Jump to content

Purpose of the SBA


TheAlabamaRambler
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

In another thread I have been discussing my view of the Should Be Archived (SBA) note type.

 

Having seen the SBA discussed in several threads I seek clarification.

 

Some geocachers avoid it if at all possible, others use it way too often.

 

Some use it as a useful communications tool, others as a weapon against caches (or cachers) they don't like.

 

Some see it as a request for investigation by a qualified Reviewer, others see it as a public insult.

 

Some believe that a geocacher who percieves a serious issue with a cache should engage in dialogue with the cache owner, others see such issue determination and resolution as part of the Reviewer's role.

 

I have even seen Reviewers come down on different sides of the 'when is an SBA appropriate?' issue, leaving us further confused!

 

I believe that this reflects basic confusion as to the purpose of this note type.

 

Perhaps the reluctance among many to use an SBA note and the feeling that an SBA on your cache is a public rebuke is due to confusion as to its purpose.

 

I would love to hear clarification on this from TPTB.

 

My understanding of the SBA is that it is a request for a Reviewer to review a percieved signifigant issue, not really a statement that it Should Be Archived.

 

If that is correct then the name of this note type might be reconsidered to reflect its true purpose, as usually only the owner and Reviewer really know if a cache should be archived.

 

Perhaps it should be called a Request For Review or something to indicate that it's not a Needs Maintenance issue but in fact a request for investigation of a possible guideline violation.

 

While I certainly do not want to add to the Reviewers workload, I do not believe that the typical geocacher has a full understanding of the Guidelines and the regional and Reviewer-specific interpretations.

 

An SBA note gives the Reviewer the opportunity to reply to the complainant that 'This is not a violation, carry on!' or to address the isssue with the owner if it is in fact a violation.

 

I also believe that far too often geocachers squabble when someone complains or questions a cache in a geocacher-to-geocacher email, and the Reviewer will often be more tactful, and if necessary more forceful.

 

When a geocacher is confronted by a landowner who states that no permission has been acquired or something of that level of serious concern, the Reviewer is the only one qualified to review the putative issue, decide its merit or lack thereof, discuss it with the owner if necessary and resolve the issue.

 

If looked at as a Request For Review rather than as an order for archival or a public insult I think the hesitance to use SBA notes when appropriate will fade away.

 

I hope to hear from Groundspeak and/or the Volunteer Reviewer community a somewhat definitive expression of the purpose of the SBA note type and perhaps examples of when an SBA is appropriate.

 

Thanks,

Ed

Link to comment

 

 

My understanding of the SBA is that it is a request for a Reviewer to review a percieved signifigant issue, not really a statement that it Should Be Archived.

 

 

Pretty much this is what it means to me, but significant can mean a lot of different things to different people. If a cacher thinks the cache in question needs prompt attention from a volunteer cache reviewer, put a SBA note on the cache page and let the reviewer sort it out.

 

That is why we are paid the big bucks

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

Link to comment

I have used SBA's to indicate caches that I feel have a "problem" fitting in the guidelines and my intent was to provoke further review and/or clear-up language that was misleading.

 

Having said that, I guess I AM saying it should be archived - unless, of course, some aspect of it is changed for the better.

Link to comment

Does anyone actually read really, really long forum posts?

 

Sorry, yours was too long for me...could you summarize?

 

Jamie - NFA

 

 

 

Seriously though...I use the SBA log-type as a tool to alert the reviewers to the fact that there is a serious permission/legal/safety (outside of the parameters of the D/T ratings) issue that warrants archiving the cache...not if I don't like the cache location or contents or owner...

Edited by NFA
Link to comment
Seriously though...I use the SBA log-type as a tool to alert the reviewers to the fact that there is a serious permission/legal/safety (outside of the parameters of the D/T ratings) issue that warrants archiving the cache...not if I don't like the cache location or contents or owner...

NFA summed it up well.

Link to comment

Agree with the above. I think a new name would really help.

 

As for the proper way to handle a problem, I would suggest a good way to handle it this way:

 

1. Come here and ask people what they think of the situation, leaving the details anynomous as possible.

2. If the public perseves it as a problem, email the cache owner

3. If the owner takes no action after several weeks (or months), then do a SBA/NA

 

But the tag of Needs Archiving really has a negative effect to it... really it's a Needs Reviewer Attention.

Link to comment

  1. Use Needs Maintenance if the cache has problem that can be corrected by the cache owner.
  2. Use Needs Archived it the cache has a problem that the owner won't fix or that needs a reviewer's attention.

I agree that Need Reviewer Attention instead of Needs Archived may encourage more use of the this log. I still think a Needs Maintenance or a private note to the owner can resolve most problems.

Link to comment

agree that Need Reviewer Attention instead of Needs Archived may encourage more use of the this log. I still think a Needs Maintenance or a private note to the owner can resolve most problems.

 

Agree that the label is corosive. I use it to bring attention to the area reviewer. Wonder if it sends tham an email??? I have also used it of late as a question on why event caches are still alive 30+ days after an event. Some areas with a lot of events can create a waste clog in the PQ/GSAK.

Link to comment

This is my take.

 

The NM log is to notify the caching community and reviewers there is an unresolved problem with the cache. It's used after the cache owner has not maintained their cache for some time though they have been notified (via standard logs and email).

 

The SBA log is for two purposes. First when the cache needs to be immediatly archived and there is no time to mess around. Bomb squad intervention for example. Second when the cache is MIA beyond any resonable doubt or is FUBAR in some way such as on private property and the owner hasn't resolved the problme via being notified by email or logs. It also calls for reviewer intervention.

 

Both logs are for when the owner doesns't do the job, won't do the job, or perhaps can't do the job, or there isn't time for the owner to do the job even if they were willing.

Link to comment
My understanding of the SBA is that it is a request for a Reviewer to review a percieved signifigant issue

Undoubtably you'll get as many answers to this question as there are cachers in this forum. Personally, I think if Jeremy, Groundspeak, The Powers That Be, Et.al., wanted a type of note asking reviewers to Kwickly Review A Perceived Problem, than there would be a KRAPP button. SBA is an acronym for Should Be Archived, which seems fairly self explanatory. If a cache Should Be Archived, then an SBA would be appropriate. That in itself draws some confusion, since some feel a cache Should Be Archived anytime they are made to feel uncomfortable about hunting it, whilst others, (myself included), feel that a cache Should Be Archived if it violates the guidelines, is placed in such a manner as to make hunting it a crime, or has become geolitter with an inactive owner.

 

This is just my opinion, and is therefore completely subjective.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

I think it's kindof like a fire alarm. If you see smoke coming from the kitchen do you pull the alarm first or do you investigate to see if there's really a fire and not just a burnt pot roast?

Until you know there's a fire don't pull it, until you know there is a problem the owner can't or won't fix, don't click SBA. Only if there is a possible legal dispute, such as police called or land owner/manager ordering it gone should you SBA first. Then I would still feel contacting the owner as soon as possible and explaining what you did would be the best second move.

Perhaps what we need is one more option as suggested already: keep the NA but add Needs reviewed.

Link to comment

This is my take.

 

The NM log is to notify the caching community and reviewers there is an unresolved problem with the cache. It's used after the cache owner has not maintained their cache for some time though they have been notified (via standard logs and email).

 

 

Clarification

 

The volunteers reviewers only get a notification on Should Be Archive notes not on Needs Maintenance notes

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

Link to comment

Does anyone actually read really, really long forum posts?

No. The more I think about what I'm going to say before I say it, the fewer words I need to say it. Longer posts are less likely to have a point worth coming to.

 

On the point, though: in my area SBAs are seldom responded to by the reviewer, so posting an SBA might make enemies, but it probably won't improve anything.

Link to comment

I agree that some sort of alternate wording or additional log type would be a good idea.

 

I have logged an SBA twice first one was over 130 miles from home, and the container was smashed & contents scattered about. I picked up everything found WiFi internet access to email the owner, only to find that they had not logged on in over a year so an SBA was logged. Some months later I looked back at the cache page to find that it had been adopted.

 

The other was a cache that was missing there was already 5 DNF logs before my log. I searched for a good hour 50 to 75 feet in both directions from the posted coordinates (Along the shore line of a river) even finding a spot 15 feet from the coordinates that fit the clue. The owners had not logged in to GC.com in over 3 months and there email was no good. I logged the SBA and it was archived a month later, Reviewer gave the owners time to responded before archiving.

 

So far everything else I have been able to take care of in an email to the owners.

 

I have always been careful in the use of the SBA logs as it can be a good way to make a enemies and with friends like mine I don’t need anymore enemies. :laughing:

 

Jim

Kc8bdr

Link to comment

I've logged three SBAs that I can recall off the top of my head. Two were for caches I personally verified were gone, based on my previously having found those caches. Both of them had seriously changed hiding locations, and for both, the owners hadn't logged into the site for many months.

 

My other SBA was for a distant cache which had something like six consecutive DNFs. The cache was in a particularly well-traveled area and the hint was a giveaway. Since I was planning to visit the area, I took and interest. Again, the cache owner of this cache hadn't logged into the site for many months.

 

Basically, I only log a SBA when I know with near certainty that the cache is gone and will not be revived due to inactive owner.

 

I've had one SBA posted on one of my own caches. The cache was perfectly fine, and the loggers never pointed out any problems, other than it was rather difficult and that they'd tried a number of times to solve the puzzle but were unable to. Astonishingly, the cache was archived within an hour, before I even had a chance to respond. After several emails back and forth, the cache was un-archived... apparently the archival was an "error."

 

Like Ed pointed out, some cachers and reviewers view the SBA in a different light.

 

I like the idea of making the terminology more descriptive of what actually happens... that is, bringing the cache to the attention of a reviewer to see if the cache (still) meets the guidelines.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

I think the name "Should Be Archived" is already specific to exactly what it is supposed to convey to the area reviewers. It means that this cache needs to be archived...and the reason should be stated in the logs. The only reasons I can think of offhand are:

 

 

1> Numerous DNF logs are piling up (cache is obviously gone) and cache has been tagged "needs maintenance" for more than 2 months with no response from the cache owner. I recently tagged a cache near me for this very thing. It had several months of DNFs and needs maintenance logs and the owner hadn't been on the site in several months.

 

 

2> Cache is obviously on posted property and/or the poster encountered an irate property owner at the cache. You could argue that maybe the "property owner" encountered wasn't in the position to actually forbid the activity, but it's not like an archival can't be reversed by TPTB. I would hate to see a subsequent cacher get arrested because I didn't act appropriately.

 

 

I'm sure there are others, but these just came to mind.

Link to comment

This is my take.

 

The NM log is to notify the caching community and reviewers there is an unresolved problem with the cache. It's used after the cache owner has not maintained their cache for some time though they have been notified (via standard logs and email).

 

The SBA log is for two purposes. First when the cache needs to be immediatly archived and there is no time to mess around. Bomb squad intervention for example. Second when the cache is MIA beyond any resonable doubt or is FUBAR in some way such as on private property and the owner hasn't resolved the problme via being notified by email or logs. It also calls for reviewer intervention.

 

Both logs are for when the owner doesns't do the job, won't do the job, or perhaps can't do the job, or there isn't time for the owner to do the job even if they were willing.

 

I've received a number of "needs maintenance" logs on my caches and I challenge you to find a cache that I own where I'm not doing my job.

 

The log type is simply to alert the owner that there is a problem that needs his attention. When I receive one I go out and fix the cache and log a "maintenance performed". I like them because I have a lot of caches in the wild and I don't get to read every log on a busy weekend. The NM logs catch my attention, which is the point of them. They are not saying you are not doing your job, they are to let you know you have a job to do.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

Where I draw the line between Needs Maintenance and Should Be Archived is whether the cache is fit to be hunted.

 

Wet logbooks, depleted trinkets, leaky containers, missing stash notes, etc. warrant, IMHO, a NM.

 

For an SBA, OTOH, destroyed containers, legal issues, missing caches (not simply ones I couldn't find), etc. are issues that would pretty much prevent a legal, successful hunt. This has nothing to do with how active the owner is in the least. It's either fix it or archive it. This also does not preclude community-based repair and adoption.

Link to comment

Hmm. I read "Should Be Archived" as meaning that the person logging it has encountered a cache that "should be archived." If there is something about the cache that need to be fixed, checked, or investigated, it would seem more appropriate to me to use the "Needs Maintenance."

 

The problem with Needs Maintenance logs is that they are often ignored:

 

I posted a "needs maintenance" log for this cache and it went nowhere. Even a reviewer posted a "NA" log, yet the cache owner has done nothing.

Link to comment
For an SBA, OTOH, destroyed containers , legal issues, missing caches (not simply ones I couldn't find), etc. are issues that would pretty much prevent a legal, successful hunt. This has nothing to do with how active the owner is in the least. It's either fix it or archive it. This also does not preclude community-based repair and adoption.
I disagree. A missing container is a maintenance issue, not an issue that would require (or even suggest) archival. Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
For an SBA, OTOH, destroyed containers , legal issues, missing caches (not simply ones I couldn't find), etc. are issues that would pretty much prevent a legal, successful hunt. This has nothing to do with how active the owner is in the least. It's either fix it or archive it. This also does not preclude community-based repair and adoption.
I disagree. A missing container is a maintenance issue, not an issue that would require (or even suggest) archival.

 

It depends. If there are one or two DNFs and the owner is an active, conscientious owner, then a missing container can be a maintenance issue. If there is a long string of DNFs that the owner has ignored, then it falls into the Needs Archived territory.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I have only submitted 1 SBA so far, as the cache was abandoned and owner would not maintain, and after speaking to him via phone, he refused to allow adoption. So much for the pile of Geotrash that I hauled out for him.

 

I like to post Needs Maintenance logs first if the cache is no longer functional, but trash, and if no action taken within 6-8 weeks, the dreaded SBA will be posted.

 

I find it distinctly lame that a cache owner may bring you to what would have been a neat spot in the woods until I had to gaze directly upon a pile of trash. By trash I mean no longer functional container , broken mctoys, shredded logbook, and general cache contents that have been exposed to the elements and animals for months.Fix it or please remove it so that someone else can place a quality, functional hide.

 

 

My $.02

:huh:

Link to comment

I disagree. A missing container is a maintenance issue, not an issue that would require (or even suggest) archival.

So I DNF a cache, use a phone-a-friend or clairvoyance to determine that it is in fact missing, file a Needs Maintenance log and move on?

 

What happens if the owner fails to respond?

 

Do I set a watch on it, wait a certain period to see if there is any action? Put it on my calendar to check up on it from time to time?

 

How many cachers must waste their time looking for this cache that I know to be missing before it is appropriate to alert the Reviewer?

 

No,

 

I would either replace the container or file a Needs Archived log.

 

If I replace the container and the owner does respond he can pick mine up when he goes to replace his; if he doesn't respond, the cache lives on... either way, problem solved.

 

If I don't want to replace the cache for whatever reason, I file a Needs Archived, bringing it to the Reviewer's attention. Their review process will either get it replaced or archived.

 

That said, I keep maintenance and replacement stuff either in my pocket or belt-pack and far prefer to help the cache rather than have it archived.

 

The Needs Archived note is not a weapon of assault or insult, it is a tool that should be used to benefit cachers and help keep our listings accurate.

 

This is, of course, situation-specific; if I know the cache to be missing.

 

The Needs Maintenance is indeed the log of first choice when there is in fact a cache there to maintain (unless there have been a number of ignored NM logs over time).

 

Ed

Link to comment

I disagree. A missing container is a maintenance issue, not an issue that would require (or even suggest) archival.

So I DNF a cache, use a phone-a-friend or clairvoyance to determine that it is in fact missing, file a Needs Maintenance log and move on?

 

What happens if the owner fails to respond?

 

Do I set a watch on it, wait a certain period to see if there is any action? Put it on my calendar to check up on it from time to time?

 

How many cachers must waste their time looking for this cache that I know to be missing before it is appropriate to alert the Reviewer?

 

No,...

To be truthful, I didn't read your entire post. I scanned, it however, and I think I have the gist. Here's my take on the issue:

 

The geocachers in your area do not require you to ensure that there are no problems in their world. If you look for a cache and think that it may be missing, discuss it in your 'DNF' log and feel free to post a 'NM' log, if you are 'certain' that it is missing. If the owner doesn't perform the maintenance after a reasonable amount of time and future finders cannot find the cache, down the road a cacher will post a 'SBA'.

 

It is not necessary for a single cacher to manage this process.

Link to comment

Where I draw the line between Needs Maintenance and Should Be Archived is whether the cache is fit to be hunted.

 

Wet logbooks, depleted trinkets, leaky containers, missing stash notes, etc. warrant, IMHO, a NM.

 

For an SBA, OTOH, destroyed containers, legal issues, missing caches (not simply ones I couldn't find), etc. are issues that would pretty much prevent a legal, successful hunt. This has nothing to do with how active the owner is in the least. It's either fix it or archive it. This also does not preclude community-based repair and adoption.

 

I disagree with you on the using of the SBA button in these scenarios. To me it's, like someone else mentioned in another thread, a slap in the face for a responsible cache owner. All of these problems can be rectified and should initially be logged with a NM note. This log not only alerts the owner but also shows on the cache page so future caches can see and make a determination on whether they want to go for it or not. Of course, the SBA can and should be used later if the cache issue hasnt been resolved.

Link to comment

Where I draw the line between Needs Maintenance and Should Be Archived is whether the cache is fit to be hunted.

 

Wet logbooks, depleted trinkets, leaky containers, missing stash notes, etc. warrant, IMHO, a NM.

 

For an SBA, OTOH, destroyed containers, legal issues, missing caches (not simply ones I couldn't find), etc. are issues that would pretty much prevent a legal, successful hunt. This has nothing to do with how active the owner is in the least. It's either fix it or archive it. This also does not preclude community-based repair and adoption.

 

I disagree with you on the using of the SBA button in these scenarios. To me it's, like someone else mentioned in another thread, a slap in the face for a responsible cache owner. All of these problems can be rectified and should initially be logged with a NM note. This log not only alerts the owner but also shows on the cache page so future caches can see and make a determination on whether they want to go for it or not. Of course, the SBA can and should be used later if the cache issue hasnt been resolved.

I agree that SBA isn't always appropriate in that situation.

 

You don't know when it went missing or got destroyed. Unless there was a string of DNFs without a find before your hunt, it may have just happened the previous day or even an hour ago. A recently destroyed or missing cache is NOT a case for SBA, it is a NM. Always give the cache owner a chance to repair it, which is Maintenance, even if it was destroyed or missing.

 

I don't agree that the difference between NM and SBA is if the cache is "fit to be hunted". I think there are very few circumstances where SBA would be appropriate. One being a long time missing cache without an active owner. Neglected caches may be better cases for Adoption if there is an interested party. And if no one is interested then Archival.

 

Is there a way one could search for caches with the NM attribute set? Is that something reviewers are able to do?

 

Maybe there should be another option added? RAR : Reviewer Action Requested? It could be a non-posted log type as someone requested some logs be. That would take care of coming across a cache with NM for an extended period of time, and also those that may be of questionable placement with regards to property ownership, or other non-maintenance related issues.

Link to comment

....I've received a number of "needs maintenance" logs on my caches and I challenge you to find a cache that I own where I'm not doing my job. ...

 

We have opposing views on the NM log and how to best use it. If you have been doing your job, and I have no doubt you do a better job maintaining your caches than I do, then the NM logs were not needed and should not have been used.

Link to comment
I disagree with you on the using of the SBA button in these scenarios. To me it's, like someone else mentioned in another thread, a slap in the face for a responsible cache owner.

 

That's fine that you disagree. Also, I can't control how other folks feel. I think some folks would take exception to a NM log.

 

The fact of the matter is, when there is a serious problem with a cache, I shouldn't have to be my brother's keeper. That's what reviewers are for.

 

When there is a serious problem an SBA brings it to the attention of a reviewer. I move on to other things and don't have to worry about follow up or fussing and fighting with an errant cache owner.

 

This is not to say that you shouldn't be an active member of the community and help others in whatever way you can, but alerting a reviewer to a problem isn't wrong either.

 

Additionally, I couldn't care less the attitude of those on this forum if they feel a legal issue does not warrant an SBA log. I find one and it will happen. In fact, a land steward asks me to remove a cache it gets removed with the only question being his authority. If he has the right to have it removed, it gets removed. Period. Then an SBA will be logged.

 

No where did I say everyone should have the same criteria as I do. I simply informed where I draw the line. As they have said on the internet for years, "Your mileage may vary."

Link to comment
I disagree with you on the using of the SBA button in these scenarios. To me it's, like someone else mentioned in another thread, a slap in the face for a responsible cache owner.
That's fine that you disagree. Also, I can't control how other folks feel. I think some folks would take exception to a NM log.

 

The fact of the matter is, when there is a serious problem with a cache, I shouldn't have to be my brother's keeper. That's what reviewers are for.

 

When there is a serious problem an SBA brings it to the attention of a reviewer. I move on to other things and don't have to worry about follow up or fussing and fighting with an errant cache owner.

 

This is not to say that you shouldn't be an active member of the community and help others in whatever way you can, but alerting a reviewer to a problem isn't wrong either.

 

Additionally, I couldn't care less the attitude of those on this forum if they feel a legal issue does not warrant an SBA log. I find one and it will happen. In fact, a land steward asks me to remove a cache it gets removed with the only question being his authority. If he has the right to have it removed, it gets removed. Period. Then an SBA will be logged.

 

No where did I say everyone should have the same criteria as I do. I simply informed where I draw the line. As they have said on the internet for years, "Your mileage may vary."

Based on your actions regarding the removal of caches in your area, I think everyone knows how you feel related to this issue. However, in those actions, you are trying to be your brother's keeper, even though you say that you are not.

 

A better plan would be to notify the owner if the container is destroyed or missing by mentioning it in your log and/or posting a NM. If later cachers continue to experience the same maintenance issue, they will do the same.

 

There is no need for you to move immediately to a SBA in these scenarios. Give your fellow geocachers some credit. They do not need you to police them.

Link to comment

Did one SBA, regretfully and felt very bad about it but it was needed.

 

Later, when challenged & threatened by a security officer who was laying/waiting for cachers at a parking lot micro, I wrote a note to the reviewer who made the archive decision . . . it is his venue.

 

I feel we have a responsibility to landowners, other cachers and the game that must preclude our genuine interest in the hider, even if it hurts some feelings.

 

So, an SBA may be a necessary and should reasonably employed tool (IMO) when another resolution of an issue is not suitable.

Edited by GRANPA ALEX
Link to comment

Did one SBA, regretfully and felt very bad about it but it was needed.

 

Later, when challenged & threatened by a security officer who was laying/waiting for cachers at a parking lot micro, I wrote a note to the reviewer who made the archive decision . . . it is his venue.

 

I feel we have a responsibility to landowners, other cachers and the game that must preclude our genuine interest in the hider, even if it hurts some feelings.

 

So, an SBA may be a necessary and should reasonably employed tool (IMO) when another resolution of an issue is not suitable.

 

I would completely agree that is an appropriate use of the SBA.

 

But if there wasn't an office there, and no challenge or threats from someone but the cache was totally mangled, I wouldn't think it would be an appropriate use of SBA, NM would be a better choice.

Link to comment

...

 

Is there a way one could search for caches with the NM attribute set? Is that something reviewers are able to do?

 

Maybe there should be another option added? RAR : Reviewer Action Requested? It could be a non-posted log type as someone requested some logs be. That would take care of coming across a cache with NM for an extended period of time, and also those that may be of questionable placement with regards to property ownership, or other non-maintenance related issues.

 

Yes you can run a Pocket Query to find all the cache that 'first aid' cross on them, its down in the Attributes to Include / Exclude area. I don't know if reviewers run this sort of search, I think it varies from reviewer to reviewer as to how and when they look for caches that need attention.

 

If you want a hidden log you could always just find out who the reviewer is for that area and email them with your problem/concern.

Link to comment

I think the SBA logs are an entirely underused tool.

 

I am sick of looking for caches only to find that they have had multiple DNFs and Needs Maintenance logs where nothing has been done. If a cache is obviously gone, a NM log has been posted and the owner has done nothing about it, I make no apologies for posting an SBA log. I am doing a favor to the geocaching community by getting these things disabled and archived.

 

My most recent was a 1/1 cache with 12 consecutive DNFs and a NM log ignored for a month.

 

I wish more cachers would post SBA logs in obvious cases like this to free the area up for new caches and to spare those of us who don't necessarily read past logs before searching the hassle of looking for the non-existent.

Link to comment

...

 

Is there a way one could search for caches with the NM attribute set? Is that something reviewers are able to do?

 

Maybe there should be another option added? RAR : Reviewer Action Requested? It could be a non-posted log type as someone requested some logs be. That would take care of coming across a cache with NM for an extended period of time, and also those that may be of questionable placement with regards to property ownership, or other non-maintenance related issues.

 

Yes you can run a Pocket Query to find all the cache that 'first aid' cross on them, its down in the Attributes to Include / Exclude area. I don't know if reviewers run this sort of search, I think it varies from reviewer to reviewer as to how and when they look for caches that need attention.

 

If you want a hidden log you could always just find out who the reviewer is for that area and email them with your problem/concern.

Thanks, I didn't look in there because I figured that was just for the assigned attributes (dogs allowed, bathrooms, etc)

Link to comment

...In fact, a land steward asks me to remove a cache it gets removed with the only question being his authority. If he has the right to have it removed, it gets removed. Period. Then an SBA will be logged....

 

One does not need to follow the other. Like you in that situation I'd leave with the cache. However before I did an SBA log I'd email the owner and give them the opportunity to do the right thing. Life is better all around if the cache owner handles things directly than if I handle it without their input.

 

In some ways it mirros the permission issue. The cache is owned, the owner has first rights to the cache, and the first obligation to take care of it. We finders owe them a little courtesy for making this activity possible. one way to extend that courtesy is to go to them first with any problem before making it a community issue, which is exactly what a NM and SBA log do.

 

Most times there is plenty of time to use the NM and SBA logs later if needed.

 

While a lot of people are saying "The NM and SBA logs are the right way..." there is no harm and more good from using email and standard logs FIRST before resorting to the NM and SBA logs. This is true entirly because some cache owners (like myself) see these logs misused and take them as a slap in the face.

Link to comment

...

 

Is there a way one could search for caches with the NM attribute set? Is that something reviewers are able to do?

 

Maybe there should be another option added? RAR : Reviewer Action Requested? It could be a non-posted log type as someone requested some logs be. That would take care of coming across a cache with NM for an extended period of time, and also those that may be of questionable placement with regards to property ownership, or other non-maintenance related issues.

 

Yes you can run a Pocket Query to find all the cache that 'first aid' cross on them, its down in the Attributes to Include / Exclude area. I don't know if reviewers run this sort of search, I think it varies from reviewer to reviewer as to how and when they look for caches that need attention.

 

If you want a hidden log you could always just find out who the reviewer is for that area and email them with your problem/concern.

Thanks, I didn't look in there because I figured that was just for the assigned attributes (dogs allowed, bathrooms, etc)

 

Hm.. Yea I could see that reasoning :huh:. Of course whenever someone posts a needs maintance log an attribute is assigned to the cache page. The owner has two ways to get rid of it, post a Owner Mainance log or go in and edit the attributes of the page.

Link to comment

I have an additional note for this thread... I cache paperless (GSAK, cachemate), and do not very often look at the actual web page for caches, which means I rarely know about a NM attribute on the cache unless I happen to see it in the logs (which I also don't read unless I am having trouble finding the cache)

That is probably why I never really noticed that a cache I did a couple weeks ago has had a NM attribute on it for several months. Nothing was wrong with the cache though, someone had already left a new log book.

 

Is there any way for someone else to cancel a NM entry? beyond the owner maintainance log, or a reviewer? maybe that should be an option? I think we have all pretty much decided that a NM isn't critical, such as property owners being upset.

Link to comment

I find it interesting that there is so much discussion about the SBA log when Groundspeak already has answered that question in the knowledge base:

 

What is a "Should Be Archived" note?

 

In case the link doesn't work, there are two situations that call for a SBA:

 

1) There is a safety, law enforcement, trespassing or similar issue.

 

2) Not because there's an immediate problem, but because it is painfully evident that the cache is missing AND the owner is missing.

 

To me, that will be the answer until the knowledge base article gets updated. :laughing:

Link to comment
Based on your actions regarding the removal of cachesa cache that was illegally placed and damaged public property in your area...
There I fixed it for you.

 

There is no need for you to move immediately to a SBA in these scenarios. Give your fellow geocachers some credit. They do not need you to police them.
Thats funny because the majority of the posters here are saying that exact thing--we all should be policing each other. We only disagree with the method.

 

What's the difference in sending an email saying your cache is destroyed and scattered all over versus posting an SBA? One is private, the other public and gets a reviewer involved. The former requires you or other cachers to get involved if the owner is not responsive. Now, who is making the other be his brother's keeper?

 

If I find a cache outside our area that fit the criteria I described earlier, I'll post an SBA and let someone with a bit of authority handle it. It's not as if it's going to be archived right off the bat. It's also not as if the cache owner can't delete the SBA if he gets embarrassed over it.

 

I went back and reviewed all of our SBA logs. All but one cache subsequently was archived by a reviewer. The remaining one was adopted by the community and replaced. It's not as if the SBA is an automatic archival. Nor have I heard from a reviewer that I'm too quick on the trigger. Seems like I'm doing it right.

Link to comment
There is no need for you to move immediately to a SBA in these scenarios. Give your fellow geocachers some credit. They do not need you to police them.
Thats funny because the majority of the posters here are saying that exact thing--we all should be policing each other. We only disagree with the method.

 

What's the difference in sending an email saying your cache is destroyed and scattered all over versus posting an SBA? One is private, the other public and gets a reviewer involved. The former requires you or other cachers to get involved if the owner is not responsive. Now, who is making the other be his brother's keeper?

 

If I find a cache outside our area that fit the criteria I described earlier, I'll post an SBA and let someone with a bit of authority handle it. It's not as if it's going to be archived right off the bat. It's also not as if the cache owner can't delete the SBA if he gets embarrassed over it.

 

I went back and reviewed all of our SBA logs. All but one cache subsequently was archived by a reviewer. The remaining one was adopted by the community and replaced. It's not as if the SBA is an automatic archival. Nor have I heard from a reviewer that I'm too quick on the trigger. Seems like I'm doing it right.

On one hand, you state that you post an SBA right away to notify the owner of the problem, but that it's not a big deal because it doesn't necessarily mean that the cache will be archived. You go on to state that all but one time that you did this, the cache was archived. Based on this, let me ask you two questions.

 

First, why did you not use the 'Need Maintenance' log? Certainly, it would have notified the cache owner and community of the problems without the need to subject the cache to reviewer intervention.

 

Second, why do you not trust local cachers to be able to take the next step if the owner isn't responsive?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
What's the difference in sending an email saying your cache is destroyed and scattered all over versus posting an SBA?

You already answered your own question:

One is private, the other public and gets a reviewer involved.

If one of my caches gets destroyed, it most assuredly does not need to be archived, it needs to be repaired, or maintained, if you prefer that word. Seems like there is already an option for caches that need maintenance. On the other hand, if BillyBobNosePicker, who hasn't logged on in a year, and who has ignored a previous "needs maintenance" log, has a damaged cache, then I would probably agree that it should be archived. As long as the owner is active, a maintenance issue does not equal an archival issue. I just read the link supplied by DanOCan regarding when an SBA should be posted and, as they already pointed out, Groundspeak believes a missing cache with an active owner is not grounds for an SBA. It's good reading. Thanx DanOCan

Link to comment
First, why did you not use the 'Need Maintenance' log? Certainly, it would have notified the cache owner and community of the problems without the need to subject the cache to reviewer intervention.
IIRC, that log type wasn't even available when these happened.

 

Second, why do you not trust local cachers to be able to take the next step if the owner isn't responsive?
When I stop seeing log after log detailing problems with a cache then I might assume a note or a NM would be sufficient. Otherwise, I post an SBA.
Link to comment
Second, why do you not trust local cachers to be able to take the next step if the owner isn't responsive?
When I stop seeing log after log detailing problems with a cache then I might assume a note or a NM would be sufficient. Otherwise, I post an SBA.

In other words, you agree with almost everyone in this thread and disagree with your prior position. :laughing:

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
What's the difference in sending an email saying your cache is destroyed and scattered all over versus posting an SBA?

You already answered your own question:

One is private, the other public and gets a reviewer involved.
That was illustrative and details the only difference being it being public and getting a reviewer involved.
If one of my caches gets destroyed, it most assuredly does not need to be archived, it needs to be repaired, or maintained, if you prefer that word.
Then there shouldn't be a problem then should there? Get it fixed and then there is no reason to archive it.

 

As for the link quoted, that's the first I've ever heard of it. Besides, you might want to re-read it very closely. I don't think it's saying what you or Dan are implying it is saying.

 

The bottom line is I've detailed when I will post an SBA. Period. Until such time we are informed my criteria in appropriate, if you don't like it I've got a "Jeremy Irish quote" for you.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...