Change the 'Needs Archive' log name.

[+Totem Clan]

Needs Archive can be and is very useful tool for cachers. It is the olny log that allows the cacher to bring a cache to a reviewer's attention. However it is often not used because some cachers think it is bad thing to ask for a cache to be archived. Often that is not even what needs to be done. The cache sometimes just needs the reveiwer to look at it and asked the CO to fix something.

 

If think it might be better used if the name were changed. The function could remain the same. Possible names could be...

 

Needs Attention

Reviewer Attention

Notify Reviewer

 

or others.

 

Maybe this will encourage more reporting of abandoned or negelcted caches.

 

Edit for typo

Edited February 28, 2012 by Totem Clan

[kanchan]

What are the situations when we need this?

[+Totem Clan]

What are the situations when we need this?

Anytime a cache needs attention that the CO is not giving it.

 

The NA should be used more than it is but many cachers are afraid of being labled the "cache police" if they do. This simple change in words might change that idea a little.

Edited February 28, 2012 by Totem Clan

[+Moose Mob]

What are the situations when we need this?

- Lid broken and container is filled with water and cache owner non-responsive.

- 4 DNFs after 35 consecutive finds

- 3 of last 10 cachers were yelled at by an unreasonable neighber.

- The cache is "on" a no tresspassing sign.

- The traditional cache coordiantes are off by 65 feet.

etc

etc

[+Lil Devil]

Notify Reviewer

As a reviewer I fully support this one. It gets the point across that a reviewer will be notified, which hopefully will have the side-benefit of implying that the Needs Maintenance log is *not* communicated to the reviewers.

 

In the last 2 weeks I've received 3 emails where the sender expressed frustration that they've logged multiple NM logs but the reviewer wasn't doing anything about it.

[+The A-Team]

...not to mention the long-standing and glaring grammatical error.

I'd agree with Lil Devil that "Notify Reviewer" would be a good choice. It very clearly describes what the log will do.

[+The Blorenges]

This request seems to have been around for years!

 

When we had the UserVoice forum and also (I think) in the Get Satisfaction forum, there was a loooooooooooooooooooooong topic with many cachers supporting the plea for this log type name change.

 

It's appeared many times within these forums - I strongly support this suggestion.

 

Needs Attention

Needs Reviewer Attention

Needs Something Done

Re-Review Required

Please Get This Cache Sorted

 

Anything would be better than Needs Archive

 

Please

 

MrsB

[+niraD]

Notify Reviewer

As a reviewer I fully support this one. It gets the point across that a reviewer will be notified, which hopefully will have the side-benefit of implying that the Needs Maintenance log is *not* communicated to the reviewers.

 

In the last 2 weeks I've received 3 emails where the sender expressed frustration that they've logged multiple NM logs but the reviewer wasn't doing anything about it.

I like the succinct "Notify Reviewer" better than "Needs Reviewer Attention" (or the related variants that try to avoid the acronym NRA). Thanks.

 

I also like the way "Notify Reviewer" makes it more clear that the reviewer is not notified of NM or DNF logs. That's two birds with one stone, so to speak.

[+StarBrand]

I agree - this is a change that is long overdue and much more accurate in description.

[+Lieblweb]

I never did like the 'Needs Archived' log because that allows cachers to make their own decisions when or if a cache should receive a Needs Archive' log. It's inconsistent....and could be unfair when the 'rules' are never the same.

 

I like the "Notify Reviewer" - HOWEVER - I believe this should be done automatically by the system.

 

Say for instance - a general set of rules would apply that are enforced consistently via the system itself.

Example: 6 consecutive DNF's: The system should automatically notify the Reviewer (and/or generate its own NM log) thus emailing the CO to perform maintenance within 30 days or the cache will be temp disabled.

 

Example: 2 consecutive Needs Maintenance logs would generate the same as above - notify reviewer, send CO an email, and generate a system log for them to perform maintenance within 30 days.... You get the idea.

 

To me....the reviewers should be the only ones who decide whether or not a cache should be archived or not and that should be based on the Groundspeak rules and cacher feedback (DNF's & Needs Maintenance logs).

[jholly]

For a high difficulty cache I could imagine 6 consecutive DNF's. No need to disable the cache and put it on an archive track. Nope, no auto NM and archive track for me.

 

Consecutive NM logs? nope. A group of 4 or so go caching together and four of them file a NM log. Boom, email to reviewer and down the track we go to archiving the cache. Again, no auto activity for me.

 

Today only three people can decide to archive a cache, the owner, a reviewer or a lackey. Outside of the cache owner today the reviewer or lackey operate on feedback from the community. The only thing your proposing is more work for the reviewer to deal with system generated emails. If you think a cache violates the guidelines, or an absent owner is not maintaining a cache, the drop the needs archive log and let the system work as designed.

[+Lester-clan]

I was following the trend of the Notify reviewer idea... That is until Jholly posted their view. I very strongly agree with Jholly on this one. As another note, in the case of lack of maintenance, I always try to have extra supplies with me to "fix" a cache. Whether it need a new log or pen or swag etc. Because I know that sometimes life can get a bit too busy to do some maintenance runs on your caches for a bit. I have had mainly issues of wet logs to contend with but as is the case last winter, my wife was pregnant and having some complications, then our youngest daughter was born and that kept me from getting out to replace a few logs. Yes, I probably could have found a moment here and there to get them replaced faster, but those thoughts quickly get pushed to the back of the head as more prudent matters take the front and center. If a cash has had issues for an extended amount of time, and there has been no log in activty or other notice from the CO then by all means fire off with a Needs archive log.

 

I say leave the system in place the way it is. Although you may end up with a bummer of a find from time to time, as the system will take a bit to work out. Just enjoy the ride and all of the other caches you get to find. Maybe take the pledge to fix damaged / poorly maintained caches by bringing supplies along with you. I don't ever fully replace a cache, just add the needed help to it that it deserves. Most of the time after a find on a damaged cache I will notify the CO both in a NM log and with an email to them through their profile page.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Lester-clan

[+Lieblweb]

For a high difficulty cache I could imagine 6 consecutive DNF's. No need to disable the cache and put it on an archive track. Nope, no auto NM and archive track for me.

 

Consecutive NM logs? nope. A group of 4 or so go caching together and four of them file a NM log. Boom, email to reviewer and down the track we go to archiving the cache. Again, no auto activity for me.

 

 

I was only explaining EXAMPLES. The 'system' could be setup to calculate any given variables based on other things - like Difficulty ratings, etc. Aside from that....it would only NOTIFY THE REVIEWER. The Reviewer would then decide for him/herself what needs to be done (if anything at all). But at a minimum along with notifying the reviewer, it would also send an e-mail to the CO of consecutive DNF's and NM logs. The CO could easily post up a 'performed maintenance' log to get rid of the FLAG (per say). Hopefully, they'll either check on the cache or explain that it's a 'difficult' find or supply some hints.

 

It's only an example and suggestion. The way I see it...allowing the system to automatically notify the reviewer for such things - is far better and more consistent and FAIR to everyone.

[+OZ2CPU]

if CO's actually did their job, made the needed service or what ever action after they read the NM log,

then it will all be so much better, if they ignore this for a very long time,

as it is today you need to pull the NA card ! that is all you got.

----------

I released 41 caches yesterday at en event,

and actually spend most of my time performing live service on several of them all night long,

people was really crasy wearing them down in just one night !!

 

see also this

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=291372

it is about how to make CO's easily aware of possible issues to fix or service.

 

EMAILS just dont work, they dont read them :-(

[+paleolith]

Needs Archive can be and is very useful tool for cachers. It is the olny log that allows the cacher to bring a cache to a reviewer's attention.

It's the only such log, but you can get the reviewer's attention by email. I suspect that those who understand the reasons a reviewer would get involved also know how to email the reviewer. I wouldn't object to a change in name, but for the stated reasons I don't see much need.

 

Edward

[+Lieblweb]

EMAILS just dont work, they dont read them :-(

The email would be the first initial contact warning CO's that if they don't maintain, check on, or otherwise respond to the FLAG... They have 30 days before their cache gets temporarily disabled by the reviewer.

 

If the system automatically notified the CO and reviewer , these FLAGS would be generated much sooner than waiting for a cacher to log a NA logs.

 

If CO's don't read or respond to their emails, that's not my problem, not anyones problem but their own. If that's the case - guess what? You've got 30 days to figure something out. And even after that (temp disable), youve got another 30 days before it gets archived. If you can't take care if things in 60 days, then perhaps you need to have your caches adopted or archived.

[+niraD]

Lieblweb, have you created a separate thread for your suggestion of an automated system?

[+Lieblweb]

Lieblweb, have you created a separate thread for your suggestion of an automated system?

 

No....Unless you think I should....but the scope of doing something like that is too large and they might already have something similar in place from a reviewers standpoint. So - I can't make suggestions to a system that I don't understand myself. Besides...the last thing they need is more suggestions. Their highest priority right now (should be) the maps!! lol

Edited March 1, 2012 by Lieblweb

[+niraD]

Yes, I think you should post the suggestion for an automated system in its own thread. Discussing it in a thread about renaming the "Needs Archived" log type won't help. The discussion here will just get lost.

[+Chokecherry]

I think it needs it's own thread too. I support changing the name of the Needs Archived log type to one of the other suggestions. I don't support automation.

[+Totem Clan]

Bumping this as the topic has come up in another thread again.

[+AustinMN]

Notify Reviewer

 

+1

 

Although some people might read this as "sqealing" on the CO (which it is), but sometimes that's necessary.

 

Austin

[+Blue Canary]

Does the reviewer still see the NA log if the cache owner deletes the log, but never performs any maintenance?

[Pup Patrol]

Does the reviewer still see the NA log if the cache owner deletes the log, but never performs any maintenance?

 

Yes.

 

I'm guessing cache owners who delete the NA log don't understand that.

 

 

B.

[Keystone]

Does the reviewer still see the NA log if the cache owner deletes the log, but never performs any maintenance?

 

Yes.

 

I'm guessing cache owners who delete the NA log don't understand that.

Correct - the reviewers have another way for seeing the "Needs Archived" logs even if deleted, and the notification is sent immediately upon the log being submitted.

 

Often, deciding on the proper response to a "Needs Archived" log involves some discretion on the reviewer's part. I am MORE likely to disable or even archive the listing if the cache owner deletes the "Needs Archived" log. I am LESS likely to take any action at all if the owner posts a plan for addressing whatever the issue is - even if that plan takes several weeks to accomplish.

[+Cardinal Red]

Does the reviewer still see the NA log if the cache owner deletes the log, but never performs any maintenance?

Yes the Reviewer gets an instant Needs Archived notification that the cache owner can not make go away. It has nothing to do with the actual log that is left on the cache page, and deleting the NA log from the cache page only removes it from sight of cachers subsequently viewing the page.

 

Needs Archived is a horrible name. I know it only brings a cache to the attention of our Reviewer. It doesn't matter what I think. The Reviewer uses their own judgement, and decides if it is valid or not. I post them when cachers abandon their maintenance responsibility. I don't hide behind a private email to the Reviewer.

[+Mallah]

+1 from me.

 

Some seem to be confusing the suggestion with a system change - it isn't that. It is simply to change the name of the option from Needs Archive to Notify Reviewer so that more people might use 'the system' as intended.

It's a good idea.

[Keystone]

It is simply to change the name of the option from Needs Archive to Notify Reviewer so that more people might use 'the system' as intended.

It's a good idea.

I worry, though, that "Notify Reviewer" might be viewed as a generalized complaint button for the "Billy doesn't like me" and "Suzy was mean to me" type of issues. Reviewers receive a lot of these as it is, with "needs archived" logs submitted regularly for reasons like "this cache is unsafe" or "there are bees here" or "Johnny keeps deleting logs." With a generic name like "Notify Reviewer," would more groundless logs be submitted? At least with "Needs Archived" there is some concept that the log has a serious consequence.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Tough question. When I read Totems post I was quickly in agreement. A "Notify Reviewer" would likely be used more by reporting cachers who don't want to look "bad".

 

But, Keystone brings up an excellent point. Will this cause that feature to be used as a straight line to Dr. Phil to whine about other issues?? Probably.

 

In reality the "Needs Archived" is blunt... and harsh. I believe it tends to have a greater psychological effect on cache owners who see it posted on their caches. Flip side of that coin is, it has a negative tone to it that some cachers don't want associated with their persona.

I wish cachers would come to terms with the need to use the "NA". It is not the cache hunters fault the cache is on private property, near a railroad, has been destroyed, ect.... If you are not mis-using the feature why would you feel guilty about it??

[+ngrrfan]

Tough question. When I read Totems post I was quickly in agreement. A "Notify Reviewer" would likely be used more by reporting cachers who don't want to look "bad".

 

But, Keystone brings up an excellent point. Will this cause that feature to be used as a straight line to Dr. Phil to whine about other issues?? Probably.

 

In reality the "Needs Archived" is blunt... and harsh. I believe it tends to have a greater psychological effect on cache owners who see it posted on their caches. Flip side of that coin is, it has a negative tone to it that some cachers don't want associated with their persona.

I wish cachers would come to terms with the need to use the "NA". It is not the cache hunters fault the cache is on private property, near a railroad, has been destroyed, ect.... If you are not mis-using the feature why would you feel guilty about it??

In response to both this post, and Keystone's, why not change the wording to "There seems to be a problem with this cache" or "Could a reviewer please look into this?"

 

Naturally the form wouldn't be sent until a reason is given for the cache to be checked out.

[+NeecesandNephews]

Tough question. When I read Totems post I was quickly in agreement. A "Notify Reviewer" would likely be used more by reporting cachers who don't want to look "bad".

 

But, Keystone brings up an excellent point. Will this cause that feature to be used as a straight line to Dr. Phil to whine about other issues?? Probably.

 

In reality the "Needs Archived" is blunt... and harsh. I believe it tends to have a greater psychological effect on cache owners who see it posted on their caches. Flip side of that coin is, it has a negative tone to it that some cachers don't want associated with their persona.

I wish cachers would come to terms with the need to use the "NA". It is not the cache hunters fault the cache is on private property, near a railroad, has been destroyed, ect.... If you are not mis-using the feature why would you feel guilty about it??

In response to both this post, and Keystone's, why not change the wording to "There seems to be a problem with this cache" or "Could a reviewer please look into this?"

 

Naturally the form wouldn't be sent until a reason is given for the cache to be checked out.

 

+1 This could work. If clicking on the "NA" log opened a new page, or a box where an explanation of the reasoning behind it had to be entered, it would help those who are reluctant, to overcome the negative aspect, as it would allow them to justify their position. It would also serve an additional purpose of helping the Reviewer to more quickly determine why it was logged to begin with. Saving them the time having to research the cause. It would also cut down on the "irate reaction/nuisance" NA logs where someone offended another and the offended party retaliated. They would have to give a reason. This information could be made viewably to the Reviewer only.

 

Might simplify the process.

[+Cardinal Red]

Tough question. When I read Totems post I was quickly in agreement. A "Notify Reviewer" would likely be used more by reporting cachers who don't want to look "bad".

 

But, Keystone brings up an excellent point. Will this cause that feature to be used as a straight line to Dr. Phil to whine about other issues?? Probably.

 

In reality the "Needs Archived" is blunt... and harsh. I believe it tends to have a greater psychological effect on cache owners who see it posted on their caches. Flip side of that coin is, it has a negative tone to it that some cachers don't want associated with their persona.

I wish cachers would come to terms with the need to use the "NA". It is not the cache hunters fault the cache is on private property, near a railroad, has been destroyed, ect.... If you are not mis-using the feature why would you feel guilty about it??

In response to both this post, and Keystone's, why not change the wording to "There seems to be a problem with this cache" or "Could a reviewer please look into this?"

 

Naturally the form wouldn't be sent until a reason is given for the cache to be checked out.

 

+1 This could work. If clicking on the "NA" log opened a new page, or a box where an explanation of the reasoning behind it had to be entered, it would help those who are reluctant, to overcome the negative aspect, as it would allow them to justify their position. It would also serve an additional purpose of helping the Reviewer to more quickly determine why it was logged to begin with. Saving them the time having to research the cause. It would also cut down on the "irate reaction/nuisance" NA logs where someone offended another and the offended party retaliated. They would have to give a reason. This information could be made viewably to the Reviewer only.

 

Might simplify the process.

I almost never give a reason why I think a cache should be archived. Most of the time the cache history speaks for itself. I would never submit a NA for petty personal reasons. Cachers that do should also be archived.

[+The A-Team]

I almost never give a reason why I think a cache should be archived. Most of the time the cache history speaks for itself.

Interesting. I always explain why it should be archived. I want to make it perfectly clear to other cachers and the reviewer why the cache in question shouldn't exist anymore. I've never gotten anything but support from other cachers for logging NAs as I do.

[+dprovan]

I almost never give a reason why I think a cache should be archived. Most of the time the cache history speaks for itself. I would never submit a NA for petty personal reasons. Cachers that do should also be archived.

The reason to give a clear justification in your NA log is exactly because it shows people that you aren't doing it for petty personal reasons. You may think the history speaks for itself, but you are also the first person to declare that that's the case, so it is your responsibility to explain why. Remember, that history was written by people that thought their log didn't tip the balance, else they would have posted the NA themselves.

 

Besides, if it's so obvious, it shouldn't take more than a few words to explain your reasoning. Surely you can take the time for that?

[+MAntunes]

+1 for the "Notify Reviewer" version, with an obligatory explanation issued by the log author and that log protected from being deleted by cache owner.

[+Ambient_Skater]

I've always meant to suggest this but figured it had already been suggested. "Needs Maintenance" should be changed to "Needs Owner Attention" to keep the names uniform.

[Pup Patrol]

Bumping this up.

 

Here's a thread that gives another example of why "Needs Archived" would be incorrect, whereas "Notify Reviewer" would be more in line:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=301425

 

"Multicache" designation is incorrect. Cache owner editing the cache page and cache type after publication.

 

The cache probably doesn't need archiving, but a correction to the cache listing requires the reviewer's intervention.

 

 

B.

[+Ambient_Skater]

There was a cache near me that had been disabled a while, yet it was still in place. Archiving was the exact opposite of what the cache needed-- it needed to be enabled. I knew this was when a Needs Archive log to alert the reviewer was appropriate and logged one, but it's another example of why the name is incorrect.

[Keystone]

Bumping this up.

 

Here's a thread that gives another example of why "Needs Archived" would be incorrect, whereas "Notify Reviewer" would be more in line:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=301425

 

"Multicache" designation is incorrect. Cache owner editing the cache page and cache type after publication.

 

The cache probably doesn't need archiving, but a correction to the cache listing requires the reviewer's intervention.

 

 

B.

There are two ways to correct that listing: either restore it to a traditional cache, like it was when it was published, or else archive the listing. "Needs Archived" would be a fine log type to alert a reviewer to this situation. The same thing happened to me last month, and the CO self-archived their altered listing after I gave them those two options. They then resubmitted using the appropriate cache type.

 

There are some good reasons for re-naming this log type, but I don't think that example is one of them.

[+Amberel]

Over the years I've issued half a dozen NA logs. In only one of those cases did I believe archival was the correct action, I used it because it is the only log that is copied to a reviewer. I strongly support a change of name to Notify Reviewer, or Reviewer Attention.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Totem Clan]

Here's one more example of why this needs to be done.

 

 

Is this being considered at all?

[+dprovan]

Over the years I've issued half a dozen NA logs. In only one of those cases did I believe archival was the correct action, I used it because it is the only log that is copied to a reviewer.

If your goal is to send a note to the reviewer, why not just send a note to the reviewer? Why do you need to go through the log?

 

Here's one more example of why this needs to be done.

Actually, I think this is a perfect example of why the name shouldn't be changed: people will be even more inclined to think the reviewers are responsible for maintaining caches. In this case, the CO hasn't enabled a cache that a third party reported putting back in good operational condition a month ago, and you think the thing to do is alert a reviewer and ask them to enable it. Now I don't know whether you tried to contact the CO, but I do know you didn't do anything logical like post an NM, and you didn't indicate in your needs archive note any reason whatsoever why the reviewer needs to get involved. You act as if reviewer involvement is normal instead of seeing it as the very last alternative for a cache that looks like it's going to have to be archived.

 

What's more, even with the best cases for your side that I can imagine -- in particular, that you've tried to get the CO to enable it or adopt it out and have given up on getting any cooperation -- then I'd claim that's just more reason to make this a Needs Archived: if the CO isn't going to enable a cache that's in perfectly good shape, then the cache should be archived so someone that properly maintains their listings can take over the location.

 

(I want to mention that I don't personally think a month is long enough to start questioning a CO about a disabled entry, I'm just accepting for purposes of discussion Totem Clan's implicit suggestion that the CO has failed this cache.)

[AZcachemeister]

The main problem is that with Geocaching being a worldwide activity, some of the more sensible English wordings don't make sense when translated.

 

Given that the main purpose is to convey SERIOUS issues, I doubt it will be changed soon.

[+Cache on Wheels]

There was a cache that had been disabled for a while that a friend wanted to get as part of a challenge cache. He simply emailed the CO to let them know this and asked if there was anything he could do to help to get the cache back on line. The CO was very grateful as all it needed was a new log sheet, but the CO was away on business.

I think it is very easy to send an email to either the CO or the reviewer whom published the cache to express any concerns.

Like someone mentioned above, things in our lives sometimes take far more priority than Geocaching.

My thoughts in summary: by dropping a friendly brief email to a CO could solve the problem easily as I outlined above. Then if you have no response, contact the reviewer who published the cache and let them know what efforts you've made to contact the CO or help rectify the problem