Jump to content

Are you allowed to delete a archive request ?


Recommended Posts

I know of the rules of deleting "found it " logs the hard way. But I'm unclear about is it allowed to delete an archive request put on your own cache. Someone DNFd one of my caches. So did 5 others. The cache is easy for some hard for others. So the last cacher after they placed the DNF they posted a N/A without an Needs Maintenance first. I put a Owners maintenance and deleted the N/A log. Went and double checked the cache and sure enough it was still there in plain view. Made sure the log was there and added to the log that it was in plain view. A friend said I'm not allowed to delete any logs unless it was a mistake. Is this true? If the cache was requested to be archived when it was still there and I can't be allowed to remove the log?

Link to comment

Cacher who placed th NA request has been active since 2001 and should have known better then place a NA before a NM especially if the owner is as active as I am and not someone who disappeared off the face of the Earth. I believe I don't have to write a note "still there" after each DNF. This same cacher found another cache of mine the same day, well the log in the baggy on the ground. So they put it on the sign an inch from the container which I was surprised they didnt see it right there.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

I posted a Needs Archival on a cache that violated the guidelines (it was a film canister in a hole drilled in a King County Parks sign, and covered with a reflector), and the CO deleted my NA log. The reviewers did not do anything about it until I had a direct email conversation with a reviewer about it (by that time, the cache had gone missing and the owner was MIA).

Link to comment

I posted a Needs Archival on a cache that violated the guidelines (it was a film canister in a hole drilled in a King County Parks sign, and covered with a reflector), and the CO deleted my NA log. The reviewers did not do anything about it until I had a direct email conversation with a reviewer about it (by that time, the cache had gone missing and the owner was MIA).

 

I did that once on a cache that violated the guidelines big time and the CO deleted my log and so far the reviewer havent done anything. Its in a situation that could give geocaching a black eye because it will appear to a muggle that someone is breaking in a building. :ph34r:

Link to comment

I did that once on a cache that violated the guidelines big time and the CO deleted my log and so far the reviewer havent done anything. Its in a situation that could give geocaching a black eye because it will appear to a muggle that someone is breaking in a building. :ph34r:

 

A cache that 'could give geocaching a black eye' is not against the guidelines. Nothing in there about not 'appearing to break in to a building' which could probably apply to a large percentage of urban caches.

Link to comment

I did that once on a cache that violated the guidelines big time and the CO deleted my log and so far the reviewer havent done anything. Its in a situation that could give geocaching a black eye because it will appear to a muggle that someone is breaking in a building. :ph34r:

 

A cache that 'could give geocaching a black eye' is not against the guidelines. Nothing in there about not 'appearing to break in to a building' which could probably apply to a large percentage of urban caches.

 

Its inside of a wall, you need to pull back broken piece metal sliding to get to the cache. Its big enough of a hole for someone to get inside of the building. The building is very close to a major airport. :blink:

Link to comment

I did that once on a cache that violated the guidelines big time and the CO deleted my log and so far the reviewer havent done anything. Its in a situation that could give geocaching a black eye because it will appear to a muggle that someone is breaking in a building. :ph34r:

 

A cache that 'could give geocaching a black eye' is not against the guidelines. Nothing in there about not 'appearing to break in to a building' which could probably apply to a large percentage of urban caches.

 

Its inside of a wall, you need to pull back broken piece metal sliding to get to the cache. Its big enough of a hole for someone to get inside of the building. The building is very close to a major airport. :blink:

If you have more then one reviewer like we do, I would suggest sending a picture and an email to the other reviewer or to contact@geocaching.com. Did they bother to mention they have permission to place the cache on the property.

Link to comment

I did that once on a cache that violated the guidelines big time and the CO deleted my log and so far the reviewer havent done anything. Its in a situation that could give geocaching a black eye because it will appear to a muggle that someone is breaking in a building. :ph34r:

 

A cache that 'could give geocaching a black eye' is not against the guidelines. Nothing in there about not 'appearing to break in to a building' which could probably apply to a large percentage of urban caches.

 

Its inside of a wall, you need to pull back broken piece metal sliding to get to the cache. Its big enough of a hole for someone to get inside of the building. The building is very close to a major airport. :blink:

If you have more then one reviewer like we do, I would suggest sending a picture and an email to the other reviewer or to contact@geocaching.com. Did they bother to mention they have permission to place the cache on the property.

 

Nothing on the cache page about permission. I live about 2 hours from there and wish I took a few pictures of it.

Link to comment

I put a Owners maintenance and deleted the N/A log. Went and double checked the cache and sure enough it was still there in plain view. Made sure the log was there and added to the log that it was in plain view.

I always thought you checked the cache, THEN posted Owner Maintenance... :huh:

 

I'd leave the NA log. Part of the history, doesn't/shouldn't look bad on you, IF you've done the maintenance.

Link to comment

As Brian said, you can delete a NA, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. Once it's posted, the "damage" is already done. The Reviewer gets a notification that a NA was posted, and they (hopefully), investigate the circumstances. Once they look at your cache page and see your note advising that the cache was still there, that would likely be the end of it. By deleting the NA log, you delete some of the history of the cache, and in this case, there is a far more humorous resolution handy.

 

If I were to face a similar situation, my Maintenance Conducted log would look something like this:

 

"Greetings and salutations to those visiting this cache page. I assume you are an astute individual, and I assume you've noticed the big honking "Needs Archived" log placed by BillyBobNosePicker on 01-01-11. You are probably scratching your head, wondering why on earth this cache needs to be archived. Fear not, kind reader, for I am wondering that as well. After all, the cache is right where it's supposed to be. I just verified that this morning. And, as a quick glance at my profile will tell you, I am still active in this game. The only thing I can surmise is that, in BillyBobNosePicker's world, any cache that he is not able to find must be archived. As you can see by the D/T rating, this cache is kinda difficult. At the present, there are a total of 10 DNFs on this cache. Thankfully, the other 9 seekers didn't have egos as large as BillyBobNosePicker, else there would be 10 Needs Archived logs on it instead of one. I did take the liberty of e-mailing BillyBobNosePicker with an exacting description of precisely where the cache is hidden, including several photographs. Hopefully, he'll be able to locate it should he return, and won't feel compelled to call for its archival again."

 

A response of that magnitude skates very close to turning a cache page into a forum, which Groundspeak frowns on, but at least it gets the message across.

Link to comment

As Brian said, you can delete a NA, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. Once it's posted, the "damage" is already done. The Reviewer gets a notification that a NA was posted, and they (hopefully), investigate the circumstances. Once they look at your cache page and see your note advising that the cache was still there, that would likely be the end of it. By deleting the NA log, you delete some of the history of the cache, and in this case, there is a far more humorous resolution handy.

 

If I were to face a similar situation, my Maintenance Conducted log would look something like this:

 

"Greetings and salutations to those visiting this cache page. I assume you are an astute individual, and I assume you've noticed the big honking "Needs Archived" log placed by BillyBobNosePicker on 01-01-11. You are probably scratching your head, wondering why on earth this cache needs to be archived. Fear not, kind reader, for I am wondering that as well. After all, the cache is right where it's supposed to be. I just verified that this morning. And, as a quick glance at my profile will tell you, I am still active in this game. The only thing I can surmise is that, in BillyBobNosePicker's world, any cache that he is not able to find must be archived. As you can see by the D/T rating, this cache is kinda difficult. At the present, there are a total of 10 DNFs on this cache. Thankfully, the other 9 seekers didn't have egos as large as BillyBobNosePicker, else there would be 10 Needs Archived logs on it instead of one. I did take the liberty of e-mailing BillyBobNosePicker with an exacting description of precisely where the cache is hidden, including several photographs. Hopefully, he'll be able to locate it should he return, and won't feel compelled to call for its archival again."

 

A response of that magnitude skates very close to turning a cache page into a forum, which Groundspeak frowns on, but at least it gets the message across.

 

Subtle... very subtle.

 

MrsB :D

Link to comment

I did that once on a cache that violated the guidelines big time and the CO deleted my log and so far the reviewer havent done anything. Its in a situation that could give geocaching a black eye because it will appear to a muggle that someone is breaking in a building. :ph34r:

 

A cache that 'could give geocaching a black eye' is not against the guidelines. Nothing in there about not 'appearing to break in to a building' which could probably apply to a large percentage of urban caches.

 

Perhaps there *should* be a guideline which states that "a cache which portrays geocaching in a bad way" for those that are incapable of using common sense.

Link to comment

You can delete any log

 

Don't think that is correct I do not think you can delete a reviewers log on your cache page.

 

SS

 

You are correct, you cant delete reviewers log.

 

You most certainly can delete a reviewer's log. I just tested it. The only exception is if the reviewer makes it undeletable.

Link to comment

You can delete any log but I don't see why you'd want to delete a NA.

Because you agreed to do so?

 

"Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. As the owner of your geocache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate."

 

A N/A log on a cache that's still there and is not violating the guidelines is a bogus log.

Link to comment
A N/A log on a cache that's still there and is not violating the guidelines is a bogus log.

Not necessarily. The term "Bogus" is highly subjective. If the mook who posted the NA honestly felt that the cache in question should be archived, and had a reason for that belief, (such as seeing a cache owner seemingly ignoring a string of DNFs, perceiving a violation of the maintenance guidelines), whether we agree with that reason or not, the NA is not automatically bogus.

Link to comment

As Brian said, you can delete a NA, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. Once it's posted, the "damage" is already done. The Reviewer gets a notification that a NA was posted, and they (hopefully), investigate the circumstances. Once they look at your cache page and see your note advising that the cache was still there, that would likely be the end of it. By deleting the NA log, you delete some of the history of the cache, and in this case, there is a far more humorous resolution handy.

 

If I were to face a similar situation, my Maintenance Conducted log would look something like this:

 

"Greetings and salutations to those visiting this cache page. I assume you are an astute individual, and I assume you've noticed the big honking "Needs Archived" log placed by BillyBobNosePicker on 01-01-11. You are probably scratching your head, wondering why on earth this cache needs to be archived. Fear not, kind reader, for I am wondering that as well. After all, the cache is right where it's supposed to be. I just verified that this morning. And, as a quick glance at my profile will tell you, I am still active in this game. The only thing I can surmise is that, in BillyBobNosePicker's world, any cache that he is not able to find must be archived. As you can see by the D/T rating, this cache is kinda difficult. At the present, there are a total of 10 DNFs on this cache. Thankfully, the other 9 seekers didn't have egos as large as BillyBobNosePicker, else there would be 10 Needs Archived logs on it instead of one. I did take the liberty of e-mailing BillyBobNosePicker with an exacting description of precisely where the cache is hidden, including several photographs. Hopefully, he'll be able to locate it should he return, and won't feel compelled to call for its archival again."

 

A response of that magnitude skates very close to turning a cache page into a forum, which Groundspeak frowns on, but at least it gets the message across.

 

Hey! Thanks for the e-mail about the location! I'll be certain to wash my hands before I look for it also!

Link to comment

You can delete any log but I don't see why you'd want to delete a NA.

Because you agreed to do so?

 

"Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. As the owner of your geocache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate."

 

A N/A log on a cache that's still there and is not violating the guidelines is a bogus log.

"Bogus" as in "armchair cacher didn't leave home, but logged a find". Cache owners are responsible for deleting those bogus logs.

 

But Groundspeak could clarify their definitions, for sure.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

I put a Owners maintenance and deleted the N/A log. Went and double checked the cache and sure enough it was still there in plain view. Made sure the log was there and added to the log that it was in plain view.

I always thought you checked the cache, THEN posted Owner Maintenance... :huh:

 

I'd leave the NA log. Part of the history, doesn't/shouldn't look bad on you, IF you've done the maintenance.

Some I don't need to personally have to check. I have many maintainers who look in on my caches. I knew this one was there still because someone told me. But since some new caches came out nearby mine I figured I kill two birds and check all my caches there.

 

I have put some of mine on disable with cache still in place so I could work on them and had a few specific cachers put NA on those caches. Really frustrating. One got the attention of the reviewer so I had to enable it again. At the same time there are some caches done by kids who don't maintain them for over a year we put NA multiple times and the reviewers don't respond

Link to comment

You can delete any log but I don't see why you'd want to delete a NA.

Because you agreed to do so?

 

"Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. As the owner of your geocache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate."

 

A N/A log on a cache that's still there and is not violating the guidelines is a bogus log.

 

A NA log left in earnest is not a bogus log.

Link to comment

You can delete any log

 

Don't think that is correct I do not think you can delete a reviewers log on your cache page.

 

SS

 

You are correct, you cant delete reviewers log.

 

You most certainly can delete a reviewer's log. I just tested it. The only exception is if the reviewer makes it undeletable.

 

Thank you for correcting me. I know what happen for me, I was unable to delete it and I thought it was all that way.

Link to comment

Cacher who placed th NA request has been active since 2001 and should have known better then place a NA before a NM especially if the owner is as active as I am and not someone who disappeared off the face of the Earth. I believe I don't have to write a note "still there" after each DNF. This same cacher found another cache of mine the same day, well the log in the baggy on the ground. So they put it on the sign an inch from the container which I was surprised they didnt see it right there.

 

It was probably one of those numbers guys.

Link to comment

As Brian said, you can delete a NA, but I'm not sure why you'd want to. Once it's posted, the "damage" is already done. The Reviewer gets a notification that a NA was posted, and they (hopefully), investigate the circumstances. Once they look at your cache page and see your note advising that the cache was still there, that would likely be the end of it. By deleting the NA log, you delete some of the history of the cache, and in this case, there is a far more humorous resolution handy.

 

If I were to face a similar situation, my Maintenance Conducted log would look something like this:

 

"Greetings and salutations to those visiting this cache page. I assume you are an astute individual, and I assume you've noticed the big honking "Needs Archived" log placed by BillyBobNosePicker on 01-01-11. You are probably scratching your head, wondering why on earth this cache needs to be archived. Fear not, kind reader, for I am wondering that as well. After all, the cache is right where it's supposed to be. I just verified that this morning. And, as a quick glance at my profile will tell you, I am still active in this game. The only thing I can surmise is that, in BillyBobNosePicker's world, any cache that he is not able to find must be archived. As you can see by the D/T rating, this cache is kinda difficult. At the present, there are a total of 10 DNFs on this cache. Thankfully, the other 9 seekers didn't have egos as large as BillyBobNosePicker, else there would be 10 Needs Archived logs on it instead of one. I did take the liberty of e-mailing BillyBobNosePicker with an exacting description of precisely where the cache is hidden, including several photographs. Hopefully, he'll be able to locate it should he return, and won't feel compelled to call for its archival again."

 

A response of that magnitude skates very close to turning a cache page into a forum, which Groundspeak frowns on, but at least it gets the message across.

 

Hey! Thanks for the e-mail about the location! I'll be certain to wash my hands before I look for it also!

 

Oh, man. Laughed pretty hard at this one.

Link to comment

Not necessarily. The term "Bogus" is highly subjective. If the mook who posted the NA honestly felt that the cache in question should be archived, and had a reason for that belief, (such as seeing a cache owner seemingly ignoring a string of DNFs, perceiving a violation of the maintenance guidelines), whether we agree with that reason or not, the NA is not automatically bogus.

I see a slight problem in your reasoning. Honestly feeling that something should be archived doesn't mean it's true. I can honestly feel that a cache should be archived because I want to put one there. If I post an NA log then it's a "bogus" log.

 

But you're right that I didn't quite word my post right. I didn't mean that it's automatically bogus. "An N/A log on a cache that's still there and doesn't appear to be violating the guidelines is a bogus log" is closer to what I meant.

 

As for ignoring a string of DNFs, you can't prove that the CO is ignoring them. They could have ran out and checked. Nothing says they must post something. Now if you want to confirm it you post a NM log. Now they're required to clear the NM and if they don't then you have proof and you can post a NA.

 

"Bogus" as in "armchair cacher didn't leave home, but logged a find". Cache owners are responsible for deleting those bogus logs.

 

But Groundspeak could clarify their definitions, for sure.

As you already pointed out, nowhere does it say that it's only for found logs or armchair logs. An NA can be bogus too. We had a bunch of caches NA'd by a bot not long ago. Those were bogus.

 

A NA log left in earnest is not a bogus log.

By who's definition of earnest, the logger's or the CO's? As I posted above it's the CO who should determine if the log was posted in earnest. The guidelines task the CO and not the hider to determine if a log is bogus.

 

I'm not saying the CO should make up the rules but use the generally accepted practices of when an NA is valid or not. Posting an NA because you want the spot is bogus. Posting an NA because you think it may violate the guidelines (even if the CO knows it doesn't) is not bogus. Posting an NA where it should have been a DNF/Note/NM is probably bogus.

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment

Cacher who placed th NA request has been active since 2001 and should have known better then place a NA before a NM especially if the owner is as active as I am and not someone who disappeared off the face of the Earth. I believe I don't have to write a note "still there" after each DNF. This same cacher found another cache of mine the same day, well the log in the baggy on the ground. So they put it on the sign an inch from the container which I was surprised they didnt see it right there.

 

Where in the guidelines, knowledge book, rules, code of conduct, geocachers creed, or anywhere else does it say that this is the appropriate order of things? :unsure:

 

I know of more than a few active cachers with crappy maintenance habits. I wouldn't hesitate to post a NA on one of their caches that I thought deserved it.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

A NA log left in earnest is not a bogus log.

By who's definition of earnest, the logger's or the CO's? As I posted above it's the CO who should determine if the log was posted in earnest. The guidelines task the CO and not the hider to determine if a log is bogus.

 

The logger's. Obviously the CO will hardly ever agree with an NA, so it's kinda silly to let the CO decide whether it's bogus or not.

 

Logging NA means "I think it needs to be archived". If this is the true intention behind the log, it's never bogus. Whether or not the cache should really be archived doesn't matter. Whether the reasons why the logger thinks that it should be archived are valid or not also doesn't matter. He might be mistaken, but that doesn't make the log bogus - he still thought it should be archived.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

Yeah, even though the reviewer will get the message doesn't mean they will always act on it immediately.

 

What I am saying is that it is possible to delete the NA log and it was not until I contacted the reviewer directly much later, (at least several months later) that anything was actually done.

Link to comment

Cacher who placed th NA request has been active since 2001 and should have known better then place a NA before a NM especially if the owner is as active as I am and not someone who disappeared off the face of the Earth. I believe I don't have to write a note "still there" after each DNF. This same cacher found another cache of mine the same day, well the log in the baggy on the ground. So they put it on the sign an inch from the container which I was surprised they didnt see it right there.

 

Where in the guidelines, knowledge book, rules, code of conduct, geocachers creed, or anywhere else does it say that this is the appropriate order of things? :unsure:

 

I know of more than a few active cachers with crappy maintenance habits. I wouldn't hesitate to post a NA on one of their caches that I thought deserved it.

More like courtesy. I can understand if totally ignore it but it is rated 2. They DNF and NA on the same trip. Wondering how often they use that just because they can't find something right in front of them.

Link to comment

I see a slight problem in your reasoning.

That's OK! You are not alone! :lol:

 

Honestly feeling that something should be archived doesn't mean it's true.

Very true. But that doesn't mean a log containing an opinion you disagree with is bogus.

 

I can honestly feel that a cache should be archived because I want to put one there.

You could. Some people do believe that. We see examples of this every so often in these forums. I guess this is where subjectivity comes into play. I don't think that you, (the collective you), wanting a particular spot is a valid reason for a cache to be archived. But if you, (again, collectively), honestly believed that your wants trumped the current cache owner's claim to ground zero, posting that belief in the form of a NA would be callous, entitlement laden, and generally rude, but it would not necessarily be bogus.

 

"An N/A log on a cache that's still there and doesn't appear to be violating the guidelines is a bogus log"

While I respect your opinion on this, I'm not sure I can agree to it. That theory, even reworded, still runs afoul of my initial objection. Because the term "Bogus" is subjective, whether or not a particular log is bogus is subject to interpretation. Take the cache mentioned earlier. Assume for argument's sake that I am such an egotistical mook that I honestly believe any cache I cannot find must be missing. (Yes, there are people who believe this. I've met them! :blink: ) Now, assume that seeing 5 DNF logs preceding mine equates, in my mind, a cache owner who is neglecting their maintenance duties. Ignore for the moment the fact that the logic takes a sharp left turn. With those idiotic assumptions firmly in place, my posting a NA due to the cache not being in compliance with the maintenance guidelines is spot on, for me, at the time I posted it, regardless of any facts determined later.

 

As I interpret the phrase "Bogus", the log would have to stoop to the level of an armchair find, with me thinking the cache might be there, and the owner might be active, but I'm going to throw a tantrum and log a NA just because I'm a putz and failed to find it.

 

As for ignoring a string of DNFs, you can't prove that the CO is ignoring them. They could have ran out and checked. Nothing says they must post something.

No one is making that argument. B)

Link to comment

A NA log left in earnest is not a bogus log.

By who's definition of earnest, the logger's or the CO's? As I posted above it's the CO who should determine if the log was posted in earnest. The guidelines task the CO and not the hider to determine if a log is bogus.

 

The logger's. Obviously the CO will hardly ever agree with an NA, so it's kinda silly to let the CO decide whether it's bogus or not.

 

Logging NA means "I think it needs to be archived". If this is the true intention behind the log, it's never bogus. Whether or not the cache should really be archived doesn't matter. Whether the reasons why the logger thinks that it should be archived are valid or not also doesn't matter. He might be mistaken, but that doesn't make the log bogus - he still thought it should be archived.

 

It seems that out of the 41 NA logs I have posted to caches, there was only one that I though really needed to be archived. The other 40 simply needed a reviewer to look at and take whatever action they deemed appropriate. So, I guess, by your definition, I have posted 40 bogus NA logs.

 

The fact of the matter is that short of a private email, this is the only way to notify a reviewer about a cache that has a problem. This is the method that Groundspeak has provided us. They have promised almost a year ago to change the title of the log to more accurately describe what really happens when you post one.

 

two things here. The person that dropped the NA on the OP's cache, thought that there was a problem that a reviewer should be aware of. It was not bogus. The OP saw this as some sort of criticism of her cache. She saw the simple presences of the log on her cache page as a sort of bad mark against her caches and her maintenance history, thus she deleted it.

 

Too many people have placed a stigma of the NA log. I doubt that Groundspeak ever envisioned that placing one would be considered a personal attack, or a way of demeaning others in front of their peers, but to many players, this is exactly what it means.

Link to comment
I put a Owners maintenance and deleted the N/A log. Went and double checked the cache and sure enough it was still there in plain view. Made sure the log was there and added to the log that it was in plain view.

I always thought you checked the cache, THEN posted Owner Maintenance... :huh:

 

You would be wrong about that. If the NM log is clearly bogus (as it was in this case) there is no reason not to clear the flag immediately.

 

Otherwise NM logs could be used to harass cache owners.

Link to comment

It seems that out of the 41 NA logs I have posted to caches, there was only one that I though really needed to be archived. The other 40 simply needed a reviewer to look at and take whatever action they deemed appropriate.

 

If the cache doesn't actually need to be archived (i.e. it is violating he guidelines), then the reviewer doesn't need to get involved. Reviewers are there to approve listings, not to referee your little squabbles.

 

So yes, I am guessing that your 40 stick-your-nose-in NA logs were indeed bogus.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

It seems that out of the 41 NA logs I have posted to caches, there was only one that I though really needed to be archived. The other 40 simply needed a reviewer to look at and take whatever action they deemed appropriate.

 

If the cache doesn't actually need to be archived (i.e. it is violating he guidelines), then the reviewer doesn't need to get involved. Reviewers are there to approve listings, not to referee your little squabbles.

 

So yes, I am guessing that your 40 stick-your-nose-in NA logs were indeed bogus.

 

What little squabbles? FWIW? I have never engaged in little squabbles with local cachers over their caches. For some reason, that phenomenon seems to have skipped our part of California.

 

I'm talking about long term maintenance issues that the CO is neglecting to address. In about half the cases, my NA resulted with a Reviewer Note which was all that was needed to kick the CO in gear.

 

EDIT: for clarity.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

It seems that out of the 41 NA logs I have posted to caches, there was only one that I though really needed to be archived. The other 40 simply needed a reviewer to look at and take whatever action they deemed appropriate.

 

If the cache doesn't actually need to be archived (i.e. it is violating he guidelines), then the reviewer doesn't need to get involved. Reviewers are there to approve listings, not to referee your little squabbles.

 

So yes, I am guessing that your 40 stick-your-nose-in NA logs were indeed bogus.

 

Reviewers are not there only to approve listings, they are there for many other issues as well.

There are often concerns with caches that may not have been immediately apparent to the reviewer before publication, or which may have arisen post-publication, and which may be noticed by a geocacher who finds the cache.

It's perfectly legitimate to contact a reviewer about such concerns, either by using a NA log or by private email. It's not the concerned cacher's decision whether the cache should be archived - obviously that's down to the reviewer - which is exactly why the NA log should be re-named to something less confrontational, such as "Needs Reviewers Attention."

 

MrsB

Link to comment
I put a Owners maintenance and deleted the N/A log. Went and double checked the cache and sure enough it was still there in plain view. Made sure the log was there and added to the log that it was in plain view.

I always thought you checked the cache, THEN posted Owner Maintenance... :huh:

 

You would be wrong about that. If the NM log is clearly bogus (as it was in this case) there is no reason not to clear the flag immediately.

 

Otherwise NM logs could be used to harass cache owners.

 

But unless a cacher has a history of posting unnecessary NM and NA logs to harass, how do you know that it is clearly bogus without verifying that the cache is there? A string of DNF's dating over several months without any owner comment is a valid situation for a NA in my book, and there's no reason to post a NM first.

Link to comment

It seems that out of the 41 NA logs I have posted to caches, there was only one that I though really needed to be archived. The other 40 simply needed a reviewer to look at and take whatever action they deemed appropriate.

 

If the cache doesn't actually need to be archived (i.e. it is violating he guidelines), then the reviewer doesn't need to get involved. Reviewers are there to approve listings, not to referee your little squabbles.

 

So yes, I am guessing that your 40 stick-your-nose-in NA logs were indeed bogus.

 

What little squabbles? FWIW? I have never engaged in little squabbles with local cachers over their caches.

...

I'm talking about long term maintenance issues that the CO is neglecting to address.

 

Sorry, sure sounds like squabbles to me. You are asking authority to intervene to MAKE the other person maintain their cache to YOUR standards. Sort of like running to Teacher when Johnny is bothering Betty.

 

That is not an appropriate use of reviewer time, IMO.

 

The fact that you have done this a total of 40 times indicates (to me, anyway) that you often feel compelled to intervene in cache maintenance issues and appeal to authority in this manner. If someone did it to me, I would take a great deal of offense.

 

We really don't have this kind of behavior in my part of California.

 

The problem here may be that there is a misunderstanding of the role of Groundspeak. Groundspeak is a cache listing service, not a cache quality control organization. Using them as the latter is not appropriate. If you cannot get a cache owner to respond directly to you, putting their cache on your ignore list would be appropriate. Getting Groundspeak involved is burdening the already over-burdened reviewers in an inappropriate way.

Link to comment

I placed a puzzle cache a few weeks ago, and last week someone found it just by searching in the field and a little luck. Good for him! Then he passed on the coordinates to other cachers and they also found it, but none of them had solved the puzzle. I placed the cache on another location, not far from the original location, and today another cacher went looking for it with the coordinates that were given to him by the first finder. He logged an Needs Archived. I told when he solved the puzzle he would find it.

Can I delete that NA log? and the logs from the previous cachers who found it with the coordinates given to them by the FTF?

Link to comment

I placed a puzzle cache a few weeks ago, and last week someone found it just by searching in the field and a little luck. Good for him! Then he passed on the coordinates to other cachers and they also found it, but none of them had solved the puzzle. I placed the cache on another location, not far from the original location, and today another cacher went looking for it with the coordinates that were given to him by the first finder. He logged an Needs Archived. I told when he solved the puzzle he would find it.

Can I delete that NA log? and the logs from the previous cachers who found it with the coordinates given to them by the FTF?

 

You should probably have started a new thread.

 

I assume you edited the puzzle so that solvers would be led to the new location?

 

You can delete the NA log, but there's no need. The reviewer has already seen it. And posting an NA on a cache because he couldn't find it makes the cacher look bad, not you.

 

Don't delete any of the "Found it" logs. If they found the cache and signed the log, it doesn't matter how they found it.

 

If I were you I would log an "owner maintenance" log saying that I had checked on the cache, and that it is in the proper location, and that people would need to solve the edited puzzle to find that location. (There could be some who have solved the original puzzle but not yet gone to look for the cache.)

Link to comment

I did that once on a cache that violated the guidelines big time and the CO deleted my log and so far the reviewer havent done anything. Its in a situation that could give geocaching a black eye because it will appear to a muggle that someone is breaking in a building. :ph34r:

 

A cache that 'could give geocaching a black eye' is not against the guidelines. Nothing in there about not 'appearing to break in to a building' which could probably apply to a large percentage of urban caches.

Well... um....

 

Section 1.2 Other Placement Considerations

 

(in part)

Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious. For example, a geocacher will likely be wrongly suspected of being malicious if a cache is hidden in full view of an office or apartment windows.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...