Needs Maintenance? Really?

[+T_M_H]

I guess I am just irritable tonight but how does someone feel it right to post a NM log on a cache from 2500 miles away based on 3 DNFs by a group who was caching together?. Maybe it is just me but I usually email the CO and inform them that I will be travelling to an area and would like the opportunity to try to find their cache. Sorry for the rant...

[+The A-Team]

I guess I am just irritable tonight but how does someone feel it right to post a NM log on a cache from 2500 miles away based on 3 DNFs by a group who was caching together?. Maybe it is just me but I usually email the CO and inform them that I will be travelling to an area and would like the opportunity to try to find their cache. Sorry for the rant...

I have to ask, did you actually check and confirm stage 1 is there before logging your "Owner maintenance" log? If you did, you didn't mention it in your log. The way the logs read, someone logged a NM and you just cleared it with an OM without even checking on it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing you of doing this, it's just the way the log sounds. Some COs will do this, so it's very helpful if an owner can explicitly state that the cache has been checked and is fine.

 

As far as logging an NM from so far away, I understand where they're coming from. They'll soon be visiting the area and would like to find your cache, but aren't sure that it's there to be found based on recent logs. To be honest, I would probably think the same. The 3 DNFers are very experienced cachers have a lot of finds and said that they split up to cover the area very thoroughly. Until someone else found it or you confirmed it was there, I'd go on the assumption that it's missing.

 

Take it as a compliment that they're travelling all that way and have chosen your cache as one they want to find.

[+T_M_H]

In this instance I did not verify it. I didn't for a few reasons:

 

1. Based on the type of hide it is I highly doubt it is missing.

 

2. Many other "experienced cachers" have DNF'd this stage.

 

3. It is a hard stage.

 

Either way there was no reason to post a NM log so I have no problem clearing it without checking. On my easier caches I have checked them after a DNF just to make sure. I just did that a few hours ago.

[+The A-Team]

Either way there was no reason to post a NM log so I have no problem clearing it without checking.

You've assumed there was no reason to post a NM log, you don't know. By logging an OM without checking, you may in fact be lying to them if the stage is indeed missing.

 

If someone was that interested in wanting to look for my cache, I'd certainly go check on it to make sure it's still in good shape. But I guess that's just me.

[+ShaunEM]

In this instance I did not verify it. I didn't for a few reasons:

 

1. Based on the type of hide it is I highly doubt it is missing.

 

2. Many other "experienced cachers" have DNF'd this stage.

 

3. It is a hard stage.

 

Either way there was no reason to post a NM log so I have no problem clearing it without checking. On my easier caches I have checked them after a DNF just to make sure. I just did that a few hours ago.

 

Personally, I consider a group of 3 a single cacher vs. 3 DNFs. Probably not worthy of a NM...

 

However, If you have not checked on this one in a while, get to it...

 

If it is there, feel free to post a log gloating how awesome your cache is and how annoyed you are by a premature NM log.

 

The damage an area can take when people try to find a cache that is not there.. gives us all a bad name.

[+jellis]

I agree and I wouldn't be surprised if those cachers just ended up passing on your cache because they don't believe you confirmed it was there. I tend to pass on ones that have many DNFs by experienced cachers if not confirmed.

[+fizzymagic]

I have to ask, did you actually check and confirm stage 1 is there before logging your "Owner maintenance" log? If you did, you didn't mention it in your log. The way the logs read, someone logged a NM and you just cleared it with an OM without even checking on it.

 

So you think every time some random person (who did not even search for the cache) decides to put a NM log on a cache, the owner has to drop everything and run out to see if it's OK?

 

Can you imagine any way that might lead to abuse?

 

Take it as a compliment that they're travelling all that way and have chosen your cache as one they want to find.

 

They don't sound like the kind of people I would want finding my cache. If they can't be bothered to email the CO directly asking about it, but take the lazy way out and log an NM, then I think the OP's response is appropriate.

[+SwineFlew]

Check on it before you assume anything. Its best that way. I have see some of the hardest caches that stumped the best of the best but it always seem the muggled find them easier than a cacher.

 

When a cache havent been found for a while, I always go out and check it and write a maintenance log. I dont assume anything.

[+J the Goat]

I have to ask, did you actually check and confirm stage 1 is there before logging your "Owner maintenance" log? If you did, you didn't mention it in your log. The way the logs read, someone logged a NM and you just cleared it with an OM without even checking on it.

 

So you think every time some random person (who did not even search for the cache) decides to put a NM log on a cache, the owner has to drop everything and run out to see if it's OK?

 

Can you imagine any way that might lead to abuse?

 

Take it as a compliment that they're travelling all that way and have chosen your cache as one they want to find.

 

They don't sound like the kind of people I would want finding my cache. If they can't be bothered to email the CO directly asking about it, but take the lazy way out and log an NM, then I think the OP's response is appropriate.

 

Well stated.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Cache in question

 

I have to say the NM log rubbed me the wrong way. It came off as "Your cache is gone for sure, you'd better go check it before we come back for the football game."

 

For me, a group of cachers searching counts as 1 DNF, not 3. I would think it's a bit premature for the cache to be declared missing.

 

I wouldn't have posted an Owner Maintenance Log, though. To me, that only applies if you've checked and found the cache still there. A note would be more appropriate in this situation OR perhaps just ignoring the NM until you get at least 1 more DNF.

 

I agree that a personal email from the 3 cachers would have been more appropriate, in this case, perhaps to ask for an extra hint.

Edited August 31, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[4wheelin_fool]

If someone can post a Needs Maintenance log without visiting the cache, I think the owner should be able to post a Owner Maintenance log without visiting it either.

Edited August 31, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

Usually if I am going to be traveling to an area and there is a cache that looks interesting with several DNFs or the CO has temp-disabled then I'll post a note to the cache to ask the status.

There's no reason for me to post a NM on a cache outside of my current caching-zone unless I have searched for it.

[+jellis]

Cache in question

 

I have to say the NM log rubbed me the wrong way. It came off as "Your cache is gone for sure, you'd better go check it before we come back for the football game."

 

For me, a group of cachers searching counts as 1 DNF, not 3. I would think it's a bit premature for the cache to be declared missing.

 

I wouldn't have posted an Owner Maintenance Log, though. To me, that only applies if you've checked and found the cache still there. A note would be more appropriate in this situation OR perhaps just ignoring the NM until you get at least 1 more DNF.

 

I agree that a personal email from the 3 cachers would have been more appropriate, in this case, perhaps to ask for an extra hint.

Though I do agree a NM was too much even a note would have worked. If you just sent the message to the CO it would be just between the two of them. But what about the cachers who logged the DNFs. Writing a note to ask if they could check it would also let the others in on it. Then maybe if the CO hasn't responded then try emailing them. If still no response either pass on the cache or then place a NM for lack of response.

[+OZ2CPU]

making a cache EXTREAMLY hard to find, is often a nightmare for CO and for the seekers !!

a CO who make such stuff, must be prepared for a bit of DNF and NM and NA and mails,

and he must go there often to be sure it is all ok..

can you handle this ??

if not, add good usefull hints, and be happy..

[+OZ2CPU]

another thing to mention, the 3 seekers who did not find it..

got 22 times as many finds as the CO...

so they know the game !! and all details about it..

they did nothing wrong in repporting their DNF,

I would email them, ask WHERE did they search ??

if correct location was emailed to me, I go check for sure.

 

you know a CO can perform service checks BEFORE a NM is posted.

 

---

 

another trick people can do :

post a NM log, and delete it 1 sec later,

now the NM flag is set, and the mail to CO was not send..

that trick someone pulled on me, so I posted a service log, to clear the flag,

and then delete my log.. it is a wierd world sometimes :-)

Edited August 31, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[+Harry Dolphin]

Take it as a compliment that they're travelling all that way and have chosen your cache as one they want to find.

 

They don't sound like the kind of people I would want finding my cache. If they can't be bothered to email the CO directly asking about it, but take the lazy way out and log an NM, then I think the OP's response is appropriate.

 

Yes. I am planning a trip. Any cache in the area with two or more DNFs was deleted from the GPSr. It's not up to me to log NM on a cache that I have not looked for.

[+T_M_H]

That is exactly my point. I can accept a NM log from someone who has actually looked for the cache and did not find it but to do so from another state seemed a little excessive.

 

As for the group, they are regulars in our area and go on a weekly numbers runs. They found one of my hardest caches on the same day. However, as was stated, they do split up to cover a wider area so technically only one of them search GZ and did not find it. LOL

[+Isonzo Karst]

There's an article about using the Needs Maintenance log in the Knowledge Books.

 

I note that it opens with, "If you find a geocache...." ;-)

 

I think this is the most ill-used log. It's used instead of logging a DNF, and for all manner of other stuff.

 

FYI to the cache owner here, and I offer this only because you came to the forums and asked, "really?". In this situation, as a cache owner, I'd have made no comment, and just cleared the NM icon from the attributes menu. As little as I like NM logs from people who haven't visited, or ought to just log a DNF and move along, I'm even less of a fan of Owner Maintenance logs where no actual physical maintenance was done.

 

I might put a visit to the cache on the "to do" list. When/if that happened, I'd post Owner Maintence.

 

I appreciate that you resisted the temptation to delete the log.

[+Team Dennis]

another thing to mention, the 3 seekers who did not find it..

got 22 times as many finds as the CO...

so they know the game !! and all details about it..

they did nothing wrong in repporting their DNF...

 

The amount of finds you have logged has NOTHING to do with how well you "know the game". Besides, the OP was not upset about the DNFs on his cache. He was upset by the fact that someone logged a NM without ever searching for the cache.

 

Has anyone given any thought as to why a person would write a NM log on this cache from "2500 miles away" in the first place? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the coords end in ".000" and he/she is trying to accumulate finds that end in .000 for a challenge cache? Just curious.

 

Oh, I solved the puzzle on my first try. It just kind of came to me...which is odd because I am terrible when it comes to solving puzzle caches. Love the concept. Might have to "borrow" that idea someday.

[AZcachemeister]

If someone can post a Needs Maintenance log without visiting the cache, I think the owner should be able to post a Owner Maintenance log without visiting it either.

 

Sauce for the goose IS sauce for the gander...

[+OZ2CPU]

>The amount of finds you have logged has NOTHING to do with how well you "know the game".

 

it does a little bit :-)

two of the seekers found over 13k, so offcourse they have seen a bit here and there..

If they got the skils to accumulate this experience into something usefull, I dont know in this case..

however I do quite clearly feel a difference when I cache with friends with different find count.

offcourse there is the unlucky factor, or the bind for a day factor, we all tried that :-)

and then some noob pick it up in 30 sec, oh it happen too..

but in general people with more finds, tends to find harder stuff faster.

some cache hides take advantage of the expert skils and IS exactly the opposite as expected,

I got no idea if this is the case here, I hope so, it is alot of fun.

[+hukilaulau]

just to put in perspective...

there is a group near my area that apparently NEVER posts a DNF. Instead, if they can't find a cache, they will drop a throwdown and all claim a find. Recently a CO had to go out and pick up their throwdowns and inform them that the caches were still there. Or, in the case of one that actually was missing, put the new cache where it belonged.

I agree an email to you would have been more polite instead of a NM log. I would have just quietly deleted the NM and thanked the group for accurately telling the story of their hunt.

[+Mike & Jess]

I love DNFs on my caches if it's a good hard cache.

 

The point of caching is to find the cache. The point of hiding a cache is to make it good and hidden.

 

Back on topic... I have once cache that gets it's fair share of DNF (15 DNFs, 32 finds). I've never had to replace the cache or relocate it back where hidden.

My favorite DNF log from a high finder (7000's) "Given the hint and all the DNF'S this one is gone." I thought it was a NM until I checked a minute ago.

I checked it minutes later (lunch and I work a block away). Cache was fine.

 

Don't ever assume a high find count means they are experienced enough to confirm a cache is gone.

These power trails that exist... They make high find counters, not nessessarily good cachers.

[+dprovan]

I guess I am just irritable tonight but how does someone feel it right to post a NM log on a cache from 2500 miles away based on 3 DNFs by a group who was caching together?. Maybe it is just me but I usually email the CO and inform them that I will be travelling to an area and would like the opportunity to try to find their cache. Sorry for the rant...

Let's split this up a little:

 

Is it reasonable to post a NM from 2500 miles away? Well, I'd be very reluctant to do something like that, but if I thought I saw a problem with a cache that I really wanted to get, I might do something similar. This is a puzzle cache, so if I had a solution, that would make me much more interested in making sure it was in place. If I were travelling 2500 miles, I'm probably not going to have more than one chance to look for it, so I'm not going to be able to wait for the CO to replace it after I've failed to find it.

 

Is it reasonable to post a NM (from any distance) in this case? Yes, I admit that was probably a mistake, perhaps because he missed that the three DNFs were a single effort. It hasn't been found for a few months now, so he may have thought that was telling, although I'd agree that doesn't really say much in this case, either.

 

It's a judgement call, but I, too, disagree with his judgement. As others have noted, a note would have been more appropriate. But so what? He's interested in your cache, so that should make you happy. It wasn't hard for you to clear the maintenance flag, and you thoughtfully explained why you didn't think it was a problem. What harm has been done?

 

I don't know how hard it is to check on this cache, but with reason to believe that someone wants to look for it in the near future, I'd be inclined to go check on it to make sure someone travelling 2500 miles to find your cache won't be unnecessarily disappointed. You almost seem as if you'd be more likely to check on it if he'd posted a note or sent mail instead of posting a NM, but I think you'd enjoy yourself more by appreciating any interest in your cache, regardless of whether that intesest was expressed how you'd like it to be.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I love DNFs on my caches if it's a good hard cache.

 

The point of caching is to find the cache. The point of hiding a cache is to make it good and hidden.

 

 

So, a perfect cache hide is one that is never found because it is so well hidden?

[+thelanes]

Wow did I ever set off a long string of comments for logging a NM on a cache I did not visit. I have only been caching for 6 years and I still don't have all the answers. However, I have noticed in the past that an e-mail to MOST CO's just falls on deaf ears. I hardly ever get a response. I can say, based on the string of comments above, all of you would have contacted me and would have informed me that you checked on the cache and it is still in play, and I appreciate that.

As for me, I am not going to travel 800 miles and look for a cache that has not been found since May and has been DNF'ed by three people that were all looking for it at the same time unless I have some assurance that it is still in play.

Finally, I thought I wrote a very polite request to have the CO check on the cache. I did not add anything in the NM log that came off as me telling anyone to drop everything and go check on your cache now.

thelanes

[+The_Incredibles_]

It seems to me like if a cacher was not going to answer emails, they probably wouldn't respond to NM requests either.

 

If I was going to write a "very polite" request this is how it would go (as an email).

 

Dear cache-owner:

 

I really enjoyed solving your .... puzzle cache and am very much looking forward to finding it when I come to town for the ..... I live in .... so it's a special treat for me to visit your fine city. I'm solved your other puzzle caches and will be looking for them as well during my visit. For this particular one (GC....), it seems like it hasn't been found in a while? I'm wondering if it might be missing as the last 3 cachers DNFd If you've got time to check it, that would be appreciated. If not, no worries, and thanks for all the great caches.

 

Sincerely,

Me

[+fizzymagic]

Finally, I thought I wrote a very polite request to have the CO check on the cache. I did not add anything in the NM log that came off as me telling anyone to drop everything and go check on your cache now.

 

Your request was, in fact, not polite. Remember: you are not doing the CO a favor by seeking his cache; he is doing you a favor by having placed it.

 

Keeping that in mind may help you understand the social context of this game.

 

As for me, I am not going to travel 800 miles and look for a cache that has not been found since May and has been DNF'ed by three people that were all looking for it at the same time unless I have some assurance that it is still in play.

 

In my opinion, you are missing out on one of the most fun aspects of caching! The uncertainty of whether a cache is there, and the uncertainty of whether you will be able to find it are what gives caching its zest! I love to go looking for caches that have not been found in a long, long time. I prefer not to have the CO hold my hand and assure me it's there; that takes away a lot of the adventure.

 

And surely you are not traveling 800 miles for only that one cache, are you? There must be a few others in the area you could try.

[AZcachemeister]

 

As for me, I am not going to travel 800 miles and look for a cache that has not been found since May and has been DNF'ed by three people that were all looking for it at the same time unless I have some assurance that it is still in play.

Finally, I thought I wrote a very polite request to have the CO check on the cache. I did not add anything in the NM log that came off as me telling anyone to drop everything and go check on your cache now.

thelanes

 

I probably wouldn't travel 800 miles to find any specific cache, regardless of it's status.

 

The 'Needs Maintenance' log is meant to be used when someone KNOWS a cache needs maintenance, not when they think there might be a problem based on the logs. Posting one as a means of communication to the CO is an abuse of the system (and as we see here) is not always guaranteed to produce the desired response.

 

I have received PM messages and notes on my caches asking for a check-up, and I have always been happy to do so.

 

If someone who had never visited my cache had (and they've done it) posted a NM on my cache I would just go remove the attribute...and maybe delete the log as well.

 

Finally, thelanes, did you post 'Needs Maintenance' logs on all the other caches in the area with recent DNFs, or did you just single out the OPs cache?

[+Team Dennis]

As for me, I am not going to travel 800 miles and look for a cache that has not been found since May and has been DNF'ed by three people that were all looking for it at the same time unless I have some assurance that it is still in play.

thelanes

 

I'm still curious....what is it about this specific cache that makes you want to find it so badly that you would ask the CO to double check that it is still in play?

[+The A-Team]

I have to ask, did you actually check and confirm stage 1 is there before logging your "Owner maintenance" log? If you did, you didn't mention it in your log. The way the logs read, someone logged a NM and you just cleared it with an OM without even checking on it.

So you think every time some random person (who did not even search for the cache) decides to put a NM log on a cache, the owner has to drop everything and run out to see if it's OK?

Ummm, no. You sure have a knack of reading things that aren't there.

 

I never said the CO should drop everything and go check on their cache. The CO can go and check on it whenever they have the time, or choose not to check at all. What I was saying is that if you're logging an "Owner maintenance" log, I expect you to have actually done "owner maintenance". If you don't want to check on the cache and just want to clear the NM flag, do it manually through "Edit Attributes". Don't say you've performed maintenance when you haven't. That's called "lying", which is generally frowned upon in modern society.

 

Anyway, I agree with all the others that a NM in this case was probably not the best way to go about it. A note on the cache page would be the best, because then other cachers would be aware of the cache's status when the CO (hopefully) posts the result of their check. A PM would also work, but it would only be between the single cacher and the CO, so the rest of the caching public would still be wondering if the cache is there or not.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Looking at the cache page, if I had solved the puzzle and was traveling to the area soon I would have posted a Note rather than a NM explaining the circumstances and asking the CO to confirm the cache is still there. I have done so in the past on other caches. The cache in question has a history of DNFs - some of them due to stages that did in fact go missing - so it's not unreasonable to be concerned.

 

Personally, if anyone with 10,000+ Finds DNF'd one of my caches I would check on it. Especially since the previous 3 finders (possibly working as a team?) combined for less than 100 Finds.

 

(I don't know what the wording of the log was - it seems to have been deleted? - so I can't comment on that.)

[+M 5]

Why would a CO check on a cache with a bogus NM log? I wouldn't.

[+SwineFlew]

Stage 1 of that cache got a history of disappearing. That does make some people wonder if the cache is really there. If I was in the area, I will skip it because the history of disappearing and havent been found for while some time.

[+M 5]

Stage 1 of that cache got a history of disappearing. That does make some people wonder if the cache is really there. If I was in the area, I will skip it because the history of disappearing and havent been found for while some time.

 

The old stage one had issues. I like finding caches others DNF, and one group DNFing isn't very conclusive. Also, i was strictly referring to the NM from a non cache visitor. DNF's and NM from cachers that visit the cache site would hold more weight.

[+timbee&suebee]

If I was viewing this listing and saw that the three people were caching together (especially newbies) and got the DNF, I would have probably done a "write note" to the CO rather than a "NM". But either way, I understand that if they were travelling to your area and wanted to attempt your cache and saw that there were some DNFs that they would want some verification that the cache or that stage of the cache was actually still there. I have a cache that one person just wrote a note about in their log that said that they weren't able to find a stage. The next day I went out there to verify it was still there then I wrote a note to let everyone who might try to find it in the future know that it was there. I think it's just part of cache ownership. Why wouldn't you want to verify it so that people will continue to look for it? There have been caches that we have not bothered with because there have been DNFs or NMs that the CO hasn't responded to and we didn't want to waste our time looking for it if we weren't sure it was still there.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I have to ask, did you actually check and confirm stage 1 is there before logging your "Owner maintenance" log? If you did, you didn't mention it in your log. The way the logs read, someone logged a NM and you just cleared it with an OM without even checking on it.

 

So you think every time some random person (who did not even search for the cache) decides to put a NM log on a cache, the owner has to drop everything and run out to see if it's OK?

 

Can you imagine any way that might lead to abuse?

 

Take it as a compliment that they're travelling all that way and have chosen your cache as one they want to find.

 

They don't sound like the kind of people I would want finding my cache. If they can't be bothered to email the CO directly asking about it, but take the lazy way out and log an NM, then I think the OP's response is appropriate.

 

I agree 100%.....more misuse of NM / NA.....I would just delete the log.

[+Don_J]

Cache in question

 

I have to say the NM log rubbed me the wrong way. It came off as "Your cache is gone for sure, you'd better go check it before we come back for the football game."

 

For me, a group of cachers searching counts as 1 DNF, not 3. I would think it's a bit premature for the cache to be declared missing.

 

I wouldn't have posted an Owner Maintenance Log, though. To me, that only applies if you've checked and found the cache still there. A note would be more appropriate in this situation OR perhaps just ignoring the NM until you get at least 1 more DNF.

 

I agree that a personal email from the 3 cachers would have been more appropriate, in this case, perhaps to ask for an extra hint.

 

Why would I leave the NM attribute on my cache page if I am absolutely certain that my cache doesn't need maintenance? It is my responsibility to make this decision, not some random cacher that hasn't even bothered to look for it. I had a cacher post a NM on one of my caches stating that it has washed away in the recent rains, (no DNF log). The cache is totally protected from run off so I simply cleared the attribute by posting a OM log and another cacher found it two days later. That cacher may not of even looked if I had not cleared the icon. The idea that some cacher can post a random NM log and I'm not allowed to clear it until I check the cache is just wrong. I'm not a puppet.

Edited September 3, 2012 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

I have to ask, did you actually check and confirm stage 1 is there before logging your "Owner maintenance" log? If you did, you didn't mention it in your log. The way the logs read, someone logged a NM and you just cleared it with an OM without even checking on it.

So you think every time some random person (who did not even search for the cache) decides to put a NM log on a cache, the owner has to drop everything and run out to see if it's OK?

Ummm, no. You sure have a knack of reading things that aren't there.

 

I never said the CO should drop everything and go check on their cache. The CO can go and check on it whenever they have the time, or choose not to check at all. What I was saying is that if you're logging an "Owner maintenance" log, I expect you to have actually done "owner maintenance". If you don't want to check on the cache and just want to clear the NM flag, do it manually through "Edit Attributes". Don't say you've performed maintenance when you haven't. That's called "lying", which is generally frowned upon in modern society.

 

Anyway, I agree with all the others that a NM in this case was probably not the best way to go about it. A note on the cache page would be the best, because then other cachers would be aware of the cache's status when the CO (hopefully) posts the result of their check. A PM would also work, but it would only be between the single cacher and the CO, so the rest of the caching public would still be wondering if the cache is there or not.

 

But, you are doing maintenance. Part of our cache maintenance obligation is making sure that the cache page is accurate.

 

I think that a lot of people do not realize that when they use this log they are adding an attribute to the someone elses cache page. This attribute can knock the cache out of PQs that set up to exclude such caches. I agree that posting a NM log on a cache that you are not absolutely sure need maintenance is an abuse. A note would have been sufficient.

 

As far as simply clearing the icon, consider that people watching the cache will get an email saying that it needs maintenance. If the owner simply clears the icon without posting a log, the watchers will never get notified that the CO followed up on it in the manner that they deemed appropriate. I want people to know that my caches are okay and ready to be found, so I think that it is in my best interest to post the OM log.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Why would a CO check on a cache with a bogus NM log? I wouldn't.

 

How would you know if a NM log is bogus unless you *do* check on it?

 

I just found three caches about 9400 miles from home. I wasn't traveling specifically to find these caches, but since trip will likely be my only opportunity ever to find a cache in Malaysia I did a bit of research on all of the caches in the area (only 10 within 100 miles) to see which ones seemed to be viable as I would have a limited amount of time do go caching while I'm here. Only four of the 10 were caches that were a reasonable distance from where I'm staying and the CO on one of them just did a "check the cache" maintenance run and I sent them a PM thanking him for checking on it as I'll be coming to the area. We've exchanged several email messages since and he told me that one of the nearby caches was definitely missing (there is a reviewer note on it as well asking it for it to be checked by the CO or it will be archived) and one of the others caches (not owned by the same CO) was *probably* missing and that many of the recent "found it" logs may be bogus (not an infrequent occurrence for a cache in place that is not often visited). As it turned out, I *did* find that cache, the one that the CO recently did maintenance on, and got FTF on one that he placed a few days ago.

 

It's unfortunate that the person that posted the NM from 2500 miles assumed that the CO would not respond to email. I've frequently initiated email exchanges with local cache owners prior to traveling and have "met" (in some cases, face to face) some nice geocachers that way.

[+M 5]

Why would a CO check on a cache with a bogus NM log? I wouldn't.

 

How would you know if a NM log is bogus unless you *do* check on it?

 

I just found three caches about 9400 miles from home. I wasn't traveling specifically to find these caches, but since trip will likely be my only opportunity ever to find a cache in Malaysia I did a bit of research on all of the caches in the area (only 10 within 100 miles) to see which ones seemed to be viable as I would have a limited amount of time do go caching while I'm here. Only four of the 10 were caches that were a reasonable distance from where I'm staying and the CO on one of them just did a "check the cache" maintenance run and I sent them a PM thanking him for checking on it as I'll be coming to the area. We've exchanged several email messages since and he told me that one of the nearby caches was definitely missing (there is a reviewer note on it as well asking it for it to be checked by the CO or it will be archived) and one of the others caches (not owned by the same CO) was *probably* missing and that many of the recent "found it" logs may be bogus (not an infrequent occurrence for a cache in place that is not often visited). As it turned out, I *did* find that cache, the one that the CO recently did maintenance on, and got FTF on one that he placed a few days ago.

 

It's unfortunate that the person that posted the NM from 2500 miles assumed that the CO would not respond to email. I've frequently initiated email exchanges with local cache owners prior to traveling and have "met" (in some cases, face to face) some nice geocachers that way.

 

It is bogus, because they didn't visit the site. Maybe they would get lucky and be right, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Either way I'm not running around checking on my caches for unsubstantiated NM logs. When I feel one is legit, I'll check, or else its just on my normal checking schedule. As someone else pointed out earlier, I'm not a puppet. I liked that line, and its approprate.

[+dprovan]

I have received PM messages and notes on my caches asking for a check-up, and I have always been happy to do so.

 

If someone who had never visited my cache had (and they've done it) posted a NM on my cache I would just go remove the attribute...and maybe delete the log as well.

This is the part I don't understand. I guess you feel like it's important to punish people for posting NMs instead of treating them as over exuberant? It makes no sense. It doesn't even reduce the number of NMs, since it doesn't sound like you'd even stop to explain why the NM wasn't appropriate.

 

I thought it was funny when a newbie posted an NM on my cache because he'd never seen a blinkie before. He even posted a picture that showed the cache! I went to check on it, anyway.

[AZcachemeister]

I have received PM messages and notes on my caches asking for a check-up, and I have always been happy to do so.

 

If someone who had never visited my cache had (and they've done it) posted a NM on my cache I would just go remove the attribute...and maybe delete the log as well.

This is the part I don't understand. I guess you feel like it's important to punish people for posting NMs instead of treating them as over exuberant? It makes no sense. It doesn't even reduce the number of NMs, since it doesn't sound like you'd even stop to explain why the NM wasn't appropriate.

 

I thought it was funny when a newbie posted an NM on my cache because he'd never seen a blinkie before. He even posted a picture that showed the cache! I went to check on it, anyway.

 

I don't see how deleting someone's pointless and irrelevant log (which did not give them a smilie) could be considered any sort of punishment?

 

In the one case where this happened, I (politely, but on no uncertain terms) asked them to not do that again unless they had actually attempted to find the cache.

 

And, as in your example, posting a NM 'because you can't find it' IS out of line.

[kanchan]

I don't agree to NM logs without a visit, but I don't agree to OM logs without a visit either. I either visit my cache and post an OM log, or just delete the NM "icon" and send a PM to whoever posted the NM explaining why I think no visit is needed, without deleting the NM "log".

Edited September 5, 2012 by kanchan

[+Don_J]

I don't agree to NM logs without a visit, but I don't agree to OM logs without a visit either. I either visit my cache and post an OM log, or just delete the NM "icon" and send a PM to whoever posted the NM explaining why I think no visit is needed, without deleting the NM "log".

 

This is the part that I don't understand. Imagine that I am watching your cache with the idea that I may go out and find it in the near future. I get an email stating that your cache needs maintenance. I figure, oh, oh, I better wait until you fix it. Now, all you do is delete the icon without posting an OM log, or even a note. I never receive an email that the cache is okay. I'm under the impression that the cache is not okay, so I don't look for it. You are not the only one that stated that they do this. What I don't understand is the reluctance to post a log notifying everyone that your cache does not need maintenance, and it okay to go look for it. As a cache owner, I feel that it is in my best interest to post a log on my cache page correcting someone elses mistaken log.

[+SwineFlew]

I don't agree to NM logs without a visit, but I don't agree to OM logs without a visit either. I either visit my cache and post an OM log, or just delete the NM "icon" and send a PM to whoever posted the NM explaining why I think no visit is needed, without deleting the NM "log".

 

This is the part that I don't understand. Imagine that I am watching your cache with the idea that I may go out and find it in the near future. I get an email stating that your cache needs maintenance. I figure, oh, oh, I better wait until you fix it. Now, all you do is delete the icon without posting an OM log, or even a note. I never receive an email that the cache is okay. I'm under the impression that the cache is not okay, so I don't look for it. You are not the only one that stated that they do this. What I don't understand is the reluctance to post a log notifying everyone that your cache does not need maintenance, and it okay to go look for it. As a cache owner, I feel that it is in my best interest to post a log on my cache page correcting someone elses mistaken log.

Like this cache... the CO isnt doing anything and look what happen, it havent been found for over two years. I want to do that cache for my fizzy challenge BUT I am not going to waste my time to look for it if I can find another cache with the same rating that been found in the last few months. Keep in mind that not everybody log DNF logs. Is the cache there? I have no clue because I havent been there but base on reading the cache page and it history, it tell me the cache is more likely missing.

 

This is why some people ask for CO to check on their harder caches more often because nobody is going to find them or going try until the CO post a note or maintenance log saying they checked on it and said its there(hopeful in a truthful way.)

 

This what it looks like when you dont tell the truth that you really checked on it. Either the rating is way off or it isnt there. Did I look for it? No, and I wont, but I will judge your caches base on how often it been found and all at once there is a no finds for like two years. :unsure:

 

Back on the OP's cache, if I saw it today, I would think it might be missing because of no finds for a while and a long history of the first part of the multi going missing. This could be how the guy that log the NM log saw it. Hes an Engineer by trade and things arent adding up and he wants the CO to check on it. To keep your caches in plays, the CO got to do his part. Instead, he went on the forum to throw him under a bus. And, he LIED that he checked on his cache which he didnt personal checked on it. No I wont log a NM log because some CO take things too personal.

 

Like I said over and over in the past. Being a CO isnt for everybody. If you cant handle criticisms without taking it personal, you have no business being a CO. My opinion. I got NM and NA in the past and I just checked on it and said the truth if its there or not. So far, nobody have abuse it. I see more CO abusing their power than people abusing NM or NA logs system.

[kanchan]

I don't agree to NM logs without a visit, but I don't agree to OM logs without a visit either. I either visit my cache and post an OM log, or just delete the NM "icon" and send a PM to whoever posted the NM explaining why I think no visit is needed, without deleting the NM "log".

 

This is the part that I don't understand. Imagine that I am watching your cache with the idea that I may go out and find it in the near future. I get an email stating that your cache needs maintenance. I figure, oh, oh, I better wait until you fix it. Now, all you do is delete the icon without posting an OM log, or even a note. I never receive an email that the cache is okay. I'm under the impression that the cache is not okay, so I don't look for it. You are not the only one that stated that they do this. What I don't understand is the reluctance to post a log notifying everyone that your cache does not need maintenance, and it okay to go look for it. As a cache owner, I feel that it is in my best interest to post a log on my cache page correcting someone elses mistaken log.

Very interesting. I thought nobody would stop finding my cache just by such a NM log from someone who had never visited my cache, but if that's the case, I'll probably post just a note (but not an OM log).

[+dprovan]

I don't see how deleting someone's pointless and irrelevant log (which did not give them a smilie) could be considered any sort of punishment?

The punishment was not going to check on the cache, something you say you'd be happy to do if they'd posted a note, instead.

[+stijnhommes]

Everyone could've done better in this case.

 

The 3 DNFers could've been more descriptive in how they searched.

The person who wanted to find the cache shouldn't have posted an NM. That should be reserved for broken, water-filled or confirmed missing caches.

The CO should've left an explanatory note on why they cleared the NM attribute.

 

We can only give favorite points to found caches. To avoid abuse of the needs maintenance attribute, why not use the same system for that?

[+dprovan]

Everyone could've done better in this case.

Good summary.

 

We can only give favorite points to found caches. To avoid abuse of the needs maintenance attribute, why not use the same system for that?

I don't think you're serious. Obviously there's some threshold where anyone can reasonably say a cache needs to be checked, even if we all agree that in this particular case that threshold wasn't reached. There's no particular reason to force the person making that official claim to be someone that's already found it or even someone that's filed a DNF for it. In my area, it's fairly common for NMs to be filed by non-seekers for caches that really do turn out to be missing. After all, people that have not yet looked for a cache are the ones most likely to be looking at the logs when the pattern becomes apparent. (Of course, I'd hope the CO would notice the pattern first, but that doesn't always happen.)

 

Besides, one joy of geocaching is seeing how subtly an OM can be worded to supply a caustic yet polite putdown of an errant NM log.