Are you reluctant to post Needs Archived?

[+BCandMsKitty]

T answer the topic question .... why be reluctant?

 

This isn't rocket science here. There is a lot of waffling, and 'what if", etc., but it's really simple.

If the cache needs maintenance or some help from the cache owner, post a NM log. That simply alerts the cache owner that you think it needs attention of some sort. If in your opinion the cache needs to be archived for whatever reason you think, post a NA log. That alerts the CO and a reviewer.

Neither log gives you any sort of power, or control over the outcome, and a NA doesn't mean the cache will be archived. It simply opens a dialog between the Co and a reviewer.

Don't post either on a whim, or DNF, or to harass.

No need for angst, and if a CO isn't prepared to get logs like this from time to time, they shouldn't be hiding caches!

[+NeverSummer]

T answer the topic question .... why be reluctant?

 

This isn't rocket science here. There is a lot of waffling, and 'what if", etc., but it's really simple.

If the cache needs maintenance or some help from the cache owner, post a NM log. That simply alerts the cache owner that you think it needs attention of some sort. If in your opinion the cache needs to be archived for whatever reason you think, post a NA log. That alerts the CO and a reviewer.

Neither log gives you any sort of power, or control over the outcome, and a NA doesn't mean the cache will be archived. It simply opens a dialog between the Co and a reviewer.

Don't post either on a whim, or DNF, or to harass.

No need for angst, and if a CO isn't prepared to get logs like this from time to time, they shouldn't be hiding caches!

I didn't even have to read through the other pages to see that this is it. There you go.

 

Especially the last 2 lines...

 

And this also means that, as an owner, that you should not assume that a NM or NA log is posted on a whim, for a DNF, or to harass. If you get all worked up about a NM or NA log on your cache, you're playing the game wrong.

Edited April 2, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+edexter]

Here's a follow up two years on of what happens when you post an NM or NA log based on 265 caches: 70 were repaired (26%) 190 were archived (72%) three are currently "disabled by reviewer" and two are currently "disabled by CO). Oh yeah, and a couple were deleted by the COs who said "they're fine" but did nothing. So the "one quarter get fixed" holds up pretty well. Most are archived by the reviewer as the COis no longer in the game. Oddly enough. some COs will delete the NA log when they archive the cache which I suppose is accurate...

edexter

[+AustinMN]

a couple were deleted by the COs who said "they're fine" but did nothing.

 

You don't know that the CO did nothing.

[+edexter]

Well, the string of dnfs continued unabated, the CO did not log any maintenance at all during a four year period and the Reviewer eventually archived the caches for their refusal to document that the cache was actually present, so close enough for horseshoes...

[+Pond Bird]

I have no problems submitting a NA request if the cache has several dnf and unanswered NM requests. I'm more prone to do it to unmaintained caches where the CO has not been active in a year or more. I personally feel this is the correct thing to do because there is nothing worst than having an area cluttered with missing/unmaintained caches. Wish more people did this...

 

I think its good that people DO post an NA on a cache that is missing/unmaintained. It helps open up the area for new caches.

[+Pond Bird]

Here's a follow up two years on of what happens when you post an NM or NA log based on 265 caches: 70 were repaired (26%) 190 were archived (72%) three are currently "disabled by reviewer" and two are currently "disabled by CO). Oh yeah, and a couple were deleted by the COs who said "they're fine" but did nothing. So the "one quarter get fixed" holds up pretty well. Most are archived by the reviewer as the COis no longer in the game. Oddly enough. some COs will delete the NA log when they archive the cache which I suppose is accurate...

edexter

 

Yes, unfortunately caches get neglected and then disappear after a while and the right thing to do is post an NA. Although the reviewer might take a while to disable the listing, if anyone looks at recent logs they'll know to avoid the search for the cache.

[+Pond Bird]

 

Edit to add: In my opinion, neither log should be posted from the comfort of the proverbial armchair. If you are too lazy to actually visit ground zero, and make a first hand account of your personal observations, save the NAs and NMs for those who are willing to make the journey.

 

Cache was hidden on the roof of an abandoned shack in the mountains. 10 DNF logs in a row over 4 months saying that the shack had been bulldozed. No response from the CO and no one wants to drop the hammer so I post a NA from the comfort of my home, <GASP>. The reviewer archives it an hour later.

 

I see four found it logs in a row saying that the adjacent property owner is upset and doesn't like people snooping around and wants the cache gone. The CO moved out of state and quit caching years ago. I post a NA from the comfort of my home. The reviewer archives it the next day and sends me an email thanking me.

 

I never visited either location but if it is so painfully obvious that the past loggers should have used an NA log but for some reason won't, I will. In each case, all I did was draw the reviewer's attention to information that was already available. We have three reviewers that oversee around 50,000 caches. They rely on information from us when there is a problem that is not being addressed by a cache owner. In many cases, I do not need to see the problem first hand to know that it exists.

 

This is one of the reasons why I think that Groundspeak should have changed the wording from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", long ago. When I post a NA log it is because I want to bring a situation to the attention of the reviewer. The reviewer can then use his/her own judgement as it if the cache actually needs to be archived.

 

Yes it should be changed to "Needs Reviewer Attention"

[+colleda]

 

Edit to add: In my opinion, neither log should be posted from the comfort of the proverbial armchair. If you are too lazy to actually visit ground zero, and make a first hand account of your personal observations, save the NAs and NMs for those who are willing to make the journey.

 

Cache was hidden on the roof of an abandoned shack in the mountains. 10 DNF logs in a row over 4 months saying that the shack had been bulldozed. No response from the CO and no one wants to drop the hammer so I post a NA from the comfort of my home, <GASP>. The reviewer archives it an hour later.

 

I see four found it logs in a row saying that the adjacent property owner is upset and doesn't like people snooping around and wants the cache gone. The CO moved out of state and quit caching years ago. I post a NA from the comfort of my home. The reviewer archives it the next day and sends me an email thanking me.

 

I never visited either location but if it is so painfully obvious that the past loggers should have used an NA log but for some reason won't, I will. In each case, all I did was draw the reviewer's attention to information that was already available. We have three reviewers that oversee around 50,000 caches. They rely on information from us when there is a problem that is not being addressed by a cache owner. In many cases, I do not need to see the problem first hand to know that it exists.

 

This is one of the reasons why I think that Groundspeak should have changed the wording from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", long ago. When I post a NA log it is because I want to bring a situation to the attention of the reviewer. The reviewer can then use his/her own judgement as it if the cache actually needs to be archived.

 

Yes it should be changed to "Needs Reviewer Attention"

Isn't that what NA does? And the CO gets the message too?

[+Pond Bird]

 

Edit to add: In my opinion, neither log should be posted from the comfort of the proverbial armchair. If you are too lazy to actually visit ground zero, and make a first hand account of your personal observations, save the NAs and NMs for those who are willing to make the journey.

 

Cache was hidden on the roof of an abandoned shack in the mountains. 10 DNF logs in a row over 4 months saying that the shack had been bulldozed. No response from the CO and no one wants to drop the hammer so I post a NA from the comfort of my home, <GASP>. The reviewer archives it an hour later.

 

I see four found it logs in a row saying that the adjacent property owner is upset and doesn't like people snooping around and wants the cache gone. The CO moved out of state and quit caching years ago. I post a NA from the comfort of my home. The reviewer archives it the next day and sends me an email thanking me.

 

I never visited either location but if it is so painfully obvious that the past loggers should have used an NA log but for some reason won't, I will. In each case, all I did was draw the reviewer's attention to information that was already available. We have three reviewers that oversee around 50,000 caches. They rely on information from us when there is a problem that is not being addressed by a cache owner. In many cases, I do not need to see the problem first hand to know that it exists.

 

This is one of the reasons why I think that Groundspeak should have changed the wording from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", long ago. When I post a NA log it is because I want to bring a situation to the attention of the reviewer. The reviewer can then use his/her own judgement as it if the cache actually needs to be archived.

 

Yes it should be changed to "Needs Reviewer Attention"

Isn't that what NA does? And the CO gets the message too?

 

Yeah it sends the message to a reviewer but sometimes the reviewer doesn't archive the cache, which is OK if they think the cache will eventually be replaced.

[+Mudfrog]

 

Edit to add: In my opinion, neither log should be posted from the comfort of the proverbial armchair. If you are too lazy to actually visit ground zero, and make a first hand account of your personal observations, save the NAs and NMs for those who are willing to make the journey.

 

Cache was hidden on the roof of an abandoned shack in the mountains. 10 DNF logs in a row over 4 months saying that the shack had been bulldozed. No response from the CO and no one wants to drop the hammer so I post a NA from the comfort of my home, <GASP>. The reviewer archives it an hour later.

 

I see four found it logs in a row saying that the adjacent property owner is upset and doesn't like people snooping around and wants the cache gone. The CO moved out of state and quit caching years ago. I post a NA from the comfort of my home. The reviewer archives it the next day and sends me an email thanking me.

 

I never visited either location but if it is so painfully obvious that the past loggers should have used an NA log but for some reason won't, I will. In each case, all I did was draw the reviewer's attention to information that was already available. We have three reviewers that oversee around 50,000 caches. They rely on information from us when there is a problem that is not being addressed by a cache owner. In many cases, I do not need to see the problem first hand to know that it exists.

 

This is one of the reasons why I think that Groundspeak should have changed the wording from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", long ago. When I post a NA log it is because I want to bring a situation to the attention of the reviewer. The reviewer can then use his/her own judgement as it if the cache actually needs to be archived.

 

Yes it should be changed to "Needs Reviewer Attention"

Isn't that what NA does? And the CO gets the message too?

 

Yeah it sends the message to a reviewer but sometimes the reviewer doesn't archive the cache, which is OK if they think the cache will eventually be replaced.

It's rare for a reviewer to immediately archive a cache when a needs archived log comes through. The log would have to give some potent information such as, "I was confronted by an angry property owner who wants cache moved off his property asap" to get that quick action. Otherwise, and i would imagine this is similar with most reviewers, some time is given so that issues can be resolved. An archival may take place, typically a month after a reviewer's initial disable log, if the issues haven't been addressed in some shape or form.

 

The wording "needs archived" may not be the best as it seems a bit too negative. However, it does seem to do a pretty good job of getting everyone's attention.

[+dprovan]

Yes it should be changed to "Needs Reviewer Attention"

In the end, the only power the reviewer has that you don't have is the ability to archive the cache. Changing "needs archived" to "needs reviewer attention" does nothing except give the person calling for reviewer attention the mistaken idea that they aren't responsible if the cache is archived. I don't want people posting NAs unless they think the situation is sufficiently serious that they're willing to accept responsibility if archival is the cache's ultimate fate.

[+Cachez]

I have no problem with posting an NA. There appear to be a handful of very prolific hiders in my area who have gone inactive but not removed or arranged to maintain their caches. There have been a few which have been obviously missing or damaged beyond repair and I don't see the point of just logging another DNF/NM when it's clear they aren't maintaining them and are uncontactable.

[+Ladybug Kids]

When used correctly, the various log types go a long ways toward improving the quality of the game and cachers should not feel reluctant to post accordingly. Cache Owners and Reviewers cannot do what they are supposed to do if they do not know there is a problem.

 

Didn't Find It (DNF): Use this log type to describe a cache hunt that did not result in finding of the cache. No five minute or fifteen minutes rule or waiting until the second or third visit (I shake my head when I read, found it on the third try, yet when I scroll down the log history, I don't see documentation of the prior DNFs). A cacher either found the cache or did not find the cache when s/he visited ground zero. I'm on my way to 1000 DNFs (921 and counting) and it doesn't bother me a bit to continue incrementally adding to the count. A string of DNFs can cause a cache to come to the attention of a reviewer who can then nudge the cache owner to verify the cache is still viable.

 

Needs Maintenance (NM): Used for when one FINDS a cache and the cache has issues such as a cracked container, soggy logbook, etc. A cacher doesn't know if a cache needs maintenance if they didn't actually find the cache. The one possible exception to this could be IF someone in the group KNOWS where the cache used to be and is no longer there. Otherwise, if the cache isn't found, the DNF log is appropriate. Reviewers don't usually get involved with NM logs because they are meant to be a means of cacher to cache owner communication.

 

Needs Archived: Used by many reviewers as "Needs Reviewer Attention." In many cases, the reviewer merely needs to nudge the cache owner into action. In others, the cache may get archived if there are multiple issues with the cache. For egregious guideline violations, including irate land owner matters, prompt archival may occur.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Ladybug Kids

[+dprovan]

Needs Maintenance (NM): Used for when one FINDS a cache and the cache has issues such as a cracked container, soggy logbook, etc. A cacher doesn't know if a cache needs maintenance if they didn't actually find the cache.

Nope, sorry, I disagree. "No one can find it" is just as much of an issue requiring some kind of CO action as a cracked container or a soggy log. In particular, I do not think it's reasonable to file an NA on a missing cache without someone first filing an NM, and that NM, by the very nature of the problem, will have to be filed by someone that didn't find the cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Needs Maintenance (NM): Used for when one FINDS a cache and the cache has issues such as a cracked container, soggy logbook, etc. A cacher doesn't know if a cache needs maintenance if they didn't actually find the cache.

Nope, sorry, I disagree. "No one can find it" is just as much of an issue requiring some kind of CO action as a cracked container or a soggy log. In particular, I do not think it's reasonable to file an NA on a missing cache without someone first filing an NM, and that NM, by the very nature of the problem, will have to be filed by someone that didn't find the cache.

 

I agree with Ladybug kids. Some caches are just hard to find. If someone, or even several people can't find a cache that doesn't mean that is missing. Those that can't find it should be posting a DNF log. Several DNF logs might trigger a visit by the CO to confirm that it's missing (or not) in the same way that a NM would.

 

 

[+redsox_mark]

I find the Help Center article on Needs Maintenance a bit confusing.

 

3.7. I Found a Geocache that Needs Maintenance

 

It starts by saying..

 

If you find a geocache that is in need of some help (e.g. container is cracked, logbook is wet), please post a "Needs Maintenance" log so the geocache owner and the community is notified.

 

This doesn't mention the case of multiple DNFs and cache suspected missing, though the e.g. list are just examples.

 

But then later it says

 

If the geocache has not been found for a reasonable amount of time and the cache owner has not reacted to a "Needs Maintenance" log, it is time to post a "Needs Archived" log on the listing. A "Needs Archived" log will alert the geocache owner and local Reviewer that the cache needs Reviewer attention.

 

For the examples given in the article, what difference does it make if the cache has been found? E.g. if the container is badly damaged, a NM raised, and months/years have past with no CO action, I think NA could be appropriate - even if others have been finding the damaged cache.

 

It seems to me that the second statement is talking about the case where the NM log is raised because the cache appears to be missing. In which case it would be good if that example was included in the initial statements. It seems to imply that the correct procedure for a cache which appears to be missing is a NM, followed by NA later if no CO action.

 

"Appears missing" is a tricky judgement. Clearly I would never raise a NM based on my DNF alone - even if the hint was very clear. But a string of DNFs on an low difficulty cache which normally is found, maybe. Especially if someone who found it before verifies it is not there (or at least not where it is supposed to be). In these cases, the NM is saying "Hey CO, there seems to be enough evidence over time that there may be an issue here. The cache may be missing, or not where it is intended. Could you please check".

[+redsox_mark]

 

I agree with Ladybug kids. Some caches are just hard to find. If someone, or even several people can't find a cache that doesn't mean that is missing. Those that can't find it should be posting a DNF log. Several DNF logs might trigger a visit by the CO to confirm that it's missing (or not) in the same way that a NM would.

 

I agree, several DNFs (and a different pattern than usual) should trigger the CO. E.g. a cache which is hard and has a history of more DNFs than finds, even several DNFs may not trigger any action (and rightly so). But a cache which had 100 finds without a DNF and the last 3 months has 10 consecutive DNFs, that probably needs looking at. I know there is a phenomenon where a DNF or two can make it likely to have more DNFs, but still a significant change in cachers ability to find a cache should be a trigger to the CO to investigate.

 

The question is- what if the CO does not seem to be addressing the DNFs (in the latter case)? As intended by Groundspeak, is NM a valid log? The reason why I've seen cachers do a NM log in these cases is sometimes it triggers the CO into action, when the DNFs alone did not. The NM log is saying "you've seen a history of recent DNFs but haven't addressed it, please take action". And the text I find confusing in the Help Center seems to imply (to me) use of NM in this case.

[+Mudfrog]

Needs Maintenance (NM): Used for when one FINDS a cache and the cache has issues such as a cracked container, soggy logbook, etc. A cacher doesn't know if a cache needs maintenance if they didn't actually find the cache.

Nope, sorry, I disagree. "No one can find it" is just as much of an issue requiring some kind of CO action as a cracked container or a soggy log. In particular, I do not think it's reasonable to file an NA on a missing cache without someone first filing an NM, and that NM, by the very nature of the problem, will have to be filed by someone that didn't find the cache.

 

I agree with Ladybug kids. Some caches are just hard to find. If someone, or even several people can't find a cache that doesn't mean that is missing. Those that can't find it should be posting a DNF log. Several DNF logs might trigger a visit by the CO to confirm that it's missing (or not) in the same way that a NM would.

I agree as well. A NM is normally not a good log type to use when a cache isn't found.

 

One time that a NM might be in order is when, for whatever reason, i have firsthand knowledge of where and how the cache is supposed to be hidden but still couldn't find it. Maybe the description/hint spells it out or the cache owner has given me specifics to where there is little doubt the cache isn't in place. This can be a good time to post both, my DNF and a NM.

[+dprovan]

I agree with Ladybug kids. Some caches are just hard to find. If someone, or even several people can't find a cache that doesn't mean that is missing. Those that can't find it should be posting a DNF log. Several DNF logs might trigger a visit by the CO to confirm that it's missing (or not) in the same way that a NM would.

Some caches are hard to find. Some are not. Sometimes you might need extraordinary evidence to file an NM even though you couldn't find a cache. Other times, it makes sense to file the NM without even going to GZ.

 

The specific case that's important is when the CO doesn't check on the cache after a preponderance of DNFs makes it seem likely the cache is missing. The NM makes the CO aware that other people think there's a problem, paving the way for an NA if the CO still doesn't check on it.

 

I agree as well. A NM is normally not a good log type to use when a cache isn't found.

Well, of course an NM isn't normally implied when you can't find a cache. Not finding a cache, in itself, is not evidence that the cache needs maintenance. But it becomes necessary to file an NM when all the available evidence suggests that a cache is not findable.

 

Interesting conversation. I'm particularly fascinated to find the consensus going against me. I'm wondering if this explains why when I'm traveling, I sometimes find areas where lots of caches are clearly missing yet no one's taken any action against them. No wonder reviewers in some areas feel a need to take unilateral action against caches with DNFs.

[+Pond Bird]

.....have been a few which have been obviously missing or damaged beyond repair and I don't see the point of just logging another DNF/NM when it's clear they aren't maintaining them and are uncontactable.

 

That is probably the case with GC18K1J, the cache was no where to be found when I looked this month. It hasn't had a found it log since 2013 and the last log before 2016 was a "needs maintenance" log. I was the first (and maybe last) to log a DNF this year. Not sure whats going to happen. But its time for the reviewer to review the scenario and take action when he/she feels is appropriate.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

Needs Maintenance (NM): Used for when one FINDS a cache and the cache has issues such as a cracked container, soggy logbook, etc. A cacher doesn't know if a cache needs maintenance if they didn't actually find the cache.

Nope, sorry, I disagree. "No one can find it" is just as much of an issue requiring some kind of CO action as a cracked container or a soggy log. In particular, I do not think it's reasonable to file an NA on a missing cache without someone first filing an NM, and that NM, by the very nature of the problem, will have to be filed by someone that didn't find the cache.

 

I agree with Ladybug kids. Some caches are just hard to find. If someone, or even several people can't find a cache that doesn't mean that is missing. Those that can't find it should be posting a DNF log. Several DNF logs might trigger a visit by the CO to confirm that it's missing (or not) in the same way that a NM would.

I agree as well. A NM is normally not a good log type to use when a cache isn't found.

 

One time that a NM might be in order is when, for whatever reason, i have firsthand knowledge of where and how the cache is supposed to be hidden but still couldn't find it. Maybe the description/hint spells it out or the cache owner has given me specifics to where there is little doubt the cache isn't in place. This can be a good time to post both, my DNF and a NM.

I agree, an NM might be in order if you know (via hints, or other firsthand knowledge) that the cache is missing. I would offer up that the finder may want to consider additional criteria when deciding whether or not to post the NM.

 

The other day, I was looking for a cache, and the hint spelled out almost exactly where the cache would have to be hidden. 'Up and In. Magnetic.' limited the location to a ferrous object. I knew the size of the cache, it had to be large enough to hold the stamp for the GeoTour passport. There was only one place that the container could be, in the cavity underneath the metal payment box at the trailer disposal in a state park. There was no other metal around for at least 100 feet, and the cache was definitely missing. I chose to kinda split the difference. I posted a DNF, and e-mailed the CO, asking about the hiding spot. I debated on posting a NM, but chose not to, for three reasons. First, I was the first DNF in a while (previous find three days before), and I was only 99% sure it was missing. The second reason is this was a GeoTour cache, and I knew that the CO would respond to e-mail promptly. The third reason is that I felt I would be adding spoilers to the log with the detail I would need to put in the NM log.

[+L0ne.R]

Needs Maintenance (NM): Used for when one FINDS a cache and the cache has issues such as a cracked container, soggy logbook, etc. A cacher doesn't know if a cache needs maintenance if they didn't actually find the cache.

Nope, sorry, I disagree. "No one can find it" is just as much of an issue requiring some kind of CO action as a cracked container or a soggy log. In particular, I do not think it's reasonable to file an NA on a missing cache without someone first filing an NM, and that NM, by the very nature of the problem, will have to be filed by someone that didn't find the cache.

 

I agree with Ladybug kids. Some caches are just hard to find. If someone, or even several people can't find a cache that doesn't mean that is missing. Those that can't find it should be posting a DNF log. Several DNF logs might trigger a visit by the CO to confirm that it's missing (or not) in the same way that a NM would.

I agree as well. A NM is normally not a good log type to use when a cache isn't found.

 

One time that a NM might be in order is when, for whatever reason, i have firsthand knowledge of where and how the cache is supposed to be hidden but still couldn't find it. Maybe the description/hint spells it out or the cache owner has given me specifics to where there is little doubt the cache isn't in place. This can be a good time to post both, my DNF and a NM.

I agree, an NM might be in order if you know (via hints, or other firsthand knowledge) that the cache is missing. I would offer up that the finder may want to consider additional criteria when deciding whether or not to post the NM.

 

The other day, I was looking for a cache, and the hint spelled out almost exactly where the cache would have to be hidden. 'Up and In. Magnetic.' limited the location to a ferrous object. I knew the size of the cache, it had to be large enough to hold the stamp for the GeoTour passport. There was only one place that the container could be, in the cavity underneath the metal payment box at the trailer disposal in a state park. There was no other metal around for at least 100 feet, and the cache was definitely missing. I chose to kinda split the difference. I posted a DNF, and e-mailed the CO, asking about the hiding spot. I debated on posting a NM, but chose not to, for three reasons. First, I was the first DNF in a while (previous find three days before), and I was only 99% sure it was missing. The second reason is this was a GeoTour cache, and I knew that the CO would respond to e-mail promptly. The third reason is that I felt I would be adding spoilers to the log with the detail I would need to put in the NM log.

 

Did the owner respond? Was it missing? If so, did the owner disable it and replace it?

[+L0ne.R]

Needs Maintenance (NM): Used for when one FINDS a cache and the cache has issues such as a cracked container, soggy logbook, etc. A cacher doesn't know if a cache needs maintenance if they didn't actually find the cache.

Nope, sorry, I disagree. "No one can find it" is just as much of an issue requiring some kind of CO action as a cracked container or a soggy log. In particular, I do not think it's reasonable to file an NA on a missing cache without someone first filing an NM, and that NM, by the very nature of the problem, will have to be filed by someone that didn't find the cache.

 

I agree with Ladybug kids. Some caches are just hard to find. If someone, or even several people can't find a cache that doesn't mean that is missing. Those that can't find it should be posting a DNF log. Several DNF logs might trigger a visit by the CO to confirm that it's missing (or not) in the same way that a NM would.

I agree as well. A NM is normally not a good log type to use when a cache isn't found.

 

One time that a NM might be in order is when, for whatever reason, i have firsthand knowledge of where and how the cache is supposed to be hidden but still couldn't find it. Maybe the description/hint spells it out or the cache owner has given me specifics to where there is little doubt the cache isn't in place. This can be a good time to post both, my DNF and a NM.

I agree, an NM might be in order if you know (via hints, or other firsthand knowledge) that the cache is missing. I would offer up that the finder may want to consider additional criteria when deciding whether or not to post the NM.

 

The other day, I was looking for a cache, and the hint spelled out almost exactly where the cache would have to be hidden. 'Up and In. Magnetic.' limited the location to a ferrous object. I knew the size of the cache, it had to be large enough to hold the stamp for the GeoTour passport. There was only one place that the container could be, in the cavity underneath the metal payment box at the trailer disposal in a state park. There was no other metal around for at least 100 feet, and the cache was definitely missing. I chose to kinda split the difference. I posted a DNF, and e-mailed the CO, asking about the hiding spot. I debated on posting a NM, but chose not to, for three reasons. First, I was the first DNF in a while (previous find three days before), and I was only 99% sure it was missing. The second reason is this was a GeoTour cache, and I knew that the CO would respond to e-mail promptly. The third reason is that I felt I would be adding spoilers to the log with the detail I would need to put in the NM log.

 

Did the owner respond? Was it missing? If so, did the owner disable it and replace it?

 

I found the answers to my questions. Yes it was missing, and yes he did respond very quickly, after the next person logged an NM 4 days later.

Edited May 18, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+noncentric]

Needs Maintenance (NM): Used for when one FINDS a cache and the cache has issues such as a cracked container, soggy logbook, etc. A cacher doesn't know if a cache needs maintenance if they didn't actually find the cache.

Nope, sorry, I disagree. "No one can find it" is just as much of an issue requiring some kind of CO action as a cracked container or a soggy log. In particular, I do not think it's reasonable to file an NA on a missing cache without someone first filing an NM, and that NM, by the very nature of the problem, will have to be filed by someone that didn't find the cache.

 

I agree with Ladybug kids. Some caches are just hard to find. If someone, or even several people can't find a cache that doesn't mean that is missing. Those that can't find it should be posting a DNF log. Several DNF logs might trigger a visit by the CO to confirm that it's missing (or not) in the same way that a NM would.

I agree as well. A NM is normally not a good log type to use when a cache isn't found.

 

One time that a NM might be in order is when, for whatever reason, i have firsthand knowledge of where and how the cache is supposed to be hidden but still couldn't find it. Maybe the description/hint spells it out or the cache owner has given me specifics to where there is little doubt the cache isn't in place. This can be a good time to post both, my DNF and a NM.

I agree, an NM might be in order if you know (via hints, or other firsthand knowledge) that the cache is missing. I would offer up that the finder may want to consider additional criteria when deciding whether or not to post the NM.

 

The other day, I was looking for a cache, and the hint spelled out almost exactly where the cache would have to be hidden. 'Up and In. Magnetic.' limited the location to a ferrous object. I knew the size of the cache, it had to be large enough to hold the stamp for the GeoTour passport. There was only one place that the container could be, in the cavity underneath the metal payment box at the trailer disposal in a state park. There was no other metal around for at least 100 feet, and the cache was definitely missing. I chose to kinda split the difference. I posted a DNF, and e-mailed the CO, asking about the hiding spot. I debated on posting a NM, but chose not to, for three reasons. First, I was the first DNF in a while (previous find three days before), and I was only 99% sure it was missing. The second reason is this was a GeoTour cache, and I knew that the CO would respond to e-mail promptly. The third reason is that I felt I would be adding spoilers to the log with the detail I would need to put in the NM log.

 

Did the owner respond? Was it missing? If so, did the owner disable it and replace it?

 

I found the answers to my questions. Yes it was missing, and yes he did respond very quickly, after the next person logged an NM 4 days later.

Did WPTC tell you which cache they're referring to? I think I know what cache they're referring to, and in that case it went like this:

-- regular Finds

-- 3 days later = WPTC's DNF

-- 2 days later = an NM and CO Temp Disabled

-- 4 days later = CO replaced and Enabled the cache

[97CMA]

I'm not, if a cache has been missing, multiple DNFs over long Period of times, I've searched, needs maintenances have been ignored, I'll throw a needs archived.

[+lee737]

 

I agree with Ladybug kids. Some caches are just hard to find. If someone, or even several people can't find a cache that doesn't mean that is missing. Those that can't find it should be posting a DNF log. Several DNF logs might trigger a visit by the CO to confirm that it's missing (or not) in the same way that a NM would.

 

 

Several DNFs should trigger the CO, but often doesn't seem to..... then a NM is appropriate, with a polite request to check on the cache.

[+dprovan]

But its time for the reviewer to review the scenario and take action when he/she feels is appropriate.

Take some responsibility, man! As things are now, you want the reviewer to archive the cache. Just say it! It's OK to say that even as we all understand that you and everyone else would be pleased as punch if some how, some way, a miracle happens and the cache recovers unexpectedly.

 

My problem with someone pretending that it's the reviewer that decided to archive the cache is that it makes the reviewer the bad guy. If you decide there's a serious problem with a cache, stand up and own the decision and leave the reviewer in his rightful role as impartial arbitrator.

[+L0ne.R]

Did the owner respond? Was it missing? If so, did the owner disable it and replace it?

 

I found the answers to my questions. Yes it was missing, and yes he did respond very quickly, after the next person logged an NM 4 days later.

Did WPTC tell you which cache they're referring to? I think I know what cache they're referring to, and in that case it went like this:

-- regular Finds

-- 3 days later = WPTC's DNF

-- 2 days later = an NM and CO Temp Disabled

-- 4 days later = CO replaced and Enabled the cache

 

Yes GC3ZCAB.

Decent owner. Same day response to the NM.

He may have responded to a 2nd DNF too, but I found it ironic given the discussion, that it was the NM that got an immediate response.

 

Personally, as a CO I value the NM. I like that people use it. To me it says, there's an issue that the finder thinks is serious enough to warrant a visit to the cache. In this case there was only one DNF in 500 finds. That DNF was because the finder gave up looking, he didn't like the location. Low D rating. Good hint. Only one spot it could likely be in. It justifies a visit by the cache owner.

 

There have been times when I visit one of our caches on a routine maintenance run, I find the logbook full, or the contents a mess. Once someone left bubble liquid and it leaked, but one person did say the logbook was damp in their found log. When people are finding dozens of caches in a day (and that trail had about 6 caches along it) I wondered if they got their caches mixed up. I use authentic Lock & Locks, and that container was a new Lock & Lock, less than a month old, so damp is rare and damp doesn't to me mean bubble liquid has leaked out or is leaking out and spoiling the contents. The NM a month later, (after about 4 more finds) with a note that said the logbook was wet and moldy got my attention. Not only was the logbook a gross mess, so were the contents because someone also put candy in the cache. The combination of melted candy and bubble liquid was not good.

Edited May 18, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+Pond Bird]

Did the owner respond? Was it missing? If so, did the owner disable it and replace it?

 

I found the answers to my questions. Yes it was missing, and yes he did respond very quickly, after the next person logged an NM 4 days later.

Did WPTC tell you which cache they're referring to? I think I know what cache they're referring to, and in that case it went like this:

-- regular Finds

-- 3 days later = WPTC's DNF

-- 2 days later = an NM and CO Temp Disabled

-- 4 days later = CO replaced and Enabled the cache

 

Yes GC3ZCAB.

Decent owner. Same day response to the NM.

He may have responded to a 2nd DNF too, but I found it ironic given the discussion, that it was the NM that got an immediate response.

 

Personally, as a CO I value the NM. I like that people use it. To me it says, there's an issue that the finder thinks is serious enough to warrant a visit to the cache. In this case there was only one DNF in 500 finds. That DNF was because the finder gave up looking, he didn't like the location. Low D rating. Good hint. Only one spot it could likely be in. It justifies a visit by the cache owner.

 

There have been times when I visit one of our caches on a routine maintenance run, I find the logbook full, or the contents a mess. Once someone left bubble liquid and it leaked, but one person did say the logbook was damp in their found log. When people are finding dozens of caches in a day (and that trail had about 6 caches along it) I wondered if they got their caches mixed up. I use authentic Lock & Locks, and that container was a new Lock & Lock, less than a month old, so damp is rare and damp doesn't to me mean bubble liquid has leaked out or is leaking out and spoiling the contents. The NM a month later, (after about 4 more finds) with a note that said the logbook was wet and moldy got my attention. Not only was the logbook a gross mess, so were the contents because someone also put candy in the cache. The combination of melted candy and bubble liquid was not good.

 

Often times if a cacher posts NM the owner automatically has plans to check on and replace the cache. If a cacher posts a DNF, the owner might think the cacher is newer or not in the right area or that the cache is harder to find. I've had caches hard to find have 2 DNFs before I actually checked. Well, actually one was they didn't find part 1 but my mom and I replaced it later on.

[+edexter]

Well, if it comes down to "who is responsible" for archiving the cache, that would be the CO. The NM and NA logs are helpful "negative feedback" designed to alert the CO there is a problem. The reviewer only gets involved when there is a lack of "positive feedback" from the CO. They end up archiving the cache when the CO fails to do anything. The reviewer isn't an impartial arbitrator: he/she is an enforcer of the rules (in effect the rule is" "cache must be maintained and present to be listed" If not, they remove it from the listing service. If the CO wants it listed, they fix or replace it.

[+dprovan]

The reviewer isn't an impartial arbitrator: he/she is an enforcer of the rules (in effect the rule is" "cache must be maintained and present to be listed" If not, they remove it from the listing service.

Surely you want the reviewer to do that impartially, don't you?

[+J Grouchy]

Well, if it comes down to "who is responsible" for archiving the cache, that would be the CO. The NM and NA logs are helpful "negative feedback" designed to alert the CO there is a problem. The reviewer only gets involved when there is a lack of "positive feedback" from the CO. They end up archiving the cache when the CO fails to do anything. The reviewer isn't an impartial arbitrator: he/she is an enforcer of the rules (in effect the rule is" "cache must be maintained and present to be listed" If not, they remove it from the listing service. If the CO wants it listed, they fix or replace it.

 

Unless they happen to be part of some elite group that manages to let their caches languish, disabled or damaged, without getting called out and/or archived by a reviewer. There are a couple of those folks in my area and it's pretty disappointing to see certain folks get a pass. One in my area has been "disabled" for ten full years. Not archived...disabled. Because of who they are, however, they're apparently untouchable.

[+Pond Bird]

Well, if it comes down to "who is responsible" for archiving the cache, that would be the CO. The NM and NA logs are helpful "negative feedback" designed to alert the CO there is a problem. The reviewer only gets involved when there is a lack of "positive feedback" from the CO. They end up archiving the cache when the CO fails to do anything. The reviewer isn't an impartial arbitrator: he/she is an enforcer of the rules (in effect the rule is" "cache must be maintained and present to be listed" If not, they remove it from the listing service. If the CO wants it listed, they fix or replace it.

 

Unless they happen to be part of some elite group that manages to let their caches languish, disabled or damaged, without getting called out and/or archived by a reviewer. There are a couple of those folks in my area and it's pretty disappointing to see certain folks get a pass. One in my area has been "disabled" for ten full years. Not archived...disabled. Because of who they are, however, they're apparently untouchable.

 

There was a cacher that had tons of caches gone and missing. people posted there NMs and DNFs but no response, somebody posted an NA and the cacher took quite some time to acknowledge the cache was missing. The reviewer only disabled a few of them because the others the owner said were still there, eventually they've been replaced. I don't plan on finding those caches anytime soon since it looks like they're finished or are going to be missing again.

[+edexter]

"One in my area has been "disabled" for ten full years. Not archived...disabled. Because of who they are, however, they're apparently untouchable."

Well, as the late great Tip O'Neil noted: "All politics are local". So might I ask, has anyone posted an NA log during that time? Something like "Needs archive as the cache has been disabled far too long with no action by the CO" seems like it would get some kind of response. I've come across a number of caches where the CO has dropped out, does not respond to emails, doesn't put the cache up for adoption but others voluntarily watch and maintain it. This sounds like kind of the opposite: the cache "holds a spot" but is never found? This is one of reasons for NA logs, so why not post one?

[+Walts Hunting]

I have never been reluctant to post one. It is severely underused. Years ago I started filtering out any cache that the last two logs were DNF so haven't come across a need very often until yesterday. Went to a cache and couldn't find it so read the description and logs. Last 9 logs were DNF going back to 2013. the next to last log was a found it that said I couldn't find it. Clearly here was a CO who either did not believe in maintaining his caches or never saw the logs using a auto delete in his email. He is a very prolific cache placer in this area. Hit it with a NA and now it is disabled until he either replaces it or archives it.

 

Before setting up that filter I was posting them when merited.

[+Mudfrog]

"One in my area has been "disabled" for ten full years. Not archived...disabled. Because of who they are, however, they're apparently untouchable."

Well, as the late great Tip O'Neil noted: "All politics are local". So might I ask, has anyone posted an NA log during that time? Something like "Needs archive as the cache has been disabled far too long with no action by the CO" seems like it would get some kind of response. I've come across a number of caches where the CO has dropped out, does not respond to emails, doesn't put the cache up for adoption but others voluntarily watch and maintain it. This sounds like kind of the opposite: the cache "holds a spot" but is never found? This is one of reasons for NA logs, so why not post one?

I looked at that cache. Never seen a cache listing used in this manner.

 

One of the owner's logs:

The purpose of this cache page is to mark an area were geocaches are not allowed. It will remain as-is to be visible to anyone contemplating hiding a cache in the area.

 

I would think keeping this would cause more problems than it alleviates, especially for those running pocket queries.

[+ConsHaltonCache]

When used correctly, the various log types go a long ways toward improving the quality of the game and cachers should not feel reluctant to post accordingly. Cache Owners and Reviewers cannot do what they are supposed to do if they do not know there is a problem.

 

 

I agree!

I wish people were NOT so reluctant to post the NM and NA appropriately.

 

To answer the original post; I am not reluctant to post NM or NA if I feel it is appropriate.

 

If I find a cache that is soaked or moldy or broken I do not hesitate to log a Needs Maintenance.

 

A Needs Archive I am a bit slower, but still not reluctant. If it does not already have a Needs Maintenance then that is my first step. If there is a NM and there has been no response for months I try to contact the cache owner by message or email. If I do not get a response at all after a month then I often contact again and give a bit more time, if still no response and no maintenance performed on the cache then I will post a Needs Archive. (BUT I think a cacher could post a NA on a cache with multiple NM logs and no attention but I try contacting first as a courtesy). If there is a long long string of DNF and NM then I may just post a NA straight away...

 

I actually WISH people would post NM on my caches more often...I hate getting out there to find a cache that has clearly been wet and soggy for quite some time (IE signatures clearly made on wet soggy paper that tore, or multiple replacement logs that are also now wet...) but there has been no mention of it in the logs. I try to check up on mine regularly but its not always often enough. Cachers: Don't be afraid to tell the owner something is up with their cache! At the very least up it in the find log or a note...(but if I get a hundred logs over a long weekend I may miss something!)

 

I do not see why the name should be changed to a 'needs reviewer attention', a Needs Archive is almost always posted because it DOES need to be archived(due to owner neglect)! That does not mean it is forgone conclusion it WILL be archived...if the owner suddenly shows up and solves the issue then it can be re-instated...(but like some have said that does not often happen). I can see a very few situations that could use a separate attribute that is a 'needs reviewer attention' but if the owner cannot/does not correct the issue than the cache needs archiving anyways so the NA is often appropriate in the end anyways. *shrug*

[+Pond Bird]

When used correctly, the various log types go a long ways toward improving the quality of the game and cachers should not feel reluctant to post accordingly. Cache Owners and Reviewers cannot do what they are supposed to do if they do not know there is a problem.

 

 

I agree!

I wish people were NOT so reluctant to post the NM and NA appropriately.

 

To answer the original post; I am not reluctant to post NM or NA if I feel it is appropriate.

 

If I find a cache that is soaked or moldy or broken I do not hesitate to log a Needs Maintenance.

 

A Needs Archive I am a bit slower, but still not reluctant. If it does not already have a Needs Maintenance then that is my first step. If there is a NM and there has been no response for months I try to contact the cache owner by message or email. If I do not get a response at all after a month then I often contact again and give a bit more time, if still no response and no maintenance performed on the cache then I will post a Needs Archive. (BUT I think a cacher could post a NA on a cache with multiple NM logs and no attention but I try contacting first as a courtesy). If there is a long long string of DNF and NM then I may just post a NA straight away...

 

I actually WISH people would post NM on my caches more often...I hate getting out there to find a cache that has clearly been wet and soggy for quite some time (IE signatures clearly made on wet soggy paper that tore, or multiple replacement logs that are also now wet...) but there has been no mention of it in the logs. I try to check up on mine regularly but its not always often enough. Cachers: Don't be afraid to tell the owner something is up with their cache! At the very least up it in the find log or a note...(but if I get a hundred logs over a long weekend I may miss something!)

 

I do not see why the name should be changed to a 'needs reviewer attention', a Needs Archive is almost always posted because it DOES need to be archived(due to owner neglect)! That does not mean it is forgone conclusion it WILL be archived...if the owner suddenly shows up and solves the issue then it can be re-instated...(but like some have said that does not often happen). I can see a very few situations that could use a separate attribute that is a 'needs reviewer attention' but if the owner cannot/does not correct the issue than the cache needs archiving anyways so the NA is often appropriate in the end anyways. *shrug*

 

Yes. I've posted Needs Archived on caches where the owner has neglected it and others have too. I've even seen an NA log on caches still there but NEED maintenance.

[+CFphoto]

T answer the topic question .... why be reluctant?

 

This isn't rocket science here. There is a lot of waffling, and 'what if", etc., but it's really simple.

If the cache needs maintenance or some help from the cache owner, post a NM log. That simply alerts the cache owner that you think it needs attention of some sort. If in your opinion the cache needs to be archived for whatever reason you think, post a NA log. That alerts the CO and a reviewer.

Neither log gives you any sort of power, or control over the outcome, and a NA doesn't mean the cache will be archived. It simply opens a dialog between the Co and a reviewer.

Don't post either on a whim, or DNF, or to harass.

No need for angst, and if a CO isn't prepared to get logs like this from time to time, they shouldn't be hiding caches!

 

Couldn't agree more. So much so that it inspired me to take today and scour our area for ONLY caches that had at least 3 DNF's in a row AND over the course of more than a year without a CO checking in at all. I think I managed to get to 7? caches like that. Didn't find any of them (not a surprise) and truly believe 5 of them to be true NA's. The other two I posted NM's because I wasn't 100% sure that I'd located the spot so it was at least somewhat possible that I just truly DNF them, although I don't think so. Those two I'll wait for the CO to respond and if they don't in a month or so, I'll look again and then post an NA.

 

Feel like I've done my geocache civic duty for the day!

[+ras_oscar]

Everybody has their opinion. Here's mine. A DNF merely records the fact that I searched unsuccessfully. In situations when I record a NA, I generally would provide more information (IE searched for 1/2 hour. The Cache page describes a wooded glade, but GZ shows signs of recent construction activity. The tree described in the cache page is nowhere to be found) This information allows the CO to evaluate from afar and travel to GZ for a maintenance run with the proper materials in hand.

[+narcissa]

Everybody has their opinion. Here's mine. A DNF merely records the fact that I searched unsuccessfully. In situations when I record a NA, I generally would provide more information (IE searched for 1/2 hour. The Cache page describes a wooded glade, but GZ shows signs of recent construction activity. The tree described in the cache page is nowhere to be found) This information allows the CO to evaluate from afar and travel to GZ for a maintenance run with the proper materials in hand.

 

I hope you meant NM.

[+J Grouchy]

T answer the topic question .... why be reluctant?

 

This isn't rocket science here. There is a lot of waffling, and 'what if", etc., but it's really simple.

If the cache needs maintenance or some help from the cache owner, post a NM log. That simply alerts the cache owner that you think it needs attention of some sort. If in your opinion the cache needs to be archived for whatever reason you think, post a NA log. That alerts the CO and a reviewer.

Neither log gives you any sort of power, or control over the outcome, and a NA doesn't mean the cache will be archived. It simply opens a dialog between the Co and a reviewer.

Don't post either on a whim, or DNF, or to harass.

No need for angst, and if a CO isn't prepared to get logs like this from time to time, they shouldn't be hiding caches!

 

Couldn't agree more. So much so that it inspired me to take today and scour our area for ONLY caches that had at least 3 DNF's in a row AND over the course of more than a year without a CO checking in at all. I think I managed to get to 7? caches like that. Didn't find any of them (not a surprise) and truly believe 5 of them to be true NA's. The other two I posted NM's because I wasn't 100% sure that I'd located the spot so it was at least somewhat possible that I just truly DNF them, although I don't think so. Those two I'll wait for the CO to respond and if they don't in a month or so, I'll look again and then post an NA.

 

Feel like I've done my geocache civic duty for the day!

 

While I agree with BC & Ms Kitty's post, I don't really think anyone needs to go out of their way to "scour" their area to find caches that need an NA log. Post as the need arises and as you go about your geocaching 'business'. No need to be overzealous.

[+CFphoto]

T answer the topic question .... why be reluctant?

 

This isn't rocket science here. There is a lot of waffling, and 'what if", etc., but it's really simple.

If the cache needs maintenance or some help from the cache owner, post a NM log. That simply alerts the cache owner that you think it needs attention of some sort. If in your opinion the cache needs to be archived for whatever reason you think, post a NA log. That alerts the CO and a reviewer.

Neither log gives you any sort of power, or control over the outcome, and a NA doesn't mean the cache will be archived. It simply opens a dialog between the Co and a reviewer.

Don't post either on a whim, or DNF, or to harass.

No need for angst, and if a CO isn't prepared to get logs like this from time to time, they shouldn't be hiding caches!

 

Couldn't agree more. So much so that it inspired me to take today and scour our area for ONLY caches that had at least 3 DNF's in a row AND over the course of more than a year without a CO checking in at all. I think I managed to get to 7? caches like that. Didn't find any of them (not a surprise) and truly believe 5 of them to be true NA's. The other two I posted NM's because I wasn't 100% sure that I'd located the spot so it was at least somewhat possible that I just truly DNF them, although I don't think so. Those two I'll wait for the CO to respond and if they don't in a month or so, I'll look again and then post an NA.

 

Feel like I've done my geocache civic duty for the day!

 

While I agree with BC & Ms Kitty's post, I don't really think anyone needs to go out of their way to "scour" their area to find caches that need an NA log. Post as the need arises and as you go about your geocaching 'business'. No need to be overzealous.

 

Is there a specific reason not to? I actually enjoyed it as much as I enjoy normal caching. It made me feel like I was actually helping the community. There is nothing worse within the geocaching game, IMO, than going out and searching for something that isn't actually there anymore. Going out for that purpose made me feel like I was actually helping future cachers. What's the harm?

 

Also, I already know some good has come from it. One of the caches I didn't find and posted NM prompted the CO to check on it. Apparently it had been placed with very poor coordinates (>30ft off) in the first place and so the CO re-did them. Win!

[+dprovan]

While I agree with BC & Ms Kitty's post, I don't really think anyone needs to go out of their way to "scour" their area to find caches that need an NA log. Post as the need arises and as you go about your geocaching 'business'. No need to be overzealous.

Is there a specific reason not to? I actually enjoyed it as much as I enjoy normal caching. It made me feel like I was actually helping the community. There is nothing worse within the geocaching game, IMO, than going out and searching for something that isn't actually there anymore. Going out for that purpose made me feel like I was actually helping future cachers. What's the harm?

I could have posted something very similar to what J Grouchy said, and if I had, I would be saying that you should spend you time enjoying geocaching and let the problem caches come to your attention during the normal course of affairs. In other words, don't bother 'cuz you'll run into enough problem caches without targeting.

 

If you actually enjoy checking out bad caches, I don't see a specific reason not to do it as long as you remain impartial in your evaluations. If you let a desire for yet another NA log posted cloud your trips, that could be a problem. One thing I always recommend in general is the second opinion: post an NM, but let someone else confirm your opinion and post an NA, and, on the other hand, don't post an NA unless someone's already identified the problem with an NM. In this case, that standard could help avoid you being too hard on a cache just because being hard on caches is part of the hobby you like.

 

And even if you're always fair, as you gain a reputation for getting caches archived, some people will start thinking of you as an archive nazi even if you keep your analysis unwaveringly balanced.

[+CFphoto]

While I agree with BC & Ms Kitty's post, I don't really think anyone needs to go out of their way to "scour" their area to find caches that need an NA log. Post as the need arises and as you go about your geocaching 'business'. No need to be overzealous.

Is there a specific reason not to? I actually enjoyed it as much as I enjoy normal caching. It made me feel like I was actually helping the community. There is nothing worse within the geocaching game, IMO, than going out and searching for something that isn't actually there anymore. Going out for that purpose made me feel like I was actually helping future cachers. What's the harm?

I could have posted something very similar to what J Grouchy said, and if I had, I would be saying that you should spend you time enjoying geocaching and let the problem caches come to your attention during the normal course of affairs. In other words, don't bother 'cuz you'll run into enough problem caches without targeting.

 

If you actually enjoy checking out bad caches, I don't see a specific reason not to do it as long as you remain impartial in your evaluations. If you let a desire for yet another NA log posted cloud your trips, that could be a problem. One thing I always recommend in general is the second opinion: post an NM, but let someone else confirm your opinion and post an NA, and, on the other hand, don't post an NA unless someone's already identified the problem with an NM. In this case, that standard could help avoid you being too hard on a cache just because being hard on caches is part of the hobby you like.

 

And even if you're always fair, as you gain a reputation for getting caches archived, some people will start thinking of you as an archive nazi even if you keep your analysis unwaveringly balanced.

 

I don't think I'd enjoy doing it regularly, I just enjoyed it during the course of that morning/afternoon. It's definitely not something I'll do often! I also definitely didn't do it hoping for 'another NA' and you're right, if that was the mentality it wouldn't be positive at all.

[+AustinMN]

I posted one just today: http://coord.info/GC2DTVF

 

Some work done at GZ, non-responsive owner hasn't logged on in almost two years (and has only logged one cache find) and several previous finds indicating a wet log. If I don't see a response or a find by the end of the month, I'll probably put in a 'Needs Archival' log. What's the point of waiting longer? The owner gets the emails. If he or she still cares he/she will respond or do something about it. If not, it'll just clear the area for others who actually still do care.

And, miracle of miracles, the owner just archived it!

 

I saw that...came through while I was on my way home. Weird. Wonder why none of the other NM and DNF and Note logs didn't get results, but this one did...

 

Hmmm

 

Because fixing a cache requires a visit to the site. Arciving it doesn't. (Ignoring that they should clean up the Geotrash.)

[+J Grouchy]

I posted one just today: http://coord.info/GC2DTVF

 

Some work done at GZ, non-responsive owner hasn't logged on in almost two years (and has only logged one cache find) and several previous finds indicating a wet log. If I don't see a response or a find by the end of the month, I'll probably put in a 'Needs Archival' log. What's the point of waiting longer? The owner gets the emails. If he or she still cares he/she will respond or do something about it. If not, it'll just clear the area for others who actually still do care.

And, miracle of miracles, the owner just archived it!

 

I saw that...came through while I was on my way home. Weird. Wonder why none of the other NM and DNF and Note logs didn't get results, but this one did...

 

Hmmm

 

Because fixing a cache requires a visit to the site. Arciving it doesn't. (Ignoring that they should clean up the Geotrash.)

 

Kinda weird that you would reply to a three year old post in this thread...