Jump to content

Needs archived?


Recommended Posts

You guys have noticed that the previous two NMs had been ignored?

 

But it's still do-able. It would be like posting a NM/NA because a road is closed and you'd have to walk there...makes it a bit harder, but still do-able. Don't worry about it, and it doesn't matter what any of us think, you posted a NA log and the reviewer responded.

Link to comment

I don't think it matters that an NA was posted. I think sometimes, COs do get a bit precious about them. All it is, is a heads-up to a reviewer that all is not well with a cache and gives the reviewer the option to exercise their discretion as to what action (if any) needs to be taken. In view of the fact that previous NMs seem to have been ignored then it seems the NA poster was simply bringing the situation to the attention of the reviewer. They took a look, decided it was OK and the cache goes on. There you go. The system working just as it should :) No biggie!

 

I've seen reviewers threaten archiving in situations where caches don't appear to be being maintained (where NMs have been ignored) so I don't think it was unreasonable to check it out.

Link to comment

I find the reviewers response interesting.

 

This is a multi, not meant to be a puzzle. Stage A is missing and has been since March at least. It appears if you get the other numbers and work it through, that A (which maps to a least significant digit) can only be one of a couple of values so you get close enough. But really the listing should be updated. I agree it doesn't need to be archived, but the owner should be asked to correct the listing.

Link to comment

I find the reviewers response interesting.

 

This is a multi, not meant to be a puzzle. Stage A is missing and has been since March at least. It appears if you get the other numbers and work it through, that A (which maps to a least significant digit) can only be one of a couple of values so you get close enough. But really the listing should be updated. I agree it doesn't need to be archived, but the owner should be asked to correct the listing.

Exactly my reaction. Instead of insisting the description be updated, the reviewer posted the minimum information that CO should have provided. I couldn't help but wonder if the reviewer is actually the CO and accidentally posted the note under the wrong account.

 

Yep. Why don't you just go find it. Others seem to work it out.

This is good advice. I think the NA was probably a good wake up call, so although a bit of an overkill, the reviewer rejected it, so no harm done. Now the OP should go find the cache and then leave worrying about its fate to the CO.

Link to comment

The problem here is that the ONLY log type to go to a reviewer is a "Needs Archive". I've said it before, we don't actually require a "Needs Archive" log type, we need a "Reviewer Attention" log instead. I've posted a NA of a few occasions, and made it clear that I really do NOT want the cache archived, but that it does need to be sorted out. An RA log would reflect what I intended, AND it is a lot less emotive than NA.

 

An RA log would have been appropriate here, if we had one. But as we don't, the NA was correct. Though it seems it is possible to do this one, it SHOULD be sorted out, and it appeared that the c/o was unlikely to sort it out unless nudged more strongly than by a NM.

 

Rgds, Andy

Link to comment

Interesting responses. To be honest I wasn’t really wanting the cache to be archived, but I couldn’t really think what else was appropriate. I do like Amberel’s suggestion of a RA option.

 

For background, when we tried to find it, none of the logs we'd downloaded mentioned that there was a problem. We spent around 20 minutes looking for A, in the company of another couple we ran into who also spent about 30 minutes trying.

Link to comment

The problem here is that the ONLY log type to go to a reviewer is a "Needs Archive". I've said it before, we don't actually require a "Needs Archive" log type, we need a "Reviewer Attention" log instead. I've posted a NA of a few occasions, and made it clear that I really do NOT want the cache archived, but that it does need to be sorted out. An RA log would reflect what I intended, AND it is a lot less emotive than NA.

 

An RA log would have been appropriate here, if we had one. But as we don't, the NA was correct. Though it seems it is possible to do this one, it SHOULD be sorted out, and it appeared that the c/o was unlikely to sort it out unless nudged more strongly than by a NM.

 

Rgds, Andy

 

Agreed!

 

It seems that often the CO doesn't read comments in the Found log, pointing out minor problems.

Then ignores NM logs.

But as soon as a NA log gets posted they take action.

(Or get upset that "Nobody said it was getting in a bad way...")

Link to comment

The problem here is that the ONLY log type to go to a reviewer is a "Needs Archive". I've said it before, we don't actually require a "Needs Archive" log type, we need a "Reviewer Attention" log instead. I've posted a NA of a few occasions, and made it clear that I really do NOT want the cache archived, but that it does need to be sorted out. An RA log would reflect what I intended, AND it is a lot less emotive than NA.

 

An RA log would have been appropriate here, if we had one. But as we don't, the NA was correct. Though it seems it is possible to do this one, it SHOULD be sorted out, and it appeared that the c/o was unlikely to sort it out unless nudged more strongly than by a NM.

Agreed!

 

It seems that often the CO doesn't read comments in the Found log, pointing out minor problems.

Then ignores NM logs.

But as soon as a NA log gets posted they take action.

(Or get upset that "Nobody said it was getting in a bad way...")

While I concede this is one of those very rare cases where "reviewer attention" makes logical sense, note that a different log type would not have changed a single thing about this example. The NA did exactly what was required: the reviewer considered the request and rejected it. It would have been no different if the log type had only requested "attention" (whatever that means) instead of archival.

 

The CO ignored the NM logs. In fact, he ignored the NA log. So there's every reason to think he'd ignore an RA log, too, as well as any notes the reviewer wrote in response. As I always point out, the only difference between NA and RA is that if, for whatever reason, the RA leads to the reviewer archiving the cache, the person logging the RA can pretend it's not his fault and put the blame on the big bad reviewer. Bah.

Link to comment

Regarding "RA vs NA":

 

At least from what the reviewers log said, he/she seems to be taking the NA literally. The response is a binary "no need to archive".

 

Perhaps if there was a "Reviewer's Attention" log, requesting the Reviewer to intervene to get the listing updated/waypoint fixed, the response might have been different? Just perhaps.

Link to comment

Regarding "RA vs NA":

 

At least from what the reviewers log said, he/she seems to be taking the NA literally. The response is a binary "no need to archive".

 

Perhaps if there was a "Reviewer's Attention" log, requesting the Reviewer to intervene to get the listing updated/waypoint fixed, the response might have been different? Just perhaps.

I see it just the opposite. NA is a serious request, so the reviewer had to stop and consider whether to take action, and then justify his decision. If the log were RA, the reviewer's response could simply be some variation of "No, it doesn't." In practice, the reviewer would probably have responded in the same way he did to the NA, but there's certainly no reason to think he would respond with anything more if the post had been an RA. If the RA poster doesn't think the problem is serious enough to require archival, why do you think that would make the reviewer more likely to try and get it fixed? This is good example why I think an RA log would add nothing.

Link to comment

I'm new to the Forum, and what surprises me in this discussion is to discover that NMs don't go automatically to the Reviewer. That explains some areas I've been recently where NMs have gone ignored for a long time.

 

Most of my caching has been done in Cornwall (UK) where the local reviewer seems to pick up NMs reasonably quickly and issue reminders then kicks after what seems a reasonable time.

Link to comment

Hi Wandering Islanders and welcome to the forums.

 

It does seem sensible to me that reviewers don't receive anything for a NM. They'd be swamped with 'log is a bit damp' ones. My view would be that if an NM gets ignored then an NA is required.

Edited by TheOldfields
Link to comment

I find the reviewers response interesting.

 

This is a multi, not meant to be a puzzle. Stage A is missing and has been since March at least. It appears if you get the other numbers and work it through, that A (which maps to a least significant digit) can only be one of a couple of values so you get close enough. But really the listing should be updated. I agree it doesn't need to be archived, but the owner should be asked to correct the listing.

Exactly my reaction. Instead of insisting the description be updated, the reviewer posted the minimum information that CO should have provided. I couldn't help but wonder if the reviewer is actually the CO and accidentally posted the note under the wrong account.

Yep. Why don't you just go find it. Others seem to work it out.

This is good advice. I think the NA was probably a good wake up call, so although a bit of an overkill, the reviewer rejected it, so no harm done. Now the OP should go find the cache and then leave worrying about its fate to the CO.

Let me assure you that I know both the Reviewer and the CO and they are definitely not one and the same person! Both have been caching for over 10 years and whilst I'm not sure why the NMs didn't elicit a response, I do know that the CO is not normally negligent over maintenance, so there is probably a good reason for not having updated the details.

 

B)

Link to comment

Let me assure you that I know both the Reviewer and the CO and they are definitely not one and the same person! Both have been caching for over 10 years and whilst I'm not sure why the NMs didn't elicit a response, I do know that the CO is not normally negligent over maintenance, so there is probably a good reason for not having updated the details.

I didn't really think it was the same person.

 

Anyway, your point is good. I always assume that there's a good reason for an NM to go without response. But at the same time, a cache wasting people's time is wasting people's time no matter how good the reason for not fixing it is, so no one should have any trouble with someone asking the reviewer to archive it.

Link to comment

Some reviewers do 'sweeps' looking for long disabled caches or those with many DNF's or Needs Maintenance logs. That's why you may see NM caches being picked up. It's not a requirement we do this and it is as time permits. We are required to check on caches that have a Needs Archived log and we do get notified about these.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website

Edited by Graculus
Link to comment

Some reviewers do 'sweeps' looking for long disabled caches or those with many DNF's or Needs Maintenance logs. That's why you may see NM caches being picked up. It's not a requirement we do this and it is as time permits.

I don't know what the official idea is, but as an outside observer, I see this as the reviewer acting as just another user, looking over listings and seeing one that really should be archived. A real user would post a needs archived, but the reviewer quite reasonably skips that step and just reacts as if an NA had been posted.

 

In my opinion, the only reason a reviewer has to do this is because no one else is stepping up to the task. In my area, it's very rare, but what I'm hearing is that the culture in other areas puts this burden on the reviewer as a matter of routine, so other people don't feel any responsibility to post NAs when they are needed..

Link to comment
what I'm hearing is that the culture in other areas puts this burden on the reviewer as a matter of routine, so other people don't feel any responsibility to post NAs when they are needed..

On the flip side, an NA-plentiful culture may put unwelcome nugatory work onto the reviewer. Can't win.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...