"Up for Adoption" Attribute

[+Bambi&Thumper]

Just recently there seem to have been a number of posts on my local forum about caches that need adoption. It occurred to me that not everyone uses the forums so a lot of caches must get archived because either, people don't know how to tell others that it's up for adoption, or the people who would adopt don't know the cache needs adopting.

 

I thought, maybe if there could be some way people could advertise that a cache is "Up for Adoption" so that local cachers could see it easily it would help. My thinking was maybe there could be an icon in the "Icons" part of the search results page so that it would then be really obvious. It would also indicate to people that hadn't done the cache and wanted to that it was time they did!

 

If this wasn't possible, maybe there could be a "post a note" option a bit like the published/disabled/archived that is sent out saying that the cache is up for adoption... Or maybe a check box on the "edit page" so that it's included in a weekly cirular that could be sent like the "new caches" email.

 

I know it's not a big problem, but what do people think?

 

Thanks,

 

Bambi.

[+Sanruft]

Just recently there seem to have been a number of posts on my local forum about caches that need adoption. It occurred to me that not everyone uses the forums so a lot of caches must get archived because either, people don't know how to tell others that it's up for adoption, or the people who would adopt don't know the cache needs adopting.

 

I thought, maybe if there could be some way people could advertise that a cache is "Up for Adoption" so that local cachers could see it easily it would help. My thinking was maybe there could be an icon in the "Icons" part of the search results page so that it would then be really obvious. It would also indicate to people that hadn't done the cache and wanted to that it was time they did!

 

If this wasn't possible, maybe there could be a "post a note" option a bit like the published/disabled/archived that is sent out saying that the cache is up for adoption... Or maybe a check box on the "edit page" so that it's included in a weekly cirular that could be sent like the "new caches" email.

 

I know it's not a big problem, but what do people think?

 

Thanks,

 

Bambi.

 

We have been considering a move lately and have been giving some thought as to how we may want to "advertise" our caches being up for adoption and I was thinking of doing this;

 

First, temporarily disable all of my caches with a note stating that these caches may be up for adoption and to please reply if interested. With the new notification that goes out to any changes in your local area caches, I figured that most would get the message. (Reading it is another story).

 

Then reactivate it shortly thereafter with the same note.

 

It's not a perfect solution but thought maybe I would try it should I be in that situation.

[+mtn-man]

For an immediate solution, I would suggest adding "I would like to adopt this cache to a local cacher." at the beginning of the short description. That way, it is the first thing that geocachers read when they look at the cache. The disable/enable option is interesting too.

[+The Leprechauns]

I've seen a few people edit their cache title to advertise that a cache needs to be taken over. For example, if you own a cache called "A Walk in the Park" edit the title so it is now called "A Walk in the Park - UP FOR ADOPTION" or "A Walk in the Park - ADOPT ME."

 

I think this would attract even more attention than an attribute, although it's not a bad idea.

[+CO Admin]

For the other side of the coin there is nothing wrong with archiving the cache, picking it up and letting someone else put a new cache that represents their way of doing it, at or near the spot. Not all caches have to be adopted. Some reviewers, myself included, have found that adopted caches tend to have more maintenance problems then caches held by their first owner.

Edited September 14, 2006 by CO Admin

[+The Leprechauns]

CO Admin, that adoption coin that you reference in your post....

 

is it trackable? I'll take two!

[+gof1]

Wanting your caches to be adopted is a grand ideal.

May I suggest though that you limit it to your best caches.

The ones that have been the best of the best.

Those caches that the locals would miss.

This will open up some places that are good caching areas to those still caching in the area.

The added bonus to this scheme is that it will bring cachers back to an area they have already visited.

[+DavidMac]

...adopted caches tend to have more maintenance problems then caches held by their first owner.

 

As someone who has given out a number of caches for adoption, I can agree that this has been my experience. When I moved last year, I posted notes on the cache pages to let everyone know that they would be pulled in so many days and archived. I was surprised to receive numerous responses from people saying that they didn't want to see the caches go (many of the hides were some of the earliest caches in some areas) and offered to adopt and maintain them for me. I eventually gave in and agreed, adopted out 15 caches, and things have gone downhill ever since... As of only one year later, two are missing, one is in the wrong location, 6 more need maintenance, and one more has been archived by a reviewer. Several of the caches have questionable logs that I would have deleted (along the lines of "found the location, but not the cache, so we're logging anyway"), but since I'm no longer the owner, I don't have that authority. My name is still on the caches, though, and it's just embarrassing. For my first few visits back to the area, I ended up making maintenance runs to fix numerous problems, which was the very thing I hoped to avoid by adopting them out in the first place (I've since stopped doing this and figure that if they're eventually archived, it's no longer my problem). I've also had problems with new cache owners being slow to maintain the caches, unresponsive to emails, and in one case where I contacted a new owner and asked them to check on a cache that had received several concerned comments in recent logs, I received a response that bordered on rude.

 

I could keep rambling, but in short... my advice is to use the adoption tool sparingly, only on caches that are significant in some way (maybe an older waypoint or the first in an area) to where creating a new listing would detract from the appeal of the cache.

 

edit: if only I'd learn to use spellcheck before hitting submit... I wouldn't have to edit all my posts.

Edited September 15, 2006 by DavidMac

[+Bambi&Thumper]

For an immediate solution, I would suggest adding "I would like to adopt this cache to a local cacher." at the beginning of the short description. That way, it is the first thing that geocachers read when they look at the cache. The disable/enable option is interesting too.

 

This is true, but to local cachers who have already done a cache, they may not read the description regularly.

 

I've seen a few people edit their cache title to advertise that a cache needs to be taken over. For example, if you own a cache called "A Walk in the Park" edit the title so it is now called "A Walk in the Park - UP FOR ADOPTION" or "A Walk in the Park - ADOPT ME."

 

I think this would attract even more attention than an attribute, although it's not a bad idea.

 

I think this attracts the attention of people who have already done the cache better than posting a note or adding stuff to the description However, I thought that if there was a specific adoption tool it would draw attention to the ability to adopt caches to people who may not read the forums and perhaps don't appreciate that it is possible. An icon (say the same as the trad, multi etc. but, say, with a red background) would draw attention to the cache in the same way as changing the name. It could also then be possible to set up pocket queries to search for them. Maybe, it could even be a premium member only feature, or perhaps only PMs could adopt. It may also then be possible for reviewers to put a cache up for adoption should they be unable to contact the owners, which would (hopefully) reduce the amount number of discarded caches left lying around. I don't know, but those were some of the things that occurred to me.

 

Wanting your caches to be adopted is a grand ideal.

May I suggest though that you limit it to your best caches.

The ones that have been the best of the best.

Those caches that the locals would miss.

This will open up some places that are good caching areas to those still caching in the area.

The added bonus to this scheme is that it will bring cachers back to an area they have already visited.

 

This is certainly true and the way I envisage it, cachers would only adopt caches that they liked or had a reason to adopt. If people are selective, it could also result in a general improvement in the quality of caches in an area, since the dross would get archived and the quality kept. I'm sure to begin with, people would adopt anything, but there are only so many caches that people can maintain. It would also allow people to adopt a cache and keep it in place, but maybe replace it with a differently/better sited cache in time.

 

...adopted caches tend to have more maintenance problems then caches held by their first owner.

 

As someone who has given out a number of caches for adoption...

 

...

 

but in short... my advice is to use the adoption tool sparingly, only on caches that are significant in some way (maybe an older waypoint or the first in an area) to where creating a new listing would detract from the appeal of the cache.

 

I was not aware of this problem, but I'm sure it is not the case for all adoptions. Anyway, if there were a formalised "Put this cache up for adoption" procedure, it may be possible to force a "needs maintainance attribute" as soon as it is adopted for example to ensure that the new owner pays it a visit.

 

I just kinda think that formalising the adoption precedure might help to iron out problems with caches being abandoned and really great caches that took time to put together being archived, all often unnecessarily.

 

Thanks for your comments,

 

Bambi.

 

PS We are not planning on putting any of our caches up for adoption; this is just something I've thought about before when I saw adoption threads on the forum. I was compelled to make the suggestion here now after a number of adoption requests had been posted on my local forum, followed by a thread about a cache that is largely considered one of the best in the UK, but is under threat due to the owners moving house.

[+The Leprechauns]

It may also then be possible for reviewers to put a cache up for adoption should they be unable to contact the owners, which would (hopefully) reduce the amount number of discarded caches left lying around. I don't know, but those were some of the things that occurred to me.

 

Sorry, but that idea is inconsistent with the reviewers' role in the adoption process. For a summary of the adoption process, look at this post in the FAQ thread that's pinned at the top of the "Getting Started" forum.

[+Bambi&Thumper]

It may also then be possible for reviewers to put a cache up for adoption should they be unable to contact the owners, which would (hopefully) reduce the amount number of discarded caches left lying around. I don't know, but those were some of the things that occurred to me.

 

Sorry, but that idea is inconsistent with the reviewers' role in the adoption process. For a summary of the adoption process, look at this post in the FAQ thread that's pinned at the top of the "Getting Started" forum.

 

OK, well, it's a long time since I read all that and I guess I'd forgotten. In anycase, there is no reason why this couldn't be changed slightly is there? I mean, suppose there were a cache that had been disabled by a reviewer because the environment around the cache had changed, but the reviewer couldn't get hold of the cache owner. If it's archived, this cache just becomes litter, whereas if it's adopted by an interested party, it can be moved slightly, or archived by the new owner and new cache placed (or not as the case may be). Either way, hopefully a box of junk isn't left to give a bad name to caching.

 

B.

[+CrazyL200]

The litter issue could be a big one. There are many newbies who find a few, place one or two, then decide, for whatever reason, caching isn't for them. There are also probably a few who don't take it quite so seriously as a hobby as many of us.

While it's the cache owners responsibility to maintain it (remove it ??) abandoning could well (and probably does) leave it as litter.

 

How about a means of filtering for "abandoned" or "potentially abandoned" caches (by area, or similar search) so that interested parties to offer to adoption any those caches, within the normal placement guides for ability to maintain etc...

[+Right Wing Wacko]

For the other side of the coin there is nothing wrong with archiving the cache, picking it up and letting someone else put a new cache that represents their way of doing it, at or near the spot. Not all caches have to be adopted. Some reviewers, myself included, have found that adopted caches tend to have more maintenance problems then caches held by their first owner.

 

I agree with this statement. I think we have gone way to far on adoptions. It should be reserved for those special or historic caches. Otherwise... archive it, let someone else put a new one in and then we can all go find it.

[+Bambi&Thumper]

For the other side of the coin there is nothing wrong with archiving the cache, picking it up and letting someone else put a new cache that represents their way of doing it, at or near the spot. Not all caches have to be adopted. Some reviewers, myself included, have found that adopted caches tend to have more maintenance problems then caches held by their first owner.

 

I agree with this statement. I think we have gone way to far on adoptions. It should be reserved for those special or historic caches. Otherwise... archive it, let someone else put a new one in and then we can all go find it.

 

I agree with this ideal too; we don't want to encourage bad caches to hang around longer than their natural lifetime. What bothers me more though, is that as CrazyL200 says, caches are archived with no consideration for the cache-litter that is left behind. By adopting, someone else becomes responsible for the cache and can then archive/replace at their leisure.

 

B.