Just because it hasn't been found in 2 months does not mean it's not there!

[Clan Riffster]

Now I have learned that a NA sends a message to a reviewer - its sort of like tattling and not polite.

But it isn't. The idea that it means more to some cache owners than it really should is the issue. Snapping at someone for posting apparently valid logs on a cache is not polite.

Though snapping at someone who posts a log that not even the most brain dead entitlement junkie could remotely see as valid is perfectly acceptable.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Perhaps it's time for a cookie break?

[+briansnat]

I should have read this before posting Needs Achieved after a few careful DNF's. :o

 

At the time it made sense to me simply because I repeatedly didn't find anything to maintain. I got a firm email reprimand from the CO asking me to stop requesting his caches be archived. The other one was a NM log. My diagnosis - owner fatigue. I changed my detailed NA to a DNF and he replaced the missing container. On the NM - he archived that one. Now I have learned that a NA sends a message to a reviewer - its sort of like tattling and not polite.

 

The cacher who made the log being discussed in this thread has a high find/owned ratio. Perhaps he is not sensitive to owner's issues. I wasn't.

 

There is nothing impolite about a NA when used correctly, but yes, it in most cases it would be improper to post a NA simply because you couldn't find a cache, no matter how many times you failed.

Edited January 9, 2013 by briansnat

[+dprovan]

Snapping at someone for posting apparently valid logs on a cache is not polite.

Yes, and let's not forget that snapping at someone for posting an invalid log isn't polite, either.

[+NeverSummer]

Snapping at someone for posting apparently valid logs on a cache is not polite.

Yes, and let's not forget that snapping at someone for posting an invalid log isn't polite, either.

Believe me, I agree.

 

But some think it is stupidity, egotism, or something, and it makes them very mad...to the point of not realizing that it is just a game, and some people make mistakes.

 

I think being polite and considerate gets you much farther in this game than being angry or impolite.

[Clan Riffster]

Snapping at someone for posting apparently valid logs on a cache is not polite.

Yes, and let's not forget that snapping at someone for posting an invalid log isn't polite, either.

Believe me, I agree.

 

But some think it is stupidity, egotism, or something, and it makes them very mad...to the point of not realizing that it is just a game, and some people make mistakes.

 

I think being polite and considerate gets you much farther in this game than being angry or impolite.

I haven't seen any angry people posting to this thread.

Just because someone points out how stupidly egotistical a particular act is, doesn't make them angry.

But I get it. If you can apply your own negative labels, it is easier for you to dismiss another's views.

[+NeverSummer]

Snapping at someone for posting apparently valid logs on a cache is not polite.

Yes, and let's not forget that snapping at someone for posting an invalid log isn't polite, either.

Believe me, I agree.

 

But some think it is stupidity, egotism, or something, and it makes them very mad...to the point of not realizing that it is just a game, and some people make mistakes.

 

I think being polite and considerate gets you much farther in this game than being angry or impolite.

I haven't seen any angry people posting to this thread.

Just because someone points out how stupidly egotistical a particular act is, doesn't make them angry.

But I get it. If you can apply your own negative labels, it is easier for you to dismiss another's views.

 

Just because I said it doesn't mean that I'm talking specifically about anyone here. Also, I said "angry or impolite". I am pretty sure we've all seen examples of either of those in response to any log type on a myriad of caches in many different sets of context.

 

That said, name calling such as stupid or egotistical in regard to those that might post a possibly invalid "NM" or "NA" log is rather impolite and dismissive at bare minimum. If I am reading what you said the way you intended, I think this is where we agree? Maybe...?

[+Sol seaker]

I found one the day before yesterday that hadn't been found in a long time and had a few DNFs. The hint said, "the other stump" and it turns out it was totally overgrown. You couldn't see it at all. I finally found it with my foot.

 

These things happen.

 

If I think its not there when I DNF a cache then I put a watch on it. I'm usually surprised to see others find it. If it gets a lot more DNFs, then I place a NM on it, the exception being if it has has a huge string of DNFs with a NM and an owner that hasn't logged on in a while. Then I will post a NA. That puts it on the reviewers list to watch and I don't have to.

[Clan Riffster]

I think this is where we agree? Maybe...?

Exactly! We both applied terms heavy with negative connotations, so we could dismiss the views of the "other" person.

[+NeverSummer]

I think this is where we agree? Maybe...?

Exactly! We both applied terms heavy with negative connotations, so we could dismiss the views of the "other" person.

No, I used words typed by others in regard to the issue presented in the OP. I didn't use any negative words to "dismiss the views of the 'other' person", just their own words--and not to "dismiss".

 

My response is "Should this really be a big enough deal to get worked up about?" If we're being considerate and polite, while still being skeptical of the legitimacy of a log like in the OP, it is a better situation with generally better outcomes than calling people stupid or egotistical.

 

Some chose to escalate, and I like to choose to deescalate when these questionable logs come around.

[Clan Riffster]

Are you suggesting anyone, at any time in this thread, has gotten themselves "worked up"?

[+NeverSummer]

Are you suggesting anyone, at any time in this thread, has gotten themselves "worked up"?

If you'd like to bicker, feel free to contact me through my profile. Let's keep this on topic.

[Pontoffel Pock]

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

[+NeverSummer]

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

It could be argued that this would be a great example for simply posting a "Note".

 

However, sometimes notes and NM logs are brushed off by cache owners, or overlooked by accident in an inbox.

[+ras_oscar]

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

 

What you are doing is asking a stranger to do something for you. How would you feel if I called you this afternoon and said "please go the the grocery store and buy a gallon of milk for me. My store is out and I'm going to be in your area this weekend. Leave the milk at XXXX and I will pick it up and drop off the money to reemburse you" Am I being reasonable? No. I have no right to ask you to do errands for me. If I post a NM or a note asking the CO to check their cache, IMHO I had better have good reason to believe there is a problem. A DNF means that I have already visited GZ, done a thorough search and failed to find the hide. If in addition I have reason to believe the cache is missing, its a NM with a detailed description of why I believe maintenance is necessary. NM usually means that I found the cache in some state of disrepair. Merely not finding the cache is *USUALLY* not sufficient reason to post a NM. The CO can look at a string of DNFs and determine for themselves whether a maintenance run is warranted. If you are running through an area that is geographically remote from your home coordinates, and you are unwilling or unable to do a thorough search, perhaps you should restrict your PQ to caches with the last 4 logs are finds.

 

I'm not posting this to be mean or spliteful, you sound like you want to do the right thing. Just giving a different perspective on the impact of the tools that are available to you.

Edited January 11, 2013 by ras_oscar

[+hzoi]

I went out yesterday to find a cache and my GPS lead me to a wood wall and wall was only 5 feet long I looked from one end to the other but nothing check other logs and it had not been found since August. I emailed owner to check to see if it was still there. Put it on my watch list and will be notified when it has been checked on. What is a person to do?

What you did sounds about right. I would have logged a Did Not Find on the cache page, too.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

 

What you are doing is asking a stranger to do something for you. How would you feel if I called you this afternoon and said "please go the the grocery store and buy a gallon of milk for me. My store is out and I'm going to be in your area this weekend.

 

You make a good point. It would be a my-time-is-worth-more-than-your-time kind of request. It would be different as a business transaction, but no one gets paid to maintain caches.

[Pontoffel Pock]

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

 

What you are doing is asking a stranger to do something for you. How would you feel if I called you this afternoon and said "please go the the grocery store and buy a gallon of milk for me. My store is out and I'm going to be in your area this weekend. Leave the milk at XXXX and I will pick it up and drop off the money to reemburse you" Am I being reasonable? No. I have no right to ask you to do errands for me. If I post a NM or a note asking the CO to check their cache, IMHO I had better have good reason to believe there is a problem. A DNF means that I have already visited GZ, done a thorough search and failed to find the hide. If in addition I have reason to believe the cache is missing, its a NM with a detailed description of why I believe maintenance is necessary. NM usually means that I found the cache in some state of disrepair. Merely not finding the cache is *USUALLY* not sufficient reason to post a NM. The CO can look at a string of DNFs and determine for themselves whether a maintenance run is warranted. If you are running through an area that is geographically remote from your home coordinates, and you are unwilling or unable to do a thorough search, perhaps you should restrict your PQ to caches with the last 4 logs are finds.

 

I'm not posting this to be mean or spliteful, you sound like you want to do the right thing. Just giving a different perspective on the impact of the tools that are available to you.

 

If a cacher sent me an e-mail saying they were traveling from another state and was curious about one of my hides, I would have no problem checking on it- even if there hadn't been a DNF. Granted, neither are 200 miles away from me, and I drive by one of them every day...I don't see that as a terrible bother. Oh, if I was going to the store anyway- I probly would pick some milk up for you.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Pontoffel Pock

[+The_Incredibles_]

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

 

I think it's asking a bit too much to ask a cache owner to go check on their cache simply because it hasn't been found in a while and you're coming to town. If there are a string of DNFs, I would say OK. But other than that, I think it's an inappropriate request. Cache owners are busy people. If you only want to search for caches that have been found recently, you can do that through GSAK or simply by reading the logs.

[Pontoffel Pock]

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

 

I think it's asking a bit too much to ask a cache owner to go check on their cache simply because it hasn't been found in a while and you're coming to town. If there are a string of DNFs, I would say OK. But other than that, I think it's an inappropriate request. Cache owners are busy people. If you only want to search for caches that have been found recently, you can do that through GSAK or simply by reading the logs.

Fair enough.

[+J Grouchy]

On a recent trip, I stopped at a rest area where there was supposed to be a cache. While I was searching a guy approached me and asked if I was looking for "the geo", as he called it. When I laughed and said "yeah"...he told me where it was supposed to be and it obviously was not where he was pointing. I reported this as "Needs maintenance" due to this apparent corroboration of it not being there by someone I assumed was in the know. Checking on the log a few weeks later, I noticed others had logged the find, but no mention was made about it being replaced. To me, it seems I had a valid reason for reporting it...but I do think the owner ought to make note of it in the log if it had been moved or if they had to replace a missing cache. It's what I did when one of mine got moved to a completely different location from where I originally stashed it.

[+dprovan]

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

What you are doing is asking a stranger to do something for you.

Yeah, good way to put it.

 

If I post a NM or a note asking the CO to check their cache, IMHO I had better have good reason to believe there is a problem. A DNF means that I have already visited GZ, done a thorough search and failed to find the hide.

Yeah, OK, but I'll also consider things like a 1/1 cache, hundreds of easy finds without a miss, then suddenly 4 DNFs in a row by experienced cachers searching separately. I'll also look for things like the cache being found daily before not being found for a month, since a lot of people don't look for caches with several DNFs, and those that do often consider an additional DNF redundant.

 

The CO can look at a string of DNFs and determine for themselves whether a maintenance run is warranted.

I don't mean to be insulting, and any good CO will do this, but the fact is that this is really nonsense. Many, many COs ignore DNFs, even on the easiest of caches where a DNF should be viewed as almost identical to an NM. In fact, many COs ignore (or aren't paying enough attention to notice) NMs, too.

 

I don't think we'd really disagree about any particular situation. Certainly only experienced cachers should consider remote NMs or NAs, and the criteria is quite high, but that doesn't mean it isn't sometimes appropriate. To put it in the context of your original point, yes, when I do this, I'm asking the CO to do something, but it's only when it's something I really and truly think he should have done before I brought it up.

[+NeverSummer]

I don't mean to be insulting, and any good CO will do this, but the fact is that this is really nonsense. Many, many COs ignore DNFs, even on the easiest of caches where a DNF should be viewed as almost identical to an NM. In fact, many COs ignore (or aren't paying enough attention to notice) NMs, too.

^This is, IMHO, very true.

 

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

 

I think it's asking a bit too much to ask a cache owner to go check on their cache simply because it hasn't been found in a while and you're coming to town. If there are a string of DNFs, I would say OK. But other than that, I think it's an inappropriate request. Cache owners are busy people. If you only want to search for caches that have been found recently, you can do that through GSAK or simply by reading the logs.

I tell you what, if a cacher from out of town took the time to research their trip carefully, chose my cache as one they want to find out of all of the caches they could go after, and contacted me to see if it was still there to be found, I would get off my couch and check on that cache--especially if they are asking kindly. Heck, if they posted a NM or NA log, but said that they were looking at it as possibly one to do on a trip, but it looks like it is out of commission, I would run out, check on the cache, post a OM log, and then email the person to let them know it is in action and ready to be found by them.

 

I place caches to be found, and it is nice when people take the time to look into visiting. Now, this is circumstantial, and my own opinion. Nobody else has to play the game the way I do. However, when someone starts in on how out-of-line someone might be for posting a NM or NA log for whatever reason, that shows me that others don't have patience or much tolerance for aberrations in the game. That is what starts to creep in on how we all play the game; we should all play nice.

[+kissguy&frannyfru]

I have one that hasn't been found in over 3 1/2 years. The terrain is more than some folks want, and it's way out in the boonies, to boot. I hope it's still there! GCKH9E Floatin' the Lux

 

The last finder had to go to the emergency room, but only after he signed the log!

Yeah and it's on my list for this summer!

[ButterflyBethie]

I have done searches on my phone to see if there were any caches near by when I have a quick minute but haven't planed ahead and then I see a cache and go look. When I can't find it I check the logs and see many DNF and NM and no responses from the cache owner. Then when I get home I look at the CO's profile and see they haven't logged in in many months and have only found a couple of caches (literally two finds). I logged a NA because the CO didn't seem to be an active cacher anymore and thus wasn't responsive to DNFs and NM. I have only been doing this for a few months and haven't yet found my 100th cache so I don't know if I am doing this wrong. The cache was archived and there was no response from the owner who I would assume could have told the reviewer it was still there or sent me a message if the cache wasn't truly abandoned. I don't like having abandoned caches pop up in my searches and reviewers probably don't have time to keep up with all the caches that have been abandoned. It seems the a person jumps into caching and places caches right away and then give up the hobby and disappear but the caches are still there which is fine until something happens to them and there is no one there to handle it. I also thought maybe just replacing the cache would be a better solution but then I figured just leave it to the reviewer to figure out what should be done. After all if it gets archived I could put my own cache there or anyone else could and the new CO of the new cache could then better manage it.

[Clan Riffster]

As you can see from reading this thread, there are a vast array of opinions.

Since you actually hunted for the cache, my opinion is you did the right thing.

Likely missing cache + absentee owner = SBA.

[+tozainamboku]

Hypothetically speaking, what if...They where new and not sure how the system worked, were going to visit from afar and wanted to load some caches to find, saw this one that hadn't been found in awhile and just wanted the owner to check on it to make sure it was there?- maybe? could happen?

 

What you are doing is asking a stranger to do something for you. How would you feel if I called you this afternoon and said "please go the the grocery store and buy a gallon of milk for me. My store is out and I'm going to be in your area this weekend. Leave the milk at XXXX and I will pick it up and drop off the money to reemburse you" Am I being reasonable? No.

On the other hand you could tell the stranger, "I see that your store may be out of milk and since other people may come by later looking for milk, I took it upon myself to bring a supply of milk and leave it there for you." That almost sounds helpful. But leaving a throw down is no better that posting a NM.

 

If you want to ask some to check on a cache that has a number of DNFs then send an email instead of posting NM. If you really think a replacement is needed you can offer to do that instead of just leaving a throw down without the cache owner's permission.

[+3Woofs]

We went out caching one day. Found a cache and dropped a TB. Got home and found the cache had been archived that day. Two newbies had posted a dnf. And I think there was another dnf from someone with let say 10 finds. Cacher number 4 from out of the area comes looks at the DNF and does not post a needs maintenance. He posts a Needs Archived log. This cache was a nice cache on a fairly unused trailhead maybe .2 mi from parking. Cache had been adopted and current CO did not have much interest in maintaining. Anyway Needs Archived goes To Archived status. Community loses a nice little cache. I actually considered reposting cache listing and just using existing cache container because there was absolutely nothing wrong with this cache. But decided against it, because it is out of my general caching area.

[+NeverSummer]

We went out caching one day. Found a cache and dropped a TB. Got home and found the cache had been archived that day. Two newbies had posted a dnf. And I think there was another dnf from someone with let say 10 finds. Cacher number 4 from out of the area comes looks at the DNF and does not post a needs maintenance. He posts a Needs Archived log. This cache was a nice cache on a fairly unused trailhead maybe .2 mi from parking. Cache had been adopted and current CO did not have much interest in maintaining. Anyway Needs Archived goes To Archived status. Community loses a nice little cache. I actually considered reposting cache listing and just using existing cache container because there was absolutely nothing wrong with this cache. But decided against it, because it is out of my general caching area.

If this is the case, email the Reviewer, and they can retract the archival.

 

Or, if the cache's owner was AWOL, then you could do as you said and repost the cache with the existing container.

 

Either way, if the cache is still there, it can live on in some form. Archival isn't the end of the world as people treat it to be sometimes!

[GPS-Hermit]

If I see DNF finds on my caches I go out and see if it is there. If it is, I post a note that it is. Most people who log a DNF will say how hard they looked and if they suspect a missing cache. A DNF accompanyed by a low find count speaks for itself. I never post a NM unless I have attempted to contact the CO several times. If no response, my attempt to contact the CO goes in the log as well.

 

I once had a needs maintence put on my cache because of a long gap in finds. There was no problem with the cache and was in place. I contacted him and he reconsidered and I deleted his logs. He also felt the cache was abandon because I had not logged on in a while. Hello, it is Winter! We got thru it - but that was a pain. He improperly voted hisself cache police.

[+Harry Dolphin]

We went out caching one day. Found a cache and dropped a TB. Got home and found the cache had been archived that day. Two newbies had posted a dnf. And I think there was another dnf from someone with let say 10 finds. Cacher number 4 from out of the area comes looks at the DNF and does not post a needs maintenance. He posts a Needs Archived log. This cache was a nice cache on a fairly unused trailhead maybe .2 mi from parking. Cache had been adopted and current CO did not have much interest in maintaining. Anyway Needs Archived goes To Archived status. Community loses a nice little cache. I actually considered reposting cache listing and just using existing cache container because there was absolutely nothing wrong with this cache. But decided against it, because it is out of my general caching area.

If this is the case, email the Reviewer, and they can retract the archival.

 

Or, if the cache's owner was AWOL, then you could do as you said and repost the cache with the existing container.

 

Either way, if the cache is still there, it can live on in some form. Archival isn't the end of the world as people treat it to be sometimes!

 

Nope. It was completely inappropriate of that cacher to log a NA on that cache. The cache was in fine condition. Cache police. And, yes, it is inappropriate and egocentric to put an NA of that cache.

You and I will continue to disagree. How you can continue to insist that it is not egocentric of that cacher is beyond me! Cache police at their worst!

You seem to think it is great for the hobby for people to place unwarranted NAs on caches they've never searched for. I think it an egocentric abuse of the system. So continue your belittlements of anyone who does not agree with you.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Harry Dolphin

[+The_Incredibles_]

We went out caching one day. Found a cache and dropped a TB. Got home and found the cache had been archived that day. Two newbies had posted a dnf. And I think there was another dnf from someone with let say 10 finds. Cacher number 4 from out of the area comes looks at the DNF and does not post a needs maintenance. He posts a Needs Archived log. This cache was a nice cache on a fairly unused trailhead maybe .2 mi from parking. Cache had been adopted and current CO did not have much interest in maintaining. Anyway Needs Archived goes To Archived status. Community loses a nice little cache. I actually considered reposting cache listing and just using existing cache container because there was absolutely nothing wrong with this cache. But decided against it, because it is out of my general caching area.

If this is the case, email the Reviewer, and they can retract the archival.

 

Or, if the cache's owner was AWOL, then you could do as you said and repost the cache with the existing container.

 

Either way, if the cache is still there, it can live on in some form. Archival isn't the end of the world as people treat it to be sometimes!

 

Nope. It was completely inappropriate of that cacher to log a NA on that cache. The cache was in fine condition. Cache police. And, yes, it is inappropriate and egocentric to put an NA of that cache.

You and I will continue to disagree. How you can continue to insist that it is not egocentric of that cacher is beyond me! Cache police at their worst!

You seem to think it is great for the hobby for people to place unwarranted NAs on caches they've never searched for. I think it an egocentric abuse of the system. So continue your belittlements of anyone who does not agree with you.

 

Even if a cache cop posted an unwarranted Needs Archive, it's still up to either 1) the reviewer or 2) the cache owner to decide to archive. A Needs Archive requests only alerts the reviewer, it doesn't make them do anything.

[+NeverSummer]

We went out caching one day. Found a cache and dropped a TB. Got home and found the cache had been archived that day. Two newbies had posted a dnf. And I think there was another dnf from someone with let say 10 finds. Cacher number 4 from out of the area comes looks at the DNF and does not post a needs maintenance. He posts a Needs Archived log. This cache was a nice cache on a fairly unused trailhead maybe .2 mi from parking. Cache had been adopted and current CO did not have much interest in maintaining. Anyway Needs Archived goes To Archived status. Community loses a nice little cache. I actually considered reposting cache listing and just using existing cache container because there was absolutely nothing wrong with this cache. But decided against it, because it is out of my general caching area.

If this is the case, email the Reviewer, and they can retract the archival.

 

Or, if the cache's owner was AWOL, then you could do as you said and repost the cache with the existing container.

 

Either way, if the cache is still there, it can live on in some form. Archival isn't the end of the world as people treat it to be sometimes!

 

Nope. It was completely inappropriate of that cacher to log a NA on that cache. The cache was in fine condition. Cache police. And, yes, it is inappropriate and egocentric to put an NA of that cache.

You and I will continue to disagree. How you can continue to insist that it is not egocentric of that cacher is beyond me! Cache police at their worst!

You seem to think it is great for the hobby for people to place unwarranted NAs on caches they've never searched for. I think it an egocentric abuse of the system. So continue your belittlements of anyone who does not agree with you.

Erm...

Belittlements? "Unwarranted" NA logs "great for the hobby"? I'm not seeing the logic in being upset about NA logs that don't pertain to you personally, while I'm simply saying that some patience, kind diplomacy, and relaxation of the "egocentric cache police" rhetoric would be nice in this hobby. The post you quote to wasn't even directed toward you!

 

If a cache owner doesn't "have much interest in maintaining" their cache, this isn't unwarranted. Misguided "newbies" at most, perhaps. My observation about the post is valid: The Reviewer can retract the archival, or someone can create a new cache page with the same coords, and the container which is still (apparently) on site. Move on.

 

If one can keep a level head, there is nothing that will be done that can't be deleted or retracted that would fix a NA log or possible following Reviewer archiving a listing due to a NA. If the facts are on your side, and you can present yourself calmly, factually, and in accordance with the guidelines, why bother getting so upset about it? It will all get sorted out, and one could take the time to send a non-inflamatory email to the person who logged the NA about how the cache is still in place, meets the guidelines, and is ready to be found.

 

Or, specifically directed toward you, Harry Dolphin, it seems you like to take the "whomp those egotistical cachers upside the head for their stupidity" route, rather than the teachable moment dealt with patiently route. Me? I'd rather take the high road, and see others in this game take it as well.

[+JKMonkey]

I never quite understood that. Like are come cachers so obsessed with not logging a DNF that they think if they can't find it it's not there? Personally I would log a Needs Maintenance only if a cache needed maintaining, if a cache is actually lost I'd probably just chock it up to me not finding it. A few DNF's in a row by different people should give away that the cache is gone.

 

[Zerpersande]

I find it kind of unnecessary to use a "Needs Maintenace" just because you couldn't find it and the last log on the cache was a couple months back.

To me, you answered your own question. Just because someone else is logically challenged doesn't mean that you have to jump through the hoop they want you to jump through. I keep a folder under GeoCaching messages for DNF reports, or messages with logs with comments that indicate maybe I should change something about the cache. As I check the caches, I move them out of the folder. But if I had no activity whatsoever on a cache and someone posted a "Needs Maintenance" log, I would question their sanity. And if I went out to check the cache just because of that, I would question my own.

[+wmpastor]

This cache is in a class by itself: GCG822. It has not been found in 10 YEARS. It's a 5/5 that is 2,300 meters under the sea. It had one visit in 10 years - a DNF.

[Zerpersande]

This cache is in a class by itself: GCG822. It has not been found in 10 YEARS. It's a 5/5 that is 2,300 meters under the sea. It had one visit in 10 years - a DNF.

Hmmmm, if this is so....... 1- no reason to archive it. Does someone else want to place a cache within 160m? 2- how was it placed? 3- how did someone look for it? That's too deep for anything other than a specialty sub.

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

This cache is in a class by itself: GCG822. It has not been found in 10 YEARS. It's a 5/5 that is 2,300 meters under the sea. It had one visit in 10 years - a DNF.

Hmmmm, if this is so....... 1- no reason to archive it. Does someone else want to place a cache within 160m? 2- how was it placed? 3- how did someone look for it? That's too deep for anything other than a specialty sub.

 

1. Probably not. 2. by sub 3. by sub

 

I don't think he was suggesting it be archived, just stating that it hasn't been found yet.

[+Bushwalker53]

That's a bit strange, some difficult puzzle caches go for years without being found, just because no one has visited it doesn't mean it's missing!

[+Cute&Cuddly]

After reading through this topic, what do you think of a Reviewer disabling a cache after only 3 DNF's? See here - http://coord.info/GC36VCX - soon after it was published.

As a result, the CO cranked up the D rating, a full 2 points too high in my opinion.

If you think a NM log is unwarranted in a situation where the cache simply can't be found, how about disabling it?

[Zerpersande]

After reading through this topic, what do you think of a Reviewer disabling a cache after only 3 DNF's? See here - http://coord.info/GC36VCX - soon after it was published.

As a result, the CO cranked up the D rating, a full 2 points too high in my opinion.

If you think a NM log is unwarranted in a situation where the cache simply can't be found, how about disabling it?

So you think that because a cache is difficult, and people are having trouble finding it, it should be disabled? What is the CO supposed to do to have it enabled? Go out there? If a geocacher can't find it, what are the odds that it was muggled? Low? And if it is difficult to find, more so than the CO expected, why not increase the D rating?

 

I just placed a cache and there have been 5 DNFs. One guy tried twice. The design of the cache is such that I would be absolutely amazed it has been muggled but the next time I am in the area, I will check it. I do not on any of my caches that get multiple DNFs. Sometimes before I can get out there, someone finds it. Means I would have made a trip for nothing.

 

As for the D rating being too high now, have you found the cache so that you are in a position to determine the proper D rating? It would only be your opinion. Then what are you going to do? Make it easier so that it can be found maybe? Yeah, let's all make caches easy enough that they don't often get DNFs Rating a cache is very subjective. Mine are generally higher than the average, but only because I think the average cache difficulty is over-rated in my area. If others want to call a 0.5D cache a 1.5, I'm going to have to put a lot of my caches in the 2.0/3.0D range.

 

Nope, disabling a cache isn't the answer in the this case.

[+Cute&Cuddly]

After reading through this topic, what do you think of a Reviewer disabling a cache after only 3 DNF's? See here - http://coord.info/GC36VCX - soon after it was published.

As a result, the CO cranked up the D rating, a full 2 points too high in my opinion.

If you think a NM log is unwarranted in a situation where the cache simply can't be found, how about disabling it?

So you think that because a cache is difficult, and people are having trouble finding it, it should be disabled? What is the CO supposed to do to have it enabled? Go out there? If a geocacher can't find it, what are the odds that it was muggled? Low? And if it is difficult to find, more so than the CO expected, why not increase the D rating?

 

I just placed a cache and there have been 5 DNFs. One guy tried twice. The design of the cache is such that I would be absolutely amazed it has been muggled but the next time I am in the area, I will check it. I do not on any of my caches that get multiple DNFs. Sometimes before I can get out there, someone finds it. Means I would have made a trip for nothing.

 

As for the D rating being too high now, have you found the cache so that you are in a position to determine the proper D rating? It would only be your opinion. Then what are you going to do? Make it easier so that it can be found maybe? Yeah, let's all make caches easy enough that they don't often get DNFs Rating a cache is very subjective. Mine are generally higher than the average, but only because I think the average cache difficulty is over-rated in my area. If others want to call a 0.5D cache a 1.5, I'm going to have to put a lot of my caches in the 2.0/3.0D range.

 

Nope, disabling a cache isn't the answer in the this case.

 

I completely agree! Disabling is not the answer in this case.

Yes, I did find it. I've found MANY of exactly the same type of hide (actually, it's a stereotypical hide), but without a complete spoiler here, it is over rated. But I'm not complaining. I'll take a 5D P&G any day. But that's not the point of this topic.

I was simply wondering, in the context of the OP, what you thought of a Reviewer disabling a cache after 3 DNF's.

[Zerpersande]

After reading through this topic, what do you think of a Reviewer disabling a cache after only 3 DNF's? See here - http://coord.info/GC36VCX - soon after it was published.

As a result, the CO cranked up the D rating, a full 2 points too high in my opinion.

If you think a NM log is unwarranted in a situation where the cache simply can't be found, how about disabling it?

So you think that because a cache is difficult, and people are having trouble finding it, it should be disabled? What is the CO supposed to do to have it enabled? Go out there? If a geocacher can't find it, what are the odds that it was muggled? Low? And if it is difficult to find, more so than the CO expected, why not increase the D rating?

 

I just placed a cache and there have been 5 DNFs. One guy tried twice. The design of the cache is such that I would be absolutely amazed it has been muggled but the next time I am in the area, I will check it. I do not on any of my caches that get multiple DNFs. Sometimes before I can get out there, someone finds it. Means I would have made a trip for nothing.

 

As for the D rating being too high now, have you found the cache so that you are in a position to determine the proper D rating? It would only be your opinion. Then what are you going to do? Make it easier so that it can be found maybe? Yeah, let's all make caches easy enough that they don't often get DNFs Rating a cache is very subjective. Mine are generally higher than the average, but only because I think the average cache difficulty is over-rated in my area. If others want to call a 0.5D cache a 1.5, I'm going to have to put a lot of my caches in the 2.0/3.0D range.

 

Nope, disabling a cache isn't the answer in the this case.

 

I completely agree! Disabling is not the answer in this case.

Yes, I did find it. I've found MANY of exactly the same type of hide (actually, it's a stereotypical hide), but without a complete spoiler here, it is over rated. But I'm not complaining. I'll take a 5D P&G any day. But that's not the point of this topic.

I was simply wondering, in the context of the OP, what you thought of a Reviewer disabling a cache after 3 DNF's.

If a cache was found and thenngot some DNFs, AND the CO has done nothing, perhas disabling would be justified. But as I pointed, this recent cache of mine is simply harder than what I thought so my resonsebwill be first to check then to increase difficulty. Hint? I think 'clue'. My hints often requirs thought. Once it is found, the hint becomes obvious and the finder gets the cache and the meaning. Well, hopefully the meaning before the cache.

[+Cute&Cuddly]

After reading through this topic, what do you think of a Reviewer disabling a cache after only 3 DNF's? See here - http://coord.info/GC36VCX - soon after it was published.

As a result, the CO cranked up the D rating, a full 2 points too high in my opinion.

If you think a NM log is unwarranted in a situation where the cache simply can't be found, how about disabling it?

So you think that because a cache is difficult, and people are having trouble finding it, it should be disabled? What is the CO supposed to do to have it enabled? Go out there? If a geocacher can't find it, what are the odds that it was muggled? Low? And if it is difficult to find, more so than the CO expected, why not increase the D rating?

 

I just placed a cache and there have been 5 DNFs. One guy tried twice. The design of the cache is such that I would be absolutely amazed it has been muggled but the next time I am in the area, I will check it. I do not on any of my caches that get multiple DNFs. Sometimes before I can get out there, someone finds it. Means I would have made a trip for nothing.

 

As for the D rating being too high now, have you found the cache so that you are in a position to determine the proper D rating? It would only be your opinion. Then what are you going to do? Make it easier so that it can be found maybe? Yeah, let's all make caches easy enough that they don't often get DNFs Rating a cache is very subjective. Mine are generally higher than the average, but only because I think the average cache difficulty is over-rated in my area. If others want to call a 0.5D cache a 1.5, I'm going to have to put a lot of my caches in the 2.0/3.0D range.

 

Nope, disabling a cache isn't the answer in the this case.

 

I completely agree! Disabling is not the answer in this case.

Yes, I did find it. I've found MANY of exactly the same type of hide (actually, it's a stereotypical hide), but without a complete spoiler here, it is over rated. But I'm not complaining. I'll take a 5D P&G any day. But that's not the point of this topic.

I was simply wondering, in the context of the OP, what you thought of a Reviewer disabling a cache after 3 DNF's.

If a cache was found and thenngot some DNFs, AND the CO has done nothing, perhas disabling would be justified. But as I pointed, this recent cache of mine is simply harder than what I thought so my resonsebwill be first to check then to increase difficulty. Hint? I think 'clue'. My hints often requirs thought. Once it is found, the hint becomes obvious and the finder gets the cache and the meaning. Well, hopefully the meaning before the cache.

 

Sounds like you're a good CO!

In some posts in this topic some have referred to contacting the CO before posting a NM log. Would a similar action be appropriate before disabling a cache?

[+JKMonkey]

yeah I hate that some people just automatically assume that if they can't find it it's not there, so asinine.

[+GrateBear]

I have to agree with the OP. Last Sept I went after a cache that was placed 8/01, so I could fill in another month on the Jasmer Challenge. Hadn't been found in just over two years. I was a bit apprehensive as it involved a 1 mile hike that had significant up and down terrain in both directions. Got to the spot and there it was, in pretty good shape. If I had not found it, would have been a DNF, certainly not a NM.

[Zerpersande]

After reading through this topic, what do you think of a Reviewer disabling a cache after only 3 DNF's? See here - http://coord.info/GC36VCX - soon after it was published.

As a result, the CO cranked up the D rating, a full 2 points too high in my opinion.

If you think a NM log is unwarranted in a situation where the cache simply can't be found, how about disabling it?

So you think that because a cache is difficult, and people are having trouble finding it, it should be disabled? What is the CO supposed to do to have it enabled? Go out there? If a geocacher can't find it, what are the odds that it was muggled? Low? And if it is difficult to find, more so than the CO expected, why not increase the D rating?

 

I just placed a cache and there have been 5 DNFs. One guy tried twice. The design of the cache is such that I would be absolutely amazed it has been muggled but the next time I am in the area, I will check it. I do not on any of my caches that get multiple DNFs. Sometimes before I can get out there, someone finds it. Means I would have made a trip for nothing.

 

As for the D rating being too high now, have you found the cache so that you are in a position to determine the proper D rating? It would only be your opinion. Then what are you going to do? Make it easier so that it can be found maybe? Yeah, let's all make caches easy enough that they don't often get DNFs Rating a cache is very subjective. Mine are generally higher than the average, but only because I think the average cache difficulty is over-rated in my area. If others want to call a 0.5D cache a 1.5, I'm going to have to put a lot of my caches in the 2.0/3.0D range.

 

Nope, disabling a cache isn't the answer in the this case.

 

I completely agree! Disabling is not the answer in this case.

Yes, I did find it. I've found MANY of exactly the same type of hide (actually, it's a stereotypical hide), but without a complete spoiler here, it is over rated. But I'm not complaining. I'll take a 5D P&G any day. But that's not the point of this topic.

I was simply wondering, in the context of the OP, what you thought of a Reviewer disabling a cache after 3 DNF's.

If a cache was found and thenngot some DNFs, AND the CO has done nothing, perhas disabling would be justified. But as I pointed, this recent cache of mine is simply harder than what I thought so my resonsebwill be first to check then to increase difficulty. Hint? I think 'clue'. My hints often requirs thought. Once it is found, the hint becomes obvious and the finder gets the cache and the meaning. Well, hopefully the meaning before the cache.

 

Sounds like you're a good CO!

In some posts in this topic some have referred to contacting the CO before posting a NM log. Would a similar action be appropriate before disabling a cache?

Don,'t know about others but i would make contact w/ CO. If I were in the area again, checjk again.. Then consider a NA, which I have ever done. IF someone is silly enough walk to this cache with 4 straight DNFs, ha even a glimmer of the reality the gut's maintenance is slow/non-existent and wants to look, well, go fot i simply checjk the logs on this guys aches for a recent string of DNFs and avoid the cache if such exists.

 

On another note, our reviewer just sent out a batchnof notices to people with a backlog of DNFs. As fot coctacting CO before NM,no. First. It is a casual message. Second, it' ammessage whivch if they accumulate send a useful warningnto other cacgers to give sevond thoughts before hiking ling distances which, in the case of this cacher, will likely beva 0.5Dbcaches with a neon sign pointig to iy.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Zerpersande

[Clan Riffster]

I'm not seeing the logic in being upset about NA logs that don't pertain to you personally, while I'm simply saying that some patience, kind diplomacy, and relaxation of the "egocentric cache police" rhetoric would be nice in this hobby. The post you quote to wasn't even directed toward you! .

Whilst I can't speak for Sir Furry Fish, I do share some of his concerns, which appear to be applicable to this post.

 

First, rude, arrogant behavior should always be vigorously tromped upon, lest it grow. If this type of behavior is allowed to grow unchecked, it can affect many, many people. Best to squish it quickly. Posting an NA or NM on a cache for no other reason than you, (the collective you), were not up to the task of finding it is obnoxiously arrogant.

 

Second, you're doing it again. Applying negative labels in an attempt to dismiss a person's statements.

 

Third, it's only rhetoric if it is exaggerated, or otherwise grossly inaccurate.

 

In this case, Sir Furry Fish was dead on.

 

Repeating a fact doesn't magically turn said fact into rhetoric.

[+Dgwphotos]

Absolutely right tozainamboku, it could have been bad if they brought their own "replacement".

They did that to another nearby cache: Milton St. Cache. So I'm on the aquatic mammal's side vis. motivation for the log, just not very worked up as I don't have a dog in the fight.

I noticed it seems like they did not even bother to read the fact that it was archived or that the cache owner had indeed responded. Had I been the cache owner, their "find" would have been deleted.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Dgwphotos

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

Seems as though the same cachers DNF'd another cache of mine today, yes a DNF, not a NM.

Though, again stating in their log that I should check on it.

Fair enough, but I doubt it's gone.