DNF and inactivity monitoring

[+shera100]

Is anyone "watching" or monitoring the website for caches that have numerous DNF's and no response from the cache owner? I've set up to watch a number of caches for one reason or another and have seen notices being sent to cache owners saying that unless they perform maintenance within a couple of weeks, their cache will be taken off line, yet other caches sit there with numerous DNF's and months of inactivity and no one appears to be contacting the cache owner. Also, some cache owners have not been logged into the website for a year or more, and their cache sits DNF or needing maintenance....just wondering how this works. Thanks. !!

[+BCandMsKitty]

I think it's a random thing, depending on how active a reviewer might be in a certain area.

I know that in our area, the reviewers do a periodic sweep (at least for disabled caches)... not sure about DNFs.

As for any dedicated monitoring, I don't think so.

[+dprovan]

Is anyone "watching" or monitoring the website for caches that have numerous DNF's and no response from the cache owner?

Yes, someone is monitoring the website for caches with numerous DNFs: you. If you, with your knowledge of the cache, the owner, the area, and the culture lead you to conclude the cache has problems, you are supposed to say it Needs Maintenance. If you conclude it is beyond maintenance, you should suggest that it Needs Archived.

 

Some reviewers take it upon themselves to do those things, but I think that's mainly because seekers aren't doing their part, and the caching environment for the area would decay if the reviewers didn't do something. The variation you are seeing includes both whether the area has such a proactive reviewer and whether the reviewer has knowledge of the cache or the owner which leads to differential treatment of two caches that from your point of view seem more similar than they really are.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Has been known for reviewers to do an occasional sweep of caches in their review area.

 

Interesting that on the GSAK forums, one of the UK reviewers has asked if there is a macro to sort out caches that have had a Needs Maintenance log for more than xx days...

[+SwineFlew]

My reviewer does it once a month or so. He also look for long DNF logs as well.

[+sholomar]

I like South Dakotas reviewer and think hes fair and professional... he's mostly hands off and will usually wait for a NA but not always... I have no problem posting NA and there's a couple others that do it more frequently. Caches out here can go a long time without a find... example...

 

GC14J2Q

[+JPreto]

CACHE COP, CACHE COP!!!! What you´re gonna do, what you´re gonna do when they come for you... Cache cop!!!

 

I am a cache cop myself, even tho most geocachers don´t agree with what you are doing I think it should be something that all geocachers should do, which is:

 

"Trying to keep the listing accurate!"

 

What is recommended by Groundspeak (GS) is that you post a note or a Needs Maintenance note on the cache. If it is "under maintenance" for a long period of time (GS talks about 4 weeks but can be more) and it should be disabled by a reviewer.

 

If nothing works and you think that the cache should be archived and no longer be part of the listing feel free to post a "Needs Archive" and explain the reasons for that. If a "Needs Archive" log is posted the reviewers will be alerted by it, all other types of posts do not alert reviewers.

 

Just a warning, don´t except to have many support by acting like this, most geocachers don´t like Need Archive or Needs Maintenance logs. Just read topics like this one:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=324829

 

Cheers and happy caching!

Edited October 20, 2014 by JPreto

[Keystone]

What is recommended by Groundspeak (GS) is that you post a note or a Needs Maintenance note on the cache. If it is "under maintenance" for a long period of time (GS talks about 4 weeks but can be more) and it should be disabled by a reviewer.

Please quote your authority for the proposition that a "Needs Maintenance" log creates an obligation for the reviewer to take action. Where did Geocaching HQ say this? I may have missed a memo.

[+dprovan]

My reviewer does it once a month or so. He also look for long DNF logs as well.

I rarely see the local reviewers take unilateral action because caches with problems are routinely reported by other geocachers. From that I conclude that my reviewers feel no need to do sweeps of caches in "pre-reviewer" states. I have seem them react to caches that are disabled for too long a time, but I'm under the impression that sweeps for those are a routine part of their purview.

[+palmetto]

What is recommended by Groundspeak (GS) is that you post a note or a Needs Maintenance note on the cache. If it is "under maintenance" for a long period of time (GS talks about 4 weeks but can be more) and it should be disabled by a reviewer.

 

Hi JPreto - I think you're confusing direction on the Needs Maintenance log with the Temporarily Disabled log (some info about the Temp Disable log below).

The NM log allows the community to communicate with the cache owner without bringing in a reviewer.

A few reviewers take note of longstanding NM logs, but most do not.

 

To bring a cache to the attention of a reviewer, use the NA log, or email a reviewer directly (include a GC Code).

 

Temporary Disable - "This is meant to be temporary, which means a few weeks or perhaps a couple of months....

A listing which is disabled for an extended period may be archived by a reviewer, unless there is some explanation on the listing."

From Help Center article,

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=235

 

Not all reviewers check for long-standing disabled caches. It's an extra duty that they may do if they wish. If not, then the community can

use the NA log to put a cache in front of a reviewer. Logging NA means a reviewer will look at the cache page. They may or may not take any action.

The action they take may not be public.

[+JPreto]

What is recommended by Groundspeak (GS) is that you post a note or a Needs Maintenance note on the cache. If it is "under maintenance" for a long period of time (GS talks about 4 weeks but can be more) and it should be disabled by a reviewer.

Please quote your authority for the proposition that a "Needs Maintenance" log creates an obligation for the reviewer to take action. Where did Geocaching HQ say this? I may have missed a memo.

This issue has already been talked here in this forum many times, this is basically the difference between a "cooperative reviewer" and a "rules-enforcer reviewer".

 

As more and more people join the game, the amount of people that don´t respect the simple rules/guidelines of the game also grow, and from what I recall, last time I saw the guidelines it clearly said that:

 

Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance.

 

and also

 

You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

As far as I know the option of disabling a cache listing is only available for the CO, a reviewer or a Lackey and I also think that one of the reviewer roles, and also all geocachers, is to "keep the listings accurate", right?

 

If a geocacher cannot Disable a cache owned by another person, nor can he post a Needs Disable (not existing log option) the only person that can do this is a reviewer or a Lackey.

 

And again I say what I said before:

 

it should be disabled by a reviewer

 

and by using the verb "should" (like GS likes so much to use this terminology) I am telling that he should, not that he is forced to do it, because in that case I would use the verb "must".

Edited October 20, 2014 by JPreto

[Keystone]

Thank you to Palmetto for the accurate summary.

 

JPreto, you should take a break from discussions like this, and study up on the materials in the Help Center. Memorizing Palmetto's post would be a good start.