vote for new rule, CO quality before new cache is made

[+OZ2CPU]

The problem is HUGE !!!

all to often do we see caches are NOT maintained, and it is actually a huge pain, sad to see how many caches some make

and then dont care about keeping them in a good state.

 

The solution is simple.

How about approvers check if a CO got any active caches with NM flag !

and as long as they got ANY flags at all, they can not submit any new caches to be released,

it is that simple !

[+StarBrand]

Too simple.

 

I have cache at a highway rest area that has been disabled and needing maintenance for 18 months - I can't get there as constructions is slow and does not allow access. Someday though.

 

I have a cache recently marked as NM because the cache camera is full. I'll take care of it when I get down that way - hardly urgent.

 

I had another marked NM because somebody couldn't find it. When I checked - it was a-OK, in place nothing wrong at all. Should have been a simple DNF log. Wasted a good 20 minutes of my time.

[+OZ2CPU]

EXATLY my pont, you got ACTIVE caches marked NM, so they need your attention one way or the other,

offcourse this should be your first priority, before making any NEW caches.

 

My point is quite simple, we dont need any new caches at all, made by someone who dont service them !

if you can not service a cache in need, like if you can't access it, then visitors can't access it too,

then it must be DISABLED anyway. now you don't have any active caches with NM,

and will be alowed to place new caches you can care about, and people will love to visit them.

[+AustinMN]

EXATLY my pont, you got ACTIVE caches marked NM, so they need your attention one way or the other,

 

Be sure you understand what he is saying before continuing.

 

He had 1 cache that was marked as NM that did not NM. You would prevent him from creating a new cache because of an incompetent cacher.

 

He has 1 cache marked as NM that cannot be maintained at the present time, and he has done the right thing and disabled the cache. You would prevent him from creating a new cache even though he has done everything right.

 

He has 1 cache that was marked NM because it needs something secondary to the cache. The cache is still functional and has not been damaged or muggled. But you would prevent him from creating new caches for...nothing at all.

 

My point is quite simple, we dont need any new caches at all, made by someone who dont service them !

 

The presence of a NM log does not indicate a cacher who does not maintin their caches. I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but the rule you want is not reasonable. Sorry.

 

Austin

[+OZ2CPU]

I said ACTIVE caches.. if you disable a cache you can not maintain, it is not active,

and the counter should be zeroed,

and then you can make a new cache.

 

>The presence of a NM log does not indicate a cacher who does not maintin their caches.

 

that is EXACTLY what it does tell,

specially if the NM has been active for along time ago, and on several of his caches,

this reveals a very bad CO.

the onew who do not agree, are the ones with alot to maintain :-)

[+AustinMN]

the onew who do not agree, are the ones with alot to maintain :-)

 

I do not agree, and I do not have any caches at all. I already told you to be careful about making accusations.

 

Austin

[+Cardinal Red]

I am concerned about caches tagged as NM, including caches that were fixed and the tag was never removed by the CO, and I know for a fact that it isn't universal knowledge that an OWNER MAINTENANCE log will remove that. But as has been mentioned in previous replies, a NM icon is not a sure sign of lack of cache maintenance.

 

A clearer sign of someones lack of commitment to cache maintenance is: HOW MANY CACHES HAVE THEY HAD ARCHIVED BY A REVIEWER FOR LACK OF COMMUNICATION.

 

It's more of a problem if you are caching out of your general area. In your local area, you soon learn who makes a commitment to hiding caches and maintaining them.

[+Semper Questio]

 

>The presence of a NM log does not indicate a cacher who does not maintin their caches.

 

that is EXACTLY what it does tell,

specially if the NM has been active for along time ago, and on several of his caches,

this reveals a very bad CO.

the onew who do not agree, are the ones with alot to maintain :-)

 

You are quite mistaken. I have had caches have NM logs put on them for.....

 

1. full logs - most times i checked they were fine. the cacher simply could have turned the page over.

2. cache gone - nope. it was there. should have been a DNF.

3. cache not where it should be - nope. cache was right where i wanted it. apparently it was not where the seeker wanted it.

 

Now, which of these scenarios indicate I am a bad CO? It says a lot more about the finders than it does the hinders and I see these kinds of NM logs on caches all the time.

 

Your cause is a good one, but your resolution is far from viable.

[+OZ2CPU]

> I am concerned about caches tagged as NM, including caches that were fixed and the tag was never removed by the CO,

> and I know for a fact that it isn't universal knowledge that an OWNER MAINTENANCE log will remove that.

> But as has been mentioned in previous replies, a NM icon is not a sure sign of lack of cache maintenance.

 

that is perfect, a CO will learn how the system works too,

it makes aven more sense they cant make new caches, if they dont know how the system works,

fine it takes 25 sec to learn about writing an owner maintenence log will clear the NM flag.

NOW they can make a new cache, and will remember this simple system feature.

[+Bear and Ragged]

So, I have dozens of film tubs out there, I want to 'place' another dozen, but some of my others have NM on them -they are probably missing, but I can't be bothered to go and look- what do I do?

 

Easy, just sit here and post Owner Maintenance logs and submit my new cache pages...

 

I still have caches out there that Need Maintenance, but doesn't stop me from setting more caches I'm not likely to look after.

[+The A-Team]

>The presence of a NM log does not indicate a cacher who does not maintin their caches.

 

that is EXACTLY what it does tell

I'm having a hard time trying to understand how you could possibly think this.

If a finder logs a NM because a container has been muggled, how does that indicate a bad CO?

If a finder logs a NM because the log is now full, but no previous finders mentioned the log was almost full, how does that indicate a bad CO?

If a finder logs a NM because a latch has broken on the container, how does that indicate a bad CO?

If a finder logs a NM because the log has gotten wet, how does that indicate a bad CO?

 

All of these above scenarios have happened on caches I own. I resent your implication that I'm a bad CO who doesn't maintain my caches. For me to prevent any of these from happening, I'd have to sit next to the cache all day, every day. Is this what you do? If not, then you might be a bad CO, too.

 

A NM log is a way for finders to alert the CO to possible problems with the cache. I say "possible", because as Semper Questio pointed out, NM logs can be logged when there really isn't a problem. Only if a NM doesn't get fixed after an extended period of time could it mean the CO is "bad". I dealt with all my NMs in a timely fashion, so I consider myself to be one of the "good" COs.

 

If cachers are finding my caches, but not reporting any problems, I'm going to assume the cache is fine. Does this make me a bad CO? Do I really need to make regular visits to proactively check on a cache that's most likely just fine?

I haven't visited one of my caches in almost 2 years, but cachers are still finding it and haven't reported any problems. I see no reason to check on it. If I happen to be in the area, I'll check it, but I'm not going to go out of my way to check on a cache with no reported problems.

 

If you think I'm a bad CO, then so be it. The favourite points on my caches would seem to indicate otherwise.

[+OZ2CPU]

you dont read all of what I write anyway..

I try to repeat :

if a CO neglect to maintain, he is a bad CO, can we agree on that ?

ok how to measure how good or bad a CO is ?

the time he wait before check or fix after a NM is ONE way,

you can maybe come up with another or better way ?

how many favorites he got is also a very good way,

but he could still become a bad CO after a while, by neglecting maintenence of his very cool caches,

and still got alot of favorites, then he was a good CO, now he is bad,

my idea is to try to find a way to make more CO, do more and better maintenence

and this way get better CO quality score.

I am sorry if you dont see or get get the point,

like so many other CO who dont care at all, it is just too bad,

that is why so many caches looks like trash and why you find endless threads about this topic on the forums

and no one seems to try to find a cure or fix or improvement for this.

[Keystone]

How about approvers check if a CO got any active caches with NM flag !

and as long as they got ANY flags at all, they can not submit any new caches to be released,

it is that simple !

Are you willing to extend the service level agreement for new cache reviews from three days to a week? Otherwise I'd never agree to this, as a volunteer. There are hiders with hundreds or even a thousand or more hidden caches. It will take me time to go through all of them, find the ones with NM flags, and check each of them manually. I wouldn't want to deny a new placement in an example like Starbrand's where the NM flag doesn't really need to be set.

[+OZ2CPU]

it only takes a few hrs here, so I gladly wait double that time :-)

if it at the same time prevent lousy CO from making more caches

that is most likely also going to cause pain to the people, not joy and happiness.

 

come on, if Groundspeak go for something like this, they also make a way approvers can check for this in one short sec

it is a very simply thing for them to do, dont you worry about that allready

Edited April 7, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[jholly]

[+Totem Clan]

> I am concerned about caches tagged as NM, including caches that were fixed and the tag was never removed by the CO,

> and I know for a fact that it isn't universal knowledge that an OWNER MAINTENANCE log will remove that.

> But as has been mentioned in previous replies, a NM icon is not a sure sign of lack of cache maintenance.

 

that is perfect, a CO will learn how the system works too,

it makes aven more sense they cant make new caches, if they dont know how the system works,

fine it takes 25 sec to learn about writing an owner maintenence log will clear the NM flag.

NOW they can make a new cache, and will remember this simple system feature.

I've got one qustion for you. Is you NA function broken?

 

If not, use it. Let those that can handle this problem. That why they are there.

Why fix what's not broken?

[+The A-Team]

ok how to measure how good or bad a CO is ?

That's what we're all trying to say. There is NO way to measure how good or bad a CO is. There are no stats on this site that will tell you whether any particular owner is "good" or "bad". How do I measure how nice you are as a person? Obviously, there's no way to do that. Measuring the quality of a cache owner is no different.

 

I am sorry if you dont see or get get the point,

like so many other CO who dont care at all, it is just too bad,

that is why so many caches looks like trash and why you find endless threads about this topic on the forums

and no one seems to try to find a cure or fix or improvement for this.

I do get the point, and I do care. Like I said in the other topic, I have no problem logging NAs on problem caches. No matter how much you want it, there will never be a "cure" for problem cache owners. All we can do is take care of problem caches on a case-by-case basis, which is where the NA log comes in. I have to ask, since you say there are so many bad cache owners in your area, how many NA logs have you logged? You can click this link for a quick way to check. For the record, I've logged an NA on 18 caches, all of which are now archived.

[+Totem Clan]

ok how to measure how good or bad a CO is ?

That's what we're all trying to say. There is NO way to measure how good or bad a CO is. There are no stats on this site that will tell you whether any particular owner is "good" or "bad". How do I measure how nice you are as a person? Obviously, there's no way to do that. Measuring the quality of a cache owner is no different.

 

I am sorry if you dont see or get get the point,

like so many other CO who dont care at all, it is just too bad,

that is why so many caches looks like trash and why you find endless threads about this topic on the forums

and no one seems to try to find a cure or fix or improvement for this.

I do get the point, and I do care. Like I said in the other topic, I have no problem logging NAs on problem caches. No matter how much you want it, there will never be a "cure" for problem cache owners. All we can do is take care of problem caches on a case-by-case basis, which is where the NA log comes in. I have to ask, since you say there are so many bad cache owners in your area, how many NA logs have you logged? You can click this link for a quick way to check. For the record, I've logged an NA on 18 caches, all of which are now archived.

+1

 

My count is 36. All but 4 are now archived. 2 of them the owner fixed and 2 are on a timer and will be archived or fixed shortly.

 

There's how to solve your problem. What's so hard about that?

[+Semper Questio]

if a CO neglect to maintain, he is a bad CO, can we agree on that ?

 

You are proceeding from a false assumption. You equate NM logs with a bad CO. You have been given MANY exmaples where this is just not true and NM logs are not at all any indication of a bad CO. What part of what OTHERS say do YOU not understnad.

 

Now you are just being tedious and I've had enough of you.

[+The A-Team]

My count is 36. All but 4 are now archived. 2 of them the owner fixed and 2 are on a timer and will be archived or fixed shortly.

That's a higher NA/Find rate than I have, but that's mainly because there are many others in my community that won't hesitate to post an NA on a problem cache. We went to 2 reviewers in my region about a year ago, and they are now very responsive in dealing with NAs, so people are now even more likely to use NA. A lot of problem caches have been dealt with and replaced with quality, well-maintained caches.

[+Totem Clan]

My count is 36. All but 4 are now archived. 2 of them the owner fixed and 2 are on a timer and will be archived or fixed shortly.

That's a higher NA/Find rate than I have, but that's mainly because there are many others in my community that won't hesitate to post an NA on a problem cache. We went to 2 reviewers in my region about a year ago, and they are now very responsive in dealing with NAs, so people are now even more likely to use NA. A lot of problem caches have been dealt with and replaced with quality, well-maintained caches.

25 of those have been in the last 5 months. We just moved back here to this area. We haven't cached around here for over 5 years and so I'm finding older caches that have been setting abandoned that the active cachers around here found long ago. Sometimes an area needs to be cleaned up a little.

 

We just got another reveiwer and our area to help with the work as well, so things will change.

[Skippermark]

Closing duplicate thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=293487