Non official Opinion Gathering

[+Graculus]

 

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

 

Sorry, but needs maintenance logs are not flagged up to a reviewer, they only go to the CO. It is only needs archived logs that send an email to the reviewer who will then check the cache and take the appropriate action.

If you are aware of a database that provides us with this function I'd be most interested to know of it

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

[+vw_k]

How about "Needs archived" to be changed to "Needs reviewer attention"

 

and "Needs maintenance" possibly to be changed to "Requires owner maintenance" at the same time?

 

I like this idea, not only does it remove the suggestion that a SBA logger is acting as judge and jury over the fate of someone elses cache but it helps differentiate between a log that is designed to alert the owner do to some maintenance and a log that is asking a reviewer to get involved.

 

I've never posted an SBA (that I can remember) but I like the note that comes with NM logs (you are about to post a needs maintenance log, this will inform the cache owner and put an icon on the page, are you sure you want to continue?) Perhaps these could be altered to notes that say something like:

 

"You are about to post a 'requires owner maintenance' log, this should be used to inform the cache owner that they need to perform maintenance on thier cache and put will an icon on the cache page, are you sure you want to continue?"

 

and

 

"You are about to post a 'needs reviewer attention' log, this should be used in circumstances when the cache requires attention of one of Groundspeaks reviewers. If the cache requires maintenance by its owner then a 'requires owner maintenance' log should be posted instead, are you sure you want to continue?"

[+t4e]

 

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

 

Sorry, but needs maintenance logs are not flagged up to a reviewer, they only go to the CO. It is only needs archived logs that send an email to the reviewer who will then check the cache and take the appropriate action.

If you are aware of a database that provides us with this function I'd be most interested to know of it

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

 

its what i have been told when i started geocaching, and because of that i was encouraged to not refrain from adding a "needs maintenance" log

 

looks like that was not true.....maybe in light of the discussion of this thread should be made to work that way

[+Team Noodles]

I wouldnt mind seeing a combination of ideas, I think Fitz mentioned a 'flag' button which i like, but couple that with a header on the cache along the lines of :

 

'This cache has been marked for review'

 

Or something similar. Much along the lines of the headers of archived/disabled caches. insta heads up for people scouting the cache and thus preventing duplicate anonymous flags, and very very visible.

 

One could make sure a 'flag' log could only be logged once per cache (anonymous if needed altho I personally dont see the point) until resolved, then auto forwarded/added to a reviewer only DB of caches in need of attention.

[+BCNorwich]

Flag - Reviewer Attention Please!

 

Regards

Bernard

[+Simply Paul]

Needs Archived is clunky a label at best, as well as being very definitive, when it is just one person's opinion (at the button-pressing stage, anyway) - So I'd suggest:

 

Archiving Recommended (sounds like a friendly suggestion to the owner, while also alerting the reviewers) or a less-formal Archiving Suggested - with button-pressers encouraged to include why the cache may have reached the end of its life in their log, so the owner gets some feedback as well as the reviewer getting some idea of the issue/s.

 

On that note, I'm off to SBA some long-ended events listings... :D

 

Edit: Only found one. While I think about it, perhaps the button should be posed as a question, thus: Time To Archive? - A TTA would put the responsibility on the owner and/or the reviewer, who is the one making the decision on whether it is TTA or not, after all.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Simply Paul

[+Happy Humphrey]

Needs Archived is clunky a label at best, as well as being very definitive, when it is just one person's opinion (at the button-pressing stage, anyway) - So I'd suggest:

 

Archiving Recommended (sounds like a friendly suggestion to the owner, while also alerting the reviewers) or a less-formal Archiving Suggested - with button-pressers encouraged to include why the cache may have reached the end of its life in their log, so the owner gets some feedback as well as the reviewer getting some idea of the issue/s.

 

On that note, I'm off to SBA some long-ended events listings... :D

 

Edit: Only found one. While I think about it, perhaps the button should be posed as a question, thus: Time To Archive? - A TTA would put the responsibility on the owner and/or the reviewer, who is the one making the decision on whether it is TTA or not, after all.

I think that the mention of "archiving" is partly to blame for the annoyance. Quite often, just a minor change to the cache will suffice: it's just that it hasn't been done even after a long wait. Suggesting that you think the cache should be dumped altogether could cause offence in some cases, no matter how polite the wording.

[+Simply Paul]

And yet it is a tool to suggest a cache has gone beyond the 'needs maintenance' stage and should, perhaps, be gently ushered off gc.com's listings. 'Alert Reviewers' sounds like the owner has or is trying to break a rule and some of the other suggestions have, to my mind, been a bit too vague and woolly. Still, just my thoughts.

[+currykev]

"Needs Maintenance" - "Needs Attention" - "Needs Archiving" - "Needs some really good lovin'"

If I see a cache has had 2-3 DNF's in a row, I avoid it anyway.

Seems like there's a lot of interference going on here.

[+JustAlan]

"Needs Maintenance" - "Needs Attention" - "Needs Archiving" - "Needs some really good lovin'"

If I see a cache has had 2-3 DNF's in a row, I avoid it anyway.

Seems like there's a lot of interference going on here.

 

Perhaps multiple consequtive (3?) DNF's should send an e-mail to the CO/Reviewer that something is not quite right with the cache. Just my 2p worth.

[+The Flying Boots]

"Needs Maintenance" - "Needs Attention" - "Needs Archiving" - "Needs some really good lovin'"

If I see a cache has had 2-3 DNF's in a row, I avoid it anyway.

Seems like there's a lot of interference going on here.

 

Perhaps multiple consequtive (3?) DNF's should send an e-mail to the CO/Reviewer that something is not quite right with the cache. Just my 2p worth.

 

This cache "Wye Rapids" is notoriously difficult to find and often has a run of more than 3 DNF's so for this particular cache that would be unfair.

[+Kryten]

A cache owner who hasn't responded to three DNFs is going to ignore any automatically generated e-mail as well and a string of DNFs could be "business as usual" if the hide is a clever one.

 

Archiving is a technical term which describes the eventual database result rather than the original problem. "Requires reveiwer attention" and "Requires owner attention" are non perjoritive and describe what actually needs to be done.

[team tisri]

"Needs Maintenance" - "Needs Attention" - "Needs Archiving" - "Needs some really good lovin'"

If I see a cache has had 2-3 DNF's in a row, I avoid it anyway.

Seems like there's a lot of interference going on here.

 

Perhaps multiple consequtive (3?) DNF's should send an e-mail to the CO/Reviewer that something is not quite right with the cache. Just my 2p worth.

 

This cache "Wye Rapids" is notoriously difficult to find and often has a run of more than 3 DNF's so for this particular cache that would be unfair.

 

I agree that an automatic flag raised after a certain number of DNFs is not the way to go - as you say some caches are just very hard to find, other times someone might have approached the area but not searched because of muggles, or only made a cursory search because of bad weather, or whatever, but still logged a DNF.

 

Perhaps "Alert Reviewer" with the log text used to say why the poster feels the reviewer needs to be alerted? That way it could cover anything from an inappropriately placed cache to a perpetually unmaintained cache.

Edited February 2, 2010 by team tisri

[+Peter & Di]

Like many others, we would be much happier with something like 'Needs reviewer attention'. I don't think we would consider posting a 'Needs Archiving' log, even though in some cases it would seem to be really justified. It just seems to us that the decsion to archive a cache or not should not lie with us as cachers, but should be the decision of a reviewer after it has been brought to their attention and after all facts have been taken into consideration. We found a cache at the weekend that would seem to fit the bill. It was placed in 2004 and since then the footpath has obviously changed. You cannot get to the cache without climbing over fences and there is now no public right of way. In addition, the contents are very wet as the box lid is broken. Maintenance notes have been posted and we added to these. The cache owner has not been online for about 18 months. If we had a 'reviewer attention required' log we could have used we would have done so, but wouldn't have been happy with 'needs archiving'.

[+Pharisee]

We found a cache at the weekend that would seem to fit the bill. It was placed in 2004 and since then the footpath has obviously changed. You cannot get to the cache without climbing over fences and there is now no public right of way. In addition, the contents are very wet as the box lid is broken. Maintenance notes have been posted and we added to these. The cache owner has not been online for about 18 months. If we had a 'reviewer attention required' log we could have used we would have done so, but wouldn't have been happy with 'needs archiving'.

This is EXACTLY what the 'Needs Archived' log option is for...... The cache owner hasn't logged on for 18 months so he's obviously not going to respond to yet another 'Needs Maintenance' log (which the reviewers don't see) so why post one? Get over your reluctance to possibly hurt someone's feelings and do the right thing. Post a 'Needs Archived' (lousy English) log. The cache is so much crap... lets get rid of it!

[+Happy Humphrey]

We found a cache at the weekend that would seem to fit the bill. It was placed in 2004 and since then the footpath has obviously changed. You cannot get to the cache without climbing over fences and there is now no public right of way. In addition, the contents are very wet as the box lid is broken. Maintenance notes have been posted and we added to these. The cache owner has not been online for about 18 months. If we had a 'reviewer attention required' log we could have used we would have done so, but wouldn't have been happy with 'needs archiving'.

This is EXACTLY what the 'Needs Archived' log option is for...... The cache owner hasn't logged on for 18 months so he's obviously not going to respond to yet another 'Needs Maintenance' log (which the reviewers don't see) so why post one? Get over your reluctance to possibly hurt someone's feelings and do the right thing. Post a 'Needs Archived' (lousy English) log. The cache is so much crap... lets get rid of it!

Good example. Sounds cut and dried, doesn't it? But if the reviewer was alerted he would take into account that the previous finders were able to access the cache without climbing over fences, and that even though the box needs repairing it's still a functional cache;

After discussing this cache with my good mate Dave of mirageseekers, I decided to try this for myself. I found exactly the same; this cache is easily accessible.

You can see the wooden stile from the track, but it is not accessed by climbing the new fence topped with barbed wire. A little further along the track is a gate.

So, perhaps it should still be archived as the owner has not logged on for ages and has not responded to "Needs maintenance" logs. But it's not that obvious: and who will go and collect the geolitter?

Edited February 3, 2010 by Happy Humphrey

[+Molinnis]

How about "Needs archived" to be changed to "Needs reviewer attention"

 

and "Needs maintenance" possibly to be changed to "Requires owner maintenance" at the same time?

 

Stueys idea sounds good to me

[+Peter & Di]

We found a cache at the weekend that would seem to fit the bill. It was placed in 2004 and since then the footpath has obviously changed. You cannot get to the cache without climbing over fences and there is now no public right of way. In addition, the contents are very wet as the box lid is broken. Maintenance notes have been posted and we added to these. The cache owner has not been online for about 18 months. If we had a 'reviewer attention required' log we could have used we would have done so, but wouldn't have been happy with 'needs archiving'.

This is EXACTLY what the 'Needs Archived' log option is for...... The cache owner hasn't logged on for 18 months so he's obviously not going to respond to yet another 'Needs Maintenance' log (which the reviewers don't see) so why post one? Get over your reluctance to possibly hurt someone's feelings and do the right thing. Post a 'Needs Archived' (lousy English) log. The cache is so much crap... lets get rid of it!

Good example. Sounds cut and dried, doesn't it? But if the reviewer was alerted he would take into account that the previous finders were able to access the cache without climbing over fences, and that even though the box needs repairing it's still a functional cache;

After discussing this cache with my good mate Dave of mirageseekers, I decided to try this for myself. I found exactly the same; this cache is easily accessible.

You can see the wooden stile from the track, but it is not accessed by climbing the new fence topped with barbed wire. A little further along the track is a gate.

So, perhaps it should still be archived as the owner has not logged on for ages and has not responded to "Needs maintenance" logs. But it's not that obvious: and who will go and collect the geolitter?

 

Exactly. It's not that we're reluctant to hurt the cache owner's feelings - what does he care anyway? He's not logged on for 18 months - but we don't want to come across like the caching police, judge and jury.

[+Hampk]

There's a lot of interesting discussion here..

 

My take on it is that I've never been afraid to post either Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived because at the end of the day our game is at grass-roots level, self-policing. In other words, it's the cachers who go to the caches who best know what state they're in, and if we don't take it upon ourselves to gently nudge, push or yell at owners who won't look after their hides, we're going to see the level of poorly-maintained and abandoned caches increase further.

 

I'd agree that the current terminology is not terribly friendly, and Stuey's suggestion gets my vote!