NA black holes

[4wheelin_fool]

Sometimes an NA has no reply whatsoever. In these cases it has been suggested that we are supposed to imagine that there is diligent work being done behind the scenes to correct the problem. Or perhaps there is nobody nearby in orbit? Hello...

 

[+Touchstone]

One of my favorite all time albums. Link for reference:

 

Finding your Local Reviewer

 

Maybe some gizmo is broken. Time for a more direct approach.

[+Harry Dolphin]

One good way to bring it to the attention of TPTB, is to mention it in a forum.

[+Touchstone]

One good way to bring it to the attention of TPTB, is to mention it in a forum.

 

Actually, the following would be a much more productive way of getting Groundspeak's attention, if that was the purpose of this thread:

 

Contacting Groundspeak

[+Walts Hunting]

Are you expecting a reply to you because I have never had that happen and I write a few NA logs a year. I do check them a few days later and in almost all cases they have been disabled with the standard note. Sometimes in just a few hours. Your case is an exception to my experiences.

[Pup Patrol]

A 1.0/1.5 with a long history of dnf's, an outstanding NM, and 3 Needs Archived logs by 3 different cachers, and no communication from the cache owner?

 

I would take Touchstone's advice and contact Groundspeak.

 

 

B.

[4wheelin_fool]

I know I could always email the reviewer, but there might be no reply. I'm really just wondering how often this happens.

[Pup Patrol]

I know I could always email the reviewer, but there might be no reply. I'm really just wondering how often this happens.

 

In my area, I've seen caches disabled by the Reviewer after a NM attribute has been on the listing for a while. Reviewers here will often do "sweeps", doing PQ's for caches with outstanding NM's.

 

Some get archived after the cache owner hasn't replied within the time frame given by the Reviewer.

 

Some are still out there.

 

NA logs around here, from what I've seen, are dealt with quickly.

 

So, no, I've not seen a situation the same as yours hanging like this for so long around here.

 

It's the 3 different NA's, by 3 different cachers, on 3 different dates, that is strange to see. That combined with the long string of dnf's...and the cache owner has logged on fairly recently.

 

 

B.

[+Pork King]

I know I could always email the reviewer, but there might be no reply...

 

But what if there is? You skeered?

[+Harry Dolphin]

One good way to bring it to the attention of TPTB, is to mention it in a forum.

 

Actually, the following would be a much more productive way of getting Groundspeak's attention, if that was the purpose of this thread:

 

Contacting Groundspeak

 

One always wonders. There is/was a local cache in the parking lot of Meadowlands Sports Complex. If anything is going on, it is paid parking. This is near the horse racing track. No Horsing Around

Only out two months. Three DNFs. No finds. One NM. Currently 'Unavailable' since 6/25. I'm certainly not going to search for it in a paid parking lot at a sports complex. Guess in a couple more weeks, it'll get a note from the reviewer. Just looks stupid sitting there.

Oh, well. Though I do get monthly notices from my reviewer concerning a cache in a park that is closed for renovation. Looks like they're almost done with the rebuilding! I'll check again shortly. So, my reviewer does keep tabs on such things.

[4wheelin_fool]

I know I could always email the reviewer, but there might be no reply...

 

But what if there is? You skeered?

 

I'm just comparing the regional differences of disablement. It has been disabled now after 4 NAs, several DNFs, and a forum thread. This is a swimming cache disabled in the middle of winter for just having 3 DNFs.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I know I could always email the reviewer, but there might be no reply...

 

But what if there is? You skeered?

 

I'm just comparing the regional differences of disablement. It has been disabled now after 4 NAs, several DNFs, and a forum thread. This is a swimming cache disabled in the middle of winter for just having 3 DNFs.

 

That seems heavy handed regarding that swimming cache.....I loved the part about " not being able to hold the location for you "......I'll bet they're standing in line waiting for that spot.

[Keystone]

Many reviewers are dogs. Expectations for consistency should be adjusted accordingly.

Woof.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I know I could always email the reviewer, but there might be no reply...

 

But what if there is? You skeered?

 

I'm just comparing the regional differences of disablement. It has been disabled now after 4 NAs, several DNFs, and a forum thread. This is a swimming cache disabled in the middle of winter for just having 3 DNFs.

 

The actuality is that the CO needs to respond to the reviewer each time the reviewer posts the note. "Lake still frozen over" would have sufficed. Three months without a note triggers the 'archive'. At least around here. It is true that other reviewers do things differently.

Got a second note on my cache in the park undergoing renovations. I posted a second note that the park was closed.

[+redsox_mark]

The actuality is that the CO needs to respond to the reviewer each time the reviewer posts the note. "Lake still frozen over" would have sufficed. Three months without a note triggers the 'archive'. At least around here. It is true that other reviewers do things differently.

Got a second note on my cache in the park undergoing renovations. I posted a second note that the park was closed.

 

True. Though if I was the owner I would be annoyed that my cache was disabled by the reviewer because of 3 DNFs, and that I am being asked to check on it. Especially when you consider: 1) it is a 5/5 cache. 2) 2 of the 3 DNFs were on the same day (maybe they were together). One talked about not being prepared enough, the other how they found it difficult to swim to even get to GZ.

 

A knock-on effect of reviewers doing this is finders become less willing to log a DNF. I'm pretty poor as a finder; I don't want an owner being forced to check his cache just because I can't find it. And especially if is 5/5 and I admit in my log I wasn't really up to the challenge!

 

If I was the owner I would have re-enabled it with a polite but honest description like "Given the difficulty rating I do not see the need to check the cache at this time and I am re-enabling the cache."

[4wheelin_fool]

The actuality is that the CO needs to respond to the reviewer each time the reviewer posts the note. "Lake still frozen over" would have sufficed. Three months without a note triggers the 'archive'. At least around here. It is true that other reviewers do things differently.

Got a second note on my cache in the park undergoing renovations. I posted a second note that the park was closed.

 

True. Though if I was the owner I would be annoyed that my cache was disabled by the reviewer because of 3 DNFs, and that I am being asked to check on it. Especially when you consider: 1) it is a 5/5 cache. 2) 2 of the 3 DNFs were on the same day (maybe they were together). One talked about not being prepared enough, the other how they found it difficult to swim to even get to GZ.

 

A knock-on effect of reviewers doing this is finders become less willing to log a DNF. I'm pretty poor as a finder; I don't want an owner being forced to check his cache just because I can't find it. And especially if is 5/5 and I admit in my log I wasn't really up to the challenge!

 

If I was the owner I would have re-enabled it with a polite but honest description like "Given the difficulty rating I do not see the need to check the cache at this time and I am re-enabling the cache."

 

That's correct.

 

The result is that geocachers are more reluctant to post their DNFs if they know it could cause unnecessary archival. It also prompts cache owners to not take the disablement too seriously if they know that the reviewer isn't reading the logs or cache description. Perhaps a difficulty of 1 to 2.5 should be disabled after a few DNFs, but not the difficult ones. The majority of geocachers only are active part time, so it could also act as a filter to drive away anyone who is not actively logging in or finding caches everyday. The cache is there, but since the owner is busy it gets archived. Although all they need to do is post a note, the majority won't do that unless they have checked on it or have new information.