NEEDS MAINT Icon Utilization Is A Dismal Failure

[knowschad]

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!

I think you mean that re-enabling the cache does not automatically clear a NM attribute. Posting an Owners Maintenance log does, as far as I can see. That, however, is the step that I was neglecting.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

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.

 

I can't count the times I have sat in meetings and listened to a group get caught up in minutia when trying to solve a problem. I can probably count on one hand the number of times one of those minor details came to realization after a plan was executed. Worst case scenario, if I was the guy who couldn't confirm maintenance for awhile, I would consider it an honor to not hide a new cache for the greater good. I do not see your scenario as presenting a consequence of significance.

[+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!

I think you mean that re-enabling the cache does not automatically clear a NM attribute. Posting an Owners Maintenance log does, as far as I can see. That, however, is the step that I was neglecting.

 

Yes, sorry, that is what I meant.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

Yet, once they are educated, they will simply clear the icons while doing nothing for the actual cache, then resubmit their new one.

 

The OP was about people that actually do the required maintenance but neglect to clear the icon, not about people that neglect maintenance outright. Two different problems.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

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.

 

Yet, once they are educated, they will simply clear the icons while doing nothing for the actual cache, then resubmit their new one.

 

The OP was about people that actually do the required maintenance but neglect to clear the icon, not about people that neglect maintenance outright. Two different problems.

 

Exactly, and once they are reminded when they try to hide a new cache, they will clear the icon.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

As pointed out, Groundspeak is unlikely going to adopt out a cache simply because a cache owner did nor respond to an email. Their attitude is that he cache is the responsibility of the owner and while lack of response to emails from Groundspeak could be interpreted as failing to meet this responsibility it could also be argued that it means little, as some cache owners quietly maintain caches without posting or correspondence.

 

For virtual caches there is a clause that the owner should return to the Geocaching.com web site at least once a month to show they are still active. Groundspeak has use this to archive virtual caches where the owner has gone inactive, I suppose a similar clause (respond to email once a year within three months) could be use to archive physical caches.

 

However there are many caches where the original owner is no longer caching that are kept going by community members who replace logs, make repairs, etc. In fact there are some old cache in remote areas where they rarely get found that require no maintenance at all. When someone finds one of these caches it is there to be found. There would be an uproar if some if these cachers were to be archived just because there was no owner to respond to an email.

 

I think some people see a problem because they live in a relatively cache dense urban area. When a significant portion of these cache are in need of repair (or missing), that effects the finders in the area (especially newer cacher) who will have significant number of DNFs or other disappointments. What people are looking for is a way to control the number such caches. The current system relies on cachers to bring these to the attention of the reviewer via a Needs Archive log.

 

What I might suggest is automatic emails to cache owners who have a needs maintenance attribute on their cache. Perhaps after 1 month and then repeated every 3 months, send an email with instructions on how to clear the attribute using the Owner Maintenance log once the problem is fixed. If the email account becomes unvalidated (because of mail being bounced), perhaps the cache could be referred to a reviewer. The reviewer could either archive the cache (if the problem hasn't been repaired, or remove the Needs Maintenance attribute if some helpful cacher has posted in a log that the repairs were made and the cache is in order.

[+fizzymagic]

I can't count the times I have sat in meetings and listened to a group get caught up in minutia when trying to solve a problem. I can probably count on one hand the number of times one of those minor details came to realization after a plan was executed. Worst case scenario, if I was the guy who couldn't confirm maintenance for awhile, I would consider it an honor to not hide a new cache for the greater good.

 

Wow. Impressively dismissive and condescending reply. I could not have done better myself.

 

Unfortunately, the problem I brought up is not part of the "minutiae" (note the correct spelling); the disincentive to hide hard-to-reach caches is real and already a problem.

 

But you're happy as long as we have a way to punish people who don't do maintenance the way you want. Who cares whether there are bad side effects or not; the main goal is to make sure those cache owners are kept in line.

 

That attitude is so far from what geocaching is all about that it boggles the mind. Thank goodness Groundspeak doesn't implement all the rules that people think up.

[+BlueDeuce]

If the cache owner has clearly maintained their cache, and has failed to respond to my instructions on how to remove the NM, or chooses not to, can I request the reviewer to remove it?

[+Lieblweb]

Question (from a newbie)

 

Is there local groups of volunteers that actually 'visit' caches - to either verify they need maintenance, and/or review new caches?

 

Is there an adoption program for caches that have been left & un-maintained? Instead of putting them in the archive bin?

 

After a cache is remedied 'archived' - is there a group of volunteers that collects the cache (to not leave trash)?

 

I'm a newbie myself and I've already seen a lot of caches that looked 'un-groomed' for a long time and some the logs were impossible to sign.

It makes me want to keep a box of ziplock bags & log sheets in my truck and fix these caches as I go. But - nobody wants to be accused of stepping on toes and I might be spending a lot of money on bags & ink.

 

As a newbie, I like the NM. I've used it anytime the log sheets are soaked and un-signable. How else do you communicate that to the owners especially if they're not visiting their own caches on a fairly regular basis?

Edited April 26, 2011 by Lieblweb

[+mtn-man]

How does one filter by attribute?

It is one of the selections in a pocket query. You can sort by various attributes, including the NM one.

 

Attributes to Include (Click to include/exclude certain attributes.)

Fifth row down, first one on the left.

 

If the cache owner has clearly maintained their cache, and has failed to respond to my instructions on how to remove the NM, or chooses not to, can I request the reviewer to remove it?

Yes. I've done that from emails.

 

It is something I have been looking at lately actually. In Alabama where I review I have pulled a query about it. There are over 1,000 at this time. I've looked at a few and have not gone deep into it. I've removed some if they just look good, some I have found even. At five minutes a cache though, that is 5,000 minutes of my time. I would like to knock that down though, so I will probably keep looking at them.

[+Don_J]

How does one filter by attribute?

It is one of the selections in a pocket query. You can sort by various attributes, including the NM one.

 

Attributes to Include (Click to include/exclude certain attributes.)

Fifth row down, first one on the left.

 

If the cache owner has clearly maintained their cache, and has failed to respond to my instructions on how to remove the NM, or chooses not to, can I request the reviewer to remove it?

Yes. I've done that from emails.

 

It is something I have been looking at lately actually. In Alabama where I review I have pulled a query about it. There are over 1,000 at this time. I've looked at a few and have not gone deep into it. I've removed some if they just look good, some I have found even. At five minutes a cache though, that is 5,000 minutes of my time. I would like to knock that down though, so I will probably keep looking at them.

 

How about, if it appears that the owner is active, post a canned reviewer note with instructions on how the owner can do it themselves. This hopefully will cut down on having to do it for that same owner, the next time it comes up.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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!

 

That's three of us, with a combined amount of experience of 15 years that didn't know that disabling a cache, posting a owner maintenance log, then renabling the cache doesn't clear the needs maintenance attribute. Perhaps GS should post a step-by-step cache maintenance article in their newsletter.

 

I had a similar idea about auto-disabling a cache that had unresolved needs maintenance logs/attributes.

 

I've seen reviewer notes quite a few times that say something like...."I noticed that this cache has been temporarily disabled for a period of time well in excess of the period of "a few weeks"....". Rather than have a reviewer scan for disabled caches (or caches which have the Needs maintenance attribute set), it seems to me that a automated approach could save reviewer time and provide more information to cache owners. For example...

 

The system could scan cache listings and if it encounters a cache listing which has a Needs Maintenance log that has not been addressed with an Owner Maintenance log (which could simply read "I'll go check on the cache to fix the problem") after a period of one month, a reminder email could be sent to the cache owner which tells the CO the cache may require maintenance. It could also CC the reviewer to let them know that a reminder has been sent. If another month passes, and the CO still hasn't posted an Owner Maintenance log, the cache could be auto-disabled and another email message sent to the CO indicating that maintenance on the cache is required (even if that just means posting a owner maintenance log indicating that the problem has been resolved). Another month without any CO action and a "Needs Reviewer Attention" email could be sent to the local review who could archive the cache if there are no extenuating circumstances.

 

I know that others will shoot holes in the idea, so I'll start. Such a system would all but eliminated community maintained caches (some might consider that a benefit).

[+mtn-man]

It is something I have been looking at lately actually. In Alabama where I review I have pulled a query about it. There are over 1,000 at this time. I've looked at a few and have not gone deep into it. I've removed some if they just look good, some I have found even. At five minutes a cache though, that is 5,000 minutes of my time. I would like to knock that down though, so I will probably keep looking at them.

 

How about, if it appears that the owner is active, post a canned reviewer note with instructions on how the owner can do it themselves. This hopefully will cut down on having to do it for that same owner, the next time it comes up.

Multiple caches by one owner ends up involving disabled caches too it seems. I just sent an owner a personal email about their caches. I hoped everything was OK with them. I know people like their caches but I have felt like I have had to archive a few. They replied back quickly and have real life issues going on. They are going to try to get on them. Unfortunately, they still sit. Tough call for the reviewers. No really good solution.

 

I'll give an example of the community maintained cache too. I've replaced a cache for an old pal of mine. I noticed a month ago that it was missing again and confirmed it. We didn't have a replacement at that time though. I went back just two days ago but forgot about it. I was late getting over to see my dad and wanted to go check another area out that has some land owner flux issues. I wanted to see the area first hand and was going that way. I could have replaced this other cache in ten minutes, but I forgot. Someone posted a Needs Archived note yesterday. I posted a note on the cache yesterday that I forgot to get it the day before that and did disable it. I'll replace it when I go back in the next few weeks. An automatic system might just kill it before I can help my pal out. Again, considering all the variables in play, an absolute automatic system might not be a good solution. I don't know though.

[+BlueDeuce]

<snip...> At five minutes a cache though, that is 5,000 minutes of my time. I would like to knock that down though, so I will probably keep looking at them.

 

Back in '09 I posted this on our local board.

 

Needs Maintenance and You.

 

I was recently doing a pocket query looking at caches that have the Need Maintenance Attribute set and to give you an idea of the volume, within a ten mile radius of Cedar Rapids I found 48 caches listed.

 

Now I know that some caches have just recently had some issues and will be addressed, and some have needed attention for quite some time, there is however a large number of caches that have been properly serviced but the Needs Maintenance Attribute has never been cleared.

 

If you are a cache owner you might want to check to see if your cache has been flagged. If you own several caches you can do a quick pocket query on your caches and see if any have the Attribute set. Just select Caches 'I own' and Attributes to Include 'Needs Maintenance'.

 

If you want to clear the Attribute you can either submit a Owner Maintenance log or on the cache page, under navigation you can select edit attributes and select N/R next to Needs Maintenance. Thanks.

 

[knowschad]

I can't count the times I have sat in meetings and listened to a group get caught up in minutia when trying to solve a problem. I can probably count on one hand the number of times one of those minor details came to realization after a plan was executed. Worst case scenario, if I was the guy who couldn't confirm maintenance for awhile, I would consider it an honor to not hide a new cache for the greater good.

 

Wow. Impressively dismissive and condescending reply. I could not have done better myself.

 

Oh, come on! You could too!

[+Ike 13]

Question (from a newbie)

 

1) Is there local groups of volunteers that actually 'visit' caches - to either verify they need maintenance, and/or review new caches?

 

2) Is there an adoption program for caches that have been left & un-maintained? Instead of putting them in the archive bin?

 

3) After a cache is remedied 'archived' - is there a group of volunteers that collects the cache (to not leave trash)?

 

4) I'm a newbie myself and I've already seen a lot of caches that looked 'un-groomed' for a long time and some the logs were impossible to sign.

It makes me want to keep a box of ziplock bags & log sheets in my truck and fix these caches as I go. But - nobody wants to be accused of stepping on toes and I might be spending a lot of money on bags & ink.

 

5) As a newbie, I like the NM. I've used it anytime the log sheets are soaked and un-signable. How else do you communicate that to the owners especially if they're not visiting their own caches on a fairly regular basis?

 

1) Reviewers just review the cache to see if it meets the guidelines based off the information given. And only act on NA logs (or requests) by posting a note requesting the owner contact them. We as a community are responsible for visiting the site and reporting problems.

 

2) No. GS has declared that the cache is your property and they cannot give away your property.

 

3) In some areas yes. Most archives happen only due to a container disappearing.

 

4) A lot of people do carry extra logs. There's nothing wrong with that. Now if a container gets wet every time it rains then what's the point? That may lead to a NM and then a NA log.

 

5) NM is the best way unless you personally know the owner. I do not visit my caches often. I do maintenance runs every few months or so but will always go out ASAP when a problem is sited.

[+FloridaFour]

Wow, we don't have such a bad problem with the NM logs here. Maybe the solution would be: fix problem within 2 weeks, give a reason why it may take you longer, or your cache will be archived. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

If I see a NM on a cache for a few weeks, I go ahead and put a NA on it. I really don't care, because if the CO doesn't want to bother with it, it should be archived so other people can find space to put a cache nearby. We have a very cache-saturated area and it can be hard to find legitimate places to put quality caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wow, we don't have such a bad problem with the NM logs here. Maybe the solution would be: fix problem within 2 weeks, give a reason why it may take you longer, or your cache will be archived. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

If I see a NM on a cache for a few weeks, I go ahead and put a NA on it. I really don't care, because if the CO doesn't want to bother with it, it should be archived so other people can find space to put a cache nearby. We have a very cache-saturated area and it can be hard to find legitimate places to put quality caches.

 

So perhaps your approach works well in a very cache-saturated area. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best approach in a cache sparse area. You're suggesting a global solution for what may be a local issue.

[+L0ne.R]

Wow, we don't have such a bad problem with the NM logs here. Maybe the solution would be: fix problem within 2 weeks, give a reason why it may take you longer, or your cache will be archived. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

If I see a NM on a cache for a few weeks, I go ahead and put a NA on it. I really don't care, because if the CO doesn't want to bother with it, it should be archived so other people can find space to put a cache nearby. We have a very cache-saturated area and it can be hard to find legitimate places to put quality caches.

 

So perhaps your approach works well in a very cache-saturated area. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best approach in a cache sparse area. You're suggesting a global solution for what may be a local issue.

 

I don't see it that way. I think he's suggesting a method of dealing with problem caches in a cache saturated area in order to open up spots for new caches.

 

But in a cache sparse area it would still clean up the abandoned caches. In a cache sparse area what's better - an abandoned cache badly in need of repair or no cache? I would prefer no cache rather then drive 30 miles to find a moldy old fake lock n lock, 3 tabs missing and a full, deteriorating, wet logbook.

[+Don_J]

 

That's three of us, with a combined amount of experience of 15 years that didn't know that disabling a cache, posting a owner maintenance log, then renabling the cache doesn't clear the needs maintenance attribute. Perhaps GS should post a step-by-step cache maintenance article in their newsletter.

 

 

Posting an Owner Maintenance log DOES clear the attribute/icon. Just to make sure that something hadn't changed, I just tested it on an archived cache that still had the icon. A couple of clicks and it was gone.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Don_J

[+PokerLuck]

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.

 

Ok, I see your point. Then drop the adoption part. After three months, it's disabled. After three more months, it's archived. Yeah, some decent caches might get archived, but I think the overall improvement to the community far outweighs that problem.

[+GeoGeeBee]

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.

 

Ok, I see your point. Then drop the adoption part. After three months, it's disabled. After three more months, it's archived. Yeah, some decent caches might get archived, but I think the overall improvement to the community far outweighs that problem.

If you suggest this on the feedback forum, I'll vote for it.

[+fizzymagic]

If you suggest this on the feedback forum, I'll vote for it.

 

In other words, you want more dominance of lame urban micros. Because good, hard-to-reach caches will be eliminated by this rule. Guaranteed.

[+L0ne.R]

If you suggest this on the feedback forum, I'll vote for it.

 

In other words, you want more dominance of lame urban micros. Because good, hard-to-reach caches will be eliminated by this rule. Guaranteed.

 

Why? An active CO could disable a cache that had NMs logs and would probably have up to a year to make the necessary fix, especially if he keeps in touch with the reviewer and explains why he can't get to the cache right away.

[AZcachemeister]

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.

 

If you added the attribute yourself, then you can clear it yourself.

The last time I checked, if it was put there by someone's log, only an 'Owner Maintenance' log will clear it.

 

IF I can just edit the attributes list to clear it, that is going to save me a lot of maintenance trips...

[+BlueDeuce]

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.

 

If you added the attribute yourself, then you can clear it yourself.

The last time I checked, if it was put there by someone's log, only an 'Owner Maintenance' log will clear it.

 

IF I can just edit the attributes list to clear it, that is going to save me a lot of maintenance trips...

 

Put one on this cache of mine and let me check.

 

http://...

 

The cache needs maintenance anyway.

Edited April 27, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, I was able to remove the attribute via the edit mode. It did not require a log.

[+Don_J]

Okay, I was able to remove the attribute via the edit mode. It did not require a log.

 

What cache type was it? Someone posted here that it doesn't work for traditionals, but will for other types.

[+BlueDeuce]

Okay, I was able to remove the attribute via the edit mode. It did not require a log.

 

What cache type was it? Someone posted here that it doesn't work for traditionals, but will for other types.

 

It was a traditional.

[+Mark+Karen]

I very rarely see a NM, 99% of the time if for example a log book is full then this will be posted in the found log and left at that.

 

There is a fear that the cache owner will take offence at the NM log. The one and only time I posted a NM I got a very irate email back from the CO, so I won't likely do it again.

[+L0ne.R]

I very rarely see a NM, 99% of the time if for example a log book is full then this will be posted in the found log and left at that.

 

There is a fear that the cache owner will take offence at the NM log. The one and only time I posted a NM I got a very irate email back from the CO, so I won't likely do it again.

 

I was the catalyst of a geocide when I posted a NA on a CO's cache. I was thrown for a loop but I'm not going to let it stop me from posting necessary NMs and NAs. However, I now preface my NA with "Needs Reviewer Attention" and explain, in detail, why I'm posting the NA -- x number of problem reports in the logs, x number of NMs, no response from the CO in x months, etc.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Lone R

[+Avernar]

I was the catalyst of a geocide when I posted a NA on a CO's cache. I was thrown for a loop but I'm not going to let it stop me from posting necessary NMs and NAs. However, I now preface my NA with "Needs Reviewer Attention" and explain, in detail, why I'm posting the NA -- x number of problem reports in the logs, x number of NMs, no response from the CO in x months, etc.

I also put the Needs Reviewer Attention text in my N/A logs. Recently I forgot to add the text which cause a bit of a stir.

 

There's a nearby multi that had been disabled for 7 months because of a missing stage. I posted a N/A which got the reviewer involved and the CO posted a maintenance log a month later saying everything was good to go. I was planning on grabbing the cache but someone else logged that the final was missing. The CO disabled the cache saying he can't get an ammo can right away and it will take a month or more to fix.

 

I posted another N/A to get the reviewer involved (and also suggested to use a temporary lock & lock) but forgot to put the "Just getting the reviewer's attention" text in my log. First the reviewer says the N/A was inappropriate as this was a different issue. Whaaaa??! The CO said all stages were good to go. Then I get a nasty email from the CO saying he doesn't have a car and can't get there easily.

 

First I fired off an email to the reviewer that I only wanted to get their attention and did not want to see the cache archived. I also sent the CO an email saying the same thing but added that they did agree to maintain their cache in a timely manner when they listed it.

 

I REALLY wish Groundspeak would changed the "Needs Archived" text to "Needs Reviewer Attention".

[knowschad]

I was the catalyst of a geocide when I posted a NA on a CO's cache. I was thrown for a loop but I'm not going to let it stop me from posting necessary NMs and NAs. However, I now preface my NA with "Needs Reviewer Attention" and explain, in detail, why I'm posting the NA -- x number of problem reports in the logs, x number of NMs, no response from the CO in x months, etc.

I also put the Needs Reviewer Attention text in my N/A logs. Recently I forgot to add the text which cause a bit of a stir.

 

There's a nearby multi that had been disabled for 7 months because of a missing stage. I posted a N/A which got the reviewer involved and the CO posted a maintenance log a month later saying everything was good to go. I was planning on grabbing the cache but someone else logged that the final was missing. The CO disabled the cache saying he can't get an ammo can right away and it will take a month or more to fix.

 

I posted another N/A to get the reviewer involved (and also suggested to use a temporary lock & lock) but forgot to put the "Just getting the reviewer's attention" text in my log. First the reviewer says the N/A was inappropriate as this was a different issue. Whaaaa??! The CO said all stages were good to go. Then I get a nasty email from the CO saying he doesn't have a car and can't get there easily.

 

First I fired off an email to the reviewer that I only wanted to get their attention and did not want to see the cache archived. I also sent the CO an email saying the same thing but added that they did agree to maintain their cache in a timely manner when they listed it.

 

I REALLY wish Groundspeak would changed the "Needs Archived" text to "Needs Reviewer Attention".

Yes, I have also taken to adding the "Needs Reviewer Attention" to NA logs in the rare cases that I have needed to post one. I also agree strongly that the wording needs to be changed. How hard can that be?

[+L0ne.R]

I was the catalyst of a geocide when I posted a NA on a CO's cache. I was thrown for a loop but I'm not going to let it stop me from posting necessary NMs and NAs. However, I now preface my NA with "Needs Reviewer Attention" and explain, in detail, why I'm posting the NA -- x number of problem reports in the logs, x number of NMs, no response from the CO in x months, etc.

I also put the Needs Reviewer Attention text in my N/A logs. Recently I forgot to add the text which cause a bit of a stir.

 

There's a nearby multi that had been disabled for 7 months because of a missing stage. I posted a N/A which got the reviewer involved and the CO posted a maintenance log a month later saying everything was good to go. I was planning on grabbing the cache but someone else logged that the final was missing. The CO disabled the cache saying he can't get an ammo can right away and it will take a month or more to fix.

 

I posted another N/A to get the reviewer involved (and also suggested to use a temporary lock & lock) but forgot to put the "Just getting the reviewer's attention" text in my log. First the reviewer says the N/A was inappropriate as this was a different issue. Whaaaa??! The CO said all stages were good to go. Then I get a nasty email from the CO saying he doesn't have a car and can't get there easily.

 

First I fired off an email to the reviewer that I only wanted to get their attention and did not want to see the cache archived. I also sent the CO an email saying the same thing but added that they did agree to maintain their cache in a timely manner when they listed it.

 

I REALLY wish Groundspeak would changed the "Needs Archived" text to "Needs Reviewer Attention".

Yes, I have also taken to adding the "Needs Reviewer Attention" to NA logs in the rare cases that I have needed to post one. I also agree strongly that the wording needs to be changed. How hard can that be?

 

I agree, especially when even the Reviewers think NA is too harsh.

[+TerraViators]

21.9 miles

[+Castle Mischief]

If you suggest this on the feedback forum, I'll vote for it.

 

In other words, you want more dominance of lame urban micros. Because good, hard-to-reach caches will be eliminated by this rule. Guaranteed.

 

An un-maintained cache is an un-maintained cache, no matter where it is. If the owner has abandoned it and can't be bothered to deal with the issues then it's no better or worse than a lamp post cache in the same condition.

[sdarken]

When a cache is re-enabled (that has a N.M flag), I think it would be helpful if the website asked the user whether the N.M flag should be cleared.

 

Does the "Needs Maintenance" email to a C.O contain instructions on what to do? If not, that might be another simple improvement.

 

Posting an Owner Maintenance log is a pretty obscure way to clear anything. It's not surprising that lots of people don't understand it.

[+fizzymagic]

An un-maintained cache is an un-maintained cache, no matter where it is. If the owner has abandoned it and can't be bothered to deal with the issues then it's no better or worse than a lamp post cache in the same condition.

 

So to your mind, a full log in a cache that requires a 10-mile hike is the same as a full log in an urban micro? And both are capital offenses?

 

I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree.

[+TerraViators]

An un-maintained cache is an un-maintained cache, no matter where it is. If the owner has abandoned it and can't be bothered to deal with the issues then it's no better or worse than a lamp post cache in the same condition.

 

So to your mind, a full log in a cache that requires a 10-mile hike is the same as a full log in an urban micro? And both are capital offenses?

 

I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree.

I disagree. Signing the log is, at the basic level, the requirement to log the cache as found. If you cannot sign the log because it is full, that is preventing a find. We cannot harp on the unforgiving "signing the physical log MUST BE DONE before logging an e-find" mantra if these issues go unresolved.

[+Don_J]

I was the catalyst of a geocide when I posted a NA on a CO's cache. I was thrown for a loop but I'm not going to let it stop me from posting necessary NMs and NAs. However, I now preface my NA with "Needs Reviewer Attention" and explain, in detail, why I'm posting the NA -- x number of problem reports in the logs, x number of NMs, no response from the CO in x months, etc.

I also put the Needs Reviewer Attention text in my N/A logs. Recently I forgot to add the text which cause a bit of a stir.

 

There's a nearby multi that had been disabled for 7 months because of a missing stage. I posted a N/A which got the reviewer involved and the CO posted a maintenance log a month later saying everything was good to go. I was planning on grabbing the cache but someone else logged that the final was missing. The CO disabled the cache saying he can't get an ammo can right away and it will take a month or more to fix.

 

I posted another N/A to get the reviewer involved (and also suggested to use a temporary lock & lock) but forgot to put the "Just getting the reviewer's attention" text in my log. First the reviewer says the N/A was inappropriate as this was a different issue. Whaaaa??! The CO said all stages were good to go. Then I get a nasty email from the CO saying he doesn't have a car and can't get there easily.

 

First I fired off an email to the reviewer that I only wanted to get their attention and did not want to see the cache archived. I also sent the CO an email saying the same thing but added that they did agree to maintain their cache in a timely manner when they listed it.

 

I REALLY wish Groundspeak would changed the "Needs Archived" text to "Needs Reviewer Attention".

 

You can add a vote to my badly misspelled Feedback request.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

If you suggest this on the feedback forum, I'll vote for it.

 

In other words, you want more dominance of lame urban micros. Because good, hard-to-reach caches will be eliminated by this rule. Guaranteed.

 

An un-maintained cache is an un-maintained cache, no matter where it is. If the owner has abandoned it and can't be bothered to deal with the issues then it's no better or worse than a lamp post cache in the same condition.

 

But, an automatic system that would archive caches that DON'T have issues would serve no one. I have found perfectly good ammo cans that have been in place for nine years with no owner intervention.

[knowschad]

When a cache is re-enabled (that has a N.M flag), I think it would be helpful if the website asked the user whether the N.M flag should be cleared.

 

Does the "Needs Maintenance" email to a C.O contain instructions on what to do? If not, that might be another simple improvement.

 

Posting an Owner Maintenance log is a pretty obscure way to clear anything. It's not surprising that lots of people don't understand it.

 

Two very good suggestions. Unfortunately, the people that make this type of decision may never read this thread.

[+GeoGeeBee]

If you suggest this on the feedback forum, I'll vote for it.

 

In other words, you want more dominance of lame urban micros. Because good, hard-to-reach caches will be eliminated by this rule. Guaranteed.

 

An un-maintained cache is an un-maintained cache, no matter where it is. If the owner has abandoned it and can't be bothered to deal with the issues then it's no better or worse than a lamp post cache in the same condition.

 

But, an automatic system that would archive caches that DON'T have issues would serve no one. I have found perfectly good ammo cans that have been in place for nine years with no owner intervention.

But if they are "perfectly good," then there won't be any NM logs posted to trigger the archival.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I can't count the times I have sat in meetings and listened to a group get caught up in minutia when trying to solve a problem. I can probably count on one hand the number of times one of those minor details came to realization after a plan was executed. Worst case scenario, if I was the guy who couldn't confirm maintenance for awhile, I would consider it an honor to not hide a new cache for the greater good.

 

Wow. Impressively dismissive and condescending reply. I could not have done better myself.

 

Unfortunately, the problem I brought up is not part of the "minutiae" (note the correct spelling); the disincentive to hide hard-to-reach caches is real and already a problem.

 

But you're happy as long as we have a way to punish people who don't do maintenance the way you want. Who cares whether there are bad side effects or not; the main goal is to make sure those cache owners are kept in line.

 

That attitude is so far from what geocaching is all about that it boggles the mind. Thank goodness Groundspeak doesn't implement all the rules that people think up.

 

Wow. Impressively dismissive and condescending reply. I could not have done better myself.

 

Condescending...not at all. Dismissive...yes, but just because you didn't convince me.

 

Unfortunately, the problem I brought up is not part of the "minutiae" (note the correct spelling

 

Ha! Look at you going all Dan Quayle on me. Not a spelling issue, but rather a quantity perspective. My peeps know to bring no more than one piece of minutia to a meeting.

 

But you're happy as long as we have a way to punish people who don't do maintenance the way you want. Who cares whether there are bad side effects or not; the main goal is to make sure those cache owners are kept in line.

 

I'll address your straw man. The main goal of this thread was to address fixing an apparent issue w/ NM. There have been several suggestions including at least one that I like better than what I posted. I have not seen a suggestion from you other than I believe you plan to ignore them. There is nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't offer a solution which is the purpose of this thread.

[+Don_J]

If you suggest this on the feedback forum, I'll vote for it.

 

In other words, you want more dominance of lame urban micros. Because good, hard-to-reach caches will be eliminated by this rule. Guaranteed.

 

An un-maintained cache is an un-maintained cache, no matter where it is. If the owner has abandoned it and can't be bothered to deal with the issues then it's no better or worse than a lamp post cache in the same condition.

 

But, an automatic system that would archive caches that DON'T have issues would serve no one. I have found perfectly good ammo cans that have been in place for nine years with no owner intervention.

But if they are "perfectly good," then there won't be any NM logs posted to trigger the archival.

 

Someone posts a NM because the log is full. Next cacher places a new log book and notes it in their online log. The cache is fine, but then the automatic system, which has no idea of the real world situation, comes along and archives it.

[+Isonzo Karst]

But if they are "perfectly good," then there won't be any NM logs posted to trigger the archival.

 

I wish this were true. However, a common use of NM is as substitute log for DNF.

 

I recently DNF'ed a cache. The next cacher also DNF'ed.

The next two cachers NM'ed it ("needs to be checked"). I returned and found it. It does not need maintenance.

 

The cache is still flagged NM. I did note in my log "how to clear the NM icon" - but I know that cache owner travels a lot and doesn't log in for months at a time. The NM is set and will be there for some time, and may just stay there - as I suspect the cache owner isn't reading logs that closely, given that they must see them all in a bunch when they do log in.

[+L0ne.R]

Someone posts a NM because the log is full. Next cacher places a new log book and notes it in their online log. The cache is fine, but then the automatic system, which has no idea of the real world situation, comes along and archives it.

 

Maybe not an automated NA but an automated Disable. After it's been disabled for awhile the Reviewer steps in to determine the need for an archive.

[knowschad]

Someone posts a NM because the log is full. Next cacher places a new log book and notes it in their online log. The cache is fine, but then the automatic system, which has no idea of the real world situation, comes along and archives it.

 

Maybe not an automated NA but an automated Disable. After it's been disabled for awhile the Reviewer steps in to determine the need for an archive.

 

Since, as we all know, an NA log is really just a "Needs Reviewer's Attention" log, then what's the difference? NA logs, of course, do not archive the cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If you suggest this on the feedback forum, I'll vote for it.

 

In other words, you want more dominance of lame urban micros. Because good, hard-to-reach caches will be eliminated by this rule. Guaranteed.

 

An un-maintained cache is an un-maintained cache, no matter where it is. If the owner has abandoned it and can't be bothered to deal with the issues then it's no better or worse than a lamp post cache in the same condition.

 

But, an automatic system that would archive caches that DON'T have issues would serve no one. I have found perfectly good ammo cans that have been in place for nine years with no owner intervention.

 

For the suggesting that I made, it would automate sending a reminder to the CO that a cache has the NM attribute set, automate the disabling of the cache if the CO did not respond within a reasonable amount of time, and automate the sending of a NA (Needs Reviewer Attention) to the CO and Reviewer if an additional amount of time elapsed. It would not, however, automate the archiving of a cache. That action would still require manually posting an Archive log by either the CO or the reviewer.

 

As I said, I know it's not perfect as that perfectly good ammo can, maintained by the community, could potentially get archived when someone came along and posted a NM log that should have been a DNF.

[sdarken]

When a cache is re-enabled (that has a N.M flag), I think it would be helpful if the website asked the user whether the N.M flag should be cleared.

 

Does the "Needs Maintenance" email to a C.O contain instructions on what to do? If not, that might be another simple improvement.

 

Posting an Owner Maintenance log is a pretty obscure way to clear anything. It's not surprising that lots of people don't understand it.

 

Two very good suggestions. Unfortunately, the people that make this type of decision may never read this thread.

 

I found something similar to my first suggestion in the feedback forum:

warn about or clear "needs maintenance" attribute when enabling a cache