I hope I wasn’t the guilty party here as very few of my caches have ever gone missing and I try to get out to them very quickly if they do. At the moment out of 173 caches I have one disabled and one needing maintenance, which is probably as good a record as one can have. I have also only ever archived one cache (as I said recently – a cache is for life and not just for placing).
In my experience of finding (or not finding) caches I think the worse culprits for lack of maintenance are those who have only placed a handful of caches. The more caches you place the more likely they are to be maintained. I do however think that one’s record should be taken into account when a reviewer publishes a cache. Those with a bad record of maintenance or of archiving caches should certainly be restricted when it comes to placing new caches. I also think that you need to have found a minimum number (say 200?) before you can place any cache.
