Reviewer intervention

[+NeverSummer]

I've been reading a lot lately about DNFs, NM logs and the ever-contentious NA log. After doing a search after this topic came up in our local forum board, I wanted to ask a couple questions as a "state of the union" inquiry; a "What happens where you're from?" and "What would you like/not like to see happen?" type of discussion.

 

I'll start by saying that I know there should be no "right" answer here. The guidelines and volunteer Reviewer process exist at a certain level of ambiguity; they leave some wiggle room.

 

Some background:

There are a small percentage of geocaches within 100 miles of my home coordinates that have a "Needs Maintenance" attribute on them. This is, of course, for various reasons. When I first started geocaching, the local Reviewer(s) would check in on geocaches that had "NM" logs/attribute and address it. They would mention, carefully, how to remove the attribute if nothing was wrong, or to "please" maintain the cache to address the issue in the NM log(s). Currently, this isn't the situation with my local Reviewers.

 

The context:

Caches with "Needs Maintenance" attributes can deter seeking of that cache. (PQs, site search, field search, etc.)

Poorly maintained caches can be difficult to find/log.

The guidelines discuss the need to maintain geocaches.

 

So, what's up in your area? What works? What doesn't? Does your Reviewer check up on caches that have "Needs Maintenance" logs? What works for dealing with caches that receive and don't remove the "Needs Maintenance" attribute/log?

 

Please discuss. I didn't have the intention to state a specific opinion. However, it is always difficult to discuss any issue outside of your own paradigm. Forgive me that, and leave your 2 cents. Thanks!

[+Lil Devil]

I don't believe it's the job of a reviewer to do anything with a NM log. IIRC that log was created specifically as something that is less severe than a NA log. The NA logs get automatically emailed to the reviewers, while the NM don't. If you want a reviewer to get involved, use a NA log.

[+Totem Clan]

NM is used for the CO's info.

 

NA gets the reviewer involved.

 

It's that's way it works here.

[+The A-Team]

In my area, the reviewers don't generally take action on a NM. They usually only get involved with a NA or a cache that's been disabled for an extended period of time. The previous reviewer was a bit lax on these, but the new ones are right on top of it.

[+NeverSummer]

I can't seem to find a Groundspeak reference for "Reviewer Responsibilities", specifically. I'm wondering if they have, and would disclose what kinds of expectations exist for Reviewers? Is there a set of guidelines/instructions they are given? Where is the line drawn? And, if there is a line, what is it?

 

I'd also add that, IMO, "geocache review" doesn't end at publishing.

 

Now, I don't know if I get this from implication, or simply personal opinion. Reviewing of a geocache can still occur in regard to a long unmaintained geocache/listing. This is seen with many examples of Reviewer intervention mentioned in the guidelines and seen on geocache listings.

[+fizzymagic]

The context:

Caches with "Needs Maintenance" attributes can deter seeking of that cache. (PQs, site search, field search, etc.)

Poorly maintained caches can be difficult to find/log.

The guidelines discuss the need to maintain geocaches.

 

You left out one important piece of context:

 

Cachers are free to not seek caches with Needs Maintenance attributes set.

 

From that perspective, there is no responsibility for reviewers to get involved in petty little disputes over whether a cache is maintained to your exacting standards. If the cache is actually missing, then things may be different.

 

I'd also add that, IMO, "geocache review" doesn't end at publishing.

 

Except in the cases of a cache that violates laws or is missing, IMO you are just wrong.

Edited January 23, 2012 by fizzymagic

[diggingest_dogg616]

As a cacher, if I see "needs maintenance" then I check out the cache page and see if I can find out why.

 

I did an NM post because the cache page stated there was a container involved and when I found it, I only found a zip lock baggie (with the log), so I posted an NM because I thought the CO would like to know and "Needs Maintenance" would hopefully get more attention then "Found It", in case my "Found It" log wasn't worth reading or something I definitely didn't intend to be obnoxious or drive others away from searching for it

 

If there's an NM log and it's because the cache is pretty much trashed, then perhaps I'll skip it. A lot of NM logs seem to be along the lines of "Log full, so I added a piece of paper", which isn't detrimental to the cache like a faulty container or moldy log book :/

[+The A-Team]

A lot of NM logs seem to be along the lines of "Log full, so I added a piece of paper", which isn't detrimental to the cache like a faulty container or moldy log book :/

It isn't? You still can't sign the log as required by the guidelines.

Log full is absolutely a valid reason for a NM. In most cases, cachers will mention if the log is almost full, so the CO can take care of it proactively. If it gets to the point that it's completely full, a NM is warranted.

[+NeverSummer]

The context:

Caches with "Needs Maintenance" attributes can deter seeking of that cache. (PQs, site search, field search, etc.)

Poorly maintained caches can be difficult to find/log.

The guidelines discuss the need to maintain geocaches.

 

You left out one important piece of context:

 

Cachers are free to not seek caches with Needs Maintenance attributes set.

 

From that perspective, there is no responsibility for reviewers to get involved in petty little disputes over whether a cache is maintained to your exacting standards. If the cache is actually missing, then things may be different.

 

I'd also add that, IMO, "geocache review" doesn't end at publishing.

 

Except in the cases of a cache that violates laws or is missing, IMO you are just wrong.

While I understand that you have a strong opinion on the subject, I don't understand why you seem to have such a tone with me. I didn't insult you, and I fail to see that I've made your life any more difficult.

 

The "important" context you mention is something I said, albeit incompletely, in the first bullet. Yes, cachers can choose not to seek NM caches. But, if the cache were simply maintained, and the attribute removed, one could easily change their mind and hunt the cache. It's simple, really. The context I used says that it "can deter seeking of that cache." Seems the shoe fits to your addition, no?

 

Right, so if a NM log is posted, and the cache is possibly missing, you are saying that the Reviewer should get involved? I'd enjoy some context to your opinion. This is, after all, meant to be a discussion and not a place to speak to me like you are. I did say, "IMO." Opinions can not be wrong; they can only be in agreement or disagreement with someone else's opinion. Again, the context of your disagreement is?

[+fizzymagic]

A lot of NM logs seem to be along the lines of "Log full, so I added a piece of paper", which isn't detrimental to the cache like a faulty container or moldy log book :/

It isn't? You still can't sign the log as required by the guidelines.

Log full is absolutely a valid reason for a NM. In most cases, cachers will mention if the log is almost full, so the CO can take care of it proactively. If it gets to the point that it's completely full, a NM is warranted.

 

Exactly the attitude that makes NM logs worthless.

 

Geez. Talk about petty.

[+NeverSummer]

 

From that perspective, there is no responsibility for reviewers to get involved in petty little disputes over whether a cache is maintained to your exacting standards. If the cache is actually missing, then things may be different.

 

 

I never made any mention of any standards, let alone "exacting" standards. I simply used the context of the guidelines and Knowledge Books to begin the discussion. After all, it is the responsibility of the owner to maintain the cache and the related listing. If a log is wet and unsignable, container broken, cache missing, etc, it should be dealt with, no? That is all I'm saying.

 

Plus, it's more about the fact that many new cachers are unaware of how to deal with clearing a NM attribute. In the case where a cache actually is missing the NM log can leave a window of opportunity for replacement. But how long is that? Are owners disabling every cache listing that "goes missing" according to a NM log? Sometimes not. In relation, where is the line drawn in the case of NM->Disabled->Reviewer Note about "being under the weather"? What if another geocacher would like to adopt or take over an area where a cache is in clear need of maintenance? One may say that this is when one should post a "NA" log. But there isn't a black and white example here. We could debate on and on different cases where a NA is unnecessary, and a NM would suffice.

 

So: What works/doesn't work? What is/isn't done in your geocaching area, fizzymagic? That's all I'm asking. Like I said in the OP, I have seen it work both ways.

[+The_Incredibles_]

NM is used for the CO's info.

 

NA gets the reviewer involved.

 

It's that's way it works here.

 

+1 The reviewers here are very fast responding to NA, but they simply do not have the time to pursue un-answered NMs.

[+fizzymagic]

The context:

Caches with "Needs Maintenance" attributes can deter seeking of that cache. (PQs, site search, field search, etc.)

Poorly maintained caches can be difficult to find/log.

The guidelines discuss the need to maintain geocaches.

 

You left out one important piece of context:

 

Cachers are free to not seek caches with Needs Maintenance attributes set.

 

From that perspective, there is no responsibility for reviewers to get involved in petty little disputes over whether a cache is maintained to your exacting standards. If the cache is actually missing, then things may be different.

 

I'd also add that, IMO, "geocache review" doesn't end at publishing.

 

Except in the cases of a cache that violates laws or is missing, IMO you are just wrong.

 

The "important" context you mention is something I said, albeit incompletely, in the first bullet. Yes, cachers can choose not to seek NM caches. But, if the cache were simply maintained, and the attribute removed, one could easily change their mind and hunt the cache. It's simple, really. The context I used says that it "can deter seeking of that cache." Seems the shoe fits to your addition, no?

 

 

No. You implied that a NM attribute implied a problem worthy of reviewer attention. I pointed out, as I have many, many times on this exact same subject, that reviewers are not responsible for ensuring cache quality, only that a cache exists, is compliant with local laws, and meets the guidelines.

 

My evident exasperation with your post may have something to do with the number of threads on this very subject that would have appeared had you done a forum search on the topic. I am sorry that you feel "attacked" by my rather pointed post; be assured that I have nothing personal against you. However, I have pretty much had it up to here with the incessant forum whining about "poorly maintained caches" that has appeared in the last few months.

 

Right, so if a NM log is posted, and the cache is possibly missing, you are saying that the Reviewer should get involved? I'd enjoy some context to your opinion.

 

As I have repeatedly stated in previous threads, and as has been confirmed by Groundspeak, geocaching.com is in the business of listing caches, not in assuring their quality. So an issue that affects whether a cache should be listed (missing, in violation of laws) is very different from an issue of quality (full log, wet container, etc.). As long as the cache is still there and does not violate any laws, reviewers should not (and usually will not) intervene.

[+The A-Team]

A lot of NM logs seem to be along the lines of "Log full, so I added a piece of paper", which isn't detrimental to the cache like a faulty container or moldy log book :/

It isn't? You still can't sign the log as required by the guidelines.

Log full is absolutely a valid reason for a NM. In most cases, cachers will mention if the log is almost full, so the CO can take care of it proactively. If it gets to the point that it's completely full, a NM is warranted.

 

Exactly the attitude that makes NM logs worthless.

 

Geez. Talk about petty.

See NeverSummer's post regarding tone. It applies to my post too.

I take it you don't see a full log as being a problem? Where exactly is the line for you where you would log a NM? The majority of NMs that I've seen have been valid, and highlight issues that need to be dealt with.

 

Edit: After seeing your response above, I'll back off a bit. I understand how you could become frustrated with so many of these threads. It's annoying to have the same topic come up time after time.

Edited January 23, 2012 by The A-Team

[+NeverSummer]

The context:

Caches with "Needs Maintenance" attributes can deter seeking of that cache. (PQs, site search, field search, etc.)

Poorly maintained caches can be difficult to find/log.

The guidelines discuss the need to maintain geocaches.

 

You left out one important piece of context:

 

Cachers are free to not seek caches with Needs Maintenance attributes set.

 

From that perspective, there is no responsibility for reviewers to get involved in petty little disputes over whether a cache is maintained to your exacting standards. If the cache is actually missing, then things may be different.

 

I'd also add that, IMO, "geocache review" doesn't end at publishing.

 

Except in the cases of a cache that violates laws or is missing, IMO you are just wrong.

 

The "important" context you mention is something I said, albeit incompletely, in the first bullet. Yes, cachers can choose not to seek NM caches. But, if the cache were simply maintained, and the attribute removed, one could easily change their mind and hunt the cache. It's simple, really. The context I used says that it "can deter seeking of that cache." Seems the shoe fits to your addition, no?

 

 

No. You implied that a NM attribute implied a problem worthy of reviewer attention. I pointed out, as I have many, many times on this exact same subject, that reviewers are not responsible for ensuring cache quality, only that a cache exists, is compliant with local laws, and meets the guidelines.

 

My evident exasperation with your post may have something to do with the number of threads on this very subject that would have appeared had you done a forum search on the topic. I am sorry that you feel "attacked" by my rather pointed post; be assured that I have nothing personal against you. However, I have pretty much had it up to here with the incessant forum whining about "poorly maintained caches" that has appeared in the last few months.

 

Right, so if a NM log is posted, and the cache is possibly missing, you are saying that the Reviewer should get involved? I'd enjoy some context to your opinion.

 

As I have repeatedly stated in previous threads, and as has been confirmed by Groundspeak, geocaching.com is in the business of listing caches, not in assuring their quality. So an issue that affects whether a cache should be listed (missing, in violation of laws) is very different from an issue of quality (full log, wet container, etc.). As long as the cache is still there and does not violate any laws, reviewers should not (and usually will not) intervene.

Fizzy, while I appreciate your input, I don't appreciate your negative assumptions. I have searched. I have read. I have used context. I have been on the Knowledge Books. I have been part of similar discussions.

 

This, however, is to find out what is up "out there". Again, I've seen it done both ways. Your experience and knowledge are certainly helpful. Are you, or have you been a Volunteer Reviewer? I see, very clearly (and agree), that geocaching.com and Groundspeak are in the listing business. I'm not saying that I think Reviewers should be keeping up with NM cache listings. I've only said that I've seen some that have, and others that haven't. I'm fortunate to have lived in a couple states and had multiple Reviewers. I've seen some interesting approaches.

 

How about this angle: Is the use of correct/incorrect attributes part of a Reviewer's scope of position? Attributes are not required, so I'd say "not necessarily". But, if I say, "snowmobiles allowed," as an attribute, yet they are not allowed, would I not be compelled by some authority to remove the improper attribute?

 

Also, fizzy, this thread is absolutely NOT a rant or "incessant whining" about "poorly maintained caches". Please direct your "had-it-up-to-here" attitude elsewhere.

Edited January 23, 2012 by NeverSummer

[+The A-Team]

Right, so if a NM log is posted, and the cache is possibly missing, you are saying that the Reviewer should get involved? I'd enjoy some context to your opinion.

 

As I have repeatedly stated in previous threads, and as has been confirmed by Groundspeak, geocaching.com is in the business of listing caches, not in assuring their quality. So an issue that affects whether a cache should be listed (missing, in violation of laws) is very different from an issue of quality (full log, wet container, etc.). As long as the cache is still there and does not violate any laws, reviewers should not (and usually will not) intervene.

Groundspeak has listed a set of guidelines, though, so they must have some interest in maintaining quality, no?

I do agree with your last point in that reviewers should not be involved in quality issues. They have enough to deal with as it is. We don't need them chasing down COs because of a full log.

[+L0ne.R]

Plus, it's more about the fact that many new cachers are unaware of how to deal with clearing a NM attribute.

 

So true. I was one of those COs. I fixed the cache the same week as the NM report. Months later the Reviewer sent a note about the NM on my cache. I was a little taken a back because I had maintained it months prior. Then he explained about the OM feature. Makes sense once I had it explained to me. So now when I post a NM I 'watch' the cache. If the CO posts a note that they fixed the cache, I email them and let them know the OM procedure. I've helped 2 COs so far.

[+fizzymagic]

I take it you don't see a full log as being a problem? Where exactly is the line for you where you would log a NM?

 

A full log is not a problem for me. I "grew up" geocaching in a world where cachers helped each other; there was not such an emphasis on calling out other people for trivial infractions. I carry spare waterproof logs in my wallet and replace them. I don't use NM logs for such a petty thing.

 

If the container is there and it doesn't violate any laws, I don't post an NM.

 

If somebody posted an NM on one of my caches over such a thing, I would just erase it. Luckily, my caches tend to be sufficiently difficult that they don't get too much traffic from the "it's-all-about-me" entitled cachers, so I have never had to do that.

 

I am sorry about my tone; I consider the whole "reviewers need to assure caches are maintained" mindset deeply offensive and completely contrary to the spirit of geocaching.

[+Totem Clan]

 

So true. I was one of those COs. I fixed the cache the same week as the NM report. Months later the Reviewer sent a note about the NM on my cache. I was a little taken a back because I had maintained it months prior. Then he explained about the OM feature. Makes sense once I had it explained to me. So now when I post a NM I 'watch' the cache. If the CO posts a note that they fixed the cache, I email them and let them know the OM procedure. I've helped 2 COs so far.

I wish more cachers acted like that.

[+NeverSummer]

I take it you don't see a full log as being a problem? Where exactly is the line for you where you would log a NM?

 

A full log is not a problem for me. I "grew up" geocaching in a world where cachers helped each other; there was not such an emphasis on calling out other people for trivial infractions. I carry spare waterproof logs in my wallet and replace them. I don't use NM logs for such a petty thing.

 

If the container is there and it doesn't violate any laws, I don't post an NM.

 

If somebody posted an NM on one of my caches over such a thing, I would just erase it. Luckily, my caches tend to be sufficiently difficult that they don't get too much traffic from the "it's-all-about-me" entitled cachers, so I have never had to do that.

 

I am sorry about my tone; I consider the whole "reviewers need to assure caches are maintained" mindset deeply offensive and completely contrary to the spirit of geocaching.

I, too, was "raised" to help out when I can with cache maintenance.

 

However, the idea that I must have a spare log on hand in case of a wet or full log is also not in the spirit of geocaching. Owners are compelled to maintain their caches. This would include making them available to be logged according to the guidelines. Groundspeak even calls it part of the "rules". This would include having a logbook...that can be logged by visiting geocachers.

 

I find it unfortunate that you would dismiss a "log full" NM log. Even as it goes against your personal sensibilities, does it not inform you that the log is full and you should try to replace it (assuming someone else doesn't help you with that first)?

 

I never said, and don't intend this thread to imply, that "reviewers need to assure caches are maintained." I only raise the question to see what is happening, and what is working. If anything, it can be a place where people can come to cool their jets from the heated "poorly maintained caches" threads.

 

That said, I understand that caches should be maintained by the owner, not "policed" by Reviewers. But, Groundspeak puts NM and NA logs in the proverbial "toolkit" to be used to remind and help owners know when a cache has concerns. I hope you, fizzy, understand what I am being quite clear about in terms of what this thread "is".

[+GeoBain]

A full log is not a problem for me. I "grew up" geocaching in a world where cachers helped each other; there was not such an emphasis on calling out other people for trivial infractions. I carry spare waterproof logs in my wallet and replace them. I don't use NM logs for such a petty thing.

 

While it is nice for others to replace a full logbook for a CO, it is still part of the CO's maintenance duties and posting a NM log due to a full log is not petty. It is part of the seeker's due diligence in alerting the CO and others to problems with the cache.

 

As far as the OP's question goes, I don't see local reviewers getting involved with maintenance issues. It's not part of their duties. When you do see reviewer's doing sweeps on caches with NM logs, it's a reviewer going above and beyond the call of duty.

[diggingest_dogg616]

A lot of NM logs seem to be along the lines of "Log full, so I added a piece of paper", which isn't detrimental to the cache like a faulty container or moldy log book :/

It isn't? You still can't sign the log as required by the guidelines.

Log full is absolutely a valid reason for a NM. In most cases, cachers will mention if the log is almost full, so the CO can take care of it proactively. If it gets to the point that it's completely full, a NM is warranted.

 

Exactly the attitude that makes NM logs worthless.

 

Geez. Talk about petty.

'Kay, my post came off wrong and I apologize. It appears I lost my train of thought and just blanked out somewhere

 

What I meant was this:

 

I'm looking for caches, right? There's a little icon over yonder that states the cache is in need of maintenance so I see why this cache needs maintenance.

 

1. Cache needs maintenance because the container is just trashed. There are things living in it. The log is destroyed. It's just nasty. It's been like that for months and no one has bothered to fix or archive it. The owner seems to have disappeared. Hmm... I think I'll skip trying to find this one perhaps.

 

2. Cache needs maintenance because the log book is full or got wet somehow, but otherwise cache is in acceptable to excellent condition. Hmm... perhaps I shall find it.

 

What I meant was that a full log book, while worth mentioning and saying "needs maintenance", isn't going to totally destroy a cache unless yeah, people get sick of adding their own paper and the state of the cache just declines because of that.

 

My (rather poorly written) comment was intended to say that a lot of the needs maintenance logs that I notice are due to logs being full or nearing capacity. I don't find that to be a reason to be deterred from finding a cache. Yes, it needs mentioning. Yes, it needs maintenance.

 

Cache full of spiders that have made the container their new home? I'd be deterred.

 

Cache just has full log book? I'd not be deterred.

 

It was in response to NM logs deterring people from finding them. I was only trying to state that for me, it depends on the maintenance needed.

 

That's what I was getting at. I apologize for my incoherentness. I seem to do that a lot.

 

In my original post, I stated I did an NM because a container was missing. I am not above posting a NM log. I've mentioned in found logs that logs were getting full or that someone has added a piece of paper to the log book. I wasn't completely aware of how the NM feature worked. Today was my first time trying it out because that cache had no NM logs for whatever reason. Other caches that I have found with logs in need of replacing already had an NM log that hadn't been responded to. Perhaps I should have posted another one, but what's done is done. I suppose if I have to I can go find that cache again to make sure there is still a need for maintenance and post an NM log afterwards.

Edited January 23, 2012 by diggingest_dogg616

[knowschad]

 

There are a small percentage of geocaches within 100 miles of my home coordinates that have a "Needs Maintenance" attribute on them. This is, of course, for various reasons. When I first started geocaching, the local Reviewer(s) would check in on geocaches that had "NM" logs/attribute and address it. They would mention, carefully, how to remove the attribute if nothing was wrong, or to "please" maintain the cache to address the issue in the NM log(s). Currently, this isn't the situation with my local Reviewers.

That is very surprising, since we share the same local reviewers. Down here in the metro area, both of the reviewers that we have now, and also the one that we had before them, did regular sweeps, posting warnings, and then going back after some time (30 days? 60 days? not sure) and archiving those that didn't respond. No clue why it would be any different up north.

[+NeverSummer]

 

There are a small percentage of geocaches within 100 miles of my home coordinates that have a "Needs Maintenance" attribute on them. This is, of course, for various reasons. When I first started geocaching, the local Reviewer(s) would check in on geocaches that had "NM" logs/attribute and address it. They would mention, carefully, how to remove the attribute if nothing was wrong, or to "please" maintain the cache to address the issue in the NM log(s). Currently, this isn't the situation with my local Reviewers.

That is very surprising, since we share the same local reviewers. Down here in the metro area, both of the reviewers that we have now, and also the one that we had before them, did regular sweeps, posting warnings, and then going back after some time (30 days? 60 days? not sure) and archiving those that didn't respond. No clue why it would be any different up north.

Sorry I wasn't clear, knowschad. Good clarification. I started geocaching here on geocaching.com when I lived in Oregon. I've only been in MN since early 2009.

 

Even so, in Oregon I saw different methods used depending on the Reviewer and as time went on. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

I know that our last Reviewer (SJ), current MN.F--and now GrD--do sweep up the disabled caches. The NM caches, however, apparently not. (I'm not saying +/- for either option here)

[+cx1]

Well since you asked what I would like to see happen...

If a cache is disabled for 91 days it should automatically become archived. No reviewer intervention needed, disabling the cache starts a clock and the server will automatically archive once the 91st day is reached. This would eliminate the need for reviewer sweeps of disabled caches. The local reviewers really do try to keep up with it, but when there are CO's that state they will fix the problems and then don't follow though those disabled caches seem to fall through the cracks and nothing ever happens to them. As an example there is a local cache that has been missing since late 2009. Cache owner has noted they will try to look into it when a reviewer has posted a note about it. Cache is still disabled. This same CO has several caches in similar states but always responds to reviewer notes with their own note but hardly ever any corrective action.

I would also like to see an automated system in place for NM logs. Again no reviewer intervention needed, just say 60 days after an uncleared NM log an email is generated with instructions on how to clear the NM flag and an automated link set up that the cache owner needs to reply to. If a reply is not received within 30 days then a flag could be raised so the cache gets a fresh look by a reviewer and/or disabled. Basically to me if a NM is not cleared within 90 days the CO is not fulfilling their duties of cache maintenance. And if a cache is not being maintained it should be disabled/archived/adopted.

Edited January 23, 2012 by cx1

[+The A-Team]

'Kay, my post came off wrong and I apologize. It appears I lost my train of thought and just blanked out somewhere

Not to worry. Thanks for explaining.

 

I agree with you that there are "degrees" of NM. Some are so detrimental that cachers cannot search for the cache or will be unwilling to search. Others are relatively minor and will not deter cachers. To my thinking, a reviewer would only need to be involved in the former, and that only if it has not been remedied after a long period of time.

 

On the matter of logging NMs, I don't do it very often (I just checked and I've only logged 5 of them. I thought it was more!). Here's the reasons and the result:

1. Container leaking so badly that the log was literally floating inside the container. Owner replaced it 10 days later.

 

2. Log was beyond soaked. Owner posted a note right away thanking for the heads-up and saying they'd swap it out. They must have done so in the 2 weeks before the next find, but didn't log an OM. Hence, the NM attribute is still active. I might email them to let them know.

 

3. Cache was obviously muggled (contents strewn around). Owner thanked for the heads-up and disabled right away.

 

4. Log from a nano was wet to the point that it couldn't even be called paper anymore (imagine a spit-ball). Owner is known to be MIA from past experience, and even after 3 more NMs the problem still exists.

 

5. I was in the area, so I checked on a cache I had previously found. Cache was muggled. A little over a month later the owner archived.

 

There have been many times where I've found a damp log, but I haven't logged a NM. This is usually because of the time of year I found these caches. It's pretty normal around here for the log to get a bit wet while signing in the winter (they don't call us the "Wet Coast" for nothing), or just because of a slight leakage. The log will normally dry out once the weather changes, and I can still sign the log, so I don't see it as being a big problem. The cases where I did log the NM for a wet log was because the log was unrecognizable.

 

Getting back to the original topic, I'll refer to my NM logs as examples:

1. There was no need for the reviewer to get involved. In my opinion, though, if it was left in such a state for a long period of time after multiple NMs, I think reviewer intervention would be called for.

2. Wet log. Owner active. No reviewer intervention required.

3. Missing cache, but owner active. No reviewer intervention required unless nothing was done after a long period of time.

4. Wet log. Owner MIA. Being a nano, the log is the whole cache. The container is not watertight, so replacing with a fresh one will not solve the problem. There have been 4 NMs, but no action. Problem has existed since August. I think a reviewer should now be involved by logging a NA.

5. Same as 3.

 

The reviewers in my area have done a couple of sweeps checking for problems with NMed caches, but pretty rarely. They're right on top of long-disabled caches and NAs, though. The previous reviewer was pretty busy doing all the work himself (we now have 2, and could probably even use another), so he didn't have the time to go to this level. I find it very refreshing to see the current ones doing as much as they are. I have my notifications set to include Temp Disables and Archives, so it's nice to see when they do a sweep and clear out some festering caches, like they did just a couple of hours ago. I live in a very saturated area (2500 within 30 kms), so it's great when a problem cache can be cleared out to allow for a new one to be placed.

[jholly]

Well since you asked what I would like to see happen...

If a cache is disabled for 91 days it should automatically become archived. No reviewer intervention needed, disabling the cache starts a clock and the server will automatically archive once the 91st day is reached. This would eliminate the need for reviewer sweeps of disabled caches. The local reviewers really do try to keep up with it, but when there are CO's that state they will fix the problems and then don't follow though those disabled caches seem to fall through the cracks and nothing ever happens to them. As an example there is a local cache that has been missing since late 2009. Cache owner has noted they will try to look into it when a reviewer has posted a note about it. Cache is still disabled. This same CO has several caches in similar states but always responds to reviewer notes with their own note but hardly ever any corrective action.

I would also like to see an automated system in place for NA logs. Again no reviewer intervention needed, just say 60 days after an uncleared NA log an email is generated with instructions on how to clear the NA flag and an automated link set up that the cache owner needs to reply to. If a reply is not received within 30 days then a flag could be raised so the cache gets a fresh look by a reviewer and/or disabled. Basically to me if a NM is not cleared within 90 days the CO is not fulfilling their duties of cache maintenance. And if a cache is not being maintained it should be disabled/archived/adopted.

Automated systems simply will not work. There are caches disabled because the park entrance is blocked because of work in the park not near the cache. Some times this takes more than 91 days. Caches disabled because the road access is closed due to snow. It can be more than 91 days. Other conditions may occur that would require a cache to be disabled for more than 91 days.

 

If you have a local cache disabled for more than 91 days and the reviewer is ignoring NA's then maybe it is time to write to the frog. As for NA's being ignored, there may well be a good reason why the reviewer will ignore a NA, especially if the NA is part of a vendetta. And by the way, if a NA is filed and the condition fixed the NA log could well remain. You want to blitz the cache in this case? I think not. Sorry automated systems create lots of collateral damage.

[+The A-Team]

Other conditions may occur that would require a cache to be disabled for more than 91 days.

Agreed. I've seen many instances where a cache has been disabled for months, but for good reason. If that reason is temporary, and it's reasonable to assume the cache will be the same as before once the reason has ended, then it's fine for a cache to be disabled longer. It really doesn't matter what specific criteria you use for the automated system, there will ALWAYS be exceptions. There needs to be a human in charge to make judgement calls.

 

This same CO has several caches in similar states but always responds to reviewer notes with their own note but hardly ever any corrective action.

I have to ask the question, has this been pointed out to the reviewer? They may be so busy that they haven't noticed this trend by the CO. If so, then jholly might be right that it should be escalated to the great green frog. In my area, once you've been warned by a reviewer, you have 30 days to actually fix the problem before it gets archived, not just post a note saying you will. I guess it's different where you are.

[+cx1]

 

Automated systems simply will not work. There are caches disabled because the park entrance is blocked because of work in the park not near the cache. Some times this takes more than 91 days. Caches disabled because the road access is closed due to snow. It can be more than 91 days. Other conditions may occur that would require a cache to be disabled for more than 91 days.

 

Those are rather rare occurrences that could easily be handled by the cache owner simply writing to the local reviewer to have that automated clock stopped.

 

If you have a local cache disabled for more than 91 days and the reviewer is ignoring NA's then maybe it is time to write to the frog. As for NA's being ignored, there may well be a good reason why the reviewer will ignore a NA, especially if the NA is part of a vendetta. And by the way, if a NA is filed and the condition fixed the NA log could well remain. You want to blitz the cache in this case? I think not. Sorry automated systems create lots of collateral damage.

Sorry, I did use the incorrect term here. I was actually referring to NM (needs maintenance) for the 2nd half of my previous post and not NA. I was thinking SBA for archived and just typed the wrong abbreviation. So the edit I am about to do to that post should make that clear.

[+niraD]

Automated systems simply will not work. There are caches disabled because the park entrance is blocked because of work in the park not near the cache. Some times this takes more than 91 days. Caches disabled because the road access is closed due to snow. It can be more than 91 days. Other conditions may occur that would require a cache to be disabled for more than 91 days.

Those are rather rare occurrences that could easily be handled by the cache owner simply writing to the local reviewer to have that automated clock stopped.

Or they could simply avoid the hassle completely by not disabling their caches in the first place.

 

Personally, I'd rather cache owners feel free to leave caches disabled without the threat of automatic archival. Automated reminders are fine. Automatically archiving caches is not.

[+L0ne.R]

As far as the OP's question goes, I don't see local reviewers getting involved with maintenance issues. It's not part of their duties. When you do see reviewer's doing sweeps on caches with NM logs, it's a reviewer going above and beyond the call of duty.

 

Thank you Ontario Reviewers. They do sweeps on NMs and help keep our community of caches tidier. A CO who ignores NMs usually doesn't ignore the Reviewer Note. Those that do, have likely given up on geocaching and abandoned their cache. I agree that an NM for a full logbook is not petty, especially if the full logbook book has already been mentioned a couple of times in the online logs with no response from the CO.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Solitario R

[+L0ne.R]

Automated systems simply will not work. There are caches disabled because the park entrance is blocked because of work in the park not near the cache. Some times this takes more than 91 days. Caches disabled because the road access is closed due to snow. It can be more than 91 days. Other conditions may occur that would require a cache to be disabled for more than 91 days.

Those are rather rare occurrences that could easily be handled by the cache owner simply writing to the local reviewer to have that automated clock stopped.

Or they could simply avoid the hassle completely by not disabling their caches in the first place.

 

Personally, I'd rather cache owners feel free to leave caches disabled without the threat of automatic archival. Automated reminders are fine. Automatically archiving caches is not.

 

Around here it takes quite a while for a cache to get archived by the Reviewers. The CO usually gets information via the online logs that there's a problem, then after a couple of months someone finally posts an NM. Then the Reviewers might see the NMs after a sweep a few months later, and send a RN at which point they may disable. Then they wait another 3 months before archiving. And after all that, the CO can get it reinstated if they respond to the Archival in a timely fashion. Seems more than fair to me and not all that automatic.

[AZcachemeister]

I guess we have it pretty good here in AZ.

The reviewer makes regular sweeps and disables caches that have had a NM attribute for 'a while'.

The reviewer even takes time to check for caches that have 'an excessive number of DNFs', and disables those as well.

The reviewer follows-up and archives the caches if the CO does nothing to fix the problem(s).

[+Doctroid]

I just did a check using a PQ: In my area, out of the nearest 497 caches, 86 of them (17%) are marked NM.

 

I've seen little evidence that our local reviewer does anything to prompt COs to address NM issues in the absence of an NA log. He or she does take prolonged and un-addressed NM into account when responding to NA — but does not always respond to NA.

[jholly]

I just did a check using a PQ: In my area, out of the nearest 497 caches, 86 of them (17%) are marked NM.

 

I've seen little evidence that our local reviewer does anything to prompt COs to address NM issues in the absence of an NA log. He or she does take prolonged and un-addressed NM into account when responding to NA — but does not always respond to NA.

It's amazing how many CO's have no clue how to clear a NM flag. Someone drops a NM, the CO fixes the problem but the cache is still NM. I can only assume they do not have a clue how to enter a cache owner maintenance performed log. I've seen caches that are disabled, being found on a regular basis with nothing wrong with the cache. I assume the CO figured out how to disable the cache but has not figured out how to clear the disabled flag. Some reviewers do sweeps, some don't. I really don't see the need for a reviewer to get involved in a wet log NM, around here that is the normal state of a log.

[+Totem Clan]

I just did a check using a PQ: In my area, out of the nearest 497 caches, 86 of them (17%) are marked NM.

 

I've seen little evidence that our local reviewer does anything to prompt COs to address NM issues in the absence of an NA log. He or she does take prolonged and un-addressed NM into account when responding to NA — but does not always respond to NA.

It's amazing how many CO's have no clue how to clear a NM flag. Someone drops a NM, the CO fixes the problem but the cache is still NM. I can only assume they do not have a clue how to enter a cache owner maintenance performed log. I've seen caches that are disabled, being found on a regular basis with nothing wrong with the cache. I assume the CO figured out how to disable the cache but has not figured out how to clear the disabled flag. Some reviewers do sweeps, some don't. I really don't see the need for a reviewer to get involved in a wet log NM, around here that is the normal state of a log.

Theere was CO here who didn't know he could disable his cache. Some cachers just haven't learned yey. That's where we need to step and gently help them that way they will learn.

[+Moose Mob]

It is not part of the Reviewers' basic responibility to track Needs Maintenenace on caches, at least not at this time.

 

However, Reviewers are authorized to take action on caches that do need attention. Action meaning that the cache 'could possibly' be disabled and archived if attention is not given. If you want the reviewer to see it, post a Needs Archived log. Some folks may consider you the cache police, but if you don't report it, who will? I don't like finding old nut containers with broken lids and filled with water, and I doubt that is high on many geocacher's 'favorite' list.

[+ArcherDragoon]

It is not part of the Reviewers' basic responibility to track Needs Maintenenace on caches, at least not at this time.

 

However, Reviewers are authorized to take action on caches that do need attention. Action meaning that the cache 'could possibly' be disabled and archived if attention is not given. If you want the reviewer to see it, post a Needs Archived log. Some folks may consider you the cache police, but if you don't report it, who will? I don't like finding old nut containers with broken lids and filled with water, and I doubt that is high on many geocacher's 'favorite' list.

+1

 

If you don't want to post Needs Archive, go ahead and send the reviewer a message. The tools are in place, people just need to learn to use them. Having reviewers also searchout caches with Needs Maint. logs seems like a duplication (and unneeded on at this time) of systems/procedures already in place.

[+NeverSummer]

It is not part of the Reviewers' basic responibility to track Needs Maintenenace on caches, at least not at this time.

 

However, Reviewers are authorized to take action on caches that do need attention. Action meaning that the cache 'could possibly' be disabled and archived if attention is not given. If you want the reviewer to see it, post a Needs Archived log. Some folks may consider you the cache police, but if you don't report it, who will? I don't like finding old nut containers with broken lids and filled with water, and I doubt that is high on many geocacher's 'favorite' list.

+1

 

If you don't want to post Needs Archive, go ahead and send the reviewer a message. The tools are in place, people just need to learn to use them. Having reviewers also searchout caches with Needs Maint. logs seems like a duplication (and unneeded on at this time) of systems/procedures already in place.

So, how many NM logs does a cache need to have that haven't been cleared before a NA log should be posted?

What if you try to contact the owner and get no response?

 

I've seen personally, and heard from others, that the opinion is that Reviewers get an owner's attention moreso than a plain-old cacher. When is the right time, and what is the right method, then?

[+Moose Mob]

It is not part of the Reviewers' basic responibility to track Needs Maintenenace on caches, at least not at this time.

 

However, Reviewers are authorized to take action on caches that do need attention. Action meaning that the cache 'could possibly' be disabled and archived if attention is not given. If you want the reviewer to see it, post a Needs Archived log. Some folks may consider you the cache police, but if you don't report it, who will? I don't like finding old nut containers with broken lids and filled with water, and I doubt that is high on many geocacher's 'favorite' list.

+1

 

If you don't want to post Needs Archive, go ahead and send the reviewer a message. The tools are in place, people just need to learn to use them. Having reviewers also searchout caches with Needs Maint. logs seems like a duplication (and unneeded on at this time) of systems/procedures already in place.

So, how many NM logs does a cache need to have that haven't been cleared before a NA log should be posted?

What if you try to contact the owner and get no response?

 

I've seen personally, and heard from others, that the opinion is that Reviewers get an owner's attention moreso than a plain-old cacher. When is the right time, and what is the right method, then?

NM logs leave an NM attribute, no matter how many posts are made. The NA log will get the reviewers attention (eventually) and then they will see all the NM logs in the past. Several NM's do get the reviewers attention as long as they are from different people at different times. A weekly NM log from a single individual may not look so good.

 

There is no set process for how reviewers handle NM logs. Your mileage may vary.

[+NeverSummer]

NM logs leave an NM attribute, no matter how many posts are made.

I'm aware.

The NA log will get the reviewers attention (eventually) and then they will see all the NM logs in the past.

As has been my experience as well.

Several NM's do get the reviewers attention as long as they are from different people at different times. A weekly NM log from a single individual may not look so good.

I can see how that could be true, but also an unfortunate assumption from this hypothetical Reviewer.

 

There is no set process for how reviewers handle NM logs. Your mileage may vary.

I understand this.

 

Moose Mob, are you a reviewer? Can you give actual context about the instruction you are given about your role and how to "deal" with your responsibilities? I'm very interested in knowing what is said, specifically, to Reviewers about their roles, responsibilities and limitations.

[+fizzymagic]

So, how many NM logs does a cache need to have that haven't been cleared before a NA log should be posted? What if you try to contact the owner and get no response?

 

I've seen personally, and heard from others, that the opinion is that Reviewers get an owner's attention moreso than a plain-old cacher. When is the right time, and what is the right method, then?

 

I thought we were only talking about how things differ in different areas, and that this thread was just for us to share experiences? Seems to me I am catching a definite whiff of agenda here. Like, for example, somebody wants to have some local caches maintained to her standards or else get archived?

 

Reviewers should not keep track of the number of NM logs. Any automated system to do so is begging for abuse. If I really had my knickers in a knot over a particular cache, I would *gasp* use my judgment about whether or not to contact the reviewer.

 

My judgment mainly involves thinking about how I would feel if somebody tried to get one of my caches archived in the same circumstances. Given the response from others in this thread, many people base their decision on how powerful they will feel by making cache owners leap in response to their every desire.

 

Watching geocaching evolve has been a real learning experience for me. It's been fascinating to watch the culture evolve from the community feel of the early days into the legalistic power struggle of today. It's amazing to see in real life how many people are deeply motivated to try to control the behavior of others.

 

It's also been amazing to watch, as the number of available caches has grown and the average quality of caches has degraded, the attitude of the majority of cachers change from gratitude towards cache hiders into a self-satisfied sense of entitlement. The dominant themes on this forum, for example, have changed from excitement about new caches and new hiding techniques to a non-stop litany of complaints about cache maintenance and calls for Groundspeak to enforce more rules.

 

It's a little sad, but entirely predictable.

[+Moose Mob]

<snip>

 

Moose Mob, are you a reviewer? Can you give actual context about the instruction you are given about your role and how to "deal" with your responsibilities? I'm very interested in knowing what is said, specifically, to Reviewers about their roles, responsibilities and limitations.

Yes, I am. (aka Roadrunner - for Nevada)

 

The specifics for our roles are not easy to explain in a forum. Especially since they are dynamic and details can change overnight. The basic function is to review caches to see that they meet the guidelines and publish them when they do, then archive them when they don't. There are issues, like full logbooks. The gudelines say they must have a logbook, but not that it has enough room for more signatures or that it be a mushy gob of goo from water leaking in the lid. These cases lead to judgement. My personal preference is to use past logs over time to guesstimate the condition and 'fun factor' of those that seek it. If too many folks are not having fun, then that is grounds for a more negative approach from me. If I get NA logs because a cache is in a garbage pit, I will probably archive it and deal with any repercussions from the cache owner. Other reviewers may respond with "not everyone has to do every cache. If you don't like it, you can always find a different one". This is also a very valid response, and I have used that mostly for dangerous caches.

 

I realize this may not have answered the questions, buit I hope it at least points you in that direction. Just remember, we are volunteers and we do this because we hart our families and would rather spend time with you. (just kidding)

[+NeverSummer]

So, how many NM logs does a cache need to have that haven't been cleared before a NA log should be posted? What if you try to contact the owner and get no response?

 

I've seen personally, and heard from others, that the opinion is that Reviewers get an owner's attention moreso than a plain-old cacher. When is the right time, and what is the right method, then?

 

I thought we were only talking about how things differ in different areas, and that this thread was just for us to share experiences? Seems to me I am catching a definite whiff of agenda here. Like, for example, somebody wants to have some local caches maintained to her standards or else get archived?

 

Reviewers should not keep track of the number of NM logs. Any automated system to do so is begging for abuse. If I really had my knickers in a knot over a particular cache, I would *gasp* use my judgment about whether or not to contact the reviewer.

 

My judgment mainly involves thinking about how I would feel if somebody tried to get one of my caches archived in the same circumstances. Given the response from others in this thread, many people base their decision on how powerful they will feel by making cache owners leap in response to their every desire.

 

Watching geocaching evolve has been a real learning experience for me. It's been fascinating to watch the culture evolve from the community feel of the early days into the legalistic power struggle of today. It's amazing to see in real life how many people are deeply motivated to try to control the behavior of others.

 

It's also been amazing to watch, as the number of available caches has grown and the average quality of caches has degraded, the attitude of the majority of cachers change from gratitude towards cache hiders into a self-satisfied sense of entitlement. The dominant themes on this forum, for example, have changed from excitement about new caches and new hiding techniques to a non-stop litany of complaints about cache maintenance and calls for Groundspeak to enforce more rules.

 

It's a little sad, but entirely predictable.

Hey fizzy, I'm sorry. I've also come to realize from your posts in this thread that you didn't read my entire OP before making your decision about this thread.

 

I sincerely apologize that this thread has taken this direction. It wasn't my intention to create agenda or appear to have one.

 

If you smell an agenda, you are mistaken. I have no ill will or desire to change what is happening because I think I'm right or whatever concocted idea you have. I am interested in the state of affairs "out there". It is interesting to me to learn more about what people experience, what works, and what doesn't. It's all about learning more about the "world" we geocache within.

 

Unlike what you think, I didn't start this thread to make a point. I also didn't start this thread to give you a place to put your agenda out there. You've been clear that you are "sick" of all the "poorly maintained cache" threads and the like. I get it. We get it. What doesn't need to happen here is your continued accusations.

 

Like, for example, somebody wants to have some local caches maintained to her standards or else get archived?

Nope. Not at all what I want to do.

 

Any automated system to do so is begging for abuse.

Never said that's my aim.

 

If I really had my knickers in a knot over a particular cache, I would *gasp* use my judgment about whether or not to contact the reviewer.

I have used, and continue to use the tools we are given carefully, honestly, and responsibly. I also use my judgement about contacting a reviewer.

 

Watching geocaching evolve has been a real learning experience for me. It's been fascinating to watch the culture evolve from the community feel of the early days into the legalistic power struggle of today. It's amazing to see in real life how many people are deeply motivated to try to control the behavior of others.

Geocaching is today what it is. There are many, many more people geocaching, and the game has evolved. Has it left you behind? The game now includes more and more people that were not part of the "original" culture. They have to learn from others, but many others aren't good teachers. I've been doing this "GPS stash" thing since 2001, and I've seen some changes too. Just finding and becoming a member on geocaching.com took me a long time to get used to. I get it, believe me.

[+NeverSummer]

<snip>

 

Moose Mob, are you a reviewer? Can you give actual context about the instruction you are given about your role and how to "deal" with your responsibilities? I'm very interested in knowing what is said, specifically, to Reviewers about their roles, responsibilities and limitations.

Yes, I am. (aka Roadrunner - for Nevada)

 

The specifics for our roles are not easy to explain in a forum. Especially since they are dynamic and details can change overnight. The basic function is to review caches to see that they meet the guidelines and publish them when they do, then archive them when they don't. There are issues, like full logbooks. The gudelines say they must have a logbook, but not that it has enough room for more signatures or that it be a mushy gob of goo from water leaking in the lid. These cases lead to judgement. My personal preference is to use past logs over time to guesstimate the condition and 'fun factor' of those that seek it. If too many folks are not having fun, then that is grounds for a more negative approach from me. If I get NA logs because a cache is in a garbage pit, I will probably archive it and deal with any repercussions from the cache owner. Other reviewers may respond with "not everyone has to do every cache. If you don't like it, you can always find a different one". This is also a very valid response, and I have used that mostly for dangerous caches.

 

I realize this may not have answered the questions, buit I hope it at least points you in that direction. Just remember, we are volunteers and we do this because we hart our families and would rather spend time with you. (just kidding)

Hey, that's more information than I've gotten anywhere else. It sounds simple enough--don't read that the wrong way. I understand what you are saying.

[+ArcherDragoon]

It is not part of the Reviewers' basic responibility to track Needs Maintenenace on caches, at least not at this time.

 

However, Reviewers are authorized to take action on caches that do need attention. Action meaning that the cache 'could possibly' be disabled and archived if attention is not given. If you want the reviewer to see it, post a Needs Archived log. Some folks may consider you the cache police, but if you don't report it, who will? I don't like finding old nut containers with broken lids and filled with water, and I doubt that is high on many geocacher's 'favorite' list.

+1

 

If you don't want to post Needs Archive, go ahead and send the reviewer a message. The tools are in place, people just need to learn to use them. Having reviewers also searchout caches with Needs Maint. logs seems like a duplication (and unneeded on at this time) of systems/procedures already in place.

So, how many NM logs does a cache need to have that haven't been cleared before a NA log should be posted?

What if you try to contact the owner and get no response?

 

I've seen personally, and heard from others, that the opinion is that Reviewers get an owner's attention moreso than a plain-old cacher. When is the right time, and what is the right method, then?

I am not sure what you are missing...many have said in this thread, send a message to a reviewer at any time, they/he/she will look into it. Post an NA when you feel it is needed. Reviewers will see it and look into the situation. As for a the number of NM logs...that is going to vary based on the location, the cacher, and the general community of cachers, as well as what the NM is being posted for...

 

I had a NM posted on a cache of mine once because it had a dull pencil (not broken...dull)...I doubt a NA would be needed for that...

[+NeverSummer]

It is not part of the Reviewers' basic responibility to track Needs Maintenenace on caches, at least not at this time.

 

However, Reviewers are authorized to take action on caches that do need attention. Action meaning that the cache 'could possibly' be disabled and archived if attention is not given. If you want the reviewer to see it, post a Needs Archived log. Some folks may consider you the cache police, but if you don't report it, who will? I don't like finding old nut containers with broken lids and filled with water, and I doubt that is high on many geocacher's 'favorite' list.

+1

 

If you don't want to post Needs Archive, go ahead and send the reviewer a message. The tools are in place, people just need to learn to use them. Having reviewers also searchout caches with Needs Maint. logs seems like a duplication (and unneeded on at this time) of systems/procedures already in place.

So, how many NM logs does a cache need to have that haven't been cleared before a NA log should be posted?

What if you try to contact the owner and get no response?

 

I've seen personally, and heard from others, that the opinion is that Reviewers get an owner's attention moreso than a plain-old cacher. When is the right time, and what is the right method, then?

I am not sure what you are missing...many have said in this thread, send a message to a reviewer at any time, they/he/she will look into it. Post an NA when you feel it is needed. Reviewers will see it and look into the situation. As for a the number of NM logs...that is going to vary based on the location, the cacher, and the general community of cachers, as well as what the NM is being posted for...

 

I had a NM posted on a cache of mine once because it had a dull pencil (not broken...dull)...I doubt a NA would be needed for that...

I'm not missing anything. I didn't start this thread to answer a procedural question; I know how to log maintenance or archive logs. I understand that every situation is different, and that coming up with specific examples in this thread will be a pointlessly endless endeavor.

 

I asked those questions to encourage critical thought and give some other perspectives. Just because I've asked the question doesn't mean I don't know an answer. Each person has their own understanding, knowledge, process, effort, growth and skill. It's an educational fact, and I'm asking questions to dig deeper into what the "community" thinks and does. I find it interesting. I have also found it interesting how quick people are to assume and needle in the forums.

[+Totem Clan]

Just a bit off topic but something that seems to come up in discussions like this.

 

NA does not always equal, "GET RID OF THIS CAHCE." In fact is often just a way to get the reviewer to look at a cache. The cache may only need to be disabled or such. NA is a way to get the reviewer involved on a cache.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Just a bit off topic but something that seems to come up in discussions like this.

 

NA does not always equal, "GET RID OF THIS CAHCE." In fact is often just a way to get the reviewer to look at a cache. The cache may only need to be disabled or such. NA is a way to get the reviewer involved on a cache.

+1

[+ArcherDragoon]

It is not part of the Reviewers' basic responibility to track Needs Maintenenace on caches, at least not at this time.

 

However, Reviewers are authorized to take action on caches that do need attention. Action meaning that the cache 'could possibly' be disabled and archived if attention is not given. If you want the reviewer to see it, post a Needs Archived log. Some folks may consider you the cache police, but if you don't report it, who will? I don't like finding old nut containers with broken lids and filled with water, and I doubt that is high on many geocacher's 'favorite' list.

+1

 

If you don't want to post Needs Archive, go ahead and send the reviewer a message. The tools are in place, people just need to learn to use them. Having reviewers also searchout caches with Needs Maint. logs seems like a duplication (and unneeded on at this time) of systems/procedures already in place.

So, how many NM logs does a cache need to have that haven't been cleared before a NA log should be posted?

What if you try to contact the owner and get no response?

 

I've seen personally, and heard from others, that the opinion is that Reviewers get an owner's attention moreso than a plain-old cacher. When is the right time, and what is the right method, then?

I am not sure what you are missing...many have said in this thread, send a message to a reviewer at any time, they/he/she will look into it. Post an NA when you feel it is needed. Reviewers will see it and look into the situation. As for a the number of NM logs...that is going to vary based on the location, the cacher, and the general community of cachers, as well as what the NM is being posted for...

 

I had a NM posted on a cache of mine once because it had a dull pencil (not broken...dull)...I doubt a NA would be needed for that...

I'm not missing anything. I didn't start this thread to answer a procedural question; I know how to log maintenance or archive logs. I understand that every situation is different, and that coming up with specific examples in this thread will be a pointlessly endless endeavor.

 

I asked those questions to encourage critical thought and give some other perspectives. Just because I've asked the question doesn't mean I don't know an answer. Each person has their own understanding, knowledge, process, effort, growth and skill. It's an educational fact, and I'm asking questions to dig deeper into what the "community" thinks and does. I find it interesting. I have also found it interesting how quick people are to assume and needle in the forums.

Ok then, fari enough...but, I will pose the question back to you...when do you think NM and NA logs should be used...or how? We have seen other answers...but, would like to know your opinion as well.