Jump to content

Non official Opinion Gathering


Deceangi
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Please Note! This is not a official Groundspeak opinion gathering post. More of a personal one, but one which is entirely Geocaching related and possibly of future benefit to the community.

 

At the Moment the usage of Needs Archiving Logs, causes great angst for some within the community. Even when the NA is made to a cache the person does not even own.

 

I was wondering if a change of name to something more appropriate, would

 

i: Reduce the angst within the community

 

ii: would increase the appropriate usage usage of this log type.

 

Please post your opinions, and name change suggestions. Please can we keep this on topic. And not discuss the pros and cons of the log type and the type of member to use them!

 

Once again to make it clear. This is my own person Non Official Opinion gathering. But if a genuine consensus is shown that

 

ia: a name change would help reduce the angst it creates

 

iib: the community would be more willing to use this tool.

 

I would be willing to take this to Groundspeak, on behalf of the community

 

Deci

Link to comment

Personally, I think a name change to a less "formal" one probably would make it a little more popular.

 

Perhaps "Flag To Reviewer" or something?

This would give the Reviewer the choice of whether or not to archive the cache - the person reporting it is then merely highlighting the cache has issues, rather than requesting what should be done as a result.

 

As far as the person knows, there could be valid reasons why the cache hasn't been sorted out.

 

Russ

Edited by The Klever Boys
Link to comment

I reckon something that makes it more of a suggestion than a statement would help.

 

"Needs Archived" can sound like the person posting it is acting as judge and jury. To keep it short perhaps even something like "Needs Attention" or as the Klever Boys said "Flag To Reviewer".

 

Truth be told I'd be happy with anything that suggested "Something may need to be done" instead of "This specific action should be done".

Link to comment

Without actually giving it much thought; perhaps a 'Reviewer Alert' or something would seem less harsh than a Needs Archive.

 

I put an NA on a newly published cache a few months ago because it had an ALR on it and the owner was pretty miffed!

 

It obviously didn't need archiving but that is the only tool available for a quick response.

 

 

 

 

Mark

Link to comment

I have a nagging feeling that the Needs Maintainance log type was introduced for just these reasons many years ago.

 

The difference I think is that a cacher could post a 'Needs Maintenance' for a simple thing like the 'log book is full' or 'cache is damp' and it is really the owner who needs to know. If the cache goes unattended for a long period it could then require a 'Note for Reviewer'

Edited by DrDick&Vick
Link to comment

I agree, something along the lines of “Reviewer Attention Required” then the reviewer could stop by and make a decision on the action needed.

 

It has always seemed to me very confrontational to say the cache needs archiving when in many cases all that is required s a prod from a reviewer to the CO to do some maintenance. I stopped using this function a few years ago as it seemed such a big stick to use when a small nudge is all that is required.

 

Andy

Link to comment

I have a nagging feeling that the Needs Maintainance log type was introduced for just these reasons many years ago.

 

The difference I think is that a cacher could post a 'Needs Maintenance' for a simple thing like the 'log book is full' or 'cache is damp' and it is really the owner who needs to know. If the cache goes unattended for a long period it could then require a 'Note for Reviewer'

 

Thats right.

 

What im saying is that due to complaints from the community a few years ago that the SBA was to harsh GC introduced the nicer NM log.

These do not flag to the reviewers and many remain on perfectly well maintained caches as the owners dont know how or are unaware that the user maintainance log type is needed to clear them.

Ive tried several searches but i have to use to many words less than 5 letters and the forum search wont let me !!!

 

There a few interesting threads turning up on this subject

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=149000&hl=

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=131554&hl=

 

Reviewers attention etc sounds nicer but the same things would happen instead of the school prefect posted a SBA we would get why is the school prefect reporting me to TPTB threads

Link to comment

I don't think it will matter if what the name is changed to, to be honest, I suspect most people will still call it an 'SBA' [should Be Archived] log rather than Needs Archived or whatever else. I think it's the perceived (!) act of being 'grassed on' that tends to raise hackles, not the name of the log type.

 

I suspect there are also technical considerations - the log type 'display name' is all that identifies the log type inside GPX files. This is something Groundspeak really should rectify by including some form of numeric identifier but as it stands, changing the log type name would break existing GPX handlers' ability to detect an NA log. It could be argued that this isn't that relevant because it's a rare log to use but it's a point none the less ;)

Link to comment

I agree that the "Needs Archived" log sounds a bit too aggressive (also, it's horribly bad grammar).

 

I think that "Mark for Review" is snappy, neutral and accurate so I vote for the Web Rat's suggestion.

 

I came across a cache last year that was clearly a multi (once you read the description) but I wasted some time on it because the cache was classified Traditional. I mentioned it to the CO but the cache is still the same. "Needs Archived" would have annoyed him, I'm sure, as well as being inaccurate (it just needed changing) so I didn't post that; just a DNF. However, I'd certainly have used "Mark for Review", with its non-confrontational connotation.

Link to comment

Reviewers attention etc sounds nicer but the same things would happen instead of the school prefect posted a SBA we would get why is the school prefect reporting me to TPTB threads

I see your point, but I'd hope that the "Mark for Review" also flags for reviewer attention. Any grumbling then could be handled by the reviewer. I'd expect it to be used where guidelines are clearly being broken (for example that the cache appears abandoned, or misclassified, or that it's a new cache that is clearly in a really bad spot).

 

Also, perhaps it's the inference that you're insisting that the cache should be got rid of that gets people's goat. If it was just a note that the reviewer should have a look (and suggest a modification or two), then a reasonable person wouldn't be too annoyed.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I can see 'mark for review' or similar causing a "hang on, my cache has already been reviewed" confusion.

 

'Needs reviewer attention' gets my vote; though I feel those who use it will still "feel the wrath" from irate cache owners etc unless the process becomes anonymous.

Link to comment

If you report something on the forum, no one other than you and the Mods know who made the report, and the Mods tend to deal with any reports as if they noticed what was wrong.

So why not have a neutral sounding name for a private report to go to the reviewers. They can then take a look, if action is required they can deal with it, if not then no one is any the wiser, and I suspect it will get used a lot more as it is anonymous.

 

Failing that, I prefer "Needs Reviewer Attention" it doesn't sound confusing and isn't as confrontational, but I still think it will cause grief and angst.

Link to comment

I agree; I think any of the options "Flag for Reviewer", "Mark for Review", "Needs Reviewer Attention" would be fine, and I would use these more than "Needs Archived" (which I have never used).

 

"Needs Reviewer Attention" gets my vote. It's obvious what it means. It's like you are just saying - 'this needs looking at', rather than 'I'm deciding that this cache should be got rid of........'

Link to comment

I agree with several posts above: "Needs Archived" sounds synonymous with "Needs Removing Immediately", whereas "Flag for Reviewer" etc sound much less confrontational, but has the added benefit over standard Needs Maint logs of alerting the reviewers as well as the CO.

 

After all, the cache may not actually need archiving but a reviewer could decide what action is appropriate e.g. adoption by another cacher if the owner has obviously gone AWOL.

Link to comment

I vote for "Needs Reviewers' attention".

 

"Needs archiving" is too dictatorial, but "Needs Maintenance" only goes to the CO, so as everyone says we need a nicer sounding request that will flag it up for the attention of a reviewer.

 

However, I don't like "Flag for Review" or "Mark for Review" as, to a newbie, that might sound as if it's only being highlighted for themselves and they might use it for example if it's one they fancy taking their friends to, or a DNF that they are going to try again.

Link to comment

I would agree with the "needs reviewer attention" log. Not only does it sound less confrontational than a SBA log but since many of the caches with a SBA log dont actually need immediate archiving, "needs reviewer attention" is a much more formal way of saying "Owner needs a kick up the @r$£ to fix cache" (that would never work - acronym is too long ONAKUTATFC....)

 

The 2nd advantage is that it should be obvious that a reviewer will get a note of the log - many people are under the impression that they will get note of "needs maintainance" logs, hence caches with 10 or so well meaning NM logs and no response from owners who may have stopped caching or just don't care

Edited by Team Clova
Link to comment

I think something along the lines of "Needs reviewer attention" is far less harsh than the current "Needs archiving" - and also reflect more what the actual next step in the process entails.

 

I would go along with this I don't have a problem with "needs archiving" but can see some cachers getting upset by it although if a cache has been out of action for more than 3 months without a cache owners note explaining why it deserves a "needs archiving". ;)

Link to comment

Keep the Needs Archived log for all those powertrail micros everyone says they hate!! ;)

 

Yes, the name needs changing cos it doesn't make sense - generally, the cache needs TLC rather than archiving.

 

Needs Reviewer Attention or similar will still cause grief as you're still being a 'snitch' or the school prefect. (If one chooses to see it that way). It's a better title though. To avoid any grief, making it an anonymous log, or a log that just goes to the reviewer is the only practical solution, although it might generate quite a lot of logs to the reviewers!

 

It would be good to change the name. I don't particularly mind what to.

Link to comment

i would take out the "needs archiving" option...the CO is the only one entitled to make such decision, and in the absence or non-responsive CO's the reviewers are next in line to decide

 

what is the point of "Needs reviewer attention" log when the "needs maintenance" log does get the reviewer's attention already?

Link to comment

"Mark for Review" would probably be interpreted by many new players as something along the lines of "I'll just mark this cache so that I can review it later". (A surprising number of people log *finds* as Needs Archived. It seems that these people also did not read the message saying "Are you sure? This means that there's a problem with the cache" and requires you to confirm.)

 

I'm not a big fan of "Needs Reviewer Attention" either. The reviewer gets a copy of the message, but so does the cache owner, and she's the one responsible for maintenance. In nice simple cases, an NA log comes when there have been 5 DNFs (of which at least one is from someone who has previously found the cache), 2 NMs, and an owner who hasn't logged on to the site in six months. But many cases are a lot less straightforward, and I would be wary of creating, via the name of the log type, the customer service expectation that when you write that log, you can expect to see the reviewer to jump in and start berating the cache owner, in a way that you can see (via notes on the cache page, or a "thanks, we'll get right onto that" message), within 48 hours or something.

 

I suppose I'm just about in favour of some form of name change, but only for what I'll call, for the sake of convenience, political correctness. This kind of thing should have the "kindest, gentlest" wording available, subject to being comprehensible. But Í think we would be kidding ourselves to imagine that there are very many cache owners who currently take strong umbrage at receiving a "Needs Archived", yet who will be all sweetness and light if the same type of log turns up with a bowdlerised name. They're still going to think that the author of the log has grassed them up.

 

(I even gave up worrying about the grammaticalness or otherwise of "Needs Archived" when I found that it's a common construction in much of Scotland. On the other hand, plenty of Americans think it sounds wrong, too.)

Edited by sTeamTraen
Link to comment

 

what is the point of "Needs reviewer attention" log when the "needs maintenance" log does get the reviewer's attention already?

 

The needs maintenance log doesn't go to the reviewer - only the CO.

 

yes it does, not directly as an email but there is a database with caches flagged with "needs maintenance" that reviewers see and after a certain time with no action from the CO they will make a post in the cache page giving the CO a deadline to take care of it, and when that deadline passes the reviewer archives it

 

i'll try to find one cache as example

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...