When do you log "Needs Archived"?

[+darrick76]

What is the standard for using the "Needs Archived" log? My city is littered with what seems to be deadbeat caches and it would be nice if some of them where archived and the space opened up for others to use.

 

Here is a example of what I am talking about.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCVQAK

 

It hasn't been found in 8 months. Has been verified numerous times that it is missing. The cache owner last visit to the website was Monday, 31 January 2011 over 18 months ago. Shouldn't that cache be archived?

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

When the cache has many NM and the CO is not active.

I also logged one once that was an ammo can buried in a hole. That's against the rules.

[+Ma & Pa]

In California we had a DNF because the hole in the rock pile was also the home of a rattlesnake.

 

In Virginia we tried for a lamp skirt but there was a hornet nest under the skirt. Another DNF. We checked logs and saw that someone had been stung. Another log said that they found the cache on the outside of the skirt. We didnt see the cache so we presume that it was gone.

 

In both cases we asked for them to be archived for safety reasons. The response that the guidelines do not provide for archiving for safety reasons. I think both caches are still active.

 

PA

[GOF and Bacall]

When do you log "Needs Archived"?

 

Tuesdays at 7:24 PM.

[+niraD]

I've logged NA only once. The cache had low difficulty, a long string of finds with no DNFs, then DNFs with no finds, an NM with no response, more DNFs with no finds, and a CO who hadn't logged on for months.

Edited August 25, 2012 by niraD

[+The A-Team]

It hasn't been found in 8 months. Has been verified numerous times that it is missing. The cache owner last visit to the website was Monday, 31 January 2011 over 18 months ago. Shouldn't that cache be archived?

Absolutely! That's a perfect candidate for a NA. There used to be a lot of this type of cache around these parts, similar to what it sounds like your area is like. A few of us got fed up, and we've been bringing them to the attention of a reviewer by logging NAs. She has worked with us and kept on top of them, and we've gotten a lot of these delinquent caches archived. There was recently a Mega nearby, and I've seen lots of logs from cachers impressed with the level of maintenance on local caches.

 

A lot of people seem to be reluctant to log a NA, but sometimes it just has to be done. I don't mind coming out and saying that a cache needs to go if it needs to go. Some may label me a cache cop, but I can sleep soundly at night knowing the overall quality of the caches in this community has been improved.

[+Lexmarks567]

Maybe there should be some kind of option that emails the owners saying you have not logged into your account for 90 days you have 7 days from this email to log in to keep your account active or your account will be closed. All they need to do is log in and log out within the time limit. If they don't there account is closed and the caches archived automatically.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Lexmarks567

[AZcachemeister]

The thing is that the 'Needs Archived' log is poorly named.

 

It should be 'Needs Reviewer Attention', and when a cache 'Needs Reviewer Attention' is when I post one.

 

Could be anything from obviously bad co-ordinates that the owner refuses to update, to private property issues, to a string of DNFs on a cache that was getting regular finds but the CO refuses to check or replace the cache, etc.

[+Allyn56]

The thing is that the 'Needs Archived' log is poorly named.

 

It should be 'Needs Reviewer Attention', and when a cache 'Needs Reviewer Attention' is when I post one.

 

Could be anything from obviously bad co-ordinates that the owner refuses to update, to private property issues, to a string of DNFs on a cache that was getting regular finds but the CO refuses to check or replace the cache, etc.

 

I agree. The Needs Archive s really a flag more to the reviewer than the CO since the CO should have gotten many other messages to fix by then. Our reviewer has even asked we post a Needs Archive to point these types out as they would not ther wise get this notice.

 

Not a fan of automatic account closure.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Yes, the cache should be archived. Anything thats been missing 3-6 months would qualify, in my books.

 

I would write something like :

 

Needs Archived - Cache appears to have been missing for 8 months and cache owner appears inactive.

 

If it hasnt been that long and the cache owner is still active, I would suggest first posting a

 

Needs Maintenance - Any plans to replace?

 

If the owner doesnèt respond within a month, I would then post a

 

Needs Archived - Not being replaced?

 

We used to have lots of neglected caches in our area, but weve archived alot with the help of our reviewer. Things are squeaky clean right now and it feels good knowing caching in our area is nicer for everybody now.

 

So far, Ive only received 1 nasty email.

Edited August 25, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[4wheelin_fool]

If the owner is not active, and the cache is missing or in bad condition, Id log a NA. If the owner is active, a NM is all that's needed. If the hide is illegal and may cause problems with the property owner, then I'd just email the reviewer. No need for the public drama.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Log it!

 

If the CO is just being lazy, it usually jars him to life. If he has no life left in him, well.... let nature run its' course with the NA -- problem solved!

 

I don't see why "molly-coddling" is necessary.

[+Lieblweb]

I would only log an NA log if a cache is located in an area where the land owner has confronted me - and doesn't want it there.

 

For everything else - I use NM logs.

If there are a lot of NM logs and the person isn't active - I would send an email to the Reviewer.

The Reviewer can handle the situation.

 

I believe - it's not my judgement to decide a cache should be Archived. I would rather see a reviewer make a 'judgement call' as they are more rehearsed to deal with these situations. And, it doesn't create a ripple with the community cachers.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Lieblweb

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

The Help Center describes perfectly when to log a N/A, and is what I use.

 

1 - There is a law enforcement, trespassing or similar issue requiring immediate attention. Occasionally a cache is placed in a location that is inappropriate because of security concerns - schools, court houses, or airports among the most common.

 

2 - There is no immediate problem, but it is painfully evident that the cache is missing AND the owner is missing.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I would only log an NA log if a cache is located in an area where the land owner has confronted me - and doesn't want it there.

 

For everything else - I use NM logs.

If there are a lot of NM logs and the person isn't active - I would send an email to the Reviewer.

The Reviewer can handle the situation.

 

I believe - it's not my judgement to decide a cache should be Archived. I would rather see a reviewer make a 'judgement call' as they are more rehearsed to deal with these situations. And, it doesn't create a ripple with the community cachers.

 

I agree 100 %.

[+The A-Team]

Maybe there should be some kind of option that emails the owners saying you have not logged into your account for 90 days you have 7 days from this email to log in to keep your account active or your account will be closed. All they need to do is log in and log out within the time limit. If they don't there account is closed and the caches archived automatically.

This would cause a massive amount of geo-litter from caches that are still in place, but have been force-archived. IMO, bad idea.

 

So far, Ive only received 1 nasty email.

We'll have to chat the next time we see each other. I'm curious who it might have been and what exactly they said.

[+OZ2CPU]

do your research a little bit, like the OP did, and you find it is perfectly ok to NA

a cache in bad shape AND clearly not beeing taken care of, by the CO..

 

other people ask for an auto archive of all caches belonging to a non active CO,

that sounds a bit too hard.

since it dont matter if a CO is active or not,

as long as the cache is in perfect shape.

 

some people use very good quality containers, and also located them where they will last a very long time

and also some are located where less people do visit them,

this mean a cache can live 5-10 years after a CO die or loose interest in this hobby.

 

if you get a nasty mail, just take it as something positive,

you found out the CO did care, NICE :-)

just say, hey I am sorry I pushed it a bit too fast maybe, but glad you care

and glad you go and maintain the cache, so it is again soon in good shape,

after all that is what we all care so much about.

[+Sol seaker]

I would only log an NA log if a cache is located in an area where the land owner has confronted me - and doesn't want it there.

 

For everything else - I use NM logs.

If there are a lot of NM logs and the person isn't active - I would send an email to the Reviewer.

The Reviewer can handle the situation.

 

I believe - it's not my judgement to decide a cache should be Archived. I would rather see a reviewer make a 'judgement call' as they are more rehearsed to deal with these situations. And, it doesn't create a ripple with the community cachers.

 

I agree 100 %.

 

It is always the reviewers call. We never make the decision. All we do is draw the reviewers attention to the cache by logging a "NA" on the cache.

Logging a "NA" is just telling the reviewer to take a look.

 

I figure I only visit each cache once, so I try to do my part for every cacher that comes after me.

I hate searching for a cache for a long time only to find it has been DNF'ed for many months without anyone even bothering with a "needs maintenance".

I try to do my part for the community.

 

 

Edit; derned auto correct

Edited August 25, 2012 by Sol seaker

[GPS-Hermit]

I have done it more than one way - for me it depends on how much I like the cache and the area. Assuming someone else will use the area may not be a great assumption. I try hard to contact the owner and if no result, I simply re-establish it myself based on the comments in the logs. If people are loving the cache, I prefer to see it live on. If it was a great idea in the 1st place and the continuing logs can show the whole history. Watching the cache will keep you informed about it. Log notes will tell the community it is back - I also send email to the one that got a DNF and they can come again and most of them do.

 

Don't just assume that the cache owner is irresponsible - it might be sudden health issues. The approver can decide based on rules so you just have to send them a note with your honest concerns.

 

It is a great contribution to keep a GOOD cache in place - especially if you love reading the logs from people willing to write them and share the wonderful experiences they have. I would have a hard time archiving a cache with lots of favorites posted to it.

[+The A-Team]

The approver reviewer can decide based on rules the guidelines so you just have to send them a note with your honest concerns.

Fixed it for ya.

 

I don't agree with cachers replacing and maintaining the caches of an absentee owner. I know people do it with good intentions, but it usually just doesn't work in the long run. The non-owner can't edit the description or hint, can't remove the NM flag, and can't update the coordinates. What you end up with is a cache listing that doesn't reflect reality, which just makes things harder for those who try to find the cache.

[+L0ne.R]

I would only log an NA log if a cache is located in an area where the land owner has confronted me - and doesn't want it there.

 

For everything else - I use NM logs.

If there are a lot of NM logs and the person isn't active - I would send an email to the Reviewer.

The Reviewer can handle the situation.

 

I believe - it's not my judgement to decide a cache should be Archived. I would rather see a reviewer make a 'judgement call' as they are more rehearsed to deal with these situations. And, it doesn't create a ripple with the community cachers.

 

I agree 100 %.

 

I once emailed a Reviewer about a cache with poor coordinates, many recent DNFs and a couple NMs. The owner was active. The Reviewer sent me a reply email asking me to log an NA.

Edited August 25, 2012 by L0ne R

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

I once emailed a Reviewer about a cache with poor coordinates, many recent DNFs and a couple NMs. The owner was active. The Reviewer sent me a reply email asking me to log an NA.

 

It's just easier for the reviewers if you post a NA. Can you imagine how many emails they get a day?

[+The_Incredibles_]

So far, Ive only received 1 nasty email.

We'll have to chat the next time we see each other. I'm curious who it might have been and what exactly they said.

 

Chat? I would have thought it easier just to hack into my email.

[+BlueDeuce]

The thing is that the 'Needs Archived' log is poorly named.

 

It should be 'Needs Reviewer Attention', and when a cache 'Needs Reviewer Attention' is when I post one.

 

Could be anything from obviously bad co-ordinates that the owner refuses to update, to private property issues, to a string of DNFs on a cache that was getting regular finds but the CO refuses to check or replace the cache, etc.

 

Tell me that any cache that finally gets a NA prompts the cache owner to take action. Heck if 40% respond I'll send them a Thank you Note.

[+The_Incredibles_]

The thing is that the 'Needs Archived' log is poorly named.

 

It should be 'Needs Reviewer Attention', and when a cache 'Needs Reviewer Attention' is when I post one.

 

Could be anything from obviously bad co-ordinates that the owner refuses to update, to private property issues, to a string of DNFs on a cache that was getting regular finds but the CO refuses to check or replace the cache, etc.

 

Tell me that any cache that finally gets a NA prompts the cache owner to take action. Heck if 40% respond I'll send them a Thank you Note.

 

From my experience in logging NAs, I"ve found that about 50% of cache owners will take action, either to replace or to archive themselves.

 

The other 50% of the time, the cache owner is unresponsive and the reviewer needs to take care of things.

Edited August 26, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+L0ne.R]

The thing is that the 'Needs Archived' log is poorly named.

 

It should be 'Needs Reviewer Attention', and when a cache 'Needs Reviewer Attention' is when I post one.

 

Could be anything from obviously bad co-ordinates that the owner refuses to update, to private property issues, to a string of DNFs on a cache that was getting regular finds but the CO refuses to check or replace the cache, etc.

 

Tell me that any cache that finally gets a NA prompts the cache owner to take action. Heck if 40% respond I'll send them a Thank you Note.

 

From my experience in logging NAs, I"ve found that about 50% of cache owners will take action, either to replace or to archive themselves.

 

The other 50% of the time, the cache owner is unresponsive and the reviewer needs to take care of things.

 

I had a look at my list of caches that I posted a NA on....7 caches: 6 archived by a reviewer. 1 archived by the CO (who got angry and committed geocide minutes after my NA).

[+The A-Team]

Chat? I would have thought it easier just to hack into my email.

I assure you, no hacking was involved. Just some sleuthing using my computer.

 

As for Needs Archiveds, it looks like about 1/3 of the caches I log a NA on get archived by the owner. Many of those were caches that the owner never intended to replace, but they just forgot to or didn't know to archive it.

[+whh0]

I usually look to see if the CO is active or not before deciding whether or not to post a NM or NA, if the CO is active I am more likely to put a NM note unless there are several which haven't been responded to. Nothing worse than being far from home looking for caches that are long gone........... Several that have been archived now have lovely new caches in their place which wouldn't have been there if I had done nothing.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Tell me that any cache that finally gets a NA prompts the cache owner to take action. Heck if 40% respond I'll send them a Thank you Note.

 

From my experience in logging NAs, I"ve found that about 50% of cache owners will take action, either to replace or to archive themselves.

 

The other 50% of the time, the cache owner is unresponsive and the reviewer needs to take care of things.

 

I would put it far lower. Probably lower than 10% where the CO does anything.

We have some prolific COs who never perform maintenance. Some great caches! But never perform maintenance. I put NA on one that had had some problems. I think I found the container on the ground, chewed. CO was there a week later, and never did anything. I'm sure it will be archived in a few weeks.

Umm... Nice caches, but you should not screw them into the tree a few feet from the the trail. Archived, but probably still there.

Perhaps you are being too liberal in assigning NA to caches?

[Chino1130]

In my opinion, if there are multiple complaints about a cache being beyond usable and it has been over a month with no help from the CO, its time to log "needs archived"

[+The_Incredibles_]

Perhaps you are being too liberal in assigning NA to caches?

 

Nope. Just a different area, my thinks. I post NAs for caches that have been missing for months with no sign of the owner. How long should it take for action, really - 6 months, a year? Considering alot of these people are no longer caching, there's really no point waiting. I've seen a number of new caches published as a result of my NAs - the benefit to the community is clear and I wish more people would do it.

[+DsrtMtnRox]

The thing is that the 'Needs Archived' log is poorly named.

 

It should be 'Needs Reviewer Attention', and when a cache 'Needs Reviewer Attention' is when I post one.

 

Could be anything from obviously bad co-ordinates that the owner refuses to update, to private property issues, to a string of DNFs on a cache that was getting regular finds but the CO refuses to check or replace the cache, etc.

 

I agree. The Needs Archive s really a flag more to the reviewer than the CO since the CO should have gotten many other messages to fix by then. Our reviewer has even asked we post a Needs Archive to point these types out as they would not ther wise get this notice.

 

Not a fan of automatic account closure.

+1

[+Scubasonic]

I usually will if the Reviewer has given the cache owner 30 days to respond and they haven't and it is well past the 30 days, just to remind the reviewer to archive.

 

SS

[+Lieblweb]

I once emailed a Reviewer about a cache with poor coordinates, many recent DNFs and a couple NMs. The owner was active. The Reviewer sent me a reply email asking me to log an NA.

 

So what's the point in that? Other than....the reviewer probably doesn't have time to look up the information you included in your email and its just easier for you & the system to point it out for him/her.

 

Or...Big Brother is watching and they have to dot their I's and cross their T's

 

It probably depends on the reviewer themselves.... and how busy they are and/or what they think is needed. That probably varies across the board.

[+DanOCan]

I save my NA logs for situations where both the cache and the owner appear to be missing. Or, if I have been confronted by someone appearing to be the landowner...or there appears to be no legal way to access the cache location.

[+OZ2CPU]

I did a little stat check of my logs of PHYSICAL caches:

 

1874 found it

168 did not find it

86 Owner Maintenance (impressed ??)

46 Needs Maintenance

6 Needs Archived

 

so this means the Needs Archived is used very rare,

maybe a bit too rare, some might say.

[+Ma & Pa]

I once emailed a Reviewer about a cache with poor coordinates, many recent DNFs and a couple NMs. The owner was active. The Reviewer sent me a reply email asking me to log an NA.

 

So what's the point in that? Other than....the reviewer probably doesn't have time to look up the information you included in your email and its just easier for you & the system to point it out for him/her.

 

Or...Big Brother is watching and they have to dot their I's and cross their T's

 

It probably depends on the reviewer themselves.... and how busy they are and/or what they think is needed. That probably varies across the board.

 

Maybe the reviewer likes to have a NA so he can then send a message to the CO , saying that it has been brought to his attention that there is a problem with the cache.