GCA Archiving - A proposal and debate.

Geocaching Australia governance issues
User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16110
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

GCA Archiving - A proposal and debate.

Post by caughtatwork » 06 June 07 12:10 pm

A proposal for debate in the senate without notice.

With all the hoohaa going on with the two new cache police members and the archiving of caches from GCA it opens a question to the senate.

GCA is no rules.

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

Should we, as a community, lead by our senate, consider an automated method for dealing with caches that should, for all intents and purposes, be archived?

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.

The first scenario is for active members of the community.
The second would be for caches where the community member may have moved on and has not set the cache to temporarily unavailable.

This is a change in direction for GCA as it would no longer be strictly no rules, but would allow the system to help keep itself clean while still allowing owners to make changes to their cache as needed.

As it's a change in direction, the senate should provide the guidance and governance on these types of questions.

Contributions from people who actively hide / seek caches at GCA will have louder voices in this debate.

Please commence the debate.

Mix
450 or more roots tripped over
450 or more roots tripped over
Posts: 1399
Joined: 30 October 03 9:20 pm

Post by Mix » 06 June 07 7:34 pm

As the owner can reverse the action any time and as there is no proximity rule so a new cache will not stop reactivation I have no problem with any of this. At the end of the day it's not really establishing a rule so much as a process. If possible give people the option to turn off "automatic archiving" for there account, they could still get reminders.

Damo.
Posts: 2183
Joined: 04 April 04 5:01 pm
Location: Jannali

Post by Damo. » 06 June 07 7:54 pm

I'm all for "Free and Open" but I think as cache placers we have some responsibility for what we are putting out there.
If a cache has been abandoned by the placer and is in severe need of maintenance what use is it to anyone. In some cases the community will step up but some caches are not worth it.
I think putting something in place to clear out the garbage is the responsible thing to do.
Making it automated will take the heat off our volunteers as well as hopefully giving people an incentive to fix the caches involved.

User avatar
TeamBeanDare
200 or more found
200 or more found
Posts: 119
Joined: 19 July 05 1:34 am
Location: Australind WA
Contact:

Post by TeamBeanDare » 06 June 07 8:12 pm

I agree. I think is should be after a SBA log though.

Regular cachers will police the SBA's and if there is no responce from the owner, then archive them. Further to this, if the SBA message bounces from the registered email account, then archive immediately.

If it's all undo-able then there should be no concerns.

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6943
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Post by CraigRat » 06 June 07 8:20 pm

As a GCA hider I have no objection, it's not like the cache is deleted (which is why I can't really understand some of the complaints with the recent events on GC....)

I don't see it as anything other than database maintenance, as Mix said, it doesn't effect anything with regards to proximity or anything......

User avatar
Postman Pat
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 317
Joined: 01 March 05 9:23 pm
Location: Kootingal near Tamworth NSW

Post by Postman Pat » 06 June 07 8:38 pm

Could it also be set to trigger when it get a number of DNF's a realistic number say 2 which would also give the owner a chance to get the Cache looked at if he or she is unavailable. :?:

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16110
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 06 June 07 8:56 pm

Anything is technically possible.
This is more a debate as to whether it's a good idea on GCA to impose that functionality.
It's your site, please feel free to contribute.

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6943
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Post by CraigRat » 06 June 07 9:00 pm

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)

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16110
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 06 June 07 9:14 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 if it's got 6 DNF and 3 SBA, yet is still "active" because the cacher has moved on?

Sure, if the SBA has been responded to with a Maintained, then I'm with you. It's also how we feel about abandoned listings that are still nominally active yet are also probably no longer there.

User avatar
CraigRat
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 6943
Joined: 23 August 04 3:17 pm
Twitter: CraigRat
Facebook: http://facebook.com/CraigRat
Location: Launceston, TAS
Contact:

Post by CraigRat » 06 June 07 9:22 pm

caughtatwork wrote: What if it's got 6 DNF and 3 SBA, yet is still "active" because the cacher has moved on?
I'd rather see a human make the ultimate decision on active caches... possibly a good reason to have a senate?? dunno...

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16110
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 06 June 07 10:14 pm

Good point.
Would the senate take on the role of individual caches?
Dunno.

Horus
Totally Clueless(tm)
Posts: 779
Joined: 28 March 03 8:05 pm
Location: Launceston, Tasmania
Contact:

Post by Horus » 06 June 07 10:25 pm

Postman Pat wrote:Could it also be set to trigger when it get a number of DNF's a realistic number say 2 which would also give the owner a chance to get the Cache looked at if he or she is unavailable. :?:
The owner of this "cache" might not like that approach 8)

Geof
450 or more roots tripped over
450 or more roots tripped over
Posts: 1232
Joined: 10 August 04 12:26 pm
Location: Yarra Ranges

Post by Geof » 06 June 07 10:51 pm

Another proposal:
after X DNFs by X different users it gets a needs repair for X months then if none is forthcoming it goes up for adoption on a first come first served basis then after another X months its then archived if no adopte steps up.

User avatar
djcache
750 or more caches found
750 or more caches found
Posts: 559
Joined: 29 December 03 11:37 pm
Location: Lakes Entrance
Contact:

Post by djcache » 06 June 07 11:45 pm

Sounds GCA is getting rules...

DJ

User avatar
riblit
It's the journey.
It's the journey.
Posts: 3444
Joined: 04 April 03 6:30 pm
Location: Land Grant of John Campbell

Post by riblit » 06 June 07 11:49 pm

The idea is sound. An automated email is a nice touch. As for archiving caches if the email bounces, if the bounced forum notifications are anything to go by, a lot of caches will be archived.

Post Reply