NA ratio and NM ratio to your finds

[+JB10-4]

Being still rather new I want to be sure I am not out of line. I am wondering if I post to may NM or NA logs for as many Smiles that I have. Really I like to think I take both logs seriously as I will not post anything without at least a 15-30 thought search. Seems I find cache with months of DNF and/or inactive CO’s.

Here are my NA logs

11/12/2010 Hangin out at the boat ramp

11/12/2010 Susususuprise!

11/12/2010 GateWay

11/12/2010 Only Two Reds ?

09/17/2010 Intermission

08/21/2010 Pirate's Code

07/31/2010 Fatal Fowlers

 

So what is your Ratio on NM and NA logs for fun?

NM = 16/255 = 6.2%

NA = 7/255 = 2.7%

Please let me know if you think I am out of line.

Thank you

[+bflentje]

Being still rather new I want to be sure I am not out of line. I am wondering if I post to may NM or NA logs for as many Smiles that I have. Really I like to think I take both logs seriously as I will not post anything without at least a 15-30 thought search. Seems I find cache with months of DNF and/or inactive CO’s.

Here are my NA logs

11/12/2010 Hangin out at the boat ramp

11/12/2010 Susususuprise!

11/12/2010 GateWay

11/12/2010 Only Two Reds ?

09/17/2010 Intermission

08/21/2010 Pirate's Code

07/31/2010 Fatal Fowlers

 

So what is your Ratio on NM and NA logs for fun?

NM = 16/255 = 6.2%

NA = 7/255 = 2.7%

Please let me know if you think I am out of line.

Thank you

 

Yep, your NM ratio looks good. But your NA ratio is bit high. You should keep it to less than 1.5.

[jholly]

I think your a bit quick on the trigger between NM and NA.

[+StarBrand]

Just 1 little short week from NM to NA?? Ever hear of Vacation??

 

If I couldn't find a cache, I would log a DNF. I might log an NM if I found the cache and it needed some TLC. I would always wait a month or more (and possibly multiple attempts) before going all the way up to an NA log.

[+Isonzo Karst]

You can get to those logs like this

 

http://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1<=45	  Needs Maintenance

http://www.geocaching.com/my/logs.aspx?s=1<=7	   Needs Archived 

 

list of log type Numbers:

 

2 Found it

3 DNF

4 Write Note

5 Archive

7 Needs Archived

9 Will Attend

10 Attended

18 Reviewer Note

22 Disable

23 Enable

45 Needs Maintenance

47 Update Coordinates

 

I've logged Zero Needs Maintenance, and 8 Needs Archived.

 

I doubt if "ratio" is the way to think about this. Might well depend upon where you're caching, and how you select caches to hunt.

 

I didn't read your logs, have no opinion on your practices. Generally, I only think a cache needs archived if it's really really obviously missing, with no owner logging in. Or if it's illegal (wrong side of a No Trespassing sign), though I don't recall logging one like that myself.

[+kpanko]

Just 1 little short week from NM to NA?? Ever hear of Vacation??

 

Yeah, you need to be more patient.

 

First, just log as "did not find" and put the cache on your watch list. Then wait. Maybe someone else will find it. Or maybe not. You cannot be sure if it is not there!

 

If a bunch of people log DNF, say 5 in a row, or fewer over a long period of time (like 6 months), post a needs maintenance and ask the cache owner to please check on it. The CO should respond to e-mail within a week or two. Then be prepared to wait a month for them to actually go out to look for it.

 

Fatal Fowlers was archived right after you posted, because all this stuff had already happened before you did. It was not found 6 times, then the request for maintenance happened, then 3 months passed without an update. That is more than enough time. So your NA was clearly the right move.

 

Unless you are impatient to get your own cache in their spot. Then give them about 1 hour! The reviewer will give the cache owner a fair chance to replace the cache even if you do not.

Edited November 22, 2010 by kpanko

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'd say that you've set yourself up as the new Florida Cache Cop, and I'm glad you don't live in my area!

My NA ratio is 13/2933 = .004. My NM is higher: 18/2933 = .006

Allowing yourself a week between NM and NA is a new form of Entitlement. "It must be done IMMEDIATELY! Because *I* say so!" Yes. I would say that you are definitely out of line. (Since you asked.) One of them you didn't even look for?

I think you should lighten up, and try to have more fun!

[+secretagentbill]

I'm still trying to figure out the first one, that you found but was 'MIA'. LOL

But anyway, I don't think there is any correct or incorrect ratio of finds to NM/NA logs. I suppose it depends on your area and how responsible your locals CO's are towards routine maintenance. Personally, I've never posted NA logs (that I recall) and I've only posted NM if I find a broken container / waterlogged cache / etc. But if I just can't find it after a 15/30 min search, I assume that I just can't find it and post a DNF. I don't think NA is called for in that case.

[+Chokecherry]

I had a run of sopping wet, moldy and/or broken caches at the end fall here and ended up doing more NM than average on those caches. I wait until I find it before I post a NM. Just because I can't find it doesn't mean it's not there. I was pretty sure one of the ones I looked for wasn't there based on past logs but I simply put a DNF with an explanation of the area and why I thought it was missing, but I had no way of knowing if the cache owner hid it differently or what just standing out there.

 

But there has to be something that needs to be maintained if I'm going to put a NM log up.

[knowschad]

Often even when you're right, you're wrong. Most of those look to be fairly just NA's aside from the 1 week time frame, as others have mentioned, and a couple of those cache owners are clearly AWOL, but even if you were 100% justified, it "feels" to me as though you have an agenda. Keep in mind that sooner or later, you will be meeting much of your local caching community, and you may want to think about how they will see it.

 

On the other hand... I will say what I often say... YOU cannot archive a cache. That is up to the cache owner or the reviewer.

 

Bottom line, you're probably good at recognizing a NA cache situation, but you appear overzealous about it.

[+hukilaulau]

I think you're not trying hard enough. If you set up the proper PQ's, you should be able to find one cache that hasn't been found in a long time, for which you can post an NA log, for every one that you actually go out and find. But just go straight to NA. NM's are a waste of time. You've already shown that you can give a guy a whole week and they don't even bother to respond. How inconsiderate is that?

[+DarkZen]

Please let me know if you think I am out of line.

Thank you

In my opinion, way out of line. Lighten up, Francis.

 

[knowschad]

I think you're not trying hard enough. If you set up the proper PQ's, you should be able to find one cache that hasn't been found in a long time, for which you can post an NA log, for every one that you actually go out and find. But just go straight to NA. NM's are a waste of time. You've already shown that you can give a guy a whole week and they don't even bother to respond. How inconsiderate is that?

Note: That is sarcasm above.

[+Setan Meyacha]

Just because a person can't find a cache doesn't mean it needs maintenance or needs to be archived. Nor does it mean the CO should have to assure you the cache is there by making a trip out to confirm it. Some caches are meant to be difficult to find and others can be right in front of your face and you won't see it. I've had a number of my caches logged NM when the cache was right where I placed it and did NOT need maintenance. Nothing, in my humble opinion, can discourage a person from placing caches than to have NM logs show up on caches with no tangible evidence that they actually do. If you want to discourage people from placing caches, just keep logging NM on those you can't find and see how quick there very few for you to even search for. If a cache NM, then give a concrete reason why you are logging it as such; i.e., wet log, container compromised, log is full, etc.; not just because you couldn't find it and assume it is missing.

[+Ecylram]

I don't think 'Ratio' is a good way to measure if NM's or NA's are too frequent. That number could range widely from cacher to cacher based on the location and types of caches being pursued. Factor in a number of people who don't use NM's or NA's and, well, ratios are worthless.

 

Better to take a look at your NA's...

 

1. NM seems reasonable enough. The one week NM seems WAY too short of a time frame.

 

2. Couldn't get the page to open.

 

3. 1.5/1.5 low visit cache with just one DNF. Hard to say, without seeing the GZ, if I would have posted a NM. Certainly would have given several weeks after the NM before a NA.

 

4. I would have filed the NM. Given more time on the NA.

 

5. Yours was the second NA and I tend to agree with it (based on the OhMrBob post).

 

6. A 1/1.5 that once had lots of finds. Cacher is still active. I would have filed a NM on this, not an NA.

 

7. 4-month-old NM that wasn't acknowledged. I would have NA'd that one as well.

 

I'm not going to get your case. I think it's great you want to protect the sport and trying to be a good citizen. The fact that you're willing to display your NA's for critique tells me you're trying to do the right thing and want to learn.

 

I'd bet money that, going forward, you'll do a good job of filing NM's and NA's when appropriate. Thanks for posting this, it's good to see what other's are doing.

[No H]

In 6 years and 2926 finds, I have 17 NM and 6 NA.

 

IMHO, some of the ones you logged may have needed it and others I believe it was too soon. You may be a little trigger happy, especially on NA.

[+Union41Proud]

Really NM ratio?? NA ratio??? Does GSAK keep track of that??

[+TerraViators]

Ratio is irrelevant. If the caches needs a NM or NA log, then post it. I don't have an accurate count, because after action is taken by the CO or reviewer, I delete the log.

[+ZeLonewolf]

In 7 years of caching, my numbers are:

 

2,111 Found It

204 Didn't Find it

28 Needs Maintenance

7 Needs Archive

 

My personal views on the matter, which have evolved over years of caching:

 

1. Never suggest in a DNF log that the cache might be muggled. It's generally more likely that you couldn't find it. In general, I find it to be bad form to post a NM or a NA merely because a cache has been DNFd multiple times in a row.

 

2. If the cache container has a physical problem (broken, waterlogged, etc.) I will post a "Found It!" followed by a NM, even if previous finders have posted the NM.

 

3. If I'm planning a caching run near my home coordinates, and I encounter a disabled cache where the CO has posted a note indicating a problem with the cache, e.g. "it's been muggled, gonna replace soon" and it's been at least 2 months, but the CO is active (has logged in recently), I will post a note with a friendly reminder.

 

4. Alternately, if I encounter a cache where the CO is inactive (last login was months ago) and the logs overwhelmingly indicate that the cache is out of commission or the cache is disabled, I will go straight to an NA log.

 

I don't go out of the way to police caches, but if I happen to encounter caches that need it, that are near me, I'll pitch in. I won't do it for caches that I encounter out of town -- however, for caches that are near me, I feel like it's partly my responsibility to help in keeping cache quality high.

[+briansnat]

I'd say that you've set yourself up as the new Florida Cache Cop, and I'm glad you don't live in my area!

My NA ratio is 13/2933 = .004. My NM is higher: 18/2933 = .006

Allowing yourself a week between NM and NA is a new form of Entitlement. "It must be done IMMEDIATELY! Because *I* say so!" Yes. I would say that you are definitely out of line. (Since you asked.) One of them you didn't even look for?

I think you should lighten up, and try to have more fun!

 

I'm with my finned friend.

[+SwineFlew]

My N/A is high because we got two cachers in my area with over 800 hides each. One doesnt cache anymore and the other never maintenance them but keep putting more junk containers out. (they are always wet it seems and yucky inside)

 

Its hard to know what to do because if you hit N/M, nothing is done for months. (in some cases, years) So N/A is the answer for those two cachers.

 

Dont get me wrong, I do help out maintenance other people caches, but not those two. I dont help out freeloaders.

[+WRASTRO]

Ratio is irrelevant. If the caches needs a NM or NA log, then post it. I don't have an accurate count, because after action is taken by the CO or reviewer, I delete the log.

Why? You are deleting a part of the history of the cache.

[+JB10-4]

Thank you all for you opinions. I will slow way down on NM and NA logs. Thanks

[+bflentje]

I'd say that you've set yourself up as the new Florida Cache Cop, and I'm glad you don't live in my area!

My NA ratio is 13/2933 = .004. My NM is higher: 18/2933 = .006

Allowing yourself a week between NM and NA is a new form of Entitlement. "It must be done IMMEDIATELY! Because *I* say so!" Yes. I would say that you are definitely out of line. (Since you asked.) One of them you didn't even look for?

I think you should lighten up, and try to have more fun!

 

I'm with my finned friend.

 

Ditto. I feal terrible for my 9 NA's in 4225 finds. Only as an absolute last resort should NA be used. Even if you're looking to grab a hidey hole.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Only as an absolute last resort should NA be used.

 

That seems to be the common attitude. It also appears to be one reason we have so many crappy geocaches.

 

I've posted two NAs. One resulted in the owner fixing a missing cache that people had been logging DNF's on for over a year; the second actually got archived, as the owner no longer lives in the area. The archived cache was in a glass jar with one of those flip-top thingies, with bad coordinates. It had a long string of needs maintenance logs before I posted the NA. Now that nice little urban park is available for a new hide.

[+bflentje]

Only as an absolute last resort should NA be used.

 

That seems to be the common attitude. It also appears to be one reason we have so many crappy geocaches.

 

I've posted two NAs. One resulted in the owner fixing a missing cache that people had been logging DNF's on for over a year; the second actually got archived, as the owner no longer lives in the area. The archived cache was in a glass jar with one of those flip-top thingies, with bad coordinates. It had a long string of needs maintenance logs before I posted the NA. Now that nice little urban park is available for a new hide.

 

I bow to you oh cache-god. Thank you for watching out for the rest of us.

[+JB10-4]

Feel free to close this thread. It has served its purpose. Thx.

[+narcissa]

You need to remember that some people are mortally offended by NA logs, even though the actual archiving is done by a reviewer. They really need to call it "needs reviewer attention" or something less upsetting.

[+dakboy]

They really need to call it "needs reviewer attention" or something less upsetting.

You can always email the local reviewer behind the scenes & let him/her/them/it take action if they feel it's appropriate.

 

I won't post an NA unless I've actually been to the cache location & checked that the owner is inactive, or has let things sit disabled for a really long time ("temporarily disabled" for 3 months when the CO said they'd "get out next week & repair", for example). If a CO has placed more caches than they're able to properly maintain, they need to scale their portfolio back.

 

I will not, no matter how tempted I am, troll through my GSAK database looking for random caches to post NA on just because I'm bored some Thursday evening.

 

Some COs see NM as "meh, I'll get around to it whenever" but a NA lights a fire under them. But one shouldn't log NA just get action in a hurty.

 

If I offend a CO by posting an NA, so be it. If getting a ruined cache out of circulation means a better experience for a newbie next week (as opposed to finding a destroyed/missing/waterlogged cache), I consider it a net gain for the community.

[+Ecylram]

That seems to be the common attitude. It also appears to be one reason we have so many crappy geocaches.

 

I've posted two NAs. One resulted in the owner fixing a missing cache that people had been logging DNF's on for over a year; the second actually got archived, as the owner no longer lives in the area. The archived cache was in a glass jar with one of those flip-top thingies, with bad coordinates. It had a long string of needs maintenance logs before I posted the NA. Now that nice little urban park is available for a new hide.

I bow to you oh cache-god. Thank you for watching out for the rest of us.

Actually, that is how it is meant to be used.

 

First cache was missing for more than a year. Second cache had bad coordinates from a missing owner. Nothing wrong with NAing those.

 

One is once again available for cachers to find and a urban park is now available for a proper cache (good coordinates and container).

 

GeoGeeBee gets two thumbs up from me.

[+L0ne.R]

My personal views on the matter, which have evolved over years of caching:

 

1. Never suggest in a DNF log that the cache might be muggled. It's generally more likely that you couldn't find it. In general, I find it to be bad form to post a NM or a NA merely because a cache has been DNFd multiple times in a row.

 

Won't that depend on the D rating? If it's a difficulty of 1 or 2 and there are multiple DNFs then I would assume that there's a very good possibility that the cache is missing. If I was the 3rd DNF I'd post the NM and request that the CO check for availability.

 

2. If the cache container has a physical problem (broken, waterlogged, etc.) I will post a "Found It!" followed by a NM, even if previous finders have posted the NM.

 

Just yesterday I found a cache that had a badly cracked lid and needs replacing asap. I was going to post a NM but when I looked at the logs the finder before me posted an NM 2 days ago. I didn't post my NM but I mentioned the cracked lid in my post and included a photo of the damaged box. Should I be posting a NM even if the last finder has already posted one?

 

4. Alternately, if I encounter a cache where the CO is inactive (last login was months ago) and the logs overwhelmingly indicate that the cache is out of commission or the cache is disabled, I will go straight to an NA log.

 

Agree.

If the cache is in rough shape - and near enough that I can easily drive back - when it's been archived, I'll pickup what's left of the container and dispose of it.

 

I don't go out of the way to police caches, but if I happen to encounter caches that need it, that are near me, I'll pitch in. I won't do it for caches that I encounter out of town -- however, for caches that are near me, I feel like it's partly my responsibility to help in keeping cache quality high.

 

Agree.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Lone R

[+L0ne.R]

You need to remember that some people are mortally offended by NA logs, even though the actual archiving is done by a reviewer. They really need to call it "needs reviewer attention" or something less upsetting.

 

Yes, I agree. This suggestion has come up quite a few times in the forums and on the feedback sites. Wonder if GS sees a problem with renaming NA to RAN (Reviewer Attention Needed). Maybe they worry that too many people will use RAN for minor issues.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Only as an absolute last resort should NA be used.

 

That seems to be the common attitude. It also appears to be one reason we have so many crappy geocaches.

 

I've posted two NAs. One resulted in the owner fixing a missing cache that people had been logging DNF's on for over a year; the second actually got archived, as the owner no longer lives in the area. The archived cache was in a glass jar with one of those flip-top thingies, with bad coordinates. It had a long string of needs maintenance logs before I posted the NA. Now that nice little urban park is available for a new hide.

 

I bow to you oh cache-god. Thank you for watching out for the rest of us.

 

Thank you, my child. Your worshipfulness is duly noted. You shall be spared my wrath in the day of judgment.

[+addisonbr]

You need to remember that some people are mortally offended by NA logs, even though the actual archiving is done by a reviewer. They really need to call it "needs reviewer attention" or something less upsetting.

I'm inclined to agree. Even though it's mostly semantics, I think it would help.

[+dfx]

This suggestion has come up quite a few times in the forums and on the feedback sites. Wonder if GS sees a problem with renaming NA to RAN (Reviewer Attention Needed). Maybe they worry that too many people will use RAN for minor issues.

i'm pretty sure that this is what would happen. many people, especially newbies, think of the reviewers as a kind of geopolice. some of them don't even know how to update coords on their own caches, i can already see them posting "RAN" on their own caches to get that done...

[+Ecylram]

I bow to you oh cache-god. Thank you for watching out for the rest of us.

Thank you, my child. Your worshipfulness is duly noted. You shall be spared my wrath in the day of judgment.

That response was perfect. Where is that *golf clap* emoticon?

[+ZeLonewolf]

My personal views on the matter, which have evolved over years of caching:

 

1. Never suggest in a DNF log that the cache might be muggled. It's generally more likely that you couldn't find it. In general, I find it to be bad form to post a NM or a NA merely because a cache has been DNFd multiple times in a row.

 

Won't that depend on the D rating? If it's a difficulty of 1 or 2 and there are multiple DNFs then I would assume that there's a very good possibility that the cache is missing. If I was the 3rd DNF I'd post the NM and request that the CO check for availability.

If I think it's supposed to be easy, I might say something like "looked under the lamp post skirt and came up empty", but I will NOT say "Couldn't find it, probably muggled". I try to alert the CO to the possibility of it being missing without suggesting that if *I* couldn't find it, it's probably not there. After 7 years of caching, I know that I will STILL occasionally DNF a stupidly simple cache. The "it's probably muggled" log is a pet peeve of mine.

 

2. If the cache container has a physical problem (broken, waterlogged, etc.) I will post a "Found It!" followed by a NM, even if previous finders have posted the NM.

 

Just yesterday I found a cache that had a badly cracked lid and needs replacing asap. I was going to post a NM but when I looked at the logs the finder before me posted an NM 2 days ago. I didn't post my NM but I mentioned the cracked lid in my post and included a photo of the damaged box. Should I be posting a NM even if the last finder has already posted one?

There's no hard and fast rules of course, it's just what I do. I feel that a chorus of NM logs will be more effective in getting a CO off their butt than a lone one that might be forgotten. Also, it will make it more likely for a quick archive down the line by the reviewer if it doesn't get resolved.

[+Yurt]

I'm thinking that DNFs beget DNFs which lead to NMs and then NAs.

 

If you struggle to find a cache and then check the logs to find the last one or two didn't find it you may well start to think that it's been muggled. However quite often it is not the case! Think positive!

[+sanssheriff]

I understand someone marking a cache as NM, I've run across many caches that need maintenance as well as providing maintenance to many, but NA IMHO is somewhat pretentious. The only justification I can think of right now to mark someones cache as NA is if it has numerous DNF's over a long period of time and the CO is not from the area and not answering a call for maintenance.

Edited November 25, 2010 by sanssheriff

[+dakboy]

NA IMHO is somewhat pretentious. The only justification I can think of right now to mark someones cache as NA is if it has numerous DNF's over a long period of time and the CO is not from the area and not answering a call for maintenance.

How about a cache being an area of questionable legality, or a property owner getting upset about the existence of the cache and throwing you off their property under threat of a call to the police?

[+twoodward15]

I'm new, but I've realized something about this subject.

If a cache needsmaintenance, click the "needs maintenance" button.

If the cache needs to be archived, click the "needs archived" button

 

If you're concerned about your "statistics" then this hobby/sport probably doesn't need you. It's a game, and if you think you're somehow "winning" by having more finds then you are missing the entire point of it. It might be time to move on.

[+ZeLonewolf]

I'm new, but I've realized something about this subject.

If a cache needsmaintenance, click the "needs maintenance" button.

If the cache needs to be archived, click the "needs archived" button

 

Well said.

 

If you're concerned about your "statistics" then this hobby/sport probably doesn't need you. It's a game, and if you think you're somehow "winning" by having more finds then you are missing the entire point of it. It might be time to move on.

 

While it's true there are no "winners", statistics can be a fun meta-game for those that enjoy them.

[+narcissa]

I understand someone marking a cache as NM, I've run across many caches that need maintenance as well as providing maintenance to many, but NA IMHO is somewhat pretentious. The only justification I can think of right now to mark someones cache as NA is if it has numerous DNF's over a long period of time and the CO is not from the area and not answering a call for maintenance.

 

There's nothing "pretentious" about asking a reviewer to step in. The reviewers will look at the situation and make a call - they usually don't just step in and archive the cache without giving the owner a chance to respond.

 

The option is there for us to use, and it's essential to maintaining our community standards. Regular users need a way to report serious problems - trespassing issues, caches that are buried or otherwise hidden in a destructive manner, caches that are incorrectly categorized (i.e. multi listed as a traditional). Discouraging others from using it by attaching a stigma to it is reprehensible.

[+Ecylram]

I understand someone marking a cache as NM, I've run across many caches that need maintenance as well as providing maintenance to many, but NA IMHO is somewhat pretentious. The only justification I can think of right now to mark someones cache as NA is if it has numerous DNF's over a long period of time and the CO is not from the area and not answering a call for maintenance.

Pretentious? Not necessarily.

 

I posted an NA for a cache ON school grounds that was less than 30' from a classroom. It has placed by a newbie.

 

In a week or two I'll be posting a NA on a cache, placed by another newbie, where the coordinates are 250' off and three NM's and numerous cacher comments have been ignored. I wouldn't consider that pretentious.

 

Also, many newbie cachers are under the mistaken impression that the responsible thing to do is to file a NA on a cache they believe is missing. It may be wrong, but not pretentious as they are working under a mistaken impression of the protocol. If they stick around, they learn.

 

While I"m sure it's possible for someone to 'pretentiously' post an NA, I'd guess those are a pretty low percentage of all NA's.

[+TerraViators]

Ratio is irrelevant. If the caches needs a NM or NA log, then post it. I don't have an accurate count, because after action is taken by the CO or reviewer, I delete the log.

Why? You are deleting a part of the history of the cache.

The history of the repair or archive is still apparent with the action of the CO or the reviewer.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

DUDE! What a wrong ratio(s) to track, so insensitive and selfish to the caching friends who cared enough to give you a cache to hunt.

 

If a cache needs maintenance . . . DO IT yourself. Carry logs, baggies, small pill bottle containers, tape, string and/or other material to repair/replace caches to be a real gentleman and friend to your fellow cacher . . . be the cache finder that YOU would appreciate others to to be for YOU.

 

NA logs should be reserved for caches where the location has become unsafe, the landowner has become aware/unhappy or some other sound reason that can not be repaired by YOU when on site.

 

I can not imagine facing someone at an event when I have slammed them by my selfish and self-righteous tracking NA & NM on a number of their caches . . . it would make me feel like one who betrays the friendship that they provide for me . How much better to have them seek me out in appreciation for my care of their hides and see me a friend to them and the game.

[+isjustus4]

I've added NM notes to 4 caches for various reasons, mostly leaking containers and wet contents. Another, after a DNF I found the log on the ground next to my truck.

 

Only 1 NA log. GC1DWRG I had a DNF on it, following another DNF. Not paying attention to the page, 4 months pass, and I was back in the area just over .1 up the same trail for a puzzle cache. When logging the find on the puzzle, my curiosity got the better of me, and I checked the map as it wasn't in the PQ on my GPS as I walked past. Yep, still there and disabled. Checked the page, and I was the last logged attempt, other than the disable log. So, I added an NA. Problem is, is it's still not fixed......

 

Now, it's not like I want the spot, but to be out of play for 7 months is a little ridiculous.

[+narcissa]

DUDE! What a wrong ratio(s) to track, so insensitive and selfish to the caching friends who cared enough to give you a cache to hunt.

 

If a cache needs maintenance . . . DO IT yourself. Carry logs, baggies, small pill bottle containers, tape, string and/or other material to repair/replace caches to be a real gentleman and friend to your fellow cacher . . . be the cache finder that YOU would appreciate others to to be for YOU.

 

NA logs should be reserved for caches where the location has become unsafe, the landowner has become aware/unhappy or some other sound reason that can not be repaired by YOU when on site.

 

I can not imagine facing someone at an event when I have slammed them by my selfish and self-righteous tracking NA & NM on a number of their caches . . . it would make me feel like one who betrays the friendship that they provide for me . How much better to have them seek me out in appreciation for my care of their hides and see me a friend to them and the game.

 

In the case of a neglected cache, you aren't doing the community any favours by keeping a geocache on life support. It's fine to do a bit of maintenance in the field as a favour to the next few cachers to come along, but you should be logging a Needs Maintenance log when you get home.

 

There is nothing selfish or self-righteous about reporting maintenance issues on geocaches. The website gives us those options for a reason. Characterizing these completely legitimate actions as a "betrayal" is completely out of line.

 

Referring to NM and NA logs as "slamming" somebody is an excessively personal reaction to a perfectly legitimate action. If you are unable to maintain your caches AND emotionally unequipped to deal with an NM or NA log here and there, you probably shouldn't place caches.

[jholly]

DUDE! What a wrong ratio(s) to track, so insensitive and selfish to the caching friends who cared enough to give you a cache to hunt.

 

If a cache needs maintenance . . . DO IT yourself. Carry logs, baggies, small pill bottle containers, tape, string and/or other material to repair/replace caches to be a real gentleman and friend to your fellow cacher . . . be the cache finder that YOU would appreciate others to to be for YOU.

 

NA logs should be reserved for caches where the location has become unsafe, the landowner has become aware/unhappy or some other sound reason that can not be repaired by YOU when on site.

 

I can not imagine facing someone at an event when I have slammed them by my selfish and self-righteous tracking NA & NM on a number of their caches . . . it would make me feel like one who betrays the friendship that they provide for me . How much better to have them seek me out in appreciation for my care of their hides and see me a friend to them and the game.

Where did you buy your sunglasses? They really work great! Need to get a pair myself.

[mukanshin]

I wish more people would post NM and NA logs. There are a lot of caches near me that have repeated DNF logs but no one can be bothered to post an NM log so maybe something will be done with it. I'm tempted to myself but I haven't searched for them and I'm not going to as I know they're not there based on no one finding them. I did put an NA on a nearby one that had a DNF from almost two years ago and in the description, it said, "Retired, site no longer exists." Really? You can put that in the description but not archive it? Some day I'd like to say I've found all the caches in my city and these negligent cache owners are getting in my way. It gets old...