Your cache need maintenance

[+Ao_qc]

On the profile page, it would be convenient to have our caches that we need maintenance.

 

Often I forget to do the maintenance

 

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Great idea, some people are just not aware of their caches that need maintenance - they accidentally delete the NM log with tens of FI logs from their mailbox or they read it but forget about the NM status shortly afterwards or just don't check their owned caches list on a regular basis. I would find it useful to get notified everytime I open my profile, it would encourage me to include maintenance of my cache into my next caching trip. I like my caches, that's why I created them and I want to keep them in a perfect condition. So do other owners.

 

The more caches are in a good shape the more satisfied customers renew their PM membership.

 

.

Edited November 3, 2014 by Pontiac_CZ

[+cerberus1]

You get a notification of NM every time it's posted.

- It's sent so you can respond to it.

Why not act on it when you get it?

If one gets so many notifications that they "forget" to do maintenance, maybe they have more caches hidden than they can reasonably maintain.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

"Why not act on it when you get it?" Well, example - I've just received a NM log in my mailbox, but I'm not going anywhere now because it's nearly midnight. Anyway, my cache is deep in woods or mountains so I'l be able to get there maybe next week-end, but much likely in two or three weeks. But during next days this NM log will get burried under a pile of incoming e-mails and therefore I just forget...

 

"maybe they have more caches hidden than they can reasonably maintain" - agreed. These people should be informed that they have duties and they may decide to archive/transfer/maintain some of their caches if they don't keep up.

[team tisri]

You get a notification of NM every time it's posted.

- It's sent so you can respond to it.

Why not act on it when you get it?

If one gets so many notifications that they "forget" to do maintenance, maybe they have more caches hidden than they can reasonably maintain.

 

Because you can't always run right out and deal with a maintenance issue. Sometimes an NM requires prompt treatment and sometimes it requires something on a "next time you're passing" basis. I've seen NM used to describe everything from "cache destroyed" to "log book will need replacing before long".

 

With the best will in the world it's easy to overlook one email among dozens. I've had a few emails from friends asking if I got their previous email - I did, it just got forgotten because I was too busy to reply right there and then and before long it shunted down my inbox.

 

I must admit most ideas that appear in this forum are flawed in some way but this one really seems to have no downsides at all.

[+NanCycle]

I agree that this could be useful for many COs. What I do now is keep a bookmark list of caches close to home that I haven't found, and when I get a NM or DNF log on one of mine I add it to my "0-Home" list with a brief description of what maintenance is needed--wet, log full, DNF etc. Works for me, but I wouldn't mind the nag either.

[+L0ne.R]

I agree with everybody. Cerebus is right that as cache owners we should act on an NM notification. Acting on it could include creating our own alerts - email account calendar, or smartphone calendar, paper calendar, create a bookmark list, etc. But a nag on the http://www.geocaching.com/my/default.aspx page couldn't hurt and should help.

[+EngPhil]

I think this is a good idea -- in fact I'd somehow thought it already worked that way, but I think I was confusing it with "Your Unpublished Disabled Caches" which does show there.

[+cheech gang]

The needs maintenance nag does show when you attempt to publish a new cache. Of course you won't see that if you aren't into hiding caches. I agree that it couldn't hurt to have placed more prominently.

[+TriciaG]

I'm all for this idea.

[+NeverSummer]

The needs maintenance nag does show when you attempt to publish a new cache. Of course you won't see that if you aren't into hiding caches. I agree that it couldn't hurt to have placed more prominently.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance!

[team tisri]

The needs maintenance nag does show when you attempt to publish a new cache. Of course you won't see that if you aren't into hiding caches. I agree that it couldn't hurt to have placed more prominently.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance!

 

If there's a list of your caches that need maintenance on your profile there's no reason why each cache shouldn't have a link to write a log when the maintenance has been done, to make sure the log is an Owner Maintenance type rather than a Note type. Maybe it could have three links - one to acknowledge the maintenance issue and indicate when it might be addressed, another to disable the cache if the owner can't get to it for a while, and a third to log Owner Maintenance to show they've dealt with it.

[+Jazzmasters]

love it. keeps us on our toes. should help to keep the game going.

[+NeverSummer]

The needs maintenance nag does show when you attempt to publish a new cache. Of course you won't see that if you aren't into hiding caches. I agree that it couldn't hurt to have placed more prominently.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance!

 

If there's a list of your caches that need maintenance on your profile there's no reason why each cache shouldn't have a link to write a log when the maintenance has been done, to make sure the log is an Owner Maintenance type rather than a Note type. Maybe it could have three links - one to acknowledge the maintenance issue and indicate when it might be addressed, another to disable the cache if the owner can't get to it for a while, and a third to log Owner Maintenance to show they've dealt with it.

Also, takes the onus off of the Reviewers. Many try to help the game by "sweeping" their jurisdiction 1-2 times a year. This way the cache ownership and maintenance responsibility from the guidelines (that pesky box every cache placer checks...) falls back right to the owner where it belongs.

 

I wouldn't mind a nag to get after a NM log. Wouldn't bother me one bit.

 

But, as more and more people cache solely from the Apps, I would hope the website interface finds itself more in line with what you see in the app

[team tisri]

The needs maintenance nag does show when you attempt to publish a new cache. Of course you won't see that if you aren't into hiding caches. I agree that it couldn't hurt to have placed more prominently.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance!

 

If there's a list of your caches that need maintenance on your profile there's no reason why each cache shouldn't have a link to write a log when the maintenance has been done, to make sure the log is an Owner Maintenance type rather than a Note type. Maybe it could have three links - one to acknowledge the maintenance issue and indicate when it might be addressed, another to disable the cache if the owner can't get to it for a while, and a third to log Owner Maintenance to show they've dealt with it.

Also, takes the onus off of the Reviewers. Many try to help the game by "sweeping" their jurisdiction 1-2 times a year. This way the cache ownership and maintenance responsibility from the guidelines (that pesky box every cache placer checks...) falls back right to the owner where it belongs.

 

I wouldn't mind a nag to get after a NM log. Wouldn't bother me one bit.

 

But, as more and more people cache solely from the Apps, I would hope the website interface finds itself more in line with what you see in the app

 

It would make the reviewer's job somewhat easier in that any cache that had the NM flag for more than some designated period (say six months) could just be archived without having to ask what, if anything, the owner planned to do with the cache. If they haven't seen the reminder for six months they're inactive, end of.

 

There must be some way the site could run a periodic process to find caches disabled for, say, six months or more and produce a report that reviewers could use. It could also find caches with longstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed.

[+J Grouchy]

The needs maintenance nag does show when you attempt to publish a new cache. Of course you won't see that if you aren't into hiding caches. I agree that it couldn't hurt to have placed more prominently.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance!

 

If there's a list of your caches that need maintenance on your profile there's no reason why each cache shouldn't have a link to write a log when the maintenance has been done, to make sure the log is an Owner Maintenance type rather than a Note type. Maybe it could have three links - one to acknowledge the maintenance issue and indicate when it might be addressed, another to disable the cache if the owner can't get to it for a while, and a third to log Owner Maintenance to show they've dealt with it.

Also, takes the onus off of the Reviewers. Many try to help the game by "sweeping" their jurisdiction 1-2 times a year. This way the cache ownership and maintenance responsibility from the guidelines (that pesky box every cache placer checks...) falls back right to the owner where it belongs.

 

I wouldn't mind a nag to get after a NM log. Wouldn't bother me one bit.

 

But, as more and more people cache solely from the Apps, I would hope the website interface finds itself more in line with what you see in the app

 

It would make the reviewer's job somewhat easier in that any cache that had the NM flag for more than some designated period (say six months) could just be archived without having to ask what, if anything, the owner planned to do with the cache. If they haven't seen the reminder for six months they're inactive, end of.

 

There must be some way the site could run a periodic process to find caches disabled for, say, six months or more and produce a report that reviewers could use. It could also find caches with longstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed.

 

Problem with this is that many COs will not use the "Owner Maintenance" log, instead writing a Note or Enabling it after it has been disabled. There are countless active caches out there that have old NM logs still attached to them that the COs never cleared out properly.

 

I suppose if the nag in the OP were implemented, it would also show a link explaining to the CO how to clear out the NM 'red wrench' and get it off the nag screen...but this is all assuming the CO is still active and uses the website and views their profile page. That's a big assumption...

[team tisri]

The needs maintenance nag does show when you attempt to publish a new cache. Of course you won't see that if you aren't into hiding caches. I agree that it couldn't hurt to have placed more prominently.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance!

 

If there's a list of your caches that need maintenance on your profile there's no reason why each cache shouldn't have a link to write a log when the maintenance has been done, to make sure the log is an Owner Maintenance type rather than a Note type. Maybe it could have three links - one to acknowledge the maintenance issue and indicate when it might be addressed, another to disable the cache if the owner can't get to it for a while, and a third to log Owner Maintenance to show they've dealt with it.

Also, takes the onus off of the Reviewers. Many try to help the game by "sweeping" their jurisdiction 1-2 times a year. This way the cache ownership and maintenance responsibility from the guidelines (that pesky box every cache placer checks...) falls back right to the owner where it belongs.

 

I wouldn't mind a nag to get after a NM log. Wouldn't bother me one bit.

 

But, as more and more people cache solely from the Apps, I would hope the website interface finds itself more in line with what you see in the app

 

It would make the reviewer's job somewhat easier in that any cache that had the NM flag for more than some designated period (say six months) could just be archived without having to ask what, if anything, the owner planned to do with the cache. If they haven't seen the reminder for six months they're inactive, end of.

 

There must be some way the site could run a periodic process to find caches disabled for, say, six months or more and produce a report that reviewers could use. It could also find caches with longstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed.

 

Problem with this is that many COs will not use the "Owner Maintenance" log, instead writing a Note or Enabling it after it has been disabled. There are countless active caches out there that have old NM logs still attached to them that the COs never cleared out properly.

 

I suppose if the nag in the OP were implemented, it would also show a link explaining to the CO how to clear out the NM 'red wrench' and get it off the nag screen...but this is all assuming the CO is still active and uses the website and views their profile page. That's a big assumption...

 

If the CO is inactive the cache needs to be archived.

 

If the website and all the various flavours of app have very visible notifications when your owned caches need maintenance then it's perfectly reasonable to archive anything that has had an NM flag on it without a response from the owner in a couple of months.

 

The point is to make it very visible when your caches need maintenance and very clear how to perform and log maintenance to get them off the list. If very visible notifications are implemented and people still fail to maintain their caches, the reviewer can archive them.

 

The larger concern is the cachers who do things like log Owner Maintenance with text that says "Got some more of these on order, will replace it next week".

[+Pontiac_CZ]

The larger concern is the cachers who do things like log Owner Maintenance with text that says "Got some more of these on order, will replace it next week".

 

If I saw such a thing I wouldn't hesitate with logging a NM with text: "OK, but until then this cache still needs maintenance!" to renew the red cross/wrench.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

"Why not act on it when you get it?" Well, example - I've just received a NM log in my mailbox, but I'm not going anywhere now because it's nearly midnight.

 

I have also, on a few occasions received NM logs on a cache when I was traveling for business and more than 7000 miles from home. Even then, I can still "act on it" and my action is to disable the cache listing until such time that I can get to GZ and verify that it does in fact, need maintenance.

[+cerberus1]

"Why not act on it when you get it?" Well, example - I've just received a NM log in my mailbox, but I'm not going anywhere now because it's nearly midnight.

 

I have also, on a few occasions received NM logs on a cache when I was traveling for business and more than 7000 miles from home. Even then, I can still "act on it" and my action is to disable the cache listing until such time that I can get to GZ and verify that it does in fact, need maintenance.

+1

[+L0ne.R]

"Why not act on it when you get it?" Well, example - I've just received a NM log in my mailbox, but I'm not going anywhere now because it's nearly midnight.

 

I have also, on a few occasions received NM logs on a cache when I was traveling for business and more than 7000 miles from home. Even then, I can still "act on it" and my action is to disable the cache listing until such time that I can get to GZ and verify that it does in fact, need maintenance.

 

Kudos. Wish more cache owners would do this.

 

These days most owners do nothing until the reviewer sends their reviewer note. Then they may leave a 'I will get to this asap'. Then do nothing until the next time the reviewer leaves a note, which usually results in the CO or reviewer archiving the cache.

 

Thanks for considering the finders' time and money (wear and tear on the car, gas money), as well as their frustration level. May you be rewarded with much geocaching karma and good online logs.

[+EngPhil]

I have also, on a few occasions received NM logs on a cache when I was traveling for business and more than 7000 miles from home. Even then, I can still "act on it" and my action is to disable the cache listing until such time that I can get to GZ and verify that it does in fact, need maintenance.

What if it's a spurious/unwarranted NM? Say, newbie cacher couldn't find a tricky hide and logged a NM because "I couldn't find it, I don't think it's there?"

 

Disabling in that case would likely be overreaction; but merely performing Owner Maintenance to clear the attribute would also probably be inappropriate until the situation had been investigated...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have also, on a few occasions received NM logs on a cache when I was traveling for business and more than 7000 miles from home. Even then, I can still "act on it" and my action is to disable the cache listing until such time that I can get to GZ and verify that it does in fact, need maintenance.

What if it's a spurious/unwarranted NM? Say, newbie cacher couldn't find a tricky hide and logged a NM because "I couldn't find it, I don't think it's there?"

 

Disabling in that case would likely be overreaction; but merely performing Owner Maintenance to clear the attribute would also probably be inappropriate until the situation had been investigated...

 

Of course reading the log associated with the NM log dictates what action I'm going to take but If I'm 7000 miles from home as I was last week it's going to be a least a few days before I can investigate further.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Typical situation when I get a Needs Maintenance log but don't have to take immediate action is log: "There is one clear page left in the logbook, should be replaced soon." on a cache that gets one visit a month, so I don't need to hurry. But still would love to be notified about this everytime I log on so I don't forget to buy and prepare a new logbook and plan a maintenance visit to my cache.

[+me N u]

The needs maintenance nag does show when you attempt to publish a new cache. Of course you won't see that if you aren't into hiding caches. I agree that it couldn't hurt to have placed more prominently.

Especially if it also noted how to log an Owner Maintenance log once you have checked on the cache so we can stop seeing those lingering NM attributes after an owner has actually performed maintenance!

 

If there's a list of your caches that need maintenance on your profile there's no reason why each cache shouldn't have a link to write a log when the maintenance has been done, to make sure the log is an Owner Maintenance type rather than a Note type. Maybe it could have three links - one to acknowledge the maintenance issue and indicate when it might be addressed, another to disable the cache if the owner can't get to it for a while, and a third to log Owner Maintenance to show they've dealt with it.

Also, takes the onus off of the Reviewers. Many try to help the game by "sweeping" their jurisdiction 1-2 times a year. This way the cache ownership and maintenance responsibility from the guidelines (that pesky box every cache placer checks...) falls back right to the owner where it belongs.

 

I wouldn't mind a nag to get after a NM log. Wouldn't bother me one bit.

 

But, as more and more people cache solely from the Apps, I would hope the website interface finds itself more in line with what you see in the app

 

It would make the reviewer's job somewhat easier in that any cache that had the NM flag for more than some designated period (say six months) could just be archived without having to ask what, if anything, the owner planned to do with the cache. If they haven't seen the reminder for six months they're inactive, end of.

 

There must be some way the site could run a periodic process to find caches disabled for, say, six months or more and produce a report that reviewers could use. It could also find caches with longstanding NM logs that haven't been addressed.

 

Problem with this is that many COs will not use the "Owner Maintenance" log, instead writing a Note or Enabling it after it has been disabled. There are countless active caches out there that have old NM logs still attached to them that the COs never cleared out properly.

 

I suppose if the nag in the OP were implemented, it would also show a link explaining to the CO how to clear out the NM 'red wrench' and get it off the nag screen...but this is all assuming the CO is still active and uses the website and views their profile page. That's a big assumption...

 

If the CO is inactive the cache needs to be archived.

 

If the website and all the various flavours of app have very visible notifications when your owned caches need maintenance then it's perfectly reasonable to archive anything that has had an NM flag on it without a response from the owner in a couple of months.

 

The point is to make it very visible when your caches need maintenance and very clear how to perform and log maintenance to get them off the list. If very visible notifications are implemented and people still fail to maintain their caches, the reviewer can archive them.

 

The larger concern is the cachers who do things like log Owner Maintenance with text that says "Got some more of these on order, will replace it next week".

 

Or even in 3 months time, by which time the cache will have been disabled for 6 months -

 

"Probably won't get home til Christmas now so will sort out all the geocaches in the series then" (sic)

[+Pontiac_CZ]

I've just come across a cache that has been in "Needs Maintenance" condition for nearly two years (from 2013-01-26). Its owner is active but he is not alerted about this and he doesn't seem to care.

[+GrayHawk613]

On the profile page, it would be convenient to have our caches that we need maintenance.

 

Often I forget to do the maintenance

 

That's a great idea! Maybe even a popup as soon as you log in.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Two of today's caches I went after (the first I found and the other one was DNF) have "Needs maintenance" flag for more than a half of a year...

[+ecanderson]

And what was your impression of the one you did find? Was the flag justified?

 

One thing I've noted is that a fair number of COs don't realize it's up to them to remove the flag, and even when prompted, don't realize how easy it is to do it.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

It actually wasn't, the cache was in good condition. The owner just did not enter the "Owner Maintenance" log to make the flag disappear. If there only was some sort of a nag that would bring such caches to owner's attention everytime they sign in they would surely get interested (at least part of them) in how to get rid off it.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Well, this feature request is still relevant, I guess. There are many users which are responsive and willing to take care of their caches, they just somehow forget to remove the NM flag.

 

Like this one - 5 ouf of 8 caches in NM condition. It was 6 originally, but I recently found his "P&P#3" and dropped a note that the cache was alright and only needed Owner Maintenance log to delete the red cross. Shortly after my note the owner did that.

[Cache-Chriss]

Was specifically looking for this thread.

It's the second time now it happened to me:

A NM log was created and I'm like: Alright, I'll check this out.

So I disabled the listing, replaced what was missing and enabled it again.

Now almost 4 weeks later I get an email that a cache in my area got disabled for not clearing the NM-tag.

That's where I remembered I should probably check mine too.

 

There needs to be some sort of reminder for this!

Possibly one could argue the NM-tag should be removed after the listing got enabled (again).

[Pup Patrol]

Was specifically looking for this thread.

It's the second time now it happened to me:

A NM log was created and I'm like: Alright, I'll check this out.

So I disabled the listing, replaced what was missing and enabled it again.

Now almost 4 weeks later I get an email that a cache in my area got disabled for not clearing the NM-tag.

That's where I remembered I should probably check mine too.

 

There needs to be some sort of reminder for this!

Possibly one could argue the NM-tag should be removed after the listing got enabled (again).

 

While you were on the cache page to log it "enabled", why not just post the "owner maintenance" log at the same time, which would have cleared the NM attribute immediately?

 

4.10. Managing Your Geocache Listing

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=234

 

 

B.

[Cache-Chriss]

Well, that's the obvious way one has to do it.

However I just forget it.

Disabling and enabling a cache should have the same effects as a maintenance.

It's rather annoying to first log "I did this" and then enabling the cache, while one could simply write "I did this" in the enable-log - which I do.

[Pup Patrol]

Well, that's the obvious way one has to do it.

However I just forget it.

Disabling and enabling a cache should have the same effects as a maintenance.

It's rather annoying to first log "I did this" and then enabling the cache, while one could simply write "I did this" in the enable-log - which I do.

 

"Enabling" does not always mean "owner maintenance".

 

One can enable a cache that didn't need any maintenance.

 

So they aren't necessarily always the same thing.

 

B.

[Cache-Chriss]

That is correct however that was not what I was implying.

You're right in saying not every cache enabled needed maintenance.

But would a cache be enabled if it needed maintenance but did not recieve it?

I guess that would be the same as creating an empty maintenance log just to get rid of the tag.

[+The A-Team]

But would a cache be enabled if it needed maintenance but did not recieve it?

I'm sure there are scenarios where this would make sense.

 

I'm fine with keeping the actions separate, but a reminder would definitely be nice. I consider myself to be very knowledgeable regarding how this site works, and even I forgot to log an OM after performing maintenance and enabling a cache this weekend. A nag at the top of either my profile page or the top of every page would have reminded me right away, instead of waiting until someone else pointed it out.

 

Edit: typo

Edited March 14, 2016 by The A-Team

[+SiriusBlackPT]

On the profile page, it would be convenient to have our caches that we need maintenance.

 

Often I forget to do the maintenance

 

 

GREAT idea. I know geocache owners that have more than 1.000 caches, this would be super useful for them.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Would be useful even for us with only 5 caches.