Why don't people log "Needs Maintenance"

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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

 

I think you may be reading too much into what fizzymagic wrote. My take on it was that if there was a cache (and specifically how people were logging it) that was reducing his enjoyment as a cache owner he'd rather archive it than keep it alive just so someone could claim a find on it. To suggest that he keeps a cache active, even if he's not enjoying the ownership aspect related to that cache just so others can log a find on it, does, to me smack of entitlement.

[AZcachemeister]

 

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.

 

So you're saying the only way to really know the condition of the cache is to read a few recent logs?

 

How totally retro!

 

I like the old days.

[+OZ2CPU]

pr my definition, if there is NO RED FLAG.. my cache is in perfect order,

and I as a CO dont need to go there or read any logs to know any more about it,

offcourse I am welcome to read and enjoy logs, I do, and it is fine..

but I dont need to..

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

That happened to me recently. Someone mentioned in their log, back in May, that the logbook in one of our caches was wet. But the next 3 cachers didn't say anything about a wet or damp log (the container is an authentic lock & lock only about 6 months old, it should have kept the contents dry) so it slipped my mind. Then last week we got a NM about a moldy log. I immediately disabled it, got to it this weekend. The logbook was nasty - I'm guessing the tabs didn't get locked down at some point or something got caught in the seal. I'm so glad that the last finder posted an NM and thanked them in my Enabled/OM log.

[+TomToad]

I have my Google Mail filters set to text me when a Needs maintenance is posted on any of my caches. If a person doesn't post a NM on the cache, I might not know of a problem until the next time I get around to reading my email. There have been a couple of times I have checked on a cache to notice the log book completely full, or some other problem with a cache. Check back logs and find that no one even mentions the problem or they briefly mention it within a long post. I might be tired, or other problems on my mind when I read the post and totally miss any mention of the problem. At least with a NM flag, I can see there is a problem every time I check on my cache page.

 

As for finders using the NM flag, true that often the NM flag is not cleared properly. But at least when I'm looking at a cache with the NM set, I can look at the logs to see if there is still a problem or not. I personally prefer not to look at logs before searching for a cache to prevent spoilers, but will make an exception if I see a NM on it (I will at least look at the NM log to see what the problem is, and read any notes afterward to see if there is any mention of it being fixed).

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

I did a query for local caches with a NM icon. Then I checked the 10 nearest. I'm seeing some interesting information. Most of the COs did the right thing and disabled their caches until they can get out to fix them. Often NMs that are not addressed indicate an abandoned cache subsequently being maintained by the community, reviewers send Reviewer Notes but did not archive. Only one on this list is a result of an active CO not posting a follow-up OM (after someone else replaced the missing log).

 

1. Disabled -- The puzzle needs updating since building names have changed. The cache is missing. CO disabled in May. Got a Reviewer note in July.

2. Disabled -- The container has holes chewed into it by rodents, contents very wet. Disabled by CO in June.

3. Stump that container is concealed in has deteriorated and despite efforts to cover with bark the container location is obvious.

4. Disabled -- Logbook is soaking wet and full. Disabled by CO.

5. Abandoned cache. No logbook for long time until someone put in some paper. NM: Dec 2009, Jan 2010 Reviewer Note: March 2010 NM: Sep 2010. Oct 2010 someone added a logsheet. Cache is active.

6. CO has not posted an OM -- Aug 2012 NM: missing logbook, Sep 2012 a finder left a logbook. .

7. Disabled -- 3 DNFs in May & June followed by a NM in June followed by a Disabled that same day.

8. Abandoned cache. Cache muggled/destroyed. NMs logs Oct 2010, multiple Found logs mentioning destroyed status, a finder that posted one of the NMs goes back in Nov and puts a new container and logbook, Reviewer Note: June 2011, the cache is still active.

9. NM July 2012 - lid missing, logbook wet and full. Couple of reports about a wet log since April 2012 but no one posted an NM and no response from CO.

10. Disabled -- 11 DNFs in a row over 2 months, followed by a NM, followed by a disabled by CO

Edited July 10, 2012 by L0ne R

[+Crow-T-Robot]

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

Come on now. You can't seriously expect someone to log their find and then wait a few hours...days...weeks...whatever time frame you think is appropriate...to log a NM.

I guess I can understand the angst of getting the same message in two seperate logs but I seriously doubt that anyone who posts a find and a NM log with the same wording is doing it because they want to imply you're an idiot who can't read. I can't stop you from feeling that way, obviously, but it seems as though you're taking it as a slap in the face when it isn't.

 

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.

 

The problem with this is that you're projecting. You're obviously a very attentive owner who takes ownership seriously. That's cool. But NM isn't just for the owner. As you've noted, a CO who cares will take care of issues without needing a NM log. But how many times have we seen caches with absentee owners go missing and there are long strings of DNF logs? In cases like that, I don't think of a NM log as pointing out a problem as much as it is an ice-breaker. After a string of DNF's, someone logs a NM and the next thing you know, someone posts an NA, the reviewer gets involved and the cache is archived. Without that NM, it's almost like noone wants to be the "bad guy" who points out that the cache is gone and the owner doesn't care and the listing just sits in limbo for months with no cache to find.

If you truly feel like the person posting the NM is insulting you, then that's on you, not the person logging.

[+Chokecherry]

With how owners react these days I'm hesitant to even mention a problem a regular log let alone log a NM and I have a history of logging NM logs without issue.

 

That being said I do take into consideration the NM logs on caches and agree with another poster who stated that it encourages them to look at the logs more closely. Sometimes the issues have been resolved but I find a lot of times the issues still stand. I can't say I have found a cache with a NM attribute where the issue was truly resolved by the cache owner.

[+OZ2CPU]

>With how owners react these days I'm hesitant to even mention a problem

 

that would really be a shame, and not good for a most valid last repport of a cache state of health.

the idea is YOU leave a short and honost status repport of a cache you visit,

if you only leave a status repport when you got good to tell,

you prevent bad stuff from beeing fixed.

 

surely some people got a different view of what needs service,

what it good, great, and bad,

but if you are just as honost as you can be, you help people,

not make them angry or offended.

[+ScoutDadNC]

I use a NM log when it is something that I cannot readily fix. I usually carry around a reserve of logbooks in various sizes and styles. This way if I go through and find an interesting cache that may have a wet or full log book, I replace it. I note it in the logbook, and slip it into a baggie and place in the cache.

 

If it is something that I cannot fix, broken Lock n Lock, then I will post a NM. That way the CO can see that I was there, there was an issue, and if possible, I tried to fix it. I have replaced film canisters on reasonable caches. Some of them are fun.

 

I hope that if you go to one of my caches and see that there is a problem, you post a NM log and give me time to see it. I only have 11 hides right now, and they are not in a major traveled area. So as I get logs, I can look at them.

 

As for the NA, there was a cache that was always poking at me every time i did a search on my area. A cache buddy and I had gone out there at least 4 times each to see if we could find it. We looked high and low. No luck. We were not the only ones to DNF the cache. I looked at when it was hidden and when it was last found. I also look at the CO's profile page. THis particular one had not been found in over a year, and the CO had not even logged on in 2 years. I posted a NA for it.

 

I think they can be used in a great way. People need to get off of their high horses. What is the big deal if you cannot find a cache. Maybe the CO is just better at hiding then yo are at seeking. Use the logs right and we will have a good game.

[cezanne]

 

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.

 

Come on now. You can't seriously expect someone to log their find and then wait a few hours...days...weeks...whatever time frame you think is appropriate...to log a NM.

I guess I can understand the angst of getting the same message in two seperate logs but I seriously doubt that anyone who posts a find and a NM log with the same wording is doing it because they want to imply you're an idiot who can't read. I can't stop you from feeling that way, obviously, but it seems as though you're taking it as a slap in the face when it isn't.

 

Actually, I have been against the whole principle of NM logs right from the beginning. The second possible interpretation apart from being considered as idiot who needs the same information twice is that it is assumed that is normal for cache owners only to read special log types (some in this thread even write so). I am even more against this attitude than against NM logs. I regard it as normal duty (not an optional task) to read every log one receives for a one's caches.

 

In any case, if someone writes a NM log for a cache of mine, the probability that I will archive it sooner or later increases considerably while when treated in the way it was normal back then when I started, I might get an extra push of motivation to keep a cache living even in this modern times of geocaching where almost everything has changed in such a way that I do not like it.

 

Cezanne

[+niraD]

The second possible interpretation apart from being considered as idiot who needs the same information twice

Do others really put "the same information twice", once in the NM log and again in the Found It log? I might mention that there were issues in my Found It log, but the details are only in the NM log.

 

is that it is assumed that is normal for cache owners only to read special log types (some in this thread even write so).I am even more against this attitude than against NM logs. I regard it as normal duty (not an optional task) to read every log one receives for a one's caches.

Even those of us who do read every log may not give all logs the same priority. At work, I read every email I receive. But some email is automatically directed to folders that I read when I have a spare moment, and other email is automatically directed to folders that I read ASAP. This seems very normal to me. I automatically sort my personal email the same way.

 

As another example, I've found a cache where there was an urgent problem, and I posted a NM log immediately using my mobile device. The Found It went into my field notes, and I got around to posting the log later, when it was convenient, when I had a real keyboard. So cache seekers can prioritize NM logs higher as well.

[+OZ2CPU]

today I found a cache page,

another user found the cache and made both a found-it and a NM log with detailed info about what is needed,

3 days later CO performs service, and writes lound and clear how happy he is for the NM log so he could fix it..

 

very nice.. a CO who uses the system, and spend his spare time where it matters most,

I as a finder rather have a CO read only the NM logs and check for red flags and FIX stuff,

over read hundreds of emails with TFTC every day and maybe find a little hint or clue of some service maybe needed

and remember to take notes what needs to be done where,

that is impossible if you got many caches you love to keep in good shape,

like I do for one example.

 

if (when) you get a NM log, be happy,

it is good info for you, it show people care about higher quality and higher service level..

I be more sad if no one care at all :-)

[cezanne]

The second possible interpretation apart from being considered as idiot who needs the same information twice

Do others really put "the same information twice", once in the NM log and again in the Found It log? I might mention that there were issues in my Found It log, but the details are only in the NM log.

 

As mainentance issues are regarded, yes, typically the same information is duplicated.

The most common text is anyhow "logbook full" and in more than 50% of the cases this is not true.

Even more annoying NM logs are "change the cache type" if someone dares to use micro for a nano which is correct or newbies that post NM logs if they cannot find a cache (instead of DNF). In my opinion, there would be much less frustration of that type without NM logs.

 

As another example, I've found a cache where there was an urgent problem, and I posted a NM log immediately using my mobile device. The Found It went into my field notes, and I got around to posting the log later, when it was convenient, when I had a real keyboard. So cache seekers can prioritize NM logs higher as well.

 

In that case I do not receive both logs at the same time and moreover, issues that are urgent are an exception anyway.

The most typical NM logs are written at the same time when found it logs and are not urgent at all.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

I regard it as normal duty (not an optional task) to read every log one receives for a one's caches.

While I read every log, I don't have 1000+ caches hidden. I think it's unreasonable to think a CO with lots of hides would read every log. Found logs just aren't that important.

 

In any case, if someone writes a NM log for a cache of mine, the probability that I will archive it sooner or later increases considerably...

I'm sorry to hear that. Do you really get so many NMs that they're a significant issue? I can't imagine why someone that thinks it's his duty to read each and every log would give a hoot about reading the occasional NM in addition.

[cezanne]

if (when) you get a NM log, be happy,

it is good info for you, it show people care about higher quality and higher service level..

I be more sad if no one care at all :-)

 

I hide only caches that typically get more than TFTC logs and I hide only as many caches as I can handle including reading all the incoming logs. That has been part of my geocaching stance since 2002. I do not need anyone who tells me that if a log book is damp, it needs to be changed. That's pretty much obvious. I hate this kind of statements which read like commands.

 

I'm thankful to get status reports, but that's all. I do not need others to decide for me what I need to do.

There is no correlation between NM logs and quality.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

As mainentance issues are regarded, yes, typically the same information is duplicated.

Yes, it's unfortunate that many people don't properly separate the maintenance issues from the visit description, and complete duplication is only a little more silly than the NM that says "see Found log". I'm still not seeing why that's a problem, though.

 

The most common text is anyhow "logbook full" and in more than 50% of the cases this is not true.

Even more annoying NM logs are "change the cache type" if someone dares to use micro for a nano which is correct or newbies that post NM logs if they cannot find a cache (instead of DNF). In my opinion, there would be much less frustration of that type without NM logs.

...

The most typical NM logs are written at the same time when found it logs and are not urgent at all.

Ah, I see. You're getting stupid NMs. Well, I can see you complaining about that, but it still seems kinda lame to use that as a reason to object to NMs in general. Just post a OM describing why the NM was in error and move on.

[cezanne]

 

Ah, I see. You're getting stupid NMs. Well, I can see you complaining about that, but it still seems kinda lame to use that as a reason to object to NMs in general. Just post a OM describing why the NM was in error and move on.

 

It is not necessarily me who is getting those logs - they are just predominant in my area.

 

Personally, I object against posting performed maintenance if they have not been at the cache location.

 

One of my reasons for being against NM is that this system encourages to prioritize certain logs or even ignore some type of logs and I am strictly against that. Moreover, I'm personall hesitant against anything that helps in automatizing the caching process. Without (edit: instead of with) automatization, a whole lot less caches were hidden and searched for and that would be a something I'd appreciate very much.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 12, 2012 by cezanne

[+Chokecherry]

>With how owners react these days I'm hesitant to even mention a problem

 

that would really be a shame, and not good for a most valid last repport of a cache state of health.

the idea is YOU leave a short and honost status repport of a cache you visit,

if you only leave a status repport when you got good to tell,

you prevent bad stuff from beeing fixed.

 

surely some people got a different view of what needs service,

what it good, great, and bad,

but if you are just as honost as you can be, you help people,

not make them angry or offended.

 

Last time I left a detailed message of the issue I encountered so that the owner would have absolutely all information possible so they didn't waste a trip I got not one but a handful of absolutely flaming nasty emails back and a deleted log and then in one of the nasty grams the owner noted that my message wasn't actually read so the owner didn't actually know where I was. It was a pretty serious issue which at least one other finder encountered as well and noted but I noticed that log was also deleted and then resubmitted.

 

After that experience and apologizing many many times for apparently insulting that person I decided you know this is a hobby for me and it's not worth the angst that some people put into it. It's something I do in my free time and if owners are going to get that touchy over mentioning something (that in this case was grossly awry) it's really not worth it to me. I don't want to deal with nasty overly defensive emails. If someone mentioned an issue with either of my caches I wouldn't care. It's the nature of the cache. They need a little love sometimes. I don't see it as a personal failure to have to go maintain something but apparently some people do. So I'm done even mentioning issues in my logs. Rather have fun than deal with dramatic cachers that make this their life.

[+The Jester]

 

Ah, I see. You're getting stupid NMs. Well, I can see you complaining about that, but it still seems kinda lame to use that as a reason to object to NMs in general. Just post a OM describing why the NM was in error and move on.

 

It is not necessarily me who is getting those logs - they are just predominant in my area.

 

Personally, I object against posting performed maintenance if they have not been at the cache location.

 

One of my reasons for being against NM is that this system encourages to prioritize certain logs or even ignore some type of logs and I am strictly against that. Moreover, I'm personall hesitant against anything that helps in automatizing the caching process. With automatization, a whole lot less caches were hidden and searched for and that would be a something I'd appreciate very much.

 

Cezanne

I think you need to rephrase this post, as it doesn't make sense to me.

 

Are you complaining about log emails you get, or that you see on caches in your area?

 

I think you're objecting to posting a OM log without the CO going to the cache. Correct?

 

Are you for or against "automatizing"? One sentence has "against anything that helps in automatizing", the next "With automatization...that would be something I'd appreciate very much."

[cezanne]

 

I think you need to rephrase this post, as it doesn't make sense to me.

 

YOou are right. I was too tired and wrote with instead without. I have now edited by post above.

 

Are you complaining about log emails you get, or that you see on caches in your area?

 

No, not about log emails. I was commenting about the typical NMs logs I see in my area.

With a local site, I can have a look at specific log types and I typically monitor (manually) NM, NA and DNF logs in a certain

area.

 

I think you're objecting to posting a OM log without the CO going to the cache. Correct?

 

No, not really. However, I am certainly not willing to use performed maintenance without having been at the concerned cache.

So, silly NM logs are a particular annoyance for me.

 

Are you for or against "automatizing"? One sentence has "against anything that helps in automatizing", the next "With automatization...that would be something I'd appreciate very much."

 

Against. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

 

Cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

However, I am certainly not willing to use performed maintenance without having been at the concerned cache.

So, silly NM logs are a particular annoyance for me.

 

To me it depends on the type of maintenance. If the NM log relates to the cache page itself (e.g. that the listed size is "wrong") then this does not require a visit. Either the owner agrees the size is listed wrong and edits the page, or (using your example) you explain that "micro" is the correct size for a nano. Either way I see no issue with doing an OM without visiting the cache. Note - personally for this case where the size listed really is wrong, I've not raised an NM, but I may mention it in my found log.

 

If the NM is complaining about a wet log, full log, broken container, etc - yes you need to visit to fix it and correct it.

 

A grey area is when it is a physical problem but someone else fixes it for you. E.g. there is a NM "log is full". Next finder adds a new logbook and states this in their online log. Do you trust they actually fixed it and do an OM to clear the flag, or do you visit the cache to check? Ideally the owner should check, but I don't see a problem with trusting the log of another who performed the maintenance.

[+OZ2CPU]

to Chokecherry

wow that is a terrible story, thanks for sharing,

so now you never give any kinds of negative status info about any caches you find ?

just a: "all is perfect and thanks alot :-)"

no matter how much service it needs ?

 

come on, you meet really bad people once in a while,

once I was nearly attacked on a gas station simple since someone thinks he needed gas before me,

compleetly crasy behaviour of a mad man with a sick head,

offcourse I stil go to gas stations..

 

really bad people are also in geocaching,

hopefully you only meet one pr million logs you make :-)

so just forget him, and stay away from any other of his caches,

and you just try to be happy.

look at all the happy and friendly and helpfull people you meet anywhere out there

specially at events, all are so happy and nice..

I say 99.99% are really top nice.. and just want the best out of their hobby.

[cezanne]

However, I am certainly not willing to use performed maintenance without having been at the concerned cache.

So, silly NM logs are a particular annoyance for me.

 

To me it depends on the type of maintenance. If the NM log relates to the cache page itself (e.g. that the listed size is "wrong") then this does not require a visit.

 

Actually, I do not accept this as maintenance. Logging performed maintenance is in my eyes also kind of a green light that the cache is alright.

Modifiying the cache listing is not what I regard as doing maintenance. So I would not want to log performed maintenance if someone logs NM "Log book is full" and I have the proof that the logbook is not full, but have not visited the cache.

 

Either the owner agrees the size is listed wrong and edits the page, or (using your example) you explain that "micro" is the correct size for a nano. Either way I see no issue with doing an OM without visiting the cache. Note - personally for this case where the size listed really is wrong, I've not raised an NM, but I may mention it in my found log.

 

I do have an issue for the reasons explained above.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited July 12, 2012 by cezanne

[cezanne]

I say 99.99% are really top nice.. and just want the best out of their hobby.

 

But that still can mean that people want completely different things as the best is quite subjective.

For example, I appreciate everything that makes it hard too impossible to hide powertrails.

 

Without powertrails and other sorts of mass cache agglomerations, cachers would have time to read normal logs as well - hence no special alert required.

 

Cezanne

[+Chokecherry]

to Chokecherry

wow that is a terrible story, thanks for sharing,

so now you never give any kinds of negative status info about any caches you find ?

just a: "all is perfect and thanks alot :-)"

no matter how much service it needs ?

 

come on, you meet really bad people once in a while,

once I was nearly attacked on a gas station simple since someone thinks he needed gas before me,

compleetly crasy behaviour of a mad man with a sick head,

offcourse I stil go to gas stations..

 

really bad people are also in geocaching,

hopefully you only meet one pr million logs you make :-)

so just forget him, and stay away from any other of his caches,

and you just try to be happy.

look at all the happy and friendly and helpfull people you meet anywhere out there

specially at events, all are so happy and nice..

I say 99.99% are really top nice.. and just want the best out of their hobby.

 

This is just a hobby for me. There are many people who make this their entire life and take it personally and seriously. We people who see this as just a hobby don't mesh will with those people who make this a life thing. The fact we're even having a discussion on the NM thing indicates that as well. For me it's just an extra piece of information for me to look at finding a cache. For my caches I own it's extra info that something may be needed. I don't take it personally but apparently some people are bothered either finding or hiding caches with that flag so much so that there is now a thread about it with all these crazy nuanced situations where one may or may not use the the log.

 

To me on the surface it's perfectly simple. If the cache needs some love you put the log up. Be it a log book issue or a wet cache issue or a cache page issue. But some people obviously don't think that and make this overly complicated for anyone who just wnats to do this as a hobby. Or attribute entirely too many feeling to the log. It takes seconds to clear the log if the owners wanted to on their caches. It's really not that big of a deal but people make it into a big deal.

 

For me to keep my sanity after not even using the log with an issue (I can't even imagine the meltdown the owner would have had then). I just do a log noting I found the cache now (unless the cache is impressive then I do a longer log). I have no desire to ruffle another cache owners feathers. If there's a problem someone else who takes this way more seriously than I do can.

[+OZ2CPU]

I see, maybe just make a litte friendly hint in a very nice way

 

like you find a cache in terrible condition, compleetly wet and clearly need urgent service.

your log : nice location, nice hike, I had a perfect cache day, Tanks alot for this cache,

log is wet.

 

I think starting with a lot positive things, and just mention a bit of the negative

with out too much fuzz about, maybe a better way, maybe it dont make CO angry.

then if you are affraight of posting a NM (no rule say you NEED it, even if clearly needed)

then dont, and be happy.. you said log is wet, no need to say more..

but totally ignoring a cache in need, is not smart, just a little friendly hint then :-)

[+redsox_mark]

 

Actually, I do not accept this as maintenance. Logging performed maintenance is in my eyes also kind of a green light that the cache is alright.

Modifiying the cache listing is not what I regard as doing maintenance.

 

Ok, that is your prerogative.

 

And I accept that in general NM is to be used for physical issues. The definition in the Knowledge Books also implies this - the examples they give are "e.g. container is cracked, logbook is full or wet". But it doesn't exclude it being used for cache page issues.

 

But if someone raises an NM on one of my caches for a cache page issue: If it is a valid issue I'll change the page (e.g. correct the container size). If it is an invalid issue I won't make a change. But either way I'll clear the NM log with an OM without necessarily visiting the cache. This will be clear in my OM log - I would say (for example): "Corrected size of container on cache page to be small".

 

I'm not going to require myself to physically check the cache just to clear a NM log which has nothing to do with the physical cache. If that is your personal rule, and you have people raising NM flags for non-physical issues, I can see why you don't like them.

[+OZ2CPU]

if I spell something wrong (and I do all the time) on my cache pages,

please just write me a private mail with a polite explain of the error,

I be more than happy to correct it :-)

 

Such is clearly not a NM issue, relevant to warn or waste others time on.

if however you find a text or explain error directly relevant to finding the cache,

then you need to warn both me and others, please post a NM

and even a private mail with deeper info, if it spoil the hide or solution (if a puzzle or multi)

 

like NM LOG:

oh I think I found a very important error ?

Private mail to CO is now send, I hope this helps, thanks.

Edited July 12, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I've posted many times that NM and NA are a waste of time and should be abolished.....main reason is misuse......" I couldn't find the cache so it isn't there and should be archived." Usually I just delete the log and move on but its a pain.

The old system of mentioning issues in a note was fine.

As for log issues ( full or wet )if a cacher can't carry spare logs ( I've added hundreds )for caches that need them they shouldn't even log the cache.....just my opinion.

[+L0ne.R]

The old system of mentioning issues in a note was fine.

 

It's a good system for weeding out abandoned caches and opening up areas for active cache owners. Without it we may see more NAs posted.

[+The Jester]

I've posted many times that NM and NA are a waste of time and should be abolished.....main reason is misuse......" I couldn't find the cache so it isn't there and should be archived." Usually I just delete the log and move on but its a pain.

The old system of mentioning issues in a note was fine.

As for log issues ( full or wet )if a cacher can't carry spare logs ( I've added hundreds )for caches that need them they shouldn't even log the cache.....just my opinion.

As an experiment, I logged a Note for a cache that got vandalized (container only, dented and far from GZ) - I didn't call it a find or DNF. It's been over a week and nothing has been done. Any other seeker has no idea there's a problem (unless they read past logs before hunting an easy cache). So I did the right thing? No "waste of time", no implying the CO is "stupid", no insulting the CO with "duplicate info" - but no help to other cachers. Yeah, sounds like the "right" thing.

[cezanne]

I've posted many times that NM and NA are a waste of time and should be abolished.....main reason is misuse......" I couldn't find the cache so it isn't there and should be archived." Usually I just delete the log and move on but its a pain.

The old system of mentioning issues in a note was fine.

As for log issues ( full or wet )if a cacher can't carry spare logs ( I've added hundreds )for caches that need them they shouldn't even log the cache.....just my opinion.

As an experiment, I logged a Note for a cache that got vandalized (container only, dented and far from GZ) - I didn't call it a find or DNF. It's been over a week and nothing has been done. Any other seeker has no idea there's a problem (unless they read past logs before hunting an easy cache). So I did the right thing? No "waste of time", no implying the CO is "stupid", no insulting the CO with "duplicate info" - but no help to other cachers. Yeah, sounds like the "right" thing.

 

On the one hand, I can list numerous caches where (several) NM logs have been written and nothing happened and on the other hand, there are numerous caches out there with NM flag where everything is ok. So the NM flag is no reliable indicator of a problem anyway.

 

Moreover, there are different levels of needs maintenance issues. Your case is one where the cache cannot be found in the expected way. Most NM logs in my area are with respect to something which is not that urgent and where it is not really necessary to come along with a NM log right away.

 

BTW: My own motivation to address a pontential issue with a cache also depends on the way a log is formulated. Nowadays many NM logs are formulated like commands and not just like status reports. I do know how to handle the case of a wet or full log book - I need no instructions on what needs to be done. I have observed that many old-timers have archived their caches over time as they got tired of the way how many modern cachers bring forward maintenance issues. It is not any longer that they belong to a group that tries to help out each other - it is more about have high expectations for a service level as one would expect from a company for a paid service. I do care about my caches, but I do it based on my own decision and not because anyone feels entitled to tell me what to do.

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

The old system of mentioning issues in a note was fine.

 

It's a good system for weeding out abandoned caches and opening up areas for active cache owners. Without it we may see more NAs posted.

 

I do not agree. I do not think that needs archived would be misused as much as NMs.

 

Logs like that

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=3fac0da0-8747-424a-870d-60e4cdaed040

who complain about a missing pen and full not pads (whatever is meant with this - it is also strange as no one

else complained) are an example of the type of NM logs that makes me furious. I'd expect the NM flag to stay for a long

time even though there is no real issue with the cache.

 

When I started geocaching, most logs made sense and had substance. The log I refer to above is a typical example of a modern

log - no punctuation signs, many linguistic mistakes, wrong log type etc. Such incidents are anything but rare and the spoil the enjoyment

of many oldtimers who started in or before 2004.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Straight-Cache-Homey]

I posted a NM and a NA today. Why would they bother anyone? If ya gotta do it ya gotta do it!

[+L0ne.R]

The old system of mentioning issues in a note was fine.

 

It's a good system for weeding out abandoned caches and opening up areas for active cache owners. Without it we may see more NAs posted.

 

I do not agree. I do not think that needs archived would be misused as much as NMs.

 

Logs like that

http://www.geocachin...0d-60e4cdaed040

who complain about a missing pen and full not pads (whatever is meant with this - it is also strange as no one

else complained) are an example of the type of NM logs that makes me furious. I'd expect the NM flag to stay for a long

time even though there is no real issue with the cache.

 

When I started geocaching, most logs made sense and had substance. The log I refer to above is a typical example of a modern

log - no punctuation signs, many linguistic mistakes, wrong log type etc. Such incidents are anything but rare and the spoil the enjoyment

of many oldtimers who started in or before 2004.

 

Cezanne

 

There are 3 NMs and 1 Note and 3 Found It logs that report a full logbook.

Needs Maintenance 07/06/2012 Stift fehlt leider hatte natürlich auch keinen blöcke sind auch voll aber ich komme wieder^^

Found it 05/28/2012 Logbuch VOLL!! haben einen Zettel dazugelegt mit unserem Log.

Needs Maintenance 05/20/2012 log voll. tftc

Write note 05/05/2012 Jemand sollte das Logbuch erneuern da kein Platz mehr ist

Needs Maintenance 05/01/2012 Logbuch knallvoll !

Found it 04/24/2012 Nette Gegend! Das Logbuch ist voll...

Found it 04/06/2012 Braucht unbedingt ein neues Logbuch

 

The last time the CO did an OM was in 2010. They've logged in recently, so he/she is active. In my area this many NMs would alert a reviewer and the CO would get a Reviewer Note. I've found that Reviewer Notes usually spur active owners to do the necessary maintenance. I'm pretty sure that reporting a full logbook is not an abuse of the system.

Edited July 12, 2012 by L0ne R

[cezanne]

There are 3 NMs and 1 Note and 3 Found It logs that report a full logbook.

 

But in between new space has been provided which suffices from my point of view.

 

What I meant was that a set NM flag does not mean that there exists a current problem for logging a cache.

As a visitor of a cache I do not care at all whether I log on an extra sheet of paper or a real log book

and I also do not care who provided the paper.

 

Some cachers log NM logs if the orginal log roll is full, but a new log sheet has been added that offers

plenty of space for additional logs. I see no reason for such logs. I'm not seeing the NM-log business as a way of proving

that a cache owner is actively taking care of his cache. What counts for me is the status of the cache that I'm going to find.

 

In my area this many NMs would alert a reviewer and the CO would get a Reviewer Note.

 

In my area not even several NA logs alert the reviewers, except in special phases where it works a bit better (sometimes

not even NA-logs plus extra mails work).

For a typical example see this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=0d30f4fb-4d0a-42a4-8017-e0e08de1e438

I even wrote to a reviewer and asked him to disable the cache so that not further people go there and look for the cache.

(The NM flag does not scare people away as it is so often set when everything is fine or at least logging is possible.)

 

If the only 3 reviewers for the entire country (where one of them is also the only reviewer for Hungary)

would start to have a look at NM-logs (they do not notified of them), they would not

be able to publish a single cache.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited July 12, 2012 by cezanne

[+dprovan]

Logs like that

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=3fac0da0-8747-424a-870d-60e4cdaed040

who complain about a missing pen and full not pads (whatever is meant with this - it is also strange as no one

else complained) are an example of the type of NM logs that makes me furious.

You get furious at newbies with 19 finds making mistakes? Man, I think you'd have a lot more fun if you didn't take everything so seriously.

 

I'd expect the NM flag to stay for a long time even though there is no real issue with the cache.

Well, if we stipulate that a full log is not a "real issue", then the only reason the NM flag will stay on at all is because the CO has some silly notion that he can't clear the NM flag without physically visiting the cache no matter how bogus the NM was. Besides, if he likes that rule so much, why doesn't he just use this bogus NM as an excuse to visit his cache and make sure there are no other issues he should know about?

 

When I started geocaching, most logs made sense and had substance. The log I refer to above is a typical example of a modern

log - no punctuation signs, many linguistic mistakes, wrong log type etc. Such incidents are anything but rare and the spoil the enjoyment

of many oldtimers who started in or before 2004.

But, on the other hand, you feel it's OK for oldtimers to spoil the enjoyment of people just getting started by getting furious at them for making simple mistakes?

[cezanne]

Logs like that

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=3fac0da0-8747-424a-870d-60e4cdaed040

who complain about a missing pen and full not pads (whatever is meant with this - it is also strange as no one

else complained) are an example of the type of NM logs that makes me furious.

You get furious at newbies with 19 finds making mistakes? Man, I think you'd have a lot more fun if you didn't take everything so seriously.

 

Today's beginners are very different from the beginners back then who seriously informed themselves before doing something and who

also were able to write in full sentences with decent grammar. With about this number of finds I already contributed actively to geocaching and the cache I've hidden still exists, This was nothing special back then. It was, however, not the smartphone generation who just tried out how cool this activity might be.

 

I'd expect the NM flag to stay for a long time even though there is no real issue with the cache.

Well, if we stipulate that a full log is not a "real issue", then the only reason the NM flag will stay on at all is because the CO has some silly notion that he can't clear the NM flag without physically visiting the cache no matter how bogus the NM was.

 

If there is space for logs (provided by whomever), I do not see a real issue - one can sign the log, essentially the only thing of relevance for most of those modern urban caches anyway. As the NM flags are regarded - they are not taken seriously anyway and many cache owners do not clear them even after having maintained there cache. Many do not even know that such flags exist and how to clear them.

 

But, on the other hand, you feel it's OK for oldtimers to spoil the enjoyment of people just getting started by getting furious at them for making simple mistakes?

 

They will never learn about me getting furious. So their fun will not be spoilt by me. My fun is however spoilt by all the changes that took place in geocaching over the last years.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited July 12, 2012 by cezanne

[+OZ2CPU]

>On the one hand, I can list numerous caches where (several) NM logs have been written and nothing happened

 

This reveals a cache in bad shape

or alot of visitors lying

or a CO who neglect his job as a cache owner

or a CH who dont know how to reset the red flag

no matter what it is, some one should learn to handle it,

if you make a cache, there are a few things that go along..

know how the system work, and know and accept your job is to make service.

 

>there are numerous caches out there with NM flag where everything is ok.

>So the NM flag is no reliable indicator of a problem anyway.

 

EXACTLY.. it happen too, we have all tried to find a NM marked cache

and it is even over avarage in health state :-)

again thie reveals visitors different feeling of what is a cache in need,

and it releals a CO who need to take his job a little bit more seriously

like learn how to clear a NM flag after he parformed service, or checked it was all ok..

 

what ever.. just fixt it, fast easy and be happy..

[+briansnat]

I've posted many times that NM and NA are a waste of time and should be abolished.....main reason is misuse......" I couldn't find the cache so it isn't there and should be archived." Usually I just delete the log and move on but its a pain.

The old system of mentioning issues in a note was fine.

As for log issues ( full or wet )if a cacher can't carry spare logs ( I've added hundreds )for caches that need them they shouldn't even log the cache.....just my opinion.

What old system? The archive log type has been around since I started caching in various forms, Needs Archived, Should Be Archived and I think it was just Archive at one point.

[cezanne]

I've posted many times that NM and NA are a waste of time and should be abolished.....main reason is misuse......" I couldn't find the cache so it isn't there and should be archived." Usually I just delete the log and move on but its a pain.

The old system of mentioning issues in a note was fine.

As for log issues ( full or wet )if a cacher can't carry spare logs ( I've added hundreds )for caches that need them they shouldn't even log the cache.....just my opinion.

What old system? The archive log type has been around since I started caching in various forms, Needs Archived, Should Be Archived and I think it was just Archive at one point.

 

"Needs archived" makes sense for me, but should rather be called "needs reviewer attention" or even better "could need reviewer attention". I have, however, always be against "needs maintenance" logs. I appreciate reports on the cache status, but in a normal log.

 

Personally, I feel that both "needs archived" and "needs maintenance" contain a message I do not like to convey, the first much more than the second. A cache with a lot of DNFs might need a maintenance visit, but not necessarily.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 13, 2012 by cezanne

[cezanne]

>On the one hand, I can list numerous caches where (several) NM logs have been written and nothing happened

 

This reveals a cache in bad shape

or alot of visitors lying

or a CO who neglect his job as a cache owner

or a CH who dont know how to reset the red flag

no matter what it is, some one should learn to handle it,

if you make a cache, there are a few things that go along..

know how the system work, and know and accept your job is to make service.

 

I do not care what are the reasons. I mentioned it to demonstrate that NM logs are not really that effective.

There are cachers like myself who care about their caches and appreciate status reports, but would act independently

of how the status report is conveyed (personally, I prefer to be told about problem without a NM log) and there are cachers who do not

care at all and Groundspeak is also not taking action (for example, they could allow the first found it log only after having passed a small online quiz).

 

>there are numerous caches out there with NM flag where everything is ok.

>So the NM flag is no reliable indicator of a problem anyway.

 

EXACTLY.. it happen too, we have all tried to find a NM marked cache

and it is even over avarage in health state :-)

 

I do not care at all about NM flags - they are of no use in my manual approach anyway. I read logs in order to know about the status of a cache I'm interested into.

My message was just we could do away with NM-logs at all. They are annoyingly often used in a wrong manner and I neither have the motivation nor the time to educate cachers who are not willing to study the basics of geocaching on their own.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 13, 2012 by cezanne

[+ras_oscar]

This issue is not nearly as complicated as most posts above are making it out to be. If I arrive at GZ and the container is wet, I dry it out. If the log is full, I add another page. If the log Zlock is torn I replace it. If the container is cracked, I log a NM with a specific description of the problem I could not remedy, so the CO can make a maintenance run with the appropriate supplies. The NM log is there to permit the CO to target their maintenance time on those caches that need it most. I care not a bit whether the CO chooses to perform maintenance, take the cache offline, or archive. Its up to them. This is a sport that relies on the coordinated efforts of complete strangers to succeed. That effort goes both ways.

[cezanne]

This issue is not nearly as complicated as most posts above are making it out to be. If I arrive at GZ and the container is wet, I dry it out. If the log is full, I add another page. If the log Zlock is torn I replace it. If the container is cracked, I log a NM with a specific description of the problem I could not remedy, so the CO can make a maintenance run with the appropriate supplies. The NM log is there to permit the CO to target their maintenance time on those caches that need it most. I care not a bit whether the CO chooses to perform maintenance, take the cache offline, or archive. Its up to them. This is a sport that relies on the coordinated efforts of complete strangers to succeed. That effort goes both ways.

 

Actually, if someone with your attitude logs a NM log for one of my caches, I would not get angry. Unfortunately, cachers who were willing to help out with simple maintenance actions if possible are however decreasing in number. It is so much easier to write prententious NM logs for whatever reason.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

This reveals a cache in bad shape

or alot of visitors lying

or a CO who neglect his job as a cache owner

or a CH who dont know how to reset the red flag

no matter what it is, some one should learn to handle it,

if you make a cache, there are a few things that go along..

know how the system work, and know and accept your job is to make service.

 

By the way, it is very inconvenient that NM flags can only be cleared by logging "performed maintenance"

which is simply not appropriate in many cases.

 

Take e.g. this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6d4e75f5-c5f3-4e40-9a69-892f2a96d4e2

 

There is a NM flag even though everything is ok. The cache originally had a wrong terrain rating - namely T=1*.

One finder posted a NM log just because of the wrong terrain rating (not appropriate in my point of view even though the

T-rating was indeed wrong). The owner of the cache (inexperienced) reacted quickly and corrected the T-rating, deleted the NM log

and wrote no log mentioning his changes (a beginner's mistake). The poster of the NM attribute wrote a new NM log which is still there.

 

In my opinion, in this case it is the system which is to blame and not the cache owner.

 

If this happened to me, I would be annoyed as I would either need to use "performed maintenance" without visiting my cache or

living with using the "performed maintenance" log in a way that appears wrong to me.

 

Cezanne

[+OZ2CPU]

if anything apear to be wrong, and you got the power to fix it,

you fix it :-)

yes alot of people do wrong, there is no beginner class or training to pass

only friendly advices and patience from those who knows better is what we got,

Dont be annoyed, just smile (maybe shake head a bit) and try to help.

 

on that cache you link to there is 1 NM log

and no CO performed maintenence log.

if a CO delete a maintenence log, he used the system in a wrong way,

HE is to blame for his wrong use, not the system.

and he confused a friendny finder who is not smart enought to see the thing he mentionend is fixed or not.

still the CO should make a NEW performed maintenence log, and this time explain he fixed it.

and NOT delete his log.

Edited July 13, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+ccurzio]

Two things:

 

1. As has already been mentioned, a "Needs Maintenance" entry isn't just for the cache owner, it's also for the community. Not everyone reads every previous log entry so mentioning that there's a problem with the cache in your "found it" log may be sufficient for the CO but certainly not for everyone else.

 

2. As has also been said, "Needs Maintenance" means that a cache "Needs Maintenance." It's as simple as that. The guidelines state that you should post an NM log if a cache needs maintenance. It doesn't say anything about how it is used to insult the cache owner. If you're a CO that's going to read an NM entry as "Your cache needs maintenance and since you are incredibly dumb I am logging this NM so you understand this and I also hate your face and I want evey other geocacher to know it" then you are an overly sensitive individual and you need to hand over ownership of your cache to someone who isn't going to break down and cry when someone gives you a heads-up on a problem.

 

Just sayin'.

[cezanne]

and no CO performed maintenence log.

if a CO delete a maintenence log, he used the system in a wrong way,

HE is to blame for his wrong use, not the system.

 

As I have mentioned several times before, I would not log "performed maintenance" without having visited my cache physically. So, yes, it is a problem caused by the system that NM-logs regardless of whether the cache itself has an issue (not the cache listing) cannot be cleared in a clean and logical way.

 

If someone wants e.g. me to change my parking coordinates and posts this request as NM log, I certainly will not post "performed maintenance" as this feels like a big lie to me. So I would have to wait until my next visit of the cache which might be months later if the cache is not having any issue.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited July 13, 2012 by cezanne

[cezanne]

1. As has already been mentioned, a "Needs Maintenance" entry isn't just for the cache owner, it's also for the community. Not everyone reads every previous log entry so mentioning that there's a problem with the cache in your "found it" log may be sufficient for the CO but certainly not for everyone else.

 

 

Actually, first I do not care about those wo do not read logs (that's their fault) and second before NM-logs existed it was much more common that cachers helped each other out if maintenance issues occured. Nowadays, rather 6 cachers post a NM log in a row without a single one to help out with minor things like adding a new sheet of paper for the next few logs. So NM-logs and flags do not contribute to caches in better condition at all.

 

If someone notifies me about a minor issue of one of my caches and does it in a normal log, I will react accordingly within hours and will try to fix it as soon as possible. If someone comes along with a prententious NM-log, my attitude will change considerably and I will consider doing away with the cache even if in the other case I would have maintained it very quickly. I'm not hiding and maintaining caches to be treated like like a company of which service can be requested with any form of prententiousness possible.

 

As has also been said, "Needs Maintenance" means that a cache "Needs Maintenance." It's as simple as that. The guidelines state that you should post an NM log if a cache needs maintenance.

 

The knowledge book, however, only presents real issues as examples for "needs maintenance" not wrong D/T-rating, no parking coordinates, no pen etc.

 

Cezanne

Edited July 13, 2012 by cezanne