Jump to content

Why such negativity towards a NA


Yuma4
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

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

But, fortunately (or, is it unfortunately?), you can only control you.

 

Do you know they didn't read the guidelines? Do you know they interpret the guidelines the way you do? Do you know that where they come from, the game is played the same way you play it?

 

The answers is, quite honestly, no. Anecdotal evidence is not objective unless it is quantified, or qualitatively assessed over a reliable sample group. Suppositions, or "feelings" can be created by anecdotal evidence or personal feeling or personal interpretations of observations, and that is all. Your paradigm does not a factual base make.

 

So, this is why I say again, only you can control you, and this is why maintaining composure, and being a positive part of the game is more important than acting on supposition and impulse.

 

If you're so worried about the guidelines when dealing with situations like this, then you have an opportunity to be kind, positive, and also introduce that "troublesome user" to the appropriate guidelines, and links to FAQ and Help Center.

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.

 

NM used instead of DNF is unnecessary.

 

NM used when there is actually an issue is justified. I might get slightly annoyed that someone did not read my post where I said I would replace the log, but I would not shoot them a snarky email about it because they were justified in posting that log.

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.

Your expectation is irrelevant and not applicable in a community that contains users who may be new, unfamiliar with the game, etc. You know these people exist in the community, yet you are saying you won't try to understand their perspective? Hmm...

 

The fact is that you can choose to understand that not all people read the cache page. Some don't get beyond the coordinates. Many don't bother with reading the logs and might only stick to the coordinates, D/T, description, and hints. That's just how it goes. So, don't project your expectations on people you don't know or don't understand.

 

Does their perspective mean that you are completely off base to think that they should act in a different manner? No. Certainly not. But trying to claim that everyone who doesn't read "the last few logs" is "not paying attention" is a broad brush to paint with--again you're trying to state personal preference as a trump over the basic guidelines.

 

Yes, yes, you'd prefer (as would I) that people are more comprehensive in their understanding of the game, and would look over more than just the title and coordinates for a cache. We can all claim that we'd like everyone to walk into this game with a 100% understanding of the guidelines and many local common practices, and an overt behavior that supports those guidelines and common practices on a daily basis. Yeah. That would be ideal. But that's not the case, and it's time to think about adjusting a view to be positive, inclusive, and supportive of the very community you would prefer exists.

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.

 

NM used instead of DNF is unnecessary.

 

NM used when there is actually an issue is justified. I might get slightly annoyed that someone did not read my post where I said I would replace the log, but I would not shoot them a snarky email about it because they were justified in posting that log.

And unnecessary does not mean that the cacher is breaking a guideline, or that they are acting improperly. One may wish that they wouldn't have logged another NM on a cache, but that doesn't matter.

 

The real point is the Needs Archived log type. And really, that log is seldom misused in my experience. Someone might take offense, yes, but I've never seen a case where a person was really, truly out of line for logging a NA. And in cases where a NA might have been misguided use by a new or ignorant user, it is easily handled by calm, community-minded owners and Volunteer Reviewers. All they have to do is communicate that the cache is in fact in place, and follows all guidelines. If the cache and owner are skookum, then "there's nothing to see here", and the cache lives on.

Link to comment

NM used when there is actually an issue is justified. I might get slightly annoyed that someone did not read my post where I said I would replace the log, but I would not shoot them a snarky email about it because they were justified in posting that log.

 

I also would not write a snarky email. I just provided an example of a NM which I regard as unnecessary and which I find annoying for a couple of minutes after encountering it.

Link to comment

I also would not write a snarky email. I just provided an example of a NM which I regard as unnecessary and which I find annoying for a couple of minutes after encountering it.

Instead of seeing it as a bother or a slight, see it as your chance to teach someone something about the game you love. You've brought up the other old timers in your area that got annoyed about what the youngsters are doing and have moved on, and every time I wonder how much better of a time you, them, and the youngsters would be having if they thought more like teachers than unappreciated servants.

Link to comment

Question... would you log a NM/NA without visiting to look based solely on a string of dnfs? Someone around here does that and I appreciate them cleaning things up but I have found multiple caches and archived ones after the fact that were indeed there just not found.... your thoughts?

 

Most of the owners are inactive on these...

Edited by sholomar
Link to comment

Question... would you log a NM/NA without visiting to look based solely on a string of dnfs? Someone around here does that and I appreciate them cleaning things up but I have found multiple caches and archived ones after the fact that were indeed there just not found.... your thoughts?

 

Most of the owners are inactive on these...

 

I would, and probably have .... but only when there's very clear evidence that something's amiss. Multiple DNFs on a cache rated 2/2 or lower, multiple NMs, and the CO hasn't logged in for months, much less left a note? I'd log a NA and let the reviewer decide. Multiple DNFs on a 5/1 cache with an active CO? I'll leave that one alone.

Link to comment

 

I would, and probably have .... but only when there's very clear evidence that something's amiss. Multiple DNFs on a cache rated 2/2 or lower, multiple NMs, and the CO hasn't logged in for months, much less left a note? I'd log a NA and let the reviewer decide. Multiple DNFs on a 5/1 cache with an active CO? I'll leave that one alone.

 

What about multiple DNF's on a 5/1 cache with an inactive owner?

 

 

I can understand logging an NA, even if you haven't looked for the cache yourself, when there are multiple NM's posted but not for multiple DNF's, no matter how "easy" the cache is rated. If it bugs you that much and you feel you just have to get involved, then go look for the cache yourself, log your DNF and then log the NA.

 

 

Link to comment

Question... would you log a NM/NA without visiting to look based solely on a string of dnfs?

An NM, sure. I sometimes look at the logs and conclude that the last person to log a DNF had enough info to call for maintenance but, for whatever reason, didn't, so I do it for them even though I haven't been there.

 

Another case that comes up is a string DNFs and then nothing for a few months even though it was previous found reasonably often. I look at it, and decide not to waste my time, and in those cases I consider it obvious that everyone is skipping it for the same reason. In that case, even if it's there, the CO needs to go confirm that and tell everyone so people know to look for it again.

 

I don't think I've ever done an NA without someone logging an NM first, although I can imagine an extreme case where it could be reasonable to call for an NA based only on the DNF's in the log.

 

The basic answer is that a visit to GZ isn't always critical information.

Link to comment

I was in the area of a previous cache find yesterday (a magnetic micro on sign post) and noticed the property, which had already been abandoned when I found the cache, was now blocked off with 'no trespassing' signs. The cache was still there, but I posted a NA log anyway since the whole place is really just sad now. Not sure why the CO is still keeping this one going, but the first thing that will happen when the property gets redeveloped will be the demo of the sign the cache is attached to. Yeah, it's an 11 year old cache...but so what? People really are weird about the older caches, as if age grants it some special exemption from being archived.

Link to comment
People really are weird about the older caches, as if age grants it some special exemption from being archived.
I think part of it has been the increased popularity of Jasmer challenges. Now, it's no longer just an old cache from the early days of geocaching. Now, it's also the only cache within hundreds (thousands?) of miles that qualifies for that month of the Jasmer challenge.

 

Similarly, I doubt there would be as much concern about cache owners updating difficulty/terrain ratings if the various Fizzy challenges weren't so popular.

Link to comment
People really are weird about the older caches, as if age grants it some special exemption from being archived.
I think part of it has been the increased popularity of Jasmer challenges. Now, it's no longer just an old cache from the early days of geocaching. Now, it's also the only cache within hundreds (thousands?) of miles that qualifies for that month of the Jasmer challenge.

 

Similarly, I doubt there would be as much concern about cache owners updating difficulty/terrain ratings if the various Fizzy challenges weren't so popular.

 

Sooo...permissions (or lack thereof due to property turnover), maintenance and the very existence of the cache container are of no consequence as long as it fills a square on a grid?

Link to comment

The cache was still there, but I posted a NA log anyway since the whole place is really just sad now.

I'm having a hard time supporting the idea of an NA posted because "the whole place is really just sad now". If access were impossible, that would be justification, but you yourself went there and checked the cache, so apparently there's no problem getting to the cache even if there are some issues about whether one should go there.

 

(As a side note, I notice from your picture that someone using the stairs in the background -- something that seems perfectly reasonable since a pedestrian would have to walk in the street otherwise -- would walk right past GZ, making it really hard for me to support the notion that people shouldn't go there.)

 

Not sure why the CO is still keeping this one going...

Why not? The location had degraded, but none of the logs seem to suggest the cache itself is having any trouble. Other than the people that don't like the looks of the area, no one seems to be having any trouble finding it.

 

...but the first thing that will happen when the property gets redeveloped will be the demo of the sign the cache is attached to.

Perhaps future development will compromise the hide, but that's true of almost every cache. There's no telling how long this area will sit idle, particularly since it has apparently already been idle for a long time.

 

Yeah, it's an 11 year old cache...but so what? People really are weird about the older caches, as if age grants it some special exemption from being archived.

I don't see anything weird about valuing a rarity like an old cache. By "weird" aren't you really saying only that you disagree with that valuation?

 

Now I really have no idea whether this specific cache should be archived. I'm just concerned that the justifications you're presenting here don't really amount to anything more than a matter of taste.

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

Since I can't read the language, I can't tell what the logs say, but in general I would say, yes, if you've noticed that there seems to be a problem that isn't going to be resolved, you can post an NA to explain why you think that. The time periods you list seem about right for when I normally would post an NA for a cache that appears to be forsaken.

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing...

It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture.

 

Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

It seems like a cultural thing in some areas to not step up and work to get bad caches eliminated. Although from what I've heard in other threads, in Brazil that might be with some justification because caches are so few caches there, so it might make sense to consider each one precious and be reluctant to call for elimination.

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

 

Disabled for 3 months:

...

Maintenance requests for 3 months:

...

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands.

Not time... As you can see I´ve visited at least once all these caches! There are only around 2000 active caches in Brazil and I´ve visited almost half of them! And everytime I go to a cache, can´t find it and post a DNF I put it on my watchlist... It´s simple to manage a watchlist!

Link to comment
Sooo...permissions (or lack thereof due to property turnover), maintenance and the very existence of the cache container are of no consequence as long as it fills a square on a grid?
For some people, apparently so. But then again, some people ignore basic rules like "return the geocache to its original location" if they can log smileys faster that way.
Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

 

Disabled for 3 months:

 

http://coord.info/GC29A1K

http://coord.info/GC1JQ7F

http://coord.info/GC3HKN3

http://coord.info/GC1ET3H

http://coord.info/GC3E81P

http://coord.info/GC2243F

http://coord.info/GC3FWFV

http://coord.info/GC1FTNY

http://coord.info/GC1HCAT

http://coord.info/GC3YKMX

 

Maintenance requests for 3 months:

 

http://coord.info/GC2243F

http://coord.info/GC3FD6Y

http://coord.info/GC3D1V7

http://coord.info/GC3D1RP

http://coord.info/GC3D1YM

http://coord.info/GC3EBGK

http://coord.info/GC3D0N3

http://coord.info/GC3NZ7R

http://coord.info/GC184QF

http://coord.info/GC1FPM3

http://coord.info/GC1FPGD

http://coord.info/GC2KQ64

http://coord.info/GC2YH6X

http://coord.info/GC1E7PM

http://coord.info/GC3MQ3D

http://coord.info/GC1GPPD

http://coord.info/GC2EARV

http://coord.info/GC1J1P3

http://coord.info/GC22NKY

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

 

Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands.

Thats a very negativity remark you made there. Thats the very reason why this thread is in place. Brazil is FULL of vacation caches. I didnt look at all those caches but I will say this... its very annoying to find so many caches MISSING when you LIVE in an area where its full of vacation caches. I know this for a fact when I visit the Oregon coast. UGH!

 

I will say this... when MANY caches are missing, you need to read up EVERY cache pages to see if the cache is missing or not. This guy doesn't have a lot of time on his hands, hes FORCE to read up every cache page because of missing vacation cache.

 

I wont name anyone, but I know at least five people that GAVE up caching because of so many missing caches in the Eugene area. They say this... sound like GS doesnt care if they got alot of bad listing or not. That was a few years ago. Things are MUCH better now...why? the reviewers is doing their job!

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

 

Disabled for 3 months:

 

http://coord.info/GC29A1K

http://coord.info/GC1JQ7F

http://coord.info/GC3HKN3

http://coord.info/GC1ET3H

http://coord.info/GC3E81P

http://coord.info/GC2243F

http://coord.info/GC3FWFV

http://coord.info/GC1FTNY

http://coord.info/GC1HCAT

http://coord.info/GC3YKMX

 

Maintenance requests for 3 months:

 

http://coord.info/GC2243F

http://coord.info/GC3FD6Y

http://coord.info/GC3D1V7

http://coord.info/GC3D1RP

http://coord.info/GC3D1YM

http://coord.info/GC3EBGK

http://coord.info/GC3D0N3

http://coord.info/GC3NZ7R

http://coord.info/GC184QF

http://coord.info/GC1FPM3

http://coord.info/GC1FPGD

http://coord.info/GC2KQ64

http://coord.info/GC2YH6X

http://coord.info/GC1E7PM

http://coord.info/GC3MQ3D

http://coord.info/GC1GPPD

http://coord.info/GC2EARV

http://coord.info/GC1J1P3

http://coord.info/GC22NKY

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

 

Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands.

Thats a very negativity remark you made there. Thats the very reason why this thread is in place. Brazil is FULL of vacation caches. I didnt look at all those caches but I will say this... its very annoying to find so many caches MISSING when you LIVE in an area where its full of vacation caches. I know this for a fact when I visit the Oregon coast. UGH!

 

I will say this... when MANY caches are missing, you need to read up EVERY cache pages to see if the cache is missing or not. This guy doesn't have a lot of time on his hands, hes FORCE to read up every cache page because of missing vacation cache.

 

I wont name anyone, but I know at least five people that GAVE up caching because of so many missing caches in the Eugene area. They say this... sound like GS doesnt care if they got alot of bad listing or not. That was a few years ago. Things are MUCH better now...why? the reviewers is doing their job!

I understand that he's faced with a frustrating situation. I wasn't remarking about the caches themselves, but that he spent the time to link to that long list of caches in this thread.

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

Since I can't read the language, I can't tell what the logs say, but in general I would say, yes, if you've noticed that there seems to be a problem that isn't going to be resolved, you can post an NA to explain why you think that. The time periods you list seem about right for when I normally would post an NA for a cache that appears to be forsaken.

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing...

It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture.

 

Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

It seems like a cultural thing in some areas to not step up and work to get bad caches eliminated. Although from what I've heard in other threads, in Brazil that might be with some justification because caches are so few caches there, so it might make sense to consider each one precious and be reluctant to call for elimination.

Wrong... you are dead wrong. My reviewer look for caches that needed help about once every month or two. :ph34r: Oh yea, my caches been targeted a time or two and I always thanked him for reminding me to fix it. My area got good listings. In other words... most caches thats on the list are findable. Thats good advertising for new cachers that want to clean out their area. We need new cachers to keep the hobby going.

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

 

Disabled for 3 months:

 

http://coord.info/GC29A1K

http://coord.info/GC1JQ7F

http://coord.info/GC3HKN3

http://coord.info/GC1ET3H

http://coord.info/GC3E81P

http://coord.info/GC2243F

http://coord.info/GC3FWFV

http://coord.info/GC1FTNY

http://coord.info/GC1HCAT

http://coord.info/GC3YKMX

 

Maintenance requests for 3 months:

 

http://coord.info/GC2243F

http://coord.info/GC3FD6Y

http://coord.info/GC3D1V7

http://coord.info/GC3D1RP

http://coord.info/GC3D1YM

http://coord.info/GC3EBGK

http://coord.info/GC3D0N3

http://coord.info/GC3NZ7R

http://coord.info/GC184QF

http://coord.info/GC1FPM3

http://coord.info/GC1FPGD

http://coord.info/GC2KQ64

http://coord.info/GC2YH6X

http://coord.info/GC1E7PM

http://coord.info/GC3MQ3D

http://coord.info/GC1GPPD

http://coord.info/GC2EARV

http://coord.info/GC1J1P3

http://coord.info/GC22NKY

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

 

Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands.

Thats a very negativity remark you made there. Thats the very reason why this thread is in place. Brazil is FULL of vacation caches. I didnt look at all those caches but I will say this... its very annoying to find so many caches MISSING when you LIVE in an area where its full of vacation caches. I know this for a fact when I visit the Oregon coast. UGH!

 

I will say this... when MANY caches are missing, you need to read up EVERY cache pages to see if the cache is missing or not. This guy doesn't have a lot of time on his hands, hes FORCE to read up every cache page because of missing vacation cache.

 

I wont name anyone, but I know at least five people that GAVE up caching because of so many missing caches in the Eugene area. They say this... sound like GS doesnt care if they got alot of bad listing or not. That was a few years ago. Things are MUCH better now...why? the reviewers is doing their job!

I understand that he's faced with a frustrating situation. I wasn't remarking about the caches themselves, but that he spent the time to link to that long list of caches in this thread.

Thats really easy to do with GSAK. I can do it in three mins flat. :blink:

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

 

Disabled for 3 months:

 

http://coord.info/GC29A1K

http://coord.info/GC1JQ7F

http://coord.info/GC3HKN3

http://coord.info/GC1ET3H

http://coord.info/GC3E81P

http://coord.info/GC2243F

http://coord.info/GC3FWFV

http://coord.info/GC1FTNY

http://coord.info/GC1HCAT

http://coord.info/GC3YKMX

 

Maintenance requests for 3 months:

 

http://coord.info/GC2243F

http://coord.info/GC3FD6Y

http://coord.info/GC3D1V7

http://coord.info/GC3D1RP

http://coord.info/GC3D1YM

http://coord.info/GC3EBGK

http://coord.info/GC3D0N3

http://coord.info/GC3NZ7R

http://coord.info/GC184QF

http://coord.info/GC1FPM3

http://coord.info/GC1FPGD

http://coord.info/GC2KQ64

http://coord.info/GC2YH6X

http://coord.info/GC1E7PM

http://coord.info/GC3MQ3D

http://coord.info/GC1GPPD

http://coord.info/GC2EARV

http://coord.info/GC1J1P3

http://coord.info/GC22NKY

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

 

Wow, you have a lot of time on your hands.

Thats a very negativity remark you made there. Thats the very reason why this thread is in place. Brazil is FULL of vacation caches. I didnt look at all those caches but I will say this... its very annoying to find so many caches MISSING when you LIVE in an area where its full of vacation caches. I know this for a fact when I visit the Oregon coast. UGH!

 

I will say this... when MANY caches are missing, you need to read up EVERY cache pages to see if the cache is missing or not. This guy doesn't have a lot of time on his hands, hes FORCE to read up every cache page because of missing vacation cache.

 

I wont name anyone, but I know at least five people that GAVE up caching because of so many missing caches in the Eugene area. They say this... sound like GS doesnt care if they got alot of bad listing or not. That was a few years ago. Things are MUCH better now...why? the reviewers is doing their job!

I understand that he's faced with a frustrating situation. I wasn't remarking about the caches themselves, but that he spent the time to link to that long list of caches in this thread.

Thats really easy to do with GSAK. I can do it in three mins flat. :blink:

Ok. I'm program illiterate. If he did it that way, I take back my comment.

 

*sigh*

 

All better now? :unsure::huh:

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

Since I can't read the language, I can't tell what the logs say, but in general I would say, yes, if you've noticed that there seems to be a problem that isn't going to be resolved, you can post an NA to explain why you think that. The time periods you list seem about right for when I normally would post an NA for a cache that appears to be forsaken.

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing...

It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture.

 

Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

It seems like a cultural thing in some areas to not step up and work to get bad caches eliminated. Although from what I've heard in other threads, in Brazil that might be with some justification because caches are so few caches there, so it might make sense to consider each one precious and be reluctant to call for elimination.

Wrong... you are dead wrong. My reviewer look for caches that needed help about once every month or two. :ph34r: Oh yea, my caches been targeted a time or two and I always thanked him for reminding me to fix it. My area got good listings. In other words... most caches thats on the list are findable. Thats good advertising for new cachers that want to clean out their area. We need new cachers to keep the hobby going.

Maybe, just maybe, one of the reasons that are so few geocachers in Brazil is exactly this: "Many new geocachers are quickly frustrated by trying to find a cache and it isn´t even there because old geocachers don´t do the proper maintenance work and reviewers leave their listings enabled even knowing the problem with the cache!"

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

Since I can't read the language, I can't tell what the logs say, but in general I would say, yes, if you've noticed that there seems to be a problem that isn't going to be resolved, you can post an NA to explain why you think that. The time periods you list seem about right for when I normally would post an NA for a cache that appears to be forsaken.

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing...

It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture.

 

Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

It seems like a cultural thing in some areas to not step up and work to get bad caches eliminated. Although from what I've heard in other threads, in Brazil that might be with some justification because caches are so few caches there, so it might make sense to consider each one precious and be reluctant to call for elimination.

Wrong... you are dead wrong. My reviewer look for caches that needed help about once every month or two. :ph34r: Oh yea, my caches been targeted a time or two and I always thanked him for reminding me to fix it. My area got good listings. In other words... most caches thats on the list are findable. Thats good advertising for new cachers that want to clean out their area. We need new cachers to keep the hobby going.

 

I agree. Reviewers and finders that help keep their area clean of junk, abandoned caches promote the quality of the game.

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

Since I can't read the language, I can't tell what the logs say, but in general I would say, yes, if you've noticed that there seems to be a problem that isn't going to be resolved, you can post an NA to explain why you think that. The time periods you list seem about right for when I normally would post an NA for a cache that appears to be forsaken.

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing...

It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture.

 

Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

It seems like a cultural thing in some areas to not step up and work to get bad caches eliminated. Although from what I've heard in other threads, in Brazil that might be with some justification because caches are so few caches there, so it might make sense to consider each one precious and be reluctant to call for elimination.

Wrong... you are dead wrong. My reviewer look for caches that needed help about once every month or two. :ph34r: Oh yea, my caches been targeted a time or two and I always thanked him for reminding me to fix it. My area got good listings. In other words... most caches thats on the list are findable. Thats good advertising for new cachers that want to clean out their area. We need new cachers to keep the hobby going.

 

I agree. Reviewers and finders that help keep their area clean of junk, abandoned caches promote the quality of the game.

Yes I agree with that! However, why the negativity towards a NA outweigh the quality of the game? Why a good amount of people are so fast to call other "cache cop" when they are doing their job? It seems that only a few will do the "dirty job" when we all agree to post NA or NM logs when we first signed up GC.com.

Link to comment

It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture.

Wrong... you are dead wrong. My reviewer look for caches that needed help about once every month or two.

No, sorry. I don't know why your reviewer feels a need to examine cache listing looking for problems, but it really is your job. You should start doing your part so the reviewer stops feeling the need to unilaterally decide the fate of the caches.

 

Oh yea, my caches been targeted a time or two and I always thanked him for reminding me to fix it. My area got good listings. In other words... most caches thats on the list are findable. Thats good advertising for new cachers that want to clean out their area. We need new cachers to keep the hobby going.

I'm not sure why you're explaining this to me. Yes, absolutely, bad caches should be eliminated. That process will be more efficient if you do your part. I'm not sure why the culture in your area became reviewer driven, but it's wrong for you to feel the reviewer is calling the shots, it's unhealthy for the reviewer to always be the bad guy that decides a cache should be archived, and it's probably annoying to the reviewer to have to waste time continually monitoring caches in the area because the people looking for the caches refuse to report when one needs to be archived.

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

Since I can't read the language, I can't tell what the logs say, but in general I would say, yes, if you've noticed that there seems to be a problem that isn't going to be resolved, you can post an NA to explain why you think that. The time periods you list seem about right for when I normally would post an NA for a cache that appears to be forsaken.

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing...

It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture.

 

Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

It seems like a cultural thing in some areas to not step up and work to get bad caches eliminated. Although from what I've heard in other threads, in Brazil that might be with some justification because caches are so few caches there, so it might make sense to consider each one precious and be reluctant to call for elimination.

Wrong... you are dead wrong. My reviewer look for caches that needed help about once every month or two. :ph34r: Oh yea, my caches been targeted a time or two and I always thanked him for reminding me to fix it. My area got good listings. In other words... most caches thats on the list are findable. Thats good advertising for new cachers that want to clean out their area. We need new cachers to keep the hobby going.

 

I agree. Reviewers and finders that help keep their area clean of junk, abandoned caches promote the quality of the game.

Yes I agree with that! However, why the negativity towards a NA outweigh the quality of the game? Why a good amount of people are so fast to call other "cache cop" when they are doing their job? It seems that only a few will do the "dirty job" when we all agree to post NA or NM logs when we first signed up GC.com.

No... Cache cop is bad, very bad for the game!!!! But, as I told in many other topics, being a Cache Cop is a duty of all geocachers... Simple!

Link to comment

 

Considering that all these caches were disabled by the reviewers, what do you mean by saying that they "did nothing"?

Link to comment

 

Considering that all these caches were disabled by the reviewers, what do you mean by saying that they "did nothing"?

 

Ohhh the prodigal Forum Moderator has returned!!!!

 

All geocachers can read that the last log (the one that disable the cache) was made by a reviewer and I specifically split all the caches into 2 groups: "Needs Maintenance for 3 months" and "Disable for 3 Months" meaning that nothing was done by the reviewers in 3 months.

 

But if you really want the truth and spare the clicks on each lin for other forum reads here it goes:

 

http://coord.info/GC29A1K - May 27th 2014, Disabled by owner after 2 DNFs... Nothing done by the reviewers after that date.

http://coord.info/GC1JQ7F - Feb 7th 2014, NM request... July 15th 2014, Disable by reviewer... Nothing done by the reviewers after that date.

http://coord.info/GC3HKN3 - Jun 8th 2014, NA request... June 24th 2014, Disable by reviewer... Nothing done by the reviewers after that date.

http://coord.info/GC1ET3H -

http://coord.info/GC3E81P

http://coord.info/GC2243F

http://coord.info/GC3FWFV

http://coord.info/GC1FTNY

http://coord.info/GC1HCAT

http://coord.info/GC3YKMX

 

I´m not going to continue but you cann see that most caches have problems for over 6 months and still not archived!!!!

 

Great call Mr. "Rui de Almeida" you really made your point here...

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

Since I can't read the language, I can't tell what the logs say, but in general I would say, yes, if you've noticed that there seems to be a problem that isn't going to be resolved, you can post an NA to explain why you think that. The time periods you list seem about right for when I normally would post an NA for a cache that appears to be forsaken.

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing...

It's not the reviewer's job. It's your job. So if you think you can justify the caches disappearing, post the NA to make your case to the reviewer to bring them into the picture.

 

Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

It seems like a cultural thing in some areas to not step up and work to get bad caches eliminated. Although from what I've heard in other threads, in Brazil that might be with some justification because caches are so few caches there, so it might make sense to consider each one precious and be reluctant to call for elimination.

Wrong... you are dead wrong. My reviewer look for caches that needed help about once every month or two. :ph34r: Oh yea, my caches been targeted a time or two and I always thanked him for reminding me to fix it. My area got good listings. In other words... most caches thats on the list are findable. Thats good advertising for new cachers that want to clean out their area. We need new cachers to keep the hobby going.

Maybe, just maybe, one of the reasons that are so few geocachers in Brazil is exactly this: "Many new geocachers are quickly frustrated by trying to find a cache and it isn´t even there because old geocachers don´t do the proper maintenance work and reviewers leave their listings enabled even knowing the problem with the cache!"

 

No argument there. If, when I started caching, I had realized that many of the caches I went looking for were missing and had been missing for some time, I would have quit the game pretty quickly.

Link to comment

The cache was still there, but I posted a NA log anyway since the whole place is really just sad now.

I'm having a hard time supporting the idea of an NA posted because "the whole place is really just sad now". If access were impossible, that would be justification, but you yourself went there and checked the cache, so apparently there's no problem getting to the cache even if there are some issues about whether one should go there.

 

(As a side note, I notice from your picture that someone using the stairs in the background -- something that seems perfectly reasonable since a pedestrian would have to walk in the street otherwise -- would walk right past GZ, making it really hard for me to support the notion that people shouldn't go there.)

 

Incorrect. There was nobody on the stairs...not sure what you are talking about. At the top side of the stairs, they are completely demolished and the stairs are not stable since they are not anchored into the ground at the top half anymore.

 

I had no trouble because I walked from an adjacent property along a public right-of-way. There is a chain at the drive entry (which was not there when I'd originally found the cache). This chain was obviously put up within the last few months and indicates to me that whoever owns the property does not wish anyone to drive into the property or access the property because of the NEW "No Trespassing" sign. The cache was visible from the road (a tiny altoids container magnetically attached to the mangled sign), so I did not personally go beyond the sign. There are new conditions at the site that say to me that visitors to the site are not welcome by the owners.

Not sure why the CO is still keeping this one going...

Why not? The location had degraded, but none of the logs seem to suggest the cache itself is having any trouble. Other than the people that don't like the looks of the area, no one seems to be having any trouble finding it.

Degraded AND has been chained off - a new thing here. Conditions change. An abandoned but open site is one thing and not in itself worth considering archival. An abandoned and access-restricted site is another thing entirely.

 

...but the first thing that will happen when the property gets redeveloped will be the demo of the sign the cache is attached to.

Perhaps future development will compromise the hide, but that's true of almost every cache. There's no telling how long this area will sit idle, particularly since it has apparently already been idle for a long time.

As stated before, the new chain and sign say to me that something has changed to make the owner more aware of people entering the site. Whether or not there is something planned for that site right away is not important, really...but anything that does will instantly and without any doubt make the cache disappear.

 

Yeah, it's an 11 year old cache...but so what? People really are weird about the older caches, as if age grants it some special exemption from being archived.

I don't see anything weird about valuing a rarity like an old cache. By "weird" aren't you really saying only that you disagree with that valuation?

 

Now I really have no idea whether this specific cache should be archived. I'm just concerned that the justifications you're presenting here don't really amount to anything more than a matter of taste.

 

If you have ever paid attention to my opinions of various types of caches and hides, you would know I try to find value in every cache I find...from the lowliest LPC to the most elaborately constructed hides to the scenic trails with well-stocked ammo cans. My concern is that people are only keeping this one around because of its age and will ignore changing conditions on the site, ignore new restrictions on access and ignore the concerns of permissions and property ownership merely because it fills a square on a grid.

Link to comment

 

Your local reviewers will most likely look at these caches the next time they sweep the country looking for, well, caches disabled for more than X weeks.

 

 

Maintenance requests are originated towards the cache owners. Some geocachers don't consider them critical. Some geocachers ignore them. Some geocachers filter all the automated messages coming from Geocaching.com. Have you tried contacting each and every owner of these caches? Offer a hand?

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

 

No, the local reviewers only know about the caches for which you post SBA logs. All the other caches, unless specifically pointed out, do not raise any kind of "alarm".

Link to comment

So should I post a NA in all these caches?

 

Disabled for 3 months:

....

 

Your local reviewers will most likely look at these caches the next time they sweep the country looking for, well, caches disabled for more than X weeks.

 

Maintenance requests for 3 months:

....

 

Maintenance requests are originated towards the cache owners. Some geocachers don't consider them critical. Some geocachers ignore them. Some geocachers filter all the automated messages coming from Geocaching.com. Have you tried contacting each and every owner of these caches? Offer a hand?

 

The local reviewers know about it and did nothing... Like some said before: "Brazil is the wild west of geocaching!"

 

No, the local reviewers only know about the caches for which you post SBA logs. All the other caches, unless specifically pointed out, do not raise any kind of "alarm".

 

Ohhh... this is getting great, now one of the reviewers apears!!!!!

 

Maybe I there are different guidelines in Brazil but the ones I read are here:

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

All the caches I have pointed out are over 12 weeks, some over 24 weeks... And I sent you and email last week with the list and I didn´t even got an answer. Right?!

 

I forgot, the word "may" is there... so you can do whatever you want! Great job then, thanks for keeping the listings accurate! :blink:

 

And by the way... "Offer a hand?!?!" to other geocachers that don´t maintain their own caches, criticize me for posting NM and steal my caches... yeahhh sure!!!!

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

All the caches I have pointed out are over 12 weeks, some over 24 weeks... And I sent you and email last week with the list and I didn´t even got an answer. Right?!

 

There is sometimes more to the story than you can read on the cache page. If the reviewer has stepped in and disabled it, it will eventually get caught up in a periodic sweep and get archived. But sometimes there are reasons to keep them disabled longer than you might like that are only known to the reviewer and cache owner.

Link to comment

All the caches I have pointed out are over 12 weeks, some over 24 weeks... And I sent you and email last week with the list and I didn´t even got an answer. Right?!

 

There is sometimes more to the story than you can read on the cache page. If the reviewer has stepped in and disabled it, it will eventually get caught up in a periodic sweep and get archived. But sometimes there are reasons to keep them disabled longer than you might like that are only known to the reviewer and cache owner.

 

Right, even of the CO is long gone form the game!

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

Incorrect. There was nobody on the stairs...not sure what you are talking about. At the top side of the stairs, they are completely demolished and the stairs are not stable since they are not anchored into the ground at the top half anymore.

It would have been clearer if I'd said, "IF someone used the stairs." I had no idea that the stairs didn't work.

 

My concern is that people are only keeping this one around because of its age and will ignore changing conditions on the site, ignore new restrictions on access and ignore the concerns of permissions and property ownership merely because it fills a square on a grid.

I think people are mainly unconcerned. Despite the new signs, it's not as if anyone's going to get hurt or arrested for going to GZ, so most people, like me, are probably willing to let it continue just to see what happens. Once there's a problem, then we can talk about archiving it. To be honest, I don't think there's any significant legal difference between its placement now behind a scary sign and its original placement on private property without permission.

Edited by dprovan
Link to comment

Incorrect. There was nobody on the stairs...not sure what you are talking about. At the top side of the stairs, they are completely demolished and the stairs are not stable since they are not anchored into the ground at the top half anymore.

It would have been clearer if I'd said, "IF someone used the stairs." I had no idea that the stairs didn't work.

 

My concern is that people are only keeping this one around because of its age and will ignore changing conditions on the site, ignore new restrictions on access and ignore the concerns of permissions and property ownership merely because it fills a square on a grid.

I think people are mainly unconcerned. Despite the new signs, it's not as if anyone's going to get hurt or arrested for going to GZ, so most people, like me, are probably willing to let it continue just to see what happens. Once there's a problem, then we can talk about archiving it. To be honest, I don't think there's any significant legal difference between its placement now behind a scary sign and its original placement on private property without permission.

 

Well, I don't think we know for certain whether it had permission or not. It likely didn't, but we can't really assume anything except for the fact that it is probably now out the window.

Link to comment

Well, I don't think we know for certain whether it had permission or not. It likely didn't, but we can't really assume anything except for the fact that it is probably now out the window.

If you're going to split hairs like that, we don't know if the CO has permission from the current property owner, either.

Link to comment

So here's one from today:

 

06/12/2014

Didn't find it

I've come by here three times now and have had no luck in finding this cache. Maybe someone could stop by and check to see if it is still there.

 

06/13/2014

Owner Maintenance (not really maintenance)

This cache may have gone missing! I will check on it soon and replace it if needed!

 

...four months later...

 

10/27/2014

Write Note

I was planning to look for this one, but the owner log from four months back discouraged me from trying since there is no confirmation it's there. Can the CO confirm it's there?

 

...seems reasonable, right? I mean, four months with no real confirmation, a history of going missing...

 

10/27/2014

Write Note

The cache disappeared a few times so I am no longer maintaining the cache. I don't think it is there.

 

...now, any reasonable person at this point would just say "okay, no maintenance, high possibility of it being gone...let's archive it"...right?

 

10/27/2014

Needs Archived

If the owner is no longer maintaining the cache that probably is not even there, it needs to be archived.

 

...then the local dead cache apologist jumps in...

 

10/27/2014

Write Note

This cache could easily be there, since a person with only 4 finds logged the DNF. The owner hasn't confirmed its missing so I'm not sure why there is an assumption its not there. I guess instead of hunting it, we should all just sit at home and post notes and archival requests.

 

I'll be going by to hunt this one soon and I'll confirm if it's still there for ya.

 

...whoa...hold on there! Who asked you?...

 

10/27/2014

Write Note

My last word, because I kind of have to respond to that:

 

The CO himself said "The cache disappeared a few times so I am no longer maintaining the cache. I don't think it is there."

 

That in itself is reason enough to archive it. Publicly stating that he has no intention of maintaining it means the cache is dead...whether or not it's there.

 

Why are people so intent on keeping dead caches alive when the owner himself doesn't care?

 

Whatever. Just the fact that nobody even tried in that four month period says to me that it wouldn't even be missed. I fail to see why a reasonable NA log would get such a backlash from someone who doesn't even own the cache!

Link to comment

Question... would you log a NM/NA without visiting to look based solely on a string of dnfs? Someone around here does that and I appreciate them cleaning things up but I have found multiple caches and archived ones after the fact that were indeed there just not found.... your thoughts?

 

Most of the owners are inactive on these...

 

I wouldn't have a problem with logging NM even if only to ask the owner to check on it. If I was thinking of going to look for it, it would be nice to know if it was actually there or not.

 

If the owner was inactive or didn't respond to the NM log for several weeks I'd probably log NA. The reviewer can decide whether it needs to go or not.

 

If the cache is still there but the owner is inactive it might as well get archived before it falls into disrepair. If the owner cared about it they could always adopt it out.

Link to comment

10/27/2014

Write Note

I was planning to look for this one, but the owner log from four months back discouraged me from trying since there is no confirmation it's there. Can the CO confirm it's there?

 

...seems reasonable, right? I mean, four months with no real confirmation, a history of going missing...

Normally with just a single DNF by a newbie (according to the local dead cache apologist), I'd look for it myself before I asked for confirmation.

 

But regardless, if you ask for confirmation, it should be a Needs Maintenance log. After all, you are declaring it needs maintenance; namely, it needs the CO to go check to make sure it's there because you have concluded from the logs that it isn't, and you think that's a reasonable conclusion for most people, so most people will stop looking for it.

 

10/27/2014

Write Note

The cache disappeared a few times so I am no longer maintaining the cache. I don't think it is there.

 

...now, any reasonable person at this point would just say "okay, no maintenance, high possibility of it being gone...let's archive it"...right?

 

10/27/2014

Needs Archived

If the owner is no longer maintaining the cache that probably is not even there, it needs to be archived.

Yeah, OK. It's a little in-your-face since the owner could have archived it himself if that's really how he felt about it, but in this case it sounds like the owner's missing something, so the "OK, so archive it" approach seems OK. It would have been better with the first log being Needs Maintenance, though.

 

...then the local dead cache apologist jumps in...

 

10/27/2014

Write Note

This cache could easily be there, since a person with only 4 finds logged the DNF. The owner hasn't confirmed its missing so I'm not sure why there is an assumption its not there. I guess instead of hunting it, we should all just sit at home and post notes and archival requests.

Yeah, this is wrong headed. Reading the logs and then saying the owner hasn't confirmed it's missing is 100% backwards: the owner hasn't confirmed that it's there, hence your reasonable reaction.

 

I also get tired of people thinking the assumption behind an NM or an NA is that it's not there. The observation is that no one's finding it, hence the request to confirm that it's there. (Some people posting NMs or NAs get this wrong, but not in this case.)

 

In the last sentence, he wanders off into being a jerk, but perhaps he was just having a bad day.

 

I'll be going by to hunt this one soon and I'll confirm if it's still there for ya.

 

...whoa...hold on there! Who asked you?...

No one asked him, he's just doing it as a favor to you. You should say, "That would be great!", since, from your point of view, that's every bit as good as the CO himself going out to confirm the cache is there.

 

But don't delete your Needs Archived log unless he does confirm it's still in place. (Well, I don't think you need to delete it even then, if you don't want. Personally, I'd change it to a note and explain that a third party has made me change my mind.) In particular, don't cancel the archive request if he logs that it was missing and he replaced it, since that doesn't address the reason you suggesting archival. You can leave it up to the CO and the reviewer to perform their duties and archive the cache or not based on the apologist's new info.

Link to comment

I don't agree with making it a NM log, simply because I see that as a reaction to finding a damaged cache. I have no idea if it's there. Don't really care. The first note was simply that...a note asking the CO to follow through on their own promise to check it FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE FACT.

 

It's a non issue anyway since the CO said in no uncertain terms they choose not to maintain it. Who would look for that cache now? Archival or adoption is the only reasonable action here.

Link to comment

I don't find much more annoying than a player with four finds asking the CO to confirm that a cache is still in place. So I do see the point about there being no proof of a missing cache. Of course, the CO saying that it is probably missing without actually checking gives weight to the archive validity.

Link to comment

I don't agree with making it a NM log, simply because I see that as a reaction to finding a damaged cache.

And I respectfully disagree. A Needs Maintenance log tells the CO that the cache needs any kind of maintenance, not merely the one case where the physical container has a specific problem. A cache in an unknown state needs maintenance because no one is going to look for it.

 

I don't find much more annoying than a player with four finds asking the CO to confirm that a cache is still in place. So I do see the point about there being no proof of a missing cache. Of course, the CO saying that it is probably missing without actually checking gives weight to the archive validity.

I agree the newbie made a boneheaded mistake, but newbies do that, so it doesn't annoy me at all. Besides, even some experienced seekers confuse "I didn't find it" with "It isn't there."

Link to comment

I don't agree with making it a NM log, simply because I see that as a reaction to finding a damaged cache.

And I respectfully disagree. A Needs Maintenance log tells the CO that the cache needs any kind of maintenance, not merely the one case where the physical container has a specific problem. A cache in an unknown state needs maintenance because no one is going to look for it.

 

I don't find much more annoying than a player with four finds asking the CO to confirm that a cache is still in place. So I do see the point about there being no proof of a missing cache. Of course, the CO saying that it is probably missing without actually checking gives weight to the archive validity.

I agree the newbie made a boneheaded mistake, but newbies do that, so it doesn't annoy me at all. Besides, even some experienced seekers confuse "I didn't find it" with "It isn't there."

 

The newbie log doesn't really even interest me and is not really important. The CO log saying they would check it, however...that's the problem. The first note asking for a check on 10/27 was a response to the CO log from four months ago that had no follow-up. I still disagree that a Needs Maintenance log is appropriate BECAUSE it was a newbie request that the CO answer with an Owner Maintenance log (again, not the appropriate log type if actual maintenance was not performed). In my opinion, if the CO had reason to believe it really was gone, it should have been disabled. Otherwise, a simple Note would have been appropriate.

 

It's all a moot discussion anyway since the CO stated they would not replace it. Right then the CO should have archived it himself.

Link to comment

The CO log saying they would check it, however...that's the problem.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I disagreed with this. Yes, this is definitely the problem. I was mainly just saying how I would have handled it, not that how you handled it was wrong.

 

I still disagree that a Needs Maintenance log is appropriate BECAUSE it was a newbie request that the CO answer with an Owner Maintenance log (again, not the appropriate log type if actual maintenance was not performed).

The Needs Maintenance log is appropriate because asking for a health check is saying it needs maintenance. One might debate whether asking in these conditions was the correct thing to do. I'm fine with you asking, although as I said earlier, with a single DNF, I would have just looked for the cache, fully expecting not to find it. But what I consider important to picking the log type is that since you did ask for a health check, it should have been an NM. It's not a big deal, it's just that by posting an NM at this point, the NA later would be less likely to be viewed as an over reaction by someone inclined to not like it. (I'm not worried about the apologist, who was probably going to react negatively in any case. I'm thinking more about the other people that might find him convincing.)

 

In my opinion, if the CO had reason to believe it really was gone, it should have been disabled. Otherwise, a simple Note would have been appropriate.

Agreed. An OM is completely wrong. A note is fine, but only if he actually does check on it as promised.

 

It's all a moot discussion anyway since the CO stated they would not replace it. Right then the CO should have archived it himself.

I agree with you. He basically said "this cache should be forgotten", but then he left it active.

Link to comment

The continuing drama:

 

10/27/2014

Temporarily Disable Listing (Reviewer)

Until the dust settles and it's determined if the container is even there, I'm TD the listing.

 

10/28/2014

Write Note (Reviewer)

What is the fate for this listings? Is the owner going to maintain it?

 

...The CO at this point finally decides to archive it....

 

10/28/2014

Archive

Hey geocachers, sorry but this cache can't take the heat!

...ummm...don't you mean YOU can't take responsibility?...

...so then the apologist jumps in again...

 

10/28/2014

Write Note (Reviewer)

I was totally willing to adopt and maintain this, but I guess some people feel they need answers instantly. Too bad.

 

...yeah...too bad nobody really asked you...

...the the CO's husband jumps in (take note: he owns several other caches around town)...

 

10/28/2014

Write Note (CO's husband)

You are quite a piece of work [redacted]. The CO said she wasn't sure if it was there. Someone else said they'd take it over. I said I'd talk to the CO and get back to the mods tomorrow, but no... you had to open your big mouth two minutes later and spout off a rant that was completely uncalled for. Mind your own business. You aren't a mod. (Probably for good reason) What do you care if someone wants to take over a cache? Seriously, what the eff is it to you? Are you gunning for that location? It's people like you, yes YOU, who make this community as horrible as it seems to be becoming these days. I'm saddened that I've actually met you in real life...

...whoa, there, cowboy!...

...so the accused responds...

 

10/29/2014

Write Note

Okay...I'm glad you wrote that here, because anyone watching this cache can see how you react. I'm sure the CO is proud of such a defense.

 

And now they can see my response, whether you delete it or not...they will see this.

 

1 - The CO stated FOUR MONTHS AGO that she would check it. Didn't happen.

2 - I asked for confirmation of whether she checked it with a simple note. Her response? "I'm not going to maintain it." Now, I could go on and request you read the guidelines thoroughly and see what it says about cache maintenance...but it would probably fall on deaf ears. Fact is, though, I don't see why anyone would bother looking for a cache that the CO publicly stated she had no intention of replacing or fixing. I certainly wouldn't.

3 - LZ33 (Reviewer) disabled it...but all through this process, the CO was always completely in control. Her options: enable it and maintain it, archive it, or adopt it out. She chose the second option. This was completely and totally ON HER. Not you, not me, not LZ33, not [redacted] (who really shouldn't have even bothered getting involved unless she wanted to email the CO). The owner made the choice to archive it. Period.

4 - [CO's husband]'s rather odd outburst is public and anyone watching it can see. Full disclosure to anyone reading: [CO's husband] then tried to delete a valid "found it" log of mine on one of his other caches. This is retribution pure and simple. Further actions like this will be reported to Groundspeak. I resent this outburst. I've never met [CO's husband] and I don't know him...but he's not presenting himself in a good light through all this.

 

So...delete this log or don't. It doesn't matter. Anyone watching this cache will see it and that's all that matters. Thank you.

Edited by J Grouchy
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...