Unreasonable?

[+Armorsmith]

I recently had a run-in with another cacher, I posted a "needs archived" log on one of their caches. There was no response for about a week, then after a reviewer disabled the cache, they did respond, by deleting my log and my caching buddy and my DNF logs and posting this rather rude note in its place:

 

It will forever blow my mind how if someone doesn't find something easily, if there is a twist to it, the first thing they do is log "Needs archived", without ever once emailing the owner. I'm sure this cache is still there but will make a point to go check on it this week. Perhaps I should up the difficulty since it doesn't just jump right out and scream, "HERE I AM" maybe an email to the owner would help instead of marking something needs archived, sounds like someone really wants the space but I'll take the time to go check on the tiny container again.

 

I had thought long and hard about this, in that it was not a spur of the moment decision without evidence and careful consideration, and still feel that I was justified in taking the extra step to notify a reviewer, not just the owner, that I suspected that the cache had gone AWOL. Here were the facts at my disposal at the time:

 

• The cache is a 1.5/1.5 micro
  
• It hasn't been found in 7 months
  
• There have been 9 consecutive DNF logs by experienced cachers with 35,000 finds between them
  
• There had only been 9 DNF's in the previous 4 years amongst 475 finds, and 7 of those DNF's lamented too much muggle activity to make any search at all
  
• It had spent over a month disabled and was flagged for archival by a reviewer, the owner had reactivated the cache the next day with the single word "go"
  
• The cacher had at one time posted prompt and detailed maintenance notes, but had not logged a maintenance check in 3 years.
  
• The cache owner had not logged a find in 3 years and had not placed a cache in 4 years
  
• 75% of the cache owners caches have already been archived.
  
• Another cache from the same owner placed a half mile away had been marked "needs maintenance" for over 3 years.
  
• My caching buddy and I searched for nearly an hour, resorting to reaching and grabbing tools to dig into every place we could think of that might hold a magnetic micro
  
• As a last resort, I resorted to using a rather clever little magnetic field detector I have in my bag for locating magnets that might be unreachable, but were unable to find anything
  

 

Given this evidence, I judged that the cache owner was no longer active in maintaining their caches and would only take action if they got a note from a reviewer. As it turned out, the cacher does seem to be interested in maintaining their caches, (I did write to the cache owner to both apologize and explain the reasoning behind my decision, but have as of yet heard nothing back) but they did not see fit to respond until a reviewer took action. Even then, they assumed that it could not be a problem with the cache and that WE were the ones making the mistake.

 

My question is, was it unreasonable to make this assessment or is the cache owner overreacting to something that shouldn't have been a big deal at all?

 

Cheers,

The Armorsmith

 

P.S. I have only ever made two "needs archived" requests, this one and one on a cache I found with a badly damaged container that was unrepaired when I followed up six months after my initial "needs maintenance" log.

[+Isonzo Karst]

You did fine.

 

The cache owner has received plenty of email about this cache, in the form of 9 DNF logs on a 1.5 cache. You're not obligated to reach out with private email.

 

I'd probably wait a bit, and then repost the DNF.

 

I'm as attached to my DNFs as I am to my finds, and object to having them deleted. I might keep that super simple, like "DNF"

 

I would not repost the NA, as a second log will send out a second notification, which is a nuisance to both the owner and reviewer.

[Keystone]

It sounds like a Needs Archived was justified under the circumstances you described. I just reviewed one that came in last night on a cache with no previous DNF's. That's different. I took no action except for placing the cache on a bookmark list for monitoring.

 

Apparently your reviewer agreed with you since the cache was disabled a week after your NA log. Many reviewers wait several days after an NA, in order to allow the owner an opportunity to take maintenance action on their own.

 

So, no worries. Once some time has passed, you can write to contact@Groundspeak.com and ask them to reinstate your deleted DNF log. They will do that. I know this from personal experience with my player account!

[hoosier guy]

You did fine. Did the CO go check on it? Bet at the very least they carried a replacement cache.

[+Ma & Pa]

You did fine. Did the CO go check on it? Bet at the very least they carried a replacement cache.

 

The owner does not sound like the type to carry a replacement and not having cached in so long, may not have any.

[+SwineFlew]

I would done the same as you did.

[4wheelin_fool]

Sounds like a grumpy CO that is not active anymore.

 

If it has 9 DNFs, that means that up to 36 people have looked for it unsuccessfully.

Edited October 16, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[hoosier guy]

The owner does not sound like the type to carry a replacement and not having cached in so long, may not have any.

 

After being called out on it he did.

[+Armorsmith]

You did fine. Did the CO go check on it? Bet at the very least they carried a replacement cache.

 

That remains to be seen, I'm keeping an eye on the situation because I'm curious if a check will be made... My instinct tells me that they will make the check out of perverse bloodymindedness, replace it if necessary, and post a note saying it was never missing to boot.

 

Cheers,

The Armorsmith

 

(interesting side note, apparently, spell check knows "bloodymindedness," but not "hoosier" or "timestamp")

Edited October 16, 2012 by Armorsmith

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I don't know......out of 9 DNF's 7 were did not look ?

I basically agree with everyone here but I would have logged a DNF and moved on.......as an owner of a lot of caches I've seen too much abuse of NA and NM as well to not be a big fan of either.

[+PseudoHybrid]

My question is, was it unreasonable to make this assessment or is the cache owner overreacting to something that shouldn't have been a big deal at all?

 

From you story, it doesn't sound like you did anything wrong.

 

I'm not shy about posting NA logs, but I do have a process to it. Here is (roughly) my approach:

 

If multiple seekers have posted DNFs (usually at least 3) and the cache is supposed to be easy, I post a NM and suggest that the cache is gone. I often email the CO and ask for a hint or spoiler as to where it is. If he/she doesn't reply within one month, I go back and search again, and at that point if I still DNF (especially if others have posted DNFs), I post a NA.

 

Other factors that can change this process slightly are COs that haven't logged on in > 1 year, or COs that I know now live out of state... I tend to post NA more readily in those instances (though I have on a few occassions offered to replace or adopt some of the cooler ones, to no avail).

 

It's not my intention to offend or anger anyone by posting NA, but to be blunt, I'm not concerned with hurting anyone's feeling either. COs are welcome to maintain their caches and/or use the review system to get their posting republished (and I hope they do... I love the finds). I'm not calling their cache bad, or stupid, or trying to insult their mammas, I'm trying to keep the game fun by pruning some dead weight, and I wish others would be less shy about doing the same.

[+Armorsmith]

It sounds like a Needs Archived was justified under the circumstances you described. I just reviewed one that came in last night on a cache with no previous DNF's. That's different. I took no action except for placing the cache on a bookmark list for monitoring.

 

Apparently your reviewer agreed with you since the cache was disabled a week after your NA log. Many reviewers wait several days after an NA, in order to allow the owner an opportunity to take maintenance action on their own.

 

So, no worries. Once some time has passed, you can write to contact@Groundspeak.com and ask them to reinstate your deleted DNF log. They will do that. I know this from personal experience with my player account!

 

Thanks for that, I've been caching for about 3 years now, I love it but can't go as often as I'd like because I have both a full time job and am working on starting a small business as well. I was a little worried that I had violated some unwritten caching rule by the guy's reaction, so it's good to know that a "needs archived" log means exactly what I thought it did. That being said, I don't doubt that there are cachers out there who abuse them or use them instead of DNF's.

[+Sol seaker]

Let us know what happens.

[+Armorsmith]

I don't know......out of 9 DNF's 7 were did not look ?

I basically agree with everyone here but I would have logged a DNF and moved on.......as an owner of a lot of caches I've seen too much abuse of NA and NM as well to not be a big fan of either.

 

I think you misread that, 9 DNF's in the last 7 months, all with notes about long searches and no smilies

This is the same number of DNF's as the first four years the cache was in operation, and of those 9, seven were "couldn't look"

 

Cache timeline:

{first four years} - 475 finds, 2 DNF with search, 7 DNF due to muggles

{last seven months} - 9 DNF with search

 

I can see how NA and MN logs could be abused, but they have their legitimate use as well. PseudoHybrid said it well, I think, when he said that (paraphrasing here) using NA and NM logs well is the means of pruning the game to keep it lean and fun for everyone.

 

I've got a VERY tough puzzle cache, and while I have not had any NA or NM logs on it yet, I expect to get some eventually from an inexperienced cacher or an overzealous one afraid of posting a DNF. Either way, I intend to follow up on any that arise as though they are necessary. I see it as a responsibility I accepted the day I published my first cache.

[+Mike & Jess]

I don't know......out of 9 DNF's 7 were did not look ?

I basically agree with everyone here but I would have logged a DNF and moved on.......as an owner of a lot of caches I've seen too much abuse of NA and NM as well to not be a big fan of either.

 

I think you misread that, 9 DNF's in the last 7 months, all with notes about long searches and no smilies

This is the same number of DNF's as the first four years the cache was in operation, and of those 9, seven were "couldn't look"

 

Cache timeline:

{first four years} - 475 finds, 2 DNF with search, 7 DNF due to muggles

{last seven months} - 9 DNF with search

 

I can see how NA and MN logs could be abused, but they have their legitimate use as well. PseudoHybrid said it well, I think, when he said that (paraphrasing here) using NA and NM logs well is the means of pruning the game to keep it lean and fun for everyone.

 

I've got a VERY tough puzzle cache, and while I have not had any NA or NM logs on it yet, I expect to get some eventually from an inexperienced cacher or an overzealous one afraid of posting a DNF. Either way, I intend to follow up on any that arise as though they are necessary. I see it as a responsibility I accepted the day I published my first cache.

 

I wouldn't normally use the NA based on DNFs alone, but the rest of the info you provided makes it's use valid in my eyes.

[AZcachemeister]

Nine DNFs on a 1.5 should have already got the CO's attention.

 

I generally get concerned about my caches when I see 2 DNFs, and put them on my 'Needs Maintenance' bookmark list.

Three or four and I'm disabling it until I can check it.

 

Armorsmith, you did the right thing.

 

Seems as if the CO is really done with caching, but doesn't know how to let go of his hides.

[+The_Incredibles_]

A Needs Archived request is certainly appropriate under the circumstances.

 

The only thing I can think of is that something in your logs offended them.

 

What exactly did you write when you posted your DNFs and NAs?

[+SwineFlew]

A Needs Archived request is certainly appropriate under the circumstances.

 

The only thing I can think of is that something in your logs offended them.

 

What exactly did you write when you posted your DNFs and NAs?

I dont think the OP said anything offended.

 

Some CO take any NM or NA logs in a really offended way. They want to be left alone and not to be remind that their caches need help.

 

Some CO hates to be called on their tardiness. Its embarrassing for some people to be called on their tardiness and yes its consider as "rude". But, we got guideline that need to be followed and if they aren't enforced, we will have thousand of caches out there that are MIA.

 

I can understand how some CO will react to a NM or NA in really a negative way but nothing we can do about it even we write a very nice and polite log.

Edited October 17, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+jellis]

A couple who had been caching since 2001 but only had 6000+ finds. They I considered veterans but not experienced. Especially when the majority of their finds barely go passed 1.5 difficulty. They tried one of my evil caches (not evil to many) they claim 3 times but only logged one DNF, and I don't believe they ever emailed me cause I always try to answer all questions to my caches. So instead of putting a NM they put a NA. I was so stunned by that I had to check the cache (so I wouldn't be accuse of not) and I never had to get out of the car cause it was still in plain sight. I did get out only to check the logsheet to make sure it was fine.

[+Don_J]

A couple who had been caching since 2001 but only had 6000+ finds. They I considered veterans but not experienced. Especially when the majority of their finds barely go passed 1.5 difficulty. They tried one of my evil caches (not evil to many) they claim 3 times but only logged one DNF, and I don't believe they ever emailed me cause I always try to answer all questions to my caches. So instead of putting a NM they put a NA. I was so stunned by that I had to check the cache (so I wouldn't be accuse of not) and I never had to get out of the car cause it was still in plain sight. I did get out only to check the logsheet to make sure it was fine.

 

I've never had anyone jump the gun like that. In fact, I have only had one NA and maybe three NM posted between all of my caches. I make it clear on my profile that I want people to address their concerns on the cache page through logs, and I will address those concerns in the same manner. I figure that this way everyone can see, unless of course, doing so would spoil the cache hunt. If you can't find my cache, post a DNF. If you need a hint, say so in the DNF log, or email me. If my log is wet, post a NM. I will post a note and then fix it. If you think I forgot, or maybe don't care, post a NA. I'll thank you for it and do whatever is appropriate for the situation. The way that I see it, if I can't have this attitude then I probably shouldn't be putting caches out there.

 

As far as the OP. The guy has a cache with 415 finds and then 9 DNFs in a row and he's complaining that you didn't email him personally? He's had 9 emails already that indicate that his cache may have a problem.

[Zerpersande]

For what it is worth, I would have just posted a DNF and made a note of the fact that several previous attempts turned up the same results. Anyone interested in the cache would see all the DNFs and make the decision on their own as to whether or not to look for it. Does this mean you did something wrong? Doesn't sound like it. Remember that GeoCachers are a subset of the general population. And a**holes are also a subset of the general population. These two subsets overlap.

 

I recently had a run-in with another cacher, I posted a "needs archived" log on one of their caches. There was no response for about a week, then after a reviewer disabled the cache, they did respond, by deleting my log and my caching buddy and my DNF logs and posting this rather rude note in its place:

[+L0ne.R]

Nine DNFs on a 1.5 should have already got the CO's attention.

 

I generally get concerned about my caches when I see 2 DNFs, and put them on my 'Needs Maintenance' bookmark list.

Three or four and I'm disabling it until I can check it.

 

 

Yes. I do the same thing with our hides. 3 or 4 dnfs in a row and it's time to disable and check on the cache asap. I don't want to frustrate finders and waste their time and gas money.

[+L0ne.R]

For what it is worth, I would have just posted a DNF and made a note of the fact that several previous attempts turned up the same results. Anyone interested in the cache would see all the DNFs and make the decision on their own as to whether or not to look for it.

 

NMs are better for those of us who use our PQs to filter out caches with Maintenance icons. I often drive to a cache location before reading the logs. Sometimes I don't read the logs until I get to ground zero. Saves a lot of frustration, time and gas money when NMs (and NAs where appropriate) are used and filtering can be applied.

[+Original A1]

A couple who had been caching since 2001 but only had 6000+ finds. They I considered veterans but not experienced. Especially when the majority of their finds barely go passed 1.5 difficulty. They tried one of my evil caches (not evil to many) they claim 3 times but only logged one DNF, and I don't believe they ever emailed me cause I always try to answer all questions to my caches. So instead of putting a NM they put a NA. I was so stunned by that I had to check the cache (so I wouldn't be accuse of not) and I never had to get out of the car cause it was still in plain sight. I did get out only to check the logsheet to make sure it was fine.

 

OK, so you're on a huge average per annum, but to call someone with "only" 6,000 finds "inexperienced" is astonishing, even if they didn't act the way you'd expected!

 

[+The A-Team]

For what it is worth, I would have just posted a DNF and made a note of the fact that several previous attempts turned up the same results. Anyone interested in the cache would see all the DNFs and make the decision on their own as to whether or not to look for it.

The thing is that 9 other cachers have already done this, and the CO hasn't done anything about it. Adding another DNF to the mix won't help, and just lets a problem cache fester for even longer. A Needs Archive log is exactly what this cache needed so it can just go away.

[+Don_J]

For what it is worth, I would have just posted a DNF and made a note of the fact that several previous attempts turned up the same results. Anyone interested in the cache would see all the DNFs and make the decision on their own as to whether or not to look for it. Does this mean you did something wrong? Doesn't sound like it. Remember that GeoCachers are a subset of the general population. And a**holes are also a subset of the general population. These two subsets overlap.

 

 

Then, at some point, everyone decides that there is no cache to look for and then what happens? Do we just let the listing sit until eternity? This was the case for a number of years in the valley to the west of me. Over a hundred listings with long strings of DNFs that everyone knew was missing, no one was bothering to look for, but no one would dare post a NA because the COs used be "important" members of that caching community. When a new group started caching in the area and started posting NA logs so they could open up the playing field and actually use it for caching, the veterans came out of the woodwork to give them grief.

 

The facts are pretty simple. If your cache has a hundred finds in a row and then ten DNFs in a row, something is wrong. If you ignore this, do not get upset when other people use the tools they have been given to get the problem fixed for you.

[+SwineFlew]

For what it is worth, I would have just posted a DNF and made a note of the fact that several previous attempts turned up the same results. Anyone interested in the cache would see all the DNFs and make the decision on their own as to whether or not to look for it. Does this mean you did something wrong? Doesn't sound like it. Remember that GeoCachers are a subset of the general population. And a**holes are also a subset of the general population. These two subsets overlap.

 

 

Then, at some point, everyone decides that there is no cache to look for and then what happens? Do we just let the listing sit until eternity? This was the case for a number of years in the valley to the west of me. Over a hundred listings with long strings of DNFs that everyone knew was missing, no one was bothering to look for, but no one would dare post a NA because the COs used be "important" members of that caching community. When a new group started caching in the area and started posting NA logs so they could open up the playing field and actually use it for caching, the veterans came out of the woodwork to give them grief.

 

The facts are pretty simple. If your cache has a hundred finds in a row and then ten DNFs in a row, something is wrong. If you ignore this, do not get upset when other people use the tools they have been given to get the problem fixed for you.

 

AMEN!!! +1

[+PseudoHybrid]

The facts are pretty simple. If your cache has a hundred finds in a row and then ten DNFs in a row, something is wrong. If you ignore this, do not get upset when other people use the tools they have been given to get the problem fixed for you.

 

There's no reason for anyone to get upset in the first place, as far as I can tell.

 

Maybe the CO was (way) out of town without internet access, or in the process of moving, or had a death in the family... who knows. When he or she does get around to going out and checking on (or replacing) the cache, they can simply request that it be un-archived.

 

Again, why the drama? NM and NA are there for a reason... the reason is that they make the game BETTER for everyone. USE them.

[+Glenn]

Nine DNFs on a 1.5 should have already got the CO's attention.

 

That is exactly what I was thinking.

 

...and posting this rather rude note...

 

...Perhaps I should up the difficulty since it doesn't just jump right out and scream, "HERE I AM" maybe an email to the owner would help...

...Here were the facts at my disposal at the time:

 

• The cache is a 1.5/1.5 micro
  
• It hasn't been found in 7 months
  
• There have been 9 consecutive DNF logs by experienced cachers with 35,000 finds between them
  ...
  
• My caching buddy and I searched for nearly an hour, resorting to reaching and grabbing tools to dig into every place we could think of that might hold a magnetic micro
  
• As a last resort, I resorted to using a rather clever little magnetic field detector I have in my bag for locating magnets that might be unreachable, but were unable to find anything
  

...

 

I agree with the CO's evaluation of his own cache. He should increase the difficulty rating. The log entries tell me that it is definitely NOT a 1.5D. I don't know what cache rating system he is using but by using the standard geocache rating system I'd give the cache at least a 2.5D and possibly a 3D.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Glenn

[+AmishHacker]

Amish Hacker does the same. If a CO has gone months without checking on their own cache from DNF's they do not need to hide one they cannot maintain. My local reviewer knows that I try my best to clean up the map form missing caches that are not ever checked on.

 

[+Don_J]

Nine DNFs on a 1.5 should have already got the CO's attention.

 

That is exactly what I was thinking.

 

...and posting this rather rude note...

 

...Perhaps I should up the difficulty since it doesn't just jump right out and scream, "HERE I AM" maybe an email to the owner would help...

...Here were the facts at my disposal at the time:

 

• The cache is a 1.5/1.5 micro
  
• It hasn't been found in 7 months
  
• There have been 9 consecutive DNF logs by experienced cachers with 35,000 finds between them
  ...
  
• My caching buddy and I searched for nearly an hour, resorting to reaching and grabbing tools to dig into every place we could think of that might hold a magnetic micro
  
• As a last resort, I resorted to using a rather clever little magnetic field detector I have in my bag for locating magnets that might be unreachable, but were unable to find anything
  

...

 

I agree with the CO's evaluation of his own cache. He should increase the difficulty rating. The log entries tell me that it is definitely NOT a 1.5D. I don't know what cache rating system he is using but by using the standard geocache rating system I'd give the cache at least a 2.5D and possibly a 3D.

 

Darn Glenn. Why do you dismiss the fact that over 400 other people had no problem finding the cache. When you take on the overall picture, It's a simple urban micro that went missing a year ago and has been ignored by the CO, who then became indignant when someone insisted that he do something. You are trying to rate it on the efforts of someone who was looking for a missing cache. If I spend five hours looking for a missing cache, does that now make it a D5

Edited October 18, 2012 by Don_J

[+Glenn]

Darn Glenn. Why do you dismiss the fact that over 400 other people had no problem finding the cache. When you take on the overall picture, It's a simple urban micro that went missing a year ago and has been ignored by the CO, who then became indignant when someone insisted that he do something. You are trying to rate it on the efforts of someone who was looking for a missing cache. If I spend five hours looking for a missing cache, does that now make it a D5

 

How can you be so sure that the cache is missing? The CO said that he is sure that the cache is still there. Experienced cachers are having trouble finding the cache. We know that thing can change at or near the cache location that can cause cache ratings to change over time.

[+Armorsmith]

How can you be so sure that the cache is missing? The CO said that he is sure that the cache is still there. Experienced cachers are having trouble finding the cache. We know that thing can change at or near the cache location that can cause cache ratings to change over time.

 

How can the CO be "sure" it isn't. I've been there and made a search more recently than he has. It's in a place that has remained pretty much unchanged since it was built (by design). It's the attitude that there can't be anything wrong with the cache, and if I didn't find it it was because I didn't look hard enough. And not just me and my caching buddy, but 9 others before us.

 

Last week, I made a routine check on one of my caches, the NEXT DAY I got a DNF from a very experience cacher on my little 1/1.5 cache hidden in a fence. I didn't assume it was still there, I stopped and checked it the next time I was fairly close. And it was indeed muggled. If I had written back, "I just checked it yesterday, i'm sure it's still there, maybe I should up the difficulty" I would have not only been very very wrong, I would have been indirectly insulting this cacher. Heck, I even check my 4diff puzzle cache if it gets two or three DNF's in a row, which I expect anyway, even though it is in a library with a security strip hidden inside it that will set off an alarm if anyone attempts to take it out of the building.

[+Glenn]

The CO said that the cache is there and that he is going to check on it. Are you saying that the CO is lying?

[+SwineFlew]

The CO said that the cache is there and that he is going to check on it. Are you saying that the CO is lying?

Yes I feel hes lying... I see this far too often with CO that arent really in the game anymore. Caches that are owned by these type of CO need to be archived.

 

There is one in my area that have a similar problem. A very easy to find cache and once the DNF started, nobody found it since. I dont believe the fact that he/she said that they replaced it over and over. One thing I look for of a CO is their tardiness of maintaining their caches (especially when it take a reviewer to archived their caches everytime). Someone that only find 20 caches a year isnt really into the game when they are only finding caches on a vacation (that tell me they only have time to cache on a vacation and let alone maintaining their own caches when they aren't on a vacation.).

 

I know a few cachers that arent caching anymore but they are right on top of maintaining their own caches and he/she is not one of one of those. The statistic on the profile page does help to know about a cacher habit. You will be surprise how many people look at those statistic pages and judge of what type of cachers you are.

[+Armorsmith]

The CO said that the cache is there and that he is going to check on it. Are you saying that the CO is lying?

I actually appreciate your defense of the CO, though I do find your fervor a but puzzling. The CO didn't say the cache was there... he said he was "sure" the cache is still there. The word "sure" implies an assumption rather than a confirmed fact. And I'm not precluding the possibility that the cache may be there and that the last 11 people to look for it just didn't find it, I AM saying that it is highly unlikely that this is the case.

 

I am not calling him a liar, I can't call him anything. At first, I thought I knew where he as coming from, I understood that, though I did not intend it, he had been offended. I even understood how, in the heat of the moment, one might overreact and post an overzealous response. I have made every attempt to extend the olive branch and reconcile the situation, and have been met with a stonewalled silence. I am more than willing to overlook the fact that he has, in essence, rendered one of the most personal insults possible against me, that I was impulsive and responded without doing my due diligence. While the accusation is presumptuous, and while I take offense, I cannot in good conscience hold it against him because he could not no how cutting those implications are to someone like me, and therefore his offense was as unintentional as mine.

 

I already know my assessment that he was no longer active was wrong, and I don't care that it was wrong. Being wrong is a part of life. The main reason I started this thread was because I wanted to make sure that, even though my conclusion was wrong, I had not overlooked anything that would have made that conclusion unreasonable. And even the CO, in his reaction has all but confirmed that had I chosen to post a DNF and leave it at that, no response would have been made at all.

 

I continue to watch this situation and will inform you all of the result, because I'm sure you're all just dying to know.

 

Cheers

[+The_Incredibles_]

You still haven't told us what you included in your Needs Archive log?

[+Armorsmith]

You still haven't told us what you included in your Needs Archive log?

 

Right, since they were deleted, I don't have access to the exact text, but here are the points I covered.

 

The DNF log stated that we looked for about an hour but came up smiley-less, and that I suspected it was missing.

 

NA log (note to reviewer) stated that the cache had not been found in seven months, including no finds since its reactivation in July. Reactivation log does not mention a visit to check the cache, looks like it was either muggled very quickly after the reactivation or the reactivation was made without an on-site check.

[Clan Riffster]

NA log (note to reviewer) stated that the cache had not been found in seven months, including no finds since its reactivation in July. Reactivation log does not mention a visit to check the cache, looks like it was either muggled very quickly after the reactivation or the reactivation was made without an on-site check.

I wasn't aware of the timeline, but with this added bit of intel, another possibility occurs to me. Perhaps the cache owner grew weary of owning a low difficulty P&G and decided to make the hide much more challenging, whilst leaving the D/T rating alone? <Yes, it's a stretch. I know>

 

All this speculation is rather pointless though. The key question was with regards to your "Needs Archived" log, and whether or not it was appropriate given the information you had available at the time. I think the responses to that question have mostly been in your favor.

[+redsox_mark]

I've never raised an NA log. I would have logged a DNF, and assumed that eventually the owner would do something, or in a "sweep" a reviewer would step in. I'm not saying that is the right thing to do, just being honest based on what I have done in the past.

 

Having said that, I think what you (the OP) did was perfectly reasonable.

[+Glenn]

The CO said that the cache is there and that he is going to check on it. Are you saying that the CO is lying?

I actually appreciate your defense of the CO, though I do find your fervor a but puzzling.

You obviously haven't read back in my post history or you'd see that I no where near fervor level.

The main reason I started this thread was because I wanted to make sure that, even though my conclusion was wrong, I had not overlooked anything that would have made that conclusion unreasonable. And even the CO, in his reaction has all but confirmed that had I chosen to post a DNF and leave it at that, no response would have been made at all.

I actually agree with you, so far. But we've only heard your side of the story. Don't misunderstand me. I don't think you are attacking the CO. It's just that he isn't here to defend himself. Does he even know we are talking about him?

I continue to watch this situation and will inform you all of the result, because I'm sure you're all just dying to know.

Typically there is little reason to get upset over a Need Archive log to the point of deleting it. It is just recommendation to the reviewer. It is the reviewer that then decides if Archival is warranted. Also the reviewer can see deleted logs. This means that while deleting a log removes it from the cache page it doesn't change the fact that review is going to see it. This leads me to wonder exactly what was said in the Need Archive log.

[+Armorsmith]

Perhaps the cache owner grew weary of owning a low difficulty P&G and decided to make the hide much more challenging, whilst leaving the D/T rating alone? <Yes, it's a stretch. I know>

 

Well, that is something that would legitimately annoy me. I jest, but I did have an experience like that, I went to look for a cache not to long ago in a nice wooded area. Description said it was in a felled tree, gave a container type and size, and a difficulty/terrain rating. I searched almost 2 hours, then I started reading the logs. Finally found a note from the owner two years ago letting everyone know that the container had been lost when the tree had been removed, let everyone know the new coords (250 meters from original GZ), new container type and size, new difficulty rating, and new description and hint. Makes me wonder how much time has been wasted by cachers looking for the original cache that isn't there anymore.

[+Armorsmith]

You obviously haven't read back in my post history or you'd see that I no where near fervor level.

 

Looking back, it sounds like fervor. Defend the CO with his words, defend the CO with an altered version of his words, defend cache owner with Aunt Sally argument. Sounds pretty fervorish to me.

 

I actually agree with you, so far. But we've only heard your side of the story. Don't misunderstand me. I don't think you are attacking the CO. It's just that he isn't here to defend himself. Does he even know we are talking about him?

 

It sounds like you're just concerned that the CO has a voice in this conversation, so you are speaking for him. But this conversation hasn't actually been about the CO. We have gotten into a discussion about this cache, discussed good NA protocol, even discussed good cache maintenance habits.

 

In this entire thread, the only two things that the CO has been accused of is getting out of caching (nothing wrong with that, interests and life circumstances change) and overreacting to an NA log, which is understandable, if a bit rude.

 

For me, this has been a very interesting discussion. For example, it had never occurred to me that cachers would use NM and NA logs to avoid DNF's. And thus the cache owner's reaction caught me completely by surprise. Now I have a better understanding of what is going on, and if anything, this thread has in some ways vindicated the CO by at least offering an explanation for the reaction.

 

Myself, I hate posting a DNF, but this is due to the overclocked, ADHD part of my brain. If I have to walk away from a cache, the DNF itself doesn't bother me, the fact that my brain is going to go around and around and around and around looking for places I might have missed does. It will actually keep me up nights, not because it is important in any special way, but just because an unsolved problem is still in active memory. So I have learned to filter my searches by caches that have been found recently, and so it has been a good long while since I've needed to post a DNF, only to have this situation rise up the first time I do. I may start a thread about personal DNF policies because that too would be an interesting discussion.

 

This leads me to wonder exactly what was said in the Need Archive log.

 

See above, I'm fairly consistent when I write, so the language was pretty much as I stated there. (though the full disclosure is that I am restating it from memory, so it isn't a direct copy/paste)

[+Don_J]

I've never raised an NA log. I would have logged a DNF, and assumed that eventually the owner would do something, or in a "sweep" a reviewer would step in. I'm not saying that is the right thing to do, just being honest based on what I have done in the past.

 

Having said that, I think what you (the OP) did was perfectly reasonable.

 

A friend and I had visited a small community about 100 miles away. We had targeted 20 caches based on the map only. They looked like they were in scenic spots overlooking the ocean. We made one mistake as we never really looked at the cache pages themselves. We ended up finding 2 caches. After looking and then pulling the others up on my friends iPhone, we discovered that the other 18 were owned by two different people. All had long strings of DNFs and NM logs going back over a year. We stopped looking after the first 5 but I presume that all were missing. The two cache owners hadn't logged on or logged any finds for over a year.

 

I appreciate your honesty, but in a way it's kind of like looking at someone on a country road that has a flat tire and needs help and driving right by. It's okay, the next guy will stop. If no one ever steps in and notifies the reviewer, nothing ever gets done to fix the problem. Also, we have three reviewers locally and I have never seen them do a sweep for caches with long strings of DNFs. They have done sweeps for caches that have been disabled too long and they respond to NA logs

Edited October 19, 2012 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

Perhaps the cache owner grew weary of owning a low difficulty P&G and decided to make the hide much more challenging, whilst leaving the D/T rating alone? <Yes, it's a stretch. I know>

 

Well, that is something that would legitimately annoy me. I jest, but I did have an experience like that, I went to look for a cache not to long ago in a nice wooded area. Description said it was in a felled tree, gave a container type and size, and a difficulty/terrain rating. I searched almost 2 hours, then I started reading the logs. Finally found a note from the owner two years ago letting everyone know that the container had been lost when the tree had been removed, let everyone know the new coords (250 meters from original GZ), new container type and size, new difficulty rating, and new description and hint. Makes me wonder how much time has been wasted by cachers looking for the original cache that isn't there anymore.

 

I would post a NM on that cache to have him correct the coordinates. If there was no response, I would post a NA because there is no cache at the listed coordinates and the CO changed his cache to an offset multi with the instructions buried in old note.

[+redsox_mark]

I appreciate your honesty, but in a way it's kind of like looking at someone on a country road that has a flat tire and needs help and driving right by. It's okay, the next guy will stop. If no one ever steps in and notifies the reviewer, nothing ever gets done to fix the problem. Also, we have three reviewers locally and I have never seen them do a sweep for caches with long strings of DNFs. They have done sweeps for caches that have been disabled to long and they respond to NA logs

 

I see your point and I agree in general. I would help the guy with the flat tire!

 

The tricky part with caches and NA is when to intervene. Now I know NA is badly named - "needs reviewer attention" would be better... but doing it without enough of a case can cause owner backlash and accusations of being the cache police etc. So yea, I have gone for the path of leaving it to others.

 

Having said that- in my area I've not come across many caches like this. There was one which I can remember which really did seem to be abandoned. I did think about NA, but I liked the location and stages (it was a multi), so I mailed the owner asking about adoption instead. They never replied, but shortly after someone else posted a NA and it was archived.

[+Don_J]

I appreciate your honesty, but in a way it's kind of like looking at someone on a country road that has a flat tire and needs help and driving right by. It's okay, the next guy will stop. If no one ever steps in and notifies the reviewer, nothing ever gets done to fix the problem. Also, we have three reviewers locally and I have never seen them do a sweep for caches with long strings of DNFs. They have done sweeps for caches that have been disabled to long and they respond to NA logs

 

I see your point and I agree in general. I would help the guy with the flat tire!

 

The tricky part with caches and NA is when to intervene. Now I know NA is badly named - "needs reviewer attention" would be better... but doing it without enough of a case can cause owner backlash and accusations of being the cache police etc. So yea, I have gone for the path of leaving it to others.

 

 

And a lot of this can be avoided if Groundspeak were to make one simple change, something that they seemed willing to do when the Feedback forum was active. Changing "Needs Archive" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", changes the attitude from "Your cache sucks and needs to go" to "Hey, your cache needs attention, maybe the reviewer can help".

[+The_Incredibles_]

You still haven't told us what you included in your Needs Archive log?

 

Right, since they were deleted, I don't have access to the exact text, but here are the points I covered.

 

The DNF log stated that we looked for about an hour but came up smiley-less, and that I suspected it was missing.

 

NA log (note to reviewer) stated that the cache had not been found in seven months, including no finds since its reactivation in July. Reactivation log does not mention a visit to check the cache, looks like it was either muggled very quickly after the reactivation or the reactivation was made without an on-site check.

 

I do agree with you on posting the NA, however I can now see why the cache owner was annoyed with you.

 

I post quite a few NA myself. I usually make it as short as possible so as to avoid saying anything offensive. Sticking to facts is best and the reviewer will have to look at the logs anyway. For instance 'Cache appears to have been missing 7 months' would have been sufficient. Or 'Looks like this cache is gone. Any plans to replace?'

Edited October 19, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[+Armorsmith]

I post quite a few NA myself. I usually make it as short as possible so as to avoid saying anything offensive. Sticking to facts is best and the reviewer will have to look at the logs anyway. For instance 'Cache appears to have been missing 7 months' would have been sufficient. Or 'Looks like this cache is gone. Any plans to replace?'

 

Thanks, that's good advice, I'll keep that in mind for the future. I was trying to offer an explanation of why I felt it needed reviewer attention so that they would know where to start looking into it.

 

Here is the (only) other NA I've posted (on another damaged not missing cache), is this better?

 

Was driving by this one today and stopped to see if it had been replaced (I wanted to sign the log). Cache condition is unchanged since my last visit in June. Gonna go ahead and log a Needs Archived to bring it to a reviewer's attention.

[+stijnhommes]

If 7 of the 9 DNFs were from people who didn't make a proper search, I personally would've logged my own DNF and keep the NA for another time (contact the CO before writing the log).

But the CO still overreacted. They had plenty of time to respond before the reviewer disabled it, and they had even more time to write a maintenance log for those checks (to confirm it was still there).