New statistic ? CO quality ?

[+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.

 

Does it work call people bad or lazy ?

or Does it help people if they are encuraged to maintain to get a hi CO quality score ?

 

My idea is quite simple, the system allready count a lot of other things and perform statistics, very nice

How about count how many caches a CO got with NM flag sat, vs days not sat..

like a CO got 100 caches and 5 of them got NM for the last 5 days, so a negative day score is now 5 x 5 = 25

to make this value goto zero again = best possible score..

the CO must fix them all to be ok, and wait 25 days,

since the counter go one down pr day nothing else is counted up.

this way it is very easy to get alot of bad score, and also very easy to get it good again,

when all is good again you are compleetly forgotten, and bads are erased from the value..

 

Or you figure out a more smart og more funny way to make it :-)

 

I also posted a vote for a new rule, a CO should not be able to make any new caches as long as he got active caches with NM flag.

the idea could be expanded to the CO quality score, if not zero, no new caches can be made.

[+StarBrand]

I think such a system would strongly encourage false owner Maintenance logs as well as false NM logs when others have some disagreement with a CO.

[+OZ2CPU]

do you have alot of people with disagreement with you as a CO ?

it seems like it, since you got 7 active caches with NM flags,

I did not investigate it to the end and count how long it has been like this,

but to me, it looks like you are not taking alot of care of your caches,

this proves it is a very good idea to seek help from the system.

You dont like to visit badly maintained caches, do you ?

so why not start fixing those you made first, thanks.

[+StarBrand]

Great you can use the site - did you bother reading why some of those got marked NM?? Thats my point.

 

I'm not embarrassed in the least - I am aware and as time allows - I will take care of it.

[+AustinMN]

do you have alot of people with disagreement with you as a CO ?

it seems like it, since you got 7 active caches with NM flags,

I did not investigate it to the end and count how long it has been like this,

but to me, it looks like you are not taking alot of care of your caches,

this proves it is a very good idea to seek help from the system.

You dont like to visit badly maintained caches, do you ?

so why not start fixing those you made first, thanks.

 

First, this sounds like an unreasonable accusation.

 

Second, do you have a problem looking to see if a cache has a Needs Maintenance log before you go looking for it? That is the real solution to your problem.

 

This hobby relies on volunteers willing to create and place caches. Putting needless obstacles up because you don't want to check for a Needs Maintenance log before you go caching isn't the way to go.

 

Austin

[+OZ2CPU]

my point is it dont matter at all WHY.

to keep it simple : you got ACTIVE caches with NM, either fix or disable,

or wait until fixed, before you make any more NEW caches,

at least that is what I vote for as a new rule.

I think it is a great idea,

it will prevent very bad CO from making the world full of bad caches,

and that is something that is a HUGE problem allready, we need to work together to try and find a methode to fix it.

Edited April 6, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+StarBrand]

my point is it dont matter at all WHY.

to keep it simple : you got ACTIVE caches with NM, either fix or disable,

or wait until fixed, before you make any more NEW caches,

at least that is what I vote for as a new rule.

I think it is a great idea,

it will prevent very bad CO from making the world full of bad caches,

and that is something that is a HUGE problem allready, we need to work together to try and find a methode to fix it.

You do not seem to care at all the reason a cache was flagged as NM. why not??

NM flag = bad cache to you

 

That is simply not my experience. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. I don't even look before I go caching.

[+AustinMN]

my point is it dont matter at all WHY.

 

Great. I want my caches to be the only new ones, so I will go out and post NM on everyone else's.

 

it will prevent very bad CO from making the world full of bad caches,

and that is something that is a HUGE problem allready, we need to work together to try and find a methode to fix it.

 

I can't agree that it is a huge problem. It may be just 2-3 cache hiders near you. Or it may just be your expectations.

 

Austin

[+OZ2CPU]

>Great. I want my caches to be the only new ones, so I will go out and post NM on everyone else's.

 

if you are, or act like 12 years old, why not just pee in their caches :-)

that will make alot of funny logs too ?

lets grow up, and face the huge problem of caches in a terrible state, due to not beening maintained,

and try together in a cool funny and positive way to try and figure out a way to improve it,

that is after all, what I am after.

you are very welcome to come up with any good idea, that will make CO improve the maintain rate ?

 

>It may be just 2-3 cache hiders near you. Or it may just be your expectations.

 

I assume you just started ? your profile show 41 finds, out of them 6 got NM flag, did you see why when you found them ?

forgot your own NM logs ?

Edited April 6, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+AustinMN]

>Great. I want my caches to be the only new ones, so I will go out and post NM on everyone else's.

 

if you are, or act like 12 years old, why not just ...

 

Third accusation.

 

lets grow up, and face the huge problem of caches in a terrible state, due to not beening maintained,

 

Let's grow up, and realize you have a worthy goal, but the way you suggest to go about it is not fair, not popular, too simplistic, and will not work.

 

I assume you just started ? your profile show 41 finds, out of them 6 got NM flag, did you see why when you found them ?

 

Only one of them really needed maintenance at the time I found it. Since then it has been marked as Needs Archive. Your suggestion would penalize cache hiders for simple things like forgetting to reset the NM flag after performing maintenance.

 

And your suggestion would not stop bad cache owners from placing new caches. If I were a bad maintainer and wanted to place a new cache, I would just post false "Owner Maintenance" logs on all my NM caches before enabling the new cache. That would actually make things worse, because now the bad cache does not have a NM flag!

 

Austin

[+OZ2CPU]

>And your suggestion would not stop bad cache owners from placing new caches.

>If I were a bad maintainer and wanted to place a new cache, I would just post false "Owner Maintenance" logs on all my NM caches

>before enabling the new cache. That would actually make things worse, because now the bad cache does not have a NM flag!

 

That is right, but I have newer seen this kind of really crasy behaviour performed,

it is neglecting old caches and just make more new ones that is a bad style,

I dont know how to fix all the problem with just one simple rule, if some people are just really bad

you can for sure always find a way they can continue to be bad,

I just think the system as it is today, dont really encurage good behaviour

or punish bad either,

the fact is: way to many caches are in a bad shape, and no one cares at all, thanks for no help what so ever,

you want full logs, wet logs, broken containers, gone and missing caches, fine let the system stay the way it is..

[+StarBrand]

I do care. I disagree that it is nearly as widespread as you see it but I do care.

 

I just do not think your approach is the right one.

[Pup Patrol]

I'm not sure that being nasty to folks who reply is the way to win them over.

 

If you don't get the responses you like, that's no reason to start insulting people.

 

Just sayin'.

 

Oh, and why are there two threads about this same topic?

 

B.

[+T.D.M.22]

THIS is why we cant rate CO's. He has found-and presumably placed caches. But of he gets the new account he will be rated as "0" or whatever you decide is the lowest.

[+JesandTodd]

With all due respect, the rating suggestion....is lame.

 

Sometimes the NM log is warranted, sometimes it is done out of spite or hurt feelings because a finder couldn't find a cache, sometimes they are logged because a cache is too hard...etc, etc...

 

This.is.a.game.

 

COs are real people with real lives, and aren't required to be "on call" to my NM needs. If a cache has a NM log on it, and it affects you this much,,.,just skip it, move on, get over it, blah blah.

 

Life goes on!

 

I assume you just started ? your profile show 41 finds, out of them 6 got NM flag, did you see why when you found them ?

forgot your own NM logs ?

 

I have ~1300 finds, and have logged 13 NM logs. That's a 1% NM rate. Of those, half-ish eventually became archived. That's a 0.5% rate.

 

This is NOT a stat that warrants a change to the website in order to rate COs.

 

You could just choose. Choose to skip caches with NM logs and live a happier life...lol

Edited April 7, 2012 by JesandTodd

[+OZ2CPU]

>I have ~1300 finds,

 

and of those, how many where wet ? bad ? you say you only repported 13 NM

that could also be due to halve of them allready got NM :-)

so one more NM dont matter, specially when so many CO dont care to service.

or do you live in a very special location, where caches are actually maintained

and they are mostly in a good working shape ? I like to know where this ? is it on this globe ?

Try and search a bit arround this forum,

and see SO many threads about bad caches, and a clear sign of no maintenence.

 

I newer heard or seen one single example of a NM log that was made to hurt any one,

I take my chance, you are very welcome to log as many NM longs when you visit my caches

if you feel they need any kind of my attention at all, I will be VERY happy to know about it

so I can fix it, or just check it is ok or not.

[+Chokecherry]

I really have no reason to rate the quality of a cache owner. I know which cache owners in my area maintain or don't maintain their caches. I can avoid as needed. When I go out of my area I can look easily at logs on caches and at other caches an owner has and figure out if I want to look for the cache. If people put up NA logs on caches like they should be abandoned hot messes wouldn't be a problem. But finders don't.

 

We have NM logs that are left standing for sometime. We have a lot of vacation caches where I am. Sometimes those owners fix them (many times not and many times there is no actual plan to maintain them). But it's obvious from the cache page if it's a problem or not. Again an NA log is all it takes to resolve those problems.

 

Winter can be problematic here. Some caches break in winter and then can be accessed until sometime in summer. They sit with NM. Doesn't mean the owner doesn't want to fix it. Just means it can't be got to. The owner doesn't suck... the weather does.

 

Really it's just not that big of a deal. If someone has problems with the caches in their area they need to get active logging NA's and clean it up a little bit on those problem caches.

[+The A-Team]

I take my chance, you are very welcome to log as many NM longs when you visit my caches

if you feel they need any kind of my attention at all, I will be VERY happy to know about it

so I can fix it, or just check it is ok or not.

That's exactly what the NM is for, but your posts earlier in this topic and in the other one seem to indicate you think a CO isn't maintaining their cache if it receives a NM at all. If a latch breaks off the container when I open one of your caches, I'll log a NM to let you know. Does this mean you're not a quality CO, or that you don't maintain your caches? Of course not. For some COs it might, but it doesn't apply to everyone, which your suggestions would. You really need to start thinking differently about the use of the NM log.

 

As for caches which aren't being maintained, do what others have suggested and log a NA (Needs archive). If the CO is still active, they'll fix it. If not, a reviewer will archive it. Problem solved. More people need to use the NA log. For some reason some people think logging a NA make you a "cache cop", but all it means is that you care about the quality of caches in your area. I have no problem logging a NA for caches in my area, and there are many others that do, too. This is the only effective way to deal with problem caches.

[+OZ2CPU]

>but your posts earlier in this topic and in the other one seem to indicate you think a CO isn't maintaining their cache if it receives a NM at all.

 

NOPE.. I say a CO is BAD if he got alot og NM for a long time..

I got one NM yesterday, that is perfectly normal and ok, and I fixed it today !

what is that ? I say it is VERY good CO quality

and I like to see this kind of CO behaviour spread a bit to others too :-)

I am sure you dont find it cool to visit a cache that is en a very bad shape, and had been like this for a very long time

then you look up the CO and see he got 20 other caches with NM and they have been like this for 3-6 month,

what is that ?? very bad CO style. He need help and encuragement or adopt them away, or archive them,

so others who care and love this hobby can cary on making new caches they care about,

that is what I like to see Groundspeak work for.

QUALITY over quantity. better for all.

I dont say I found the perfect way to do this, just one idea out of many,

you play along and see what kind of ideas you can come up with ?

I am sure you want the same as I ? better caches, right ?

maybe you are smarter than I ? and can figure out an even better better way to make people maintain more often ?

[+Totem Clan]

>but your posts earlier in this topic and in the other one seem to indicate you think a CO isn't maintaining their cache if it receives a NM at all.

 

NOPE.. I say a CO is BAD if he got alot og NM for a long time..

I got one NM yesterday, that is perfectly normal and ok, and I fixed it today !

what is that ? I say it is VERY good CO quality

and I like to see this kind of CO behaviour spread a bit to others too :-)

I am sure you dont find it cool to visit a cache that is en a very bad shape, and had been like this for a very long time

then you look up the CO and see he got 20 other caches with NM and they have been like this for 3-6 month,

what is that ?? very bad CO style. He need help and encuragement or adopt them away, or archive them,

so others who care and love this hobby can cary on making new caches they care about,

that is what I like to see Groundspeak work for.

QUALITY over quantity. better for all.

I dont say I found the perfect way to do this, just one idea out of many,

you play along and see what kind of ideas you can come up with ?

I am sure you want the same as I ? better caches, right ?

maybe you are smarter than I ? and can figure out an even better better way to make people maintain more often ?

Then you need to do your job and start NA those caches. Let the reveiewers weed the ones that don't meet the guidelines. If does meet the guidelines, whether you like it or not, it is a good cache.

[+niraD]

my point is it dont matter at all WHY.

Sure it does. Sometimes NM means only that the log is getting full, or that some of the camouflage is wearing off. Other times, NM means that the container has been destroyed.

[+JesandTodd]

.

or do you live in a very special location, where caches are actually maintained

and they are mostly in a good working shape ? I like to know where this ? is it on this globe ?

 

Well, it doesn't take a brainiac to figure out where I cache at, but FWIW, I cache in the rainy pacific northwest, which on the globe, is Seattle. Upper corner of Washington state.

 

There are some damp logs. The last wet log I found didn't require a NM log...I just contacted the CO directly, and he replied back immediately.

For the record, caches are maintained well by COs and our local caching community.

 

I rarely see the need for NM logs. And I never see the need for CO ratings...

[+Fianccetto]

I don't have access to look to see if you have been to any events, OZ, or where you live (so apologies if this suggestion isnt helpful) but maybe another way around this would be to hold a meet and greet event in your area and bring it up with other local cachers. Perhaps as a good will gesture, you could provide a small lock n lock with a log sheet to everyone who attends. (Again, just a suggestion, I've hears this works well and Mr F went to an event in Houston where they did this, even for him! (He arrived a little on the late side.)

 

It seems to me that Groundspeak do consider all these rules and weigh up the pros and cons of each one. I'm sure they have thought this through already.

Bottom line, will the rule you want to make result in the game being more fun, or less fun for hiders and seekers?

 

(I think the rule will result in more NM logs for petty things, false owner maintenance logs, COs archiving good caches because they can't get to them to maintain them the very next day, and some long standing, experienced cachers being picked on by people who never got out and walked more than a mile in their lives before they got a geocaching app on their phone!)

 

Some regions are better than others for cache maintenance, if it is something you're concerned about locally to you, maybe see what your local/national reviewers think about it.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Fianccetto

[+J the Goat]

I think the problem with a rating system like that is NM flags aren't indicative at all of the hide or the CO. Owner forgets to remove flag after maintainence is done. Owner is sick, ill, out of town for an extended period of time and isn't able to perform simple cache maintainence. Owner doesn't know how to remove flag from page. These are just a few examples of instances where their rating would go down, but should any of these be reasons to lower their ratings?

 

I think it's a good idea, or at least a good attempt to make caches better, but there are just too many variables to make it work. I think the NA log needs to be used more often. That will help accomplish what you're looking to do. Log a NM, wait a bit. If no maintainence is done, there are a few options. Another NM log, an email to the CO directly, or a NA log (if appropriate. If it's for a full log, you shouldn't even think about an NA log )

 

No reason here for people to get snappy. We've got somebody trying to come up with ideas to make caches better. The idea won't work, but we can be a bit more constructive in our responses.

 

Just editing to note that the above statement might be more a reflection of my general mood this morning than the overall tone of this thread.

Edited April 8, 2012 by J the Goat

[+Totem Clan]

I think the problem with a rating system like that is NM flags aren't indicative at all of the hide or the CO. Owner forgets to remove flag after maintainence is done. Owner is sick, ill, out of town for an extended period of time and isn't able to perform simple cache maintainence. Owner doesn't know how to remove flag from page. These are just a few examples of instances where their rating would go down, but should any of these be reasons to lower their ratings?

 

I think it's a good idea, or at least a good attempt to make caches better, but there are just too many variables to make it work. I think the NA log needs to be used more often. That will help accomplish what you're looking to do. Log a NM, wait a bit. If no maintainence is done, there are a few options. Another NM log, an email to the CO directly, or a NA log (if appropriate. If it's for a full log, you shouldn't even think about an NA log )

 

No reason here for people to get snappy. We've got somebody trying to come up with ideas to make caches better. The idea won't work, but we can be a bit more constructive in our responses.

 

Just editing to note that the above statement might be more a reflection of my general mood this morning than the overall tone of this thread.

+1

 

It works great. Please try this and see if it fixes your problem.

[+The A-Team]

I think it's a good idea, or at least a good attempt to make caches better, but there are just too many variables to make it work. I think the NA log needs to be used more often. That will help accomplish what you're looking to do. Log a NM, wait a bit. If no maintainence is done, there are a few options. Another NM log, an email to the CO directly, or a NA log (if appropriate. If it's for a full log, you shouldn't even think about an NA log )

+1

 

It works great. Please try this and see if it fixes your problem.

If everyone did this, I think the overall quality of the caches out there would increase vastly, and problem COs would either shape-up or ship-out.

[+OZ2CPU]

thanks for the suggestions and ideas, at least I am not alone in thinking too many caches are in a too bad shape,

it is not a local problem only valid to my home region, I see exactly the same no matter where I go,

and I can see MANY threads about it, so it is a huge problem, and something many people are sad about,

I also write alot about this in my local forums and I also perform service to caches I know need it,

after asking CO if he like me to help out, a such agreement is needed if changing logbooks

or broken containers and such is what the caches need, and offcourse if REPLACEMENT is performed.

 

if it is only add a few dry sheets, empty water, dry it, clean it, remove trash, add a bit of tape on a broken corner,

I just do it before asking, and inform about it in the log.

But it sometimes feels like I am a one man army.. I really need alot more help for this to work,

could you all just please help me ? then this game will be so much better for all of us,

thanks.

[+The A-Team]

I also perform service to caches I know need it,

after asking CO if he like me to help out, a such agreement is needed if changing logbooks

or broken containers and such is what the caches need, and offcourse if REPLACEMENT is performed.

 

if it is only add a few dry sheets, empty water, dry it, clean it, remove trash, add a bit of tape on a broken corner,

I just do it before asking, and inform about it in the log.

Doing minor maintenance is fine, but be careful which caches and cache owners you're helping. If it's an active CO that seems to maintain their caches, helping the cache should be fine (though I'd usually tend to allow them to do it themselves in the way they want). If it's a CO that doesn't do their own maintenance, you're just allowing a problem cache to continue to exist. Rather than fix it up, log an NA, wait for it to be archived, and either hide a cache there yourself or allow someone else to hide one. Maintaining problem caches won't fix the underlying problem. They need to be archived for the problem to go away.

[+Totem Clan]

Doing minor maintenance is fine, but be careful which caches and cache owners you're helping. If it's an active CO that seems to maintain their caches, helping the cache should be fine (though I'd usually tend to allow them to do it themselves in the way they want). If it's a CO that doesn't do their own maintenance, you're just allowing a problem cache to continue to exist. Rather than fix it up, log an NA, wait for it to be archived, and either hide a cache there yourself or allow someone else to hide one. Maintaining problem caches won't fix the underlying problem. They need to be archived for the problem to go away.

Exacatly

 

If you want to fix a wet log for me, please do so. It will help me and other cachers. Don't replace my cache or try to 'fix' my camo. Tell me and I'll do it.

 

If it's a CO that is not active, let the reveiwers clear out the geotrash.

[+TeamTwoStar]

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.

 

Does it work call people bad or lazy ?

or Does it help people if they are encuraged to maintain to get a hi CO quality score ?

 

My idea is quite simple, the system allready count a lot of other things and perform statistics, very nice

How about count how many caches a CO got with NM flag sat, vs days not sat..

like a CO got 100 caches and 5 of them got NM for the last 5 days, so a negative day score is now 5 x 5 = 25

to make this value goto zero again = best possible score..

the CO must fix them all to be ok, and wait 25 days,

since the counter go one down pr day nothing else is counted up.

this way it is very easy to get alot of bad score, and also very easy to get it good again,

when all is good again you are compleetly forgotten, and bads are erased from the value..

 

Or you figure out a more smart og more funny way to make it :-)

 

I also posted a vote for a new rule, a CO should not be able to make any new caches as long as he got active caches with NM flag.

the idea could be expanded to the CO quality score, if not zero, no new caches can be made.

 

That seems overly complicated. I read the entire other discusion that you had, but it seemed to me that you will not listen to anyone else's arguments to the contrary. As other users have said NM is not mean the the CO is a bad owner. It means that it is possible that the cache might have a problem, like a cracked container, a full log, a muggled cache, or the cacher was unable to find the cache (they believe it may be missing). None of those thing indicate that the CO is a bad owner.

 

I believe that you are forgeting some very imporatnt things here. The CO may be working and going to school or the might have familly troubles or any number of things that could prevent them from getting out to their caches right away. Maybe they got into a car accedent and have a broken leg, completely preventing them from checking the caches. Personally, I am greatful to the people that place the caches, and I wouldn't want them to put a restriction like this on placing caches, especially because there are so many understandable reasons for that NM. The CO is spending their money to make a cache, then spending their time to place the cache, and giving you the opertunity to find new little boxes. You should be happy.

 

Finally, you don't need to punish all cache owners because of a few irresponcible cache owners. The cache log is there for you to read before you go out and search for the cache. If you see problems in the log, you can chose not to go to that cache. It is your choise whether or not you go to a cache with a NM on it.

Edited April 9, 2012 by TeamTwoStar

[+OZ2CPU]

>but it seemed to me that you will not listen to anyone else's arguments to the contrary

 

I am sorry if you feel that way.

I am very happy for your input,

you are perfectly right a CO and be sick or for whatever good reason prevented from performing normal maintenence,

or even prevented from writing a note like: I am busy but will fix it in xx month or ask a friend to fix it.

if that is the case he will not be sad if the system prevent him from making any new caches he also can not take care of,

since he dont got any time anyway :-) I hope you see that point.

if the lack of service is lazy or just changed hobby or such, then the same rule will save us from more new caches he also dont care about.

---

when you make a PQ for a new area, lets say you visit a friend in a new state or contry what ever,

do you filter out caches with NM flag ?

I do, since I belive many of them will most likely waste my time,

I also filter out caches with last few visits af DNF,

the others who pass my filters,

do you really read all their info and all their logs before you seek them ?

I know, I dont ..

[+niraD]

if that is the case he will not be sad if the system prevent him from making any new caches he also can not take care of,

since he dont got any time anyway :-) I hope you see that point.

And if one of my favorite cache owners has a new puzzle multi-cache ready to go, and someone has posted a NM log on one of his remote caches because there are only a couple pages left in the log book, or because the disposable camera in the cache is finally full, then I don't see any reason to block the publication of his new puzzle multi-cache. :-) I hope you see that point.

 

if the lack of service is lazy or just changed hobby or such, then the same rule will save us from more new caches he also dont care about.

I'm confused. If someone has changed hobbies, then why would they have any new caches to be blocked by this new "CO quality" rule?

[+Totem Clan]

>but it seemed to me that you will not listen to anyone else's arguments to the contrary

 

I am sorry if you feel that way.

I am very happy for your input,

you are perfectly right a CO and be sick or for whatever good reason prevented from performing normal maintenence,

or even prevented from writing a note like: I am busy but will fix it in xx month or ask a friend to fix it.

if that is the case he will not be sad if the system prevent him from making any new caches he also can not take care of,

since he dont got any time anyway :-) I hope you see that point.

if the lack of service is lazy or just changed hobby or such, then the same rule will save us from more new caches he also dont care about.

---

when you make a PQ for a new area, lets say you visit a friend in a new state or contry what ever,

do you filter out caches with NM flag ?

I do, since I belive many of them will most likely waste my time,

I also filter out caches with last few visits af DNF,

the others who pass my filters,

do you really read all their info and all their logs before you seek them ?

I know, I dont ..

Again why not just use the NA log?

[+The A-Team]

when you make a PQ for a new area, lets say you visit a friend in a new state or contry what ever,

do you filter out caches with NM flag ?

I do, since I belive many of them will most likely waste my time,

I also filter out caches with last few visits af DNF,

the others who pass my filters,

do you really read all their info and all their logs before you seek them ?

I know, I dont ..

When I'm traveling, I never filter out caches with NM, because I, like many others in this topic, know that having that flag doesn't always mean it does NM. I do filter out caches that are disabled, and like you I filter out caches where the last few logs are DNFs (because those are very likely missing), but everything else makes it through.

 

As far as reading the info for caches I seek, of course I do. For every cache I seek. Everyone should. If there is any information the CO wants to communicate to the seekers like parking or access information, important safety information, permissions, etc., this is where it will be. Going in blind can lead you into many uncomfortable, unexpected, or dangerous situations. I always make sure I know what I'm going into.

[+OZ2CPU]

>As far as reading the info for caches I seek, of course I do.

 

sorry I was not clear in my point here, YES I read the cache page,

but I do it on location, not from home..

and again some trips and some caches are specially choosen due to information found on their pages

and their ratings and recommendations from forums and friends and such.

 

>Again why not just use the NA log?

 

Ya :-) maybe a good point there..

lets all just use the NA when we see a clear evidence of ignorance from CO,

like a few NM, no service for a long time, and many people complain in logs about how bad shape the cache is,

and no info/notes from CO about a good cause for this long wait for service,

maybe the only option we got to clean up bad caches, and bad CO.

I hope people will do this ?

will you ?? lets file alot of NA, the world really needs it.

[+Chokecherry]

So what you really want is a public shaming of someone for what???? An NA log will fix the problem with those caches. There is absolutely no reason to sit there and publicly shame a cache owner because they do not live up to the standards you set.

[+thebruce0]

>Again why not just use the NA log?

 

Ya :-) maybe a good point there..

lets all just use the NA when we see a clear evidence of ignorance from CO,

like a few NM, no service for a long time, and many people complain in logs about how bad shape the cache is,

and no info/notes from CO about a good cause for this long wait for service,

maybe the only option we got to clean up bad caches, and bad CO.

I hope people will do this ?

will you ?? lets file alot of NA, the world really needs it.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

 

Yes, if there is clear ignorance from a cache CO - a number of needs maintenance log, no attention or service for a long time, a string of DNFs - Yes, post a Needs Archived. Absolutely no reason why not. Chances are the CO won't even notice that log if they haven't noticed all the others, and a local reviewer will disable and eventually archive the cache. Do it.

 

Do not post NA logs on caches you think needs maintenance but you don't think the CO is "responsible".

Do not go on a NA log posting spree just for the sake of sticking it to COs you think are not "responsible".

Be reasonable. BE responsible.

Edited April 10, 2012 by thebruce0

[+Totem Clan]

>Again why not just use the NA log?

 

Ya :-) maybe a good point there..

lets all just use the NA when we see a clear evidence of ignorance from CO,

like a few NM, no service for a long time, and many people complain in logs about how bad shape the cache is,

and no info/notes from CO about a good cause for this long wait for service,

maybe the only option we got to clean up bad caches, and bad CO.

I hope people will do this ?

will you ?? lets file alot of NA, the world really needs it.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious.

 

Yes, if there is clear ignorance from a cache CO - a number of needs maintenance log, no attention or service for a long time, a string of DNFs - Yes, post a Needs Archived. Absolutely no reason why not. Chances are the CO won't even notice that log if they haven't noticed all the others, and a local reviewer will disable and eventually archive the cache. Do it.

 

Do not post NA logs on caches you think needs maintenance but you don't think the CO is "responsible".

Do not go on a NA log posting spree just for the sake of sticking it to COs you think are not "responsible".

Be reasonable. BE responsible.

I'm not sure either.

 

Very good points

The NA log is just like any other log. I don't know why cachers think it's so bad to log them. It should not be abused or misused anymore than a NM log. At the same time it should be used when needed like the NM log.

I wish it was call a 'Needs Attention' log or 'Reveiw Attention' log instead of 'Needs Archived.' Then maybe cachers would not be so scared of it.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

A form of this idea exists on another site. It doesn't work there either.

 

[+briansnat]

do you have alot of people with disagreement with you as a CO ?

it seems like it, since you got 7 active caches with NM flags,

I did not investigate it to the end and count how long it has been like this,

but to me, it looks like you are not taking alot of care of your caches,

this proves it is a very good idea to seek help from the system.

You dont like to visit badly maintained caches, do you ?

so why not start fixing those you made first, thanks.

 

Some of the reasons I've received NM logs:

 

-Couldn't find the cache

-Found empty plastic container in general vicinity of cache

-Logbook was wet (I checked and the dampness was barely perceptible)

-Cache smelled. (Yeah it did smell a little musty, so?)

-Travel bug was not in the cache. (So that requires a maint trip?)

-Logbook was "full" (turn it over, there are another several years worth of blank pages)

-Area around the cache was muddy. (yeah, it rained a lot that week)

-Nearest parking lot was closed (so, park somewhere else and walk)

-Flagged the wrong cache, it was someone else's that needed maint

-terrain was too difficult (yeah, that's why it was rated 3.5 stars)

-not enough swag

-down tree on the trail