GCA Archiving - A proposal and debate.

Geocaching Australia governance issues
User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 07 June 07 9:56 am

djcache wrote:Sounds GCA is getting rules...

DJ


That's why it's in the senate for the active GCA seekers and hiders for comment.

If the consensus is yes, then we proceed.
If the consensus is no, then we stay unchanged.

Better to seek community input than impose rules.

User avatar
Dik:
500 or more caches logged
500 or more caches logged
Posts: 370
Joined: 22 May 06 6:56 pm
Location: Adelaide SA Garmin 60CSx

Post by Dik: » 07 June 07 1:57 pm

As the owner of a GCA cache that gets more DNFs than finds I can assure you all that a DNF doesn't mean the cache is gone or in need of maintenance. Merely that people are looking for it in all the wrong places. :shock:

User avatar
Nilbog_Aus
650 or more caches found
650 or more caches found
Posts: 102
Joined: 12 June 06 7:48 pm
Location: Wahroonga, NSW
Contact:

Post by Nilbog_Aus » 07 June 07 4:23 pm

I think some sort of automated archiving would be good but caches getting archived in 6 months rather than 3 would seem a better timeline to me.

Also it would be good if any log from the cache owner reset the counter. That way if there was a good reason a cache needed to be disabled for an extended period of time (or if its just bloody hard to find :) ) the owner would only need to log a note occasionally to keep the cache "alive".

Anyway just my 2cents.

User avatar
zactyl
Posts: 1171
Joined: 28 July 04 6:40 pm
Location: Mullumbimby, NSW

Re: GCA Archiving - A proposal and debate.

Post by zactyl » 07 June 07 4:58 pm

caughtatwork wrote:eg.
1 month after a cache is marked as temporarily unavailable, an email is sent to the owner requesting action.
2 months after, a reminder.
3 months after, the cache is automatically archived by the system.
The beauty of GCA is that the owner can at any time, unarchive the cache without permission or intervention by an "appropriate authority".

Another eg.
Same scenario as above, but change temporarily unavailable with SBA.


I think you've covered both situations nicely. I thought 1 month might be a bit short a period of time to start hassling someone, but I'm a bit slack about fixing caches sometimes. :wink: Make sure the "Your cache has been archived" email includes the information that they can return their cache to its "Disabled" state if they have a need to.

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6937
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Post by CraigRat » 07 June 07 7:19 pm

Sounds GCA is getting rules...

And just how does this concern you???

Thinking about it today, archiving of long term temp disabled is not even close to being a 'rule', its more about removing it from searches etc...

Implementing archiving on active caches would be rules IMO, which changes things....

I'd second that maybe the timeframe proposed be extended a little

User avatar
zactyl
Posts: 1171
Joined: 28 July 04 6:40 pm
Location: Mullumbimby, NSW

Post by zactyl » 08 June 07 1:52 am

CraigRat wrote:Implementing archiving on active caches would be rules IMO, which changes things....

I was thinking about that too, maybe a combination of X number of DNFs, + no finds in the last X months + no note from owner + inactive owner (not logged in for the past X months) could trigger an email and the three month process? :shock: :lol:

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 15 July 07 10:07 pm

http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=8604

Interesting. We seem to have a situation that would warrant intervention.

Should we?

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6937
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Post by CraigRat » 15 July 07 10:43 pm

Theres nothing stopping any of the concerned parties from posting a 'Needs Maint.' Log or a SBA on the cache to alert the owner.

Should it go to a vote as to if the maintainers should have authorisation to Archive the cache after a NM or SBA after say 4 weeks for Database Mainanence purposes? (this of course assumes that there have been a solid bunch of DNF's from seasoned players prior to any NM or SBA?)

This wouldn't be a rule for playing the game ...it's more about the maintenance of the data....there's no point listing something if it doesn't exist!

If an owner places it back as active, so be it.... Archiving isn't deletion...

Abandonment is the hard one to figure out what to do.....I have no suggestion for that....

As for voting for anything senate related...how the heck can we do that? I don't like the idea of using the forum polls.....

SuperMoosie
200 or more found
200 or more found
Posts: 29
Joined: 26 April 05 10:28 am
Location: Umina Beach NSW

Re: GCA Archiving - A proposal and debate.

Post by SuperMoosie » 16 July 07 10:37 am

caughtatwork wrote:
That does mean that abandoned or muggled and not maintained caches will remain in the system for ever.

eg.
1 month after a cache is marked as temporarily unavailable, an email is sent to the owner requesting action.
2 months after, a reminder.
3 months after, the cache is automatically archived by the system.


Just thinking of anouther dimension of this debate.

In the interests of Treading Lightly, maybe we need to think about getting removing abandoned and archived caches removed from their hiding spots and not remain in the envioment for ever.

My thoughts are that either:
A) there could be a list by state of caches that have been archived by the above process.
B) They could still come up in the normal listing on the website but with a "remove me " type status.

Cachers could see there is a old cache in the area, remove it and then log that is has been removed and then fully archive it.

Or a local could may log that they will take ownership of a particular cache and be responsible for either adopting it, or removing from the enviroment.

Just a thought

User avatar
Pesky!
1350 or more caches found
1350 or more caches found
Posts: 1871
Joined: 04 April 03 11:48 pm
Location: Lumina Beach
Contact:

Post by Pesky! » 16 July 07 12:34 pm

Supermosie's ideas are a very sound method of management, as local cachers will know if the site has been attended or not a lot more than interstate admins.

I second the motion for voluntary "I can no longer maintain this cache" type of cache log. with the option of adopting or cache check and removal.

None of my earlier posts were intended to bring into being a "rule" applied to the placement and or management of a cacher its content, just merely a method of cleaning up the the embarasing detritus of cache litter ,and even more so ,webpage data litter.
Zactyls options of x number of DNF and no responce from owner is a great method of deciding. I sitill like the idea of automatic archive in these cases, as it would even remind me to attend to that cache that is going unfound for what ever reason Even if it is just that its too hard, or too remote.

The chance to bring these to your attention, and have owners make a decision to have it set to "please retrieve or adopt" would help. then if no responce to a RoA (Retrieve or Adopt) would then lead to archive and relevant notifications.
and as has been said many times in these posts... Archived is not Gone forever.

User avatar
Pesky!
1350 or more caches found
1350 or more caches found
Posts: 1871
Joined: 04 April 03 11:48 pm
Location: Lumina Beach
Contact:

Post by Pesky! » 16 July 07 12:47 pm

CraigRat wrote:I wouldn't support even the notion of auto disabling of active caches in any way... it starts to veer the direction of this site in a direction I wouldn't be too keen on going...

(edited after re-reading the posts above)


what is the definition of an active cache? one that is /has been hunted for and found in the last day, or week, or month or year? just how long do you wait?
my main concern is with what can cbe considered inactive caches, left behind by inactive owners.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 16 July 07 1:28 pm

I would suggest that an active cache is one that does not have 4 DNF's without a maintained log.

If it's got 4 DNF's in a row and there is no maintained log, then it, for all intents and purposes, is probably gone. If it's that far gone, there's probably nothing left at the site anyway.

If it's still there, then all the owner has to do it log a maintained log indicating it is still actually there. That stops the process until another 4 DNF's are logged. This allows very difficult finds to remain active.

User avatar
Papa Bear_Left
800 or more hollow logs searched
800 or more hollow logs searched
Posts: 2573
Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
Location: Kalamunda, WA
Contact:

Re: GCA Archiving - A proposal and debate.

Post by Papa Bear_Left » 16 July 07 4:21 pm

SuperMoosie wrote:In the interests of Treading Lightly, maybe we need to think about getting removing abandoned and archived caches removed from their hiding spots and not remain in the envioment for ever.

Careful with this idea. They might've been archived on GCA and re-listed on gc.com or another listing site, so you'd be removing an active cache!

In the greater scheme of things, if we all pick up the occasional bit of rubbish on the way to and from caches, geocaching's eco-karma can accomodate a few abandoned boxes, I think.

caughtatwork wrote:I would suggest that an active cache is one that does not have 4 DNF's without a maintained log. ... This allows very difficult finds to remain active."

We could even code part of this. Allow 2*Difficulty DNFs before prompting for a maintenance check/log.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16033
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: GCA Archiving - A proposal and debate.

Post by caughtatwork » 16 July 07 7:32 pm

Papa Bear_Left wrote:
caughtatwork wrote:I would suggest that an active cache is one that does not have 4 DNF's without a maintained log. ... This allows very difficult finds to remain active."

We could even code part of this. Allow 2*Difficulty DNFs before prompting for a maintenance check/log.

I don't disagree with the thought, but I wouldn't expect that there would be many caches with 6 consecutive DNF's. i.e. a diff 3 x 2 = 6
Once a cache gets three or so DNF's, there are few to no attempts after that.
I'd hazard a guess that there wouldn't be too may with 4 DNF's either, but it's a place to start.

User avatar
Facitman
1400 or more caches found
1400 or more caches found
Posts: 463
Joined: 18 June 04 3:58 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by Facitman » 16 July 07 9:28 pm

I've got a dashboard thingy that tracks Victorian caches and have found that 3 DNF's in a row generally indicate that the cache has a problem. The only twist is sometimes you get a false positive when teams are caching together and all log a DNF; doesn't necessarily mean it's missing.

You could look for 3 DNFs on different days?

Of course some caches just get lots of DNF's even if they are a-okay eg. this evil tree one

Post Reply