Needs Maintenance? Really?

[+bflentje]

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.

 

Yep, I do this all the time. I mean, I won't do a NA but I would have no hesitation in doing a NM. But I travel a lot.

[+niraD]

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?

Are you also going to require a Find before someone can post NA logs?

 

There are times when maintenance (or archival) is clearly needed, yet you have not found the cache. If you require a Find before someone can post NM (or NA) logs, then either people will post bogus Find logs in such situations, or they will just ignore a bad situation and not bother posting NM (or NA) logs. I don't see either alternative as an improvement over the status quo.

 

And if you require a Find for NM, but not for NA, then people in such situations will just post NA instead of NM.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

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.

 

Yep, I do this all the time. I mean, I won't do a NA but I would have no hesitation in doing a NM. But I travel a lot.

 

Minnesota nice? Actually, that surprises me, given your usual responses in the forum.

 

As for the OT, I've crossed paths with/cached behind the DNFers fairly often. A review of their logs will tell you that a DNF doesn't necessarily mean that they think it isn't there, and they would tell you the same thing, I'm sure.

 

Long distance NM = "I don't want to be inconvenienced, so I'll publicly inconvenience you".

[+bflentje]

Minnesota nice?

 

Minnesota Nice is a myth. It should be Minnesota Passive Aggressive.

 

But I disagree in your approach. If there're 8 DNFs on a 1.5/1.5 cache that hasn't been actually found in months, the CO deserves to be called out publicly if they're not responding. And that applies to local or long distance.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Minnesota nice?

 

Minnesota Nice is a myth. It should be Minnesota Passive Aggressive.

 

But I disagree in your approach. If there're 8 DNFs on a 1.5/1.5 cache that hasn't been actually found in months, the CO deserves to be called out publicly if they're not responding. And that applies to local or long distance.

I knew it!

 

Wouldn't be the first time we didn't agree but I can live with it

[+fizzymagic]

And if you require a Find for NM, but not for NA, then people in such situations will just post NA instead of NM.

 

In my opinion, either a Find or a DNF should be required to post either a NM or a NA log.

 

That would fix a lot of the problems with busybodies who haven't looked for the cache posting these inappropriate logs.

[kanchan]

And if you require a Find for NM, but not for NA, then people in such situations will just post NA instead of NM.

 

In my opinion, either a Find or a DNF should be required to post either a NM or a NA log.

 

That would fix a lot of the problems with busybodies who haven't looked for the cache posting these inappropriate logs.

+1

[+niraD]

And if you require a Find for NM, but not for NA, then people in such situations will just post NA instead of NM.

In my opinion, either a Find or a DNF should be required to post either a NM or a NA log.

 

That would fix a lot of the problems with busybodies who haven't looked for the cache posting these inappropriate logs.

I suppose it would. But I've been in situations where I didn't find the cache (no Find log), couldn't even get close enough to GZ to search (no DNF log), and yet it was pretty clear that the CO needed to do something about the situation (the chain-link construction fence surrounding GZ was a big clue).

 

Are there really so many bogus NM and NA logs that we need a gatekeeping system like this? I've never had a problem with bogus NM and NA logs myself, but I have only 2 active caches. And it seems they're still rare enough to be newsworthy, based on what I've read here.

[+SwineFlew]

Look like someone just logged a DNF on the OP's cache in question.

 

http://coord.info/GL9731K4

 

To the OP. Go check on it and see if its still there. Be honest with us if its missing. Yep, you might be eating your own foot.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I'm betting it's there. It was a very well placed and secured stage.

[+SwineFlew]

I'm betting it's there. It was a very well placed and secured stage.

For a 2.5D? If its really hard, its under rated.

 

Keep in mind that the first stage got a long history of disappearing.

[+fizzymagic]

And if you require a Find for NM, but not for NA, then people in such situations will just post NA instead of NM.

In my opinion, either a Find or a DNF should be required to post either a NM or a NA log.

 

That would fix a lot of the problems with busybodies who haven't looked for the cache posting these inappropriate logs.

I suppose it would. But I've been in situations where I didn't find the cache (no Find log), couldn't even get close enough to GZ to search (no DNF log), and yet it was pretty clear that the CO needed to do something about the situation (the chain-link construction fence surrounding GZ was a big clue).

I post a DNF log if I cannot reach a cache. Why would anyone not post one in such a situation? They didn't find it, did they?

 

Are there really so many bogus NM and NA logs that we need a gatekeeping system like this? I've never had a problem with bogus NM and NA logs myself, but I have only 2 active caches. And it seems they're still rare enough to be newsworthy, based on what I've read here.

 

There have been several threads here in recent months about abuses of NM and NA logs. I have only received a couple bogus NM logs on my caches; in both cases some busybody wanted me to do something about missing trackables. In neither case had they visited the cache, and in neither case did I respond or take any action.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I'm betting it's there. It was a very well placed and secured stage.

For a 2.5D? If its really hard, its under rated.

 

Keep in mind that the first stage got a long history of disappearing.

It's a fair 2.5. I believe the original stage 1 was removed. I took it as I was finding the original stage 2 for stage 1.

[+T_M_H]

I'm betting it's there. It was a very well placed and secured stage.

For a 2.5D? If its really hard, its under rated.

 

Keep in mind that the first stage got a long history of disappearing.

 

Guilty as charged! I checked on it this morning and yes all stages are still there however changes at GZ (foliage and growth over time) have made this a much more difficult find. I bumped it a full point and added a hint.

 

To my original point though, and as many of you have agreed on, posting a NM log when you have not even looked for it is not right. I tried to contact the person who did so, after they wrote a semi-nasty note on the cache page and then deleted it, but they did not respond.

 

On the same topic I had a local cacher (also the same person who posted a DNF on this one) try to find another puzzle of mine. He sent me an email saying "this is where I looked and I could not find it". I wrote him back and said he was in the right location and that he was welcome to log it but he declined. I replaced it this morning. That, in my opinion, was the right way to handle it and he would have been right to post a NM if he wanted to.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Team MidwestHaunters

[+T_M_H]

As for the aforementioned first stage, I have learned something about that since it was occurring. It seems that its disappearing act may have been intentional but that is a whole different topic!

[+niraD]

I post a DNF log if I cannot reach a cache. Why would anyone not post one in such a situation? They didn't find it, did they?

I post a DNF log if I reach GZ, search for the cache, and don't find it. If I don't reach GZ or don't search, then I might post a DNS (Did Not Search) as a Note if there's a story to tell. Or maybe a NM or NA if the reason I didn't search indicated problems with the cache or the location. But the phrase "Did Not Find" implies (to me) that I at least searched for it.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

And if you require a Find for NM, but not for NA, then people in such situations will just post NA instead of NM.

In my opinion, either a Find or a DNF should be required to post either a NM or a NA log.

 

That would fix a lot of the problems with busybodies who haven't looked for the cache posting these inappropriate logs.

I suppose it would. But I've been in situations where I didn't find the cache (no Find log), couldn't even get close enough to GZ to search (no DNF log), and yet it was pretty clear that the CO needed to do something about the situation (the chain-link construction fence surrounding GZ was a big clue).

 

Are there really so many bogus NM and NA logs that we need a gatekeeping system like this? I've never had a problem with bogus NM and NA logs myself, but I have only 2 active caches. And it seems they're still rare enough to be newsworthy, based on what I've read here.

 

There are lots of problems with NA / NM.......put out a few dozen more caches and you'll see.

I got so tired of it I recently made all my caches PM......it does help some.

I REALLY like the idea of having to post a Find to be able to log a NM or NA just like a favorite point.

 

Folks, if you can't find a cache just log a DNF and move on...simple.

[+Don_J]

And if you require a Find for NM, but not for NA, then people in such situations will just post NA instead of NM.

In my opinion, either a Find or a DNF should be required to post either a NM or a NA log.

 

That would fix a lot of the problems with busybodies who haven't looked for the cache posting these inappropriate logs.

I suppose it would. But I've been in situations where I didn't find the cache (no Find log), couldn't even get close enough to GZ to search (no DNF log), and yet it was pretty clear that the CO needed to do something about the situation (the chain-link construction fence surrounding GZ was a big clue).

 

Are there really so many bogus NM and NA logs that we need a gatekeeping system like this? I've never had a problem with bogus NM and NA logs myself, but I have only 2 active caches. And it seems they're still rare enough to be newsworthy, based on what I've read here.

 

There are lots of problems with NA / NM.......put out a few dozen more caches and you'll see.

I got so tired of it I recently made all my caches PM......it does help some.

I REALLY like the idea of having to post a Find to be able to log a NM or NA just like a favorite point.

 

Folks, if you can't find a cache just log a DNF and move on...simple.

 

So, the cache description says, "cache is on the back of the statue". I roll up and there's no statue, just a sign that says "Statue permanently removed". I guess I would have to post a found log in order to next post my NM log? (The sad thing is that a lot of people currently would do just that.)

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Geez people...it's a game. I Cache to get away from the insanity known as work. This reminds me of the evolution that takes place with SOPs. Someone sees an employee leaving the bathroom w/o washing their hands. That person completes a behavior based safety observation. Soon, there is a change request to add hand washing to the Good Work Practice SOP and a sticker gets put on the mirror to remind associates. After time, enough associates are still observed leaving the bathroom w/o washing hands. QA determines the SOP is not effective and the facility has 30 days to fix it. The root cause concludes that the problem is associates are human so a capital request is submitted for a system that will failsafe the process by automatic sterilization of hands when associates reach for the door.

 

OK...venting complete...it's Friday...cache on!

[knowschad]

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

Are you still talking about that ammo can I couldn't find?

 

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

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

Are you still talking about that ammo can I couldn't find?

 

Do you also go by "knowsgame"?