Reviewer's Responsibility to Archive?

[+St.Matthew]

The situation: thought I was doing my local area a favor by doing some "spring cleaning", and checking on some geocaches that have several, several DNF's, most of which also have needs maintenance logs. It should be noted that these caches were placed by geocachers who haven't logged onto the site in 6+ months. My local reviewer apparently agreed with my archival requests, because he disabled the caches and gave the CO's 30 days to respond before an automatic archival.

 

Tonight I received two emails from the CO's of those caches. One was mostly respectful, the other one extremely rude ("I suggest you keep you opinions to yourself. Don't like it too bad"). So, what is good protocol here? And more importantly, to what degree is it the responsibility of your local reviewer to start disabling or even archiving caches that have tons of DNF/Needs maintenance logs when the CO hasn't logged on in 6+ months? Wouldn't it be easier if people monitored their own caches instead of this?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

[knowschad]

The situation: thought I was doing my local area a favor by doing some "spring cleaning", and checking on some geocaches that have several, several DNF's, most of which also have needs maintenance logs. It should be noted that these caches were placed by geocachers who haven't logged onto the site in 6+ months. My local reviewer apparently agreed with my archival requests, because he disabled the caches and gave the CO's 30 days to respond before an automatic archival.

 

Tonight I received two emails from the CO's of those caches. One was mostly respectful, the other one extremely rude ("I suggest you keep you opinions to yourself. Don't like it too bad"). So, what is good protocol here? And more importantly, to what degree is it the responsibility of your local reviewer to start disabling or even archiving caches that have tons of DNF/Needs maintenance logs when the CO hasn't logged on in 6+ months? Wouldn't it be easier if people monitored their own caches instead of this?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

We obviously are only hearing one side of the story, so I hesitate to be too hard on the cache owner that responded like that, but based on what I know, he should have responded to those Need Maintenance logs. Since he didn't, he deserved what he got. Again, based on what you have told us, I would say that you handled it properly. If you don't want that sort of reaction, but want to continue policing other's caches (something that some call being a "cache cop" and others call "being responsible"), you can simply send an email to the reviewer and dispense with the Needs Archived log.

[+briansnat]

I'm sure you mean well, but doing that won't get you the "most popular geocacher" award at the summer picnic. Some people, as you found out, will take offense.

 

It's one thing to log a NA for a cache that you hunted, but looking for problem caches to report is going to make you look like a busybody to some people.

 

Most reviewers do periodic sweeps, so its best to leave things to him.

[+StarBrand]

There are a lot of rude people in life - not too surprising that some of them become Geocachers.

 

Having said that - I have long believed (though I admit to a time I felt differently) that you should actually find a cache before logging an NA on it. As much as I know you were just trying to help out, some folks just are not going to see it that way.

[+Isonzo Karst]

And more importantly, to what degree is it the responsibility of your local reviewer to start disabling or even archiving caches that have tons of DNF/Needs maintenance logs when the CO hasn't logged on in 6+ months?

 

The reviewer has no way to know about those caches.

 

The community can help clean up the local listings by logging Needs Archived. Those Needs Archived logs do go to a reviewer, who can take a look and act, or not, as seems appropriate.

 

There's no pocket query available to find caches with DNFs.

 

While it is possible to query on the NM Icon, it's hugely time consuming as there are a lot of them, and many caches with the NM set don't need maintenance. But it can take a close reading of a lot of logs to figure out what the real status is.t

 

Recently I found a cache where the last log before mine was Needs Maintenance -> the cacher couldn't find it, so instead of logging a DNF, he logged that the owner needed to check the cache. This is quite often how the log is used. Or the maintenance has been done, but the owner doesn't know how to clear the icon - or even know that the icon exists. All NA logs set the Need Maintenance icon, I think many cache owners are unaware of that.

[AZcachemeister]

The reviewers here in AZ usually do a good job of clearing out the missing caches...sometimes maybe too good of a job.

 

I would never consider posting a N/M or N/A log for any cache I had not personally hunted...PERIOD. There are plenty of cases where there are several DNF's, and the owner appears to be absent...but the cache is fine. Indeed, the owner does not need to sign on at geocaching.com to monitor and maintain their cache as needed.

[+L0ne.R]

If you don't want that sort of reaction, but want to continue policing other's caches (something that some call being a "cache cop" and others call "being responsible"), you can simply send an email to the reviewer and dispense with the Needs Archived log.

 

It would be great if GS would change the term to "Reviewer Attention Needed". It's seems the "Needs Archived" wording offends many COs. I too have experienced the wrath of an offended CO. I think a RAN log will be easier on the psyches of some COs.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm sure you mean well, but doing that won't get you the "most popular geocacher" award at the summer picnic. Some people, as you found out, will take offense.

 

It's one thing to log a NA for a cache that you hunted, but looking for problem caches to report is going to make you look like a busybody to some people.

 

Most reviewers do periodic sweeps, so its best to leave things to him.

 

I'll give a resounding +1 to this comment.

[NeecesandNephews]

The reviewers here in AZ usually do a good job of clearing out the missing caches...sometimes maybe too good of a job.

 

I would never consider posting a N/M or N/A log for any cache I had not personally hunted...PERIOD. There are plenty of cases where there are several DNF's, and the owner appears to be absent...but the cache is fine. Indeed, the owner does not need to sign on at geocaching.com to monitor and maintain their cache as needed.

 

True, they do not need to sign in to Geocaching.com to monitor and maintain their cache. But... once a N.M. has been posted, they DO need to log in to clear the attribute. (regardless if maintenance was performed or not)

I do agree on not posting on caches that I did not hunt myself. This is the same as "armchair" logging a find in my book.

 

To the OP... I think all of us responding took your comment "checking on" to mean online "checking". If you actually attempted/ found these "problem" caches, to verify their condition before logging, then what you did is ok.

 

edit to add additional comment

Edited April 7, 2011 by NeecesandNephews

[+WRASTRO]

I'm sure you mean well, but doing that won't get you the "most popular geocacher" award at the summer picnic. Some people, as you found out, will take offense.

 

It's one thing to log a NA for a cache that you hunted, but looking for problem caches to report is going to make you look like a busybody to some people.

 

Most reviewers do periodic sweeps, so its best to leave things to him.

 

I'll give a resounding +1 to this comment.

While I usually agree with both of you I must disagree on this point. In my opinion the whole idea of the NA (regardless of what it really is) is to notify the local reviewer of a problem with a particular cache. It may also serve as a notice to other cachers there may be a problem with the cache in question. Periodic sweeps are great but there are times when the NA log needs to be posted. And it should ONLY be posted by a cacher who has previously found the cache in question.

[knowschad]

I'm sure you mean well, but doing that won't get you the "most popular geocacher" award at the summer picnic. Some people, as you found out, will take offense.

 

It's one thing to log a NA for a cache that you hunted, but looking for problem caches to report is going to make you look like a busybody to some people.

 

Most reviewers do periodic sweeps, so its best to leave things to him.

 

I'll give a resounding +1 to this comment.

While I usually agree with both of you I must disagree on this point. In my opinion the whole idea of the NA (regardless of what it really is) is to notify the local reviewer of a problem with a particular cache. It may also serve as a notice to other cachers there may be a problem with the cache in question. Periodic sweeps are great but there are times when the NA log needs to be posted. And it should ONLY be posted by a cacher who has previously found the cache in question.

 

Which only stresses one more time that NA needs to be changed from Needs Archived to Needs Attention (from reviewer). That is SUCH a simple change to make that it astounds me that it hasn't yet been done.

[+WRASTRO]

I'm sure you mean well, but doing that won't get you the "most popular geocacher" award at the summer picnic. Some people, as you found out, will take offense.

 

It's one thing to log a NA for a cache that you hunted, but looking for problem caches to report is going to make you look like a busybody to some people.

 

Most reviewers do periodic sweeps, so its best to leave things to him.

 

I'll give a resounding +1 to this comment.

While I usually agree with both of you I must disagree on this point. In my opinion the whole idea of the NA (regardless of what it really is) is to notify the local reviewer of a problem with a particular cache. It may also serve as a notice to other cachers there may be a problem with the cache in question. Periodic sweeps are great but there are times when the NA log needs to be posted. And it should ONLY be posted by a cacher who has previously found the cache in question.

 

Which only stresses one more time that NA needs to be changed from Needs Archived to Needs Attention (from reviewer). That is SUCH a simple change to make that it astounds me that it hasn't yet been done.

Wow, I completely agree with you!

[+BlueDeuce]

Most reviewers do periodic sweeps...

 

There's my complaint

Edited April 7, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+cimawr]

The situation: thought I was doing my local area a favor by doing some "spring cleaning", and checking on some geocaches that have several, several DNF's, most of which also have needs maintenance logs. It should be noted that these caches were placed by geocachers who haven't logged onto the site in 6+ months. My local reviewer apparently agreed with my archival requests, because he disabled the caches and gave the CO's 30 days to respond before an automatic archival.

 

Tonight I received two emails from the CO's of those caches. One was mostly respectful, the other one extremely rude ("I suggest you keep you opinions to yourself. Don't like it too bad"). So, what is good protocol here? And more importantly, to what degree is it the responsibility of your local reviewer to start disabling or even archiving caches that have tons of DNF/Needs maintenance logs when the CO hasn't logged on in 6+ months? Wouldn't it be easier if people monitored their own caches instead of this?

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

First, when you say you've "checked on" caches, do you mean that you've previously found the caches, and have physically returned to the sites, looked again, and verified they're actually missing? If so, AND if it's accurate that the COs hadn't been on the site for an extended period of time, I'd say a polite and regretful NA log isn't inappropriate IF - and only IF - there has been at least one reliable "needs maintenance" log on the cache for a month or more.

 

If there have been no previous "needs maintenance" logs - DNFs, notes, and/or Found logs relating problems don't count - then IMO the more appropriate place to start is by posting one.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Which only stresses one more time that NA needs to be changed from Needs Archived to Needs Attention (from reviewer). That is SUCH a simple change to make that it astounds me that it hasn't yet been done.

 

I don't frequent it myself, but has this been submitted to the feedback forum? It seems as though the lackeys pay more attention to issues raised there than here.

[+Lil Devil]

... some geocaches that have several, several DNF's, most of which also have needs maintenance logs. It should be noted that these caches were placed by geocachers who haven't logged onto the site in 6+ months.

 

... I have long believed (though I admit to a time I felt differently) that you should actually find a cache before logging an NA on it.

 

I assume when you say "actually find a cache" you really mean "attempt to find a cache"

 

When a cache has multiple DNFs going back many months, it's pretty obvious that there is a problem. I see no need for yet another site visit before alerting a reviewer that there is an issue. The reviewer isn't going to make a site visit before disabling the cache, so why should I?

[+Mr Kaswa]

Most reviewers do periodic sweeps...

 

There's my complaint

 

+1

[+tozainamboku]

Which only stresses one more time that NA needs to be changed from Needs Archived to Needs Attention (from reviewer). That is SUCH a simple change to make that it astounds me that it hasn't yet been done.

 

I don't frequent it myself, but has this been submitted to the feedback forum? It seems as though the lackeys pay more attention to issues raised there than here.

Yes here http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1237605-needs-archive

[Keystone]

And more importantly, to what degree is it the responsibility of your local reviewer to start disabling or even archiving caches that have tons of DNF/Needs maintenance logs when the CO hasn't logged on in 6+ months?

The answer is "None."

 

A reviewer is officially responsible for reading and acting upon "Needs Archived" logs in the territory he or she covers. (The action may include "do nothing at this time.")

 

Many reviewers voluntarily choose to enforce the "Cache Maintenance" guideline by leaving reminder notes on caches that have been disabled for a long time with no stated reason for the delay. The listing is archived if the owner does not respond to the reminder within the timeframe specified. Again, this is optional.

 

A smaller group of reviewers voluntarily choose to monitor caches in their territory that are not disabled, but which are not being maintained. There are around 20,000 active caches in Ohio, where the OP left some "Needs Archived" logs today on caches that were not disabled. The reviewers had no duty to be first on the scene. In Ohio, as in many other places, we rely on the community to report cache maintenance issues through the proper use of the "Needs Archived" log option.

[+St.Matthew]

 

Which only stresses one more time that NA needs to be changed from Needs Archived to Needs Attention (from reviewer). That is SUCH a simple change to make that it astounds me that it hasn't yet been done.

 

AND/OR you can submit the NA anonymously.

[GOF and Bacall]

Which only stresses one more time that NA needs to be changed from Needs Archived to Needs Attention (from reviewer). That is SUCH a simple change to make that it astounds me that it hasn't yet been done.

 

I don't frequent it myself, but has this been submitted to the feedback forum? It seems as though the lackeys pay more attention to issues raised there than here.

 

Yes, it has. Link

 

At this point I think it should be renamed completely. Perhaps AR, Attention Requested. Or perhaps RAR, Reviewer Attention Requested. Anything that won't be shortened to NA. That way it won't be as likely to be seen as just another way to say needs archived.

[+Sioneva]

Which only stresses one more time that NA needs to be changed from Needs Archived to Needs Attention (from reviewer). That is SUCH a simple change to make that it astounds me that it hasn't yet been done.

 

I don't frequent it myself, but has this been submitted to the feedback forum? It seems as though the lackeys pay more attention to issues raised there than here.

 

Yes, it has. Link

 

At this point I think it should be renamed completely. Perhaps AR, Attention Requested. Or perhaps RAR, Reviewer Attention Requested. Anything that won't be shortened to NA. That way it won't be as likely to be seen as just another way to say needs archived.

 

Just don't make too big a ROAR (Reviewer Only Attention Required).

Edited April 7, 2011 by Sioneva

[+DanOCan]

Wouldn't it be easier if people monitored their own caches instead of this?

 

Yep, it sure would be.

 

My opinion is that if you went out to find these caches then there is nothing wrong with what you did. If you just sat at home and did a sweep of your local area and posted NA logs from the comfort of your couch then I see a problem with it. I have done the same thing on caches before and, while I never had a cache owner actually come out of the woodwork and call me on it, I started to discover it isn't as appreciated by the community as much as you would think so I stopped.

 

My current approach is that if the people who went out to find the thing didn't see an issue worthy of posting a NA log then I shouldn't stick my nose in it. That is why I have an Ignore list and why I filter caches in GSAK before I send them to my GPSr -- a long string of DNFs = not going to bother hunting for it.

[+Ike 13]

Funny I just did the same thing. I'm going to an area for work that I'm not usually in. I noticed a LOT of caches that appeared to be missing. My PQ had about 130 caches spread out over 12 miles and I easily saw 10 caches that were in need of serious attention. I ended up posting a NA on 3 of the caches (one I did go after last year). This area does not seem to have a very active community and is not traveled in much. I feel like I was doing them a service by pointing out the caches that really needed attention. The 3 I logged a NA on had not been found in over a year, had 5-15 DNFs and all of them, had a NM logged 3 months ago or more, and the owner was inactive.

 

If one of those CO's contacted me and was rude I would ignore the email or forward it to Groundspeak if it was nasty. If that happened then I got their attention and they'll either maintain their cache or it will be archived. I see that as a win. And being a teacher I'm used to being disliked at times.