Needs Archive

[+Don_J]

Just received this on my Feedback suggestion that "Needs Archive" should be reworded to a less harsh title.

 

Needs archive

Under Review → (No Status)

We have prioritized this in the system. Please continue to vote to help us in our future planning. (24991)

 

OpinioNate

Official Rep, Geocaching

 

BTW, if you look at my initial Feedback post, please excuse the spelling. It was late and I'm a two finger typist. Obviously, my fingers were all over the keyboard.

[+The Blorenges]

I received the same update notification.

 

I do hope that the "Needs Archive" log can be re-named something like, "Needs Reviewer's Attention" which more accurately describes my intentions when I make use of it.

 

If others agree, please use the link in Don J's post and vote to support the suggestion.

 

MrsB

[+GrateBear]

NRA may sound less harsh, at least at first, but after a while, don't you think it will take on the same meaning as NA? We have a very good ID reviewer who back in Nov posted on a large number of caches that they needed attention paid to. From what I can see, the COs have ignored those requests, which I feel does warrant a NA. I'm fine with your suggestion, but I just feel that it will still be a log action that cachers may come to feel uncomfortable with. I give a lot of thought (and time) before I will post a NA, not sure if I would do so with something sounding less harsh. Regardless, good idea you've suggested, and it seems to have a lot of support.

[+Markwell]

This is how the "Needs Maintenance" came about. Thing is reviewers don't get involved in "Needs Maintenance". It's only when the reviewer is involved with a threat of archiving that any seems to notice that their cache needs to be fixed up.

 

From what I've seen, reviewers are pretty open minded about the Needs Archived log. From what I've seen, they usually don't just jump in and archive immediately.

[+JL_HSTRE]

From what I've seen, reviewers are pretty open minded about the Needs Archived log. From what I've seen, they usually don't just jump in and archive immediately.

 

The NRA vs NA debate is mostly about gunshy cachers than the Reviewers: either reluctance to use it by Finders or unnecessary offense by COs when logged.

 

Good to hear this will at last be happening - I remember it has been a point of debate since before I started caching a year ago even though it's a relatively minor change.

Edited January 29, 2011 by joshism

[mtbikernate]

I'll use it the same way regardless, but a lot of cachers local to me won't even post "Needs Maintenance" when the container is smashed and the contents are strewn about the woods. I don't think renaming it will make a huge difference.

[+Don_J]

I'll use it the same way regardless, but a lot of cachers local to me won't even post "Needs Maintenance" when the container is smashed and the contents are strewn about the woods. I don't think renaming it will make a huge difference.

 

Around here, I will see "OK, I'll be the bad guy", on a NA log for a cache that has had lingering problems. After reading these forums for a couple of years, I think that a lot of people attach the same stigma to the NA log. The definition of the NA log is that you are notifying the reviewing staff that a cache has a problem and may need attention. Except for a blatant guideline issue, the cache usually does not need to be archived. It just needs a reviewer to work with the owner to get the cache up to par. If the owner is unresponsive, then the reviewer can actually archive it.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I added a couple of votes.

Thanks for starting the feedback thread.

[+Walts Hunting]

I have never used the feedback forum so was able to give it 3 votes. Great idea. I (as some of you will know from previous) more willing than many (maybe all) to use the NA log when I think it is appropriate. This will hopefully take away some of the all edged stigma of using it.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Walts Hunting