WildNTexas

@KEYSTONE & Keystone only... (Or another moderator/reviewer) We would like an answer to our question. We do realize that you probably have not had a chance to be able to answer the question since we posted it. To clarify our question... as moderator, reviewer. The question was how do you want us to handle caches that we feel need reviwer attention? When in your opinion should a NA log be logged or not logged? (Other than because a cache is placed illegally) What action do you wish us to take for caches that have NA logs that are a 90 days? 6 Months old, a YEAR old? What action would you like us to take for caches that have the reviewer 30 day notice on them, and the 30 day notice is 90 days old, 6 months old, even a YEAR old? Or do we do nothing? WNT

I'm sorry to hear that, and to the extent that you would like to receive them, you and your husband have my sympathies. However, since you came into this thread, you have not been defending your husband's right to post, or explaining any limitations which he might have. You have, in fact, been arguing for exactly the same points of principle that he was, as if you believed him to be objectively right, on issues such as cache maintenance and reviewer reaction times. Perhaps you were doing this out of solidarity with him, but you might wish to consider if that really helps him. You now appear to be in the position of someone who is trying to dig themselves out of a hole, and that does neither you nor your husband any service. To respond to your comment I say this. Yes, I do fight the fight out of solidarity. I do believe in some of the arguments that he has in regards to this issue. Keep in mind though that the thread was created by my husband. So I am here fighting his fight. It doesn't matter if I fully agree with all of his arguments for the issue or not. As far as what really helps him, and others like him when it comes to geocaching is hard to tell. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But since I do know him better than any of you. I would like to think I would know best. My husband & I have discussed this issue with certain proffesionals in this area of expertise as well. Should those proffesionals suggest a course of action for me or him to take we would most certainly follow it. Here is what we do wonder, & even Keystone the moderator/reviewer hasn't asked the simple question we asked. What course of action to THEY the moderators & reviewers want us to take to solve the issue of these problem caches quicker. It shouldn't matter if it is jsut one problem cache, or a 1000. Is that it doesn't make any logical sense why as geocachers any of you would not care about problem caches, Not care that reviewers are taking 2 or 3 months to intervene so that they the caches get either fixed or archived. WE don't honestly understand why this is a big issue? If as you & others & even a couple of the moderators/reviewers say that their aren't very many caches that need reviewer attention. Then why don't they just get them reviewed then. That would probably, maybe shut us up. As we wouldn't have any grounds to stand on at all. If there aren't that many as you & the others have kept saying. Then why not get them reviewed? I can say this. That it would shut my hsuband up about it. Thats for sure. Honestly, we have no desire to create additional work for the reviewers. Thats why we have always suggested that maybe the system should be automated. That would reduce reviewer work load. It woudln't be that hard to have a good system that would help automate the review process for disabled caches, or for caches with NA logs. Are only desire is to get caches that need reviewer attention, tended to in a timely manner. Thats all. It shouldn't matter if the number of those caches in question is 1 or 1000. In fact the lower the number it is, the lsss excuse in our opinion Groundspeak has in the length of time it takes to get reviewed. As far as my analogies are concerned. I will say this. I am sorry you don't understand our analogies. If they don't make much sense to you or to others. We can deal with that. We don't understand other peoples analogies most of the time either. As far as MLK goes. We/I NEVER meant any offense or disrepect to anyone, nor did I ever intend to say that I was MLK, or that I was like MLK. So if you or anyone else took offense to that. I/we offer our sincerest apologies. The point I/we were trying to make is simple, he was trying to change the mindset of people, and so were we. Nothing more, nothing less. Changing a mindset can be done. It isn't impossible. Just not allways easy. He does take geocaching seriously, very seriously. As seriously as the owner of Groundspeak? Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. People do take their hobbies seriously. It doesnt' matter if you agree that they should or shouldn't people do. So obviously this is a lost cause. What we have begun to understand is truly that getting caches that need some type of intervention to take place isn't something that anyone really honestly cares about. Because we come from the belief if you care about something. You will do something about it. People only try to change the things around them that they care about. If you dont' care about something, your not going to put the time & effort into to change it, or to make it better. Sorry it just doesn't make any logical sense to us. I accept that we have lost this issue, that this issue will remain. Getting him to understand & accept it will be something I have to deal with over time. In case We/I have said anything offensive to anyone, or disrespectfull, I want to offer our/my apologies. At no time did either of us ever intentionally mean to be disrespectfull or offensive to anyone. So if either of us were. We are sincerely sorry for this. That was never our intention or desire. This includes any moderator, or reviewer as well. Our only intention was to find a solution, any workable solution that would make the jobs easier for the reviewers & still improve the turn around time on getting caches that need intervention reviewed quicker. We have now bow our heads in defeat & drop the issue. WNT

Think about this... if many people did that back in the 40's, 50's, & 60's, would people of coulour have ever gotten the freedoms that they have to do, the equality etc? What about MLK & others like him? He & others tried very hard to change the viewpoints of those people of the USA, He tried even harder to change the minds, & viewpoints of both white & coloured people of the south. If he accepted that he couldn't change the mindframe of those who were in "power" in the south as well as the rest of the country. Would people of colour today be as "Free" now? Putting into the words of MLK. What about Rosa Parks sitting on the bus? Wasn't she trying to change the mindset of some people? Eventaully Her as well as MLK did in fact change the mindset of enough to get changes made. WNT D This is geocaching and you aren't MLK. Get over yourself. There are a few caches that aren't active. If you take away those of the person who's situation you said you understand there are way fewer. It appears that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. To an ant, a mole hill is pretty big. Just like what some consider a lame cache, others do not. At one time Pro Football wasn't taken very seriously. Look at it today. May other sports, hobbies weren't taken very serious in the beggining. Now for me it honestly isn't as big a deal, I am fighting the fight for my husband. For him it is a big deal. Consider this. He has certain mental disabilites. The way geocaching works is something that is very good therapy as well as a good hobby for people with his types of issues to have. Not like playing footbal, or biking, or many other hobbies or sports. So people like him take geocaching extremly seriously. That ISN'T going to change for people like him. If it could be changed, some doctor would win the Nobel piece prize for finding the cure that could change all people that are afflicted like him. So while I am NOT MLK fighting for coloured people I am fighting the fight to gain more rights, & respect for those people that have true mental issues (that are recognized by the ADA). So maybe YOU and I CAN get over and simply ignore and move on from problem caches. Some people with certain mental issues CAN NOT. So when a area has a significant number of caches with an issue (especially after you have allready found the viable caches) those that remain become a thorn in their side. Now my husband doesn't have a severe case of these mental issues, there are others that are not & alot more severe than my husband. So if it bugs him a little, its going to bug those that are more severe alot more. Some of you may not take geocaching very seriously, thats fine. Thats your right. Thats what makes america great. I can tell you this. There are many many hobbies & sports that huge numbers of people take extremly seriously. Many millions if not billions of amatuer dollars are spent on many of these sports & hobbies each year. By amatuer I mean everyday people. Not counting the dollars that Jerry Jones spends on his hobby owning the Dallas Cowboys & building cool stadiums. So geocaching being a hobby or sport... I just wonder how many dollars are actually spent on geocaching each year. Placing caches, as well those searching for them. Buying GPS devices, Smartphone apps, containers, etc. Since Groundspeak isn't IPO yet, I would be curious to see what kind of money Groundspeak pulls in each year as well. Obviously enough to have employees, build smartphone apps, & maintain their website. My husband & I gather a guess that people are spending at least 10 million a year on geocaching. In the last year of geocaching I know we have spent well over $5,000 (if not more) on this hobby & sport. WNT

Think about this... if many people did that back in the 40's, 50's, & 60's, would people of coulour have ever gotten the freedoms that they have to do, the equality etc? What about MLK & others like him? He & others tried very hard to change the viewpoints of those people of the USA, He tried even harder to change the minds, & viewpoints of both white & coloured people of the south. If he accepted that he couldn't change the mindframe of those who were in "power" in the south as well as the rest of the country. Would people of colour today be as "Free" now? Putting into the words of MLK. What about Rosa Parks sitting on the bus? Wasn't she trying to change the mindset of some people? Eventaully Her as well as MLK did in fact change the mindset of enough to get changes made. In regards to the 30/90 day thing. It is policy as far as I can tell from guidelines & practices that I as well as others have witnessed. That a reviewer will give a customary 30 day notice for caches that they review that need CO intervention. In the customary notice they ask the CO to either fix the problem with a cache, OR contact the reviewer explaining any circumstances in regards to the cache in question. They must do either of those (or both) within 30 days from the time the 30 day notice log was posted to the cache. As far as the 90 days thing goes. I as well as a few others from posts that my husband & I have read, as well as other cachers that we have spoken with. Do believe that 90 days is more than long enough for a disabled cache to get fixed & made active again, of course barring any special circumstances as sometimes there are always exceptions to the rule. As far as how the world got stuck on normal 30/90 day time frames. Partly because 30 days is considered a month, 90 days is 3 months. In terms of legality & how our political system & legal system work. 30 day notices, 90 day time frames is what they use. ie...If your renting an apartment & you want to move out, you are required to give a 30 day notice. If they want to end your rental agreement at the end of the contract they are required to give you a 30 day notice. In the courts alot of things (depending on local, state & federal laws) have 30 day or 90 day time spans to them. Thats why as a general rule, barring the exceptions of course, most things in life that have a time span to them will many many times have 30 days or 90 days. Think of return policies at Best Buy, Radio Shack, & many other stores. Most (but not all) have 30 day return policies. For us though it really isn't so much about 30/90 days. They are just good general guidelines. We don't have a problem with the exceptions. But we believe though that all exceptions geocaching or not. Should be delt with on a case by case basis. Simply because each exception is always different. Thats why it's an exception. IMHO... one minute one reviewer/moderator says their are to many disabled caches that need reviewing & we can't get to them but once every 2 or 3 months. Then another says there aren't that many so whats the problem. More reviewers aren't needed cause the workload isn't to much to handle. Yet if that were really true then why would it take 2 or 3 months to review? By one moderators own admission that it can take that long. So we wonder which is it. To many caches that need reviewing that it takes 2 or 3 months, or not so many? If not so many than why 2 or 3 months for a cache with a NA log to get reviewed? WNT

However, there is NO JOY when you go to an area and a good majority of the caches are disabled... Go do a search on Little Elm Texas, 75068. Center your search on N 33° 10.144 W 096° 53.748. Now whats the ratio of active to inactive caches? WNT I agree, that is a lot of disabled caches. There also appears to be a bit more to the story as well... Most of those disabled caches were by the same cacher. It appears that last fall he agreed to adopt a large number of caches of another cacher and, as they say...no good deed goes unpunished. Unfortunately, it appears the previous CO had a bunch of containers missing but didn't disable or archive them. When the current CO took over they started getting a bunch of DNF's and ended up disabling a significant number of caches that should have been disabled or archived by the previous CO. I'm guessing that CO didn't realize they were taking on that many problems. Those caches have been disabled about 3.5 months. It may be that the Reviewer is familiar with the history of that series and is giving the adopting CO a chance to get the series back on track. My advice to you is still the same...let it go and ignore those caches. It isn't worth the aggravation. If a disabled cache is blocking a location where you'd like to place a cache, try contacting the area reviewer and explain the situation. They may be very open to archiving that disabled cache. Actually I just picked out an area that was close to us that is similar to a few other areas around us. I can give you a few more areas like that in the Dallas Fort-Worth Metroplex as well as a few outside the metroplex as well. We know the situation with the cacher who adopted the caches for the area that I gave you. We know why it is taking him a while to get those caches back up & running. If you look at a few of those caches, or even all of them. You will note that neither I nor my husband have logged NA logs on any of them either. Simply because we know him & we know the situation. Neither I nor my husband have problems with a cache being disabled for longer than 90 days IF the CO will simply log and additional write note log saying that their are other issues going on. Since we know him, we know the issues. Although we have told him he should post a "note" log letting other cachers know that there are some special circumstances going on & there will be a delay. Why do we think the write note log important? It lets us know that the CO is still active, alive & well & that he hasn't forgotten about the cache. ON at least 4 caches my husband posted a NA log, the CO emailed him & told him they actually THOUGHT they had archived the cache instead of disabled status it was. As far as placing a cache... My husband currently has 3 caches he is building & that will be placed at caches that need archiving. The reviewer has archived one of them allready, and posted the customary 30 day notice on the other two. The cache that has allready been archived for him to place the new cache would have been placed during super bowl week had it not been for the ice & snow here in Dallas. The Wildlife Preserve Park where he is going to place the cache has also been closed because of the mud from all the ice & snow. (The city closes the Preseve anytime its to muddy for the hikers, bikers, & horses). So like my husband & I both said. The reviewer does a FANTASTIC job when it comes to posting new caches. My husband & I both know that if we want to place a cache that is nearby a cache with issues, that we can & that the reviewer will review the cache in question to allow a new cache to be placed. Heres the thing though. Only about 10% maybe even as much as 15% (If even) of the geocaching community even read the forums. So there is probably a large group of cachers out there that have NO idea that they can place a new cache near a problem cache & have the reviewer review the problem cache to see if they can place their new cache there. We know... but do the cachers who never read the forums know? WNT Is that what this is all about? You and your husband want to take over the spots? Just go find your own places to hide. Nope, not in the least. We know if we want to place a cache near a cache that in our opinin has issues & should be archived then we will & ask the reviewer to review the cache in question. If he gets the CO to fix the problem. Then great we move our cache to a new location. This has happend once & we didn't have a problem with it. Another time we tried to place a cache, the reviewer looked at the cache in question & told us that it wasn't time for that cache to get a 30 day notice, or get archived yet. We waited a while longer the CO still did nothing. Eventually it was archived & the cache was published. If memory serves me correctly I think it was even my cache, not my husbands, that I had to wait the extra time for. Again not a problem. Now as far as OTHER people, the ones that DON'T read the forums. We are here to try & help them, protect, or whatever. The voice of the silent crowd. Oh & dont' speak up and say your part of the silent crowd.... If you speak up, your not silent & therefore not part of the silent crowd. WNT

My husband has alot more than I do. Yes, he is starting to run out of caches nearby to look for. It now usually requires a drive of anywhere from 5 to 10 miles or more to grab a cache. Some days when the weather is bad, like during Super Bowl week (We are in the Dallas area) getting out to drive 5 to 10 miles made it a bigger task. Even though he does have a 4x4 truck. He does cache for numbers as well as many other reasons. We do love the Historical Virtuals that are still around as an example. So in terms of caches within 10 miles of home, they are on the virge of all being found. WNT Some would be happy to drive only 5 miles. Many drive 20-50 miles to find a cache to find. That is the problem with a big find count, the blast zone just keeps getting bigger and bigger. So if these few that are disabled were to magically become viable and active caches, how long would it be before you again have to lament that you need to drive more than 10 miles? Your absolutly correct. Once those caches that are fixed (disabled or not) become viable again. It would only take anywhere from a couple of weeks, to a month for them to all be found. Depending on weather of course. We, & especially him does drive many many miles to get caches. Look at his stats, we do have a significant number outside the DFW metroplex as well. 9 other states, & 1 non state. (DC). We are also slowly working on trying to get at least 3-5 caches in every county of Texas as well. Along with all of the current Virtuals that are still alive & well. With 254 counties in Texas & has big as Texas is, that isn't an easy chore to do. Not like RI. Heck DFW is bigger than the entire state of RI. WNT

The issue isn't just with the disabled caches though. Did you forget about the caches that aren't disabled & need RA? Sadly those are much harder to look for.. WNT P.S. You didn't answer the question I asked you. Being that you are a reviewer & moderator. Correct??? What action would you like for us to take when we find cache that in our opinion needs reviewer attention? In YOUR opinion. What factors do you think should exist to actually warrant an NA log. In regards to a post someone else posted. We don't log NA logs for caches that have a habitual issues with wet & soaked logs, broken containers, bad swag etc. For those issues we log NM logs. Along with our found logs. We believe NA logs should only be posted if a cache is illegally (Federal, state, local, or Groundspak) placed. Or those cachs that we feel need RA because the cache is MIA &/or disabled. Yikes.. one more edit... Keystone... You say there aren't that many disabled caches. Ok I am with you... Then if you don't consider that number to be very many, and even fewer of those are older than 90 days &/or have NA logs posted. Then by your own addmission, it shouldn't take very long for a reviewer to review thsoe caches then? You did say there weren't very many. So if they arent' very many it shouldn't take anytime at all for a reviewer to review them & take the appropriate action if needed.

However, there is NO JOY when you go to an area and a good majority of the caches are disabled... Go do a search on Little Elm Texas, 75068. Center your search on N 33° 10.144 W 096° 53.748. Now whats the ratio of active to inactive caches? WNT I agree, that is a lot of disabled caches. There also appears to be a bit more to the story as well... Most of those disabled caches were by the same cacher. It appears that last fall he agreed to adopt a large number of caches of another cacher and, as they say...no good deed goes unpunished. Unfortunately, it appears the previous CO had a bunch of containers missing but didn't disable or archive them. When the current CO took over they started getting a bunch of DNF's and ended up disabling a significant number of caches that should have been disabled or archived by the previous CO. I'm guessing that CO didn't realize they were taking on that many problems. Those caches have been disabled about 3.5 months. It may be that the Reviewer is familiar with the history of that series and is giving the adopting CO a chance to get the series back on track. My advice to you is still the same...let it go and ignore those caches. It isn't worth the aggravation. If a disabled cache is blocking a location where you'd like to place a cache, try contacting the area reviewer and explain the situation. They may be very open to archiving that disabled cache. Actually I just picked out an area that was close to us that is similar to a few other areas around us. I can give you a few more areas like that in the Dallas Fort-Worth Metroplex as well as a few outside the metroplex as well. We know the situation with the cacher who adopted the caches for the area that I gave you. We know why it is taking him a while to get those caches back up & running. If you look at a few of those caches, or even all of them. You will note that neither I nor my husband have logged NA logs on any of them either. Simply because we know him & we know the situation. Neither I nor my husband have problems with a cache being disabled for longer than 90 days IF the CO will simply log and additional write note log saying that their are other issues going on. Since we know him, we know the issues. Although we have told him he should post a "note" log letting other cachers know that there are some special circumstances going on & there will be a delay. Why do we think the write note log important? It lets us know that the CO is still active, alive & well & that he hasn't forgotten about the cache. ON at least 4 caches my husband posted a NA log, the CO emailed him & told him they actually THOUGHT they had archived the cache instead of disabled status it was. As far as placing a cache... My husband currently has 3 caches he is building & that will be placed at caches that need archiving. The reviewer has archived one of them allready, and posted the customary 30 day notice on the other two. The cache that has allready been archived for him to place the new cache would have been placed during super bowl week had it not been for the ice & snow here in Dallas. The Wildlife Preserve Park where he is going to place the cache has also been closed because of the mud from all the ice & snow. (The city closes the Preseve anytime its to muddy for the hikers, bikers, & horses). So like my husband & I both said. The reviewer does a FANTASTIC job when it comes to posting new caches. My husband & I both know that if we want to place a cache that is nearby a cache with issues, that we can & that the reviewer will review the cache in question to allow a new cache to be placed. Heres the thing though. Only about 10% maybe even as much as 15% (If even) of the geocaching community even read the forums. So there is probably a large group of cachers out there that have NO idea that they can place a new cache near a problem cache & have the reviewer review the problem cache to see if they can place their new cache there. We know... but do the cachers who never read the forums know? WNT

My husband has alot more than I do. Yes, he is starting to run out of caches nearby to look for. It now usually requires a drive of anywhere from 5 to 10 miles or more to grab a cache. Some days when the weather is bad, like during Super Bowl week (We are in the Dallas area) getting out to drive 5 to 10 miles made it a bigger task. Even though he does have a 4x4 truck. He does cache for numbers as well as many other reasons. We do love the Historical Virtuals that are still around as an example. So in terms of caches within 10 miles of home, they are on the virge of all being found. WNT

However, there is NO JOY when you go to an area and a good majority of the caches are disabled... Go do a search on Little Elm Texas, 75068. Center your search on N 33° 10.144 W 096° 53.748. Now whats the ratio of active to inactive caches? WNT

If any reviewer feels they need assistance, there are established procedures for doing this. My original reviewer territory is now covered by six reviewers because of healthy cache growth. And, if a reviewer refuses to recognize that they're falling behind, Groundspeak can and will step in affirmatively to provide that help. I've not read anything telling me that the cache publication schedule or the response to "needs archived" logs in your state are unacceptable. To the contrary, the Texas reviewer goes out of his way to be of assistance behind the scenes to his fellow reviewers. We would all flock to his aid immediately if he ever asked. I think that your expectations about affirmatively policing disabled caches and caches with many DNF logs or NM logs are unrealistic. All of those tasks are primarily the community's job. The tasks are an optional task for a volunteer cache reviewer. You have not read anything that the NA logs in our state are unacceptalbe? Sorry this statement I find confusing. As a customer of geocaching.com my husband pays for a premium membership. Thus that makes him a paying customer of geocaching.com. As a customer he finds that the time it takes to get a response to a NA log is unacceptable. We view that the same way as if you ordered a pizza for delivery and you wanted it now but the pizza was delivered next week. I am sure you would find that unacceptable. Wouldn't you? You said above that policing disabled caches, & caches with many DNF/NM logs were primarily the community's job. Ok... I am with you there. Not a problem. However keep in mind that we as community can only log NA logs, & email the CO. WE the community DON'T have the capability to ARCHIVE those caches where the CO has abandoned the cache, or refuses to fix the issues with their cache. One other note when we do take that step. Some CO's view those who do as vigilante's, and as one "Prime Reviewer" commented in the suggestion forum that these NA logs were doing nothing but causing him/her problems. They shouldn't be. It isn't our fault that everytime an NA log is created that it emails the Prime Reviewer. Thats how Groundspeak programmed the system to work, that every NA creates an email. Guess that could be turned off so that NA logs don't create emails to the reivewers. Just like NM logs don't. The group has increased from around 25 when I started to more than 150 reviewers now. We're not shy about adding more when needed. The concern about adding too many is the work needed to keep us all on the same page. If there were 1500 reviewers, I can only imagine the number of threads about "reviewer inconsistency." Now that actually makes perfect sense. Keeping 150 reviewers on the same page etc. is deffinatly alot easier than monitoring the actions of 1500 reviewers. Thats no different then in school systems. Much harder for a principal to monitor a school with 2000 students in it than 100. Which is why a school of 2000 has several assistant principals where as the school of 100 only has one. Several of us in the suggestion forums suggested an automated system, thus you wouldn't have extra reviewers to monitor. Of course one of the biggest complaints it seems people are commenting about automated systems is how the automated system to could be bypassed. While this maybe true, it would require that a CO at least be active. There are many caches which are abandoned by people who no longer cache anymore. The automated system would take care of these rather quickly as those that have quit geocaching probably won't even notice their cache archived. Then there are always those people out there that really don't like anything automated, even things that have nothing to do with geocaching. They simply don't like much automation. My mother-in-law is like this. She doesn't even like cruise control on cars because she thinks that automates to much of the driving process & causes more rear end collisions. Then again my husband & I believe in fully automating anything that can be automated. My father-in-law actually worked with DARPA inventing & developing the GPS System. The DOD (Department of Defense) wanted GPS as a way to automate their weapons guidance systems as well as other systems. If it was up to us though we beleive you could automate the entire reviewer system and not need human reviewers at all. A good AI program from DARPA would do a great job. We do realize though that the funds to purchase the needed hardware & software to automate the entire reviewer process is more than Groundspeak/geocaching.com could ever afford financially. So suggesting that Groundspeak take it to that level would be silly. Maybe the cost to automate the review process for caches that need reviewer attention is financially unfeasable due to the cost of needed hardware/firmware/software upgrades. Then again only Groundspeak could officially make those claims. Many suggestions that are made by parents of my students sometimes are financially unfeasable for the school to afford. When thats the case, we let the parents know this. Sometimes the PTA or booster club finds ways to make it happen. Sometimes they don't. We personally dont' consider creating a NA log on a cache that NEEDS an NA log as increasing a reviewers work load, because in truth whether or not we log an NA dosen't change the fact that the cache in question needs reviewer attention. Our personal opinion & policy in regards to DNF's, NM, & NA are this. One NA really should be changed to NRA or RAN (Needs Reviewer attention, Reviewer attention needed)because their are alot of caches that just need to be fixed &/or replaced. No reason to really archive them unless the CO doesn't make the needed repairs in a reasonable length of time. DNF's If we put an honest effort into trying to find the cache container & we do not. Then we will log a DNF. If my husband & I are caching together for the day. Then only ONE of us will log the DNF. If their are factors that we believe that the cache has gone MIA then we will mention this in our DNF log. We normally won't log an NM for it. Sometimes there might be an exception. NM's If we notice that cache is broken, or what we think might be an issue with the cache. Then we will log a NM to let the CO know what might be wrong with the cache. If the information needed to let the CO know what a problem is would be to much info & be a "spolier" then we will email them and let them know the additional details about what we found. IF my husband & I are caching together, then only ONE of us will log the NM log. Normally we won't log a NM log for a cache we think is MIA. Exceptions do apply though. NA logs We recently changed this, due to the fact that we made several attempts to find a cache & weren't able to find it. The cache hadn't been found in ages. We logged a DNF stating that, as well as a NM log on the next visit asking that the CO check on this cache. No logs were ever posted by the CO. We went and checked a third time. Still weren't able to find it. So we logged a NA log. Within 24 hours the NA log was deleted, we got an email from the CO saying they checked on it a week or so before we logged the NA log. We went back & found it. While the cache WAS there & it was OUR mistake for not finding it. Simply posting the DNF log & NM log asking for it to be checked on &/or a hint did not work. The CO said they checked on it, but never posted that fact. IT TOOK actually posting an NA log to get ANY response from the CO. He wasn't to pleased with us, but hey we weren't geting any response from him till we did place a NA log. NOW though... we will only log a NA log on any disabled cache that has been disabled for more than 90 days AND has not had any logs posted by the CO in that 90 days giving us an update to the disabled cache. We will also log NA logs for any cache we find that might be illegally placed (such as in a no trespassing area). We haven't found any of those yet. Thank goodness. As far as active caches go... we NOW will only log a NA log on any cache that has at least 5 other geocachers DNF logs, AND we have honestly tried to look for the cache ourselves... AND haven't been found in 6 months or more. Since your a reviewer & moderator we have one more question for you if you don't mind. What should we do? Post NA logs on caches that have been disabled for 90 days or longer, & only post on NA per cache, not multiple NA logs per cache. On caches that are NOT disabled, just log DNF's & maybe NM logs? Tell us... in your opinion, when you would post what. If you need me to give you several examples. I can do that. WNT

We (My husband & I) do not know who the "prime reviewer" was refering to in the suggestion forum that "Semper" created. Because my husband & I seem to be the ones asking for something to be done in regards to improving the current condition of trying to get caches that are in need of reviewer attention reviewed & offering many different suggestions to find a solution to that. We aren't or wouldn't be surprised if some people here thought it was us that the Prime Reviewer was refering too. In my husbands defense. Neither I nor my husband has been contacted by the reviewer that made the comment in the suggestion forum. Therefore we "Assume" that he must be refering to someone else. Second... All of the caches my husband has logged NA logs on are mostly all caches that have allready been disabled, & have been disabled for a period of 90 days or longer, & also have no recent logs posted by the CO. Many of those even have CO's that have not logged onto geocaching.com in 6 months or longer. Some of those caches even have reviewer 30 day notice logs on them older than 60 days as well. As far as those caches that aren't disabled that my husband or I have logged NA logs on. They all have multiple DNF's logged by multiple different geocachers, & have not been found in 6 months or in most cases have not been found in a year. The prime reviewer also stated that he/she didn't beleive the person posting these logs ever actually looked for the cache at all then logged a NA log. Well all of the caches that haven't been disabled & were marked as available to look for, I can attest that my husband & I looked for those caches on multiple occasions. Besides that how would a CO or a Reviewer ever know if you did or didn't honestly look for the cache in the first place? What logical reason would anyone have for wanting a cache to be fixed or archived & not look for it? We cache for the numbers, so all we want is the cache to be there for us to find. Posting unnessary NA logs is pointless. As quoted by Sandy in post #78.... "Most reviewers action these notifications monthly, or even every two or three months." This is what my husband & I find UNSATISFACTORY.... It should NOT take 2 or 3 months for a reviewer to review a cache that needs the reviewers attention. If this is in fact the case. Then by groundspeaks OWN admission they need more reviewers. So which rasies the following question.... Why is Groundspeak/geocaching.com so reluctant to add more reviewers? They are volunteer, they don't get paid. Since they aren't paid what reason is there for Groundspeak/geocaching.com NOT have for adding more reviewers????????? As they say their current reviewers are so busy publishing caches that they AREN'T even able to get to reviewing those caches that need attention but only once every 2 or 3 months??? It just honestly doesn't make any logical sense to my husband or to myself. We are CO's. I currently only have 6 caches, but will be publishing more soon. That is as soon as my husband finishes making me some more to place. He has about 151 or so now. We strive very hard to to keep them up & running & getting them running again as quickly as possible. Seriously, whats the point of putting out a cache for people to find & getting the enjoyment of seeing who searches for etc... if your not going to maintain it? We both think that "Sempers" idea for two levels of reviewers is a good one. One set dedicated to reviewing problem caches & the other for publishing the new caches. We honestly admit that the solution he gave is much better than any of the solutions my husband or I have thought up. As we have read through some of the comments made in this thread & others. It is obvious to us that somethign is going on in Texas. We do not know what the issue was the last time that several posters have mentioned. But we do think this is an issue here in Texas that DOES need to be resolved. Now... in case their are some people that might think we said something that we didn't. I want to say this. We do understand that the reviewers are voluntary. We do understand & do beleive that they are doing the best that they can do with the time they have available to them. We are NOT "Dis-ing" or "Digging" at any of the reviewers, nor complaining that any of the reviewers are unfair in how they publish caches or review those caches that need attention, we are not complaining about the time it takes to publish a cache. We are not complaining about any reviewer in particular, including the Texas reviewer. We just believe in our honest OPINION that the Texas reviewer needs help. If he/she isn't able to manage publishing all of the caches that come up in a month AND review those current caches that need reviewer attention. Then the reviewer needs help. It's just that simple. They aren't paid... so why NOT more reviewers? WNT

Depends on how you want to "Define" safety. Groundspeak doesn't allow caches to be placed at schools, government buildings, near train tracks, near important bridges, or at airports. This is for safety concerns as well as other concerns. Now if a reviewer allowed a cache to placed at an airport, and the reviewer KNEW it was at an airport that this physical cache was placed at. Then by all means. The reviewer IS reponsible at least morally. Legally responsible is a question only the courts/lawyers can decide. If a reviewer allows a cache on the North Wall of Eiger Mountain. No the reviewer shouldn't be held respondible for that. Sure the climb up the North face of Eiger Mountain is one of the most dangerous climbs in the world. But if your climbing that, you will know that & it's your fault if you attempt it or not. So in short.. I would say yes the reviewer is responsible for some forms of saftey in so far as the reviewer is responsible for making sure that the cache in question meets groundspeaks/geocaching.com guidelines for placing a cache. Other than that... the reviewer isn't responsible for anything else. If the CO violates geocaching.com's guidelines & breaks the law or does something unsafe, The CO is responsible. Not Groundspeak nor the reviewer. WNT

I don't have a premium account, but my husband does. As a husband/wife we just share the features of his premium account as paying double we think is just plain silly. We download about 40 PQ's a month. (Out of the possible 150 in a 30 day month). Since we use Garmin GPS's. He downloads them to our GPS. He has used a few Favorite votes, but not many. Even if I had a premium for the most part I wouldn't use them either unless it was just a really outstanding cache. Bookmark lists... we don't really see the point. Once we have found a cache its a been there done that kinda thing. We think of bookmarks like the bookmarks in our browser. We allready been there. Why would we need to bookmark it and go back? Map filters are kida nice. He likes that, & I do wish I had thet when looking at the maps. It would be nice to have a new map filter to "hide" all the caches that are disabled, & one to hide all the PMO caches. As far as the premium feature for finding PMO caches. With the backdoor feature for logging a PMO, it isn't a big deal to us. Although it is a hassle when I want to view it on my iphone to read the hint, description, etc when we are hunting for a PMO. But then my husband just lets me use his iPhone to read the info as he uses the Garmin GPS to hunt the cache. If Groundspeak/geocaching.com had a family plan, similar to the way cell phone companies have family plans. ie shared PQ's like having shared minutes etc... then we would have the family plan so I could take advantage of a few of the premium features. But alas... no family plan membership. Thus no full premium for me. WNT

Well, when I checked the cache in question, it looks like the CO archived the cache in question the same day that you logged the NA log. It didn't even take a reviewer to intervene. Although I do find it interesting when the reviewer left their log, & the fact that neither th CO or the reviewer took any action until you logged another NA log on that cache. WNT P.S. I responded before I finsihed reading the thread & thus seeing that you knew what I allready said above.

My husband & I have enjoy geocaching. We enjoy caches of many types & styles, located in many different locations. We cache for different reasons depending on our desires for that day. I usually only cache along with my husband, but sometimes I have gone on my own as well. In our caching travels we have come across numerous caches where the cache size marked for the cache is obviously incorrect for the size of container we actually find. An example of this, is a cache that is marked as a "Regular" yet is really a micro, ora cache marked as a micro & turns out to be a large. We have come across caches that have used attributes that obviously don't apply to the cache in question. Such as the "Boat" needed attribute for a cache that is in a tree, & no where near any water source where a boat could be used. Those are just examples, there are many other variants of this as well. Obviously we do realize that we are all human, and sometimes when we publish a cache the CO could be in a hurry and forget to correctly set the attributes, size etc... or click on the wrong spot & thus cause the cache to show attributes that shouldn't be used, or the incorrect container size. We are human & make mistakes, so yes we realize that this happens sometimes as well. It has happend to my husband as well as myself in caches that we have placed. Those mistakes have been corrected. I am refering to those size/attribute settings which are obviously & intentionally marked incorrectly. True, sometimes you don't know if it was intentional, or just an unintentional snafu. Other times its more than obvious that the container size &/or attributes were intentionally set incorrectly. Now we also realize that probably only about 15% of the geocaching community even read the forums. We wouldn't be suprised if it was even less than that. So we are guessing that most of you who are reading these forums aren't the ones that are intentionally setting the size & attributes incorrectly. Although some of you might. We are just curious if there are any of you all out there as geocachers find this issue to be irritating to you, or if you find the thought of a CO intentionally doing this as "Cool"??? We also know that Groundspeak/geocaching.com & reviewers can't really do much about this issue. We are not asking them to either. We are simply just curious if anyone else finds CO's who do this to be irritating? WNT

As part of the school project, are the parents of every single student notified? If one single parent is not notified and sees me sneaking around in the bushes, they are liable to call the police. There have been instances were the police have been called and they found a container. The principal explained what it was and that it was allowed to be there. The police didn't care. They still evacuated the neighborhood and blew up the geocache. As far as placing cache on school grounds, you can place as many as you want, you just may not necessarily be allowed to list them on Geocaching.com. Keep your own private list. With it you can still use them for the educational lessens they were designed for. I can't speak for other school systems. But at our school, we have a 24 hour hour law enforcement officer. So any calls into the police that are located at the school would go directly to him by the 911 dispatcher. He would know about the geocache & would handle things in the correct manner. Our local police department has also educated it's police officers on what geocacheing is. Their is a city ordinance that requires that all geocaches be labeled with on the outside as being a geocache. Not that all geocachers follow that city ordinance of course. Our school, I am sure though is the exception to the rule. Most schools don't have a police officer on duty, most just have a "rent a cop" or security gaurd on duty. Even so I think that it should be up to the school, & to the local reviewer as well. You mentioned are the parents informed. All parents are informed of the school work that is required of their children. Do all of them fully understand. Probably not. WNT

Not sure. I once asked for status on a 15 month old Disabled cache and was told by the owner to 'mind my own knitt'n'. Most NA's are ignored for months on end. If a CO did that to me or my husband. We would post a NA log & wait. Then if needed use the "Contact geocaching.com" form. Especailly if the CO deletes the NA log, or the NA goes longer than 30 days without a response. WNT

Personally I would say that it is up to you. Do you feel that the CO has abandoned this cache? Whats the reason this cache is disabled? Prior to it being disabled, were there a bunch of DNF's logged? When was it last "Found". If there were a bunch of DNF's and it hasn't been found in over 6 months, as well as being disabled for 3, then I would post a NA log. If their aren't any DNF's logged And it's last found was also in say Sept, oct, or Nov. Then I might just post a note and see what happens. If it goes another 30 days without any new logs, then I would log a NA. That JMHO though. WNT

I don't think any cachers are worried about the actions or intentions of other cachers - its what the neighbors and teachers not in the know think about when they see a 44 year old fat man with a bag and electronics poking around the bushes at the side of the school during 3rd hour. I have no doubt that lots of undesirables actually get into the school for innocent reasons each and every day. But the neighbors and teachers don't call the cops on them. Absolutely.... But see I think their is a difference between if the cache in question that is on or next to school property is placed by the STUDENTS of the school, as in a class project, school project etc... & one that is placed on or near school property by just a normal geocacher who has NO connection to the school at all. I say this because in our school, we are now teaching our students how to use GPS devices & programs. We are teaching our students about geocaching as well. We have had the students make geocaching containers in art class, we use geocaching in our math & science classes, as well as geography & social studies classes. Our Superintendant of our ISD as well as many of the teachers, principals, and other faculty beilieve that geocaching.com SHOULD allow the school systems to place caches on thier own property. It would be up to the school system to maintain safety & security, not geocaching.com. If the parents don't wish for a school to place a cache on their childs school property, then they can always speak to the teacher &/or principal of that school. Thus if any teacher, faculty member, or law enforcement officer saw someone digging around in the bushes near where we the school had placed the cache they would know what that person was doing. At our school, we do have a full time Police officer on campus at all times. WNT

I don't know why everyone gets worked up over this. I am a school teacher for an elementary school. 6 of my students, have parents that have FELONY Convictions. Convicted Felons have children too. They still bring them to school, go to school events, and pick up the children as well. The convictions that these parents have include, charges for Drugs, Murder, Burglary, Assualt, & even one for Kidnapping. So if you worry that a geocache on or near school property will bring those undesireables near your children at school, you shouldn't worry so much about them... WORRY MORE ABOUT THE OTHER PARENTS OF THE CHILDREN YOUR KIDS ARE WITH IN SCHOOL! Just an FYI WNT

On a couple of occasions where my hubby & I were caching, a cop came by & asked us what we were doing. We told them, they pulled out their iPhones and verified the cache was where we were looking. They too were geocachers, & signed the log along with us. So folks... Don't forget.... Some police officers & even FBI agents geocache as well! WNT

Here is the latest info that we found out. Some of which came directly as a response from someone at geocaching.com when we did a "Contact Geocaching" form. We were told by this person the following first before contacting them. 1. If you believe a cache should be archived, or needs other reviewer attention, please post an N/A log. If after 7 days the CO or Reviewer has not corrected the problem, or the reviewer has not posted a log note in the cache. Then we are to contact them, with the GC number. 2. If their is a reviewer 30 day notice allready posted, & it has been 7 days past the 30 day notice. (Ie 37 days from reviewer posting log note) Then we can contact them giving them the GC number. This person said that they would add the GC number to the list for the reviewer for review. The other interesting note though was that they said that the reviewers usually process/review N/A logs in batches. Usually around once a month. This raised the question to myself & my husband about contacting geocaching.com 7 days after a NA log was posted. We sent another email asking about this, but have not received a reply back yet on this question. It is super bowl weekend, so we don't expect a reply on this question for another few days. Still too early. Just thought we would post this info as a FYI WNT P.S. We did ask how many reviewers are in Texas on the last email. We will see if they answer that question or not.

Hi, I have a basic account. My husband has a Premium account. He caches more than I do. So he gets the premium. WE wished Groundspeak would have a "Family Membership" plan instead of just individual plans. Like a 2 person family plan for $45 instead of having to get 2 single memberships for $60. So instead we just get one premium account. I still get all the benefits of a premium for the most part. Except easy logging of Premiums. We use GSAK for doing statistics so thats not a big deal. He gets the "My Finds" downloads and then for me just deletes the one I didn't get with him. So we can still do statistics for me. Groundspeak looses $15 they could have had if they had a family membership. Using his account we load our Garmin GPS units up with all the geocaces includeing the premiums. I have a GPS and he has one. The only drawback is while I find the premiums with him, and I can even find premiums without him. I can't log the premiums However, thanks to this backdoor I can! WOO HOO! I love it! Now I can go back and log the 200+ or so premiums that I found along with my husband. Only thing is now I have to figure out which ones they were. Oh heck nevermind, thats to much work. Well any new premiums I find with my husband I will log with the backdoor. So while if your individual, premium caches are hidden from you. In a family where at least one has the premium account, you can see then & find them when your with the one that has the premium account. So thanks for posting the backdoor method! I love it! WNT

I don't know if he will be or not. However, There is a big middle eastern population that speaks alot of hindi around the Old Denton Road, Trinity Mills area of Carrollton Texas as well. Although they are speak fluent english as well, so I am not for sure if their is a need for Hindi stickers even in that area. WNT