Jump to content

owners who don't maintain thier caches


Recommended Posts

This is Mrs O here,

 

I was looking at some local caches and there is an owner who is prolific but who doesn't maintain his caches, looking at his list quite a number have been archived and of the ones left many need maintenance. However he continues to place caches.

I don't get that someone who owns loads of caches, never maintains them or even responds to requests/ notifications they need maintaining then is allowed to continue placing. This is irritating and a waste of time for cachers and also blocks areas for new caches.

I understand that we all have different opinions about what is an acceptable condition of a container, what is a good cache etc but if a cache cannot function/ goes missing /is badly damaged / log full/soaking wet and owner doesn't look after it what is the point of continuing placing? Surely part of owning caches is maintaining them for the pleasure of others.

 

So... the question is: should reviewers look at the state of current caches owned by people when publishing new ones? And advise that perhaps maintain existing ones before publishing new ones might be an idea?

Link to comment

More than half our hides are now archived.

Some (puzzle/mystery) due to their easy access (battleship) once hides were surrounding, some due to repeatedly muggled and others due to safety.

So what?

 

If my Reviewer had to look at the state of each hider's caches before publishing them, he'd be doing his volunteering twelve hours a day.

 

I agree that this happens often lately, but it's just not practical to get Reviewers involved.

We should be helping the poorly maintained caches with the use of NM and NAs.

Link to comment

We can't control it.....

 

Reviewers are 'volunteers' and have a large area they are responsible for. They are not here to 'babysit' and shouldn't be expected to 'babysit' caches or cache hiders.

 

The only real way a Reviewer can get involved - is by seeing negative log entries/feedback from the rest of us. NM logs, NA logs, multiple DNF logs, etc.

 

Not to forget - a lot of people don't even watch their own caches close enough to notice negative feedback without NA/NM logs.

Link to comment
And advise that perhaps maintain existing ones before publishing new ones might be an idea?

I just temp-disabled of of my own caches in case things changed...

If a cache is disabled and you attempt to get a new one published, a box comes up saying, "According to our records, you own a cache or caches that may need your attention".

Under the wording is a "do it anyway" button...

Not sure if it works the same with an NM or NA, wasn't gonna take the chance of screwing up a hide. :)

 

Anyway, what I'm getting at is, if GC.com has a "do it anyway" button under a warning, that kinda tells me they're interested - but not really.

Link to comment

We can't control it.....

 

Reviewers are 'volunteers' and have a large area they are responsible for. They are not here to 'babysit' and shouldn't be expected to 'babysit' caches or cache hiders.

 

The only real way a Reviewer can get involved - is by seeing negative log entries/feedback from the rest of us. NM logs, NA logs, multiple DNF logs, etc.

 

Not to forget - a lot of people don't even watch their own caches close enough to notice negative feedback without NA/NM logs.

 

I agree here....if a NM doesn't work log a NA, the NA WILL get the reviewers attention. I haven't seen much of this and in over 10 years I probably have only logged a couple of NA's.

Early in the process of getting a cache published you are shown a list of your existing caches that need attention....you can also click on a button that says " continue anyway ". The cacher in question is simply ignoring the long list of problem caches. It would be nice if there were 5 or more caches that needed attention you would be automatically blocked from hiding a new one. This would require no reviewer action and while it could be circumvented by posting bogus Owner Maint logs it would be a step in the right direction.

Link to comment

The point some missed was that the owner in question has many caches with a maintenance notice on them. I think Bamboozles suggestion that 5 or more NM notices trigger a block on any more new caches by that owner. Is that something Groundspeak could put in place?

Once again. Throw in a NA log and the problem will be solve. Everyone wants big brother to handle a problem that the community can take care of. No need for some complicated addition to the website.

Link to comment

Post NM or NA logs if you feel it's appropriate. Then place that cacher on you Ignore list and go on your merry way.

 

We have a couple of owners like that in my area. One in particular comes to mind. If I happen to be in the area I'll hunt his caches but I won't expect much and I won't waste a lot of time looking. I have had a couple of his caches archived over the years. He doesn't respond to NM's or NA's, and he's still active in the game. Takes all kinds, I guess.

Link to comment

The point some missed was that the owner in question has many caches with a maintenance notice on them. I think Bamboozles suggestion that 5 or more NM notices trigger a block on any more new caches by that owner. Is that something Groundspeak could put in place?

I don't think anyone "missed" it.

Groundspeak isn't in the business to check for quality/condition of hides.

- We're supposed to bring those issues to a Reviewer via NM or NA.

At a time when the site is offering a free intro app just to get more people in, doubtful they're gonna act on a negative.

 

Do you leave NM or NA on those hides?

Simple fix, really.

Link to comment

 

 

Not to forget - a lot of people don't even watch their own caches close enough to notice negative feedback without NA/NM logs.

Hello web,

 

Are you saying that they don't even get e-mail notices from posts on their caches? How could they then ever know when one of them need maintaining, other than a site visit.

 

If so, I would think it should be required to get e-mail notices of visits. Even If it's a bunch of NA, NM notices. It could help nudge the owner to do maintenance.

Link to comment

NM and NA logs are usually effective for their purposes.

 

Personally, I would like a system to ban COs from placing new caches once they have demonstrated they are irresponsible and will not maintain their caches once placed. Unfortunately, I don't have any idea how such a system could be effectively implemented. For example, a CO banned from hiding could simply create sock puppets to hide caches.

 

If someone hasn't learned responsibility by the time they are an adult it's pretty hard for geocaching to drive the point home.

Link to comment

 

 

Not to forget - a lot of people don't even watch their own caches close enough to notice negative feedback without NA/NM logs.

Hello web,

 

Are you saying that they don't even get e-mail notices from posts on their caches? How could they then ever know when one of them need maintaining, other than a site visit.

 

If so, I would think it should be required to get e-mail notices of visits. Even If it's a bunch of NA, NM notices. It could help nudge the owner to do maintenance.

I can't speak for Web, but I can share what I've seen. We have a somewhat local cacher who believes that quantity is way more important than quality. We had a discussion on a Faceybook cache group page, and he denied this, claiming that he acted quickly to NM logs. I went cache by cache, providing links to each one in the event that someone wanted to double check my work, and demonstrated that he had a significant history of saturation hiding, followed by numerous NMs, followed by notes from Reviewers disabling the caches, followed by archival, with no action taken by him other than to spew out more crappy caches.

 

Part of our discussion revolved around why he did not reply to the eighty bajilion NM logs, or the Disabled logs posted by Reviewers. He said he has an email address which he uses just for this hobby, which he only looks at every few months, deleting everything in there, regardless of content.

Link to comment

The point some missed was that the owner in question has many caches with a maintenance notice on them. I think Bamboozles suggestion that 5 or more NM notices trigger a block on any more new caches by that owner. Is that something Groundspeak could put in place?

I don't think anyone "missed" it.

Groundspeak isn't in the business to check for quality/condition of hides.

- We're supposed to bring those issues to a Reviewer via NM or NA.

At a time when the site is offering a free intro app just to get more people in, doubtful they're gonna act on a negative.

 

Do you leave NM or NA on those hides?

Simple fix, really.

 

Yes, left NMs on a lot of them. Nothing happened.

Link to comment

Part of our discussion revolved around why he did not reply to the eighty bajilion NM logs, or the Disabled logs posted by Reviewers. He said he has an email address which he uses just for this hobby, which he only looks at every few months, deleting everything in there, regardless of content.

 

I kinda figured this sort of thing happened a lot based on how many times I've tried contacting COs for various reasons and did not get a response. I suspect that fully half (likely a lot more) of all virtual cache owners don't ever bother checking the logs people email them. This is actually one big reason I don't enjoy virtual caches...I feel like I'm sending an email to nobody, passing a test that nobody ever really graded.

Link to comment

It's impossible to have some kind of rule that says if you have a certain number of caches that have a needs maintenance flag you can't hide any more.

 

First of all, it is too easy to get around this. A person can easily create another account and begin placing caches under that account. Or they could adopt the caches needing maintenance to the new account and keep placing caches.

 

Even simpler, all they need to do is post an Owner Maintenance log on the caches, and voila! the Needs Maintenance flag goes away.

 

There are many reasons why a cacher might postpone maintenance on cacher or leave a cache disabled for an extended period. In addition there are surprisingly a lot of prolific cache hiders who haven't seemed to figure out that you post an Owner Maintenance to clear a Needs Maintenace flag, let alone that you can disable or archive your own cache. (I always find it amusing when I seem a reviewer archive a cache "at the request of the owner.")

 

As it stands now, one can use the Needs Maintenance logs and perhaps send email to cache owners to encourage maintenance (and perhaps help them figure out which logs they need to use). If that isn't working then you can escalate to the Needs Archive log to get a reviewer involved.

Link to comment

 

Not to forget - a lot of people don't even watch their own caches close enough to notice negative feedback without NA/NM logs.

Hello web,

 

Are you saying that they don't even get e-mail notices from posts on their caches? How could they then ever know when one of them need maintaining, other than a site visit.

 

If so, I would think it should be required to get e-mail notices of visits. Even If it's a bunch of NA, NM notices. It could help nudge the owner to do maintenance.

 

Even if every visit generated an email message to a cache owners email address, it won't guarantee that the owner will ever read it. Consider cache owners that create big power trails with hundreds of caches. Oh, that's right, they don't do maintenance on those caches and expect the community to do it for them.

 

 

Link to comment

The point some missed was that the owner in question has many caches with a maintenance notice on them. I think Bamboozles suggestion that 5 or more NM notices trigger a block on any more new caches by that owner. Is that something Groundspeak could put in place?

I agree that there are way too many caches out there that need maintenance. There seem to be more of those around today then when we started caching 7 years ago.

 

The problem of triggering a block on placing new caches is that anyone can post a NM notice. It could be used maliciously.

Link to comment

 

Not to forget - a lot of people don't even watch their own caches close enough to notice negative feedback without NA/NM logs.

Hello web,

 

Are you saying that they don't even get e-mail notices from posts on their caches? How could they then ever know when one of them need maintaining, other than a site visit.

 

If so, I would think it should be required to get e-mail notices of visits. Even If it's a bunch of NA, NM notices. It could help nudge the owner to do maintenance.

 

Even if every visit generated an email message to a cache owners email address, it won't guarantee that the owner will ever read it. Consider cache owners that create big power trails with hundreds of caches. Oh, that's right, they don't do maintenance on those caches and expect the community to do it for them.

Well I guess it's just beyond me why someone would hide a cache and not even ever want to know if it where found. Maybe they watch the first 3-4 posts then just forget it? That's just odd. I could see it happening a few times in an area when kids get into the game, but the case the OP states is just weird. That cacher shouldn't be hiding caches.

Link to comment

The point some missed was that the owner in question has many caches with a maintenance notice on them. I think Bamboozles suggestion that 5 or more NM notices trigger a block on any more new caches by that owner. Is that something Groundspeak could put in place?

I agree that there are way too many caches out there that need maintenance. There seem to be more of those around today then when we started caching 7 years ago.

 

The problem of triggering a block on placing new caches is that anyone can post a NM notice. It could be used maliciously.

From the OP, it also sounds like the hiding privilege is being used maliciously :)

Link to comment

Well I guess it's just beyond me why someone would hide a cache and not even ever want to know if it where found.

The type of person who practices saturation hiding, (what we call carpet bombing), lives by the motto that quantity trumps quality, every time. The caches they hide utilize crappy containers, in uninspired locations, with copy/paste cache pages. They know that the vast majority of the logs will read something like "TFTC". Any time spent reading countless "TFTCs" means less time for them to create more crappy caches.

Link to comment

Well I guess it's just beyond me why someone would hide a cache and not even ever want to know if it where found.

The type of person who practices saturation hiding, (what we call carpet bombing), lives by the motto that quantity trumps quality, every time. The caches they hide utilize crappy containers, in uninspired locations, with copy/paste cache pages. They know that the vast majority of the logs will read something like "TFTC". Any time spent reading countless "TFTCs" means less time for them to create more crappy caches.

 

Some people don't understand the 'true spirit of Geocaching'.

Some will argue that Dave put the first Geocache at a mundane location, and I'll bet he would agree...but it was an experiment and not the final iteration of the concept.

 

If you find a cache that needs owner maintenance, you should say so in the log.

If others have already mentioned issues but nothing has been done, then a NM is appropriate.

If there are several NM logs (or it has been months with no owner response), then a NA is called for.

 

If WE, as a community expect more, and demand it, we will get MORE.

 

The big question is: More of what?

 

More crappy unmaintained powertrail caches?

OR

More quality caches by owners who have an actual reason to have the cache there.

 

What do YOU want? Thirty smilies an hour, or one smilie and an experience worth remembering for more than three minutes?

 

The tools are there, we just need to have the stones to use them.

Link to comment

The point some missed was that the owner in question has many caches with a maintenance notice on them. I think Bamboozles suggestion that 5 or more NM notices trigger a block on any more new caches by that owner. Is that something Groundspeak could put in place?

I don't think anyone "missed" it.

Groundspeak isn't in the business to check for quality/condition of hides.

- We're supposed to bring those issues to a Reviewer via NM or NA.

At a time when the site is offering a free intro app just to get more people in, doubtful they're gonna act on a negative.

 

Do you leave NM or NA on those hides?

Simple fix, really.

 

Yes, left NMs on a lot of them. Nothing happened.

Don't know how you get along with your Reviewer, but mine allows me to email instead of posting an NA, if I feel the geodrama would be more than my other 2/3rds could stand (doesn't bother me).

Maybe an email explaining (with GC#s) to your Reviewer could get things "cleaned up" a bit.

Literally. :)

Link to comment

It's impossible to have some kind of rule that says if you have a certain number of caches that have a needs maintenance flag you can't hide any more.

 

First of all, it is too easy to get around this. A person can easily create another account and begin placing caches under that account. Or they could adopt the caches needing maintenance to the new account and keep placing caches.

 

Even simpler, all they need to do is post an Owner Maintenance log on the caches, and voila! the Needs Maintenance flag goes away.

 

There are many reasons why a cacher might postpone maintenance on cacher or leave a cache disabled for an extended period. In addition there are surprisingly a lot of prolific cache hiders who haven't seemed to figure out that you post an Owner Maintenance to clear a Needs Maintenace flag, let alone that you can disable or archive your own cache. (I always find it amusing when I seem a reviewer archive a cache "at the request of the owner.")

 

As it stands now, one can use the Needs Maintenance logs and perhaps send email to cache owners to encourage maintenance (and perhaps help them figure out which logs they need to use). If that isn't working then you can escalate to the Needs Archive log to get a reviewer involved.

 

Maybe the answer is to either create another tier of membership between basic and premium that attracts only a nominal cost (maybe $5) and which allows the person to hide caches. So the promise that caching will always be free will be kept, but anyone who wants to hide caches has a small barrier to entry. If someone has more than a certain number of caches archived by a reviewer for non-maintenance their account is blocked so they can't place any more caches.

 

Of course if they wanted to pay another $5 they could just create a new account and hide them anyway but it does place a specific cost in the way.

 

If people archive their own caches they are unaffected, so there's no penalty for the owners who do come to realise that an area is compromised or the cache wasn't as good as they thought.

 

This approach still creates an easy "out" for less responsible owners who could just wait until the reviewer disables their cache and then archive it, but at least it might generate some more awareness of the process of maintenance.

Link to comment

The tools are there, we just need to have the stones to use them.

 

Ant the ability to ignore all the cool kids who sit at the back of the class and cry cache police whenever anyone has the common sense to flag up an issue which needs addressing.

 

I can't think of a single cacher who wants to go out and find junk caches, but I can think of a few who would complain if the junk was archived before they had found it and added that one more smiley to the list :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I am headed to tucson in a few days so downloaded the closest 1000. I set a filter for last two logs other than found and got 50. I usually just delete them and move on but since the subject was being discussed in this forum took a look. In case after case there were multiple DNFs with comments on the need for maintenance (obviously ignored by the CO) and even a couple of NM logs (also ignored). The worst case was a string of eight DNFs (with a highly suspect find in the middle) and a NM log. A quick check of the COs profile showed he hadn't logged on in nine months.

 

As mentioned above had one person had the stones to log NA this would have been dealt with.

 

So once again this is a community failure not a froggie problem.

 

On a couple of occasions (those where the CO allows finds for a missing cache) that slip through my process a NA log has quickly solved the problem.

 

I do not think you need multiple (or even one) NM log before a NA given some circumstances.

Edited by Walts Hunting
Link to comment

Mark it as needs maintenance if that's what it needs. If its been marked that several times and/or has been a period of time and it hasn't been taken care of, then mark it needs archived. If it goes like that for a period of time and still nothing, then message the local reviewer and express your concern about it. But I would attempt to try and contact the cache owner first and see if you can get them off their butt first.

Link to comment

Hello web,

 

Are you saying that they don't even get e-mail notices from posts on their caches? How could they then ever know when one of them need maintaining, other than a site visit.

 

If so, I would think it should be required to get e-mail notices of visits. Even If it's a bunch of NA, NM notices. It could help nudge the owner to do maintenance.

 

They DO get notices from Groundspeak. But like anything in the cyber world....You send emails out into thin air and nothing ever becomes of it.

 

How often have you emailed a business and NEVER got a response? Where do those emails go?

 

Is it because they have a gmail or hotmail or other account that they forgot about and never check? Is it because they have their filters setup to delete them? Or do they just don't care and delete them?

 

An email is NOT a guaranteed method of contacting the owner.

Link to comment

As a CO I like to see the ones I have that need maintenance before placing a cache. I don't think the idea of if there is 5 in the list that you can't hide one. I guess that would work if you didn't have out many caches but we have out over 150. Not all needs maintenance request by cachers are created equal. We often get them that are not really necessary. Belive me we used to always rush right out to fix them but have learned that we can be wasting a lot of time and gas (as we have some far away) for no reason. We think we have out some quality caches and are very active so if we place a new one we think we are doing good even if some of ours are still marked for needing maintenance. Maybe one or two are and the others we are just checking to see what is really going on. Here are a few recent examples.

This one is probibly 40 miles away and a $6 Bridge toll. We didn't understand the needs maintenance so we just let it go. The next cacher didn't see a problem as I don't see how that could have really been a problem at that location.

Dont feed the birds

This one the cacher posted a needs maintenance before even going out there. I almost went there to fix it but that one is also out of the way. Not so much as we wont maintain it but is out of the way to go to for no reason. Yes the other cacher lost the lid to the bigger camo but the actual cache should be fine. I was there the other day but decided to maintain another one and leave this one be.

Da jetty

Anyways my point is that setting a number on them before you can't hide would be hard. If anything maybe a percentage but even that would be hard to rule as the more hides the more work. If you have out 5 it would be easier to keep track of them all then if you had out 500.

This seems like a different problem then what you are talking about though. I think you should post needs archiving on all his/her caches that are not being looked after. We know cachers like that around here.

Link to comment

As a CO I like to see the ones I have that need maintenance before placing a cache. I don't think the idea of if there is 5 in the list that you can't hide one. I guess that would work if you didn't have out many caches but we have out over 150. Not all needs maintenance request by cachers are created equal. We often get them that are not really necessary. Belive me we used to always rush right out to fix them but have learned that we can be wasting a lot of time and gas (as we have some far away) for no reason. We think we have out some quality caches and are very active so if we place a new one we think we are doing good even if some of ours are still marked for needing maintenance. Maybe one or two are and the others we are just checking to see what is really going on. Here are a few recent examples.

This one is probibly 40 miles away and a $6 Bridge toll. We didn't understand the needs maintenance so we just let it go. The next cacher didn't see a problem as I don't see how that could have really been a problem at that location.

Dont feed the birds

This one the cacher posted a needs maintenance before even going out there. I almost went there to fix it but that one is also out of the way. Not so much as we wont maintain it but is out of the way to go to for no reason. Yes the other cacher lost the lid to the bigger camo but the actual cache should be fine. I was there the other day but decided to maintain another one and leave this one be.

Da jetty

Anyways my point is that setting a number on them before you can't hide would be hard. If anything maybe a percentage but even that would be hard to rule as the more hides the more work. If you have out 5 it would be easier to keep track of them all then if you had out 500.

This seems like a different problem then what you are talking about though. I think you should post needs archiving on all his/her caches that are not being looked after. We know cachers like that around here.

 

150? And to boot you mention that some of them are far or out of the way. I know you said you would if needed and agree that some people may mention a needs maintenance for small things. But I think that is where the CO needs to contact the person who marked it and get the particulars that are note mentioned in the note. And still, 150? That's a prime example of where others could place caches themselves. I do think there should be a limit.

 

And on that cache you mentioned that the poster connie made a NM remark based on another cachers comment, I agree. She should not of made that comment. But I did notice that it took you over two months to post a response to it.

Edited by woodsters
Link to comment

I waited to respond because I knew that cache would be fine without the cap. I was just checking to make sure there was not something else going on and like I thought it was just missing the cap to the bigger container and the actual cache was just fine. I have maintained that one a few times because it is on top of a bunch of rocks with huge gaps under them and cachers tend to drop the cache and then it is inaccessible. 150 is nothing in my area I am friends with someone with over 500. We are definitely not trying to take up the area with our hides as we are working on a streak that we have had going over 2 years. We need new ones in the area. We just also like to hide caches. If we couldn't maintain one we would archive it but it has not came to that yet. We have on several occasions placed a cache in a really cool area no one else would ever go to. There are other hide places on the way there and possibly even further out. We had a idea for a really cool one further out and a cacher told us they wanted to hide one further out. We said cool we would love to find it. We waited a year or possibly longer and there was never one placed. We finally placed one further out and that cacher went for it but couldn't make it. I told him we left a bunch of places so he could still hide one and he thanked us for that and others have expressed to us they would like to hide one out in that area. It has been another year and no one has actually done it. We like to hide them but would actually like to find them as well and not have to maintain them but not all cachers are into hiding them. We actually have some in place out there but I have not published them hoping some day someone else will. Many of ours are 5* terrain and no one else hides in a lot of the areas we go. We encourage others to go ahead and hide them in our areas so we can get some 5* terrain ones but it is not often that it happens and most of the time when it does we are there so we can't log the find.

Link to comment

If a container is cracked or wet use a "Needs Maintenence" Log, If a cache has been missing or disabled for an excessive amount of time post a "Needs Archived" Log.

 

I wouldn't necessarily throw around NA logs lightly. I think NA logs need to be for situations that are 'proven' bad or illegal cache locations - private property, construction zones, etc.

 

When a cache is missing, you log a DNF. If a cache is in need of repair, you log an NM.

 

The NA log is a heated debate. But ultimately in my personal opinion, you shouldn't log an NA log for something that's missing for an excessive amounnt of time. You shouldn't log an NA log for something that's been disabled for excessive amount of time. That is something for the Reviewer to decide. It's not OUR decision to decide - how long is an excessive amount of time?? PLUS - in most of these situations, they should be temporarily disabled by the reviewer and the owner given time to fix them. Again, Reviewers decisions to make.

Link to comment

If a container is cracked or wet use a "Needs Maintenence" Log, If a cache has been missing or disabled for an excessive amount of time post a "Needs Archived" Log.

 

I wouldn't necessarily throw around NA logs lightly. I think NA logs need to be for situations that are 'proven' bad or illegal cache locations - private property, construction zones, etc.

 

When a cache is missing, you log a DNF. If a cache is in need of repair, you log an NM.

 

The NA log is a heated debate. But ultimately in my personal opinion, you shouldn't log an NA log for something that's missing for an excessive amounnt of time. You shouldn't log an NA log for something that's been disabled for excessive amount of time. That is something for the Reviewer to decide. It's not OUR decision to decide - how long is an excessive amount of time?? PLUS - in most of these situations, they should be temporarily disabled by the reviewer and the owner given time to fix them. Again, Reviewers decisions to make.

 

This ISN'T the reviewer's job at all - the systems work best when the local community steps up to the plate and handles its own housekeeping. If this simple principle were effectively communicated and adopted by all, things would be better all round.

 

Instead we have people who get bent out of shape because somebody had the sheer nerve to post an NA on their abandoned cache after multiple NM logs ignored for months on end, and reviewers who get caught in cross-fire not of their own making - when their precious time could be invested in far, far better things than doing our housekeeping for us.

Link to comment

If a container is cracked or wet use a "Needs Maintenence" Log, If a cache has been missing or disabled for an excessive amount of time post a "Needs Archived" Log.

 

.. ultimately in my personal opinion, you shouldn't log an NA log for something that's missing for an excessive amount of time. You shouldn't log an NA log for something that's been disabled for excessive amount of time. That is something for the Reviewer to decide. It's not OUR decision to decide - how long is an excessive amount of time?? PLUS - in most of these situations, they should be temporarily disabled by the reviewer and the owner given time to fix them. Again, Reviewers decisions to make.

 

That's the point of the NA log. To get the Reviewer's attention so he/she can decide. When I put an NA on a cache I don't get to archive it.

 

A reviewer can't decide, if a reviewer doesn't know there's a problem.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Post NM or NA logs if you feel it's appropriate. Then place that cacher on you Ignore list and go on your merry way. Takes all kinds, I guess.

 

NM and NA logs are usually effective for their purposes.If someone hasn't learned responsibility by the time they are an adult it's pretty hard for geocaching to drive the point home.

 

Well I guess it's just beyond me why someone would hide a cache and not even ever want to know if it where found.
The type of person who practices saturation hiding, (what we call carpet bombing), lives by the motto that quantity trumps quality, every time. The caches they hide utilize crappy containers, in uninspired locations, with copy/paste cache pages.
Some people don't understand the 'true spirit of Geocaching'.If you find a cache that needs owner maintenance, you should say so in the log.If others have already mentioned issues but nothing has been done, then a NM is appropriate.If there are several NM logs (or it has been months with no owner response), then a NA is called for.If WE, as a community expect more, and demand it, we will get MORE. The tools are there, we just need to have the stones to use them.

 

well said fellow cachers... +1

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...