[suggestion] "Needs Maintenance" flag

[+jman939]

It would be helpful, IMHO, if there was an option to report "needs maintenance" while filling out a "found" report as well. Maybe, in addition to the "needs maintenance" type of report, there was an option to add NM to a finder's log?

[+MAntunes]

I think, 'Found' logs are to report the finding of a geocache, tell the story and the sensations that adventure gave to the finder and 'needs maintenance' log is to report a situation that should drive the owner's attention. The latter sets on the 'needs maintenance' flag.

 

They're different type of logs as they are different type of situations and should be kept separated, in my opinion.

[7rxc]

OP was clear that they simply suggest an option on the cache 'found log' page to go directly to the NM page for a secondary or supplemental log. Might save a few clicks that way.

It is already done for supplemental coordinates I believe.

 

I don't see the need for it of course, since finishing one log and then doing another one doesn't take much effort either. But I wouldn't be against it for those that want it. Perhaps it can be done after the serious shortcomings are dealt with.

 

Doug 7rxc

[AZcachemeister]

Isn't it best to separate the two functions and leave it as it is?

 

Do we really want to 'anonymize' the addition of the NM flag?

Shouldn't the CO get the separate log telling them a NM was posted?

 

Personally, I like to see who posted the NM log, but sadly there is nothing stopping them (or the CO) from deleting it once the deed is done.

I'd be more interested in making the NM log and the NA log automatically 'undeletable' except perhaps by an admin, but that's another topic.

[+SwineFlew]

I see where the OP is coming from...

 

CO dont always read the found it logs. If you got hundreds of caches out there, it can be too much.

 

Log a Need Maintenance log is the only way to get the CO attention. We got some CO here that take it very very personal if you log a NM on any of their caches. Oh yea, they will attack you via email. Geeze! After that, I never use a NM log anymore and dont care. If some CO acts like that, I am not going to bother to be honest.

[team tisri]

Isn't it best to separate the two functions and leave it as it is?

 

Do we really want to 'anonymize' the addition of the NM flag?

Shouldn't the CO get the separate log telling them a NM was posted?

 

Personally, I like to see who posted the NM log, but sadly there is nothing stopping them (or the CO) from deleting it once the deed is done.

I'd be more interested in making the NM log and the NA log automatically 'undeletable' except perhaps by an admin, but that's another topic.

 

I like keeping the two separate. I don't own caches but if I did I'd route NM and NA logs into their own folder so I could find them easily. If a Found log included an NM element it would need some measure to alert the CO to the fact their cache had been flagged as needing maintenance.

[AZcachemeister]

Oh yea, they will attack you via email.

 

In that case, you should report them for abuse to contact@geocaching.com.

 

And, politely tell them (the CO) that five previous logs mentioned the log was wet and they did nothing about it.

 

I read every log on all of my caches to:

 

1. See that the finder enjoyed the cache.

2. See if there are any issues with the cache.

 

I DO get irritated when a NM gets logged out of the blue. Even so, I don't recall sending a PM to anyone who posted one to any of my caches.

 

I think there are three levels of pointing out a problem with a cache.

 

1. Posting a regular 'Found It' log, mentioning there are issues with the cache. This is all that should be needed for any CO with self-respect and consideration for fellow cachers.

 

2. If the CO does not have self respect or consideration, and does nothing...THEN the 'Needs Maintenance' should be posted to get their attention, and/or pave the way to step 3.

 

3. The CO continues to ignore the problem, so the reviewer is called in using the 'Needs Archived'.

[+dprovan]

Sorry, but I see no reason to combine the two independent functions. It's already too easy for people to get confused about whether they're saying they found it or saying it needs maintenance. I'm not sure exactly what you're thinking about, but all I can imagine is a check box that says "file a needs maintenance report" which will accomplish absolutely nothing except make people think they're filing a maintenance report when they're really filing a found it log, or vice versa.

[+cerberus1]

I'd like to see them kept as a separate thing. Two separate functions really.

 

We hear of COs deleting NMs without looking, some within minutes of receiving them.

Wouldn't they then delete your found log (if they were together) too?

[+Don_J]

Isn't it best to separate the two functions and leave it as it is?

 

Do we really want to 'anonymize' the addition of the NM flag?

Shouldn't the CO get the separate log telling them a NM was posted?

 

Personally, I like to see who posted the NM log, but sadly there is nothing stopping them (or the CO) from deleting it once the deed is done.

I'd be more interested in making the NM log and the NA log automatically 'undeletable' except perhaps by an admin, but that's another topic.

 

A lot of people don't use it properly anyway. I have a notification on NM logs and far to many of them say, "See my Found log", or "See previous log". People are already merging the two. In my opinion, they are two different logs that are supposed to convey two different messages. A NM log is supposed to tell us what is wrong with the cache.

[+Don_J]

I'd like to see them kept as a separate thing. Two separate functions really.

 

We hear of COs deleting NMs without looking, some within minutes of receiving them.

Wouldn't they then delete your found log (if they were together) too?

 

Around here the new trend is to post an Owner Maintenance log that goes along the lines, "Will check on this next Saturday". Of course, they almost never do.

[+Cardinal Red]

We hear of COs deleting NMs without looking, some within minutes of receiving them.

 

Well, then they would have to deal with the NA I would post within minutes

[team tisri]

I think there are three levels of pointing out a problem with a cache.

 

1. Posting a regular 'Found It' log, mentioning there are issues with the cache. This is all that should be needed for any CO with self-respect and consideration for fellow cachers.

 

2. If the CO does not have self respect or consideration, and does nothing...THEN the 'Needs Maintenance' should be posted to get their attention, and/or pave the way to step 3.

 

3. The CO continues to ignore the problem, so the reviewer is called in using the 'Needs Archived'.

 

It's easy to see how someone who owned a lot of caches in busy areas may not take the time to read every single Found log in full to see if there was a mention of a problem in the text somewhere. Given how easy it is to log NM it seems to me that if you want to bring something to the attention of the CO and other cachers the thing to do is log NM rather than make a passing mention of a problem in a Found log.

 

If the CO doesn't respond to NM logs then, as you say, the inevitable consequence is an NA log.

[+dprovan]

I think there are three levels of pointing out a problem with a cache.

 

1. Posting a regular 'Found It' log, mentioning there are issues with the cache. This is all that should be needed for any CO with self-respect and consideration for fellow cachers.

No, sorry, I don't agree. If you don't think a problem was important enough to post a needs maintenance log, why should the CO unilaterally decide it needs maintenance? If there's a problem major enough for the cache to need maintenance, then call for maintenance. If there's something less than perfect that could be fixed by the CO or the next seeker, feel free to mention it only in a found log.

 

That's not to say I don't appreciate COs that run out and fix minor problems reported in found logs. But it's outrageous for anyone to expect that to happen.

[AZcachemeister]

I think there are three levels of pointing out a problem with a cache.

 

1. Posting a regular 'Found It' log, mentioning there are issues with the cache. This is all that should be needed for any CO with self-respect and consideration for fellow cachers.

No, sorry, I don't agree. If you don't think a problem was important enough to post a needs maintenance log, why should the CO unilaterally decide it needs maintenance? If there's a problem major enough for the cache to need maintenance, then call for maintenance. If there's something less than perfect that could be fixed by the CO or the next seeker, feel free to mention it only in a found log.

 

That's not to say I don't appreciate COs that run out and fix minor problems reported in found logs. But it's outrageous for anyone to expect that to happen.

 

Outrageous to expect the CO to do maintenance?

 

Perhaps you need someone to slap you in the face and TELL you to maintain your cache(s), but I don't.

 

There was a (kinder, gentler) time when the 'Needs Maintenance' log (and attribute) didn't exist.

Finders would mention there was a problem, and owners would go and fix it.

 

I am 100% down with the NM log and attribute for when the owner doesn't seem to be paying attention, but PLEASE, give me a chance to prove I am not paying attention first.

[+BlueDeuce]

Isn't it best to separate the two functions and leave it as it is?

 

Do we really want to 'anonymize' the addition of the NM flag?

Shouldn't the CO get the separate log telling them a NM was posted?

 

Personally, I like to see who posted the NM log, but sadly there is nothing stopping them (or the CO) from deleting it once the deed is done.

I'd be more interested in making the NM log and the NA log automatically 'undeletable' except perhaps by an admin, but that's another topic.

 

Don't you think that most cache owners would need nothing more than a Note? Who doesn't maintain their cache after being told of an issue?

 

Oh yeah, everyone who complains about a NM. Would you like the list?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I see where the OP is coming from...

 

CO dont always read the found it logs. If you got hundreds of caches out there, it can be too much.

 

Seems like there's an obvious solution here. If it's too much for a CO to read the logs on hundreds of caches out there, perhaps they shouldn't have hundreds of caches.

 

 

[+jman939]

No reason to combine the functions, just have an option to post both at once should you wish to do so. Lots of reason to post a NM only, say if you were revisiting a cache to drop off a TB or similar.

 

Also, no reason setting the NM flag within a Found log wouldn't still send the NM email to the CO.

 

Would be a minor feature addition to save a few moments while doing data entry is all, not suggesting replacing any other function, just an enhancement.

[team tisri]

I see where the OP is coming from...

 

CO dont always read the found it logs. If you got hundreds of caches out there, it can be too much.

 

Seems like there's an obvious solution here. If it's too much for a CO to read the logs on hundreds of caches out there, perhaps they shouldn't have hundreds of caches.

 

Seems like there's a more obvious solution here. If a cache needs maintenance, log Needs Maintenance and let the CO know.

 

If a CO has a small number of caches that get a small number of logs they may spot mention of things in the text of logs that suggest something may be needed. But since I neither know nor frankly care how may other caches a particular owner has out there it's easy enough to log NM if it needs maintenance.