Jump to content

Why such negativity towards a NA


Yuma4
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

A few months ago I've logged a few NM-logs for geocaches which haven't been found for several months. In the NM-logs I remarked that the cache should probably be checked just to be sure that it hasn't gone. But the CO unfortunately always reacts to these NM's with the same note: "Huh, you didn't find the cache - so how can you decide the cache needs maintenance? The cache is just hard to find, so I believe the NM-log is being misused. I am going to post an Owner Maintenance now, I will check the cache anytime later"

 

I felt a bit insulted about the suggestion that I was misusing the NM, because I don't write NM's very quickly and I -did- read the previous logs - first many founds after founds, then suddenly DNF's for several months. So I thought it was OK to attract the CO's attention with a NM that the cache should be checked. To the CO's credit, she did check the caches a week later and wrote the next note "Cache checked, still in place. I hope this was the last unneeded NM". I considered the last sentence to be adding to the insult.

 

Is it really that bad that I and other geocachers were just trying to attract her attention to a potential problem? On the one hand she is right that it can just happen that there's a stroke of bad luck for the geocachers, on the other hand if the cache is really hard to find IMHO that warrants a periodic control just to be sure that the cache hasn't gone for real. More so in this case that there were only DNF's for a looong period.

 

I agree with the CO. You didn't find it, how do you know it needs maintenance? Well, if it says it's in the fence, and the fence is gone, you might have a good reason. If a cache is tough to find, that does not require more maintenance, though it will get more DNFs. That does not mean that it needs maintenance. So, I agree with the CO. Abuse of the NM system.

Link to comment

A few months ago I've logged a few NM-logs for geocaches which haven't been found for several months. In the NM-logs I remarked that the cache should probably be checked just to be sure that it hasn't gone. But the CO unfortunately always reacts to these NM's with the same note: "Huh, you didn't find the cache - so how can you decide the cache needs maintenance? The cache is just hard to find, so I believe the NM-log is being misused. I am going to post an Owner Maintenance now, I will check the cache anytime later"

 

Presumably you posted the NM's after your own concerted effort to find the caches ended in a DNF?

Link to comment

These days you can get hundreds of caches in a single day. Find count is not a good metric for experience.

 

I understand that. But a true newbie is unlikely to get a hundred caches on one day as their first hundred caches.

 

No, there's no perfect metric for measuring experience. But I wasn't trying to find a perfect one. Mostly, I was trying to find a metric that would solve a small part of the "negative NA" problem without causing too much difficulty for everyone else.

 

There are people with years of caching experience that catch flack when posting an NA log.

 

Some people have years of caching experience and no find count

 

Some people with years of caching experience don't know the difference between an NA log and a NM.

 

Some have so much experience that if they can't find it, it must be gone.

 

There are all kinds in this hobby.

Link to comment

A few months ago I've logged a few NM-logs for geocaches which haven't been found for several months. In the NM-logs I remarked that the cache should probably be checked just to be sure that it hasn't gone. But the CO unfortunately always reacts to these NM's with the same note: "Huh, you didn't find the cache - so how can you decide the cache needs maintenance? The cache is just hard to find, so I believe the NM-log is being misused. I am going to post an Owner Maintenance now, I will check the cache anytime later"

 

I felt a bit insulted about the suggestion that I was misusing the NM, because I don't write NM's very quickly and I -did- read the previous logs - first many founds after founds, then suddenly DNF's for several months. So I thought it was OK to attract the CO's attention with a NM that the cache should be checked. To the CO's credit, she did check the caches a week later and wrote the next note "Cache checked, still in place. I hope this was the last unneeded NM". I considered the last sentence to be adding to the insult.

 

Is it really that bad that I and other geocachers were just trying to attract her attention to a potential problem? On the one hand she is right that it can just happen that there's a stroke of bad luck for the geocachers, on the other hand if the cache is really hard to find IMHO that warrants a periodic control just to be sure that the cache hasn't gone for real. More so in this case that there were only DNF's for a looong period.

 

The responsible thing to do is to write a DNF log. This signals to the owner that you looked and didn't find, and it signals to other cachers that you had trouble.

 

Something that tends to happen is that when one person writes a DNF log, the next person is influenced to give up searching more quickly. After a few DNFs pile up, people just assume it's not there anymore. You'd be surprised at how often veteran cachers show up to allegedly "missing" caches and find them right away.

 

Typically, it's best to save NM logs for cases where you have actually found the cache and it's in need of owner attention. There are exceptions - if you arrive at the GZ and find that all the trees were recently cut down or something, by all means post the NM. But, in general, if you didn't find it, you aren't in a position to know if it needs maintenance.

Link to comment

I wonder if some (note: some, not all) of the angst regarding NM/NA logs would be eased if a user had to have a minimal number of finds logged before they were permitted to log NM/NA entries. By "minimal", I'm thinking very minimal ... like, 100.

And if my 5th find is a smashed container that needs maintenance? And my 10th find is a similar smashed container, there are NM logs on it already, and the CO hasn't had any activity for 2 years?

 

I would have to wait until I had 100 finds to log these? Ummm, no.

 

I prefer bogus/misused NM/NA logs over the inability for newbies to use them.

Link to comment

Any CO that is quick to call anyone a cache cop shouldn't be a CO of themselves.

 

If you are getting behind in maintenance your caches, its your own fault if you get any NM or NA logs. Its not the finders fault when they need to report on your caches. Caches are made to be find, not to be ignored.

 

I got a NA log not so long ago and I archived the cache and placed a new cache in the same area. Did I get upset? No, in fact, I was happy to get the N/A log because I totally forgot about it. I was like...oops, I forgot about it.

 

I see N/M and N/A logs as a tool to remind you that something need to be done. Placing a cache is a commitment.

 

Any CO that get upset over a N/M or N/A logs tell me alot about them. :blink:

 

This.

Edited by BC & MsKitty
Link to comment

The responsible thing to do is to write a DNF log. This signals to the owner that you looked and didn't find, and it signals to other cachers that you had trouble.

 

Something that tends to happen is that when one person writes a DNF log, the next person is influenced to give up searching more quickly. After a few DNFs pile up, people just assume it's not there anymore. You'd be surprised at how often veteran cachers show up to allegedly "missing" caches and find them right away.

 

Typically, it's best to save NM logs for cases where you have actually found the cache and it's in need of owner attention. There are exceptions - if you arrive at the GZ and find that all the trees were recently cut down or something, by all means post the NM. But, in general, if you didn't find it, you aren't in a position to know if it needs maintenance.

 

This CO has several geocaches in a series - none of them have hints and they all have DNF's regularly. My thought was that a NM would attract more attention than the many DNF-logs she obviously receives - I only posted the NM with the one cache which hasn't been found for a long time. Myself I have searched too for a long time, and I have experience with several hide methods. And I wasn't the only veteran cacher not being able to find the cache [;)]

 

According to the guidelines, this is one possible use of the NM and that's why I did that:

This may be used with a DNF log, sparingly, to let a cache owner know that you and others have been to the location MANY times and that there is a string of DNFs..."It seems like a bunch of people are having trouble with this one lately. Would the cache owner mind checking on it, please?" is an appropriate way to phrase the request when posting a Needs Maintenance log with your DNF log.

 

But you are probably right I should leave it up to the CO to decide when a control is needed and stick to a DNF with the suggestion to add a hint. I guess I should accept that this particular CO doesn't want her geocaches to be found *grin*

Link to comment

Everybody has their own procedure regaridnt NM and NA. Here's mine

 

1. A NM is meant to be helpful. That means that when I file it I provide specific information on the log (in the case of a DNF) or by separate PM (in the case of a find) to provide the CO sufficient info to determine whether a trip out is warranted, and what supplies to bring aong. If its a DNF, I'm going to be quite specific on exactly where I searched and how long. I had a NM some time ago where ground zero was in the middle of a peice of land that had been cleared of all vegetation by bulldozer. I had a NM recently that I filed, and then found that the day before the CO had been to the site and cleared a 2 month long NM. I sent a PM to the reviewer, explaining the situation. The container was a stearling locknlock and the bottom had a hole chewed through the bottom. You could look at the container from the top and think all is well. Understandable from both points of view.

 

2. A NA means that a NM hasd been previously filed without respinse from the CO, AND I know it's gone or has another serious problem that makes it no longer viable. I have only had one NA in my short caching career. There was a cache in my black hole that was statused "unavailable" by the CO due to construction in the area. I placed it on my watch list and filed a NA 12 months later.

Link to comment

Any CO that is quick to call anyone a cache cop shouldn't be a CO of themselves.

 

If you are getting behind in maintenance your caches, its your own fault if you get any NM or NA logs. Its not the finders fault when they need to report on your caches. Caches are made to be find, not to be ignored.

 

I got a NA log not so long ago and I archived the cache and placed a new cache in the same area. Did I get upset? No, in fact, I was happy to get the N/A log because I totally forgot about it. I was like...oops, I forgot about it.

 

I see N/M and N/A logs as a tool to remind you that something need to be done. Placing a cache is a commitment.

 

Any CO that get upset over a N/M or N/A logs tell me alot about them. :blink:

 

This.

 

I agree.

 

And as a cache owner, I appreciate the NM log. We take pride in providing an nice caching experience for people. An NM log, at least to me, means that there's something that needs attention. Something that makes the caching experience less than it could be - damp/wet conditions, moldy, dirty, could use some TLC, someone left bubble liquid that burst, container starting to fall apart, full log (whether or not the back sides are used). When we sign up for cache ownership we agree to the responsibilities it entails and that includes periodic maintenance visits. And it's not that we have to drop everything and go to the cache right away. The guidelines give us plenty of time and different options. We can post a note stating when we expect to get to the cache, we can disable which gives us at least a month to get out to the cache, we can ask for help in the logs - 'Could someone please leave a scrap of paper in the cache until I can get out to it sometime this month. Thanks.'

If it becomes too much of a chore to check on a cache, it's time to consider archiving it.

 

Link to comment

Any CO that get upset over a N/M or N/A logs tell me alot about them. :blink:

If it becomes too much of a chore to check on a cache, it's time to consider archiving it.

 

Just recently, we found a cache in dire need of maintenance:

 

:) Found it

A quick find on our way towards Xxxx Xxxx and Xxxxx for the night.

 

Managed to scrawl a 'J11' into the soaked log.

 

Also, we posted a 'Needs Maintenance':

 

Needs Maintenance

The log is just about mush. There's no seal on the container to keep the water out.

 

The CO expressed their appreciation in an email to us:

 

"We live in the Democratic Socialistic State of Massachusetts, and if you had read the log for Xxxxx's Xxxxx you would have noticed a note by the CO that we would be there to change the log and cache as soon as we could. "VOTE REPUBLICAN""

 

The reference to Massachusetts comes from our profile page, but I really don't get the rest.

 

The cache is in a neighboring state, about a three and a half hour drive from the state border.

 

Why the anger?

 

Hung-over on a Monday morning perhaps?

Link to comment

A lot depends on the mindset of the cache owner.

 

When I've logged NM what I mean is "hey, your cache has suffered a bit and you need to check it out when you have some time". To me it's the same kind of thing as saying to someone "hey, your zipper is undone". The intention is to help. Unfortunately some people regard "your cache is damaged" as meaning "didn't you check this useless cache? Your cache is useless and so are you for not having fixed it already. Get your sorry a** out here RIGHT NOW and sort it". If you're going to assume a bit of friendly advice is intended to humiliate you in public it's natural you'll react badly to it.

 

Some folks think that logging NA makes you some kind of self-appointed "cache police". There are a few people who log NA for no good reason ("I can't find this cache, so it's obviously not there and because nobody has logged anything on it for three months it's about time it was archived"). On the other hand if a cache owner hasn't responded to numerous NM logs it's clear they are unlikely to ever maintain their cache so it should be put out of its misery.

 

I barely cache these days but when I was more active if there were major problems with a cache I'd log NM on it and if there was no response within a month I'd log NA. I figure if a cache owner can't get to it for a while they can always disable it until they can. If they disabled it and I noticed nothing had been done with it for several months I'd write a note asking what was happening and if there was no response within a month log NA, because it would become clear once again that the owner was unlikely to do anything.

 

Some owners don't do anything with their caches until an NA appears, when they rush into action to stop a reviewer from archiving their caches.

And sometimes those who log a NM, pay attention and log a NA later are regarded as "cache cops", yet the whole game started as a community-based endeavor where we all worked together to keep caches on the up-and-up. That meant a NM log was seen as a helpful log where others could help you check on your cache between your own checks. "Thanks for bringing it to my attention" was more often the response I would hear when I first signed up on this site. Now the responses are general quiet, or sometimes a log deletion or nasty-gram sent back for a NM log. (!)

 

When it comes to a NA, the best bet is to keep to the facts, and some owners just can't handle the feedback. I wonder if some of this has to do with a misconception that this game is "run" by Groundspeak/geocaching.com instead of the more accurate "host" of the listings. That misconception can easily pit cache owners against other players who are "being cache cops" by simply using the tools provided by Groundspeak so that we can maintain the listings better at this website. Meaning, Groundspeak put the onus on cache listing and container owners to maintain their own caches and listings, and the reporting features are left in the hands of those who visit the caches more often than the owners themselves.

 

So long as the cache needs maintenance, there shouldn't be any animosity...but there often is. Once it reaches the NA level, that can awaken even the most uninvolved cache owner to go on a string of nastygrams to whoever posted that NA, and complaints to Volunteer Reviewers and/or Groundspeak. And all over the fact that their cache is missing/damaged, and they haven't bothered to take care of their cache(s).

Link to comment

A few months ago I've logged a few NM-logs for geocaches which haven't been found for several months. In the NM-logs I remarked that the cache should probably be checked just to be sure that it hasn't gone. But the CO unfortunately always reacts to these NM's with the same note: "Huh, you didn't find the cache - so how can you decide the cache needs maintenance? The cache is just hard to find, so I believe the NM-log is being misused. I am going to post an Owner Maintenance now, I will check the cache anytime later"

 

I felt a bit insulted about the suggestion that I was misusing the NM, because I don't write NM's very quickly and I -did- read the previous logs - first many founds after founds, then suddenly DNF's for several months. So I thought it was OK to attract the CO's attention with a NM that the cache should be checked. To the CO's credit, she did check the caches a week later and wrote the next note "Cache checked, still in place. I hope this was the last unneeded NM". I considered the last sentence to be adding to the insult.

 

Is it really that bad that I and other geocachers were just trying to attract her attention to a potential problem? On the one hand she is right that it can just happen that there's a stroke of bad luck for the geocachers, on the other hand if the cache is really hard to find IMHO that warrants a periodic control just to be sure that the cache hasn't gone for real. More so in this case that there were only DNF's for a looong period.

 

I agree with the CO. You didn't find it, how do you know it needs maintenance? Well, if it says it's in the fence, and the fence is gone, you might have a good reason. If a cache is tough to find, that does not require more maintenance, though it will get more DNFs. That does not mean that it needs maintenance. So, I agree with the CO. Abuse of the NM system.

The alternative could be to email the owner directly and mention that you are hoping to go find the cache, yet notice that there are many DNFs. Ask if they can check on the cache, and see what they say.

 

How they respond will be telling, and often will lead me to think about my next log. A NM without visiting is questionable, unless you are very familiar with the area the cache is in and you know that something like new construction could have compromised the hide. But, if the owner responds in an unkindly fashion, you've got good reason to head out, take a look for it, and then log your DNF+NM.

 

I think the response "you haven't been there, how would you know" is not unfounded, but is still quite an overreaction. Owners of caches need to remember that this is a community game with all types of people, and that most folks have good intentions. If the hairs on the back of your neck go up, its best to note that fact and "count to 10" to think before unloading on someone for what they see as a helpful log on a cache.

Link to comment

The CO expressed their appreciation in an email to us:

 

"We live in the Democratic Socialistic State of Massachusetts, and if you had read the log for Xxxxx's Xxxxx you would have noticed a note by the CO that we would be there to change the log and cache as soon as we could. "VOTE REPUBLICAN""

 

The reference to Massachusetts comes from our profile page, but I really don't get the rest.

 

The cache is in a neighboring state, about a three and a half hour drive from the state border.

 

Why the anger?

 

Hung-over on a Monday morning perhaps?

I suggest not reading anger into anything. I don't actually think this response counts as anger, but my advice would be the same even if the anger were overt: ignore the anger and simply help him by pointing out that if he's going to be delayed fixing his cache, he should disable it, since not everyone reads the logs before they head to GZ. That's what disabling is for. You can, if you want, "apologize" for the ignorance that led to you telling him something he already knew and not realizing he had a "good excuse" for not doing the required maintenance on his cache.

Link to comment

 

Why the anger?

 

 

Probably not anger, but I agree that your NM was unneeded as the wet log has been reported on September 27 and the owners wrote that they will change the log as soon as possible on September 28. Your NM log is from September 29 and just repeats what they were already aware of and mentioned that they will take care about just a day before.

 

Being told the same repeatedly without any good reason (for example, when one might think that someone forgot about an issue) is not very motivating.

 

Did you read the logs before writing your log?

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

And sometimes those who log a NM, pay attention and log a NA later are regarded as "cache cops", yet the whole game started as a community-based endeavor where we all worked together to keep caches on the up-and-up. That meant a NM log was seen as a helpful log where others could help you check on your cache between your own checks. "Thanks for bringing it to my attention" was more often the response I would hear when I first signed up on this site. Now the responses are general quiet, or sometimes a log deletion or nasty-gram sent back for a NM log. (!)

As with many things in geocaching, this seems to be a regional thing. I just checked and I've logged 55 "Needs archive" logs in my career, and not once have I caught any flak for doing so or been labeled a "cache cop". On the contrary, I've actually been contacted a couple of times by cachers thanking me for doing so. I've also never gotten any resistance from a NM log or had any deleted. I try to keep any such logs as factual and non-judgmental as possible, so maybe that's part of it, but I think it also depends on the local culture. The locals around here aren't the type to get their panties in a bunch and we rarely have any geocaching-related drama, but I've heard of nightmare behaviour in other areas not far from here. I'm just glad I live in an area where the cachers understand that the NM and NA logs are there to help, not harm.

Link to comment

The CO expressed their appreciation in an email to us:

 

"We live in the Democratic Socialistic State of Massachusetts, and if you had read the log for Xxxxx's Xxxxx you would have noticed a note by the CO that we would be there to change the log and cache as soon as we could. "VOTE REPUBLICAN""

 

If the CO doesn't want to receive NM notes until s/he can do maintenance, then disable the cache. I would understand that attitude much more if the cache were not active. But active caches should be findable and loggable.

Link to comment

The CO expressed their appreciation in an email to us:

 

"We live in the Democratic Socialistic State of Massachusetts, and if you had read the log for Xxxxx's Xxxxx you would have noticed a note by the CO that we would be there to change the log and cache as soon as we could. "VOTE REPUBLICAN""

 

If the CO doesn't want to receive NM notes until s/he can do maintenance, then disable the cache. I would understand that attitude much more if the cache were not active. But active caches should be findable and loggable.

This. A very important, and often overlooked cache owner logging feature...

Link to comment

Mostly, I was trying to find a metric that would solve a small part of the "negative NA" problem without causing too much difficulty for everyone else.

 

There are people with years of caching experience that catch flack when posting an NA log.

 

Some people have years of caching experience and no find count

 

Some people with years of caching experience don't know the difference between an NA log and a NM.

 

Some have so much experience that if they can't find it, it must be gone.

 

There are all kinds in this hobby.

 

Certainly. I'm just hypothesizing that we wouldn't lose much if extremely-new cachers weren't even told about NM/NA logs until a little later, and we'd gain a reduction in bogus NM/NA logs as a result.

 

And if my 5th find is a smashed container that needs maintenance? And my 10th find is a similar smashed container, there are NM logs on it already, and the CO hasn't had any activity for 2 years?

 

I would have to wait until I had 100 finds to log these? Ummm, no.

 

I prefer bogus/misused NM/NA logs over the inability for newbies to use them.

 

Vive le difference. And, of course, I suspect most cachers would agree with you rather than me. But sometimes, wacky ideas actually are worth considering ...

Link to comment

The NA log flags the issue to the reviewer. You are essentially reporting the owner. In many cases that forces some action by the owner.

 

I the owner doesn't feel that action was warranted, he/she may react regatively. Whether a negative reaction by a cache owner is justified or an over-reaction is a matter of opinion on a case by case basis. At the extremes it seems clear-cut. If someone logged a NA on one of my caches simply because they could not find it (one extreme) than I would be annoyed. On the other hand if the container is badly broken, a NM was logged 6 months ago and I've done nothing (other extreme) then NA is clearly warranted.

 

There is a lot of gray area in between, and some people are more easily upset than others.

Link to comment

Any CO that get upset over a N/M or N/A logs tell me alot about them. :blink:

If it becomes too much of a chore to check on a cache, it's time to consider archiving it.

 

Just recently, we found a cache in dire need of maintenance:

 

:) Found it

A quick find on our way towards Xxxx Xxxx and Xxxxx for the night.

 

Managed to scrawl a 'J11' into the soaked log.

 

Also, we posted a 'Needs Maintenance':

 

Needs Maintenance

The log is just about mush. There's no seal on the container to keep the water out.

 

The CO expressed their appreciation in an email to us:

 

"We live in the Democratic Socialistic State of Massachusetts, and if you had read the log for Xxxxx's Xxxxx you would have noticed a note by the CO that we would be there to change the log and cache as soon as we could. "VOTE REPUBLICAN""

 

The reference to Massachusetts comes from our profile page, but I really don't get the rest.

 

The cache is in a neighboring state, about a three and a half hour drive from the state border.

 

Why the anger?

 

Hung-over on a Monday morning perhaps?

 

Needs archived.

Link to comment

 

Why the anger?

 

 

Probably not anger, but I agree that your NM was unneeded as the wet log has been reported on September 27 and the owners wrote that they will change the log as soon as possible on September 28. Your NM log is from September 29 and just repeats what they were already aware of and mentioned that they will take care about just a day before.

 

Being told the same repeatedly without any good reason (for example, when one might think that someone forgot about an issue) is not very motivating.

 

Did you read the logs before writing your log?

 

Cezanne

 

Here's the way it went down: I was out hiking for three days in the back country and found the cache on the 25th. Found a few more on the 26th and 27th.

 

Got home on the 28th. Went to go log them on the 29th. Logged the 'find' and changed the date to the 25th. Logged the NM, but the present date (29th) got recorded.

 

To answer your question, I didn't go back online and log a NM four days after logging the find.

 

When I went online to log I looked to see if there was a red wrench (NM) icon or an attribute. There were none.

 

Regardless, the CO's response was a bit much. To us, it came off as if they had been insulted.

 

This may be a reason why players won't post a NM or NA, they're afraid of pushback.

Link to comment

The NA log flags the issue to the reviewer. You are essentially reporting the owner.

No, absolutely not. I'm reporting the cache. Whether the cache reflects poorly on the owner is entirely up to the owner.

 

I the owner doesn't feel that action was warranted, he/she may react regatively. Whether a negative reaction by a cache owner is justified or an over-reaction is a matter of opinion on a case by case basis.

Not only do I disagree with you, I consider the very idea poisonous. Negative reactions are never acceptable. It doesn't matter how mistaken or even how obnoxious the Needs Archived is. If the NA is a mistake, reacting negative turns a neutral situation negative. If the NA was obnoxious, a negative reaction allows an obnoxious jerk to create a negative situation.

 

It makes sense to recognize that people can lose their tempers and punch someone, but it's entirely another thing to say it's a matter of opinion on a case by case basis whether it's OK to lose your temper and punch someone.

 

At the extremes it seems clear-cut. If someone logged a NA on one of my caches simply because they could not find it (one extreme) than I would be annoyed.

I understand you being annoyed, but the fact is they simply made a mistake, and reacting negatively will always be the worst possible way to insure the mistake isn't repeated.

Link to comment

I suggest not reading anger into anything. I don't actually think this response counts as anger, but my advice would be the same even if the anger were overt: ignore the anger and simply help him by pointing out that if he's going to be delayed fixing his cache, he should disable it, since not everyone reads the logs before they head to GZ. That's what disabling is for. You can, if you want, "apologize" for the ignorance that led to you telling him something he already knew and not realizing he had a "good excuse" for not doing the required maintenance on his cache.

 

Apologize? No. I did nothing wrong. I posted a NM, the only NM, on a cache that was in serious need of maintenance. The CO's (over)reaction doesn't make my actions a mistake.

 

I didn't know of, nor expected to be given, an excuse. The CO let me know how far they lived from the cache in their email to us. It's far. If it's too far away to maintain then archive it. Should players not post a NM on caches based on distance from their home?

 

Then they throw in the comment about a perceived political affiliation. What does politics have to do with a cache that needs maintenance? Trying to insult me? Didn't work.

 

Apology from us, nope.

 

It won't stop us from logging them though.

Link to comment

 

I the owner doesn't feel that action was warranted, he/she may react regatively. Whether a negative reaction by a cache owner is justified or an over-reaction is a matter of opinion on a case by case basis.

Not only do I disagree with you, I consider the very idea poisonous. Negative reactions are never acceptable. It doesn't matter how mistaken or even how obnoxious the Needs Archived is. If the NA is a mistake, reacting negative turns a neutral situation negative. If the NA was obnoxious, a negative reaction allows an obnoxious jerk to create a negative situation.

 

It makes sense to recognize that people can lose their tempers and punch someone, but it's entirely another thing to say it's a matter of opinion on a case by case basis whether it's OK to lose your temper and punch someone.

 

 

I am simply stating reality. And by "negative" I don't mean unreasonable. All I'm saying is if a cacher raises an NA and the owner doesn't feel it is justified, they may not like it. They may react by starting a thread here to complain. They may post something on Facebook. They may just grumble to themselves.

 

I did not say it is OK for someone to act rudely or punch anyone.

Link to comment

I would normally say that a NM should only be posted if you found the cache and it has problems. But sometimes I think it's fine to use it to get the attention of an owner after a long string of DNF's.

 

There's a local 1.5 difficulty cache that has multiple DNF's on it for the past three years. I spent a long time looking for it, and it's on a hillside/gully that has clearly had some flooding and washouts. So after four months of my dnf sitting there, I've finally posted a NM log (as well as one other person).

 

In this example, I see it as a pointed question to the CO. "Hey, there's been a lot of DNF's over the past three years, please check on this for us?"

Link to comment

I would normally say that a NM should only be posted if you found the cache and it has problems. But sometimes I think it's fine to use it to get the attention of an owner after a long string of DNF's.

 

There's a local 1.5 difficulty cache that has multiple DNF's on it for the past three years. I spent a long time looking for it, and it's on a hillside/gully that has clearly had some flooding and washouts. So after four months of my dnf sitting there, I've finally posted a NM log (as well as one other person).

 

In this example, I see it as a pointed question to the CO. "Hey, there's been a lot of DNF's over the past three years, please check on this for us?"

And, there may be a case where saying something like, "Hey, I'm headed that way to take a look for this cache and others in the area, and wonder if you can let me know when you last confirmed it was in place. It looks like there's been quite a few DNFs, and I'd like to know that it's good to go...." isn't out of line at all.

 

Really, sticking to the "caches are made to be found" idea, the cache should be, regardless of D/T there to be found. If a string of DNFs are present (even with a single "Found it" mixed in somehow), it's really not out of line to check and see. At least that's how I view it, and I encourage people to let me know if there are possible problems with my caches. If they know something I don't, or they nudge me to pay better attention, it's a good thing in my book. Heck, I may even realize that the cache they are writing about is one that I can't easily maintain as I should.

 

Meaning, if I can't get off my rear to check when a few DNFs roll in, I just might be too lazy or just plain unable to maintain my own cache(s). That's really the whole idea behind the "no vacation caches" and the proximity to home coords idea when it comes to publishing caches through the review process. So, especially when there is a NM on my cache, if I can't get to it in a few days time, I start consider archiving it myself and removing the container on my next trip.

 

That will vary, of course, with each owner, but really goes the same across all cases--if a NM or NA log bothers you, it's best to relax a moment, and reply with a clear head. It's like dprovan says above:

Negative reactions are never acceptable. It doesn't matter how mistaken or even how obnoxious the Needs Archived is. If the NA is a mistake, reacting negative turns a neutral situation negative. If the NA was obnoxious, a negative reaction allows an obnoxious jerk to create a negative situation.

 

We're a community, and positivity is best to keep this game on the up and up.

Link to comment
I would normally say that a NM should only be posted if you found the cache and it has problems. But sometimes I think it's fine to use it to get the attention of an owner after a long string of DNF's.
I've posted a couple NMs in situations where GZ was clearly inside a new construction zone that was posted "no trespassing". In that situation, the NM means that the cache has been destroyed by the construction, or the coordinates are REALLY off and need to be fixed, or the CO removed the cache for safekeeping but forgot to disable the listing. Edited by niraD
Link to comment

If the CO doesn't want to receive NM notes until s/he can do maintenance, then disable the cache. I would understand that attitude much more if the cache were not active. But active caches should be findable and loggable.

 

If the container is there, but the log book is unusable it's a borderline case as the cache can still be logged by either leaving a piece of paper with one's signature or doing a photo log.

I would most probably disable the cache if it were mine, but mainly because I'm against photo logs whenever possible.

 

The cacher who logged NM one day after the owners wrote that they will take care of the log book has logged a find for the cache - so apparently he found a way to log it and did not regard the cache

as not findable/not logable.

 

In my opinion it is not about not wanting to receive NM notes, but I just think that it is not necessary to write a NM note that tells the owners what they already know and wrote the day before that they will take care of. If it were my cache, I would not react inpolitely, but I would think that the logger either thinks that I cannot read or thinks that a cache needs to be maintained within a day.

I'm not happy with the fact that many cachers do not read any longer logs, but just have a look at icons.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

If the CO doesn't want to receive NM notes until s/he can do maintenance, then disable the cache. I would understand that attitude much more if the cache were not active. But active caches should be findable and loggable.

 

If the container is there, but the log book is unusable it's a borderline case as the cache can still be logged by either leaving a piece of paper with one's signature or doing a photo log.

I would most probably disable the cache if it were mine, but mainly because I'm against photo logs whenever possible.

 

The cacher who logged NM one day after the owners wrote that they will take care of the log book has logged a find for the cache - so apparently he found a way to log it and did not regard the cache

as not findable/not logable.

 

In my opinion it is not about not wanting to receive NM notes, but I just think that it is not necessary to write a NM note that tells the owners what they already know and wrote the day before that they will take care of. If it were my cache, I would not react inpolitely, but I would think that the logger either thinks that I cannot read or thinks that a cache needs to be maintained within a day.

I'm not happy with the fact that many cachers do not read any longer logs, but just have a look at icons.

 

Cezanne

 

I would just assume that the person who submitted it had noted it in the field and didn't notice that someone else had posted a NM. When I find 30 caches in a day, I log from my GPS field notes and I don't see the most recent logs.

Link to comment

I would just assume that the person who submitted it had noted it in the field and didn't notice that someone else had posted a NM. When I find 30 caches in a day, I log from my GPS field notes and I don't see the most recent logs.

 

No, this person told us in this thread that he wrote the NM log later at home and only looked for a NM icon.

But even when someone writes notes in the field, it would not be too much to expect to check at home whether maintenance issues have been mentioned and answered already. Hopefully you will not end up with 30 NM logs per caching day.

Link to comment

I would just assume that the person who submitted it had noted it in the field and didn't notice that someone else had posted a NM. When I find 30 caches in a day, I log from my GPS field notes and I don't see the most recent logs.

 

No, this person told us in this thread that he wrote the NM log later at home and only looked for a NM icon.

But even when someone writes notes in the field, it would not be too much to expect to check at home whether maintenance issues have been mentioned and answered already. Hopefully you will not end up with 30 NM logs per caching day.

 

Or people can just suck it up and accept that getting emails is part of owning a geocache.

Link to comment

I would just assume that the person who submitted it had noted it in the field and didn't notice that someone else had posted a NM. When I find 30 caches in a day, I log from my GPS field notes and I don't see the most recent logs.

 

No, this person told us in this thread that he wrote the NM log later at home and only looked for a NM icon.

But even when someone writes notes in the field, it would not be too much to expect to check at home whether maintenance issues have been mentioned and answered already. Hopefully you will not end up with 30 NM logs per caching day.

 

Or people can just suck it up and accept that getting emails is part of owning a geocache.

 

I get an e-mail also when someone writes a found it log, DNF log or note. It is not about getting an e-mail or the inability to suck something up.

I still tend to feel however some frustration at least for a few minutes about how geocaching has changed and how many cachers do not pay attention any longer to what is written in cache descriptions

and owner logs.

Link to comment

Apologize? No. I did nothing wrong.

I wasn't saying you did anything wrong. I was only suggesting that you could phrase your criticism in the form of an apology in order to avoid the knee jerk reaction that will typically prevent a CO from seeing what he contributed to the problem.

Link to comment

If the CO doesn't want to receive NM notes until s/he can do maintenance, then disable the cache. I would understand that attitude much more if the cache were not active. But active caches should be findable and loggable.

 

If the container is there, but the log book is unusable it's a borderline case as the cache can still be logged by either leaving a piece of paper with one's signature or doing a photo log.

I would most probably disable the cache if it were mine, but mainly because I'm against photo logs whenever possible.

 

The cacher who logged NM one day after the owners wrote that they will take care of the log book has logged a find for the cache - so apparently he found a way to log it and did not regard the cache

as not findable/not logable.

 

In my opinion it is not about not wanting to receive NM notes, but I just think that it is not necessary to write a NM note that tells the owners what they already know and wrote the day before that they will take care of. If it were my cache, I would not react inpolitely, but I would think that the logger either thinks that I cannot read or thinks that a cache needs to be maintained within a day.

I'm not happy with the fact that many cachers do not read any longer logs, but just have a look at icons.

 

Cezanne

A NM note isn't just for the owner of the cache. It's for other seekers of that cache, and can also be used by a Volunteer Reviewer if they are deciding to do a sweep of disabled or NM-attributed caches.

 

Even if a NM was posted 5-10 logs earlier, I don't see why a NM would be such a bad thing if another was posted--especially if the owner has not disabled or logged a note of their own to mention their planned involvement in the cache they own. (Communication is key, and best when clear, complete, and objective.)

 

Logs are just like emails, and those emails come from the community we all signed up to be part of. If one can't be bothered to respond to those "emails" (logs) by letting others know that you're on top of the issue in a kindly and accurate manner, one might want to consider a full attitude adjustment. A note that says, "Thanks, I'll get out as soon as I can" is better than silence or an angry email. Responding to each NM or NA log in a kind way is better than silence in every case--especially when a Volunteer Reviewer looks over a cache to know if it might need to be Archived based on the present logs (factual evidence).

Link to comment

If it were my cache, I would not react inpolitely, but I would think that the logger either thinks that I cannot read or thinks that a cache needs to be maintained within a day.

I find it much easier and more pleasant to assume that, whatever the cause, it was an honest mistake rather than assuming it was intended to insult me. When it really is an honest mistake, then obviously that's the best way to view it, but even if it was intended to make me feel bad, I see no point in letting it make me feel bad even if that bad feeling is anger instead of the shame the person was aiming at.

 

A NM note isn't just for the owner of the cache. It's for other seekers of that cache, and can also be used by a Volunteer Reviewer if they are deciding to do a sweep of disabled or NM-attributed caches.

I'm against reviewers scanning for NMs, but I still agree with you about NMs being for reviewers, too, because NMs help the reviewer understand the situation later when someone suggests it's time to archive the cache.

 

Even if a NM was posted 5-10 logs earlier, I don't see why a NM would be such a bad thing if another was posted...

Exactly my feeling. What is so terrible about a redundant comment? Nothing, until you start believing that it was meant to be mean.

Link to comment

NM note isn't just for the owner of the cache. It's for other seekers of that cache, and can also be used by a Volunteer Reviewer if they are deciding to do a sweep of disabled or NM-attributed caches.

 

Agreed, but if the first report of a wet log took place 2 days ago and the reply by the owners that they will take care 1 day ago, I do not think that a NM is needed to alert the reviewers or other cachers.

If the writer of the NM log was able to log a find, other can do the same.

 

Of course NM logs can be written in such situations, but I do not regard as logs as necessary and helpful. They rather make me think whether some cachers really expect maintenance to happen within 2 days.

Even for my caches which are easy to reach, I regard 2 weeks as a minimum realistic time until I will perform maintenance. I almost exclusively cache at the weekend and when on vacation and I know many others who are in a similar situation. I agree that maintenance belongs to the duties of a cache owner, but expecting maintenance within a few days is pretty unrealistic and inappropriate in my opinion. That's not an issue of the distance to one's home coordinates. I certainly would not be willing to go for a night hike to maintain one of my caches that require a hike just to perform maintenance on a working day.

Link to comment

NM note isn't just for the owner of the cache. It's for other seekers of that cache, and can also be used by a Volunteer Reviewer if they are deciding to do a sweep of disabled or NM-attributed caches.

 

Agreed, but if the first report of a wet log took place 2 days ago and the reply by the owners that they will take care 1 day ago, I do not think that a NM is needed to alert the reviewers or other cachers.

If the writer of the NM log was able to log a find, other can do the same.

 

Of course NM logs can be written in such situations, but I do not regard as logs as necessary and helpful. They rather make me think whether some cachers really expect maintenance to happen within 2 days.

Even for my caches which are easy to reach, I regard 2 weeks as a minimum realistic time until I will perform maintenance. I almost exclusively cache at the weekend and when on vacation and I know many others who are in a similar situation. I agree that maintenance belongs to the duties of a cache owner, but expecting maintenance within a few days is pretty unrealistic and inappropriate in my opinion. That's not an issue of the distance to one's home coordinates. I certainly would not be willing to go for a night hike to maintain one of my caches that require a hike just to perform maintenance on a working day.

Once again, you're talking about personal preference. It's good that you recognize that 1. a second NM might happen even if you've posted a note already, and 2. that NM logs are justified when a cache is found in a condition that needs owner maintenance.

 

But the objective thing here is how you react. Sure, you might be annoyed that a second NM log was posted after the next find after your Note responding to the first NM log. But how you proceed is very telling. Another note? Why not? What's the harm? Only to your pride, perhaps?

 

2 weeks isn't unreasonable in most cases. But if cache is within reach, one can put a priority on getting over and getting it fixed. I suppose it all relates back to one's personal preferences and personality if they are willing and able to head out after a couple days to fix a cache that otherwise could be fixed in a 2-week window.

 

But here's my thought--if a cache is visited often enough that you see a couple logs in a day or two of time, that's a cache that might be well served with a more prompt maintenance run. But if a cache on a mountaintop gets a NM log, I'll bet that it won't see another log of any type for a few days, weeks or months.

 

So, yes, I get it. But again, if a cache gets a NM log one day, a visit and another NM the next, it isn't a reason to get into a tizzy with the loggers who let you know your cache is in rough shape. It's a service of this community for that log to come in, and one can respond in kind. If a cache is visited that often to see a a few visits in a couple of days, I'd be heading out for a maintenance run quicker than 2 weeks... And that's my personal preference...

Link to comment

But the objective thing here is how you react. Sure, you might be annoyed that a second NM log was posted after the next find after your Note responding to the first NM log. But how you proceed is very telling. Another note? Why not? What's the harm? Only to your pride, perhaps?

 

I would keep the negative reaction for myself, but a lot of such comparatively tiny frustration moments add up and reduce the motivation of a lot of cache owners to hide further caches. That's not just me.

Link to comment

But the objective thing here is how you react. Sure, you might be annoyed that a second NM log was posted after the next find after your Note responding to the first NM log. But how you proceed is very telling. Another note? Why not? What's the harm? Only to your pride, perhaps?

 

I would keep the negative reaction for myself, but a lot of such comparatively tiny frustration moments add up and reduce the motivation of a lot of cache owners to hide further caches. That's not just me.

And that's a sad fact of each person's personality. If participating in this community in a positive way is too draining on one's motivation to be a responsible cache owner and positive person in the community, then perhaps it is no loss to the rest of us if they do, in fact, stop hiding geocaches.

Link to comment

IMO negativity regarding the use of NA and NM springs from the misuse of each. Used as intended by GS I think they are a good tool. Used as a substitute for a plain old DNF , as they often are, constitutes the misuse, much of which can be traced to uneducated app users.

Which is a good point.

 

At least when logging via the website, you are asked if you "want to post this log type" (or something like that). It at least gives a second verification step to make sure you want to use that log type for what you are trying to say.

 

That much should be integrated into the Apps along with validated email addresses for users, and clearer access to FAQ, Help Center, and Guidelines from within the App. See the "Intro App..." thread in this topic to follow that deviation from this topic...

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

And that's a sad fact of each person's personality. If participating in this community in a positive way is too draining on one's motivation to be a responsible cache owner and positive person in the community, then perhaps it is no loss to the rest of us if they do, in fact, stop hiding geocaches.

 

I do not agree because I do not think that feeling moments of frustrations caused by cachers who apparently did not read the cache page and owner logs (that's a much wider issue than just unnecesaary NM logs)

has anything to do with being a responsible cache owner. My local community has lost many cachers as active cache owners due to the development that geocaching has taken over time that I miss much more than a large number of cachers who entered geocaching within the last 2 years. Yes, that's of course again subjective but I know cachers from other areas who feel similarly.

 

To me participating in a positive way also includes reading the guidelines, cache descriptions, owner logs etc

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

How far back would you expect someone to read past logs? Is it necessary?

 

But really, it's not relevant.

 

The CO let a single NM log post go up their backside.

 

The OP asked about the negativity towards NA and NM logs. I offer that part of the reason is the fear of a poor reaction from the CO.

 

Our example shows that.

 

There was no insult or criticism in the log. No reason for the CO to lash out.

 

But yet that's what happens.

 

Some folks believe that their farts smell like roses, and that other peoples just smell like ****.

Link to comment

How far back would you expect someone to read past logs? Is it necessary?

 

In case of a NM log I'd expect the loggers to read at least the last few logs.

 

The OP asked about the negativity towards NA and NM logs. I offer that part of the reason is the fear of a poor reaction from the CO.

 

Our example shows that.

 

And my replies relate to the topic as well as I explained why I'm not happy with unnecessary NM logs.

You provided your side as a logger of NM and I provided my side as a cache owner that I take into account also when deciding

whether to write a NM log on someone else's cache.

Link to comment

How far back would you expect someone to read past logs? Is it necessary?

In case of a NM log I'd expect the loggers to read at least the last few logs.

 

The OP asked about the negativity towards NA and NM logs. I offer that part of the reason is the fear of a poor reaction from the CO.

 

Our example shows that.

 

And my replies relate to the topic as well as I explained why I'm not happy with unnecessary NM logs.

You provided your side as a logger of NM and I provided my side as a cache owner that I take into account also when deciding

whether to write a NM log on someone else's cache.

I do before logging a NM log. I look for red flags. Once I see them, I do log a NM. I look for a patten of amount of find per month the cache get. If I see a cache that get found like 5 times a month even the cache is 4 years old and all at once, there is no find for 6 months and only two DNF logs. There is a really high chance that its missing. Its pretty simple math.

 

Lately my reviewer is really pushing cache owner to maintenance their listing, which I believe its a good thing.

 

I know a local cacher really chew out my reviewer for disabling their cache. :ph34r: They said they checked on it before the reviewer disable it, but my question is, why didnt they log a maintenance log that they did checked on it. Its common sense to let us know that you checked up on it.

Link to comment

What is an unnecessary NM logs? Its all depend on who the CO is. Some CO are so nit picking and any NM logs is unnecessary in their book. Something to think about.

 

An example from this thread:

I cannot imagine a single cache owner who has a need to be told about a wet log 2 days after the first message about a wet log and 1 day after the cache owner's note that maintenance will be done as soon as possible.

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 5
×
×
  • Create New...