Guidelines for posting a needs archived

February 17, 2011

Due to recent events, what are the rules for posting a needs archived log? I didn't see it in the knowledge books, even using the search function. Just curious.

February 17, 2011

What recent events?

22k · February 17, 2011

The ones that say you have to be a local to post a NA, and a bunch of other requirements that have nothing to do with the cache meeting gc.com guidelines.

edit: has/have

Edited February 17, 2011 by BlueDeuce

February 17, 2011

The ones that say you have to be a local to post a NA, and a bunch of other requirements that have nothing to do with the cache meeting gc.com guidelines.

edit: has/have

I don't know what the guidelines are, but there are some people on here intentionally causing problems with the needs archived logs and I would like to know what the actual guidelines are.

22k · February 17, 2011

The ones that say you have to be a local to post a NA, and a bunch of other requirements that have nothing to do with the cache meeting gc.com guidelines.

edit: has/have

I don't know what the guidelines are, but there are some people on here intentionally causing problems with the needs archived logs and I would like to know what the actual guidelines are.

I completely agree that it should be clarified. I just prefer that it be explained by gc.com directly.

February 17, 2011

The ones that say you have to be a local to post a NA, and a bunch of other requirements that have nothing to do with the cache meeting gc.com guidelines.

edit: has/have

I don't know what the guidelines are, but there are some people on here intentionally causing problems with the needs archived logs and I would like to know what the actual guidelines are.

I completely agree that it should be clarified. I just prefer that it be explained by gc.com directly.

That's why I posted it as a topic. Waiting for a mod to comment, hopefully.

38.2k · February 17, 2011

There are no guidelines in this matter. For me, I'll post a NA if the owner has refused to respond to maintenance issues, or if it is an illegal placement as far as the guidelines are concerned. Make your own judgments.

February 17, 2011

That stinks. There should be a guideline to keep those that lack integrity from abusing the system.

38.2k · February 17, 2011

That stinks. There should be a guideline to keep those that lack integrity from abusing the system.

When a NA is issued the reviewer will take a look at it. If the NA is warranted it will be archived. If it is not warranted it will be ignored. The system works well as far as this is concerned. While people may abuse the system, their abuse will have no effect. Someone happened to post unwarranted NAs on several of my caches this week. Those caches are still listed.

Edited February 17, 2011 by briansnat

22k · February 17, 2011

Nevermind, briansnat covered my response better.

Edited February 17, 2011 by BlueDeuce

February 17, 2011

That stinks. There should be a guideline to keep those that lack integrity from abusing the system.

When a NA is issued the reviewer will take a look at it. If the NA is warranted it will be archived. If it is not warranted it will be ignored. The system works well as far as this is concerned. While people may abuse the system, their abuse will have no effect. Someone happened to post unwarranted NAs on several of my caches this week. Those caches are still listed.

As we all know, virtuals have been a grey area for a long time. I'm guessing that a lot of old caches, including traditionals that have been adopted by the community and kept going might fall under the warranted NA in a number of reviewers eyes. Even if we get another traditional or virtual (when/if they return) in the same spot. I think geocaching loses some for letting an older cache die.

5.3k · February 17, 2011

Due to recent events, what are the rules for posting a needs archived log? I didn't see it in the knowledge books, even using the search function.

Why do there have to be "rules" for everything? It's nonsense like the related post that force Groundspeak to keep adding "rules."

Geocaching is NOT A COMPETITION. As a result, it does not need a detailed set of "rules" to cover every conceivable situation.

Posting a "needs archived" log should be done, when, using common sense, it is clear that the cache needs to be archived. It is not meant to be used as a weapon or a political statement or any of that other nonsense. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

9.3k · February 17, 2011

My personal "rules" for posting a Needs Archived log:

1 ) The cache is significantly violating a guideline, and its continued existence could be a detriment to our hobby.

Failing that, I have a three stage mental process I go through:

1 ) The cache has some serious maintenance issues.

2 ) The owner is MIA.

3 ) The community is unwilling/unable to informally adopt the cache.

If I don't see the first one, and I don't see the other three combined, I choose a different log type.

2.6k · February 17, 2011

That stinks. There should be a guideline to keep those that lack integrity from abusing the system.

When a NA is issued the reviewer will take a look at it. If the NA is warranted it will be archived. If it is not warranted it will be ignored. The system works well as far as this is concerned. While people may abuse the system, their abuse will have no effect. Someone happened to post unwarranted NAs on several of my caches this week. Those caches are still listed.

Same thing happened to me last week. I only have one hide and it's only been out for about 3 weeks now. But a couple of days ago I get a "needs archived" log. The guy who posted it only registered last week and is in Maryland (I'm in Louisiana) so how in the world would he know anything about my cache? He gave no reason why the cache should be archived.

Of course, I'm willing to assume that he maybe punched in the wrong GC code while logging caches, and that it was just a typo.

What should a CO do when such a log is posted? Just delete it? Because that's what I did because I know it's bogus. (I did go and check on the cache today just to make sure)

I also noted that the cache log contains a couple of finds I didn't know about, i.e., they were never logged online. Judging by their places on the log, the finds were made a couple of weeks ago, probably. Is this fairly common, people who sign the physical log but don't log it online? Or maybe just a case of procrastination? :huh:

2.1k · February 17, 2011

That stinks. There should be a guideline to keep those that lack integrity from abusing the system.

When a NA is issued the reviewer will take a look at it. If the NA is warranted it will be archived. If it is not warranted it will be ignored. The system works well as far as this is concerned. While people may abuse the system, their abuse will have no effect. Someone happened to post unwarranted NAs on several of my caches this week. Those caches are still listed.

Same thing happened to me last week. I only have one hide and it's only been out for about 3 weeks now. But a couple of days ago I get a "needs archived" log. The guy who posted it only registered last week and is in Maryland (I'm in Louisiana) so how in the world would he know anything about my cache? He gave no reason why the cache should be archived.

Of course, I'm willing to assume that he maybe punched in the wrong GC code while logging caches, and that it was just a typo.

What should a CO do when such a log is posted? Just delete it? Because that's what I did because I know it's bogus. (I did go and check on the cache today just to make sure)

I also noted that the cache log contains a couple of finds I didn't know about, i.e., they were never logged online. Judging by their places on the log, the finds were made a couple of weeks ago, probably. Is this fairly common, people who sign the physical log but don't log it online? Or maybe just a case of procrastination?

Deleting the NA log is fine. You also need to make an Owner Maintenance log, to clear the Needs Maintenance attribute that was set when the NA was posted.

Some people take a long time to get around to logging online.

1.5k · February 17, 2011

Knowledge Books Article, 9.3 Needs Archived Note

7.3k · February 17, 2011

Same thing happened to me last week. I only have one hide and it's only been out for about 3 weeks now. But a couple of days ago I get a "needs archived" log. The guy who posted it only registered last week and is in Maryland (I'm in Louisiana) so how in the world would he know anything about my cache? He gave no reason why the cache should be archived.

Of course, I'm willing to assume that he maybe punched in the wrong GC code while logging caches, and that it was just a typo.

What should a CO do when such a log is posted? Just delete it? Because that's what I did because I know it's bogus. (I did go and check on the cache today just to make sure)

This is one of the "recent events" that prompted this thread, I presume. Everyone who posted a reply in the "favorite hide" thread had a nasty sock puppet post a "NA" log on their cache.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=268669

Knowledge Books Article, 9.3 Needs Archived Note

Thanks, palmetto, for posting the location of the guideline.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Pup Patrol

February 17, 2011

Due to recent events, what are the rules for posting a needs archived log? I didn't see it in the knowledge books, even using the search function.

Why do there have to be "rules" for everything? It's nonsense like the related post that force Groundspeak to keep adding "rules."

Geocaching is NOT A COMPETITION. As a result, it does not need a detailed set of "rules" to cover every conceivable situation.

Posting a "needs archived" log should be done, when, using common sense, it is clear that the cache needs to be archived. It is not meant to be used as a weapon or a political statement or any of that other nonsense. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

Because people don't use commmon sense and use it as a weopon. Why is that hard for people to understand?

1.2k · February 17, 2011

My personal "rules" for posting a Needs Archived log:

1 ) The cache is significantly violating a guideline, and its continued existence could be a detriment to our hobby.

Failing that, I have a three stage mental process I go through:

1 ) The cache has some serious maintenance issues.

2 ) The owner is MIA.

3 ) The community is unwilling/unable to informally adopt the cache.

If I don't see the first one, and I don't see the other three combined, I choose a different log type.

I like this list and use the same thinking.

7.3k · February 17, 2011

I don't know what the guidelines are, but there are some people on here intentionally causing problems with the needs archived logs and I would like to know what the actual guidelines are.

The guideline does mention the "personal" angst aspect of posting a NA, but I don't think they envisioned the vindictiveness that was witnessed recently.

11.2k · February 17, 2011

What should a CO do when such a log is posted? Just delete it? Because that's what I did because I know it's bogus. (I did go and check on the cache today just to make sure)

You can delete a NA log, but the reviewer will still see it.

21.9k · February 17, 2011

I don't know what the guidelines are, but there are some people on here intentionally causing problems with the needs archived logs and I would like to know what the actual guidelines are.

The guideline does mention the "personal" angst aspect of posting a NA, but I don't think they envisioned the vindictiveness that was witnessed recently.

The linked guidance, which I helped to write, is adequate for everyday situations. For widespread abuse by trolls, Groundspeak would turn to the website Terms of Use and label the behavior as an abuse of the website features. Got it covered either way.

1.5k · February 17, 2011

I don't know what the guidelines are, but there are some people on here intentionally causing problems with the needs archived logs and I would like to know what the actual guidelines are.

The guideline does mention the "personal" angst aspect of posting a NA, but I don't think they envisioned the vindictiveness that was witnessed recently.

The linked guidance, which I helped to write, is adequate for everyday situations. For widespread abuse by trolls, Groundspeak would turn to the website Terms of Use and label the behavior as an abuse of the website features. Got it covered either way.

:lol: :lol:

19k · February 17, 2011

What recent events?

Turn away!!!

19k · February 17, 2011

There are no guidelines in this matter. For me, I'll post a NA if the owner has refused to respond to maintenance issues, or if it is an illegal placement as far as the guidelines are concerned. Make your own judgments.

Pretty much what I would say, but in the context of the thread that spawned this thread, I will expound on it by saying that posting a NA log should be a sincere response to an honest need.

18.9k · February 17, 2011

I'd say any cache that I have looked for/at/near/locally that clearly (IMHO) violates any part of the guidelines including the maintenance clauses and the owner doesn't deal with it timely.

7.2k · February 17, 2011

Same thing happened to me last week. I only have one hide and it's only been out for about 3 weeks now. But a couple of days ago I get a "needs archived" log. The guy who posted it only registered last week and is in Maryland (I'm in Louisiana) so how in the world would he know anything about my cache? He gave no reason why the cache should be archived.

Of course, I'm willing to assume that he maybe punched in the wrong GC code while logging caches, and that it was just a typo.

What should a CO do when such a log is posted? Just delete it? Because that's what I did because I know it's bogus. (I did go and check on the cache today just to make sure)

I also noted that the cache log contains a couple of finds I didn't know about, i.e., they were never logged online. Judging by their places on the log, the finds were made a couple of weeks ago, probably. Is this fairly common, people who sign the physical log but don't log it online? Or maybe just a case of procrastination?

In your case, it was one of the fake accounts logging simply to disrupt the system. If you notice, the log is gone from your cache page. That is because I deleted it since it was spamming and unwarranted. I got your back on that one Chief301. :grin: :anicute:

4.2k · February 17, 2011

Because people don't use commmon sense and use it as a weopon. Why is that hard for people to understand?

Put down the weopon and back away!

Guidelines will help people honestly seeking guidance, but no guideline would prevent somebody from acting in a doofus-like manner. The doofosity that occurred recently would have manifested in some other way guidelines or not. I think that Reviewers acting in the best interest for the hobby will trump doofusidiousness nine times out of ten.

February 17, 2011

This is one of the "recent events" that prompted this thread, I presume. Everyone who posted a reply in the "favorite hide" thread had a nasty sock puppet post a "NA" log on their cache.

Isn't there a way to suspend or ban the person's account who is making the false NA reports?

8.3k · February 17, 2011

This is one of the "recent events" that prompted this thread, I presume. Everyone who posted a reply in the "favorite hide" thread had a nasty sock puppet post a "NA" log on their cache.

Isn't there a way to suspend or ban the person's account who is making the false NA reports?

Only the Shadow knows.

19k · February 17, 2011

This is one of the "recent events" that prompted this thread, I presume. Everyone who posted a reply in the "favorite hide" thread had a nasty sock puppet post a "NA" log on their cache.

Isn't there a way to suspend or ban the person's account who is making the false NA reports?

Not automatically, but you can email contact@geocaching.com with a valid complaint.

15.3k · February 17, 2011

Isn't there a way to suspend or ban the person's account who is making the false NA reports?

Sure. And it happens often enough. But Groundspeak doesn't publicize the details of banned members.

2.6k · February 18, 2011

This is one of the "recent events" that prompted this thread, I presume. Everyone who posted a reply in the "favorite hide" thread had a nasty sock puppet post a "NA" log on their cache.

By George, I think you've got it! I did post in that thread. Thanks!

February 18, 2011

I guess just using "common sense" would be out of the question for a NA?? Good grief!!

6.7k · February 18, 2011

If you honestly feel that the reviewer needs to take a look at the cache then post a NA. If you are just doing it to report something that the CO can handle or to cause trouble then use a NM or don't bother, as appropriate.

6.1k · February 19, 2011

If you honestly feel that the reviewer needs to take a look at the cache then post a NA. If you are just doing it to report something that the CO can handle or to cause trouble then use a NM or don't bother, as appropriate.

I disagree. The Needs Archived note is a bit extreme for some instances, and some cache owners get way too uptight. What I think is needed is to create a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log which could be posted to the cache page - and with an option to have it visible to only Reviewers, or just the reviewer and the cache owner. That way it would not have such a polarizing effect in some situations, and have lots of comments from any watchers ready to shoot it down.

The Needs Archived currently should only be used if someone physically visited the location and there is an obvious problem, and the owner is MIA for some time, in my opinion.

February 19, 2011

If you honestly feel that the reviewer needs to take a look at the cache then post a NA. If you are just doing it to report something that the CO can handle or to cause trouble then use a NM or don't bother, as appropriate.

I disagree. The Needs Archived note is a bit extreme for some instances, and some cache owners get way too uptight. What I think is needed is to create a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log which could be posted to the cache page - and with an option to have it visible to only Reviewers, or just the reviewer and the cache owner. That way it would not have such a polarizing effect in some situations, and have lots of comments from any watchers ready to shoot it down.

The Needs Archived currently should only be used if someone physically visited the location and there is an obvious problem, and the owner is MIA for some time, in my opinion.

Neither way should be anonymous. It would just increase problems. Your last statement would be abused a lot more in an anonymous situation.

9.3k · February 19, 2011

The "Needs Reviewer Attention" log type suggestion certainly has some merit, and warrants discussion. Should it be a new log type, or should it replace the "Needs Archived" type? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking replace, as any scenario that a reasonable and prudent cacher would agree should lead to an archival could certainly be resolved with that log type, making the "NA" type redundant. On the other hand, creating it as a second log type, to be used for situations not quite as severe as those generally reported by a "NA" could be seen as unnecessary, as those less severe concerns can easily be handled discreetly by sending the publishing Reviewer an email.

6.1k · February 19, 2011

If you honestly feel that the reviewer needs to take a look at the cache then post a NA. If you are just doing it to report something that the CO can handle or to cause trouble then use a NM or don't bother, as appropriate.

I disagree. The Needs Archived note is a bit extreme for some instances, and some cache owners get way too uptight. What I think is needed is to create a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log which could be posted to the cache page - and with an option to have it visible to only Reviewers, or just the reviewer and the cache owner. That way it would not have such a polarizing effect in some situations, and have lots of comments from any watchers ready to shoot it down.

The Needs Archived currently should only be used if someone physically visited the location and there is an obvious problem, and the owner is MIA for some time, in my opinion.

Neither way should be anonymous. It would just increase problems. Your last statement would be abused a lot more in an anonymous situation.

The increased attention from other cachers is what makes the NA logs escalate peoples emotions. If it is anonymous it would less likely to be used for abuse. It would also be able to be viewed by more than 1 reviewer and then they could collectively make a decision.

The "Needs Reviewer Attention" log type suggestion certainly has some merit, and warrants discussion. Should it be a new log type, or should it replace the "Needs Archived" type? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking replace, as any scenario that a reasonable and prudent cacher would agree should lead to an archival could certainly be resolved with that log type, making the "NA" type redundant. On the other hand, creating it as a second log type, to be used for situations not quite as severe as those generally reported by a "NA" could be seen as unnecessary, as those less severe concerns can easily be handled discreetly by sending the publishing Reviewer an email.

I'm guessing it would be redundant and eventually phased out. However if they both were available for a period of time, and with the Needs Reviewer Attention being optionally viewed by all, then cachers would learn that it was not just a replacement and not something to get as upset about. They cant jump too far ahead and guess what will occur, but just let it happen.

Edited February 19, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

February 19, 2011

If you honestly feel that the reviewer needs to take a look at the cache then post a NA. If you are just doing it to report something that the CO can handle or to cause trouble then use a NM or don't bother, as appropriate.

I disagree. The Needs Archived note is a bit extreme for some instances, and some cache owners get way too uptight. What I think is needed is to create a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log which could be posted to the cache page - and with an option to have it visible to only Reviewers, or just the reviewer and the cache owner. That way it would not have such a polarizing effect in some situations, and have lots of comments from any watchers ready to shoot it down.

The Needs Archived currently should only be used if someone physically visited the location and there is an obvious problem, and the owner is MIA for some time, in my opinion.

Neither way should be anonymous. It would just increase problems. Your last statement would be abused a lot more in an anonymous situation.

The increased attention from other cachers is what makes the NA logs escalate peoples emotions. If it is anonymous it would less likely to be used for abuse. It would also be able to be viewed by more than 1 reviewer and then they could collectively make a decision.

The "Needs Reviewer Attention" log type suggestion certainly has some merit, and warrants discussion. Should it be a new log type, or should it replace the "Needs Archived" type? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking replace, as any scenario that a reasonable and prudent cacher would agree should lead to an archival could certainly be resolved with that log type, making the "NA" type redundant. On the other hand, creating it as a second log type, to be used for situations not quite as severe as those generally reported by a "NA" could be seen as unnecessary, as those less severe concerns can easily be handled discreetly by sending the publishing Reviewer an email.

I'm guessing it would be redundant and eventually phased out. However if they both were available for a period of time, and with the Needs Reviewer Attention being optionally viewed by all, then cachers would learn that it was not just a replacement and not something to get as upset about. They cant jump too far ahead and guess what will occur, but just let it happen.

There may be some more, but the recent silliness was caused by a guy doing an "experiment" and then bragging about it, and then going on a NA fest. If that individual would have gone there and had issues and posted a NM, then later a NA, I doubt it would have escalated as it did. The proposed suggestion will have the reviewers spending a lot of time being sherlock holmes'. Although you said you thought they needed to visit the site, and I wholeheartedly agree with you, but there isn't a guideline for NA's. If it is anonymous, cachers can act like the south end of a north bound mule and post them all over the place without ever visiting the site. Causing reviewers a lot of work, until they can legitimately say said cachers are being obnoxious, but as we all know, there are tons and tons of caches around that the owners haven't logged in for over a month. The reviewers would have little to stand on in that case. Not sure if that is just a virtial rule or not. I'm not one that wants guidelines for everything, just on items like this to thwart abusers.

2.3k · February 19, 2011

I think the work would tone down at some point. At first it would be a lot as old caches get cleaned up but then not so much.

Personally if a cache owner has not been online for a substantial time and I find a cache messed up I don't do a nm. I go right to na.

There's caches I've never looked for locally that have a long string of nm logs and such all because people are too scared to push the na button. There's caches I didn't do while traveling because of that. The community all in all doesn't do the greatest job keeping itself clean. Maybe it would encourage more people to log if it was need reviewer attention.

6.1k · February 19, 2011

If you honestly feel that the reviewer needs to take a look at the cache then post a NA. If you are just doing it to report something that the CO can handle or to cause trouble then use a NM or don't bother, as appropriate.

I disagree. The Needs Archived note is a bit extreme for some instances, and some cache owners get way too uptight. What I think is needed is to create a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log which could be posted to the cache page - and with an option to have it visible to only Reviewers, or just the reviewer and the cache owner. That way it would not have such a polarizing effect in some situations, and have lots of comments from any watchers ready to shoot it down.

The Needs Archived currently should only be used if someone physically visited the location and there is an obvious problem, and the owner is MIA for some time, in my opinion.

Neither way should be anonymous. It would just increase problems. Your last statement would be abused a lot more in an anonymous situation.

The increased attention from other cachers is what makes the NA logs escalate peoples emotions. If it is anonymous it would less likely to be used for abuse. It would also be able to be viewed by more than 1 reviewer and then they could collectively make a decision.

The "Needs Reviewer Attention" log type suggestion certainly has some merit, and warrants discussion. Should it be a new log type, or should it replace the "Needs Archived" type? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking replace, as any scenario that a reasonable and prudent cacher would agree should lead to an archival could certainly be resolved with that log type, making the "NA" type redundant. On the other hand, creating it as a second log type, to be used for situations not quite as severe as those generally reported by a "NA" could be seen as unnecessary, as those less severe concerns can easily be handled discreetly by sending the publishing Reviewer an email.

I'm guessing it would be redundant and eventually phased out. However if they both were available for a period of time, and with the Needs Reviewer Attention being optionally viewed by all, then cachers would learn that it was not just a replacement and not something to get as upset about. They cant jump too far ahead and guess what will occur, but just let it happen.

There may be some more, but the recent silliness was caused by a guy doing an "experiment" and then bragging about it, and then going on a NA fest. If that individual would have gone there and had issues and posted a NM, then later a NA, I doubt it would have escalated as it did. The proposed suggestion will have the reviewers spending a lot of time being sherlock holmes'. Although you said you thought they needed to visit the site, and I wholeheartedly agree with you, but there isn't a guideline for NA's. If it is anonymous, cachers can act like the south end of a north bound mule and post them all over the place without ever visiting the site. Causing reviewers a lot of work, until they can legitimately say said cachers are being obnoxious, but as we all know, there are tons and tons of caches around that the owners haven't logged in for over a month. The reviewers would have little to stand on in that case. Not sure if that is just a virtial rule or not. I'm not one that wants guidelines for everything, just on items like this to thwart abusers.

I didnt mean completely anonymous. I meant that the log would only be viewable by reviewers, and possibly the cache owner if they checked a box. It just would not be a public statement. There should be something in between archival, and maintenance.

Edited February 19, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

6.7k · February 19, 2011

If you honestly feel that the reviewer needs to take a look at the cache then post a NA. If you are just doing it to report something that the CO can handle or to cause trouble then use a NM or don't bother, as appropriate.

I disagree. The Needs Archived note is a bit extreme for some instances, and some cache owners get way too uptight. What I think is needed is to create a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log which could be posted to the cache page - and with an option to have it visible to only Reviewers, or just the reviewer and the cache owner. That way it would not have such a polarizing effect in some situations, and have lots of comments from any watchers ready to shoot it down.

The Needs Archived currently should only be used if someone physically visited the location and there is an obvious problem, and the owner is MIA for some time, in my opinion.

Neither way should be anonymous. It would just increase problems. Your last statement would be abused a lot more in an anonymous situation.

The increased attention from other cachers is what makes the NA logs escalate peoples emotions. If it is anonymous it would less likely to be used for abuse. It would also be able to be viewed by more than 1 reviewer and then they could collectively make a decision.

The "Needs Reviewer Attention" log type suggestion certainly has some merit, and warrants discussion. Should it be a new log type, or should it replace the "Needs Archived" type? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking replace, as any scenario that a reasonable and prudent cacher would agree should lead to an archival could certainly be resolved with that log type, making the "NA" type redundant. On the other hand, creating it as a second log type, to be used for situations not quite as severe as those generally reported by a "NA" could be seen as unnecessary, as those less severe concerns can easily be handled discreetly by sending the publishing Reviewer an email.

I'm guessing it would be redundant and eventually phased out. However if they both were available for a period of time, and with the Needs Reviewer Attention being optionally viewed by all, then cachers would learn that it was not just a replacement and not something to get as upset about. They cant jump too far ahead and guess what will occur, but just let it happen.

There may be some more, but the recent silliness was caused by a guy doing an "experiment" and then bragging about it, and then going on a NA fest. If that individual would have gone there and had issues and posted a NM, then later a NA, I doubt it would have escalated as it did. The proposed suggestion will have the reviewers spending a lot of time being sherlock holmes'. Although you said you thought they needed to visit the site, and I wholeheartedly agree with you, but there isn't a guideline for NA's. If it is anonymous, cachers can act like the south end of a north bound mule and post them all over the place without ever visiting the site. Causing reviewers a lot of work, until they can legitimately say said cachers are being obnoxious, but as we all know, there are tons and tons of caches around that the owners haven't logged in for over a month. The reviewers would have little to stand on in that case. Not sure if that is just a virtial rule or not. I'm not one that wants guidelines for everything, just on items like this to thwart abusers.

I didnt mean completely anonymous. I meant that the log would only be viewable by reviewers, and possibly the cache owner if they checked a box. It just would not be a public statement. There should be something in between archival, and maintenance.

It's called email.

6.1k · February 19, 2011

If you honestly feel that the reviewer needs to take a look at the cache then post a NA. If you are just doing it to report something that the CO can handle or to cause trouble then use a NM or don't bother, as appropriate.

I disagree. The Needs Archived note is a bit extreme for some instances, and some cache owners get way too uptight. What I think is needed is to create a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log which could be posted to the cache page - and with an option to have it visible to only Reviewers, or just the reviewer and the cache owner. That way it would not have such a polarizing effect in some situations, and have lots of comments from any watchers ready to shoot it down.

The Needs Archived currently should only be used if someone physically visited the location and there is an obvious problem, and the owner is MIA for some time, in my opinion.

Neither way should be anonymous. It would just increase problems. Your last statement would be abused a lot more in an anonymous situation.

The increased attention from other cachers is what makes the NA logs escalate peoples emotions. If it is anonymous it would less likely to be used for abuse. It would also be able to be viewed by more than 1 reviewer and then they could collectively make a decision.

The "Needs Reviewer Attention" log type suggestion certainly has some merit, and warrants discussion. Should it be a new log type, or should it replace the "Needs Archived" type? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking replace, as any scenario that a reasonable and prudent cacher would agree should lead to an archival could certainly be resolved with that log type, making the "NA" type redundant. On the other hand, creating it as a second log type, to be used for situations not quite as severe as those generally reported by a "NA" could be seen as unnecessary, as those less severe concerns can easily be handled discreetly by sending the publishing Reviewer an email.

I'm guessing it would be redundant and eventually phased out. However if they both were available for a period of time, and with the Needs Reviewer Attention being optionally viewed by all, then cachers would learn that it was not just a replacement and not something to get as upset about. They cant jump too far ahead and guess what will occur, but just let it happen.

There may be some more, but the recent silliness was caused by a guy doing an "experiment" and then bragging about it, and then going on a NA fest. If that individual would have gone there and had issues and posted a NM, then later a NA, I doubt it would have escalated as it did. The proposed suggestion will have the reviewers spending a lot of time being sherlock holmes'. Although you said you thought they needed to visit the site, and I wholeheartedly agree with you, but there isn't a guideline for NA's. If it is anonymous, cachers can act like the south end of a north bound mule and post them all over the place without ever visiting the site. Causing reviewers a lot of work, until they can legitimately say said cachers are being obnoxious, but as we all know, there are tons and tons of caches around that the owners haven't logged in for over a month. The reviewers would have little to stand on in that case. Not sure if that is just a virtial rule or not. I'm not one that wants guidelines for everything, just on items like this to thwart abusers.

I didnt mean completely anonymous. I meant that the log would only be viewable by reviewers, and possibly the cache owner if they checked a box. It just would not be a public statement. There should be something in between archival, and maintenance.

It's called email.

Which most are unlikely to do. Posting a note to a cache is much easier than sending a message. It is less direct and viewable by the reviewer community.

5k · February 19, 2011

If you honestly feel that the reviewer needs to take a look at the cache then post a NA. If you are just doing it to report something that the CO can handle or to cause trouble then use a NM or don't bother, as appropriate.

I disagree. The Needs Archived note is a bit extreme for some instances, and some cache owners get way too uptight. What I think is needed is to create a "Needs Reviewer Attention" log which could be posted to the cache page - and with an option to have it visible to only Reviewers, or just the reviewer and the cache owner. That way it would not have such a polarizing effect in some situations, and have lots of comments from any watchers ready to shoot it down.

The Needs Archived currently should only be used if someone physically visited the location and there is an obvious problem, and the owner is MIA for some time, in my opinion.

Neither way should be anonymous. It would just increase problems. Your last statement would be abused a lot more in an anonymous situation.

The increased attention from other cachers is what makes the NA logs escalate peoples emotions. If it is anonymous it would less likely to be used for abuse. It would also be able to be viewed by more than 1 reviewer and then they could collectively make a decision.

The "Needs Reviewer Attention" log type suggestion certainly has some merit, and warrants discussion. Should it be a new log type, or should it replace the "Needs Archived" type? Off the top of my head, I'm thinking replace, as any scenario that a reasonable and prudent cacher would agree should lead to an archival could certainly be resolved with that log type, making the "NA" type redundant. On the other hand, creating it as a second log type, to be used for situations not quite as severe as those generally reported by a "NA" could be seen as unnecessary, as those less severe concerns can easily be handled discreetly by sending the publishing Reviewer an email.

I'm guessing it would be redundant and eventually phased out. However if they both were available for a period of time, and with the Needs Reviewer Attention being optionally viewed by all, then cachers would learn that it was not just a replacement and not something to get as upset about. They cant jump too far ahead and guess what will occur, but just let it happen.

There may be some more, but the recent silliness was caused by a guy doing an "experiment" and then bragging about it, and then going on a NA fest. If that individual would have gone there and had issues and posted a NM, then later a NA, I doubt it would have escalated as it did. The proposed suggestion will have the reviewers spending a lot of time being sherlock holmes'. Although you said you thought they needed to visit the site, and I wholeheartedly agree with you, but there isn't a guideline for NA's. If it is anonymous, cachers can act like the south end of a north bound mule and post them all over the place without ever visiting the site. Causing reviewers a lot of work, until they can legitimately say said cachers are being obnoxious, but as we all know, there are tons and tons of caches around that the owners haven't logged in for over a month. The reviewers would have little to stand on in that case. Not sure if that is just a virtial rule or not. I'm not one that wants guidelines for everything, just on items like this to thwart abusers.

I didnt mean completely anonymous. I meant that the log would only be viewable by reviewers, and possibly the cache owner if they checked a box. It just would not be a public statement. There should be something in between archival, and maintenance.

It's called email.

Which most are unlikely to do. Posting a note to a cache is much easier than sending a message. It is less direct and viewable by the reviewer community.

I've always been under the impression that a NA is available to all reviewers. A private email only goes to one.

As far as Needs Reviewer Attention, it's coming.

I'd give you a link, but it seems that the Feedback site is down, so I can't retrieve it.

March 4, 2011

I think the work would tone down at some point. At first it would be a lot as old caches get cleaned up but then not so much.

Personally if a cache owner has not been online for a substantial time and I find a cache messed up I don't do a nm. I go right to na.

There's caches I've never looked for locally that have a long string of nm logs and such all because people are too scared to push the na button. There's caches I didn't do while traveling because of that. The community all in all doesn't do the greatest job keeping itself clean. Maybe it would encourage more people to log if it was need reviewer attention.

Totally agreed with this pint of view. We have come across quite a few caches with 1/1 rating and near well-travelled places that used to have a few finds a day, then just drop off to a couple DNF logs over a few months period. Simply put, there are a LOT of geocachers that do not log their DNFs seeing it a wast of time. And we have come to see lots of cachers keeping on saying something about cache needing a maintanence call by the CO in their Found/DNF logs instead of logging a separate NM log. Also seen lots of caches that have tons of NM logs but nothing is being doen with the caches by the CO and nobody posts NA since they don't want the wrath of the CO. Seems like half of these problem could be solved by "Needs Reviewer's Attention" button. And keep it in addition to NA - when reviewers get done with all the NAs sent their way, they can look at the NRAs then

As for logging NAs ourselves - we usually put a NM log first and see if CO takes care of the problem in some way first. If there is no action whatsoever by the CO in 3-4 weeks, no new logs by any other cachers on the page and COs profile states that CO hasn't visited Geocaching.com for a few months - it's time for NA log. That's the only way reviewers will get to look at the cache and make their decision as to what to do with them. Lots of cachers just download a large number of caches in their GPS and go, without looking at the previous logs. I don't think it's fair for CO to send people looking for the cache that is most likely gone, while CO himself has better things to do than check up on their creation.

One more thing wanted to ask then - what do folks feel about having a system in place similar to Favorites when it comes to cachers placing a cache of their own. That way caches would maybe be more creative or have more thought put in making/placing them... Make it like - you can place 1 cache for every 10 you found... Also it would help against the "cache overcrowding" While caching we came across a few COs that own 40-some caches only 140 finds... Seems a little silly.

March 4, 2011

One more thing wanted to ask then - what do folks feel about having a system in place similar to Favorites when it comes to cachers placing a cache of their own. That way caches would maybe be more creative or have more thought put in making/placing them... Make it like - you can place 1 cache for every 10 you found... Also it would help against the "cache overcrowding" While caching we came across a few COs that own 40-some caches only 140 finds... Seems a little silly.

It's a nice thought, but I think it'd backfire quickly in less cache dense areas. When you live where caches are few and far between those numbers seem much more likely to happen. (I didn't have to search for very long to find one with similar numbers in my area) The ones interested in hiding in an area might not have the means or interest to travel a lot. And those traveling and finding lots of caches might not have the time or interest to keep up lots of hides. I'd hate to prevent those willing to hide from doing so just because they need to find so-and-so many more caches first

I'm sure those numbers might work where you cache, but for more rural/less cache dense areas you'd need to tweak the numbers of hides vs finds and that might ruin part of the purpose.

March 4, 2011

Point taken... What about a requirement of like 25 cache finds before being able to start hiding your own? To gain "caching experienece" so to speak, and to make sure they stick with the hoppy and care of the cache they hid? Just another thought...

5k · March 4, 2011

Point taken... What about a requirement of like 25 cache finds before being able to start hiding your own? To gain "caching experienece" so to speak, and to make sure they stick with the hoppy and care of the cache they hid? Just another thought...

Here's the problem. A new person can find 25 Altoids tins hidden under a lamp post cover, in 2 or 3 hours. They are then qualified to hide a cache. Guess where the cache is going?

I'm seeing this with a local cacher. He found 50 or so parking lot micros. His entire idea of a geocache is a parking lot micro. He has now hid about 20 parking lot micros. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. I don't think that there is a magic number of finds that makes a cacher qualified to hide good caches. I know people that have thousands of finds that still stick film cans in a light post and I have seen people with 10 finds hide caches that are on my favorite list.

March 5, 2011

Point taken... What about a requirement of like 25 cache finds before being able to start hiding your own? To gain "caching experienece" so to speak, and to make sure they stick with the hoppy and care of the cache they hid? Just another thought...

Here's the problem. A new person can find 25 Altoids tins hidden under a lamp post cover, in 2 or 3 hours. They are then qualified to hide a cache. Guess where the cache is going?

I'm seeing this with a local cacher. He found 50 or so parking lot micros. His entire idea of a geocache is a parking lot micro. He has now hid about 20 parking lot micros. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. I don't think that there is a magic number of finds that makes a cacher qualified to hide good caches. I know people that have thousands of finds that still stick film cans in a light post and I have seen people with 10 finds hide caches that are on my favorite list.

+1 I totally agree, not to mention power trails. You could find several hundred in a day and now you are "qualified" to hide____??

Guidelines for posting a needs archived

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment