NEEDS MAINT Icon Utilization Is A Dismal Failure

[+Cardinal Red]

The Needs Maintenance Icon originally seemed like a good idea. What we forgot are all the cache owners who don't care or don't have a clue how to deal with it and can't be bothered to figure it out. At the rate this infestation is spreading, soon it's only marginal validity will be for Reviewers doing sweeps for problem caches. And how many times have you seen a cache owner acknowledge a problem using an Owner Maintenance log (clearing the NM tag) without actually taking any corrective action? That keeps the problem cache under the radar a lot longer.

 

Filtering only for NM, how far out do you have to go to ID your 500th nearest cache tagged with the NM icon? Mine is sort of 36.4 miles. I say sort of because about 5% of the results the PQ returned from zip 19540 do not actually have a NM tag. I almost never use the PQ icon filter but is seems to be defective. Let's all act surprised even though I think that has been reported quite often.

 

Yesterday was the 26th anniversary of the announcement by Coke that it was changing the formula. It only took Coke 79 days do an about face on that fiasco. Anybody have any suggestions for Groundspeak how to address the NM problem? Mine is that Reviewers must look for NM tags on owned active caches and can't publish any new caches for users who can't seem to maintain their old listings. Yes, I know many owners will simply archive the old listings and abandon in place as geolitter to get their new cache listed.

[+StarBrand]

I don't know the answer.

 

More education has always been my response but it simply has not happened.

 

Further restrictions are too simplistic and don't follow the actual reasons a cache still needs maintenance. Also, the NM flag is being abused for some flaky reasons in my opinion. (missing pen/pencil, "I couldn't find it", Dog barked at me, Too many sticker weeks nearby, etc...)

Edited April 25, 2011 by StarBrand

[mtbikernate]

84.9mi, and I don't exactly live in a terribly cache dense area. Take away the hundreds of caches in power trails and it's really not very dense at all.

[+sbell111]

I don't see 'dump it on the reviewers' to be a viable solution for your problem. It seems that the problem boils down to cachers in some areas misunderstanding how the NM toggle works. Therefore, the best solution would be for knowledgable local cachers to help these people out and explain the issue to them.

[mtbikernate]

I don't see 'dump it on the reviewers' to be a viable solution for your problem. It seems that the problem boils down to cachers in some areas misunderstanding how the NM toggle works. Therefore, the best solution would be for knowledgable local cachers to help these people out and explain the issue to them.

 

I don't think that's really the answer.

 

I have seen an awful lot of caches in my area where there are logs posted (found its and DNF's) that clearly indicate a NM is also important, yet people rarely post them. It's usually out-of-towners passing through, and not always them, either. I have tried bringing this up every time I post a NM or NA (one cache I found has needed maintenance for over 5 years and nobody posted NM until I found it a few months ago and I could tell because people mentioned problems in their found logs). The cases where a DNF mentions a situation where a NM would also apply occur on the national forest nearby where a lot of caches are consumed by fires every year. People post a DNF, mentioning that the area is nothing but charred sand, yet no NM suggesting the CO ought to get out and check on the cache.

 

No, I think GS needs to go on an education campaign. I see occasionally where they'll put a couple paragraphs in the weekly newsletter, but how many people pay attention to that? There needs to be prominent placement of help hints. How about, when people register a new account, they need to read through an educational presentation about the basics - log types, when to log each type, etc. Maybe it could be a simple youtube video or an animated interactive presentation (like I had to do for my hunter's education requirement). Either way, I think GS needs better resources for "how to play the game" since it is their game we're all playing.

[+Cardinal Red]

I don't see 'dump it on the reviewers' to be a viable solution for your problem. It seems that the problem boils down to cachers in some areas misunderstanding how the NM toggle works. Therefore, the best solution would be for knowledgable local cachers to help these people out and explain the issue to them.

Back in about February I picked the two closest still active owners with caches that had a NM tag that was no longer valid. I crafted what I thought was a carefully worded mini tutorial to help them deal with the problem. They both ignored it. Next suggestion?

 

I did craft a somewhat more grumpy note to one of them today as a social experiment. Wanna bet that gets ignored too? If cachers will not respond to the carrot you have to introduce them to the stick. The Reviewer has the stick.

[+Ambient_Skater]

Groundspeak needs to put a red notification at the top of the home and profile pages of COs who own caches with the NM attribute on it. The page to post a NM log should also have more prominent red text to remind the poster his log will add a NM attribute to the cache and the owner will be notified (the way Needs Archived logs do).

[+fizzymagic]

The Needs Maintenance Icon originally seemed like a good idea. What we forgot are all the cache owners who don't care or don't have a clue how to deal with it and can't be bothered to figure it out. At the rate this infestation is spreading, soon it's only marginal validity will be for Reviewers doing sweeps for problem caches.

 

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you claiming that the NM tag is a failure because you can't use it to filter out bad caches (because owners don't reset it), or are you claiming it is a failure because cache owners ignore it and don't fix their caches?

 

The two problems cannot both simultaneously be true; if cache owners are ignoring it, then it is a good indicator of a bad cache. If they are not ignoring it but are failing to reset it, then it is a poor indicator of bad caches but it is getting the job done of notifying owners that maintenance needs to be performed.

 

So which is it?

Edited April 25, 2011 by fizzymagic

[+Corp Of Discovery]

One thing I've seen with it is that some people just edit the attribute out, delete the NM log and don't seem to actually DO anything to fix their cache. I don't know if it's such a good thing to be able to just edit the mark away like that...

[+Ambient_Skater]

One thing I've seen with it is that some people just edit the attribute out, delete the NM log and don't seem to actually DO anything to fix their cache. I don't know if it's such a good thing to be able to just edit the mark away like that...

I don't think it's possible to remove the attribute through the Attributes page. Only a Owner Maintenance log will clear it.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

One thing I've seen with it is that some people just edit the attribute out, delete the NM log and don't seem to actually DO anything to fix their cache. I don't know if it's such a good thing to be able to just edit the mark away like that...

I don't think it's possible to remove the attribute through the Attributes page. Only a Owner Maintenance log will clear it.

It is possible, tried it before I posted.

[+Student Camper]

The "needs maintenance" flag is often ignored because the CO is no longer in the area and cannot visit the cache or has no intention of returning to the area and has not made any arraingements for same.

 

A NM apparently doesn't draw the attention of a reviewer but perhaps a series of 5 consecutive NM's should trigger an automatic NA which the reviewer would see and take action on.

 

Starbrand said it best,

"More education has always been my response but it simply has not happened."

 

I also think people may be reluctant to post a MN or NA because of a percieved responsibility that if the cache were to "go away", it might be their fault, I know I felt this way for a time. (but not anymore)

 

I agree that dumping it on the reviewers may not be the best way to handle the issue, but too many CO's are leaving abandoning their property and leaving it for others to maintain or clean up and the reviewers do have the ultimate broom.

 

Not to knock any reviewer as they do a great job, but maybe the "placed while on vacation" cacher needs to be watched a little closer.

[+Corfman Clan]

A NM apparently doesn't draw the attention of a reviewer but perhaps a series of 5 consecutive NM's should trigger an automatic NA which the reviewer would see and take action on.

That is not the case. At least it isn't in Arizona. If a cache with a NM is not attended to, it is just a matter of time before the cache is disabled by the reviewer. Then, if a cache is disabled for too long a period of time, the reviewer may end up archiving it.

[+fizzymagic]

I remain puzzled about this thread. What is the problem? Fromm the posts, it appears to be that people are not maintaining their caches to the various posters' satisfaction.

 

I don't understand how, from this perspective, the "Needs Maintenance" tag is a failure. It was never intended to address those who don't care enough about their caches to maintain them. Any expectation that it would do so was based on fantasy.

 

I see that as a success, not as a failure. It provides an easy way to filter out many bad caches.

 

So why is everyone so worked up about it? Is it that important that everyone in this very loose activity maintain their caches to the highest standard?

 

Or is this "failure" mostly one for those busybodies who are more interested in poking their noses into nearby caches to make sure other people maintain them to the "correct" standards?

 

Are there that many places that people want to place a cache that are blocked by these poorly-maintained caches? I find that hard to believe. If you don't like poorly-maintained caches, then go find other ones. There are plenty out there. Unless you are a radius slave, but in that case it's your problem, not the cache owners'.

Edited April 25, 2011 by fizzymagic

[+Don_J]

The Needs Maintenance Icon originally seemed like a good idea. What we forgot are all the cache owners who don't care or don't have a clue how to deal with it and can't be bothered to figure it out. At the rate this infestation is spreading, soon it's only marginal validity will be for Reviewers doing sweeps for problem caches. And how many times have you seen a cache owner acknowledge a problem using an Owner Maintenance log (clearing the NM tag) without actually taking any corrective action? That keeps the problem cache under the radar a lot longer.

 

Filtering only for NM, how far out do you have to go to ID your 500th nearest cache tagged with the NM icon? Mine is sort of 36.4 miles. I say sort of because about 5% of the results the PQ returned from zip 19540 do not actually have a NM tag. I almost never use the PQ icon filter but is seems to be defective. Let's all act surprised even though I think that has been reported quite often.

 

Yesterday was the 26th anniversary of the announcement by Coke that it was changing the formula. It only took Coke 79 days do an about face on that fiasco. Anybody have any suggestions for Groundspeak how to address the NM problem? Mine is that Reviewers must look for NM tags on owned active caches and can't publish any new caches for users who can't seem to maintain their old listings. Yes, I know many owners will simply archive the old listings and abandon in place as geolitter to get their new cache listed.

 

Or, the CO will just clear the tag.

I think the biggest problem GS faces is that they do not notify their users of changes on their web site. There is actually a setting in my profile that says, "Notify me of important announcements". In five+ years, I have never received an announcement. I have seen a lot of changes in those five+ years, yet I have not seen any mention of any of it, outside of these forums. I suspect that many of the NM tags have had the required Maintenance performed, yet the CO has no idea about the attribute and how to clear it.

 

I also think that the idea that I can edit YOUR cache page and add an attribute is completely unacceptable.

 

As far as loading the reviewers with additional responsibilities, active cachers need to use the tools that they have to report caches that are actually in need of maintenance, and are being ignored by the CO. I think that a lot of us are accepting the idea that if "Need Archived" were changed to "Needs Reviewer Attention", or even "Report Problem to Reviewer", more people would be apt to use the tool.

[+Don_J]

 

Filtering only for NM, how far out do you have to go to ID your 500th nearest cache tagged with the NM icon? Mine is sort of 36.4 miles.

 

16.4mi

[+power69]

Yesterday was the 26th anniversary of the announcement by Coke that it was changing the formula. It only took Coke 79 days do an about face on that fiasco.

Coke didn't do an about face. the "coke classic" they "went back to" is NOT the original recipe!

[+power69]

I don't see 'dump it on the reviewers' to be a viable solution for your problem. It seems that the problem boils down to cachers in some areas misunderstanding how the NM toggle works. Therefore, the best solution would be for knowledgable local cachers to help these people out and explain the issue to them.

Back in about February I picked the two closest still active owners with caches that had a NM tag that was no longer valid. I crafted what I thought was a carefully worded mini tutorial to help them deal with the problem. They both ignored it. Next suggestion?

 

I did craft a somewhat more grumpy note to one of them today as a social experiment. Wanna bet that gets ignored too? If cachers will not respond to the carrot you have to introduce them to the stick. The Reviewer has the stick.

the best way to get ignored is to come off as "cache police"

you're just trying to help but thats how they see it.

I'd say actually about 99% of the people i write never bother to write back.

[+Don_J]

The "needs maintenance" flag is often ignored because the CO is no longer in the area and cannot visit the cache or has no intention of returning to the area and has not made any arraingements for same.

 

A NM apparently doesn't draw the attention of a reviewer but perhaps a series of 5 consecutive NM's should trigger an automatic NA which the reviewer would see and take action on.

 

People need to understand that a NM log goes out to the CO, people that are watching, or have bookmarked the cache, and people that have a notification that meet the criteria. It does not go to the reviewer. If five people post NM logs, I really have to wonder why none of them is willing to actually bring it to the reviewer's attention.

 

Edit: Kind of forgot a word.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

Groundspeak needs to put a red notification at the top of the home and profile pages of COs who own caches with the NM attribute on it. The page to post a NM log should also have more prominent red text to remind the poster his log will add a NM attribute to the cache and the owner will be notified (the way Needs Archived logs do).

 

Wow! Great idea. Better yet, the banner can be linked to the KB article that explains why it is there.

 

In fact, I just made a new Feedback entry.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Are you claiming that the NM tag is a failure because you can't use it to filter out bad caches (because owners don't reset it), or are you claiming it is a failure because cache owners ignore it and don't fix their caches?

 

It's a dismal failure because you can't really use it for anything. As a cache seeker, it tells you next to nothing, and as a cache owner, it (often) tells you next to nothing, but you do have to deal with it, or ignore it, which seems to be the majority view.

 

Often the NM Icon log isn't used to indicate that a cache Needs Maintenance, it's used instead a DNF*.

 

And when a Needs Archived is logged, that sets the NM Icon. How many cache owners know that? Like the NM log, a percentage of NA logs are DNFs from an entitled cacher (and a small percentage are some form of harassment). That you have to log "owner maintenance" to say, "it's still there" on your difficulty 4 cache is hardly intuitive.

 

The opposite is not true - ie, when a cache owner enables a disabled cache, that doesn't clear the NM log.

 

*a number of caches near me have the NM Icon on them; none of them need maintenance. There are cache seekers who need to learn how to use Didn't find it, instead of assuming that any cache they couldn't come up with in 3 minutes or less "needs to be checked" = NM (at least they didn't throw down a film can).

 

NM can be cleared from the attributes table on Traditional caches (and Mystery?, not sure) on others, the owner has to log an Owner Maintenance log.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Re clearing the NM Icon - I just went and tried this to verify that it's still true.

As cache owner, if the NM Icon is set on your cache of type other then Traditional or Mystery, you can clear it by visiting the attributes page (edit attributes) , scrolling to the bottom and clicking on Update Attributes. Even though you didn't touch any attribute icon to toggle it, this will remove the NM Icon from the cache listing.

 

re How far out, 38 miles.

On the first page of 20, caches I'm familiar with, one doesn't need maintenance, it needs archived (the current version is a throwdown where cache and cache owner are both long gone). The other 19 do not need anything.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Isonzo Karst

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Filtering only for NM, how far out do you have to go to ID your 500th nearest cache tagged with the NM icon? Mine is sort of 36.4 miles.

 

16.4mi

 

162.4 miles for me. Of the four closest caches within 10 miles one of them is showing up in the PQ results but doesn't have a Needs Maintenance log in the list of logs (it could have been deleted) and doesn't appear to have the Needs Maintenance attribute set. Two of them are currently disabled and one has not yet been addressed (it's had maintenance issues in the past as well). The fifth closest cache with a NM attribute set is at 15.1 miles.

 

Awhile back I noticed that the needs maintenance attribute was set on a few of my caches. I guess I had never really noticed that the red and white attribute was set and showing up in the Info column (when was that added). I didn't have any active needs maintenance logs that I hadn't not addressed and had posted a owner maintenance log, but I hadn't cleared the attribute. I'm not sure exactly how it works now, but at some point posting an owner maintenance log did *not* automatically clear the needs maintenance attribute.

[+sbell111]

 

Filtering only for NM, how far out do you have to go to ID your 500th nearest cache tagged with the NM icon? Mine is sort of 36.4 miles.

 

16.4mi

54 miles for me. That being said, this is really a completely unusable statistic since it is likely reflective of cache density more than it shows how serious cache owners are about maintenance.

[+StarBrand]

Are you claiming that the NM tag is a failure because you can't use it to filter out bad caches (because owners don't reset it), or are you claiming it is a failure because cache owners ignore it and don't fix their caches?

 

It's a dismal failure because you can't really use it for anything. As a cache seeker, it tells you next to nothing, and as a cache owner, it (often) tells you next to nothing, but you do have to deal with it, or ignore it, which seems to be the majority view.

 

Often the NM Icon log isn't used to indicate that a cache Needs Maintenance, it's used instead a DNF*.

 

And when a Needs Archived is logged, that sets the NM Icon. How many cache owners know that? Like the NM log, a percentage of NA logs are DNFs from an entitled cacher (and a small percentage are some form of harassment). That you have to log "owner maintenance" to say, "it's still there" on your difficulty 4 cache is hardly intuitive.

 

The opposite is not true - ie, when a cache owner enables a disabled cache, that doesn't clear the NM log.

 

*a number of caches near me have the NM Icon on them; none of them need maintenance. There are cache seekers who need to learn how to use Didn't find it, instead of assuming that any cache they couldn't come up with in 3 minutes or less "needs to be checked" = NM (at least they didn't throw down a film can).

 

NM can be cleared from the attributes table on Traditional caches (and Mystery?, not sure) on others, the owner has to log an Owner Maintenance log.

 

Agreed - it really is a multitude of issues:

 

1. Owners that never go maintain their caches that need it.

 

2. Cachers that use the NM flag for just about anything except a true maintenance need.

 

3. Owners that fail to understand how to clear the flag after maintenance is done.

 

4. The inability of kind visitors that care for a cache to affect the flag.

 

It tells me almost nothing when I see the attribute set on a cache. Whether it is my cache or one I intend to seek. Sometimes - even reading the logs fails to reveal why the attribute is set!!

[+Castle Mischief]

Groundspeak needs to put a red notification at the top of the home and profile pages of COs who own caches with the NM attribute on it. The page to post a NM log should also have more prominent red text to remind the poster his log will add a NM attribute to the cache and the owner will be notified (the way Needs Archived logs do).

 

This is actually a good idea. Link it to a list of caches that have the NM attribute and an explaination of what needs to be done to fix them. Alternately, an email notification to the CO reminding them that a cache has the NM attribute set.

 

Another idea- if you have X number of caches with the NM attribute on them then you can't list a new cache. That's the problem I see in my area. COs with a multitude of leaky containers that never do their own maintenance and never clear the NM attribute and continue to list new caches along the same vein.

[+StarBrand]

Groundspeak needs to put a red notification at the top of the home and profile pages of COs who own caches with the NM attribute on it. The page to post a NM log should also have more prominent red text to remind the poster his log will add a NM attribute to the cache and the owner will be notified (the way Needs Archived logs do).

 

This is actually a good idea. Link it to a list of caches that have the NM attribute and an explaination of what needs to be done to fix them. Alternately, an email notification to the CO reminding them that a cache has the NM attribute set.

 

Another idea- if you have X number of caches with the NM attribute on them then you can't list a new cache. That's the problem I see in my area. COs with a multitude of leaky containers that never do their own maintenance and never clear the NM attribute and continue to list new caches along the same vein.

 

Define x??

 

THGTTG says it should always equal 8.

[+Castle Mischief]

Groundspeak needs to put a red notification at the top of the home and profile pages of COs who own caches with the NM attribute on it. The page to post a NM log should also have more prominent red text to remind the poster his log will add a NM attribute to the cache and the owner will be notified (the way Needs Archived logs do).

 

This is actually a good idea. Link it to a list of caches that have the NM attribute and an explaination of what needs to be done to fix them. Alternately, an email notification to the CO reminding them that a cache has the NM attribute set.

 

Another idea- if you have X number of caches with the NM attribute on them then you can't list a new cache. That's the problem I see in my area. COs with a multitude of leaky containers that never do their own maintenance and never clear the NM attribute and continue to list new caches along the same vein.

 

Define x??

 

THGTTG says it should always equal 8.

 

It's a broad concept, not a definitized plan.

[+tozainamboku]

I like the needs maintenance log. It was added because some people wanted to have a way to report cache problems that did not rise to the level that needed reviewer intervention (aka Needs Archive). Even though you could always have written a note or simply said in your Found log what problems you found this didn't seem to work all that well either. Cache owners would ignore maintenance requests and other cachers would not now of the problem unless the read all the logs. The ideas with the new logs was that it would set an attribute so that cachers could tell at a glance that the cache has problem, and cache owners would be encourage to report the problem fixed using an Owner Maintenace log to clear the attribute.

 

Certainly, as with anything else, the system is not perfect. Some cache owners are going to ignore maintenance requests whether or not they have a special log type and set an attribute. Some may not know about posting an Owner maintenace to indicate that they have fixed a problem. And some may discover that you can post Owner maintenace or clear the attribute even though you haven't fixed a thing.

 

I would not call Needs Maintenace a failure if it is resulting in cachers being more willing to report problems and at least encouraging some cache owners to respond to such reports by fixing the problem. Perhaps a way for non-owners to post a maintenace performed log to remove the attribute if they discover the problems have been fixed would be a good way to deal with the issues of so many caches having a Needs Maintenace attribute set when there is nothing wrong with the cache.

[+fizzymagic]

Agreed - it really is a multitude of issues:

 

1. Owners that never go maintain their caches that need it.

 

2. Cachers that use the NM flag for just about anything except a true maintenance need.

 

3. Owners that fail to understand how to clear the flag after maintenance is done.

 

4. The inability of kind visitors that care for a cache to affect the flag.

 

Thanks for a clear, concise description of the problems. Excellent post, StarBrand!

 

In that case, I agree with you completely. I went back last night and looked for NM tags on my caches. I had 3. For 2 of them, I could not find the original NM log, so I have no idea what I am supposed to do. For the other, it was posted because of a full logsheet, which I will fix when I get around to it.

 

I do not think that a "badge of shame" icon on the owner's profile would be helpful. I also do not think that a "needs reviewer attention" log type would be helpful. The reviewers have way too much work already; having some yahoo clog their inbox with logs about caches that have damp logbooks is not a valid use of their valuable time.

 

I think my solution to the problem will be to go on doing what I have been: to ignore the attribute. Problem solved.

[+PokerLuck]

We can't expect reviewers to be the cache police. They're busy enough already. This is why I support cache renewals. Once a year (or whatever interval you like), you get an email requiring you to click on a link to renew your cache. If you don't click within three months (with monthly reminders), the cache is put up for adoption. After another three months, the cache is archived. Implementation would be easy, since it's just programming and emails.

 

If a CO can't click on a link once a year to renew their cache, do you think they're going to actually go to the cache and do maintenance? Within a year or two, the average cache quality should improve significantly. A nice side effect would be opening up some areas that are saturated with old, sucky caches for new caches.

 

I really believe the future of the sport requires something like this. People are going to tire very quickly if the majority of caches reaches the point where they're not worth finding.

[+roziecakes]

We can't expect reviewers to be the cache police. They're busy enough already. This is why I support cache renewals. Once a year (or whatever interval you like), you get an email requiring you to click on a link to renew your cache. If you don't click within three months (with monthly reminders), the cache is put up for adoption. After another three months, the cache is archived. Implementation would be easy, since it's just programming and emails.

 

Hey wow! I really like this idea, especially since it gives the person a whole three months to renew their cache. There are a few really awesome caches in this area that have very poor maintenance records (owner hasn't been on since 2008 and doesn't answer emails.) that I'd LOVE to adopt.

 

I love it!

[mresoteric]

Implementation would be easy, since it's just programming and emails.

 

Sounds good until someone's emails go to their junk folder and their cache gets adopted out or a myriad of other unforeseen problems cause active cachers to lose their caches.

[+roziecakes]

Implementation would be easy, since it's just programming and emails.

 

Sounds good until someone's emails go to their junk folder and their cache gets adopted out or a myriad of other unforeseen problems cause active cachers to lose their caches.

 

It's a person's own responsibility to put emails from GS on their whitelist so that they don't go to their junk folder. That's what people do for email addresses that they want to make sure to stay out of the spam folder. It isn't that difficult to do.

[mresoteric]

Implementation would be easy, since it's just programming and emails.

 

Sounds good until someone's emails go to their junk folder and their cache gets adopted out or a myriad of other unforeseen problems cause active cachers to lose their caches.

 

It's a person's own responsibility to put emails from GS on their whitelist so that they don't go to their junk folder. That's what people do for email addresses that they want to make sure to stay out of the spam folder. It isn't that difficult to do.

 

How about the #1 issue? Groundspeak doesn't own the caches. They just list. I'm pretty sure I read that in the earthcache section as the argument against adopting out 200 caches.

[+Cardinal Red]

The Needs Maintenance Icon originally seemed like a good idea. What we forgot are all the cache owners who don't care or don't have a clue how to deal with it and can't be bothered to figure it out.

 

Back in about February I picked the two closest still active owners with caches that had a NM tag that was no longer valid. I crafted what I thought was a carefully worded mini tutorial to help them deal with the problem. They both ignored it.

 

It seems I wasn't nearly clear enough about my frustration with the NM icon. In my area there are quite a few owners that have no clue how to clear a NM icon. Zero! I seems most of them don't even realize it is something they have control over. I have had some success pointing this out to a few owners after they had reported fixing their cache by way of NOTE or RE-ENABLED logs, but the NM icon was still there. It would be a full time job trying to get the word out to all of them.

 

One friend who I contacted after he had fixed a cache took care of the problem immediately, then he left another invalid NM icon two days later when he fixed a different hide.

 

However, I welcome any and all opinions about any aspect (good or bad) of the NM icon.

[+roziecakes]

Implementation would be easy, since it's just programming and emails.

 

Sounds good until someone's emails go to their junk folder and their cache gets adopted out or a myriad of other unforeseen problems cause active cachers to lose their caches.

 

It's a person's own responsibility to put emails from GS on their whitelist so that they don't go to their junk folder. That's what people do for email addresses that they want to make sure to stay out of the spam folder. It isn't that difficult to do.

 

How about the #1 issue? Groundspeak doesn't own the caches. They just list. I'm pretty sure I read that in the earthcache section as the argument against adopting out 200 caches.

 

I don't understand what Pokerluck's suggestion has to do with GS owning caches...

 

Anyway, back on topic:

I think the NM log is a good idea in theory, but you're right, the way it has been implemented over time is a failure. It's just another one of those things to add to the list of things to teach new cachers when they first join. This has got me more and more thinking about how Geocache mentors are a good idea; but I'm not sure how to implement a concept like that on the larger scale.

 

I personally do my best by trying to educate new cachers the best way I know how...

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Implementation would be easy, since it's just programming and emails.

 

Sounds good until someone's emails go to their junk folder and their cache gets adopted out or a myriad of other unforeseen problems cause active cachers to lose their caches.

 

It's a person's own responsibility to put emails from GS on their whitelist so that they don't go to their junk folder. That's what people do for email addresses that they want to make sure to stay out of the spam folder. It isn't that difficult to do.

 

How about the #1 issue? Groundspeak doesn't own the caches. They just list. I'm pretty sure I read that in the earthcache section as the argument against adopting out 200 caches.

 

I don't understand what Pokerluck's suggestion has to do with GS owning caches...

 

Anyway, back on topic:

I think the NM log is a good idea in theory, but you're right, the way it has been implemented over time is a failure. It's just another one of those things to add to the list of things to teach new cachers when they first join. This has got me more and more thinking about how Geocache mentors are a good idea; but I'm not sure how to implement a concept like that on the larger scale.

 

I personally do my best by trying to educate new cachers the best way I know how...

 

I don't think the diversity of this sport can rely on that much interraction between cachers. At some point, whatever can be automated should be automated. To ensure NM are checked-out by the CO, the system should prevent requests to publish new caches until existing NM are fixed. Pretty simple. If education is the goal, this will force cachers to seek-out education and not hinder those who know.

[+TerraViators]

How does one filter by attribute?

[+roziecakes]

To ensure NM are checked-out by the CO, the system should prevent requests to publish new caches until existing NM are fixed. Pretty simple. If education is the goal, this will force cachers to seek-out education and not hinder those who know.

 

This is so true! Actually, I really like what you've added here. Why should you go out publishing more caches when you can't take care of the ones you've already got?

[mresoteric]

I don't understand what Pokerluck's suggestion has to do with GS owning caches...

 

He suggested that 3 months after you are emailed if you have not responded that GS automatically puts your cache up for adoption. Since GS doesn't own the cache, how can they put it out for adoption without your permission? This is the reasoning currently being given for not allowing adoptions without consent from the current owner.

[mresoteric]

To ensure NM are checked-out by the CO, the system should prevent requests to publish new caches until existing NM are fixed. Pretty simple.

 

That's a good idea. Will probably still have some complaints, but while they are complaining they are getting educated.

[+roziecakes]

I don't understand what Pokerluck's suggestion has to do with GS owning caches...

 

He suggested that 3 months after you are emailed if you have not responded that GS automatically puts your cache up for adoption. Since GS doesn't own the cache, how can they put it out for adoption without your permission? This is the reasoning currently being given for not allowing adoptions without consent from the current owner.

 

okay, I gotcha. That is a good point, since it is just a listing service. I would say maybe an automatic disabled listing of the cache in question then would be a logical next step? And then if they don't take care of it it would get archived... the only problem there is the possibility of geotrash being left at the site.

[knowschad]

Once a year (or whatever interval you like), you get an email requiring you to click on a link to renew your cache. If you don't click within three months (with monthly reminders), the cache is put up for adoption.

FWIW: this part of your plan will not happen. Groundspeak has stated loud and clear that the cache owner owns the cache, and that they do not have the right to offer it up for adoption.

[+roziecakes]

Yeah, it is true...

[knowschad]

This thread caused me to take a look at my own hides and I quickly saw that I had three active caches with old NM attributes still set. And I (obviously to most of you) frequent the forums, unlike the majority of cachers.

 

The reason I had them is that, when I get a NM log, the first thing I do is to disable the cache. The second thing I do is to check up on the cache, and if need be, fix it up. The last thing I do is to re-enable it. Good-to-go. It never even occurs to me that there is still a Needs Maintenance attribute to clear.

 

Earlier today, I was caching with some friends that are almost neck-in-neck with me as far as the number of finds and hides, but they don't visit the forums at all... they had NO idea there was even such a thing as a Needs Maintenance attribute, much less an Owner Maintenance log.

 

The weekly newsletter would be a good place to put an educational blurb about this. In fact, I'd love to see the newsletter become more of an educational medium overall. Groundspeak, I think, sometimes forget that a very low percentage of cachers ever even read the forums or the blog or the Facebook or Twitter pages.

[+NeecesandNephews]

We can't expect reviewers to be the cache police. They're busy enough already. This is why I support cache renewals. Once a year (or whatever interval you like), you get an email requiring you to click on a link to renew your cache. If you don't click within three months (with monthly reminders), the cache is put up for adoption. After another three months, the cache is archived. Implementation would be easy, since it's just programming and emails.

 

If a CO can't click on a link once a year to renew their cache, do you think they're going to actually go to the cache and do maintenance? Within a year or two, the average cache quality should improve significantly. A nice side effect would be opening up some areas that are saturated with old, sucky caches for new caches.

 

I really believe the future of the sport requires something like this. People are going to tire very quickly if the majority of caches reaches the point where they're not worth finding.

 

^^^ I'm WITH that!! This is a most excellent idea!! I have some reservations about the adoption process and noted in previous posts. I think it would bring forth some unnecessary problems over legal ownership of the cache itself. But I am more than patient enough to wait for a cache to get archived and place one there.

I have yet to place a cache as we live in a rural, more or less unremarkable area of the state, which has caches in most of the nicer, more desirable locations, and I am against entering into the world of the mundane cache.

This would open up some great locations which have unmaintained caches with absentee Owners.

Perhaps you could offer up this Idea in the form of a Feedback listing??

[+roziecakes]

After knowschad's post I went to go see if I myself have any attributes to clear, and I realized that I haven't gotten any NM logs on any of my active caches, but I did look on a couple of my archived caches from when I lived in Denver, and yes, it's true, the NM attribute does not clear automatically when you post an owner maintenance log... I honestly can say I did not know that!

[+fizzymagic]

To ensure NM are checked-out by the CO, the system should prevent requests to publish new caches until existing NM are fixed. Pretty simple. If education is the goal, this will force cachers to seek-out education and not hinder those who know.

 

When making a new proposal, it is generally a good idea to think about unintended consequences. This one has several. Most obvious is this: suppose have a problem with Cacher X. I can make sure that Cacher X doesn't get to post any new caches by simply posting a NM on some cache of theirs that is difficult to reach. For example, let's say they have a cache that requires a 10-mile hike in an area that is closed for the winter. I can put a NM log on it and, if they are reasonably honest and won't post a Performed Maintenance until they actually have visited the cache, I can keep them from placing any new caches for several months!

 

Would I personally do that? No. But I can guarantee you that somebody would. And the NM doesn't even have to be false! That's the best part. You can visit the cache but delay posting the NM until it is unreachable.

 

SO what's the unintended consequence? Much like the current maintenance demands, it will further erode any incentive to place a cache in a hard-to-reach spot. It will further tip the balance towards lame urban caches.

 

So I think it is a bad idea.

[mresoteric]

suppose have a problem with Cacher X. I can make sure that Cacher X doesn't get to post any new caches by simply posting a NM on some cache of theirs that is difficult to reach. For example, let's say they have a cache that requires a 10-mile hike in an area that is closed for the winter. I can put a NM log on it and, if they are reasonably honest and won't post a Performed Maintenance until they actually have visited the cache, I can keep them from placing any new caches for several months!

 

Couldn't you disable the cache and clear the NM attribute manually? Then you have acknowledged the NM (the purpose of preventing placing new caches), and you can check it later and re-enable it.