Long Disabled Cache Cleanup Policy

[Buy_The_Tie]

@Sean Connery wrote:

…I would like to see you allow 4 weeks for an owner to respond rather than just 2 weeks. There have often been times in the past where I haven’t been able to view my e-mail for 3-4 weeks. 😛

I feel pretty strongly that 2 weeks is adequate time for an initial response. I feel it is likely that extending the time to 4 weeks would simply delay the inevitable for 2 more weeks in most cases.

One of the things I look at under these circumstances is when the owner of the geocache last logged into geocaching.com If I see that the owner has logged in recently, I would typically give much more leeway.

Most often when a problem cache comes to my attention, the owner hasn’t logged in for quite a long time.

[Buy_The_Tie]

[Ray]

@Jeremy wrote:

… we could also have functionality that would help the approvers identify caches that have been disabled too long and let members report neglected caches that aren’t yet disabled.

The son of “Injured Reserve” lives on the beast’s laptop.

Let me know how I can help with this perennial dog issue.

[Team B Squared]

@OuttaHand wrote:

Added: Do we know if doing one of those MI cleanups actually adds a “Found It” to the cacher’s find count at GC.com ?

The cache that I rescued through their system was an archived cache in Escanaba was a cache that Lynn and I hadn’t previously hunted for. We asked a few of the previous finders where it was located, and one person was even able to give me a pic of the bush that it was in! We went out and spent an hour or so hunting for it in the bush and surrounding area and could not locate it. To get credit for “rescuing” a cache, you have to post a note to the cache page saying that it has been removed or that it could not be located. Then you log on to the rescue mission page (at MIGO) and log that you hunted for the cache. One of the board members from MIGO will then verify that you hunted for the cache and posted a note to the cache page that you hunted and could not locate it, or removed it. You then get credit for a “rescue” on THE MIGO WEBSITE. They keep track of who the top rescuers are in the state along with a list of recent rescues and such. A little carrot for helping to make sure no geolitter is left behind.

Because we did not find the cache that we rescued, we posted a note to the page (not a dnf b/c it was already archived and not supposed to be there anyway, MIGO just believed that it might still be out there). Because we hadn’t hunted for that particular cache before, I imagine that if we would have located it we would have logged it as a find and then posted a note that it had been removed. If it was a cache that we had already logged a smilie for, we would not have relogged it as a find, we would have just posted a note saying it had been removed.

So to answer your question, no the MIGO “Rescues” are not tied in with GC.com “Finds”. I guess it would be your call on how you logged it at GC.com.

Also, to make this system work I know that the reviewers in Michigan work pretty closely with MIGO to make sure that caches that probably are not removed get added to this list.

[Cheesehead Dave]

I like the idea of only keeping a separate “rescued” tally here at wi-gc. The only case where I think it would be appropriate to log a find is if the rescuer had not previously found the cache to be rescued, they actually find a loggable cache (not the tattered remnants of the logbook or a few animal-chewed McToys), and maybe a picture of the cache is posted to verify the removal.

It’s not even a matter of what the “find nazis” think. Logically, if you go out to rescue a cache and it’s not there, there’s no logical justification to how you can call that a “find”.

It might be nice to have some incremental incentives as well… Rescue five caches, get a WGA bumper sticker. Rescue ten and get a t-shirt, etc.

[Ray]

[LightningBugs Mum]

@Cheesehead Dave wrote:

I like the idea of only keeping a separate “rescued” tally here at wi-gc. The only case where I think it would be appropriate to log a find is if the rescuer had not previously found the cache to be rescued, they actually find a loggable cache (not the tattered remnants of the logbook or a few animal-chewed McToys), and maybe a picture of the cache is posted to verify the removal.

It’s not even a matter of what the “find nazis” think. Logically, if you go out to rescue a cache and it’s not there, there’s no logical justification to how you can call that a “find”.

It might be nice to have some incremental incentives as well… Rescue five caches, get a WGA bumper sticker. Rescue ten and get a t-shirt, etc.

I agree with Dave on all points.

[OuttaHand]

this all sounds pretty great.

Cheesehead Dave wrote:
“It might be nice to have some incremental incentives as well… Rescue five caches, get a WGA bumper sticker. Rescue ten and get a t-shirt, etc.”

Now besides racing to get FTF’s, we could generate a race for LTF’s (LAST to find) !

[marc_54140]

Should we perhaps consider having a Hall of Shame, or some such name, where the 5 or 10 caches disabled for the longest time are listed?

Posted on the WGA web site. Prominently.

…………ah. Just a minute. Let me see if any of mine qualify ……

[Ray]

@marc_54140 wrote:

Should we perhaps consider having a Hall of Shame, or some such name, where the 5 or 10 caches disabled for the longest time are listed?

Posted on the WGA web site. Prominently.

…………ah. Just a minute. Let me see if any of mine qualify ……

I don’t know if this would prompt a positive response. None of the people on that list have contributed to this thread (have they read it?). Some of the names on the list were a surprise to me. Some of them remain active on other threads on these forums. I was able to put the list together without great technical skill. Anyone should be able to do the same. ~tb

[marc_54140]

It makes you wonder why the cache owners are not paying attention?!

My suggestion about a Hall of Shame was to provide some embarassment and incentive to do something! I see some of the names are of current cachers, but alot are not. Well, maybe it would not work. Thanks TB.

[Ray]

😀 😀 AHHOOAH!! 😀 😀

Saw the notes on the cache pages today. Now Duck WGA2! the crappy e-mail is on it’s way. Some cache owners don’t like it when you point out their neglect. You will see remarks such as: “You don’t have to get Pissy about it”, “Who are you, the cache police?” etc. BUT, take heart, there are those among us who are behind this effort 110%. (Even if we might see such a reminder on one of our own caches one day).

BIG, BIG KUDOS
~tb

[Lostby7]

Yep you tagged two of the ones on my “List”. 😛

[Buy_The_Tie]

I have been through the process of looking at all of the caches that I could find that have been disabled for more than 3 months, and here are the results….

8 – Repaired and back on line (Yea! :D)
22 – Owner archived after note left by admin
5 – Contact with owner – pending repairs
7 – Owner archived prior to note left by admin
32 – Archived by admin after note left (no response for 2 weeks)
0 – Angry e-mails or threats to life or property (thank you all)

Of the 32 caches archived by the admin, 12 of them might need to be “rescued”. A cache should be rescued if it (or parts of it) are still in place. This would include stages of a multi-cache, or maybe just an abandoned cache. Our web-master has plans for a cache rescue page on the website similar to what MiGO has done. Maybe after the picnic he will have a chance to create it and get it up and running. In the meanwhile, I am saving the “to be rescued” list.

[Ray]

Great Work Tie!

Here is the latest Injured Reserve List: http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=73b30522-225e-40dc-845d-8428796ff3be

[Author]

Posts