Maintenance before Archiving

[+WIIarefamily]

I just a cache archived by someone because she and her partner and the person before her could not find the cache. What kind of bothers me about the situation is that instead of posting a maintenance needed post she archived it! Now I feel like I'm on the clock with GC.COM.

This lady has over 4000 caches to her credit, is it just me or is this a little rude? It seems that a maintenance post would have served the same purpose and been a little less extreme. Heck, maybe she just didn't find it, just because you have 4000 caches does not mean you can't miss one every once in a while.

What is the proper etiquette in this situation?

[knowschad]

I just a cache archived by someone because she and her partner and the person before her could not find the cache. What kind of bothers me about the situation is that instead of posting a maintenance needed post she archived it! Now I feel like I'm on the clock with GC.COM.

This lady has over 4000 caches to her credit, is it just me or is this a little rude? It seems that a maintenance post would have served the same purpose and been a little less extreme. Heck, maybe she just didn't find it, just because you have 4000 caches does not mean you can't miss one every once in a while.

What is the proper etiquette in this situation?

If I understand you right, and I believe that I do... it takes a reviewer or a cache owner to archive a cache. Someone can post a Needs Archive log, but that does nothing more than to alter you and the reviewer to a possible problem, and I don't know of a reviewer out there that wouldn't give you plenty of time to address the issue before archiving your cache.

[+StarBrand]

If I understand you correctly - no problem. She posted a "NA" log type which is a request for a reviewer to look at a cache and decide if there are any guideline issues (including the maintenance clauses). She should have logged a DNF if she didn't find it.

 

Go check it out and take care of any issues - post a note that you did and forget about it.

[Keystone]

To clarify, the geocacher posted a "Needs Archived" log, which attracts a reviewer's attention. The reviewer then *temporarily* disabled your listing. After you investigate, and make any necessary repairs, you can simply re-enable the page. All of this is explained in the note left on your cache page (apart from some outdated form letter text about how to re-enable the listing). Your cache was not archived.

 

There's been three DNF logs since your cache was last found in May -- all by fairly experienced geocachers, and coming after 19 straight finds. It sure sounds like the cache is missing.

 

While a "Needs Archived" after three DNF's might be a bit premature, it is not out of the range of reasonableness. There is no requirement to first log a "Needs Maintenance."

 

I would check on the cache, get it back in service, and quit worrying about it once the problem is fixed.

[+WIIarefamily]

I do not blame the reviewer at all, they are only doing what they need to do. But posting a maintenance log would have accomplished the same outcome. I will go check on the cache and replace or archive it if needed. At this time the cache has been temporarily disabled not archived.

[knowschad]

I do not blame the reviewer at all, they are only doing what they need to do. But posting a maintenance log would have accomplished the same outcome. I will go check on the cache and replace or archive it if needed. At this time the cache has been temporarily disabled not archived.

 

You may be right, but as the person that posted that NA log mentioned, the cache hadn't been found all summer, and had been DNF'd by some experienced cachers, so perhaps you should have considered checking up on it yourself by now. But... no matter. A N/A log is not a Scarlet Letter of shame. Check up on the cache, fix it up if you need to, and you're back on track.

[+WIIarefamily]

There's been three DNF logs since your cache was last found in May -- all by fairly experienced geocachers, and coming after 19 straight finds. It sure sounds like the cache is missing.

 

To be accurate there have been three DNF logs, one on July 25 and the other two on October 18. I indeed feel like this was a "quick trigger."

This post was not intended to be about what I should do but rather a discussion about the etiquette of when to post a Maintenance post and a Archive post.

[knowschad]

There's been three DNF logs since your cache was last found in May -- all by fairly experienced geocachers, and coming after 19 straight finds. It sure sounds like the cache is missing.

 

To be accurate there have been three DNF logs, one on July 25 and the other two on October 18. I indeed feel like this was a "quick trigger."

This post was not intended to be about what I should do but rather a discussion about the etiquette of when to post a Maintenance post and a Archive post.

I agree that a Needs Maintenance log or an email would have been more appropriate in this case... but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. You will not get a black mark or flunk out of geocaching school because of it.

[+WIIarefamily]

Thanks knowschad... on that note I think I'll head off to bed knowing that I have not flunked out of a yet another school... I was worrying about how I was gonna tell my wife. []

[+tozainamboku]

I find it annoying that a cacher with 4000 finds assumes that because they didn't find a a cache 1) the cache is missing and 2) the cache should be archived because the cacher owner is not doing maintenance. I certainly don't see how a Needs Archive would be appropriate here.

[ZeMartelo]

In my corner of the woods I am noticing that DNF's and Needs Maintenance are largely ignored by cache owners.

There are caches that have a needs maintenance and Dnf's for months with not even a note from the owner acknowledging it.

Myself I am starting to skip the needs maintenance and go directly to the Needs Archived option.

It accomplishes two things, it calls upon the reviewer that a cache has a problem and the reviewer turns to the cache owner to own it up within a time frame, if theres no action from the owner the cache is archived as it should be.

And second it put the owner on the alert because if he/she is serious about his/her caches they have to do something about it and not just ignore it.

IMO either Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived should be removed and the one left should do what Needs Archive does right now. Involve the reviewer in the deal.

 

There are too many caches available to geocachers out there to keep themselves busy without having to worry about poor maintained caches.

This also eliminates the deadbeat cache owners as their caches will slowly disappear from the landscape.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Myself I am starting to skip the needs maintenance and go directly to the Needs Archived option.

 

I think that comes down to being familiar with the CO and how responsive they are to issues. If the CO is one I'm not overly familiar with, I'd log a Needs Maintainance first, as a matter of courtesy and give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll fix the cache up. There are cache owners that I know that if I post a NM, the cache will get fixed within a reasonable amount of time, so posting a NA would be taking it a step too far. There's no point involving a reviewer if the owner is responsible in keeping their caches in good order.

 

However, there are a few local CO's here that if/when I run across a problem cache of theirs, I wouldn't hesitate to post a NA because their history shows they won't maintain the caches anyway and if I find a pile of moldy junk today, it'll be a pile of moldy junk until it gets archived and a cache rescue mission retrieves the junk and disposes of it, no matter how many DNF's and NM logs pile up.

 

Bruce

[+hydnsek]

Myself I am starting to skip the needs maintenance and go directly to the Needs Archived option.

 

I think that comes down to being familiar with the CO and how responsive they are to issues. If the CO is one I'm not overly familiar with, I'd log a Needs Maintainance first, as a matter of courtesy and give them the benefit of the doubt that they'll fix the cache up. There are cache owners that I know that if I post a NM, the cache will get fixed within a reasonable amount of time, so posting a NA would be taking it a step too far. There's no point involving a reviewer if the owner is responsible in keeping their caches in good order.

 

However, there are a few local CO's here that if/when I run across a problem cache of theirs, I wouldn't hesitate to post a NA because their history shows they won't maintain the caches anyway and if I find a pile of moldy junk today, it'll be a pile of moldy junk until it gets archived and a cache rescue mission retrieves the junk and disposes of it, no matter how many DNF's and NM logs pile up.

 

Bruce

Total agreement.

[knowschad]

My caching community is pretty small. I mean, there are a lot of cachers here, but sooner or later, you will meet most of them, either at events, or via email, or via 3rd+ party (eg: Kevin Bacon style) connections. I can only imagine that sending polite emails, or at best Needs Maintenance notes as opposed to N/A notes will make those meetings much less embarrassing than blasting Needs Archived notes all over the place once you do come face-to-face with the cache owners that you posted them for.

 

But nevertheless, a N/A note does nothing more than send an email to the reviewer, who hopefully has the good judgement and experience to correctly weigh the facts and act accordingly.

[+bittsen]

Myself I am starting to skip the needs maintenance and go directly to the Needs Archived option.

 

There is a process and for you to personally circumvent that process is irresponsible.

Who are you to decide that a cache owner won't respond to a needs maintenance request? All you are assuring is that your local reviewer will have more work to do.

 

Heck, why not just skip all the processes and go right to cache cleanup. You know, where you just remove the cache...

[ZeMartelo]

Myself I am starting to skip the needs maintenance and go directly to the Needs Archived option.

 

There is a process and for you to personally circumvent that process is irresponsible.

Who are you to decide that a cache owner won't respond to a needs maintenance request? All you are assuring is that your local reviewer will have more work to do.

 

Who am I? I am the one that is going after the cache. Why should I go after caches that have not been maintained?

Who am I? The garbage hunter?

How many Dnf's and needs maintenance are necessary to either have the owner fix it or have it archived?

I am sorry if I sound rude but the fact is that I am getting tired of going after garbage.

Because I respect cachers and the hobby I have not placed any caches myself because I dont want to maintain the caches afterwards.

 

Heck, why not just skip all the processes and go right to cache cleanup. You know, where you just remove the cache...

That has been done before. The cache was behond trash.

It was picked up and logged properly to advise that the container is no longer in place and for the owner to either place a new one or archive it.

[+ZeroHecksGiven]

If I find the a cache is actually missing(my DNF along with a list of others), I'll file a maint. log. If I come across it again and it's been more than a month, I'll file a needs archived note. The ONLY reason I do this is for the people just getting into geocaching. If I were new and my first few caches I went after weren't even there, I'd be bummed on the sport and look elsewhere for outdoor activities. So out of respect for rookies, I do a little "round up" of the caches that are gone or seem to be missing. If it's my mistake and it's there, well, now we know and I'll go make the find or the rookie will

[+bittsen]

Myself I am starting to skip the needs maintenance and go directly to the Needs Archived option.

 

There is a process and for you to personally circumvent that process is irresponsible.

Who are you to decide that a cache owner won't respond to a needs maintenance request? All you are assuring is that your local reviewer will have more work to do.

 

Who am I? I am the one that is going after the cache. Why should I go after caches that have not been maintained?

Who am I? The garbage hunter?

How many Dnf's and needs maintenance are necessary to either have the owner fix it or have it archived?

I am sorry if I sound rude but the fact is that I am getting tired of going after garbage.

Because I respect cachers and the hobby I have not placed any caches myself because I dont want to maintain the caches afterwards.

 

Heck, why not just skip all the processes and go right to cache cleanup. You know, where you just remove the cache...

That has been done before. The cache was behond trash.

It was picked up and logged properly to advise that the container is no longer in place and for the owner to either place a new one or archive it.

 

WOW!

 

Um, yeah, it sounded rude and rather.... what's the word I'm looking for..... not elitist..... something a little higher.

 

Logging a SBA on your first visit to a cache is a little over the top. You only find it once. Why would one necessarily assume a NM log would be ignored?

 

Seriously, I think you are way off base and have some weird idea of how geocaching should cater to you.

 

Sorry if that sounds rude.

[+bittsen]

If I find the a cache is actually missing(my DNF along with a list of others), I'll file a maint. log. If I come across it again and it's been more than a month, I'll file a needs archived note. The ONLY reason I do this is for the people just getting into geocaching. If I were new and my first few caches I went after weren't even there, I'd be bummed on the sport and look elsewhere for outdoor activities. So out of respect for rookies, I do a little "round up" of the caches that are gone or seem to be missing. If it's my mistake and it's there, well, now we know and I'll go make the find or the rookie will

 

I think you are on the right train of thought. Kudos.

[+Chrysalides]

I am sorry if I sound rude but the fact is that I am getting tired of going after garbage.

Perhaps it is time to consider another hobby?

[ZeMartelo]

 

WOW!

 

Um, yeah, it sounded rude and rather.... what's the word I'm looking for..... not elitist..... something a little higher.

 

Logging a SBA on your first visit to a cache is a little over the top. You only find it once. Why would one necessarily assume a NM log would be ignored?

How many Dnf's and needs maintenance are necessary to either have the owner fix it or have it archived?

Have you considered that maybe I dont want the next person after me to find the same garbage as I did?

 

Seriously, I think you are way off base and have some weird idea of how geocaching should cater to you.

 

Sorry if that sounds rude.

Its your opinion and I have no problem with it.

I do believe that geocaching needs to cater to me and to you and to everyone else.

I want to find containers in decent condition with a writable log and where I dont have to wear a protection suit to get anywhere near it. Why isnt everyone else asking for the same??

[ZeMartelo]

I am sorry if I sound rude but the fact is that I am getting tired of going after garbage.

Perhaps it is time to consider another hobby?

Thanks for your contribution.

[Dj Storm]

...

Logging a SBA on your first visit to a cache is a little over the top. You only find it once. Why would one necessarily assume a NM log would be ignored?

...

 

I recently did the same (at least from the point of view of someone who doesn't know all the facts).

- I went to search for a cache (I knew it was missing since 2007), and logged a DNF;

- I used a spoiler picture from a previous log to confirm that the cache is missing;

- I sent emails to the CO recommending that he fixes or archives his cache (owner inactive since early 2008);

- a month later, having received no answer from the CO, I logged a NA; the cache was archived the next day.

The cache had a "Needs maintenance" log since 2007, 6 months before the owner went missing. The cache was not disabled. It had only 3 DNF's (including mine), because cachers avoided it. In that case I considered that archiving is the right thing to do, and the reviewer agreed.

 

I have some similar caches on my list, and I'll do the same (except using a spoiler picture - no pictures and no finds on said caches since 2004-2005).

[+Vater_Araignee]

I believe that there should be

• A check put into place that will not allow an SBA log unless two conditions have been meet
  • Condition 1 is an outstanding NM log 30 days or older
    
  • Condition 2 is the submitter of the SBA has a found it log 30 days on the SBA cache, no back dating.
    

  [*] A new log type, Needs Reviewer Attention, that way a person that has not found the cache still has the ability to bring it to reviewer attention.

  The log should be only viewable by...

  • Reviewer
    
  • Cache Owner
    
  • Submitter
    

I'll never believe that somebody with 5000 finds is an experienced cacher just based on the number.

Well they could be very experienced at lifting lamp post skirts.

[+sbell111]

WOW!

 

Um, yeah, it sounded rude and rather.... what's the word I'm looking for..... not elitist..... something a little higher.

 

Logging a SBA on your first visit to a cache is a little over the top. You only find it once. Why would one necessarily assume a NM log would be ignored?

How many Dnf's and needs maintenance are necessary to either have the owner fix it or have it archived?

Given that you stated that you are not submitting an NM log and would be going straight to an NA, I think the answer to your question is that at least one 'needs maintenance' should be necessary.

 

DNFs are a completely different story. The question is this: How do you know that it is missing simply because a cache wasn't found twice (per the OP's example)? You pretty much cannot know this, so don't submit a 'NM'.

Have you considered that maybe I dont want the next person after me to find the same garbage as I did?

Regarding your desire to limit the amount of 'garbage' that you seek for, there are easy ways to avoid them. To avoid caches that have recent DNFs, use GSAK to sort them out of your PQs. Doing this adds maybe ten seconds to my data preparation process.

 

To avoid looking for caches that are damaged, take a quick glance at recent logs prior to going after the cache. This adds maybe ten seconds to the front end of each cache hunt, before you even tell your GPSr to show you the way. If the cache appears to be trashed, choose a different one.

 

BTW, if you don't wish to sound rude in your forum posts, take a read of them before you submit them. If you think that you might possibly come off as discourteous or infantile, you may want to do a rewrite.

[GOF and Bacall]

I believe that there should be

• A check put into place that will not allow an SBA log unless two conditions have been meet
  • Condition 1 is an outstanding NM log 30 days or older
    
  • Condition 2 is the submitter of the SBA has a found it log 30 days on the SBA cache, no back dating.
    

  [*] A new log type, Needs Reviewer Attention, that way a person that has not found the cache still has the ability to bring it to reviewer attention.

  The log should be only viewable by...

  • Reviewer
    
  • Cache Owner
    
  • Submitter
    

I'll never believe that somebody with 5000 finds is an experienced cacher just based on the number.

Well they could be very experienced at lifting lamp post skirts.

 

I have often thought that the title "Needs Archive" was a poor choice as all it really means is "Please Review Again".

[+Vater_Araignee]

I believe that there should be

• A check put into place that will not allow an SBA log unless two conditions have been meet
  • Condition 1 is an outstanding NM log 30 days or older
    
  • Condition 2 is the submitter of the SBA has a found it log 30 days on the SBA cache, no back dating.
    

  [*] A new log type, Needs Reviewer Attention, that way a person that has not found the cache still has the ability to bring it to reviewer attention.

  The log should be only viewable by...

  • Reviewer
    
  • Cache Owner
    
  • Submitter
    

I'll never believe that somebody with 5000 finds is an experienced cacher just based on the number.

Well they could be very experienced at lifting lamp post skirts.

 

I have often thought that the title "Needs Archive" was a poor choice as all it really means is "Please Review Again".

That one little change could stop a lot of angst.

[+Renegade Knight]

I just a cache archived by someone because she and her partner and the person before her could not find the cache....

What is the proper etiquette in this situation?

 

While we don't all agree on the exact nauances of when the SBA shoul be used. Using it just becasue you can't find the cache is an abuse. I'm assuming she used the Should Be Archived log and didn't actually archive it.

 

The propor etiquette for you is to look at the cache, the logs, and the overall situation. Do you need to check on it or is it a hard cache and one DNF is par for the course? As an activly interested owner you use your judgment to decide on the best course of action for you on this cache. I have no doubt you are already doing this.

 

Your reviewer will ask you what's up, and no dobut you will have an answer about your cache when they do.

 

In my case I have some caches that are hard and some that are easy. If a 4000 finds cacher does a DNF on a hard one I really don't care so much becasue it's not hte 4000 finds as it is the kind of finds those 4000 are made up of. One cache I had was hard, but a find on another cache 250 miles away would give you the real experience you need where 4000 micro's under LPC's wouldn't. Other caches are so easy that a Noob with ZERO finds who can't find it would mean I need to check on it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have often thought that the title "Needs Archive" was a poor choice as all it really means is "Please Review Again".

 

That seems to be a common intrepretation of the SBA log. I've alwasy thoght it was the other way. "NEEDS ARCHIVED RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO TIME TO WORK WIHT THE OWNER THERE IS A FREAKING CRISIS". The crisis in my world is normally like the OP. Someone can't find the cache.

 

However a "please review again" version would be a softer touch for folks like me who see the SBA log as the other extreme. It would give the "gross a wet log, SBA" crowed a means of venting.

[+niraD]

I believe that there should be

• A check put into place that will not allow an SBA log unless two conditions have been meet
  • Condition 1 is an outstanding NM log 30 days or older
    
  • Condition 2 is the submitter of the SBA has a found it log 30 days on the SBA cache, no back dating.
    

• Or unless one condition has been met:
  • Condition 3 is a property owner confronting the seeker, and demanding that the cache be removed.
    

Oh, wait, how do we implement a software check for that?...

[+Vater_Araignee]

I believe that there should be

• A check put into place that will not allow an SBA log unless two conditions have been meet
  • Condition 1 is an outstanding NM log 30 days or older
    
  • Condition 2 is the submitter of the SBA has a found it log 30 days on the SBA cache, no back dating.
    

• Or unless one condition has been met:
  • Condition 3 is a property owner confronting the seeker, and demanding that the cache be removed.
    

Oh, wait, how do we implement a software check for that?...

Edited out the second portion of my post that would cover it so you could initiate an argument?

Lets have a look shall we?

A new log type, Needs Reviewer Attention, that way a person that has not found the cache still has the ability to bring it to reviewer attention.

The log should be only viewable by...

 

* Reviewer

* Cache Owner

* Submitter

Yup, I already cover it without specifically mentioning it.

[GOF and Bacall]

...I have often thought that the title "Needs Archive" was a poor choice as all it really means is "Please Review Again".

 

That seems to be a common intrepretation of the SBA log. I've alwasy thoght it was the other way. "NEEDS ARCHIVED RIGHT NOW THERE IS NO TIME TO WORK WIHT THE OWNER THERE IS A FREAKING CRISIS". The crisis in my world is normally like the OP. Someone can't find the cache.

 

However a "please review again" version would be a softer touch for folks like me who see the SBA log as the other extreme. It would give the "gross a wet log, SBA" crowed a means of venting.

 

The missiles have crossed the pole and can only be stopped by archiving this cache theory does not survive the practical application as we generally see it. It is seldom that a reviewer archives a cache the moment an NA log is posted. To the best of my knowledge unless the NA (SBA) log contains a compelling reason, such as police or land owner involvement, reviewers tend to contact the CO long before any action is taken.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The missiles have crossed the pole and can only be stopped by archiving this cache theory does not survive the practical application as we generally see it. It is seldom that a reviewer archives a cache the moment an NA log is posted. To the best of my knowledge unless the NA (SBA) log contains a compelling reason, such as police or land owner involvement, reviewers tend to contact the CO long before any action is taken.

 

I agree the reviewers do the right thing and work with the owners. It's the annoying finders who abuse the log by lobbing the missles over the pole so owners can only brace for impact and clean up the mess when all of that could have been avoided by using the log correctly. Meaning "should be archived RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THE LAND OWNER IS CHEWING MY BUTT".

 

The kinder gentler version you suggest would be another log type. Even then it still says "I the finder think this cache has an issue that the reviewer missed, or didn't know about and which the cache owner was too stupid to get right even though I as a finder don't know anything at all about how this cache was placed".

 

Sorry, I just see to much abuse of the logs for illigetimate reasons. It sours my viewpoint on the entire thing.

[GOF and Bacall]

So what is the log type that should be used for "The cache owner left this substandard piece of crap container that is now full of disgusting, unhealthy, moldy, slimy paper that used to be a log out here when he skipped town and quit geocaching."? Needs Maintenance just doesn't cut it. There is no longer a CO to do that maintenance.

[+niraD]

I believe that there should be

• A check put into place that will not allow an SBA log unless two conditions have been meet
  • Condition 1 is an outstanding NM log 30 days or older
    
  • Condition 2 is the submitter of the SBA has a found it log 30 days on the SBA cache, no back dating.
    

• Or unless one condition has been met:
  • Condition 3 is a property owner confronting the seeker, and demanding that the cache be removed.
    

Oh, wait, how do we implement a software check for that?...

Edited out the second portion of my post that would cover it so you could initiate an argument?

Lets have a look shall we?

A new log type, Needs Reviewer Attention, that way a person that has not found the cache still has the ability to bring it to reviewer attention.

The log should be only viewable by...

 

* Reviewer

* Cache Owner

* Submitter

Yup, I already cover it without specifically mentioning it.

Sorry, I disagree. If there's ever a time for an SBA log, it's when the seeker has been told by the property owner (or by law enforcement officers, etc.) that the cache must be removed. In such a situation, "Needs Reviewer Attention" doesn't cut it.

[+L0ne.R]

....archiving this cache theory does not survive the practical application as we generally see it. It is seldom that a reviewer archives a cache the moment an NA log is posted. To the best of my knowledge unless the NA (SBA) log contains a compelling reason, such as police or land owner involvement, reviewers tend to contact the CO long before any action is taken.

 

Exactly GOF. I think people are becoming to worked up about the NA (SBA). From what I've seen in my area, it is used properly and the reviewer provides ample time to have the CO address the issue. Often 4-6 months, depending on how long the problem has existed.

[+Chrysalides]

Sorry, I disagree. If there's ever a time for an SBA log, it's when the seeker has been told by the property owner (or by law enforcement officers, etc.) that the cache must be removed. In such a situation, "Needs Reviewer Attention" doesn't cut it.

Having been in that situation once, I totally agree. BTW that was the only SBA I ever logged. Everything else, including confirmed missing cache, I log a NM with text that I've found it before, it's definitely missing, etc.

 

As for the whole other class of log types, I have a much simpler solution that doesn't require any additional features. It's called "e-mail".

[GOF and Bacall]

Sorry, I disagree. If there's ever a time for an SBA log, it's when the seeker has been told by the property owner (or by law enforcement officers, etc.) that the cache must be removed. In such a situation, "Needs Reviewer Attention" doesn't cut it.

Having been in that situation once, I totally agree. BTW that was the only SBA I ever logged. Everything else, including confirmed missing cache, I log a NM with text that I've found it before, it's definitely missing, etc.

 

As for the whole other class of log types, I have a much simpler solution that doesn't require any additional features. It's called "e-mail".

 

E-mail doesn't do the job when a cache owner is missing. I will give you that email and needs maintenance are good first steps, but they don't always get the job done.

[+Chrysalides]

E-mail doesn't do the job when a cache owner is missing. I will give you that email and needs maintenance are good first steps, but they don't always get the job done.

You're right, of course. I usually take a peek at when the CO last visited geocaching.com (from profile) before deciding. You can e-mail both the CO and reviewer with the same message. But if you feel the need to e-mail a reviewer for anything other than a question, it might be more suitable to log a SBA anyway.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+L0ne.R]

Sorry, I disagree. If there's ever a time for an SBA log, it's when the seeker has been told by the property owner (or by law enforcement officers, etc.) that the cache must be removed. In such a situation, "Needs Reviewer Attention" doesn't cut it.

Having been in that situation once, I totally agree. BTW that was the only SBA I ever logged. Everything else, including confirmed missing cache, I log a NM with text that I've found it before, it's definitely missing, etc.

 

As for the whole other class of log types, I have a much simpler solution that doesn't require any additional features. It's called "e-mail".

 

E-mail doesn't do the job when a cache owner is missing. I will give you that email and needs maintenance are good first steps, but they don't always get the job done.

 

I agree with GOF.

 

Geez people what's so bad about the NM log? Why do so many hiders have issues with NM? I like to be notified when there's a problem. The NM also let's future finders know there's a issue.

Edited October 22, 2009 by Lone R

[+Chrysalides]

Geez people what's so bad about the NM log? Why do so many hiders have issues with NM? I like to be notified when there's a problem. The NM also let's future finders know there's a issue.

I thought the issue is with SBA? Primarily because the cache is flagged for reviewer action due to the SBA.

[GOF and Bacall]

Sorry, I disagree. If there's ever a time for an SBA log, it's when the seeker has been told by the property owner (or by law enforcement officers, etc.) that the cache must be removed. In such a situation, "Needs Reviewer Attention" doesn't cut it.

Having been in that situation once, I totally agree. BTW that was the only SBA I ever logged. Everything else, including confirmed missing cache, I log a NM with text that I've found it before, it's definitely missing, etc.

 

As for the whole other class of log types, I have a much simpler solution that doesn't require any additional features. It's called "e-mail".

 

E-mail doesn't do the job when a cache owner is missing. I will give you that email and needs maintenance are good first steps, but they don't always get the job done.

 

Geez people what's so bad about the NM log? Why do so many hiders have issues with NM? I like to be notified when there's a problem. The NM also let's future finders know there's a issue.

 

No problem with the NM log. What do you do when that results in nothing? Carry it to the next step.

[ZeMartelo]

I just want to clarify something.

I usually dont care posting NM or SBA.

If the log is wet, water inside, garbage in the container etc, I just log a find and mention it in the log.

I use SBA when the cache has not been found in awhile and theres a few DNF's listed or theres one or more NM and the owner never bothered writting a note that he was aware and would take care of it.

 

Like GOF & Bacall I use as SBA as a request to the reviewer to review the cache again and take the appropriate measures.

[knowschad]

I just want to clarify something.

I usually dont care posting NM or SBA.

If the log is wet, water inside, garbage in the container etc, I just log a find and mention it in the log.

I use SBA when the cache has not been found in awhile and theres a few DNF's listed or theres one or more NM and the owner never bothered writting a note that he was aware and would take care of it.

Like GOF & Bacall I use as SBA as a request to the reviewer to review the cache again and take the appropriate measures.

In my opinion, that is fine. Maybe not the optimal procedure, but as I think I have already pointed out, and SBA is not in the least an automatic archive. It really should be called a "Notify Reviewer of a Possible Problem" log, but that'll never happen. Our volunteer reviewers were selected in part because they demonstrated good sense. Too many unneccessary SBA logs from you, however, and that good sense may work against you, so use your own good sense, too.

[+L0ne.R]

Sorry, I disagree. If there's ever a time for an SBA log, it's when the seeker has been told by the property owner (or by law enforcement officers, etc.) that the cache must be removed. In such a situation, "Needs Reviewer Attention" doesn't cut it.

Having been in that situation once, I totally agree. BTW that was the only SBA I ever logged. Everything else, including confirmed missing cache, I log a NM with text that I've found it before, it's definitely missing, etc.

 

As for the whole other class of log types, I have a much simpler solution that doesn't require any additional features. It's called "e-mail".

E-mail doesn't do the job when a cache owner is missing. I will give you that email and needs maintenance are good first steps, but they don't always get the job done.

Geez people what's so bad about the NM log? Why do so many hiders have issues with NM? I like to be notified when there's a problem. The NM also let's future finders know there's a issue.

No problem with the NM log. What do you do when that results in nothing? Carry it to the next step.

 

Oops, my mistake. I misread. I thought it was being suggested that email contact was a better option then NM. Glad to see people don't have issues with NM.

 

I've used SBA a couple of times. One cache was a knock-off lock n lock with 3 of the tabs broken off, the inside of the cache filled with hairy black mold, 2 needs maintenance logs and numerous logs mentioning the condition. The owner hadn't logged in in 3 years. The other was a cookie tin hidden next to a log in a forest, it was completely filled with rusty water. Had numerous logs mentioning the ruined container and contents. Hmmm, I just tried to find it on my list of finds, I wanted to count the NMs logs and notes but it looks like the CO removed my find. I know the cache was archived by the reviewer about about 2 months after the SBA. Oh well, c'est la vie.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Lone R

[knowschad]

For the record, some of my own NA logs (yes, there are a few others, but these are typical):

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6b-52d9d9a090dd

 

More than 7 months after the last find, I posted a Needs Maint. Two months later, I posted a NA. Reviewer saw it, agreed, posted a notice, and archived it one month after his notice, after seeing no activity from the cache owner. I never did look for this, but the logs make it obvious that it required intervention.

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...a4-aa8ca4215d40

 

I never looked for this one, either. Call me Cache Cop if you will, but our reviewer apparently agreed with me. Cache owner absent, an entire building missing, acknowledgements by locals that knew about the cache that it is no longer there.

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...g=y&decrypt=

 

Easy cache that I had previously found and kept a watch on because it was a cool, historic area. DNF's followed by reports of brush clearing work having been done, followed by needs maint logs, followed by an absent owner. Reviewer agreed after posting a notice and waiting a month.

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...g=y&decrypt=

 

This one ended up NOT being archived. Many NM notes over a span of about a year before my note. Reviewer agreed, but that caused the cache owner to speak up and fix the problem. Love it when that happens!

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ef-063127a3a1cb

 

Cache was very poorly hidden, had been peed in at least once, many notes, and one NM not already posted, non-responsive owner, again, reviewer agreed, and about a month later, archived the cache.

[Clan Riffster]

Why should I go after caches that have not been maintained?

Why would you assume that, just because you can't find a cache, it needs maintenance?

Seems kinda arrogant to me.

Reminds me of a (sort of) local urban micro.

No one could find it, so the CO hosted an event at the cache site.

Even with 20+ people looking for several hours, the cache remained hidden.

Heck, it took me 15 hours, (over multiple trips), to find.

By your book, I reckon it should've been archived, eh?

[Clan Riffster]

I use SBA when the cache has not been found in awhile and theres a few DNF's listed or theres one or more NM and the owner never bothered writting a note that he was aware and would take care of it.

Are these caches you have personally searched for, verifying the problem, or are you just poking around, making assumptions based upon what others have written? For me, it doesn't matter how many DNFs a cache has. That, in itself, is not grounds for an SBA. However, combine that with an owner not responding to NMs, and you are getting closer.

 

Here's how I break it down:

(YMMV)

 

1 ) Search for cache & don't find it = DNF

2 ) Find cache, discover problem I can't or won't fix = NM

3 ) Find cache, discover problem ignored by the CO for an extended period = SBA

[knowschad]

Yeah, SURELY this one is missing and should have a NA log posted to it!

 

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...3a-82e062e57e27

 

 

And... whooo, boy!!! this one has GOTTA go!!! http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...52-c6eba273563f

 

 

[GOF and Bacall]

I use SBA when the cache has not been found in awhile and theres a few DNF's listed or theres one or more NM and the owner never bothered writting a note that he was aware and would take care of it.

Are these caches you have personally searched for, verifying the problem, or are you just poking around, making assumptions based upon what others have written? For me, it doesn't matter how many DNFs a cache has. That, in itself, is not grounds for an SBA. However, combine that with an owner not responding to NMs, and you are getting closer.

 

Here's how I break it down:

(YMMV)

 

1 ) Search for cache & don't find it = DNF

2 ) Find cache, discover problem I can't or won't fix = NM

3 ) Find cache, discover problem ignored by the CO for an extended period = SBA

 

Sounds reasonable. I think there are a couple more items to fit in there someplace though. Land owner or other reasonable authority makes it clear they want it gone comes to mind.