Jump to content

Should I post NA?


Gill & Tony

Recommended Posts

I've been looking for caches along the route to my daughter's house. At one of the towns we use for a break, there are two traditional caches.

 

One was on an aircraft memorial (full-sized plane on a stick). Last time we went past there were road works. Now there is one "Write Note" saying the plane is no longer there and a few DNF's. The CO last logged in to the site in February

 

The other has had several DNF's since July and the CO is unvalidated, 29 finds and not logged in since 2007.

 

Given that these caches are 200 miles+ (straight line) from my home and I've never looked for them, it seems a bit heavy handed to post a NA. However, it looks certain that the CO's are no longer active - especially #2 - and if nobody posts an NA will the local reviewer actually realize there is a problem?

 

Should I keep out or should I do something?

 

Advice please

 

Tony

Link to comment

You could post a private note to the reviewer(s) that published the caches, and have them eyeball the logs and see what they think. People tend to frown on Never-Visited-But-NA-Anyway logs, so you could do it privately.

 

OTOH, I've done it myself. :laughing: Are there any NMs on the caches? If there are, that's a better ease into an NA log.

Link to comment
Given that these caches are 200 miles+ (straight line) from my home and I've never looked for them, it seems a bit heavy handed to post a NA.
I wouldn't post an NA log or a NM log for a cache I hadn't even visited. I might send an email to the volunteer reviewer who published the cache if the logs/description indicated a clear problem.
Link to comment

I've been looking for caches along the route to my daughter's house. At one of the towns we use for a break, there are two traditional caches.

 

One was on an aircraft memorial (full-sized plane on a stick). Last time we went past there were road works. Now there is one "Write Note" saying the plane is no longer there and a few DNF's. The CO last logged in to the site in February

 

The other has had several DNF's since July and the CO is unvalidated, 29 finds and not logged in since 2007.

 

Given that these caches are 200 miles+ (straight line) from my home and I've never looked for them, it seems a bit heavy handed to post a NA. However, it looks certain that the CO's are no longer active - especially #2 - and if nobody posts an NA will the local reviewer actually realize there is a problem?

 

Should I keep out or should I do something?

 

Advice please

 

Tony

 

Personally, I would not post an NA log type for a cache I have not looked for.

Link to comment

One was on an aircraft memorial... Now there is one "Write Note" saying the plane is no longer there and a few DNF's. The CO last logged in to the site in February...

 

The other has had several DNF's since July and the CO is unvalidated...

 

I don't think NA posts are for local cachers only. Sometimes a cache is so insignificant in location or hide type that the locals don't bother with it.

 

It can be tricky to post NAs without having been to the site. I have done it a few times over the years but only after carefully reading the DNFs or NMs. Those caches were always archived by a reviewer no fanfare or chatter from locals. I do this only when I have a good strong hunch that NA is needed. Your second example might qualify but I would probably not NA the first one without first driving by which you might be doing in the future.

 

...will the local reviewer actually realize there is a problem?

Probably not without an NA. Sometimes they do respond without NA but I suspect that is because they came across it on their own or someone told them about it.

 

There are a lot of junk caches out there where owners have left the game or are not responsive and local cachers don't post NAs. Getting them archived from a distance, when appropriate, does not hurt our game.

 

I have posted a lot of NAs over the years when travel-caching and I don't recall any cache owner ever complaining. They either fix the problem (seldom) or they never say a word and the cache gets archived. (Exception: a cluster of earthcaches (4) in my stomping grounds with gross errors and the CO ignored my comments for two years. CO did not make any changes after civil private mail and NM logs and only made corrections (3) or archived (1) after I posted NAs. He referred to the NM and NA logs as bullying and thought that someone who has never listed an earthcache should not have the right to post NM and NA logs. Earthcache owners are not in an exclusive club and have a responsibility to publish accurate information.)

 

Anyway... I see no rush for you to post NAs especially since you will be traveling to that area and can verify the conditions. But on the on the other hand if your hunches are strong and the posted logs make it clear the caches are missing than it could not hurt to post NAs.

 

Just remember though, you don't want to be jerking the volunteer reviewers around if there is a viable cache at the site. The DNFs could be because people saw one DNF and only did lazy searches after that.

Link to comment

If we are going to cache out of our normal area and we see a cache that hasn't been found and has a bunch of DNFs on it within the last 6 months, we log a NA. This is the only way a reviewer will get involved,make a post which will possibly make the CO do something about it. We also look at the activity of the CO. If they haven't been active for a year or so, they probably are not going to respond.

 

Bad part is, most cachers won't log a DNF as this in some way says that their caching ability sucks

Link to comment

Yeah, I agree that the simple answer is to just stop and look for them. You're reasonably convinced you won't find anything, but that's no reason not to look. It sounds like you drive through there from time to time, anyway, so there's no particular downside to looking for them to make up for your lack of local knowledge.

 

Having said that, I don't hesitate to post NMs on caches I've never looked for. When I face a case like that, I consider whether the log convinces me not to look for the cache. If I'm not going to look for the cache because of the logs, it's likely no one else will, either, so the CO should check the cache because of that alone.

 

The key is that your NM must make the ironclad case you think you have for believing the caches are missing even though you haven't looked for them. If you write up your NM log and still feel confident in your case once you read it over, then don't worry about being non-local. Normally I wouldn't post an NA out of the blue in a case like that, but I would do a remote NA if there was already an NM posted.

 

I disagree entirely with the people suggesting you should secretly get a reviewer involved. A lot of people recommend that, and a lot of people think that's the way it should be done, but I think if you want to involve a reviewer, you should be willing to do it publicly with an NA presenting the case so everyone can see it. The reviewer doesn't have any more local knowledge that you do.

Link to comment

I'll buck the trend somewhat and say go ahead and post, but a nicely worded NM instead of a NA- if the cache isn't supposed to be a tough one to find (say a 2.5/2.5 or lower). ;) No matter what the CO status is they'll get an email showing someone is interested in their listing but concerned there are issues with it. If, after a period of time (say a few weeks), there is no response then I'd contact a reviewer and/or post a NA.

Link to comment
I wouldn't post an NA log or a NM log for a cache I hadn't even visited. I might send an email to the volunteer reviewer who published the cache if the logs/description indicated a clear problem.

I fail to understand the difference between posting a NA and sending an email to the reviewer. Either way, the reviewer is notified. :unsure:

 

Of course one is public and the other is private, but that doesn't appear to be the issue in this discussion.

 

And for the record, as a reviewer, I don't even look at the poster of an NA log. I don't care if s/he has been there or not. Either way I'm going to evaluate the logs and decide whether or not action is warranted.

Link to comment
I wouldn't post an NA log or a NM log for a cache I hadn't even visited. I might send an email to the volunteer reviewer who published the cache if the logs/description indicated a clear problem.
I fail to understand the difference between posting a NA and sending an email to the reviewer. Either way, the reviewer is notified. :unsure:

 

Of course one is public and the other is private, but that doesn't appear to be the issue in this discussion.

The difference is whether I log a cache that I haven't visited, that I haven't attempted.
Link to comment

I fail to understand the difference between posting a NA and sending an email to the reviewer. Either way, the reviewer is notified. :unsure:

I don't understand why people think that once they've decided to involve a reviewer, it makes any difference whether they've looked for the cache. Yeah, looking for the cache provides me with one big chunk of information in deciding whether to alert the reviewer, but sending a secret message to the reviewer doesn't eliminate my responsibility to have enough evidence from other sources to make up for not visiting GZ.

 

So what's different to me is that NAs allow others know the reviewer was notified and why. This can work both ways: someone else thinking it needs an NA doesn't have to post one (or send a redundant secret e-mail), while someone that knows the cache is still in place can chime in on the log to provide the reviewer with more information.

Link to comment
I fail to understand the difference between posting a NA and sending an email to the reviewer. Either way, the reviewer is notified. :unsure:

 

Of course one is public and the other is private, but that doesn't appear to be the issue in this discussion.

I suggest it because people read an "NA" log as, well, "Needs Archived" when it's more of a "Needs Reviewer Attention." You and I and most of the forum readers know what it really means, but your regular cachers out there read "Needs Archived" as the logger judging that the cache Needs Archived vs. simply trying to alert the reviewer to a potential problem.

 

That's why I suggested a private message to the reviewer.

 

That, and if someone does that, they don't have to worry about people jumping down their throat for not having visited the cache site themselves, even though it's obvious the cache needs reviewer attention. :ph34r:

Link to comment

What, you don't have a backup free "goat" account? Use it when you're afraid of retribution to post a kind request anonymously. A dead cache usually should be given a NM or two before a NA, to give the owner a chance to redeem him/herself. How much time do you have? There are tons of them out there. With the recent influx of App users, someone with 2 finds who posts a DNF probably DNFd due to inexperience. I don't usually filter out caches unless they have two+ larger-number finders who DNFd.

Link to comment

I suggest it because people read an "NA" log as, well, "Needs Archived" when it's more of a "Needs Reviewer Attention." You and I and most of the forum readers know what it really means, but your regular cachers out there read "Needs Archived" as the logger judging that the cache Needs Archived vs. simply trying to alert the reviewer to a potential problem.

 

That's why I suggested a private message to the reviewer.

The reviewer can only do one thing you can't do: archive the cache. If you don't think the cache needs to be archived, then do what you want the reviewer to do for yourself.

 

That, and if someone does that, they don't have to worry about people jumping down their throat for not having visited the cache site themselves, even though it's obvious the cache needs reviewer attention. :ph34r:

If you have a good case and have presented it clearly, then I don't know why it would matter to you if someone has an unreasonable reaction to your justified request.

Link to comment

No need to be be timid. Those both seem to warrant an NA log from what you described. I've posted several on caches in other states. YOU aren't archiving it...you're only bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

I often feel that either: The locals have found the cache so it's no longer on their radar, or they don't want to 'upset' their fellow locals by posting a NA log...

Link to comment

The reviewer can only do one thing you can't do: archive the cache. If you don't think the cache needs to be archived, then do what you want the reviewer to do for yourself.

OK, I'll go temporarily disable a cache to get the CO's attention and alert other seekers that the cache has problems. Thanks for clearing that up. ;)

 

EDIT: Wait - I can't do it. It must be a PMO feature. :lol:

Edited by TriciaG
Link to comment

I often feel that either: The locals have found the cache so it's no longer on their radar, or they don't want to 'upset' their fellow locals by posting a NA log...

 

I suspect that the former is often the case. I don't spend time going back over caches I've already found in the area to see if they're still active ... which is one reason why I feel relatively comfortable posting NAs on caches I haven't attempted as long as there's substantial evidence suggesting a problem (usually, multiple DNFs on different dates over a substantial time frame, coupled with a CO who hasn't logged any recent activity).

Link to comment

No need to be be timid. Those both seem to warrant an NA log from what you described. I've posted several on caches in other states. YOU aren't archiving it...you're only bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

I often feel that either: The locals have found the cache so it's no longer on their radar, or they don't want to 'upset' their fellow locals by posting a NA log...

 

To be clear, those in other states that I posted NA logs on were caches I either looked for or I was in the area looking for other caches and noticed something about that particular listing that would indicate a problem. I don't go searching the globe for caches that need to be archived...

Link to comment

The reviewer can only do one thing you can't do: archive the cache. If you don't think the cache needs to be archived, then do what you want the reviewer to do for yourself.

OK, I'll go temporarily disable a cache to get the CO's attention and alert other seekers that the cache has problems. Thanks for clearing that up. ;)

 

EDIT: Wait - I can't do it. It must be a PMO feature. :lol:

That's right. Since you cannot archive the cache, you cannot threaten to archive it by disabling it, either.

Link to comment

That's why I suggested a private message to the reviewer.

 

That, and if someone does that, they don't have to worry about people jumping down their throat for not having visited the cache site themselves, even though it's obvious the cache needs reviewer attention.

 

I have always thought that reviewers should not be bothered with private mail unless there is something controversial that needs behind the scenes action.

 

When it is obvious in the logs that the cache has major problems or is missing and the owner has not responded, typically for several months, the the risk is very low that anyone will jump down a throat.

 

As I mentioned earlier, with rare exceptions no one, owner or local, ever comments when I post NAs for caches out of my area that I haven't visited and the cache usually gets archived because I read the conditions correctly.

 

I find these NA situations when I am searching for individual caches to find before a trip.

Link to comment

That's why I suggested a private message to the reviewer.

 

That, and if someone does that, they don't have to worry about people jumping down their throat for not having visited the cache site themselves, even though it's obvious the cache needs reviewer attention.

 

I have always thought that reviewers should not be bothered with private mail unless there is something controversial that needs behind the scenes action.

 

When it is obvious in the logs that the cache has major problems or is missing and the owner has not responded, typically for several months, the the risk is very low that anyone will jump down a throat.

 

As I mentioned earlier, with rare exceptions no one, owner or local, ever comments when I post NAs for caches out of my area that I haven't visited and the cache usually gets archived because I read the conditions correctly.

 

I find these NA situations when I am searching for individual caches to find before a trip.

I'd post a note asking for info because you're "planning a trip to visit family and seek this cache..." Then, start emailing active previous finders to see if they can either check on it, or confirm where the cache was hidden so you can look for yourself the next time you're there. Once you've visited the cache and confirm that the cache isn't where previous finders found it, then you can post a NM log (and possibly notify the local Reviewer).

Link to comment

That's why I suggested a private message to the reviewer.

 

That, and if someone does that, they don't have to worry about people jumping down their throat for not having visited the cache site themselves, even though it's obvious the cache needs reviewer attention.

 

I have always thought that reviewers should not be bothered with private mail unless there is something controversial that needs behind the scenes action.

 

When it is obvious in the logs that the cache has major problems or is missing and the owner has not responded, typically for several months, the the risk is very low that anyone will jump down a throat.

 

As I mentioned earlier, with rare exceptions no one, owner or local, ever comments when I post NAs for caches out of my area that I haven't visited and the cache usually gets archived because I read the conditions correctly.

 

I find these NA situations when I am searching for individual caches to find before a trip.

I'd post a note asking for info because you're "planning a trip to visit family and seek this cache..." Then, start emailing active previous finders to see if they can either check on it, or confirm where the cache was hidden so you can look for yourself the next time you're there. Once you've visited the cache and confirm that the cache isn't where previous finders found it, then you can post a NM log (and possibly notify the local Reviewer).

 

That's the geocacher's equivalent of walking on eggshells. While I agree with the first step regarding the Note, sometimes it's just easy to tell when a cache needs an NA log and there's no reason to bother with all the niceties and "please-may-i"s.

Link to comment

That's why I suggested a private message to the reviewer.

 

That, and if someone does that, they don't have to worry about people jumping down their throat for not having visited the cache site themselves, even though it's obvious the cache needs reviewer attention.

 

I have always thought that reviewers should not be bothered with private mail unless there is something controversial that needs behind the scenes action.

 

When it is obvious in the logs that the cache has major problems or is missing and the owner has not responded, typically for several months, the the risk is very low that anyone will jump down a throat.

 

As I mentioned earlier, with rare exceptions no one, owner or local, ever comments when I post NAs for caches out of my area that I haven't visited and the cache usually gets archived because I read the conditions correctly.

 

I find these NA situations when I am searching for individual caches to find before a trip.

I'd post a note asking for info because you're "planning a trip to visit family and seek this cache..." Then, start emailing active previous finders to see if they can either check on it, or confirm where the cache was hidden so you can look for yourself the next time you're there. Once you've visited the cache and confirm that the cache isn't where previous finders found it, then you can post a NM log (and possibly notify the local Reviewer).

 

That's the geocacher's equivalent of walking on eggshells. While I agree with the first step regarding the Note, sometimes it's just easy to tell when a cache needs an NA log and there's no reason to bother with all the niceties and "please-may-i"s.

Or keeping others from "getting their knickers in a twist..."

 

I can tell that there might be a need to NA that cache with the airplane, but the truth is that the cache may not have been on/at/near the actual physical airplane or it's "stick". In a case where I haven't looked for a cache, but I can see that there might be an issue based on the previous logs, and I want to seek that cache at some point in the near future, I would post a note and try to ask others who have looked before for some more information to confirm that this is one I should look for.

 

Then, if the cache is missing based on the input of others, that NA has a much clearer case for it to be archived and for everyone to move on without knicker twisting.

Link to comment

When I am planning a trip(I am a cross country tripper), I look over alot of caches along the route and yes, I see caches that need a reviewer attention, but I cant do anything about it because I wasn't there. I am talking about caches that get found a least five time a month and all at once, no found for over a year. Thats a problem that need a reviewer attention and no, we dont need to be there to report it.

 

I feel reviewers want our help when we see serious issue that need help. Reviewer doesnt visit GZ and why we have to? I am not saying you need to out and be the cache police! I am just saying that if you see something, why ignore it? The problem is not going to solved on it own.

 

You are the problem when you dont report it.

Link to comment

When I am planning a trip(I am a cross country tripper), I look over alot of caches along the route and yes, I see caches that need a reviewer attention, but I cant do anything about it because I wasn't there. I am talking about caches that get found a least five time a month and all at once, no found for over a year. Thats a problem that need a reviewer attention and no, we dont need to be there to report it.

 

I feel reviewers want our help when we see serious issue that need help. Reviewer doesnt visit GZ and why we have to? I am not saying you need to out and be the cache police! I am just saying that if you see something, why ignore it? The problem is not going to solved on it own.

 

You are the problem when you dont report it.

Right. You can always email the Reviewer and politely ask them if they might want to take a look and handle the situation. If that specific Reviewer "prefers not to be bothered with such things", they don't have to do anything. At least you've done your part to help keep geocaches and listings on geocaching.com on the up-and-up--espeically because we are all part of a community given tools and responsibilities to talk about our experiences in finding caches on this listing service.

Link to comment

I'd post a note asking for info because you're "planning a trip to visit family and seek this cache..." Then, start emailing active previous finders to see if they can either check on it, or confirm where the cache was hidden so you can look for yourself the next time you're there. Once you've visited the cache and confirm that the cache isn't where previous finders found it, then you can post a NM log (and possibly notify the local Reviewer).

If there's a doubt, then you can certainly use back channels to try to get more info or induce someone else to look into it.

 

But if there isn't a doubt -- which is the case we've been discussing -- then all your low key approach has accomplished is let 5 more people that didn't notice the problems waste their time looking for a cache that you can tell isn't there.

Link to comment

I'd post a note asking for info because you're "planning a trip to visit family and seek this cache..." Then, start emailing active previous finders to see if they can either check on it, or confirm where the cache was hidden so you can look for yourself the next time you're there. Once you've visited the cache and confirm that the cache isn't where previous finders found it, then you can post a NM log (and possibly notify the local Reviewer).

If there's a doubt, then you can certainly use back channels to try to get more info or induce someone else to look into it.

 

But if there isn't a doubt -- which is the case we've been discussing -- then all your low key approach has accomplished is let 5 more people that didn't notice the problems waste their time looking for a cache that you can tell isn't there.

Right...but...

There's nothing there that the OP can tell us that confirms that the cache was actually right there on/at/within the airplane or it's mount. With the information provided, the cache could still be in a bush, on a tree, under a lampskirt, or anywhere else within a reasonable search radius that happened to be missed by the other seekers (who posted DNF) may have overlooked once they saw the construction. Heck, I've been quick to judge a cache or two with the same scenario, only to find that I wasn't looking in the right place and the cache was still there.

 

What I'm asking is for someone who previously found it to help provide additional information or hints as to where they found the cache. That much will help know from hundreds (or thousands) of miles away that the cache might still be there or not. They don't have to go look if they don't want to, but a previous finder can help with some "it was under a bush about 15 feet from the plane" descriptions that might not be in the cache page or provided hint. (And we all should know that you can't count on Google Maps or other satellite views to "prove" that a cache was at the "X" you see on that map versus what it there in real life.)

Link to comment

When I am planning a trip(I am a cross country tripper), I look over alot of caches along the route and yes, I see caches that need a reviewer attention, but I cant do anything about it because I wasn't there. I am talking about caches that get found a least five time a month and all at once, no found for over a year. Thats a problem that need a reviewer attention and no, we dont need to be there to report it.

 

I feel reviewers want our help when we see serious issue that need help. Reviewer doesnt visit GZ and why we have to? I am not saying you need to out and be the cache police! I am just saying that if you see something, why ignore it? The problem is not going to solved on it own.

 

You are the problem when you dont report it.

Right. You can always email the Reviewer and politely ask them if they might want to take a look and handle the situation. If that specific Reviewer "prefers not to be bothered with such things", they don't have to do anything. At least you've done your part to help keep geocaches and listings on geocaching.com on the up-and-up--espeically because we are all part of a community given tools and responsibilities to talk about our experiences in finding caches on this listing service.

 

Seriously...they set up the NA logging system for this very reason. I see no need to go to the trouble of emailing the reviewers to bring specific caches to their attention. If it's an obvious problem like an abandoned cache with the CO gone AWOL, just post an NA log. If it's something you are uncertain of but looks to be a problem for seekers but the CO appears to still be active, post an NM log or a Note. It seems like emailing a reviewer and seeking involvement from them that way is just going to end up annoying them. It's clearly a case-by-case judgement call, but I imagine if I was a reviewer and started getting emails like that asking me to check on particular caches, I'd probably want that to quickly stop and just tell them to post an appropriate log to the cache page so it could be dealt with in the regular course of things instead of making a special case out of everything.

Link to comment

When I am planning a trip(I am a cross country tripper), I look over alot of caches along the route and yes, I see caches that need a reviewer attention, but I cant do anything about it because I wasn't there. I am talking about caches that get found a least five time a month and all at once, no found for over a year. Thats a problem that need a reviewer attention and no, we dont need to be there to report it.

 

I feel reviewers want our help when we see serious issue that need help. Reviewer doesnt visit GZ and why we have to? I am not saying you need to out and be the cache police! I am just saying that if you see something, why ignore it? The problem is not going to solved on it own.

 

You are the problem when you dont report it.

Right. You can always email the Reviewer and politely ask them if they might want to take a look and handle the situation. If that specific Reviewer "prefers not to be bothered with such things", they don't have to do anything. At least you've done your part to help keep geocaches and listings on geocaching.com on the up-and-up--espeically because we are all part of a community given tools and responsibilities to talk about our experiences in finding caches on this listing service.

 

Seriously...they set up the NA logging system for this very reason. I see no need to go to the trouble of emailing the reviewers to bring specific caches to their attention. If it's an obvious problem like an abandoned cache with the CO gone AWOL, just post an NA log. If it's something you are uncertain of but looks to be a problem for seekers but the CO appears to still be active, post an NM log or a Note. It seems like emailing a reviewer and seeking involvement from them that way is just going to end up annoying them. It's clearly a case-by-case judgement call, but I imagine if I was a reviewer and started getting emails like that asking me to check on particular caches, I'd probably want that to quickly stop and just tell them to post an appropriate log to the cache page so it could be dealt with in the regular course of things instead of making a special case out of everything.

The more I think about it, the more I think you're right. It might be my recent predisposition to avoid the "negativity of the NA" with cache owners and/or those who are actually living and caching in proximity to that cache outside of one's home caching area.

 

If the cache were in my general caching area I'd have far less trepidation over logging a NA; the Reviewer will already be familiar with me to a point, and so will the other cachers who see the log. It's when the cache is hundreds or thousands of miles away--and I've never been to that cache specifically--that a NA might cause the natives to become restless.

 

I'm generally a very, very strong advocate for "using the tools Groundspeak gave us" to log NM/NA on caches. And yes, even when we aren't from around those areas we may be logging a NM or NA. If in those cases on logs a NM or NA from afar, there will be a higher likelihood that the locals might get upset. This might be because I'm not from around there. It might be because the cache is there, and I don't know enough about the cache and how it's hidden. But, when the logs, description, involvement of the owner, recent visits to geocaching.com by the owner, etc might point to a cache that "needs attention", one can log a NM or NA from afar. If I'm wrong about that cache, the locals and the local Reviewer need to be prepared to take it easy on their flaming of the logger, and the logger needs to be prepared to eat crow if they're wrong.

 

This is why I mention a "nudge" to the Reviewer privately through email. It can get the cache on their radar, and therefore a "local" can weigh in on the cache rather than an outsider without clear, first-hand knowledge.

 

That's where I'm coming from. But yeah, the NM and NA logs are there for use--so we can use them. But as a geocaching culture we also need to be prepared for that eventuality that "knickers will twist" if I log a NM or NA from afar (just read the threads where a case like that has happened--even those who aren't near or watching the cache suddenly take the logger of that NM/NA to the woodshed quite often...).

Link to comment

If the cache were in my general caching area I'd have far less trepidation over logging a NA; the Reviewer will already be familiar with me to a point, and so will the other cachers who see the log. It's when the cache is hundreds or thousands of miles away--and I've never been to that cache specifically--that a NA might cause the natives to become restless.

Just in passing I'm going to suggest that if the locals are going to react negatively to an NA, I suspect they're going to react negatively even when you've been to the cache, 'cuz that just turns you from someone that's never been there to someone that's just blown through. If they're determined to see NAs from non-locals as meddling, you're still going to be a non-local.

 

I'm generally a very, very strong advocate for "using the tools Groundspeak gave us" to log NM/NA on caches. And yes, even when we aren't from around those areas we may be logging a NM or NA. If in those cases on logs a NM or NA from afar, there will be a higher likelihood that the locals might get upset. This might be because I'm not from around there. It might be because the cache is there, and I don't know enough about the cache and how it's hidden. But, when the logs, description, involvement of the owner, recent visits to geocaching.com by the owner, etc might point to a cache that "needs attention", one can log a NM or NA from afar. If I'm wrong about that cache, the locals and the local Reviewer need to be prepared to take it easy on their flaming of the logger, and the logger needs to be prepared to eat crow if they're wrong.

 

This is why I mention a "nudge" to the Reviewer privately through email. It can get the cache on their radar, and therefore a "local" can weigh in on the cache rather than an outsider without clear, first-hand knowledge.

Long before I considered a secret nudge -- and, frankly, long before I starting considering any of those reasons to use a secret nudge -- I'd be asking myself why I care about this cache so much that I simply have to see it fixed. If I don't have enough information, I leave it to the locals to deal with it. If I used the ignore list, I'd ignore it, but in practice I just remember not to bother with it. I don't mind helping clean up another area, but I don't consider it a duty that I have to fulfill because I have doubts.

Link to comment

No need to be be timid. Those both seem to warrant an NA log from what you described. I've posted several on caches in other states. YOU aren't archiving it...you're only bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

If you've been to the cache site for sure don't be timid. If you've never been to the area, mind your own business. That's my philosophy. But then I am not perfect either.

Link to comment

If the cache were in my general caching area I'd have far less trepidation over logging a NA; the Reviewer will already be familiar with me to a point, and so will the other cachers who see the log. It's when the cache is hundreds or thousands of miles away--and I've never been to that cache specifically--that a NA might cause the natives to become restless.

Just in passing I'm going to suggest that if the locals are going to react negatively to an NA, I suspect they're going to react negatively even when you've been to the cache, 'cuz that just turns you from someone that's never been there to someone that's just blown through. If they're determined to see NAs from non-locals as meddling, you're still going to be a non-local.

Well, sure, if you're a pessimist about it. See below from bflentje: if you've never been to the area people are going to have an attitude of "mind your own business". If you've been to visit the cache you have much more credibility.

 

I'm generally a very, very strong advocate for "using the tools Groundspeak gave us" to log NM/NA on caches. And yes, even when we aren't from around those areas we may be logging a NM or NA. If in those cases on logs a NM or NA from afar, there will be a higher likelihood that the locals might get upset. This might be because I'm not from around there. It might be because the cache is there, and I don't know enough about the cache and how it's hidden. But, when the logs, description, involvement of the owner, recent visits to geocaching.com by the owner, etc might point to a cache that "needs attention", one can log a NM or NA from afar. If I'm wrong about that cache, the locals and the local Reviewer need to be prepared to take it easy on their flaming of the logger, and the logger needs to be prepared to eat crow if they're wrong.

 

This is why I mention a "nudge" to the Reviewer privately through email. It can get the cache on their radar, and therefore a "local" can weigh in on the cache rather than an outsider without clear, first-hand knowledge.

Long before I considered a secret nudge -- and, frankly, long before I starting considering any of those reasons to use a secret nudge -- I'd be asking myself why I care about this cache so much that I simply have to see it fixed. If I don't have enough information, I leave it to the locals to deal with it. If I used the ignore list, I'd ignore it, but in practice I just remember not to bother with it. I don't mind helping clean up another area, but I don't consider it a duty that I have to fulfill because I have doubts.

"Secret nudge". That's cute. :laughing:

 

I think when considered in context of the OP, it is the care that you will be visiting the site and notice that others may not have logged a NM or NA when they could have. If I'm heading to that cache and see that it might need some attention, I'm well within my rights to ask the owner for a hint if the cache is indeed still there, ask previous finders where it might be if not at the construction area/on the missing plane, and/or email a Reviewer or post a NA log if the evidence points to a NA being a reasonable response--even from afar.

 

No need to be be timid. Those both seem to warrant an NA log from what you described. I've posted several on caches in other states. YOU aren't archiving it...you're only bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

If you've been to the cache site for sure don't be timid. If you've never been to the area, mind your own business. That's my philosophy. But then I am not perfect either.

It is the business of the greater community to "police" the game. But there happen to be ways to "police" caches and listings while trying not to ruffle feathers. Saying nothing isn't always the way it should go. In the case of the OP (the good ol' "it depends" scenario), it isn't out of the question to start an investigation and then post a NA or contact the Reviewer if the additional evidence points to a cache that is missing and needs maintenance or archival.

Link to comment

No need to be be timid. Those both seem to warrant an NA log from what you described. I've posted several on caches in other states. YOU aren't archiving it...you're only bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

If you've been to the cache site for sure don't be timid. If you've never been to the area, mind your own business. That's my philosophy. But then I am not perfect either.

 

Geocaching is a community thing, if all of us just mind our own business, geocaching will die.

 

It seem that only the newbies do the dirty work and they get chew out by the old timers. I had see newbies quit just like that because of those annoying old timers. I almost quit at one point to be honest. I still find some long time CO VERY difficult to work with!

 

I had someone reported on my caches that never was there and what did I do? I emailed him and thank him because it did needs help and I totally forgot about it. However, I did caution him that some CO reaction won't be pretty. :ph34r:

 

Would be nice to see GS docked those CO that get ugly over every little thing. We don't need that much negatives among our community hobby.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

No need to be be timid. Those both seem to warrant an NA log from what you described. I've posted several on caches in other states. YOU aren't archiving it...you're only bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

If you've been to the cache site for sure don't be timid. If you've never been to the area, mind your own business. That's my philosophy. But then I am not perfect either.

 

Geocaching is a community thing, if all of us just mind our own business, geocaching will die.

 

TRIM

 

Oh pu-lease. Was my point that difficult to see?

Link to comment

No need to be be timid. Those both seem to warrant an NA log from what you described. I've posted several on caches in other states. YOU aren't archiving it...you're only bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

If you've been to the cache site for sure don't be timid. If you've never been to the area, mind your own business. That's my philosophy. But then I am not perfect either.

 

Geocaching is a community thing, if all of us just mind our own business, geocaching will die.

 

TRIM

 

Oh pu-lease. Was my point that difficult to see?

Was your point that you're not perfect either? :unsure:

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

No need to be be timid. Those both seem to warrant an NA log from what you described. I've posted several on caches in other states. YOU aren't archiving it...you're only bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

If you've been to the cache site for sure don't be timid. If you've never been to the area, mind your own business. That's my philosophy. But then I am not perfect either.

 

Geocaching is a community thing, if all of us just mind our own business, geocaching will die.

 

TRIM

 

Oh pu-lease. Was my point that difficult to see?

Was your point that you're not perfect either? :unsure:

 

:laughing:

I think I see the point and I think I agree with it. :rolleyes: We can and should all identify problems so they can be resolved, one way or another. Posting N/A is a serious action. We all know that n000bs sometimes post it too quickly (they search for 5 minutes and assume it's missing). To me, posting N/A on a cache you've never visited is a bit extreme. IMO that crosses the line to becoming a "cache cop."

Link to comment

No need to be be timid. Those both seem to warrant an NA log from what you described. I've posted several on caches in other states. YOU aren't archiving it...you're only bringing it to the attention of the reviewer.

 

If you've been to the cache site for sure don't be timid. If you've never been to the area, mind your own business. That's my philosophy. But then I am not perfect either.

 

Geocaching is a community thing, if all of us just mind our own business, geocaching will die.

 

TRIM

 

Oh pu-lease. Was my point that difficult to see?

Was your point that you're not perfect either? :unsure:

 

:laughing:

I think I see the point and I think I agree with it. :rolleyes: We can and should all identify problems so they can be resolved, one way or another. Posting N/A is a serious action. We all know that n000bs sometimes post it too quickly (they search for 5 minutes and assume it's missing). To me, posting N/A on a cache you've never visited is a bit extreme. IMO that crosses the line to becoming a "cache cop."

I was making a joke unrelated to the topic.

 

I agree with bflentje, but I disagree with two parts of your response. NA isn't "a serious action". It's just a log type, and people sometimes get it wrong. If you think it's "serious", then you take the game too seriously.

 

Then, there's the "cache cop" thing. We're all "cache cops", and I'm really sick of seeing this tossed around as an insult.

 

Yes, yes, people can be overbearing or deliberately inflammatory when posting NAs. But that's a HUGE minority of cases for how the NA log is actually used in the overwhelming majority of cases. And in those where it is not, see "taking the game too seriously" if someone gets undie-bundled over a NA log.

 

It's not just the job of a Reviewer to look at a cache and weigh the evidence for a log. If I can tell that a cache needs maintenance as I'm researching for a trip, I can certainly log that. And if the case seems very clear that a NA is possible, then there's really no reason not to log that as well.

 

Now, if you want to talk about a big difference here--then we can talk about where someone is not a "cache cop", but just a plain "jerk". That is when one might simply start couch-clicking through cache listings and logging NA from their armchair with Cheeto dusted fingers when they have no plan whatsoever to ever be at or near that cache.

Link to comment

To me, posting N/A on a cache you've never visited is a bit extreme. IMO that crosses the line to becoming a "cache cop."

 

Well, I've been called a "cache cop" before and it doesn't bother me; as part of a "self-policing" activity, I think it is up to all geocachers to perform that function. I have posted NA on a couple caches I never visited; when selecting caches to hunt for in an area where I planned to go geocaching and the last log posted on the cache page was from the property manager who stated: I have removed this cache because it doesn't have permission to be here. It was perfectly clear to me that those caches did need to be archived.

Link to comment

I'm not getting this thing about upsetting "the locals". My take on it is that the locals, most likely, would have already logged a 'Found It' and therefore that's where their investment in a local cache ends. Most would probably never look at it again.

Posting NM or NA can be doing a favor for non locals who may visit the area and then waste their time on it.

If "the locals' see that such a posting is a slight, not only on the CO but all of them, then they should suck it up, tough.

Link to comment

To me, posting N/A on a cache you've never visited is a bit extreme. IMO that crosses the line to becoming a "cache cop."

 

Well, I've been called a "cache cop" before and it doesn't bother me; as part of a "self-policing" activity, I think it is up to all geocachers to perform that function. I have posted NA on a couple caches I never visited; when selecting caches to hunt for in an area where I planned to go geocaching and the last log posted on the cache page was from the property manager who stated: I have removed this cache because it doesn't have permission to be here. It was perfectly clear to me that those caches did need to be archived.

Every rule has its exception and a posted note from the landowner warrants calling in the reviewer even if you haven't seen the cache.

 

For those that read my post closely, they'll note I have nothing against the "self-policing" aspect of the game. I *do* have a problem if someone posts N/A without very good reason, which I think almost always requires an actual visit. IMO you start with N/M, and then consider N/A. N/A is serious because it can lead to archiving a possibly good cache if the CO happens not to be online for a month.

Link to comment

People need to understand that different personalities see things differently.

 

Some people can post a NA and don't have a problem if people are upset at them.

 

Other people don't like people being upset with them.

 

It may not logically make sense to the former type of person, but you'll just have to take my word for it. :laughing:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...