Jump to content

Why don't people log "Needs Maintenance"


d&bok

Recommended Posts

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.

 

+1

Link to comment

Actually, first I do not care about those wo do not read logs (that's their fault)

 

Then if you're a cache owner you shouldn't be. Most geocachers aren't going to read through all of the previous logs for a cache. It's not their fault for missing an entry that mentions a problem. It's everyone's responsibility to report problems when they're found and it's the CO's responsibility to act on those reports. If you don't want that responsibility (or if you're going to take offense to it) then get out of cache ownership. Period.

 

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.

What a ridiculous sense of entitlement you have! I'm more than happy to lend a hand to a CO when I'm able, but for you to EXPECT it of the community in lieu of your responsibility as a cache owner is amazing.

 

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.

There's nothing more to say in response to this insanity other than you should absolutely not be a cache owner. Ever.

 

"There's a problem with my cache and you've posted a notification? FINE. I'M GOING TO TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME. SCREW YOU GUYS."

Edited by ccurzio
Link to comment

Actually, first I do not care about those wo do not read logs (that's their fault)

 

Then if you're a cache owner you shouldn't be. Most geocachers aren't going to read through all of the previous logs for a cache. It's not their fault for missing an entry that mentions a problem. It's everyone's responsibility to report problems when they're found and it's the CO's responsibility to act on those reports. If you don't want that responsibility (or if you're going to take offense to it) then get out of cache ownership. Period.

 

I react to all problems for my caches at once, just my reaction might differ. I might either decide to hurry to the cache and put it back to a perfect state at my earliest convenience and might be willing to tolerate severe knee pains to reach my cache I might have hidden in a better time or I might decide to disable the cache first and then visit it later to collect and archive it. If I get a friendly status report, I'm more than willing to do the first while when getting a prententious NM-log, I might be very much inclined to the second approach. Both approaches are perfectly in compliance with being a responsible cache owner.

 

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.

What a ridiculous sense of entitlement you have! I'm more than happy to lend a hand to a CO when I'm able, but for you to EXPECT it of the community in lieu of your responsibility as a cache owner is amazing.

 

I was not talking about my own caches, but caches hidden by other people. It does not occur that often that I end up with a full logbook as my caches are addressed to a special audience and are not found that often and none of them is a micro.

 

Throughout my caching career I have helped out others numerous times and I'm very restrictive with posting NM-logs and keep those for the cases where I see no other way. So I do not welcome the existence of NM-logs both from the point of view of a cache owner and a cache seeker (even more from the latter point of view). Similarly to NM-logs I'm also against the special announcement type log for events. (I recently read a complaint of a cacher because an event owner posted an announcement only as a note which is exactly what I would do as well - I'm not willing to support lazy people automatizing everything.)

 

The message I tried to convey was simply that the introduction of NM-logs did not contribute anything to an improved average condition of caches and that the NM-flags are not used by the non-owners in a way that helps the caches. So for what other reason do they need to know about minor issues with a cache if they are not willing to help anyway?

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

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.geocachin...69-892f2a96d4e2

 

I suggest, as a goodwill gesture, that you contact the CO and let them know about the OM feature.

I've done this with caches that I've placed an NM on, especially when the CO is new. I'll put a watch on the cache and if the CO writes a note instead of an OM I'll email them a thank you message for fixing the problem, and explain that they need to post an OM in order to remove the NM attribute from their cache.

Edited by L0ne R
Link to comment

Actually, first I do not care about those wo do not read logs (that's their fault)

 

Then if you're a cache owner you shouldn't be. Most geocachers aren't going to read through all of the previous logs for a cache. It's not their fault for missing an entry that mentions a problem. It's everyone's responsibility to report problems when they're found and it's the CO's responsibility to act on those reports. If you don't want that responsibility (or if you're going to take offense to it) then get out of cache ownership. Period.

 

I react to all problems for my caches at once, just my reaction might differ. I might either decide to hurry to the cache and put it back to a perfect state at my earliest convenience and might be willing to tolerate severe knee pains to reach my cache I might have hidden in a better time or I might decide to disable the cache first and then visit it later to collect it. If I get a friendly status report, I'm more than willing to do the first while when getting a prententious NM-log, I might be very much inclined to the second approach. Both approaches are perfectly in compliance with being a responsible cache owner.

 

My comment that I do not care about those who do not read all logs was more directed at my attitude as a visitor of caches.

I mention issues with a cache, but I do so in my normal log and in important cases also by personal mail. I do not write NM-logs just because some other visitors of the cache I visited might wish me to do so. That's perfectly up to me to decide.

 

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.

What a ridiculous sense of entitlement you have! I'm more than happy to lend a hand to a CO when I'm able, but for you to EXPECT it of the community in lieu of your responsibility as a cache owner is amazing.

 

I was not talking about my own caches, but caches hidden by other people. It does not occur that often that I end up with a full logbook as my caches are addressed to a special audience and are not found that often and none of them is a micro.

 

Throughout my caching career I have helped out others numerous times and I'm very restrictive with posting NM-logs and keep those for the cases where I see no other way.

I rather expect someone to add a sheet of paper to a cache if possible than writing the 6-th NM log. This is exactly what I'm living up to myself, and this thread is called "Why don't people log NM" and I provided my reasons why I am very reluctant about using that log type from both sides. You need not share my opinion. Many cachers who started much later will not understand that I do not feel comfortable with a lot of changes brought up over the recent years as they have never experienced a different geocaching world. When I started it was normal to help out each other - there was nothing to expect from others - it just happened automatically as all were in the same boat and most caches were non drive ins where the owners often needed a few hours to get there. I'm not willing to adapt to whatever nonsense is newly introduced.

 

The message I tried to convey was simply that the introduction of NM-logs did not contribute anything to an improved average condition of caches and that the NM-flags are not used by the non-owners in a way that helps the caches. So for what other reason do they need to know about minor issues with a cache if they are not willing to help anyway?

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

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.geocachin...69-892f2a96d4e2

 

I suggest, as a goodwill gesture, that you contact the CO and let them know about the OM feature.

 

The poster of the NM log which got deleted and renewed, already did so (in his renewed NM Log). The last finder of the cache repeated the message.

I do not know the personal reasons why the cache owner does not log performed maintenance. I just know that if I were him,

I would not log "performed maintenance" before having visited the cache again which I would not do just because a wrong terrain rating.

 

So in short: It does not always help to know how one clears the NM-flag as this approach does not fit to all issues. For me PM without a cache visit is a lie. Being a very formal person, this is an essential aspect for me - it might not be an issue at all for others, but accept that it is for me.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I react to all problems for my caches at once, just my reaction might differ. I might either decide to hurry to the cache and put it back to a perfect state at my earliest convenience and might be willing to tolerate severe knee pains to reach my cache I might have hidden in a better time or I might decide to disable the cache first and then visit it later to collect and archive it. If I get a friendly status report, I'm more than willing to do the first while when getting a prententious NM-log, I might be very much inclined to the second approach. Both approaches are perfectly in compliance with being a responsible cache owner.

 

That is your prerogative.

 

Keep in mind that a conscientious finder who reads the Knowledge Books will have seen the text below. They may just be doing what Groundspeak is advising them to do. They likely are not being pretentious.

 

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.

Link to comment

Actually there is no need for a 'performed maintainance' log in case of a 'false' needs performance log.

 

Optional: Simply delete the log as being 'inappropriate' (explain to logger if you feel like it).

 

Then: Choose 'edit attributes', go down to 'conditions'. Between 'Stealth required' and 'watch for livestock' you see 'needs maintainance' (this icon only shows up if you actually have a red icon on your cache). Choose N/R (not related). Save changes to attributes, DONE

Link to comment

There's nothing more to say in response to this insanity other than you should absolutely not be a cache owner. Ever.

 

"There's a problem with my cache and you've posted a notification? FINE. I'M GOING TO TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME. SCREW YOU GUYS."

 

You were doing fine until this post which is way over the top. Perhaps if you owned a cache or had some more experience other than finding 11 caches over the last 5 months, you might see things a little differently. Needs maintenance logs are often abused by people who demand a pen or pencil in the cache, cannot find it after looking real hard for 5 minutes, or want the owner to run out to attend to a minor issue that anyone can fix easily. Perhaps if all caches were parking lot micros, owners could be expected to drop by with their baby bottle at a moments notice, but that's not the case.

Link to comment

I react to all problems for my caches at once, just my reaction might differ. I might either decide to hurry to the cache and put it back to a perfect state at my earliest convenience and might be willing to tolerate severe knee pains to reach my cache I might have hidden in a better time or I might decide to disable the cache first and then visit it later to collect and archive it. If I get a friendly status report, I'm more than willing to do the first while when getting a prententious NM-log, I might be very much inclined to the second approach. Both approaches are perfectly in compliance with being a responsible cache owner.

 

That is your prerogative.

 

No, it is not, but maybe I did not explain it well enough. I did not mean that all NM-logs are prententious. It depends on the situation and the verbage.

Many NM-logs I have seen (that might well be completely different in other areas) are prententious and reduce the enjoyment of many cache owners.

I still have my caches that are working active - many, many of my colleagues from the old times gave up and the prententiousness of many new cachers that

can be observed in many different ways was one of the main reasons for their decision.

 

Keep in mind that a conscientious finder who reads the Knowledge Books will have seen the text below. They may just be doing what Groundspeak is advising them to do. They likely are not being pretentious.

 

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.

 

I neither understand this as NM logs should be posted for a wrong terrain rating or missing parking coordinates/missing pens nor do I understand this in the way that needs maintenance logs need to be more than status reports. If someone wants to mention a full log book, he does not need to write that the log book needs to be urgently exchanged. I guess we all know how to handle log books if they are really full and a full log book can never be really urgent. Every cache can tolerate to be inactive for a few days or even weeks. It is urgent to take care of a seriously broken leg, but it is not urgent to exchange a log book.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

You were doing fine until this post which is way over the top. Perhaps if you owned a cache or had some more experience other than finding 11 caches over the last 5 months, you might see things a little differently. Needs maintenance logs are often abused by people who demand a pen or pencil in the cache, cannot find it after looking real hard for 5 minutes, or want the owner to run out to attend to a minor issue that anyone can fix easily. Perhaps if all caches were parking lot micros, owners could be expected to drop by with their baby bottle at a moments notice, but that's not the case.

 

Every system ever created is susceptible to abuse. Internet companies get a ton of bogus reports to their abuse@domain.com email addresses. Customer service departments for every company ever constantly encounter stupid complaints. Does that mean they should shut down these functionalities entirely? No. They suck it up and deal with all of the reports, bogus and otherwise. Having worked in Internet Security for over a decade, I understand this concept very well.

 

If you're not equipped to take the good with the bad, then don't take on the responsibility. Leave it to people who can actually handle it.

Edited by ccurzio
Link to comment

Actually there is no need for a 'performed maintainance' log in case of a 'false' needs performance log.

 

Optional: Simply delete the log as being 'inappropriate' (explain to logger if you feel like it).

 

Then: Choose 'edit attributes', go down to 'conditions'. Between 'Stealth required' and 'watch for livestock' you see 'needs maintainance' (this icon only shows up if you actually have a red icon on your cache). Choose N/R (not related). Save changes to attributes, DONE

 

Thank you for the explanation. I did not know that - it is not mentioned in the knowledge book and quite a while ago (in 2010 or earlier) it did not work that way when I tried it once,

 

However, this approach does not help in all cases as e.g. in the example I mentioned one cacher relogged his NM log and insists that a performed

maintenance log is issued due to the changed terrain rating. If it were my cache, I'd be inclined to archive the cache instead of ending up in a debate of

relogging and log deleting with the logger of the NM-log. I still feel that the introduction of NM-logs brought along much more disadvantages for me than advantages - which appeare to be the case for most changes unfortunately (the powertrail change being the most annoying and important one).

Link to comment

If you're not equipped to take the good with the bad, then don't take on the responsibility. Leave it to people who can actually handle it.

 

I have experienced many years of joyful geocaching without that need. The frustration caused by NM-logs does not outweigh the minor advantages the system might have.

 

For me what you write above reads a bit like "Accept any change to geocaching and any sort of bahaviour even if the result has no similarity with what geocaching used to be". I rather would think that it might be appropriate for those who want something completely different to come up with their own thing.

 

There is some kind of barrier where the bad outweighs the good. You cannot judge this as geocaching is regarded as you have never experienced how geocaching has been back then in the early times. It might well be that you would not have liked it back then - along the same lines many oldtimers do not feel comfortable with the status of geocaching in 2012.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I have experienced many years of joyful geocaching without that need. The frustration caused by NM-logs does not outweigh the minor advantages the system might have.

 

For me what you write above reads a bit like "Accept any change to geocaching and any sort of bahaviour even if the result has no similarity with what geocaching used to be". I rather would think that it might be appropriate for those who want something completely different to come up with their own thing.

 

There is some kind of barrier where the bad outweighs the good. You cannot judge this as geocaching is regarded as you have never experienced how geocaching has been back then in the early times. It might well be that you would not have liked it back then - along the same lines many oldtimers do not feel comfortable with the status of geocaching in 2012.

 

I understand that completely, but at the same time you also have to accept that if you want to be a member of this community as it evolves, then you have to roll with that evolution. If you are unable or unwilling to adapt to the changes that occur in the community, there is absolutely NOTHING stopping you from developing a parallel geocaching community with old-school processes and procedures that you enjoy and deem appropriate. People who agree can join your community. As you've said, "it might be appropriate for those who want something completely different to come up with their own thing." So if that's what you want, go do it.

 

Being a member of geocaching.com and complaining about geocaching.com policies while stomping your feet about how the rules that existed prior to the existence of geocaching.com are so much better is pretty silly. If you want to be a member of this community, then accept that you're a member of this community and not one that existed a decade ago.

Edited by ccurzio
Link to comment

As I have mentioned several times before, I would not log "performed maintenance" without having visited my cache physically.

It's a shame you wouldn't use an owner maintainance log in this case, since an owner maintenance log is precisely what I'd expect when the terrain rating is changed. Correcting the terrain rating is clearly owner maintenance and also clearly requires no trip to the physical cache.

 

And while the NM flag is not reliable, as you say, it's more reliable than having no information at all, which is what you are proposing as the alternative.

Link to comment

As I have mentioned several times before, I would not log "performed maintenance" without having visited my cache physically.

It's a shame you wouldn't use an owner maintainance log in this case, since an owner maintenance log is precisely what I'd expect when the terrain rating is changed. Correcting the terrain rating is clearly owner maintenance and also clearly requires no trip to the physical cache.

 

And while the NM flag is not reliable, as you say, it's more reliable than having no information at all, which is what you are proposing as the alternative.

 

Dprovan makes a good point. Maintaining the cache description is also owner maintenance (OM), it doesn't have to be a physical visit.

Link to comment

As I have mentioned several times before, I would not log "performed maintenance" without having visited my cache physically.

It's a shame you wouldn't use an owner maintainance log in this case, since an owner maintenance log is precisely what I'd expect when the terrain rating is changed. Correcting the terrain rating is clearly owner maintenance and also clearly requires no trip to the physical cache.

 

That is your personal interpretation. I will continue to announce changes in the listing per note as I have done for many years and still consider as correct. The examples in the knowledge book for maintenance also all deal with issues of the cache and not of the cache listing.

 

And while the NM flag is not reliable, as you say, it's more reliable than having no information at all, which is what you are proposing as the alternative.

 

No, I'm not proposing no information at all. The old system without NM logs has worked very well for many years and anyone interested learnt about changes.

 

I announce every change in my cache listings via a note (so that everyone watching the cache will get an automatic notification), but I see no reason to do that with a NM log. Either someone is interested in my cache, then he/she will see my note, or someone does not have sufficient interest.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The old system without NM logs has worked very well for many years and anyone interested learnt about changes.

 

It probably worked fine for conscientious COs who watched their email and responded to any mention of an issue, but it didn't work well for weeding out defunct COs who abandoned their cache and cache listings.

 

As a finder I love the NM attribute. I waste less time and frustration on caches that are in need of repair or have been abandoned or belong to COs who are sluggish about maintenance or don't care if a logbook is full.

Link to comment

I announce every change in my cache listings via a note (so that everyone watching the cache will get an automatic notification), but I see no reason to do that with a NM log. Either someone is interested in my cache, then he/she will see my note, or someone does not have sufficient interest.

 

That's your choice. Seems stubborn to me but I see how it's a matter of principle for you. You may get fewer visitors - i.e. those that aren't watching your cache and those that filter out NM caches. But you'll probably get enough visitors to make it all worth while.

 

If your reviewers are anything like the reviewers in my area, you may get a periodic Reviewer Note reminding you that you need to clear your NMs. But from what you said earlier your reviewers do not review NM caches, so you should be fine.

Link to comment

I announce every change in my cache listings via a note (so that everyone watching the cache will get an automatic notification), but I see no reason to do that with a NM log. Either someone is interested in my cache, then he/she will see my note, or someone does not have sufficient interest.

 

That's your choice. Seems stubborn to me but I see how it's a matter of principle for you. You may get fewer visitors - i.e. those that aren't watching your cache and those that filter out NM caches. But you'll probably get enough visitors to make it all worth while.

 

It was not my own cache that received a NM request to change the terrain rating. Over time I have quite often changed something in my cache listing without anyone asking me for a change. What I meant was that I always announced my changes either in a note or sometimes in the enable log if I had disabled the cache before. I still feel that what I did is correct and will continue to do so. There is no rule that requires to announce changes in the cache listing by performed maintenance which was claimed by dprovan to whom I replied with the text you cited above.

 

I do not have a single cache with a NM flag and I also do not have a disabled one, neither do I have one that deserves an NM log at the moment. This does not change however my general attitude towards NM logs and their frequent abuse.

 

If your reviewers are anything like the reviewers in my area, you may get a periodic Reviewer Note reminding you that you need to clear your NMs. But from what you said earlier your reviewers do not review NM caches, so you should be fine.

 

I'm fine (I use your formulation) anyway due to what I said above. Moreover, I would not lose by archiving one of my caches - I keep them as some locals asked me to do so. Due to the fact that the reviewers do not review NM caches (and at least two of the three own caches that have been inactive for months, sometimes years), NM flags cannot be used as realiable system for filtering out problem caches in my area anyway, i.e. not even someone wanted to do that. Personally, I am not filtering anything as I select all caches manually and type in the coordinates into my GPSr. So, certainly anything that concerns filtering is nothing that is of personal interest to me implying that I do not care how the reviewers in my area handle NM logs.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The old system without NM logs has worked very well for many years and anyone interested learnt about changes.

 

It probably worked fine for conscientious COs who watched their email and responded to any mention of an issue, but it didn't work well for weeding out defunct COs who abandoned their cache and cache listings.

 

As a finder I love the NM attribute. I waste less time and frustration on caches that are in need of repair or have been abandoned or belong to COs who are sluggish about maintenance or don't care if a logbook is full.

 

The above only works if the local reviewers take on the voluntary job to review NM logs which is not part of their duty.

All my examples are from my country where no such monitoring exists.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

So back to the original question, there seems to be several reasons.

 

1. Because the geocacher doesn't think they do any good.

2. Because the geoacher doesn't like getting them on their own caches.

3. Because the geocacher had a bad experience in the past when raising an NM.

 

Those are the reasons I've seen on this thread.

 

I'm sure there is also:

 

4. Because the geocacher doesn't know what NM is for

5. Because the geocacher isn't bothered

Link to comment

So back to the original question, there seems to be several reasons.

 

1. Because the geocacher doesn't think they do any good.

2. Because the geoacher doesn't like getting them on their own caches.

3. Because the geocacher had a bad experience in the past when raising an NM.

 

Those are the reasons I've seen on this thread.

 

I'm sure there is also:

 

4. Because the geocacher doesn't know what NM is for

5. Because the geocacher isn't bothered

 

If I encounter a cache with a minor issue which is not easy to reach for the hider, another reason also plays a role for me.

Either I'm able to help out or I feel bad because I'm not able to fix the issue because I once again forget some item at home which I feel that should be taken along to each more remote cache that is not visited regularly. I have not made any bad experiences when mentioning maintenance issues - it is myself who would feel bad with posting an NM for a minor issue which I ought have been able to fix according to my own expectation.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

There's nothing more to say in response to this insanity other than you should absolutely not be a cache owner. Ever.

 

"There's a problem with my cache and you've posted a notification? FINE. I'M GOING TO TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOME. SCREW YOU GUYS."

 

You were doing fine until this post which is way over the top. Perhaps if you owned a cache or had some more experience other than finding 11 caches over the last 5 months, you might see things a little differently. Needs maintenance logs are often abused by people who demand a pen or pencil in the cache, cannot find it after looking real hard for 5 minutes, or want the owner to run out to attend to a minor issue that anyone can fix easily. Perhaps if all caches were parking lot micros, owners could be expected to drop by with their baby bottle at a moments notice, but that's not the case.

 

+1.

In the years I've read this forum the vast majority of whining regarding cache maint./quality, etc have been by those with few , if any, hides.

Link to comment

I have not entered a needs maintenance log that the owner has not indicated that as soon as possible they would check on this cache. However if it is wet I ty to dry it out and always carry new log material or even containers with me to repair a cache and let the owner know that I havae done this.

sometimes I will seal the old wet log in a baggy hoping when the owner checks on the cache he or she can rescue the logs.

Link to comment

I have not entered a needs maintenance log that the owner has not indicated that as soon as possible they would check on this cache. However if it is wet I ty to dry it out and always carry new log material or even containers with me to repair a cache and let the owner know that I havae done this.

sometimes I will seal the old wet log in a baggy hoping when the owner checks on the cache he or she can rescue the logs.

 

I have a question for you: Is this a common behaviour in your area? I have observed that in recent years in my area it has become common just to point out whatever issue, but do not even try to improve the situation. Even if the logbook is so wet and mashed that no owner would want back that type of thing and if the logbook is just a strip of paper in a micro (not a lame cache at all), it is more likely that 15 cachers will write that the logbook is unusable before one will take action.

A while ago I visited a cache (a micro which was mounted up in a tree with a rope like construction where the tree was very special as it was part of an art project) which I visited by bicycle. Before me many came by car and certainly were better equipped than me, but nobody helped out even though several of the loggers knew that the first hider comes from another city 200km away and the co-hider is a local, but frequently works out of time and sometimes needs a few days before being able to look after a cache. (I was there in the first phase of this cache where it might have got up to 10 visits per day.)

 

I have seen many NM logs by cachers who as far as I recall have not made any effort to help improve the status of a single cache. I'm sorry to say that frequent NM logs of such cachers caused by minor issues leave me with a bad taste even though of course the logs are formally correct.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

In our community (BC, Canada) I find it is common for cachers to help each other out with minor maintenance issues. It sounds like in your area you have an abundance of selfish cachers who see caching as a thing to do as opposed to a thing to be a part of.

 

I agree with you that cachers should be considerate and assist a fellow cacher when a cache needs minor repairs, but I still believe that NM logs are useful (when used properly) to alert other cachers to a potential problem. A CO will do what he/she will - the rest of us on the seeking end have to fend for ourselves. If another cacher can give me a heads up with a NM log I can a] plan to bring materials to fix the cache, or b] ignore a cache that is in serious disrepair or neglected.

Link to comment

In our community (BC, Canada) I find it is common for cachers to help each other out with minor maintenance issues. It sounds like in your area you have an abundance of selfish cachers who see caching as a thing to do as opposed to a thing to be a part of.

 

Actually, I noted a change. In the first years it was very common to help out each other and most cachers had also their own caches. Recently I observed that in particular in more urban areas (and the rural areas in the outskirts) with an abundance of caches, the consumption attitude seems to grow and grow. I think that the exponential growth that geocaching experienced and still experiences in my country has been unhealthy also in this respect. Earlier with a slower growth rate it has been possible at least to some extent to try to educate newcomers which has been impossible now where it is rather the relative newcomers that dictate the behaviour of large parts of the community.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Before me many came by car and certainly were better equipped than me, but nobody helped out even though several of the loggers knew that the first hider comes from another city 200km away and the co-hider is a local, but frequently works out of time and sometimes needs a few days before being able to look after a cache.

 

If I see that the owner is conscientious and generally takes care of their caches I will help. I've added a bit of paper to tide the cache over for a few weeks, duct taped a crack in a container, whittled a pencil nib to make it useable, left a pencil, wiped down good watertight containers that were wet because a tab was left open or something got caught in the seal (I don't bother with non water tight containers because they will only get wet again).

 

As a CO I have asked in the logs if someone wouldn't mind adding a pencil, or a small bit of paper until we can get to the cache in a couple of weeks. We'll quickly disabled a cache for bigger issues (a couple of people can't find it, the cache is wet, the cache is damaged). We have a cache about 200km away. Anytime there's a report of an issue we either drive up ourselves within a couple of weeks or asked a family member who lives up there to check on the cache. I've even mailed them a logbook (I like to hand make the logbook to fit the scenic location) to replace a full one. If it's going to take us a couple of weeks we post a note in the cache description, and disable the cache depending on what the problem is.

Link to comment

Recently I observed that in particular in more urban areas (and the rural areas in the outskirts) with an abundance of caches, the consumption attitude seems to grow and grow. I think that the exponential growth that geocaching experienced and still experiences in my country has been unhealthy also in this respect. Earlier with a slower growth rate it has been possible at least to some extent to try to educate newcomers which has been impossible now where it is rather the relative newcomers that dictate the behaviour of large parts of the community.

 

Cezanne

 

I agree, the growth of geocaching, especially in saturated areas make people less likely to help out. There are too many caches in need of assistance and many neglectful or absentee owners.

Link to comment

I have not entered a needs maintenance log that the owner has not indicated that as soon as possible they would check on this cache. However if it is wet I ty to dry it out and always carry new log material or even containers with me to repair a cache and let the owner know that I havae done this.

sometimes I will seal the old wet log in a baggy hoping when the owner checks on the cache he or she can rescue the logs.

 

I have a question for you: Is this a common behaviour in your area? I have observed that in recent years in my area it has become common just to point out whatever issue, but do not even try to improve the situation. Even if the logbook is so wet and mashed that no owner would want back that type of thing and if the logbook is just a strip of paper in a micro (not a lame cache at all), it is more likely that 15 cachers will write that the logbook is unusable before one will take action.

A while ago I visited a cache (a micro which was mounted up in a tree with a rope like construction where the tree was very special as it was part of an art project) which I visited by bicycle. Before me many came by car and certainly were better equipped than me, but nobody helped out even though several of the loggers knew that the first hider comes from another city 200km away and the co-hider is a local, but frequently works out of time and sometimes needs a few days before being able to look after a cache. (I was there in the first phase of this cache where it might have got up to 10 visits per day.)

 

I have seen many NM logs by cachers who as far as I recall have not made any effort to help improve the status of a single cache. I'm sorry to say that frequent NM logs of such cachers caused by minor issues leave me with a bad taste even though of course the logs are formally correct.

 

Cezanne

 

I agree.....its the new breed of phone caching acronym logging cachers who wouldn't think about carrying around spare logs and baggies or, heaven forbid, actually putting out a cache but will hang a NM or NA on you if they can't find it.

Link to comment

Here's a scenario I just found that makes a good example....

 

2 DNFs get reported a week apart in May, a NM log gets posted 2 months later by someone who had found the cache and verifies that the cache is indeed gone. The cache owner is active. The cache is still active, the owner has not replaced cache or disabled the listing. As someone who filters out caches with NMs, I get to save some gas money and time that could be spent looking for caches that are actually there.

 

In this case Cezanne and Bamboozle, would you feel a NM is appropriate?

Edited by L0ne R
Link to comment

Here's a scenario I just found that makes a good example....

 

2 DNFs get reported a week apart in May, a NM log gets posted 2 months later by someone who had found the cache and verifies that the cache is indeed gone. The cache owner is active. The cache is still active, the owner has not replaced cache or disabled the listing. As someone who filters out caches with NMs, I get to save some gas money and time that could be spent looking for caches that are actually there.

 

In this case Cezanne and Bamboozle, would you feel a NM is appropriate?

 

Yes I do......however I still feel it was better to put it in a note to the cache the way it was done for years when there was no NM to use out of context.

Link to comment

Here's a scenario I just found that makes a good example....

 

2 DNFs get reported a week apart in May, a NM log gets posted 2 months later by someone who had found the cache and verifies that the cache is indeed gone. The cache owner is active. The cache is still active, the owner has not replaced cache or disabled the listing. As someone who filters out caches with NMs, I get to save some gas money and time that could be spent looking for caches that are actually there.

 

In this case Cezanne and Bamboozle, would you feel a NM is appropriate?

 

My reply is similar than the one by Bamboozle. In such a case I do feel that a NM log is not inappropriate, but I rather think that such a cache should be temporarily disabled. There are so many caches with NM flag that can be found that I for those that cannot be found I rather would like to see a different form of designation.

 

At least in my area NM flags do not keep people from visiting a cache and they also do not motivate them to help out if there is a minor issue. For an unfindable cache like that one

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

I would prefer if a reviewer would be willing to disable the cache if the owner is not taking action, but unfortunately in the case above this did not work out. Neither my mail to a reviewer to disable the cache months ago nor a NA log by another cacher led to any action.

 

So to sum up, I feel that NM logs are often misused, do not really help to filter out caches and bring along more frustration for cache owners who are very considerate with maintaining their caches while the inactive cache owners do not care about NM logs.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

But back in the days when there was only notes and no NM, weren't there still notes than contained useless complaints? Or is the issue that an owner now has to take the extra step of writing an owner maintenance log to clear the nasty red cross?

 

(Probably back in the day, when there were less caches and cachers, to be part of this hobby one had to be slightly smarter and fairly dedicated to make the find. Not like today when you can download an app at the coffee shop and go ruin the cache in the lamp post of the parking lot.)

Link to comment

Here's a scenario I just found that makes a good example....

 

2 DNFs get reported a week apart in May, a NM log gets posted 2 months later by someone who had found the cache and verifies that the cache is indeed gone. The cache owner is active. The cache is still active, the owner has not replaced cache or disabled the listing. As someone who filters out caches with NMs, I get to save some gas money and time that could be spent looking for caches that are actually there.

 

In this case Cezanne and Bamboozle, would you feel a NM is appropriate?

 

My reply is similar than the one by Bamboozle. In such a case I do feel that a NM log is not inappropriate, but I rather think that such a cache should be temporarily disabled. There are so many caches with NM flag that can be found that I for those that cannot be found I rather would like to see a different form of designation.

 

At least in my area NM flags do not keep people from visiting a cache and they also do not motivate them to help out if there is a minor issue. For an unfindable cache like that one

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

I would prefer if a reviewer would be willing to disable the cache if the owner is not taking action, but unfortunately in the case above this did not work out. Neither my mail to a reviewer to disable the cache months ago nor a NA log by another cacher led to any action.

 

 

Just makes me appreicate our reviwer more. Within days of somebody posting a NA on a cache like this, she would disable it, then archive it after 30 days if still not replaced. She's just that good. :D

Link to comment

Recently I observed that in particular in more urban areas (and the rural areas in the outskirts) with an abundance of caches, the consumption attitude seems to grow and grow. I think that the exponential growth that geocaching experienced and still experiences in my country has been unhealthy also in this respect. Earlier with a slower growth rate it has been possible at least to some extent to try to educate newcomers which has been impossible now where it is rather the relative newcomers that dictate the behaviour of large parts of the community.

 

Cezanne

 

I agree, the growth of geocaching, especially in saturated areas make people less likely to help out. There are too many caches in need of assistance and many neglectful or absentee owners.

 

I can understand if people are not willing to take care of caches of neglectful owners where the problems persists for a long time or that are really in a devastating state. I rather have in mind caches where a new problem arises and this problem can be fixied relatively easy. For example, if the log sheet gets wet because previous cachers did not close the container properly or of a log book gets full ealier than expected e.g. because someone uses much more space than intended, one can try to temporarily improve the status. A caring cache owner might still need a few days before being able to look after a cache and for a cache which gets several visits per day (I do not own such a cache!), I get frustrated to read the same message that the log is wet or full up to twenty times without a single cacher trying to take a constructive action.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

But back in the days when there was only notes and no NM, weren't there still notes than contained useless complaints? Or is the issue that an owner now has to take the extra step of writing an owner maintenance log to clear the nasty red cross?

 

(Probably back in the day, when there were less caches and cachers, to be part of this hobby one had to be slightly smarter and fairly dedicated to make the find. Not like today when you can download an app at the coffee shop and go ruin the cache in the lamp post of the parking lot.)

 

I think the last section says it all.....it was really a bit of a different game.

Link to comment

Recently I observed that in particular in more urban areas (and the rural areas in the outskirts) with an abundance of caches, the consumption attitude seems to grow and grow. I think that the exponential growth that geocaching experienced and still experiences in my country has been unhealthy also in this respect. Earlier with a slower growth rate it has been possible at least to some extent to try to educate newcomers which has been impossible now where it is rather the relative newcomers that dictate the behaviour of large parts of the community.

 

Cezanne

 

I agree, the growth of geocaching, especially in saturated areas make people less likely to help out. There are too many caches in need of assistance and many neglectful or absentee owners.

 

The vast majority of NM logs are concerning wet or full logs....IMO going on a caching outing without spare logs and a pencil or pen to sign logs is like going fishing without your bait or tackle box. Logs can be printed out and cut for little cost....add a zip lock for a penny or two.......even if you put out 0 caches if you carried spare logs you would help the geocaching community a great deal.

I really see things going in the wrong direction....when problems arise with my caches I make them premium.

There are jokes about Platinum membership but I would pay extra to hopefully create a new level where cachers would be more dedicated.

 

I can understand if people are not willing to take care of caches of neglectful owners where the problems persists for a long time or that are really in a devastating state. I rather have in mind caches where a new problem arises and this problem can be fixied relatively easy. For example, if the log sheet gets wet because previous cachers did not close the container properly or of a log book gets full ealier than expected e.g. because someone uses much more space than intended, one can try to temporarily improve the status. A caring cache owner might still need a few days before being able to look after a cache and for a cache which gets several visits per day (I do not own such a cache!), I get frustrated to read the same message that the log is wet or full up to twenty times without a single cacher trying to take a constructive action.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Here's a scenario I just found that makes a good example....

 

2 DNFs get reported a week apart in May, a NM log gets posted 2 months later by someone who had found the cache and verifies that the cache is indeed gone. The cache owner is active. The cache is still active, the owner has not replaced cache or disabled the listing. As someone who filters out caches with NMs, I get to save some gas money and time that could be spent looking for caches that are actually there.

 

In this case Cezanne and Bamboozle, would you feel a NM is appropriate?

 

Yes I do......however I still feel it was better to put it in a note to the cache the way it was done for years when there was no NM to use out of context.

Why was it better? There was no way for a seeker to know there was problem with the cache unless he read all the logs - with all the hints/spoilers that doesn't make sense if you want the "old time feel" of cache hunting.

Link to comment

Here's a scenario I just found that makes a good example....

 

2 DNFs get reported a week apart in May, a NM log gets posted 2 months later by someone who had found the cache and verifies that the cache is indeed gone. The cache owner is active. The cache is still active, the owner has not replaced cache or disabled the listing. As someone who filters out caches with NMs, I get to save some gas money and time that could be spent looking for caches that are actually there.

 

In this case Cezanne and Bamboozle, would you feel a NM is appropriate?

 

My reply is similar than the one by Bamboozle. In such a case I do feel that a NM log is not inappropriate, but I rather think that such a cache should be temporarily disabled. There are so many caches with NM flag that can be found that I for those that cannot be found I rather would like to see a different form of designation.

 

At least in my area NM flags do not keep people from visiting a cache and they also do not motivate them to help out if there is a minor issue. For an unfindable cache like that one

http://www.geocachin...17-e0e08de1e438

I would prefer if a reviewer would be willing to disable the cache if the owner is not taking action, but unfortunately in the case above this did not work out. Neither my mail to a reviewer to disable the cache months ago nor a NA log by another cacher led to any action.

 

 

Just makes me appreicate our reviewer more. Within days of somebody posting a NA on a cache like this, she would disable it, then archive it after 30 days if still not replaced. She's just that good. :D

 

The Reviewers in Ontario are that good too. We are indeed fortunate.

Link to comment

 

The Reviewers in Ontario are that good too. We are indeed fortunate.

 

The AZ reviewer will look for caches that have had a NM for 30 days or more, and post a warning on the cache page.

(He will even look for caches with unusual found/DNF patterns, and disable them.)

No action, and the cache is disabled.

Thirty more days with no action and it's archived.

 

I do not need to post an 'Owner Maintenance' log to remove the attribute, I can just edit it out if I like. :anibad:

 

I'm not against the use of the 'NM' log, I just don't think it should be the first action when a minor issue is noted.

If the CO (for whatever reason) fails to deal with something mentioned in a log as needing attention, THEN the 'NM' is warranted.

A 'Needs Maintenance' really doesn't mean the cache is (necessarily) unfindable, so I can't understand why anyone would refuse to look for them...especially considering the opportunity to do some minor maintenance for the CO, thus building the community by friendly interaction. Of course this doesn't mean I'm going to make any effort to fix a cache by an owner whose maintenance plan is for others to do the maintenance. :mad:

Link to comment

The container for one of my caches went missing in May and a finder kindly placed the remaining contents in a zip lock bag to keep them dry, but I didn't even notice until another finder posted a NM a few days ago. And that's after two other people found it without giving any indication even in their Found log that the container was now a zip lock bag when the description said it was an ammo box.

 

I know no one wants to upset the cache owner, but don't you think this is something that I should know about?

Link to comment
IMO going on a caching outing without spare logs and a pencil or pen to sign logs is like going fishing without your bait or tackle box.

 

(I hope I got the quote attribution right!)

 

Amen. I always carry a few waterproof logs in my wallet. IMO, there should never be an NM posted because of a wet or full logbook.

 

But that's just my opinion; I know full well it doesn't mesh well with the "I'm entitled to have perfect caches" mindset that appears to be the norm today.

Link to comment
IMO going on a caching outing without spare logs and a pencil or pen to sign logs is like going fishing without your bait or tackle box.

 

(I hope I got the quote attribution right!)

 

Amen. I always carry a few waterproof logs in my wallet. IMO, there should never be an NM posted because of a wet or full logbook.

 

But that's just my opinion; I know full well it doesn't mesh well with the "I'm entitled to have perfect caches" mindset that appears to be the norm today.

 

I was caching a bit in N.D. today on vacation and took care of a few. There were 2 in which the past 4 or 5 finders were whining about wet, unsignable logs on both and damaged container on one. Of course they all logged Finds on the cache although they didn't sign the log......if I were the CO I'd delete their finds, no-sign, no-find. Finding caches is expensive......it cost me about $4-$5 for each cache I find. If CO's started deleting these no-sign finds the inconsiderate ones may see the light, from a monetary standpoint anyway, and start carrying spare logs.

I took care of the two logs and replaced the damaged container as well......why not, I was there....the CO may live 50 miles away.

If the entire caching community pitched in on cache maint. instead of whining and posting NM's almost all cachers could have dozens of hides, there would be more caches to find, and the ones that are out there would be in better shape.

Edited by BAMBOOZLE
Link to comment
IMO going on a caching outing without spare logs and a pencil or pen to sign logs is like going fishing without your bait or tackle box.

 

(I hope I got the quote attribution right!)

 

Amen. I always carry a few waterproof logs in my wallet. IMO, there should never be an NM posted because of a wet or full logbook.

 

But that's just my opinion; I know full well it doesn't mesh well with the "I'm entitled to have perfect caches" mindset that appears to be the norm today.

 

I was caching a bit in N.D. today on vacation and took care of a few. There were 2 in which the past 4 or 5 finders were whining about wet, unsignable logs on both and damaged container on one. Of course they all logged Finds on the cache although they didn't sign the log......if I were the CO I'd delete their finds, no-sign, no-find. Finding caches is expensive......it cost me about $4-$5 for each cache I find. If CO's started deleting these no-sign finds the inconsiderate ones may see the light, from a monetary standpoint anyway, and start carrying spare logs.

I took care of the two logs and replaced the damaged container as well......why not, I was there....the CO may live 50 miles away.

If the entire caching community pitched in on cache maint. instead of whining and posting NM's almost all cachers could have dozens of hides, there would be more caches to find, and the ones that are out there would be in better shape.

 

I may help an owner who appears to care for their caches. I won't lift a finger to help someone who just can't be bothered and is expecting everyone else to clean up their mess.

 

And if the container is broken I'm not going to add another piece of paper to the already developed wad of moist nasty that is already in there.

 

I bring sheets of paper as a replacement. Since I live somewhere where it freezes I have an expectation that a pencil or pen that works won't be in the cache and bring my own (which seems to be the norm in my area. I have brought a replacement container one time. But if the container is a mess in my opinion for sure that is the responsibility of the cache owner. Not of all the people finding it but the owner needs to get out there and fix it. And if the stuff inside is wet and mess because of a bad container it's the owner's responsibility to care for that not everyone finding it.

 

If an owner can't maintain the caches they put they need to reconsider if they should be putting them out instead of leaving their geotrash around for others to clean up.

Link to comment

The old system without NM logs has worked very well for many years and anyone interested learnt about changes.

 

It probably worked fine for conscientious COs who watched their email and responded to any mention of an issue, but it didn't work well for weeding out defunct COs who abandoned their cache and cache listings.

 

As a finder I love the NM attribute. I waste less time and frustration on caches that are in need of repair or have been abandoned or belong to COs who are sluggish about maintenance or don't care if a logbook is full.

 

I see too many NMs where you can turn over the log, and find lots of room to sign. There are two sides to the page! And the NMs for we Rite-in-the-Rain logs! Finders need to use a lot more discretion on the NMs! And I've seen NM or even NA for 'travelbug is not in the cache'!

Yes, a lot of CO's do not seem to know how to clear the NM icon. But an awful lot of NM logs are inappropriate.

Link to comment

I think there are plenty of cases where cachers just don't know they SHOULD use need maintenance logs. A lot of our newbies don't know what they are for and when to use them so they don't for fear of doing the wrong thing. I rarely post a NM for a wet log unless it's virtually disintegrated - cause they often dry back up again but I do post for full logs or containers that need help.

Link to comment

If the entire caching community pitched in on cache maint. instead of whining and posting NM's almost all cachers could have dozens of hides, there would be more caches to find, and the ones that are out there would be in better shape.

 

And cache owners could get even lazier about their ownership responsibilities...

 

Any cache owner complaining that the community didn't 'pitch in' and help with minor maintenance issues is just as spoiled and as entitled as the finder who expects a perfect caching experience every time out. Of course, I only have a handful of caches hidden. Since I don't have dozens or hundreds of hides, I shouldn't be complaining and my opinion on cache maintenance is null and void. So, what is the lowest number of hides I can have before I'm entitled to complain about cachers not maintaining MY caches?

 

Don't get me wrong. There is NOTHING wrong with pitching in and helping out and I do it if I can. As a CO, I know I'd appreciate that if/when someone does it for me but I'd never expect them to.

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...