Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Shinook & White Juan

Geocache Needs Maintenance

Recommended Posts

Is there a red wrench icon in any log.

Is there a medical plus sign in the attribute section.

Both will cause the needs maint. Issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Were they actual Needs Maintenance logs?

 

Or were they Found logs (or Note logs) that just happened to mention maintenance issues?

Share this post


Link to post

I recieved 3 notifications today saying that 3 of my caches may need maintanence but when I check the 3 said caches, there was no Needs Maintanence logs. Is this normal?

 

Were the logs backdated?

 

What are the GC codes?

 

B.

Share this post


Link to post

The email the OP received is likely the new emails that come from Geocaching HQ, in their continuing efforts to improve cache quality. The new program is explained in this Help Center article. It's just an informational email about a cache that MIGHT be in need of attention.

Share this post


Link to post

The email the OP received is likely the new emails that come from Geocaching HQ, in their continuing efforts to improve cache quality. The new program is explained in this Help Center article. It's just an informational email about a cache that MIGHT be in need of attention.

 

These new HQ emails don't affect the cache page?

 

Used to be dates on Help Center articles when they were revised.

 

Would be nice to see a "published" or "effective" date on new articles/HQ actions.

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol

Share this post


Link to post

The OP has 5 caches that have no "found it" logs at all since being published. 3 have been out since 2010, 2 have been out since 2014.

 

Would this have triggered the new "needs maintenance" notifications from HQ?

 

B.

Share this post


Link to post

These are emails, not cache logs. There is no effect on cache status (no auto-disabling or auto-archiving, no setting of a needs maintenance attribute).

 

The Help Center article is brand new, to coincide with the sending of the first emails, which will be done on an ongoing basis.

Share this post


Link to post

And no announcement or email notification of this new action from HQ?

 

How are we supposed to know about major changes like this?

 

 

B.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not aware of any "major change." Maintaining high cache quality has long been a priority for Geocaching HQ. These new targeted messages take some of the burden off the community and volunteer reviewers for initial identification of possible candidates for maintenance visits.

 

A hypothetical example of a "major change" on the theme of maintenance: "any cache not found for a year will be disabled automatically until the owner checks it." That would be terribly unfair to remote caches, fiendishly difficult puzzles, etc. If that sort of thing happened, which it won't, that would merit an announcement.

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

Receiving "maintenance" emails from HQ is a pretty major change in method and action as far as I know.

 

HQ never did this before, it's brand new today.

 

HQ had no interest in "needs maintenance" logs posted by cachers. Only "needs archived" logs were considered important enough to be sent to Reviewers.

 

Caught at least one cache owner off-guard, no? Hence this thread, which is the only way the rest of us who read the forum found out about it.

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol

Share this post


Link to post

Receiving "maintenance" emails from HQ is a pretty major change in method and action as far as I know.

The mass reminder emails sent in early July to owners of caches with the "needs maintenance" attribute set would suggest that today's emails are the latest step in a progressive focus on maintenance issues.

HQ had no interest in "needs maintenance" logs posted by cachers.

Among many other things, July's emails from HQ suggest otherwise.

Caught at least one cache owner off-guard, no?

The email text contained a link to the new Help Center article (see my first post). Receiving and opening the email may come as a surprise since it's a new email, but if the recipient reads the email and the Help Center article, it's a pretty good explanation of what's going on.

Share this post


Link to post

Receiving "maintenance" emails from HQ is a pretty major change in method and action as far as I know.

 

HQ never did this before, it's brand new today.

 

Caught at least one cache owner off-guard, no? Hence this thread, which is the only way the rest of us who read the forum found out about it.

 

This is a very nice addition to the game. How could anyone be unhappy about that? We will all learn, soon enough, that there is a new procedure.

 

HQ had no interest in "needs maintenance" logs posted by cachers. Only "needs archived" logs were considered important enough to be sent to Reviewers.

 

A rather harsh review and not exactly an accurate picture. [snip]

 

It is nice when volunteer reviewers happen to take on an NM during a quite moment but it is not a high priority in my mind. They should be allowed to spend that time on their "other life".

Edited by Team Sagefox

Share this post


Link to post

The email the OP received is likely the new emails that come from Geocaching HQ, in their continuing efforts to improve cache quality. The new program is explained in this Help Center article. It's just an informational email about a cache that MIGHT be in need of attention.

 

That link returns "Secure connection failed" in FF 40.0.3.

 

But anyway, I like this new feature. Many owners need to be notified that they should do something about their caches too long being in NM state.

 

.

Edited by Pontiac_CZ

Share this post


Link to post

This is a very nice addition to the game. How could anyone be unhappy about that? We will all learn, soon enough, that there is a new procedure.

I'm sure we'll discuss whether it's a good idea and who's unhappy about it and why, but I think Pup Patrol's comment was intended to be neutral about the procedure, merely suggesting that such a radical change could be announced so people that do pay attention would know it was happening instead of being put in a position where they fumble around trying to help someone that ran into a mystery that GS knew in advance that people would be experiencing.

 

HQ had no interest in "needs maintenance" logs posted by cachers. Only "needs archived" logs were considered important enough to be sent to Reviewers.

A rather harsh review and not exactly an accurate picture.

I hesitate to answer for Pup Patrol, but I didn't take this comment as negative, merely a statement of fact: until now, the procedure has been that maintenance issues are functionally local matters between geocachers until a Needs Archived is posted. I can't speak for Pup Patrol, but I've always thought that was a good thing, so if I had written "HQ had no interest in 'needs maintenance' logs", I wouldn't be criticizing that lack of interest, I'd be objecting to the change in policy where that's no longer the case.

Share this post


Link to post

But anyway, I like this new feature. Many owners need to be notified that they should do something about their caches too long being in NM state.

Yes, owners should be notified that a cache has needed maintenance for too long. The Needs Archived log is how you should tell them. No need for a robot to do your job for you.

Share this post


Link to post

Presumably this is an automated function, so I guess it depends on where the bar is set, particularly in relation to DNFs and the time since last found. Are high D/T caches treated differently to low ones or is it one size fits all?

Share this post


Link to post

But anyway, I like this new feature. Many owners need to be notified that they should do something about their caches too long being in NM state.

Yes, owners should be notified that a cache has needed maintenance for too long. The Needs Archived log is how you should tell them. No need for a robot to do your job for you.

 

Maybe in a perfect geoworld. But I suspect most of us know of at least a few caches in our own areas that have been on life support for far too long but no one bothers to post that NA log for any one of a number of reasons. If HQ has figured out a way to nudge CO's of these caches that are in need of some owner TLC I think it's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post

The automated nudge email seems like a good idea to me.

 

I think the problem with changes like this is not whether they are good or bad, but lack of communication. There is a weekly email newsletter, Announcements and Release Notes sections of these forums, and other methods which Groundspeak often fails to use because of changes that are deemed minor. We don't find out until someone asks like this.

Edited by Joshism

Share this post


Link to post

The automated nudge email seems like a good idea to me.

 

I think the problem with changes like this is not whether they are good or bad, but lack of communication. There is a weekly email newsletter, Announcements and Release Notes sections of these forums, and other methods which Groundspeak often fails to use because of changes that are deemed minor. We don't find out until someone asks like this.

 

This.

 

How hard would it be for GS to post something akin to the Release Notes in the forums whenever there is a change to the geocache placement guidelines, help center article, or something related to a policy change *even* if it is a minor change?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

The automated nudge email seems like a good idea to me.

 

I think the problem with changes like this is not whether they are good or bad, but lack of communication. There is a weekly email newsletter, Announcements and Release Notes sections of these forums, and other methods which Groundspeak often fails to use because of changes that are deemed minor. We don't find out until someone asks like this.

 

This.

 

How hard would it be for GS to post something akin to the Release Notes in the forums whenever there is a change to the geocache placement guidelines, help center article, or something related to a policy change *even* if it is a minor change?

A change to the Placement Guidelines? Where?

 

As far as communication goes, haven't some of these cache owners been getting repeated DNF's and/or NM logs communicated to them? I think they've been communicated to quite sufficiently and ignored the Community. Aside from some of the "lonely caches" without issues getting caught up in the sweep, I'm glad they brought out the "big stick" to help improve the game.

Share this post


Link to post

I admit I haven't read the Help Center article yet :ph34r: , but I'm wondering if an invalid e-mail bounce back (whatever it's called) to this automated HQ message would trigger an archival - thinking of long gone cachers whose e-mail account hasn't been valid for years.....

 

Mrs. Car54

 

P.S. Since Groundspeak didn't communicate this change, the implication (at least to me) is that unless I get one of those e-mails, the Help Center article doesn't warrant my attention. If I'm wrong and it does warrant my attention, then surely it warrants the little bit of Groundspeak's time required to post a notification in the releases forum. :)

Share this post


Link to post

As far as communication goes, haven't some of these cache owners been getting repeated DNF's and/or NM logs communicated to them? I think they've been communicated to quite sufficiently and ignored the Community. Aside from some of the "lonely caches" without issues getting caught up in the sweep, I'm glad they brought out the "big stick" to help improve the game.

 

Some will have I'm sure. The one case I saw was a cache which was

- Published in May 2015

- Only log (other than the published log) was a single DNF in August 2015

- No NM flag

 

As it is just an advisory email, no harm is done. But depending on the algorithm being used, a number of COs will be surprised to get such an email on a cache which they don't actually think has an issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe in a perfect geoworld. But I suspect most of us know of at least a few caches in our own areas that have been on life support for far too long but no one bothers to post that NA log for any one of a number of reasons. If HQ has figured out a way to nudge CO's of these caches that are in need of some owner TLC I think it's a good thing.

If local cachers have been ignoring huge, known local problems such as you describe for so long that HQ has been forced to invent an impersonal automated solution which may or may not be appropriate, I think that's a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post

As it is just an advisory email, no harm is done. But depending on the algorithm being used, a number of COs will be surprised to get such an email on a cache which they don't actually think has an issue.

In another thread, -CJ- reports this same problem and includes the geocache in question. That confirmed what Pup Patrol was suspecting based on this thread's OP: at least one thing that triggers the messages are caches that were planted more than an year ago and have no finds. The ones we can see all look fine, they're just hidden in obscure locations so no one's been there yet to look for them. A good example of the kind of mistakes automated processes are prone to.

Share this post


Link to post

The automated nudge email seems like a good idea to me.

 

I think the problem with changes like this is not whether they are good or bad, but lack of communication. There is a weekly email newsletter, Announcements and Release Notes sections of these forums, and other methods which Groundspeak often fails to use because of changes that are deemed minor. We don't find out until someone asks like this.

 

This.

 

How hard would it be for GS to post something akin to the Release Notes in the forums whenever there is a change to the geocache placement guidelines, help center article, or something related to a policy change *even* if it is a minor change?

 

Agreed. While the new update does not bother me, and I think is a good idea to send semi-pseudo-automated messages to potential "Needs Maintained" caches to keep this hobby current, relevant and such, a simple line-item in the Release notes or announcements that said "New system, to remind some older/idle/NM caches is being tested, it won't log onthcache notes, but CO will get notification emails to check their status". :yikes:

 

The way the help guidelines read, COs are requested to log a "Owner Maintenance" note. Presumably if this is not dne they will continue to receive notifications automatically, that aren't logged on the Cache logs? Will these "abandoned" caches be auto-archived after a period of time, or sent to Reviewers?

Interesting questions, but overall, I don't mind the change. Just think a blurb about it proactively would save some confusion from CO's who do get the message, then wonder why there's no actual Log on their cache page (as the OP and other threads directed here) had found. :)

Edited by Maebius

Share this post


Link to post

This is a very nice addition to the game. How could anyone be unhappy about that? We will all learn, soon enough, that there is a new procedure.

...but I think Pup Patrol's comment was intended to be neutral about the procedure...

HQ had no interest in "needs maintenance" logs posted by cachers. Only "needs archived" logs were considered important enough to be sent to Reviewers.

A rather harsh review and not exactly an accurate picture.

I hesitate to answer for Pup Patrol, but I didn't take this comment as negative, merely a statement of fact...

I might have read too much into PP's post. Sorry about that.

 

That full post and a couple of other PP posts here come off, to me, as unnecessary complaints about a new proceedure instituted to help with cache maintenance issues that will not, in my opinion, have a "major" effect on anyone.

 

PP seemed to be in a snit about not having advance notice of this proceedure. "How are we supposed to know about major changes like this?" "Caught one cache owner off guard." I don't see these as problems.

 

If we keep our caches maintained we will never see the email and if we are a bit late getting to maintenance then we will get a gentle nudge that:

 

...may come as a surprise since it's a new email, but if the recipient reads the email and the Help Center article, it's a pretty good explanation of what's going on.

 

It might seem major to someone who owns a lot of unmaintained caches if they get a batch of these reminders all at once but that would be a price paid for not responding to strings of dnfs or NMs.

 

Something positive happend to improve the game and I just don't see why it should warrant complaints.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's what's neat, to me:

  1. Cool feature that can "poke" owners to take action
  2. Helps reduce workload for Volunteer Reviewers
  3. Shows Groundspeak taking a stand with owner responsibilities that they take care of their caches and listings
  4. Demonstrates resolve by Groundspeak to deal with caches that are "under the weather" for prolonged periods, and/or for owners to check on caches that haven't been visited in a while
  5. Reinforces the guidelines, as stated above

 

Here's what I think is too bad or possibly not considered before roll out:

[*]Not announced in the Blog or Weekly Newsletter as a new program; caught some people off guard.

[*]Would have been better to give everyone a heads up that this was coming (specifics, not just the July notice)

[*]Does not have the same "personal" feel of a Reviewer's action--Notes/TD logs--which can create a more "personal" response by the cache owner(s)

[*]Does not consider that some people do not monitor or "deal with" their emails from Groundspeak/Geocaching.com; some emails will go unseen, or, worse, ignored

[*]Apathy and complacency stem from "automated" emails. Action is better spurred with personal logs or action by TPTB (TD logs, etc.) who can do so

[*]Does not appear to state what action will be taken on their caches if they decide not to take action on their "derelict" cache(s). Failure to take responsibilities for your cache and cache listings is against the guidelines, and those caches should be disabled or archived (unceremoniously?)

Edited by NeverSummer

Share this post


Link to post

Here's what's neat, to me:

  1. Cool feature that can "poke" owners to take action
  2. Helps reduce workload for Volunteer Reviewers
  3. Shows Groundspeak taking a stand with owner responsibilities that they take care of their caches and listings
  4. Demonstrates resolve by Groundspeak to deal with caches that are "under the weather" for prolonged periods, and/or for owners to check on caches that haven't been visited in a while
  5. Reinforces the guidelines, as stated above

 

Here's what I think is too bad or possibly not considered before roll out:

[*]Not announced in the Blog or Weekly Newsletter as a new program; caught some people off guard.

[*]Would have been better to give everyone a heads up that this was coming (specifics, not just the July notice)

[*]Does not have the same "personal" feel of a Reviewer's action--Notes/TD logs--which can create a more "personal" response by the cache owner(s)

[*]Does not consider that some people do not monitor or "deal with" their emails from Groundspeak/Geocaching.com; some emails will go unseen, or, worse, ignored

[*]Apathy and complacency stem from "automated" emails. Action is better spurred with personal logs or action by TPTB (TD logs, etc.) who can do so

[*]Does not appear to state what action will be taken on their caches if they decide not to take action on their "derelict" cache(s). Failure to take responsibilities for your cache and cache listings is against the guidelines, and those caches should be disabled or archived (unceremoniously?)

 

The only issue I agree with is the possibility of a cache owner missing the automated e-mail. What about a special icon on the cache page that would indicate that this automated action has been applied to the cache. I would guess that most responsible cache owners check there cache pages (and caches) on a regular basis and probably won't be effected by this at all.

 

Considering the time restraints placed on reviewers an automated system seems like a reasonable course of action.

 

After all isn't this whole activity based on the honor system? What's to stop a cache owner from posting an owners maintenance log without ever actually visiting the cache?

Share this post


Link to post

As far as communication goes, haven't some of these cache owners been getting repeated DNF's and/or NM logs communicated to them? I think they've been communicated to quite sufficiently and ignored the Community. Aside from some of the "lonely caches" without issues getting caught up in the sweep, I'm glad they brought out the "big stick" to help improve the game.

How is this the "big stick"? It is a private message to the CO, doesn't 'mark' the cache in any way, and if, as you say, the CO has ignored log emails why would this email be any different?

Share this post


Link to post

Here's what's neat, to me:

  1. Cool feature that can "poke" owners to take action
  2. Helps reduce workload for Volunteer Reviewers
  3. Shows Groundspeak taking a stand with owner responsibilities that they take care of their caches and listings
  4. Demonstrates resolve by Groundspeak to deal with caches that are "under the weather" for prolonged periods, and/or for owners to check on caches that haven't been visited in a while
  5. Reinforces the guidelines, as stated above

 

Here's what I think is too bad or possibly not considered before roll out:

[*]Not announced in the Blog or Weekly Newsletter as a new program; caught some people off guard.

[*]Would have been better to give everyone a heads up that this was coming (specifics, not just the July notice)

[*]Does not have the same "personal" feel of a Reviewer's action--Notes/TD logs--which can create a more "personal" response by the cache owner(s)

[*]Does not consider that some people do not monitor or "deal with" their emails from Groundspeak/Geocaching.com; some emails will go unseen, or, worse, ignored

[*]Apathy and complacency stem from "automated" emails. Action is better spurred with personal logs or action by TPTB (TD logs, etc.) who can do so

[*]Does not appear to state what action will be taken on their caches if they decide not to take action on their "derelict" cache(s). Failure to take responsibilities for your cache and cache listings is against the guidelines, and those caches should be disabled or archived (unceremoniously?)

 

The only issue I agree with is the possibility of a cache owner missing the automated e-mail. What about a special icon on the cache page that would indicate that this automated action has been applied to the cache. I would guess that most responsible cache owners check there cache pages (and caches) on a regular basis and probably won't be effected by this at all.

 

Considering the time restraints placed on reviewers an automated system seems like a reasonable course of action.

 

After all isn't this whole activity based on the honor system? What's to stop a cache owner from posting an owners maintenance log without ever actually visiting the cache?

Nothing at all. And I've seen it happen many, many times.

 

So, this is where it is better to have the personal level of interaction (Reviewers) when a cache needs the owner to check on it and perform maintenance.

 

Honestly, our honor system isn't very honorable, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post

Receiving "maintenance" emails from HQ is a pretty major change in method and action as far as I know.

 

HQ never did this before, it's brand new today.

 

HQ had no interest in "needs maintenance" logs posted by cachers. Only "needs archived" logs were considered important enough to be sent to Reviewers.

 

Caught at least one cache owner off-guard, no? Hence this thread, which is the only way the rest of us who read the forum found out about it.

 

B.

 

I don't see this as a major change and i'm not sure why i'd think a heads up is in order for something like this. It's a potentially helpful email notification and i wouldn't go into panic mode if i received the email.

 

From what i'm seeing, i don't believe this email requires us to do actually do anything. Depends on the circumstances but i wouldn't automatically drop what i was doing to go check on a cache that i was fairly certain was in good shape. I'm sure it will help "poke" some COs into doing maintenance and for sure, will help cachers like me who sometimes totally forget they have a cache that needs checking on.

Share this post


Link to post

Receiving "maintenance" emails from HQ is a pretty major change in method and action as far as I know.

 

HQ never did this before, it's brand new today.

 

HQ had no interest in "needs maintenance" logs posted by cachers. Only "needs archived" logs were considered important enough to be sent to Reviewers.

 

Caught at least one cache owner off-guard, no? Hence this thread, which is the only way the rest of us who read the forum found out about it.

 

B.

 

I don't see this as a major change and i'm not sure why i'd think a heads up is in order for something like this. It's a potentially helpful email notification and i wouldn't go into panic mode if i received the email.

 

From what i'm seeing, i don't believe this email requires us to do actually do anything. Depends on the circumstances but i wouldn't automatically drop what i was doing to go check on a cache that i was fairly certain was in good shape. I'm sure it will help "poke" some COs into doing maintenance and for sure, will help cachers like me who sometimes totally forget they have a cache that needs checking on.

I don't think anyone is hyperventilating here.

 

I think the observation is that it would have been nice if Groundspeak sent out a notice to all users that this was going to start rolling into their inboxes, and with a short description of why and what to do when they see one.

 

That's all.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't received one of these emails yet, so I don't know exactly what they look like. Is there a mechanism provided for reporting the validity of the notice back to Groundspeak (e.g. false-positives)? Since this is based on an algorithm that uses many parameters, it will inevitably need to be tweaked, and feedback about which parameters are giving the most false-positives will be essential. For example, so far it sounds like there are quite a few false-positives based on the time since last find. That may need to be tweaked to be more forgiving.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's what's neat, to me:

  1. Cool feature that can "poke" owners to take action
  2. Helps reduce workload for Volunteer Reviewers
  3. Shows Groundspeak taking a stand with owner responsibilities that they take care of their caches and listings
  4. Demonstrates resolve by Groundspeak to deal with caches that are "under the weather" for prolonged periods, and/or for owners to check on caches that haven't been visited in a while
  5. Reinforces the guidelines, as stated above

 

Here's what I think is too bad or possibly not considered before roll out:

[*]Not announced in the Blog or Weekly Newsletter as a new program; caught some people off guard.

[*]Would have been better to give everyone a heads up that this was coming (specifics, not just the July notice)

[*]Does not have the same "personal" feel of a Reviewer's action--Notes/TD logs--which can create a more "personal" response by the cache owner(s)

[*]Does not consider that some people do not monitor or "deal with" their emails from Groundspeak/Geocaching.com; some emails will go unseen, or, worse, ignored

[*]Apathy and complacency stem from "automated" emails. Action is better spurred with personal logs or action by TPTB (TD logs, etc.) who can do so

[*]Does not appear to state what action will be taken on their caches if they decide not to take action on their "derelict" cache(s). Failure to take responsibilities for your cache and cache listings is against the guidelines, and those caches should be disabled or archived (unceremoniously?)

 

The only issue I agree with is the possibility of a cache owner missing the automated e-mail. What about a special icon on the cache page that would indicate that this automated action has been applied to the cache. I would guess that most responsible cache owners check there cache pages (and caches) on a regular basis and probably won't be effected by this at all.

 

Considering the time restraints placed on reviewers an automated system seems like a reasonable course of action.

 

After all isn't this whole activity based on the honor system? What's to stop a cache owner from posting an owners maintenance log without ever actually visiting the cache?

Nothing at all. And I've seen it happen many, many times.

 

So, this is where it is better to have the personal level of interaction (Reviewers) when a cache needs the owner to check on it and perform maintenance.

 

Honestly, our honor system isn't very honorable, IMHO.

 

I understand you logic but how is a reviewer going to know if a cache owner did indeed preform maintenance on there cache. In this case I think the computer generated note will reach more cachers than the reviewers ever could. I think that most cachers are honorable. and with a little help and guidance will get it right.

Share this post


Link to post

What's to stop a cache owner from posting an owners maintenance log without ever actually visiting the cache?

 

No problem. NM and NA logs will take care of it if the cache remains in bad condition. The email notice simply gives the CO a heads up that Volunteer Reviewers might step in and sets up a chance that the work might get done before that action is needed.

 

So, this is where it is better to have the personal level of interaction (Reviewers) when a cache needs the owner to check on it and perform maintenance.

 

But, as your #2 observation points out, the Volunteer Reviewers already have plenty to do and there are far too many caches that warrant the email notice. It is not reasonable to expect volunteers to add this level of review to their exixting work load.

Share this post


Link to post

I had two of my remote access caches Temporarily Disabled eariler this year. Just becaue they have not been found does not mean they are not being properly maintained. Not all geocaches are urban LPC's, some actually earn their D/T stars. :anitongue:

 

"Temporarily Disable Listing 02/17/2015

Greetings from Geocaching.com,

 

This cache came up for review while going through all the ones that have not been found for over 2 years with a DNF log.

 

As cache owner, it is your responsibility to either repair or archive any caches that are no longer acceptable for Geocachers to hunt. At this point, it appears your cache requires maintenance, either online, physically, or both. Please do not write to the reviewer, please instead post the cache status on a note on the cache page so all geocachers will be aware of the status of the cache.

 

These are the guidelines about cache maintenance: (visit link) As a courtesy to your fellow geocachers, the cache is being temporarily disabled until its' status is verified.

 

Sincerely,

 

XXXXXXXXX Reviewer

Geocaching.com Volunteer"

Share this post


Link to post

What irks me a little with this is the implicit assumption that a DNF means there's something wrong with the cache. It doesn't, well it shouldn't. I've had 17 DNFs across three of my caches and NONE of them have been because of cache issues. A few have even been along the lines of "I started looking but the heavens opened so I abandoned my search for today." How is this a problem that the CO needs to fix and log an Owner Maintenance for?

 

We're getting mixed messages here. On the one hand, we're told to log DNFs whenever we look for a cache but don't find it FOR ANY REASON, but if we do, it now counts against the cache in a very tangible way. At the bottom of that Help Centre page it says "A Community Volunteer Reviewer may followup with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance", so one assumes that ignoring the courtesy email (i.e. not going out to check on that T5 cache straight away) may lead to reviewer intervention. All because it happened to rain on an out-of-the-way cache that no one looks for very often.

 

I'm all in favour of ignored NMs triggering this courtesy email and, if ignoring it effectively elevates it to NA status, great. But a DNF is not a NM, not by any stretch, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post
We're getting mixed messages here. On the one hand, we're told to log DNFs whenever we look for a cache but don't find it FOR ANY REASON, but if we do, it now counts against the cache in a very tangible way.
I agree.

Share this post


Link to post

 

So, this is where it is better to have the personal level of interaction (Reviewers) when a cache needs the owner to check on it and perform maintenance.

 

But, as your #2 observation points out, the Volunteer Reviewers already have plenty to do and there are far too many caches that warrant the email notice. It is not reasonable to expect volunteers to add this level of review to their exixting work load.

Yup, and that's where there really isn't a good answer.

 

I wasn't saying anything to imply that it should be one way or the other. I did, however, call out specifics of where each approach might work well for the desired outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post

I had two of my remote access caches Temporarily Disabled eariler this year. Just becaue they have not been found does not mean they are not being properly maintained. Not all geocaches are urban LPC's, some actually earn their D/T stars. :anitongue:

 

"Temporarily Disable Listing 02/17/2015

Greetings from Geocaching.com,

 

This cache came up for review while going through all the ones that have not been found for over 2 years with a DNF log.

 

As cache owner, it is your responsibility to either repair or archive any caches that are no longer acceptable for Geocachers to hunt. At this point, it appears your cache requires maintenance, either online, physically, or both. Please do not write to the reviewer, please instead post the cache status on a note on the cache page so all geocachers will be aware of the status of the cache.

 

These are the guidelines about cache maintenance: (visit link) As a courtesy to your fellow geocachers, the cache is being temporarily disabled until its' status is verified.

 

Sincerely,

 

XXXXXXXXX Reviewer

Geocaching.com Volunteer"

I agree.

We have a cache that until two months ago, hasn't been attempted since '11.

I drive by it monthly and can see it from the road.

Pretty boring for me and others I'd bet, seeing my own logs in a string down the cache page...

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post
The emails may result from any combination of logs, including Did Not Find (DNF's), Needs Maintenance (NM), Needs Archived (NA) or caches that have not been found in a long time.

I'm just curious to know a bit of details here (I don't think it's going to be disclosed, though). I have seen a post in a regional facebook group by a cache owner whose cache was published on Aug 16, 2015 and received only one logged visitor who DNFed it on Aug 18, 2015 saying they could not find the cache because there are lots of muggles, and received this notification. I looked at the cache page but nothing suggests needs of maintenance to me.

Share this post


Link to post

The caches in question are GC564WB, GC564WT and GC1PX3A. The last visit on these 3 caches were dnf's. One within the last few months and one in 2012. I was curious as to how this automated email was initiated. Was it because the last log was a dnf? Did a certain amount of time pass since that dnf the reason for the email?

Share this post


Link to post

I had two of my remote access caches Temporarily Disabled eariler this year. Just becaue they have not been found does not mean they are not being properly maintained. Not all geocaches are urban LPC's, some actually earn their D/T stars. :anitongue:

 

"Temporarily Disable Listing 02/17/2015

Greetings from Geocaching.com,

 

This cache came up for review while going through all the ones that have not been found for over 2 years with a DNF log.

 

As cache owner, it is your responsibility to either repair or archive any caches that are no longer acceptable for Geocachers to hunt. At this point, it appears your cache requires maintenance, either online, physically, or both. Please do not write to the reviewer, please instead post the cache status on a note on the cache page so all geocachers will be aware of the status of the cache.

 

These are the guidelines about cache maintenance: (visit link) As a courtesy to your fellow geocachers, the cache is being temporarily disabled until its' status is verified.

 

Sincerely,

 

XXXXXXXXX Reviewer

Geocaching.com Volunteer"

I agree.

We have a cache that until two months ago, hasn't been attempted since '11.

I drive by it monthly and can see it from the road.

Pretty boring for me and others I'd bet, seeing my own logs in a string down the cache page...

 

Here is another fine example of on one of my 5/5 listings published on 1/8/14 and TD'd by the reviewer on 2/18/14 then found the next day after I posted a REALLY GOOD hint.

 

"Temporarily Disable Listing 02/18/2014

Owner, it looks like that one needs some attention. Remember that the guidelines state, "You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to maintain proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.)." You can read more instructions about cache maintenance here: (visit link) As we've experienced some extreme weather that might have impacted the cache or its hiding place, and as several experienced caches have been unable to locate the cache, I'm requesting that you check on your cache and provide a response within the next 30 days in accordance with the guidelines and as a courtesy to those seeking it.

 

If you find that the cache is still in place, just re-enable the listing. You may want to double-check your coordinates and/or consider providing another hint.

 

XXXX

Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer"

 

This was because of a string of DNF's posted on the listing, and I'm sure that someone contacted the reviewer with a boo-hoo I can't find it and the mean CO won't give me a hint. :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

I seen this come up on a facebook page a while back. Some CO getting the message. I happened to go out and maintain all the caches I had questions on that weekend and I didn't get a email. So if all your caches are in good order there is nothing to worry about. If there are some that are questionable you might get a email to remind you about them. No big deal. They are not disabling them or anything just a reminder.

I sometimes forget when I get a log saying it might need some attention so I would appreciate the email. I don't see why it would be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
We're getting mixed messages here. On the one hand, we're told to log DNFs whenever we look for a cache but don't find it FOR ANY REASON, but if we do, it now counts against the cache in a very tangible way.
I agree.

I never log a DNF unless I made a genuine search for the cache. If I can't search (got lost, thwarted by weather, muggles sitting on GZ, etc.) I either don't log anything or I'll log a write note.

 

Isn't that the way it should work? DNF is Did Not Find, not Did Not Search

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that the Groundspeak notices discussed in this thread are not NM logs. They are just email notifications and there's no change made in the actual cache listing (i.e., no NM logs, no NM attribute, etc...). The example I mentioned in my earlier post #43 (not my cache) was less than a month old with only one DNF (and got the FTF today, if that matters), so I still wonder why it had to generate such an alert. I think the notification is more like just a friendly reminder after all, although the actual content (the email body) doesn't look that easy. I'm still curious to know the criteria (although I don't think that can be disclosed). I personally haven't received any such notifications before (but I have only 64 hides excluding events).

Share this post


Link to post

I seen this come up on a facebook page a while back. Some CO getting the message. I happened to go out and maintain all the caches I had questions on that weekend and I didn't get a email. So if all your caches are in good order there is nothing to worry about. If there are some that are questionable you might get a email to remind you about them. No big deal. They are not disabling them or anything just a reminder.

I sometimes forget when I get a log saying it might need some attention so I would appreciate the email. I don't see why it would be a problem.

Sure you needn't worry if you're doing maintenance (we respond to logs), but DNFs or long periods between logs doesn't mean there's an issue at all.

As per the Help Center link on post #6, "A Community Volunteer Reviewer may followup with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance. Thanks for your help in keeping the game fun!".

 

That (to me) says that if I say, "Okay, if it makes you happy, I'll do owner maintenance on my hide that doesn't need it", and the person who issued that "helpful reminder" (that wasn't needed in the first place...) has their feathers ruffled, a Reviewer can step in to "fix" it for me all right... :laughing:

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post

What's to stop a cache owner from posting an owners maintenance log without ever actually visiting the cache?

 

No problem. NM and NA logs will take care of it if the cache remains in bad condition. The email notice simply gives the CO a heads up that Volunteer Reviewers might step in and sets up a chance that the work might get done before that action is needed.

 

So, this is where it is better to have the personal level of interaction (Reviewers) when a cache needs the owner to check on it and perform maintenance.

 

But, as your #2 observation points out, the Volunteer Reviewers already have plenty to do and there are far too many caches that warrant the email notice. It is not reasonable to expect volunteers to add this level of review to their exixting work load.

 

How would a "Needs Maintenance" work if the cache owner logs an "Owners Maintenance" log without ever stepping foot outside the house? It wont. The only way this would be stopped is if the reviewer notices the pattern of Needs Maintenance/Owner's Maintenance logs. But what if another cacher "Fixes" the cache? This cycle could go on forever. The point of all this is that there is no fool proof way to police everything. Just can't be done without having boots on the ground checking up on every cache. This is where we come in. It's up to the cachers to monitor local caches and weed out the ones that are abandoned or not being maintained. Post Needs Maintenance logs, dig a little into the cache history. With a few clicks you can pretty much determine weather or not a cache owner is still active and still maintaining there caches. If you want to get rid of un-maintained caches than you can start right now by taking it upon yourself to get things cleaned up.

 

The reviewers don't have to look at every email notice. Just the ones that have been sent out multiple times and have been ignored. Initially this will be a big number but in time it will streamline itself and be much more manageable. You want to fix the problem? It's gonna take some work by everybody.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...