Archived as part of site maintenance and database clean-up?

[+JL_HSTRE]

A cache page I had created but never submitted got archived by Groundspeak HQ today with the following message:

 

This old, unpublished cache has been archived as part of site maintenance and database clean-up. You are not required to take action. If you are working on a new cache, create a new listing and submit it for review. Should you prefer to use this listing, contact your local reviewer to request unarchival. See this Help Center article to identify the reviewer for your area. In the future, please work to submit cache pages for review within three months of creation. If you are working on a complex cache, or are waiting on permission, communicate your progress by posting regular reviewer notes to unsubmitted listings. Submissions older than six months may be automatically archived.

 

I thought I had heard of this happening before, but my search fu doesn't turn up any threads on the subject. I figured I should post it so others are aware it might happen.

 

I'm not really bothered by it (it was a puzzle idea from back in 2011 that was never completed, hidden, or submitted and got forgotten about since), but it seems odd that unpublished listings cause such a problem especially as it had never received a Reviewer note asking about it.

 

I'm also curious how the age was even determined. Behind the scenes computer data for page creation or when it was last edited? GC number? The Placed Date field? I have two other pages kicking around since early and mid 2012 that did not get archived so the six month period may be a bit soft.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Joshism

[+The_Incredibles_]

Interesting. I hope they will publish this info in the guidelines if this is going to be policy from now on.

 

I've got a number of unpublished caches festering. When I get an idea, I'll create a cache page. It's an easy way to keep track of things. Our local reviewer archived a number of my unpublished caches a while back....I started a forum thread on it, but can't find it. I suspect the listed coordinates were interferring with her reviewer activity. I have since been careful to put my listed coordinates out in the ocean and haven't had any archived since.

 

The silly thing about archiving unpublished caches is, you can still link to the cache page. So presumably the info is still taking up server space...somewhere...if it's still taking up space, I don't understand the need for archival unless maybe the listed coordinates are bothering the reviewers when they go to publish other caches in the area.

[Keystone]

Inactive listings can cause significant challenges for volunteer cache reviewers, not to mention the server hamsters. A single geocacher's three or four disabled unpublished listings might not seem like an issue, but when the number gets up into the thousands in a cache-dense region, it can be a problem.

 

If your listing was archived, follow the instructions in the log notice you received. Write to your friendly volunteer cache reviewer and request unarchival because you are still working on the cache. It's no big deal.

 

If your disabled unpublished listing has not been archived, and you are still working on it, post a reviewer note stating your intentions.

[+Lil Devil]

I'm also curious how the age was even determined.

Last edit date or last log posted.

[+Lil Devil]

I don't understand the need for archival unless maybe the listed coordinates are bothering the reviewers when they go to publish other caches in the area.

Bingo!

[+fuzzybelly]

Our local reviewer ,Greatland Reviewer, here in Alaska actually wrote an article in the GeocacheAlaska! newsletter warning of this taking place. Apparently with the abundance of caches being published and those waiting to be published, such as when work is being done on a puzzle cache, they're starting to worry a bit about over saturation. Archiving dated, unpublished caches sounds like they're avenue to keep ahead of things.

 

I've heard of shorter times being allowed while creating a cache. If you want to keep the location and continue working on the page, sending the reviewer a note and asking it to be unarchieved has worked in the past for me. Keeping in touch with that person really seems to help.

 

I've actually worried about this for some time as I've been kept from publishing caches a number of times by cache locations that where seemingly in perpetual preparation. Not only that but I worry about newer cachers who would love to have the thrill of owning their own cache like we do, getting bummed out by a cache listing being rejected and possibly make them not want to play the game any more.

[4wheelin_fool]

I had a few archived as they had not been edited within a year. I asked for unarchival and it was granted. It's a combination of ADD and procrastination that's the root cause. Get them published, sheesh.

[+kunarion]

I thought I had heard of this happening before, but my search fu doesn't turn up any threads on the subject. I figured I should post it so others are aware it might happen.

Two of my pages were surprise archived, no warning, no particular note.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=313208&view=findpost&p=5274777

 

I didn't even bother to ask why, because I didn't care all that much. But I mentioned the vanishing, in a thread about using unpublished cache pages, since it seemed relevant.

[+fuzzybelly]

Just saw a forum post on GeocacheAlaska.org forum pages from our local reviewer, Greatland Reveiwer. Groundspeak opted to automate the archival process. Un-published caches two years old will be archived today and ones 1 year old will be archived Friday. Some reviewers have already archived those caches 3 years old.

 

He urges contacting your local reviewer to un-archive or keep a cache from being archived.

[Luckless]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I had to list some (any) coordinates if I was creating a webpage that I was not submitting in order to save the information on the webpage (was it always like that- doesn't seem so). They may be bogus coordinates but that doesn't mean they aren't screwing up other caches somewhere. Sometimes I don't necessarily need to save an area for my cache. I just want to save the written information. It seems like last time I couldn't do that without listing some coordinates.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Just saw a forum post on GeocacheAlaska.org forum pages from our local reviewer, Greatland Reveiwer. Groundspeak opted to automate the archival process. Un-published caches two years old will be archived today and ones 1 year old will be archived Friday. Some reviewers have already archived those caches 3 years old.

 

He urges contacting your local reviewer to un-archive or keep a cache from being archived.

 

When you say "1 year", do you know is that referring to the placed date on the cache page? Or do they have some way of determining the date the cache page was crated? Just wondering, as I have gone and change the dates on my unpublished caches to today's date.

[+Team Microdot]

Let's say I'd put a lot of work into a cache page over a number of weeks but had been prevented from submitting it for publication for a prolonged period for a number of reasons...

 

Let's say email notifications were broken again (which seems to happen intermittently, but fairly frequently)

 

My cache page gets purged as part of the clean-up but I don't notice because I don't get an email notification, and it doesn't appear in my list of archived caches.

 

If I need to get that page unarchived, how would I direct the friendly local reviewer to it if I don't have a link to it, or the GC code?

[+wmpastor]

Inactive listings can cause significant challenges for volunteer cache reviewers, not to mention the server hamsters. A single geocacher's three or four disabled unpublished listings might not seem like an issue, but when the number gets up into the thousands in a cache-dense region, it can be a problem.

 

If your listing was archived, follow the instructions in the log notice you received. Write to your friendly volunteer cache reviewer and request unarchival because you are still working on the cache. It's no big deal.

 

If your disabled unpublished listing has not been archived, and you are still working on it, post a reviewer note stating your intentions.

Someone in the forums had suggested using an unpublished cache listing as a place to attach photos so that they could then be uploaded to the forums. I guess that technique is no longer foolproof, unless you periodically "update" the unpublished listing.

 

Someone in this thread suggested using coords in the ocean to avoid problems. Hopefully no one is looking to place a 5/5 scuba cache or geothermal vent cache nearby!

[+wmpastor]

Just saw a forum post on GeocacheAlaska.org forum pages from our local reviewer, Greatland Reveiwer. Groundspeak opted to automate the archival process. Un-published caches two years old will be archived today and ones 1 year old will be archived Friday. Some reviewers have already archived those caches 3 years old.

 

He urges contacting your local reviewer to un-archive or keep a cache from being archived.

 

When you say "1 year", do you know is that referring to the placed date on the cache page? Or do they have some way of determining the date the cache page was crated? Just wondering, as I have gone and change the dates on my unpublished caches to today's date.

Someone said last entry or change date was key. With the date change you mentioned, could you select a future date? (May or may not help - see first sentence.)

[+Isonzo Karst]

If I need to get that page unarchived, how would I direct the friendly local reviewer to it if I don't have a link to it, or the GC code?

 

You can see your archived unpublished caches in the right margin box, titles line though on this page

 

http://www.geocaching.com/my/geocaches.aspx?archived=y

 

The Help Center article has more info. http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=460

 

He urges contacting your local reviewer to un-archive or keep a cache from being archived.

 

Contact your local reviewer to unarchive. Post a NEW reviewer note yourself to your own listing to keep it updated, so that it isn't archived.

 

With the date change you mentioned, could you select a future date?

 

Only events take future dates. Just post a NEW reviewer note with an update as to when you think the cache might be ready. i sit on a lot of old listings, all with "not to block any cache that's ready" notes. They're still a nuisance for the area reviewer (who isn't me) as he has to look at each of them and read that note, each time. Now they're mostly archived. I can still see them and get the info, if I ever really place those hides, nothing is losst.

 

Someone in the forums had suggested using an unpublished cache listing as a place to attach photos so that they could then be uploaded to the forums. I guess that technique is no longer foolproof, unless you periodically "update" the unpublished listing.

 

It works fine. The photos attached to an archived unpublished listing will load via URL to these forums, or another cache page. You can continue to add photos to an archived unpublished listing. You can use it as a TB depository as well (though you should just put your own trackables into collection instead of dropping them into a listing).

Below a photo that's attached to an archived unpublished listing of mine

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by Isonzo Karst

[+Isonzo Karst]

A Help Center Article on this is now available

1.7. Working with the Reviewer: Old Unpublished Geocaches May Be Archived

 

needs editing for the "finding your local reviewer link" :-) ...

Edited December 19, 2013 by Isonzo Karst

[+Team Microdot]

A Help Center Article on this is now available

1.7. Working with the Reviewer: Old Unpublished Geocaches May Be Archived

 

needs editing for the "finding your local reviewer link" :-) ...

 

Thanks for the info

[cezanne]

i sit on a lot of old listings, all with "not to block any cache that's ready" notes. They're still a nuisance for the area reviewer (who isn't me) as he has to look at each of them and read that note, each time. Now they're mostly archived.

 

But doesn't that apply only to caches with additional waypoints (if there are several stages) and with type different from mystery?

 

If I start working on a mystery cache I often have nothing except bogus start coordinates and some text.

 

Why in the world should I post updated reviewer notes for such a cache? There is absolutely that is reserved or that can come in conflict with other caches.

It definitely should be up to me how fast I'm progressing in such a case.

 

Cezanne

[Keystone]

If I start working on a mystery cache I often have nothing except bogus start coordinates and some text.

And those bogus coordinates show up as a Cache Saturation alert if someone hides a real cache in the vicinity, requiring extra reviewer time and delays in publishing people's caches that are actually ready.

 

Remember, not all mystery caches have bogus coordinates. Reviewers have to look at them one at a time.

 

If you are truly working on such a cache actively, post a reviewer note every few months, OK? Thanks.

[+dprovan]

Remember, not all mystery caches have bogus coordinates. Reviewers have to look at them one at a time.

Yeah, that really should be fixed so that someone posting an unknown or multi can specify whether the posted coordinates are real or virtual. The easiest way would be to eliminate this very ambiguity, making all posted coordinates for unknowns and multi's virtual and then requiring the owner to create a non-virtual waypoint at the posted coordinates when appropriate. (Actually, I always assumed unknown caches were already that way, so it comes as a surprise to hear that the system flags their posted coordinates as being real. And it sounds like I'm not the only one surprised by that.) That way the reviewer only has to do this real/virtual analysis once when reviewing the cache for publication in order to insure the proper waypoint is in place instead of every time the cache comes up in a saturation check.

[+Manville Possum]

Looks like my unpublished listing from 2008 got archived too. I know that the coordinates are not an issue, it's on my property. I just used it to store my trackables, but not we have the collection option. No loss, I can still view my listing.

[+Car54]

I don't understand the need for archival unless maybe the listed coordinates are bothering the reviewers when they go to publish other caches in the area.

Bingo!

I thought I had avoided that problem by using my home co-ords (don't think there's anything but private property and a cemetery within 528' of our house), but nope, the 2 caches I had ready to go including logbooks with GC codes on them got archived a couple of weeks ago. They had been traveling in our car with us until we can find a good spot - they are both unique containers/hides and need the proper spot. We have traipsed around several areas but hadn't found a place yet. Life gets busy and we end up caching in bursts, if you know what I mean, so we don't really hide very often. Guess I just need to get those caches out of the car and wait until we have more time to cache.

[+fuzzybelly]

Just saw a forum post on GeocacheAlaska.org forum pages from our local reviewer, Greatland Reveiwer. Groundspeak opted to automate the archival process. Un-published caches two years old will be archived today and ones 1 year old will be archived Friday. Some reviewers have already archived those caches 3 years old.

 

He urges contacting your local reviewer to un-archive or keep a cache from being archived.

 

When you say "1 year", do you know is that referring to the placed date on the cache page? Or do they have some way of determining the date the cache page was crated? Just wondering, as I have gone and change the dates on my unpublished caches to today's date.

I'm sorry incredibles, I don't know that answer.

[Moun10Bike]

Just saw a forum post on GeocacheAlaska.org forum pages from our local reviewer, Greatland Reveiwer. Groundspeak opted to automate the archival process. Un-published caches two years old will be archived today and ones 1 year old will be archived Friday. Some reviewers have already archived those caches 3 years old.

 

He urges contacting your local reviewer to un-archive or keep a cache from being archived.

 

When you say "1 year", do you know is that referring to the placed date on the cache page? Or do they have some way of determining the date the cache page was crated? Just wondering, as I have gone and change the dates on my unpublished caches to today's date.

 

The database tracks the last time a change was made to a cache page. This is triggered by posting of a log or by editing of the listing contents. You can prevent automated archival by simply making any small change to a cache page (short of changes to additional waypoints, which unfortunately do not affect the "last updated" date).

 

Even if a listing is archived, you can simply request that your local reviewer unarchive it. We aren't wanting to create pain for owners of legitimate listings, but simply pursuing a straight-forward solution for cleaning out out the scores of thousands of abandoned listings that have been steadily increasing reviewer workload.

[I!]

We aren't wanting to create pain for owners of legitimate listings, but simply pursuing a straight-forward solution for cleaning out out the scores of thousands of abandoned listings that have been steadily increasing reviewer workload.

Then settle coordinate conflicts by the date the listing was submitted, not the date it was opened.

[Moun10Bike]

We aren't wanting to create pain for owners of legitimate listings, but simply pursuing a straight-forward solution for cleaning out out the scores of thousands of abandoned listings that have been steadily increasing reviewer workload.

Then settle coordinate conflicts by the date the listing was submitted, not the date it was opened.

 

That doesn't address the increased workload on reviewers.

[BlueRajah]

We aren't wanting to create pain for owners of legitimate listings, but simply pursuing a straight-forward solution for cleaning out out the scores of thousands of abandoned listings that have been steadily increasing reviewer workload.

Then settle coordinate conflicts by the date the listing was submitted, not the date it was opened.

 

They are not using any of the methods that you mention. Archival has nothing to do with the date it was opened or submitted. If you let your cache sit for over a year with no changes, reviewer notes, etc., that is when they are prone to get caught up in this sweep.

 

The vast majority of these were started by cache owners and ignored, or even submitted and denied. In some the owners went inactive. Using a time period where no one has made any edits to the cache page is a quick and simple way to see if someone is working on a page.

 

Note that some reviewers do this sweeps of inactive caches in their areas as well. Their sweeps do not use the same process as this automated archival, we look at every page one at a time.

 

Obviously caches that people are planning to use, but have not done anything on may get caught up in either method. The caches can be unarchived by contacting your reviewer.

Edited December 19, 2013 by BlueRajah

[+thebruce0]

I wonder how many times that will have to be repeated... Caches can be unarchived by simply contacting your local reviewer...

It's a wonder this automated cleanup is causing even this much angst (not much, but still some it seems)

[I!]

That doesn't address the increased workload on reviewers.

Then I misunderstood. How does non-submitted listing contribute to reviewer workload? If it's not been submitted yet then it shouldn't be a blocker for others that have.

[+fuzzybelly]

I wonder the #. Just curious. How many cache might this affect? If you can even say. Actually might not be a good idea to say.

 

At first I didn't like caches being archived, for history purposes. But now I don't mind the idea so much. In this case I could see it really causing issues for reviewers, and potential publishers.

[BlueRajah]

That doesn't address the increased workload on reviewers.

Then I misunderstood. How does non-submitted listing contribute to reviewer workload? If it's not been submitted yet then it shouldn't be a blocker for others that have.

 

When a reviewer goes to publish a cache, the unsubmitted/unpublished cache, and all their waypoints, can pop up as blocking the cache to be listed. Then the reviewer has to make a determination on if the cache is active, check every waypoint that is flagged in that area and sometimes contact all those cache onwers.

 

This may not be a problem in rural Utah where I review, however parks in the city, or popular locations may have many "started" caches/waypoints that were never published. This slows down reviewing considerably in some areas (Germany comes to mind).

[BlueRajah]

At first I didn't like caches being archived, for history purposes. But now I don't mind the idea so much. In this case I could see it really causing issues for reviewers, and potential publishers.

 

History purposes? These are unpublished and hidden, not active so no one would have a history of them other than the cache owner, and he can still see them.

[+fuzzybelly]

I'm sorry blue In 'history" I meant like with annual sweeps where old caches with many DNF's or a string of "Needs Maintenance" posts, lead to archiving.

 

BTW, one of my favorite movies. I like "The shoveler". I get to do a lot of that.

Edited December 19, 2013 by fuzzybelly

[+Lil Devil]

In 'history" I meant like with annual sweeps where old caches with many DNF's or a string of "Needs Maintenance" posts, lead to archiving.

That's a completely different issue than what is being discussed in this thread.

[+fuzzybelly]

Wasn't trying to hijack ooppps, sorry

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This may not be a problem in rural Utah where I review, however parks in the city, or popular locations may have many "started" caches/waypoints that were never published. This slows down reviewing considerably in some areas (Germany comes to mind).

 

So the review process (and new cache publishing) process slows down in areas that are already heavily saturated with caches? Where's the problem?

 

 

[I!]

When a reviewer goes to publish a cache, the unsubmitted/unpublished cache, and all their waypoints, can pop up as blocking the cache to be listed.

Oh, my, that's poor design. Can't it be fixed so that unsubmitted caches don't act as blockers?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

When a reviewer goes to publish a cache, the unsubmitted/unpublished cache, and all their waypoints, can pop up as blocking the cache to be listed.

Oh, my, that's poor design. Can't it be fixed so that unsubmitted caches don't act as blockers?

 

I could, but then they're going to get a lot of complaints from geocachers that have been working on an elaborate mulit or puzzle cache for weeks (I know of one that allegedly took over a year to create) only to have the final location taken by a film can under a lamp post.

 

 

[Moun10Bike]

Plus, any cache sent back to the CO by the reviewer for revisions would then suddenly run the risk of getting bumped by a subsequent submission. It is best for the reviewer to see and act on all unarchived caches in the area.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Right, it's by design, and I think it's a reasonable one.

 

The trouble is, every time there's a conflict, the reviewer has to juggle two caches, with all the attendant messages that have to be written. Are you ready yet? How soon? Somebody else is waiting. Etc.

[+L0ne.R]

I wonder how many times that will have to be repeated... Caches can be unarchived by simply contacting your local reviewer...

It's a wonder this automated cleanup is causing even this much angst (not much, but still some it seems)

 

I'm surprised by the angst too.

 

I had just recently experienced an archival of an unpublished cache - - too close to a disabled stage of a multi - had to wait another month to see if the CO would enable it, she did. I removed my cache and thought about putting it somewhere else, didn't. Approx. 6 months later I got the archival note from the Reviewer. I now understand why reviewers are sweeping up. Makes sense.

[Keystone]

When a reviewer goes to publish a cache, the unsubmitted/unpublished cache, and all their waypoints, can pop up as blocking the cache to be listed.

Oh, my, that's poor design. Can't it be fixed so that unsubmitted caches don't act as blockers?

Fine, no problem. When the people who work for months to plan new caches all around a Mega-Event site get bumped by a newbie who hid a guardrail cache because I can't see the works in progress, may I refer them to you?

[cezanne]

If I start working on a mystery cache I often have nothing except bogus start coordinates and some text.

And those bogus coordinates show up as a Cache Saturation alert if someone hides a real cache in the vicinity, requiring extra reviewer time and delays in publishing people's caches that are actually ready.

 

Remember, not all mystery caches have bogus coordinates. Reviewers have to look at them one at a time.

 

If you are truly working on such a cache actively, post a reviewer note every few months, OK? Thanks.

 

Don't you think that there would be much more clever ways to handle this from the point of view of it-technology?

It appears to me that reviewers are bothered by far too much things that a cleverly designed system can avoid.

 

The header coordinates per se should never create a distance alert in my opinion. It should always be required to

classify such a waypoint (it does not play a role whether this happens by a separate field or having a separate

waypoint). If the header coordinates are more than bogus coordinates, they play a role (as a stage of a multi cache for example

or a final waypoint). In such cases then the other waypoints or the classification should cause the alarm.

 

This is an issue a clever computer system can handle very easily and it is not needed to ask many humans to do extra

work (both reviewers and cache hiders). I sometimes start to work on a cache and then do not find the time to

continue for months. In such phases I also would not think about writing reviewer notes and there is also nothing I

could report there (my delays have never been caused by having to wait for someone else).

 

Cezanne

[+K13]

As I understand the issue, it is a necessary cleanup that will expedite the review process. Those cache submissions that are languishing unattended are being flushed away. They will not have to be checked when a new cache is submitted in the same 528 foot area. Those that are being actively worked, but still unpublished are safe from this purge.

 

Imagine that seemingly empty location you have found and want to place a cache there. You submit a cache page in that location. The reviewer has to look to determine if your location is open. He sees a submitted cache already there, but unpublished. He has to contact that owner to ask if they are still planning to publish, wait for a reply, then determine whether you get the spot or it stays with tho first cacher's submission. Now, multiply this scenario to fit your particular reviewer's area. As long as changes/updates are made to a submitted page, it is assumed to be active and will not be flushed.

 

Are cachers really upset about something that will expedite the review process?

[cezanne]

When a reviewer goes to publish a cache, the unsubmitted/unpublished cache, and all their waypoints, can pop up as blocking the cache to be listed. Then the reviewer has to make a determination on if the cache is active, check every waypoint that is flagged in that area and sometimes contact all those cache onwers.

 

I do not understand however that the system lists conflicts for waypoints which cannot cause a conflict by themselves.

Header coordinates of mystery caches belong to this category. In case something is hidden there, the waypoint should also have been entered as an additional waypoint (final or stage of a multi cache).

 

The mere presence of a started cache listing of type mystery which only has header coordinates and nothing else should not block anything and if right now alerts are sent this happens because the system is lousy. Then the system should be improved instead of humans having to change.

 

Of course archived listings can get unarchived and one also can copy text from archived listing to new ones, but I definitely would not want to do that say twice a year and working for over a year on a mystery cache (without any additional waypoints in this phase) is nothing unconceivable to me.

 

Cezanne

[Keystone]

I wonder the #. Just curious. How many cache might this affect? If you can even say. Actually might not be a good idea to say.

 

At first I didn't like caches being archived, for history purposes. But now I don't mind the idea so much. In this case I could see it really causing issues for reviewers, and potential publishers.

Moun10Bike has already said "scores of thousands." A "score" is "twenty." So, we are talking at least 40,000 listings.

 

If an automated process clears out 39,000 abandoned listings that just cause "noise" and delay, then the reviewers are happy to unarchive the remaining 1,000 manually upon request. There are hundreds of reviewers (if you count dogs, too). We can handle it. Total unarchive requests I've received in one of the USA's top ten regions for cache density: zero. Two of my own listings were caught up in the sweep. I haven't written to myself yet, but I'll get around to it.

[+Team Microdot]

I wonder how many times that will have to be repeated... Caches can be unarchived by simply contacting your local reviewer...

It's a wonder this automated cleanup is causing even this much angst (not much, but still some it seems)

 

I'm surprised by the angst too.

 

I had just recently experienced an archival of an unpublished cache - - too close to a disabled stage of a multi - had to wait another month to see if the CO would enable it, she did. I removed my cache and thought about putting it somewhere else, didn't. Approx. 6 months later I got the archival note from the Reviewer. I now understand why reviewers are sweeping up. Makes sense.

 

I see no angst

 

I see people making sense of a change and how it might affect them by asking reasonable questions and those who are able to answer them responding in constructive, meaningful ways

 

And I expect there will be others who benefit from improved understanding from reading said questions and answers - which is surely one of the primary purposes of the forum?

[+Team Microdot]

Are cachers really upset about something that will expedite the review process?

 

I'm certainly not upset by this - I think it is perfectly reasonable.

 

Not perfect (few things in life are), but reasonable.

[Moun10Bike]

I wonder the #. Just curious. How many cache might this affect? If you can even say. Actually might not be a good idea to say.

 

At first I didn't like caches being archived, for history purposes. But now I don't mind the idea so much. In this case I could see it really causing issues for reviewers, and potential publishers.

Moun10Bike has already said "scores of thousands." A "score" is "twenty." So, we are talking at least 40,000 listings.

 

If an automated process clears out 39,000 abandoned listings that just cause "noise" and delay, then the reviewers are happy to unarchive the remaining 1,000 manually upon request. There are hundreds of reviewers (if you count dogs, too). We can handle it. Total unarchive requests I've received in one of the USA's top ten regions for cache density: zero. Two of my own listings were caught up in the sweep. I haven't written to myself yet, but I'll get around to it.

 

The actual count when all is done will be in excess of 131,000 caches. That amounts to more than 5% of the current active cache count, which is not insignificant.

 

Note that these are just the caches that have been untouched for more than 1 year. The count would exceed 175,000 if we dropped back to 6 months (which we do not plan to do at this time).

[+Team Microdot]

The mere presence of a started cache listing of type mystery which only has header coordinates and nothing else should not block anything and if right now alerts are sent this happens because the system is lousy. Then the system should be improved instead of humans having to change.

 

Speaking as someone who works in IT, I hear this view quite often and the answer is always the same - computers are neither sentient nor clairvoyant - they don't think for themselves - they do what they are told, using systems originated by humans.

 

The system doesn't change without HUMAN intervention

 

I have often started development of a mystery cache with the 'header' coordinates being the true position of the cache, and only just before publication modified them to some fake coordinates and added the true coordinates as a hidden waypoint. If your proposal were adopted I would have to change - and I'm human (just) - so basically if the system changes, humans (cachers or reviewers) have to change, or at least adopt different practices, one way or the other.