Pond Bird

Whenever I get a "Browser is not supported" or something like that I refresh the page without going to another tab.

Mine's starting to come back, recent conversations I can see. But some still can't send messages to me. (But they may've not realized the problem is finally being fixed)

I don't pay attention to who posts what, so I have no opinion about your comments regarding the individual and will leave that part of the discussion alone. Of what you're saying, this is the claim that concerns me. The phrasing here's a little murky, but I interpret it as saying, "It is likely that an armchair NA is invalid when the person posting it has not visited GZ." If that's what you're saying, I disagree with it 100%. When a cache goes bad over time, visiting the site adds absolutely nothing to the validity of an NA. This isn't just principle: it seems like about once a week someone posts an example of a bad cache as an example of what's ruining their area. I've never understood why they complain about it here instead of just posting an NA. Yes, there are always examples of exceptions, and sometimes experienced cachers will notice something that's not on a reviewer's radar when it should be. That doesn't mean we should all take it upon ourselves to scour the cache listings looking for things to NA. In general, someone who hasn't visited the site is not in a position to comment on the condition of the cache. That's why Groundspeak specifically cautions against armchair NA logs. Most of the NA logs I've done, I HAVE visited the site. But from now on I will visit each and every site before I log an NA since apparently its causing some unpleasant confusion.

A certain someone in my area (I'll give you 3 guesses who) has been caught red handed for creating fake accounts on geocaching.com for the exclusive purpose of putting NA logs on caches and events. There is a good example of behavior that would cause the local reviewer to simply ignore all future "Needs Archived" logs from an account. What if the NAs are warranted? Example: the cache owner hasn't logged in since 2014 (and no new finds on their account since 2014). There are a couple of NMs and the last 6 logs (not from one group) over 6 months are all DNFs? If the person posting the NA irritates the reviewer, will a reviewer not disable and eventually archive the cache, because of who the NAer is? Apparently, there is judgement on the reviewer's end, whether or not to disable a listing. Also, if there is many NMs an DNFs and a cache owner hasn't logged in since 2014, then yes that would warrant an NA.

Well, in this case the reviewer "knew" no maintenance was done because no OM was filed. From what I've seen in the forums, the reviewers rarely look at the text in the logs when sweeping an area, and that doesn't surprise r concern me because it must be a huge job in the areas where they feel like there are so many bad caches that they have to sweep. Sometimes reviewers ignore a cache with multiple DNFs so at least the reviewer took notice that people weren't finding the cache. There was a cache with multiple DNFs and the reviewer NEVER disabled it, even after multiple people logged NA logs. Finally after 2 years of a missing cache, it was replaced. Maybe the reviewer knew it would eventually be replaced but didn't post anything. Wish reviewers would post their viewpoint of each cache on the page so people can see if there is something going on behind the scenes.

The guidelines say that event caches are usually archived 14-30 days after the event, so no one should post NAs on them until at least the 31st day. Apparently someone WAS posting NAs a week after the event, which is why it came up in this thread. If somebody DID post an NA on any of her events (which I doubt) - she must've deleted the logs as I do not see any.

I do. The guidelines ask us to. Well that's probably why many people don't log NAs because the guidelines encourage you to visit the missing geocaches' location and then post an NA. Some geocachers are willing to take a flyer on caches that have been DNFed before. We often do (and our find rate on so-called missing caches is actually about 50%). If you find a couple of DNFs discouraging, you're not under any obligation to go look for a cache. But until you visit the site, you are not in a position to comment on it. Generally speaking, you should follow the directive provided by Groundspeak and avoid posting NA logs on caches if you haven't visited them. Even if you have visited and can't find the cache, the appropriate log for a cache you personally can't find, most of the time, is a DNF. It's not your responsibility to conduct sweeps to search out caches that are prime for your NA logs. If you're really trying to help the community, get out of your chair and go look for yourself. Who's responsibility is it to conduct "sweeps"? I am not conducting "sweeps" and will drive 20 miles and visit the site before I log an NA since that appears to be what people want me and others to do to help the community.

Are the NAs unwarranted? Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted? I'm not in to events. Explain why this is bad? When the event is over, it's over, no? Not that I care one way or the other if an event is listed as active when it's over, since I don't do events anymore, but what's the problem here? I don't understand the problem either. None of her event listings have an NA log and if its been a week since an event everybody has already logged, then its not a good idea to shove the information in other people's cache listings that may not've gotten the opportunity to go. If its been a month, and still listed and interrupting the searches then that can get frustrating. The problem is this. Not everyone has a smartphone so they cannot log any cache "in the field." They have to wait until they get back home or to another place with wifi so that they can log into their computer to log all their caches, which includes events. Sometimes people take long vacations and trips where they attend such events and they don't always have wifi. I for instance just took a week long trip to get to GeoWoodstock. I attended quite a few events and the Mega itself. I also stayed at a campground which did not have wifi. If the events were archived after only a week it would take me a considerable amount of work to actually log these. Like I said, not everyone has the capability to log caches right away, or even within a day. This is why events are not archived within a week of their occurance. I do not know of any events that were archived within 1 week of them occuring. Yes, people take a couple days to log the finds, especially if they found a 100 within a short time period. It took me 3 days to log the caches dad and I found in PA back in May.

I do. The guidelines ask us to. Well that's probably why many people don't log NAs because the guidelines encourage you to visit the missing geocaches' location and then post an NA.

There's more in the article, just click the link. That said-if I notice that a cache has 6+ DNF logs (*with different dates) going back a year or more, I will post a NA log on it to bring it to a reviewer's attention and help start the process of archiving that listing. * I discount multiple DNFs on the same date on the assumption that several people looking together all missed it as a group and quit looking at the same time. People keep referencing the bullet points without reading the part that is actually bolded in the help center : Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache?

There's more in the article, just click the link. That said-if I notice that a cache has 6+ DNF logs (*with different dates) going back a year or more, I will post a NA log on it to bring it to a reviewer's attention and help start the process of archiving that listing. * I discount multiple DNFs on the same date on the assumption that several people looking together all missed it as a group and quit looking at the same time. That could be why many people don't log NAs, if they take that literally. If a cache is not being maintaned and the reviewer and owner are ignoring it, an NA is a must to make sure the cache is not being ignored by the reviewer and the reviewer should archive if theres evidence of it not being maintained at all.

Hopefully PondBird isn't doing that. When someone makes a habit of cheerfully reporting NA logs to the entire forum on an ongoing and regular, I can't trust that it's in good faith. Good geocachers write clear, descriptive logs of what they find at the GZ if they choose to search for a cache. Good geocachers report issues they find for the benefit of other cachers, and so there is a clear history that helps the reviewer if need be. Good geocachers do not denigrate reviewers for taking a reasonable amount of time to act on a problematic cache. Good geocachers do not post volumes of frivolous NA logs on caches they have no intention of finding, for the sole purpose of pestering other geocachers. I am not cheerfully reporting NA logs. Its upsetting that most people do not do this in our community. I have never posted NA logs to denigrate reviewers. If I'm pestering geocachers, its because the cache isn't being maintained by its owner, and there shouldn't be any ownerless cache listing on the site.

Are the NAs unwarranted? Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted? I'm not in to events. Explain why this is bad? When the event is over, it's over, no? Not that I care one way or the other if an event is listed as active when it's over, since I don't do events anymore, but what's the problem here? I don't understand the problem either. None of her event listings have an NA log and if its been a week since an event everybody has already logged, then its not a good idea to shove the information in other people's cache listings that may not've gotten the opportunity to go. If its been a month, and still listed and interrupting the searches then that can get frustrating.

That is true.

You say that you replaced the cache, but if there wasn't an "Owner Maintenance" log then the reviewer may've thought there wasn't any maintenance done. I've seen people say things like "cache is still there" and "replaced" but then the cache isn't actually there.

I very rarely visit GZ before posting an NA: the most common reason I post an NA is precisely because it's clear there's no reason for me or anyone else to waste time visiting NA. There's no reason to think I'd learn anything that I don't already know by visiting NA. I find myself in this position a few times a year. I can see the point in extreme cases like long neglect or irate land owners. In my case the caches were nearby and I thought it was best to take a look. If you happen to be in the area and take a look, but realize that you won't be able to find it because its definately not there. Logging an NA is the best bet if there has been a string of DNFs and/or an NM and DNF and it hasn't been found for a long time.

Did you visit it, or did you just pick it up in one of your sweeps? Lol, "sweeps"! Good one. No, it was a cache listing I found and noticed it hadn't been found in quite a while. I didn't search for it for 2 reasons, 1: its many miles away, 2: its most likely MIA. So yes, yes you did. No, I was looking at listings near a place I want to geocache at, and saw that the cache hasn't been found in quite some time. Sometimes there are NA on caches that were still there but people can't find them for so long. If the reviewer thinks the cache is still there, and that its a coincidence that many people haven't found it (and no finds) in an extended amount of time they could've ignored it. But I'm hoping they still have it on their watchlist to see if there is any evidence of maintenance being performed on the cache. There has been times when people do not log their DNFs, which is wrong, if they can't find a cache after searching, they should log a DNF. Its upsetting that many people only log "found it" logs and don't bother with the DNF logs, etc.

Sorry, I disagree. The reviewers have enough to do, so there's no reason to stick them with this job. There are often clear indications that a cache is missing, and I have no reservations about logging an NA in those cases based only on the fact that the cache listing alone made it clear to me that there was no point to go search for it. Once a cache turns that corner, there's no reason for anyone to go look for it, therefore, according to the "you must look for it to file an NA" theory, there's no longer any possibility of anyone logging the NA to get it off the books. I admit, I'd rather geocachers didn't take it on themselves to sweep through cache listings for no reason other than to file NAs -- not clear that's what happened here, but let's pretend it did -- but, even so, I'd rather a geocacher did it than to force the reviewer to waste time doing it because no one in the community is alerting him to problems. You make a good point. If it's obvious the cache is abandoned (CO not responding to logs that include issues with the cache, DNFs/NMs), CO hasn't logged in in months/years, why does someone have to waste their time and gas money when the cache needs an NA? Exactly, not wasting my time and gas money on a cache thats 99% likely gone. I think more people should step up and post NAs because it appears it makes others look bad when theres issues with a cache. If a cache is unfindable for many people in an extended period of time, and theres no finds. An NA should be logged if the logs indicating trouble haven't been responded to.

Did you visit it, or did you just pick it up in one of your sweeps? Lol, "sweeps"! Good one. No, it was a cache listing I found and noticed it hadn't been found in quite a while. I didn't search for it for 2 reasons, 1: its many miles away, 2: its most likely MIA.

Now, if somebody responds to me, I can see recent messages. Otherwise, if I click on them, I'm seeing the old messages. Weird! But maybe website developers are FINALLY working to fix the problem.

I logged a NA log on a cache that hasn't been found for many years. CO is long gone and there was an NM log as well. Hopefully the reviewer put(s) it on their watchlist so they will disable it if the next log is not a Found It.

I posted an NM on this cache since they didn't actually "find it" and another posted a DNF, one posted a note doubting the cache was still there -- and it has been almost 5 years since an actual find on that cache! I meant to say their log was "Found It"

Team/group placements already have one person responsible for the caches placed. - The person who submitted the cache... But if the person who submitted the cache doesn't log into that account, reviewers should contact their player account to report problems that may not be addressed by the group itself. No. You expect a Reviewer to keep a roster of team member names? It doesn't work that way... The Berkshire Geobash Committee and ASP committee both have the usernames of those in the group. Other groups should list their members, but some do not and eventually nobody logs in to the account.

I'm getting something similar to that, only I don't have the white space under the last person I messaged. I can see the whole list of conversations.

Team/group placements already have one person responsible for the caches placed. - The person who submitted the cache... But if the person who submitted the cache doesn't log into that account, reviewers should contact their player account to report problems that may not be addressed by the group itself.