who will get behind this idea

[4wheelin_fool]

The entire issue could be avoided by promoting usage of decent containers. Hiding a cache in a coffee can is a bad idea to begin with, unless you live in the desert. Perhaps cachers could submit a photo of the hide to the reviewer, and have the reviewer tell them if it's not weather worthy. This would prevent some 80% of needs maintenence logs, but probably require more reviewers to handle it. Since the reviewers don't get paid anyhow, I don't see how it could put a strain on the site. The activity should be more regulated by the players anyhow. Punishing cachers for not doing maintenance is just not a good idea.

[+GeoBain]

Punishing cachers for not doing maintenance is just not a good idea.

 

It could be looked upon as rewarding good hiders with the ability to hide more caches.

[+HHD]

I don't care about the quality of the hide. It could be a powertrail for all I care...just maintain it.

[+bflentje]

I know this isn't the right place. I'm testing the waters before I put forth my final option.

 

Geocide?

 

You should be ashamed.

[+L0ne.R]

Punishing cachers for not doing maintenance is just not a good idea.

 

It could be looked upon as rewarding good hiders with the ability to hide more caches.

 

+1

[+t4e]

I'm opposed.

 

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

 

making a "Owner Maintenance" is difficult?

 

how do you forget you fixed something?

 

3) Lots of people put NM on a cache for stupid reasons. "Your Rite-in-the-Rain paper is wet! NM!" Or the one that got me: "There was a major flood in the area. It must be gone. NM!" I didn't think so, being it was 24' above the river level. But it took me two weeks to check on it. Yup! It was still right where I left it!

 

so?...log a "Owner Maintenance" or delete the attribute

[Blue Square Thing]

I think you're making more of that than was intended.

 

Yeah, you could be right now I come to read it again - no worries.

[+jellis]

2) Lots of COs forget to take the NM off after doing maintenance. (GC did make that more difficult.)

 

I see that as a positive. As soon as the reviewer denies the new cache the CO is very likely to figure out how to clear the NM flag.

 

3) Lots of people put NM on a cache for stupid reasons. "Your Rite-in-the-Rain paper is wet! NM!" Or the one that got me: "There was a major flood in the area. It must be gone. NM!" I didn't think so, being it was 24' above the river level. But it took me two weeks to check on it. Yup! It was still right where I left it!

 

That one is actually more likely than my intentional NM scenario. A lot of people just don't understand that NM is not a proper substitute for DNF.

Totally agree with that. I had a cacher go one step further. Did a NA because they couldn't find it. I went over to check and you could see it 20ft away if you knew what it was. I suggested they get more experience.

[+HHD]

Any other ideas before I post on the website forum?

[+L0ne.R]

Totally agree with that. I had a cacher go one step further. Did a NA because they couldn't find it. I went over to check and you could see it 20ft away if you knew what it was. I suggested they get more experience.

 

They posted an NA with no other DNFs or NMs in the online logbook?

[+GeoBain]

Any other ideas before I post on the website forum?

 

I'm not sure this is ready to be posted on the website forum.

 

You should have a fairly good idea by now what the major barriers to this idea are. I will suggest again that you think it out before you post it. Try to cover as much as you can because it will all be rehashed when you post it there if you cannot answer those major points of conflict.

[+HHD]

I'm still working on this idea bit any one have any fresh blood to offer?

[+HHD]

I know ill never get away with limiting a cachers total hides to 100 active, which was floated some time ago.

[+HHD]

For all you who say just ignore it and move on...what if the owner has 500+ hides...that would take forever to ignore...should I be asking to have an ignore all caches from x geocacher button instead?

[+The_Incredibles_]

I think it would be great if people werenèt allowed to publish anymore caches if any of their caches needs maintenance or are disabled.

 

Obviously, there would be exceptions, but I think a quick note to the reviwer would take care of that.

 

There are people in town here who have numerous disabled caches and they keep publishing more, it drives me crazy!!

[+Walts Hunting]

For all you who say just ignore it and move on...what if the owner has 500+ hides...that would take forever to ignore...should I be asking to have an ignore all caches from x geocacher button instead?

 

Ignoring 500 caches isn't that cumbersome if you use GSAK 8.

 

As to the original question if one of those multiple NM loggers had had the gumption to log a NA the problem would be fixed. There has always been a great reluctance to do that so I guess we could consider anyone doing a NM log after two or more priors go undealt with as enablers.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Walts Hunting

[+baloo&bd]

For all you who say just ignore it and move on...what if the owner has 500+ hides...that would take forever to ignore...should I be asking to have an ignore all caches from x geocacher button instead?

 

Ignoring 500 caches isn't that cumbersome if you use GSAK 8.

 

As to the original question if one of those multiple NM loggers had had the gumption to log a NA the problem would be fixed. There has always been a great reluctance to do that so I guess we could consider anyone doing a NM log after two or more priors go undealt with as enablers.

 

I currently ignore a cacher who has 200 plus lamppost type finds. While I agree it is not impossible to do (I have done it) it would probably be better to get behind an idea more likely to fly like the ignore user request since GC has no rules regarding cache quality and does not get involved with that aspect anyway.

 

However, as a long time GSAK user who has ver 8, I would be interested in how GSAK makes it easier to actually ignore them.

[+HHD]

For all you who say just ignore it and move on...what if the owner has 500+ hides...that would take forever to ignore...should I be asking to have an ignore all caches from x geocacher button instead?

 

Ignoring 500 caches isn't that cumbersome if you use GSAK 8.

 

As to the original question if one of those multiple NM loggers had had the gumption to log a NA the problem would be fixed. There has always been a great reluctance to do that so I guess we could consider anyone doing a NM log after two or more priors go undealt with as enablers.

 

I'm not a gsak person yet...I'm technology challenged I think. However if that is an option I might consider it.

 

If it was as simple as logging an na this would be a non issue. The problem lies in the fact that a broken container/wet log by itself is not reason to archive a cache as stated in many threads especially if the co is active regardless of the caches viability. The issue I'm trying to fix is that same cacher continuing to hide new caches while ignoring maintenance.

If I could ignore all their caches it would fix my problem but it will only continue to enable a bad co as far as maintenance goes.

[+L0ne.R]

For all you who say just ignore it and move on...what if the owner has 500+ hides...that would take forever to ignore...should I be asking to have an ignore all caches from x geocacher button instead?

 

Ignoring 500 caches isn't that cumbersome if you use GSAK 8.

 

As to the original question if one of those multiple NM loggers had had the gumption to log a NA the problem would be fixed. There has always been a great reluctance to do that so I guess we could consider anyone doing a NM log after two or more priors go undealt with as enablers.

 

I'm not a gsak person yet...I'm technology challenged I think. However if that is an option I might consider it.

 

To me the answer...."use GSAK" is like saying "use Photoshop CSS" when all you want to do is crop a photo.

 

Photoshop was completely frustrating until I took a few lessons and learned about layers and how to manipulate them. GSAK feels the same way to me especially the macros that you need to understand in order to get the most out of the software. It's not intuitive. I feel like I need to take a few lessons to understand how to get started.

[+baloo&bd]

I'm not a gsak person yet...I'm technology challenged I think. However if that is an option I might consider it.

 

If it was as simple as logging an na this would be a non issue. The problem lies in the fact that a broken container/wet log by itself is not reason to archive a cache as stated in many threads especially if the co is active regardless of the caches viability. The issue I'm trying to fix is that same cacher continuing to hide new caches while ignoring maintenance.

If I could ignore all their caches it would fix my problem but it will only continue to enable a bad co as far as maintenance goes.

 

This is part of the problem. NA are mis-named. Posting an NA when a cache is being ignored simply alerts the reviewer as well as the owner that the cache needs attention.

 

No, it should not be posted for a damp log or broken container, however if the owner is absent or there is a real problem (fixable or not) a NA is appropriate.

[+baloo&bd]

To me the answer...."use GSAK" is like saying "use Photoshop CSS" when all you want to do is crop a photo.

 

Photoshop was completely frustrating until I took a few lessons and learned about layers and how to manipulate them. GSAK feels the same way to me especially the macros that you need to understand in order to get the most out of the software. It's not intuitive. I feel like I need to take a few lessons to understand how to get started.

 

While I agree there should be an ignore user site function, this was offered as a workaround.

 

As to the other comment, I couldn't disagree more. GSAK is very intuitive when it comes to the basic functionality. For using the more advance features, there is a learning curve, but not a steep one and Clyde and the user community are right there holding your hand when an issue arises.

 

It makes many of the functions od GC, especially with the introduction of the API, almost automatic or one click without the need for many of the common macros. i.e. one click will DL all your new PQs into your database without doing them individually.

 

My earlier comment is because as far as I know, setting all of a users caches to ignore ON GC.COM, is not one of it's functions nor even one that a current macro will handle.

Edited November 29, 2011 by baloo&bd

[+Chokecherry]

I don't use the PQ feature on this site because of the GSAK thing. I never could figure out how they fit together or how to work GSAK. It's perfectly intuitive if you have some experience in the computer program realm. Even getting basic functions to work was beyond me and if I have to put more than 20 minutes into learning it and have to many steps to make stuff work forget it. It was a very frustrating thing for me to even attempt.

[+L0ne.R]

I don't use the PQ feature on this site because of the GSAK thing. I never could figure out how they fit together or how to work GSAK. It's perfectly intuitive if you have some experience in the computer program realm. Even getting basic functions to work was beyond me and if I have to put more than 20 minutes into learning it and have to many steps to make stuff work forget it. It was a very frustrating thing for me to even attempt.

 

Oh good, it's not just me.

[+HHD]

I just put the pq on my gps and go. Gsak sounds great but I'm not really interested in learning another program and paying another fee.

[Clan Riffster]

Here's my "least-amount-of-effort" idea: (Snipped to save the endangered Pixel)

I gotta say, I'm really digging this proposal. Your suggestion to fully automate the process is the best version of this I've seen to date, as it does not add any work to our already overworked Reviewers. Would it succeed completely? Of course not. There will always be a small percentage who intentionally thwart the system. (Society's one percenters) Unlike a few of my peers, I don't hold to the theory that, just because a fix isn't absolutely perfect, in every way, it should not be tried.

[+frinklabs]

They declined the [Feature] suggestion of automating the process.

 

I wonder if they'd empower the reviewers to manually suspend a cacher's publishing privileges....

[+HHD]

They declined the [Feature] suggestion of automating the process.

 

I wonder if they'd empower the reviewers to manually suspend a cacher's publishing privileges....

 

Where is this decline? I have not posted this on the website forum yet.

[+HHD]

Ok looked it up...the decline was on an automated disabling of geocaches after x amount of time with an nm flag.

 

But an interesting point m10 brought up was they are looking for ways to help reviewers...let me get the exact quote...brb.

[+HHD]

Thank you for the suggestion, but Groundpseak prefers to avoid any automated means of disabling and archiving. We are instead looking into developing tools that will make it easier for reviewers to stay on top of cache issues and reports.

 

So that sounds like this concept might be right up their ally.

[+baloo&bd]

Thank you for the suggestion, but Groundpseak prefers to avoid any automated means of disabling and archiving. We are instead looking into developing tools that will make it easier for reviewers to stay on top of cache issues and reports.

 

So that sounds like this concept might be right up their ally.

 

Doubtful. GS has never been interested in getting involved in cache quality issues and has stated that several times in various threads. I would guess they're talking about improving tools that already exist or developing ones that make scanning for logs easier for the reviewers, as the current methods for dealing with these issues seem to work extremely well.

[+jellis]

If it were me I would have only Premium Members place caches. I know I am going to get negative remarks about this. I have ranted over and over about newbies and sock puppets with little or no finds placing caches in our area without reading guidelines, not checking their coords, placing on private property w/o permission, burying them, putting them out as sock puppets so they can finish a challenge or get FTF. And mostly they place them and you never hear from them again and so they never get maintained.

I know even PM can make mistakes and stop maintaining their caches but if they were placed only by PMs there you would have a better chance that the cacher will stick around and maintain them. It may not stop sock puppets but at least they will be paying a price to have them.

I also know I will hear it from families. Okay the parent can place the cache and adopt it to their children.

We also have cachers who are school ages who start accounts place caches and without the parents help the young cachers can't always get to their caches to maintain them.

Edited December 1, 2011 by jellis

[Blue Square Thing]

If it were me I would have only Premium Members place caches. I know I am going to get negative remarks about this. I have ranted over and over about newbies and sock puppets with little or no finds placing caches in our area without reading guidelines, not checking their coords, placing on private property w/o permission, burying them, putting them out as sock puppets so they can finish a challenge or get FTF. And mostly they place them and you never hear from them again and so they never get maintained.

 

Yep - seen most of that round with us.

 

All done by premium members...

[+L0ne.R]

If it were me I would have only Premium Members place caches. I know I am going to get negative remarks about this. I have ranted over and over about newbies and sock puppets with little or no finds placing caches in our area without reading guidelines, not checking their coords, placing on private property w/o permission, burying them, putting them out as sock puppets so they can finish a challenge or get FTF. And mostly they place them and you never hear from them again and so they never get maintained.

 

Yep - seen most of that round with us.

 

All done by premium members...

 

I had a look at my list of the caches I put NMs and NAs on, to see which of the archived caches were abandoned i.e. the reviewer archived the cache and whether the CO was a PM or a regular member.

 

Of the 35 on the Needs Maintenance list, 7 have been archived.

1/7 - premium member

6/7 - regular members

The cache owned by a PM was archived by the PM. All 6 of the member caches were archived by reviewers.

 

Of the 6 on the Needs Archived list, 5 have been archived.

All 5 are regular member caches.

4 were archived by reviewers.

1 was archived by the member after ignoring 1.5 years worth of DNFs, NMs and a Reviewer Note. The NA put the member over the edge. He had a hissy fit and archived all of his caches leaving them in the woods. (They are still being found and logged by those who still have a record of the cache listing).

Edited December 2, 2011 by Lone R

[Keystone]

Thank you for the suggestion, but Groundpseak prefers to avoid any automated means of disabling and archiving. We are instead looking into developing tools that will make it easier for reviewers to stay on top of cache issues and reports.

 

So that sounds like this concept might be right up their ally.

Don't hold your breath.

 

The "Needs Maintenance" log type was created specifically for the purpose of alerting the owner to a maintenance need WITHOUT alerting a reviewer. Reviewers are not responsible for policing NM logs and I don't see that changing.

 

A few years ago, during the winter when new cache review volume had slowed down, I voluntarily undertook a project to "clean up" all the caches with "Needs Maintenance" logs. Here is the canned text I left on appropriate cache pages:

 

This listing has had a "Needs Maintenance" icon on it since [DATE]. A previous player's visit to your geocache indicated that there was an issue that they felt should be addressed. You may have already taken care of the issue but the "Needs Maintenance" icon still remains. If there is an unresolved maintenance issue with this cache, however, please take care of it as soon as possible.

 

The "Needs Maintenance" type of log places an attribute icon on the listing that looks like a 'first aid' symbol. To remove the 'first aid' symbol you will need to post an "Owner Maintenance" log after you have checked on the cache. Except for mistaken requests or requests that have been fixed by others, you should only log "Owner Maintenance" after you have physically visited your cache and determined that the cache is back in good shape.

 

"Needs Maintenance" is a player note to request that the owner take some action about the conditions of the geocache. Other cachers will also be aware of what they should expect when they search for your geocache. It is not the same as "Needs Archived" which is used to ask a Reviewer to see if the listing is still valid based on the guidelines http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx .

 

Some players ignore listings or create Pocket Queries to filter out geocaches that have "Needs Maintenance" attribute icons on them and will not search for them. Don't let players miss out on finding your cache!

 

If you have any questions about this log entry please contact me by e-mail via my profile page.

 

Thanks,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

I'm curious what the OP thinks of this note.

 

Here is what happened:

 

1. Lots of people simply ignored the note.

2. A significant number of cache owners thought I was threatening to archive their cache, or that it was none of my business, or decided to send hate mail for some other reason triggered by my log.

3. A small minority followed the instructions, removed the NM attribute, and happily moved on with their geocaching lives.

 

After that experience, I told myself, "Self, don't ever do that again." And so far, I haven't. I'd like to keep it that way.

[+HHD]

Wow keystone, I thought that was a perfectly reasonable request and a well worded note to let them know about an issue. It is too bad cos can't see the forest through the trees sometimes.

I realize that the nm log is designed to be a self policing thing, but it seems like it has a high rate of failure for a few too many hiders. In your experience do you see cachers out placing a bunch of new caches without fixing the ones they have already?

[+6NoisyHikers]

I would be interested in knowing how many of those non-responsive COs were trend cachers - people who found out about Geocaching, ran out and bought all the stuff, then gave it up after six weeks when something new and shiny caught their eye.

[+HHD]

I would be interested in knowing how many of those non-responsive COs were trend cachers - people who found out about Geocaching, ran out and bought all the stuff, then gave it up after six weeks when something new and shiny caught their eye.

 

The main culprit in my area is a very active cacher and has been in it for 7-8 years, they just have over 500 hides.

Edited December 3, 2011 by HighHeeled Dutchess

[+The_Incredibles_]

I'm curious what the OP thinks of this note.

 

Here is what happened:

 

1. Lots of people simply ignored the note.

2. A significant number of cache owners thought I was threatening to archive their cache, or that it was none of my business, or decided to send hate mail for some other reason triggered by my log.

3. A small minority followed the instructions, removed the NM attribute, and happily moved on with their geocaching lives.

 

After that experience, I told myself, "Self, don't ever do that again." And so far, I haven't. I'd like to keep it that way.

 

I think the biggest issue here was the size of the note, which probably scared people and caused a negative emotional reaction. I think a short note, a small nudge may have had the same positive effect without the large negeatives.

 

I think if Groundspeak had a 'rule' that you need to have your NM and disabled caches dealt with before publishing new caches that would work. If it was part of the routine and there was a note right next to the submit your cache button, I think the reviewers would have less negative attention directed at them.

[+HHD]

I'm not so worried about disabled caches...just nm ones.

[knowschad]

For all you who say just ignore it and move on...what if the owner has 500+ hides...that would take forever to ignore...should I be asking to have an ignore all caches from x geocacher button instead?

 

Ignoring 500 caches isn't that cumbersome if you use GSAK 8.

 

As to the original question if one of those multiple NM loggers had had the gumption to log a NA the problem would be fixed. There has always been a great reluctance to do that so I guess we could consider anyone doing a NM log after two or more priors go undealt with as enablers.

 

I'm not a gsak person yet...I'm technology challenged I think. However if that is an option I might consider it.

 

To me the answer...."use GSAK" is like saying "use Photoshop CSS" when all you want to do is crop a photo.

 

Photoshop was completely frustrating until I took a few lessons and learned about layers and how to manipulate them. GSAK feels the same way to me especially the macros that you need to understand in order to get the most out of the software. It's not intuitive. I feel like I need to take a few lessons to understand how to get started.

You only need to understand the macros if you want to write a macro. You don't need to understand how to use them any more than you need to know how to create the internet before you can use your browser.

[+L0ne.R]

For all you who say just ignore it and move on...what if the owner has 500+ hides...that would take forever to ignore...should I be asking to have an ignore all caches from x geocacher button instead?

 

Ignoring 500 caches isn't that cumbersome if you use GSAK 8.

 

As to the original question if one of those multiple NM loggers had had the gumption to log a NA the problem would be fixed. There has always been a great reluctance to do that so I guess we could consider anyone doing a NM log after two or more priors go undealt with as enablers.

 

I'm not a gsak person yet...I'm technology challenged I think. However if that is an option I might consider it.

 

To me the answer...."use GSAK" is like saying "use Photoshop CSS" when all you want to do is crop a photo.

 

Photoshop was completely frustrating until I took a few lessons and learned about layers and how to manipulate them. GSAK feels the same way to me especially the macros that you need to understand in order to get the most out of the software. It's not intuitive. I feel like I need to take a few lessons to understand how to get started.

You only need to understand the macros if you want to write a macro. You don't need to understand how to use them any more than you need to know how to create the internet before you can use your browser.

 

Interesting. I thought you had to be able to write macros in order to do fancy things like ignore a CO's caches, or filter for favorite votes.

[+northernpenguin]

For all you who say just ignore it and move on...what if the owner has 500+ hides...that would take forever to ignore...should I be asking to have an ignore all caches from x geocacher button instead?

 

Ignoring 500 caches isn't that cumbersome if you use GSAK 8.

 

As to the original question if one of those multiple NM loggers had had the gumption to log a NA the problem would be fixed. There has always been a great reluctance to do that so I guess we could consider anyone doing a NM log after two or more priors go undealt with as enablers.

 

I'm not a gsak person yet...I'm technology challenged I think. However if that is an option I might consider it.

 

To me the answer...."use GSAK" is like saying "use Photoshop CSS" when all you want to do is crop a photo.

 

Photoshop was completely frustrating until I took a few lessons and learned about layers and how to manipulate them. GSAK feels the same way to me especially the macros that you need to understand in order to get the most out of the software. It's not intuitive. I feel like I need to take a few lessons to understand how to get started.

You only need to understand the macros if you want to write a macro. You don't need to understand how to use them any more than you need to know how to create the internet before you can use your browser.

 

Interesting. I thought you had to be able to write macros in order to do fancy things like ignore a CO's caches, or filter for favorite votes.

 

Not if someone else has written a macro to do that. All you need to do then is understand how to download it and add it to GSAK... which they have made pretty pain free these days. Put it thus way: If you managed to get GSAK installed, you should be able to download a macro and install it.

[+jellis]

Well I remember a few years ago I contacted a cacher (veteran) about some his caches needing maintenance. He too threw a hissy fit and sent me a note thinking I wanted him to get rid of his caches. I only wanted him to maintain them. No fun trying to find caches if they aren't there.

Well he did something I didn't expect. He went and archived all his caches and the next thing I knew I had a lot of local cachers saying it was all my fault. To this day some of them still think so.

Edited December 3, 2011 by jellis

[+jellis]

If it were me I would have only Premium Members place caches. I know I am going to get negative remarks about this. I have ranted over and over about newbies and sock puppets with little or no finds placing caches in our area without reading guidelines, not checking their coords, placing on private property w/o permission, burying them, putting them out as sock puppets so they can finish a challenge or get FTF. And mostly they place them and you never hear from them again and so they never get maintained.

 

Yep - seen most of that round with us.

 

All done by premium members...

The ones I've seen by premium members are the ones being frustrated by the way GC is going, with the new ones just throwing caches down with no rhyme or reason, and just throw there hands up and stop caching.

Edited December 3, 2011 by jellis