Bringing attention to a potential problem

[4wheelin_fool]

The basis of this entire line of discussion is the cache inside of the hotel. There is some sort of mentality that an NA note would archive it. It's like the reviewer has a duty to obey without any thought, and the poster is responsible for the reviewer's action. Yes, you could e-mail the reviewer, but what if they ignore you and you don't want it archived anyhow?

 

No, posting an NA log says to the reviewer, "I have discovered and verified a problem with this cache and, in my opinion, it should be archived as a result."

 

It's not rocket science, folks: If you don't want a cache archived, then DON'T POST A NEEDS ARCHIVED LOG!"

 

Additionally, you apparently didn't pay attention earlier in the thread. There was a mistaken rumor that something was wrong with the cache in the hotel. No verified problem. No reason to recommend archiving it. Yet posting an NA log (recommending archival) is the action you endorse.

 

I guess I find the ability of people to read exactly the opposite of an intended meaning into a phrase puzzling. "Needs archive" is one such phrase; it is transparently obvious what it means, yet a number of people continue to insist it means the exact opposite, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

 

Well, technically "decimate" means reduce by 10%, but for some reason it is not commonly used like that. Needs Archived is often used like a screwdriver to open a bottle of beer. It works if you use a thumb as a pivot point to pry the cap up. Your post uses caps and bold font which indicates frustration, which can be reduced with a simple verbiage change to the Needs Archive note. You haven't posted anything that convinces me otherwise, and likewise I haven't convinced you of anything, but it keeps happening. I suppose people could just yell and scream and tell them to stop posting the incorrect logs? There still isn't any indication that the hotel would welcome that cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

..

Edited March 17, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+fizzymagic]

There still isn't any indication that the hotel would welcome that cache.

 

Once again, without any evidence at all, you decide that a cache should be archived first and questions asked later.

 

And you perhaps wonder why so-called "cache cops" have such a bad reputation.

 

I give up.

[+The_Incredibles_]

The basis of this entire line of discussion is the cache inside of the hotel. There is some sort of mentality that an NA note would archive it. It's like the reviewer has a duty to obey without any thought, and the poster is responsible for the reviewer's action. Yes, you could e-mail the reviewer, but what if they ignore you and you don't want it archived anyhow?

 

No, posting an NA log says to the reviewer, "I have discovered and verified a problem with this cache and, in my opinion, it should be archived as a result."

 

It's not rocket science, folks: If you don't want a cache archived, then DON'T POST A NEEDS ARCHIVED LOG!"

 

Additionally, you apparently didn't pay attention earlier in the thread. There was a mistaken rumor that something was wrong with the cache in the hotel. No verified problem. No reason to recommend archiving it. Yet posting an NA log (recommending archival) is the action you endorse.

 

I guess I find the ability of people to read exactly the opposite of an intended meaning into a phrase puzzling. "Needs archive" is one such phrase; it is transparently obvious what it means, yet a number of people continue to insist it means the exact opposite, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

I think you take the wording "N/A" too literally.

 

Yep. It's also important to remember that it's not personal if someone posts a 'Needs Archive' on your cache. There's also no reason to panic if the reviewer does archive your cache by accident. It's easy enough for a reviewer to unarchive it.

[+Mudfrog]

I recently had occasion to be in a part of town that is home to an old and beloved cache, so I figured I would look into this "Buckhead Dragon" cache since it was so old and had so many favorite points and positive comments. Now, when I went into the Westin Hotel where it's located, I followed all the directions and when I got to "The Secret Door With The Magic Silver Bar", I saw there was a sign ON THE DOOR stating "Emergency Exit, Alarm Will Sound". Now...I get that this cache is some sort of landmark and everyone just loves it to death...but how is this one still allowed? I know in his description, he states "alarm will not sound", but in an earlier log someone stated it's a silent alarm and WILL alert security (http://coord.info/GLD1AJXR).

 

Instead of going further, I posted a note about it and just a little while ago it was deleted by the CO. Maybe to cover up the problem, maybe not...but there seems to be a problem here, particularly in light of the Found It log linked above talking about issues with hotel security. I don't WANT this to be a problem, but why should anyone searching for this cache be in the position to alert security when signage is clearly posted about the alarm? I don't want to be "that guy" that gets a cache archived, but should we really just let that stuff slide merely because it's an old cache?

 

First off, it doesn't matter if it's a new cache or an old cache. Problems concerning either should be addressed. But, a person should have first hand experience with a cache before trying to claim that there is a problem. You did start looking for this cache but you did not finish. Imo, you do not have enough information to go on.

 

Personally, i would have went ahead and tried for the cache. I would purposely take my time to see if security showed up and if they did, explain why i was there. I'd make sure to tell tham that the owner of the cache was supposed to have permission. Their response would dictate whether a NA log was in order.

[4wheelin_fool]

There still isn't any indication that the hotel would welcome that cache.

 

Once again, without any evidence at all, you decide that a cache should be archived first and questions asked later.

 

And you perhaps wonder why so-called "cache cops" have such a bad reputation.

 

I give up.

 

Yes, your mind is already made up to imagine things that were not written. Nowhere in this thread did I write that I think the cache should be archived.

[+dprovan]

Its really simple. The goal is to get issue x fixed. Not a bot like instant achival.

I use the Needs Maintenance log when my goal is to get issue x fixed. Why would you use Needs Archived for that purpose even if we changed it to Needs Reviewer Attention?

 

I use Needs Archived when Needs Maintenance failed to get issue x fixed.

 

And on the other hand, if you posted a Needs Reviewer Attention, and issue x still doesn't get fixed, then what do you do?

 

It's like the reviewer has a duty to obey without any thought, and the poster is responsible for the reviewer's action.

Wow, that's really wrong. I think it's obvious that Needs Archived implies both "in my opinion based on what I can see" and "if the probably cannot be resolved," and both of them put responsibility on the reviewer for applying a great deal of thought.

 

On the other hand, the NA poster does need to recognize that they might be responsible for the cache being archived if the problem is real and cannot be resolved. And the poster should be proud of their role in getting a problem cache archived, even if they also feel sad that the cache couldn't be fixed.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, I stated what I thought, and perhaps your mind is made up also, so I'm not going to try and change it. You can read what I wrote and interpret it any way you want, albeit incorrectly.

 

On the other hand, the NA poster does need to recognize that they might be responsible for the cache being archived if the problem is real and cannot be resolved. And the poster should be proud of their role in getting a problem cache archived, even if they also feel sad that the cache couldn't be fixed.

 

Responsibility for having a cache archived is completely on the cache owner. Nobody else can claim responsibility for their cache, not even the reviewer. If someone communicates an issue, it in no way implies that they are taking responsibility for it, only the owner can do that. This is in the TOU, and appears to be a basic and common misunderstanding on how things work. A NA may speed up or complete the process, but the cache owner is the only one responsible for what they own. Blaming the messenger for the content of the message is just plain wrong.

[Clan Riffster]

That's why a drop down checklist of different reasons for posting that note should be applied.

Wouldn't whatever text the NA poster added explain why the NA was posted? That's certainly been my experience. Something to the effect of, "Found half the container. Looks like a bush hog ate the rest. There is no logbook. This has been reported half a dozen times, over the past 3 months, with no reply by the CO, even after getting several NMs. The last time the CO logged into the site was 2 years ago, when they added a note stating they were moving out of state. I think this one needs to go away, so someone who is willing to do maintenance can hide one there". Does that really need a drop down menu? A Reviewer will see the NA in the que, check it out, and respond accordingly.

 

Something warm and fuzzy is better than a disingenuous Needs Archived, which may really mean Needs Disabled, Needs Clarification, Needs Investigation, Needs Fixing, or it may get archived.

I'm not so sure. The only real problem with those disingenuous NAs is that they all end up in the Reviewer que, and someone has to deal with them. The time they spend dealing with these could be better spent publishing caches. Not that I'm trying to minimize it. Anything which takes our Reviewers away from publishing caches is a real problem.

 

Since we've identified the problem, what solutions are available? Educating the violators? Assuming a cacher has a registered email address, any time a CO gets one of these inappropriate NA logs, they could send a nice email explaining the proper use of the NA log type. The Reviewers could even create some sort of boiler plate text to send out when they see an inappropriate NA log. This will, I believe, reduce the number of inappropriate NA logs, and, in the end, allow our Reviewers to focus on publishing.

 

Another option would be to change the name to something warm & fuzzy, such as "Pretty please, look at this itty bitty issue", so that any log posted would be considered appropriate. I believe that if Groundspeak made this change, our Reviewers would be carpet bombed with notifications, for everything from a legitimate NA issue, to someone complaining that the coords were 5' off. The logs would pile up so fast, our Reviewers would be stuck doing nothing but deal with folks who whine about minor issues.

 

A true Needs Archived is implying that the reasons are obvious, it cannot be fixed, and should be done ASAP.

That may be the case in your world. But the rest of us simply don't see it that way. In fact, I can't think of anyone, other than you, who believes that the two words, "Needs Archived", carry any kind of implied or explicit time frame. Every other person I've discussed this with figure that an "NA" means "Hey Reviewer, here's a cache with a significant problem. I'll describe what that problem is in the text of my log. The ball's in your court".

 

Then a cache owner's imagination runs wild and they get offended.

While it's true that, on rare occasions, some COs get their knickers in a twist over an 'NA' log, I'm not convinced that Groundspeak needs to change something which works perfectly well for most players. Nor, am I convinced that the personality type which is prone to twisted knickers whenever someone reports them to a Reviewer would suddenly stop getting their knickers twisted just because the log type used to tattle on them was given a new name.

[+tozainamboku]

So when to use the NA log?

 

What if a cache is findable but perhaps the container has been reported as leaking or the log is (almost) full? I think most would say that NA is going a bit too far here, but clearly some people will use it as a way to light a fire under some cache owner to make repairs, and others may use it to demonstrate the cache has been abandoned by a cache owner who is no longer in the game and "free up" the space for new caches.

 

What if the cache has been DNF'd an number of times and the owner hasn't disabled or replaced it? Do you need to post a NM first if it seems fairly obvious the owner is no longer active in the game? Or is it more proper to leave a replacement so the cache can continue to be found by others.

 

What about a cache that has been disabled for more than a few months and the owner has not posted anything? Should you post a needs maintenance or a note to ask the owner for an update, or is OK to go ahead and post NA base on the guideline that says "If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing."

 

What if you see "a potential problem"? You think there may be some guidelines violation but can't be 100% positive. Does NA mean "Reviewer, I can't tell if this is a problem, you sort it out"? Or should you first try to contact the cache owner and see if they have an explanation? And does the cache owner have any obligation to respond? Should they accept that if they don't you might follow with a NA?

 

I can see a strong argument to refrain from using a NA until there is actually a problem. It may be that the cache is missing and clearly abandoned. It may be that a land owner has put up new No Trespassing signs, so that it is now clear the cache is on private property and most likely without permission. It could be you were detained by hotel security for setting off the silent alarm in the emergency stairs. But when the NA is just used speculatively, it seems better to try other methods to determine if there is a problem rather than punt to the reviewer.

[4wheelin_fool]

That's why a drop down checklist of different reasons for posting that note should be applied.

Wouldn't whatever text the NA poster added explain why the NA was posted? That's certainly been my experience. Something to the effect of, "Found half the container. Looks like a bush hog ate the rest. There is no logbook. This has been reported half a dozen times, over the past 3 months, with no reply by the CO, even after getting several NMs. The last time the CO logged into the site was 2 years ago, when they added a note stating they were moving out of state. I think this one needs to go away, so someone who is willing to do maintenance can hide one there". Does that really need a drop down menu? A Reviewer will see the NA in the que, check it out, and respond accordingly.

One reason for the drop down menu is to prevent NAs being posted in place of DNFs, which happens frequently. The option "multiple DNFs" would have to be checked, and then at that point they could add more details. What we have now are clowns posting NAs when they cannot find something, without anyone else posting a DNF.

 

Something warm and fuzzy is better than a disingenuous Needs Archived, which may really mean Needs Disabled, Needs Clarification, Needs Investigation, Needs Fixing, or it may get archived.

I'm not so sure. The only real problem with those disingenuous NAs is that they all end up in the Reviewer que, and someone has to deal with them. The time they spend dealing with these could be better spent publishing caches. Not that I'm trying to minimize it. Anything which takes our Reviewers away from publishing caches is a real problem.

 

Since we've identified the problem, what solutions are available? Educating the violators? Assuming a cacher has a registered email address, any time a CO gets one of these inappropriate NA logs, they could send a nice email explaining the proper use of the NA log type. The Reviewers could even create some sort of boiler plate text to send out when they see an inappropriate NA log. This will, I believe, reduce the number of inappropriate NA logs, and, in the end, allow our Reviewers to focus on publishing.

 

Another option would be to change the name to something warm & fuzzy, such as "Pretty please, look at this itty bitty issue", so that any log posted would be considered appropriate. I believe that if Groundspeak made this change, our Reviewers would be carpet bombed with notifications, for everything from a legitimate NA issue, to someone complaining that the coords were 5' off. The logs would pile up so fast, our Reviewers would be stuck doing nothing but deal with folks who whine about minor issues.

Not if there was a drop down menu to provide strict options for posting the log. It would be unlikely for anyone to post that coords were off by 5 feet, when the option said 30 or 40, and only after a NM was ignored for over 30 days.

 

A true Needs Archived is implying that the reasons are obvious, it cannot be fixed, and should be done ASAP.

That may be the case in your world. But the rest of us simply don't see it that way. In fact, I can't think of anyone, other than you, who believes that the two words, "Needs Archived", carry any kind of implied or explicit time frame. Every other person I've discussed this with figure that an "NA" means "Hey Reviewer, here's a cache with a significant problem. I'll describe what that problem is in the text of my log. The ball's in your court".

That appears to conflict with an earlier statement..

Oddly enough, of the roughly 80 gazillion geocachers I know, not a single one utilizes the 'Needs Archived' log type to suggest that a cache may need to be looked at by a Reviewer. Every single one of these 80 gazillion people, (maybe a slight exaggeration?), use the 'Needs Archived' log type to proclaim that, in their opinion, a particular cache needs to be archived.

 

While it's true that, on rare occasions, some COs get their knickers in a twist over an 'NA' log, I'm not convinced that Groundspeak needs to change something which works perfectly well for most players. Nor, am I convinced that the personality type which is prone to twisted knickers whenever someone reports them to a Reviewer would suddenly stop getting their knickers twisted just because the log type used to tattle on them was given a new name.

I think it would. It does work perfectly well for many players, but could use improvement. There is a very large amount of people who sign up, find a few, hide a few, and then lose interest. In another thread it was shown that more people have lost interest than the amount of people that currently play. This log type is one of those things which hasn't changed and should be adjusted IMO.

Edited March 18, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+dprovan]

Well, I stated what I thought, and perhaps your mind is made up also, so I'm not going to try and change it. You can read what I wrote and interpret it any way you want, albeit incorrectly.

 

On the other hand, the NA poster does need to recognize that they might be responsible for the cache being archived if the problem is real and cannot be resolved. And the poster should be proud of their role in getting a problem cache archived, even if they also feel sad that the cache couldn't be fixed.

Responsibility for having a cache archived is completely on the cache owner. Nobody else can claim responsibility for their cache, not even the reviewer. If someone communicates an issue, it in no way implies that they are taking responsibility for it, only the owner can do that. This is in the TOU, and appears to be a basic and common misunderstanding on how things work. A NA may speed up or complete the process, but the cache owner is the only one responsible for what they own. Blaming the messenger for the content of the message is just plain wrong.

I agree completely. I think this is a good argument against changing the name. Why try to make the message seem more palatable to a CO ready to inappropriately blame the messager for the CO's own failure?

 

As I tried to express, the person that posts the NA shouldn't be blamed, they should be thanked.

[+dprovan]

Does anyone, as a CO, want NA changed to Needs Reviewer Attention? I keep trying to imagine it from the CO's point of view. Some COs will recognize it as a renamed NA and react the same way. Some might even recognize it as a camouflaged NA and be additionally offended by the subterfuge. Many will see it as just another kind of NM.

 

The argument in favor of the rename seems to assume the CO's reaction will be in a very precise and, in my opinion, unlikely range: on the one hand, considering the NRA as a major kick in the pants just like an NA, while, on the other hand, not considering it as offensive as an NA because it doesn't technically suggest archival.

 

Am I missing something? Or do people actually think this seemingly paradoxical reaction will be typical? Or is the point of renaming NA entirely because of how the poster views the log, not how the CO will react to it?

[Clan Riffster]

]

One reason for the drop down menu is to prevent NAs being posted in place of DNFs, which happens frequently. The option "multiple DNFs" would have to be checked, and then at that point they could add more details. What we have now are clowns posting NAs when they cannot find something, without anyone else posting a DNF.

 

I'm not sure calling them "clowns" is going to accomplish much, but I understand where you're coming from. It's frustrating when you see an 'NA' posted for what most would consider inappropriate reasons. I still see education, on a personal level, as the best way of combating this problem, as opposed to adding a drop down menu. Especially since the problem is so infrequent. I suspect that, even with the drop boxes in play, those few folks who are prone to posting an 'NA' when the situation probably calls for an 'NM' will continue to do so. Not because they are clowns, but rather, because they haven't been educated in the proper use of the much maligned 'NA'.

 

It would be unlikely for anyone to post that coords were off by 5 feet, when the option said 30 or 40, and only after a NM was ignored for over 30 days.

It almost seems like you want to use the drop down boxes as some sort of preloaded educational tool? If that's the angle you're shooting for, I applaud your efforts. I'm just not sure you would see the expected benefits. I think that someone who is capable of believing that a cache needs to be archived because the coords are off by 5', (or any other silly reason), will still post inappropriate 'NA' logs. Forcing the rest of us to wade through a bunch of drop down boxes, when we already know how to properly utilize an 'NA' strikes me as kind of backwards.

 

That appears to conflict with an earlier statement..

Sorry. I'm just not seeing it.

One describes the purpose, whilst the other describes the process.

 

This log type is one of those things which hasn't changed and should be adjusted IMO.

We may have to simply agree to disagree here. Nothing wrong with that. What other log types haven't changed? Found It? Needs Maintenance? Write Note? Should these be changed as well? It seems that the 'NA' log works properly for the vast majority of players. The old axiom of fixing something which isn't broken comes to mind.

[Clan Riffster]

Does anyone, as a CO, want NA changed to Needs Reviewer Attention?

This CO does not.

[+NeverSummer]

Does anyone, as a CO, want NA changed to Needs Reviewer Attention?

This CO does not.

I'll second that motion. (Oh, sorry...too much House of Cards these last couple days!)

[+Mudfrog]

Does anyone, as a CO, want NA changed to Needs Reviewer Attention? I keep trying to imagine it from the CO's point of view. Some COs will recognize it as a renamed NA and react the same way. Some might even recognize it as a camouflaged NA and be additionally offended by the subterfuge. Many will see it as just another kind of NM.

 

The argument in favor of the rename seems to assume the CO's reaction will be in a very precise and, in my opinion, unlikely range: on the one hand, considering the NRA as a major kick in the pants just like an NA, while, on the other hand, not considering it as offensive as an NA because it doesn't technically suggest archival.

 

Am I missing something? Or do people actually think this seemingly paradoxical reaction will be typical? Or is the point of renaming NA entirely because of how the poster views the log, not how the CO will react to it?

 

I don't see the point in making a change as it results in the same sequence of events. A "needs archive" seems to be more of an assertive phrase which i think is good for the most part. I think it has a better chance of getting a CO to react by checking on their cache a bit quicker.

[+Sagefox]

Does anyone, as a CO, want NA changed to Needs Reviewer Attention?

 

Nope.