Why don't people log "Needs Maintenance"

[+edexter]

The main reason for posting a "needs maintenance" log is to alert the CO that the cache is missing or needs attention. It also lets people know the cache may be missing or damaged. The main reason not to post one is that it is more likely to be ignored than acted on. About half the NM logs I post never get a response. Many of the responses I do get are positive in the sense that the cache gets fixed, though some COs tell you to bug off, post a note saying "it's fine" or just delete the log. After a month or two if there has been no response from the CO I post a NA log. The main reason to do this is to alert The Reviewer that there is a problem with the cache that the CO is ignoring. (Since it takes just a few seconds for a CO to post a note or "temporarily disable" the cache, ignoring a NM log for a couple of months is a choice) The most likely result from posting a NA log is that the missing/damaged cache will be archived by The Reviewer with no response from the CO after a couple of months. The next most likely response is the cache will be fixed, and 5-10% of COs will make fun of you for posting a log in the first place. Of those, some will delete your log as well. Occasionally some one will say "thanks for the head's up", but that's rare.

I typically only post an NM log when I'm sure there is a problem. Three quarters of the caches I've posted NM logs are archived over the next two to ten months, usually by the reviewer. 25% are fixed or eventually checked on and reported as ok: about half in response to a NM log, about half after a NA log. Maybe 10-20% are repaired by someone other than the CO for various reasons.

Aside from letting a CO know that their cache likely has an issue, the main benefit is to save other folks from the frustration of searching for a missing cache (at any given time 3% of caches are missing). The CO's response, or lack of it, tells you a lot about their cache maintenance style, and something about their personality. Folks who take umbrage or are dismissive of an NM log when no one has found their cache in a year or more are telling you something about their view of their role in the game.

[+L0ne.R]

The main reason for posting a "needs maintenance" log is to alert the CO that the cache is missing or needs attention. It also lets people know the cache may be missing or damaged. The main reason not to post one is that it is more likely to be ignored than acted on. About half the NM logs I post never get a response. Many of the responses I do get are positive in the sense that the cache gets fixed, though some COs tell you to bug off, post a note saying "it's fine" or just delete the log. After a month or two if there has been no response from the CO I post a NA log. The main reason to do this is to alert The Reviewer that there is a problem with the cache that the CO is ignoring. (Since it takes just a few seconds for a CO to post a note or "temporarily disable" the cache, ignoring a NM log for a couple of months is a choice) The most likely result from posting a NA log is that the missing/damaged cache will be archived by The Reviewer with no response from the CO after a couple of months. The next most likely response is the cache will be fixed, and 5-10% of COs will make fun of you for posting a log in the first place. Of those, some will delete your log as well. Occasionally some one will say "thanks for the head's up", but that's rare.

I typically only post an NM log when I'm sure there is a problem. Three quarters of the caches I've posted NM logs are archived over the next two to ten months, usually by the reviewer. 25% are fixed or eventually checked on and reported as ok: about half in response to a NM log, about half after a NA log. Maybe 10-20% are repaired by someone other than the CO for various reasons.

Aside from letting a CO know that their cache likely has an issue, the main benefit is to save other folks from the frustration of searching for a missing cache (at any given time 3% of caches are missing). The CO's response, or lack of it, tells you a lot about their cache maintenance style, and something about their personality. Folks who take umbrage or are dismissive of an NM log when no one has found their cache in a year or more are telling you something about their view of their role in the game.

 

Good post. That's been my experience too.

[+dprovan]

The main reason for posting a "needs maintenance" log is to alert the CO that the cache is missing or needs attention.

Well, of course, you can't know a cache is missing, you can only know that you didn't find it. That's an important distinction because you can't just tell the CO the cache is missing, you have to tell him why you think it's missing.

 

The main reason not to post one is that it is more likely to be ignored than acted on. About half the NM logs I post never get a response.

I disagree completely. It's even more important to post an NM that won't be acted on, since that puts us one step closer to getting rid of a failed cache. Besides, as you yourself note, a secondary reason for posting the NM is so other seekers know about the problem.

 

The most likely result from posting a NA log is that the missing/damaged cache will be archived by The Reviewer with no response from the CO after a couple of months. The next most likely response is the cache will be fixed, and 5-10% of COs will make fun of you for posting a log in the first place.

What a sad area you live in. In my area, any CO that had a problem that got as far as an NA before being fixed would be embarrassed to be caught taking so long. They'd never dream of making fun of the person that pointed out the mistake. That would be like making fun of someone that pointed out your zipper was down.

 

Folks who take umbrage or are dismissive of an NM log when no one has found their cache in a year or more are telling you something about their view of their role in the game.

I suppose, in the sense that their role is being a jerk. But I never run into any COs dismissing or taking umbrage over any valid NM, so I'm just imagining what that would tell me.

[+edexter]

My latest NM log adventure happened after I posted a NM for a multicache I dnf'd as both stages were missing and reading the logs showed that had been the case for over a year despite a half dozen finds (of something) being logged . After waiting four months with no response from the CO I posted a NA log with the following results: First, another cacher suggested I was "being too hasty" calling for the cache to be delisted. Second the Reviewer immediately disabled it, Third, four days later the CO confirmed both stages were gone and reworked the cache as a single stage hide. NA logs, when warranted, often get a response when NM logs are ignored because the reviewer does what the CO could have easily done: disable the cache until it can be repaired. It's easy enough to email a cacher and get details on what they found on site, even easier to indicate you'll check on it soon. If you can't get there for a while, just say so in a note.

[Pup Patrol]

Third, four days later the CO confirmed both stages were gone and reworked the cache as a single stage hide.

 

Hope the Reviewer has disabled it again, because the cache owner can not change the type of cache.

 

If the cache is still listed as a multicache, the cache page is incorrect. Should be archived.

 

4.14. Editing a Published Listing: Minor Change

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=201

 

You will find that you cannot change the geocache type. Changing the geocache type will retroactively alter the statistics of all previous finders, so we do not allow this field to be edited.

 

4.15. Editing a Published Listing: Major Change.

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=76

 

If you need to change the coordinates beyond 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m), or change the type of geocache, please contact your local reviewer. The reviewer will check the changes for adherence to the current guidelines and notify you when the changes have been made, or suggest that a new geocache listing should be submitted. Please be sure to follow any instructions the reviewer may send you.

 

B.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Pup Patrol

[+edexter]

No suck luck. Still listed as a multi though the CO noted it is now a single stage cache. Since replacement cache has been found twice followed by two dnfs...

[+edexter]

And as a statistical update, of the 285 caches where I've posted or noticed a NM log after searching for a cache, 73 were eventually repaired while 212 were eventually archived (74.3%). In most cases the CO never acknowledges the need for maintenance log and the cache is archived by the reviewer.

edexter

[+Pond Bird]

The main reason for posting a "needs maintenance" log is to alert the CO that the cache is missing or needs attention.

Well, of course, you can't know a cache is missing, you can only know that you didn't find it. That's an important distinction because you can't just tell the CO the cache is missing, you have to tell him why you think it's missing.

 

The main reason not to post one is that it is more likely to be ignored than acted on. About half the NM logs I post never get a response.

I disagree completely. It's even more important to post an NM that won't be acted on, since that puts us one step closer to getting rid of a failed cache. Besides, as you yourself note, a secondary reason for posting the NM is so other seekers know about the problem.

 

The most likely result from posting a NA log is that the missing/damaged cache will be archived by The Reviewer with no response from the CO after a couple of months. The next most likely response is the cache will be fixed, and 5-10% of COs will make fun of you for posting a log in the first place.

What a sad area you live in. In my area, any CO that had a problem that got as far as an NA before being fixed would be embarrassed to be caught taking so long. They'd never dream of making fun of the person that pointed out the mistake. That would be like making fun of someone that pointed out your zipper was down.

 

Folks who take umbrage or are dismissive of an NM log when no one has found their cache in a year or more are telling you something about their view of their role in the game.

I suppose, in the sense that their role is being a jerk. But I never run into any COs dismissing or taking umbrage over any valid NM, so I'm just imagining what that would tell me.

 

There are missing/damaged caches where people have posted an NM. Some of the caches were repaired/replaced and sadly a couple will be archived due to owners no longer logging into their accounts.

[+colleda]

The main reason for posting a "needs maintenance" log is to alert the CO that the cache is missing or needs attention.

Well, of course, you can't know a cache is missing, you can only know that you didn't find it. That's an important distinction because you can't just tell the CO the cache is missing, you have to tell him why you think it's missing.

 

The main reason not to post one is that it is more likely to be ignored than acted on. About half the NM logs I post never get a response.

I disagree completely. It's even more important to post an NM that won't be acted on, since that puts us one step closer to getting rid of a failed cache. Besides, as you yourself note, a secondary reason for posting the NM is so other seekers know about the problem.

 

The most likely result from posting a NA log is that the missing/damaged cache will be archived by The Reviewer with no response from the CO after a couple of months. The next most likely response is the cache will be fixed, and 5-10% of COs will make fun of you for posting a log in the first place.

What a sad area you live in. In my area, any CO that had a problem that got as far as an NA before being fixed would be embarrassed to be caught taking so long. They'd never dream of making fun of the person that pointed out the mistake. That would be like making fun of someone that pointed out your zipper was down.

 

Folks who take umbrage or are dismissive of an NM log when no one has found their cache in a year or more are telling you something about their view of their role in the game.

I suppose, in the sense that their role is being a jerk. But I never run into any COs dismissing or taking umbrage over any valid NM, so I'm just imagining what that would tell me.

 

There are missing/damaged caches where people have posted an NM. Some of the caches were repaired/replaced and sadly a couple will be archived due to owners no longer logging into their accounts.

A cache will not be archived for a COs' failure to log into their account. It will be archived due to the COs' failure to respond to the NA and fix their cache within the time space given by the reviewer.

[+Manville Possum]

I don't see anything sad about caches unmaintained by the cache owner being archived. Free up the area to active geocachers that care enough to maintain their geocaches and not depend on the community to fix or replace their caches.

[ZeekLTK]

It's hilarious how mad some people get over a perceived slight of an NM log.

 

We once found a cache that had a completely full log book. Well, it was full after we signed it. I logged the find saying: "Easy find on the way up to XXX. We used the very last spot in the log though - it's completely FULL now!" and then logged a "Needs Maintenance" just saying: "Log book is full."

 

Seemed simple enough, just letting him know he needs to go replace it soon. But a few days later the cache owner then sent me a very nasty email, very upset that I had logged a "Needs Maintenance" and basically telling me that I should just replace the paper myself. Pretty sure that's not my job...

 

Then, 12 days later, the very next person who found it also logged a "Needs Maintenance" saying the same thing: "Log is very full needs replacing."

 

I wonder what kind of email that guy got. lol

Edited June 20, 2016 by ZeekLTK

[+cerberus1]

It's hilarious how mad some people get over a perceived slight of an NM log.

 

We once found a cache that had a completely full log book. Well, it was full after we signed it. I logged the find saying: "Easy find on the way up to XXX. We used the very last spot in the log though - it's completely FULL now!" and then logged a "Needs Maintenance" just saying: "Log book is full."

 

Seemed simple enough, just letting him know he needs to go replace it soon. But a few days later the cache owner then sent me a very nasty email, very upset that I had logged a "Needs Maintenance" and basically telling me that I should just replace the paper myself. Pretty sure that's not my job...

 

Then, 12 days later, the very next person who found it also logged a "Needs Maintenance" saying the same thing: "Log is very full needs replacing."

 

I wonder what kind of email that guy got. lol

Maybe a brief note to a Reviewer or Groundspeak saying that the CO would like others to do maintenance for him (with the "nasty" email), might get it a Temp Disable until he comes to his senses.

 

On the other hand, we've received NM logs, to find that nobody bothered to flip the log sheet over, or (in one case) use the other side of the log book pages...

[+J Grouchy]

Sometimes I go through old caches I've logged and today I ran across one that had caught my attention. It had several 'found it' logs and a couple notes indicating that the cache - an ammo can - had apparently been crushed by a vehicle during clearing activity in the wooded area where it was hidden. What's so freaking hard to understand about the phrase "needs maintenance"?

 

[ZeekLTK]

Maybe a brief note to a Reviewer or Groundspeak saying that the CO would like others to do maintenance for him (with the "nasty" email), might get it a Temp Disable until he comes to his senses.

 

On the other hand, we've received NM logs, to find that nobody bothered to flip the log sheet over, or (in one case) use the other side of the log book pages...

 

Meh, it happened almost 3 years ago and the cache has since been archived (I wonder why? lol).