Jump to content

Why are people afraid to post NM/NA logs?


Cachez

Recommended Posts

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.

 

So ... who's asking you to do anything different than just that? Why on earth would you log a NM if you didn't think there was a problem that needed attention?

Are you in the habit of posting frivolous NM logs on roadside caches? I don't think likely, so your statement just supports what I said.

Post a NM when there's something wrong with a cache, wherever it is!

 

There's a difference between "might be an issue" and "is an issue". To give two examples where I didn't log an NM:

 

1) The cache is hidden in a location that I think will flood come spring, and the container doesn't look waterproof enough to survive submersion. However, it's apparently gone ten years with no trouble, so maybe the cache owner knows something I don't.

 

2) The cache is currently hanging from a tree, but the loop it's hanging from is nearly worn through. It's likely the cache will convert itself into a perfectly good ground hide over the winter, with no real change in difficulty (and without invalidating the description).

Link to comment

I'm a bit curious about this. It's become fairly clear that a lot of cachers seem to have a problem with posting NM/NA logs and I don't really understand why. Does anyone have any insight as to why, or has anyone told you the reason they don't want to?

 

Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult.

 

I'd say that's one reason why - some cachers seem to consider a NM an insult.

Link to comment

I'm a bit curious about this. It's become fairly clear that a lot of cachers seem to have a problem with posting NM/NA logs and I don't really understand why. Does anyone have any insight as to why, or has anyone told you the reason they don't want to?

 

Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult.

 

I'd say that's one reason why - some cachers seem to consider a NM an insult.

 

Every physical cache placed will require maintenance sooner or later. Even if a CO is diligent and checks on his caches routinely, there's still a chance that something will go wrong with it between his visits. A posted NM is beneficial to every CO who actually cares and wants to take care of his/her caches. I'd theorize that a person who feels insulted may have a guilty conscience. They're simply not maintaining their cache(s) like they should be and then get all disgruntled when someone calls them on it.

Link to comment

I'm a bit curious about this. It's become fairly clear that a lot of cachers seem to have a problem with posting NM/NA logs and I don't really understand why. Does anyone have any insight as to why, or has anyone told you the reason they don't want to?

 

Yes I am one of the COs who considers a NM an insult.

 

I'd say that's one reason why - some cachers seem to consider a NM an insult.

 

Every physical cache placed will require maintenance sooner or later. Even if a CO is diligent and checks on his caches routinely, there's still a chance that something will go wrong with it between his visits. A posted NM is beneficial to every CO who actually cares and wants to take care of his/her caches. I'd theorize that a person who feels insulted may have a guilty conscience. They're simply not maintaining their cache(s) like they should be and then get all disgruntled when someone calls them on it.

 

Exactly. Anyone offended by a NM log has no business owning a cache. Period.

If I see a cache in need of maintenance, I log it that way.

I posted a NM log once, which was immediately followed by a post from the CO stating they would not maintain it...at which point I then posted a NA log because they SAID they would not maintain it. This caused immediate blowback from the CO, who got all outraged that I would suggest the cache should be archived because they stated they would no longer maintain it. It was archived.

 

Despite all that, I'd do it again because that is what needed to happen. While I'm against posting NM logs just because a log sheet is damp or someone has trouble finding the cache, in the majority of cases it is warranted.

Link to comment

Every physical cache placed will require maintenance sooner or later. Even if a CO is diligent and checks on his caches routinely, there's still a chance that something will go wrong with it between his visits.

Yes, and beyond that, even invalid NMs are no big deal. Most are just innocent errors, so no insult is intended. The few left which are intentionally insulting or merely absurdly abrasive can be ignored: why would you want to give someone that's trying to insult you exactly what they want? In the worst case, when you can't even imagine any possible way that the poster is being reasonable, just laugh at the idiot.

Link to comment

OK, a question which has come out of this discussion: if you own a cache, how often do you just go and check on it? Let's assume it's relatively close to your house and you've had no DNFs or NMs.

 

I have one that I pass regularly when I'm out walking my dog. I can eyeball it just walking by to make sure it's still in place...so maybe a dozen times per month?

 

Some others that are kind of out of my normal home or work base areas I will check if I'm going by...especially if it has been a long time since a log was posted.

Link to comment

OK, a question which has come out of this discussion: if you own a cache, how often do you just go and check on it? Let's assume it's relatively close to your house and you've had no DNFs or NMs.

 

In the absence of any other data to suggest they require attention, we generally check ours in the spring to make sure they made it through the winter okay. If they've gone unfound for an unusual length of time we might check on them, but that varies from cache to cache.

Link to comment

Microdot :)

 

I am genuinely curious. As I said, I'm relatively new but keen to pick up tips. I've been to two of mine (I only have four) to check them because I was passing, but I am interested to know how often people just go and visit their own caches for a general healthcheck.

 

Grouchy, that sounds reasonable if no logs have been posted. <makes mental note>

Link to comment

Microdot :)

 

I am genuinely curious. As I said, I'm relatively new but keen to pick up tips. I've been to two of mine (I only have four) to check them because I was passing, but I am interested to know how often people just go and visit their own caches for a general healthcheck.

 

Grouchy, that sounds reasonable if no logs have been posted. <makes mental note>

 

To be perfectly honest I visit my caches if I happen to be passing nearby or if a problem is reported with them but I don't routinely travel out specifically to visit and check on caches - at least not at this time of year.

 

I try to select hides and containers for longevity so that they will remain well hidden and in good shape for as long as possible.

 

Although there are a few which I haven't visited for a while so I think when Spring rolls round again I'll make an effort to check on some of those, replace logbooks and spruce them up a bit.

Link to comment
I have one that I pass regularly when I'm out walking my dog. I can eyeball it just walking by to make sure it's still in place...so maybe a dozen times per month?
I have one that I eyeball a couple times a week, once every few months, or somewhere in between, depending on how often I happen to be nearby. But I never do more than that unless there appears to be a problem.

 

I had another that I checked every few months; I passed within a block of it often, but didn't bother stopping to check on it because I was generally on my way somewhere and didn't want to be delayed, and because it rarely had problems. And I had another that I visited often because it had frequent maintenance problems, but that isn't what Cachez is asking about.

Link to comment

 

You will also find that I wasn't bullying in any way shape or form on HH10. Anyone is free to read through the logs on HH10 and see for themselves.

 

http://coord.info/GC4Z88C

No, I wouldn't say your postings on that cache could be considered bullying, but the civility level of your communications could certainly be improved. First, I would suggest snide notes along the lines of "Just because you couldn't find it does not mean it is missing" are unnecessary. The best thing to do after that 5th DNF would have been to either disable it or post a note saying that you'd check on it, and then go check on it. Second, when you had someone other than yourself go check on it, you failed to mention that, which led to some confusion. A better Owner Maintenance log could have been "I had a friend who has previously found it go check it out while I'm away, and they've confirmed it's still in place". This seems to more accurately describe what happened, based on what you eventually revealed in the back-and-forth on the cache listing.

 

My best suggestion would be for both The Magna Defender and schnuz to tone back their logs, since they just seem to be baiting each other and escalating non-issues to absurd levels. We're all in this together and need to work together to keep the database filled with quality, well-maintained caches.

 

@schnuz, if you try to keep comments about potential maintenance issues factual and leave out any hint of sarcasm, I expect you'll get better results.

 

Hi The A-Team,

 

All of my logs are factual although some are slightly embellished, especially if trying to throw a little humour in. I have tried DNF and NM logs without the sarcasm but unfortunately The Magna Defender has driven me to it due to his very poor maintenance regime (despite claiming that he actively maintains all of his caches on one of his previous profile page changes, they do change quite regularly). After his OM posts on HH10 https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC4Z88C he no longer has any remote chance of credibility for any of his OM logs in the future and credibility was already running very low.

 

Supposedly a “friendly note” is enough to initiate the maintenance procedure but as is seen that was not the case. The insulting note insinuating that I hadn't spent the required effort to find a relatively easy cache obviously sparked a NM. To those of you across the pond it may not be as obvious that the CO; The Magna Defender, was at that time over one hundred miles away as the crow flies and most UK roads are far from straight. I don't like to try to point out the obvious but my first post was quite detailed, even mentioning the unusual cache camo. The resulting armchair Owner Maintenance post could only really be replied with a sarcastic NM post as the OM beggared belief.

 

To try to cover his err in judgement the CO “The Magna Defender” then tried to suggest that a “previous finder” had gone and checked it for him. That resulted in an early finish from work mid week, incurring a reduction in available flexi time, and another check in, around and on the unusual and blatantly obvious cache camo. I didn't post a DNF at the time as I really didn't see much point as all about the placement had already been posted.

 

On the Friday I finished very early from work as I had some errands to run. That meant that I could take the dogs out for their evening walk and had previously arrange to pick up a previous finder on the way. The shorts pocket comment was an attempt to add a little humour to the post; I always wear shorts and they have often contained large items like ladders, a slight figment of imagination as to where the item actually was.

 

Yes the cache has now been maintained but who by? Not that I really care but the CO seems to? I have the emails as I HH10 on my watchlist and even those throw the CO's protestations into sever doubt.

 

The none issues are unfortunately issues with this CO; he has repeatedly posted OM posts on caches when he hasn't actually performed any actual Owner Maintenance. HH10 is just the icing on the cake and proof beyond reasonable doubt that an open fire, a pair of slippers, a briar full of Alsbo Cherry and a large comfortable wing back is all that is required for being the owner of five hundred plus active caches.

 

Perhaps a deployment of some of the strong arm subservients may be in the offing, but to be honest I can't see how the more linguistic one of those (see HH10 OM #3) can even dig him out of this one.

 

I do apologise as I suspect that a little hint of sarcasm may have crept into this post at a couple of points but the whole pastime is in for it if poor CO maintenance in any form is allowed to continue.

 

As a newbie would I carry on if the first box I found was grotty? Doubtful. If I posted as the guidelines and got a similar result? Doubtful. The CO posts about stagnation in the area but that is only due to him and a few others hoovering up any available half decent (and most less than so) areas with usually trashy placements. Not always, granted, but usually.

 

Happy caching.

 

Cheers.

 

Schnuz.

 

Hahaarrgghh yeah goin' to PIRATEMANIA 9 (not that it's been arranged yet, more details in the future)? Be thar or be keel hauled!

The only MEGA PIRATE event in the UK to attend?

 

Hahaarrgghh, be seein' yah thar yah filthy landlubber!

Link to comment

When people aren't finding it and posting DNFs, the problem will eventually take care of itself. Not sure why it was necessary to continually post NM logs when it served no real purpose other than to antagonize the CO. Whether the CO is performing maintenance or not is sort of a moot point when you're pretty much making a nuisance of yourself over a cache that will probably just end up getting archived sooner rather than later.

Link to comment

I planned to maintain the cache eventually but as Schnuz said: I was on holiday so unable to maintain it immediately. Once Schnuz puts a NM on a cache he automatically puts it on his watchlist and after that it's a ticking clock until a NA. I don't like having time limits forced upon me. Therefore I panic when a NM is applied.

 

There's really no need to panic.

 

Reviewers will always take into account notes posted on caches of an expected maintenance date if maintenance cannot be carried out right away.

 

If I suspect one of mine is missing - because, for example, it is a low difficulty hide, I tend to temp disable in a bid to save people the trouble of searching for a cache that probably isn't there.

Link to comment

I did that on the plague pits cache which was disabled for only a month to prevent people having a wasted trip. Of course an NA was put on it only a month later and it was archived.

 

You chose to archive it rather than maintain it - see link

 

I will not rise to the childish actions of certain individuals that plague the Chorley area.

 

Nor will I waste time on placing caches for people to nick.

 

I don't get anything but criticism and pettiness nowadays.

 

I'll stick to finding caches.

 

It's no wonder this area has stagnated, no events or few new caches. I can see why when the only active people are childish and petty keyboard warriors.

 

Personally I don't see this discussion going anywhere useful or adding anything of value to the thread.

 

I think I'm going to step back as I'd rather the thread continued usefully rather than coming to a grinding halt by being mod locked.

Link to comment

I am genuinely curious. As I said, I'm relatively new but keen to pick up tips. I've been to two of mine (I only have four) to check them because I was passing, but I am interested to know how often people just go and visit their own caches for a general healthcheck.

I only go out of my way to visit a cache if something odd's reported in the logs. But, on the other hand, most of my caches are in places I'd visit once in a while, anyway, so I tend to see them all about once a year even if there are no problems.

Link to comment

Soooooooo anyway...I don't have a problem posting NM or NA when I feel it's appropriate. Only once was I called out for it, and not by the CO. I'd found a giant tangle of cut down trees at GZ (apparently park maintenance), there were several recent DNFs, and the CO hadn't logged on in over a year. Figured if the owner wasn't active, the NM log might eventually lead to an archive, but if they checked on it, then great. I got a message from a different cacher who said that "the cache was just difficult" and I shouldn't post NM just because I couldn't find it--all the usual, though not in what you might call a friendly tone. As it turns out, the CO checked on it, posted an Owner Maintenance log, and all is well.

 

As for checking on my caches, I try to do that in the late spring, as many of mine are on prairies that are burned regularly. Two of them were charred to slag this year...and I would have replaced one of them even sooner if I'd gotten a NM log on it instead of a DNF that didn't make it clear he'd found some burned plastic. One in particular I check far more often, as it is my only nano and seems to get dropped and lost in the leaf litter a lot. :( If that one gets a couple DNFs in a row, I head out there with a replacement in my pocket just in case.

Link to comment

When people aren't finding it and posting DNFs, the problem will eventually take care of itself.

 

How?

 

Pretty obvious, really. I see it all the time. DNFs rack up and it either gets archived by the CO or disabled by the Reviewer (which more often than not leads to archival). In rare cases, the CO wakes up once it's disabled and actually does something. In even fewer cases, the CO checks a cache after enough DNFs show up.

Link to comment

When people aren't finding it and posting DNFs, the problem will eventually take care of itself.

 

How?

 

Pretty obvious, really. I see it all the time. DNFs rack up and it either gets archived by the CO or disabled by the Reviewer (which more often than not leads to archival). In rare cases, the CO wakes up once it's disabled and actually does something. In even fewer cases, the CO checks a cache after enough DNFs show up.

 

I'm sorry - I must have missed something there :)

 

We were talking about the problem eventually taking care of itself...

 

... so which of the above scenario's are you offering as a process that occurs spontaneously, with no human intervention?

Link to comment

When people aren't finding it and posting DNFs, the problem will eventually take care of itself.

 

How?

 

Pretty obvious, really. I see it all the time. DNFs rack up and it either gets archived by the CO or disabled by the Reviewer (which more often than not leads to archival). In rare cases, the CO wakes up once it's disabled and actually does something. In even fewer cases, the CO checks a cache after enough DNFs show up.

 

I'm sorry - I must have missed something there :)

 

We were talking about the problem eventually taking care of itself...

 

... so which of the above scenario's are you offering as a process that occurs spontaneously, with no human intervention?

 

I know you're not being willfully obtuse...right?

Link to comment

When people aren't finding it and posting DNFs, the problem will eventually take care of itself.

 

How?

 

Pretty obvious, really. I see it all the time. DNFs rack up and it either gets archived by the CO or disabled by the Reviewer (which more often than not leads to archival). In rare cases, the CO wakes up once it's disabled and actually does something. In even fewer cases, the CO checks a cache after enough DNFs show up.

 

I'm sorry - I must have missed something there :)

 

We were talking about the problem eventually taking care of itself...

 

... so which of the above scenario's are you offering as a process that occurs spontaneously, with no human intervention?

 

I know you're not being willfully obtuse...right?

 

Sorry - I don't understand the question.

Link to comment

When people aren't finding it and posting DNFs, the problem will eventually take care of itself.

 

How?

 

Pretty obvious, really. I see it all the time. DNFs rack up and it either gets archived by the CO or disabled by the Reviewer (which more often than not leads to archival). In rare cases, the CO wakes up once it's disabled and actually does something. In even fewer cases, the CO checks a cache after enough DNFs show up.

 

I'm sorry - I must have missed something there :)

 

We were talking about the problem eventually taking care of itself...

 

... so which of the above scenario's are you offering as a process that occurs spontaneously, with no human intervention?

 

I know you're not being willfully obtuse...right?

 

Sorry - I don't understand the question.

 

Trolls.jpg

Link to comment

When people aren't finding it and posting DNFs, the problem will eventually take care of itself.

 

How?

 

Pretty obvious, really. I see it all the time. DNFs rack up and it either gets archived by the CO or disabled by the Reviewer (which more often than not leads to archival). In rare cases, the CO wakes up once it's disabled and actually does something. In even fewer cases, the CO checks a cache after enough DNFs show up.

 

I'm sorry - I must have missed something there :)

 

We were talking about the problem eventually taking care of itself...

 

... so which of the above scenario's are you offering as a process that occurs spontaneously, with no human intervention?

 

I know you're not being willfully obtuse...right?

 

Sorry - I don't understand the question.

 

Trolls.jpg

 

So you make a statement which doesn't seem to be based on reality and because I question it I'm a troll?

 

Really?

 

Fine - if you prefer not to discuss it further we'll just agree that without SOMEONE doing SOMETHING the problems won't take care of themselves.

 

Playing the troll card was particularly lame on your part.

 

I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment

I'm a bit curious about this. It's become fairly clear that a lot of cachers seem to have a problem with posting NM/NA logs and I don't really understand why. Does anyone have any insight as to why, or has anyone told you the reason they don't want to?

 

In my experience there are two kinds of CO's – those who take pride in their placements and those who think any old hide will do.

 

Those who fall into the first category will spend time and effort seeking out the right container for the right hide to ensure that those seeking their cache enjoy a pleasant experience. They have a manageable number of hides and are able to read all of the logs and react swiftly if a problem is flagged up on one of their caches – temp disabling and/or replacing as necessary. These hiders welcome being alerted to potential issues with their caches.

 

Those in the latter are usually so busy running around chasing the numbers they really couldn’t care less. If there is a location going begging which is outside of proximity and they happen to have a container in their possession they will drop it out there regardless of whether it is fit for purpose. Consequently, these caches turn out to be high maintenance and sadly it is these owners who are insulted / feel aggrieved / react badly to having that horrible red maintenance icon slapped on their cache – and it is always someone else’s fault – “cache wasn’t replaced properly” “lid not screwed on tightly enough” “not stealthy enough so it’s no wonder it’s been muggled” – they won’t accept any blame for their poor placement / missing cache or poor choice of container / soggy log and therefore they think it’s not their responsibility to sort it out.

 

I’m not afraid to post a NM on any cache which needs it, despite knowing that I may get grief from some cachers. If a cache needs maintenance then it needs maintenance and if reporting that to a CO makes me the sarcastic cache police , then so be it. I do keep the hard hat firmly in place for an hour or two after hitting send though. <_<

 

BUT, if I were an inexperienced / new cacher, I think I would be put off by some of the reactions I have seen on some cache pages. There is even a “geocarping” group on Facebook where cachers (mainly newbies) are regularly slated for being stupid enough to even DNF a cache let alone report it as missing/needing maintenance. Word soon gets out about those whose feathers are easily ruffled and many will avoid upsetting them at all costs. You can’t blame them. Why invite that kind of trouble for yourself? – it’s only a game and it's much easier to write a nice log and leave the problem for someone else. B)

Edited by LFC4eva
Link to comment

I'm sorry - I must have missed something there :)

 

We were talking about the problem eventually taking care of itself...

 

... so which of the above scenario's are you offering as a process that occurs spontaneously, with no human intervention?

Come on, you know exactly what J Grouchy meant, but still chose to perform your typical post-dissection and derail this discussion. You might want to try just accepting that a poster's precise choice of words may not be the best choice to convey their meaning, but was good enough that they got the point across anyway.

Link to comment

I'm sorry - I must have missed something there :)

 

We were talking about the problem eventually taking care of itself...

 

... so which of the above scenario's are you offering as a process that occurs spontaneously, with no human intervention?

Come on, you know exactly what J Grouchy meant, but still chose to perform your typical post-dissection and derail this discussion. You might want to try just accepting that a poster's precise choice of words may not be the best choice to convey their meaning, but was good enough that they got the point across anyway.

 

Sorry - you've completely lost me.

 

J Grouchy seemed to be saying that left alone, cache problems will fix themselves, which simply isn't true.

 

And no - I'm not trying to derail anything at all and I can't fathom how you arrive at such a conclusion.

 

If I was mistaken in some way JG had the opportuinity to explain how. Instead he chose to identify me as a troll of some sort - and you now appear to be doing the same - and I have absolutely no idea why :blink:

Link to comment

If I was mistaken in some way JG had the opportuinity to explain how.

He did exactly that in post #125, but you chose to dismiss his explanation and continue to nit-pick his original wording. Sorry, I won't be baited into one of your typical back-and-forths, so I won't be addressing this off-topic tangent any further.

 

Anyway, in an attempt to get this discussion back on topic...

 

I also agree with Team Microdot's description of their maintenance scheme in post #111. Generally, I don't make regular maintenance visits to my caches because I put in the effort up-front in choosing quality containers and hiding spots. I have a few caches that are either more complex (night cache with many firetacks) or in more suburban areas that tend to have more issues, so I do check those occasionally. None of them are in areas that I pass regularly, though, so I usually only check on these caches once a year or so. If I ever do find myself passing by one of my caches for whatever reason, I always stop to check on it.

 

Of course, if there are more than a couple of DNFs (my caches aren't difficult and are meant to be found), reports of problems in a log, or... wait for it... a Needs Maintenance log, I'll go check on the cache as soon as possible (disabling beforehand if it seems appropriate).

Link to comment

If I was mistaken in some way JG had the opportuinity to explain how.

He did exactly that in post #125, but you chose to dismiss his explanation and continue to nit-pick his original wording. Sorry, I won't be baited into one of your typical back-and-forths, so I won't be addressing this off-topic tangent any further.

 

Typical back-and-forths? You mean a typical discussion just like every other discussion that takes place on here?

 

If you choose not to continue it that's up to you - but please don't suggest that I'm trying to bait anyone in any way by asking a simple question in response to a statement.

 

The fact remains that problems with caches don't magically fix themselves without someone doing something - whether you choose to believe it or not - and there's nothing in post 125 to refute that in any way, shape or form.

Link to comment

You will also find that I wasn't bullying in any way shape or form on HH10. Anyone is free to read through the logs on HH10 and see for themselves.

 

http://coord.info/GC4Z88C

 

You openly accused me on a public forum of being a liar and had a dodgy history in caching.

 

Now who is a bully.

 

May I yet again point out the bulying attempt of your NA post on my Chirp Parking cache? https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=f55c6a0e-1a01-4a50-8205-aec490945b8b ?

 

Cheers,

 

Schnuz.

 

Sorry again you miss my point. I usually maintain my caches "eventually". What I don't like is your condescending "the clock is ticking" remarks. I have enough problems replacing the caches that my cache trasher keeps nicking. My NA was childish on your Chirp cache I will admit and was a lapse of my judgement.

 

And yeah its never a dull moment in my local area.

 

I will take that as the only sort of apology from you to your attempting to bully me to stop posting NM and NA logs on your caches. It is likely the closest that I will get to an apology and congratulations, I believe that is the first NA I have received so a FNA to boot.

 

I do have a couple of NM logs of which I am slightly embarrassed but at least one of those was for a cache that had many found it fine and dandy logs and only one log suggesting “nasty and smelly” https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC28D2&title=clough-head-surprise six months previously. Not really an excuse but I did post an apology so yes I appreciate not only accurate logs but DNF's and NM, not so much NA as I actively maintain most of my caches and swiftly maintain the others if a problem is reported.

 

In addition the cache trasher is not “your cache trasher” and I try not to believe that there is an active cache trasher in the area. There may be, but posting antagonistic logs in that vain will surely only make the situation worse? A cache trasher can surely only feed off any negative logs, if there is no reaction or a benign post perhaps boredom will ensue and caches will be trashed less often? Perhaps it isn't an cache trasher at all, just poor placements or even too many placements. I have just over thirty placements, most of them well thought out. I still have trouble with a couple of them as the local children have found them and raid them regularly. That is what I suspect rather than a cache trasher. Times that by twenty minimum = , in my book, time to downsize a bundle; but I'm not about the numbers.

 

I planned to maintain the cache eventually but as Schnuz said: I was on holiday so unable to maintain it immediately. Once Schnuz puts a NM on a cache he automatically puts it on his watchlist and after that it's a ticking clock until a NA. I don't like having time limits forced upon me. Therefore I panic when a NM is applied.

 

There's really no need to panic.

 

Reviewers will always take into account notes posted on caches of an expected maintenance date if maintenance cannot be carried out right away.

 

If I suspect one of mine is missing - because, for example, it is a low difficulty hide, I tend to temp disable in a bid to save people the trouble of searching for a cache that probably isn't there.

 

I did that on the plague pits cache which was disabled for only a month to prevent people having a wasted trip. Of course an NA was put on it only a month later and it was archived.

 

I'm also not trying to be argumentative here, just factual:

 

No you didn't. On the Plague Pits you disabled it with the post “Disabling for the foreseeable to prevent any future wasted visits. Any sarcastic comments, this cache will just be archived.” which just reads that you aren't going to maintain it so a NA post was obvious. On that one it also turned out that you weren't willing to maintain it so why wasn't it just archived in the first place instead of being disabled?

 

It's also no good wielding the rusty spade that you [?] removed from GZ as you are only digging the hole deeper, not filling it in. The ticking clock is indeed there as I place caches that I post a NM or NA on my watchlist because I care about the pastime and will go and remove the geolitter and skip it. As you also have caches on your watchlist you will know that the ticking clock is measured in months rather than days so quite why you decided to “panic” when HH10 got the first NM post on it is beyond me?

 

If you are indeed so apt to “panicking” why did you post the sarcastic and insulting comment after my DNF? That post was obviously only going to result in a NM so why take the time to bother? I am not an ogre or a troll that you seem to try to make me out to be. I care about the pastime and can only see it going down the pan due to poorly placed and poorly maintained caches. If a cache is in a poor condition or missing it needs a NM post, if it isn't being maintained it needs a NA post. Those are the rules (ok guidelines) and any one who knows me knows that I am a stickler for rules. If a cache is archived by my instigation then I will go and pick it up (eventually, that is another reason for the watchlist).

 

Happy caching.

 

Cheers.

 

Schnuz.

 

Hahaarrgghh yeah goin' to PIRATEMANIA 9 (not that it's been arranged yet, more details in the future)? Be thar or be keel hauled!

The only MEGA PIRATE event in the UK to attend?

 

Hahaarrgghh, be seein' yah thar yah filthy landlubber!

Link to comment

I'm sorry - I must have missed something there :)

 

We were talking about the problem eventually taking care of itself...

 

... so which of the above scenario's are you offering as a process that occurs spontaneously, with no human intervention?

Come on, you know exactly what J Grouchy meant, but still chose to perform your typical post-dissection and derail this discussion. You might want to try just accepting that a poster's precise choice of words may not be the best choice to convey their meaning, but was good enough that they got the point across anyway.

Wow, cool! Not one, but two childish arguments in the same thread!

 

OK, I agree with The A-Team's reasonably impartial analysis that Team Microdot was being dense, but I think TM got in just under the "could be consider reasonable" line in that TM does not view the actions of COs or reviewers as being natural processes. In the context of this exchange, this is an absurdly narrow view, but I do have some sympathy with it because I think a reviewer unilaterally taking care of something is a perfect example of it not taking care of itself.

 

After that, though, neither side takes any interest in actually resolving the misunderstanding even though the cause is a ridiculously simple difference in terminology.

Link to comment

I'm sorry - I must have missed something there :)

 

We were talking about the problem eventually taking care of itself...

 

... so which of the above scenario's are you offering as a process that occurs spontaneously, with no human intervention?

Come on, you know exactly what J Grouchy meant, but still chose to perform your typical post-dissection and derail this discussion. You might want to try just accepting that a poster's precise choice of words may not be the best choice to convey their meaning, but was good enough that they got the point across anyway.

Wow, cool! Not one, but two childish arguments in the same thread!

 

OK, I agree with The A-Team's reasonably impartial analysis that Team Microdot was being dense, but I think TM got in just under the "could be consider reasonable" line in that TM does not view the actions of COs or reviewers as being natural processes. In the context of this exchange, this is an absurdly narrow view, but I do have some sympathy with it because I think a reviewer unilaterally taking care of something is a perfect example of it not taking care of itself.

 

After that, though, neither side takes any interest in actually resolving the misunderstanding even though the cause is a ridiculously simple difference in terminology.

 

My bold.

 

So I'm being dense - but you agree with my absurdly narrow view :blink:

 

I don't think I'm being dense at all - I can see very clearly that caches with problems don't take care of themselves - they need people to take care of them.

 

I am wondering though if the misalignment between our views here might arise from different reviewer practices in different areas.

 

As a rule our local reviewers don't (as far as I know) routinely disable caches on the basis of multiple DNF's - unless the cache is brought to their attention. Perhaps in other places routine sweeps take place during which caches which haven't been found for a long time / might be missing / have a CO who appears to be inactive are dealt with quietly by the reviewer.

 

I suppose it is possible that if the reviewer(s) in your area routinely take care of business you might form the opinion that caches with problems take care of themselves - but it still isn't true.

Link to comment

So I'm being dense - but you agree with my absurdly narrow view :blink:

I agree with your position, I just thought you completely missed Mr. Grouchy's point, and that led the conversation into what can only be described as a pissing match.

 

Calling you "dense" wasn't meant to be insulting, but it was, so I apologize for that. But we've discussed this issue often enough the you must know that in some areas, unilateral reviewer action is part of the culture, so I would have expected you to recognized that that was likely where Mr. Grouchy's comment was coming from even if you then went on to argue against it.

Link to comment

I'd really appreciate it if those of you who want to argue could do it elsewhere.

 

I posted this thread because I had a genuine query and a lot of people have posted helpful responses. It would be really disappointing to see my thread locked when it could be helpful for others too.

Link to comment

 

I am genuinely curious. As I said, I'm relatively new but keen to pick up tips. I've been to two of mine (I only have four) to check them because I was passing, but I am interested to know how often people just go and visit their own caches for a general healthcheck.

 

 

I'm a fairly prolific hider, and I've been at it for a while now. Re keeping track of all of it....

 

I don't put out a new hide if there's anything I own that needs work. This URL will show you those quickly

https://www.geocaching.com/hide/cachemaintenance.aspx

 

I try to get a maintenance note on my multi-caches and remote hides every few years, to encourage seekers.

 

I'll check a cache that's gone a while without logs, particularly if others in the area are being logged. I assume that the unlogged is being DNFed.

(http://coord.info/GCXFK9 I assumed this was missing when it went 2 years, others in the area were found - nope it was there. 2 years later, still unfound, I checked it again. Still there ;-) ... It's good to own the popular stuff)

 

I have PQ for caches I own that have the Needs Maintenance attribute set. I preview this from time to time. If there's an issue, I address ASAP.

 

I have PQ for caches I own that are Disabled. I preview this from time to time. I'm fairly quick to disable after DNFs on many (but not all) of my hides - those which are "ammo can at base of big tree" ( a wildly creative and original hide ).

 

I have a PQ for caches I own that have Trackables. More rarely, I'll eyeball trackables in my own caches, to see if I should Mark Missing, or perhaps wander out and move them. TBs can get seriously stuck in my hides. I do NOT think keeping up with trackables is necessarily a CO's responsibility, the responsibility belongs to the Trackable owner. But I can do it, so on occasion, I will.

 

I have a database of my own hides, I'll eyeball it and add notes about what needs to happen. In general, any place I can change out an existing container for an ammo can, I tend to. Far easier to own over time.

 

I routinely walk by my own caches without checking them.

Link to comment

I'm a bit curious about this. It's become fairly clear that a lot of cachers seem to have a problem with posting NM/NA logs and I don't really understand why. Does anyone have any insight as to why, or has anyone told you the reason they don't want to?

 

I'd really appreciate it if those of you who want to argue could do it elsewhere.

 

I posted this thread because I had a genuine query and a lot of people have posted helpful responses. It would be really disappointing to see my thread locked when it could be helpful for others too.

 

Hi Cachez,

 

Firstly let me apologise for diving in half way through and posting back to others rather than replying to yourself first. That was incredibly rude and I can only hope that I can be forgiven for my discretion.

 

I did believe that your original query had already been answered though. In my experience the posting of NM logs are discouraged by the minority of stupidly high placement cachers in the area. The reason being is that they cannot possibly perform active maintenance on all of their caches. They would prefer that their caches were left to rot until some like minded “numbers” orientated individual logs a “ put in a new log sheet” or, even worse; “left a log in a film pot”.

 

Unfortunately we have several of those CO's in the area where I reside. I have no problem posting NM or NA on any of their caches despite their possible protestations. That often ends up with me heading back out again to pick up the geolitter, but that is because I actually care about the pastime and where it might be trying to head. Something those CO's don't seem to do unfortunately. I have met most of them and have no problem meeting up with them and having a chat but cache placement has still been an issue even face to face.

 

To get back on track, I would suggest that any form of negative log is discouraged by the small minority of high cache setters in an area

 

Happy caching.

 

Cheers.

 

Schnuz.

 

Hahaarrgghh yeah goin' to PIRATEMANIA 9 (not that it's been arranged yet, more details in the future)? Be thar or be keel hauled!

The only MEGA PIRATE event in the UK to attend?

 

Hahaarrgghh, be seein' yah thar yah filthy landlubber!

Link to comment

Okay. I did what I thought would be an interesting series of eleven caches today, in a nature conservancy area. The nature conservancy nails its bird houses to trees, and did not seem to have any problem with the CO nailing the fake bird houses to trees. Though that is against Geocaching guidelines.

 

691aedf1-5c0d-42c1-8d6d-465446acc5a9.jpg

 

Shall I log eleven NAs? This series has over a hundred Favorites. I did mention on a few logs that these caches were in violation of the GC guidelines, and received the following e-mail from a local cacher:

My mother always said. "If you can not say something nice, say nothing at all."

 

cea1b56b-2a9a-4f9e-999d-6d3e5a4e88b1.jpg

 

Another nearby cache by the same CO: Again, a violation of Geocaching guidelines.

 

Lots of favorite points! Cachers love these caches! Shall I report them all??? Get a lot of cachers mad at me?

Link to comment

Harry, I think your examples would make for a good post in the "You Can't Do That!" thread.

 

Placing NM's or NA's on a large number of caches tends not to go over well, and is a good example of when it makes more sense to write to the local Community Volunteer Reviewer directly. Include the GC Codes and, if you have the reviewer's direct address, attach the photos (or offer to send them).

 

The reviewer can then investigate. Perhaps the archived logs on those birdhouse caches each say that the park management authorized nailing birdhouses into trees. I've encountered exactly that situation in the field myself.

Link to comment

Reading through this and having submitted to it as well, it is a tired old argument, rhetoric garbage and I am surprised the moderators haven't put it to bed. Just post a NM when you think it is needed and COs get over the belief that you are holier than the people finding your cache. You hid for the finder in the first place!

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...