inactive cachers

[sandlanders]

Just noticed this in “Recent Logs” for a couple of caches. Newer caches, newer cachers. It was issued by Groundspeak, not our reviewers:

“This is an automated message. This cache owner is currently inactive. This cache has been Temporarily Disabled by Groundspeak.”

Just wondering if it’s something new that when people never activate their account soon after registering, GS is catching up with them and disabling their caches. They still have their finds listed. Maybe there’s just some other reason for this. Anyone know?

[CodeJunkie]

Very interesting. Both caches by the same cacher and they recently logged a find in August. I’m not sure what’s going on with this, but it could potentially leave a bunch of geojunk in the field.

[maskinwi]

what caches are these?

All opinions, comments, and useless drivel I post are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of the WGA BOD.

[Mister Greenthumb]

Sometimes this happens when you change your e-mail account and don’t update your geocaching account. You can still find caches, but you must have an active e-mail to recieve logs on your hides. It would have to have happened after the hides were placed.

[sandlanders]

Well, Mister GT, we have run across some caches with inactive owners who are REALLY inactive and who never activated their accounts, and those caches are still going strong. Wonder if the GS GC police are starting to crack down.

[sandlanders]

@maskinwi wrote:

what caches are these?

GC32G41 and GC30PP0 — between Fondy and Kewaskum

[JimandLinda]

I just found the Max cache 2 days ago! I see the e-mail address is inactive on the COs profile page.

Interesting… 😕

[rtrezrsnhvn]

I looked in the groundspeak threads and didn’t see anything about this, so I wonder if it’s an isolated Wisconsin case? very strange. we’ve been more inactive than that cacher. 😯

[Todd300]

Yet that same CO logged in on 9/21/11.

Weird

[CodeJunkie]

@Todd300 wrote:

Yet that same CO logged in on 9/21/11.

Weird

I’m wondering if this was actually Groundspeak updating his account showing this date.

[Team Deejay]

If you don’t validate your account, you can’t place or log caches (today). The “inactive” designation is given when a person requests for their account to be deactivated. What has come out recently is that some of the lackeys didn’t know they were supposed to tell these folks that deactivating their account would also deactivate their caches.

I had thought that this status occurred when emails “bounced”, but I have been assured that this is not the case.

Note that some of the “Not Validated” members are old timers who joined prior to validation and then never responded to the validation email.

[sandlanders]

Thanks for the insight, Deejay.

[Mister Greenthumb]

@Team Deejay wrote:

If you don’t validate your account, you can’t place or log caches (today). The “inactive” designation is given when a person requests for their account to be deactivated. What has come out recently is that some of the lackeys didn’t know they were supposed to tell these folks that deactivating their account would also deactivate their caches.

I had thought that this status occurred when emails “bounced”, but I have been assured that this is not the case.

Note that some of the “Not Validated” members are old timers who joined prior to validation and then never responded to the validation email.

This partially makes sense, but why would someone place caches and less than 2 months later want to be inactive. Shouldn’t groundspeak archive rather than disable the caches?

[Team Deejay]

@Mister Greenthumb wrote:

@Team Deejay wrote:

If you don’t validate your account, you can’t place or log caches (today). The “inactive” designation is given when a person requests for their account to be deactivated. What has come out recently is that some of the lackeys didn’t know they were supposed to tell these folks that deactivating their account would also deactivate their caches.

I had thought that this status occurred when emails “bounced”, but I have been assured that this is not the case.

Note that some of the “Not Validated” members are old timers who joined prior to validation and then never responded to the validation email.

This partially makes sense, but why would someone place caches and less than 2 months later want to be inactive. Shouldn’t groundspeak archive rather than disable the caches?

Long ago, I stopped trying to figure out why people do the nonsense that they do. I believe they don’t archive them right away to give the person a chance to change their mind. These caches are still subject to being archived for being disabled too long.

[Mister Greenthumb]

@Team Deejay wrote:

@Mister Greenthumb wrote:

@Team Deejay wrote:

If you don’t validate your account, you can’t place or log caches (today). The “inactive” designation is given when a person requests for their account to be deactivated. What has come out recently is that some of the lackeys didn’t know they were supposed to tell these folks that deactivating their account would also deactivate their caches.

I had thought that this status occurred when emails “bounced”, but I have been assured that this is not the case.

Note that some of the “Not Validated” members are old timers who joined prior to validation and then never responded to the validation email.

This partially makes sense, but why would someone place caches and less than 2 months later want to be inactive. Shouldn’t groundspeak archive rather than disable the caches?

Long ago, I stopped trying to figure out why people do the nonsense that they do. I believe they don’t archive them right away to give the person a chance to change their mind. These caches are still subject to being archived for being disabled too long.

And I thought besides the great pay, that being a reviewer was all fun and games.

[Author]

Posts