[FEATURE] Set a minimum of 50 finds before being allowed to post a NA

[+larimda]

Recently I noticed a growing number of NA postings by GC "members" who - according to their profiles - don't have any finds.

 

From my personal point of view, there are several things to be said about this phenomenon:

 

1. If they are really totally unexperienced members, how were they able to gain the experience to decide whether to post a NA or not?

2. If they are not unexperienced users, already found a lot of caches and - as a result - are able to decide this, why don't they log their finds in order to prove that they don't run fake accounts?

3. If a fake account or an unexperienced user posts a NA, why should GS or any reviewer react to this posting? If a cache really violates the GS guidelines, there will surely be enough experienced members who post a NA themselves. But it is most likely that NA postings by unexperienced or fake users result from other reasons than any violation to GS guidelines - and therefore are in fact themselves a violation against the GS guidelines as far as I do understand them.

 

From my point of view, such postings are not much more than spam and should at least be ignored.

And from my point of view it would be an improvement to relieve the reviewers - along with the whole community - from such spam postings.

 

Probably the easiest way to achieve this, is to restrict the ability to post a NA to members with a specified minimum of finds - e.g. 50.

 

Additionally I would suggest to ban member accounts without any finds, but a couple of NA postings instead, since they are most likely fake accounts, created only to attack some cache owners or the geocaching community as a whole.

[+Lieblweb]

What about those experienced cachers who can't seem to log caches or TB's properly?

 

It's not only the new folks... It's anyone/everyone.

 

I had one cacher (over 1000 finds) log NM logs on every cache in a local park claiming the logs were full. . I own 3 caches in that park and I checked them the next day. NONE of the logs were full. They were just barely over half full.

 

The new folks have a learning curve. We all did...

For those older cachers who can't make proper log decisions.... What's their reasons?

 

The more limitations you put on this hobby, the least enjoyable it will be for everyone.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Easy enough to post 50 Found It logs on caches you've never found, to qualify for being able to post a NA log...

[+tozainamboku]

My guess is that people are creating sock puppet accounts because they are afraid of retaliation for posting a NA.

 

There have been suggestions in the past to allow anonymous NA or NA that are only see by the reviewer. These have mostly been shot down because you can already seen the reviewer a private email.

[+NeverSummer]

As has been said before, a NA log is not a big deal. It is a type of log that can be used. Some people use it a little differently, or just haven't yet learned how to use it clearly.

The issue here is that people get upset about a NA log on their cache, rather than just heading out to check on their caches, performing a maintenance check, and then clearing a NM or NA log with an Owner Maintenance log. It's not that difficult to handle these issues of "n00bs" logging NAs when you don't like it.

[+palmetto]

I handle NA logs, and I don't support this notion at all. Land managers log NA from time to time on caches in areas they manage. Often they have no logged finds. I've recently seen a home owner create an account to request archival of a cache on their property boundary.

 

Novice cache seekers are just as capable of seeing and reacting to No Trespassing signs as people with 51 finds.

 

While some percentage of NA logs are inappropriate*, it's just a log, not a reason for the cache owner to get upset. I think the log type is underused, generally.

 

*Some new cachers logged a NA to a cache of mine, they couldn't find it, and assumed it must be missing. ;-) It was a difficulty 1.5 with a spoiler hint, so I disabled it, assuming it was missing. It was present ;-) making that NA particularly adorable.

It's not a slap in the face, it's a log.

[+Don_J]

Do these caches that are getting NA logs on them have issues? Do CO's in your area act badly when someone posts a NA on their caches? It sounds to me like someone has created an additional account so they can try to clean up the bad caches without facing retaliation from the CO's.

[+Lieblweb]

As has been said before, a NA log is not a big deal. It is a type of log that can be used. Some people use it a little differently, or just haven't yet learned how to use it clearly.

The issue here is that people get upset about a NA log on their cache, rather than just heading out to check on their caches, performing a maintenance check, and then clearing a NM or NA log with an Owner Maintenance log. It's not that difficult to handle these issues of "n00bs" logging NAs when you don't like it.

 

As a cache owner..... It is annoying and frustrating that folks log NM or NA logs when there's absolutely nothing wrong with the cache. But as a cache owner....you have to be prepared for it and deal with it by maintaining your caches. PERIOD.

 

I own about 20 caches and I maintain them regularly. I can't imagine owning anymore than 30 .....

 

When a cache owner has MORE CACHES then they can handle....they don't get maintained regularly - and that's the problem. People publish too many caches and they can't handle the work of maintaining them.

[+Pazifik]

Dear larimda!

 

I fully agree! According to the situation in Middle Europe, you are undoubtedly right.

 

But e.g. the "land-owner"-issue is not an item at all in Europe, at least <1%. Proves that your key message is hardly understandable for an non-European cacher. I can hardly imagine that Groundspeak is willing to determinate the different requirements, even if they are able to undestand what you really meant.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Landowner/Manager and sock puppet account to avoid retribution are valid reasons to not institute such a policy.

This..........↑↑↑↑..... would include public officials such as city/town/other jusrisdiction administrators as well as park/cemetery managers, not to mention police officials.

 

Add to that: The non-logging cacher (there are plenty) who have thousands of finds -- just not logged online. How do you differentiate between them and true "noobs"?

 

There have been "minimum finds" suggestions for just about everything under the sun regarding geocaching. So far, none have gained much support.

[+larimda]

Easy enough to post 50 Found It logs on caches you've never found, to qualify for being able to post a NA log...

Those sock puppet accounts in our area who try to shut down high rated caches (especially LPCs and T5 caches, but also famous caches like the "First Germany" GC77) with threatening NA posts have 0 finds or just a couple of online find logs without real log entries in cache containers. That kind of people who love to disturb or destroy things just for fun because of some brain insanity or by personal retribution reasons against the COs do not use this fake account for real geocaching.

It's just a very cheap feature request to make it a little bit more difficult to abuse GC accounts. And I'm sure that neither any real geocacher nor GS wants anybody to abuse the GC platform.

[+larimda]

Dear larimda!

 

I fully agree! According to the situation in Middle Europe, you are undoubtedly right.

 

But e.g. the "land-owner"-issue is not an item at all in Europe, at least <1%. Proves that your key message is hardly understandable for an non-European cacher. I can hardly imagine that Groundspeak is willing to determinate the different requirements, even if they are able to undestand what you really meant.

 

Thank you for your support. I hope that GS regards other countries' issues as serious as US domestic issues.

If there is any question about this topic, I will gladly explain it directly.

[+SwineFlew]

My guess is that people are creating sock puppet accounts because they are afraid of retaliation for posting a NA.

 

There have been suggestions in the past to allow anonymous NA or NA that are only see by the reviewer. These have mostly been shot down because you can already seen the reviewer a private email.

There are a few of those in my area. I always laugh at those that do that.

[+Castle Mischief]

I think the Reviewers are smart enough to ferret out the bogus NA logs from the real ones.

[+niraD]

I think the Reviewers are smart enough to ferret out the bogus NA logs from the real ones.

Yep. If there is a real problem (e.g., lack of adequate permission or a missing cache with no CO response), then it doesn't matter which account posted the NA log. If there isn't a real problem (e.g., "LPCs suck" or "T5 caches are unfair"), then it doesn't matter which account posted the NA log.

[+stijnhommes]

I think the Reviewers are smart enough to ferret out the bogus NA logs from the real ones.

Well, I certainly hope so. I've seen caches that were disabled and archived after a single faulty "needs maintenance" log.

A CO shouldn't have to respond to such a log if multiple other geocachers confirm they've found the cache and nothing's wrong with it.

[+NeverSummer]

Dear larimda!

 

I fully agree! According to the situation in Middle Europe, you are undoubtedly right.

 

But e.g. the "land-owner"-issue is not an item at all in Europe, at least <1%. Proves that your key message is hardly understandable for an non-European cacher. I can hardly imagine that Groundspeak is willing to determinate the different requirements, even if they are able to undestand what you really meant.

 

Thank you for your support. I hope that GS regards other countries' issues as serious as US domestic issues.

If there is any question about this topic, I will gladly explain it directly.

Regardless of locale, this all can be solved by letting it go. NM and NA logs will happen. What makes it worse is being reactionary.

 

Just be a cache owner, and be responsible for your listings. That might mean having to check on your caches more often than you already do, but that is all part of the process. Becoming lazy or dismissive is what makes the rest of the game start to look bad.

 

Get our your wax, and buff the image of the game a tad. It's up to us to make it better through positive and responsible behavior, not more "rules".

[+larimda]

I think the Reviewers are smart enough to ferret out the bogus NA logs from the real ones.

Yep. If there is a real problem (e.g., lack of adequate permission or a missing cache with no CO response), then it doesn't matter which account posted the NA log. If there isn't a real problem (e.g., "LPCs suck" or "T5 caches are unfair"), then it doesn't matter which account posted the NA log.

I don't talk about such obviously inadequate postings, they will be ignored by anyone. If you want to have a look on such a posting, take this one for example. The text looks pretty similar to typical reviewer postings and the (fake) user name "Approov" looks similar to an existing well-known reviewer nickname ("Approver"). I don't think that any reviewer likes the idea that some sock puppet hides himself behind his good name while forcing COs to shut down caches ...

And there are much more of this kind.

[+NeverSummer]

I think the Reviewers are smart enough to ferret out the bogus NA logs from the real ones.

Yep. If there is a real problem (e.g., lack of adequate permission or a missing cache with no CO response), then it doesn't matter which account posted the NA log. If there isn't a real problem (e.g., "LPCs suck" or "T5 caches are unfair"), then it doesn't matter which account posted the NA log.

I don't talk about such obviously inadequate postings, they will be ignored by anyone. If you want to have a look on such a posting, take this one for example. The text looks pretty similar to typical reviewer postings and the (fake) user name "Approov" looks similar to an existing well-known reviewer nickname ("Approver"). I don't think that any reviewer likes the idea that some sock puppet hides himself behind his good name while forcing COs to shut down caches ...

And there are much more of this kind.

This sounds like an issue much greater than was first presented. If this is someone using and abusing a sock puppet, you should contact Groundspeak directly, and they will deal with the person who appears to be impersonating a Reviewer. email contact@geocaching.com

[+Bear and Ragged]

I think the Reviewers are smart enough to ferret out the bogus NA logs from the real ones.

Well, I certainly hope so. I've seen caches that were disabled and archived after a single faulty "needs maintenance" log.

A CO shouldn't have to respond to such a log if multiple other geocachers confirm they've found the cache and nothing's wrong with it.

 

Would be nice if the CO could/would make a comment on the cache page, just to show they ARE taking notice of the logs on the cache...

[+NeverSummer]

I think the Reviewers are smart enough to ferret out the bogus NA logs from the real ones.

Well, I certainly hope so. I've seen caches that were disabled and archived after a single faulty "needs maintenance" log.

A CO shouldn't have to respond to such a log if multiple other geocachers confirm they've found the cache and nothing's wrong with it.

 

Would be nice if the CO could/would make a comment on the cache page, just to show they ARE taking notice of the logs on the cache...

This sounds a lot like "Mingo" in the USA. Groundspeak can be contacted to get involved about the sock puppet, but if the owner does not replace it, it will likely become archived anyway. If it is replaced, it will likely continue to see issues like this of disappearing again and again. The owner should be prepared for what it takes to own a high profile cache like this.

[+niraD]

If you want to have a look on such a posting, take this one for example.

The troll's account has been locked. The cache owner has posted a note to the cache page explaining the situation, and is working on replacing the missing cache.

 

It seems like this situation has been handled without any arbitrary restrictions on who can post a Needs Archived log.

[+Don_J]

I think the Reviewers are smart enough to ferret out the bogus NA logs from the real ones.

 

Yes, and if the NA logs become abusive or repetitive, the reviewer will deal the abusive member. I don't think that Groundspeak needs to create new rules that would affect the world because of an isolated local issue.