CO's - please remove missing TBs

[+cankita]

This will probably fall on deaf ears since I doubt that many CO's with 'problem' caches will come here but it gives me a chance to vent my frustrations!

 

I have recently come back from New England visiting from the UK and wanted to bring back a bunch of TBs to help them on their journey around the world. I deliberately sought out caches that had TBs listed but out of some 50 or 60 bugs listed I came home with just 3! Another 3 I moved on because their mission was in the USA but around 90% of the TBs listed were not there. Checking the TB pages some have been missing for two year or more!

 

It seems that few CO's bother to keep the inventories for their caches up to date, primarily, I think, because they don't know that they can or don't know how. It is not immediately obvious and a causal remark in a log might go unnoticed.

 

It really is frustrating to visit cache after cache and find no TB's but, as finders, we can all do something about it which might, just might, help. Rather than just casually mention 'no TB's' in a Found It log how about everybody putting on a Needs Maintenance entry whenever TBs are missing, especially when there are a whole bunch of them not there. This will alert the CO and the local reviewer to a problem. I recently did this on one of the caches in New England and the CO was quite receptive. He didn't realise that he could manage the Inventory and I explained how to do it. Result, no more TB's listed which disappeared years ago.

 

If you are worried about putting a Needs Maintenance alert on a cache no need to be. Surely keeping the inventory up to date is every bit the CO's responsibility as replacing full logs or broken containers?

[+kunarion]

Rather than just casually mention 'no TB's' in a Found It log how about everybody putting on a Needs Maintenance entry whenever TBs are missing, especially when there are a whole bunch of them not there.

Please don't do that. Type a note about exactly which TBs are there and which aren't, and how thoroughly you searched the contents. Make a log on the TB's page, add whatever info you like about what you require. Leave it at that.

Edited October 28, 2014 by kunarion

[+OHail]

Also post a note to each trackable's page. Many times people will write a log to the cache page about missing trackables but do not on the trackable's page for its owner.

[+cerberus1]

Needs Maintenance on a cache that's fine, when a trackable from a side game may be missing?

Not happening.

I check for trackables when I do maintenance and only mark 'em missing if I check (and a mail to the TO).

- Too many times I've gone to find a coin or TB sitting at the bottom, mixed with the swag or stuck to the sides/top (with who knows what).

[+cerberus1]

... how about everybody putting on a Needs Maintenance entry whenever TBs are missing, especially when there are a whole bunch of them not there. This will alert the CO and the local reviewer to a problem.

Reviewers don't receive NM logs.

[+kunarion]

- Too many times I've gone to find a coin or TB sitting at the bottom, mixed with the swag or stuck to the sides/top (with who knows what).

Yes.

 

Plus that Inventory listing reflects the last accurate log that will ever be made on that TB, then it's hidden from view once marked Missing. The thief steals it, the innocent parties are coerced to cover it up. Nice racket.

 

If the TB Owner is currently in contact with the Taker who insists they “will place it next month on my trip to Europe” or whatever, marking it Missing creates a new level of complication, compounding the fact that the Taker is already not particularly good at logging TBs. For that matter, you would not believe the lousy logs actual Geocachers make on most any cache or most any TB they take. Ever see anyone mention taking anything from a cache ever? Yet the cache is empty. Go figure.

 

I'd prefer to leave logs as they are, and let the TB Owner decide what to do, since it's a loss of property of the TB Owner, and by definition an incorrect logging practice that caused the issue. If any venting is to be done, require that when a TB is taken, the Retrieve log must be made and the TB must be placed into another cache without delay. No “Taking” and making everyone wonder what happened. No messing with TBs (or caches) at all. Enough with the cry for help, go get help. When Takers are removing a TB, they are the ones that need to make the proper logs. Insist on it.

Edited October 28, 2014 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

I feel for you, but just a few points:

 

First, isn't what's really disappointed you that you only found 3 TBs? Yes, it was also disappointing to discover that many caches you targeted didn't have the TBs you expected, but you wouldn't have found more TBs even if owners reliably marked missing TBs Missing.

 

Furthermore, 3 is a pretty good number to bring home from a trip, so you shouldn't be disappointed in that. I think you have every reason to consider this TB quest a success, and I hope the missing TBs didn't keep you from having the fun you should have been having. You were expecting to find everything you were looking for, but it's really more like checking pennies: once in a while you find an old one (well, not anymore, but you get the idea), and that makes all the checks that failed worth it.

 

Also, you discovered from the logs after the fact that many of the TBs had obviously been missing for years, so now you know that you can check for that in advance when you're deciding which caches to target.

 

Anyway, while it's nice if owners marked TBs not in their caches as missing, it's not a maintenance issue, so logging an NM would be overkill almost to the point of being rude.

 

Plus that Inventory listing reflects the last accurate log that will ever be made on that TB, then it's hidden from view once marked Missing. The thief steals it, the innocent parties are coerced to cover it up. Nice racket.

Nothing's covered up. The TB log still says what it always said, plus one more entry that explains who marked it missing and why. The only thing that changes is that the TB is no longer associated with the cache, and that's just a fact. Anyone looking for culprits can still go to the cache's log to see who logged it when.

[+kunarion]

Nothing's covered up. The TB log still says what it always said, plus one more entry that explains who marked it missing and why. The only thing that changes is that the TB is no longer associated with the cache, and that's just a fact.

It's great to have accuracy: log the TB when you take it, that must be demanded. That's the fact that's always left out of the equation, always log when you take anything, TB or not. I see a lot of people insisting that Owners chill when their TB is stolen, at least be a little consistent and require that the people who see an empty cache also chill.

Edited October 28, 2014 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

It's great to have accuracy: log the TB when you take it, that must be demanded.

Certainly. But when someone doesn't perform their duties, what do the rest of us do? That's what we're discussing.

 

I see a lot of people insisting that Owners chill when their TB is stolen, at least be a little consistent and require that the people who see an empty cache also chill.

To me, the word "chill" suggests restraining a negative reaction. When I tell a TB owner not to worry about it, the point is that there's nothing they can do about it except interact with people, and assuming the worst in people is the best way to make that interaction fail. So, yes, I suggest they "chill", both in the sense of holding out some hope to give people time they shouldn't need, and in the sense of approaching anyone involved as a friend rather than an enemy.

 

People looking through the contents of a cache are in a different position. If the TB's missing, that's just a fact, and I'd like them to report that fact. If it's the cache owner, that would be by marking the TB missing. Delaying serves no purpose; the person needing extra time doesn't lose any opportunity by the TB being marked missing.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Rather than just casually mention 'no TB's' in a Found It log how about everybody putting on a Needs Maintenance entry whenever TBs are missing, especially when there are a whole bunch of them not there. This will alert the CO and the local reviewer to a problem. I recently did this on one of the caches in New England and the CO was quite receptive. He didn't realise that he could manage the Inventory and I explained how to do it. Result, no more TB's listed which disappeared years ago.

 

If you are worried about putting a Needs Maintenance alert on a cache no need to be. Surely keeping the inventory up to date is every bit the CO's responsibility as replacing full logs or broken containers?

 

Maintaining the inventory of trackables is not a requirement for the CO. Putting "Needs Maintenance" on a cache for the reason is incorrect, and an abuse of the system.

[+kunarion]

It's great to have accuracy: log the TB when you take it, that must be demanded.

Certainly. But when someone doesn't perform their duties, what do the rest of us do? That's what we're discussing.

 

I see a lot of people insisting that Owners chill when their TB is stolen, at least be a little consistent and require that the people who see an empty cache also chill.

To me, the word "chill" suggests restraining a negative reaction. When I tell a TB owner not to worry about it, the point is that there's nothing they can do about it except interact with people, and assuming the worst in people is the best way to make that interaction fail. So, yes, I suggest they "chill", both in the sense of holding out some hope to give people time they shouldn't need, and in the sense of approaching anyone involved as a friend rather than an enemy.

 

People looking through the contents of a cache are in a different position. If the TB's missing, that's just a fact, and I'd like them to report that fact. If it's the cache owner, that would be by marking the TB missing. Delaying serves no purpose; the person needing extra time doesn't lose any opportunity by the TB being marked missing.

Why not discuss the responsibility of the taker? That's who caused the whole problem. And the OP is all about ensuring an accurate list of the remaining correctly listed TBs, for the express purpose of harvesting TBs.

 

The OP's idea won't do what the idea claims unless the CO is doing a constant cache inventory, in coordination with the TO (some TBs having delayed logs which the TO is working out with the current taker). They must at all times ensure the TB is available. All for the convenience of the taker, who would have a proper list (and a whole lot more TBs to choose), if everybody would handle TBs properly, the thing which must not be said. Everybody would rather cause grief to the innocent TO and CO, than type one log. Yet even with correct logs all the time, any given TB may not be there when you arrive. If people would stay on their meds (or cut out the meds as appropriate), Inventory lists would be better. But the OP's idea still won't work as advertised.

 

When the takers didn't log anything, they didn't log anything. Leave it alone, or type the real log. Otherwise, nomatter what the TO or CO does, the TB logs are messed up, with the gaping hole between “Dropped” and “Missing”. Do not take anything from a cache without logging what you did. Leave it there. If you've had it forever, do not require emails from anybody begging you for action, retroactively log that you took it. Correctly logging the TB you took is in no way the responsibility of the CO nor the TO. Neither is cleaning up after you. If the TO and CO leave it as logged, chill. You made this bed, sleep in it.

 

If you arrive to take a TB and see that someone else got there before you, and you therefore can't take the TB and log it properly and place it right away as you had hoped , simply contact Groundspeak or the Volunteers in this forum who may correct the Inventory (that's rich, GS has no clean hands in these matters). Otherwise, as with most every TB log ever made, I will let the last true log stand as logged.

 

The idea to force the CO and TO to clean up after you is terrible. The mob requires no responsibility for their own actions, yet ultimate responsibility for two people, the TO and CO, who are ganged up on and demanded to get their act together. To the resounding applause of the mob. Mob said it, I believe it, that settles it. Oh well, at least I got a nice new sig line out of it.

Edited October 29, 2014 by kunarion

[+me N u]

Shame the excellent idea from The Blorenges from almost 3 years ago to remove ghost trackables has been ignored even though it was "submitted"

 

Sorry unable to work out how to do a link to the topic in question, but its in the website forum.

Edited October 29, 2014 by me N u

[+The Blorenges]

Shame the excellent idea from The Blorenges from almost 3 years ago to remove ghost trackables has been ignored even though it was "submitted"

 

Sorry unable to work out how to do a link to the topic in question, but its in the website forum.

 

Thanks for that

 

The way I see it, unless something is done to address this matter of inaccurate cache inventories the problem will continue to get progressively worse as more and more trackables get mislogged/unlogged from caches. There are old caches here in UK which show trackables which haven't been present in the cache for 5+ years. If Groundspeak is not interested to do anything to improve these inaccuracies then they might as well do away with the inventory box on the cache listing altogether. I'm getting tired of explaining to disappointed/disenchanted new cachers that although they may see trackables listed on a cache there's a strong likelihood that they won't be there, unless they were very recently dropped off.

 

Here's the link to my previous suggestion:

 

System to remove "ghost trackables" from cache inventories.

 

MrsB

[+cerberus1]

Shame the excellent idea from The Blorenges from almost 3 years ago to remove ghost trackables has been ignored even though it was "submitted"

 

Sorry unable to work out how to do a link to the topic in question, but its in the website forum.

 

Thanks for that

 

The way I see it, unless something is done to address this matter of inaccurate cache inventories the problem will continue to get progressively worse as more and more trackables get mislogged/unlogged from caches. There are old caches here in UK which show trackables which haven't been present in the cache for 5+ years. If Groundspeak is not interested to do anything to improve these inaccuracies then they might as well do away with the inventory box on the cache listing altogether. I'm getting tired of explaining to disappointed/disenchanted new cachers that although they may see trackables listed on a cache there's a strong likelihood that they won't be there, unless they were very recently dropped off.

 

Here's the link to my previous suggestion:

 

System to remove "ghost trackables" from cache inventories.

 

MrsB

That may not be a bad idea.

How many click on the trackable at the inventory box to log it?

I often enter it's code later, long gone from the cache page.

Trackable page logs still say where they were at last, no more tempting list of goodies for thieves and no more angst of them not being in a cache.

- Though I always thought any trackables inside were secondary to the cache location.

Edited October 29, 2014 by cerberus1

[+dprovan]

Why not discuss the responsibility of the taker?

We can discuss the responsibility of the taker all you want, just not here. The title of this thread is "CO's - please remove missing TBs".

 

The idea to force the CO and TO to clean up after you is terrible.

Excuse me? I'm not asking the CO and TO to clean up after me. I log any TBs I move.

[+kunarion]

The way I see it, unless something is done to address this matter of inaccurate cache inventories the problem will continue to get progressively worse as more and more trackables get mislogged/unlogged from caches. There are old caches here in UK which show trackables which haven't been present in the cache for 5+ years. If Groundspeak is not interested to do anything to improve these inaccuracies then they might as well do away with the inventory box on the cache listing altogether. I'm getting tired of explaining to disappointed/disenchanted new cachers that although they may see trackables listed on a cache there's a strong likelihood that they won't be there, unless they were very recently dropped off.

 

Here's the link to my previous suggestion:

 

System to remove "ghost trackables" from cache inventories.

 

MrsB

Using an example of my own TB, I placed this sheep with a securely attached tag (u-nail embedded permanently in the plastic sheep), so the tag won't fall off. I even designed it so the tag lies tracking code down, in case of photos. One move and it's gone, I think. Maybe. Pretty sure. I'm frankly a little too disgusted to research that at this time. And I just imagined how torqued I'd be if somebody contacted me to say “Hey Dude, mark this thing Missing, it bothers me”. Or worse, if Groundspeak unilaterally did that, since they expressly refused to correct TB logs that actually needed it (logs faked in preparation to sell stolen TBs, which the thief then successfully did, all in broad daylight, and that event is well documented). It would be super aggravating when GS is on record as having a hands-off No Rules approach, when anyone can cause the item to be Marked Missing due to the Strict Rules that enforce it. Other than that, it's a great idea!

 

I believe that Groundspeak will continue to allow Inventory corrections happen as they have. The “Trackable traveling in caches” idea is over. So a new system to manage them is not useful, just watching the end approach. The TO should decide if or when to mark a TB “Missing”, after all that’s the way GS set it up (yeah, also COs can mark Missing). The “Missing” selection could be used exclusively when the previous taker specifies that they lost it in a permanent way, or when the TB is known to be destroyed, all logged accordingly. A “vanishing” wouldn’t count, since the TB didn’t evaporate. Unless the story of the disappearance is clearly stated by the people who know, the TB may stand in Inventory as a ghost, as the TO wishes. I always make decent logs when I searched the container and the TB is gone, I but leave it up to the TO. He may be massively annoyed at the theft. No point rubbing his nose in it by demanding he Mark It Missing, merely for the convenience of me not having to look at it in the list.

 

In a perfect world, the Inventory could always be wrong. So removing "Missing TBs" does only that, and the currently listed yet recently removed TBs would not be inside. No idea yet would do what the OP wants, guarantee TBs are there upon arrival. In fact, now the OP would face the reality of no TBs to be had. It's easy enough by checking previous logs to know that the stale Missing ghost TBs are not there, and they even may serve as a warning to not place more TBs there.

 

The reason GS can’t program a cool new TB Deletion System is, the issue would become way too prominent. Instead of “Why is there a TB listed in this cache?”, there would be a huge influx of “What happened to TBs in caches, they’re all gone!”

 

The Update would have to say what GS did and why, like “Due to overwhelming requests about removing the lists of [hundreds of thousands?] of missing Trackables that were removed from the game by people who then kept them”, and say that in a way that doesn’t cause an outcry, news headlines, very bad PR. That would be a 5 difficulty Challenge. And here I thought they eliminated Challenges.

Edited October 31, 2014 by kunarion

[+kunarion]

Why not discuss the responsibility of the taker?

We can discuss the responsibility of the taker all you want, just not here. The title of this thread is "CO's - please remove missing TBs".

 

The idea to force the CO and TO to clean up after you is terrible.

Excuse me? I'm not asking the CO and TO to clean up after me. I log any TBs I move.

You're excused. That was clipped and quoted so far out of context, that quote's in another galaxy by now. Please quit that. If you disagree, disagree with what I say, not what you carve out of what I say. Now I have to change my sig line AGAIN. Sheesh.

 

AND the title is misleading. The Topic is about making Inventories correct for harvesting TBs, which can never happen, even if everyone were moving and logging honestly (sure, there would be tons more TBs in caches in that case). But the taker (as I said in the next sentence which you AGAIN forgot to quote for proper context) is the one to make the crucial logs, not the CO. That's why it's appropriate to talk about about here.

Edited October 31, 2014 by kunarion

[+justintim1999]

Ahhhh. Travel Bugs and Owner Maintenance.... My two favorite subjects. In fact these are probably the two biggest problems in the goecaching community. 1st Travel bugs. They go missing and there's not much a travel bug owner can do except a little research and send out a few e-mails. I think what people don't understand is marking a travel bug missing doesn't wipe it off the face of the earth. It simply means that it's not in the cache it's suppose to be and the owner doesn't know exactly where it is. It can always be "grabbed" if found and continue on.

 

The situation for cache owners marking travel bugs as missing requires you to be a little more savvy. Keeping the cache inventory up to date is important but before you go marking travel bugs missing from your caches you should be prudent. Lets say you go out today to do a little cache maintenance. You notice that the cache lists a travel bug that's not there. Do a little investigation. See when the travel bug was dropped. Check the logs to see if any one visiting the cache reported it missing. Check to see when the cache was last visited (the last visitor may have picked up the travel bug just days before you checked up on it and has not gotten around to logging it) If I can determine that the travel bug has been missing for more than a month as a cache owner I mark it as missing. Here's where the debate starts. How much time should a cache owner spend (If any) determining that a travel bug is indeed missing. I think Keeping the cache inventory current is part of a cache owners responsibilities so I will take some time investigating before I mark one as missing. Of course this burden could be eliminated if the travel bug owner did this themselves.

 

I'm a trackable lover myself so keeping my cache inventory up to date is important to me. I know what it's like to find a cache thinking there's a travel bug or geocoin inside only to be disappointed.

 

Like anything be prepared to follow through with what you started.

[+dprovan]

The idea to force the CO and TO to clean up after you is terrible.

Excuse me? I'm not asking the CO and TO to clean up after me. I log any TBs I move.

You're excused.

Thanks!

 

That was clipped and quoted so far out of context, that quote's in another galaxy by now. Please quit that. If you disagree, disagree with what I say, not what you carve out of what I say.

Let's go back and look that paragraph again, shall we?

The idea to force the CO and TO to clean up after you is terrible. The mob requires no responsibility for their own actions, yet ultimate responsibility for two people, the TO and CO, who are ganged up on and demanded to get their act together. To the resounding applause of the mob. Mob said it, I believe it, that settles it.

I'm sorry (so I hope you'll excuse me again), but there's just no other way to interpret that paragraph than as stating that those of us requesting owners mark missing TBs missing are doing it because we want them to clean up after us because we don't want to take responsibility for our own actions. You might have thought there was some magic context that made that other than a flat out accusation, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. It's nice to know that's not really what you meant, but now I have no idea what you were trying to say here if it wasn't that. Maybe you could clarify instead of accusing me of duplicity?

 

Now I have to change my sig line AGAIN. Sheesh.

I don't look at sig lines, so I have no idea what this means.

 

AND the title is misleading. The Topic is about making Inventories correct for harvesting TBs, which can never happen, even if everyone were moving and logging honestly (sure, there would be tons more TBs in caches in that case).

Honestly. The title reflects the topic as expressed by the OP quite well. I'm sorry that's not the topic you want to talk about.

 

But the taker (as I said in the next sentence which you AGAIN forgot to quote for proper context) is the one to make the crucial logs, not the CO. That's why it's appropriate to talk about about here.

We all agree with that. I can't even imagine why you think I'd argue about it. It's just off topic.

[+dprovan]

The situation for cache owners marking travel bugs as missing requires you to be a little more savvy. Keeping the cache inventory up to date is important but before you go marking travel bugs missing from your caches you should be prudent. Lets say you go out today to do a little cache maintenance. You notice that the cache lists a travel bug that's not there. Do a little investigation. See when the travel bug was dropped. Check the logs to see if any one visiting the cache reported it missing. Check to see when the cache was last visited (the last visitor may have picked up the travel bug just days before you checked up on it and has not gotten around to logging it) If I can determine that the travel bug has been missing for more than a month as a cache owner I mark it as missing. Here's where the debate starts. How much time should a cache owner spend (If any) determining that a travel bug is indeed missing. I think Keeping the cache inventory current is part of a cache owners responsibilities so I will take some time investigating before I mark one as missing. Of course this burden could be eliminated if the travel bug owner did this themselves.

This paragraph is based on two concepts I disagree with. The first is that there's any negative at all to marking a missing TB missing. In your worst case scenario, which will be very uncommon, the CO will mark a TB that's simply not in his cache missing. Now it's not listed in the cache's inventory. The person that picked it up simply grabs it instead of retrieving it. It doesn't matter whether it's a day, a week, a month, or a year later.

 

The second concept I disagree with is that a TB not being in a cache is open to interpretation. It's not. The TB's either there or it isn't. The CO doesn't need to think for even half a moment about that. Sure, if he wants to investigate and be proactive about figuring out where it is, that's fine -- I do that all the time when a TB is missing, whether I own the cache or not -- but that needs to be balanced with the fact that as long as he's investigating, the on-line record is wrong, plain and simple.

[+kunarion]

Let's go back and look that paragraph again, shall we?

The idea to force the CO and TO to clean up after you is terrible. The mob requires no responsibility for their own actions, yet ultimate responsibility for two people, the TO and CO, who are ganged up on and demanded to get their act together. To the resounding applause of the mob. Mob said it, I believe it, that settles it.

I'm sorry (so I hope you'll excuse me again), but there's just no other way to interpret that paragraph than as stating that those of us requesting owners mark missing TBs missing are doing it because we want them to clean up after us because we don't want to take responsibility for our own actions. You might have thought there was some magic context that made that other than a flat out accusation, but I'm afraid you're mistaken. It's nice to know that's not really what you meant, but now I have no idea what you were trying to say here if it wasn't that. Maybe you could clarify instead of accusing me of duplicity?

I'm not discussing you personally. Present company excluded, of course. Sorry for the confusion.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The cache owner has the ability to mark missing trackables as 'missing'. But the cache owner does not have the responsibility to do so.

The OP is recommending putting 'needs maintenance' on caches with missing trackables. The CO is NOT responsible for updating trackable status. That makes the OP's log a 'bogus' log. And it is an abuse of the system. The OP needs to learn the guidelines, and stop posting and recommending posting of bogus logs.

[+kunarion]

The cache owner has the ability to mark missing trackables as 'missing'. But the cache owner does not have the responsibility to do so.

The OP is recommending putting 'needs maintenance' on caches with missing trackables. The CO is NOT responsible for updating trackable status. That makes the OP's log a 'bogus' log. And it is an abuse of the system.

Agreed. Needs Maintenance is not an appropriate way to cause a TB log. There are a ton of incorrect logs on Caches, almost none of which would require “NM”. It's possible that a muggled cache would also have its TBs stolen, but the NM would be for the Maintenance, not the TBs. The Ghost TB is what happens when a TB is stolen, the thief omitting the proper log for the purpose of the theft and depending on the TB Owner to "Mark It Missing". The TO is not playing a trick on you, the logs are what they are, just like all the previous TB logs, some of which were also logged wrong by the takers.

 

More important is the fact that the TB is the property of the TB Owner, who is the only one to decide how to manage his TB. It is not community property, it belongs to the TO. Others are invited to move it and log it, but with absolute respect for other people's property. No messing with TBs, ever. No stealing, no “confusion” about what to log, especially with TBs which have plain info imprinted. And never bug him about the Ghost. Make a TB log, mention that you didn't see the TB in the container, and you've done plenty.

 

If it disappears, it's the TO's prerogative to mark it Missing or not. Nobody but the TO has any say in the matter. Yes, I know the Cache Owner also may mark it Missing, but unless and until there's evidence and appropriate logs, may leave the Mark up to the TO, and everyone else must leave it be. Groundspeak by design leaves it up to the TO (Yes, I know, also the CO). The GS Volunteers should also be leaving the logs as logged, except in very limited circumstances.

Edited November 1, 2014 by kunarion

[+justintim1999]

The situation for cache owners marking travel bugs as missing requires you to be a little more savvy. Keeping the cache inventory up to date is important but before you go marking travel bugs missing from your caches you should be prudent. Lets say you go out today to do a little cache maintenance. You notice that the cache lists a travel bug that's not there. Do a little investigation. See when the travel bug was dropped. Check the logs to see if any one visiting the cache reported it missing. Check to see when the cache was last visited (the last visitor may have picked up the travel bug just days before you checked up on it and has not gotten around to logging it) If I can determine that the travel bug has been missing for more than a month as a cache owner I mark it as missing. Here's where the debate starts. How much time should a cache owner spend (If any) determining that a travel bug is indeed missing. I think Keeping the cache inventory current is part of a cache owners responsibilities so I will take some time investigating before I mark one as missing. Of course this burden could be eliminated if the travel bug owner did this themselves.

This paragraph is based on two concepts I disagree with. The first is that there's any negative at all to marking a missing TB missing. In your worst case scenario, which will be very uncommon, the CO will mark a TB that's simply not in his cache missing. Now it's not listed in the cache's inventory. The person that picked it up simply grabs it instead of retrieving it. It doesn't matter whether it's a day, a week, a month, or a year later.

 

The second concept I disagree with is that a TB not being in a cache is open to interpretation. It's not. The TB's either there or it isn't. The CO doesn't need to think for even half a moment about that. Sure, if he wants to investigate and be proactive about figuring out where it is, that's fine -- I do that all the time when a TB is missing, whether I own the cache or not -- but that needs to be balanced with the fact that as long as he's investigating, the on-line record is wrong, plain and simple.

 

No negative in marking a travel bug missing. Both the Travel bug owner or the cache owner should mark them as missing if they believe that it is. I think where we disagree is in the lengh of time given after the travel bug is confirmed as not in the cache. We can all agree that travel bugs should be logged as soon as possible but we know thats not always the case. Again the log will determine weather or not as a cache owner I mark the travel bug missing right away or give it a little time (a week or so) before doing so. If I think that one of the last few people to visit the cache picked up the travel bug I'll send out a few quick e-mails asking if they have it or remember seeing it. If I get no response in a couple of days I'll simply mark it as missing. A majority of the time a cacher did pick up the travel bug and just forgot to log it. Some times I find that a new cacher picked it up and is not quite sure what to do with it. This is a great teaching opportunity, a great way to help a new cacher learn about one of the great aspects of caaching. One last thing. The online log is never "real time" accurate. you have to allow some time for people to log both finds and travel bugs.

[+dprovan]

Both the Travel bug owner or the cache owner should mark them as missing if they believe that it is.

I'm not talking about the case where the cache owner believes the TB is missing. I'm talking about the case where they know it's missing because they went through the cache contents, and the TB isn't there.

 

I think where we disagree is in the lengh of time given after the travel bug is confirmed as not in the cache. We can all agree that travel bugs should be logged as soon as possible but we know thats not always the case. Again the log will determine weather or not as a cache owner I mark the travel bug missing right away or give it a little time (a week or so) before doing so. If I think that one of the last few people to visit the cache picked up the travel bug I'll send out a few quick e-mails asking if they have it or remember seeing it. If I get no response in a couple of days I'll simply mark it as missing. A majority of the time a cacher did pick up the travel bug and just forgot to log it. Some times I find that a new cacher picked it up and is not quite sure what to do with it. This is a great teaching opportunity, a great way to help a new cacher learn about one of the great aspects of caaching.

I'm fine if you want to do that. Since most COs never mark TBs missing, I'm fine if you delay but then do it, since that's a big improvement. I'm just saying that a CO doesn't have to do any of that, and if they don't, there's no reason for them to delay marking it. Personally, as a CO, I would mark it missing right away even though I'd probably look into it as you describe, but that's just because I think that makes more sense, not because I think it's morally superior or anything.

 

One last thing. The online log is never "real time" accurate. you have to allow some time for people to log both finds and travel bugs.

The way I look at it is that the CO has one of those chances to make the log completely "real time" accurate: he knows for a fact that the bug is not where it's listed at the time he logs his missing report. The person holding the bug can later fill in the missing pieces, and that's great, but in the meantime, no one will go to that cache believe information the CO know is wrong and can correct.

[+justintim1999]

Both the Travel bug owner or the cache owner should mark them as missing if they believe that it is.

I'm not talking about the case where the cache owner believes the TB is missing. I'm talking about the case where they know it's missing because they went through the cache contents, and the TB isn't there.

 

I think where we disagree is in the lengh of time given after the travel bug is confirmed as not in the cache. We can all agree that travel bugs should be logged as soon as possible but we know thats not always the case. Again the log will determine weather or not as a cache owner I mark the travel bug missing right away or give it a little time (a week or so) before doing so. If I think that one of the last few people to visit the cache picked up the travel bug I'll send out a few quick e-mails asking if they have it or remember seeing it. If I get no response in a couple of days I'll simply mark it as missing. A majority of the time a cacher did pick up the travel bug and just forgot to log it. Some times I find that a new cacher picked it up and is not quite sure what to do with it. This is a great teaching opportunity, a great way to help a new cacher learn about one of the great aspects of caaching.

I'm fine if you want to do that. Since most COs never mark TBs missing, I'm fine if you delay but then do it, since that's a big improvement. I'm just saying that a CO doesn't have to do any of that, and if they don't, there's no reason for them to delay marking it. Personally, as a CO, I would mark it missing right away even though I'd probably look into it as you describe, but that's just because I think that makes more sense, not because I think it's morally superior or anything.

 

One last thing. The online log is never "real time" accurate. you have to allow some time for people to log both finds and travel bugs.

The way I look at it is that the CO has one of those chances to make the log completely "real time" accurate: he knows for a fact that the bug is not where it's listed at the time he logs his missing report. The person holding the bug can later fill in the missing pieces, and that's great, but in the meantime, no one will go to that cache believe information the CO know is wrong and can correct.

 

Seems like for the most part we agree. The only point we disagree on is "knowing" the travel bug is missing. As a cache owner I know the travel bug is not in my cache but I don't know that it's actually missing as in lost. I guess the sticking point is the word missing. Even though the travel bug is not in my cache I don't consider it missing if it simply hasn't been logged yet. I just prefer to give it a little time to work itself out. If I see in the logs that a previous finder has noted that a particular travel bug was not in the cache it's a simple process. If there is any chance a recent finder possibly picked up the travel bug and hasn't got around to logging it I'd rather take the time to straighten it out before i mark it as missing. Either way I agree that keeping the cache inventory current is important.

[+The Blorenges]

Seems like for the most part we agree. The only point we disagree on is "knowing" the travel bug is missing. As a cache owner I know the travel bug is not in my cache but I don't know that it's actually missing as in lost. I guess the sticking point is the word missing. Even though the travel bug is not in my cache I don't consider it missing if it simply hasn't been logged yet. I just prefer to give it a little time to work itself out. If I see in the logs that a previous finder has noted that a particular travel bug was not in the cache it's a simple process. If there is any chance a recent finder possibly picked up the travel bug and hasn't got around to logging it I'd rather take the time to straighten it out before i mark it as missing. Either way I agree that keeping the cache inventory current is important.

 

Although I will mark a trackable as "missing" (if it's not in our cache) by clicking the button, I'm happy enough that my action doesn't actually mark the item as "missing" - It simply designates it as being "in unknown location" i.e. I don't know where it is, and the trackable owner doesn't know where it is. I think "Unknown location" is an accurate description of the state of play for that item, at that time.

 

MrsB

[+justintim1999]

Seems like for the most part we agree. The only point we disagree on is "knowing" the travel bug is missing. As a cache owner I know the travel bug is not in my cache but I don't know that it's actually missing as in lost. I guess the sticking point is the word missing. Even though the travel bug is not in my cache I don't consider it missing if it simply hasn't been logged yet. I just prefer to give it a little time to work itself out. If I see in the logs that a previous finder has noted that a particular travel bug was not in the cache it's a simple process. If there is any chance a recent finder possibly picked up the travel bug and hasn't got around to logging it I'd rather take the time to straighten it out before i mark it as missing. Either way I agree that keeping the cache inventory current is important.

 

Although I will mark a trackable as "missing" (if it's not in our cache) by clicking the button, I'm happy enough that my action doesn't actually mark the item as "missing" - It simply designates it as being "in unknown location" i.e. I don't know where it is, and the trackable owner doesn't know where it is. I think "Unknown location" is an accurate description of the state of play for that item, at that time.

 

MrsB

 

Good point. Lets say that a cacher picks up a travel bug a week before I check on the cache. I mark it as missing. I guess in this scenario the person with the travel bug can simply grab it from it's last known location which should be the cache they found it in. I'm beginning to warm to Dprovan's ideas. I guess I can still do a little research and try to locate the missing travel bug if I want to but it's probably a good idea not to wait to mark it as "In unknown location". I like "Unknown Location" better. Doesn't sound so final.

[+dprovan]

I guess the sticking point is the word missing. Even though the travel bug is not in my cache I don't consider it missing if it simply hasn't been logged yet.

I agree this is our main point of disagreement. I consider the TB not being where the system thinks it is as the definition of "missing". In no way does that rule out the possibility that someone else knows where it is, it just says that we, as a community, don't know where it is because that someone hasn't told the system yet. I see no reason whatsoever to mince words about it. Marking it missing doesn't mean that the person that knows where it is doesn't have a perfectly good reason for not having logged its location yet.

 

Although I will mark a trackable as "missing" (if it's not in our caagreeche) by clicking the button, I'm happy enough that my action doesn't actually mark the item as "missing" - It simply designates it as being "in unknown location" i.e. I don't know where it is, and the trackable owner doesn't know where it is. I think "Unknown location" is an accurate description of the state of play for that item, at that time.

Isn't "in an unknown location" pretty much the dictionary definition of "missing"?

[+The Blorenges]

 

Isn't "in an unknown location" pretty much the dictionary definition of "missing"?

 

Well...

 

We could argue the semantics but I just feel that "in unknown location" implies "it's out there somewhere, we just don't know exactly where right now", whereas "missing" sounds a bit more like, "Nope, no idea, it's gone".

 

But maybe that's just me...

 

MrsB

[+lefisher]

Ahhhh. Travel Bugs and Owner Maintenance.... My two favorite subjects. In fact these are probably the two biggest problems in the goecaching community. 1st Travel bugs. They go missing and there's not much a travel bug owner can do except a little research and send out a few e-mails. I think what people don't understand is marking a travel bug missing doesn't wipe it off the face of the earth. It simply means that it's not in the cache it's suppose to be and the owner doesn't know exactly where it is. It can always be "grabbed" if found and continue on.

 

The situation for cache owners marking travel bugs as missing requires you to be a little more savvy. Keeping the cache inventory up to date is important but before you go marking travel bugs missing from your caches you should be prudent. Lets say you go out today to do a little cache maintenance. You notice that the cache lists a travel bug that's not there. Do a little investigation. See when the travel bug was dropped. Check the logs to see if any one visiting the cache reported it missing. Check to see when the cache was last visited (the last visitor may have picked up the travel bug just days before you checked up on it and has not gotten around to logging it) If I can determine that the travel bug has been missing for more than a month as a cache owner I mark it as missing. Here's where the debate starts. How much time should a cache owner spend (If any) determining that a travel bug is indeed missing. I think Keeping the cache inventory current is part of a cache owners responsibilities so I will take some time investigating before I mark one as missing. Of course this burden could be eliminated if the travel bug owner did this themselves.

 

I'm a trackable lover myself so keeping my cache inventory up to date is important to me. I know what it's like to find a cache thinking there's a travel bug or geocoin inside only to be disappointed.

 

Like anything be prepared to follow through with what you started.

[+lefisher]

I can't find an answer to my specific problem but I see that everyone is talking about a CO taking responsibility for marking TBs as missing. My cache is up a steep hill and in the countryside so it isn't visited very often. However, I noted that some cachers were saying that my cache didn't have a TB in it. I went to check after a few months (in case it was waiting to be logged as moved) and sure enough there was no TB. I immediately marked it as missing and thought no more about it. I was recently looking at a list of my caches and noticed that the TB was back. There was a message which said "This is an automated message. ...the CO has moved TBKF9P to its last known location." This means that anyone climbing up there is going to be disappointed if they wanted the TB. Their message was automated so if I try to mark it as missing again it will just bounce back. Is there any way that I can remove it from my listing or do I just let it pretend to be there?

[+Panther&Pine]

I can't find an answer to my specific problem but I see that everyone is talking about a CO taking responsibility for marking TBs as missing. My cache is up a steep hill and in the countryside so it isn't visited very often. However, I noted that some cachers were saying that my cache didn't have a TB in it. I went to check after a few months (in case it was waiting to be logged as moved) and sure enough there was no TB. I immediately marked it as missing and thought no more about it. I was recently looking at a list of my caches and noticed that the TB was back. There was a message which said "This is an automated message. ...the CO has moved TBKF9P to its last known location." This means that anyone climbing up there is going to be disappointed if they wanted the TB. Their message was automated so if I try to mark it as missing again it will just bounce back. Is there any way that I can remove it from my listing or do I just let it pretend to be there?

I'd send the trackable owner a message relaying your concern and that you'd prefer to keep your cache inventory accurate.

[+cerberus1]

I can't find an answer to my specific problem but I see that everyone is talking about a CO taking responsibility for marking TBs as missing. My cache is up a steep hill and in the countryside so it isn't visited very often. However, I noted that some cachers were saying that my cache didn't have a TB in it. I went to check after a few months (in case it was waiting to be logged as moved) and sure enough there was no TB. I immediately marked it as missing and thought no more about it. I was recently looking at a list of my caches and noticed that the TB was back. There was a message which said "This is an automated message. ...the CO has moved TBKF9P to its last known location." This means that anyone climbing up there is going to be disappointed if they wanted the TB. Their message was automated so if I try to mark it as missing again it will just bounce back. Is there any way that I can remove it from my listing or do I just let it pretend to be there?

I'd send the trackable owner a message relaying your concern and that you'd prefer to keep your cache inventory accurate.

+1

Odd that they'd move it back like that...

I agree, send the TO a mail saying you'd like to keep your cache page accurate.

[+justintim1999]

I can't find an answer to my specific problem but I see that everyone is talking about a CO taking responsibility for marking TBs as missing. My cache is up a steep hill and in the countryside so it isn't visited very often. However, I noted that some cachers were saying that my cache didn't have a TB in it. I went to check after a few months (in case it was waiting to be logged as moved) and sure enough there was no TB. I immediately marked it as missing and thought no more about it. I was recently looking at a list of my caches and noticed that the TB was back. There was a message which said "This is an automated message. ...the CO has moved TBKF9P to its last known location." This means that anyone climbing up there is going to be disappointed if they wanted the TB. Their message was automated so if I try to mark it as missing again it will just bounce back. Is there any way that I can remove it from my listing or do I just let it pretend to be there?

 

I agree that is odd. I've never had that happen before. I would definitely e-mail the Travel Bug owner and explain that your the cache owner and there Travel Bug is not in your cache. I'd probably remove it again. Dose any one know if a local reviewer has the ability to stop the Travel Bug owner from placing there travel bug in a cache that it's clearly not in?

[Keystone]

I agree that is odd. I've never had that happen before. I would definitely e-mail the Travel Bug owner and explain that your the cache owner and there Travel Bug is not in your cache. I'd probably remove it again. Dose any one know if a local reviewer has the ability to stop the Travel Bug owner from placing there travel bug in a cache that it's clearly not in?

Your advice was fine. But to answer your question, a volunteer cache reviewer reviews caches - we are not referees for disputes about trackables and would have no authority to become involved. Geocaching HQ would likely pass on getting involved as well.

 

Reviewers do have the ability to mark trackables "missing." Since many CO's don't know how and many CO's don't believe it's their obligation, some reviewers step in so that inventories in their review territory are more accurate. Today I marked 82 trackables as missing, while I was monitoring a conference call at work. In the process I reached the milestone of 4000 trackables marked missing. So, yay for that.

[+dprovan]

We could argue the semantics...

Yes, of course, we are, in fact, arguing the semantics. After all, you raised a semantic point to justify not marking a TB missing even though it's demonstrably not in the cache it's listed in.

 

...but I just feel that "in unknown location" implies "it's out there somewhere, we just don't know exactly where right now", whereas "missing" sounds a bit more like, "Nope, no idea, it's gone".

Well, first of all, I still don't get the distinction to begin with, but never mind that. The important question is this: when I discover that the TB isn't where it's listed, how do I discover that the TB has this further characteristics of "gone" that you want to require me to determine it has before I mark it missing?

[+justintim1999]

I agree that is odd. I've never had that happen before. I would definitely e-mail the Travel Bug owner and explain that your the cache owner and there Travel Bug is not in your cache. I'd probably remove it again. Dose any one know if a local reviewer has the ability to stop the Travel Bug owner from placing there travel bug in a cache that it's clearly not in?

Your advice was fine. But to answer your question, a volunteer cache reviewer reviews caches - we are not referees for disputes about trackables and would have no authority to become involved. Geocaching HQ would likely pass on getting involved as well.

 

Reviewers do have the ability to mark trackables "missing." Since many CO's don't know how and many CO's don't believe it's their obligation, some reviewers step in so that inventories in their review territory are more accurate. Today I marked 82 trackables as missing, while I was monitoring a conference call at work. In the process I reached the milestone of 4000 trackables marked missing. So, yay for that.

 

so what can a cache owner do if the Travel Bug owner keeps putting there travel bug in a cache when it's clearly not there and has been removed several times?

[Keystone]

so what can a cache owner do if the Travel Bug owner keeps putting there travel bug in a cache when it's clearly not there and has been removed several times?

You can play the back and forth game for a few rounds; usually one party or the other gets tired of it. Most of my experience is in the area of log deletions and relogging, but the same analysis applies to moving a travel bug back and forth from a cache inventory to "an unknown location."

 

What to do if the trackable owner is insistent? Go find a cache. Have a nice dinner. Enjoy some quality time with family or friends. Volunteer time for your favorite charity. Resolve to end world hunger and achieve lasting peace in the Middle East.

[+TriciaG]

You could also add to your cache description something like, "The XYZ Geocoin is not in this cache. The trackable owner insists on leaving it listed as being here." It won't be read by some people, but at least you cover your rear end.

[+kunarion]

If anyone wonders what is a decent waiting time to mark a vanished Trackable "Missing" from a cache, check out my "Sax & Violins TB". It was placed on 11/25/14, and Marked Missing just 16 days later. This is in the Geocaching Headquarters cache, about as close to The Source as you're likely to get. So now you know.

 

Plus there were no other logs -- such as which day they noticed mine missing, that day or one of the 16 days prior? If so, why no log of any kind at that time? If noticed Missing on the same day of the Mark (Dec. 12th), that isn't the way I would do it.

 

They sure don't mess around at HQ.

Edited December 13, 2014 by kunarion