Reviewer is disabling my caches?

[+brendan714]

It never ceases to amaze me why people bring these sorts of problems to the Forum, which actually INCREASES the scrutiny on the problem. With all the time and energy complaining about the situation, the OP could probably have checked on the caches by now and taken care of any issues.

Sorry, I laughed out loud. The vast majority of these caches are a 2-5 hour drive from home. The roads aren't great. There is off-trail hiking, sometimes difficult scrambling for up to 8-10 hours. These caches aren't a walk in the park. It will take months to visit them all and get them up to speed. It can't happen overnight.

[+narcissa]

These caches are so remote that checking up on them regularly (unless there's a very valid reason to do so) is nearly impossible. I'm not prepared to scramble up a challenging mountain for 10 hours (plus a 2 hour drive each way) just to confirm that a cache I placed is right where I left it in good condition. I am prepared to do this if a few experienced cachers DNF or indicate that it needs a new container, etc. (But most experienced backcountry cachers in my area know to bring containers to help with the maintenance on such caches)

 

Checking up on them "regularly" is a relative term. For a back-country mountain cache, I don't think anyone is expecting frequent maintenance, but a check-in once every few years is appropriate, especially if there's been no activity on the cache.

 

Expecting that the cache will maintain itself because finders will bring replacement containers is inappropriate, regardless of where the cache is hidden.

[+narcissa]

It never ceases to amaze me why people bring these sorts of problems to the Forum, which actually INCREASES the scrutiny on the problem. With all the time and energy complaining about the situation, the OP could probably have checked on the caches by now and taken care of any issues.

Sorry, I laughed out loud. The vast majority of these caches are a 2-5 hour drive from home. The roads aren't great. There is off-trail hiking, sometimes difficult scrambling for up to 8-10 hours. These caches aren't a walk in the park. It will take months to visit them all and get them up to speed. It can't happen overnight.

 

That's why you should communicate with the reviewer and potential finders using the cache page.

[+OReviewer]

Many of the caches I adopted are missing, broken or in otherwise not great shape. How can I find them beforehand? Also, why would I waste my time going to find, then go ahead and adopt, then return and replace? Why not adopt then visit and replace if needed?

 

So you know there are problems (or not even there) and you didn't disable/fix them and are mad that the reviewer saw there were problems and disabled them? You just answered your own question.

[+L0ne.R]

 

 

Why not adopt then visit and replace if needed? I have time set aside to visit the caches that need maintenance. But that's not the topic we're discussing. Why were those two caches disabled by the reviewer based on DNFs by newbie cachers?

 

I think the problem you've created with the reviewer is that you haven't set out a maintenance plan. You also posted an Enable the same day that the reviewer posted his Disable and claimed you had visited the cache weeks ago and maintained it but hadn't caught up with your OM logging. I don't think you won any brownie points there.

[+Touchstone]

We have one thread saying Reviewers are to hasty in disabling Listings and another thread saying Reviewers aren't aggressive enough (hag caches). What an amazing place this is.

 

Just my .02, but Enabling a Listing without some explanation after a Reviewer has Disabled it asking for a welfare check is a little like putting a stick on your shoulder and asking someone to knock it off. Don't be surprised if someone knocks it off.

 

Ignoring an email from Groundspeak, giving the local Reviewer some pushback...somehow I've got the feeling this won't end well.

 

A different approach might be in order.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Different caches being discussed here are apples and oranges.

 

There's no known problem with this one, other than the doomsday clock has been started. From one DNF!

[+brendan714]

Is the CO deleting all the NMs? Did someone attempt to find it and directly notify TPTB or the reviewer? We know that DNFs often are used as NM logs to describe cache problems, and this thread already brought up some of the really great reasons that a Cache Owner might delete DNFs. I'd approve of it not being left in peace if there's funny business going on, if there's actually been much cache activity in that 7 or 8 years... and denial.

 

If the cache is in fact still in fine shape, and especially if it in fact has no NM or similar issue, then in that instance, disabling (prep for archiving) would be wrong. I'd bet that the reviewer (or his Bot) has additional info that we don't see.

No, unlikely, and I'm not deleting DNFs. I don't think there's any additional info. The bots saw that the most recent logs were DNFs (by very inexperienced cachers, but the bots probably don't know that) and the last find was years ago. But the cache

 

It isn't wrong to expect cache maintenance at a frequency of at least once a decade. It isn't wrong to expect a new cacher owner to check on his/her adopted caches.

If there isn't a need to check a cache, why check it? Sure, if you're in the area, give 'er, but climb a mountain just to make sure that the container you placed under a rock is still in good shape under the same rock? Nope, that's silly.

 

It could be looked at as inflammatory and uncharitable but it doesn't make it inaccurate.

 

Keeping an old cache because of the age/GC number but changing it isn't really the right thing to do. The old location (and most likely the container) are gone, he did his due diligence confirming it best he can with the tool he has. In that case, you archive the old cache because its history is gone. If you really love the location, you submit a new listing as an homage to the original. This is exactly the case why old caches aren't unarchive and adopted over to new cachers and why things like the APE caches weren't just replaced.

 

The location isn't the cache, the container/log/location is the cache. The since all three of those are being changed, one should start from scratch.

I already addressed this but I will repeat. The land managers are tightening down geocaching regulations in many of these areas. If the caches are archived and I go to seek permission for a new cache, I might not get it. So if I didn't step up and adopt the caches, they'd be lost forever. In my mind, that sucks for future cachers. So I stepped up to the plate and did something about it.

 

He is not doing himself any favours by fighting with the reviewer and enabling caches that were reviewer disabled with recent questionable enable logs (note he isn't using the OM log) "Visited several weeks ago. The cache is not in need of maintenance." If he really visited for the first time, I would think he'd include a more detailed log that talked about the adventure of visiting the mountaintop location for the first time and include photos to back up that he had actually made the trek up the mountain, found the cache and checked it.He has over 2000 photos in his gallery, mostly mountaintop photos, but oddly nothing of the Mount Chester Summit cache or the Cardinal Divide cache.

I really don't have to justify this but I will. I just finished up writing my Master's thesis and am preparing for my defence. I recently got engaged. I am currently on vacation. I don't really have the time right now to do one of my good ol' 4000+ character logs with lots of pictures that I love to do. Maybe in a few months when things cool down. I visited the cache. It's fine. Nuf said. The cache should have never been disabled.

 

It would be to his benefit to take a good hard look at all of these caches and perhaps disable the ones that have some red flags, like no trespassing signs, until he can visit and confirm that permission for those placements still exists. It may be that there are alternate means of getting to the cache, or it could be that the land use has changed and the cache is no longer appropriate there.

 

It may take a while for him to get around to all of them, and I assume the reviewer will have some degree of patience. Checking on a remote mountain cache is a different beast than popping by to look at a guardrail micro. Reviewers are reasonable people, the key is communication.

I have seriously thought about this, believe me. Unfortunately our reviewer doesn't have a lot of patience. S/He gives 30 days and expects some action. Saying "I haven't gotten to it yet" doesn't usually yield a good response. So instead I'm letting them sit even though they probably should be disabled. If the weather is poor this year in September like it was last year, I might not get to these caches until next summer. It will take some time, but I will get to them all ASAP.

[+brendan714]

We have one thread saying Reviewers are to hasty in disabling Listings and another thread saying Reviewers aren't aggressive enough (hag caches). What an amazing place this is.

 

Just my .02, but Enabling a Listing without some explanation after a Reviewer has Disabled it asking for a welfare check is a little like putting a stick on your shoulder and asking someone to knock it off. Don't be surprised if someone knocks it off.

 

Ignoring an email from Groundspeak, giving the local Reviewer some pushback...somehow I've got the feeling this won't end well.

 

A different approach might be in order.

Let's analyze GC1DRKG. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1DRKG_mount-chester-summit

Found once since it was found. DNFed once by a cacher who (at the time) had 12 finds. Does this really require an email from GS? Do you think the reviewer looked hard enough to realize this? If there wasn't a DNF, I guarantee 100% that the cache would not be disabled right now. So why does one single DNF by a cacher with 12 finds complaining of signal bounce result in a disabling of the cache?

[+brendan714]

That's why you should communicate with the reviewer and potential finders using the cache page.

...which is exactly what I did for the ones that are in rough shape?

[+brendan714]

Many of the caches I adopted are missing, broken or in otherwise not great shape. How can I find them beforehand? Also, why would I waste my time going to find, then go ahead and adopt, then return and replace? Why not adopt then visit and replace if needed?

 

So you know there are problems (or not even there) and you didn't disable/fix them and are mad that the reviewer saw there were problems and disabled them? You just answered your own question.

No. There are two caches in question. GC1DRKG and GCH0T7. They are likely in good shape. Both were DNFed by cachers with fewer than 20 finds. This was enough to prompt the reviewer to disable the caches.

 

There are other caches I adopted that I realize are in rough shape. If anything, they are the ones that should be disabled, not the ones that actually ARE disabled. I would not be complaining if the ones that actually do require maintenance were disabled. There's something wrong with this process. I think it stems back to the automated cache maintenance bot. The caches it identified that "might" need maintenance actually don't require maintenance.

[+brendan714]

Different caches being discussed here are apples and oranges.

 

There's no known problem with this one, other than the doomsday clock has been started. From one DNF!

You've got it.

[+Touchstone]

We have one thread saying Reviewers are to hasty in disabling Listings and another thread saying Reviewers aren't aggressive enough (hag caches). What an amazing place this is.

 

Just my .02, but Enabling a Listing without some explanation after a Reviewer has Disabled it asking for a welfare check is a little like putting a stick on your shoulder and asking someone to knock it off. Don't be surprised if someone knocks it off.

 

Ignoring an email from Groundspeak, giving the local Reviewer some pushback...somehow I've got the feeling this won't end well.

 

A different approach might be in order.

Let's analyze GC1DRKG. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1DRKG_mount-chester-summit

Found once since it was found. DNFed once by a cacher who (at the time) had 12 finds. Does this really require an email from GS? Do you think the reviewer looked hard enough to realize this? If there wasn't a DNF, I guarantee 100% that the cache would not be disabled right now. So why does one single DNF by a cacher with 12 finds complaining of signal bounce result in a disabling of the cache?

The lack of DNF's doesn't concern me quite as much as your unwillingness to communicate more clearly to the Reviewer. Just judging from your Enable log entries, it would appear that you never intend on checking on the cache.

[+narcissa]

We have one thread saying Reviewers are to hasty in disabling Listings and another thread saying Reviewers aren't aggressive enough (hag caches). What an amazing place this is.

 

Just my .02, but Enabling a Listing without some explanation after a Reviewer has Disabled it asking for a welfare check is a little like putting a stick on your shoulder and asking someone to knock it off. Don't be surprised if someone knocks it off.

 

Ignoring an email from Groundspeak, giving the local Reviewer some pushback...somehow I've got the feeling this won't end well.

 

A different approach might be in order.

Let's analyze GC1DRKG. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1DRKG_mount-chester-summit

Found once since it was found. DNFed once by a cacher who (at the time) had 12 finds. Does this really require an email from GS? Do you think the reviewer looked hard enough to realize this? If there wasn't a DNF, I guarantee 100% that the cache would not be disabled right now. So why does one single DNF by a cacher with 12 finds complaining of signal bounce result in a disabling of the cache?

 

The cache hasn't been found in eight years. Regardless of how remote it is, it's not unreasonable to expect a minimal level of cache maintenance within eight years. Write a detailed log about your recent visit to it, problem solved.

[+brendan714]

We have one thread saying Reviewers are to hasty in disabling Listings and another thread saying Reviewers aren't aggressive enough (hag caches). What an amazing place this is.

 

Just my .02, but Enabling a Listing without some explanation after a Reviewer has Disabled it asking for a welfare check is a little like putting a stick on your shoulder and asking someone to knock it off. Don't be surprised if someone knocks it off.

 

Ignoring an email from Groundspeak, giving the local Reviewer some pushback...somehow I've got the feeling this won't end well.

 

A different approach might be in order.

Let's analyze GC1DRKG. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1DRKG_mount-chester-summit

Found once since it was found. DNFed once by a cacher who (at the time) had 12 finds. Does this really require an email from GS? Do you think the reviewer looked hard enough to realize this? If there wasn't a DNF, I guarantee 100% that the cache would not be disabled right now. So why does one single DNF by a cacher with 12 finds complaining of signal bounce result in a disabling of the cache?

 

The cache hasn't been found in eight years. Regardless of how remote it is, it's not unreasonable to expect a minimal level of cache maintenance within eight years. Write a detailed log about your recent visit to it, problem solved.

Agreed. I just have to catch up on my hundreds of logs....

But why was it disabled in the first place? That's my main concern here.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Okay listen up, city bots.

 

Mountain caches don't have the same maintenance needs as city caches, or forest caches. They need less maintenance. It rarely rains on mountain tops; it snows. Snow doesn't seep into a cache. Coyotes don't live on mountain tops (well, not our mountains), and therefore don't drag caches away. And with little visitation, things like lids and snaps simply last longer, much longer.

 

I've seen cheapo dollar-store containers in pristine condition after years on a mountaintop (one of our most famous mountaineering hiders uses 'em), whereas those same containers down in the forest would've been a disaster.

 

It's a different world up high, and the bot should be programmed to account for that.

 

Not to mention the reviewer guidelines, ahem.

[+OReviewer]

There are other caches I adopted that I realize are in rough shape. If anything, they are the ones that should be disabled, not the ones that actually ARE disabled. I would not be complaining if the ones that actually do require maintenance were disabled. There's something wrong with this process. I think it stems back to the automated cache maintenance bot. The caches it identified that "might" need maintenance actually don't require maintenance.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if more of them get notes, especially after the topic was brought to the forefront here.

[+L0ne.R]

We have one thread saying Reviewers are to hasty in disabling Listings and another thread saying Reviewers aren't aggressive enough (hag caches). What an amazing place this is.

 

Just my .02, but Enabling a Listing without some explanation after a Reviewer has Disabled it asking for a welfare check is a little like putting a stick on your shoulder and asking someone to knock it off. Don't be surprised if someone knocks it off.

 

Ignoring an email from Groundspeak, giving the local Reviewer some pushback...somehow I've got the feeling this won't end well.

 

A different approach might be in order.

Let's analyze GC1DRKG. https://www.geocachi...-chester-summit

Found once since it was found. DNFed once by a cacher who (at the time) had 12 finds. Does this really require an email from GS? Do you think the reviewer looked hard enough to realize this? If there wasn't a DNF, I guarantee 100% that the cache would not be disabled right now. So why does one single DNF by a cacher with 12 finds complaining of signal bounce result in a disabling of the cache?

 

I'm guessing that your credibility came in to question with Cardinal Divide Beauty. Instead of leaving the cache disabled you chose to defy the reviewer and enable a cache the same day it was disabled. You could have left it disabled until you could get out there to check (with periodic updates as to why it was not possible to get out to the cache, if there are reasonable issues - eg. too much snow, dangerous weather conditions).

[+L0ne.R]

Okay listen up, city bots.

 

Mountain caches don't have the same maintenance needs as city caches, or forest caches. They need less maintenance. I

 

Have you read the logs in the adopted caches. Most of them had broken caches. Some of them had a couple of throwdowns already. And those throwdowns were broken. They seemed to have a similar pattern of maintenance issues to most forest finds.

[+brendan714]

The lack of DNF's doesn't concern me quite as much as your unwillingness to communicate more clearly to the Reviewer. Just judging from your Enable log entries, it would appear that you never intend on checking on the cache.

I agree, I hastily sent a note while on my phone in the car (riding shotgun, not driving ).

But why was is disabled in the first place? Are other caches in good shape going to find the same fate?

[+brendan714]

There are other caches I adopted that I realize are in rough shape. If anything, they are the ones that should be disabled, not the ones that actually ARE disabled. I would not be complaining if the ones that actually do require maintenance were disabled. There's something wrong with this process. I think it stems back to the automated cache maintenance bot. The caches it identified that "might" need maintenance actually don't require maintenance.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if more of them get notes, especially after the topic was brought to the forefront here.

That's fine, but it STILL doesn't answer why the good caches were disabled.

[+brendan714]

Okay listen up, city bots.

 

Mountain caches don't have the same maintenance needs as city caches, or forest caches. They need less maintenance. It rarely rains on mountain tops; it snows. Snow doesn't seep into a cache. Coyotes don't live on mountain tops (well, not our mountains), and therefore don't drag caches away. And with little visitation, things like lids and snaps simply last longer, much longer.

 

I've seen cheapo dollar-store containers in pristine condition after years on a mountaintop (one of our most famous mountaineering hiders uses 'em), whereas those same containers down in the forest would've been a disaster.

 

It's a different world up high, and the bot should be programmed to account for that.

 

Not to mention the reviewer guidelines, ahem.

I was hoping that by ignoring the bot email that the reviewer would take one look at the cache and agree with me. Guess not? I think there needs to be a little more scrutiny on the part of the reviewer. Bots are sometimes wrong. But a human should be able to realize the mistake.

[+narcissa]

Okay listen up, city bots.

 

Mountain caches don't have the same maintenance needs as city caches, or forest caches. They need less maintenance. It rarely rains on mountain tops; it snows. Snow doesn't seep into a cache. Coyotes don't live on mountain tops (well, not our mountains), and therefore don't drag caches away. And with little visitation, things like lids and snaps simply last longer, much longer.

 

I've seen cheapo dollar-store containers in pristine condition after years on a mountaintop (one of our most famous mountaineering hiders uses 'em), whereas those same containers down in the forest would've been a disaster.

 

It's a different world up high, and the bot should be programmed to account for that.

 

Not to mention the reviewer guidelines, ahem.

 

That's fine, but a visit once every eight years isn't tremendously unreasonable, especially when there has been no activity at all.

[+narcissa]

We have one thread saying Reviewers are to hasty in disabling Listings and another thread saying Reviewers aren't aggressive enough (hag caches). What an amazing place this is.

 

Just my .02, but Enabling a Listing without some explanation after a Reviewer has Disabled it asking for a welfare check is a little like putting a stick on your shoulder and asking someone to knock it off. Don't be surprised if someone knocks it off.

 

Ignoring an email from Groundspeak, giving the local Reviewer some pushback...somehow I've got the feeling this won't end well.

 

A different approach might be in order.

Let's analyze GC1DRKG. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1DRKG_mount-chester-summit

Found once since it was found. DNFed once by a cacher who (at the time) had 12 finds. Does this really require an email from GS? Do you think the reviewer looked hard enough to realize this? If there wasn't a DNF, I guarantee 100% that the cache would not be disabled right now. So why does one single DNF by a cacher with 12 finds complaining of signal bounce result in a disabling of the cache?

 

The cache hasn't been found in eight years. Regardless of how remote it is, it's not unreasonable to expect a minimal level of cache maintenance within eight years. Write a detailed log about your recent visit to it, problem solved.

Agreed. I just have to catch up on my hundreds of logs....

But why was it disabled in the first place? That's my main concern here.

 

Perhaps, given how far behind you are in your other cache responsibilities, and the other obligations you have in your life, maintaining distant mountain caches isn't something you can take on right now. Is there another cacher who is in a better position to deal with these problematic caches? Obviously there is value in keeping them going, but it seems like you're just not able to actually deal with them right now. Instead of getting defensive and listing reasons why you can't maintain them, maybe the right thing to do is pass the torch to someone who is better able to handle it right now.

Edited August 12, 2016 by narcissa

[+cheech gang]

 

 

Is the forensic examination of his profile really necessary? He doesn't owe the forum a maintenance plan. He needs to communicate with reviewers about the state of his caches.

 

He's the one who came here with the question. That is what opened up the forensic examination, background gathering attempts to figure out how to answer the original question.

[+narcissa]

 

 

Is the forensic examination of his profile really necessary? He doesn't owe the forum a maintenance plan. He needs to communicate with reviewers about the state of his caches.

 

He's the one who came here with the question. That is what opened up the forensic examination, background gathering attempts to figure out how to answer the original question.

 

At a certain point, combing someone's profile and examining their photo gallery starts to look like a personal attack, not a fact-finding mission.

[+dprovan]

We have one thread saying Reviewers are to hasty in disabling Listings and another thread saying Reviewers aren't aggressive enough (hag caches). What an amazing place this is.

The system is neatly designed so that local practices are applied by seekers to identify bad caches. Increasingly GS has bowed to demands that GS and reviewers take responsibility for bad caches, so some centralized processes have been created to identify and eliminate caches that are not maintained. This puts them in exactly the no-win situation you're describing: because they've accepted the responsibility, they get grief for not applying those practices fast enough when there's a problem, while at the same time the uniform approach does not work in many areas, so they also get grief for applying those practices where they cause problems.

[+Touchstone]

There are other caches I adopted that I realize are in rough shape. If anything, they are the ones that should be disabled, not the ones that actually ARE disabled. I would not be complaining if the ones that actually do require maintenance were disabled. There's something wrong with this process. I think it stems back to the automated cache maintenance bot. The caches it identified that "might" need maintenance actually don't require maintenance.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if more of them get notes, especially after the topic was brought to the forefront here.

That's fine, but it STILL doesn't answer why the good caches were disabled.

I'm not sure you're looking at this the correct way. It's not so much good/bad caches that Groundspeak is concerned with, it seems to be responsive/responsible cache owners vs. deadbeat/lazy cache owners.

[+L0ne.R]

Agreed. Having met the OP a few times, I know his motivation was to preserve these caches.

 

I expect that the OP is a nice guy, and sees value in his true motivation to preserve the GC code.

 

He hasn't come back to the forums to give us his maintenance plan for the adopted caches, in particular the one in question. He argues that he shouldn't have to check it, since it might be there, but he's never found it himself.

 

He is not doing himself any favours by fighting with the reviewer and enabling caches that were reviewer disabled with recent questionable enable logs (note he isn't using the OM log) "Visited several weeks ago. The cache is not in need of maintenance." If he really visited for the first time, I would think he'd include a more detailed log that talked about the adventure of visiting the mountaintop location for the first time and include photos to back up that he had actually made the trek up the mountain, found the cache and checked it.He has over 2000 photos in his gallery, mostly mountaintop photos, but oddly nothing of the Mount Chester Summit cache or the Cardinal Divide cache.

 

Is the forensic examination of his profile really necessary? He doesn't owe the forum a maintenance plan. He needs to communicate with reviewers about the state of his caches.

 

The OP is inviting the examination by continuing to ask why a reviewer would disable the caches in question. This invites further scrutiny as to why a reviewer would archive a cache based on a DNF. There's usually more to the story, and there was.

[+narcissa]

Agreed. Having met the OP a few times, I know his motivation was to preserve these caches.

 

I expect that the OP is a nice guy, and sees value in his true motivation to preserve the GC code.

 

He hasn't come back to the forums to give us his maintenance plan for the adopted caches, in particular the one in question. He argues that he shouldn't have to check it, since it might be there, but he's never found it himself.

 

He is not doing himself any favours by fighting with the reviewer and enabling caches that were reviewer disabled with recent questionable enable logs (note he isn't using the OM log) "Visited several weeks ago. The cache is not in need of maintenance." If he really visited for the first time, I would think he'd include a more detailed log that talked about the adventure of visiting the mountaintop location for the first time and include photos to back up that he had actually made the trek up the mountain, found the cache and checked it.He has over 2000 photos in his gallery, mostly mountaintop photos, but oddly nothing of the Mount Chester Summit cache or the Cardinal Divide cache.

 

Is the forensic examination of his profile really necessary? He doesn't owe the forum a maintenance plan. He needs to communicate with reviewers about the state of his caches.

 

The OP is inviting the examination by continuing to ask why a reviewer would disable the caches in question. This invites further scrutiny as to why a reviewer would archive a cache based on a DNF. There's usually more to the story, and there was.

 

Posting to the forum isn't "inviting" a detailed personal tear-down of someone's photo gallery.

[+Viajero Perdido]

So Groundspeak...

 

Could you please reprogram the bot? For T=3.5+, you can assume we'll actually read the cache page before going, and make our own decisions about whether it's worth the hike / climb / flight / whatever. Okay?

 

For destination caches, there's no need to be a nanny-site and guarantee a good time. We can handle that. Okay?

 

Thanks.

[+brendan714]

I'm not sure you're looking at this the correct way. It's not so much good/bad caches that Groundspeak is concerned with, it seems to be responsive/responsible cache owners vs. deadbeat/lazy cache owners.

If this is true, then why is it that the bot targets bad caches and not bad cache owners? It doesn't appear that cacher/owner experience or maintenance track record has any impact on the bot (or the reviewer for that matter).

 

If there are indeed a few bugs or quirks with the bot, then I'd hope the reviewer would catch this before disabling. This didn't appear to happen and the result is a mandatory physical visit.

 

Here's my interpretation of the coding of the bot with the limited data that I have:

If last log = DNF OR if last log = Needs Maintenance;

And if last found > 2 years (maybe less);

And if no recent user maintenance;

Then flag for maintenance.

 

Lonely geocaches hidden in rocks in the mountains don't NEED to be checked every 5 years or even every decade just to 'make sure' they're okay. I once found an old summit register from the early 1900s - which dates back long before the days of geocaching and hard plastic containers.

 

But of course it goes on a case-by-case basis depending on the cache, the location and the cache owner. I happen to think the reviewer could have scrutinized the bot's suggestion a little more closely in this case.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm confused. Is there a bot that automatically disables caches without reviewer intervention?

I thought the caches in question were reviewer disabled? I've heard of a Groundspeak bot-like email that goes out the cache owners, but from what I read it does not do anything to the actual cache page. The message only appears in the CO's mailbox, not on their cache page. My understanding is that reviewers still review the cache to determine if a disable is warranted.

 

[+narcissa]

I'm confused. Is there a bot that automatically disables caches without reviewer intervention?

I thought the caches in question were reviewer disabled? I've heard of a Groundspeak bot-like email that goes out the cache owners, but from what I read it does not do anything to the actual cache page. The message only appears in the CO's mailbox, not on their cache page. My understanding is that reviewers still review the cache to determine if a disable is warranted.

 

They were disabled by a reviewer. The bot just sends a nuisance email. That's a separate issue that's being conflated with the reviewer action.

 

The reviewer has taken a look and rightly determined that after many years without activity AND an entirely new owner, the caches need to be checked. There's nothing to indicate that the reviewer isn't willing to be reasonable about the timing of things.

[+wmpastor]

So Groundspeak...

 

Could you please reprogram the bot? For T=3.5+, you can assume we'll actually read the cache page before going, and make our own decisions about whether it's worth the hike / climb / flight / whatever. Okay?

 

For destination caches, there's no need to be a nanny-site and guarantee a good time. We can handle that. Okay?

 

Thanks.

Sounds good. And the bot should disregard DNFs from someone with less than a certain number of finds. 25? More?

[+Dame Deco]

I'll buck the trend here. You adopted these in March 2016 (congratulations and thank you for making the effort!).

I think it's reasonable to expect you to physically visit caches you now own.

 

Particularly those with no recent finds and DNFs or NM logs.

You agreed to maintain both the listings and the physical caches when you adopted them. Do it.

 

Looking at the caches you adopted, 5 have NM logs. Some have been fixed by cachers, one by the reviewer who updated bad coords. You need to clear the NM logs.

 

GCH0TA absolutely demands a visit. Logs call out the container as lidless and broken and the access to the cache as POSTED.

 

You adopted them without ever visiting them? I'd say the reviewer is exactly right--visit them to make sure they are there or archive them. I'm totally with the reviewer on this one.

[+wmpastor]

 

 

Is the forensic examination of his profile really necessary? He doesn't owe the forum a maintenance plan. He needs to communicate with reviewers about the state of his caches.

 

He's the one who came here with the question. That is what opened up the forensic examination, background gathering attempts to figure out how to answer the original question.

 

At a certain point, combing someone's profile and examining their photo gallery starts to look like a personal attack, not a fact-finding mission.

 

Or a display of one's investigative prowess.

[+wmpastor]

... For some unfathomable reason, my DNFs have a lot of weight! ...

It would be interesting (& good) if the algorithm took experience into account, as shown by the number of finds by the DNF poster. (Fame is not as easily quantified. ). I know that DNFs I posted while having less than 25 finds didn't mean very much.

 

Number of finds does not necessarily translate into experience. One can spend a weekend in Nevada finding hundreds of easy hides all hidden in the same manner by the same CO and they're not going have as much experience as someone that has found 30 caches in different environments, placed by different cache owners, and a variety of difficulty levels.

 

Ah, yes, we live in an imperfect world with imperfect algorithms and imperfect caches....

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I have seriously thought about this, believe me. Unfortunately our reviewer doesn't have a lot of patience. S/He gives 30 days and expects some action. Saying "I haven't gotten to it yet" doesn't usually yield a good response. So instead I'm letting them sit even though they probably should be disabled. If the weather is poor this year in September like it was last year, I might not get to these caches until next summer. It will take some time, but I will get to them all ASAP.

 

I'm curious about this. Are you getting this type of communication from the reviewer if you disable your own cache or when the reviewer disables the cache? If the reviewer disables the cache, it's pretty standard wording to include that they will archive the cache if you do not respond within 30 days. It's boilerplate. It doesn't mean the cache has to be visited/fixed within 30 days...they just need you to communicate back that you're planning to/able to maintain the cache.

 

It's been stated a few times in this thread that reviewers have the ability to use their judgement and they do.

If you are communicating to the reviewer that you intend on visiting/fixing the cache but need a little more time (or a lot more, in some cases) and they are responding with "NO! YOU MUST VISIT/FIX THIS CACHE WITHIN 30 DAYS OR I'LL ARCHIVE IT!!!", then you have an excellent case to take to appeals and that reviewer will get straightened out by GS.

[+fizzymagic]

Aside from the clear implication that cache owners who hide difficult-to-reach caches will be punished for them, I am also concerned that these actions compromise the already-tenuous legal position of the reviewers. These actions certainly make it appear that they are acting as agents of geocaching.com, which is not allowed under US labor law.

Edited August 13, 2016 by fizzymagic

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We have one thread saying Reviewers are to hasty in disabling Listings and another thread saying Reviewers aren't aggressive enough (hag caches). What an amazing place this is.

 

Just my .02, but Enabling a Listing without some explanation after a Reviewer has Disabled it asking for a welfare check is a little like putting a stick on your shoulder and asking someone to knock it off. Don't be surprised if someone knocks it off.

 

Ignoring an email from Groundspeak, giving the local Reviewer some pushback...somehow I've got the feeling this won't end well.

 

A different approach might be in order.

Let's analyze GC1DRKG. https://www.geocachi...-chester-summit

Found once since it was found. DNFed once by a cacher who (at the time) had 12 finds. Does this really require an email from GS? Do you think the reviewer looked hard enough to realize this? If there wasn't a DNF, I guarantee 100% that the cache would not be disabled right now. So why does one single DNF by a cacher with 12 finds complaining of signal bounce result in a disabling of the cache?

 

The cache hasn't been found in eight years. Regardless of how remote it is, it's not unreasonable to expect a minimal level of cache maintenance within eight years. Write a detailed log about your recent visit to it, problem solved.

Agreed. I just have to catch up on my hundreds of logs....

But why was it disabled in the first place? That's my main concern here.

 

Perhaps, given how far behind you are in your other cache responsibilities, and the other obligations you have in your life, maintaining distant mountain caches isn't something you can take on right now. Is there another cacher who is in a better position to deal with these problematic caches?

 

I was thinking the same thing. Keeping up with ones logs doesn't require going anywhere and can be done in short increments. If the OP is having a hard time keeping up with logs how did he expect to maintain caches a five hour drive away while working on a college thesis?

 

This reveals a different flaw in the system. When the caches in question were initialize placed by the original CO the reviewer would have looked at where the CO was located and if he/she was 5 hours away the reviewer would most likely have asked for a maintenance plan. Perhaps the original CO made frequent visits to the area and could maintain the caches when necessary. However, adopting a cache is an automated process now and as far as I know (I haven't adopted a cache in about 8 years) no reviewer intervention is required. It would allow someone that didn't have time to maintain a cache and expects that others will replace a container if necessary to adopt a cache. Expecting others to maintain a cache isn't a maintenance plan.

 

I will also point out that the bot only disabled the cache but I wouldn't mind seeing how the bot actually works and what criteria is used. Personally, I think that someone with only 12 finds could still accurately determine if a cache justifies a DNF. Unless there is a bot that automatically archives caches that the disable bot has flagged, the manual reviewer intervention to determine if the cache warrants a disable is going to happen if the reviewer decides to archive the cache.

 

 

[Pup Patrol]

Aside from the clear implication that cache owners who hide difficult-to-reach caches will be punished for them, I am also concerned that these actions compromise the already-tenuous legal position of the reviewers. These actions certainly make it appear that they are acting as agents of geocaching.com, which is not allowed under US labor law.

 

 

I'm unclear about this "bot" that folks are discussing. Is this the automated "owner maintenance" email?

 

If it is, then it's just an email. That does not appear on the cache page, and it certainly does not disable a cache listing.

 

It's the very human Reviewer that does the disabling or archiving of a cache listing.

 

It's pretty standard for the Reviewer to state "30 days" in their "disable" log. It does not mean that the CO has to physically tend to the cache within 30 days.

 

It means that the CO should acknowledge the Reviewer action within 30 days. Communicate something on the cache page. Outline the course of action....something, some sort of communication.

 

For those folks who are looking at the CO's profile, you will see that he is asking people to do maintenance for him by replacing containers.

 

I'm not sure what good is coming out of posting on the forum. This situation clearly is one that calls for communication with the Reviewer.

 

It's hard to believe that a more difficult-to-get-to cache should not be expected to receive MORE owner maintenance than a less difficult cache. I'm confused as to why so many people are upset that "difficult" caches are getting the same scrutiny as "less difficult" caches. That just seems backwards to me.

 

These adopted caches should be the priority for the CO, both in physical maintenance and cache page maintenance. One would think the CO would work harder to keep them active and a source of pride.

 

Just another thought...all this talk of a "bot", yet in my area, Reviewers often do "sweeps" to catch potentially problematic caches. They do this by running PQ's.

 

 

B.

Edited August 13, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[+JL_HSTRE]

"If it ain't broke (or recently reported to be broke), why fix it (or even check)?"

 

Because you have no way to know if it's broke without someone finding it.

 

The fact that several other caches have NM issues may have factored into the decision to disable.

[+justintim1999]

The extended time and the DNFs can be cause for other geocachers to avoid the trip to find them. It is best practice to periodically check on a cache. How often depends on the location. I don't think it is asking too much for the cache owner to go have a look after several years. If the burden of cache maintenance is too much for you, perhaps there is another cache owner who can get out to them more easily.

 

That about sums up what I think. The remotness of the cache should have no baring on the cache owner visiting the site at least once a year regardless of activity. If you cant at least do that than how are you going to respond to an actual problem?

[+narcissa]

Aside from the clear implication that cache owners who hide difficult-to-reach caches will be punished for them, I am also concerned that these actions compromise the already-tenuous legal position of the reviewers. These actions certainly make it appear that they are acting as agents of geocaching.com, which is not allowed under US labor law.

 

Asking a cache owner to provide an update on a cache that has been inactive for eight years is not punishment.

[+TriciaG]

Aside from the clear implication that cache owners who hide difficult-to-reach caches will be punished for them, I am also concerned that these actions compromise the already-tenuous legal position of the reviewers. These actions certainly make it appear that they are acting as agents of geocaching.com, which is not allowed under US labor law.

This is a Canadian reviewer on a Canadian cache. I'm not sure that US law applies.

[+cerberus1]

The remotness of the cache should have no baring on the cache owner visiting the site at least once a year regardless of activity. If you cant at least do that than how are you going to respond to an actual problem?

No bearing at all?

 

Curious, if you were, oh, let's say...the owner of 4.5lb walleye, you'd spend a week+ every year to do maintenance, whether it was accessed that year or not?

[+Team Hugs]

The remotness of the cache should have no baring on the cache owner visiting the site at least once a year regardless of activity. If you cant at least do that than how are you going to respond to an actual problem?

No bearing at all?

 

Curious, if you were, oh, let's say...the owner of 4.5lb walleye, you'd spend a week+ every year to do maintenance, whether it was accessed that year or not?

 

Exceptions are made all the time. I seriously doubt there's a maintenance plan in place for GC1BE91. (Of course, there's little chance of the cache being damaged over time, either.)

 

Seriously ... just work with your reviewer. Even the reviewers that are dogs want to work with cache owners, not against them.

[+cerberus1]

The remotness of the cache should have no baring on the cache owner visiting the site at least once a year regardless of activity. If you cant at least do that than how are you going to respond to an actual problem?

No bearing at all?

 

Curious, if you were, oh, let's say...the owner of 4.5lb walleye, you'd spend a week+ every year to do maintenance, whether it was accessed that year or not?

 

Exceptions are made all the time. I seriously doubt there's a maintenance plan in place for GC1BE91. (Of course, there's little chance of the cache being damaged over time, either.)

 

Seriously ... just work with your reviewer. Even the reviewers that are dogs want to work with cache owners, not against them.

Okay...

I was curious of one who apparently feels there are no exceptions ("have no bearing" ), so not sure why you responded to me.

[+fizzymagic]

Aside from the clear implication that cache owners who hide difficult-to-reach caches will be punished for them, I am also concerned that these actions compromise the already-tenuous legal position of the reviewers. These actions certainly make it appear that they are acting as agents of geocaching.com, which is not allowed under US labor law.

 

Asking a cache owner to provide an update on a cache that has been inactive for eight years is not punishment.

 

First, "unfound" != "inactive."

 

Second, demanding that they undertake a 2-day trip to visit said cache is indeed punishment.