ethics in NA logs

[+HHD]

There are a number of caches near me that are owned by a family that has over 300 hides. Just this week they placed 4-5 new hides. I have no problem with people having a large number of hides so long as you maintain them. This particular family has a bunch of old hides and some newer ones that are either in serious need of maintenance or are missing completely. There have been numerous NM logs but no one seems to be willing to post the NA log. I have only been caching for about 3 months now and I don't wish to make this family mad at me but I'm very tired of coming across a number of their hides that i end up having to log as dnf because they don't care to maintain them.

I live in Wisconsin and it has been snowing here since December. If I posted a NA log now they will just end up waiting until spring to fix it anyway. But what is the normal process for dealing with poor maintenance of caches?

[+BCandMsKitty]

If you find caches that have numerous NM logs on them, and you yourself have found them to be in bad shape, then go ahead and file a NA log. Filing NA doesn't mean the cache will automatically be archived, but it will get the attention of the reviewer, who will then be contacting the cache owner about it. The reviewers in our area will even contact folks that have NM on them without any action from the CO. Maybe a couple of NA logs will prompt the reviewer to look at the COs other caches too.

 

I'd be careful of filing NA just because I didn't find it. Maybe I just didn't find it! And I'd never file Needs Archived just because I see Needs Maintenance logs on a cache without searching for it myself.

 

If the last bunch of logs are DNF, then I wouldn't search for it anyway.

 

Another option would be to ignore the hider's caches and then you wouldn't be bothered by them, but that wouldn't be helping to solve the problem.

Edited January 15, 2011 by BC & MsKitty

[GOF and Bacall]

This is what the NA log is for. However, if you are uncomfortable posting openly you can always write to a reviewer. Make sure to note the GC#s.

[GOF and Bacall]

BC&MK, ignoring all the caches by someone who has hidden hundreds of caches can be a chore. It sure would be nice if we could ignore all of a users caches at once, no?

[+Walts Hunting]

The NA log is there for a purpose. If no one is willing to step up (and possibly incur the bad will of some people) then there is nothing to do. I for one have never had a problem with a NA log when it is appropriate. Many feel that in order to write a NA log you should go for it yourself and verify the problem. I think this can be appropriate in some circumstances depending on the type of cache and terrain involved but not in all cases.

 

I will run a PQ of an area I am traveling too and while reviewing them will see some that some obviously need to be put out of their misery and will do a NA log. I have gotten two nasties from CO's over the years for that but 1. the caches were eventually archived so I was right and 2. I don't live there so don't have to worry about ticking someone off.

 

I have often wondered if some of the locals weren't glad I did that since they were in the same situation as you.

 

If keeping good will is more important to you than getting the caches either maintained or archived then just put them on your ignore list and don't worry about it.

 

The other alternative is a email to the publishing reviewer. To do that open the cache page, click show all logs and go to the very last (actually first) one. That will be the reviewer responsible for this cache.

 

Can't wait to see how other feel about this.

[+BCandMsKitty]

BC&MK, ignoring all the caches by someone who has hidden hundreds of caches can be a chore. It sure would be nice if we could ignore all of a users caches at once, no?

 

This is true

 

BC

[+HHD]

II have never had a problem causing a fuss, it is more that I'm new to the ethics of caching...I have made plenty of errors in my life and am not afraid to take a little heat to fix the issues. I just want to make sure I'm in the right to do so. They have about 30 I feel need the tag.

[+BCandMsKitty]

II have never had a problem causing a fuss, it is more that I'm new to the ethics of caching...I have made plenty of errors in my life and am not afraid to take a little heat to fix the issues. I just want to make sure I'm in the right to do so. They have about 30 I feel need the tag.

 

Just to keep from getting tagged as the Cache Police, It probably isn't a good idea to log them all at once!

Start with a couple you have dealt with recently, and see how it goes.

[+wimseyguy]

If you have put in a serious search for the cache, by all means post the NA if your the next in a line of DNF's.

If you see a bunch of caches that appear to be missing based a a line of DNF's but have no personal experience there, do not post a DNF.

Armchair logging is wrong, no matter which option is selected from the drop down menu.

[+HHD]

What about the ones that are still there but in serious need of repair...example...the log is soaked and frozen due to half of the cache container being missing. And even worse...in a series one is missing, two are in very bad shape, one is missing the original log that had the finals cords on it.

[Clan Riffster]

You'll find as many answers to this question as you'll find geocachers.

My personal interpretation of when to utilize a Needs Archived log?

1 ) The cache in question is in serious disrepair.

2 ) The owner is no longer playing.

3 ) I have physically visited ground zero to confirm the condition of the cache.

 

(obvious exception? A cache which grossly violates the guidelines)

[+HHD]

You'll find as many answers to this question as you'll find geocachers.

My personal interpretation of when to utilize a Needs Archived log?

1 ) The cache in question is in serious disrepair.

2 ) The owner is no longer playing.

3 ) I have physically visited ground zero to confirm the condition of the cache.

 

(obvious exception? A cache which grossly violates the guidelines)

 

I assume you mean the cache must meet all three guidelines right? In this circumstance the owner is still very much active and still placing hides...2 today even. The inner meany in me really wants to post a note on the new hide about how amazing it is they are placing new hides when they have so much maintenance to do. I however appreciate the fact that they are so prolific as it means there are more hides for me to find.

Obviously I would never note their other hide but I do deep I need to start logging some of these NA hides as such. I last looked for a few of these in November...should I go out and look at them again before I log them as NA?

[+GeoGeeBee]

My take on it:

 

1) If I didn't find it, I post a DNF. I will very rarely post an NA on a cache that I haven't actually found. I've only done it once, and that was a 1.5/1.5 that had been in a very obvious location, and I was the latest in a very long string of DNF's. It had been missing for over a year, and the owner replaced it shortly after my NA was logged, so it's now an active and healthy cache again.

 

2) If I find it and it's in bad shape, I'll usually post a Needs Maintenance. If it's obvious from previous logs that it has been in bad shape for a long time, and has had NM logs posted with no response from the owner, then I'll go ahead and post the NA.

[+narcissa]

For some reason, some geocachers take exception to the "Needs Archived" log. I believe Groundspeak is giving thought to changing to name of that function to something less bothersome, like "Needs Reviewer Attention."

 

When you hit the NA, the reviewer (usually) doesn't just storm in and archive the cache on demand. The reviewer looks into the issue and gives the owner a chance to respond. There's no reason to feel bad about using NA, and if somebody gives you a hard time about it, they're in the wrong - not you.

[+hydnsek]

2) If I find it and it's in bad shape, I'll usually post a Needs Maintenance. If it's obvious from previous logs that it has been in bad shape for a long time, and has had NM logs posted with no response from the owner, then I'll go ahead and post the NA.

+1 If the owner is active but not responding to NMs on a badly damaged cache, the cache should be archived since it's an unpleasant find and the owner won't maintain it.

[mtbikernate]

For some reason, some geocachers take exception to the "Needs Archived" log. I believe Groundspeak is giving thought to changing to name of that function to something less bothersome, like "Needs Reviewer Attention."

 

When you hit the NA, the reviewer (usually) doesn't just storm in and archive the cache on demand. The reviewer looks into the issue and gives the owner a chance to respond. There's no reason to feel bad about using NA, and if somebody gives you a hard time about it, they're in the wrong - not you.

 

No kidding. My area is practically flooded by caches put out many years ago where the cachers no longer play, have moved away from the area, or are just lazy.

 

I have been merciless with my NA logs lately. One I actually found recently has been described in NUMEROUS found logs as having a broken container. In THREE YEARS of broken cache logs, only ONE NM log was EVER posted. I posted a "found it" AND "Needs Archived". The cache is obviously not getting maintained. The CO has been gone for years. This cache will not be getting adopted, either...and it just so happens to be a good location for a TB motel I'd like to place. I try to make sure I visit the site before posting a NA log, but on several occasions, I will see a DNF posted by someone saying something to the effect of "I came here with three cachers who previously found it, and there is no container to be found" or something along those lines. In those cases, I won't even bother to visit the location to post NA. In one case, I visited, DNF'd the cache, and watchlisted it to see if anyone else found it. A log like I described was posted after my visit, and I followed it by a NA.

 

When it comes to absentee cache owners, I think etiquette rules do not necessarily apply. The geotrash needs to be cleaned up. With lazy cache owners, yeah, a little more tact might be necessary.

 

In those cases, I will visit the site, post a DNF if I don't find it. If I'm only the most recent in a line of DNF's, I will follow up with NM. If there are a lot of found logs mentioning maintenance issues, I will post NM. If there are outstanding NM logs (NM attribute), then I will add NA to bring the reviewer in. Depending on visit frequency by others, I might make another attempt or two on the cache. If my NM log doesn't get addressed, I will add NA onto it after a month or two.

[+Harry Dolphin]

II have never had a problem causing a fuss, it is more that I'm new to the ethics of caching...I have made plenty of errors in my life and am not afraid to take a little heat to fix the issues. I just want to make sure I'm in the right to do so. They have about 30 I feel need the tag.

 

Just to keep from getting tagged as the Cache Police, It probably isn't a good idea to log them all at once!

Start with a couple you have dealt with recently, and see how it goes.

 

If she wishes to be the Cache Police (she seems intent on it), then: Oh, well. Just glad she doesn't live near here.

I agree with Clan Riffster. And there are extenuating circumstances.

If she's looked for it, and it's a mess, and there are lots of NMs, then go for it!

Hmmm... There's one near me where the CO changed the cache page to say: "Removed the cache. Will replace soon." And has not signed on since early October. It has had one subsequent find.(?) No. I have not looked for it. Shall I post an NA?

[+HHD]

I'm not trying to be the cache police but it is frustrating to me to go into a state park and waste my time looking for a bunch of hides that are NM and in a few cases completely missing. It happens and I realize this. I posted the NM and they seem to have been completely ignored. Worse they continue to place hides without repairing the ones they already have.

[GOF and Bacall]

For some reason, some geocachers take exception to the "Needs Archived" log. I believe Groundspeak is giving thought to changing to name of that function to something less bothersome, like "Needs Reviewer Attention."

 

When you hit the NA, the reviewer (usually) doesn't just storm in and archive the cache on demand. The reviewer looks into the issue and gives the owner a chance to respond. There's no reason to feel bad about using NA, and if somebody gives you a hard time about it, they're in the wrong - not you.

 

Such a change is long overdue.

[+Michaelcycle]

 

The inner meany in me really wants to post a note on the new hide about how amazing it is they are placing new hides when they have so much maintenance to do.

 

Around here that kind of snarkiness will get you a message from a reviewer asking you to refrain from using the logs for such things. I assume you were joking

 

Armchair N/A logs are something I would never do. If the locals don't feel the need to log them, who am I to do it from a distance? How would that cache affect me if I were not hunting it?

 

My default value on caches is to try to keep them alive. I carry replacement logs and small baggies most of the time. I've taped cracked containers with duct tape. (I will NOT do a "throw-down" ever and I will not replace a container without permission of the CO) Even if the CO is no longer active, some caches have an interesting history or a rare difficulty/terrain rating (important if you are working on your "Fizzy") and many cachers will unofficially adopt the cache.

 

Bottom line: if you know from personal experience that the cache is gone, log the N/A. If it is under the weather and it seems like something worth saving consider helping out.

 

(please no flames about making it easy on lazy COs, thanks)

[+BCandMsKitty]

I'm not trying to be the cache police but it is frustrating to me to go into a state park and waste my time looking for a bunch of hides that are NM and in a few cases completely missing. It happens and I realize this. I posted the NM and they seem to have been completely ignored. Worse they continue to place hides without repairing the ones they already have.

Two things that occur to me.

 

One, if I see NM on a cache before I start, then I never look for it, and I always review the caches I'm going to search for before I go, and check the past logs.

 

Two, if you have come across a cache that needs repair, and posted the NM log as you said, with no response, then go ahead and log the NA. Seems to me in that case, you have fulfilled any "etiquette" requirements.

Edited January 15, 2011 by BC & MsKitty

[+HHD]

 

The inner meany in me really wants to post a note on the new hide about how amazing it is they are placing new hides when they have so much maintenance to do.

 

Around here that kind of snarkiness will get you a message from a reviewer asking you to refrain from using the logs for such things. I assume you were joking

 

 

Ofcourse I was joking. If you read the rest of the post you would have seen that. I'm not a mean person. I just find it odd that this particular family who prides themselves on being prolific finders and hiders chooses to ignore their old caches.

[+Walts Hunting]

I like the change in name to Needs Reviewer Attention. Even though I use (probably more than most) I always thought the NA was a bit strong.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

The inner meany in me really wants to post a note on the new hide about how amazing it is they are placing new hides when they have so much maintenance to do.

 

Around here that kind of snarkiness will get you a message from a reviewer asking you to refrain from using the logs for such things. I assume you were joking

 

 

Ofcourse I was joking. If you read the rest of the post you would have seen that. I'm not a mean person. I just find it odd that this particular family who prides themselves on being prolific finders and hiders chooses to ignore their old caches.

 

I have actually seen that (people posting notes asking why someone is placing new caches when they have several missing or disabled caches). I realize your frustration, especially with a highly prolific cache placer, that can't possibly maintain all the stuff they're putting out. I might take some heat for this (and I'm ready for it), but you can probably count on your fingers and toes the number of people with over 300 hides who are serious about maintaining them.

 

Bottom line is, you can't be the cache police if you haven't personally looked for that particular cache. People love to place and find caches, they generally mostly suck at maintaining them. Happens just about everywhere, from what I have seen. If I had a nickel for every cache placed by an active cacher who has had caches involuntarily archived for lack of maintenance, I wouldn't be rich, but I would have lots of nickels.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+DLSeeAmerica]

I've got a somewhat similar situation. I travel a lot, and end up being somewhere for anywhere from a day to a couple of months. Consistently, I see Found It logs that mention bad containers or wet logs, yet I almost never see a NM log entered. I always post both a Found It and an NM log if the cache needs maintenance, so the owner can't miss it. Why do so many not bother?

 

Also, in a lot of places I find listings for easy caches that have a number of DNFs over several months, yet they're still active. The few I've tried have inevitably led to DNFs. Needs Maintenances isn't really appropriate, I guess, but there should be some way to notify the owner that they should confirm the cache is still there. With no NMs listed, I tend to think NA is probably overkill; if it was called Needs Reviewer Attention, I might consider that option.

 

I throw these on my ignore list these days. Has anybody got a better idea?

Edited January 16, 2011 by DLSeeAmerica

[+BCandMsKitty]

well, Needs Maintenance turns out to actually be "Needs Reviewer Attention", so I agree. A change to that language would be welcome.

[knowschad]

The inner meany in me really wants to post a note on the new hide about how amazing it is they are placing new hides when they have so much maintenance to do.

 

Around here that kind of snarkiness will get you a message from a reviewer asking you to refrain from using the logs for such things. I assume you were joking

 

 

Ofcourse I was joking. If you read the rest of the post you would have seen that. I'm not a mean person. I just find it odd that this particular family who prides themselves on being prolific finders and hiders chooses to ignore their old caches.

I may be reading your posts completely wrong... but I'm sensing a vendetta. The "particular family" that you are referring to isn't very hard to figure out, after a quick look at where you are from. I've also seen your "Winter attribute" questions and noticed that they (or at least one of them) is aimed directly at the same account. Are there some bad feelings here for some reason, that aren't clear by what you have told us? I ask, 'cause I'm sure getting that feeling.

[+HHD]

No not at all. I'm not trying to dog them. There are others aswell. They are just the most obvious ones because they have so many hides out it happens to them more often. It is not a slam against them it is more that I respect them because of their spot in the caching community and I don't want to offend them by doing something the wrong way. That is why I posted it here to see what the appropriate action would be.

[+SwineFlew]

Some cachers got too many hides for their own good.

[knowschad]

Some cachers got too many hides for their own good.

The don't have too many for your good though, I'd be willing to bet.

[+simpjkee]

If you're gunna log a NA, step up and state your bizness on the cache page. Don't go off and email a reviewer like a four year old tattle taler.

[knowschad]

If you're gunna log a NA, step up and state your bizness on the cache page. Don't go off and email a reviewer like a four year old tattle taler.

Flip side of that argument is, email the reviewer and let them deal with it to avoid unnecessary angst and local politics.

[+BlueDeuce]

If you're gunna log a NA, step up and state your bizness on the cache page. Don't go off and email a reviewer like a four year old tattle taler.

 

Really. So like when you've found the cache before and you have revisited 8 times and on the 9 AND 10th time you confirm it was missing and posted a NM (not an NA) asking that the cache owner check it, you get in response - Doncha hate armchair experts?

[+simpjkee]

If you're gunna log a NA, step up and state your bizness on the cache page. Don't go off and email a reviewer like a four year old tattle taler.

Flip side of that argument is, email the reviewer and let them deal with it to avoid unnecessary angst and local politics.

angst and politics

 

stating yer bizness > tattle taling

[+J the Goat]

The NA log is there for a purpose. If no one is willing to step up (and possibly incur the bad will of some people) then there is nothing to do. I for one have never had a problem with a NA log when it is appropriate. Many feel that in order to write a NA log you should go for it yourself and verify the problem. I think this can be appropriate in some circumstances depending on the type of cache and terrain involved but not in all cases.

 

I will run a PQ of an area I am traveling too and while reviewing them will see some that some obviously need to be put out of their misery and will do a NA log. I have gotten two nasties from CO's over the years for that but 1. the caches were eventually archived so I was right and 2. I don't live there so don't have to worry about ticking someone off.

 

I have often wondered if some of the locals weren't glad I did that since they were in the same situation as you.

 

If keeping good will is more important to you than getting the caches either maintained or archived then just put them on your ignore list and don't worry about it.

 

The other alternative is a email to the publishing reviewer. To do that open the cache page, click show all logs and go to the very last (actually first) one. That will be the reviewer responsible for this cache.

 

Can't wait to see how other feel about this.

 

I'd probably send you a nasty-gram for that one. Way out of line IMHO.

[+The Blorenges]

The NA log is there for a purpose. If no one is willing to step up (and possibly incur the bad will of some people) then there is nothing to do. I for one have never had a problem with a NA log when it is appropriate. Many feel that in order to write a NA log you should go for it yourself and verify the problem. I think this can be appropriate in some circumstances depending on the type of cache and terrain involved but not in all cases.

 

I will run a PQ of an area I am traveling too and while reviewing them will see some that some obviously need to be put out of their misery and will do a NA log. I have gotten two nasties from CO's over the years for that but 1. the caches were eventually archived so I was right and 2. I don't live there so don't have to worry about ticking someone off.

 

I have often wondered if some of the locals weren't glad I did that since they were in the same situation as you.

 

If keeping good will is more important to you than getting the caches either maintained or archived then just put them on your ignore list and don't worry about it.

 

The other alternative is a email to the publishing reviewer. To do that open the cache page, click show all logs and go to the very last (actually first) one. That will be the reviewer responsible for this cache.

 

Can't wait to see how other feel about this.

 

I'd probably send you a nasty-gram for that one. Way out of line IMHO.

 

But would you be so inclined to send that nasty-gram if the log was called "Needs Reviewers Attention?

 

MrsB

[+J the Goat]

The NA log is there for a purpose. If no one is willing to step up (and possibly incur the bad will of some people) then there is nothing to do. I for one have never had a problem with a NA log when it is appropriate. Many feel that in order to write a NA log you should go for it yourself and verify the problem. I think this can be appropriate in some circumstances depending on the type of cache and terrain involved but not in all cases.

 

I will run a PQ of an area I am traveling too and while reviewing them will see some that some obviously need to be put out of their misery and will do a NA log. I have gotten two nasties from CO's over the years for that but 1. the caches were eventually archived so I was right and 2. I don't live there so don't have to worry about ticking someone off.

 

I have often wondered if some of the locals weren't glad I did that since they were in the same situation as you.

 

If keeping good will is more important to you than getting the caches either maintained or archived then just put them on your ignore list and don't worry about it.

 

The other alternative is a email to the publishing reviewer. To do that open the cache page, click show all logs and go to the very last (actually first) one. That will be the reviewer responsible for this cache.

 

Can't wait to see how other feel about this.

 

I'd probably send you a nasty-gram for that one. Way out of line IMHO.

 

But would you be so inclined to send that nasty-gram if the log was called "Needs Reviewers Attention?

 

MrsB

 

Absolutely. Somebody coming in from out of town who flags my cache before they even leave home? Not alright, doesn't matter what you call it. You don't have any idea whether or not the CO is in the process of dealing with a reviewer, or what the circumstances may be. Couch logging, whether it's finds or NA logs, are not appropriate under any circumstances I can see.

[+Coldgears]

The NA log is there for a purpose. If no one is willing to step up (and possibly incur the bad will of some people) then there is nothing to do. I for one have never had a problem with a NA log when it is appropriate. Many feel that in order to write a NA log you should go for it yourself and verify the problem. I think this can be appropriate in some circumstances depending on the type of cache and terrain involved but not in all cases.

 

I will run a PQ of an area I am traveling too and while reviewing them will see some that some obviously need to be put out of their misery and will do a NA log. I have gotten two nasties from CO's over the years for that but 1. the caches were eventually archived so I was right and 2. I don't live there so don't have to worry about ticking someone off.

 

I have often wondered if some of the locals weren't glad I did that since they were in the same situation as you.

 

If keeping good will is more important to you than getting the caches either maintained or archived then just put them on your ignore list and don't worry about it.

 

The other alternative is a email to the publishing reviewer. To do that open the cache page, click show all logs and go to the very last (actually first) one. That will be the reviewer responsible for this cache.

 

Can't wait to see how other feel about this.

 

I'd probably send you a nasty-gram for that one. Way out of line IMHO.

 

But would you be so inclined to send that nasty-gram if the log was called "Needs Reviewers Attention?

 

MrsB

 

Absolutely. Somebody coming in from out of town who flags my cache before they even leave home? Not alright, doesn't matter what you call it. You don't have any idea whether or not the CO is in the process of dealing with a reviewer, or what the circumstances may be. Couch logging, whether it's finds or NA logs, are not appropriate under any circumstances I can see.

But, they're not flagging for archival at that point, they're flagging it for a reviewers intervention. So if you are in the process of dealing with a reviewer it should be no big woop. All it does is notify the reviewer there is an issue, not to archive it, so the reviewer can post the note and it'll only take 10 seconds for the owner to be like, "Yeah, I just replaced it, thanks for the heads up." or, "I must've forgot about this one, I need to archive it."

[+J the Goat]

The NA log is there for a purpose. If no one is willing to step up (and possibly incur the bad will of some people) then there is nothing to do. I for one have never had a problem with a NA log when it is appropriate. Many feel that in order to write a NA log you should go for it yourself and verify the problem. I think this can be appropriate in some circumstances depending on the type of cache and terrain involved but not in all cases.

 

I will run a PQ of an area I am traveling too and while reviewing them will see some that some obviously need to be put out of their misery and will do a NA log. I have gotten two nasties from CO's over the years for that but 1. the caches were eventually archived so I was right and 2. I don't live there so don't have to worry about ticking someone off.

 

I have often wondered if some of the locals weren't glad I did that since they were in the same situation as you.

 

If keeping good will is more important to you than getting the caches either maintained or archived then just put them on your ignore list and don't worry about it.

 

The other alternative is a email to the publishing reviewer. To do that open the cache page, click show all logs and go to the very last (actually first) one. That will be the reviewer responsible for this cache.

 

Can't wait to see how other feel about this.

 

I'd probably send you a nasty-gram for that one. Way out of line IMHO.

 

But would you be so inclined to send that nasty-gram if the log was called "Needs Reviewers Attention?

 

MrsB

 

Absolutely. Somebody coming in from out of town who flags my cache before they even leave home? Not alright, doesn't matter what you call it. You don't have any idea whether or not the CO is in the process of dealing with a reviewer, or what the circumstances may be. Couch logging, whether it's finds or NA logs, are not appropriate under any circumstances I can see.

But, they're not flagging for archival at that point, they're flagging it for a reviewers intervention. So if you are in the process of dealing with a reviewer it should be no big woop. All it does is notify the reviewer there is an issue, not to archive it, so the reviewer can post the note and it'll only take 10 seconds for the owner to be like, "Yeah, I just replaced it, thanks for the heads up." or, "I must've forgot about this one, I need to archive it."

 

I still think that someone X miles away who hasn't ever attempted to search for a cache has no business posting anything on a cache page with the exception of a note saying they'll be searching for it soon. Not gonna search for it because it's not maintained? That's cool. Mind your business. That's not your business. I think it even extends to locals, but to a lesser extent. At least with locals, an un-maintained cache is probably blocking placement of another cache. That's enough reason to address it. Just because you see the cache listing and think something's wrong isn't.

[+dakboy]

What about the ones that are still there but in serious need of repair...example...the log is soaked and frozen due to half of the cache container being missing.

If it's still there, in bad shape, and NM logs have gone unaddressed, post NA.

 

Too many people are afraid of upsetting others. IMHO it's every cacher's responsibility to help make every other cacher's experience a good one. If a cache is in trouble, fix it yourself or speak up & get the CO to fix it. If it's clear that the CO can't keep up with his maintenance responsibilities, maybe the cache should be archived if it's in bad shape. If a cache is in a bad place (questionable area due to laws, guidelines, etc.), bring it to the reviewer's attention.

[+Max and 99]

Our reviewer does a good job of watching for caches that have repeated DNFs and NM logs and gives notices to those who are not maintaining their caches. Keep in mind that DNFs do NOT necessarily mean a cache isn't there, but numerous DNFs and NM logs can be a good indicator there's a problem, and the cache owner should at least check on the cache and post a note.

[Clan Riffster]

But, they're not flagging for archival at that point, they're flagging it for a reviewers intervention.

But, in your example, they are doing so without knowing if the cache needs Reviewer intervention.

Once it's posted, that forces a conscientious Reviewer to stop what they are doing and deal with the NA.

Then, the owner has to stop what they are doing and deal with the Reviewer.

That's a lot of effort expended because someone was both uninformed and a busybody.

Leave the NAs for those who actually have the facts, not the guesswork.

[+DanOCan]

My general rules are I save the NA log for situations where both the cache AND the owner have gone MIA. As long as one or the other is still in play I don't think I need to pull out a NA.

 

Exceptions exist for situations such as an angry landowner or LEO.

 

Best way to avoid the frustration of these sorts of caches is to read the cache pages before you go hunting. If I see a cache with three straight DNFs I filter it out before it ever hits the GPSr. If a cache has a NM attribute I check it out closer -- does it NM because of a soggy log? Sure, I don't care, I'll hunt it and maybe even bring a replacement. Does it NM because it appears to be missing? In that case I'll skip it.

 

(I've also been known to do an armchair NA. When traveling I came across a cache where there had been a long string of DNFs and a previous seeker had posted a Note saying the area where the cache was hidden had been bulldozed for construction. The owner hadn't logged on to the site in three years. I had no issue posting a NA for that cache even though I hadn't been within 800km of the location yet.)

[+dakboy]

My general rules are I save the NA log for situations where both the cache AND the owner have gone MIA. As long as one or the other is still in play I don't think I need to pull out a NA.

I think there are some COs who hide more caches (and/or scatter over too wide an area) than they can adequately maintain. If valid NM logs sit unaddressed for several months, yet the CO is still going out & logging finds and placing new caches, that's a sign to me that they aren't able to (or don't care to) keep up with their maintenance.

[+The Jester]

I'm surprised no suggested yet that the OP contact the CO directly. They are local, respect the CO so there should be no problem asking them when/if the cache will be 'fixed'.

 

As a side note, I've seen many an old NM that wasn't cleared. The cache was disabled, fixed, and then re-abled, but without a Owner Maintenance the flag is still set... Maybe that's a subject for the Feedback site...

[+Don_J]

If you're gunna log a NA, step up and state your bizness on the cache page. Don't go off and email a reviewer like a four year old tattle taler.

 

I think the idea is to avoid the CO acting like a four year old.

[+Don_J]

well, Needs Maintenance turns out to actually be "Needs Reviewer Attention", so I agree. A change to that language would be welcome.

 

Needs Maintenance does not notify the reviewer. Needs Archive does, but it can be offsetting to a lot of cache owners, so a lot of cachers are reluctant to use it. The idea was to reword the Needs Archive to Needs Reviewer Attention.

[+mpilchfamily]

I think too many people are afraid to log an NA. But in some cases its good to get the reviewer's attention on a cache. Now i haven't ran across many caches that NM. But i only have 43 finds. Those that did NM i was either the first or second to mention it. Typically both logs where fairly recent. But if i come across a cache that has been getting DNFs for the past 5 months or more then i'll go look for it then log the NA. I think 5 months is a reasonable amount of time to allow a CO to check on it themselves before logging an NA. I think i've been the downfall of 5 or 6 caches that have been missing for a while.

[+BCandMsKitty]

well, Needs Maintenance turns out to actually be "Needs Reviewer Attention", so I agree. A change to that language would be welcome.

 

Needs Maintenance does not notify the reviewer. Needs Archive does, but it can be offsetting to a lot of cache owners, so a lot of cachers are reluctant to use it. The idea was to reword the Needs Archive to Needs Reviewer Attention.

 

Yeah ... I mistyped. I meant to say Needs Archived turns out to actually be "Needs Reviewer Attention"

[+bflentje]

My take on it:

 

1) If I didn't find it, I post a DNF. I will very rarely post an NA on a cache that I haven't actually found. I've only done it once, and that was a 1.5/1.5 that had been in a very obvious location, and I was the latest in a very long string of DNF's. It had been missing for over a year, and the owner replaced it shortly after my NA was logged, so it's now an active and healthy cache again.

 

2) If I find it and it's in bad shape, I'll usually post a Needs Maintenance. If it's obvious from previous logs that it has been in bad shape for a long time, and has had NM logs posted with no response from the owner, then I'll go ahead and post the NA.

 

I agree, if I did not find it, I post a DNF. If I am DNF #8 on a regular sized cache rated 1/1 where the last find is preceeded by all smilies, I may perhaps violate my principles and do a NA.