Are you reluctant to post Needs Archived?

[+Ben0w]

Generally, I have good experiences with my NM and NA logs.

 

I have some caches here, where the owners moved to far away and are only here occasionally on a family visit any more. I helped out after our flooding and after some reconstructions on cache sites and checked the boxes, then posted NM/NA logs. The owners reacted rather soon. No, I don't want to adopt their caches, but I want to have my area filled with good caches rather than abandoned ones. So far it works.

 

On my own hide listings I explicitely wrote in bold: "The owner appreciates NM logs, if there are issues with the cache!" (and I can reach all of them by foot or bike on short notice). However, I didn't get NMs up to now, even if one box was clearly out of place once (someone took just the cover away and left the plastic box in a tree instead of at it's base, where the hint points to). No problem, the finders log alarmed me anyhow ("In plain sight? What the...?"). I got a personal call because of a obvious missing box once, checked instantly and found it all in perfect place. No DNF log either. So even if I'm openly willing to receive NM logs if needed, the cachers seem to be reluctant about it, yes.

 

Well, as a cacher, I'm certainly not. But I try to use friendly wordings at least (had my share of offended cache owners).

[+L0ne.R]

Generally, I have good experiences with my NM and NA logs.

 

I have some caches here, where the owners moved to far away and are only here occasionally on a family visit any more. I helped out after our flooding and after some reconstructions on cache sites and checked the boxes, then posted NM/NA logs. The owners reacted rather soon. No, I don't want to adopt their caches, but I want to have my area filled with good caches rather than abandoned ones. So far it works.

 

+1

[+agltbialik]

I've felt bad about submitting so many Needs Archived logs lately. Usually, it's just a DNF with a note that it looks like it's missing (if I suspect that). I will sometimes put it on my watch list if it's something I'm curious to find later on. If I have a strong feeling, or know for sure that a cache is missing, and after several other people post DNFs without the CO checking up on the cache, I post a Needs Maintenance. After ANOTHER NM log from someone else, then the local reviewer disables the cache giving the owner a good 30 days to answer back or check on it. If it's well past the 30 day mark (more than enough time for someone to at least address the issue), I'll post the Needs Archived. It's only fair to clear up the 528 feet radius for other cachers to hide something if the CO is just sitting on the coords. I understand wanting to keep that cache alive, but after 30 days of inactivity and no checking up on it, you no longer have a cache.. you're just camping out on a location. In my area, we are SATURATED with nanos and micros and such, and there are a lot of newer and more creative cachers that don't have good locations to implement their ideas.

 

Needs Archived may seem harsh to some, but it's only fair to other hiders, especially if you were given enough time to address the issues.

[+dprovan]

Needs Archived may seem harsh to some...

Someone filing a Needs Archived might be harsh, but Needs Archived itself is just a tool in the process.

[+nthacker66]

Always in my area. Especially when it is more veteran cache owners. Its like questioning royalty to post NA logs.

[+JohnCNA]

I post NM logs when I find a damaged container or when I am *absolutely* certain the cache is missing, such as when the description or clue indicates it's in a tree and the only tree within 100 feet has been recently cut down. Just because I can't find it and I *think* it is no longer there doesn't mean it isn't. I would post a Note and suggest that I don't think it's there any more if I feel I have some clear justification beyond just not finding it for thinking it's gone.

 

I would only post a NA log only if it were apparent that a replacement would be impossible, such as if a property owner approached me and demanded its removal or the property had some No Trespassing signs posted.

[team tisri]

I post NM logs when I find a damaged container or when I am *absolutely* certain the cache is missing, such as when the description or clue indicates it's in a tree and the only tree within 100 feet has been recently cut down. Just because I can't find it and I *think* it is no longer there doesn't mean it isn't. I would post a Note and suggest that I don't think it's there any more if I feel I have some clear justification beyond just not finding it for thinking it's gone.

 

I would only post a NA log only if it were apparent that a replacement would be impossible, such as if a property owner approached me and demanded its removal or the property had some No Trespassing signs posted.

 

I don't see anything wrong with posting NM and asking the owner to check it's still there if there have been a number of DNFs. If I was the first person who couldn't find it then unless something very specific led me to believe it probably wasn't there than I'd just log a DNF.

 

If I logged NM and the owner didn't respond in any way at all I'd log NA after a few weeks.

[+OZ2CPU]

sometimes a NA is fair,

sometimes a NA log is phrased rude,

sometimes it drives people nuts when some play cache-police and NA all stuff they just dont like,

Think abit.. think more.. wait.. and then act..

[+ngrrfan]

If I logged NM and the owner didn't respond in any way at all I'd log NA after a few weeks.

I follow this path myself, but I add a small twist.

 

I'll log a DNF along with a NM. Then I look at the CO info and see when they were last active online. If they haven't logged in in over a year I go straight for an NA and state why. If they have been active in the past year, I won't go for the NA and let things go their natural course.

[+Ladybug Kids]

Up here in Alaska, the following works well:

 

DNF: Looked for the cache and didn't find it. Every search attempt logged. This helps build a history of search activity on the cache so when a pattern of DNFs appears on a cache after a long history of finds, cachers and the local Reviewer know something is wrong. If people don't log their DNFs, no one gets an indication of a looming issue.

 

Needs Maintenance (NM): Found the cache and it has issues...broken container, soggy logbook, mold, etc. A cacher doesn't know a cache is in need of maintenance if they haven't physically seen it. If the Cacher can't find the container, a DNF is more appropriate. NM logs don't go to the Reviewer because they are intended to be a way for Cachers to notify Cache Owners of an issue without Reviewer or Groundspeak intervention. Misuse of the NM log results in hundreds of caches with the Needs Maintenance attribute on them when the cache is actually perfectly fine. Many Cache Owners perform Owner Maintenance without logging it, so the Needs Maintenance attribute lives on. Then, cachers like me run a GSAK filter to eliminate caches with the Needs Maintenance attribute because they don't want to hunt caches with potential problems when they travel.

 

Needs Archived (NA):Used by Cachers to bring a cache to a Reviewer's attention. This can be due to a long series of DNFs that haven't been responded to and no recent activity by the Cache Owner, a Guidelines violation, or other serious issue. An NA log is not about being a Cache Cop. It is about bringing the cache to the local Reviewer's attention so s/he can decide on the appropriate course of action. Rarely does an NA log result in immediate archival of the cache. Short of a serious Guideline violation, the local Reviewer typically will write the appropriate Reviewer Note requesting some sort of action by the Cache Owner. If the Cache Owner doesn't respond to this Reviewer Note, then the cache may be Archived.

[+Maingray]

"Reviewer Attention Required" should be the new "NA".

 

It's a better description and loses the angst some folks have.

[+dprovan]

"Reviewer Attention Required" should be the new "NA".

 

It's a better description and loses the angst some folks have.

I seriously doubt cosmetically changing the name will reduce any angst. The last thing I would want is a log entry named to give cowards justification for saying, "It's not my fault! I didn't know it would actually be archived!"

 

And I disagree that it's a better description: the only reason we should be explicitly calling for a reviewer to consider a cache is if we think there's a possibility that it should be archived unless something changes. That's the only real power the reviewer has over a cache, so we should recognize that possibility explicitly no matter how much hope we have that the the reviewer will be able to produce a more desirable outcome.

 

If you want to call Daddy in to straighten something out by giving the child a stern talking to -- or even if you have some friendlier goal that I'm just having a hard time imagining -- you should talk to the reviewer privately, not via a log entry.

[+Don_J]

Always in my area. Especially when it is more veteran cache owners. Its like questioning royalty to post NA logs.

 

The Emperor's New Clothes?

[+Don_J]

Up here in Alaska, the following works well:

 

 

Sounds good. This is how it's been working down here lately

 

• 
   
  
• Cacher hides a difficulty 3 cache.
  
• Other cachers find it, give their accolades in their logs.
  
• Power caching team of two with over 55,000 finds between then blows into town to find every cache.
  
• Power caching team spends three minutes looking for the D3 cache, then gives up because you can find a 100 caches in a day if you spend a half hour behind one supermarket.
  
• Power cachers post DNF logs on the D3 cache.
  
• Newbie with 3 finds comes by to search for the D3 cache.
  
• Newbie can't find it and posts a DNF and a NA stating that if the experts with 55,000 finds can't find it, it must be gone.
  
• Busy reviewer doesn't notice the overall situation, notes three DNFs after a series of finds, and posts a reviewer note disabling the cache, asking the cache owner to check on it.
  
• Cache owner checks the cache, enables it and totally rips into the newbie in their enable log.
  
• Newbie quits caching or vows to never post another NA log
  

Edited September 10, 2013 by Don_J

[+spockske]

Logging a NM or NA doesn't mean that the reviewer will also archive that cache (either over time for a NM or more quickly for a NA). So why not do it if in my judgment either one of them is appropriate? If not, why where these options provided by GS? In doing so, you might upset the CO but serve the caching community at large. If you don't, you just help creating poor caches.

Edited September 10, 2013 by spockske

[+Don_J]

"Reviewer Attention Required" should be the new "NA".

 

It's a better description and loses the angst some folks have.

I seriously doubt cosmetically changing the name will reduce any angst. The last thing I would want is a log entry named to give cowards justification for saying, "It's not my fault! I didn't know it would actually be archived!"

 

And I disagree that it's a better description: the only reason we should be explicitly calling for a reviewer to consider a cache is if we think there's a possibility that it should be archived unless something changes. That's the only real power the reviewer has over a cache, so we should recognize that possibility explicitly no matter how much hope we have that the the reviewer will be able to produce a more desirable outcome.

 

If you want to call Daddy in to straighten something out by giving the child a stern talking to -- or even if you have some friendlier goal that I'm just having a hard time imagining -- you should talk to the reviewer privately, not via a log entry.

 

Here we go again. "Cowards", really? Call Daddy to fight our battles? Give a child a stern talking to? You seem to have a strange perception of the role of cache owners, reviewers and the rest of us. It is not a family where one kid snitches out another to their parents, trying to get them in trouble. Unfortunately, too many think this way so we will always have crappy caches, full of water with a lump of a logbook, owned by someone who quit the game years ago, because everyone is afraid to snitch to Daddy.

 

If there is a situation with a cache that a cache owner has ignored for an extended period of time, then the reviewer needs to be notified. Not every cache needs to be archived. Many need to simply be maintained by their owner and many owners won't do anything until the reviewer tells them that they have to. People become reluctant to post NA logs because they think that it means exactly what it says. The Needs Archive log is designed to notify the reviewer of a cache that may need to be archived if the cache owner does not correct the outstanding issues. The log is designed to get the reviewer's attention. Why shouldn't it be named as such?

[team tisri]

If I logged NM and the owner didn't respond in any way at all I'd log NA after a few weeks.

I follow this path myself, but I add a small twist.

 

I'll log a DNF along with a NM. Then I look at the CO info and see when they were last active online. If they haven't logged in in over a year I go straight for an NA and state why. If they have been active in the past year, I won't go for the NA and let things go their natural course.

 

If they haven't been active in many months I'll usually still give them a month or so, simply because it could be they haven't needed to log in for anything - they'll get emails of logs on their caches and might go out and fix it. It's also possible they've been using a mobile device and the site doesn't update when that happens (one of a number of annoying issues). I can't be bothered to trawl the CO's finds - even if they have no finds for months they might still be checking in periodically on a mobile device.

[team tisri]

"Reviewer Attention Required" should be the new "NA".

 

It's a better description and loses the angst some folks have.

I seriously doubt cosmetically changing the name will reduce any angst. The last thing I would want is a log entry named to give cowards justification for saying, "It's not my fault! I didn't know it would actually be archived!"

 

And I disagree that it's a better description: the only reason we should be explicitly calling for a reviewer to consider a cache is if we think there's a possibility that it should be archived unless something changes. That's the only real power the reviewer has over a cache, so we should recognize that possibility explicitly no matter how much hope we have that the the reviewer will be able to produce a more desirable outcome.

 

If you want to call Daddy in to straighten something out by giving the child a stern talking to -- or even if you have some friendlier goal that I'm just having a hard time imagining -- you should talk to the reviewer privately, not via a log entry.

 

Cowards? Call Daddy? What on earth are you talking about?

 

"Needs reviewer attention" is more about saying "there could be a serious problem here and it needs prompt attention" or "there's a problem here and the CO isn't dealing with it" and less about saying "this cache must be archived right now". "Needs archived" is more of a statement that, well, the cache needs to be archived.

 

I'm not interested in worrying about levels of angst people might have in logging things, I just think "Needs owner attention" and "Needs reviewer attention" are better descriptors of what is requested when they are logged.

 

"Needs reviewer attention" clearly asks the reviewer to do something, specifically consider disabling or archiving the cache as appropriate. It's a request for the reviewer to look at the cache and consider how to handle it, as opposed to a demand that the cache be archived.

[+dprovan]

Here we go again. "Cowards", really? Call Daddy to fight our battles? Give a child a stern talking to? You seem to have a strange perception of the role of cache owners, reviewers and the rest of us. It is not a family where one kid snitches out another to their parents, trying to get them in trouble. Unfortunately, too many think this way so we will always have crappy caches, full of water with a lump of a logbook, owned by someone who quit the game years ago, because everyone is afraid to snitch to Daddy.

Exactly my point. If you're going to point out a serious problem with a cache, don't pretend it's just an incidental problem that "Needs Reviewer Attention". For it to be brought to a reviewer's attention, it must be a serious problem that may very well mean that the cache "Needs Archived".

[+dprovan]

"Needs reviewer attention" clearly asks the reviewer to do something, specifically consider disabling or archiving the cache as appropriate.

Absolutely backwards. "Needs Archived" clearly asks the reviewer to do something such as disabling or archiving the cache as appropriate. "Needs reviewer attention" is designed to avoid asking the reviewer to do anything.

[+cheech gang]

"Needs reviewer attention" clearly asks the reviewer to do something, specifically consider disabling or archiving the cache as appropriate.

Absolutely backwards. "Needs Archived" clearly asks the reviewer to do something such as disabling or archiving the cache as appropriate. "Needs reviewer attention" is designed to avoid asking the reviewer to do anything.

 

Bizarro World logic prevails!

 

[4wheelin_fool]

Needs archived says that the cache should be archived, whether by the reviewer or CO. It's done, game over. Property owner is irate. Cache is destroyed and owner is not active.

 

Needs reviewer attention means that it needs some help, and not necessarily an archival. Area is posted, but they may be old signs. Log is wet and the owner is active but not responding. It's a little less harsh. It implies that the cache could be fixed or saved.

Edited September 11, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+dprovan]

Needs archived says that the cache should be archived, whether by the reviewer or CO. It's done, game over. Property owner is irate. Cache is destroyed and owner is not active.

 

Needs reviewer attention means that it needs some help, and not necessarily an archival. Area is posted, but they may be old signs. Log is wet and the owner is active but not responding. It's a little less harsh. It implies that the cache could be fixed or saved.

Sorry, but I disagree on both counts. First, Needs Archived shouldn't be final. If the cache is then fixed, it isn't reasonable to say, "No, sorry, it's too late, someone said it needs archived."

 

And, on the other hand, I disagree that it's a good idea to consider "not necessarily an archival" to be any different than an archival. "Not necessarily an archival" means exactly the same thing as "if necessary, an archival", so I think anyone calling for that should face what they're asking for.

 

But let's clarify something: are you suggesting two different log types? One for when we think it needs to be archived, and another one if we think it needs some help, but not necessarily an archival? Most people that bring this up want to change "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", which strikes me as nothing more than a naive way to pretend it's something it's not.

[+SwineFlew]

Needs archived says that the cache should be archived, whether by the reviewer or CO. It's done, game over. Property owner is irate. Cache is destroyed and owner is not active.

 

Needs reviewer attention means that it needs some help, and not necessarily an archival. Area is posted, but they may be old signs. Log is wet and the owner is active but not responding. It's a little less harsh. It implies that the cache could be fixed or saved.

Sorry, but I disagree on both counts. First, Needs Archived shouldn't be final. If the cache is then fixed, it isn't reasonable to say, "No, sorry, it's too late, someone said it needs archived."

 

And, on the other hand, I disagree that it's a good idea to consider "not necessarily an archival" to be any different than an archival. "Not necessarily an archival" means exactly the same thing as "if necessary, an archival", so I think anyone calling for that should face what they're asking for.

 

But let's clarify something: are you suggesting two different log types? One for when we think it needs to be archived, and another one if we think it needs some help, but not necessarily an archival? Most people that bring this up want to change "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", which strikes me as nothing more than a naive way to pretend it's something it's not.

So how you would worded it?

[4wheelin_fool]

Needs archived says that the cache should be archived, whether by the reviewer or CO. It's done, game over. Property owner is irate. Cache is destroyed and owner is not active.

 

Needs reviewer attention means that it needs some help, and not necessarily an archival. Area is posted, but they may be old signs. Log is wet and the owner is active but not responding. It's a little less harsh. It implies that the cache could be fixed or saved.

Sorry, but I disagree on both counts. First, Needs Archived shouldn't be final. If the cache is then fixed, it isn't reasonable to say, "No, sorry, it's too late, someone said it needs archived."

 

And, on the other hand, I disagree that it's a good idea to consider "not necessarily an archival" to be any different than an archival. "Not necessarily an archival" means exactly the same thing as "if necessary, an archival", so I think anyone calling for that should face what they're asking for.

 

But let's clarify something: are you suggesting two different log types? One for when we think it needs to be archived, and another one if we think it needs some help, but not necessarily an archival? Most people that bring this up want to change "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", which strikes me as nothing more than a naive way to pretend it's something it's not.

 

Either would be better than none. A Reviewer Attention log would be more widely used than a Needs Archived. Needs Archived implies that the final nail in the coffin has been applied. Reviewer Attention implies calling the EMTs for recusitation. Most people don't want to be coroners, but rather doctors.

[+Don_J]

Needs archived says that the cache should be archived, whether by the reviewer or CO. It's done, game over. Property owner is irate. Cache is destroyed and owner is not active.

 

Needs reviewer attention means that it needs some help, and not necessarily an archival. Area is posted, but they may be old signs. Log is wet and the owner is active but not responding. It's a little less harsh. It implies that the cache could be fixed or saved.

Sorry, but I disagree on both counts. First, Needs Archived shouldn't be final. If the cache is then fixed, it isn't reasonable to say, "No, sorry, it's too late, someone said it needs archived."

 

And, on the other hand, I disagree that it's a good idea to consider "not necessarily an archival" to be any different than an archival. "Not necessarily an archival" means exactly the same thing as "if necessary, an archival", so I think anyone calling for that should face what they're asking for.

 

But let's clarify something: are you suggesting two different log types? One for when we think it needs to be archived, and another one if we think it needs some help, but not necessarily an archival? Most people that bring this up want to change "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", which strikes me as nothing more than a naive way to pretend it's something it's not.

 

We don't need two logs. Every cache that needs archived, needs the reviewer's attention to do so, but not every cache that needs the reviewer's attention actually needs to be archived. Think of it like a flow chart.

[+dprovan]

So how you would worded it?

I would word it, "Needs Archived".

 

Reviewer Attention implies calling the EMTs for recusitation. Most people don't want to be coroners, but rather doctors.

"Needs Maintenance" calls for EMTs. "Needs Archived" is when the EMTs didn't show up.

 

We don't need two logs. Every cache that needs archived, needs the reviewer's attention to do so, but not every cache that needs the reviewer's attention actually needs to be archived. Think of it like a flow chart.

What is the case where one wants to call the reviewer's attention to a cache without wanting the cache archived, yet cannot accomplish that with a private message to the reviewer? The line seems impossibly thin between a problem so serious that we need to announce publicly that it cannot be resolved without a reviewer yet not so serious that we should acknowledge that archiving the cache might be the result.

 

It seems like we get enough bogus NA requests from newbies thinking they not finding a cache means it needs to be eliminated from the listings. How much more often will newbies think that when they can't find a cache, that means the reviewer should check it out?

[+L0ne.R]

So how you would worded it?

I would word it, "Needs Archived".

 

How about "May Need Archiving"

[4wheelin_fool]

Needs archived says that the cache should be archived, whether by the reviewer or CO. It's done, game over. Property owner is irate. Cache is destroyed and owner is not active.

 

Needs reviewer attention means that it needs some help, and not necessarily an archival. Area is posted, but they may be old signs. Log is wet and the owner is active but not responding. It's a little less harsh. It implies that the cache could be fixed or saved.

Sorry, but I disagree on both counts. First, Needs Archived shouldn't be final. If the cache is then fixed, it isn't reasonable to say, "No, sorry, it's too late, someone said it needs archived."

 

And, on the other hand, I disagree that it's a good idea to consider "not necessarily an archival" to be any different than an archival. "Not necessarily an archival" means exactly the same thing as "if necessary, an archival", so I think anyone calling for that should face what they're asking for.

 

But let's clarify something: are you suggesting two different log types? One for when we think it needs to be archived, and another one if we think it needs some help, but not necessarily an archival? Most people that bring this up want to change "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", which strikes me as nothing more than a naive way to pretend it's something it's not.

 

We don't need two logs. Every cache that needs archived, needs the reviewer's attention to do so, but not every cache that needs the reviewer's attention actually needs to be archived. Think of it like a flow chart.

 

Perhaps we do. Reviewer Attention is somewhere in between Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived. Even as a substitute, it would still work better than Needs Archived. The result would be the same, but with a different label. Its such a silly semantic argument over a label, but some people read those labels wrong and do not understand.

 

Suppose there is a cache where coords are off 60 feet intentionally. A Needs Maintenance note is appropriate, but may not have any effect. A Needs Archived note unnecessarily implies it should be unlisted, and may make the CO irate. Reviewer Attention is more useful. I personally don't like the wording of "Reviewer Attention", as it should be "Reviewer Action", or simply a "Reviewer Note", but it is better than the clumsy "Needs Archived". Currently only COs can post Reviewer Notes on unpublished caches, but perhaps everyone should be able to post them on all caches, rather than Needs Archived. "Attention" is a little strong also.

 

Someone may be reluctant to post a Reviewer Attention note on an unfound cache, as they may believe it could trigger the Reviewer to rush out and be FTF.

Edited September 11, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+dprovan]

Suppose there is a cache where coords are off 60 feet intentionally. A Needs Maintenance note is appropriate, but may not have any effect. A Needs Archived note unnecessarily implies it should be unlisted, and may make the CO irate. Reviewer Attention is more useful. I personally don't like the wording of "Reviewer Attention", as it should be "Reviewer Action", or simply a "Reviewer Note", but it is better than the clumsy "Needs Archived".

OK, let's look carefully at this example.

 

First of all, I don't think the reviewer would change the coordinates based on a third party asking them to, so the "reviewer action" here is to ask the CO to correct the coordinates. But you already asked the CO to correct the coordinates, so this is the case I referred to earlier as running to Daddy, expecting Daddy's authoritative position to force the behavior that your valid request did not achieve. I don't want the caching community to depend on authority any more than necessary.

 

OK, so the reviewer tells the CO to correct the coordinates, and he denies they're wrong. Now what? "What" is that is that if he's convinced the coordinates are wrong, the reveiwer has to archive the cache. (Well, he could correct the coordinates, and the CO could put them back, and the cache could get locked, etc., but it seems silly to consider those possibilities, much less expect them to happen.)

 

To me, that all adds up to "Needs Archived", which, yes, implicitly means needs archived in my opinion, and also means needs archived if the problem isn't corrected, but I think it's wrong to consider those modifiers, which I think are obvious, more important to choosing the name than stressing the worst case result of the request.

[+Maingray]

To me, that all adds up to "Needs Archived", which, yes, implicitly means needs archived in my opinion, and also means needs archived if the problem isn't corrected, but I think it's wrong to consider those modifiers, which I think are obvious, more important to choosing the name than stressing the worst case result of the request.

 

I think the main problem is that a lot of people feel that the log name is too severe, and will apparently often ask the Reviewers, via email, to deal with the cache rather than post the NA log.

[Clan Riffster]

Suppose there is a cache where coords are off 60 feet intentionally.

Then it needs to be archived, run over with a mower, left in a penguin poop collection bin, then dumped on the owner's head. There are very few things that irritate me about this hobby. Deliberately soft coords, just to make a cache harder to find is one of them.

[Clan Riffster]

...a lot of people feel that the log name is too severe...

That's true. When a cache should go away, for whatever reason, our options are to either post a "Needs Archived", or to communicate our concerns privately with a Reviewer. Posting the dreaded NA not only let's the Reviewers know there is a serious problem with a cache, it also outs the problem publicaly, with what some see as a negative label. In any hobby where there is such a significant social impact, semantics are important. Perhaps folks will be more willing to post a log calling for action, if it no longer had the stigma of the NA?

[+Packanack]

reluctant , yes. Attitude is changing however as thoughtless , outside guidelines , non permitted caches proliferate. On way home from work tonight I stopped for a new one. It met all offending categories, so I spotted it and decided to just keep on going. How it got published is beyond me, If we are less discerning we will come to deserve what we get.

[+dprovan]

I think the main problem is that a lot of people feel that the log name is too severe, and will apparently often ask the Reviewers, via email, to deal with the cache rather than post the NA log.

That's fine with me. I'd rather someone think it's too severe and not post an NA they should instead of thinking it's too casual and posting a "Needs Reviewer Attention" when they shouldn't. No matter what name you want to use, calling a reviewer's attention to a cache is a very serious matter that shouldn't be done unless one has a very good case, a good enough case that one is prepared to say, "I'm very sorry you're upset, but it's just a fact that your cache might have to be archived, and here's why." Furthermore, if you can't make that case yet still think it needs reviewer attention, I'd prefer you handle it privately with the reviewer in case the reviewer needs to set you straight about something.

[+Don_J]

 

We don't need two logs. Every cache that needs archived, needs the reviewer's attention to do so, but not every cache that needs the reviewer's attention actually needs to be archived. Think of it like a flow chart.

What is the case where one wants to call the reviewer's attention to a cache without wanting the cache archived, yet cannot accomplish that with a private message to the reviewer? The line seems impossibly thin between a problem so serious that we need to announce publicly that it cannot be resolved without a reviewer yet not so serious that we should acknowledge that archiving the cache might be the result.

 

It seems like we get enough bogus NA requests from newbies thinking they not finding a cache means it needs to be eliminated from the listings. How much more often will newbies think that when they can't find a cache, that means the reviewer should check it out?

 

Our areas reviewers prefer that we use the tools that Groundspeak provided us as opposed to sending private emails. As far as announcing to the public, if someone is absent from the game and not maintaining their cache or addressing other problems, it should be a public process. You seem to be leaning on the "snitch to daddy" thing, and unfortunately, many CO's seem to feel the same way. Many of us believe that this is because of the name of the log. "Needs Archived" sounds like I am making a statement of what the final disposition of your cache should be. Only in the fewest of cases is that actually true. "Needs Reviewer Attention" more accurately describes what the logs purpose is. It brings a cache to the reviewer's attention so that they can use their expertise to determine the disposition of the problem.

[+WarNinjas]

I am guessing some of this is because of the few that log needs maintenance when it doesn't. With us we have many hides out and we get the needs maintenance logs from time to time and we rush out there and all is fine. That is a lot of work for no reason. I am more then happy to go fix a cache of ours that does have problems and am grateful of those that let us know. It is the ones that are wrong that get it kind of irritating. If it really does need maintenance let us know because we want them right but if you are unsure on a hard one don't do it and waste our time. I have just had this a couple of times. feel free to log it and we will check it but sometimes it is unnecessary. And we are guessing this is why this is a problem.

[+Maingray]

 

Our areas reviewers prefer that we use the tools that Groundspeak provided us as opposed to sending private emails. As far as announcing to the public, if someone is absent from the game and not maintaining their cache or addressing other problems, it should be a public process. You seem to be leaning on the "snitch to daddy" thing, and unfortunately, many CO's seem to feel the same way. Many of us believe that this is because of the name of the log. "Needs Archived" sounds like I am making a statement of what the final disposition of your cache should be. Only in the fewest of cases is that actually true. "Needs Reviewer Attention" more accurately describes what the logs purpose is. It brings a cache to the reviewer's attention so that they can use their expertise to determine the disposition of the problem.

 

Agreed. Much the same for this area, so as much as possible is transparent.

[+L0ne.R]

That's fine with me. I'd rather someone think it's too severe and not post an NA they should instead of thinking it's too casual and posting a "Needs Reviewer Attention" when they shouldn't. No matter what name you want to use, calling a reviewer's attention to a cache is a very serious matter that shouldn't be done unless one has a very good case, a good enough case that one is prepared to say, "I'm very sorry you're upset, but it's just a fact that your cache might have to be archived, and here's why." Furthermore, if you can't make that case yet still think it needs reviewer attention, I'd prefer you handle it privately with the reviewer in case the reviewer needs to set you straight about something.

 

Our areas reviewers prefer that we use the tools that Groundspeak provided us as opposed to sending private emails. As far as announcing to the public, if someone is absent from the game and not maintaining their cache or addressing other problems, it should be a public process.

 

I agree. And the reviewers in my area follow the same procedure as Don_J outlined. We are asked to post an NA. I think Groundspeak is sticking with Needs Archived because it should be a public and serious matter to use the NA option and should mean you believe the cache should be archived in it's current condition. Since, in my experience, one active yet absent owner got quite upset when I posted an NA, I continue to post NAs where needed but have taken to prefacing my logs with 'Needs Attention', especially when the owner is active on the website.

Edited September 12, 2013 by L0ne R

[4wheelin_fool]

I think the main problem is that a lot of people feel that the log name is too severe, and will apparently often ask the Reviewers, via email, to deal with the cache rather than post the NA log.

That's fine with me. I'd rather someone think it's too severe and not post an NA they should instead of thinking it's too casual and posting a "Needs Reviewer Attention" when they shouldn't. No matter what name you want to use, calling a reviewer's attention to a cache is a very serious matter that shouldn't be done unless one has a very good case, a good enough case that one is prepared to say, "I'm very sorry you're upset, but it's just a fact that your cache might have to be archived, and here's why." Furthermore, if you can't make that case yet still think it needs reviewer attention, I'd prefer you handle it privately with the reviewer in case the reviewer needs to set you straight about something.

 

I disagree. Although there are some that misuse NA logs and post them unnecessarily, overall the tendency is to not use them at all. They have a tendency to offend the cache owner if they are active, or imply that the cache should be unlisted, when they really want it fixed.

 

Many people have posted in this thread that they are reluctant to post one, as most would rather avoid the drama. A log type which creates drama is not needed. A simple label change would be welcomed. Calling the public works department to report a pothole destroying wheel bearings and struts, is more along the lines of what is happening here. There is no Mommy or Daddy, we are mostly all adults. If you view reviewers that way, perhaps it is indicative of other issues.

[+J Grouchy]

I'd say most, if not all, of my NA logs are on caches where the owner has not been active in a year or more. Not BECAUSE of that fact...but it's certainly one of the big factors. Simply put, if a cache owner obviously is not active and the cache is not going to be seeing owner maintenance any time soon, it needs to go away. One can actually say in their NA log that the cache needs reviewer attention. Just because you are posting an NA log doesn't mean you are handing down judgment. To me it generally just means that the owner obviously needs a kick in the pants...a "$#!* or get off the pot" log, if you will (pardon my french).

[+dprovan]

Our areas reviewers prefer that we use the tools that Groundspeak provided us as opposed to sending private emails.

I don't blame them. I'm only suggesting private mail for those few cases where "Needs Archived" seems wrong, and even then I'm mainly suggesting it because what I'm hearing is "Needs Archived" is wrong because people don't want to say publically that the cache might need to be archived.

 

I haven't noticed: do reviewers want the name changed? I would think they'd prefer the type that stresses the seriousness of calling them into the disagreement.

 

As far as announcing to the public, if someone is absent from the game and not maintaining their cache or addressing other problems, it should be a public process.

Yes, I'm assuming that whatever's wrong is already available in NM logs, notes, and DNFs and that the only question is how a documented problem should be escalated.

 

You seem to be leaning on the "snitch to daddy" thing, and unfortunately, many CO's seem to feel the same way. Many of us believe that this is because of the name of the log. "Needs Archived" sounds like I am making a statement of what the final disposition of your cache should be.

Let's get this straight: I've been talking about "snitch to Daddy" because it's an outrageous idea, not because I think that's what we should support. In my opinion, "Needs Reviewer Attention" sounds exactly like, "I'm telling!", while "Needs Archived" is an honest statement of the seriousness of the situation now that NM didn't work. As angry as some COs get about NA (at least, I'm told they get angry: I haven't really seen that, myself, so I assume it's regional), I would think they'd get more upset by a log that brought in the big guns while pretending it isn't the logger's fault if the big guns go off.

 

Only in the fewest of cases is that actually true. "Needs Reviewer Attention" more accurately describes what the logs purpose is. It brings a cache to the reviewer's attention so that they can use their expertise to determine the disposition of the problem.

OK, obviously this is the big disconnect. Of all the NA's I've seen or heard about, only one or two didn't actually mean "I think this needs archived unless something is done about it." Perhaps we should go back and start talking about cases. I've already discussed the one, where the coordinates were off and the CO refused to correct them. As I explained, although the case seems minor, it ends in archival unless something is done about it. Where are all the cases where NM fails yet NA doesn't accurately describe the next step? Perhaps someone could specifically explain to me all the possible courses open to reviewers once their attention is drawn to a cache. As I've said before, other than archiving the cache, the only other action I know about is, "Give the CO a stern talking to." Is that the one that the new log type is meant to invoke?

[Keystone]

A number of off topic/tangential posts have been removed in the interest of balanced chi.

 

Please post on topic so that nobody needs to log "Needs Moderator Attention." Thanks!

[Clan Riffster]

...at least, I'm told they get angry: I haven't really seen that, myself...

To clarify my local experience: There are some cache owners around here who get their knickers in a twist any time an "NA" gets put on one of their caches. These folks have a few common traits. Whilst caching, they carry throw downs, and use them frequently, claiming that they are helping keep the game alive. All of these throw downs are logged as finds. Because they are high number finders, they don't have much spare time for maintaining the caches they've hidden. Because they are almost as prolific in hiding as they are in finding, they oft resort to using inferior containers, because they can get 80 bazillion film cans cheaper than 80 bazillion ammo cans.

 

Here's where their entitlement mentality starts. They truly believe that since they are helping other, that others should reciprocate and fix their crappy caches. When this doesn't happen, they get outraged. Those who do post an "NA" are treated like they just kicked a kitten.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[4wheelin_fool]

Suppose there is a cache where coords are off 60 feet intentionally.

Then it needs to be archived, run over with a mower, left in a penguin poop collection bin, then dumped on the owner's head. There are very few things that irritate me about this hobby. Deliberately soft coords, just to make a cache harder to find is one of them.

 

I posted a very nice NA on one, not to get it archived, but to get it fixed. It either did not get the reviewer's attention, or they decided not to do anything about it. I think it should be disabled until it does get fixed.

[4wheelin_fool]

...at least, I'm told they get angry: I haven't really seen that, myself...

To clarify my local experience: There are some cache owners around here who get their knickers in a twist any time an "NA" gets put on one of their caches. These folks have a few common traits. Whilst caching, they carry throw downs, and use them frequently, claiming that they are helping keep the game alive. All of these throw downs are logged as finds. Because they are high number finders, they don't have much spare time for maintaining the caches they've hidden. Because they are almost as prolific in hiding as they are in finding, they oft resort to using inferior containers, because they can get 80 bazillion film cans cheaper than 80 bazillion ammo cans.

 

Here's where their entitlement mentality starts. They truly believe that since they are helping other, that others should reciprocate and fix their crappy caches. When this doesn't happen, they get outraged. Those who do post an "NA" are treated like they just kicked a kitten.

 

Yes, an NA is a trigger point for some people, simply due to the name.

[+dprovan]

...at least, I'm told they get angry: I haven't really seen that, myself...

To clarify my local experience: There are some cache owners around here who get their knickers in a twist any time an "NA" gets put on one of their caches. These folks have a few common traits. Whilst caching, they carry throw downs, and use them frequently, claiming that they are helping keep the game alive. All of these throw downs are logged as finds. Because they are high number finders, they don't have much spare time for maintaining the caches they've hidden. Because they are almost as prolific in hiding as they are in finding, they oft resort to using inferior containers, because they can get 80 bazillion film cans cheaper than 80 bazillion ammo cans.

 

Here's where their entitlement mentality starts. They truly believe that since they are helping other, that others should reciprocate and fix their crappy caches. When this doesn't happen, they get outraged. Those who do post an "NA" are treated like they just kicked a kitten.

Thanks for explaining. I see no reason to think that changing "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention" will change any of that. Do you? And, in particular, from this description, people really do mean "Needs Archived" because the caches are in bad shape.

 

I feel for you, I really do. I'm so glad none of them are around me. We have many high volume hiders and seekers around here (Alamogul being a perfect example), and they demonstrate quite clearly that it can be done well, with the quality of their thousands of caches routinely among the best in the area.

[Clan Riffster]

I see no reason to think that changing "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention" will change any of that. Do you?

Not really. I think their angst is more directed toward me not fixing their cache, and publicaly mentioning that it is in serious disrepair, than the wording of the log type. Changing the name of the log type to "Needs Reviewer Attention" may result in more folks posting these logs when there is a serious problem, but I doubt it will reduce the degree of self entitled umbrage expressed by the occasional owner.

 

I'm not advocating for such a change. I actually used to support changing the name till I read your thoughts. I believed that there was too great a gap in the harshness of the language, and changing it would reduce that gap, softening things from a semantics standpoint. In retrospect, after reading what you posted, I believe if an issue with a cache is so severe that it cannot be adequately labeled as needing maintenance, it probably should be archived.

[+Heimdall5008]

I have no problem to post an NM and I will post it if im sure the cache needs maintenace. Sometimes I won't post a NM because the cache has already a NM log and I know the owners to be active. Than I suppose the owners will react to the first NM. On the other side many caches in my area have always NM attribute also they are in perfect shape. It seems like many owners don't post the OM to erase the attribute.

 

With a NA IM way more reluctant. Till now I had 3 caches where I considered to post a NA:

- The first cache was listed as tradi but was actual a multi (cache was disabled and reset to other coordinates but the owner only posted the new coordinates in OM log and didn't do a CU). I settled for a DNF where I explained the situation and wrote an email to the owner that he should change the cache to a multi or make a coordinate update. I got a really unfriedly reply and my DNF was deleted. But at least there was the CU. I don't want to know what would have happend if I posted a NA...

- The second cache is destroyed. The box is only pieces and the log book is a piece of paper in a plastic bag provied new by every 2nd cacher or so. The cache has about 10 NM and the owner was not online for 6 months. After reading the thread a posted a last NM today with the announcement of a NA.

- The third was placed deep inside a nature protection area. Back home I noticed that the cache already got a NA from another cacher, that was very surprised that he was the first cacher (after about 20 very experienced cachers) to notice this rule break. The cache was disabled by the reviewer and the owner replaced it outside the nature protection area.

[+edexter]

After reading through this topic, I've decided to add my two cents.

 

When you place a cache, part of the deal is that you agree to maintain it. For that to happen, other cachers have to be willing to post a dnf (many aren't) or a NM log if there's a problem with it, to alert the CO of a possible issue. I post a needs maintenance log for any cache I come across that needs maintenance (soaked log or broken container) I typically carry small replacement logs in tough zip-locks and routinely add them to caches if the log is soaked so other folks can log in until the CO gets a chance to fix it. (I don't carry tiny rolls of paper so, those just get the NM)

 

I figure a month is plenty of time to either fix the cache or disable it until you can. There's no shame in being "too busy" to get to a cache in a month, but there no reason not to say so or to expect someone else to fix it for you without asking for assistance. On occasion, when asked, or when going for a "good old cache" out in the boonies that I have reason to think could use help, I'll bring a new container and log and do repair work.

 

If a month or so goes by with no response from the CO (every NM log results in an email to the CO), I may post a "what's up? note. but more often I post a NA log with an explanation of why I'm posting it. Here's a recent example for GC3DV66:

"Cache has not been found in nine months with 2 dnfs logged after 97% find rate over the previous 16 months; CO has not acknowledged NM log nor indicated they have checked on cache; should be archived if it's not going to be maintained."

 

Since I'm curious about what effect posting NM and NA logs have I've been keeping track of the actual results. Of the last 113 NM logs I've posted only 28 were ever repaired/replaced (25%); of the follow up 84 NA logs, ALL were eventually archived, mostly by the reviewer with only a relative a handful by the CO. The time lag from NA to being archived was anywhere from a week to more than six months. A couple of COs wrote "butt out" responses or deleted the NA log: one repaired the cache; another archived it after a a follow up "OK, so what are you going to do?" note.

 

To put it another way, in my experience there's only a one in four chance that a CO is actually going to fix their cache in response to a NM log and virtually none in response to a NA. It seems pretty clear to me that using NM and NA logs are helpful to CO's who want to know when there is a problem with their cache.

And gets rid of the deadwood otherwise.

edexter