Jump to content

Needs Archived


ItisTrue

Recommended Posts

No it isn't. And I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to insult me. Did I offend you in any way? If so, I apologize. If you keep up the "smack" talk I will report you. Do you comprehend this?

 

As a CO, let me put it more politely.

 

First, if no DNF is posted and I get emails they go into the "I'll reply if I have nothing else to do and am bored pile" due to the fact that if it was really sought after, there would be a DNF.

 

Second, and this is what probably caused the angst, after posting a SBA, you suddenly took it upon yourself to not only monitor it but then come to the forum and call it out as well as take issue with the reviewers.

 

Il looked at the cache and can not tell you for certain it is not there.

 

1. Time - often cachers either see a DNF or two or filter out caches with more than one DNF or that have not been found in X and do not look for them. I have caches not found in 6 months, even have 3 or 4 DNFs and either suddenly are found or are there when I check.

 

2. Black widows - maybe, but more likely not. Many people mistake other spiders (including false black widows) and after one says it, the mob mentality kicks in and everyone sees them.

 

3. DNF - One of the two DNF's states that they think it might be "pushed back in". Possibly your fear of spiders is more of a factor than it not being there.

 

So...

 

1. You should have posted a DNF.

 

2. If you felt it necessary, you should have posted a SBA to alert the owner and reviewer that there is a problem.

 

3. well...there is no step 3. It should have ended at 2.

Link to post
GCY9MX

 

The above cache has had a needs archived tag on it for almost 2 months. The cache owner refuses to answer email or check on the cache.

 

What should be done in this circumstance? Thank you

You did what you should do.

 

By looking at the cache page and the past logs, it does seem to be missing. The CO seems to not be very active, nor do they seem that responsive to strings of DNFs. The hint narrows the area to around 12 square feet--about the area of my desk.

 

Post an SBA. Then move on unless your looking to place a cache in the area.

 

Also, post your DNFs. If you're thinking the cache is worth visiting several times then it should be worth posting your experiences. If it's not worth the second trip ignore it and move on. (Unless you're looking to place a cache in the area.)

 

After posting the SBA it takes a little while for the reviewers to contact the owner and try to get things resolved. You wouldn't want the reviewers to hastily archive one of your caches. Any cache that is published, or unarchived, has to meet today's guidelines. You've not been a member for that long, but some of us have caches in the wild that wouldn't get published with today's guidelines. If a cache like that gets archived, it won't come back. That's the why of taking a little while.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
...If you really want to help out the caching community, you should be sure to log your DNFs as well. Your interest in the cache carries much more credibility if you can actually show you have LOOKED for the thing. A string of DNFs is also more likely to show the cache owner and/or the reviewers that there is indeed a problem -- right now we can only infer that the Found It logs have dried up because the cache is missing and/or inaccessible.

 

 

As a geocacher that travels quite a bit I am interested in this aspect of DNFs, and NM/NA. Frequently when I am in a new area and pull up caches I run across caches that have two or more consecutive DNF's. I do not have a ton of experience, but when I see a cache with a difficulty of less than 3 and several DNFs, I would think it needs to be checked on by the cache owner. As an enthusiast, I am willing to spend hours and days searching/seeking a cache for the fun of the searching and seeking- (and logging the DNF) but many of us have loved ones who do not share our love of the sport.

 

Nothing is more frustrating than spending hours going from cache to cache finding them muggled/missing/abandoned and should have been replaced or archived. My children and husband go geocaching with me only because I love it, and it is hard to justify asking them to spend their vacation time on a bunch of DNF's that could be avoided with proper cache maintenance/review.

 

Experience has taught me that when traveling with my family and looking at potential caches in the area, to ALWAYS look at log entries. I am not going to drag my family on a search for a cache with a 2 or 3 star rating and several DNF's. When I find a cache like this I write a NM note. If the cache has MANY DNF's I will choose a NA and write a note, only because a reviewer should take a look, not because I think the cache should be archived.

 

I agree with a previous post that the NA might be more appropriately named "needs reviewer attention."

Link to post
Is the person who posts a "Needs Archive", public info?

I just ask, so that in case I ever post one on a cache, I don't want the cache owner or anyone else to get mad at me and talk smack about me in the forums! :)

That's why I like to say something like, "I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that a reviewer should be made aware of this cache" (or something to that effect) with the SBS log. Posting the log in no way is an automatic archive. All you are doing is asking for the reviewer's attention. Don't think for one second that the reviewer won't ignore your log if everything seems to be in order!

 

It's my opinion that 90% of the angst could be avoided if GC.com simply changed the title of the log from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention".

I am in TOTAL agreement with you there, with one small exception. It would soon be known commonly as an NRA log, and that might cause some unintentional problems with the extremists in the group. :P
Link to post
Is the person who posts a "Needs Archive", public info?

I just ask, so that in case I ever post one on a cache, I don't want the cache owner or anyone else to get mad at me and talk smack about me in the forums! :)

That's why I like to say something like, "I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that a reviewer should be made aware of this cache" (or something to that effect) with the SBS log. Posting the log in no way is an automatic archive. All you are doing is asking for the reviewer's attention. Don't think for one second that the reviewer won't ignore your log if everything seems to be in order!

 

It's my opinion that 90% of the angst could be avoided if GC.com simply changed the title of the log from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention".

I am in TOTAL agreement with you there, with one small exception. It would soon be known commonly as an NRA log, and that might cause some unintentional problems with the extremists in the group. :P

Well, that idea is shot to hell now.. :D

Link to post
Is the person who posts a "Needs Archive", public info?

I just ask, so that in case I ever post one on a cache, I don't want the cache owner or anyone else to get mad at me and talk smack about me in the forums! :)

That's why I like to say something like, "I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that a reviewer should be made aware of this cache" (or something to that effect) with the SBS log. Posting the log in no way is an automatic archive. All you are doing is asking for the reviewer's attention. Don't think for one second that the reviewer won't ignore your log if everything seems to be in order!

 

It's my opinion that 90% of the angst could be avoided if GC.com simply changed the title of the log from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention".

I am in TOTAL agreement with you there, with one small exception. It would soon be known commonly as an NRA log, and that might cause some unintentional problems with the extremists in the group. :D

Well, that idea is shot to hell now.. :D

 

Hey, you gave it your best shot. :P

Link to post
GCY9MX

 

The above cache has had a needs archived tag on it for almost 2 months. The cache owner refuses to answer email or check on the cache.

 

What should be done in this circumstance? Thank you

You did what you should do.

 

By looking at the cache page and the past logs, it does seem to be missing. The CO seems to not be very active, nor do they seem that responsive to strings of DNFs. The hint narrows the area to around 12 square feet--about the area of my desk.

 

Post an SBA. Then move on unless your looking to place a cache in the area.

 

Also, post your DNFs. If you're thinking the cache is worth visiting several times then it should be worth posting your experiences. If it's not worth the second trip ignore it and move on. (Unless you're looking to place a cache in the area.)

 

After posting the SBA it takes a little while for the reviewers to contact the owner and try to get things resolved. You wouldn't want the reviewers to hastily archive one of your caches. Any cache that is published, or unarchived, has to meet today's guidelines. You've not been a member for that long, but some of us have caches in the wild that wouldn't get published with today's guidelines. If a cache like that gets archived, it won't come back. That's the why of taking a little while.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Nice advice CR.

If he's uncomfortable with posting DNFs, is it OK to post notes instead? Or can he post the SBA and in the SBA note write that he checked twice and it looks like the cache is gone. That way when he posts the SBA it doesn't look like an armchair SBA.

Link to post
Is the person who posts a "Needs Archive", public info?

I just ask, so that in case I ever post one on a cache, I don't want the cache owner or anyone else to get mad at me and talk smack about me in the forums! :)

That's why I like to say something like, "I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that a reviewer should be made aware of this cache" (or something to that effect) with the SBS log. Posting the log in no way is an automatic archive. All you are doing is asking for the reviewer's attention. Don't think for one second that the reviewer won't ignore your log if everything seems to be in order!

 

It's my opinion that 90% of the angst could be avoided if GC.com simply changed the title of the log from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention".

I am in TOTAL agreement with you there, with one small exception. It would soon be known commonly as an NRA log, and that might cause some unintentional problems with the extremists in the group. :D

Well, that idea is shot to hell now.. :huh:

 

Hey, you gave it your best shot. :P

Yea, it's important not to go off half-cocked when considering this. :D

Link to post
...If you really want to help out the caching community, you should be sure to log your DNFs as well. Your interest in the cache carries much more credibility if you can actually show you have LOOKED for the thing. A string of DNFs is also more likely to show the cache owner and/or the reviewers that there is indeed a problem -- right now we can only infer that the Found It logs have dried up because the cache is missing and/or inaccessible.

 

 

As a geocacher that travels quite a bit I am interested in this aspect of DNFs, and NM/NA. Frequently when I am in a new area and pull up caches I run across caches that have two or more consecutive DNF's. I do not have a ton of experience, but when I see a cache with a difficulty of less than 3 and several DNFs, I would think it needs to be checked on by the cache owner. As an enthusiast, I am willing to spend hours and days searching/seeking a cache for the fun of the searching and seeking- (and logging the DNF) but many of us have loved ones who do not share our love of the sport.

 

Nothing is more frustrating than spending hours going from cache to cache finding them muggled/missing/abandoned and should have been replaced or archived. My children and husband go geocaching with me only because I love it, and it is hard to justify asking them to spend their vacation time on a bunch of DNF's that could be avoided with proper cache maintenance/review.

 

Experience has taught me that when traveling with my family and looking at potential caches in the area, to ALWAYS look at log entries. I am not going to drag my family on a search for a cache with a 2 or 3 star rating and several DNF's. When I find a cache like this I write a NM note. If the cache has MANY DNF's I will choose a NA and write a note, only because a reviewer should take a look, not because I think the cache should be archived.

 

I agree with a previous post that the NA might be more appropriately named "needs reviewer attention."

I certainly agree with and understand your points about caching with family. But I will not post a NM or an SBA log if I have not searched for the cache in question. I would try to contact the owner or a previous finder if I really felt compelled to step into the fray for a cache outside of my area.

 

I also like the idea of changing the needs archived to needs attention from a reviewing cacher. :)

Link to post
...If you really want to help out the caching community, you should be sure to log your DNFs as well. Your interest in the cache carries much more credibility if you can actually show you have LOOKED for the thing. A string of DNFs is also more likely to show the cache owner and/or the reviewers that there is indeed a problem -- right now we can only infer that the Found It logs have dried up because the cache is missing and/or inaccessible.

 

 

As a geocacher that travels quite a bit I am interested in this aspect of DNFs, and NM/NA. Frequently when I am in a new area and pull up caches I run across caches that have two or more consecutive DNF's. I do not have a ton of experience, but when I see a cache with a difficulty of less than 3 and several DNFs, I would think it needs to be checked on by the cache owner. As an enthusiast, I am willing to spend hours and days searching/seeking a cache for the fun of the searching and seeking- (and logging the DNF) but many of us have loved ones who do not share our love of the sport.

 

Nothing is more frustrating than spending hours going from cache to cache finding them muggled/missing/abandoned and should have been replaced or archived. My children and husband go geocaching with me only because I love it, and it is hard to justify asking them to spend their vacation time on a bunch of DNF's that could be avoided with proper cache maintenance/review.

 

Experience has taught me that when traveling with my family and looking at potential caches in the area, to ALWAYS look at log entries. I am not going to drag my family on a search for a cache with a 2 or 3 star rating and several DNF's. When I find a cache like this I write a NM note. If the cache has MANY DNF's I will choose a NA and write a note, only because a reviewer should take a look, not because I think the cache should be archived.

 

I agree with a previous post that the NA might be more appropriately named "needs reviewer attention."

I certainly agree with and understand your points about caching with family. But I will not post a NM or an SBA log if I have not searched for the cache in question. I would try to contact the owner or a previous finder if I really felt compelled to step into the fray for a cache outside of my area.

 

I also like the idea of changing the needs archived to needs attention from a reviewing cacher. :)

 

Not sure what you mean by 'stepping into the fray for a cache outside my area.' I do not geocache often in my home area because caches are not placed here all that often. I do not see what is going on with caches in my home area, unless they are my own that need attention.

 

It is when I am traveling that I see what goes on 'in my area' (of travel.) I see it as my responsibility as a geocacher to post a NM or NA (which I think of as needs reviewer attention) when a cache appears to need attention. For the level of difficulty I rated caches that I maintain, if I got more than 2 DNF notifications, I would be out checking the cache, correcting the problem if there was one, and posting a note for the cache.

 

For whatever reason, travel, work, illness.... this is not the way it always works. For the sake of the game, geocachers should be willing to provide the time it takes to maintain their hides in a very timely fashion, or archive them.

Link to post
Is the person who posts a "Needs Archive", public info?

I just ask, so that in case I ever post one on a cache, I don't want the cache owner or anyone else to get mad at me and talk smack about me in the forums! :)

That's why I like to say something like, "I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that a reviewer should be made aware of this cache" (or something to that effect) with the SBS log. Posting the log in no way is an automatic archive. All you are doing is asking for the reviewer's attention. Don't think for one second that the reviewer won't ignore your log if everything seems to be in order!

 

It's my opinion that 90% of the angst could be avoided if GC.com simply changed the title of the log from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention".

I am in TOTAL agreement with you there, with one small exception. It would soon be known commonly as an NRA log, and that might cause some unintentional problems with the extremists in the group. :D

Well, that idea is shot to hell now.. :huh:

 

Hey, you gave it your best shot. :P

Yea, it's important not to go off half-cocked when considering this. :huh:

 

Definitely, you don't wanna pull the trigger too soon. :D

Link to post
GCY9MX

 

The above cache has had a needs archived tag on it for almost 2 months. The cache owner refuses to answer email or check on the cache.

 

What should be done in this circumstance? Thank you

You did what you should do.

 

By looking at the cache page and the past logs, it does seem to be missing. The CO seems to not be very active, nor do they seem that responsive to strings of DNFs. The hint narrows the area to around 12 square feet--about the area of my desk.

 

Post an SBA. Then move on unless your looking to place a cache in the area.

 

Also, post your DNFs. If you're thinking the cache is worth visiting several times then it should be worth posting your experiences. If it's not worth the second trip ignore it and move on. (Unless you're looking to place a cache in the area.)

 

After posting the SBA it takes a little while for the reviewers to contact the owner and try to get things resolved. You wouldn't want the reviewers to hastily archive one of your caches. Any cache that is published, or unarchived, has to meet today's guidelines. You've not been a member for that long, but some of us have caches in the wild that wouldn't get published with today's guidelines. If a cache like that gets archived, it won't come back. That's the why of taking a little while.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Nice advice CR.

If he's uncomfortable with posting DNFs, is it OK to post notes instead? Or can he post the SBA and in the SBA note write that he checked twice and it looks like the cache is gone. That way when he posts the SBA it doesn't look like an armchair SBA.

 

Naw, he needs to post DNF's. If he uses notes instead, they are more likely to get ignored by the CO. I know that is what I tend to do.

 

If I get one or two DNF's, whether the seeker has 1 find or 10,000 finds, I'm also gonna ignoe it. No one can find every cache they look for on the first try.

 

If there are a mess of DNF's (number that=mess is up to me at the time), I'll go look at the thing.

 

OP should log DNF's. otherwise, he's probably gonna get ignored by CO's It may not be fair or right, but it is the way it is.

Link to post

I'll chime in on the log your DNF's. I have a couple caches I know folks are looking for but not finding. I would appreciate a DNF log if you did not find it. If I get several I'll take a peek. But otherwise I wait six months or longer between looks. It certainly could go missing during that time and folks could be wasting time looking for a non existent cache that I would be happy to disable during the time it takes me to replace the container.

 

Jim

Link to post
...If you really want to help out the caching community, you should be sure to log your DNFs as well. Your interest in the cache carries much more credibility if you can actually show you have LOOKED for the thing. A string of DNFs is also more likely to show the cache owner and/or the reviewers that there is indeed a problem -- right now we can only infer that the Found It logs have dried up because the cache is missing and/or inaccessible.

 

 

As a geocacher that travels quite a bit I am interested in this aspect of DNFs, and NM/NA. Frequently when I am in a new area and pull up caches I run across caches that have two or more consecutive DNF's. I do not have a ton of experience, but when I see a cache with a difficulty of less than 3 and several DNFs, I would think it needs to be checked on by the cache owner. As an enthusiast, I am willing to spend hours and days searching/seeking a cache for the fun of the searching and seeking- (and logging the DNF) but many of us have loved ones who do not share our love of the sport.

 

Nothing is more frustrating than spending hours going from cache to cache finding them muggled/missing/abandoned and should have been replaced or archived. My children and husband go geocaching with me only because I love it, and it is hard to justify asking them to spend their vacation time on a bunch of DNF's that could be avoided with proper cache maintenance/review.

 

Experience has taught me that when traveling with my family and looking at potential caches in the area, to ALWAYS look at log entries. I am not going to drag my family on a search for a cache with a 2 or 3 star rating and several DNF's. When I find a cache like this I write a NM note. If the cache has MANY DNF's I will choose a NA and write a note, only because a reviewer should take a look, not because I think the cache should be archived.

 

I agree with a previous post that the NA might be more appropriately named "needs reviewer attention."

I certainly agree with and understand your points about caching with family. But I will not post a NM or an SBA log if I have not searched for the cache in question. I would try to contact the owner or a previous finder if I really felt compelled to step into the fray for a cache outside of my area.

 

I also like the idea of changing the needs archived to needs attention from a reviewing cacher. :)

 

Not sure what you mean by 'stepping into the fray for a cache outside my area.' I do not geocache often in my home area because caches are not placed here all that often. I do not see what is going on with caches in my home area, unless they are my own that need attention.

 

It is when I am traveling that I see what goes on 'in my area' (of travel.) I see it as my responsibility as a geocacher to post a NM or NA (which I think of as needs reviewer attention) when a cache appears to need attention. For the level of difficulty I rated caches that I maintain, if I got more than 2 DNF notifications, I would be out checking the cache, correcting the problem if there was one, and posting a note for the cache.

 

For whatever reason, travel, work, illness.... this is not the way it always works. For the sake of the game, geocachers should be willing to provide the time it takes to maintain their hides in a very timely fashion, or archive them.

What I mean is if I am not really familiar with an area, the cache or the cacher I will not post a NM or a SBA log on any cache unless I know darned well there is a problem with the cache (which means almost never). And I do not consider a DNF on my part to be enough information to post either type of log. If I can't find a cache I do not believe I can render a valid opinion regarding maintenance or need for archiving. For me stepping into the fray would be posting a NM or SBA log on a cache I did not find. I would attempt to contact the owner if I thought there was a problem. Of course I would absolutely post my DNF on a cache I did not find. :P

 

I maintain my caches and help with others as well. My posts in this topic have nothing to do with with my caches. They are about posting logs on caches I do not own or maintain.

Link to post

IMHO using a "Needs Archive" log is not the proper way to tell a cache owner "I noticed your cache hasn't been found in a while, would you check on it before I go and look for it". If you are traveling some place and see a cache you might want to look for but are concerned because it hasn't been in a while and maybe has a few DNFs, you can email the cache owner through the site and ask. If they don't do anything, and you still aren't sure about hunting the cache because it might not be there, then skip that cache. There are usually plenty of caches to search for.

 

Save the "Needs Archive" for case when a reviewer really need to take a look a cache. Either there is a problem that needs immediate attention - such a person claiming the cache is on private property without permission - or when the cache has a maintenance problem and the cache owner either appears to be inactive or has been ignoring the problem for an excessive period of time.

 

A DNF means nothing other that someone didn't find the cache. The cache owner may have even checked on the cache. There is no requirement to post that the cache is still there, and a cache owner might even choose not to because it might sound like they are taunting the person who posted a DNF.

Link to post
Nice advice CR.

If he's uncomfortable with posting DNFs, is it OK to post notes instead? Or can he post the SBA and in the SBA note write that he checked twice and it looks like the cache is gone. That way when he posts the SBA it doesn't look like an armchair SBA.

Thanks.

 

And, sure. He could even send a private note to the reviewer to head off any hard feelings that might pop up from the cache owner. Believe me, I would have done that on a few caches if I had known then what I know now.

Link to post

I posted a needs maintance about a month ago on cache GC9718 which is missing and got some PM's from some locals telling me to leave things be that they wanted the cache to stay because of it's age, being one of the oldest in the area. The CO is no longer a registered user and does not geocache anymore. One of the local cachers has reaveraged the coordinates and replaced the old cache container over six months ago and has offered to maintain it. It is in a good location and others are interested in placing a cache near the site. I don't want to post a needs archived because I have already upset some users with the needs maintaince log, which another user posted a needs maintance log a long time ago, seems they had the same thing happen to them with the locals. Is there any way to adopt a cache like this one and leave the pictures and posts so that no one gets upset?

Link to post

Naw, he needs to post DNF's. If he uses notes instead, they are more likely to get ignored by the CO. I know that is what I tend to do.

 

Why? What if the cacher was with someone that had found it previously? If he posts a note...."I was with bobthecacher. He wanted to show me your cool hide. We got to the lookout and looked in the stump but the cache wasn't there." Would you ignore the note because it wasn't logged as a DNF?

Link to post

Is there any way to adopt a cache like this one and leave the pictures and posts so that no one gets upset?

As far as I know there is no more possibility that Groundspeak will transfer the ownership of a Geocache without the owner initiating this.

 

In your case however the CO seems to be no longer a geocacher and doesn't maintain the geocache.

I would suggest that archiving this particular geocache and immediately listing it again (with a different GC-Code and as a new geocache) is the best way to go. So the new (let call it reloaded) geocache can be found again by whoever wants to do so, you can link to the old, archived geocache. And most important, somebody is actually responsible for this particular geocache. I don't understand why somebody could be upset with posting a NM oder even NA log. The CO is no longer maintaining the geocache, so somebody else should do this.

 

Actually it's bad manners to leave a geoache behind and don't care for it anymore. In my opinion that's a kind of littering!

 

GermanSailor

Link to post
One of the local cachers has reaveraged the coordinates and replaced the old cache container over six months ago…

So, it's already no longer the original cache and the original cache owner in no longer active, then?

 

I say archive that puppy.

 

I feel your pain. Send a private SBA to the reviewer. Hope the reviewer has the discretion of not blabbing to his friends that it was you. (Something I think should get a reviewer sanctioned, IMHO.)

 

Then they can do a tribute cache or whatever.

Link to post
One of the local cachers has reaveraged the coordinates and replaced the old cache container over six months ago…

So, it's already no longer the original cache and the original cache owner in no longer active, then?

 

I say archive that puppy.

 

I feel your pain. Send a private SBA to the reviewer. Hope the reviewer has the discretion of not blabbing to his friends that it was you. (Something I think should get a reviewer sanctioned, IMHO.)

 

Then they can do a tribute cache or whatever.

In some areas there are cachers who believe that old caches (let's say the oldest active cache) are somehow historic and worthy of preservation. If the original cache owner is gone, people in the community will take over and do maintenance on the cache to keep it going. This might include replacing a old leaky container with a new one, moving the cache a small distance due to changing conditions, etc. While non-owners can't change the coordinates they can post new coordinates in logs and make sure that the is a log with the correct coordinates it the first four or five logs. The reviewers will sometimes fix the coordinates if they see the community is maintaining the cache.

 

Ir is hard to know when to draw the line on when the cache is no longer the original cache. Some years ago I found the oldest active geocache in Los Angeles county. The owner was no longer active. I found a cracked tupperware container full of water. The next week I hiked back up and replaced it with an ammo can. That can is still there. Last year the reviewer (after a number of needs maintenance and needs archive logs) changed the coordinates. The cache was hidden back when the accurate coordinates rule for a traditional cache was not so strictly enforced. The original owner has posted the coordinates for the summit and then in the encrypted hint gave clues to find the cache about 50 feet away. Offsets like these were common in the early days of geocaching. Nowadays, people complain about cachers who intentionally post bad coordinates and post Need Archiving if they find a old cache that is listed as a traditional that should have been a offset. IMO, the reviewer should have changed the cache type instead of the coordinates, but he did what he did. I personally wouldn't have minded if the cache was archived. I was ready to post a new cache in the spot with my ammo can. But a lot of other people think this cache is historic.

Link to post
Save the "Needs Archive" for case when a reviewer really need to take a look a cache.

Agreed. It's been my opinion that "Needs Archived" means, (literally), that a cache needs to be archived. The reasons for a cache needing to be archived are many, however two DNFs isn't one of them. If it were a commonly accepted practice, I sure as heck wouldn't post anything until I had looked for myself, and knew what the heck I was talking about. I simply cannot make the deduction that a cache needs to be archived simply because two people couldn't locate it. If I was browsing the Internet and saw a cache that, for whatever reason, appeared to need a reviewer's attention, I would just shoot a note to the reviewer who published it, including the GC number and a description of my concern.

 

Firing off a NA on a cache I've never looked for smells to much like "Your maintenance is not up to my standards. I'm calling The Man on you". If I were the type to get all worked up over not being able to find caches, I'd probably adjust my PQ to minimize this occurrence. Maybe limit myself to 1/1s with no DNFs? Since I consider the hunt to be equally, if not greater in importance than the actual find itself, I still have fun caching, even if I do increase my DNF count.

 

On a related note; posting a NA on a cache because it may have black widows nearby is ridiculous.

 

Just because a cache may be dangerous to search for is no grounds for archival.

 

At most of my hides, the seekers have to deal with the very real chance of encountering all manner of nasty critters, to include venomous snakes, wild hogs, feral cattle and alligators. If nasty little arachnids were the litmus test by which a cache lives or dies, I probably would've had mine archived years ago.

Link to post

IMHO using a "Needs Archive" log is not the proper way to tell a cache owner "I noticed your cache hasn't been found in a while, would you check on it before I go and look for it". If you are traveling some place and see a cache you might want to look for but are concerned because it hasn't been in a while and maybe has a few DNFs, you can email the cache owner through the site and ask. If they don't do anything, and you still aren't sure about hunting the cache because it might not be there, then skip that cache. There are usually plenty of caches to search for.

 

Save the "Needs Archive" for case when a reviewer really need to take a look a cache. Either there is a problem that needs immediate attention - such a person claiming the cache is on private property without permission - or when the cache has a maintenance problem and the cache owner either appears to be inactive or has been ignoring the problem for an excessive period of time.

 

A DNF means nothing other that someone didn't find the cache. The cache owner may have even checked on the cache. There is no requirement to post that the cache is still there, and a cache owner might even choose not to because it might sound like they are taunting the person who posted a DNF.

 

I completely agree. The issue is that an active cache owner will usually treat a NA log as a slap in the face. They really shouldn't, but that's what happens. However, even if the cache is on private property, a NA log is not the best way to go. You post it, and then their cache gets muggled. A kid finds it, or another cacher decides to go anal and makes off with it. Next thing that occurs is that your caches start to disappear.. :unsure: You could try to e-mail the cacher rather than posting the note, but the same thing could happen, only without any public evidence. Since it's a game, sometimes the best thing is to just put a watch on the cache and look the other way. This cache, I am 100% sure that is on private property. It is surrounded by no trespassing signs, and is not on the map that the nearby nature preserve mailed me when I hid a puzzle nearby. I posted a NA log on another cache not too long before that, and the cache owner got very uptight and deleted it, so I just decided just not to do that anymore. There was few other people that were there and never posted their DNFs and caused some problems...Its not fun when someone gets upset, and it sometimes best just to leave the drama to others.. NA logs are best for inactive cache owners. All others should just send a note to the reviewer, or put a watch on the cache to see what happens.

Link to post

In a similar thread an answer was given which is hard to argue with, considering the source:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4157855

 

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.

 

You are completely correct.

However, if you have caches hidden the best thing is to forget the NA notes.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to post

You are completely correct.

However, if you have caches hidden the best thing is to forget the NA notes.

I have caches hidden.

 

I would not for one moment consider avoiding the proper use of a tool because it might make some nutjob mad and he'll go after my caches.

 

I'm fairly good at irritating folks, though never by design or intent. I wouldn't dream of going around on tiptoes scared something I do or say might upset a whacko.

 

Live scared like that and you make yourself hostage to the imagined whim of a minute lunatic fringe.

Link to post

You are completely correct.

However, if you have caches hidden the best thing is to forget the NA notes.

I have caches hidden.

 

I would not for one moment consider avoiding the proper use of a tool because it might make some nutjob mad and he'll go after my caches.

 

I'm fairly good at irritating folks, though never by design or intent. I wouldn't dream of going around on tiptoes scared something I do or say might upset a whacko.

 

Live scared like that and you make yourself hostage to the imagined whim of a minute lunatic fringe.

Call yourself lucky.

 

Its not about being scared, it's about doing what is the least problematic, like contacting the reviewer directly instead.

Link to post

You are completely correct.

However, if you have caches hidden the best thing is to forget the NA notes.

I have caches hidden.

 

I would not for one moment consider avoiding the proper use of a tool because it might make some nutjob mad and he'll go after my caches.

 

I'm fairly good at irritating folks, though never by design or intent. I wouldn't dream of going around on tiptoes scared something I do or say might upset a whacko.

 

Live scared like that and you make yourself hostage to the imagined whim of a minute lunatic fringe.

Call yourself lucky.

 

Its not about being scared, it's about doing what is the least problematic, like contacting the reviewer directly instead.

Exactly. You would think that geocachers with 5000+ finds that host events would be more civil when it comes to understanding and playing by the rules, other than make-up their own.
Link to post

GCY9MX

 

The above cache has had a needs archived tag on it for almost 2 months. The cache owner refuses to answer email or check on the cache.

 

What should be done in this circumstance? Thank you

 

Nothing.

 

The reviewer will get to it in time and that's soon enough. We do this for fun. We do this as we have time. Every single thing in real life take priority over this activity. Life can keep you busy. That's true for reviewers, and cache owners.

Link to post

...The issue is that an active cache owner will usually treat a NA log as a slap in the face. They really shouldn't, but that's what happens. ...

 

That's exactly how I take it. Then I realized that most finders who bang on these logs like a screen door in a hurricane are both clueless and clueless about being clueless.

 

In my experience the log has been used to be annoying and stir up trouble. I can't even get folks to use the NM let right, let alone answer my emails asking them key questions to tell me info like "were you even looking in the right area?" If they had a bozo bin for problematic finders I'd use it. They generate more trouble and angst than their less than delightful find logs are worth.

 

Overall I find the NM log is nothing more than a "The cacher who cried NM... er...Wolf!" kind of experience. The rare occasion it's the real thing, the false alarms have long since taken their toll.

 

Thankfully there are good finders out there who make it worth placing caches. Some of them even give useful cache info in their logs.

Link to post

I have caches hidden.

 

I would not for one moment consider avoiding the proper use of a tool because it might make some nutjob mad and he'll go after my caches.

 

I'm fairly good at irritating folks, though never by design or intent. I wouldn't dream of going around on tiptoes scared something I do or say might upset a whacko.

 

Live scared like that and you make yourself hostage to the imagined whim of a minute lunatic fringe.

Call yourself lucky.

 

Its not about being scared, it's about doing what is the least problematic, like contacting the reviewer directly instead.

Exactly. You would think that geocachers with 5000+ finds that host events would be more civil when it comes to understanding and playing by the rules, other than make-up their own.

 

I'm sorry, what rule is being made-up here?

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to post

After rereading this entire thread, I have come to the conclusion that no matter how many DNF's or even NM/NA notes a cache has it is not appropriate to post a NM/NA unless you have actually searched for the cache yourself. Lesson learned. That is what these forum discussions are about. Hopefully I will be a better steward of the sport.

 

 

Remember folks "...some day it will all come to an end.

All the things you collected, whether treasured or forgotten, will pass to someone else.

 

It will not matter what you owned or what you were owed.

The wins and losses that once seemed so important will fade away.

 

What will matter is not what you bought but what you built; not what you got but what you gave.

What will matter is not what you learned but what you taught.

What will matter is every act of integrity, compassion, courage, or sacrifice that enriched, empowered, or encouraged others to emulate your example.

 

Living a life that matters doesn't happen by accident.

It's not a matter of circumstance but of choice.

Choose to live a life that matters."

 

Excerpted from Michael Josephson's "What Will Matter"

 

Catch me...if you can @ Geocaching Idaho and Beyond

Link to post

...Calling into question a cacher's number of finds is not appropriate.

Yes it is. It's an indicator of experience. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is however useful.

Hmmm... ok, but what about cachers who don't log their finds online? The number of finds listed in a cacher's profile is not necessarily an indicator at all of that cacher's experience.

 

And it's not appropriate in the context that it was used where the poster challenged whether the OP with that particular number of finds was justified in bringing this concern forward.

Link to post

...Calling into question a cacher's number of finds is not appropriate.

Yes it is. It's an indicator of experience. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is however useful.

Hmmm... ok, but what about cachers who don't log their finds online? The number of finds listed in a cacher's profile is not necessarily an indicator at all of that cacher's experience....

 

Good question. The number of finds is still an indicator, I just don't happen to know it. By talking with them I'd learn soon enough that their online find count is not accurate. There are at least two cachers who's opinions I respect who don't log a lick online.

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...