Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
bigdog421

What does needs archived mean to you?

Recommended Posts

I've posted several in the last couple of months, mainly because of issues with non-responsive owners.

 

For one, the owner posted on the cache page that they knew it was missing, but it wasn't disabled. I posted the NA log, stating that I wasn't looking for it to be archived, just disabled, since the owner didn't respond to any requests to do so.

 

Another was for a cache that was reported missing by multiple people over a long period of time, and the owner hadn't responded, so I asked that it be disabled, possibly archived.

 

Finally, the last was for one I was sure was missing because I had found it before, and the owner didn't respond to any messages stating it needed to be disabled.

 

All of my NA logs just politely asked for the reviewer to intervene so players didn't have caches showing up in searches - disable, archive if necessary. I was nervous about doing them, but got more comfortable when I realized that is what they are there for - to bring them to the attention of a reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post

I post a needs archived post when there is a cache in my area that I have previously found and I have verified that it is no longer there. This usually happens after others have posted DNFs and the cache owner has not acknowledged the dnfs or fixed the problem. If the owner is active I will try to contact them first.

Share this post


Link to post

Use the NA log if you feel it is imperative the reviewer sees an issue with a cache. Personally I feel the choice in naming this log type is unfortunate. Needs Reviewer Attention would be a better choice. The National Riffle Association probably would have sue if we used the acronym NRA though.

 

I have posted the same thing here before. In fact, I almost always put "Needs Reviewer Attention" in my notes when posting a NA

 

To some, when I say their cache Needs Archived, they take it as if I am saying they are a bad cacher and they don't deserve to have a cache. I can only think of one situation where I really thought that. Needs Archived sounds harsh. I think that "Needs Reviewer Attention" would sound less confrontational.

Share this post


Link to post
To some, when I say their cache Needs Archived, they take it as if I am saying they are a bad cacher and they don't deserve to have a cache. I can only think of one situation where I really thought that. Needs Archived sounds harsh. I think that "Needs Reviewer Attention" would sound less confrontational.

true, but that's not what it says. in fact, the text for the log type on the page is even more clear: "XXX requested cache YYY to be archived". doesn't get any clearer than that. if that's not what you wanna do (requesting it to be archived), use different means to talk to your reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post
To some, when I say their cache Needs Archived, they take it as if I am saying they are a bad cacher and they don't deserve to have a cache. I can only think of one situation where I really thought that. Needs Archived sounds harsh. I think that "Needs Reviewer Attention" would sound less confrontational.

true, but that's not what it says. in fact, the text for the log type on the page is even more clear: "XXX requested cache YYY to be archived". doesn't get any clearer than that. if that's not what you wanna do (requesting it to be archived), use different means to talk to your reviewer.

Exactly why it should be changed. Even reviewers here have agreed with this. "Needs (to be) Archived" is really way over the top. Only the reviewer and the cache owner really should have that power. The rest of us should only be able to get their attention.

Share this post


Link to post
To some, when I say their cache Needs Archived, they take it as if I am saying they are a bad cacher and they don't deserve to have a cache. I can only think of one situation where I really thought that. Needs Archived sounds harsh. I think that "Needs Reviewer Attention" would sound less confrontational.

true, but that's not what it says. in fact, the text for the log type on the page is even more clear: "XXX requested cache YYY to be archived". doesn't get any clearer than that. if that's not what you wanna do (requesting it to be archived), use different means to talk to your reviewer.

Exactly why it should be changed. Even reviewers here have agreed with this. "Needs (to be) Archived" is really way over the top. Only the reviewer and the cache owner really should have that power. The rest of us should only be able to get their attention.

 

I know what it says and I know how I usually see it used. That is why I stated it the way I did. But I am essentially in agreement here. The log type should be renamed to reflect that it isn't a user's place to make that decision.

Share this post


Link to post
I know what it says and I know how I usually see it used. That is why I stated it the way I did. But I am essentially in agreement here. The log type should be renamed to reflect that it isn't a user's place to make that decision.

Exactly why it should be changed. Even reviewers here have agreed with this. "Needs (to be) Archived" is really way over the top. Only the reviewer and the cache owner really should have that power. The rest of us should only be able to get their attention.

sure, i'm all for that. but until that happens, you really shouldn't use the log type for anything other than what it says: request the archival of the cache.

 

but there's a problem i see with changing the log type text. the vast MAGORity of cachers (especially the newbies) don't really know what the reviewers do, so having a log type "needs reviewer attention" will result in two things: 1) people not using it when it's appropriate, and 2) people using it when it's not appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post

Use the NA log if you feel it is imperative the reviewer sees an issue with a cache. Personally I feel the choice in naming this log type is unfortunate. Needs Reviewer Attention would be a better choice. The National Riffle Association probably would have sue if we used the acronym NRA though.

I agree with this line of thinking.

 

I wonder if the cache owner response to a Reviewer Attention Needed (RAN) log would be different (ie less severe) than the reaction to the current SBA log.

 

Did you mean Reviewer Attention Needed Today? :)

 

See the Shirtless One's log somewhere near the top...

In some cases where my interaction with the CO would only likely produce problems, a PM to the reviewer is a better idea.

Share this post


Link to post
To some, when I say their cache Needs Archived, they take it as if I am saying they are a bad cacher and they don't deserve to have a cache. I can only think of one situation where I really thought that. Needs Archived sounds harsh. I think that "Needs Reviewer Attention" would sound less confrontational.

true, but that's not what it says. in fact, the text for the log type on the page is even more clear: "XXX requested cache YYY to be archived". doesn't get any clearer than that. if that's not what you wanna do (requesting it to be archived), use different means to talk to your reviewer.

 

This thread has been particularly absent from comments by the actual Reviewers. In past discussions, many have been quite up front with the opinion that the NA log is simply a tool to alert them to problems that have not been addressed by cache owners. In many cases, I don't want a cache to be archived, I simply want to get the reviewers attention so that they can work with the owner and reconcile the problem. In the end, I am not a reviewer and I do not have the expertise to determine if another player's cache needs to be archived. I can only alert a reviewer and let them make that determination. This is why I think the title of that particular log entry should be changed.

Share this post


Link to post

See the Shirtless One's log somewhere near the top...

In some cases where my interaction with the CO would only likely produce problems, a PM to the reviewer is a better idea.

 

I have had a few delicate situations where I felt more comfortable emailing the reviewer that originally published the cache. I simply don't feel that I should have to do that in every case. I would rather put it into the system.

 

We have two reviewers in Southern Cal. If they are both busy, the two in Northern Cal will take up the slack. In rare cases, your Nevada/Arizona reviewer will step in. They balance the workload out amongst themselves. When I task a specific reviewer with a specific assignment, I feel that I am circumventing the system.

 

Secondly, if the player in question were to appeal, all logs would be on record for GS to review. No, "He said, She said"

Share this post


Link to post

there's been a few time's in which i've requested cache's to be archived within my area. land steward's asking for removal etc... there was also one instance in which a cache had several dnf log's along with maint. logs.

Share this post


Link to post

This discussion about the NA log, when to use it and whether it should have its name changed, comes up regularly.

 

I thought it was worth putting into the 'Get Satisfaction' Feedback forum. Please add your thoughts/comments if you support my suggestion:

 

Change the 'Needs Archive' log title to something more appropriate.

 

MrsB

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...