Delete them or not?

[+Darksky1]

I would like some opinions. In our area we have had a rash of people just signing containers, most because they are in to big of a a hurry to take the time to open it. Thoughts on deleting them?

[+the_drake_man]

I would like some opinions. In our area we have had a rash of people just signing containers, most because they are in to big of a a hurry to take the time to open it. Thoughts on deleting them?

 

I believe it says they have to sign the log to claim the find. If you sign the container your rolling the dice on an online deletion.

[+Pork King]

From "The Guidelines"...

 

III. LOGGING Guidelines: Logging Guidelines cover the requirements that must be fulfilled in order to log a find.

 

Logging of All Physical Geocaches

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

Since I'm a stickler for rules, I would send them an email telling them that their log was being deleted because they did not actually sign the log.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Pork King

[+The_Incredibles_]

What a bunch of morons. I would delete their logs in a heartbeart. It's just rude to sign the outside of a container.

[+popokiiti]

What if it were a magnetic strip cache, identified by GC#, but missing a log sheet or interior? Just a thought. Was it placed that way? No way of really knowing.......a conundrum, for sure.

 

As far as being in too much of a hurry to open the container and sign - no excuse. Make time.

[4wheelin_fool]

The last time this was brought up was 8 years ago when a reviewer took a couple of kids to set the new record for the most finds in a day and many got upset about it. Here is one thread about it.

 

And the original in which it was discovered. Wow, 312 caches in a day was the new record then.

[+WarNinjas]

There are a few of our hides I wouldn't be to happy if they signed the outside as it could mess up the camo.

[+T.D.M.22]

I've done it. Although it was in the inside of the lid, on a cache that was pretty much more wet inside than the nearby creek with a CO that wasn't active. I've also had someone do that to one of mine- except it was a metal container that was run over by heavy equipment. Logbook? I was lucky the cache was still there.

 

Now if someone ever admits to not signing the log because they're lazy, or any other excuse when there no teasing they can't, I'd delete it with no notice. If they can't figure it out, I'm in too much of a hurry to tell them...

[+SwineFlew]

I wont delete the log, but I will send them an email that I am not happy about it.

 

Its defacing the cache.

[+Roman!]

Delete!

[+bones1]

I think deleting is a failure for whatever reason by a cache owner, im lucky not to have deleted a log since i started in 2004,just be more relaxed and let them (cachers) do what they want as long as you play by the little rules then that keeps you happy, there are so many smart phone users that come into caching for a short time and disappear,so its not worth getting up tight about things. please go out there and enjoy caching, jeff=bones1.

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd delete the log and complain to Groundspeak about it as well. Its not worth getting uptight about things, so I'd let them duke it out with someone else.

Edited July 6, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Are the caches the type that you have to figure out how to open them or the logbook is hidden in any way? If not, and they're not ruining the camo by signing the container, then let it go. Life is too short to worry about small stuff like this.

[+Dr. Who and K-9]

I think deleting is a failure for whatever reason by a cache owner, im lucky not to have deleted a log since i started in 2004,just be more relaxed and let them (cachers) do what they want as long as you play by the little rules then that keeps you happy, there are so many smart phone users that come into caching for a short time and disappear,so its not worth getting up tight about things. please go out there and enjoy caching, jeff=bones1.

 

Not sure how deleting a log is a failure by a cache owner. It's the opposite in my opinion. It means the CO is maintaining the cache by checking on it and by following Groundspeak guidelines which state to log a find the log must be signed.

 

I would delete the logs as it does not follow the guidelines.

[+SwineFlew]

The reason I dont like to delete logs too quickly because there are some cachers that GS stand behind 100%, no matter what. Its not worth the extra trouble that come with deleting logs.

 

Guideline is not rules... in other words, it means GS can flexible when they want to.

[+NanCycle]

there are some cachers that GS stand behind 100%, no matter what.

 

That's quite a statement--any evidence to back it up?

[+dprovan]

I'd send them e-mail telling them not to do that, and perhaps suggest they go back and sign the log to make their finds legitimate. Basically, I'd treat them like kids that made an innocent mistake and don't need to be punished for it. If you feel like being persnickety about it, I'd back your decision to delete their logs, but I'd wouldn't do it myself. I'd normally just shrug and move on. But there are some cases where I'd be more inclined to delete, like if I thought this was going to keep happening even after I explained their mistake to them, whether with my caches or because they're power runners that are going to keep doing this in other areas, or if they ruined the outside of the container.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

In over 11 years I have never deleted a " Found It "......I have deleted a bunch of NA and NM and a few DNF logs.

From a technical viewpoint I suppose you could delete it because they did not sign the LOG....signing a container is not good form but I don't think its worth the drama.

[+baloo&bd]

In over 11 years I have never deleted a " Found It "......I have deleted a bunch of NA and NM and a few DNF logs.

From a technical viewpoint I suppose you could delete it because they did not sign the LOG....signing a container is not good form but I don't think its worth the drama.

 

This seems somewhat odd. Why would someone delete a NM, NA or DNF?

[+NanCycle]

In over 11 years I have never deleted a " Found It "......I have deleted a bunch of NA and NM and a few DNF logs.

From a technical viewpoint I suppose you could delete it because they did not sign the LOG....signing a container is not good form but I don't think its worth the drama.

 

This seems somewhat odd. Why would someone delete a NM, NA or DNF?

 

Some COs feel that a posted DNF, NM or NA log reflects poorly on the quality of their cache and get their nose out of joint if someone posts one of them. (It's like telling a mother that her newborn looks like a monkey.) They want to keep their cache postings looking "pure."

 

I have had some of my DNFs NMs and NAs deleted, but the only time I ever deleted one was when the poster explained that they meant NM instead of NA and would change it, but they didn't. After I deleted the NA, I posted a note explaining this.

[+Touchstone]

I'd Archive the Listing. I don't blame others for my poor cache designs.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'd Archive the Listing. I don't blame others for my poor cache designs.

 

When did placing a container that someone could deface become a poor cache design?

[+J Grouchy]

In over 11 years I have never deleted a " Found It "......I have deleted a bunch of NA and NM and a few DNF logs.

From a technical viewpoint I suppose you could delete it because they did not sign the LOG....signing a container is not good form but I don't think its worth the drama.

 

This seems somewhat odd. Why would someone delete a NM, NA or DNF?

 

Deleting a "NM" log doesn't get rid of the red wrench, though...so you'd still have to post a "Maintenance performed" log, meaning you wouldn't have "pure" online log either way.

 

I HAVE deleted 'Found it' logs...one for posting a total spoiler on a D3 cache I have (I first requested they edit the log and when they didn't I deleted it, explaining they can re-log it without a spoiler), and a few times for duplicate logs. Those are generally unintentional and I consider it to be a part of cache maintenance.

[+Touchstone]

I'd Archive the Listing. I don't blame others for my poor cache designs.

 

When did placing a container that someone could deface become a poor cache design?

 

Obviously some folks find it difficult to open a container and take out the logbook, therefore the logbook/sheet should be affixed to the outside of the container to accommodate people that suffer from this handicap. It's not my place to criticize or penalize folks that don't have an opposable thumb. I try to make my caches as inclusive as possible

[+Mudfrog]

I think deleting is a failure for whatever reason by a cache owner, im lucky not to have deleted a log since i started in 2004,just be more relaxed and let them (cachers) do what they want as long as you play by the little rules then that keeps you happy, there are so many smart phone users that come into caching for a short time and disappear,so its not worth getting up tight about things. please go out there and enjoy caching, jeff=bones1.

 

I'm sorry but it wouldn't be ok for another cacher to deface my cache. I'd get an email out to let them know that i didn't appreciate it and that they should have signed the log. Their response would determine whether i deleted or not. I'd delete if i got no response at all.

[+wimseyguy]

I'd Archive the Listing. I don't blame others for my poor cache designs.

 

I think you forgot to use the sarcasm font?

I have done this 3-4 times over the past 12 years. In ever single case I was unable to open a rusted or sealed shut metal or PVC container after trying for at least five minutes using whatever tools I had at my disposal. Those were indeed poor cache designs, but I did find them.

[+narcissa]

I would delete that without a second thought.

[+geodarts]

There used to be a cache in my area that had an extremely good camo job, expertly designed. After it was placed, someone moved a portable outhouse nearby and people began signing that instead of the cache. Enough said lest I get carried away with bathroom humor.

 

Although I might make an exception if a cache was rusted shut and required a special tool that would damage the container even more, I would be unhappy if I somehow learned that people had signed the outside of anything rather than take the time to do it right.

Edited July 7, 2014 by geodarts

[+TheWanderesss]

Why would ppl sign the container instead of the log?? Assuming the log is there and in order, obviously. A couple of times I failed to bring my own pen (it wasn't mentioned in the listing you should BYOP), so I took a picture of the logbook/cache and posted that along with logging it and asking the CO if it was OK. So far I got no deletes.

[+L0ne.R]

I would like some opinions. In our area we have had a rash of people just signing containers, most because they are in to big of a a hurry to take the time to open it. Thoughts on deleting them?

 

Are they power trail caches? If so, I thought anything goes with those? If they are PT caches and you don't want people writing on the container, perhaps include a note in your description that you will delete finds where the finder did not sign the logsheet.

[+cerberus1]

Why would ppl sign the container instead of the log?? Assuming the log is there and in order, obviously. A couple of times I failed to bring my own pen (it wasn't mentioned in the listing you should BYOP), so I took a picture of the logbook/cache and posted that along with logging it and asking the CO if it was OK. So far I got no deletes.

When has "bring a pen" ever been a requirement for the cache page?

Common sense says you'd need a GPS and a pen (since all logs must be signed...) in this hobby.

[+Mudfrog]

I would like some opinions. In our area we have had a rash of people just signing containers, most because they are in to big of a a hurry to take the time to open it. Thoughts on deleting them?

 

Are they power trail caches? If so, I thought anything goes with those? If they are PT caches and you don't want people writing on the container, perhaps include a note in your description that you will delete finds where the finder did not sign the logsheet.

 

I was kinda thinking this may have had something to do with power trail caches. Not sure why, but many finders of these caches seem to let their common sense fly right out the window. Since they're only after quantity, they come up with all kinds of goofy ways to speed things up. Writing on the outside of a container would probably shave off a few seconds.

[+J Grouchy]

Why would ppl sign the container instead of the log?? Assuming the log is there and in order, obviously. A couple of times I failed to bring my own pen (it wasn't mentioned in the listing you should BYOP), so I took a picture of the logbook/cache and posted that along with logging it and asking the CO if it was OK. So far I got no deletes.

When has "bring a pen" ever been a requirement for the cache page?

Common sense says you'd need a GPS and a pen (since all logs must be signed...) in this hobby.

 

Exactly...I often say it on my page just out of courtesy, but it should always be assumed. Even on the larger caches that already HAVE a pen inside, the pen often is dried up or won't work...or there's a pencil inside but the log is wet, rendering the pencil useless.

[+SwineFlew]

Something to think about, what if someone else signed the last finder sn on the container?

[+RocTheCacheBox]

Why would ppl sign the container instead of the log?? Assuming the log is there and in order, obviously. A couple of times I failed to bring my own pen (it wasn't mentioned in the listing you should BYOP), so I took a picture of the logbook/cache and posted that along with logging it and asking the CO if it was OK. So far I got no deletes.

When has "bring a pen" ever been a requirement for the cache page?

Common sense says you'd need a GPS and a pen (since all logs must be signed...) in this hobby.

 

I say we should use the term "uncommon sense" cause common sense is no longer that common.

[+TheWanderesss]

Why would ppl sign the container instead of the log?? Assuming the log is there and in order, obviously. A couple of times I failed to bring my own pen (it wasn't mentioned in the listing you should BYOP), so I took a picture of the logbook/cache and posted that along with logging it and asking the CO if it was OK. So far I got no deletes.

When has "bring a pen" ever been a requirement for the cache page?

Common sense says you'd need a GPS and a pen (since all logs must be signed...) in this hobby.

 

I say we should use the term "uncommon sense" cause common sense is no longer that common.

 

I didn't know it either until I noticed it's being mentioned in many listings...so I started to think it's the way things are supposed to be. I thought we were talking about opinions and not testing the knowledge of rules, thanks.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

In over 11 years I have never deleted a " Found It "......I have deleted a bunch of NA and NM and a few DNF logs.

From a technical viewpoint I suppose you could delete it because they did not sign the LOG....signing a container is not good form but I don't think its worth the drama.

 

This seems somewhat odd. Why would someone delete a NM, NA or DNF?

 

Some COs feel that a posted DNF, NM or NA log reflects poorly on the quality of their cache and get their nose out of joint if someone posts one of them. (It's like telling a mother that her newborn looks like a monkey.) They want to keep their cache postings looking "pure."

 

I have had some of my DNFs NMs and NAs deleted, but the only time I ever deleted one was when the poster explained that they meant NM instead of NA and would change it, but they didn't. After I deleted the NA, I posted a note explaining this.

 

Nothing out of joint on my end...incorrect logs get zapped. A NA or NM that was simply a DNF ( once I've checked the cache ) gets zapped.

Multiple DNF's by groups who never looked for the cache get zapped.

[+frinklabs]

In over 11 years I have never deleted a " Found It "......I have deleted a bunch of NA and NM and a few DNF logs.

From a technical viewpoint I suppose you could delete it because they did not sign the LOG....signing a container is not good form but I don't think its worth the drama.

 

This seems somewhat odd. Why would someone delete a NM, NA or DNF?

 

Some COs feel that a posted DNF, NM or NA log reflects poorly on the quality of their cache and get their nose out of joint if someone posts one of them. (It's like telling a mother that her newborn looks like a monkey.) They want to keep their cache postings looking "pure."

 

I have had some of my DNFs NMs and NAs deleted, but the only time I ever deleted one was when the poster explained that they meant NM instead of NA and would change it, but they didn't. After I deleted the NA, I posted a note explaining this.

 

Nothing out of joint on my end...incorrect logs get zapped. A NA or NM that was simply a DNF ( once I've checked the cache ) gets zapped.

Multiple DNF's by groups who never looked for the cache get zapped.

 

I had a NA posted on one my caches for which I was tardy doing maintenance. The poster hadn't visited the cache -- they just didn't like the duration which it was disabled. I am leaving it there because it reflects poorly on the poster, not me.

 

Meanwhile, on topic, I came close to taping an extra signed log sheet in a baggie to the outside of a frozen-shut PVC pipe cache that I was having difficulty opening. There was no way I was going to be able to re-visit the location -- it was on an island in a lake far far from home. Luckily, I found a knothole in a tree that was exactly the size of the square nut on the PVC cap, and leveraged it that way. Now I carry channel lock pliers for this contingency.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've mostly given up worrying about stupid cachers. You don't carry a pen?!?!? When you know my caches in that area are all micros?!?!? (Of course, that cacher also visits up to forty travel bugs to every cache.) If I cannot sign the log (usually when I cannot open it) (sometimes I will add a piece of paper), then I log a DNF.

On my caches, I delete obvious fake finds. Those drive bys. And, of course, for my webcam cache, I delete any log without the required webcam photo. (I give them a week.)

I've had a few logs deleted. Mostly for saying what I think of the cache. :X Oh, well. I'm honest. Then I just relog with "Found it."

But I always carry a pen, and some spare paper. Duh! That's what geocaching is about: Sign log!

[+dprovan]

Nothing out of joint on my end...incorrect logs get zapped. A NA or NM that was simply a DNF ( once I've checked the cache ) gets zapped.

I don't know why you'd bother deleting the NAs and NMs. I'd think you'd want a public record of the badly chosen NAs and NMs and your OM responses to them saying that you've checked the cache.

 

I had a NA posted on one my caches for which I was tardy doing maintenance. The poster hadn't visited the cache -- they just didn't like the duration which it was disabled. I am leaving it there because it reflects poorly on the poster, not me.

Being disabled means there's no point in visiting the cache, while on the other hand, it makes perfect sense to suggest via an NA that a cache has been disabled too long and should be removed from the listings. In a case like that, where the cache used to be hidden is irrelevant. So I'm glad you left the NA in the log, and I suspect it's not reflecting on the person you think it's reflecting on. Did you, by any chance, finally get around to maintaining the cache because the NA was posted?

[+The A-Team]

I'd delete such a log in a heartbeat. These people (and anyone else who might see their log) need to be shown that such behaviour is not acceptable and won't be tolerated. Anyway, they've freely admitted to not signing the physical log, so their online log is free to be deleted as per the guidelines. Leaving the log as is would just make the action appear legitimate to a new cacher, which it most certainly is not and we don't want them (or anyone else) to get that impression.

[+frinklabs]

I had a NA posted on one my caches for which I was tardy doing maintenance. The poster hadn't visited the cache -- they just didn't like the duration which it was disabled. I am leaving it there because it reflects poorly on the poster, not me.

Being disabled means there's no point in visiting the cache, while on the other hand, it makes perfect sense to suggest via an NA that a cache has been disabled too long and should be removed from the listings. In a case like that, where the cache used to be hidden is irrelevant. So I'm glad you left the NA in the log, and I suspect it's not reflecting on the person you think it's reflecting on. Did you, by any chance, finally get around to maintaining the cache because the NA was posted?

 

It would have maintained regardless of the armchair cache-coppery, as one of 16 in a series.

 

Our area reviewers maintain constant vigilance and would have acted as needed, regardless of the third-party intervention.

[+dprovan]

It would have maintained regardless of the armchair cache-coppery, as one of 16 in a series.

The claim implicit in an NA is that there was no sign that the problem is going to be addressed. If that's wrong, it's a simple matter to post a log explaining why it's taking so long to maintain the cache and telling everyone when it will be fixed. Then everyone knows whatever internal logic you're using that makes you think it's obvious that it will someday be maintained. Deleting the NA just means that someone else will have to waste time calling for archival again, since the explanation you have in your head isn't present where it can be seen by someone coming to the same conclusion as the first NA poster.

 

Our area reviewers maintain constant vigilance and would have acted as needed, regardless of the third-party intervention.

I claim this is the wrong attitude. Geocaching should be driving by the users, and reviewers should only act against a cache because a user has pointed out a problem. I'm only mildly against reviewers taking unilateral action, but I'm entirely against geocachers assuming that they will.

[+frinklabs]

It would have maintained regardless of the armchair cache-coppery, as one of 16 in a series.

The claim implicit in an NA is that there was no sign that the problem is going to be addressed. If that's wrong, it's a simple matter to post a log explaining why it's taking so long to maintain the cache and telling everyone when it will be fixed. Then everyone knows whatever internal logic you're using that makes you think it's obvious that it will someday be maintained. Deleting the NA just means that someone else will have to waste time calling for archival again, since the explanation you have in your head isn't present where it can be seen by someone coming to the same conclusion as the first NA poster.

 

Exactly why the NA was premature and unnecessary. There was already an indication in my TDL log (in response to multiple DNFs) that I would be replacing the cache "presently". Thirty days wasn't soon enough for the premature NA logger, whereas it seems to be ok for the reviewers since they didn't post their boilerplate fix-it-or-else note.

 

 

Our area reviewers maintain constant vigilance and would have acted as needed, regardless of the third-party intervention.

I claim this is the wrong attitude. Geocaching should be driving by the users, and reviewers should only act against a cache because a user has pointed out a problem. I'm only mildly against reviewers taking unilateral action, but I'm entirely against geocachers assuming that they will.

 

I would never assume that the reviewers would have to take action on any of my caches since I am an active hider and finder and have shown in the past that I have maintained my caches in proactive and reactive cases.

 

Where the unilateral reviewer action is useful is with absentee cache owners that do not indicate that they'll be maintaining their caches or reacting to NM or NA logs posted against their listings, to which the CO hasn't responded.

 

The reviewers in our area will disable a cache after a reasonable amount of time after an unanswered NM log, then will eventually archive if the cache isn't fixed. This seems to be a good strategy to winnow out the missing and unmaintained cache listings.

 

In this context, I maintain that not deleting the NA log is reasonable and I think it is more of an indicator of a cache cop knee-jerk reaction than my unwillingness to maintain my caches.

[team tisri]

Now if someone ever admits to not signing the log because they're lazy, or any other excuse when there no teasing they can't, I'd delete it with no notice. If they can't figure it out, I'm in too much of a hurry to tell them...

 

Sounds good. If they're too busy to open the cache and sign it properly they can hardly complain if you're too busy to tell them why you deleted their log.

[+Paganmen]

I think deleting a find depends on the CO and what they consider as a find. Personally if there is a log then I sign the log. I have never signed a container and I don't think anyone should. If a log is wet, full or missing you should note that in your comments.

[+dprovan]

Exactly why the NA was premature and unnecessary. There was already an indication in my TDL log (in response to multiple DNFs) that I would be replacing the cache "presently". Thirty days wasn't soon enough for the premature NA logger, whereas it seems to be ok for the reviewers since they didn't post their boilerplate fix-it-or-else note.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the NA. What I'm saying is that you should express your disagreement publicly in a log entry, not by deleting the NA so no one else can see it.

 

Where the unilateral reviewer action is useful is with absentee cache owners that do not indicate that they'll be maintaining their caches or reacting to NM or NA logs posted against their listings, to which the CO hasn't responded.

No, sorry, that's exactly my point. It shouldn't be up to the reviewers to determine that a CO is AWOL. The other cachers local to the area should be the ones to decide. I do not want the reviewers running the show, I only want them to help us run it smoothly.

 

The reviewers in our area will disable a cache after a reasonable amount of time after an unanswered NM log, then will eventually archive if the cache isn't fixed. This seems to be a good strategy to winnow out the missing and unmaintained cache listings.

I'm sorry to hear that the reviewers are forced to take that approach in your area. In my area, caches with problems are handled in the designed way: users post NMs, and then other users (typically) conclude that a reasonable time has passed without resolution and call for archival. No one sits around on their thumbs waiting for a reviewer to step in and play the bad guy. And if someone posts an NA for a cache with an active CO, the CO steps up and responds. Normally the response is to either actually fix the cache or archiving it themselves. I've never seen a CO respond, "When I said 'presently', I meant several months when I get around to it, but I don't want anyone to know that."

 

I think open and respectful cooperation between peers works much better than the Nanny Reviewer approach.

[+narcissa]

I'm sorry to hear that the reviewers are forced to take that approach in your area. In my area, caches with problems are handled in the designed way: users post NMs, and then other users (typically) conclude that a reasonable time has passed without resolution and call for archival. No one sits around on their thumbs waiting for a reviewer to step in and play the bad guy. And if someone posts an NA for a cache with an active CO, the CO steps up and responds. Normally the response is to either actually fix the cache or archiving it themselves. I've never seen a CO respond, "When I said 'presently', I meant several months when I get around to it, but I don't want anyone to know that."

 

I think open and respectful cooperation between peers works much better than the Nanny Reviewer approach.

 

There's this really insidious attitude among some cachers that someone who posts an NA log is a "cache cop." Good cachers don't want to mention problems because they're worried about being harassed for it.

[+frinklabs]

Exactly why the NA was premature and unnecessary. There was already an indication in my TDL log (in response to multiple DNFs) that I would be replacing the cache "presently". Thirty days wasn't soon enough for the premature NA logger, whereas it seems to be ok for the reviewers since they didn't post their boilerplate fix-it-or-else note.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the NA. What I'm saying is that you should express your disagreement publicly in a log entry, not by deleting the NA so no one else can see it.

 

I didn't, and will not delete the NA log. The only public disagreement I made was in this thread, and not directly to the poster of the log. Conspicuously absent is any indication who that was, or which of my caches it was. I'm not here to disagree with them directly, only to illustrate a 'not' in the context of this thread about delete-them-or-not.

 

Where the unilateral reviewer action is useful is with absentee cache owners that do not indicate that they'll be maintaining their caches or reacting to NM or NA logs posted against their listings, to which the CO hasn't responded.

No, sorry, that's exactly my point. It shouldn't be up to the reviewers to determine that a CO is AWOL. The other cachers local to the area should be the ones to decide. I do not want the reviewers running the show, I only want them to help us run it smoothly.

 

Concur. Unfortunately most of the local experienced cachers who share this attitude have likely already found the problematic ones that have been subsequently abandoned and wouldn't be aware that a NA is necessary.

 

The reviewers in our area will disable a cache after a reasonable amount of time after an unanswered NM log, then will eventually archive if the cache isn't fixed. This seems to be a good strategy to winnow out the missing and unmaintained cache listings.

I'm sorry to hear that the reviewers are forced to take that approach in your area. In my area, caches with problems are handled in the designed way: users post NMs, and then other users (typically) conclude that a reasonable time has passed without resolution and call for archival. No one sits around on their thumbs waiting for a reviewer to step in and play the bad guy. And if someone posts an NA for a cache with an active CO, the CO steps up and responds. Normally the response is to either actually fix the cache or archiving it themselves. I've never seen a CO respond, "When I said 'presently', I meant several months when I get around to it, but I don't want anyone to know that."

 

I think open and respectful cooperation between peers works much better than the Nanny Reviewer approach.

 

I didn't respond to the NA with the "presently" comment -- it was there already, in my TDL log which was posted before the NA. I didn't "respond" to the NA log other than maintaining then re-enabling the cache (which I would have done regardless).

 

I don't mind the Nanny Reviewers in our area, as an enhancement or backup to the respectful-peers model.

[+dprovan]

There's this really insidious attitude among some cachers that someone who posts an NA log is a "cache cop." Good cachers don't want to mention problems because they're worried about being harassed for it.

I've heard about that problem, although fortunately nothing like that happens in my area. I claim that the worst possible solution to this problem is to allow the attitude to continue by forcing the reviewer to step forward and be the target of that anger.