make sure caches are owned"

I suppose a "possible orphan" could be "adopted" in the little scheme above. This just creates a cache to owner relationship where every cache has an designated driver.

I'm still scared, but so far great responses!

2.3k · January 4, 2005

That's actually a pretty good idea -- kinda reminds me of the "re-testing" for drivers licenses above a certain age, for some reason. Also a good idea.

But back towards the topic... good idea. It would keep me from searching for something not there, which I have been known to do. I wish Garmin would come up with a way to "purge" dead caches from my GPS, too!

7.2k · January 4, 2005

Okay, so what happens to a community maintained cache--and happily, I might add--with an absent owner?

What about the perfectly good cache that is so remote that it only has one visit every couple of years? ...and the owner is absentee?

If you're concerned about a "viable hunt" this is not the solution. Why? Because you can have owners who will just automatically click the "I'm alive" button and still not maintain their caches.

What is the disposition of an automatically archived cache? Say the owner has changed email addresses and has only "abandoned" gc.com? Do you leave it? Potential geotrash. Do you rescue it? How do know it's not privately listed?

Sounds like something that will not solve any problems and might cause some.

No, I think it a bad idea.

The best solution is what is already in place. A finder sees a cache in bad shape, he reports it. A string of reports and then it's either adopted or rescued.

See? Only those caches that need attention gets it.

9.4k · January 4, 2005

Since this is a feature request, I'll respond.

I have had some time (4 years) to think about this one and have come to the conclusion that automated anything regarding physical caches is a Bad Idea.

One alternative is to make it easier for a geocacher to see the health of the user when visiting a cache listing. Instead of having to click on a user profile you can see an icon next to the owner's name to get an idea when that user logged in to the site.

The other alternative is to have what I have thought of as a flower icon. Similar to a Tamogotchi (sp?) you need to come back and "water" the flower occasionally so visitors on your cache listing can see that your plant is healthy. If you don't come online periodically to take care of the plant it starts to wilt and die.

A variation of the above requires the owner to view the cache page after it is logged to keep the plant healthy. There's no real need to "water" the plant if it isn't getting any activity.

Neither options will archive or take any action against the cache listing. It still relies on the actions of other cachers to notify the reviewers if something is wrong with the listing. And the second alternative creates a punishment/reward system for keeping up with the listing.

2k · January 4, 2005

That's a great solution Jeremy.

My objective is just to know what caches are "healthy" the "watering" idea is perfect to this objective.

20.7k · January 4, 2005

...A variation of the above requires the owner to view the cache page after it is logged to keep the plant healthy. There's no real need to "water" the plant if it isn't getting any activity...

I'm not really loving this version as many of us read the email logs rather than pull up our own cache pages.

2.6k · January 4, 2005

I don't see much need to have an owner visit the cache page if there are no problems with the cache. Seems a bit like having to drive your car to the dealership every so often to say "HI" when you have no other reason to go there.

I also don't see a whole lot of point with an auto-email hitting owners if there is no problem with their cache and I agree with the previous poster that it could, in fact, cause some problems. It would also be an additional strain on the GC.com servers that really isn't all that necessary.

However, having some indicator on the cache page of the last time the owner was on GC.com would be handy and quite telling in and of itself, especially if that was made available as a PQ selection critieria and even moreso when that data made its way to GSAK!

Edited for FFS (Fat Finger Syndrome) effects.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Semper Questio

1.6k · January 4, 2005

The basic data set for cache logs would also be a way of being sure that a cache was alive.

BDS: When you found it (date and time), General condition of container and contents (especially travel bugs), trade items in and out.

New hunters could look back through the logs and get real info as to the cache's location and condition. If I found a listing for a cache that hadn't been found for 6 months, I would know that it was unlikely that it was still there, and if I had the time and inclination to go after it, I could. Or not.

2k · January 4, 2005

Hmmmmm..... those are all good point too.

You know, I'm thinking that maybe what I have previously read about un-maintained caches is actually the exception rather than the norm. I know that in my neck of the woods everything seems to be just fine.

Maybe the best post above is the "I like things the way they are"

???

Edited January 4, 2005 by Lemon Fresh Dog

January 4, 2005

One alternative is to make it easier for a geocacher to see the health of the user when visiting a cache listing. Instead of having to click on a user profile you can see an icon next to the owner's name to get an idea when that user logged in to the site.

This is not too bad an idea. Something that would let you know that the owner has been to GC in the last 90 days or so. When I have trouble with a cache (as in "can't find") I look at the owners profile to see if they have checked in lately.

What good does that do? I don't know. I guess it just lets me think that I should look harder before giving up. (usually works)

While I might not go and look at my cache listings all that often, I do read every log sent to me. As well, I do come out to the site to see what is in the area I am in. (home or travel)

January 4, 2005

One alternative is to make it easier for a geocacher to see the health of the user when visiting a cache listing. Instead of having to click on a user profile you can see an icon next to the owner's name to get an idea when that user logged in to the site.

I like this idea. I like it a lot.

Edit to add: I'd also like that data included in the GPX file so that I can see it in GSAK.

Edited January 4, 2005 by NoLemon

24.7k · January 4, 2005

I never visit my caches unless there is a problem or I'm close due to hunting for another cache, or I've decided to pull the plug on it and archive it.

Cache re-approval, or auto archival just rubs me wrong. A periodic checkup to see if they are still active...doesn't sound so bad but you can already do that by keeping tabs on the 'last visit' part of what you can look up in a members profile. It would take a change in the TOS for if a person is deemed to have abandoned their cache. The process to determin if a cache is abandoned (or the cache is fine on another site while the listing on this site is all that is abandoned) is another can of worms, but one that needs solved.

9.4k · January 4, 2005

I don't see much need to have an owner visit the cache page if there are no problems with the cache. Seems a bit like having to drive your car to the dealership every so often to say "HI" when you have no other reason to go there.

The dealer doesn't drive your car. I understand what you're getting at but it isn't the best analogy.

My suggestion is informative and the more informative the page the better. Showing a last login date of a user or noting the last time the owner looked at the cache isn't a big deal - and it isn't all that hard to ask the owner to view the page every so often. Even if they don't check in they they just have a dead plant and a healthy cache.

I have plenty of dead plants in my office and I'm pretty healthy.

(not sure if that is a good analogy or just a weird one)

January 4, 2005

Seems to me that four or five DNFs in a row should be a flag to the local approver. Otherwise,

if people are finding a cache on a more or less regular basis, there is no reason to worry -- even if the cacher him/herself has moved away or lost interest.

2.6k · January 4, 2005

Yeah, Jeremy, the analogy wasn't really there, but what the heck!

Anyway, it just seems kind pointless to visit the page when we get emails every time a log entry is made on the cache. Now if the cache has had no activity in "an extended period of time", the emails get bounced back, and/or there have been a series of DNF's, then maybe the cache is due for a check-up. But as long as it is getting hits and all is going well, why mess with it?

IMHO it would be more than enough to simply add the owner's last login date to the cache page just to show the owner is an active member. Then Seekers can use that info to decide if they want to bother with that 4/4 cache on the mountain when they see the owner hasn't even logged in for 6 months. (PQ, GPX, GSAK - hint, hint)

3.9k · January 4, 2005

Since this is a feature request, I'll respond.

I have had some time (4 years) to think about this one and have come to the conclusion that automated anything regarding physical caches is a Bad Idea.

One alternative is to make it easier for a geocacher to see the health of the user when visiting a cache listing. Instead of having to click on a user profile you can see an icon next to the owner's name to get an idea when that user logged in to the site.

The other alternative is to have what I have thought of as a flower icon. Similar to a Tamogotchi (sp?) you need to come back and "water" the flower occasionally so visitors on your cache listing can see that your plant is healthy. If you don't come online periodically to take care of the plant it starts to wilt and die.

A variation of the above requires the owner to view the cache page after it is logged to keep the plant healthy. There's no real need to "water" the plant if it isn't getting any activity.

Neither options will archive or take any action against the cache listing. It still relies on the actions of other cachers to notify the reviewers if something is wrong with the listing. And the second alternative creates a punishment/reward system for keeping up with the listing.

For caches that have been adopted by the community....how about putting up a button that the last visitor could rate the heath of the cache?

El Diablo

6.5k · January 4, 2005

I wouldn't have a problem with receiving an annual email on the anniversary of each of my hides asking if it (and I)are still active and healthy. That could be overwhelming for someone with 100+ hides though. I generally do not re-visit my caches unless a log indicates a specific need to. I hardly ever read the actual cache page after a while, and would not like to be required to as a carrot/stick for a healthy plant. In fact I'm not sure I like that icon thought/analogy at all. I do not think the term punishment is appropriate to this issue either. My RDU TB Hotel gets visited almost weekly, sometimes by repeat customers. There is no reason for me to look at the page if an emailed log says all is well. After 2+ years, almost 300 log entrys, and over 200 TB's passing through it should have the big honkin' mama bouquet of flowers icon :lol: whether or not I read the page or make a physical check on it.

I can think of several caches I have on my watch list that are pretty much community property at this point. They were some of the first finds I had, and serve that same purpose for many newer players in the area. I personally revived one of them when logs indicated it had been vandalized.

I wouldn't want to see them get archived because the original hider has gone away.

A string of DNF' shouldn't act as a trigger to the approvers though. I have one nasty hide that is about 50/50 finds/DNF's. Also, if a group is hunting together and all post DNF's that skews the data. One of the caches I visited this weekend got 3 DNF's from us, yet others found it just six days ago. I doubt there was any problem there other than our inalbility to find it. :lol:

January 4, 2005

The flower icon would be an interesting addition.

A dead flower doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the flower pot.

7

January 4, 2005

I wouldn't have a problem with receiving an annual email on the anniversary of each of my hides asking if it (and I)are still active and healthy. That could be overwhelming for someone with 100+ hides though. I generally do not re-visit my caches unless a log indicates a specific need to. I hardly ever read the actual cache page after a while, and would not like to be required to as a carrot/stick for a healthy plant. In fact I'm not sure I like that icon thought/analogy at all. I do not think the term punishment is appropriate to this issue either.
A string of DNF' shouldn't act as a trigger to the approvers though. I have one nasty hide that is about 50/50 finds/DNF's. Also, if a group is hunting together and all post DNF's that skews the data. One of the caches I visited this weekend got 3 DNF's from us, yet others found it just six days ago. I doubt there was any problem there other than our inalbility to find it.

I AGREE with this entire comment. I would have to check 102 cache pages, I have no problem maintaining 100+ caches because I use the local caching community via their logs to know what needs attention. No Flower Power for this cacher.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Turtle3863

2k · January 4, 2005

It's good to hear from folks with so many caches -- I guess that would be a hassle to have to manage.

I guess the core of what I'm intereted in is some sort of informational flag to let me know if a cache is worth checking on. I read the logs so I'm ussually not in trouble at all. As a cache owner I was thinking about how I might better serve those seeking my caches.

January 4, 2005

Since this is a feature request, I'll respond.

I have had some time (4 years) to think about this one and have come to the conclusion that automated anything regarding physical caches is a Bad Idea.

One alternative is to make it easier for a geocacher to see the health of the user when visiting a cache listing. Instead of having to click on a user profile you can see an icon next to the owner's name to get an idea when that user logged in to the site.

The other alternative is to have what I have thought of as a flower icon. Similar to a Tamogotchi (sp?) you need to come back and "water" the flower occasionally so visitors on your cache listing can see that your plant is healthy. If you don't come online periodically to take care of the plant it starts to wilt and die.

A variation of the above requires the owner to view the cache page after it is logged to keep the plant healthy. There's no real need to "water" the plant if it isn't getting any activity.

Neither options will archive or take any action against the cache listing. It still relies on the actions of other cachers to notify the reviewers if something is wrong with the listing. And the second alternative creates a punishment/reward system for keeping up with the listing.

That seems like a good idea to me. The only thing I can think of is a cache near my old houle where the owners have never done any maintence in close o 3 years. Last time I was there it was in great shape due to geocachers acting like they should. Trading up, replacing it like it found it, ext..

How about this,

Whenever you do a maintence check on a cache you can post it as a maintence check rather than a note. This will give a little more "Water" to the plant.

But I guess people would just post a maintence check whenever they felt like it and leave the cache to rot.

By the way, thanks for changing back to your old avitar, that frog on the ski lift looked stupid.

Joe Smith

4.7k · January 5, 2005

i have a cache under a sockpuppet account. i maintain it. it gets a lot of DNFs, although i can't for the life of me figure out WHY. it isn't that hard. i almost NEVER log on as the sockpuppet, and yet i am not absent nor is that cache neglected.

draw your own conclusions.

January 5, 2005

i have a cache under a sockpuppet account. i maintain it. it gets a lot of DNFs, although i can't for the life of me figure out WHY. it isn't that hard. i almost NEVER log on as the sockpuppet, and yet i am not absent nor is that cache neglected.

draw your own conclusions.

I thought you're not supposed to have sockpuppet accounts?

22k · January 5, 2005

For caches that have been adopted by the community....how about putting up a button that the last visitor could rate the heath of the cache?

Because I and my locals maintain abandoned caches until it requires something ony an owner can provide. (Page updates, etc)

When it's beyond hope we contact an approver.

22k · January 5, 2005

I thought you're not supposed to have sockpuppet accounts?

I have another account that I log benchmarks.

If you are active and responsible in using them, they are not sock puppets. They are just another identity.

9.4k · January 5, 2005

Seems to me that four or five DNFs in a row should be a flag to the local approver. Otherwise,
if people are finding a cache on a more or less regular basis, there is no reason to worry -- even if the cacher him/herself has moved away or lost interest.

The problem with this is that many people refuse to post DNF's when they can't find a cache. I've heard plenty of excuses as to why, but none of them hold water. You either found it or you didn't

9.4k · January 5, 2005

i have a cache under a sockpuppet account. i maintain it. it gets a lot of DNFs, although i can't for the life of me figure out WHY. it isn't that hard. i almost NEVER log on as the sockpuppet, and yet i am not absent nor is that cache neglected.

draw your own conclusions.

I thought you're not supposed to have sockpuppet accounts?

That's a forum guideline. The forums are not geocaching

3.9k · January 5, 2005

For caches that have been adopted by the community....how about putting up a button that the last visitor could rate the heath of the cache?

Because I and my locals maintain abandoned caches until it requires something ony an owner can provide. (Page updates, etc)

When it's beyond hope we contact an approver.

And what does that have to do with my suggestion?

El Diablo

24.7k · January 5, 2005

i have a cache under a sockpuppet account. i maintain it. it gets a lot of DNFs, although i can't for the life of me figure out WHY. it isn't that hard. i almost NEVER log on as the sockpuppet, and yet i am not absent nor is that cache neglected.

draw your own conclusions.

I thought you're not supposed to have sockpuppet accounts?

Your not, but flask screwed up and hid a cache with the account so is that the sock puppet or is flask?

24.7k · January 5, 2005

Seems to me that four or five DNFs in a row should be a flag to the local approver. Otherwise,
if people are finding a cache on a more or less regular basis, there is no reason to worry -- even if the cacher him/herself has moved away or lost interest.

It depends on the cache. I have caches were 4 or 5 dnf's means the cache is rated correctly at 3.5 stars. I have other caches were even a single DNF means something is very wrong and I need to check it out.

A reviewer won't know that, their job is to poke me and make sure I'm not dead if I've disabled a cache for a long, long time.

10.1k · January 5, 2005

It is quite obvious that some local cache owners have gone on to a better place. Caches in bad condition are receiving notes from the approvers suggesting that a maintenance visit is in order. Checking the profile on one, he has not signed into gc.com since 2003. This might be a good indication that he is no longer interested in the sport. One that I know of is still in good condition. One is missing and has been archived. Two are on notice. One of those has been replaced by another geocacher, but not adopted. Geocache becomes geotrash. I'd say that the current system works, except for the removal of the geotrash. I don't know what the answer to that is. A corps of volunteers to remove the trash?

On the other hand, I can think of a few great caches that seem to be the only one placed by the cacher who may have been inactive since, but the cache is still in good condition. Shoudl it be removed because the cacher is inactive? Probably. This is a game of active players.

Then again, I've done a few Virtuals with the requirement "Don't log it until you hear back from me", and I've never heard back. Then there are the Locationless Caches that specify "Only one cache per site". Six people log the same site. These are not caches that are being maintained.

Rules and Terms of Service cannot be enforced upon the inactive. I don't know what the answer is.

22k · January 5, 2005

For caches that have been adopted by the community....how about putting up a button that the last visitor could rate the heath of the cache?

Because I and my locals maintain abandoned caches until it requires something ony an owner can provide. (Page updates, etc)

When it's beyond hope we contact an approver.

And what does that have to do with my suggestion?

El Diablo

Seriously?

Who's monitoring these health ratings of abandoned caches?

Oh yes, the community, who watches the cache and takes care of it until it's beyond their capability as a non-owner and then contacts an approver to close it down. Isn't that what I said? We haven't needed a special button to know when a cacher has a problem with it.

I guess I'm happy with the current process.

Edited January 5, 2005 by BlueDeuce

1.2k · January 5, 2005

I suggest that things be left just as they are. No flowers, no automated reminders, no health inspections, nothing.

If a cache has a big number of DNFs, a potential finder may himself take the initiative of writing to the owner and ask about the status, and then decides whether he wants to risk his time.

Also, I suggest that people be a little bit more proactive with SBAs. They are a flag to future seekers, they get the attention of the owner, AND of the local approver, who will take a look and decide on a case by case basis whether something should be done.

Examples for different responses to my SBAs:

Cache was archived immediately

Archival pending, Note sent to the owner

Note was sent to the owner, cache archived when no response was received and the probability of geolitter was ruled out

Cache archived after owner confirmed that the container was missing; later unarchived when the container was replaced

Cache in bad shape; SBA followed up by approver's request that the container be removed by the next finder. After that happened, archival followed

This way, we can all help weed out the dead ones.

January 5, 2005

I suggest that things be left just as they are. No flowers, no automated reminders, no health inspections, nothing.
·

·

·

Also, I suggest that people be a little bit more proactive with SBAs. They are a flag to future seekers, they get the attention of the owner, AND of the local approver, who will take a look and decide on a case by case basis whether something should be done.

It does seem to me like we've got a thread here full of people with solutions looking for a problem.

I think I agree with you about the use of the SBA log, but I have one quibble. Should Be Archived; basically, a call for the death penalty for a cache. As named, it amounts to a statement to the effect that the person logging an SBA believes the cache to be damaged, abandoned, or otherwise unfit beyond any reasonable effort at repairing it; and that the only thing to do is remove it.

I think that there may very well be many caches that require the sort of attention that can only be drawn (as the system currently stands) by logging an SBA, but that upon receiving that attention, could readily be repaired, assigned to a different owner, or otherwise corrected.

Perhaps a new log entry type should be defined for the case where the person making the entry believes that the cache is in serious need of attention, but that with such attention, the cache could readily be restored to proper condition.

5.3k · January 5, 2005

A variation of the above requires the owner to view the cache page after it is logged to keep the plant healthy. There's no real need to "water" the plant if it isn't getting any activity.

I really, really like Jeremy's idea here. Brilliant, non-intrusive solution to the problem that enhances the usability of the site.

I would add one minor thing: a graphical summary of the last 5 logs at the top of the cache page, right next to the difficulty and terrain. Just the icons for the log types. That would identify at a glance if the cache is having problems. Clayjar has implemented this in Watcher, Lil Devil has done it for Spinner, and I have done it in gpx2html. It's turned out to be very useful.

22k · January 5, 2005

Perhaps a new log entry type should be defined for the case where the person making the entry believes that the cache is in serious need of attention, but that with such attention, the cache could readily be restored to proper condition.

That would help. There should also be a note type that reports it's repaired.

Edited January 5, 2005 by BlueDeuce

1.8k · January 5, 2005

I would add one minor thing: a graphical summary of the last 5 logs at the top of the cache page, right next to the difficulty and terrain. Just the icons for the log types. That would identify at a glance if the cache is having problems. Clayjar has implemented this in Watcher, Lil Devil has done it for Spinner, and I have done it in gpx2html. It's turned out to be very useful.

I'm not sure if this is starting to stray from the original topic, but...I have found the little multi-colored "Last Four Logs" graphic on GSAK to be very helpful in quickly weeding out which caches are likely to have problems, so I can make sure I skip them when planning out my caching day. (For those not familiar, see http://gsak.net/help/hs2000.htm.)

Something like that on this website would be a neat feature to have to quickly pick out those with strings of DNF's (and for which maintenance or archival might be needed), but I'm not sure how practical something like that would be do implement.

8.9k · January 5, 2005

They don't call it markwelling for nothing

Specifically, read Stunod's log.

Then go back even further to October of 2003 when Captain Morgan started this thread with just this suggestion and read the post from the big Kahuna himself.

Suggestion: add a log type of "cache needs attention" to SUPPLIMENT the "Needs archived" log type.

2k · January 5, 2005

Hello all,

It seems we're starting to get into the territory of some threads that have been discussed. Is there still value to continue this thread? I'll leave it open, but if anyone flags a "been here, done this" I'm okay to close it. Just let me know.

The main question I was interested in was whether some sort of feature would automate cache health checks. Not really as a way to see what shape they are in, but rather as a way to see if someone was still taking responsibility for them in the event they entered a state of disrepair, needed to be (re)moved, or are gone altogether. I'm assuming that if someone is concerned enough to raise their hand and say "I'll take care of that cache" then it will be in some state of "maintained" <--- whatever that may be.

I normally read all the logs -- so DNF's work for me. The challenges that has been brought to my attention is that some folks do not read the logs, or do not log DNF's, or that some caches are simply very hard to find.

Another thought I have seen is the use of the SBA flag -- but this has been discussed quite passionately elsewhere. One solution being a new status proposal: SBC (should be checked) or the like. That's another conversation though and somewhat divided. I'd rather not place that into this thread if that's okay, because my objective is to look at cache-owner/care-taker responsibility rather than players.

I'm thinking maybe a poll would be in order? The proposed question being:

"Would you like to see a feature implimented that indicates the last time a cache owner visited their cache page?"

Although not perfect, this would be a non-issue to folks that don't care, but provide an additional decision criteria for those seeking caches to use as they see fit? Although some owners do not visit their cache page often, it would not exclude the cahce, but act as a slight indicator to the seekers that the cache has a higher probability of being in place.

Thank you to everyone for keeping on topic -- I am very impressed we haven't started taking sides on this and are rather discussing pros and cons of a process.

(note: my personal bias is to have an informational flag -- I just don't know if I'm completely out-to-lunch in asking for this. My objective is to be able to create a filter of "high-probable finds" and "questionable"/possibly missing finds. Visit type A with my daughter and type B as time permits.)

Edited January 5, 2005 by Lemon Fresh Dog

1.8k · January 5, 2005

"Would you like to see a feature implimented that indicates the last time a cache owner visited their cache page?"

No.

I have cache pages that I haven't viewed in months but I closely follow all the logs and, if there are any suggestions that a maintenance visit is in order, I'm on top of it. I don't see the need to re-visit all my cache pages to affirm that I'm still paying attention. This might be easier for someone with one or two hides--but what about the people with 50 active hides? 100? 200? Why put them through the trouble?

Anyone who wants to know if I'm still actively participating need only click on the link to my profile, which will tell them the last time I logged on to GC.com. In my view, that would be a much better indicator of their "active" participation in the game anyhow.

Edited January 5, 2005 by Team PerkyPerks

7.2k · January 5, 2005

"Would you like to see a feature implimented that indicates the last time a cache owner visited their cache page?"

No.

The already available "last visited" is plenty. If Jeremy wants to put that somewhere on the cache page I don't have a problem with it. But the last time I visited a particular cache page? I don't think so. I already get notifications of every log that is written on our caches, no need to go visit the page, too.

January 5, 2005

I know this is late to post, but I really like jeremy's 'healthy flower' idea.

Although i havent encountered any 'bad' caches yet, i have come across some very soggy ones that look neglected for waterproofness & some micros that are running slim on log space.

If i may elaborate on my idea of the 'flower'...

what if cachers, not just owners, can 'rate' the health of the cache - such as monitoring for waterproofness, log-book-fullness (especially on micros), bad swag, etc. Perhaps, make the hunter's rating system a Premium Membership only feature? Maybe owners looing at a wilting flower will be prompted to tae care of it. any maintanence an owner does can help 'regrow' the flower.

i dunno... just my $.02 - take a penny, leave a penny.

2k · January 5, 2005

That's a neat idea -- I sort of like the idea of a rating system by users -- but maybe that's another discussion? Don't know.

For the two of you that have answered "no" -- is that a "no - please don't" or a "no - not for me". Is it something that would bother you, or something that you just don't care for?

I mean that in a sincere manner -- sometimes with only text it could come across the wrong way -- so I'm just asking, not challenging the "no" in any way.

January 5, 2005

A variation of the above requires the owner to view the cache page after it is logged to keep the plant healthy. There's no real need to "water" the plant if it isn't getting any activity.

This particular variation I don't care for. As the owner of a cache I already get all the things posted to the cache's listing e-mailed to me. I don't need to view the cache's listing to keep up on what's going on.

Edited January 5, 2005 by Ferreter5

22k · January 5, 2005

Jeremy's 'healthy flower' idea.

Oh great, a geoTamagotchi.

Edited January 5, 2005 by BlueDeuce

January 5, 2005

Instead of: "Would you like to see a feature implimented that indicates the last time a cache owner visited their cache page?" It should probably be: "Would you like to see a feature implemented on the cache page that indicates the last time a cache owner visited geocaching.com?"

This is because so many owners check the health of their cache through e-mail, not by visiting the cache page. I was doing a whole lot of caches by one owner about 100 miles from my house over a weekend. Couldn't find half of them; Not many had DNFs posted, nor had they been found recently. Upon returning home, I discovered that the cache owner hadn't been to gc.com in over six months. This might have been helpful if I had known beforehand.

Cache Re-approval

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment