Reviewer intervention

[+ArcherDragoon]

.

.

.

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

.

.

.

And...while I do agree with this statement...I don't think it is the responsibility of the reviewers to hover over all the caches they publish. NM are there to help the community convey to the owner that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If that fails...NA is there to help the community convey to a reviewr that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If the community doesn't want to use either, then there is messages...

 

I think the biggest challenge here is changing the community preception that those that use NM or NA (typically NA more so than NM) are acting as the "cache police"...the community in general needs to get better at monitoring caches and upholding the standards of the community in general.

[+Totem Clan]

.

.

.

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

.

.

.

And...while I do agree with this statement...I don't think it is the responsibility of the reviewers to hover over all the caches they publish. NM are there to help the community convey to the owner that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If that fails...NA is there to help the community convey to a reviewr that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If the community doesn't want to use either, then there is messages...

 

I think the biggest challenge here is changing the community preception that those that use NM or NA (typically NA more so than NM) are acting as the "cache police"...the community in general needs to get better at monitoring caches and upholding the standards of the community in general.

+1

[+NeverSummer]

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.

I would, but I'm afraid that it would only serve to give opportunity to claim I have a bias or agenda.

To give an answer of some sort, however, I will say that I use NM logs when a cache needs maintenance, and NA when a cache appears to be deliberately neglected, has an absent owner and is in disrepair, or when a cache is illegally placed based on local, state, national or Groundspeak guidelines, rules and law.

Edited January 24, 2012 by NeverSummer

[+NeverSummer]

.

.

.

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

.

.

.

And...while I do agree with this statement...I don't think it is the responsibility of the reviewers to hover over all the caches they publish. NM are there to help the community convey to the owner that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If that fails...NA is there to help the community convey to a reviewr that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If the community doesn't want to use either, then there is messages...

You are, in essence, saying what I am saying. Review still occurs after publishing in many forms. Some Reviewers continue their service to the game by looking into NM issues, and others by reviewing once a NA is logged. Both are examples of "geocache review" that doesn't end after publishing.

I think the biggest challenge here is changing the community preception that those that use NM or NA (typically NA more so than NM) are acting as the "cache police"...the community in general needs to get better at monitoring caches and upholding the standards of the community in general.

 

Careful what you say about upholding the standards of the community in general. It would appear fizzymagic will pounce on such statements.

[+ArcherDragoon]

.

.

.

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

.

.

.

And...while I do agree with this statement...I don't think it is the responsibility of the reviewers to hover over all the caches they publish. NM are there to help the community convey to the owner that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If that fails...NA is there to help the community convey to a reviewr that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If the community doesn't want to use either, then there is messages...

You are, in essence, saying what I am saying. Review still occurs after publishing in many forms. Some Reviewers continue their service to the game by looking into NM issues, and others by reviewing once a NA is logged. Both are examples of "geocache review" that doesn't end after publishing.

I think the biggest challenge here is changing the community preception that those that use NM or NA (typically NA more so than NM) are acting as the "cache police"...the community in general needs to get better at monitoring caches and upholding the standards of the community in general.

 

Careful what you say about upholding the standards of the community in general. It would appear fizzymagic will pounce on such statements.

I am saying they (reviewers) get involved when they are told of a problem...I do not expect them to hover over caches by setting up PQ's to find caches with the NM flags...They want to do that...fine...but I hope that never becomes a requirement of reviewers. If that happens...that starts down a road of question of responsibility...for which, I beleive the owner should be held responsible, not the reviewer...

 

By getting involved when they are made aware of a problem by the community in general, that is what I mean by the continuation of the Review process...which is more in line with Fizzy...I don't think (and I don't feel) it is the job of reviewers to continually monitor caches...

 

Edit to Add: Looking at it...my feelings are less about review and more about policy and guidelines when it comes to "additonal review" as talked about here...

Edited January 24, 2012 by ArcherDragoon

[+NeverSummer]

.

.

.

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

.

.

.

And...while I do agree with this statement...I don't think it is the responsibility of the reviewers to hover over all the caches they publish. NM are there to help the community convey to the owner that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If that fails...NA is there to help the community convey to a reviewr that there is a problem that needs to be looked into. If the community doesn't want to use either, then there is messages...

You are, in essence, saying what I am saying. Review still occurs after publishing in many forms. Some Reviewers continue their service to the game by looking into NM issues, and others by reviewing once a NA is logged. Both are examples of "geocache review" that doesn't end after publishing.

I think the biggest challenge here is changing the community preception that those that use NM or NA (typically NA more so than NM) are acting as the "cache police"...the community in general needs to get better at monitoring caches and upholding the standards of the community in general.

 

Careful what you say about upholding the standards of the community in general. It would appear fizzymagic will pounce on such statements.

I am saying they (reviewers) get involved when they are told of a problem...I do not expect them to hover over caches by setting up PQ's to find caches with the NM flags...They want to do that...fine...but I hope that never becomes a requirement of reviewers. If that happens...that starts down a road of question of responsibility...for which, I beleive the owner should be held responsible, not the reviewer...

 

By getting involved when they are made aware of a problem by the community in general, that is what I mean by the continuation of the Review process...which is more in line with Fizzy...I don't think (and I don't feel) it is the job of reviewers to continually monitor caches...

Thanks for your input, AD. It's interesting to hear from folks about this.

 

Do remember, I'm not saying I'm "for" a Reviewer's job to include what you describe as "hovering". The last thing we need is a helicopter Reviewer micromanaging geocaching. I've only said that I have seen it done both ways, and I wonder what is going on "out there". For example, I'm sure many people have never seen a Reviewer check in on caches that appear to be under the weather for a while. As some have said, this is "above and beyond" the call of duty, yet not a hinderance or imposition on ownership of a cache. Others want Reviewers to buzz off.

[+NeverSummer]

Edit to Add: Looking at it...my feelings are less about review and more about policy and guidelines when it comes to "additonal review" as talked about here...

Could you elaborate?

[+ArcherDragoon]

Edit to Add: Looking at it...my feelings are less about review and more about policy and guidelines when it comes to "additonal review" as talked about here...

Could you elaborate?

Review happens with what info is available at the time a cache is submitted (both from the cacher her/himself and local policy)...when followup is needed from a reviewer about land use, local policy updates, and general possible illegal status...this crosses more to being the enforcer of the new info and less about review...

[+NeverSummer]

Edit to Add: Looking at it...my feelings are less about review and more about policy and guidelines when it comes to "additonal review" as talked about here...

Could you elaborate?

Review happens with what info is available at the time a cache is submitted (both from the cacher her/himself and local policy)...when followup is needed from a reviewer about land use, local policy updates, and general possible illegal status...this crosses more to being the enforcer of the new info and less about review...

At risk of a thread diversion...

Do they not need to review the geocache against the existing "new" information? Sometimes their review of the cache and the new information will be looked over (read: reviewed), and the cache may remain as is. Sometimes the opposite happens. It sounds like a semantic issue, yet the processes we describe are mutual--an "agree, yet disagree", not "agree to disagree" moment.

 

A Reviewer will be called upon to look over a cache for many reasons. People here have mentioned emailing the Reviewer if there seems to be an unresolved NM issue or similar. It sounds to me that Reviewers are called on to "review" the situation based on the "new" information they are given. That being a NA issue, or an unresolved NM issue. The Reviewers are given some wiggle room with which they engage in their given responsibilities. Whereas your experience in Minnesota is Surfer Joe, MN.Fruitcake and now Gat R Done, there are Reviewers elsewhere that act differently, yet within their volunteer role. Essentially, are Reviewers not "on call" to help with cache issues (of course, depending on the issue at hand, the response varies...)?

[+fizzymagic]

I thought about this some last night, and I decided I should make a more temperate post explaining why this issue gets me so worked up.

 

The main problem with all this focus on cache maintenance is that it encourages people to hide lame caches.

 

It's an unintended consequence of what may on the surface appear to be a completely reasonable policy: caches must be maintained by the hider quickly after a NM log is posted. Unfortunately, this policy produces what is known as a perverse incentive. You see perverse incentives all the time in laws passed by well-meaning legislatures that don't bother to consider all the ramifications of their proposals.

 

Consider that you are a cacher who has come to the forums and seen people get all up in arms over full or wet logbooks and you want to hide a cache. You have two choices for the hide location: a lame urban hide, or a hide at a great spot that requires a 10-mile hike.

 

Which are you going to choose, knowing that if any little thing goes wrong with the cache you are expected to drop everything and fix your hide ASAP? Most people (although they might not admit it) will choose the easy-to-reach lame urban hide over the long hike, because most people just don't have the ability to do that 10-mile hike without some serious planning.

 

The result? The vast majority of cache hides will be lame urban micros (micros, BTW, generally require less maintenance). The effect will snowball as more and more people enter geocaching and think that lame urban micros are the only caches out there and start becoming more demanding about cache maintenance.

 

That's why I always carry spare logsheets and a few other things with me to fix caches that need help, especially when I go to the hard-to-reach caches that are my favorites.

 

The good news is that the majority of people who are willing to go on strenuous hikes or solve difficult puzzles to find caches tend not to be entitled brats who complain over full logsheets; instead, they tend to be the kind of people who will try to help out.

 

I am certain that lots of people will point out that good caches are still being hidden. Yes, they are. We are very lucky that there are cachers willing to hide them despite the incentives not to. The vast, vast majority of caches hidden today are extremely easy to get to, and I contend that the constant complaining about poorly-maintained caches has exacerbated that trend.

[+firennice]

The reviewers job is to list caches, and deal with serious issues and NA. Those are the most important duties they have.

 

As a player you have to decide where that line is drawn. Many do not post NA at all, others will at the drop of a hat. It is the players that police the game. Cachers are the ones that are on the ground and get the info to reviewers if there is a problem.

 

Many reviewers do maintenance sweeps to clean up areas, not all do. NM logs may be taken into consideration when a cache seems to have prolonged problems. When you go to a cache page what do you think? NM logs, or NA logs by people that never visit the site are not given the same weight as those that were there.

 

I use NM when there is an issue. Cracked containers, caches that may have been damaged/moved by others. A NM is that you need the cache owner to go and take care of it.

 

I use a NA when there is a specific issue. Buried, No Trespassing signs, etc. Every cache page is different, and a reviewer looks at each one differently.

[+L0ne.R]

You have two choices for the hide location: a lame urban hide, or a hide at a great spot that requires a 10-mile hike.

 

If you're the kind of person that could and would do a 10-mile hike (briansnat comes to mind) then I think you'd hide an ammo can out there with a nice size logbook - something that'll last about 5 years. I can't see briansnat choosing to hide LPCs instead of ammo cans at the top of a mountain because he's got to go check on the cache every 3 to 5 years.

[+NeverSummer]

You have two choices for the hide location: a lame urban hide, or a hide at a great spot that requires a 10-mile hike.

 

If you're the kind of person that could and would do a 10-mile hike (briansnat comes to mind) then I think you'd hide an ammo can out there with a nice size logbook - something that'll last about 5 years. I can't see briansnat choosing to hide LPCs instead of ammo cans at the top of a mountain because he's got to go check on the cache every 3 to 5 years.

Personally, I make sure any cache I place has a clear maintenance plan. (I think that's in the guidelines, too) If it's a 10-mile hike, I better have a plan to be able to get out and maintain the cache, or I wouldn't hide it. An ammo can with good ziplocks (and extras) is a good start to make sure that the maintenance visit that would happen would be more likely that it was muggled than that it is just holding a full or wet logsheet.

 

Also, if I place an urban cache, I would have a maintenance plan. And, I would prepare the cache in ways to keep on top of any other possible issues.

 

But, this is beside the point. It is clear (for many reasons) that maintenance of a cache is the responsibility of the owner. It is also clear in the guidelines that caches should have a maintenance plan. But, if people are uncomfortable with keeping other owners accountable, some caches fall to pieces. Calling each other the "cache police" because we might try to keep others on point with their implied responsibilities is unfair. And, therefore, sometimes a Reviewer is asked to get involved.

 

Here's a question, then. Should any intervention by a Reviewer be any different than the attention or intervention performed by other owners? If the Reviewers are not required or asked officially to intervene with NM logs, are we then all on the same playing field, and anyone's NM log could/should be taken as seriously as a Reviewer's note or other intervention in this case?

 

Therefore, at what point do we stop helping others with their responsibilities via direct intervention (placing a new logsheet) or indirect intervention (posting a NM/NA log)? Would any such decision to stop, as a Reviewer or "normal cacher", not make the quality we all mention get worse?

 

Just food for thought. Again I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. Just asking.

 

Edit to remove a name.

Edited January 25, 2012 by NeverSummer

[+jellis]

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.

here here

[+fizzymagic]

Personally, I make sure any cache I place has a clear maintenance plan. (I think that's in the guidelines, too) If it's a 10-mile hike, I better have a plan to be able to get out and maintain the cache, or I wouldn't hide it.

 

Thank you for making my point so well. The fact of the matter is, most people will choose not to hide it.

 

Thus, the attitude contributes to the proliferation of lame urban micros. From your response, I am under the impression you think that is just fine. I disagree. I do not value maintenance above location. Maybe that's why we disagree.

[+NeverSummer]

Personally, I make sure any cache I place has a clear maintenance plan. (I think that's in the guidelines, too) If it's a 10-mile hike, I better have a plan to be able to get out and maintain the cache, or I wouldn't hide it.

 

Thank you for making my point so well. The fact of the matter is, most people will choose not to hide it.

 

Thus, the attitude contributes to the proliferation of lame urban micros. From your response, I am under the impression you think that is just fine. I disagree. I do not value maintenance above location. Maybe that's why we disagree.

 

Uh, I don't make the same connection that you do. In fact, I don't see how you got from "a" to "b" there. That isn't how I feel at all.

 

Just because I follow the guidelines as I interpret them, and have maintenance plans for my caches does not mean that I'm of this invented attitude you are describing. I think that geocaching comes with responsibility, and some take it more seriously than others. The way you are describing your feelings on the subject, you don't see a need to maintain your (or for others to maintain their) caches if they are on a 10-mile hike. (? ) You see, the connection isn't there.

 

I think "lame urban micros" are due to the fact that most people don't see the need to place a larger cache in a nicer place because it will just end up being an empty can, or box filled with broken McToys. But that's just my thought. You can have yours, I suppose.

 

If I decide that I can't maintain a cache, I won't hide it. That doesn't mean someone else won't. In most cases, people do hide good geocaches every day. (ok, here in northern MN currently, maybe every 3-5 days...not much getting published right now with the snow) So, if I don't think I can maintain a cache that needs a 10-mile hike, someone else might. I seriously doubt that your theory holds water beyond your opinion on the subject.

 

People hide caches where they hide caches. Some are "lame urban micros", others are "amazing wild regulars". I do not value maintenance over location, mostly because I don't see that one makes the other better or worse. I think that taking the game with its rules and guidelines is what makes it work, and, if done well, makes the game good or better. My personal attitude on good maintenance and good location is not a mutually exclusive situation. You can, as I see it, have both. However, it means taking the guidelines seriously, and being prepared to not only keep yourself in check, but help others keep a decent level of standard. (<--I'm not saying "my" standard. I'm saying standard based on the guidelines and rules of the game.)

 

If it's about the location, and not a maintained cache, I encourage you to take Waymarking more seriously.

[+fizzymagic]

If I decide that I can't maintain a cache, I won't hide it. That doesn't mean someone else won't. In most cases, people do hide good geocaches every day. (ok, here in northern MN currently, maybe every 3-5 days...not much getting published right now with the snow) So, if I don't think I can maintain a cache that needs a 10-mile hike, someone else might. I seriously doubt that your theory holds water beyond your opinion on the subject.

Wow. Have you ever done any reading on incentives? This is not "my opinion," as there is a great deal of research showing that people do in fact respond to incentives. You perfectly explained why you would choose not to hide a difficult-to-reach cache because of maintenance issues. Thus, you have responded to the incentive.

 

As for how I got from your insistence that every cache needs a maintenance plan to my conclusion that you value maintenance over location... seems pretty obvious to me. I'll let you answer: given a choice between a poorly-maintained cache in an awesome, hard-to-reach setting and a lame urban micro, which would you pick?

 

Prediction: you will avoid the question and say you would prefer a well-maintained cache in a great location.

[+NeverSummer]

If I decide that I can't maintain a cache, I won't hide it. That doesn't mean someone else won't. In most cases, people do hide good geocaches every day. (ok, here in northern MN currently, maybe every 3-5 days...not much getting published right now with the snow) So, if I don't think I can maintain a cache that needs a 10-mile hike, someone else might. I seriously doubt that your theory holds water beyond your opinion on the subject.

Wow. Have you ever done any reading on incentives? This is not "my opinion," as there is a great deal of research showing that people do in fact respond to incentives. You perfectly explained why you would choose not to hide a difficult-to-reach cache because of maintenance issues. Thus, you have responded to the incentive.

 

As for how I got from your insistence that every cache needs a maintenance plan to my conclusion that you value maintenance over location... seems pretty obvious to me. I'll let you answer: given a choice between a poorly-maintained cache in an awesome, hard-to-reach setting and a lame urban micro, which would you pick?

 

Prediction: you will avoid the question and say you would prefer a well-maintained cache in a great location.

2.1.2.2:

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to maintain proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.). You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable amount of time – normally a few weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

The territory in which a geocacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A geocacher who has previously logged many geocaches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be. This determination is at the discretion of the cache reviewer.

Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, we ask that you place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while on a vacation or business trip. It is best when you live within a manageable distance from the cache placements to allow for return visits. Geocaches placed during travel may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan, which must allow for a quick response to reported problems. An acceptable maintenance plan might include the username of a local geocacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache page. This will auto-delete on publication.

 

This is not "my insistence". It is in the guidelines. I'm sure you'll now argue that this only refers to "travel". But, "travel" certainly would apply to a 10-mile hike. This would mean that, by definition within the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, it is "Primitive", or "Semi-Primitive, non motorized". This would mean encounters with "fewer than 6 parties a day on trails or streams and fewer than 3 parties a day visible from campsites; no closer than 1 mile from all roads or motorized use; the managerial setting calls for a limited or absent enforcement presence, recreation users assuming most responsibility for their own health and safety, and rules, regulations, signs and facilities kept to the minimum necessary." Sounds remote, and that "travel" would be required to get to this site.

 

As for incentives, I'm still not seeing how you comparison to economics fits. I understand that there can be natural and moral incentives as well, but what is the incentive you are implying exists here? I honestly don't know what you mean, specifically.

 

As for how I got from your insistence that every cache needs a maintenance plan to my conclusion that you value maintenance over location... seems pretty obvious to me. I'll let you answer: given a choice between a poorly-maintained cache in an awesome, hard-to-reach setting and a lame urban micro, which would you pick?

 

Prediction: you will avoid the question and say you would prefer a well-maintained cache in a great location.<--cute

I don't understand your "question". What am I picking, hiding, or seeking? If you are asking about seeking, I'll take them both. I'd post a NM log for the hard-to-reach one, depending--of course--on the specifics of the "poorly maintained" part. I'd post a "Found it" for the micro and move on to seeking more caches.

Edited January 25, 2012 by NeverSummer

[+NeverSummer]

To bring it back on topic, I'll ask again:

Should any intervention by a Reviewer be any different than the attention or intervention performed by other owners? If the Reviewers are not required or asked officially to intervene with NM logs, are we then all on the same playing field, and anyone's NM log could/should be taken as seriously as a Reviewer's note or other intervention in this case?

 

Fizzy, as for us, I think if you want to get into the discussion we were having above, we should do so via email. And not in white.

[+L0ne.R]

Personally, I make sure any cache I place has a clear maintenance plan. (I think that's in the guidelines, too) If it's a 10-mile hike, I better have a plan to be able to get out and maintain the cache, or I wouldn't hide it.

 

Thank you for making my point so well. The fact of the matter is, most people will choose not to hide it.

 

Thus, the attitude contributes to the proliferation of lame urban micros. From your response, I am under the impression you think that is just fine. I disagree. I do not value maintenance above location. Maybe that's why we disagree.

 

Actually I'd say someone who doesn't plan on maintaining their cache would more likely hide a cache anywhere since they never expect to come back to it. So if they happen to be on a 10 mile hike they may drop the cache and be done with it. If they happen to be in a parking lot, same thing. The distance doesn't matter since they're not coming back.

[+L0ne.R]

I'll let you answer: given a choice between a poorly-maintained cache in an awesome, hard-to-reach setting and a lame urban micro, which would you pick?rediction: you will avoid the question and say you would prefer a well-maintained cache in a great location.

 

Neither.

[+Touchstone]

...are we then all on the same playing field...

 

Are you looking for some kind of quorum? For gosh sakes, this is a Forum, not a governing body

[+Totem Clan]

To bring it back on topic, I'll ask again:

Should any intervention by a Reviewer be any different than the attention or intervention performed by other owners? If the Reviewers are not required or asked officially to intervene with NM logs, are we then all on the same playing field, and anyone's NM log could/should be taken as seriously as a Reviewer's note or other intervention in this case?

Yes it should be different. The reveiwers should be publishing caches not being forced the hold our hands once it's done. We are all big boys and girls here. At least we claim we are. It's our job to take care of the caches once published. A reviewer should never have to be concered or even look at NM's if the rest of us do our job. That includes posting NA's on caches that the need a reviewers attention.

 

Again NM's are for you to talk to the CO. No matter how many are on a cache they are only for the CO, and never for the reviewer.

 

NA's are notes to the review about a problem with the cache. It is not a bad thing to post an NA

 

 

I think the name Needs Archivedscares cachers.

 

Edit: fir spullin'

Edited January 25, 2012 by Totem Clan

[+ArcherDragoon]

To bring it back on topic, I'll ask again:

Should any intervention by a Reviewer be any different than the attention or intervention performed by other owners? If the Reviewers are not required or asked officially to intervene with NM logs, are we then all on the same playing field, and anyone's NM log could/should be taken as seriously as a Reviewer's note or other intervention in this case?

 

Fizzy, as for us, I think if you want to get into the discussion we were having above, we should do so via email. And not in white.

Loaded Question(s)...

 

Should any intervention by a Reviewer be any different than the attention or intervention performed by other owners?

-Yes, the attention and/or intervention of Reviewers would be different...to use Totem's statement..."We are all big boys and girls here. At least we claim we are. It's our job to take care of the caches once published. A reviewer should never have to be concered or even look at NM's if the rest of us do our job."

 

If the Reviewers are not required or asked officially to intervene with NM logs, are we then all on the same playing field, and anyone's NM log could/should be taken as seriously as a Reviewer's note or other intervention in this case?

-No...because not evey NM log means the same things. As I mentioned earlier, I got a NM on a cache for having a dull pencil...not missing, not broken, not moldy (which I have seen)...but dull!!! I even had a pencil sharpener in the cache for the pencil and yet they posted a NM log for a dull pencil...

 

NA and NM are a case by case basis...everyone should be encoraged to post the log they think is best in the situation and not have to be worried about being called "Cache Police".

 

For me, personally, the NM log is used for container/cache issues for which I am unable to fix while at the cache with what I bring in my basic Geocache First-Aid kit...I have posted a couple NA logs as well...a couple for legality issues...and one because the cacher removed the cache and was not going to place anything but did not archive the listing...and some for neglect over a period of several months and some for a couple years...

 

My First-Aid kit...just to name some of the items...

-Extra Logs (varying sizes)

-Extra Baggies (though, many times the baggies do more harm than good)

-Extra Pencils 9varying sizes)

-Extra Pencil Sharpeners

-Materials to dry contents

-Duct Tape

-Electrical Tape (makes for a good seal material on some containers)

-Extra Stash/Cache Notes

-Extra Containers (typically those are in the vehicle...I will carry one if I know one is needed for a particular cache)

-Extra String

 

Many times, that list has been good enough to fix an issue...sometimes it is no more than a bandaid...but, at least it helps until the owner or someone more prepared can help (if they so make the choice). Not once did (or do I plan) to fix such things then immediately turn around to tell a reviewer of that cache and tell them to keep an eye on it...I will email the owner and let them know what I did in case they need to come prepared to do something else with the cache. Heck...vast majority of the time i don't mention such things in my logs...I don't do it to seek praise or attention, I do it because it is the right thing to do and hopefully the "pay it forward" mentality moves forward...little steps are needed for big changes some times...

 

ok...enough of my soap box...sorry...

 

PS...Fizzy has a strong opinion on the subject...so, why do you want that taken to email...here in this thread is just fine...I welcome his opinion and would like to see what others say as well...

 

You wanted opinions and you are getting opinions...even if they are not matching yours, they still are important and do matter in the conversation here...

Edited January 25, 2012 by ArcherDragoon

[+NeverSummer]

To bring it back on topic, I'll ask again:

Should any intervention by a Reviewer be any different than the attention or intervention performed by other owners? If the Reviewers are not required or asked officially to intervene with NM logs, are we then all on the same playing field, and anyone's NM log could/should be taken as seriously as a Reviewer's note or other intervention in this case?

Yes it should be different. The reveiwers should be publishing caches not being forced the hold our hands once it's done. We are all big boys and girls here. At least we claim we are. It's our job to take care of the caches once published. A reviewer should never have to be concered or even look at NM's if the rest of us do our job. That includes posting NA's on caches that the need a reviewers attention.

 

Again NM's are for you to talk to the CO. No matter how many are on a cache they are only for the CO, and never for the reviewer.

 

NA's are notes to the review about a problem with the cache. It is not a bad thing to post an NA

 

 

I think the name Needs Archivedscares cachers.

 

Edit: fir spullin'

That was actually my point. But I was saying "different" as in, we should all be the same when it comes to NM logs. Reviewers, as most opinions here in this thread seem to agree, don't need to, or shouldn't, deal with NM logs. However, they can "deal" with them, or intervene on the level at which you or I would...posting a NM log.

 

Where I disagree is where you say, "no matter how many are on a cache" for a NM log. At some point, geocachers need to be aware at what point it would be acceptable by the community at large to log a NA, or contact the Reviewer for intervention.

 

I think it comes down to how we approach the guidelines. We are each responsible for our listing and physical location for the cache. This includes routine maintenance, as outlined in the guidelines. If our cache falls into disrepair, some don't take a NM log as a reminder or call for CO attention for a maintenance issue. Some might disregard them...until someone of "authority" intervenes--i.e. a Reiviewer. But, as you say, shouldn't we all be treated the same when it comes to reminders about the condition of our cache?

 

At some point, we might say, "Let's live and let live" and ignore caches in disrepair. However, this leads to "geotrash" out in the field, and can ignore the guideline to maintain our geocaches. But, it isn't the "job" of the Reviewer to birddog a NM log or individual cache. A cache that falls into disrepair, yet might be in a good location suddenly may become unloggable. It goes in circles, and in ever larger levels of inclusion; we could hash this point out for days.

 

But, it is an interesting thought about helping owners get educated on how to clear a NM log. But, if I'm posting a note that says, "It appears your cache is under the weather, and has been noted as needing a maintenance visit. If the cache is in good shape and ready to log, can you post a Owner Maintenance log to clear the attribute? If it needs attention, can you take care of it, or let us know what we can do to help?", I might be seen as a meddling cacher, and not someone looking to help. A Reviewer, by default, is the person that can get a fire lit under someone because of the position of perceived authority they hold. Just thinking "out loud" here...

[+NeverSummer]

 

PS...Fizzy has a strong opinion on the subject...so, why do you want that taken to email...here in this thread is just fine...I welcome his opinion and would like to see what others say as well...

 

You wanted opinions and you are getting opinions...even if they are not matching yours, they still are important and do matter in the conversation here...

Because, as I see it, he is having this discussion about semantics with me. This thread isn't about what he and I are talking about it. I'm saying we can take it to email because it was veering off topic. That was my fault as much as his...or anyone else's. Just trying to follow the forum guidelines.

[+GeoBain]

Personally, I make sure any cache I place has a clear maintenance plan. (I think that's in the guidelines, too) If it's a 10-mile hike, I better have a plan to be able to get out and maintain the cache, or I wouldn't hide it.

 

Thank you for making my point so well. The fact of the matter is, most people will choose not to hide it.

 

Thus, the attitude contributes to the proliferation of lame urban micros. From your response, I am under the impression you think that is just fine. I disagree. I do not value maintenance above location. Maybe that's why we disagree.

 

You actually think that not placing caches without a good maintenance plan is a bad thing? I wish others were as conscientious as NeverSummer.

 

Yes, micros are probably hidden by people who don't want to worry about maintenance. But the proliferation of micros probably has more to do with an influx of people who are not outdoorsmen by nature. As the hobby has grown it is now being played by people from every walk of life. There are a lot of people that do not enjoy 5 mile hikes but they love the concept of playing hide and seek out in public without the public knowing they are playing it. These people are going to place caches closer to home and that usually means it will be in an area where a micro will be needed.

 

Unfortunately, a lot of these people are only concerned with playing and don't really care for the work part of it. Therefore, it is up to the other players to report these caches rather than enable those hiders who don't want to maintain their caches.

[+Totem Clan]

That was actually my point. But I was saying "different" as in, we should all be the same when it comes to NM logs. Reviewers, as most opinions here in this thread seem to agree, don't need to, or shouldn't, deal with NM logs. However, they can "deal" with them, or intervene on the level at which you or I would...posting a NM log.

 

Where I disagree is where you say, "no matter how many are on a cache" for a NM log. At some point, geocachers need to be aware at what point it would be acceptable by the community at large to log a NA, or contact the Reviewer for intervention.

I does matter if there are none or a hundred NM's the reveiwer should not HAVE to get involve until we as cachers do our job and post a NA.

 

I think it comes down to how we approach the guidelines. We are each responsible for our listing and physical location for the cache. This includes routine maintenance, as outlined in the guidelines. If our cache falls into disrepair, some don't take a NM log as a reminder or call for CO attention for a maintenance issue. Some might disregard them...until someone of "authority" intervenes--i.e. a Reiviewer. But, as you say, shouldn't we all be treated the same when it comes to reminders about the condition of our cache?

 

At some point, we might say, "Let's live and let live" and ignore caches in disrepair. However, this leads to "geotrash" out in the field, and can ignore the guideline to maintain our geocaches. But, it isn't the "job" of the Reviewer to birddog a NM log or individual cache. A cache that falls into disrepair, yet might be in a good location suddenly may become unloggable. It goes in circles, and in ever larger levels of inclusion; we could hash this point out for days.

 

But, it is an interesting thought about helping owners get educated on how to clear a NM log. But, if I'm posting a note that says, "It appears your cache is under the weather, and has been noted as needing a maintenance visit. If the cache is in good shape and ready to log, can you post a Owner Maintenance log to clear the attribute? If it needs attention, can you take care of it, or let us know what we can do to help?", I might be seen as a meddling cacher, and not someone looking to help. A Reviewer, by default, is the person that can get a fire lit under someone because of the position of perceived authority they hold. Just thinking "out loud" here...

...and the reveiwer should not be the one concered in any way with any NM log unless a NA has been posted. If they have to take in time and initiative to look for NM it is because we have not done our job as cachers. Period. No matter what. There is no other way the guidlines are set up.

[+Totem Clan]

Unfortunately, a lot of these people are only concerned with playing and don't really care for the work part of it. Therefore, it is up to the other players to report these caches rather than enable those hiders who don't want to maintain their caches.

 

There you go!!

 

Well said

[+GeoBain]

Have you ever done any reading on incentives? This is not "my opinion," as there is a great deal of research showing that people do in fact respond to incentives. You perfectly explained why you would choose not to hide a difficult-to-reach cache because of maintenance issues. Thus, you have responded to the incentive

 

The incentive for hiding lame unmaintained caches is the fact that everyone knows that Groundspeak doesn't really care much about a cache once it has been listed. They quite enjoy having a large database of caches to attract as many seekers as possible.

 

It is not a reviewer's duty to babysit all the caches they've published. It is up to each of us to alert them when there is a problem with the cache that the owner refuses to deal with.

 

In a perfect world, cache owners would do regular maintenance runs on their caches and fix them. In a slightly less perfect world, cache owners would get out in a reasonable amount of time and repair their caches when notified of a problem. In this same less perfect world, seekers would reserve the NM log for real issues and not abuse it.

 

But we live in the real world. In this world COs often neglect their cache even when notified of problems multiple times. In this world seekers log NM for a lot of idiotic reasons that really do not require CO attention and lead to COs ignoring NM logs. In this world it often takes an NA log to get the reviewer to take care of a problem that should have been dealt with long ago by the CO.

[+Totem Clan]

Have you ever done any reading on incentives? This is not "my opinion," as there is a great deal of research showing that people do in fact respond to incentives. You perfectly explained why you would choose not to hide a difficult-to-reach cache because of maintenance issues. Thus, you have responded to the incentive

 

The incentive for hiding lame unmaintained caches is the fact that everyone knows that Groundspeak doesn't really care much about a cache once it has been listed. They quite enjoy having a large database of caches to attract as many seekers as possible.

 

It is not a reviewer's duty to babysit all the caches they've published. It is up to each of us to alert them when there is a problem with the cache that the owner refuses to deal with.

 

In a perfect world, cache owners would do regular maintenance runs on their caches and fix them. In a slightly less perfect world, cache owners would get out in a reasonable amount of time and repair their caches when notified of a problem. In this same less perfect world, seekers would reserve the NM log for real issues and not abuse it.

 

But we live in the real world. In this world COs often neglect their cache even when notified of problems multiple times. In this world seekers log NM for a lot of idiotic reasons that really do not require CO attention and lead to COs ignoring NM logs. In this world it often takes an NA log to get the reviewer to take care of a problem that should have been dealt with long ago by the CO.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

 

.... and because many CO don't care for their caches the rest of us should be using the NA log as often as needed to take care of the problems they leave behind. We should be proactive so the reviewers don't have to be reactive.

[Clan Riffster]

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.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this use of the Needs Archived log. While it's true, posting such a log will get the Reviewer's attention, if the cache has significant issues requiring intervention, and the owner is ignoring Needs Maintenance logs to the point that a Reviewer needs to step in, I'd think that would equate to a cache that needs to go away.

[+Moose Mob]

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.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this use of the Needs Archived log. While it's true, posting such a log will get the Reviewer's attention, if the cache has significant issues requiring intervention, and the owner is ignoring Needs Maintenance logs to the point that a Reviewer needs to step in, I'd think that would equate to a cache that needs to go away.

As a reviewer, I will say that is how it works. The cache is usually disabled to give the CO a chance to rectify the situation. The vast majority of the time, the cache ends up archived. If the situation is "needs archived because pencil is dull and the CO hasn't come out to fix it in 2 days", it will likely be ignored. If the log book is a gloppy blob of goo and the cache is in a pile of roadside litter, then it will likely get disabled pending maintenance.

 

I have got NA logs to let me know that the cache coordinates need updated as indicated in the log entries. I have had long standing roadside marker caches get disabled because they went into the shop for fresh paint, only to have them returned with the geocache in place. I get a NA log to let me know the cache is back in action.

[+farrtom]

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.

 

I kind of like this idea, but maybe automatically disabled and not archived.

I live in an area that depending on the weather it may difficult or impossible to get to some caches in 90 days.

[+Markwell]

Anything automated will just cause angst. Someone gets deployed to top secret areas. Someone is in an automobile accident and is in the hospital for months. They make a recovery or return home and finally want to get back into their hobby. All of their caches are archived.

 

...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

Not 'round here. Maybe that's just your area.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Sometimes the bigger problem is not COs failing to perform maintenance, but COs not being aware that an Owner Maintenance log will clear the Needs Maintenance attribute.

[+ras_oscar]

So long as a container is present, Its between the CO and the seeker to maintain the hide in servicable condition. If I log a NM, it's my responsibility to communicate to the CO what the issue is that I could not resolve on site with some minor maintenance, so s/he can make a trip out prepared to resolve the issue. If I log "continer lid cracked, contents soaked, dried out as best I could and added a temp log in a zlock" its a found it log. No immediate action by the CO required. If I log "container has been shredded by local furry kritters, contents strewn about, gathered contents and placed in a nearby safe spot, that's a NM followed by a private message describing in greater detail where I stashed the contents. The C O needs to replace thye container. If I didn't find it, that's a DNF. I can't be sure whether its there or not. The only time I have logged a NA was after a hide was taken offline by the CO for 12 months.

[+NeverSummer]

So long as a container is present, Its between the CO and the seeker to maintain the hide in servicable condition. If I log a NM, it's my responsibility to communicate to the CO what the issue is that I could not resolve on site with some minor maintenance, so s/he can make a trip out prepared to resolve the issue. If I log "continer lid cracked, contents soaked, dried out as best I could and added a temp log in a zlock" its a found it log. No immediate action by the CO required. If I log "container has been shredded by local furry kritters, contents strewn about, gathered contents and placed in a nearby safe spot, that's a NM followed by a private message describing in greater detail where I stashed the contents. The C O needs to replace thye container. If I didn't find it, that's a DNF. I can't be sure whether its there or not. The only time I have logged a NA was after a hide was taken offline by the CO for 12 months.

While I can see how this is intended to nudge an owner to head out and maintain their cache in the former example, the latter is not much different. Using the NM log after a Found it log in the former case would also be acceptable, IMO. Otherwise, what is to say another rainstorm won't come and soak the cache again before an owner is "nudged" to go out and maintain their cache?

 

I'm guessing that's the part you mean when you said, "no immediate action required". So, sure, an owner doesn't have to hop on their trusty steed and gallop all the way to rescue their derelict cache. But they would hopefully get out to is as soon as they can, as the cache isn't in good repair.

[+steben6]

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.

+1

[Clan Riffster]

"needs archived"

1 ) because pencil is dull

2 ) If the log book is a gloppy blob of goo

3 ) the cache is in a pile of roadside litter

4 ) cache coordinates need updated

5 ) a NA log to let me know the cache is back in action.

That's what I meant in TC's post, when I said I wasn't comfortable with the NA log being used in that manner. I agree that any NA, regardless of content, is going to get a Reviewer's attention. But the 5 examples you cited were all for caches that didn't necessarily Need to be Archived. I think, given Groundspeak's particular choice of verbiage, an NA log should only be posted on caches that Need to be Archived.

 

Those 5 incidents you mentioned could have been resolved with an E-mail.

 

Deliberately selecting the "Needs Archived" log type, on a cache that doesn't Need Archiving is, in my opinion, an improper use f the log type.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[+Moose Mob]

"needs archived"

1 ) because pencil is dull

2 ) If the log book is a gloppy blob of goo

3 ) the cache is in a pile of roadside litter

4 ) cache coordinates need updated

5 ) a NA log to let me know the cache is back in action.

That's what I meant in TC's post, when I said I wasn't comfortable with the NA log being used in that manner. I agree that any NA, regardless of content, is going to get a Reviewer's attention. But the 5 examples you cited were all for caches that didn't necessarily Need to be Archived. I think, given Groundspeak's particular choice of verbiage, an NA log should only be posted on caches that Need to be Archived.

 

Those 5 incidents you mentioned could have been resolved with an E-mail.

 

Deliberately selecting the "Needs Archived" log type, on a cache that doesn't Need Archiving is, in my opinion, an improper use f the log type.

 

Please do not misquote me.

[Clan Riffster]

Please do not misquote me.

Uh... I don't think I did?

 

Unless I misread your post, you mentioned that you've seen NA logs posted for many reasons, to include a pencil which was dull, a log being mush, and a cache which had been replaced. Did you not say something to that effect? I was simply pointing out that, in my opinion, none of those reasons, absent any other data, would warrant a cache needing to be archived, and as such, I thought that the person who knowingly selected the "Needs Archived" log type from the drop down list made a poor choice. It is my belief that "Needs Archived" means that a cache needs to be archived. Using it just to gain a Reviewer's attention, while it does, technically work, should not be done.

 

Unless you are counting my shortening your post for brevity as a misquote?

 

I did take one of your examples and split it in two, (the mushy log and the litter), but that was not done in an attempt to misrepresent anything you said, just to clean up the excess verbiage. Is that the misquote you refer to? Taken as it was originally posted, I still would not see just those two things, by themselves, as a reason to archive a cache.

 

Was I wrong?

 

If so, I apologize. It was not meant to offend. Only to communicate without making others have to read through the entire conversation, which they've already seen. Since my reply was only addressing the items I quoted, I felt it was reasonable to exclude everything not relevant to my reply.

 

Sorry, Brother!

[+Moose Mob]

I realize I am carrying a personal conversation in the forums, but I am expecting it to be overheard.

If the situation is "needs archived because pencil is dull and the CO hasn't come out to fix it in 2 days", it will likely be ignored. If the log book is a gloppy blob of goo and the cache is in a pile of roadside litter, then it will likely get disabled pending maintenance.

You merged "will not be responded items" with "might be responded" items. A dull pencil is fixable by a cacher. Mushy globs of goo are likely because of a bad container or a ziplock bag holding in the moisture. These are things the owner should fix otherwise they will not account for it next placement. (different topic)

 

back on *this* topic....

 

As a reviewer, the only way I know there is an issue with a cache in the area is the copy of the Needs Archived logs or an e-mail. I can find NA logs after the fact. e-mails can get misfiled and forgot about.

 

Does Needs Archived need to be updated with something more intuitive? Darn tootin' it does! But it is the only tool we have so I really wish folks will use it until something better comes along.

[+Totem Clan]

Maybe something like "Advise Reviewer" instead of "Need Archive" would work better.

[7rxc]

Maybe something like "Advise Reviewer" instead of "Need Archive" would work better.

Many have suggested "Needs Attention" in the past, myself I don't mind that, but would prefer "Reviewer Attention".

 

I've also suggested that perhaps one thing that might help would be periodic verification of email addresses as in the profiles.

I'm sure there are dummy emails or inert ones that could be used to avoid the owner being contacted. Failure to respond to a verification, could lead to action to correct that bit. I'm sure that being able to converse without using logs entirely would help keep the reviewer workload down to minimum in any case.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Moose Mob]

Some folks also feel that there should be a way to snitch on a bad cache anonymously.

 

Err, I mean,.. a way to let TPTB that there is an issue with a cache (or cacher) without revealing their identity to the geocacher. Personal e-mails are kept to strict confidence, but some folks retain concern.

[+Manville Possum]

Some folks also feel that there should be a way to snitch on a bad cache anonymously.

 

Err, I mean,.. a way to let TPTB that there is an issue with a cache (or cacher) without revealing their identity to the geocacher. Personal e-mails are kept to strict confidence, but some folks retain concern.

I use the personal e-mail myself after several run in's with cache owners, It's not worth making another user mad to me, and the caches always have needed attention. Some have been missing, another was a multi that had not been found in two years. The CO removed the NM and said everything was in place, but when they did go and check about a month later they learned that my concern was valid. Now the listing is active and being found again.

[Clan Riffster]

I realize I am carrying a personal conversation in the forums, but I am expecting it to be overheard.

Thank you for the latitude. I too am asking as one of the masses, not specifically for my own edification. (I actually enjoy doing maintenance... mostly ) By learning the accepted moors with regards to player/reviewer interaction, we all win.

 

Your clarification helped me see where I went awry. I will have to take the "bonk" for that one. (think Mtn-man brick applied at great velocity to my forehead) Me culpa! I focused too strongly on one aspect, (NA), and didn't even notice the distinction till you pointed it out.

 

Does Needs Archived need to be updated with something more intuitive?

I would love to see it changed to "Needs Reviewer Attention", though I'm not sure folks in Seattle would make a change which resulted in an acronym of "NRA". Not judgin', just sayin'...

 

Some folks also feel that there should be a way to snitch on a bad cache anonymously.

Having felt the wrath of a cache owner whose cache received a rare Clan Riffster NA, I can certainly see why folks might feel that way. I can't find the NA in my profile, so I assume the owner deleted my log? The cache was owned by someone who lived several states away, and was along a stretch of road with little available parking. Folks were parking in a driveway belonging to a senior land manager for a Florida State Park. It should also be mentioned that the house was on the State Park property, as was the cache, and the owner had never so much as inquired about permission, though there is a permit process in place. During a conversation about one of my caches, the land manager asked about the offending cache, requesting that it go away. The owner ranted and raved to me in E-mails, cussing me quite soundly.

 

It was not pretty.

[+Ambrosia]

 

I would love to see it changed to "Needs Reviewer Attention", though I'm not sure folks in Seattle would make a change which resulted in an acronym of "NRA". Not judgin', just sayin'...

 

 

How 'bout, "Reviewer Attention Needed". or: RAN.