Jump to content

Why are people afraid to post NM/NA logs?


Cachez

Recommended Posts

Human nature. Some one with a psychology degree might be able to explain why most people don't like using the NM and NA system.

It might work better if it were anonymous, only the reviewer knows who posted the NM or NA. You can still see the NM and NA log, but you don't see who posted it. Then again, reviewers might get swamped if we could post semi-anonymously.

Link to comment

Some cache owners react negatively to NM/NA being posted on their own caches. Depending on how negatively they react, this can make cache finders more reluctant to make NM/NA postings.

+1 myself I like cachers to let me know when one of my caches needs some help. :D I have no problems posting NA or NM logs.

Link to comment

I guess its too little or too much....its been my experience that new cachers tend to log a NM/NA when they simply can't find a cache, its the main reason I make all my hides PMO.

I think much more of an issue is those who don't log DNF's....its hard to gauge a cache when all logs are smileys but close reading on some reveals that multiple trips were made although no DNF's were ever logged.

Link to comment

Some cache owners react negatively to NM/NA being posted on their own caches. Depending on how negatively they react, this can make cache finders more reluctant to make NM/NA postings.

I've never encountered a CO that reacts negatively. That sounds like a serious problem. Did you discuss it with the ones that you know have this problem?

 

It might work better if it were anonymous, only the reviewer knows who posted the NM or NA. You can still see the NM and NA log, but you don't see who posted it. Then again, reviewers might get swamped if we could post semi-anonymously.

I'm strongly against anonymous logs. It accepts as status quo that COs will react negatively, so as a matter of course, people need to be protected from the CO's wrath with a vale of secrecy. I don't want geocaching to promote the idea that that's the case, particularly since it isn't true most places.

Link to comment

I don't agree with your premise, "people afraid to post NM/NA logs"

 

Some people only log Found it! because that's the only the log with a stat they care about. They aren't logging NM/NA, or DNFs, but not from fear.

 

Many people do post NM/NA logs.

 

Also, I agree with Bamboozle, I see far too many using these logs instead of DNFs. From time to time I email a cacher and explain that it's okay to just log a DNF ;-).

 

I suppose there may be some who don't post these logs because of fear, but I sure haven't encountered it much. In reviewer mode, I get emails asking me to look at caches, ie, email me rather than post an NA. Mostly, these emails come from people who have not hunted the particular cache, but noticed that the cache appears to be missing. I don't think they're "afraid" to log an NA as much as feeling like they haven't been there, so they leave working out disable/archive to me. Seems okay.

 

In my player account, I've logged exactly ONE Needs Maintenance, and regretted it. I feel that if the CO is paying attention, they already know the cache needs maintenance, and if they aren't, the log doesn't reach anyone.

Link to comment

Looks like Groundspeak has yet another initiative to help in this area.

 

Logged by: Volunteer Cleanup

Log Type: Needs Maintenance

Date: 10/30/2015

Location: Illinois, United States

Type: Traditional Cache

Hi, there! It looks like this geocache might be missing. There is a string of DNFs and no one has found it in more than a year. As the owner, there are a number of things you can do.

If you know the cache is still there and in good working order, write a note to say so

If you know or suspect that the cache is missing, temporarily disable it until you can perform maintenance

If you aren't sure whether the cache is still there, write a note to say when you'll check on it

If you no longer plan to maintain this cache, you can archive it or offer to have another geocacher adopt it

Thank you for placing this cache. The time and trouble you've invested are a great way to contribute back to the hobby. By keeping the cache in good repair and keeping the listing up to date, you'll be doing even more to keep the game fun for others in the local geocaching community.

Edited by JohnCNA
Link to comment

I will log a NM if required, and have never received a negative reaction from doing so. There are only limited circumstances that I will do so (suddenly lots of DNFs and I DNFd as well; the container is in need of maintenance and I cannot do it; the log is unsignable; location has changed dramatically and cache cannot remain as originally hidden, etc.). There have been a couple cases where I saw an "Owner Maintenance" follow that I thought was questionable, but never anything I would have considered personal.

 

I will log a NA if required, and have done so twice.

 

The first NA I logged, the cache had been there for some time and had been logged many times. It required the cacher to trespass, and the CO could not possibly have obtained permission. (The hide required going through a hole in a fence that had a "No Trespassing" sign onto property belonging to an electric power company.) When the Reviewer posted a question about it, the CO responded with a name-calling attack on me ("Mr. Less Than 100 Finds"). I refrained from returning the favor, but after looking at the CO's profile, it occurred to me that "Mr. Half My Hides are Archived" would have fit this CO. So I can see why someone would hesitate to post a NA.

 

So early in my caching, I learned that it's a touchy subject, and that cache ownership is not for everyone. Because the reactions don't bother me, I will log NM if it's needed, and I will log NA if it is needed.

 

In my area, the reviewers are pretty good about addressing caches that have had the NM attribute for a long time or been disabled for a long time, so the NA is seldom needed.

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment

I will log a NM if required, and have never received a negative reaction from doing so. There are only limited circumstances that I will do so (suddenly lots of DNFs and I DNFd as well; the container is in need of maintenance and I cannot do it; the log is unsignable; location has changed dramatically and cache cannot remain as originally hidden, etc.).

I don't understand why you're calling those circumstances "limited". Your limit circumstances are just a list of when it's appropriate to log an NM.

 

The first NA I logged, the cache had been there for some time and had been logged many times. It required the cacher to trespass, and the CO could not possibly have obtained permission. (The hide required going through a hole in a fence that had a "No Trespassing" sign onto property belonging to an electric power company.) When the Reviewer posted a question about it, the CO responded with a name-calling attack on me ("Mr. Less Than 100 Finds"). I refrained from returning the favor, but after looking at the CO's profile, it occurred to me that "Mr. Half My Hides are Archived" would have fit this CO. So I can see why someone would hesitate to post a NA.

Yeah, it can be hard to stand up to a bully.

 

In my area, the reviewers are pretty good about addressing caches that have had the NM attribute for a long time or been disabled for a long time, so the NA is seldom needed.

You have this backwards. In your community, seekers don't bother to log NAs, so the poor reviewer has to do a lot of extra work to continually monitor the caches in the area and take unilateral action, making him the bad guy.

Link to comment

Maybe because most geocachers on phone apps don't even realize that they can log NM/NA? Or how to log TBs? It's the modern phone app era!

Just blaming everything that's wrong with geocaching on phone users is mildly preposterous don't you think?

 

Issues like this have been around since the beginning but,, they happen more often these days. No doubt in my mind that much of this is because of phone apps that require nothing more than download and go.

Link to comment

I'd like to think a NM is that I have to tend to a problem with my cache. I have posted NM posts and watched for the post to see if it has been done. Some disappear, obviously archived, some are not visited again and have a nasty gram from a reviewer and the good CO always sends a thankyou. I will always either message the CO if it is a minor issue or NM log if it is major. Better to be polite on minor issues and posting a NM on major issues.

Link to comment

In my player account, I've logged exactly ONE Needs Maintenance, and regretted it. I feel that if the CO is paying attention, they already know the cache needs maintenance, and if they aren't, the log doesn't reach anyone.

 

I see posting the NM, even if the cache owner is absent or doesn't do maintenance, as part of the process. Jumping straight to an NA has sometimes resulted in the reviewer telling me to post the NM first, especially if the cache is there, but in bad shape (e.g. missing a lid).

 

Posting the NM on a cache that has an absent owner will at least set the red cross attribute. Some people filter out caches with that attribute. It will save them some time and gas money if they prefer to set out for caches that have a better chance of being there and in better shape.

 

Also, our reviewers will sometimes do sweeps for caches with 3 or more NMs and start the NA process themselves, with a temporary disable reviewer note.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Looks like Groundspeak has yet another initiative to help in this area.

 

Logged by: Volunteer Cleanup

Log Type: Needs Maintenance

Date: 10/30/2015

Location: Illinois, United States

Type: Traditional Cache

Hi, there! It looks like this geocache might be missing. There is a string of DNFs and no one has found it in more than a year. As the owner, there are a number of things you can do.

If you know the cache is still there and in good working order, write a note to say so

If you know or suspect that the cache is missing, temporarily disable it until you can perform maintenance

If you aren't sure whether the cache is still there, write a note to say when you'll check on it

If you no longer plan to maintain this cache, you can archive it or offer to have another geocacher adopt it

Thank you for placing this cache. The time and trouble you've invested are a great way to contribute back to the hobby. By keeping the cache in good repair and keeping the listing up to date, you'll be doing even more to keep the game fun for others in the local geocaching community.

This is not an official "initiative" by Geocaching HQ or by the Community Volunteer Reviewers.

Link to comment

You have this backwards. In your community, seekers don't bother to log NAs, so the poor reviewer has to do a lot of extra work to continually monitor the caches in the area and take unilateral action, making him the bad guy.

 

I hope that's not how reviewers feel about their role, i.e. that they are forced to be the bad guy. I hope they realize that because of their authority, they are doing a great service for the caching community that mere geocachers can not accomplish as effectively.

Link to comment

Some cache owners react negatively to NM/NA being posted on their own caches. Depending on how negatively they react, this can make cache finders more reluctant to make NM/NA postings.

I've never encountered a CO that reacts negatively.

 

Count yourself lucky.

 

Round here there are several who react negatively to every NM and a bunch who don't react at all.

Link to comment

Some really interesting views here. It was a genuine question as I'd sort of had the impression from the forums (and backed up in real life) that there was a reluctance on the part of cachers to post an NM/NA which I didn't fully understand.

 

I've seen a bad reaction from one CO locally to people posting NA on their cache, but IMHO, it was entirely justified given the logs. I've posted NA on three - all of which were blatantly not viable, missing and in the last case, the CO living on the other side of the world.

 

I've also had NM posted on one of my caches - I was a bit suspicious at first as it was a new cacher, but when I went to check it turned out to be correct and prompted me to move it. I suspect a curtain twitcher opposite had seen people finding the cache, not liked it and gone and removed the containers. So it saved me a few nanos that someone flagged it up.

Link to comment

I will log a NM if required, and have never received a negative reaction from doing so. There are only limited circumstances that I will do so (suddenly lots of DNFs and I DNFd as well; the container is in need of maintenance and I cannot do it; the log is unsignable; location has changed dramatically and cache cannot remain as originally hidden, etc.).

I don't understand why you're calling those circumstances "limited". Your limit circumstances are just a list of when it's appropriate to log an NM.

 

 

I'm calling them limited because they are limited. I never said they were my limits. Do you have a point, or are you just jabbering because you can?

 

The first NA I logged, the cache had been there for some time and had been logged many times. It required the cacher to trespass, and the CO could not possibly have obtained permission. (The hide required going through a hole in a fence that had a "No Trespassing" sign onto property belonging to an electric power company.) When the Reviewer posted a question about it, the CO responded with a name-calling attack on me ("Mr. Less Than 100 Finds"). I refrained from returning the favor, but after looking at the CO's profile, it occurred to me that "Mr. Half My Hides are Archived" would have fit this CO. So I can see why someone would hesitate to post a NA.

Yeah, it can be hard to stand up to a bully.

 

In my area, the reviewers are pretty good about addressing caches that have had the NM attribute for a long time or been disabled for a long time, so the NA is seldom needed.

You have this backwards. In your community, seekers don't bother to log NAs, so the poor reviewer has to do a lot of extra work to continually monitor the caches in the area and take unilateral action, making him the bad guy.

 

I can't agree. Because the reviewers have chosen to do a service to the caching community does not mean that cachers are not logging NM (how else would the reviewer ever find the problem caches to begin with?) or NA. Your response really cheapens what the reviewers are doing.

Link to comment

You have this backwards. In your community, seekers don't bother to log NAs, so the poor reviewer has to do a lot of extra work to continually monitor the caches in the area and take unilateral action, making him the bad guy.

I hope that's not how reviewers feel about their role, i.e. that they are forced to be the bad guy. I hope they realize that because of their authority, they are doing a great service for the caching community that mere geocachers can not accomplish as effectively.

I hope it's not how reviewers feel about it, either, and I suspect they tend to be above feeling that way. It is, nevertheless, the case. Think about it: the point is that seekers don't want to post NAs because the COs will be angry. The entire point of not posting NAs and encouraging the reviewer to take the action is to avoid this wrath by pushing forward the reviewer as the target for any negative reaction.

 

And the reason I stress that is precisely because of your second point: I want the reviewers' authority to be based on an impartial evaluations of publicly presented positions, reacting to the cases put forward by seekers posting NAs and COs defending a contrary position. Forcing reviewers to take unilateral actions leaves them open to the accusation of bias, even when there's no actual bias.

 

I've never encountered a CO that reacts negatively.

Count yourself lucky.

 

Round here there are several who react negatively to every NM and a bunch who don't react at all.

Yes, I do count myself lucky to cache in a community where NMs and NAs are presented and accepted as cooperative communications between members. And I'm really sorry your community has this flaw where some COs see seekers as enemy combatants. I encourage you to work on those COs so perhaps, someday, your reviewers won't have to act as if such COs are normal and expected.

Link to comment

I don't agree with your premise, "people afraid to post NM/NA logs"

 

It happens. That's a fact.

 

If it's not fear of backlash it's apathy at the number of people who scream cache cop whenever anyone posts a log intended to either resolve issues or clear rubbish off the map.

 

Some people only log Found it! because that's the only the log with a stat they care about. They aren't logging NM/NA, or DNFs, but not from fear.

 

See above.

 

Many people do post NM/NA logs.

 

Sure - there are people who couldn't care less or don't see it as their responsibility.

 

Also, I agree with Bamboozle, I see far too many using these logs instead of DNFs. From time to time I email a cacher and explain that it's okay to just log a DNF ;-).

 

Do you ever email a cacher and suggest to them that it would be OK for them to post an NM log?

 

If not, why not?

 

Seems a bit one-sided otherwise.

 

I suppose there may be some who don't post these logs because of fear, but I sure haven't encountered it much. In reviewer mode, I get emails asking me to look at caches, ie, email me rather than post an NA. Mostly, these emails come from people who have not hunted the particular cache, but noticed that the cache appears to be missing.p

 

If these people feel somehow duty-bound to contact you about these caches, that they haven't actually hunted - I wonder why they don't just post a NA log?

 

I don't think they're "afraid" to log an NA as much as feeling like they haven't been there, so they leave working out disable/archive to me. Seems okay.

 

Oh. I see. That feeling that they haven't been there arises from... them not having been there. So then they ask you - who presumably also hasn't been there to do the working out (whatever that is) and disable or archive. This does seem an awfully convoluted way of going about things.

 

In my player account, I've logged exactly ONE Needs Maintenance, and regretted it. I feel that if the CO is paying attention, they already know the cache needs maintenance, and if they aren't, the log doesn't reach anyone.

 

Almost sounds like you think NM's are something to be avoided / feel bad about - which is exactly how many people try to make those who do post NM's and NA's feel :(

Link to comment

With the app that must not be named, Found / DNF / Write Note / NM / NA are the options. On your own caches you can disable / archive / perform maintenance too.

 

I'm always grateful to receive a NM flagging up damage / moisture / full logbook. I've used NA when a cache has obviously gone missing AND the CO has been inactive for months. I'm the 2nd of 3 recent DNFs on a local hide - CO wrote note saying he'd check this weekend (but doesn't seem to have done) - it's supposed to be a crafty one so maybe just collective myopia. In these cases I just add to watchlist until something changes.

Link to comment

i started caching in 2004 and have never done a needs maintainance log if that is what nm ? means as i carry loads of log books and some containers and add a log strip if needed, ive added 1371 log strips so far as it takes 7 seconds to do that rather than a cache hider having to travel 30 to 60 minutes to get out to their cache when you as a seeking cacher have it in your hand,other cachers are not our enemies so lets easily all help each other, have fun out there. jeff=bones1.

Link to comment

i started caching in 2004 and have never done a needs maintainance log if that is what nm ? means as i carry loads of log books and some containers and add a log strip if needed, ive added 1371 log strips so far as it takes 7 seconds to do that rather than a cache hider having to travel 30 to 60 minutes to get out to their cache when you as a seeking cacher have it in your hand,other cachers are not our enemies so lets easily all help each other, have fun out there. jeff=bones1.

 

I would prefer to see a Needs Maintenance log than have a stranger do unauthorized maintenance on my behalf.

Link to comment

i started caching in 2004 and have never done a needs maintainance log if that is what nm ? means as i carry loads of log books and some containers and add a log strip if needed, ive added 1371 log strips so far as it takes 7 seconds to do that rather than a cache hider having to travel 30 to 60 minutes to get out to their cache when you as a seeking cacher have it in your hand,other cachers are not our enemies so lets easily all help each other, have fun out there. jeff=bones1.

 

I would prefer to see a Needs Maintenance log than have a stranger do unauthorized maintenance on my behalf.

 

+1.

 

My (very few) hides are more creative than a Rubermaid Tub, and I don't want someone who has trouble finding it robbing subsequent cachers of the experience of finding something different.

Link to comment

i started caching in 2004 and have never done a needs maintainance log if that is what nm ? means as i carry loads of log books and some containers and add a log strip if needed, ive added 1371 log strips so far as it takes 7 seconds to do that rather than a cache hider having to travel 30 to 60 minutes to get out to their cache when you as a seeking cacher have it in your hand,other cachers are not our enemies so lets easily all help each other, have fun out there. jeff=bones1.

 

You're assuming finding a junk box is fun for everyone. Here's a cache I found recently - active owner, 4 NMs (now 5) and multiple Found logs that say the cache is in rough shape. No response from the CO who never visited the cache after hiding it in 2011. Someone recently left a new logsheet. Was it a fun find?....Absolutely not.

 

e18a86b8-b16e-4534-83f8-8baf49ef371e_l.jpg

 

I hope that people would take pride in the game overall and promote responsible cache ownership. Geolitter does not reflect well on the pastime.

Link to comment

i started caching in 2004 and have never done a needs maintainance log if that is what nm ? means as i carry loads of log books and some containers and add a log strip if needed, ive added 1371 log strips so far as it takes 7 seconds to do that rather than a cache hider having to travel 30 to 60 minutes to get out to their cache when you as a seeking cacher have it in your hand,other cachers are not our enemies so lets easily all help each other, have fun out there. jeff=bones1.

 

You're assuming finding a junk box is fun for everyone. Here's a cache I found recently - active owner, 4 NMs (now 5) and multiple Found logs that say the cache is in rough shape. No response from the CO who never visited the cache after hiding it in 2011. Someone recently left a new logsheet. Was it a fun find?....Absolutely not.

 

e18a86b8-b16e-4534-83f8-8baf49ef371e_l.jpg

 

I hope that people would take pride in the game overall and promote responsible cache ownership. Geolitter does not reflect well on the pastime.

 

My bold = +1

 

The cache in the picture looks like it has a bit of paper that is signable - might even have been added by a 'helpful' geocacher trying to do a good deed.

 

But finding that box would be the exact opposite of my idea of fun.

Link to comment

i started caching in 2004 and have never done a needs maintainance log if that is what nm ? means as i carry loads of log books and some containers and add a log strip if needed, ive added 1371 log strips so far as it takes 7 seconds to do that rather than a cache hider having to travel 30 to 60 minutes to get out to their cache when you as a seeking cacher have it in your hand,other cachers are not our enemies so lets easily all help each other, have fun out there. jeff=bones1.

 

You're assuming finding a junk box is fun for everyone. Here's a cache I found recently - active owner, 4 NMs (now 5) and multiple Found logs that say the cache is in rough shape. No response from the CO who never visited the cache after hiding it in 2011. Someone recently left a new logsheet. Was it a fun find?....Absolutely not.

 

e18a86b8-b16e-4534-83f8-8baf49ef371e_l.jpg

 

I hope that people would take pride in the game overall and promote responsible cache ownership. Geolitter does not reflect well on the pastime.

I have to admit, I don't like finding caches in this condition and do feel that it needs an NM call or a NA after several NMs. If I got into a situation where I could not maintain the cache, I would either offer it out for adoption or archive it. Adoption would be first choice.

Link to comment

i started caching in 2004 and have never done a needs maintainance log if that is what nm ? means as i carry loads of log books and some containers and add a log strip if needed, ive added 1371 log strips so far as it takes 7 seconds to do that rather than a cache hider having to travel 30 to 60 minutes to get out to their cache when you as a seeking cacher have it in your hand,other cachers are not our enemies so lets easily all help each other, have fun out there. jeff=bones1.

 

I would prefer to see a Needs Maintenance log than have a stranger do unauthorized maintenance on my behalf.

 

As a cache owner I feel the same way. I have had no problem with NMs on my cache hides. I like the feature.

 

We take pride on our cache placements and want everyone to have a nice experience. That includes finding a dry log with room for signatures, no mold, no mess, an intact container. The NM log is a good alert.

 

Link to comment

If the only NM is for new paper, then a cacher leaving new paper (but not otherwise altering the nature of the cache in any way) is surely doing a good turn and won't upset the CO?

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

Unless of course the new paper is required because the current paper is actually useless pulp because there's a problem with the container...

Link to comment

I think people are reluctant to post NM and/or NA because a lot of people make these 2 logs more complicated than need be, and maybe don't actually understand them.

NM, just means that, in the cacher's opinion, the cache needs some maintenance. It's simply a way to let the CO know there might be something wrong with the cache.

What in the world could be wrong with that? And the notification only goes to the CO, who can take appropriate action.

Any cache owner that would take offense to that needs to get out of the game!

 

NA is actually a different thing, and I can understand being reluctant to post one. HOWEVER, it DOESN'T MEAN THE CACHE WILL BE ARCHIVED! this goes to both the CO and a reviewer. A reason has to accompany the log, and can quickly be dealt with by the CO and a reviewer.

No need for anyone to get bent out of shape.

 

If a cache needs maintenance .. post a NM LOG!

If (for good reason) a cache needs to be archived, post a NA LOG!

 

Just play the game without worrying about the behind the scenes stuff.

Link to comment
If the only NM is for new paper, then a cacher leaving new paper (but not otherwise altering the nature of the cache in any way) is surely doing a good turn and won't upset the CO?
Sounds reasonable to me.

 

Unless of course the new paper is required because the current paper is actually useless pulp because there's a problem with the container...

+1

 

If the only problem was the need for new paper (because the existing log was 100% full), then leaving new paper solves the problem and no NM is needed.

 

But a lot of the time, new paper is needed because there is a problem with the container, and leaving new paper doesn't really solve the problem. NM is still needed, even with the new paper.

Link to comment

 

If the only problem was the need for new paper (because the existing log was 100% full), then leaving new paper solves the problem and no NM is needed.

 

 

I won't do that when it belongs to a power hider. The kind of cache owner that carries a sack of pill bottles and bison tubes and places them where ever there's an empty spot, or places 100s along a trail or roadway. By replacing those logs it encourages them to continue to carpet bomb more areas. I have put a scrap paper to tide the cache over, in caches that have active owners who maintain their caches.

Link to comment

i started caching in 2004 and have never done a needs maintainance log if that is what nm ? means as i carry loads of log books and some containers and add a log strip if needed, ive added 1371 log strips so far as it takes 7 seconds to do that rather than a cache hider having to travel 30 to 60 minutes to get out to their cache when you as a seeking cacher have it in your hand,other cachers are not our enemies so lets easily all help each other, have fun out there. jeff=bones1.

 

I would prefer to see a Needs Maintenance log than have a stranger do unauthorized maintenance on my behalf.

 

As a cache owner I feel the same way. I have had no problem with NMs on my cache hides. I like the feature.

 

We take pride on our cache placements and want everyone to have a nice experience. That includes finding a dry log with room for signatures, no mold, no mess, an intact container. The NM log is a good alert.

 

Exactly. If someone's just cramming in an old receipt or some paper from their pocket and doesn't log NM, and the container is cracked, then eventually there's 10X the wet, moldy paper making it that much worse.

Link to comment

The negativity about "Needs Maintenance" and "Needs Archiving" logs can come from other geocachers, aside from the cache owners. I have seen logs posted after an NM/NA log claiming that the NM/NA log wasn't justified because they have seen caches in worse condition.

 

Even if a cache is disabled, action might not be taken for a very long time; an urban cache in the Boston, Massachusetts, area was disabled for nearly three years.

Link to comment

NM, just means that, in the cacher's opinion, the cache needs some maintenance. It's simply a way to let the CO know there might be something wrong with the cache.

What in the world could be wrong with that? And the notification only goes to the CO, who can take appropriate action.

 

With a quarter of the caches I've found, a "needs maintenance" log means a half-day or more of effort from the cache owner to follow up on it. I'm not going to ask that level of effort from someone on a "might". I'll only log an NM on one of those when I'm certain there's something wrong with it.

Link to comment

With a quarter of the caches I've found, a "needs maintenance" log means a half-day or more of effort from the cache owner to follow up on it. I'm not going to ask that level of effort from someone on a "might". I'll only log an NM on one of those when I'm certain there's something wrong with it.

I just make sure to carefully explain the potential problem carefully, including my level of confidence, so the CO can determine whether it's something that calls for a visit. I leave worrying about how much effort it is to the CO.

Link to comment

NM, just means that, in the cacher's opinion, the cache needs some maintenance. It's simply a way to let the CO know there might be something wrong with the cache.

What in the world could be wrong with that? And the notification only goes to the CO, who can take appropriate action.

 

With a quarter of the caches I've found, a "needs maintenance" log means a half-day or more of effort from the cache owner to follow up on it. I'm not going to ask that level of effort from someone on a "might". I'll only log an NM on one of those when I'm certain there's something wrong with it.

 

Amen ! Give that man a medal. The majority of people who slap needs maintenance on caches are those people who haven't gone to the time of setting them themselves. Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult. Especially in the local area when a certain someone insists on putting NA on a cache only disabled for a month. We even have locals going round sticking NM for listed TBs not being in the cache.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Edited to add:

 

I'll happily put NM / NA on a cache where the cache owner has blatantly given up and no longer maintains their caches.

 

I won't put NM/NA on:

 

an old cache say on a summit or within a zone where future permission is now completely impossible for example Kinder Scout in the Peak Disrict

 

on a cache where the CO is active and will maintain it.

 

I own 780 caches however they aren't series caches or classic numbers power trails. A lot of them don't get found for a long time once the locals have them so are bound to get wet in between visits. I have had a cache trasher on my case for about a year who goes round nicking any random cache I have. Unfortunately in the area where my caches have been set there are over zealous locals intent on having every cache archived they find. They put NA on caches only disabled for a month and once they put a NM on a cache its a ticking clock until they put a NA on that due to lack of maintenance. I am a bit behind on my maintenance at the moment but I do maintain them when I can. I have to prioritise to make visits to missing caches rather than those that are wet or logbook full.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

NM, just means that, in the cacher's opinion, the cache needs some maintenance. It's simply a way to let the CO know there might be something wrong with the cache.

What in the world could be wrong with that? And the notification only goes to the CO, who can take appropriate action.

 

With a quarter of the caches I've found, a "needs maintenance" log means a half-day or more of effort from the cache owner to follow up on it. I'm not going to ask that level of effort from someone on a "might". I'll only log an NM on one of those when I'm certain there's something wrong with it.

 

Amen ! Give that man a medal. The majority of people who slap needs maintenance on caches are those people who haven't gone to the time of setting them themselves. Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult. Especially in the local area when a certain someone insists on putting NA on a cache only disabled for a month. We even have locals going round sticking NM for listed TBs not being in the cache.

 

I'm glad that an uber power cacher has voiced his opinion because I think Magna is in the majority. With 14000 finds and almost 800 hides I think he's coming from a numbers perspective. Power caching is the new game. The cache is merely a means to providing those numbers. NMs and NAs don't make much sense and are an irritant. The cache is in bad shape, not a problem, leave a new log scroll. The cache is missing, no biggie, grab a pill bottle from your backpack, sign it and leave it.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

NM, just means that, in the cacher's opinion, the cache needs some maintenance. It's simply a way to let the CO know there might be something wrong with the cache.

What in the world could be wrong with that? And the notification only goes to the CO, who can take appropriate action.

 

With a quarter of the caches I've found, a "needs maintenance" log means a half-day or more of effort from the cache owner to follow up on it. I'm not going to ask that level of effort from someone on a "might". I'll only log an NM on one of those when I'm certain there's something wrong with it.

 

Amen ! Give that man a medal. The majority of people who slap needs maintenance on caches are those people who haven't gone to the time of setting them themselves. Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult. Especially in the local area when a certain someone insists on putting NA on a cache only disabled for a month. We even have locals going round sticking NM for listed TBs not being in the cache.

 

I'm glad that an uber power cacher has voiced his opinion because I think Magna is in the majority. With 14000 finds and almost 800 hides I think he's coming from a numbers perspective. Power caching is the new game. The cache a means to a increasing a find count. The cache is meerly a means to providing those numbers. NMs and NAs don't make much sense and are an irritant. The cache is in bad shape, not a problem, leave a new log scroll. The cache is missing, no biggie, grab a pill bottle from your backpack, sign it and leave it.

 

Please see my second post.

 

I am not a numbers cacher.

 

I only have 14000 as I have done this hobby for 6 or 7 years and maintained a current rate.

 

I've not run round a big numbers series for about 4 years. The thought of finding that many caches in a day fills me with dread. I only target good ones like earthcaches and any I pass around them.

 

I think I've reached the Geosnob phase ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

In my player account, I've logged exactly ONE Needs Maintenance, and regretted it. I feel that if the CO is paying attention, they already know the cache needs maintenance, and if they aren't, the log doesn't reach anyone.

 

Actually, in my area, Reviewers are known to pro-actively search using GSAK for caches that have problems and will temp-suspend and give a few weeks for the CO to sort or respond.

 

I really like this system, especially as so many COs leave the game without tidying up after themselves. It all helps to promote a healthy and active hobby that gives a good impression, especially to new cachers.

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...