Are you reluctant to post Needs Archived?

[+dprovan]

Furtunately, our local review is very quick to respond to these types of emails. So, iunstead of a NA log being ignored by the CO, our reviewer will likely have the cache archived within hours.

But that's still hours delayed simply because you aren't willing to go public with your observation. Basically, you're hiding behind the reviewer's skirt.

That may be. But my reviewer is a whole lot more diplomatic than I am.

That's a different problem, but perhaps you'll work on it now that you realize it impacts other people, not just the COs that you can't stop yourself from being undiplomatic with. It's really pretty simple: you just focus on reporting the problem factually and avoid being judgmental.

 

But I guess we can thank people like you for the fact that some COs think NMs and NAs are inherently offensive. What I don't think you appreciate is that by calling in your secret executioner, you make COs paranoid about all other cachers instead of just identifying the ones that can't figure out how to be diplomatic.

[+ubaphygg]

I almost always log a DNF if I take time to search. I've had plenty of times where 3rd and 4th time's the charm.

I log NM if I find it and it is broken,soggy, 70' off GZ.

After 3 or 4 DNFs I send a note to the owner with a picture or good description of where I looked saying that I think it isn't there. I sometimes ask if I was just way off.

 

Recently, after seeing 3 other DNF logs with multiple attempts I asked the owner if I could adopt the cache. - No response to that one.

[+dprovan]

Yes! Reviewer Attention! We've discussed this in the past. Sometimes what we're asking is for someone official to take a look and possibly take action. We don't want to archive a cache, but something more needs to be done.

You keep using these vague phrases I've bolded above, but it's just a flat out fact that the only action the reviewer can take is disable the cache and then archive it. Yes, the CO can do things to fix the problem, but you just can't get around the fact that when you want a cache to get reviewer attention, you are saying that if nothing is done about the problem then it needs to be archived. I think it would be a mistake to minimize that by calling this act something vague like "needs reviewer attention". Frankly, when people keep calling for a log asking for reviewer attention, I can't help but interpret their position as being that when cache needs to be archived, they want a way to make that happen without having to take responsibility for saying that it needs to be archived. "Oh, I just asked for reviewer attention. It was that big bad reviewer that decided to archive it. What a meanie!" Sheesh.

 

I've just posted our second NA five minutes ago on a cache that is definitely missing (we have found and checked on this cache several times). There hasn't been any response from the CO since the first DNFs started in March - which is the last time he logged in to th site. In our NA log, we asked the reviewer to please disable it until it can be sorted out.

A perfect example. Everything about this description tells me that you think this cache should be archived, yet you bring it up as an example of a cache that "just" needs "reviewer attention" even though from your description, you yourself have no expectations that this cache will be brought back to life. Good for you for standing up and calling for an archive. (By the way, in my area, the reviewer automatically disables a cache that has an NA posted for it, so it would be redundant to ask them to do that in the NA log. Does your reviewer really do something different?)

[+A & J Tooling]

I have only suggested they be taken out of service when a construction project has removed said cache from it's location. That is the only time I do so.

[4wheelin_fool]

Furtunately, our local review is very quick to respond to these types of emails. So, iunstead of a NA log being ignored by the CO, our reviewer will likely have the cache archived within hours.

But that's still hours delayed simply because you aren't willing to go public with your observation. Basically, you're hiding behind the reviewer's skirt.

That may be. But my reviewer is a whole lot more diplomatic than I am.

That's a different problem, but perhaps you'll work on it now that you realize it impacts other people, not just the COs that you can't stop yourself from being undiplomatic with. It's really pretty simple: you just focus on reporting the problem factually and avoid being judgmental.

 

But I guess we can thank people like you for the fact that some COs think NMs and NAs are inherently offensive. What I don't think you appreciate is that by calling in your secret executioner, you make COs paranoid about all other cachers instead of just identifying the ones that can't figure out how to be diplomatic.

 

Which very often are the cache owners who cannot be diplomatic. A Needs Achived is often taken as a slap in the face, despite how it is worded. Someone who is intentionally hiding something on posted private property, or drilling holes in signs is showing a very basic level of disrespect, and posting any type of note questioning it will often make yourself and your caches bait for their fury and further disrespect. This is one reason why reviewers often do not identify themselves. I've seen people throw tantrums over Needs Maintenance notes because they expect the finders to fix their caches for them.

Edited July 11, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+bflentje]

Well sometimes the Needs Archived notes have no effect anyhow.

 

Like on many of the long-term-disabled webcam caches. And on these, many times Groundspeak won't even respond to questions about the practice.

[Clan Riffster]

Furtunately, our local review is very quick to respond to these types of emails. So, iunstead of a NA log being ignored by the CO, our reviewer will likely have the cache archived within hours.

But that's still hours delayed simply because you aren't willing to go public with your observation. Basically, you're hiding behind the reviewer's skirt.

That may be. But my reviewer is a whole lot more diplomatic than I am.

That's a different problem, but perhaps you'll work on it now that you realize it impacts other people, not just the COs that you can't stop yourself from being undiplomatic with. It's really pretty simple: you just focus on reporting the problem factually and avoid being judgmental.

 

But I guess we can thank people like you for the fact that some COs think NMs and NAs are inherently offensive. What I don't think you appreciate is that by calling in your secret executioner, you make COs paranoid about all other cachers instead of just identifying the ones that can't figure out how to be diplomatic.

 

Which very often are the cache owners who cannot be diplomatic. A Needs Achived is often taken as a slap in the face, despite how it is worded. Someone who is intentionally hiding something on posted private property, or drilling holes in signs is showing a very basic level of disrespect, and posting any type of note questioning it will often make yourself and your caches bait for their fury and further disrespect. This is one reason why reviewers often do not identify themselves. I've seen people throw tantrums over Needs Maintenance notes because they expect the finders to fix their caches for them.

This is an issue which I can see both sides on. I'm not clear on which side is correct, though I'm leaning toward 4WF, for my personal usage. In most cases I've seen, dprovan is correct. A seeker is not faced with a cache that needs Reviewer attention. Typically, they are faced with a cache that needs to be archived. A cache which is in serious disrepair, with ignored NMs, does not need Reviewer attention. It needs to go away. The owner had their chance to address the issues, and chose not to. A cache which has a flagrant guideline violation, such as a hole being drilled into a tree, does not need Reviewer attention. It needs to be archived. For instances like these, a log type of Needs Reviewer Attention really fails to adequately describe what is being asked. They need to be archived, so that would be the proper language to label the log type. A Needs Reviewer Attention log might be appropriate if a cache had bad coords... maybe... but even in a relatively minor case like that, if the owner refuses to fix the problem, the cache needs to go away.

 

But having seen, first hand, how unreasonable some owners can be when the dreaded NA is deployed. For folks to dismiss those concerns is to present a flawed argument. It happens. Personally, I'm okay with undeserved angst. If I do my job as a part of this global community, and post an NA on a cache which needs it, I will be happy to defend my position to an unreasonable cache owner. But my willingness to confront an angry owner is probably due to my being a cop since '82. Other players may not have that willingness as part of their toolbox. If these folks are uncomfortable dealing with having hostility dumped on them, and would rather bypass the NA log, reporting their findings to the Reviewer instead, I don't see that as being sneaky or cowardly. Instead, I see them as being practical.

[+Don_J]

Well sometimes the Needs Archived notes have no effect anyhow. On this cache the cords are intentionally 60 feet off. After the owner confirmed it, I posted a very nice Needs Archived note. Not that I think it should be archived, but rather because it needs Reviewer attention, such as disablement until the coords are fixed. There is nothing like visiting a location a few times because someone wants to make it intentionally more difficult in a stupid way. I suppose if everyone posted their DNFs, it would be more obvious.

 

Our local reviewers are usually pretty quick to address such things when it is reported to them. I do wonder how they would react in this case. You seem to be the first person to actually report the cache after it has been in this state for 8+ years, with 193 people being able to find it.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well sometimes the Needs Archived notes have no effect anyhow. On this cache the cords are intentionally 60 feet off. After the owner confirmed it, I posted a very nice Needs Archived note. Not that I think it should be archived, but rather because it needs Reviewer attention, such as disablement until the coords are fixed. There is nothing like visiting a location a few times because someone wants to make it intentionally more difficult in a stupid way. I suppose if everyone posted their DNFs, it would be more obvious.

 

Our local reviewers are usually pretty quick to address such things when it is reported to them. I do wonder how they would react in this case. You seem to be the first person to actually report the cache after it has been in this state for 8+ years, with 193 people being able to find it.

 

There are directions on the cache page on how to find it. I read the page beforehand but did not memorize it, or print it out, because there is no other indication that the coords are off. The owner admitted it was intentional in an e-mail. It is a perfect example of a cache which needs reviewer attention, but not archival. Saying "Needs Archive" is the final resort. Many caches should be repaired, or adjusted, hence "Reviewer Attention".

 

If there is a house with an unkempt lawn a few feet high, or disabled cars parked on the lawn with oil leaking into the local groundwater, it does not mean that the house needs to be bulldozed. Saying it does is similar to posting a Needs Archived note because it is the only one available for this.

[+dprovan]

But having seen, first hand, how unreasonable some owners can be when the dreaded NA is deployed. For folks to dismiss those concerns is to present a flawed argument. It happens. Personally, I'm okay with undeserved angst. If I do my job as a part of this global community, and post an NA on a cache which needs it, I will be happy to defend my position to an unreasonable cache owner. But my willingness to confront an angry owner is probably due to my being a cop since '82. Other players may not have that willingness as part of their toolbox. If these folks are uncomfortable dealing with having hostility dumped on them, and would rather bypass the NA log, reporting their findings to the Reviewer instead, I don't see that as being sneaky or cowardly. Instead, I see them as being practical.

An unreasonable CO is a very real problem, and I have no problem with someone sending private e-mail to a reviewer saying, "I'm really afraid of this CO and how he will react, but this cache needs to be archived." My concern is the attitude that some CO's might sometimes get angry, and them getting angry is perfectly reasonable and expected, so we should routinely send secret mail or change the name of a log so they won't realize that we think their cache needs to be archived. I want us to react to such COs with shock, not acceptance. But I understand anyone that doesn't want to fight on the front lines. Fortunately, I've never run into such a CO, but I recognize that the risk of confronting one can be very real.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Furtunately, our local review is very quick to respond to these types of emails. So, iunstead of a NA log being ignored by the CO, our reviewer will likely have the cache archived within hours.

But that's still hours delayed simply because you aren't willing to go public with your observation. Basically, you're hiding behind the reviewer's skirt.

That may be. But my reviewer is a whole lot more diplomatic than I am.

That's a different problem, but perhaps you'll work on it now that you realize it impacts other people, not just the COs that you can't stop yourself from being undiplomatic with. It's really pretty simple: you just focus on reporting the problem factually and avoid being judgmental.

 

But I guess we can thank people like you for the fact that some COs think NMs and NAs are inherently offensive. What I don't think you appreciate is that by calling in your secret executioner, you make COs paranoid about all other cachers instead of just identifying the ones that can't figure out how to be diplomatic.

 

Sometimes I prefer to remain under the radar. Don't want people getting mad at me for reporting guidelines violations. Example: Local cacher. I've met the CO. I've found some of his caches, and he's found several of mine. Met him once on the trail. Mentioned to him that one of his caches does not meet guidelines. (Hoping that he would fix it.) The MKH was muggled, so he put out magnetized numbers with a note on the back: "You have found the cache. Post your favorite movie to log the cache." I did not log a find because it does not have a log book, AND has an ALR. 68 finds later, the cachers think it's a great and innovative cache! It has 8 favorites! No one has mentioned the guideline violations. Guess I'll pass on that one.

Interesting cache, beloved by the finders. Listed as a 'traditional' by a three-day cacher. Well done. But it was either a multi or a mystery. First step has coords for the final, and hints on how to unlock the lock. Mentioned that to the reviewer. (Didn't want the local cachers to think me a kill joy.) She archived it quickly.

Thanks. I prefer to fly under the radar on most NAs.

[+6NoisyHikers]

Yes! Reviewer Attention! We've discussed this in the past. Sometimes what we're asking is for someone official to take a look and possibly take action. We don't want to archive a cache, but something more needs to be done.

You keep using these vague phrases I've bolded above...

 

I'm vague because I'm a gentle person and I try not to expect the worst, not because I want to make my reviewer be the bad guy (girl).

 

I've just posted our second NA five minutes ago on a cache that is definitely missing (we have found and checked on this cache several times). There hasn't been any response from the CO since the first DNFs started in March - which is the last time he logged in to the site. In our NA log, we asked the reviewer to please disable it until it can be sorted out.

(By the way, in my area, the reviewer automatically disables a cache that has an NA posted for it, so it would be redundant to ask them to do that in the NA log. Does your reviewer really do something different?)

 

Our reviewer will disable it (if fact, it has already been done) but I mention that in my log because it is public record and the intent of my message is not - yet - archival. The CO hasn't been "missing" for very long and we can't know what may have happened in his life to cause him to stop caching. So I don't want to post a NA that might sound like: "Well fine, archive the dang thing so the rest of us can keep playing." I prefer to stay positive

[+-CJ-]

you can as a finder offer to help, by adding more dry paper, or change a logbook, or add tape, or change a broken container

but ask the CO first, they normally get happy for help.

 

It's a good advice if you plan your trip in advance and notice that there's already a problem at someone's geocache like a wet logbook. Asking questions while being in field is time/money consuming and even not possible technically in some areas. I see no reason for asking permissions for such small maintenance. It's not only about being a nice player, it's sometimes about the quality of the game and survival of geocaches in remote regions.

 

you need to find the cache, before you know about its condition,

only then you can make a NM log and say what you think need service.

if you did not find the cache, you should repport it via a DNF log

 

Basically I agree - with one exclusion. In a limited number of situations one may find not the cache itself but some distinct traces that the cache is gone. I believe that - again, if I'm not able to help myself - I can log a NM. For example, in June in Saint-Petersburg I approached one geocache that was obviously muggled. One half of this micro was still attached to its wooden "basement" but all other parts were missing and the whole construction was covered with a thick layer of fresh paint. Technically I didn't find the cache. I didn't sign the logbook. I was "only" 95% sure that what I saw was a part of a geocache (not 100%). Did no attempt to do any maintenance (I was sure that the hiding place should be changed). So I logged a NM.

 

if the area or position is offlimits due to rules broken, permission missing,

perform NA

 

Is everyone at this forum so self-confident that you know for sure every rule that can be broken? I'm yet not in this club I guess. One thing I will definitely do is that I provide a detailed description of the problem (mostly what you suggested). However I will let more experienced users to decide upon if the cache actually deserves a NA log or not.

 

if you ... dont like to (maybe) upset the CO, inform a reviewer in silence

 

This is not within my understanding of a fair game.

[+Off Grid]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

Why would anyone the last I heard was geocachers instead of having volunteer cachers go check out caches ( cause thats possible tohave them)that would post a NM oR NA

Your supposed to let other geocachers maintain your cache for you hah

[+jellis]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

 

Sometimes.

 

I once posted an NA and the CO committed geocide about 5 minutes later leaving a angry note on their cache page. Interesting how they did not respond to DNFs and NMs for months, but my NA caused an instant reaction. They also left all of their caches in the wild, i.e. did not pick any of them up.

 

So now, yes I'm a little reluctant to post an NA on an active CO. If I do, I preface my log with "Needs Attention". That seems to irk active cache owners less.

I feel your pain. It happened to me. CO archived all his caches when I only used a NM on a couple of his caches and the locals all blamed me.

To me I use NM

1) If the cache clearly is in pieces or missing parts. I carry logsheets and some containers.

2) If it had a string of "Found" logs and then a string of "DNF" suddenly on easy to moderate difficulty caches. And you just want to ask the CO to check to be sure it didn't walk off.

 

Needs archive

1) Has been ignoring the DNFs and NM. Come on! Even if the CO believes it's still there, the CO should say something.

2) String of DNFs and one or more NM and the CO is no longer active and no one wants to replace it.

3) Illegally placed or caches against the guidelines.

If I feel uncomfortable about putting a NA then I use a Sock Puppet so they get the blame and not me.

Edited July 12, 2013 by jellis

[+jellis]

What I don't like and I hope I am not Hijacking this post, is when someone posts a NM and says the cache is missing and doesn't see any container or logbook and then logs a find on it too.

[team tisri]

Is everyone at this forum so self-confident that you know for sure every rule that can be broken? I'm yet not in this club I guess. One thing I will definitely do is that I provide a detailed description of the problem (mostly what you suggested). However I will let more experienced users to decide upon if the cache actually deserves a NA log or not.

 

Who said we need to know every rule that can be broken?

 

If the cache appears to be in a private area I may decide not to attempt it. If the cache is obviously in an area where I'm not supposed to be I'll seriously consider logging NA.

 

You don't need to know every possible rule out there to know that a cache that appears to be inside a military enclosure is going to cause problems, a cache right outside a school playground is going to cause misunderstandings, a cache 50 feet behind the big sign that says "Private Property - No trespassing" is going to cause issues and so on.

 

If the cache page clearly states that the signs can be ignored because it is placed with the owner's permission I'll consider whether to enter the private property based on how I read the situation on the ground. If it doesn't the chances are I'll log NA. It may be it won't actually get archived but it will alert the reviewers to a potential major issue with the cache location. If the end result is that the cache is disabled until it's slightly relocated, or the cache page is updated to make the permission clear, or the cache is archived, all these are acceptable outcomes.

[+-CJ-]

If the cache is obviously in an area where I'm not supposed to be I'll seriously consider logging NA.

 

You've been in this sport since 2003 and have found over 2,000 caches. I consider my experience to be rather small comparing to yours. What seems to be "obvious" to you may seem not so obvious to me. The initial question was addressed to everyone however. So please save some space for us novices who may be not so confident but still can leave (or not leave) NA logs. This what I meant by saying that I was not in this club yet.

 

There are also cultural, judicial and language differencies. If you come to Moscow and place a geocache in a military zone (I don't really think you will ) you may do this by mistake, just because you didn't notice some sign in Russian or misinterpreted it. Or maybe you are not acquainted with some local laws, rules and even traditions. Being a Moscow resident and having good knowledge of all this I could probably evaluate this situation better. However when I come to some foreign country I would most probably avoid making NA conclusions on anyone's geocache even if the violations seem obvious to me.

Edited July 12, 2013 by -CJ-

[+dprovan]

If the cache is obviously in an area where I'm not supposed to be I'll seriously consider logging NA.

You've been in this sport since 2003 and have found over 2,000 caches. I consider my experience to be rather small comparing to yours. What seems to be "obvious" to you may seem not so obvious to me.

I claim that there's no requirement that you have to be correct when you post an NA. Yes, you should be embarrassed if it turns out you're wrong, but being wrong isn't the end of the world, particularly when weighed against the times you're completely correct.

 

Having said that, I have no problem with someone that doesn't feel confident enough to ever file an NA. I just don't want you to think you can't file one unless you're willing to stake your life on it.

 

However when I come to some foreign country I would most probably avoid making NA conclusions on anyone's geocache even if the violations seem obvious to me.

Yeah, I agree completely. I don't think I've ever filed an NA on a cache out of my area, and not just in another country, but even in another city. Not only might there be local standards, as you mention, but I also don't consider it my business nor my responsibility to call in the authorities when the local caching community has no problem with the cache.

[team tisri]

If the cache is obviously in an area where I'm not supposed to be I'll seriously consider logging NA.

 

You've been in this sport since 2003 and have found over 2,000 caches. I consider my experience to be rather small comparing to yours. What seems to be "obvious" to you may seem not so obvious to me. The initial question was addressed to everyone however. So please save some space for us novices who may be not so confident but still can leave (or not leave) NA logs. This what I meant by saying that I was not in this club yet.

 

It's really nothing to do with how many caches you've found.

 

If you haven't found any caches at all you can see the razor wire and the signs saying "KEEP OUT" and the guard dogs and the dudes with guns on patrol, or whatever else is there, and figure there's something wrong.

 

If you saw a cache like that you might currently not feel confident enough to leave an NA log but I'd like to think that even as newer cacher you'd ask whether there was some other way to it that didn't involve being shot at, which in turn might prompt someone else to log NA. Maybe you'd just write a note saying you couldn't see any way to get at it without crossing the fence that obviously wasn't designed to be crossed.

 

"Obvious" may seem like its meaning is, well, obvious but it's inevitably something subjective. What's obvious to you might not be obvious to me, what's obvious to me might not be obvious to you. The thing is, when something is obviously wrong (however you interpret "obvious") we're talking something over and above looking for three hours and not finding it. If you can't find it and a dozen people before you couldn't find it, you might log NM to ask the owner to make sure it's still there. If you get to GZ and find a tornado has gone through and the entire area is destroyed, or a military base has been built, or you find yourself hiding in a hedge looking out over a school playground, you know there's a problem with the location that is going to cause someone a lot of trouble sooner or later.

 

There are also cultural, judicial and language differencies. If you come to Moscow and place a geocache in a military zone (I don't really think you will ) you may do this by mistake, just because you didn't notice some sign in Russian or misinterpreted it. Or maybe you are not acquainted with some local laws, rules and even traditions. Being a Moscow resident and having good knowledge of all this I could probably evaluate this situation better. However when I come to some foreign country I would most probably avoid making NA conclusions on anyone's geocache even if the violations seem obvious to me.

 

Sure, if you're a resident of Moscow you know the local sensitivities much better than I do. So if the cache is the other side of a sign that says "KEEP OUT" in Russian, and the area is patrolled by people you know are Russian police (even if it's not obvious to a tourist they are police) it would be obvious that something was wrong and you could log NA.

 

As a tourist I wouldn't necessarily know which buildings were of military or political significance so I'd be less inclined to log NA against something unless it was even more obvious (like if it was the wrong side of a high fence topped with razor wire and patrolled by angry looking men with guns).

 

If you log NA on a cache it doesn't automatically follow that the cache is archived. If you're abroad and log NA because the cache looks like it's on a military base but it turned out it was really a tourist attraction the reviewer can ignore the NA log, or post a note thanking you for your concern but explaining it's not what it appears. When caches are placed in totally unsuitable locations my view is that it's better for someone to post NA to alert the reviewers, even if it turns out the location is actually just fine, than to figure someone else knows better and to let it lie. If nothing else it alerts future finders (at least the ones who bother to read previous logs) that there could be a serious issue with the location, so they may want to be extra careful.

[+Trucker Lee]

If I didn't find the cache, I could hardly know if it needs maintenance, so won't post that. If a difficulty 1 or 3 has multiple DNFs and no finds in the past 6 months, and the cache owner hasn't been online since half of those were posted, I would consider putting a NA on one, if for no other reason to get CO to check their hide.

[+-CJ-]

It's really nothing to do with how many caches you've found.

 

My first DNF at geocaching.com (in Dublin, Ireland) was after about half an hour of search with no results. The CO noticed my DNF and visited the cache the next day. He wrote that everything was OK. I had done nothing wrong but nevertheless I was a bit ashamed of alarming the CO (and I certainly admired his readiness to go and check the cache). I went there again, did my best and found the cache. It takes me a couple of minutes to locate such hides now. But then it was my very first magnetic micro and I even didn't know how such containers looked like. I remembered this situation years later when just the same happened to one of my geocaches. It was also a magnetic micro in the centre of a large city and first geocachers failed to find it. There were 5 DNFs in a row and one of these guys alarmed our local reviewer (at the national geocaching website). I was contacted and asked for details/explanations. It was not my native city so a simple check would mean a pretty long travel. Luckily, the 6th visitor (who lived just next to the location place) found the cache (in three attempts) and sent me his photo with the container as a proof that the cache was still in place and in good condition. The situation is easy to explain. The city has been crowded with very simple virtuals (not banned at the Russian geocaching website) where visitors used to do no search at all ("Count the number of benches in front of the building and send your answer to the CO"). Geocachers used to think that all hides should be of that type. They simply had no experience in finding traditional micro caches with vague hints and no photo spoilers. They reported DNFs saying "this one is probably gone" and one even logged the cache as NM.

 

Maybe you'd just write a note

 

Exactly, this is what I say.

 

Of course if I am the first visitor to be at a cache just destoyed by a tornado I will remember your words and follow your advice. Finding myself in such situation is about .00000001% however.

 

If you can't find it and a dozen people before you couldn't find it, you might log NM to ask the owner to make sure it's still there

 

With all respect, let me suggest another scenario. If I see a cache on my map (list, GPSr) that has a dozen of DNFs in a row I will most probably ignore it. It makes no sense to me to waste my time and become another one who will fail (especially when I see that the D/T is low and that the previous geocachers were really experienced players). However if I like the description of this place and wish to visit it I would probably drop a message to the CO suggesting my assistance with this cache. If he responds and agrees I'll ask for details, go there and replace the container.

 

If nothing else it alerts future finders

 

Your point of view is clear and I agree with it. It's better to overrate the danger than to ignore it. Again, it depends. To you an obvious problem is a couple of guards with rifles and dogs patroling the perimeter. Some local geocachers would consider a simple micro in the middle of the square to be logged as NM or even NA just because there are "too many muggles" (the fact that is not considered to be a problem that necessarily needs NM/NA at geocaching.com). This is because of differencies in attitude/traditions that many foreign visitors (who come to our area for a hunt) usually do not know.

Edited July 13, 2013 by -CJ-

[team tisri]

If I didn't find the cache, I could hardly know if it needs maintenance, so won't post that. If a difficulty 1 or 3 has multiple DNFs and no finds in the past 6 months, and the cache owner hasn't been online since half of those were posted, I would consider putting a NA on one, if for no other reason to get CO to check their hide.

 

In the situation you describe I'd put NM on it, followed up with NA if I came to realise the CO hadn't done anything about the NM after a few weeks.

 

A run of DNFs on what's rated as an easy cache seems like a good sign that the cache may have gone missing, in which case it's good to alert the CO with a specific log type.

[team tisri]

It's really nothing to do with how many caches you've found.

 

My first DNF at geocaching.com (in Dublin, Ireland) was after about half an hour of search with no results. The CO noticed my DNF and visited the cache the next day. He wrote that everything was OK. I had done nothing wrong but nevertheless I was a bit ashamed of alarming the CO (and I certainly admired his readiness to go and check the cache). I went there again, did my best and found the cache. It takes me a couple of minutes to locate such hides now. But then it was my very first magnetic micro and I even didn't know how such containers looked like. I remembered this situation years later when just the same happened to one of my geocaches. It was also a magnetic micro in the centre of a large city and first geocachers failed to find it. There were 5 DNFs in a row and one of these guys alarmed our local reviewer (at the national geocaching website). I was contacted and asked for details/explanations. It was not my native city so a simple check would mean a pretty long travel. Luckily, the 6th visitor (who lived just next to the location place) found the cache (in three attempts) and sent me his photo with the container as a proof that the cache was still in place and in good condition. The situation is easy to explain. The city has been crowded with very simple virtuals (not banned at the Russian geocaching website) where visitors used to do no search at all ("Count the number of benches in front of the building and send your answer to the CO"). Geocachers used to think that all hides should be of that type. They simply had no experience in finding traditional micro caches with vague hints and no photo spoilers. They reported DNFs saying "this one is probably gone" and one even logged the cache as NM.

 

Logging a DNF shouldn't be seen as "alarming the CO", it's merely a log that you looked and couldn't find it. If the CO passes by the cache regularly it doesn't hurt to check it's still there. I don't have any caches out there but if I did and found someone visiting the area had looked for it and failed to find it I'd be more inclined to check on it so they could have another go before they went home, if they felt so inclined.

 

Sometimes people are a bit trigger happy with "warning" log types. "I couldn't find it" isn't necessarily the same as "it's not there" but "I couldn't find it and neither could the 8 people who searched before me" does start to point more strongly to "it's probably not there". If it's a D5 rated cache it could be it's just particularly fiendish, but a D2 with a run of DNFs and no finds doesn't look good.

 

Maybe you'd just write a note

 

Exactly, this is what I say.

 

Of course if I am the first visitor to be at a cache just destoyed by a tornado I will remember your words and follow your advice. Finding myself in such situation is about .00000001% however.

 

Sure, going to an area and finding it completely destroyed is thankfully a very rare occurrence. But you might get to an area looking for a cache with a hint that says "magnetic, attached to sign" and realise there isn't a metal sign for at least 100' in all directions from the coordinates. At a time like that it's worth posting NM to let the owner know that either the coordinates are wrong or the sign has been removed.

 

If you can't find it and a dozen people before you couldn't find it, you might log NM to ask the owner to make sure it's still there

 

With all respect, let me suggest another scenario. If I see a cache on my map (list, GPSr) that has a dozen of DNFs in a row I will most probably ignore it. It makes no sense to me to waste my time and become another one who will fail (especially when I see that the D/T is low and that the previous geocachers were really experienced players). However if I like the description of this place and wish to visit it I would probably drop a message to the CO suggesting my assistance with this cache. If he responds and agrees I'll ask for details, go there and replace the container.

 

If you want to check previous logs before going out go right ahead. Personally the way I tend to cache is to look for circuits if I'm out walking and looking for a new place to hike, or to happen to notice I'm near a cache when I'm cycling and stop to look for it if I fancy a break. That means I could easily be looking for a cache that's had a load of DNFs logged against it. If I know I'm passing through an area and just wanting a quick cache-n-dash (like the time my route took me through the eastern panhandle of West Virginia and I just wanted a quick cache in a rest area) I'll look more closely at individual caches so it's more likely I can just grab one and go.

 

If nothing else it alerts future finders

 

Your point of view is clear and I agree with it. It's better to overrate the danger than to ignore it. Again, it depends. To you an obvious problem is a couple of guards with rifles and dogs patroling the perimeter. Some local geocachers would consider a simple micro in the middle of the square to be logged as NM or even NA just because there are "too many muggles" (the fact that is not considered to be a problem that necessarily needs NM/NA at geocaching.com). This is because of differencies in attitude/traditions that many foreign visitors (who come to our area for a hunt) usually do not know.

 

Personally I wouldn't log NM on a cache that has lots of muggles about. I don't tend to enjoy those caches very much because lots of muggles means a high chance of my actions being misunderstood and associated problems being caused. I'd say the difference is perhaps best described as the difference between "I found this one difficult" and "I would really suggest nobody even attempts this cache". If the cache is 50 feet up a tree I'll leave it alone because I'm too fat to be climbing trees but wouldn't log NM or NA because other people like climbing trees. If a cache is placed in a way that makes me think nobody could possibly get at it without breaking posted rules (e.g. a cache 50 feet up a tree in a park with rules that expressly prohibit climbing the trees) then I'd be more inclined to log NA.

[4wheelin_fool]

If I didn't find the cache, I could hardly know if it needs maintenance, so won't post that. If a difficulty 1 or 3 has multiple DNFs and no finds in the past 6 months, and the cache owner hasn't been online since half of those were posted, I would consider putting a NA on one, if for no other reason to get CO to check their hide.

 

The problem with DNFs is that they have a snowball effect on anything that is slightly tricky. A single DNF is likely to psyche the next finder into thinking it is not there and possibly discourage them to look real hard. However in most cases I'd agree with you.

[+bflentje]

The problem with DNFs is that they have a snowball effect on anything that is slightly tricky. A single DNF is likely to psyche the next finder into thinking it is not there and possibly discourage them to look real hard.

 

That's the breaks..

[+6NoisyHikers]

If I didn't find the cache, I could hardly know if it needs maintenance, so won't post that. If a difficulty 1 or 3 has multiple DNFs and no finds in the past 6 months, and the cache owner hasn't been online since half of those were posted, I would consider putting a NA on one, if for no other reason to get CO to check their hide.

 

The problem with DNFs is that they have a snowball effect on anything that is slightly tricky. A single DNF is likely to psyche the next finder into thinking it is not there and possibly discourage them to look real hard. However in most cases I'd agree with you.

 

If a cache has several DNFs but has a high difficulty rating, it makes me want to search even harder for it!

[+J Grouchy]

If I didn't find the cache, I could hardly know if it needs maintenance, so won't post that. If a difficulty 1 or 3 has multiple DNFs and no finds in the past 6 months, and the cache owner hasn't been online since half of those were posted, I would consider putting a NA on one, if for no other reason to get CO to check their hide.

 

The problem with DNFs is that they have a snowball effect on anything that is slightly tricky. A single DNF is likely to psyche the next finder into thinking it is not there and possibly discourage them to look real hard. However in most cases I'd agree with you.

 

If a cache has several DNFs but has a high difficulty rating, it makes me want to search even harder for it!

 

Yeah...I can't stand when I see a long string of DNFs, then some new cacher with 20 finds pops in, logs a find with "easy! tftc!".

[nonaeroterraqueous]

...and then it goes back to being found easily and often, as though someone replaced it without mentioning it on the page.

[4wheelin_fool]

...and then it goes back to being found easily and often, as though someone replaced it without mentioning it on the page.

 

And when that occurs, it further discourages NA notes for DNFs.

[team tisri]

...and then it goes back to being found easily and often, as though someone replaced it without mentioning it on the page.

 

And when that occurs, it further discourages NA notes for DNFs.

 

Not sure how it discourages them. If a load of people can't find it the logical thing to do is log NM to indicate it might not be there, and if there's no indication that the owner has done anything after a few weeks log NA. If in the meantime people start finding it then you can assume either it was there all along or someone has replaced it, in which case you don't need to log NA against it.

[4wheelin_fool]

...and then it goes back to being found easily and often, as though someone replaced it without mentioning it on the page.

 

And when that occurs, it further discourages NA notes for DNFs.

 

Not sure how it discourages them. If a load of people can't find it the logical thing to do is log NM to indicate it might not be there, and if there's no indication that the owner has done anything after a few weeks log NA. If in the meantime people start finding it then you can assume either it was there all along or someone has replaced it, in which case you don't need to log NA against it.

 

If someone posts a NM or NA in error, they may become embarrassed enough to discourage them from doing it again. However a NM, NA, or having it disabled to check if its there, usually discourages more visits.

[+M4RKO]

If a cache needs maintenance, does another cacher placing a throwdown container count as maintenance?

[+TriciaG]

If a cache needs maintenance, does another cacher placing a throwdown container count as maintenance?

No. It counts as a travesty.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

 

I'm not shy about posting Needs Maintenance/Needs Archived. I've got negative feedback maybe 2 or 3 times, but I still think it's worth it. Lots of people here don't post NM/Na due to apathy more than anything, but thankfully there are many of us here that will post NM/NA as needed. I've seen alot of new caches published due to my posting Needs Archive requests. It feels good to see the map cleaned up and new caches being put out. Everybody benefits.

[+-CJ-]

It feels good to see the map cleaned up and new caches being put out. Everybody benefits.

 

Not always.

[+DangerousDale]

Yes, because it is someone's cache who took the time, money and effort to place it. But if it is placed somewhere it shouldn't be like in a warning sign arm right next to a railroad track (come on folks really) or if a construction company has come in and put up fencing all around the cache and the cache is inside fencing with signs saying that it is a federal offense to trespass in construction areas (yes I have done both).

 

Then I do so if needed, I don't simply put in a NA because I couldn't find the cache like a LOT of the newbies have been doing to my caches here lately.

 

And if I go on their cache page and see that they placed the cache like 2 years ago, and haven't been online for over a year and it has a half dozen or more DNF'S and needs maintenance logs on the cache page and it has been over a year since anyone has found it. Then yes, it is a good thing to have, to alert the reviewer of the problem. It doesn't get archived immediately, it does just notify the reviewer, and it is up to them to make the call.

 

NM = notify the owner to make repairs

NA = nofity the reviewer to decide if it should be archived or not?

 

And we have good reviewers, but they don't have the time to go through the 2 million plus caches to see if they are still valid every day, so it helps that we notify them of a possible issue. And they can make the determination from there.

 

But we should use it as any tool being responsible and understanding!

 

Because all of us at one time or another have gone through tough times and it helps for you to be understanding as well. Not like one geocacher who "told me" to get out and replace the cache immediately or he would mark it as NA!

 

I think a lot of people don't realize that this is a hobby, not a full time job. And it is meant to be a game, which means FUN, not WORK!

[+BAMBOOZLE]

In well over 12000 hunts in over 10 years I might have logged 2 NA's....in my experience the attribute is more trouble than its worth. A typical log on one of my caches = " I couldn't find it and the person before me couldn't find it so NA "....or sometime they log NM.

If you can't find it folks log a DNF ( or don't log anything ) and move on.

If I find a cache that needs maint. I fix it.....we put out a new container if need be, wipe contents, add new log etc. There have been a couple of times we were far from the car and a reg cache had been run over by a bush hog or something......I gathered what I could and put it under a rock or in a tree and logged NM.

[SJSE]

People always post NM in my area, but I've never seen a NA. I guess it depends on the situation, but I logged a NM yesterday because the cache had DNFs for over a year, with no finds in-between, and the logs were pretty descriptive of how everyone searched hard.. so I just want the CO to confirm that the cache is still there. If I searched and couldn't find it, but someone else found it earlier, I wouldn't mark it... I probably wouldn't mark it if a few people before me couldn't find it and neither could I. It seems to be a case-by-case scenario... I wouldn't use it too frequently, but there are some caches that do indeed need maintenance.

[team tisri]

...and then it goes back to being found easily and often, as though someone replaced it without mentioning it on the page.

 

And when that occurs, it further discourages NA notes for DNFs.

 

Not sure how it discourages them. If a load of people can't find it the logical thing to do is log NM to indicate it might not be there, and if there's no indication that the owner has done anything after a few weeks log NA. If in the meantime people start finding it then you can assume either it was there all along or someone has replaced it, in which case you don't need to log NA against it.

 

If someone posts a NM or NA in error, they may become embarrassed enough to discourage them from doing it again. However a NM, NA, or having it disabled to check if its there, usually discourages more visits.

 

I must admit I struggle to see why someone should be embarrassed about posting NM or NA on a cache that needs maintenance or has clearly gone unloved for an extended period.

 

If someone is trigger happy with NM and NA logs the chances are they won't care who thinks what about them, and if they are cautious with them and later feel they were too quick off the mark they can always contact the owner to explain/apologise or just let it slide.

 

Perhaps the wording could do with some modification - "Needs Archived" does rather suggest that one person is making a unilateral decision when perhaps "Needs owner attention" and "Needs reviewer attention" or similar would work better.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

If you can't find it folks log a DNF ( or don't log anything ) and move on.

 

I disagree. There are so many cache listings out there that used to have frequent finds, that now get nothing but DNFs. The owners are either gone or don't care. Adding yet another DNF doesn't help anything anymore, and not logging anything only creates the illusion that nothing is necessarily wrong, which makes it that much harder to justify an NA in the future. Granted, an NA is not to be used in place of just any DNF, but it is certainly useful on certain caches, where it's painfully obvious that both the cache and the owner are gone.

[+Don_J]

In well over 12000 hunts in over 10 years I might have logged 2 NA's....in my experience the attribute is more trouble than its worth. A typical log on one of my caches = " I couldn't find it and the person before me couldn't find it so NA "....or sometime they log NM.

If you can't find it folks log a DNF ( or don't log anything ) and move on.

If I find a cache that needs maint. I fix it.....we put out a new container if need be, wipe contents, add new log etc. There have been a couple of times we were far from the car and a reg cache had been run over by a bush hog or something......I gathered what I could and put it under a rock or in a tree and logged NM.

 

I'm curious. Do you just plop down your replacement and log your smiley, or do you first look at the cache owner's profile and try to determine if he is still an active cacher? Do you look at past logs to see if the CO has been ignoring calls for maintenance for an extended period of time? Do you try to determine if another "helpful" cache finder has already replaced the container in the past? I really have to wonder how many times you have simply delayed the inevitable.

 

Is it fair to the local cachers that have been waiting patiently for a bad cache's listing to be archived so they can place a properly maintained cache, that some guy from out of town that is trying to clear the map places a new container that will not be maintained by anyone in the future?

 

I know in the past that you have said that you always use good, waterproof containers and that is commendable, but when you look at the overall picture, it might be best to just let the cache/listing die a natural death so cachers that are active can place caches in the area.

[team tisri]

If you can't find it folks log a DNF ( or don't log anything ) and move on.

 

I disagree. There are so many cache listings out there that used to have frequent finds, that now get nothing but DNFs. The owners are either gone or don't care. Adding yet another DNF doesn't help anything anymore, and not logging anything only creates the illusion that nothing is necessarily wrong, which makes it that much harder to justify an NA in the future. Granted, an NA is not to be used in place of just any DNF, but it is certainly useful on certain caches, where it's painfully obvious that both the cache and the owner are gone.

 

After a bunch of DNFs with no finds among them if I couldn't find a cache I'd log NM requesting the owner checks it's there. If there's no word from the owner after a few weeks I log NA.

 

I remember one cache in particular had a deluge of DNFs, a couple of NMs plus the one I posted and six weeks later the owner hadn't posted anything. So I logged NA and within a day the owner posted to say the missing cache had been replaced. Which did leave me curious why they hadn't done it at any point during the time (something like three months) that had passed since the first NM.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

In well over 12000 hunts in over 10 years I might have logged 2 NA's....in my experience the attribute is more trouble than its worth. A typical log on one of my caches = " I couldn't find it and the person before me couldn't find it so NA "....or sometime they log NM.

If you can't find it folks log a DNF ( or don't log anything ) and move on.

If I find a cache that needs maint. I fix it.....we put out a new container if need be, wipe contents, add new log etc. There have been a couple of times we were far from the car and a reg cache had been run over by a bush hog or something......I gathered what I could and put it under a rock or in a tree and logged NM.

 

I'm curious. Do you just plop down your replacement and log your smiley, or do you first look at the cache owner's profile and try to determine if he is still an active cacher? Do you look at past logs to see if the CO has been ignoring calls for maintenance for an extended period of time? Do you try to determine if another "helpful" cache finder has already replaced the container in the past? I really have to wonder how many times you have simply delayed the inevitable.

 

Is it fair to the local cachers that have been waiting patiently for a bad cache's listing to be archived so they can place a properly maintained cache, that some guy from out of town that is trying to clear the map places a new container that will not be maintained by anyone in the future?

 

I know in the past that you have said that you always use good, waterproof containers and that is commendable, but when you look at the overall picture, it might be best to just let the cache/listing die a natural death so cachers that are active can place caches in the area.

 

We always read cache pages and logs but I wouldn't know much about the hider until I got home to a computer.

Almost without exception I will still repair and clean a cache if I can ( if I'm close enough to the truck to get supplies ). I would guess that 50% of the time I'm delaying the inevitable but for some years? folks have a cache there to find. I can't speak for your area but if I don't fix it there is a 90%+ chance that no one will put out another.

And yes I do log a find.....I found it, it was just broken.

If I'm a long way from the truck it absolutely kills me to leave a cache in trouble and more than once, if I really liked the cache / location , I have made the return trip to fix it.

[+L0ne.R]

I can't speak for your area but if I don't fix it there is a 90%+ chance that no one will put out another.

 

It's the opposite in my area. Our area is fairly saturated. That's why we tend to archive our caches when we get bored of maintaining them (usually around the 3-5 year mark) - it opens up the area for a new cache experience.

[Clan Riffster]

If I'm a long way from the truck it absolutely kills me to leave a cache in trouble and more than once, if I really liked the cache / location , I have made the return trip to fix it.

I do the same, though, I am a bit more selective. I will go a long way out of my way to fix a cache which fits my personal bias. If I see that a cache I feel is awesome has issues, I have no qualms spending the time, energy and money to make it right, so others can have the same experience. My last time doing this involved a day long kayak paddle, just to replace a log.

 

But if I see a cache which I think totally sucks, in need of help, I wouldn't pull a slip of paper from my pocket to fix it. My thoughts on sucky caches is that the owner either doesn't know his container is crap, or doesn't care. The classic 'ignorance or apathy' conundrum. If they don't know their container sucks, then my fixing it for them could prevent them from learning that it sucks, and lead to them hiding more crappy containers, believing that they must be fine. If they don't care, then the most I can do is attempt to break through their apathy by forcing them to keep the promise they made when they submitted the listing, and go fix it. Failing that, then I can try getting it archived, in the hopes that enough archivals will make them start caring.

 

My motto? "Don't be a crappy cache enabler"

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I can't speak for your area but if I don't fix it there is a 90%+ chance that no one will put out another.

 

It's the opposite in my area. Our area is fairly saturated. That's why we tend to archive our caches when we get bored of maintaining them (usually around the 3-5 year mark) - it opens up the area for a new cache experience.

 

You make a good point that's been talked about over the years. I've archived a few of mine only to publish a new cache close by but hidden differently. We talked about all of us re-doing all local caches.....once locals find it future finds are tourists and travelers (at least in the New Orleans area we get plenty of those). Then suddenly I have caches over 10 years old and many sort of become classics and you don't want to re-do them. Caches "grandfathered in" existing where no cache will now be approved you certainly don't want to change.

Interesting thoughts.....locals re-doing hundreds of caches....watch out reviewers !!

[+Card Shark78]

I've done a few NM types and usually needs a little maintenance and I did not have what it needed, or the container was in need of maintenance. If it's the container I'll take a picture of it and send a email to the owner before posting a NM. I've only done 1 NA and it was a multi in a neighboring state. There had been several DNF's and a few NM without anything from the CO. The Admin waited a few weeks in order for the CO to respond to it and he never did. The cache was Archived.

[+Wes_and_Tara]

We just posted a "Needs Archived" for the first time yesterday. The log was deleted a few hours later by the CO with no comments, emails, messages, or notes. Nothing. Just gone. Here's what the log said:

 

"We looked for this one today, but as we approached where we thought we needed to go, we saw a sign that said "Boaters and Guests Only Beyond this Point." We figured the cache obviously wouldn't be beyond that sign as that would make this unavailable to most cachers. After speaking with someone at an event later on, we learned that it is indeed beyond that sign. Perhaps this sign has been added since the cache was placed, but as it stands we feel we would be trespassing to find this cache."

 

So, if you have to trespass to find it, and the CO just deletes your NA log, what then? Can COs hide NA logs from reviewers by deleting them, or can the reviewers still see them?

[+cerberus1]

Can COs hide NA logs from reviewers by deleting them, or can the reviewers still see them?

Delete all he (the CO) wants, the Reviewer still sees it.