Jump to content

Bringing attention to a potential problem


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

There is still the issue of the CO deleting this log and not contacting the OP to determine if there was a problem with the cache.

There seem to be some people who feel that this action by the CO is reason enough to archive the cache.

 

I've read the thread again and do not see this anywhere. I can only surmise that either you did not read the responses closely, are using hyperbole, or trying to mind read. Although some people may imagine an NA log incurring the wrath of the gods, and having Zeus toss bolts of lightning down upon the innocents, while streaming flames of fire and molten ash sending people fleeing naked, screaming in anguish amid the smell of brimstone and burning flesh, all it really does is notify a volunteer to take a closer look at it. In this case that seems warranted.

 

I'm sure that many would not like to respond to false alarms, likewise many would not like to generate false alarms either. There is no way to filter these out without some form of investigation or basic communication. It still appears that the hotel may not welcome the cache, although it is unlikely to cause any concern soon.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

There is still the issue of the CO deleting this log and not contacting the OP to determine if there was a problem with the cache.

There seem to be some people who feel that this action by the CO is reason enough to archive the cache.

 

I've read the thread again and do not see this anywhere. I can only surmise that either you did not read the responses closely, are using hyperbole, or trying to mind read.

 

Nope. Read the very first response. Apparently you didn't read the thread again very carefully.

 

In fact, I will quote it in case following the link is not clear enough:

 

Since the CO deleted your note pointing out the problem it seems a NA log pointing out it is a silent alarm and security is tired of dealing with it. Then the CO can sort it out with the reviewer.

 

Remember, "NA" stands for "Needs Archived" which is a recommendation to the reviewer that the cache be archived. It does not mean "take a closer look at this cache just in case," despite how several people in this thread try to spin it.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

There is still the issue of the CO deleting this log and not contacting the OP to determine if there was a problem with the cache.

There seem to be some people who feel that this action by the CO is reason enough to archive the cache.

 

I've read the thread again and do not see this anywhere. I can only surmise that either you did not read the responses closely, are using hyperbole, or trying to mind read.

 

Nope. Read the very first response. Apparently you didn't read the thread again very carefully.

 

In fact, I will quote it in case following the link is not clear enough:

 

Since the CO deleted your note pointing out the problem it seems a NA log pointing out it is a silent alarm and security is tired of dealing with it. Then the CO can sort it out with the reviewer.

 

Remember, "NA" stands for "Needs Archived" which is a recommendation to the reviewer that the cache be archived. It does not mean "take a closer look at this cache just in case," despite how several people in this thread try to spin it.

 

That's not how it is commonly used. All an NA log does is notify a reviewer to take a look at it, and thats how many intend it. This is why we have threads requesting to change it to Needs Reviewer Attention. I understand that there are reviewers that do not want to be bothered for minor events, which is how more lackeys get hired. Ignoring issues or pushing them onto others does not make them go away. It would be great if people didn't push that button for false alarms, but it is not going away anytime soon. I suppose one could act annoyed and surprised every time it happens, or accept it and respond appropriately.

Link to comment

But, it is important to recognize that, when a cache creates a situation, or is the situation where permission, legality, etc. are in question, the cache should be "policed" just as the game was designed.

 

It is also important to recognize that the final report by the OP shows the importance of hands on experience when reporting issues.

Link to comment

 

Since the CO deleted your note pointing out the problem it seems a NA log pointing out it is a silent alarm and security is tired of dealing with it. Then the CO can sort it out with the reviewer.

 

Remember, "NA" stands for "Needs Archived" which is a recommendation to the reviewer that the cache be archived. It does not mean "take a closer look at this cache just in case," despite how several people in this thread try to spin it.

Truth. But, when the game was created and this log type put to use, there was a much more clear need for self-policing of this game. There wasn't a network of Reviewers in every region, and there weren't enough "trial runs" of the game to know where and when every possible problem could arise. What was at one time a rather cut-and-dry "Needs Archived" log for something like trespass or lack of permission is now muddled by clearer guidelines and more volunteer and employee involvement in guideline and gameplay enforcement.

 

What was once the "Needs Archived" has simply evolved to mean that a cache needs to be looked at by eyes other than the sole cache seeker logging the NA. As stated, sometimes there is context of a hide and permissions, etc that a Reviewer can see that a seeker cannot. Also, an owner is called to task for being non-responsive to issues that a seeker might have with trespass, permissions, or simply finding the cache.

 

Whereas owners used to be active, responsive and helpful about finding and logging their caches, the game has evolved to where an owner is trying to "hide" caches from cachers. The game was once about hiding caches to be found to test GPS accuracy without Selective Availability. Then it became about hiding caches to be found by geocachers, but not by "muggles". Now for some it's about hiding it from everyone, and some owners no longer thinking they should hide caches to be found--to the point of thinking those who can't or don't find yet log a Note, NM, or NA log are overstepping some invisible boundary of gameplay and upsetting the matrix.

 

The cache may not need to be archived, but to that seeker the evidence points that it does. If the owner remains calm and addresses the seeker with kindness, the NA log can serve as an opportunity to be constructive and clear about problems someone might be having with the cache--be it trespass, permission, or just finding the nano dangling 50' up in a forest of trees.

 

So, "Needs" Archived? Perhaps not. But that is still no reason to get worked up about someone logging it on your (or someone else's) cache. One's perception is their reality. That reality is the evidence. And sometimes that evidence is misleading. Other times it is spot on. But I like to leave it to the owner to kindly and constructively let me know what I might be missing, or for a Reviewer to address why a cache is on private property with signs that make it seem like there shouldn't be a cache there according to the guidelines.

 

But, it is important to recognize that, when a cache creates a situation, or is the situation where permission, legality, etc. are in question, the cache should be "policed" just as the game was designed.

 

It is also important to recognize that the final report by the OP shows the importance of hands on experience when reporting issues.

Yup. When the case was made in the OP, it wasn't out of the question to post a NA. The discussion by the cache owner and Reviewer could have clarified that the cache was/was not in breach of the guidelines.

 

One can only report what they have evidence for. Once JGrouchy went back and found more evidence, the case changed and rendered the OP moot. However, had JGrouchy not returned, a NA would not have been something heinous to post to the cache.

 

Therein is where some people's blood is starting to boil. "Don't post a NA for this!" some will say. But, I have a difference of opinion of NA logs. There is no reason to let yourself get in a tizzy about a NA log. Either everything is in order and up to muster, or it isn't. If it isn't then the cache is either changed to meet the guidelines or it is archived. If it is up to muster, then the owner can post an OM log stating what the NA logger might have missed or misunderstood. There is no reason to get upset if we were the CO, the OP, or we the readers of this thread if a NA was logged for a cache such as this.

Link to comment

What was once the "Needs Archived" has simply evolved to mean that a cache needs to be looked at by eyes other than the sole cache seeker logging the NA. As stated, sometimes there is context of a hide and permissions, etc that a Reviewer can see that a seeker cannot. Also, an owner is called to task for being non-responsive to issues that a seeker might have with trespass, permissions, or simply finding the cache.

It has been requested many times that Groundspeak change the NA log to something like "Needs Reviewer Attention". Even some reviewers have come out in favor of this change hoping that people who are afraid to use Needs Archive might be more inclined to post this log.

 

But Groundspeak has not acted on this request and perhaps this shows a different thought about how the log should be used.

 

The guidelines for cache publication serve a couple of purposes, and to the degree that these are guidelines and not rules, perhaps they should be viewed in the context of the these purposes.

 

Clearly, reviewers look that the available information when a cache is submitted in making a determination of whether or not to publish a cache. Some reviewers like to strictly enforce guidelines and may even ask for additional information before publishing. Others are a bit less strict and basically only look for the most obvious violations of guidelines. What I think motivates most reviewers is an attempt to be fair and not play favorites. If a cache appears to pass muster the reviewer will publish it. Some reviewers may even give a little leeway (500 feet instead of 528) or make exceptions in cases where Groundspeak still allows the reviewer that flexibility.

 

Once a cache is published, I see the guidelines as providing the mechanism for Groundspeak and reviewers to deal with problems that arise. The most common may be lack of maintenance, but sometimes permission gets revoked (maybe a land owner puts up a fence or new no trespassing signs) or something in the situation of the cache changes. When a problem is reported the reviewer can quote the relevant guideline when archiving the listing, or maybe let the cache owner have an opportunity to take corrective action before archiving the cache.

 

I see the NA as being there to inform the reviewer that there is a problem with the cache, not a a way to second guess the reviewer's initial decision to publish or even to report an issue that reviewer would not have known about from the cache page. Groundspeak knows that many caches that aren't up to the current guidelines exist without causing any problem. Maybe that is why most guidelines grandfather older caches. They know as well that in many cases land owner/managers have given permission for (and even requested) hiding styles and techniques that are technically violating some guideline. Rather than having every cacher out there reporting every assumed guideline violation, I suspect that Groundspeak and certainly many reviewers, would prefer the NA log be reserved for when an actual problem arises.

 

There may be cases where a potential for problem is serious enough that someone feels the reviewer or Groundspeak should be informed, and there are no doubt that sometimes a cacher is either uncomfortable confronting the cache owner directly with their concerns, or has tried to confront the cache owner and has gotten a less than satisfactory response. In these case many cachers avoid the NA log by contacting the reviewer or Groundspeak privately. Others, may have no problem using the NA log.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Remember, "NA" stands for "Needs Archived" which is a recommendation to the reviewer that the cache be archived. It does not mean "take a closer look at this cache just in case," despite how several people in this thread try to spin it.

That's not how it is commonly used.

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. I realize that there is a small minority of players in the forums who feel that this log type should be used for caches which, rather than actually needing archiving, simply need some Reviewer's attention, but I don't think this minuscule fraction should be misrepresented as being a majority.

Link to comment

Remember, "NA" stands for "Needs Archived" which is a recommendation to the reviewer that the cache be archived. It does not mean "take a closer look at this cache just in case," despite how several people in this thread try to spin it.

That's not how it is commonly used.

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. I realize that there is a small minority of players in the forums who feel that this log type should be used for caches which, rather than actually needing archiving, simply need some Reviewer's attention, but I don't think this minuscule fraction should be misrepresented as being a majority.

 

Well, I did due to a hide in which the coordinates were intentionally 60 feet off. The owner so much as admitted it in an email. I made it clear that I did not think it should be archived, but just have the coordinates changed, in which the CO was unwilling to do. The reviewer never responded, and the CO just archived it anyway without any explanation about a month later. It was a great hide in a nice spot. Oh well.

 

Around here a cache often gets reviewer attention, without any type of request. Simply 3DNFs, and it gets disabled. I can't say I agree with this policy. Many cachers are not obsessed enough to run out and check each time, as this is just a mere hobby to them, so often they get archived a month later. Although in most cases it is justified, there are still plenty that aren't and end up being geotrash. This has resulted in cachers placing NAs in an attempt to spur maintenance, not necessarily archival.

 

The problem with NAs is that there is no middle ground, so often most people are reluctant to post it. Most people don't want a cache to be archived, only repaired or have an issue clarified. No trespassing signs are often left up after a property has changed hands. Sometimes they are placed by neighbors, or only intended to keep hunters out, not hikers. With an NA there is a much greater probability of getting the CO unnecessarily offended.

Link to comment

The problem with NAs is that there is no middle ground, so often most people are reluctant to post it. Most people don't want a cache to be archived, only repaired or have an issue clarified.

If what they only want is for the cache to be repaired or an issue clarified, can't they just post a Needs Maintenance? That, in my opinion, would be the middle ground.

Link to comment

The problem with NAs is that there is no middle ground, so often most people are reluctant to post it. Most people don't want a cache to be archived, only repaired or have an issue clarified.

If what they only want is for the cache to be repaired or an issue clarified, can't they just post a Needs Maintenance? That, in my opinion, would be the middle ground.

 

In my area, generally, 1 or 2 Needs Maintenance logs are posted first. If the cache owner doesn't respond, then someone posts a Needs Archive.

 

I agree with others who have said that 'Needs Archive' requests don't always mean 'this cache should be archived'. Sometimes it does. However, most often what it means is 'The cache owner is not responding to a string of DNFs and/or Needs Maintenance requests. It looks like either the cache is missing or it's in really bad shape. We'd really love for this cache to be back in action or for the space to be freed up. Please, dear Reviewer, please put a bit of pressure on the cache owner and if they don't respond, please put this cache out of its misery. Thank you.'

 

In our area, I have noticed that about 25%-33% of Needs Archive requests result in a negligent cache owner replacing their cache. This is a GOOD thing.

Link to comment

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. I realize that there is a small minority of players in the forums who feel that this log type should be used for caches which, rather than actually needing archiving, simply need some Reviewer's attention, but I don't think this minuscule fraction should be misrepresented as being a majority.

Agreed. The forums should never be considered a representation of cachers as a whole. The forums are a self-selecting sample. I would say if you took the typical cacher off the street and asked them "When should you use a 'Needs Archived' log and they would say 'If I think a cache needs to be archived'."

Link to comment

In my area, generally, 1 or 2 Needs Maintenance logs are posted first. If the cache owner doesn't respond, then someone posts a Needs Archive.

That's how it's done in my area, too, and what makes sense to me. That's what I mean: the middle ground is a balanced discussion of the problem between peers via NMs without using "Needs Archived (or even "Needs Reviewer Attention") to call Big Brother Reviewer to stand behind me with his baseball bat.

 

I agree with others who have said that 'Needs Archive' requests don't always mean 'this cache should be archived'. Sometimes it does. However, most often what it means is 'The cache owner is not responding to a string of DNFs and/or Needs Maintenance requests. It looks like either the cache is missing or it's in really bad shape. We'd really love for this cache to be back in action or for the space to be freed up. Please, dear Reviewer, please put a bit of pressure on the cache owner and if they don't respond, please put this cache out of its misery. Thank you.'

I'm sorry, but that's just a long winded way to say "Needs Archived" while pretending you're not. If that's what you want the NA to say, that just say that in the NA. We don't need to change the name of the log type just because some think it's sometimes better to beat around the bush about what they think the fate of this cache should be if the problem continues to be ignored.

 

In our area, I have noticed that about 25%-33% of Needs Archive requests result in a negligent cache owner replacing their cache. This is a GOOD thing.

Fortunately the COs in my area are more responsive, so while it does happen, it's fairly rare for an NA to suddenly wake up a CO that's been ignoring a problem already reported with NMs. (After eventual archival by the reviewer, the second most common result here is a CO recognizing that they're not interested enough in the cache to fix the problem and immediately archiving it themselves.) I suppose that's one reason I'm not sympathetic to the idea that we should pretend NAs don't lead to archivals.

 

But since I'm not in those areas with those COs, I wonder if changing NA to "Needs Reviewer Attention" would just encourage COs that have been ignoring NMs to ignore the NRA since the whole point of renaming NA to NRA is to remove the threat of archival. I want the CO to understand that this is the last chance.

Link to comment

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. I realize that there is a small minority of players in the forums who feel that this log type should be used for caches which, rather than actually needing archiving, simply need some Reviewer's attention, but I don't think this minuscule fraction should be misrepresented as being a majority.

Agreed. The forums should never be considered a representation of cachers as a whole. The forums are a self-selecting sample. I would say if you took the typical cacher off the street and asked them "When should you use a 'Needs Archived' log and they would say 'If I think a cache needs to be archived'."

 

In my area, the vast majority of NA logs are not because the log poster has decided that a cache needs to be archived. It is because there are outstanding issues with a cache that not being addressed by the CO. The log is posted to notify one of my areas three reviewers so they can make a determination if the cache in question needs to be archived.

 

There are very few situations where I am certain that a cache needs to be archived, and since I have no access to, or knowledge of any past communication between a CO and the reviewers, I prefer to let the reviewers know of a situation and let them decide what the best course of action would be. There is only one log that serves to notify the reviewers and unfortunately, it's misnamed as "Needs Archived".

 

While I understand what the log is designed to do, I also see how some look at the log title as a statement. It's Cacher A telling Cacher B that their cache should not exist, and they take that personally.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

 

That's how it's done in my area, too, and what makes sense to me. That's what I mean: the middle ground is a balanced discussion of the problem between peers via NMs without using "Needs Archived (or even "Needs Reviewer Attention") to call Big Brother Reviewer to stand behind me with his baseball bat.

 

Big brother with a baseball bat? Really? It's sad that you have the opinion that reviewers are to be used for me to bully you into fixing your cache.

 

Fortunately the COs in my area are more responsive, so while it does happen, it's fairly rare for an NA to suddenly wake up a CO that's been ignoring a problem already reported with NMs. (After eventual archival by the reviewer, the second most common result here is a CO recognizing that they're not interested enough in the cache to fix the problem and immediately archiving it themselves.) I suppose that's one reason I'm not sympathetic to the idea that we should pretend NAs don't lead to archivals.

 

But since I'm not in those areas with those COs, I wonder if changing NA to "Needs Reviewer Attention" would just encourage COs that have been ignoring NMs to ignore the NRA since the whole point of renaming NA to NRA is to remove the threat of archival. I want the CO to understand that this is the last chance.

 

It's amazing that you weigh in on this every time it comes up yet can't seem to grasp the concept of the problem itself. The point of changing the log is not to remove the threat of archival. It's to remove the idea that you may think that I am taking an adversarial position towards you by declaring to the world that your cache shouldn't exist.

Link to comment

That's how it's done in my area, too, and what makes sense to me. That's what I mean: the middle ground is a balanced discussion of the problem between peers via NMs without using "Needs Archived (or even "Needs Reviewer Attention") to call Big Brother Reviewer to stand behind me with his baseball bat.

 

So you feel that the possibility of taking a geocache offline is similar to an Orwellian image of physical violence?

That's precisely why the name should be changed to Needs Reviewer Attention, because some feel emotionally battered from a simple NA log.

Link to comment

Well, I did due to a hide in which the coordinates were intentionally 60 feet off. The owner so much as admitted it in an email. I made it clear that I did not think it should be archived, but just have the coordinates changed, in which the CO was unwilling to do.

In my opinion, if the owner intentionally posted soft coordinates, and when called out, refused to correct them, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away.

 

However, most often what it means is 'The cache owner is not responding to a string of DNFs and/or Needs Maintenance requests. It looks like either the cache is missing or it's in really bad shape'.

In my opinion, if a cache owner refuses to respond to multiple notifications of significant issues, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away. You can sugar coat it all you want, with language such as 'Pretty please, take a peek at this itty bitty problem', but that doesn't change the fact that the cache needs to be gone.

Link to comment

That's precisely why the name should be changed to Needs Reviewer Attention, because some feel emotionally battered from a simple NA log.

You may be right. Certainly, there are folks out there who react to a "NA" as if you just kicked their puppy. My gut reaction is to tell these folks to grow thicker skin, but such snark typically doesn't win folks over. My biggest concern with the oft proposed name change is that I fear folks will be much more willing to post them. Whilst this might, on the face of it, seem like a great thing, I fear that this will seriously hamper our Reviewers from their primary task; publishing caches. Maybe this is just me being paranoid? I really don't know what the workload is for the average Reviewer. Would a sudden 10% influx of NA logs, (or NRA logs), bog them down? What about a 50% increase? 75%?

Link to comment

Well, I did due to a hide in which the coordinates were intentionally 60 feet off. The owner so much as admitted it in an email. I made it clear that I did not think it should be archived, but just have the coordinates changed, in which the CO was unwilling to do.

In my opinion, if the owner intentionally posted soft coordinates, and when called out, refused to correct them, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away.

 

However, most often what it means is 'The cache owner is not responding to a string of DNFs and/or Needs Maintenance requests. It looks like either the cache is missing or it's in really bad shape'.

In my opinion, if a cache owner refuses to respond to multiple notifications of significant issues, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away. You can sugar coat it all you want, with language such as 'Pretty please, take a peek at this itty bitty problem', but that doesn't change the fact that the cache needs to be gone.

 

They both need to be disabled for a month first. If there is no correction, at that pount they need to go away.

 

Personally, I don't like Needs Reviewer Attention too much, but it certainly is better than Needs Archived. What I think would work best is simply a Flag. When posting a Flag, a drop down list of conditions would appear and one could be checked, along with user comments.

  • Needed maintenance for over 90 days
  • Multiple DNFs
  • Coords off by more than 30 feet
  • Legal property access issues
  • Other

 

When a cache is flagged, a reviewer could look at it and decide what to do next. Saying "this needs archived" is being a little pushy and not necessarily the right thing to do. The cache that I encountered with deliberate soft coords should have been disabled for a month to give the owner a chance to do the right thing. An ammo can with an excellent view is better off being fixed, even if the owner is a douchebag.

Link to comment

The cache that I encountered with deliberate soft coords should have been disabled for a month to give the owner a chance to do the right thing. An ammo can with an excellent view is better off being fixed, even if the owner is a douchebag.

I think disabling it for a month is fairly standard, when a cache gets a Needs Archived log. That month is a grace period for the owner to turn it into a cache which does not need to be archived. I'll grant you that an ammo can with an excellent view is a good thing. If the one you described got archived, the spot would be opened up to someone who was willing to follow the guidelines.

Link to comment

Well, I did due to a hide in which the coordinates were intentionally 60 feet off. The owner so much as admitted it in an email. I made it clear that I did not think it should be archived, but just have the coordinates changed, in which the CO was unwilling to do.

In my opinion, if the owner intentionally posted soft coordinates, and when called out, refused to correct them, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away.

 

And, in my opinion, the cache does not need to be archived. It needs to have the CO post a corrected coordinates log with the proper coordinates. In many cases, it takes someone more important than me or you to prompt them to do so. The reviewer can do so through a Reviewer's Note. If they don't respond to that in a timely manner, then the reviewer can take whatever action that may be necessary, up to archiving the cache.

Link to comment

Well, I did due to a hide in which the coordinates were intentionally 60 feet off. The owner so much as admitted it in an email. I made it clear that I did not think it should be archived, but just have the coordinates changed, in which the CO was unwilling to do.

In my opinion, if the owner intentionally posted soft coordinates, and when called out, refused to correct them, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away.

 

However, most often what it means is 'The cache owner is not responding to a string of DNFs and/or Needs Maintenance requests. It looks like either the cache is missing or it's in really bad shape'.

In my opinion, if a cache owner refuses to respond to multiple notifications of significant issues, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away. You can sugar coat it all you want, with language such as 'Pretty please, take a peek at this itty bitty problem', but that doesn't change the fact that the cache needs to be gone.

 

They both need to be disabled for a month first. If there is no correction, at that pount they need to go away.

 

Personally, I don't like Needs Reviewer Attention too much, but it certainly is better than Needs Archived. What I think would work best is simply a Flag. When posting a Flag, a drop down list of conditions would appear and one could be checked, along with user comments.

  • Needed maintenance for over 90 days
  • Multiple DNFs
  • Coords off by more than 30 feet
  • Legal property access issues
  • Other

 

When a cache is flagged, a reviewer could look at it and decide what to do next. Saying "this needs archived" is being a little pushy and not necessarily the right thing to do. The cache that I encountered with deliberate soft coords should have been disabled for a month to give the owner a chance to do the right thing. An ammo can with an excellent view is better off being fixed, even if the owner is a douchebag.

 

How about a simple "Also notify Reviewer" check box when posting a needs maintenance log. Even better, when the third unanswered NM gets posted, the reviewer automatically gets a copy.

Link to comment

...the name should be changed to Needs Reviewer Attention...

My biggest concern with the oft proposed name change is that I fear folks will be much more willing to post them. Whilst this might, on the face of it, seem like a great thing, I fear that this will seriously hamper our Reviewers from their primary task; publishing caches.

 

I agree.

Link to comment

My two cents...

 

If too many alarms, silent or otherwise, warrant investigation by hotel staff or the police, the person setting off the alarm is charged with the cost of responding to the alarm. With all the hidden cameras, capturing license plate numbers, etc. makes it really easy to identify the offenders. If a cacher is uncomfortable with this, just don't do the cache. I personally question the ethics of the cache owner.

 

As far as reviewers go, they make judgement calls. There is a cache in my area that is a skirt lifter smack dab in the middle of a public elementary school parking lot (literally 50 feet from the bus drop off and about 200 yards from the entrance to the school), yet the reviewers here do not see this as a violation or problem, no matter how many notes are sent. The state I moved from 3 years ago consider this a MAJOR violation, and would never allow a cache to be placed on school grounds. Here, it does not seem to be a problem.

Link to comment

Well, I did due to a hide in which the coordinates were intentionally 60 feet off. The owner so much as admitted it in an email. I made it clear that I did not think it should be archived, but just have the coordinates changed, in which the CO was unwilling to do.

In my opinion, if the owner intentionally posted soft coordinates, and when called out, refused to correct them, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away.

 

However, most often what it means is 'The cache owner is not responding to a string of DNFs and/or Needs Maintenance requests. It looks like either the cache is missing or it's in really bad shape'.

In my opinion, if a cache owner refuses to respond to multiple notifications of significant issues, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away. You can sugar coat it all you want, with language such as 'Pretty please, take a peek at this itty bitty problem', but that doesn't change the fact that the cache needs to be gone.

 

They both need to be disabled for a month first. If there is no correction, at that pount they need to go away.

 

Personally, I don't like Needs Reviewer Attention too much, but it certainly is better than Needs Archived. What I think would work best is simply a Flag. When posting a Flag, a drop down list of conditions would appear and one could be checked, along with user comments.

  • Needed maintenance for over 90 days
  • Multiple DNFs
  • Coords off by more than 30 feet
  • Legal property access issues
  • Other

 

When a cache is flagged, a reviewer could look at it and decide what to do next. Saying "this needs archived" is being a little pushy and not necessarily the right thing to do. The cache that I encountered with deliberate soft coords should have been disabled for a month to give the owner a chance to do the right thing. An ammo can with an excellent view is better off being fixed, even if the owner is a douchebag.

 

This is probably the best idea yet.

 

I agree that changing 'Needs Archived' to 'Needs Reviewer Attention' will cause it to be overused.

 

Flags are a great idea.

Link to comment

Well, I did due to a hide in which the coordinates were intentionally 60 feet off. The owner so much as admitted it in an email. I made it clear that I did not think it should be archived, but just have the coordinates changed, in which the CO was unwilling to do.

In my opinion, if the owner intentionally posted soft coordinates, and when called out, refused to correct them, this perfectly describes a cache which needs to be archived. It doesn't need a Reviewer's attention. It needs to go away.

 

And, in my opinion, the cache does not need to be archived. It needs to have the CO post a corrected coordinates log with the proper coordinates.

If it were just a case of intentionally soft coordinates, (guessing the CO thought they were being clever?), I would agree that this was a pretty minor issue. But once the CO was made aware of the problem, asked to correct it, and became obstinate, outright refusing to correct the issue, it is no longer a minor issue. Now, it's a jerk deliberately flaunting the guidelines with their cache. That's not something that belongs in this hobby.

Link to comment

It's amazing that you weigh in on this every time it comes up yet can't seem to grasp the concept of the problem itself. The point of changing the log is not to remove the threat of archival. It's to remove the idea that you may think that I am taking an adversarial position towards you by declaring to the world that your cache shouldn't exist.

The NA or the "Needs Reviewer Attention" log announces that the problems raised have not been addressed to your satisfaction through our normal peer oriented mechanism, and the problem is so bad that, rather than just moving on, you feel an authority needs to be called in to mediate. That is adversarial, whether you like it or not, and whether you want to admit it or not.

 

You tell me that some people react badly to your perfectly reasonable opposition to what's going on with their cache. Their reaction is the real problem here, and I object to changing the valid name of the log entry to appease such people. (Although in this case, I can't help but wonder if your tendency to tell people what they can't seem to grasp has something to do with the negative reactions you've experienced.)

 

Big brother with a baseball bat? Really? It's sad that you have the opinion that reviewers are to be used for me to bully you into fixing your cache.

That's not my opinion of the reviewers. That's my opinion of people abusing the power of reviewers by calling one into the disagreement they're having with a CO and then pretending it's not their fault that the reviewer's only power is to archive the cache.

Link to comment

Personally, I don't like Needs Reviewer Attention too much, but it certainly is better than Needs Archived. What I think would work best is simply a Flag. When posting a Flag, a drop down list of conditions would appear and one could be checked, along with user comments.

I think this takes the passive-agressiveness of "Needs Reviewer Attention" to a whole new level. Now, in addition to pretending you're not really calling for archival if nothing is done, you want to implement a way of quietly nudging the reviewer with your elbow instead of making a clear, specific case in public.

 

If the problem is serious enough to call for reviewer attention, then it dang well better be straightforward to present precise justifications. It strikes me as disrespectful to think pulling boilerplate from a drop-down list would be sufficient.

 

(I still admit to having a hard time even imagining COs that have such negative reactions to NAs, but this is the second time today I'm thinking I might be getting a little insight into why it might happen: do some people really post NAs with nothing more than "Multiple DNFs" as the text?)

Link to comment

do some people really post NAs with nothing more than "Multiple DNFs" as the text?)

I've only been playing for about 9 years, so I haven't seen with my own eyes a case of someone posting an 'NA' for woefully inappropriate reasons. But it gets mentioned often enough in the forums that I do believe it happens on rare occasions. A vocal minority in the forums feels that the solution to this rare problem is to change the 'Needs Archived' log type to a 'Needs Reviewer Attention' log type. Personally, I'd rather our efforts went to educating the folks who occasionally use the 'NA' inappropriately.

Link to comment

Personally, I don't like Needs Reviewer Attention too much, but it certainly is better than Needs Archived. What I think would work best is simply a Flag. When posting a Flag, a drop down list of conditions would appear and one could be checked, along with user comments.

I think this takes the passive-agressiveness of "Needs Reviewer Attention" to a whole new level. Now, in addition to pretending you're not really calling for archival if nothing is done, you want to implement a way of quietly nudging the reviewer with your elbow instead of making a clear, specific case in public.

 

If the problem is serious enough to call for reviewer attention, then it dang well better be straightforward to present precise justifications. It strikes me as disrespectful to think pulling boilerplate from a drop-down list would be sufficient.

 

 

Not that boilerplate logs are needed, but prompts to guide people to not misuse the NA feature. Check a box and add comments.

 

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause an archival. Some people just over imagine scenarios when they are posted, as well as you who is over imagining what has been written here.

Link to comment

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause an archival.

 

I do not understand this. Anyone who posts a NA should have come to the following conclusion:

'I think this cache should be archived if issue X can not be rendered resolved by the reviewer".

 

Is it really any more complicated than this?

Link to comment

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause an archival.

 

I do ]not understand this. Anyone who posts a NA should have come to the following conclusion:

'I think this cache should be archived if issue X can not be rendered resolved by the reviewer".

 

Is it really any more complicated than this?

 

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

Link to comment

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause an archival.

 

I do ]not understand this. Anyone who posts a NA should have come to the following conclusion:

'I think this cache should be archived if issue X can not be rendered resolved by the reviewer".

 

Is it really any more complicated than this?

 

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

Instant archival does not exist.

Link to comment

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause an archival.

 

I do ]not understand this. Anyone who posts a NA should have come to the following conclusion:

'I think this cache should be archived if issue X can not be rendered resolved by the reviewer".

 

Is it really any more complicated than this?

 

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

Instant archival does not exist.

 

It sure does.

Link to comment

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause an archival.

 

I do ]not understand this. Anyone who posts a NA should have come to the following conclusion:

'I think this cache should be archived if issue X can not be rendered resolved by the reviewer".

 

Is it really any more complicated than this?

 

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

Instant archival does not exist.

 

It sure does.

 

It sounds like the problem, in your area, is with the Reviewer's response to an NA log, not with the NA log itself. Where I cache, an NA log causes a disabling for a period of time (30 days, usually) to allow the CO to address the issue at hand. After that time, the cache would be archived.

Link to comment

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause an archival.

 

I do ]not understand this. Anyone who posts a NA should have come to the following conclusion:

'I think this cache should be archived if issue X can not be rendered resolved by the reviewer".

 

Is it really any more complicated than this?

 

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

Instant archival does not exist.

 

It sure does.

Does it? I've never seen such a critter.

 

Even when a cache has a horribly egregious guideline violation, the ones I've seen actually had to be transmitted, electronically, from the logger's computer, to the Groundspeak server. Then a Reviewer has to see it in the NA que, open it, read it, decide that the NA is warranted, and pull the trigger. Hardly an 'instant' process. Even if we stretch the definition of 'instant' to cover this time period, these archivals are the exception, and not the rule. The caches which get archived right away are ones which, undeniably, needed to be archived.

 

Generally, an 'NA' gets a temporary disabled log.

Link to comment

Instant archival does not exist.

 

It sure does.

A cache owner or a reviewer can do Instant Archive by posting a an archive log.

 

Even then a reviewer or a lackey can undo this by posting an Unarchive log.

 

Any geocacher can post a Needs Archive log. It does nothing except inform a reviewer. The reviewer still looks at the evidence before posting an Archive log. That can happen in relatively short time, so it may look like instant archive.

 

When notified of NA the reviewer looks at the situation and makes one of the following decisions:

 

1. Archive the cache, sometimes with a note that the owner can ask to have the cache unarchived if the problem is fixed.

2. Disable the cache and post a note asking the owner to fix the problem (often giving a deadline)

3. Not disable the cache but posting a note and watching to see if the problem gets fixed (essentially treating the NA as NM).

4. Do nothing after determining the NA is unwarranted (sometimes posting a note explaining why the cache is OK).

 

One has to assume that (1) is a possibility whenever NA is posted. Even when someone writes in their NA log "I'm not trying to get this cache archived", I've seen reviewers decide that the cache should be archived.

Link to comment

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause an archival.

 

I do ]not understand this. Anyone who posts a NA should have come to the following conclusion:

'I think this cache should be archived if issue X can not be rendered resolved by the reviewer".

 

Is it really any more complicated than this?

 

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

Instant archival does not exist.

 

It sure does.

Does it? I've never seen such a critter.

 

Even when a cache has a horribly egregious guideline violation, the ones I've seen actually had to be transmitted, electronically, from the logger's computer, to the Groundspeak server. Then a Reviewer has to see it in the NA que, open it, read it, decide that the NA is warranted, and pull the trigger. Hardly an 'instant' process.

And neither is instant coffee, as boiling water and opening a tin is not instant either, but somehow they get away with calling it that.

Even if we stretch the definition of 'instant' to cover this time period, these archivals are the exception, and not the rule. The caches which get archived right away are ones which, undeniably, needed to be archived.

 

Generally, an 'NA' gets a temporary disabled log.

 

Correct. It's really simple. The goal is to get issue x fixed. Not a bot like instant archival.

 

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause archival.

Link to comment

Instant archival does not exist.

 

It sure does.

A cache owner or a reviewer can do Instant Archive by posting a an archive log.

 

Even then a reviewer or a lackey can undo this by posting an Unarchive log.

 

Any geocacher can post a Needs Archive log. It does nothing except inform a reviewer. The reviewer still looks at the evidence before posting an Archive log. That can happen in relatively short time, so it may look like instant archive.

 

When notified of NA the reviewer looks at the situation and makes one of the following decisions:

 

1. Archive the cache, sometimes with a note that the owner can ask to have the cache unarchived if the problem is fixed.

2. Disable the cache and post a note asking the owner to fix the problem (often giving a deadline)

3. Not disable the cache but posting a note and watching to see if the problem gets fixed (essentially treating the NA as NM).

4. Do nothing after determining the NA is unwarranted (sometimes posting a note explaining why the cache is OK).

 

One has to assume that (1) is a possibility whenever NA is posted. Even when someone writes in their NA log "I'm not trying to get this cache archived", I've seen reviewers decide that the cache should be archived.

 

That's correct. The language of posting Needs Archived is often thought that someone wants a cache archived, when they simply don't, but of course they know that could always be the final outcome. I'd like for a dog to get proper care, so should I send an email to the vet with a title line of "Should be shot"? I suppose they might get confused.

Link to comment

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause archival.

Yet even when someone writes "I'm not looking to get this cache archived", reviewers still archive them.

 

I'm not sure I can find an example where someone has written "I'm not looking to get this cache archived," where the reviewer archived the cache immediately without giving the owner a chance to fix the problem, but I'd be surprised if that doesn't happen.

 

Now, calling it "needs reviewer attention" may not change how anything actually works, but at least the person who writes "I'm not looking to get this cache archived" can feel good about posting the note without it sounding disingenuous.

Link to comment

And neither is instant coffee, as boiling water and opening a tin is not instant either, but somehow they get away with calling it that.

Not exactly a stretch of the gray matter to figure that one out. Those who call that foul liquid 'instant' come mostly from two camps. The first camp are those who market such stuff. They call it 'nstant' to rope in the obliviots who, having no sense of time, can view a process which occurs in a reasonably rapid manner and ignore the fact that time has actually passed. It only fools the very stupid. The other folks who call it 'instant' do so because they recognize that the term 'coffee' can be applied not just to the liquid, but also to the ground up stuff which gets hot water added to it. Because of this mindset, for them, the process truly is 'instant', as no time passes. It goes from one form of coffee to another form of coffee. Throughout that process, (which may take several seconds), it remains coffee.

 

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause archival.

Yes. I think I mentioned that there are a few people every year who post an inappropriate 'NA' log. I believe I mentioned, from my perspective, it would be better to educate this minuscule minority, rather than change the 'Needs Archived' log type to something warm and fuzzy, like 'Needs Reviewer Attention'. I mentioned this because of my belief that changing the log to 'NRA' would result in a marked increase of inappropriate logs being dumped onto our Reviewer team. They've got enough work to do publishing our caches.

Link to comment

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause an archival.

 

I do ]not understand this. Anyone who posts a NA should have come to the following conclusion:

'I think this cache should be archived if issue X can not be rendered resolved by the reviewer".

 

Is it really any more complicated than this?

 

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

Instant archival does not exist.

 

It sure does.

How so?

Link to comment
Anyone who posts a NA should have come to the following conclusion:

'I think this cache should be archived if issue X can not be rendered resolved by the reviewer".

I think that's a good way to think about the NA log.

 

Sometimes "issue X" is something like an angry landowner who wants the geocache and geocachers gone, and there is nothing to be done but archive the cache. But that doesn't describe most of the NA logs that I've seen. Most of the NA logs that I've seen have involved issues that could be resolved, and thus the reviewers' responses have generally been to disable the caches and start a 30-day grace period before archiving them.

Link to comment

And neither is instant coffee, as boiling water and opening a tin is not instant either, but somehow they get away with calling it that.

Not exactly a stretch of the gray matter to figure that one out. Those who call that foul liquid 'instant' come mostly from two camps. The first camp are those who market such stuff. They call it 'nstant' to rope in the obliviots who, having no sense of time, can view a process which occurs in a reasonably rapid manner and ignore the fact that time has actually passed. It only fools the very stupid. The other folks who call it 'instant' do so because they recognize that the term 'coffee' can be applied not just to the liquid, but also to the ground up stuff which gets hot water added to it. Because of this mindset, for them, the process truly is 'instant', as no time passes. It goes from one form of coffee to another form of coffee. Throughout that process, (which may take several seconds), it remains coffee.

 

There is no "pretending" about it, many NAs are not intended to cause archival.

Yes. I think I mentioned that there are a few people every year who post an inappropriate 'NA' log. I believe I mentioned, from my perspective, it would be better to educate this minuscule minority, rather than change the 'Needs Archived' log type to something warm and fuzzy, like 'Needs Reviewer Attention'. I mentioned this because of my belief that changing the log to 'NRA' would result in a marked increase of inappropriate logs being dumped onto our Reviewer team. They've got enough work to do publishing our caches.

 

That's why a drop down checklist of different reasons for posting that note should be applied. There even could be a few that should not be used, and if someone picks them they get a note to explain their error. They should not be allowed to leave it blank either. 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. Just because something might possibly be at risk for getting archived, doesn't necessarily mean that it needs it. A true Needs Archived is implying that the reasons are obvious, it cannot be fixed, and should be done ASAP. Then a cache owner's imagination runs wild and they get offended.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

<snip>

 

That's correct. The language of posting Needs Archived is often thought that someone wants a cache archived, when they simply don't, but of course they know that could always be the final outcome. I'd like for a dog to get proper care, so should I send an email to the vet with a title line of "Should be shot"? I suppose they might get confused.

Ha! Interesting analogy.

Link to comment
The language of posting Needs Archived is often thought that someone wants a cache archived, when they simply don't, but of course they know that could always be the final outcome.

 

You know, there are other ways to bring issues to the attention of TPTB than a NA log. There's this technology called "email." Perhaps you've heard of it?

 

I'd like for a dog to get proper care, so should I send an email to the vet with a title line of "Should be shot"? I suppose they might get confused.

 

Closer would be "Needs Shooting."

 

The NA log should be the last extremity when everything else has been tried. You seem to believe that it is the only way to bring things to a reviewer's attention. I think that's why we disagree so completely.

Link to comment
The language of posting Needs Archived is often thought that someone wants a cache archived, when they simply don't, but of course they know that could always be the final outcome.

 

You know, there are other ways to bring issues to the attention of TPTB than a NA log. There's this technology called "email." Perhaps you've heard of it?

 

I'd like for a dog to get proper care, so should I send an email to the vet with a title line of "Should be shot"? I suppose they might get confused.

 

Closer would be "Needs Shooting."

 

The NA log should be the last extremity when everything else has been tried. You seem to believe that it is the only way to bring things to a reviewer's attention. I think that's why we disagree so completely.

 

Actually I agree with most of it. However there are a few reviewers who insist on a NA posted. There are also a few cachers who would rather post a note of some sort and move on, rather than a back and forth behind the scenes, and there are more than a few people who don't use it as a final act. Its just what I've noticed, and IMO there could be some improvement in this area.

 

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? There have been a few people who have reported something like this happening, and they are in your neck of the woods.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...