Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
d&bok

Why don't people log "Needs Maintenance"

Recommended Posts

I can't even begin the count the number of times we come upon a cache that obviously needs maintenance and see when logging in others mention it, but NEVER LOG A 'NEEDS MAINTENANCE' in. Does everyone assume the owner reads the logs each day?

 

Barb

Share this post


Link to post

If they are not reading the regular logs that mention the cache needs maintenance along the lines of log full, wet, etc., what makes you think they will read a needs maintenance log? I only log a needs maintenance log when other logs mentioning the problem are ignored or if there is really something wrong with the cache like the container is broken, full of mold, etc. The only reason I log a needs maintenance log is to raise the NM attribute so others can see it without reading logs. If you think it brings the all seeing eye of the reviewer, it does not. Only a needs archive is brought to the attention of a reviewer. I view needs maintenance logs as mostly redundant and useless, the only use is to attach the NM attribute for other cachers.

Share this post


Link to post

Is there a difference in email notifications to the CO between an a Needs Maintenance and other finds?

Share this post


Link to post

Is there a difference in email notifications to the CO between an a Needs Maintenance and other finds?

Not really.

Share this post


Link to post

Does everyone assume the owner reads the logs each day?

 

I am an owner who reads all the logs on my caches as they come in. I realize I am in the minority, but I find it slightly insulting when someone posts a 'NM' if there has been no previous mention of issues. <_<

 

If I am the first to note a problem, I simply mention it in my log.

If others have mentioned the problem, but nothing has been done (and no note from the CO acknowledging the problem), I will post a 'NM'.

 

It's too bad there are owners who won't do anything until threatened with archival, but sometimes that is what it takes. :(

Share this post


Link to post

I also read all the logs on our caches (we own 36, all within 10 miles of home). If there's a problem, such as a full logbook, a leaky container, or some other problem, I hope the last person to find, or DNF, the cache will be specific in their log. That tells me whether it needs to be a top priority to rush right over to the cache, or whether I can do a maintenance run the next time it's convenient. Like everyone else, we have obligations and duties not related to geocaching, so we can't always fix the problem immediately, but we do try to fix it quickly. Sometimes the container may be missing and we have to temporarily disable the cache till we can get a new container.

 

If someone simply posted a "needs maintenance" log we wouldn't have any idea what we needed to do. Information in the logs (or via a private e-mail if the problem would give away too much about the cache) is the best way to let the cache owner know about a problem!

Share this post


Link to post

If you think it brings the all seeing eye of the reviewer, it does not. Only a needs archive is brought to the attention of a reviewer.

 

Not entirely true. I don't know if this is the case everywhere, but in my area the reviewers conduct a monthly sweep of caches with an unanswered NM attribute. CO's are usually given a 30 day notice to preform maintenance and if they don't, the cache is archived on the next month's sweep.

 

When cachers fail to post a NM and just write something about it in their log, it allows caches that need maintenance to go unnoticed by reviewers for months and wastes subsequent searcher's time.

Share this post


Link to post

"Needs maintenance" logs can often be interpreted badly. I am much more likely to email the CO privately than to post a NM log.

 

My opinion is that NM logs tend to be for control freaks who need to make sure that their displeasure with a cache is visible publicly. Recently I have started just archiving caches when a NM log appears for a previously-unmentioned problem. I don't need the hassle of entitled finders added to my life.

 

But that's just me. I am sure there are some cache owners who love getting NM logs.

Share this post


Link to post

I am one of those CO that love it when people post a NM log. It get my attention at a different level. I am one of those CO that will never put down a cacher if they over use the NM or NA logs. I had someone use a NA log once and I never told them off like some of my area cachers do.

 

Other people will see how I react to NM or NA logs with a simple thank you on my owner maintenance log.

 

Anyone can be a cacher, but it takes a special breed to be a CO. Any CO that get their feelings hurt too easy when someone tell them something neg about their cache(like a wet log), they got no business being a CO. Again, being a CO isn't for everybody.

Share this post


Link to post

Posting a Needs maintenance means that the cache needs maintenance, and nothing more. Don't know why anyone would take it personally. I prefer that a NM be posted if there's a problem with my cache. I tend to forget when someone tells me I have a wet log or a full log. With a NM attribute, I will be reminded every time I view my cache page. Also, if the log is full, or wet, or something damaged, wouldn't you want to give some indication for the next cacher, or would you rather that they find the cache in disrepair? Not everyone reads past logs, but a NM will stick out like a sore thumb.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am an owner who reads all the logs on my caches as they come in. I realize I am in the minority, but I find it slightly insulting when someone posts a 'NM' if there has been no previous mention of issues. <_<

 

 

Holy cats, one person complaining about others not logging them and another complaining they do. Just maintain your cache and help your locals. Most misunderstandings aren't even an issue once you, (you as in the so-called experienced cacher) take the time to make friends before chastising.

 

 

 

bd

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post

People take a NM log personal.

The last time I posted one I got some offensive words back in a notice he wrote as an answer right above it.

 

If the owner is one from my area, I send him a message, and in this area, we take care of others cache anyway, so in case its fixable on side the most finders do this and only tell so in the log.

Share this post


Link to post

Does everyone assume the owner reads the logs each day?

 

I am an owner who reads all the logs on my caches as they come in. I realize I am in the minority, but I find it slightly insulting when someone posts a 'NM' if there has been no previous mention of issues. <_<

 

If I am the first to note a problem, I simply mention it in my log.

If others have mentioned the problem, but nothing has been done (and no note from the CO acknowledging the problem), I will post a 'NM'.

 

It's too bad there are owners who won't do anything until threatened with archival, but sometimes that is what it takes. :(

So the cacher who fills in the last spot on the log shouldn't post a NM that the log is full, but leave it to others (who now can't sign the log) to post the NM?? Or the first person to find the container is broken by a fallen branch isn't supposed to log a NM? There are so many times the first person to see the problem should be the first to post a NM.

 

It seems anything but a Found log is a negitive log - no DNF's because others may not look for it; no NM until a string of logs have already mentioned the problem; no NA because it's an insult. ???

Share this post


Link to post

Does everyone assume the owner reads the logs each day?

I realize I am in the minority, but I find it slightly insulting when someone posts a 'NM' if there has been no previous mention of issues. <_<

 

 

Huh? You lost me on that one. Someone has to be the first to post a NM, but if it was fine when the prior cacher found it, why would that be insulting?

Share this post


Link to post

 

I am an owner who reads all the logs on my caches as they come in. I realize I am in the minority, but I find it slightly insulting when someone posts a 'NM' if there has been no previous mention of issues. <_<

 

 

Holy cats, one person complaining about others not logging them and another complaining they do.

In most cases, I just mention the condition when doing my Found (or DNF) log, and leave it at that. Go figure. :anicute:

Edited by kunarion

Share this post


Link to post

"Needs maintenance" logs can often be interpreted badly. I am much more likely to email the CO privately than to post a NM log.

 

My opinion is that NM logs tend to be for control freaks who need to make sure that their displeasure with a cache is visible publicly. Recently I have started just archiving caches when a NM log appears for a previously-unmentioned problem. I don't need the hassle of entitled finders added to my life.

 

But that's just me. I am sure there are some cache owners who love getting NM logs.

 

Yikes! :o

 

I post NM whenever appropriate and so far, I've never received any hate mail. I dont see it as complaining, but rather giving the cache owner useful information and making it stand out, rather than being buried in the logs. When someone says one of my logs is almost full or the cache smell musty, I am VERY grateful. Rather than running around checking on all my caches, I can see which ones need attention.

 

I'm actually *annoyed* when I go to check on one of my caches and somethings' wrong and nobody told me. If I don't know what's wrong, I may or may not be prepared and may have to drive home to get whatever I need.

 

I actually post Needs Maintenance on my OWN caches so I can look at my list of caches and see at a glance by the "+' symbol which ones needs work. For those who have 100+ caches and do not read each and every log, posting NMs can help them alot. Just my 2 cents.

Edited by The_Incredibles_

Share this post


Link to post

"Needs maintenance" logs can often be interpreted badly. I am much more likely to email the CO privately than to post a NM log.

 

My opinion is that NM logs tend to be for control freaks who need to make sure that their displeasure with a cache is visible publicly. Recently I have started just archiving caches when a NM log appears for a previously-unmentioned problem. I don't need the hassle of entitled finders added to my life.

 

But that's just me. I am sure there are some cache owners who love getting NM logs.

So you show your contempt by archiving a cache that the poster of the NM log has already found? That'll show 'em! I can't help but think that if someone is willing to archive their own cache because they received one NM log, a lot of time and effort couldn't have gone into the cache in the first place to be willing to give it up so easily.

 

I actually do something similar. When someone posts a NM on one of my caches, it makes me so angry, so you know what I do? I run right out and maintain my cache! Then I go back home and post an Owner Maintenance log on the cache, so that NM icon goes away! Boy, doesn't the cacher who posted that NM log on my cache feel dumb when they look at the cache page later and see that I maintained my cache and the NM icon they put on my page is gone! And by "dumb" of course I mean appreciative...

Share this post


Link to post

"Needs maintenance" logs can often be interpreted badly. I am much more likely to email the CO privately than to post a NM log.

 

My opinion is that NM logs tend to be for control freaks who need to make sure that their displeasure with a cache is visible publicly. Recently I have started just archiving caches when a NM log appears for a previously-unmentioned problem. I don't need the hassle of entitled finders added to my life.

 

But that's just me. I am sure there are some cache owners who love getting NM logs.

So you show your contempt by archiving a cache that the poster of the NM log has already found? That'll show 'em! I can't help but think that if someone is willing to archive their own cache because they received one NM log, a lot of time and effort couldn't have gone into the cache in the first place to be willing to give it up so easily.

 

I should have clarified that I have only archived caches where a NM log came from a DNF. NM logs from finders are not so bad, though they can still be very annoying.

 

And your conclusion about the quality of the cache is, well, interesting. It is almost certainly not one you would have done, FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post

I wanted to add to this topic so I went back and checked my own NM history. Out of 333 cache finds, I have posted three NM logs.

 

The first was a NM about a really wet and falling apart logbook. It was in our early days of geocaching. Today I wouldn't bother, only add that we replaced the logbook in our find log.

 

The second was because someone had peed in the cache container and I wanted to make sure other cachers knew what they might find if it took the CO some time to respond. He ended up archiving.

 

The third was just a few months ago for a cache that had a troubled existence from day one. Then it got mowed over by an industrial weed whacker. I posted a detailed NM log and another local cacher posted a NA. The reviewer got involved right away and, after the standard 30 days, archived the cache.

 

Nowadays if there is an issue with the cache that I can't fix in the field, I will mention it in the find log and sometimes send the CO a message to let them know what is up - especially if giving details publicly about the issue would give away the hide. I think I would only use the NM for the sake of other cachers, as a warning so they don't waste their time on a severely damaged or compromised cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I as a CO really prefer a NM log if there is something people thinks needs my attention,

if I dont get a NM, all is considered to be in perfect shape and order !!

 

I do read almost all logs, many post a TFTC, and copy-paste logs

so those I dont read, some times it is easy to skip that one important line in a log,

like hole in container all is wet, just to let you know..

if I see things like this in a log, I hurry up and post a NM log my self on my own cache !!

this way it is easy to see later what caches need service,

I scroll down several pages of own caches every week look for red flags,

if none, all is perfect and I dont go out and check all caches my self.

 

so YES... please cache finders !!

USE NM much more !!

you help a CO to remember to fix stuff,

it is impossible for a CO to remember to take notes on a little paper with important service info

on all his caches while he reads 100 of find it logs every week.

 

By the way : PLEASE also use NA much more, when a CO clearly dont perform service over a long time.

Edited by OZ2CPU

Share this post


Link to post

I checked too; I've logged 8 NM logs vs. ~2500 finds. So not something I've done a lot.

 

Even though that number is low, I don't hesitate to log one when needed. Often when I find a cache needing maintenance there was already an earlier NM log - in that case I generally don't log another NM.

 

Of the 8 I logged:

 

- 4 were for damaged containers and/or soaking wet un-signable logs.

 

- 2 were for Multis where there was an obvious issue with a virtual stage. (the most memorable was where you needed to count things on a fountain, but the fountain had been removed for repair).

 

- 1 where the coordinates were ~200 feet out (and had been confirmed by many cachers who posted revised coordinates).

 

- 1 where the hide location was inappropriate. (Causing damage to a wall).

 

As a CO, I'm happy to get a NM log if a cache needs my attention. Got one the other day as the log was full.

Share this post


Link to post

>Got one the other day as the log was full.

 

that is also fine..

I got a NM when a log was HALVE full, thanks for a very erly help :-)

Share this post


Link to post

Posting a Needs maintenance means that the cache needs maintenance, and nothing more. Don't know why anyone would take it personally. I prefer that a NM be posted if there's a problem with my cache. I tend to forget when someone tells me I have a wet log or a full log.

 

My feelings about NM logs are similar to what fizzymagic wrote above. I do read every log I get for my caches and I do not forget what is written in logs and I react immediately if a problem arises. If someone tells me that the log book will be full soon in his found it log and in an additional NM log it feels to me that he either thinks that I'm not reading normal logs or that I am suffering from memory problems, both of which I regard as insulting.

 

In my opinion, NM logs should not be used in the first place before the cache owner had a chance to react.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
Why don't people log "Needs Maintenance"

 

I've never used this log.

 

Why? Because my experience is that there are cache owners who are paying attention, and cache owners who aren't. It really doesn't matter whether you use a special log type. Those who are paying attention will fix 'em, and those who aren't, won't.

 

And, as time has passed since the log came into use, the numbers of caches with NM icon that don't need maintenance is so great that the icon on the page is next to useless. Many many cache owners don't realize the icon is on their page, and/or have no clue how to clear it. You'll see cache after cache that's been repaired or replaced, but the icon is still there.

 

The second was because someone had peed in the cache container and I wanted to make sure other cachers knew what they might find if it took the CO some time to respond. He ended up archiving.

 

This seems like a reasonable use of the log to me - though there are so many caches with the NM icon attached that really don't need much, or aren't in any worse shape then the usual run of moldy old containers that I'm not sure how useful this is.

Still, attaching a warning with the red icon to a cache container full of human waste does seem like the right time to use this log. Thanks for providing a good example.

Share this post


Link to post

First I did as recommended in Groundspeak's support pages:

3.8. Caches That Need Maintenance

 

"FINDERS: If you find a geocache that is in need of some help (e.g. container is cracked, logbook is full or wet), please post a "Needs Maintenance" log on the cache page so the cache owner and the community is notified. This log adds an attribute to the page (looks like a colored cross) to alert other geocachers of the needed repairs."

 

Then I learned that some owners take it badly if NM is logged. So now I refrain from posting NM when I expect this would cause troubles and include the issue in my log/note.

 

Perhaps it would be easier (if you take NM personally) to know about your point of view if the listing clearly expresses your request: "Don't post NM, please contact owner first or write note or ....". Otherwise people will do as recommended and post NM.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps it would be easier (if you take NM personally) to know about your point of view if the listing clearly expresses your request: "Don't post NM, please contact owner first or write note or ....". Otherwise people will do as recommended and post NM.

 

I do not take NM logs personally, I just feel that double messages compare to reminding someone of the same thing more than once. Doing this without evidence that another person needs several reminders is something I regard as inpolite. There are exceptions of course, e.g. if no other log is written, or a problem has been reported before and no reaction has taken place.

 

Moreover, more than 50% of the log book full NM logs are not legitimate as the log book is not full (last page being used does not mean that the log book is full) and NM-attributes in such cases are extremely annoying.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

I think "Needs Maintenance" is well defined and documented, and useful if used as defined. If there is a problem that needs maintenance by the owner a finder should use NM. As it not only flags the problem for the owner (which some owners might not need), it also flags it with the status icon for other finders.

 

Other potential finders can notice the NM Icon, and look at the last NM log to see what the problem is. If the problem is a wet log, they may choose to find it anyway. If the problem is human waste in the cache, they may decide differently.

 

It is a shame that this is let down by:

 

1. Some cache owners taking the NM "badly". I've not seen this yet myself so I'm not sure how much of a problem it really is.

2. Owners not clearing the NM flag. If owners don't clear it (by doing a an "owner maintenance" log) then the icon/flag stays. Then the icon becomes less useful.

 

I know there was some recent education in the weekly newsletter about how to do maintenance and clear the flag.

 

I did a query of the active caches within 5 miles from me. I found:

 

277 without NM flag

36 with NM flag (about 11%)

 

Then I looked at those 36 in more detail. About half (15/36) it was clear that the problem had been fixed but the flag not cleared. These ranged from:

- Someone other than the owner fixed the problem (e.g. replaced a log)

- The owner fixed it, but didn't clear the flag.

 

What I found interesting was this: Quite a few of the owner fixed cases where the flag was not set involved a cache being disabled then enabled. E.g - cache reported as badly damaged. Owner confirms and disables the cache. Later he/she replaces and enables the cache. But as they never did a "Owner Maintenance" log the flag is not cleared.

 

Maybe an "Enable Listing" log should also clear the NM flag?

 

Other interesting ones - the NM log was because of inaccurate coordinates. The owner responded and updated the coordinates (but again, did not do an OM log).

Share this post


Link to post

Posting a Needs maintenance means that the cache needs maintenance, and nothing more.

 

+1 Put me down as another CO that likes the NM feature. I don't recall an NM being posted where the cache didn't need maintenance. I take pride in providing a cache in good condition. The NM is a good alert system. It prompts me to fix the cache quickly or disable the cache until I can get to it. That way finders don't think we've abandoned our cache or that we don't care about their caching experience. A note works fine too for us, but an NM says that there really is an issue with the cache that should be fixed asap.

Share this post


Link to post

I think "Needs Maintenance" is well defined and documented, and useful if used as defined. If there is a problem that needs maintenance by the owner a finder should use NM. As it not only flags the problem for the owner (which some owners might not need), it also flags it with the status icon for other finders.

 

If the cache owner reacts within a few hours, he/she certainly does not need repetitive messages (being told twice about a problem by the same person within a few minutes feels very annoying to me, I cannot change this feeling) and it also not necessary to flag the cache for other cachers in such situations. In my eyes there is a single reason for writing NM logs immediately: Lazyness in the logging process that allows all the logging be done in one step and as quickly as possible.

 

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the are owners who take (legitimate) NM personally like fizzymagic in post #8.

 

Some think there has to be something wrong with cachers logging NM, not believing a NM-log simply means cache 'needs maintainance', not expression of entitlement or character disorder.

 

I have heard stories about owners in my country that attack loggers because of things like logging 'lid is missing, water was standing in box' or 'box is broken' with very bad words and insulting names.

Share this post


Link to post

I think "Needs Maintenance" is well defined and documented, and useful if used as defined. If there is a problem that needs maintenance by the owner a finder should use NM. As it not only flags the problem for the owner (which some owners might not need), it also flags it with the status icon for other finders.

 

If the cache owner reacts within a few hours, he/she certainly does not need repetitive messages (being told twice about a problem by the same person within a few minutes feels very annoying to me, I cannot change this feeling) and it also not necessary to flag the cache for other cachers in such situations. In my eyes there is a single reason for writing NM logs immediately: Lazyness in the logging process that allows all the logging be done in one step and as quickly as possible.

 

 

Cezanne

That's a big IF. How is a cache finder supposed to know how quickly a CO will respond to a problem? A NM log is not just a report to the CO, but also to the community. Maybe, to ease your annoyance, you should promote the idea of not putting the problem in the found log, just the NM log - you still get two logs but only one report of the problem. Do you also get annoyed if several people (group find) all mention a problem with the cache?

Share this post


Link to post

If the cache owner reacts within a few hours, he/she certainly does not need repetitive messages (being told twice about a problem by the same person within a few minutes feels very annoying to me, I cannot change this feeling) and it also not necessary to flag the cache for other cachers in such situations. In my eyes there is a single reason for writing NM logs immediately: Lazyness in the logging process that allows all the logging be done in one step and as quickly as possible.

 

I'm probably just misunderstanding - but I don't understand this. If I find a cache which I think needs owner maintenance I can do one of 3 things:

 

1. Say nothing.

2. Mention it in my Found log (or could be DNF log).

3. Log my find and then log a separate NM log.

 

Option 3 is more work; so I don't understand lazyness as the motivation. Unless what you mean is you would prefer the finder to do option 2; then monitor your cache and if he/she doesn't see any action from the owner in 2 weeks (or whatever) then raise an NM log. I don't think that is realistic; it is not "lazyness" - but all I want to do is report a problem. I don't want to take on monitoring your cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the are owners who take (legitimate) NM personally like fizzymagic in post #8.

 

"Finding annoying" != "taking personally."

 

The NM guidelines effectively make any NM, no matter how picayune, "legitimate."

Share this post


Link to post

Unless what you mean is you would prefer the finder to do option 2; then monitor your cache and if he/she doesn't see any action from the owner in 2 weeks (or whatever) then raise an NM log. I don't think that is realistic; it is not "lazyness" - but all I want to do is report a problem. I don't want to take on monitoring your cache.

 

Yes, that is exactly what I prefer if someone wants to flag a cache with a NM icon. I do not have a 2 weeks period in mind, however, but rather a few hours in cases where no urgent action is needed. Messages like "logbook will be full soon" do not warrant alerting other cachers and repeating the message twice, once in a NM log and once in a normal log.

 

Reporting a problem is fine, but I feel treated like an idiot if the problem is reported twice by the same person within a few minutes.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

That's a big IF. How is a cache finder supposed to know how quickly a CO will respond to a problem?

 

They can simply wait a few hours and see what happens.

 

 

Do you also get annoyed if several people (group find) all mention a problem with the cache?

 

Definitely, no. I do not expect cachers to read the logs of other cachers.

 

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Posting a Needs maintenance means that the cache needs maintenance, and nothing more.

 

+1 Put me down as another CO that likes the NM feature. I don't recall an NM being posted where the cache didn't need maintenance. I take pride in providing a cache in good condition. The NM is a good alert system. It prompts me to fix the cache quickly or disable the cache until I can get to it. That way finders don't think we've abandoned our cache or that we don't care about their caching experience. A note works fine too for us, but an NM says that there really is an issue with the cache that should be fixed asap.

+2 I read every log posted and to me Needs Maintenance means just that and I appreciate the notice that something is not up to par. It also gets me up and out to fix the problem and what the heck find a cache while I'm out.

 

When time is short and I have to decide which caches I am going to look for, a NM log tells me to look at the other logs to see if I should go for it or pick another. I do agree, however that a NM posted for a DNF requires only a Maintenance done log, and nothing else, as there is no way the logger knows if maintenance is needed if they didn't find it!

Share this post


Link to post

That's a big IF. How is a cache finder supposed to know how quickly a CO will respond to a problem?

 

They can simply wait a few hours and see what happens.

 

 

I generally don't revisit cache pages to see if the owner has done maintenance. If I mention in my find log that there is an issue, then that is as far as it goes. And my experience from the caches in my area - on the Wet Coast where soggy logs are a way of life - is that owners may do maintenance but they rarely post a note or owner maintenance log saying that they have done so.

Share this post


Link to post

That's a big IF. How is a cache finder supposed to know how quickly a CO will respond to a problem?

 

They can simply wait a few hours and see what happens.

 

 

I generally don't revisit cache pages to see if the owner has done maintenance. If I mention in my find log that there is an issue, then that is as far as it goes.

 

That's fine with me anyway. I just feel treated like an idiot or a log-ignorer if the same message is sent twice.

 

And my experience from the caches in my area - on the Wet Coast where soggy logs are a way of life - is that owners may do maintenance but they rarely post a note or owner maintenance log saying that they have done so.

 

That will not change regardless of whether and when NM logs are written.

 

In any case, I do not want to be punished because others do not take care or their caches or read logs only if they are of a special type. In my opinion, it belongs to one's duty a cache owner to read every log in detail regardless of its type.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

 

That's fine with me anyway. I just feel treated like an idiot or a log-ignorer if the same message is sent twice.

 

<snip>

 

In any case, I do not want to be punished because others do not take care or their caches or read logs only if they are of a special type. In my opinion, it belongs to one's duty a cache owner to read every log in detail regardless of its type.

 

Cezanne

 

I'm sure no one thinks you are an idiot when they post a NM log. In fact, considering how many incorrect logs are created, one should not be surprised or insulted at any log they receive.

 

Finders will say what finders will say. Owners will read or not read. The biggest problem with this game is that humans are playing it :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure no one thinks you are an idiot when they post a NM log.

 

That might well be, but I feel treated line one if the message is a repeated one.

 

In fact, considering how many incorrect logs are created, one should not be surprised or insulted at any log they receive.

 

I'm very considerate when dealing with logs - regardless of whether my own or logs by others. I do pay attention what I log and it could never happen to me e.g. to log a wrong cache or to forget what someone wrote in a log for one my own caches.

 

Finders will say what finders will say. Owners will read or not read.

 

Still I think that it is a very bad habit not to pay full attention to each log, regardless of its type. Many years geocaching worked well without NM logs and NM attributes.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the are owners who take (legitimate) NM personally like fizzymagic in post #8.

 

"Finding annoying" != "taking personally

 

Well, then I simply misunderstood

 

Recently I have started just archiving caches when a NM log appears for a previously-unmentioned problem. I don't need the hassle of entitled finders added to my life.

 

as taking NM logs personally.

Share this post


Link to post
The NM guidelines effectively make any NM, no matter how picayune, "legitimate."
So is the problem that people post NM logs? Or is the problem that people post picayune NM logs?

 

I can see how it would be annoying to receive picayune NM logs about trackables listed as being in your cache that are no longer there, or about one of the pens in your cache no longer working, or about the lack of kid-friendly trade items in your T4.5 cache. But there are real reasons to post NM logs, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I see a 'NM' log as saying, 'Hey stupid! Didn't you notice your cache has a problem?'

 

As a CO who reads EVERY log on my caches, I absolutely appreciate it when finders note any issues in their found log.

 

Full (or more hopefully just nearly full) log?

 

Duly noted by me.

 

Container damaged?

 

Duly noted by me.

 

Some other issue causing problems?

 

Duly noted by me.

 

I can triage these issues for myself, and I don't need anyone escalating a minor issue like a nearly full log (and I have replace 'full' logs with room for 20 more signatures more than once) into a bigger deal than it is.

 

Perhaps there should be a challenge cache based on posting a certain number of NM logs. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I file a NM log because I think the log needs maintenance. I'm sorry that other people use NMs to insult COs -- apparently -- but that's no reason to ignore the functional difference between a log explaining why I think the cache needs attention and a log describing my visit.

 

As to the original question, there are many reasons people in your area might not file NMs when they are needed, but my first guess is that it's just the local culture: people don't file NMs because they never see anyone else file NMs. About all you can do is change that by filing NMs yourself. Then you might find out that there's a secondary reason, such as one or more touchy COs.

 

The key, I think, it to keep NMs technical and specific, explaining exactly what you think needs done and why. One can only hope that a lack of emotion in an NM will minimize the number of people that hear in their minds "Hey stupid!" whenever they see a NM. If you want to get emotional about a problem, put that in your Found log.

Share this post


Link to post

I can triage these issues for myself, and I don't need anyone escalating a minor issue like a nearly full log (and I have replace 'full' logs with room for 20 more signatures more than once) into a bigger deal than it is.

What do you mean when you say an NM escalates an issue? A full log is an issue, and an NM duly notes it. I don't mention full logs in my Found log because that would be irrelevant to my finding the cache. I post an NM in addition instead. How is that bad in your eyes?

 

Yes, an NM raises a red flag -- literally -- but why is that not appropriate for a cache that can no longer be signed, regardless of how quickly you think you'll be able to run out and replace the log?

Share this post


Link to post

As a cache owner if your caches are checked periodically and maintained, a NM log should not be a big deal. I still do not understand a CO that is offended by a NM log. There is one locally who had repeated logs stating his books were full. Someone posted a NM log and the CO abruptly archived all their caches in the area stating other cachers should have put in a new log book. Out of my nearly 1100 finds, I have 18 NM logs. If I do not have stuff to repair, I will post a NM log without hesitation.

Share this post


Link to post

I just feel treated like an idiot or a log-ignorer if the same message is sent twice.

Personally, I see a 'NM' log as saying, 'Hey stupid! Didn't you notice your cache has a problem?'

I'm sorry that you guys take a NM log so personally. But you've read the guidelines and can see that's not the intent of the NM log. I don't think the GC needs to cater to CO's who have added their own meaning to a valid function of the website. To be clear, the NM log is NOT just to let the CO know, but to let the cache finding community also know there is a problem. If I'm looking for a cache to find - say within those "few" hours between the report and the fixing - I can see the icon and easily scroll down to that log to see how serious it is (do I try for it or not?). Without that functionality I may go for a cache that's unfindable/unsignable/etc. - that's a risk with any cache, but one with a problem report should be visible to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
I did a query of the active caches within 5 miles from me. I found:

 

277 without NM flag

36 with NM flag (about 11%)

 

Then I looked at those 36 in more detail. About half (15/36) it was clear that the problem had been fixed but the flag not cleared. These ranged from:

- Someone other than the owner fixed the problem (e.g. replaced a log)

- The owner fixed it, but didn't clear the flag.

 

What I found interesting was this: Quite a few of the owner fixed cases where the flag was not set involved a cache being disabled then enabled. E.g - cache reported as badly damaged. Owner confirms and disables the cache. Later he/she replaces and enables the cache. But as they never did a "Owner Maintenance" log the flag is not cleared.

 

I see similar numbers in my area.

 

Roughly half of NM Icons on cache page don't have any meaning - either the maintenance has been done, but the icon not cleared, or there was never any need in the first place (often DNFs mis-logged as NM).

 

To me, an icon which has only a 50/50 chance of providing any info is absolutely useless.

I consider this log type a failure.

Share this post


Link to post

It's obvious from some of the responses here why many cachers are hesitant to log NMs. They are considered by some cache owners to be insulting or the work of attention craving, control freaks. Who wants to invoke the ire of a cantankerous cache owner?

 

If cache owners accepted NM logs for what they are, simply an additional tool to let the community and cache owner know that there is an issue with a cache, not an affront, not a "hey look at me!", then more people would use them.

 

As far as using the regular logs, like many owners of multiple caches I can get dozens of logs on a nice weekend. I try to read each one, but once in a while some fall through the cracks. And to be perfectly frank, since these days most of the logs say nothing more than "found it" or "TFTC", reading the logs is no longer at the top of my to do list when I go online. A NM log however stands out and gets my attention. It is one log that I will open immediately.

 

I wish people would use them more. When I get a log that says my cache is wet, I wonder why it wasn't accompanied by a NM. Now I have to take a mental note, and as I get older the sticky glue on my mental notes isn't as strong as it used to be. I've taken to logging NMs on my own caches when a I see a log that mentions an issue. That way I can easily see what caches need my attention.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...