Annoying 'Needs Maintenance' logs

[gbmaster]

I've never seen a log book so full that I could not add my name somewhere.

[/quote

 

We have encountered a few that there really was NO place to add our name, but usually, with a little creativity you can find a spot.

[+BlueDeuce]

It is really annoying when someone with less than 15 finds reports a cache needs maintenance when they didn't find the cache where they thought it should be.

 

Annoying? No, only if I thought newbies should have been born knowing cache etiquette.

[+GeoGeeBee]

For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on.

 

Perhaps the reason they post a "Needs Maintenance" log when the logbook is full is that... the cache needs maintenance. Doesn't replacing a logbook count as maintenance?

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

In my opinion, posting NM without any prior indication that the cache owner has been lazy, absent or neglectful is inappropriate. Good cache owners monitor their logs and rarely need an NM to spur them to act on an issue. An NM should only be used if it appears that the owner needs a nudge.

 

 

A Needs Maintenance log isn't some kind of badge of shame. It just means your cache needs maintenance. It doesn't mean you've been lazy, absent, or neglectful. It just means your cache needs maintenance.

 

I've looked and looked, and I can't find the "owner is lazy, absent and neglectful" log type. Maybe we need one?

[Andronicus]

I've never seen a log book so full that I could not add my name somewhere.

I have on a nano. Ended up writing over top of someone elses name that was mostly faded out.

[Mr.Yuck]

I believe a full log is a legitimate reason for a NM log.

 

Now lets talk about newbies. Are they more likely to post a NM log? I'd say no, seeing as they're still trying to find their way on the website, and probably can't even find where to do this. Are newbs more likely to deem a cache to be missing because they can't find it? Absolutely.

 

Of course that was like so 2008. Nowadays, newbs just drop "TFTC" logs on us.

[flapjack4]

maybe the people who find the cache and sees that it needs fixed up should do it for the good of the gps community as the fellow who set out the cache originaly may be hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out .

Edited May 31, 2010 by flapjack4

[+GeoGeeBee]

maybe the people who find the cache and sees that it needs fixed up should do it for the good of the gps community as the fellow who set out the cache originaly may be hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out .

 

Maybe one shouldn't set out more caches than one can comfortably maintain.

[+Setan Meyacha]

maybe the people who find the cache and sees that it needs fixed up should do it for the good of the gps community as the fellow who set out the cache originaly may be hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out .

 

Maybe one shouldn't set out more caches than one can comfortably maintain.

 

Maybe you should go back and read the OP. It has nothing to do with whether a log is full or not, and has nothing to do with the number of caches a CO can comfortably maintain. It DOES have to do with posting a NM log when you can't find the cache; whether you are an 'experienced' cacher or a noob. If you can't find the cache, then log a DNF; enough of those and it may become obvious there COULD be a problem with the cache, depending on how difficult the cache was made to be found. I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of logging a NM when a log is actually full, or even nearly full.

[+cx1]

 

I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of logging a NM when a log is actually full, or even nearly full.

 

umm did you read post #2?

[+Setan Meyacha]

 

I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of logging a NM when a log is actually full, or even nearly full.

 

umm did you read post #2?

 

I've read every post. However, I don't agree with #2s logic. That's why when I receive a NM log, I physically check on the cache to make sure it is in good condition or not missing. Fortuantely, I had to make a trip past the cache in question the same day I received the NM log. Normally, I wouldn't dive past it once in two months, which would have made it necessary to make an unnecessary trip.

[+cx1]

 

I don't think anyone is questioning the, or even nearly full.

 

umm did you read post #2?

 

I've read every post. However, I don't agree with #2s logic. That's why when I receive a NM log, I physically check on the cache to make sure it is in good condition or not missing. Fortuantely, I had to make a trip past the cache in question the same day I received the NM log. Normally, I wouldn't dive past it once in two months, which would have made it necessary to make an unnecessary trip.

 

oh, so because you don't agree with the 'logic' of the post then the post does not count as one questioning the "validity of logging a NM when a log is actually full" even though that's exactly what the post was doing.

[+roziecakes]

 

I had a NM for a full logbook. Got a logbook and went to the cache to do my maintenance. Yep, the logbook was full on one side of the pages. If you just flipped it over and started writing on all those now newly discovered blank pages there was lots of room. What is it about writing on the back of the page that people find so hard to do?

 

I wonder that myself. I find a lot of caches with pretty substantial sized logbooks with only one side of the page written on. More often than not actually...

[+Setan Meyacha]

 

I don't think anyone is questioning the, or even nearly full.

 

umm did you read post #2?

 

I've read every post. However, I don't agree with #2s logic. That's why when I receive a NM log, I physically check on the cache to make sure it is in good condition or not missing. Fortuantely, I had to make a trip past the cache in question the same day I received the NM log. Normally, I wouldn't dive past it once in two months, which would have made it necessary to make an unnecessary trip.

 

oh, so because you don't agree with the 'logic' of the post then the post does not count as one questioning the "validity of logging a NM when a log is actually full" even though that's exactly what the post was doing.

 

By narcissa: "Why is it an added expense? If a n00b posts a dumb NM log on one of my caches, I just post an owner maintenance note to clear it. It happens. For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on."

 

That is the second post. Unless I'm not reading narcissa's comment correctly, narcissa is saying nothing about actually doing a maintenance run, but 'posting an owner maintenance note to clear it.' The first part of her statement is what gives the indication narcissa isn't actually visiting the cache: "If a noob posts a dumb NM log on one of my caches,". And her question: "Why is it an added expense?" is a pretty good indicator there is no expense involved in just clearing the NM log by posting an "owner maintenance note".

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[+Printess Caroline]

 

By narcissa: "Why is it an added expense? If a n00b posts a dumb NM log on one of my caches, I just post an owner maintenance note to clear it. It happens. For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on."

 

That is the second post. Unless I'm not reading narcissa's comment correctly, narcissa is saying nothing about actually doing a maintenance run, but 'posting an owner maintenance note to clear it.' The first part of her statement is what gives the indication narcissa isn't actually visiting the cache: "If a noob posts a dumb NM log on one of my caches,". And her question: "Why is it an added expense?" is a pretty good indicator there is no expense involved in just clearing the NM log by posting an "owner maintenance note".

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I interpreted that post the same way.

[+Zwack_&_Irish_Eyes]

So, as a newbie, how should I post a log on a cache that hasn't been found for over a month, isn't visible anywhere in the area it is supposed to be and the last find claims "It's out in the open as they've been clearing brush, I could see it from some distance away."

 

In this case I logged a DNF stating that I couldn't findt, that I was in the right area and that the previous log (over a month earlier) had said that it was really obvious. After asking on the forums someone suggested I post a NM as well. So I did. There has been one update since. Someone else didn't find it and posted a NM as well. The CO doesn't appear to have logged in since September last year... What else could be done?

 

As for posting a NM just because I didn't find it... No, I normally post a DNF. So far two of my DNFs have turned out to be completely missing, one I later found and the final one is the one I mentioned above...

 

Not finding it is not grounds for an NM, but in some circumstances it seems to be a reasonable option.

 

Z.

[+Setan Meyacha]

So, as a newbie, how should I post a log on a cache that hasn't been found for over a month, isn't visible anywhere in the area it is supposed to be and the last find claims "It's out in the open as they've been clearing brush, I could see it from some distance away."

 

In this case I logged a DNF stating that I couldn't findt, that I was in the right area and that the previous log (over a month earlier) had said that it was really obvious. After asking on the forums someone suggested I post a NM as well. So I did. There has been one update since. Someone else didn't find it and posted a NM as well. The CO doesn't appear to have logged in since September last year... What else could be done?

 

As for posting a NM just because I didn't find it... No, I normally post a DNF. So far two of my DNFs have turned out to be completely missing, one I later found and the final one is the one I mentioned above...

 

Not finding it is not grounds for an NM, but in some circumstances it seems to be a reasonable option.

 

Z.

 

With the circumstances you've stated I would log a NM also, after contacting the previous finder to determine if it was hidden better than the finder found it. Even if the previous log did not state it was hidden better than found, that is always a possiblity and one I would explore if I were determined to find the cache. I have no problem with someone logging a NM on a cache they know is missing from the original location; i.e., with a cacher who previously found it and can verify the cache is no longer where he/she/they found it. But, an assumption it is missing just because the searcer can't find it is a stretch and doesn't warrant an NM log.

[+GeoGeeBee]

maybe the people who find the cache and sees that it needs fixed up should do it for the good of the gps community as the fellow who set out the cache originaly may be hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out .

 

Maybe one shouldn't set out more caches than one can comfortably maintain.

 

Maybe you should go back and read the OP. It has nothing to do with whether a log is full or not, and has nothing to do with the number of caches a CO can comfortably maintain. It DOES have to do with posting a NM log when you can't find the cache; whether you are an 'experienced' cacher or a noob. If you can't find the cache, then log a DNF; enough of those and it may become obvious there COULD be a problem with the cache, depending on how difficult the cache was made to be found. I don't think anyone is questioning the validity of logging a NM when a log is actually full, or even nearly full.

 

But I wasn't making a comment on the OP. I was commenting on flapjack4's comment that said "the fellow who set out the cache originaly may be hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out ."

 

If the fellow who set out the cache is "hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out," then he should archive some of them.

[knowschad]

... I think the irritation comes when no find logs even mention log space as it fills up and then WHAM someone says Log Full and slaps the NM log on it. It's like "yo give me a heads up people!" The community doesn't have to wait for it to be a problem to report a potential issue to the owner.

JUST happened to me this morning! And I was out at that park just yesterday to maintain a different cache. I could easily have replaced the log in the other one, had I known that it was almost full. Then this morning I get a log "Found cache but log was full... didn't sign". Grrr!!

[+L0ne.R]

But I wasn't making a comment on the OP. I was commenting on flapjack4's comment that said "the fellow who set out the cache originaly may be hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out ."

 

If the fellow who set out the cache is "hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out," then he should archive some of them.

 

I agree.

 

There may be someone waiting to take that spot and place their own cache. When we archived some of ours, within 2 weeks other cachers placed caches in the area (good ones too - ammo cans and good size lock n locks). So I'm on the side of, archive (and physically remove) the cache if you can't take care of it. Give someone else a chance to plant in the area.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Lone R

[+Setan Meyacha]

But I wasn't making a comment on the OP. I was commenting on flapjack4's comment that said "the fellow who set out the cache originaly may be hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out ."

 

If the fellow who set out the cache is "hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out," then he should archive some of them.

 

I agree.

 

There may be someone waiting to take that spot and place their own cache. When we archived some of ours, within 2 weeks other cachers placed caches in the area (good ones too - ammo cans and good size lock n locks). So I'm on the side of, archive (and physically remove) the cache if you can't take care of it. Give someone else a chance to plant in the area.

 

Just where in any of my previous posts did I state that I couldn't take care of my caches? You are very good at reading things that aren't there. Since you have no hides to your credit you must be talking about yourself wanting to hide caches where someone else already has one. Of course, that is reading something into your post that isn't there...oh, my.

[+GeoGeeBee]

But I wasn't making a comment on the OP. I was commenting on flapjack4's comment that said "the fellow who set out the cache originaly may be hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out ."

 

If the fellow who set out the cache is "hard pressed to take care of all the ones he has set out," then he should archive some of them.

 

I agree.

 

There may be someone waiting to take that spot and place their own cache. When we archived some of ours, within 2 weeks other cachers placed caches in the area (good ones too - ammo cans and good size lock n locks). So I'm on the side of, archive (and physically remove) the cache if you can't take care of it. Give someone else a chance to plant in the area.

 

Just where in any of my previous posts did I state that I couldn't take care of my caches? You are very good at reading things that aren't there. Since you have no hides to your credit you must be talking about yourself wanting to hide caches where someone else already has one. Of course, that is reading something into your post that isn't there...oh, my.

 

Read for comprehension. Nobody is talking about YOUR ability to maintain YOUR caches. Just because you made the original post in the thread doesn't mean that everything in the thread is all about you. I've bolded the part in the quote that you should read.

[+narcissa]

 

By narcissa: "Why is it an added expense? If a n00b posts a dumb NM log on one of my caches, I just post an owner maintenance note to clear it. It happens. For some reason, geocachers in British Columbia really like to post NM when the logbook is full. It's annoying, but life goes on."

 

That is the second post. Unless I'm not reading narcissa's comment correctly, narcissa is saying nothing about actually doing a maintenance run, but 'posting an owner maintenance note to clear it.' The first part of her statement is what gives the indication narcissa isn't actually visiting the cache: "If a noob posts a dumb NM log on one of my caches,". And her question: "Why is it an added expense?" is a pretty good indicator there is no expense involved in just clearing the NM log by posting an "owner maintenance note".

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Just to clarify in case people are thinking I don't visit my caches:

 

If someone says the logbook is full, I'll make a trip at my earliest convenience to replace it (or ask somebody else to), but I'll usually clear the "NM" right away so nobody thinks the cache is missing. Four out of five times, the logbook is not actually full when this happens.

 

If someone posts an "NM" because they think the cache is missing, I do two things: I write to the person who DNFed and give them a hint, and I wait to see what the next log or two says. I don't clear the NM until I know more. If I have more evidence that the cache is missing, I'll check on it and replace if necessary. If it turns out the cache wasn't missing, I'll usually write a cheerful note back to the original person who DNFed telling them that it's still there, perhaps adding a gentle reminder that nobody likes a geocacher with an itchy NM trigger finger. Then I'll clear the NM log.

 

If someone writes a descriptive log detailing damage or trouble with the cache, I either let the NM stand until I can get to the cache, or I take the additional step of disabling the cache until I can get to it. It depends on the circumstamces.

 

Once in a while, I'll get a weird NM log from a n00b who obviously made a mistake while logging. In those cases, I just clear it. No expense.

 

I don't dash out the door at the first hint of a cache issue. The only time I incur an expense is when I change the logbook, or when there's substantial evidence that the cache is missing or damaged.

[+rawkhopper]

Wow there are a lot of whiners around here. Dude a full log is a needs maintenance item since it is safe to assume that the owner would like to keep the full logs and that without signing the log a lot of people consider it a did not find. If you can't keep up with the NM's then archive the cache.

 

As far as I am concerned I would like a pen or pencil in every cache big enough and if it is broken out of ink exploded or what have you that is a Needs Maintenance. You can simply clear it and say BYOP. But if you put it there and it don't work or is compromised then it needs maintenance.

 

Yea a cacher can add a strip of paper or a pen if he has a spare, which I do, but if I don't I would put a needs maintenance as it informs the next cacher that they should not expect to find a pen, pencil or log that can be written in.

 

I saw a needs maintenance because of a full log and purposely brought some extra paper with me so that I could sign and leave behind. I noted this and if the CO is happy with this then they can say it is taken care of without a visit.

 

Stop whining and maintain your caches or hand it off to someone who can or archive it.

 

You obvioulsy didn't read the OP. It had nothing to do with a full log, Dude. It had to do with someone logging a NM when they didn't find the cache. You have 44 finds and 0 hides; guess that makes you an authority already.

I guess you didn't read my post when you replied. Where did I bash the OP? I mentioned all the whiners not the person that started the thread.

 

If you care to know I think it ridiculous to log an NM when you can't find something unless you are like the 10th DNF. But even then I personally would not do it.

[+rawkhopper]

Wow there are a lot of whiners around here. Dude a full log is a needs maintenance item since it is safe to assume that the owner would like to keep the full logs and that without signing the log a lot of people consider it a did not find. If you can't keep up with the NM's then archive the cache.

 

As far as I am concerned I would like a pen or pencil in every cache big enough and if it is broken out of ink exploded or what have you that is a Needs Maintenance. You can simply clear it and say BYOP. But if you put it there and it don't work or is compromised then it needs maintenance.

 

Yea a cacher can add a strip of paper or a pen if he has a spare, which I do, but if I don't I would put a needs maintenance as it informs the next cacher that they should not expect to find a pen, pencil or log that can be written in.

 

I saw a needs maintenance because of a full log and purposely brought some extra paper with me so that I could sign and leave behind. I noted this and if the CO is happy with this then they can say it is taken care of without a visit.

 

Stop whining and maintain your caches or hand it off to someone who can or archive it.

 

Why don't you just carry your own pen? Pens and pencils invariably become geojunk, and they poke holes in ziplocks to boot. I generally don't put pens or pencils in my caches.

I do carry several pens. But sometimes the caches are so barren on pens I run out of pens to donate to the cause. One time I went to 3 caches. Non of the pens worked and one pen exploded. I only had two pens with me so the first cache got cleaned up as best I could with no solvents and a donated pen. Second cache the pen did not work so I left my last pen behind. Third one's pen did not work and it got a NM since the pen was obviously placed there by the cache owner and it was broken. If the hike were shorter I would have gone back and left one later but I figured that if I posted a NM with a reason then it could be dealt with by the next fellow cacher who may read my log and bring an extra. A trip may not be necessary if the CO sees that someone else has placed a pen later. But if no one posts the next time the CO is there he can place one. This also raises a flag to any hiker that may want to find this cache to double check their stash of pens before they make the journey.

 

I think it is courteous to post a NM for these types of things. Otherwise you could end up with people writing in the log with squished bugs, sap from trees, charred sticks, or even blood because the cacher forgot a pen. Look around the forums these are not uncommon things.

 

When I do get my cache finished that I wish to place first I will truly maintain it to the best of my ability. I will try to keep the swag at a fairly good level with working pens and logs. If I get bogged down with too many NM's I will pass it on or archive it. Not sure what the problem is with this it makes for a better sport. I love well maintained caches.

[+narcissa]

 

I do carry several pens. But sometimes the caches are so barren on pens I run out of pens to donate to the cause. One time I went to 3 caches. Non of the pens worked and one pen exploded. I only had two pens with me so the first cache got cleaned up as best I could with no solvents and a donated pen. Second cache the pen did not work so I left my last pen behind. Third one's pen did not work and it got a NM since the pen was obviously placed there by the cache owner and it was broken. If the hike were shorter I would have gone back and left one later but I figured that if I posted a NM with a reason then it could be dealt with by the next fellow cacher who may read my log and bring an extra. A trip may not be necessary if the CO sees that someone else has placed a pen later. But if no one posts the next time the CO is there he can place one. This also raises a flag to any hiker that may want to find this cache to double check their stash of pens before they make the journey.

 

I think it is courteous to post a NM for these types of things. Otherwise you could end up with people writing in the log with squished bugs, sap from trees, charred sticks, or even blood because the cacher forgot a pen. Look around the forums these are not uncommon things.

 

When I do get my cache finished that I wish to place first I will truly maintain it to the best of my ability. I will try to keep the swag at a fairly good level with working pens and logs. If I get bogged down with too many NM's I will pass it on or archive it. Not sure what the problem is with this it makes for a better sport. I love well maintained caches.

 

Why don't you just use your own pen or pencil to sign the logs you find, and let other people worry about their own writing utensils? I think it took me five finds to learn that I should always carry my own pen.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Ok, some of you need to take a long, deep breath.

 

Let's ratchet back the rhetoric, folks. This is supposed to be FUN after all!!

 

Direct your comments toward the topic and not toward other posters individually. Thanks!

[+ADTCacheur]

Ok, some of you need to take a long, deep breath.

 

Let's ratchet back the rhetoric, folks. This is supposed to be FUN after all!!

 

Direct your comments toward the topic and not toward other posters individually. Thanks!

Doesn't that go against the basic rules of the forums ? Sadly it does seem to...

[+PorscheSpyder]

I've never seen a log book so full that I could not add my name somewhere.

ever found a nano

 

I found a nano once with it's log full, front AND back. However, I managed to squeeze in my initials (PS) in one tiny space. Then in my log I said it was full and needed replacement, but I didn't post a NM log. Maybe I should have.........

[knowschad]

Ok, some of you need to take a long, deep breath.

 

Let's ratchet back the rhetoric, folks. This is supposed to be FUN after all!!

 

Direct your comments toward the topic and not toward other posters individually. Thanks!

 

From the forum guidelines (with much snipped for brevity):

 

12. If someone has posted copyrighted material or otherwise illegal material, please notify Groundspeak so that we may take appropriate action.

 

13. Abuse of this forum will be not be tolerated.

 

14. You WILL have fun here!

[+brslk]

Ok, some of you need to take a long, deep breath.

 

Let's ratchet back the rhetoric, folks. This is supposed to be FUN after all!!

 

Direct your comments toward the topic and not toward other posters individually. Thanks!

 

From the forum guidelines (with much snipped for brevity):

 

12. If someone has posted copyrighted material or otherwise illegal material, please notify Groundspeak so that we may take appropriate action.

 

13. Abuse of this forum will be not be tolerated.

 

14. You WILL have fun here!

 

Fun is not limited to but may include what you may enjoy.

 

My idea of fun normally includes attacking people.

 

Most people do not find this fun.

 

Can't figure those people out...

[Allison Wunderland]

Here's the "Newbie" and I didn't find it.

 

The cache is BURIED in the sand on the beach. That's contrary to the guidelines which state "If it takes a shovel or pointed implement to access, it's buried."

 

The "beach" is exposed to high water. So anything in the sand is going to get moved.

 

The "clue" is "Located at the pointed end of the driftwood." The driftwood drifted there in high water. Also, I moved a lot of driftwood looking for a cache hidden underneath. So, the driftwood is neither located nor oriented relative to the cache.

 

I didn't find the cache, on a couple tries. But I sure as hell compromised the area. Sounds like a maintenance issue to me.

[flapjack4]

Wow..then the guy with the few micros out there is going to be a busy fella replacing them tiny logs..

[+Baad Daata]

I agree with your point about needless NM logs but "newbies" are gonna do all sorts of things that make the seasoned players shake heads. I try to write them a helpful note explaining the consequences of the NM logs and make suggestions as to how they might handle the situation next time. Sometimes it is well accepted and sometimes it is not.

 

I have started to post NM logs on 1/1 caches that contain a hint like "none needed" or "too easy for a hint" when I have to log a dnf because I can't find it. I figure a 1.0 difficulty that doesn't need a hint must be missing. I have annoyed a few folks but it just makes sense to me.

[+Scubasonic]

It is really annoying when someone with less than 15 finds reports a cache needs maintenance when they didn't find the cache where they thought it should be. It is not only time-consuming and an added expense that isn't necessary, it is just plain inconsiderate. A simple e-mail to the CO explaining where they thought the cache should have been and asking if they were right or not would avoid all the hassle involved with setting things straight. I would only report a cache needing maintenance if I found the cache and it did indeed need maintenance. If I didn't find the cache and thought it might be missing, based on someone else's knowledge of where the cache was, then I would either log a note informing the CO of my beliefs, or log a DNF. The only time a cache, imo, should be logged as needing maintenance is if the cache was actually found and container has been compromised, someone didn't put the lid on tight and the contents were wet, or if there were some other evidence that the cache wasn't in good condition.

If I'm wrong in my thinking...ignore the above.

 

Typically I do not go check on a cache when someone posts a DNF only after 3 consecutive DNF by experienced cachers will I go out, If cachers are submitting a NM because they can't find it I would delete their post IMMEDIATELY and send them a email to tell them not to submit a NM unless they found the cache and it truly does need some sort of Maintenance. HTH

 

Scubasonic

[+DragonflyTotem]

Today there is a local cacher who has now logged their last two finds with an additional NM that says:

"My GPS gave instructions to get on the interstate and pull over because of how close this is to xxx. You might want to move it in case someone gets the same instructions follows them and gets hurt."

 

I've not personally found either of the caches but by all log entries they aren't on the interstate or accessible from it.

[+Prescott Patrol]

Well, I'm a Newbie so let me share my experience with this very topic.

 

I realize that in the world of GC I am a newbie. But, I am by no means an idiot. Sometimes I get the feeling that some experienced GC'ers feel that way towards us. However, I "get" that. Let's take paintball as a weird sort of parallel. I have been playing for over 20 years and "noobs" are a constant discussion. I love noobs and go out of my way to respectfully teach them and treat them well. This "raises" them up to be good players and ambassadors to the sport. However, there are those that will be annoying no matter how much time they have under their belt....er...pod pack.

 

Instead of telling newbies off how about telling them what to do, respectfully. Some will never learn. Some actually ARE idiots. But, I think all need the benefit of the doubt.

 

So, my personal experience with a NM log. Being a cop of 10+ years, a parent of 13 and husband of 16 has allowed me to be more mature than perhaps most new people trying something out. Granted that doesn't come across in a mere 45 found logs. However, I came across a GC that had been gone for almost a years, with the CO saying he was going to work on it several months prior. I posted a DNF as well as a NM and I suppose this is bad ettiquette. No argument there. But, I did this to get his attention. Not in a rude way (or so I thought). It was in a highly muggleble area that I am VERY familiar with. I arrest drunk and high teens there all the time. He deleted my log and still hasn't replaced it. My intent was to nudge him along a bit. Apparently, it irked him some.

 

IMNO (In My Newbie Opinion) the cache needed maintenance.

 

I guess what I am saying in this long winded post is that not all newbies to GC are newbies to life. And just because someone doesn't exactly follow what you deem to be proper doesn't mean they are less. They are just new and need to be taught or gently prodded.

[+JesandTodd]

edited to add that I don't think a DNF warrents a NM. Just because one cacher DNF doesnt mean much, a string of DNFs is a different story, but I wouldn't need someone to post NM after that, if there's more than 2 DNFs in a row, I check.

 

that would be nice if everyone did that.

 

I've seen a few caches where there have been many, many dnfs in a row, NM logs, multiple emails to CO with no responses, and notes from previous finders who could not find the cache again. In these cases, I've got no problem logging a NM log when I spend 30 mins searching and I dnf it. I don't believe that you need to find a cache to log a NM.

 

It would be great if CO did more maintenance on their caches. I see lots of multiple dnfs with no response (on the cache page). I evn checked on a cache that I had previously found, saw the hole it used to be in, and reported back via email and cache page that it was missing. The cache is still active and generating multiple dnfs...

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

I've seen a few caches where there have been many, many dnfs in a row, NM logs, multiple emails to CO with no responses, and notes from previous finders who could not find the cache again. In these cases, I've got no problem logging a NM log when I spend 30 mins searching and I dnf it. I don't believe that you need to find a cache to log a NM.

 

 

I think in that situation, an NA might be more appropriate than an NM.

Edited June 7, 2010 by GeoGeeBee

[Chumpo]

Some NM logs are an opportunity for fun and entertainment:

 

May 23 by xxxxxxx (1397 found)

 

Lid has come off the hinges; not a huge problem (except it comes apart when lifting it by the handle) but might want to fix it at some point.

 

May 23 by Chumpo (2712 found)

 

As soon as I saw the NM log, I raced to the bookshelf to locate my Chilton's Ammo Can Repair Manual (Volume Three: Hinges) to see if I had the correct year's edition. Unfortunately, that ammo can was made in 1987, and my manuals have a gap between 1985-1990 (I do need to pick those volumes up one of these days). I did some cross referencing and discovered that the actual hinge was the same model as used from 1973-1975, so I was able to access the correct repair procedure. Thank goodness!

After a quick trip up the street to the cache, all is well again. Thanks for the heads-up!