Cache gone and theres "NEEDS Archived" log but not disabled

[+Pond Bird]

Usually, the reviewer disables a cache when theres a "Needs Archived" log posted on a cache because of a lack of maintenance. But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled. How do reviewers determine rather to disable a cache or just let it sit there for a few weeks before another log is posted? Another cache I saw had 2 NA logs before a reviewer disabled it. Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

[+Team Microdot]

Usually, the reviewer disables a cache when theres a "Needs Archived" log posted on a cache because of a lack of maintenance. But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled. How do reviewers determine rather to disable a cache or just let it sit there for a few weeks before another log is posted? Another cache I saw had 2 NA logs before a reviewer disabled it. Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

I've never spoken to a reviewer on this subject so can't offer any useful input and wouldn't want to speculate wildly on what may or may not be going on with the reviewer.

 

Have you tried speaking to the reviewer in question?

[+whh0]

Our local reviewer posted a comment on this very topic in our local facebook group. He said, generally reviewing MIA caches is the last thing on his to do list and it will often take a few weeks and sometimes a little longer if he is away or he is inundated with caches to review or work is busy.......

[+Touchstone]

But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled.

 

You don't state whether you've actually searched for the cache in question or not. That may come into play in deciding to Disable a Listing or not.

[+dprovan]

Our local reviewer posted a comment on this very topic in our local facebook group. He said, generally reviewing MIA caches is the last thing on his to do list and it will often take a few weeks and sometimes a little longer if he is away or he is inundated with caches to review or work is busy.......

Interesting. I don't know whether it's different priorities or just my reviewer being less busy, but when anyone posts an NA in my area, the reviewer always seems to disable the cache within a day.

 

I find that convenient, but I don't consider it a requirement. When I log an NA, I log it and leave the rest of it up to the reviewer. If there was any kind of delay, I most likely wouldn't even notice, but if I did notice, I wouldn't worry about why he took however long he took to do whatever he decided to do.

[+Sapience Trek]

Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

• 
   
  
• If there is an obvious trespassing issue and the NA is noticed, it will likely be taken care of right away.
  
• If there is a string of DNFs preceded by a consistent string of finds, then it's likely missing and will be disabled when the reviewer has time. Often this will be a week or two after the NA to give the cache owner a chance to respond. For me, this is lower priority than reviewing and answering emails, unless there is a permission issue with the cache.
  
• If there is a single NA and one or no DNFs, it will likely be ignored.
  
• If there are a few DNFs by newbies around the same time, but a find recently before that, it might be ignored, at least temporarily, to allow the cache owner to respond.
  
• Sometimes, as I think you know, people create sock puppets for the sole purpose of posting NA on caches they haven't searched for. Those accounts and the sock puppet owner are likely to be taken less seriously than others.
  

 

Lots of other ways to review these, it's not scientific.

 

I see you posted a NA about a week ago, and that cache only has a single DNF, not from you. Did you search yourself? There is a note that somebody found a chewed up container near GZ, but that may or may not be the cache. So a single DNF is not likely to get disabled, which is why it's important for those searching to post their DNFs to establish a history.

 

The one you posted a few days ago, also does not have a DNF From you. Did you search yourself? It does have 3 DNFs, and a history of somewhat regular DNFs mixed in with finds. This one will probably have some action taken against it if the owner doesn't respond.

[+Sherminator18]

Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

• 
   
  
• If there is an obvious trespassing issue and the NA is noticed, it will likely be taken care of right away.
  
• If there is a string of DNFs preceded by a consistent string of finds, then it's likely missing and will be disabled when the reviewer has time. Often this will be a week or two after the NA to give the cache owner a chance to respond. For me, this is lower priority than reviewing and answering emails, unless there is a permission issue with the cache.
  
• If there is a single NA and one or no DNFs, it will likely be ignored.
  
• If there are a few DNFs by newbies around the same time, but a find recently before that, it might be ignored, at least temporarily, to allow the cache owner to respond.
  
• Sometimes, as I think you know, people create sock puppets for the sole purpose of posting NA on caches they haven't searched for. Those accounts and the sock puppet owner are likely to be taken less seriously than others.
  

 

Lots of other ways to review these, it's not scientific.

 

I see you posted a NA about a week ago, and that cache only has a single DNF, not from you. Did you search yourself? There is a note that somebody found a chewed up container near GZ, but that may or may not be the cache. So a single DNF is not likely to get disabled, which is why it's important for those searching to post their DNFs to establish a history.

 

The one you posted a few days ago, also does not have a DNF From you. Did you search yourself? It does have 3 DNFs, and a history of somewhat regular DNFs mixed in with finds. This one will probably have some action taken against it if the owner doesn't respond.

 

Lol.. I wish there was a way to just "like" someone's replies..

[+Pond Bird]

But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled.

 

You don't state whether you've actually searched for the cache in question or not. That may come into play in deciding to Disable a Listing or not.

 

One of them I searched for, and it's no where to be found. The other one was a cache that everyone says is gone but it hadn't been replaced by the owner so I posted an NA. I've seen people post NA logs and sometimes reviewers take action right away, and sometimes they wait a few days.

[+Pond Bird]

Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

• 
   
  
• If there is an obvious trespassing issue and the NA is noticed, it will likely be taken care of right away.
  
• If there is a string of DNFs preceded by a consistent string of finds, then it's likely missing and will be disabled when the reviewer has time. Often this will be a week or two after the NA to give the cache owner a chance to respond. For me, this is lower priority than reviewing and answering emails, unless there is a permission issue with the cache.
  
• If there is a single NA and one or no DNFs, it will likely be ignored.
  
• If there are a few DNFs by newbies around the same time, but a find recently before that, it might be ignored, at least temporarily, to allow the cache owner to respond.
  
• Sometimes, as I think you know, people create sock puppets for the sole purpose of posting NA on caches they haven't searched for. Those accounts and the sock puppet owner are likely to be taken less seriously than others.
  

 

Lots of other ways to review these, it's not scientific.

 

I see you posted a NA about a week ago, and that cache only has a single DNF, not from you. Did you search yourself? There is a note that somebody found a chewed up container near GZ, but that may or may not be the cache. So a single DNF is not likely to get disabled, which is why it's important for those searching to post their DNFs to establish a history.

 

The one you posted a few days ago, also does not have a DNF From you. Did you search yourself? It does have 3 DNFs, and a history of somewhat regular DNFs mixed in with finds. This one will probably have some action taken against it if the owner doesn't respond.

 

Lol.. I wish there was a way to just "like" someone's replies..

 

You think it's funny he's asking if I searched for both caches. The one near Skaneatles I did search for and is gone. The one with 3 DNFs is gone too, but I don't have to search for it to know it's not being maintained. Since the owners aren't maintaining the caches themselves, why would a reviewer wait to let the owner take action. They HAVEN't taken action on a cache not being maintained, why would they respond to an NA log?

Edited May 14, 2016 by Pond Bird

[+Touchstone]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

[+Pond Bird]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

 

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in?

[+Touchstone]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

 

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in?

There's nothing in the Guidelines or the Terms of Use that requires a cache owner to log on the site, other than the obvious, that they presumably had to be logged in at the time they created the Listing page.

 

There's no magic number of DNF's that require a Reviewer to Disable a Listing.

 

I personally wouldn't post a NA on a Listing page for a cache I have not actually searched for. I know other people do it, but it doesn't sound right to me.

[+noncentric]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

 

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in?

You say that the cache is "missing", but that doesn't necessarily mean it is. If you searched for one of the caches and didn't find it, then it would've been helpful to post a DNF. Also, were there any NM logs on the caches before you posted the NA? Usually, the first step is to post an NM, then follow that up with an NA if the CO doesn't address the NM after a month or two.

 

FYI - The "Last Visit" date in a cacher's profile is the last time they logged into the website, not the last time they checked their email or the last time they used the Geocaching app.

[+Beach_hut]

I personally wouldn't post a NA on a Listing page for a cache I have not actually searched for. I know other people do it, but it doesn't sound right to me.

 

This....

 

If I've not been to GZ myself, I'm not qualified to say it's gone. Others might be though, but it's up to them what to do.

 

I might have missed the part of this thread where specifics were discussed, but did anyone log NM logs and give the CO time to respond to those?

[+narcissa]

Usually, the reviewer disables a cache when theres a "Needs Archived" log posted on a cache because of a lack of maintenance. But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled. How do reviewers determine rather to disable a cache or just let it sit there for a few weeks before another log is posted? Another cache I saw had 2 NA logs before a reviewer disabled it. Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

You posted an NA on the basis that you couldn't find the cache? That's a DNF.

[+Sherminator18]

But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled.

 

You don't state whether you've actually searched for the cache in question or not. That may come into play in deciding to Disable a Listing or not.

 

One of them I searched for, and it's no where to be found. The other one was a cache that everyone says is gone but it hadn't been replaced by the owner so I posted an NA. I've seen people post NA logs and sometimes reviewers take action right away, and sometimes they wait a few days.

 

The Reviewer for your area, Spaience Trek, responded to your question, with what in my opinion was a thorough answer. He is not required to take any action right away. Also, as I'm sure people forget, reviewers are volunteers. They have lives and families and jobs. The reviewers can't spend all day every day reviewing caching and responding to Needs Archived logs.

[+Sapience Trek]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

 

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in?

 

Yes.

[+Pond Bird]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

 

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in?

You say that the cache is "missing", but that doesn't necessarily mean it is. If you searched for one of the caches and didn't find it, then it would've been helpful to post a DNF. Also, were there any NM logs on the caches before you posted the NA? Usually, the first step is to post an NM, then follow that up with an NA if the CO doesn't address the NM after a month or two.

 

FYI - The "Last Visit" date in a cacher's profile is the last time they logged into the website, not the last time they checked their email or the last time they used the Geocaching app.

 

I doubt the owner has logged in via the geocaching app nor their email. since they never answered me asking if the cache had been replaced. I looked exactly where I was supposed to look and there was no container there. A needs maintenance log that prompted me to ask if it had been replaced said the cache was chewed up. The puzzle was straight forwards go to .... and look..... this was of course in another language so it had to be translated. I would log a DNF, but 100% sure the cache was NEVER replaced, I posted an NA. The area itself was pretty vacant.

[+Pond Bird]

Usually, the reviewer disables a cache when theres a "Needs Archived" log posted on a cache because of a lack of maintenance. But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled. How do reviewers determine rather to disable a cache or just let it sit there for a few weeks before another log is posted? Another cache I saw had 2 NA logs before a reviewer disabled it. Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

You posted an NA on the basis that you couldn't find the cache? That's a DNF.

 

I posted an NA on the traditional cache for the fact that the cache was NEVER replaced after it went missing. Its not a DNF if I didn't find a cache that i don't search for because it GONE. For the details about the other cache's NA, read my response to noncentric.

[+L0ne.R]

Usually, the reviewer disables a cache when theres a "Needs Archived" log posted on a cache because of a lack of maintenance. But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled. How do reviewers determine rather to disable a cache or just let it sit there for a few weeks before another log is posted? Another cache I saw had 2 NA logs before a reviewer disabled it. Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

You posted an NA on the basis that you couldn't find the cache? That's a DNF.

 

I posted an NA on the traditional cache for the fact that the cache was NEVER replaced after it went missing. Its not a DNF if I didn't find a cache that i don't search for because it GONE. For the details about the other cache's NA, read my response to noncentric.

 

I wish more people would log NAs on caches that are most likely gone with no response from cache owners.

 

This spring I drove 4 hours to spend a week long geocaching vacation, in an area I hadn't cached in before. The place was littered with junk caches. Lots of missing caches, some with long strings of DNFs but no one willing to post an NM. Lots of junk caches, people logging finds on a lid, or a wet logsheet in a baggie, or a pill bottle with a full soaked logsheet. Lots of junk throwdowns by people who carry around a sackful of pill bottles to plunk down so they can add to their find count, get another find to qualify for a cemetery/lonely/non-trad/jasmer challenge, and never have to log a DNF. After a couple of days of junk caching I called it quits and went home.

 

About 3/4 of the caches I set out to find ended up getting NMs and NAs. The reviewer in my area is fantastic (maybe s/he trusts my judgment after all these years) and posts a temporary disable usually within a few days (often the same day).

 

90% of the NAs and 75% of the NMs I've posted end up eventually archived by the reviewer within a couple of months for non-response from the CO. There are a lot of junk abandoned caches out there.

 

The game has changed. Most people are not interested in the quality of the container, or whether it's being cared for responsibly, or that it's even there. Not sure why it's considered fine for a cache owner not to respond, not to log in to the site, and not to post OMs or notes on his listing saying s/he will check or has checked on the cache. We are encouraging more and more set-em-and-forget-em cache ownership.

[+Mudfrog]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

 

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in?

You say that the cache is "missing", but that doesn't necessarily mean it is. If you searched for one of the caches and didn't find it, then it would've been helpful to post a DNF. Also, were there any NM logs on the caches before you posted the NA? Usually, the first step is to post an NM, then follow that up with an NA if the CO doesn't address the NM after a month or two.

 

FYI - The "Last Visit" date in a cacher's profile is the last time they logged into the website, not the last time they checked their email or the last time they used the Geocaching app.

 

I doubt the owner has logged in via the geocaching app nor their email. since they never answered me asking if the cache had been replaced. I looked exactly where I was supposed to look and there was no container there. A needs maintenance log that prompted me to ask if it had been replaced said the cache was chewed up. The puzzle was straight forwards go to .... and look..... this was of course in another language so it had to be translated. I would log a DNF, but 100% sure the cache was NEVER replaced, I posted an NA. The area itself was pretty vacant.

Doesn't matter what the cache owner has done, or if he has logged in or not, or whether the cache was replaced or not,,, you did not find the cache. At this point, a DNF would have been the appropriate type of log.

 

Having said this, there's a decent chance that nothing will be done by the cache owner. You've actually searched for the cache and feel it's not in place, but neither this, nor the appearance that the CO is awol, is enough to warrant a NA. Of course if there were other DNFs besides yours, then yes. No matter what, your initial DNF should have been logged.

[+TriciaG]

I would have logged a DNF AND an NA. That way it shows I searched for it, and it's an accurate record of what happened. An NA log doesn't tell anyone whether or not you looked for it.

 

If I were you, I'd go back and log DNFs on the ones I searched for. Leave the NA there, but also put in the DNF.

[+narcissa]

Usually, the reviewer disables a cache when theres a "Needs Archived" log posted on a cache because of a lack of maintenance. But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled. How do reviewers determine rather to disable a cache or just let it sit there for a few weeks before another log is posted? Another cache I saw had 2 NA logs before a reviewer disabled it. Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

You posted an NA on the basis that you couldn't find the cache? That's a DNF.

 

I posted an NA on the traditional cache for the fact that the cache was NEVER replaced after it went missing. Its not a DNF if I didn't find a cache that i don't search for because it GONE.

 

Dude.

 

It's not reasonable to expect everybody in this game to respond with an extreme sense of urgency when a cache might be missing. It's a game, it's not an emergency. The fact that you're interested in a cache does not make it an emergency for the cache owner or the reviewer.

 

Reviewers are volunteers. They aren't the cache police and an NA log isn't a 911 call. At this time of year they are juggling a high level of activity.

 

You are just one cacher and your DNF is not the last word on a cache. As remarkable as it may seem, the cache may be there. Most of us at some point in our geocaching lives end up eating humble pie after swearing up and down that a cache was GONE and learning later that no, we just didn't find it.

 

If you make a habit of logging Needs Archived on caches you haven't even searched for, you're going to earn a reputation for being excessively militant and your comments won't be taken seriously.

[+Pond Bird]

I would have logged a DNF AND an NA. That way it shows I searched for it, and it's an accurate record of what happened. An NA log doesn't tell anyone whether or not you looked for it.

 

If I were you, I'd go back and log DNFs on the ones I searched for. Leave the NA there, but also put in the DNF.

 

Posted a DNF log to show I did in fact searched for the cache after my NA. so hopefully people will see not to search for the cache because its MIA and not being maintained. GC18K1J is the cache btw for those who are wondering.

[+Pond Bird]

Usually, the reviewer disables a cache when theres a "Needs Archived" log posted on a cache because of a lack of maintenance. But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled. How do reviewers determine rather to disable a cache or just let it sit there for a few weeks before another log is posted? Another cache I saw had 2 NA logs before a reviewer disabled it. Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

You posted an NA on the basis that you couldn't find the cache? That's a DNF.

 

I posted an NA on the traditional cache for the fact that the cache was NEVER replaced after it went missing. Its not a DNF if I didn't find a cache that i don't search for because it GONE.

 

Dude.

 

It's not reasonable to expect everybody in this game to respond with an extreme sense of urgency when a cache might be missing. It's a game, it's not an emergency. The fact that you're interested in a cache does not make it an emergency for the cache owner or the reviewer.

 

Reviewers are volunteers. They aren't the cache police and an NA log isn't a 911 call. At this time of year they are juggling a high level of activity.

 

You are just one cacher and your DNF is not the last word on a cache. As remarkable as it may seem, the cache may be there. Most of us at some point in our geocaching lives end up eating humble pie after swearing up and down that a cache was GONE and learning later that no, we just didn't find it.

 

If you make a habit of logging Needs Archived on caches you haven't even searched for, you're going to earn a reputation for being excessively militant and your comments won't be taken seriously.

 

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

[+Team Microdot]

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

From an imagined reviewer perspectived and from a player perspective I see a double-edged sword here.

 

Should an NA log from someone who hasn't even tried to find the cache be accepted? Would I accept a movie review from someone who has never seen the movie? Or a holiday review from someone who has never been to the location they are reviewing? Probably not.

 

On the other hand - in my experience people shy away from posting NA logs for fear of being branded caching police Heck - in my local area even people who brand other people caching police use sock puppets when they want to post NA's because they, ironically, don't want to be tarred with their own brush - or for their hypocrisy to be revealed

 

So sometimes, it's a relief to everyone that someone steps up to the mark and does what should have been done long, long, long ago to get that splodge on the map that represents nothing at all taken off the map.

 

I have on occasion posted NA on a cache that I have found previously that was so easy to find that the long list of DNF's on it couldn't possibly occur if the cache were in position, sometimes because I get fed up of nobody taking the bull by the horns and cleaning up dodge. Apathy and reticence are two of the greatest accelerants of the race to the bottom.

 

If the NA's that you post are ones you can be proud of - because they are posted for the right reasons - then post them proudly I say. If you're using a sock puppet then your motives are questionable at best.

 

Above all though - once you've voiced your concern - leave TPTB to process things in their own time and on the basis of the expertise and local knowledge they have undoubtedly amassed.

[+GeoTrekker26]

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

You cannot know it's gone until you search for it and even then if you don't find it, it could still be there. If looking for a cache is wasting your time, then maybe caching isn't the right hobby for you. I've had caches that I visited two or three times and couldn't find only to read logs of others who found it and even commented that it was an easy find. I've gone after caches with several consecutive DNF logs and made a quick find of the "missing" cache. In both situations I had fun and didn't feel I was wasting time.

[+Team Microdot]

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

You cannot know it's gone until you search for it and even then if you don't find it, it could still be there. If looking for a cache is wasting your time, then maybe caching isn't the right hobby for you. I've had caches that I visited two or three times and couldn't find only to read logs of others who found it and even commented that it was an easy find. I've gone after caches with several consecutive DNF logs and made a quick find of the "missing" cache. In both situations I had fun and didn't feel I was wasting time.

 

Neither of those scenarios fits with searching for a cache with a long line of DNF's and then not making a find.

[+L0ne.R]

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

You cannot know it's gone until you search for it and even then if you don't find it, it could still be there. If looking for a cache is wasting your time, then maybe caching isn't the right hobby for you. I've had caches that I visited two or three times and couldn't find only to read logs of others who found it and even commented that it was an easy find. I've gone after caches with several consecutive DNF logs and made a quick find of the "missing" cache. In both situations I had fun and didn't feel I was wasting time.

 

If it's a low D rating, would it hurt for the cache owner to go check. Maybe someone put it back wrong (happened to one of our caches - I went back 3 times in one month because some people were still finding the old broken cache somewhere near the actual hiding spot with the new replacement).

 

Sometimes an NA is the only thing to get the owner to go have a look. But most of the time the owner ignores the DNFs, the NMs, the NAs. They might go have a look when the reviewer logs a Temporary Disable. But 90% of the time the reviewer will end up archiving the cache. The problem lasts for months sometimes years.

 

It's interesting but not surprising that more people here support the delinquent owner and discourage responsible cache ownership. A responsible cache owner would have responded.

[+narcissa]

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there?

 

Yes.

 

I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA?

 

If you know, based on confirmation from the owner, that the cache is missing, I would suggest not searching for it.

 

If you choose to search for an active cache and can't find it, log a DNF.

 

Why waste my time if I know its gone.

 

Indeed. If you know, based on owner confirmation, that the cache is gone, searching for it is a waste of time.

 

If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

Many cachers opt not to search for caches with recent DNFs because those caches are more likely to be gone, though without owner confirmation this is not a certainty.

 

If you know that others have had trouble finding a cache and you choose to search anyway, go out prepared to DNF and make sure you write a detailed DNF log.

 

You may decide, based on the cache history, that it's time to also log a Needs Archived log. This is an action that should be used judiciously with the understanding that it likely won't elicit an urgent response.

Edited May 14, 2016 by narcissa

[+wimseyguy]

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

Snipped out a bunch of nested quotes to address this issue directly-the cache you ID's only had ONE DNF posted plus a NM from someone with only 23 finds before you posted the NA log (followed by your DNF which doesn't have much merit at this point in the discussion. The elapsed time has less weight as the cache is a puzzle, and was only found twice in the previous year.

 

So chill out, look for other caches instead, and let your reviewer work through the NA logs as they see fit.

[+narcissa]

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

You cannot know it's gone until you search for it and even then if you don't find it, it could still be there. If looking for a cache is wasting your time, then maybe caching isn't the right hobby for you. I've had caches that I visited two or three times and couldn't find only to read logs of others who found it and even commented that it was an easy find. I've gone after caches with several consecutive DNF logs and made a quick find of the "missing" cache. In both situations I had fun and didn't feel I was wasting time.

 

If it's a low D rating, would it hurt for the cache owner to go check. Maybe someone put it back wrong (happened to one of our caches - I went back 3 times in one month because some people were still finding the old broken cache somewhere near the actual hiding spot with the new replacement).

 

Sometimes an NA is the only thing to get the owner to go have a look. But most of the time the owner ignores the DNFs, the NMs, the NAs. They might go have a look when the reviewer logs a Temporary Disable. But 90% of the time the reviewer will end up archiving the cache. The problem lasts for months sometimes years.

 

It's interesting but not surprising that more people here support the delinquent owner and discourage responsible cache ownership. A responsible cache owner would have responded.

 

Nobody is discouraging responsible cache ownership.

 

There needs to be some give and take in this game.

 

Can you cite the source of the statistics you have quoted? I'm interested to see, because this dim view doesn't line up with my experience at all. I wonder if I'm just lucky?

[+L0ne.R]

Usually, the reviewer disables a cache when theres a "Needs Archived" log posted on a cache because of a lack of maintenance. But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled. How do reviewers determine rather to disable a cache or just let it sit there for a few weeks before another log is posted? Another cache I saw had 2 NA logs before a reviewer disabled it. Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

You posted an NA on the basis that you couldn't find the cache? That's a DNF.

 

I posted an NA on the traditional cache for the fact that the cache was NEVER replaced after it went missing. Its not a DNF if I didn't find a cache that i don't search for because it GONE.

 

Dude.

 

It's not reasonable to expect everybody in this game to respond with an extreme sense of urgency when a cache might be missing. It's a game, it's not an emergency. The fact that you're interested in a cache does not make it an emergency for the cache owner or the reviewer.

 

Reviewers are volunteers. They aren't the cache police and an NA log isn't a 911 call. At this time of year they are juggling a high level of activity.

 

You are just one cacher and your DNF is not the last word on a cache. As remarkable as it may seem, the cache may be there. Most of us at some point in our geocaching lives end up eating humble pie after swearing up and down that a cache was GONE and learning later that no, we just didn't find it.

 

If you make a habit of logging Needs Archived on caches you haven't even searched for, you're going to earn a reputation for being excessively militant and your comments won't be taken seriously.

 

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

The cache is likely gone, given the history of the cache, the photo gallery images, the DNF log, the NM log. It would be good if the cache owner would go have a look.

 

History:

 

Found regularly until October 2013.

 

Next log was 04/18/2014

"By looking at the photos, I know we were in the right spot but couldn't find it."

Here's the lastest image in the photo gallery:

4 months later, the next finder posts:

Needs Maintenance08/29/2014We did find it...or what is left of it. To be honest I looks like a dog or something got a hold of the container and tore it apart. There were punctures all over it that looked like bite marks. Anyway, there was little to salvage, the log was so wet we couldn't sign it.

 

2 years and no finders (we know that a lot of finders don't log their DNFs, so there might have been some tries but no online DNFs), the OP posts an NA. There has already been an NM that went ignored for 2 years. The CO could have responded in that time.

 

I'm not saying that the reviewer needs to respond to the NA immediately but I am defending Pond Bird for posting an NA on this delinquent cache. 2 years is plenty of time to respond to an informative DNF followed by a very detailed informative NM.

 

Pond Bird, I think the best method is to follow the expected procedure - DNF log, followed by an NM (same day), wait a week (in this case...it's already been 2 years so I don't see the point in waiting more then a week for the the owner to respond - I usually wait a month after I log an NM), post the NA. Outline the history of the cache in your NA log. Step away.

 

[+Sherminator18]

Pond Bird does not have a good reputation in our community. It is alleged that he created multiple sock puppet accounts in order to post Needs Archived logs on events that had only been over for a week and on caches that only had 1 DNF. So I assume the reviewer takes everything he says with a grain of salt

[+dprovan]

Should an NA log from someone who hasn't even tried to find the cache be accepted? Would I accept a movie review from someone who has never seen the movie? Or a holiday review from someone who has never been to the location they are reviewing? Probably not.

If I go to GZ and don't find the cache, that's just one more DNF. Just one more DNF is almost never enough to trigger an NA. Hence, me visiting GZ almost never makes any difference to whether I should file an NA. In fact, usually I'm filing the NA because the information in the log makes it clear that going to GZ would be a waste of time, so I've specifically decided not to go to GZ because no one should bother to go there.

 

Of course, no matter why you file an NA, you need to make an ironclad case. I don't know what caches we're talking about in this thread, but I'm getting the impression that the case here wasn't as good as the OP thinks it was, hence the reviewer not reacting until there's more information available.

[+L0ne.R]

Nobody is discouraging responsible cache ownership.

 

2 years with no response from the cache owner. 2 years after a DNF and an NM is more then enough time to expect the CO to acknowledge they are aware of the situation. A note that says, "I will check after the next DNF" would suffice.

 

There needs to be some give and take in this game.

 

Can you cite the source of the statistics you have quoted? I'm interested to see, because this dim view doesn't line up with my experience at all. I wonder if I'm just lucky?

 

My stats. Of the NA logs I posted last year, 3% (3/100 - there is a LOT of junk and missing abandoned caches out there) are still listed. Of the NMs, 75% are still listed. 95% of all of those archived caches were archived by reviewers. If you check edexter's forum topic here, I have been having the same experience, relatively the same numbers as edexter.

Edited May 14, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

Pond Bird does not have a good reputation in our community. It is alleged that he created multiple sock puppet accounts in order to post Needs Archived logs on events that had only been over for a week and on caches that only had 1 DNF. So I assume the reviewer takes everything he says with a grain of salt

If these things are alledged/assumed, why mention it here?

[+Sherminator18]

Pond Bird does not have a good reputation in our community. It is alleged that he created multiple sock puppet accounts in order to post Needs Archived logs on events that had only been over for a week and on caches that only had 1 DNF. So I assume the reviewer takes everything he says with a grain of salt

If these things are alledged/assumed, why mention it here?

 

Well it actually did happen. So I guess it's not alledged. But this may be a reason why the reviewer is not responding to his Needs Archived log. Just like the boy who cried wolf.

[+Pond Bird]

Pond Bird does not have a good reputation in our community. It is alleged that he created multiple sock puppet accounts in order to post Needs Archived logs on events that had only been over for a week and on caches that only had 1 DNF. So I assume the reviewer takes everything he says with a grain of salt

 

Never would create accounts to post an NA log on an event. Don't know who told you that, but they are mistaken.

[+Pond Bird]

Pond Bird does not have a good reputation in our community. It is alleged that he created multiple sock puppet accounts in order to post Needs Archived logs on events that had only been over for a week and on caches that only had 1 DNF. So I assume the reviewer takes everything he says with a grain of salt

If these things are alledged/assumed, why mention it here?

 

Well it actually did happen. So I guess it's not alledged. But this may be a reason why the reviewer is not responding to his Needs Archived log. Just like the boy who cried wolf.

 

Sherminator's just hearing things, google the term "Alleged" it means "that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof." so its pretty much hearsay on her part.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Pond Bird

[+Pond Bird]

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

From an imagined reviewer perspectived and from a player perspective I see a double-edged sword here.

 

Should an NA log from someone who hasn't even tried to find the cache be accepted? Would I accept a movie review from someone who has never seen the movie? Or a holiday review from someone who has never been to the location they are reviewing? Probably not.

 

On the other hand - in my experience people shy away from posting NA logs for fear of being branded caching police Heck - in my local area even people who brand other people caching police use sock puppets when they want to post NA's because they, ironically, don't want to be tarred with their own brush - or for their hypocrisy to be revealed

 

So sometimes, it's a relief to everyone that someone steps up to the mark and does what should have been done long, long, long ago to get that splodge on the map that represents nothing at all taken off the map.

 

I have on occasion posted NA on a cache that I have found previously that was so easy to find that the long list of DNF's on it couldn't possibly occur if the cache were in position, sometimes because I get fed up of nobody taking the bull by the horns and cleaning up dodge. Apathy and reticence are two of the greatest accelerants of the race to the bottom.

 

If the NA's that you post are ones you can be proud of - because they are posted for the right reasons - then post them proudly I say. If you're using a sock puppet then your motives are questionable at best.

 

Above all though - once you've voiced your concern - leave TPTB to process things in their own time and on the basis of the expertise and local knowledge they have undoubtedly amassed.

 

What does TPTB mean? And yes I've seen new cachers post NA because they think the cache must be gone, I'm assuming they meant to post "Needs Maintenance"

[+Pond Bird]

Usually, the reviewer disables a cache when theres a "Needs Archived" log posted on a cache because of a lack of maintenance. But I posted two NA logs on caches that are MIA and the owner has ignored them, but still not disabled. How do reviewers determine rather to disable a cache or just let it sit there for a few weeks before another log is posted? Another cache I saw had 2 NA logs before a reviewer disabled it. Just wondering what people find is the reasoning behind whether or not to "disable" a listing.

 

You posted an NA on the basis that you couldn't find the cache? That's a DNF.

 

I posted an NA on the traditional cache for the fact that the cache was NEVER replaced after it went missing. Its not a DNF if I didn't find a cache that i don't search for because it GONE.

 

Dude.

 

It's not reasonable to expect everybody in this game to respond with an extreme sense of urgency when a cache might be missing. It's a game, it's not an emergency. The fact that you're interested in a cache does not make it an emergency for the cache owner or the reviewer.

 

Reviewers are volunteers. They aren't the cache police and an NA log isn't a 911 call. At this time of year they are juggling a high level of activity.

 

You are just one cacher and your DNF is not the last word on a cache. As remarkable as it may seem, the cache may be there. Most of us at some point in our geocaching lives end up eating humble pie after swearing up and down that a cache was GONE and learning later that no, we just didn't find it.

 

If you make a habit of logging Needs Archived on caches you haven't even searched for, you're going to earn a reputation for being excessively militant and your comments won't be taken seriously.

 

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

The cache is likely gone, given the history of the cache, the photo gallery images, the DNF log, the NM log. It would be good if the cache owner would go have a look.

 

History:

 

Found regularly until October 2013.

 

Next log was 04/18/2014

"By looking at the photos, I know we were in the right spot but couldn't find it."

Here's the lastest image in the photo gallery:

4 months later, the next finder posts:

Needs Maintenance08/29/2014We did find it...or what is left of it. To be honest I looks like a dog or something got a hold of the container and tore it apart. There were punctures all over it that looked like bite marks. Anyway, there was little to salvage, the log was so wet we couldn't sign it.

 

2 years and no finders (we know that a lot of finders don't log their DNFs, so there might have been some tries but no online DNFs), the OP posts an NA. There has already been an NM that went ignored for 2 years. The CO could have responded in that time.

 

I'm not saying that the reviewer needs to respond to the NA immediately but I am defending Pond Bird for posting an NA on this delinquent cache. 2 years is plenty of time to respond to an informative DNF followed by a very detailed informative NM.

 

Pond Bird, I think the best method is to follow the expected procedure - DNF log, followed by an NM (same day), wait a week (in this case...it's already been 2 years so I don't see the point in waiting more then a week for the the owner to respond - I usually wait a month after I log an NM), post the NA. Outline the history of the cache in your NA log. Step away.

 

 

You're right. Its been 2 years, I'm sure the reviewer has the cache on their watchlist and will disable the listing when they feel is appropriate for them to do so.

[+Sherminator18]

So why did your account get locked by Geocaching HQ then if it wasn't true??

[+narcissa]

Nobody is discouraging responsible cache ownership.

 

2 years with no response from the cache owner. 2 years after a DNF and an NM is more then enough time to expect the CO to acknowledge they are aware of the situation. A note that says, "I will check after the next DNF" would suffice.

 

There needs to be some give and take in this game.

 

Can you cite the source of the statistics you have quoted? I'm interested to see, because this dim view doesn't line up with my experience at all. I wonder if I'm just lucky?

 

My stats. Of the NA logs I posted last year, 3% (3/100 - there is a LOT of junk and missing abandoned caches out there) are still listed. Of the NMs, 75% are still listed. 95% of all of those archived caches were archived by reviewers. If you check edexter's forum topic here, I have been having the same experience, relatively the same numbers as edexter.

 

Do you believe that your stats come from a representative sample? My understanding is that you are a fairly particular geocacher. Do you think that there may be some bias in your methodology? What have you done to counteract this?

[+narcissa]

So a cache that hasn't been found in 2 years, has multiple DNFs, and has a low difficulty, could still be there? I should search for all missing caches before I post an NA? Why waste my time if I know its gone. If I'm not sure if its still in play or not, I'll search to verify but if its gone, its gone.

 

From an imagined reviewer perspectived and from a player perspective I see a double-edged sword here.

 

Should an NA log from someone who hasn't even tried to find the cache be accepted? Would I accept a movie review from someone who has never seen the movie? Or a holiday review from someone who has never been to the location they are reviewing? Probably not.

 

On the other hand - in my experience people shy away from posting NA logs for fear of being branded caching police Heck - in my local area even people who brand other people caching police use sock puppets when they want to post NA's because they, ironically, don't want to be tarred with their own brush - or for their hypocrisy to be revealed

 

So sometimes, it's a relief to everyone that someone steps up to the mark and does what should have been done long, long, long ago to get that splodge on the map that represents nothing at all taken off the map.

 

I have on occasion posted NA on a cache that I have found previously that was so easy to find that the long list of DNF's on it couldn't possibly occur if the cache were in position, sometimes because I get fed up of nobody taking the bull by the horns and cleaning up dodge. Apathy and reticence are two of the greatest accelerants of the race to the bottom.

 

If the NA's that you post are ones you can be proud of - because they are posted for the right reasons - then post them proudly I say. If you're using a sock puppet then your motives are questionable at best.

 

Above all though - once you've voiced your concern - leave TPTB to process things in their own time and on the basis of the expertise and local knowledge they have undoubtedly amassed.

 

What does TPTB mean? And yes I've seen new cachers post NA because they think the cache must be gone, I'm assuming they meant to post "Needs Maintenance"

 

Which is, again, an inappropriate thing to log. The correct log when you can't find a cache is "Did not find."

[+Pond Bird]

 

What does TPTB mean? And yes I've seen new cachers post NA because they think the cache must be gone, I'm assuming they meant to post "Needs Maintenance"

 

Which is, again, an inappropriate thing to log. The correct log when you can't find a cache is "Did not find."

 

If you can't find a cache, but theres other recent DNFs and you believe its gone and can use attention from the owner then a "needs maintenance" would work. Still don't know what TPTB means. But I have heard of people posting Needs Archived when they meant to post Needs Maintenance.

[+narcissa]

 

What does TPTB mean? And yes I've seen new cachers post NA because they think the cache must be gone, I'm assuming they meant to post "Needs Maintenance"

 

Which is, again, an inappropriate thing to log. The correct log when you can't find a cache is "Did not find."

 

If you can't find a cache, but theres other recent DNFs and you believe its gone and can use attention from the owner then a "needs maintenance" would work. Still don't know what TPTB means. But I have heard of people posting Needs Archived when they meant to post Needs Maintenance.

 

If there are other recent DNFs, the cache owner needs a reasonable amount of time to react to those logs, and they may decide that there isn't enough evidence to act right away.

 

The cache owner is the one who knows the cache best. It's simply inconsiderate to expect a cache owner to react immediately the first moment a couple of people have trouble finding a cache.

 

Sometimes, people just can't find the cache. The entire point of the game is that these things are hidden and you have to find them and sometimes it's hard.

[+niraD]

Still don't know what TPTB means.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=TPTB

 

FWIW, I DNFed a cache in a nearby park several years ago. Shortly after my DNF, it was found by other cachers. Today, I searched for it again and found it. Finally. After a couple newbies in the group had already spotted it. Sometimes a DNF is just a DNF.

[+L0ne.R]

Nobody is discouraging responsible cache ownership.

 

2 years with no response from the cache owner. 2 years after a DNF and an NM is more then enough time to expect the CO to acknowledge they are aware of the situation. A note that says, "I will check after the next DNF" would suffice.

 

There needs to be some give and take in this game.

 

Can you cite the source of the statistics you have quoted? I'm interested to see, because this dim view doesn't line up with my experience at all. I wonder if I'm just lucky?

 

My stats. Of the NA logs I posted last year, 3% (3/100 - there is a LOT of junk and missing abandoned caches out there) are still listed. Of the NMs, 75% are still listed. 95% of all of those archived caches were archived by reviewers. If you check edexter's forum topic here, I have been having the same experience, relatively the same numbers as edexter.

 

Do you believe that your stats come from a representative sample? My understanding is that you are a fairly particular geocacher. Do you think that there may be some bias in your methodology? What have you done to counteract this?

 

My favourite caches are maintained swag size, quality containers in nice locations. It's hard to filter for that type of cache. The last couple of years have been more and more frustrating.

I filter out caches with red wrenches. I try to read the last couple of logs but often those logs are cut n paste or TFTC or a false find. Sometimes, when I use the app to do a quick search of what's nearby I end up going to caches with NMs.

I filter out micros, but a lot of micros are listed as small, a lot are in bad shape, yet no one says anything.

I've tried filtering for caches with 3 or more favourite points, but that doesn't do any good anymore. Many of those higher favoured caches are abandoned and in bad shape too. They may have been good 2 years ago, but the old cuckoo clock is now half a broken box with no clockface anymore. Lots of found logs noting the deterioration. No NMs. Cache owner that hasn't visited the cache since they placed it, and often hasn't visited the website since they placed it.

If there's some way to filter for maintained, quality/watertight, swag size (truly swag size - 100ml to 1L capacity) containers, in pleasant locations, (with D/T 3 and under), without a string of DNFs in the last year (sprinkled with false 'Found it' logs), let me know. A list of cache owners who have good reputations for quality, would also be useful. I want this help when travelling to areas in Ontario.

[+narcissa]

Nobody is discouraging responsible cache ownership.

 

2 years with no response from the cache owner. 2 years after a DNF and an NM is more then enough time to expect the CO to acknowledge they are aware of the situation. A note that says, "I will check after the next DNF" would suffice.

 

There needs to be some give and take in this game.

 

Can you cite the source of the statistics you have quoted? I'm interested to see, because this dim view doesn't line up with my experience at all. I wonder if I'm just lucky?

 

My stats. Of the NA logs I posted last year, 3% (3/100 - there is a LOT of junk and missing abandoned caches out there) are still listed. Of the NMs, 75% are still listed. 95% of all of those archived caches were archived by reviewers. If you check edexter's forum topic here, I have been having the same experience, relatively the same numbers as edexter.

 

Do you believe that your stats come from a representative sample? My understanding is that you are a fairly particular geocacher. Do you think that there may be some bias in your methodology? What have you done to counteract this?

 

My favourite caches are maintained swag size, quality containers in nice locations. It's hard to filter for that type of cache. The last couple of years have been more and more frustrating.

I filter out caches with red wrenches. I try to read the last couple of logs but often those logs are cut n paste or TFTC or a false find. Sometimes, when I use the app to do a quick search of what's nearby I end up going to caches with NMs.

I filter out micros, but a lot of micros are listed as small, a lot are in bad shape, yet no one says anything.

I've tried filtering for caches with 3 or more favourite points, but that doesn't do any good anymore. Many of those higher favoured caches are abandoned and in bad shape too. They may have been good 2 years ago, but the old cuckoo clock is now half a broken box with no clockface anymore. Lots of found logs noting the deterioration. No NMs. Cache owner that hasn't visited the cache since they placed it, and often hasn't visited the website since they placed it.

If there's some way to filter for maintained, quality/watertight, swag size (truly swag size - 100ml to 1L capacity) containers, in pleasant locations, (with D/T 3 and under), without a string of DNFs in the last year (sprinkled with false 'Found it' logs), let me know. A list of cache owners who have good reputations for quality, would also be useful. I want this help when travelling to areas in Ontario.

 

Yes, as I mentioned, I understand that you are a highly particular geocacher. I wasn't asking for an exhaustive list of your criteria for finding a cache, I was asking about the methodology you've used to collect the statistics you were previously citing.