Unreasonable?

[+Don_J]

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).

 

Suggest that you read the OP again. 400 finds with 9 DNFs mixed in and only 2 of them by people that actually looked. Then, 9 DNFs in a row by people that did look.

[+Armorsmith]

Oops, didn't realize it had gone onto the second page. so I pretty much repeated what don just said. Instead of being repetitive, here is a picture of a puppy:

 

                                                            ..   .. .                  ,,                        .:.~~=
                                                            . .                        .                        .    ..
                                                   .                                    .                              
                                              . .                                                                      
                                           ZI77$$I77              ..  .. .                                           ..
                                           778O$7$Z$8            +++=..~=I.                                         ..:
                                            ?I7+??I???        .=7$$7++O$II                                             
                                           .:=+==~=~D~    .   =7+I$$$$OZON                                             
                                           .~ :~+?,~O$O+?,=:,Z=D?7II7II==                                             .
                                             ..:=8=II7ZZ,:7Z.??NII7I=~,?=                                              
                                             .I=,,~~?$+O+Z$~8ZZZ$IO?:,.:.                                              
                                              ~7?,,~+:$Z7:7:ZZ$7+==+~=:,.                                              
                                              .= ::  ?8?N=7.:+O7=~IOI~.                                                
                                               ~.   NOM?D~$. . 7~?D8. .   ,~I7ZZ7.                                     
                                               :,M.?OZ8IZ?NIM$~D=7ZZ.,=.~7ZZZO888$ZI?: ..                              
                                                : ==Z.=OO+ NM$ZOD=O=O?+$O8DD8D8$DZZZI7$~+ .  .                         
                                               ..  .~.~Z$8 D=M .Z?+:ZD77887ZD8OOOZ$$ZZZ?     .                         
                                                =:=,7  8$NDN...7$+?I~ZN+IZ8ZD8DZZOOZOO$..    .?                        
                                                ?+IO:8O  NNMO+O7$ ?8I+O?7IOO$ND8ZZ$OOZ7..    :=:                       
                                                 I8,88NZ8MNMNN.N. ?$?:I=,.ONO$ND8Z$OZZ~:   .===I=                      
                                                 ==. 7O$M.MMNND.. 7O7.+.,~IDD$ZMMZZ$8O=:~,,,+=?I?.                     
                                                ..8,.MN8MMNNZ   .DOZ=:=  ,7DDO+MMDOOZ8::++=+I$I7I7                +    
                                                 ,ZZ$ONN8NNN, .DNNZZI=.  .OND8$OMD8O$8:++IZ$Z7I$7I                . .  
                                                .I$7$8NMD8MM$ODMMZ$ZO:..IO$DZ8$+MN88O$?IIIZOZZZ$$$          .     ..   
                                                  ODMMNDNDNNN~NMDODM=..$$Z8D8D$=N8D8O7$I$Z7ONN8$$,.   . =++7$8MMMMM?  +
                                                .= .  .,D    ~OM8M.O+:?7$$D8O8?:?NDDN$ZIZ$ONNO$$Z8ZOI=+?~+?$7NMDO .:   
                                                 . ,  ,OD= ,~+$MMMM7:~IODD8DZD7=?NDOO$O$$DNN8OZZ=+=???+???::+I..       
                                               .~:::?+Z8NM$=~?NMM7+=++?$$ODOZD?=INDOZOOZON$MDDZ?+,:+=.  . .   .    :,  
                                               .:?+III?IZ+?+7OMZONN7ZI$OO8O$8D++ZND8ZOM$88$MMOI:, .  .   .           . 
                                                 :==IND7I?,$7I+I8Z88OIZ$77OD8D??8N888MZ$I~$7$.                         
                                              ....,~??ZDD$88O88Z7+7I77$?++IIO8I?DZO$OM8OO+=                            
                                                 .     ~OD8ZDMNO77$$$ZI+=+=?ZOOOOZ7I?878?:?.                           
                                                .        .7$O=~=~~=.,..,=:?I7$$$Z7??I8+O~I. .                          
                                              ~7?. .~: ...$=.       .  ...~III?$Z$?~ I?ID.8:.                          
                                             .=ZOZ. .IIM..,=~~:.,~+:  . . 7II77II+~. +ZO.,  . .                        
                                          . +?II?I?IO~...,OO=N++?Z8?==...~I$OO$7I++~.:. . .                            
                                         .Z8D8O$??7Z+. . 7M:I:ZI+ZDDN:=I7$DZO7O$7?=..                                  
.                                        .+I8ZI~:.       ?:=.. Z.+.N+~Z?I$$=+?$$I7I= .                                  
...,                                     ,=+I=~: .=.          .       .=$O+~8DZ77II=   .                                
.                                  ,. .~:=:=~ .                     D.+,I?ZD8Z7??7?                                    
.. ,.                          .    .  ,,:,~. ..                        .,.::?I?II=.                                  . 
,I                             . ,, ~:.,+~~  .                           ....::7~                                     . 
 .                           8=?. ==,,:?~.. .                           ., .~+:8~.                                     
.. =                         = =~I=. ,++.                                . .,=M:.,.                                  .  
  ..                       . 7:7O,,+=? ..                                  ...                                        .
~:...                         .   . ,,                                 .. .  :                                      :...
:  ..                         ..                                     . .,::,,+.                                .. ,,.?  
.=?.. .    .                  .....  :  .                            .,~$,II.~.                                   .$ .. 
,  :. ,.                    .   .  :..      ..                        ,=.,::~~?.                                 .    ,.
.,   ...~         .        .                                         ,   .  ..:                       7   .,.        .,.
  .    .  ... .. ~7:   .:      . ..                                          .+ .                    .~~:.. .       .. 

Edited October 19, 2012 by Armorsmith

[+The A-Team]

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...

You've already summarized what you said in your NA log, but I just wanted to point out that you do have access to the original text. When a log of yours gets deleted, you should receive an email saying that your log has been deleted and containing the original content. If you didn't receive such an email, I'd suggest you check your spam folder to see if they got flagged as spam.

[+The_Incredibles_]

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.

 

Looks fine to me. Very neutral, matter-of-fact wording.

 

One more suggestion:

 

Under certain circumstances, I will post a Needs Maintenance log first such as 'Looks like this one could use a checkup'. I will then wait 1 month, then if no response, post the Needs Archived log. Sometimes people just forget - human nature - even if they intend to keep their caches maintained. This type of strategy works well if the cache owner is active and likely to replace - just maybe got busy or forgot. However in the case of the cache you mentioned I would probably go straight to the Needs Archive, like you did.

[+Harry Dolphin]

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.

 

I am curious, kind and ever-helpful sir. I have an idea how my local reviewers will handle things in reference to NAs. What should I expect of other reviewers?

I was travelling last month. Two caches raised concern.

1) 2/1.5 Probably last find 8/2011. Two finds since then, but they probably found the letterbox since they took the TB that wouldn't fit in the micro. 5 DNFs. 4 NMs, including one from a previous finder. No sure how bad the coords are, but they lead 50' beyond the No Trespassing signs. My NA was dated 9/10. CO not signed on since April. I'd have thunk that the reviewer would have done something within the last month.

2) 1.5/1 CO has been missing since April. Cache has 11 DNFs since April. My sister had found it previously, and said that it was now missing. I logged an NM in September, and an NA this week. Nothing yet, but it is still early.

I seldom put NAs on caches I searched for on vacations, but these seemed egregious examples of caches long missing.

Am I setting my expectations too high? Or do some reviewers put a low priority on NAs from out-of-staters?

[+dprovan]

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".

I've heard the idea of changing "needs archived" to "needs reviewer attention", but I think it's thinking about the situation the wrong way. What NA really means is "this cache needs to be archived if you aren't going to do anything about the problems it has." The fact that NA gets a reviewer's attention is somewhat secondary to the point of the log, even though most of us do in fact assume that by the time a NA is posted, the CO isn't going to do anything about it so the reviewer's going to be forced to intervene.

[+jellis]

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.

Don't feel so bad I had posted some DNFs and NM on some caches when I felt the CO wasn't maintaining them and the CO got so angry that he archived all his caches and the local cachers took it out on me.

[+Glenn]

Don't feel so bad I had posted some DNFs and NM on some caches when I felt the CO wasn't maintaining them and the CO got so angry that he archived all his caches and the local cachers took it out on me.

A CO archived his caches and it was seen as your fault?

There has to be more to this story.

[+Rainbow Spirit]

I have posted a number of NA logs. I usually do so only if there has been a long list of DNFs and ignored NM logs, over a long time frame.

 

I only log NAs if I have searched for the cache, or I am heading that way for a search, and it meets the above criteria.

 

My two cents worth.

[+timbee&suebee]

... I posted a "needs archived" log on one of their caches. ...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

 

I don't think it was unreasonable of you to post a NA at all. I have posted several of them. But like you, I don't just post it because I couldn't find the cache myself. I post it after seeing a multitude of DNFs over a long period of time and no response from the CO. And I too check to make sure the CO is still active. If they are, I will post a NM first with a suggestion that the CO verify that the cache is still there before others attempt to find it. If they are not active, I go ahead and post a NA with the explanation in my log that the cache hasn't been found in x number of months and there have been x number of DNFs or NMs and the CO doesn't appear to be active anymore. Only once has the CO actually taken action and fixed the cache. All the other times the reveiwer has disabled them and once the month has passed, archives them.

[+timbee&suebee]

Don't feel so bad I had posted some DNFs and NM on some caches when I felt the CO wasn't maintaining them and the CO got so angry that he archived all his caches and the local cachers took it out on me.

 

That seems like a complete overreaction by the CO to the situation. But now those spots are open for cachers in your area to place new caches that will be maintained.

[+Don_J]

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".

I've heard the idea of changing "needs archived" to "needs reviewer attention", but I think it's thinking about the situation the wrong way. What NA really means is "this cache needs to be archived if you aren't going to do anything about the problems it has." The fact that NA gets a reviewer's attention is somewhat secondary to the point of the log, even though most of us do in fact assume that by the time a NA is posted, the CO isn't going to do anything about it so the reviewer's going to be forced to intervene.

 

I'm sorry, but you are totally wrong here. Regardless of the situation, the purpose of the Needs Archived log is to alert the reviewer. This is not a secondary side effect as you contend. It is the only log that specifically alerts the reviewer, and because of that it is used for many different situations, some of which may not actually require archiving. It should be renamed to describe it's actual purpose.

[+dprovan]

I'm sorry, but you are totally wrong here. Regardless of the situation, the purpose of the Needs Archived log is to alert the reviewer. This is not a secondary side effect as you contend. It is the only log that specifically alerts the reviewer, and because of that it is used for many different situations, some of which may not actually require archiving. It should be renamed to describe it's actual purpose.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it that "Needs Archived" has a meaning other than needs archived.

 

If you're saying that we need a new log type that is intended to alert the reviewer, because that's what everyone uses NA for, contrary to its name, then that's a different matter. I can't myself think of a situation where a reviewer should be called in for anything less than the possibility that a cache needs to be eliminated, but obviously you know more about it than I do. I don't recall even once seeing an NA posted that didn't actually mean that the poster thought the cache should be archived.

[+Glenn]

I'm sorry, but you are totally wrong here. Regardless of the situation, the purpose of the Needs Archived log is to alert the reviewer. This is not a secondary side effect as you contend. It is the only log that specifically alerts the reviewer, and because of that it is used for many different situations, some of which may not actually require archiving. It should be renamed to describe it's actual purpose.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it that "Needs Archived" has a meaning other than needs archived.

 

If you're saying that we need a new log type that is intended to alert the reviewer, because that's what everyone uses NA for, contrary to its name, then that's a different matter. I can't myself think of a situation where a reviewer should be called in for anything less than the possibility that a cache needs to be eliminated, but obviously you know more about it than I do. I don't recall even once seeing an NA posted that didn't actually mean that the poster thought the cache should be archived.

 

When the log type that we now call Needs Archived (NA) was called Should Be Archived (SBA) most geocachers used the log as Don_J described. I can't recall the reason for the name change but I would guess that had something to do with clarification. As for how the a NA log is supposed to be used check out the help center article called Needs Archived Note. I still use the NA log as an alert to the reviewer in situations where I don't necessary think the cache needs archived, unless the cache owner doesn't fix the issue. The reviews don't seem to have an issue with the NA log being used in that way.

[+junglehair]

I absolutely would have posted a NA on that cache. One or two DNFs before me, and feeling fairly certain it's missing, I would have just posted a Needs Maintenance. But 9 DNF logs? Obviously the cache owner is not doing proper maintenance on their cache. I would hit the NA button.

 

What I find really funny about this whole thing is the cache owner's log stating:

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.

 

Ok wait - you're complaining that people post a NA just because they don't find it easily, but then you post a blasting message like that WITHOUT even going to check on the cache first????

 

I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. Let the reviewer deal with the cache owner and move on.

[+Don_J]

I'm sorry, but you are totally wrong here. Regardless of the situation, the purpose of the Needs Archived log is to alert the reviewer. This is not a secondary side effect as you contend. It is the only log that specifically alerts the reviewer, and because of that it is used for many different situations, some of which may not actually require archiving. It should be renamed to describe it's actual purpose.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it that "Needs Archived" has a meaning other than needs archived.

 

If you're saying that we need a new log type that is intended to alert the reviewer, because that's what everyone uses NA for, contrary to its name, then that's a different matter. I can't myself think of a situation where a reviewer should be called in for anything less than the possibility that a cache needs to be eliminated, but obviously you know more about it than I do. I don't recall even once seeing an NA posted that didn't actually mean that the poster thought the cache should be archived.

 

When the log type that we now call Needs Archived (NA) was called Should Be Archived (SBA) most geocachers used the log as Don_J described. I can't recall the reason for the name change but I would guess that had something to do with clarification. As for how the a NA log is supposed to be used check out the help center article called Needs Archived Note. I still use the NA log as an alert to the reviewer in situations where I don't necessary think the cache needs archived, unless the cache owner doesn't fix the issue. The reviews don't seem to have an issue with the NA log being used in that way.

 

Thank you. Reading what you linked, it seems clear to me that the log is to be used when you feel that there is a situation that a reviewer needs to intervene. The description of the typical reviewer response makes it clear that the idea is to prompt the CO to bring their cache back within guidelines, or archive the cache if necessary. If the log was intended to be used only in situations where a cache absolutely needed to be archived, (private property), the only valid reviewer response would be to archive the cache or ignore it. The article clearly states otherwise.

 

I posted this to the Feedback/Uservoice forum when it existed and it quickly moved to the top 10 list in approval votes including votes from reviewers. TPTB agreed to review the idea but it kind of died with that forum.

 

The only negative effect that I can see is mentioned in the KB article and that is users posting the log in frustration. If someone gets it into his head that the reviewer needs to be notified of every cache he can't find, the reviewers could become overwhelmed.

[+dprovan]

I still use the NA log as an alert to the reviewer in situations where I don't necessary think the cache needs archived, unless the cache owner doesn't fix the issue. The reviews don't seem to have an issue with the NA log being used in that way.

I don't contest that NAs are used to get the reviewer's attention, and I'm certainly not suggesting anyone use NAs any differently than they do. I merely suggest that we should think about it -- and continue to name it -- in a way that doesn't put the authority of the reviewer at center stage. Better: I use the NA to ask the owner to archive the cache. Naturally, I hope he decides to correct the problems, instead. But if he doesn't, I'd be happy if he just gave up on the cache and archived it.

 

In other words, our attitude to the NA should be a pleasant exchange with the owner, not tattling to the reviewer. Yes, of course, we all know that the reviewer is notified, the reviewer will take some kind of warning action (assuming our NA is justified), and in far too many cases, the reviewer will eventually need to archive the cache. But if we rename the log entry, we're theoretically taking the CO out of the loop entirely. I don't think that's a good way to approach the problem, even when we honestly think the CO deserves to be cut out for whatever reason.

[+Glenn]

Better: I use the NA to ask the owner to archive the cache. Naturally, I hope he decides to correct the problems, instead. But if he doesn't, I'd be happy if he just gave up on the cache and archived it.

 

Are you thinking of the Needs Maintenance (NM) log type? In a nutshell NM logs are for notifying the CO and NA logs are notifying the reviewer. Are there nuances to each log type? Sure there are.

[+The A-Team]

Better: I use the NA to ask the owner to archive the cache. Naturally, I hope he decides to correct the problems, instead. But if he doesn't, I'd be happy if he just gave up on the cache and archived it.

 

Are you thinking of the Needs Maintenance (NM) log type? In a nutshell NM logs are for notifying the CO and NA logs are notifying the reviewer. Are there nuances to each log type? Sure there are.

That's the way I see it. NM is for communicating to the CO that the cache has problems. If the CO doesn't fix the problems, the next step in escalating would be the NA log (assuming the problem is worthy of involving a reviewer). If it gets to the NA stage, the CO has already been given a chance.

 

At least, that's how I use them...

[+jellis]

I'm sorry, but you are totally wrong here. Regardless of the situation, the purpose of the Needs Archived log is to alert the reviewer. This is not a secondary side effect as you contend. It is the only log that specifically alerts the reviewer, and because of that it is used for many different situations, some of which may not actually require archiving. It should be renamed to describe it's actual purpose.

I guess I'll have to take your word for it that "Needs Archived" has a meaning other than needs archived.

 

If you're saying that we need a new log type that is intended to alert the reviewer, because that's what everyone uses NA for, contrary to its name, then that's a different matter. I can't myself think of a situation where a reviewer should be called in for anything less than the possibility that a cache needs to be eliminated, but obviously you know more about it than I do. I don't recall even once seeing an NA posted that didn't actually mean that the poster thought the cache should be archived.

It can. I could contact Nomex or Hemlock and ask them to review the cache or just put NA and post a note "This cache needs intervention" with a note explaining why. It doesn't mean just Archive, just to get the attention of the reviewer because there is something wrong and either the CO can not be reached or is unwilling to make changes to make it right.

[+jellis]

Don't feel so bad I had posted some DNFs and NM on some caches when I felt the CO wasn't maintaining them and the CO got so angry that he archived all his caches and the local cachers took it out on me.

 

That seems like a complete overreaction by the CO to the situation. But now those spots are open for cachers in your area to place new caches that will be maintained.

If you want more info you would have to contact me off the forum.

[+Ahern Clan]

 

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.

 

I've had similar experiences where I have done maintenance checks but not logged it since nothing was wrong, only to get a DNF the next day. So I did go back out and check and find it still there.

 

I hate having caches show up on my PQs that I know are not there based on multiple attempts and multiple DNFs from experienced cachers. Why should I contact the CO? It is their responsibility to maintain their caches and they get notified when there's a DNF. I take maintaining my caches seriously and if someone else doesn't they should put it up for adoption, especially if they are not in the 'game' anymore. I don't wait until a DNF is posted to check on my hidden caches. I do it regularly and only post that I did maintenance if it needed something or a DNF was logged.

 

I 110% agree with your decision to post a NA Armorsmith and agree the CO should not have reacted so defensively.

[+Glenn]

I've had similar experiences where I have done maintenance checks but not logged it since nothing was wrong, only to get a DNF the next day. So I did go back out and check and find it still there.

 

A DNF log doesn't always mean that the cache isn't there. It just means that the cacher wasn't able to find it at that time.

[+tozainamboku]

Instead of a NA perhaps you should have left a throw down replacement. That seems to be the more "proper" thing to do these days

[+SwineFlew]

Instead of a NA perhaps you should have left a throw down replacement. That seems to be the more "proper" thing to do these days

I know a old cache here in Oregon got archived by the CO because of that.

[+tozainamboku]

Instead of a NA perhaps you should have left a throw down replacement. That seems to be the more "proper" thing to do these days

I know a old cache here in Oregon got archived by the CO because of that.

It doesn't matter. I'm still seeing this happen more often and fewer needs archived posted when an owner is not maintaining their cache. My guess is that for every owner who is angry because someone left a throw down, there are several who would prefer a throw down instead of having to deal with a Needs Archive or Needs Maintenance note. It is reactions from cache owners like the one the OP is dealing with that has encourage this change in the way people deal with missing (or potentially missing) caches.

[+bflentje]

I hate having caches show up on my PQs that I know are not there based on multiple attempts and multiple DNFs from experienced cachers. Why should I contact the CO? It is their responsibility to maintain their caches and they get notified when there's a DNF.

 

I always get a chuckle when I see people more or less declare that they have a right to never be inconvenienced.

[+Don_J]

I hate having caches show up on my PQs that I know are not there based on multiple attempts and multiple DNFs from experienced cachers. Why should I contact the CO? It is their responsibility to maintain their caches and they get notified when there's a DNF.

 

I always get a chuckle when I see people more or less declare that they have a right to never be inconvenienced.

 

Of course, it always depends on the exact circumstances, but I can agree with this. If an easy cache has 10 DNFs in a row and 5 NM logs, the CO has had plenty of notice. Why should I have to contact him personally when I can simply post a NA log?

 

IMO, I can ignore it or I can report it. I have no desire to get personally involved with the CO.

[+L0ne.R]

I hate having caches show up on my PQs that I know are not there based on multiple attempts and multiple DNFs from experienced cachers. Why should I contact the CO? It is their responsibility to maintain their caches and they get notified when there's a DNF.

 

I always get a chuckle when I see people more or less declare that they have a right to never be inconvenienced.

 

... If an easy cache has 10 DNFs in a row and 5 NM logs, the CO has had plenty of notice. Why should I have to contact him personally when I can simply post a NA log?

 

IMO, I can ignore it or I can report it. I have no desire to get personally involved with the CO.

 

+1 about getting personally involved with a delinquent CO. No thanks.

I don't understand how a PM is better then the already multiple emails the CO got from DNFs and NMs.

I have noticed that an NA and reviewer note often gets the attention of active COs (inactive COs are not going to respond no matter who contacts them).