Jump to content

The NA Log


Recommended Posts

I'm sure that this has been discussed but I don't remember seeing a thread on it lately, so here goes.

 

When to use the NA log seems to cause a bit of confusion. Using the NA seems to be an insult to some. Not using the NA to avoid angering a cache owner seems sometimes to keep it from being employed properly.

 

So, let's explore the NA log and see why, when and how to use it, and what happens when we do.

 

What is the purpose of a NA log, when should it be used, and should cache owners be offended by it?

 

Some folks misunderstand what an NA does and believe that it leads automatically to an archival... not so.

 

I am no expert on this, so this is just my understanding and a Reviewer may need to straighten me out on it., but:

 

The NA log does three things:

 

It alerts the cache owner that there may be a problem.

 

It alerts cachers who may want to hunt it that there may be a problem.

 

And it alerts the Reviewer that there may be a problem of such consequence that they need to investigate the possible issue.

 

The Reviewer will then contact the cache owner and attempt to work out the problem. If the problem can be resolved, great, if not then archival or other action may follow.

 

Keep in mind that Reviewers are geocachers who WANT geocaches to be hidden, compliant and active and are a cache owner's friend. The job they volunteer to do is to get compliant caches listed and help keep them active. Except in extreme situations archiving a cache will not be a Reviewer's first response. Therefore using an NA log is really a way to ask them to help this cache, not kill it.

 

The NA should be used when a Guideline may have been violated, in particular when questions of placement permission arise, when Needs Maintenance notes are ignored for a prolonged period, when a cache appears to be abandoned by the owner and for other gross violations.

 

Those who interpret the NA to be a hostile act simply do not understand its purpose... or are perhaps trying to get away with a Guidelines violation.

Link to post

I think that the phrase "Needs Archived" (besides being terrible English) is an unfortunate choice of words. "Needs Attention" would be much better, but then its too close to "Needs Maintenance" in meaning. But you are right in pointing out that all it does is to raise an alert so that the right questions can be asked and possibly answered. Something like "MI" for "Major Issue" might be better, but I don't forsee "NA" ever being changed.

Link to post

I have only used it for clear violations of the guidelines. Including maintenance clauses. Usually used to avoid giving our little activity a black eye.

 

Seems fairly simple to me.

 

I usually give the CO a chance to answer my concerns unless the violation is clear and blatent.

Link to post

The only time I've seen my NA log cause a stir was when it was for a cache that was owner-less for months and had come up missing. The local community had decided to "unofficially adopt" the cache and I think I ruffled some feathers.

 

(The cache was replaced months later and the finds have continued since. Owner is still MIA and the NM attribute can't be cleared. I guess this must be one of those "historic caches" I hear about.)

Link to post

NA logs will be placed by myself when a few criteria are met.

 

1) I find the cache in SERIOUS need of repair

2) I posted a NM log explaining the seriousness of the repair needed

3) I check the cache log a month later and the cache still needs repair and/or hasn't had a note that it's been fixed

4) I look at the last time the CO has logged in and am, personally, satisfied that the CO isn't interested (or otherwise preoccupied) in repairing their cache

 

If all 4 criteria are met, I may post a SBA on the cache. About a month after the reviewer posts their note that they will check back in 30 days, I will check the status and "maybe" give the reviewer a nudge to archive the cache.

 

So, it's about a month after I find the cache and about a month after the SBA log before the cache is archived. I figure that any cache owner, with an urban hide, should be able to get their cache taken care of if they are interested in still having the cache. I don't think that's going overboard.

Link to post

TAR has it pretty much nailed.

 

Since Reviewers do not get a copy of reviewer notes, I tell folks that an NA log means that you would like the local reviewer to know something is amiss.

 

Look at it as a Needs Maintenance note that the reviewer gets a copy of.

Link to post

A couple of months ago, I put a NA log on a cache that hadn't been found in over 8 months. There were 5 straight dnf's and no note from the CO stating that he'd checked on it. I figured the 5 dnf's should have been enough to get the CO's attention.

 

Personally, if we get two or three dnf's on a cache, we disable it until we can check on it, so it doesn't continue to appear on pocket queries. Then, after visiting the cache location, we post a note letting others know what we find and we re-enable the cache.

 

When this cacher got the NA notice, he archived the cache without checking on it. Two months later, he has now unarchived and reactivated the cache, stating that it was there all along and he's blaming me. He sent me a note saying I shouldn't have posted the NA log.

 

Was I wrong?

Link to post

A couple of months ago, I put a NA log on a cache that hadn't been found in over 8 months. There were 5 straight dnf's and no note from the CO stating that he'd checked on it. I figured the 5 dnf's should have been enough to get the CO's attention.

 

Personally, if we get two or three dnf's on a cache, we disable it until we can check on it, so it doesn't continue to appear on pocket queries. Then, after visiting the cache location, we post a note letting others know what we find and we re-enable the cache.

 

When this cacher got the NA notice, he archived the cache without checking on it. Two months later, he has now unarchived and reactivated the cache, stating that it was there all along and he's blaming me. He sent me a note saying I shouldn't have posted the NA log.

 

Was I wrong?

 

You weren't necessarily wrong but you weren't necessarily right either.

 

I'd let it go and move on

Link to post

I have only used it for clear violations of the guidelines. Including maintenance clauses. Usually used to avoid giving our little activity a black eye.

 

Seems fairly simple to me.

 

I usually give the CO a chance to answer my concerns unless the violation is clear and blatent.

 

Right on. :)

Link to post

A couple of months ago, I put a NA log on a cache that hadn't been found in over 8 months. There were 5 straight dnf's and no note from the CO stating that he'd checked on it. I figured the 5 dnf's should have been enough to get the CO's attention.

 

Personally, if we get two or three dnf's on a cache, we disable it until we can check on it, so it doesn't continue to appear on pocket queries. Then, after visiting the cache location, we post a note letting others know what we find and we re-enable the cache.

 

When this cacher got the NA notice, he archived the cache without checking on it. Two months later, he has now unarchived and reactivated the cache, stating that it was there all along and he's blaming me. He sent me a note saying I shouldn't have posted the NA log.

 

Was I wrong?

 

I would say a bit presumptuous. I know which of my caches will get two or three DNFs without there being a problem. Five or six, and I will check on them when I get the opportunity. Others, two DNFs will cause me concern, and I'll check within two weeks. But I wouldn't disable any of them before checking. Even the easiest caches get DNFs.

Some COs check more quickly than others, and that CO sounds a bit relapse. But, you were wrong! It was there!!

Link to post
A couple of months ago, I put a NA log on a cache that hadn't been found in over 8 months. There were 5 straight dnf's and no note from the CO stating that he'd checked on it. I figured the 5 dnf's should have been enough to get the CO's attention.

Personally, if we get two or three dnf's on a cache, we disable it until we can check on it, so it doesn't continue to appear on pocket queries. Then, after visiting the cache location, we post a note letting others know what we find and we re-enable the cache.

When this cacher got the NA notice, he archived the cache without checking on it. Two months later, he has now unarchived and reactivated the cache, stating that it was there all along and he's blaming me. He sent me a note saying I shouldn't have posted the NA log.

Was I wrong?

If your story is accurate, you were right* From what you say, the cache owner was negligent (for whatever reason) and was not able to check up on the cache for a good period of time. The cache owner should, at the very least, have voluntarily disabled the cache until such time that it could be checked up on.

 

 

*Some might say, and I might agree, that the NICE thing would have been to first email the cache owner.

Link to post

I am not so sure about the 'email the owner first' part of this. The CO gets the DNFs and NM logs in the email. If said CO is active and interested, he/she would have taken care of it before the last DNF and SBA is posted. Even then, there is an opportunity to do maintenance before the cache is actually archived.

Link to post
A couple of months ago, I put a NA log on a cache that hadn't been found in over 8 months. There were 5 straight dnf's and no note from the CO stating that he'd checked on it. I figured the 5 dnf's should have been enough to get the CO's attention.

Personally, if we get two or three dnf's on a cache, we disable it until we can check on it, so it doesn't continue to appear on pocket queries. Then, after visiting the cache location, we post a note letting others know what we find and we re-enable the cache.

When this cacher got the NA notice, he archived the cache without checking on it. Two months later, he has now unarchived and reactivated the cache, stating that it was there all along and he's blaming me. He sent me a note saying I shouldn't have posted the NA log.

Was I wrong?

If your story is accurate, you were right* From what you say, the cache owner was negligent (for whatever reason) and was not able to check up on the cache for a good period of time. The cache owner should, at the very least, have voluntarily disabled the cache until such time that it could be checked up on.

 

 

*Some might say, and I might agree, that the NICE thing would have been to first email the cache owner.

 

I had contacted him previously re confirming coords on one of his puzzles, and he sent me a sarcastic and uninformative response, so I was hesitant to email him again.

 

I'm thinking that from now on, I will post a NM log and follow up with a NA log if the owner doesn't respond in a month or two, by either disabling the cache or posting a note that he has/will check on it. I understand that life can get in the way of geocaching, but I think there is a limit that's acceptable.

 

Thanks again everyone who shared their views. It has helped me to re-examine my actions, and I'm much more concerned about that than fixing anyone else's behavior. That's why I asked for clarification.

Link to post

A couple of months ago, I put a NA log on a cache that hadn't been found in over 8 months. There were 5 straight dnf's and no note from the CO stating that he'd checked on it. I figured the 5 dnf's should have been enough to get the CO's attention.

 

Personally, if we get two or three dnf's on a cache, we disable it until we can check on it, so it doesn't continue to appear on pocket queries. Then, after visiting the cache location, we post a note letting others know what we find and we re-enable the cache.

 

When this cacher got the NA notice, he archived the cache without checking on it. Two months later, he has now unarchived and reactivated the cache, stating that it was there all along and he's blaming me. He sent me a note saying I shouldn't have posted the NA log.

 

Was I wrong?

 

There's something missing here. Did you search for the cache?

 

Your story doesn't say you did. If you did search for it, then I don't think you did anything wrong. If you did NOT search for it, I think it was rather presumptuous for you to post an NA log.

Link to post
Was I wrong?

As has been mentioned, if you hadn't searched for it yourself, then yes, your were wrong.

 

Every time a cache gets a DNF the next person has that in the back of their mind. "It might be missing." This tends to make them not look as hard. (For some of us it has the opposite effect.) So, the first DNF is more likely to get another. Two in a row makes it even more likely to have the next seeker looking not as hard. So, this cache gathers DNFs until the cache owner checks up on it or it gets found.

 

BTW, some caches move around. Cache owners and previous finders are the worse for looking for a cache has moved. They figure they know where it is and if it isn't in the spot they've last seen it, then it's missing. It's happened a couple of times to me.

 

Conversely, the cache owner in your example was also wrong for archiving the cache without checking on it. DNFs and SBAs doesn't mean the cache is not there. (...or nearby.)

Link to post
Yes, we looked for it. It was after our search that we checked past logs and found all the previous dnf's.

Then you did the right thing. You might want to send a private note to the reviewer from now on lest you be accused of being the local cache cop. The reviewer has a bit more weight in nudging a cache owner into checking on their hides.

Link to post

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...
×
×
  • Create New...