When someone NM's you when they can't find it.

[+Gooniemanalpha]

You ever had a hole list of people find your cache. Then someone cant does not log a DNF just a NM.

[+Kacher82]

I never have, but then, I only have 2 published caches, and they're both so easy, if I got a DNF I'd want to check on it.

[+tozainamboku]

What did the person find?

 

If you find something that indicates the cache was removed or destroyed then a NM may be appropriate either instead of or in addition to the DNF. It will alert the cache owner that a replacement cache or archive is needed.

 

Many cache owners will ignore one or two DNFs. Even on a easy cache, people will sometimes have trouble finding it. By indicating that you found evidence that the cache was removed or destroyed, you let the cache owner know that you didn't just have trouble finding the cache. Theoretically, you should be able to put the additional information in a DNF log with the same results, but in practice the NM may get more noticed.

 

The other time you might use a NM is when there are a number of DNFs and the owner seems to be ignoring maintenance. Here the NM is a way of escalating the request that the owner check on the cache short of going to a NA log. If there is no response by the owner in a week or two then you can escalate to NA

[+Gooniemanalpha]

I personally would log a DNF not an NM.

[jholly]

I personally would log a DNF not an NM.

So if you go look for an easy cache that has a string of, say six DNF's, and you didn't find it you would log a DNF? First off I probably would not waste my caching time on what appears to be fruitless search, but I would add my DNF and also a NM asking the owner to check on the cache. If after a month or so, depending on the phase of the moon and my mood, I would log a NA if the owner did not respond, but especially if the owner has not logged in for quite a while. Yeah, he could be active on a smartphone, but that is what you get if you ignore those pesky owner emails.

[+giddeanx]

If I get to ground zero and do not find the cache I will post a DNF. If I find pieces of the cache, super soggy log, or destruction I will post a NM. If I find the log with the destruction and can sign it I post a find and a NM.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yes. I got

Needs Maintenance 06/09/2013 Stage 1 muggled.

on stage one of one of my multis. (No DNF, just NM.) I duly checked it out and replied "Checked it out, and Stage 1 is right where it has been for the last seven-and-a-half years."

[+Kacher82]

Yes. I got

Needs Maintenance 06/09/2013 Stage 1 muggled.

on stage one of one of my multis. (No DNF, just NM.) I duly checked it out and replied "Checked it out, and Stage 1 is right where it has been for the last seven-and-a-half years."

The muggle must have put it back before you got there.

 

IMO, if there is a string of DNFs on a cache, the owner maybe should be thinking about checking it out anyway. If it's still there, he can then post a note or owner maintenance log assuring seekers of the fact.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Kacher82

[+JL_HSTRE]

Sometimes a NM is appropriate on a DNF such as if GZ is freshly clearcut. But yes most DNF=NM logs are cachers (usually newbies) who think any cache they can't find must be gone.

[+dprovan]

Yes. I got

Needs Maintenance 06/09/2013 Stage 1 muggled.

on stage one of one of my multis. (No DNF, just NM.) I duly checked it out and replied "Checked it out, and Stage 1 is right where it has been for the last seven-and-a-half years."

This is a very good way to handle it.

 

Does it happen? From time to time. Is it annoying? You bet. Is it something to lose sleep over? Nah. "Still there" is a fine reaction. In an extreme case where it's just not convenient to check on it at the moment and you can't get clarification, "I suspect that last NM was an over reaction, so I'm going to clear the maintenance flag until I get more information." Then forget it.

 

I rarely see someone do this more than once, but feel free to talk to anyone that appears to think this is standard procedure. Just make sure to be clear why this use of NM is wrong without making them think NMs are bad even when they're warranted.

[AZcachemeister]

Yesterday I got a NA on a cache I recently checked the 25th of last month.

Two more DNFs since I checked it, but none by the NA poster.

Checked in the PM, all was well and sent the poster a nice PM asking them to be more careful with the NA logs.

They replied that they forgot to post the DNF, and didn't notice my maintenance log from the 25th.

 

Some people's children...

 

[+T.D.M.22]

It seems I get more DNF's on my easiest cache, than I do on the hardest terrain cache I have. Anway how do you know it need maintenance if you couldn't find it? Unless there's evidence it's gone, such as pieces of what looks to be the cache, or it was on a fence, and now there's earthmoving equipment that remove about 5 vertical feet and 150 back of dirt(Happened to me), there really is no reason log a NM if you're the only one who can't find it.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Inexperienced cachers will often log a NM on a cache they can't find or even a NA. I just delete the log after leaving an appropriate note.