Needs Maintenance Logs

[+Renegade Knight]

After having them used on my caches I've decided I completely hate them. Anything that can be said in a log can be said in a DNF or by emailing the owner. If the owner is active they will get the email (just like they would get the NM Log) if they aren't active then it doesn't matter anyway.

 

Mostly it just encourages a bunch of people to play with the new 'feature' instead of sending the courtesy email.

 

Personally I find this log to be like reading about your cache problem in the paper rather than being told directly. Ditto when reviewers read the logs and pick some of your caches to disble. They could email as well.

 

At least the NM log told me that people are calling each other rather than actually finding the cache on their own. That's a different problem. Nobody is finding the cache as intended and relying on the cachers network. "Hey, Joe, I've looked for 30 seconds and can't find it, where is the cache?" That means for some the cache is a hard find, and for others, it's childs play. Not exactly fair for the ones who do it right.

 

End of rant.

[+New England n00b]

People are using teh Needs Maintenance log as DNF's? Jeeeeez. That's pretty special.

[robertlipe]

I'll get flamed here by users I can probably name in advance, but I think the world needs more NM/SBA logs.

 

If your cache (and I'm not calling out yours, RK, as I haven't reviewed them) is a 1/1 with a ringer of a hint and 167 consecutive frownies and you haven't logged in in over a year, yeah, it needs maint. Actually, if it's a 1/1 and even a faint majority of those 167 are experienced cachers, it probably needs archived. Of course, if your cache is considered difficult and it actually _is_ difficult, that's another story.

 

There are, of course, all kinds of predicates in the sentence, but I think it's a reasonable guideline and not worth getting in a fizz about.. If the last four experienced logs are frownies and you call a previous successful finder of the cache and it's not where he describes and there's not an intervening log that says it's been moved, a NM or an SBA seems like the right log to me as there's clearly a story to tell to tell that needs to be told for the next seeker.

 

I look at a lot of caches far away from home and have the priveledge/curse of looking at streaks of frownies. (I've cached three time zones in about 3 weeks.) Those with muliple successive frownies catch my eye. If yours is a difficult cache and you've not logged in (e.g. I'm reasonably sure you're listening) recently that's OK but I see a lot of caches that are pretty clearly not there. To me, as a seeker, that's what NM is about.

 

If it's rated as a hard find and you just can't find it and you're the first to do so, yeah, you just might be a lamer. If it's rated as an easy find and you're the 19'th consecutive seeker to not find it, the problem is probably with the rating or the placement/listing and not the seeker.

[+briansnat]

I like them. They stand out on the page. If I'm planning on hitting the cache I will see it and probably send an e-mail to the owner asking him if he'd like me to help out. I might not notice this if the information about the cache's condition was buried in a Found It log.

[+palmetto]

I wonder if there are regional differences on the use of them? I'd say they're under-used around here. Most cachers with + 1 year experience don't even bother with, "the log is damp/ the log is wet" in the found it note, let along a needs maintenance log. They either carry something to sign wet logs or they replace it.

 

I've put them on my own caches to remind myself to do something. A log comes in, "O-ring torn, log wet" - I know I'll forget if I don't get to it pronto.

So I log Needs Maintenance. (I still forget)

 

Your last paragraph is a whole different issue. Geocaching is a game you play with your friends, some as yet unmet; tracks in cyberspace. A different perspective and one that applies to the phone a friend part of caching. The cache as excuse to call a friend! hey that's kinda nice isn't it? Fair? Work or play, most of us rely upon a social network. Caching can expand that network considerably.

[+Runaround]

I think the world needs more NM/SBA logs.

 

Amen to that.

 

I found a cache where there were 6 consecutive logs complaining about the condition of the cache. I don't read past logs before heading out so I had no idea the cache was as mess. I added my FI log then added a NM. That finally prompted the owner to do something about it. They even sent me a nasty e-mail saying I ruined the "GSAK filter" until 4 other people found the cache?!?!?!

 

At least the cache got fixed.

 

There is a large enough percentage of cache owners that don't react to negative comments in FI logs or to personal e-mails that make the NM/SBA a good tool. I've grown weary by the lack of responsiveness and have no problem logging a NM/SBA where necessary. That's the point of the log. If I happen to irritate a few responsible cache owners like RK along the way, I consider that an acceptable risk. Please accept my apologies in advance.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

All too often a cache is placed and for all practical purposes, abandoned.

 

Many cachers seem to think it's the finder's job to send them a nice email when the cache needs maintenance.

 

It's not - it is the owner's responsibility to regularly check every owned cache and deal with maintenance issues promptly.

 

The Needs Maintenance note alerts the owner to the issue, the Reviewer to the fact that the owner may not be maintaining his cache, and the seeker to the fact that there is a problem here.

 

Needs Maintenance notes have nothing to do with DNFs - that, among other things, is the role of the Should Be Archived (SBA) note.

 

As far as the expectation of a private email as oppossed to a public note - if you do your job and take care of your caches you won't get either one, but if you don't the caching public deserves to know.

[+Mystery Ink]

I have had a Need Maintenance log on because someone couldn't find my cache 2 times. However other people were able to find it I do feel it is kind of annoying at times although I can see the useful side of it too I just have not experienced the useful part yet.

[PCFrog]

There are quite a few caches out there that need to have NM log so reviewers can tell if it’s being ignored by the owner and can archive it. Marking a found with a note to owner does not let the reviewers know that the cache is being ignored. I think it makes for great accountability.

 

Granted it can be abused by someone who goes around and just thinks a cache not up to their high standards of perfect but for those caches that are amounting to nothing more than a garbage can in the woods it worth it.

[+Maingray]

Over-use of the NM can be annoying especially in lieu of a first DNF.

 

Just added a NM to 2 caches near me, that have not been found (many DNFs) for well over a year and a half, and are clearly not there. The hiders are still active in the area. After so many DNFs, people have stopped going to look for them. A maintenance can be a simple as "yup, just checked .. it's still there" log by the hiders to re-encourage seekers. It's a polite (politer than SBA) prompt to the owners, and a flag to Reviewers who should be able to distinguish between a DNF-NM and a real NM

Edited July 3, 2006 by Maingray

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Over-use of the NM can be annoying especially in lieu of a first DNF.

 

Just added a NM to 2 caches near me, that have not been found (many DNFs) for well over a year and a half, and are clearly not there. The hiders are still active in the area. After so many DNFs, people have stopped going to look for them. A maintenance can be a simple as "yup, just checked .. it's still there" log by the hiders to re-encourage seekers. It's a polite (politer than SBA) prompt to the owners, and a flag to Reviewers who should be able to distinguish between a DNF-NM and a real NM

 

The features are fairly new, so they will take some time to learn to use properly.

 

A Needs Maintenance note should only be used when a cache is FOUND and has an issue - wet, strewn around, broken, etc.

 

A Did Not Find is self-explanotory - you didn't find the cache.

 

A Should Be Archived should be used when there is good reason to believe the cache is missing or the owner has abandoned it... multiple DNFs, good hints or direction from a previous finder, numerous NMs with no respponse from the owner, etc.

 

In the quoted case above a Should Be Archived is more appropriate than a Needs Maintenance note.

Edited July 3, 2006 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

They even sent me a nasty e-mail saying I ruined the "GSAK filter" until 4 other people found the cache?!?!?!

 

Actually as soon as he performs maintenance he can log a "performed maintenance" log, which will also show up on the GSAK filter.

 

I have had a Need Maintenance log on because someone couldn't find my cache 2 times. However other people were able to find it I do feel it is kind of annoying at times although I can see the useful side of it too I just have not experienced the useful part yet

 

Well its not appropriate to use a Needs Maint in lieu of a DNF. I think you'd be within your rights to delete the log and reset the neets maint icon if you know the cache is still in place.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

I like to collect geocoins -- so I only post "Needs Maintenance" if there are no coins in the cache.

 

 

Okay -- joking! joking!

 

As a cache owner, I always appreciate an intelligent "Needs Maintenance" log -- IF it has good text. Same with all logs though. Sometimes people are lazy and don't indicate WHY it needs maintenance.

[+Davispak]

I think the NM tag is a good thing. I was out caching with the kids and was walking past one I had done alone and wanted to show them where it was. I go to pull it out and it is covered with ants and Larvae. A few stung my hand before I got them cleaned off. I placed the cache near the hidey hole and sent a NM to the owner. So I believe a NM log is a good thing. I would hope the owner gets it and does maintenance as I would hate for a kid to stick his hand in there to get the cache.

[+wzd]

Well, I used it on a cache that had been moved, and it worked well. There was an earlier find logged that said muggles were looking at it and the hiding spot was destroyed. The person re-hid it and posted new co-ords about 20 feet away. I missed the post, but did find the cache anyway. After logging a find, I tried the NM post with new coordinates hoping others would see it before looking. It worked well, and the owner was able to update the coordinates on the page.

 

Have to admit I did not think of sending a message to the owner. I do think that any info about a cache that would be useful to the next seeker should use the NM post rather than an email that may or may not be acted on.

[+kayak-cowboy]

I think the NM log is a good addition. Most of the time I just delete the e-mails I receive saying someone has found the cache. Yes I do a quick look at the e-mail, but most of the time it is just TNLNSL. So a NM log e-mail will tell me there is a problem with the cache.

Now if you are logging a DNF using the NM log you are using the wrong log type.

I have seen the SBA log missused also. Just yesterday I found a cache that the previous person looked for and sent a SBA log. Although the cache was there it was soaked, so I sent a NM log in addition to my Found It log. Just to notify the owner there is a problem. Most times I will do cache maint even if I don't own the cache. I just didn't have any new logs with me at the time.

[+kingsting]

I think the NM is a good feature but maybe cachers should have a certain number of finds before they can use it. I had to run out in the woods one cold dark night because a newbie with 2 finds had trouble locating a stage on one of my multis. That particular stage is one of those evil, out in the open types of hides. This cacher was certain it had gone missing.

[+radioscout]

Personally I find this log to be like reading about your cache problem in the paper rather than being told directly.

Exactly. I think that it is a good idea to ignore NM logs.

If there are problems with the cache this can be written in the found it log, DNF log or an email.

[+Metaphor]

After having them used on my caches I've decided I completely hate them. Anything that can be said in a log can be said in a DNF or by emailing the owner. If the owner is active they will get the email (just like they would get the NM Log) if they aren't active then it doesn't matter anyway.

 

Mostly it just encourages a bunch of people to play with the new 'feature' instead of sending the courtesy email.

 

Personally I find this log to be like reading about your cache problem in the paper rather than being told directly. Ditto when reviewers read the logs and pick some of your caches to disble. They could email as well.

 

At least the NM log told me that people are calling each other rather than actually finding the cache on their own. That's a different problem. Nobody is finding the cache as intended and relying on the cachers network. "Hey, Joe, I've looked for 30 seconds and can't find it, where is the cache?" That means for some the cache is a hard find, and for others, it's childs play. Not exactly fair for the ones who do it right.

 

End of rant.

 

Must be hot where you are as well. Maintenance logs are a good thing, as are SBA's. They are different from DNF's (of which I proudly logged two today). Also, not all email filters will allow an email, especially if it comes through a personal account, and not gc.com.

 

Reading your name in the paper for a bad thing is a very good way of getting the problem solved...trust me on that one.

[+DustyWalker]

I had one stuck on a cache that was a DNF, then I kept getting a note from the reviewer saying that I had to check on it. I finally made a special trip to check on it- and you guessed it- it was right where it was supposed to be. I think people have to be careful how they use the feature. And that's all I got to say about that...

[+thedeadpirate]

I've gotta agree that a NM should only be used when you've actually found the cache and see that there are problems with it. "Maybe" one may use it if they've DNF'ed a 1/1 4 or 5 times. However, I think any decent cache owner would have enough sense to check things out in that case.

 

I just had someone mention a problem with one of our caches Saturday in their find log. I was out the following afternoon fixing it. It was a lot nicer than a NM. Of course, I wouldn't have had a problem with a NM in that case either.

[+hukilaulau]

I think the world needs more NM/SBA logs.

 

They even sent me a nasty e-mail saying I ruined the "GSAK filter" until 4 other people found the cache?!?!?!

 

That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time!

[+Davispak]

GSAK?

[+CheshireFrog]

The NM log should not take the place of courtesy. I've never had to use it, since an email to the owner usually gets you a quick response, and I've only had to do that twice. Sure, there are owners who aren't as conscientous as they maybe should be, as well as abandoned caches, and those are the cases where the NM and SBA should be used, but at least make an attempt to contact the owner.

 

If the last seven cachers logged DNFs over a three week period of time a NM log might be justified, but if it was found the day before yesterday a NM log is not justified just because you can't find it.

[SCP-173]

It was rather annoying when some newb came along and posted a MN log on three of my caches, when in reality he was wrong on all three accounts.

[+Lighteye]

It's not - it is the owner's responsibility to regularly check every owned cache and deal with maintenance issues promptly.

 

Amen to that. It makes one give pause before placing several hundred pieces of micro spew that can never be properly maintained. I personally take great pride in my cache maintenance, and respond ASAP at the first sign of trouble to remote caches. Caches within 10 minutes walk of the vehicle are checked regularly, remotes only when needed. I do tend to make the remote caches MUCH more water/weatherproof for this reason.

 

I ALWAYS carry a replacement micro log when hunting urban caches, though. If I am standing right there with a new log, I will always replace it and let the owner know that I have done so., and hold the old one a few days, in case he wants to review it himself for verification.

 

OK, the chirp light just went off, time to shut up and see where this goes.

[+Team Cotati]

All too often a cache is placed and for all practical purposes, abandoned.

 

Many cachers seem to think it's the finder's job to send them a nice email when the cache needs maintenance.

 

It's not - it is the owner's responsibility to regularly check every owned cache and deal with maintenance issues promptly.

 

The Needs Maintenance note alerts the owner to the issue, the Reviewer to the fact that the owner may not be maintaining his cache, and the seeker to the fact that there is a problem here.

 

Needs Maintenance notes have nothing to do with DNFs - that, among other things, is the role of the Should Be Archived (SBA) note.

 

As far as the expectation of a private email as oppossed to a public note - if you do your job and take care of your caches you won't get either one, but if you don't the caching public deserves to know.

 

I quite agree. Those SBA's do seem to work quite well.

[+Ladybug Kids]

GSAK?

Geocaching Swiss Army Knife is a great tool for filtering pocket queries and uploading coordinates to a GPS and PDA.

[+TrailGators]

After having them used on my caches I've decided I completely hate them. Anything that can be said in a log can be said in a DNF or by emailing the owner. If the owner is active they will get the email (just like they would get the NM Log) if they aren't active then it doesn't matter anyway.End of rant.

Most of us carry extra logbooks out here. So if the logbook is wet or full we'll replace it. The only time we'll issue a "Needs Maintenance" log is if the cache is in really bad shape. We found an ammo box a couple of months ago that was full of water because the last finder didn't seal the lid properly. The contents were all moldy and gross and the ammo box was totally rusted. Anyhow, we CITO'ed the contents and left a logbook but we also posted a needs maintenance log because the cache really needed a new ammo box. It is nice to know as a finder that a cache needs help before you go find it so the special log is a good thing. But if certain people would take more care after finding a cache to make sure it's sealed properly we would all need to do less maintenance.

[+Ladybug Kids]

Here's what we do:

 

DNF: Couldn't find it, so we don't know if maintenance is required or not. We log every cache site visit, so sometimes we have more than one DNF on a cache. Examples: Dumped Along the Bike Path and Near the Rails

 

Needs Maintenance: Series of DNFs and/or confirmed missing by previous finder and/or broken container and/or wet log. Posted if cache owner hasn't logged onto the site for an extended perior of time and/or the owner doesn't respond to an e-mail sent to there profile or an e-mail sent to the cache owner bounces. Examples: Room With A View and You Found Me!. The Needs Maintenance log for Room With A View finally prompted a response from the cache owner after they hadn't been on the site for over two years and there were a series of reports about wet contents and finally a missing container.

 

I DO agree with RK on this for active cache owners...if the cache owner is obviously still active, I e-mail or call them about a problem. If I don't have direct contact information for the cache owner, I'll note any problems in the "Found It" log. However, if the cacher hasn't been on the site for over six months, I'll e-mail them and if I don't get a response fairly quickly I don't hesitate to slap a Needs Maintenance on their cache to let other cachers know there's a problem.

 

Since most of the caching I do these days is several hundred miles from home, it's very frustrating to spend time looking for unmaintained caches. With respect to the comment about the GSAK filter being "ruined" for a cache, I wish more caches would be ruined that way. There's nothing like running a GSAK filter, uploading all caches in an area with two or more consecutive green boxes, and finding (or not finding) a cache with issues, logging my find, and then seeing the previous logs that stated there were problems. It's almost enough to make me run out and get a PDA so I can take the cache pages with me and check the logs before I look (I take paperless caching to an extreme...no paper, no PDA, just what I can cram into the comment field of my Sportrak using GSAK).

 

SBA: Safety, private property, or other issue with the cache after first trying an e-mail to the cache owner. We've never used this one because cache issues have been resolved via e-mail, phone call, or needs maintenance. Our approvers usually take care of the archiving after a series of DNFs or Needs Maintenance logs hang in the air without a response.

[+HappyFrog (& gang)]

Since most of the caching I do these days is several hundred miles from home, it's very frustrating to spend time looking for unmaintained caches. With respect to the comment about the GSAK filter being "ruined" for a cache, I wish more caches would be ruined that way. There's nothing like running a GSAK filter, uploading all caches in an area with two or more consecutive green boxes, and finding (or not finding) a cache with issues, logging my find, and then seeing the previous logs that stated there were problems.

 

Or to find that someone logged a find after several (like 3 to 5 DNF) on a missing cache and there is no cache, when you go look for it and about 3 to 5 people after you can't find it either.

 

I log Needs Maintenace Logs when there is a group of us looking for the same cache, it hasn't been found in months, and we expanded our search to 100 feet.

 

I also log Needs Maintenace Logs when there are 3 to 5 DNF's and I can't find it. Just because I can't find it doesn't mean it's not there. I just may not have been able to spot the cache.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

It would be interesting to get some 'official' usage and purpose explanation here, as I still disagree that DNFs should lead to a Needs Maintenance note.

 

Did Not Find couldn't be simpler - I didn't find it.

 

Needs Maintenance seems pretty simple, too - I found the cache, there's something wrong, please come fix it.

 

Should be Archived may be for when DNF and NM don't fit the case.

 

Placing a NM because you and the previous 5 cachers didn't find it makes no sense - you don't know if it needs maintenance or not, you just know you didn't find it! Placing an SBA makes sense here.

[+TrailGators]

Since most of the caching I do these days is several hundred miles from home, it's very frustrating to spend time looking for unmaintained caches. With respect to the comment about the GSAK filter being "ruined" for a cache, I wish more caches would be ruined that way. There's nothing like running a GSAK filter, uploading all caches in an area with two or more consecutive green boxes, and finding (or not finding) a cache with issues, logging my find, and then seeing the previous logs that stated there were problems.

 

Or to find that someone logged a find after several (like 3 to 5 DNF) on a missing cache and there is no cache, when you go look for it and about 3 to 5 people after you can't find it either.

 

I log Needs Maintenace Logs when there is a group of us looking for the same cache, it hasn't been found in months, and we expanded our search to 100 feet.

 

I also log Needs Maintenace Logs when there are 3 to 5 DNF's and I can't find it. Just because I can't find it doesn't mean it's not there. I just may not have been able to spot the cache.

There was a cache out here that we looked for and then didn't find it so we logged DNFs on it. A few months later we were in the same area and this cache popped up on our radar. However, when we got the the cache site we remembered it. So we checked out Palms and saw that the last 5 logs were DNFs. We couldn't believe that it was still not taken care of. So when I got home I logged an SBA because the owner was obviously gone. Another month went by and two more people logged DNFs and another more logged an SBA. A couple of more months went by and it was still there so I logged another SBA log. Finally after another month I emailed the admin it got archived. By then several more people got to be frustrated. So SBAs are useful if the owner is deliquent but there should be a time limit that automatically temporarily archives caches with an SBA that is over 30 days old. The admins are just too busy to check that stuff.

Edited July 4, 2006 by TrailGators

[+Ladybug Kids]

Placing a NM because you and the previous 5 cachers didn't find it makes no sense - you don't know if it needs maintenance or not, you just know you didn't find it! Placing an SBA makes sense here.

 

I agree! That's why I wrote "Series of DNFs and/or confirmed missing by previous finder." Some caches are just hard to find, so DNFs by themselves don't indicate there is a problem unless they follow a long series of "Found Its."

[+IV_Warrior]

It would be interesting to get some 'official' usage and purpose explanation here, as I still disagree that DNFs should lead to a Needs Maintenance note.

 

Did Not Find couldn't be simpler - I didn't find it.

 

Needs Maintenance seems pretty simple, too - I found the cache, there's something wrong, please come fix it.

 

Should be Archived may be for when DNF and NM don't fit the case.

 

Placing a NM because you and the previous 5 cachers didn't find it makes no sense - you don't know if it needs maintenance or not, you just know you didn't find it! Placing an SBA makes sense here.

 

Actually, no it doesn't. You didn't find it, so you have no way of knowing if it "needs archived". It could very well be EXACTLY where it's supposed to be, and in perfect condition. A "needs archived" should be reserved for when you KNOW there's a problem, such as caches placed without permission in an area that requires it, caches that are placed where caches are prohibited, disabled caches that have sat the way for many months with no update from the owner, etc.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

It would be interesting to get some 'official' usage and purpose explanation here, as I still disagree that DNFs should lead to a Needs Maintenance note.

 

Did Not Find couldn't be simpler - I didn't find it.

 

Needs Maintenance seems pretty simple, too - I found the cache, there's something wrong, please come fix it.

 

Should be Archived may be for when DNF and NM don't fit the case.

 

Placing a NM because you and the previous 5 cachers didn't find it makes no sense - you don't know if it needs maintenance or not, you just know you didn't find it! Placing an SBA makes sense here.

 

Actually, no it doesn't. You didn't find it, so you have no way of knowing if it "needs archived". It could very well be EXACTLY where it's supposed to be, and in perfect condition. A "needs archived" should be reserved for when you KNOW there's a problem, such as caches placed without permission in an area that requires it, caches that are placed where caches are prohibited, disabled caches that have sat the way for many months with no update from the owner, etc.

 

So, what are you saying, that a Needs Maintenance makes more sense in response to multiple DNFs than an SBA?

[+TrailGators]

A "needs archived" should be reserved for when you KNOW there's a problem, such as caches placed without permission in an area that requires it, caches that are placed where caches are prohibited, disabled caches that have sat the way for many months with no update from the owner, etc.

I agree but I think if a cache has not been checked for >30 days it should be temporarily archived to take it out of circulation. Why waste everyone's time for "many months?"

[+IV_Warrior]

A "needs archived" should be reserved for when you KNOW there's a problem, such as caches placed without permission in an area that requires it, caches that are placed where caches are prohibited, disabled caches that have sat the way for many months with no update from the owner, etc.

I agree but I think if a cache has not been checked for >30 days it should be temporarily archived to take it out of circulation. Why waste everyone's time for "many months?"

 

If the cache is disabled, why are you wasting your time looking for it in the first place? Sometimes life gets in the way of getting a cache back out, and it may take more than the "couple weeks" the guidelines hope for.

[+TrailGators]

A "needs archived" should be reserved for when you KNOW there's a problem, such as caches placed without permission in an area that requires it, caches that are placed where caches are prohibited, disabled caches that have sat the way for many months with no update from the owner, etc.

I agree but I think if a cache has not been checked for >30 days it should be temporarily archived to take it out of circulation. Why waste everyone's time for "many months?"

 

If the cache is disabled, why are you wasting your time looking for it in the first place? Sometimes life gets in the way of getting a cache back out, and it may take more than the "couple weeks" the guidelines hope for.

The cache wasn't disabled. Did you read my example above?

Edited July 4, 2006 by TrailGators

[+IV_Warrior]

A "needs archived" should be reserved for when you KNOW there's a problem, such as caches placed without permission in an area that requires it, caches that are placed where caches are prohibited, disabled caches that have sat the way for many months with no update from the owner, etc.

I agree but I think if a cache has not been checked for >30 days it should be temporarily archived to take it out of circulation. Why waste everyone's time for "many months?"

 

If the cache is disabled, why are you wasting your time looking for it in the first place? Sometimes life gets in the way of getting a cache back out, and it may take more than the "couple weeks" the guidelines hope for.

The cache wasn't disabled. Did you read my example above?

 

No, and apparantly, you didn't comprehend my post before you quoted it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

So, what are you saying, that a Needs Maintenance makes more sense in response to multiple DNFs than an SBA?

 

?

[+TrailGators]

A "needs archived" should be reserved for when you KNOW there's a problem, such as caches placed without permission in an area that requires it, caches that are placed where caches are prohibited, disabled caches that have sat the way for many months with no update from the owner, etc.

I agree but I think if a cache has not been checked for >30 days it should be temporarily archived to take it out of circulation. Why waste everyone's time for "many months?"

 

If the cache is disabled, why are you wasting your time looking for it in the first place? Sometimes life gets in the way of getting a cache back out, and it may take more than the "couple weeks" the guidelines hope for.

The cache wasn't disabled. Did you read my example above?

 

No, and apparantly, you didn't comprehend my post before you quoted it.

Sorry, I took disabled as an adjective. Anyhow, my point was that if a cache gets an SBA the owner should only get 30 days before it is "temporarily disabled." BTW, I would never SBA a cache that had already been "temporarily disabled." I don't even include those in my PQs.

Edited July 4, 2006 by TrailGators

[+IV_Warrior]

So, what are you saying, that a Needs Maintenance makes more sense in response to multiple DNFs than an SBA?

 

?

 

Well, I think it depends on who's posting the log. If it's a prior finder who went out with someone else, and has good reason to believe the cache is gone, an SBA may be appropriate. If it's someone who's looked for the cache for the first time and couldn't find it, another DNF would be the best log. If it's someone who has looked several times, logged DNF's each time, and still couldn't find it, I'd say "needs maintenance", even if the just means the owner going out to check if the cache is there or missing.

 

Of course, cache rating should play a little too. A 1/1 with multiple DNF's is likely missing. A 5/5 could very well still be just fine.

[+Jamie Z]

I've put them on my own caches to remind myself to do something. A log comes in, "O-ring torn, log wet" - I know I'll forget if I don't get to it pronto.

So I log Needs Maintenance.

Last I checked, you can't log a "Needs Maintenance" on your own cache. I've tried. In fact, I got into some heat with my local reviewer when I tried to log my own Needs Maintenance, learned that I couldn't, so I asked another cacher to log one. She inadvertently logged an SBA, to which the reviewer responded by locking the listing, claiming we were abusing the site. Anyway... has this restriction been reversed?

 

It would be interesting to get some 'official' usage and purpose explanation here, as I still disagree that DNFs should lead to a Needs Maintenance note.

 

Needs Maintenance seems pretty simple, too - I found the cache, there's something wrong, please come fix it.

I agree with Ed. I wouldn't log a NM unless I found the cache (or parts) in order to determine maintenance was necessary.

 

The only NM log I've posted (about the logbook being full) has never had a response. Another local cache which someone posted a Needs Maintenence with regard to a mutilated logbook also didn't get a response, but several subsequent cachers noted in their log that there was a new logbook. On yet another occasion, I saw a NM log posted for a cache which was waterlogged. The owner posted a "Performed Maintenance" shortly thereafter saying that, "I'll get out there to fix it as soon as I can."

 

Once again, Groundspeak has provided some great geocaching tools, but many people don't understand how they work or how to use them.

 

Jamie

[+wavector]

I use a Needs Maintenance freely and do not consider it a bad log at all, it indicates a cache that needs maintenance. Because it is a structured communication there is less chance it will go awry. I recently logged a NM on a clever cache that had come apart somehow. I could see it had come apart, from looking at the logs it was clear others had noted the same problem but no one wanted to actually complain, even in a private email. No one ever wants to stifle a cacher's creativity so the NM log worked well. Cachers see that the log is being used correctly, they know their cache actually requires a visit and no ill will should result. A private email could easily go awry, using the features of the geocaching.com website is always the best way to go.

An SBA was the fourth or fifth log I used on this cache. After I had been caching for awhile I used SBA's on many local caches. I knew the owners were incognito and the caches were not there. Multiple DNF's don't mean NM or SBA, they mean DNF, DNF, DNF and any owner should check at that stage, evil hides aside. Here is an excellent and amazing example. I personally filed an SBA on this cache last year, I did this after 3 DNF's and my own search. The owner was absent and had not responded but just yesterday a new cacher found my nearby cache Conrad which contained the coordinates for "echodale of yesteryear". They went and searched for and found the archived cache. I was amazed when they sent an email asking what they had found! Too make a long story short, the SBA log was good even though the cache was there, SBA is not DNF and the SBA log is there to clean up abandoned caches that develop problems. An SBA is appropriate when a cache in your area has developed problems and the owner does not respond to an NM or an email. Whenever you read a DNF log on a local cache and you know that the geocachers were wasting their time looking you should consider filing an SBA. The email to the cache owner is is never required but might help, using the NM and the SBA correctly will help your fellow geocachers. All cachers should be encouraged to use these logs correctly and everyone will benefit.