Needs Archived

[cezanne]

Why not? The N/A log is a last ditch effort to get the cache fixed isn't it? I'm assuming that there has already been numerous unanswered DNF's and Needs Maintenance logs. If not, then were talking about something totally different.

 

I have already explained that are numerous cases where there this definitely is not the case.

 

The single DNF NA are one example, another example are NA logs when a cache is disabled for a longer time and noone has ever reminded the cache owner of the cache. It's a different thing if a reviewer after some time posts a reviewer note and asks for a reaction of the cache owner and a NA log that asks for archival and does not send out any message in the contents that anything other than archival might be in the interest of the NA logger.

The typical reviewer notes are much more friendly than the typical NA logs - they ask for a reaction and not for archival.

 

 

Meanwhile cachers are searching for something that may not even be there or finding a cache that's a mess.

 

In none of the cases I have in mind and talk about this is the case any more than for every cache. Also a cache I check yesterday may not be there tomorrow

 

The risk that a cache that persisted for more than a decade and that is not easy to find suddenly is gone is not very high if nothing in the area has changed.

So it's quite crazy to expect a reaction for a single DNF for such a cache. If the expectation of some cachers out there is that after searching in vain for 45 minutes they are entitled for a cache

check by the owner or getting hints, spoiler photos etc, and more and more cachers start to think this way, it's tempting to give up caches that are still in perfect order.

 

Also in case of disabled caches none of the issues you address can occur.

[+justintim1999]

Why not? The N/A log is a last ditch effort to get the cache fixed isn't it? I'm assuming that there has already been numerous unanswered DNF's and Needs Maintenance logs. If not, then were talking about something totally different.

 

I have already explained that are numerous cases where there this definitely is not the case.

 

The single DNF NA are one example, another example are NA logs when a cache is disabled for a longer time and noone has ever reminded the cache owner of the cache. It's a different thing if a reviewer after some time posts a reviewer note and asks for a reaction of the cache owner and a NA log that asks for archival and does not send out any message in the contents that anything other than archival might be in the interest of the NA logger.

The typical reviewer notes are much more friendly than the typical NA logs - they ask for a reaction and not for archival.

 

 

Meanwhile cachers are searching for something that may not even be there or finding a cache that's a mess.

 

In none of the cases I have in mind and talk about this is the case any more than for every cache. Also a cache I check yesterday may not be there tomorrow

 

The risk that a cache that persisted for more than a decade and that is not easy to find suddenly is gone is not very high if nothing in the area has changed.

So it's quite crazy to expect a reaction for a single DNF for such a cache. If the expectation of some cachers out there is that after searching in vain for 45 minutes they are entitled for a cache

check by the owner or getting hints, spoiler photos etc, and more and more cachers start to think this way, it's tempting to give up caches that are still in perfect order.

 

Also in case of disabled caches none of the issues you address can occur.

 

Why would you think it's the responsibility of anyone to remind a cache owner to enable a disabled cache?

 

So your telling me that you'd consider archiving a perfectly good cache because of one DNF and one N/A? This is proof that the entire caching community simply doesn't want this cache around anymore?

 

Cacher asking for a hint, sure why not. I currently have a new cacher who has e-mailed me three times with help on a cache. I've since given him my cell phone number so he can contact me while he's in the field. Spoiler photos, delete them. Misuse of a N/A, address and move on. None of this is an excuse to archive a cache unless you just don't want to be bothered with it anymore.

 

You got it. Disable the cache until you can check up on it. Save other cachers from wasting there time.

[+narcissa]

Let me know if I got this straight? Your the owner of a cache that someone has posted Needs Archived log on. Your upset because the log wasn't written in a way that gives you the encouragement to go out and fix it. Dose that sum it up?

 

No and I have explained it many times. I do not own a cache for which a NA has been logged. I'm not upset. I however have seen very nice caches that got archived by the cache owner due to being frustrated and this would have went another route if the cases where dealt with differently. I also have numerous times encountered NA loggers that after a cache owner really decided to archive a cache reacted with diasppointment which is a contradiction - one cannot at the same time ask for archival and wish that a cache is kept alive.

 

This has nothing to do with people posting logs in earnest, and everything to do with people who can't manage their reactions. An NA log might be a nuisance, but reacting by stomping around and archiving caches in a huff is a choice.

[cezanne]

Why would you think it's the responsibility of anyone to remind a cache owner to enable a disabled cache?

 

I did not say so. However, when I'm interested into a cache, I rather do everything I can do that the cache will soon be available to me to visit.

 

So your telling me that you'd consider archiving a perfectly good cache because of one DNF and one N/A? This is proof that the entire caching community simply doesn't want this cache around anymore?

 

Yes, and not only me but of course not because it's a proof that noone wants the cache.

It often is however another symptom among many others that all together form what I regard as illness of the caching scene at least in my country.

 

Cacher asking for a hint, sure why not.

 

They can ask, but they neither have a right to get one nor any reply at all.

Noone is entitled to a find.

.

None of this is an excuse to archive a cache unless you just don't want to be bothered with it anymore.

 

No excuses are needed. There is no requirement to hide and maintain caches.

 

You got it. Disable the cache until you can check up on it. Save other cachers from wasting there time.

 

That's completely unnecessary. Except for special cases it neither makes sense to disable a cache that has survived for many years after a single DNF nor is it necessary to check it. Of course there are situations where a single DNF might warrant action but not for the caches I have in mind.

 

Those regarding a DNF as waste of time should stay away from such caches as that's exactly what will definitely then happen to them. Lots of these caches I have in mind are difficult to find and even with experience it can well be that one fails to find them within 45 minutes of search. That's part of the game and the only recourse would be to make the cache easier which might be unwanted too or to archive it to avoid being encountered with the wrong expectation of some cachers that every effort of them must be awarded with a success or something needs to be changed.

 

None of the example caches I have in mind ever got lost - they all have stayed at their place until today. What has changed is the attitude of some cachers. It used to be normal to accept that one does not find every cache - meanwhile some cachers tend to think if they go for a longer walk, they are entitled for a find. What's behind there is the same sort of entitlement that then makes them write NA logs in such situations.

[+JL_HSTRE]

NA logs are for me primarily a message to the cache owner. The reviewers come much later.

 

NM logs are primarily for the CO.

 

NA logs are primarily for the Reviewer because the CO has failed to respond to NM and other logs. Alternatively, there is an urgent issue which the CO needs to immediately respond or else a Reviewer needs to intervene. (Encounters with irate property owners, for example.)

Edited February 26, 2016 by Joshism

[+justintim1999]

Why would you think it's the responsibility of anyone to remind a cache owner to enable a disabled cache?

 

I did not say so. However, when I'm interested into a cache, I rather do everything I can do that the cache will soon be available to me to visit.

 

So your telling me that you'd consider archiving a perfectly good cache because of one DNF and one N/A? This is proof that the entire caching community simply doesn't want this cache around anymore?

 

Yes, and not only me but of course not because it's a proof that noone wants the cache.

It often is however another symptom among many others that all together form what I regard as illness of the caching scene at least in my country.

 

Cacher asking for a hint, sure why not.

 

They can ask, but they neither have a right to get one nor any reply at all.

Noone is entitled to a find.

.

None of this is an excuse to archive a cache unless you just don't want to be bothered with it anymore.

 

No excuses are needed. There is no requirement to hide and maintain caches.

 

You got it. Disable the cache until you can check up on it. Save other cachers from wasting there time.

 

That's completely unnecessary. Except for special cases it neither makes sense to disable a cache that has survived for many years after a single DNF nor is it necessary to check it. Of course there are situations where a single DNF might warrant action but not for the caches I have in mind.

 

Those regarding a DNF as waste of time should stay away from such caches as that's exactly what will definitely then happen to them. Lots of these caches I have in mind are difficult to find and even with experience it can well be that one fails to find them within 45 minutes of search. That's part of the game and the only recourse would be to make the cache easier which might be unwanted too or to archive it to avoid being encountered with the wrong expectation of some cachers that every effort of them must be awarded with a success or something needs to be changed.

 

None of the example caches I have in mind ever got lost - they all have stayed at their place until today. What has changed is the attitude of some cachers. It used to be normal to accept that one does not find every cache - meanwhile some cachers tend to think if they go for a longer walk, they are entitled for a find. What's behind there is the same sort of entitlement that then makes them write NA logs in such situations.

 

Here's your quote. What dose this mean? "The single DNF NA are one example, another example are NA logs when a cache is disabled for a longer time and noone has ever reminded the cache owner of the cache"

 

Giving hints is totally voluntary. I thought the pourpose of hiding a cache was for someone to find it. This could be a reason why people loose interest in a cache.

 

Please explain when you say that there is no requirement to hide and maintain caches. Isn't there requirements for both?

[+noncentric]

Please explain when you say that there is no requirement to hide and maintain caches. Isn't there requirements for both?

I thought it was pretty clear that cezanne was saying there's not requirement to be CO. I haven't seen cezanne say that CO's don't need to maintain the caches that they've already hidden, and I've read all of the posts in this long thread. As has been noted several times, cezanne is not a native English speaker. I think we all need to be sensitive to the fact that this is a global discussion and and picking apart semantics often just prolongs the agony discussion.

[+Team Microdot]

Please explain when you say that there is no requirement to hide and maintain caches. Isn't there requirements for both?

I thought it was pretty clear that cezanne was saying there's not requirement to be CO. I haven't seen cezanne say that CO's don't need to maintain the caches that they've already hidden, and I've read all of the posts in this long thread. As has been noted several times, cezanne is not a native English speaker. I think we all need to be sensitive to the fact that this is a global discussion and and picking apart semantics often just prolongs the agony discussion.

 

Especially when the non-native speaker wields the language with greater finesse and fewer speeling and gramatickle erors thn the naytive speeker

[+justintim1999]

Please explain when you say that there is no requirement to hide and maintain caches. Isn't there requirements for both?

I thought it was pretty clear that cezanne was saying there's not requirement to be CO. I haven't seen cezanne say that CO's don't need to maintain the caches that they've already hidden, and I've read all of the posts in this long thread. As has been noted several times, cezanne is not a native English speaker. I think we all need to be sensitive to the fact that this is a global discussion and and picking apart semantics often just prolongs the agony discussion.

 

I apologize if I offended anyone. It wasn't my intention.

 

Although we disagree on some points, I very much enjoy the conversation.

 

I've never made reading into what people do or say a habit. I take things at face value. I had a hunch that it was probably a translation issue, that's why I asked cezanne to clarify.

[+justintim1999]

Please explain when you say that there is no requirement to hide and maintain caches. Isn't there requirements for both?

I thought it was pretty clear that cezanne was saying there's not requirement to be CO. I haven't seen cezanne say that CO's don't need to maintain the caches that they've already hidden, and I've read all of the posts in this long thread. As has been noted several times, cezanne is not a native English speaker. I think we all need to be sensitive to the fact that this is a global discussion and and picking apart semantics often just prolongs the agony discussion.

 

Especially when the non-native speaker wields the language with greater finesse and fewer speeling and gramatickle erors thn the naytive speeker

 

And when someone feels the need to point out others mistakes out of the blue and for no good reason. :laughing

[+Team Microdot]

Please explain when you say that there is no requirement to hide and maintain caches. Isn't there requirements for both?

I thought it was pretty clear that cezanne was saying there's not requirement to be CO. I haven't seen cezanne say that CO's don't need to maintain the caches that they've already hidden, and I've read all of the posts in this long thread. As has been noted several times, cezanne is not a native English speaker. I think we all need to be sensitive to the fact that this is a global discussion and and picking apart semantics often just prolongs the agony discussion.

 

Especially when the non-native speaker wields the language with greater finesse and fewer speeling and gramatickle erors thn the naytive speeker

 

And when someone feels the need to point out others mistakes out of the blue and for no good reason. :laughing

 

Sorry - I just found it slightly unfair that you felt the need to harangue - out of the blue and for no good reason - a non-native speaker because you failed to understand the simple, perfectly good English that she'd written while she deftly negotiated your own misdemeanours

[Keystone]

So....

 

Does anyone have new insights to contribute about the misuse of the "Needs Archived" log?

[+Touchstone]

So....

 

Does anyone have new insights to contribute about the misuse of the "Needs Archived" log?

I saw someone post a NA log that clearly intended to post a Find log, if that can be counted as a "misuse" (e.g. "wrong or improper use of something"). Although, it didn't result in a 6 page Forum thread

[+Team Microdot]

So....

 

Does anyone have new insights to contribute about the misuse of the "Needs Archived" log?

I saw someone post a NA log that clearly intended to post a Find log, if that can be counted as a "misuse" (e.g. "wrong or improper use of something"). Although, it didn't result in a 6 page Forum thread

 

I saw someone post an NA log and then claim that it was an accident and they'd posted the wrong log type when in fact it was quite obvious that they wanted to get their hands on the location so they could place their own cache there. Usually they just use a sock puppet account to post their NA's.

 

Does that classify as misuse?

[+TriciaG]

I saw someone post an NA log and then claim that it was an accident and they'd posted the wrong log type when in fact it was quite obvious that they wanted to get their hands on the location so they could place their own cache there. Usually they just use a sock puppet account to post their NA's.

 

Does that classify as misuse?

Depends - did it need archival? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then the fact that the cacher wanted the spot is irrelevant.

[+Team Microdot]

I saw someone post an NA log and then claim that it was an accident and they'd posted the wrong log type when in fact it was quite obvious that they wanted to get their hands on the location so they could place their own cache there. Usually they just use a sock puppet account to post their NA's.

 

Does that classify as misuse?

Depends - did it need archival? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then the fact that the cacher wanted the spot is irrelevant.

 

No, it's not irrelevant.

 

When the cacher ONLY posts NA's on caches when they want the spot while at the same time merrily logging finds on other caches which are in a gross state of disrepair and saying nothing because they don't want those spots it is very relevant.

 

I also consider it significant that they post almost all of their NA's using a sock puppet account rather than their player account and at the same time decry other cachers posting valid NM's and NA's as caching police.

 

Oh - I fogot to mention that same player is openly critical of others posting valid NM's on their own caches and would probably turn white and explode if anyone dared go so far as to post an NA

Edited February 28, 2016 by Team Microdot

[jholly]

 

Oh - I fogot to mention that same player is openly critical of others posting valid NM's on their own caches and would probably turn white and explode if anyone dared go so far as to post an NA

 

Sounds like your sock has some work to do.

[+TriciaG]

Ah, the additional information does add some texture and color to the situation.

 

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived. It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA, but if they put out new caches (and maintain them), even the few they log NA for their own selfish purposes does help out the geocaching community as a whole. There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

 

All IMHO, of course.

[+Team Microdot]

Ah, the additional information does add some texture and color to the situation.

 

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived. It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA, but if they put out new caches (and maintain them), even the few they log NA for their own selfish purposes does help out the geocaching community as a whole. There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

 

All IMHO, of course.

 

I expect the sorts of cacher who exhibit the behaviours I describe also apply that same flawed logic to justify their actions.

[+L0ne.R]

I saw someone post an NA log and then claim that it was an accident and they'd posted the wrong log type when in fact it was quite obvious that they wanted to get their hands on the location so they could place their own cache there. Usually they just use a sock puppet account to post their NA's.

 

Does that classify as misuse?

Depends - did it need archival? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then the fact that the cacher wanted the spot is irrelevant.

 

No, it's not irrelevant.

 

When the cacher ONLY posts NA's on caches when they want the spot while at the same time merrily logging finds on other caches which are in a gross state of disrepair and saying nothing because they don't want those spots it is very relevant.

 

I also consider it significant that they post almost all of their NA's using a sock puppet account rather than their player account and at the same time decry other cachers posting valid NM's and NA's as caching police.

 

Oh - I forgot to mention that same player is openly critical of others posting valid NM's on their own caches and would probably turn white and explode if anyone dared go so far as to post an NA

 

Hey, I just recently saw the same thing happen in my area. Geez, looks like it's a thing. In my location, a power cacher placed an NA on a cache that was abandoned (I had an NM on it and was watching it). This power cacher has over 500 hides (mostly leaky micros) and doesn't maintain them (asks for throw downs; finders are happy to oblige). I thought, maybe he's changing, turning over a new leaf. He sees why caches should be cared for and not abandoned. Next thing I know, I get an alert that he's placed a bison tube at that location. Sigh. Some COs are truly addicted. This new cheap micro will never get maintained. And will limp along forever.

 

Hopefully most who want the spot will place a better cache which doesn't go neglected. Some COs will milk the system to their benefit. Sigh.

Edited February 29, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+TriciaG]

Ah, the additional information does add some texture and color to the situation.

 

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived. It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA, but if they put out new caches (and maintain them), even the few they log NA for their own selfish purposes does help out the geocaching community as a whole. There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

 

All IMHO, of course.

 

I expect the sorts of cacher who exhibit the behaviours I describe also apply that same flawed logic to justify their actions.

Please explain which part is flawed logic:

 

- The caches need to be archived.

- It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA.

- There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

- IF the caches are maintained, this helps the GC community as a whole.

Edited February 29, 2016 by TriciaG

[+fizzymagic]

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived.

 

I must have missed something in this thread -- how, exactly, do you know that the caches in question need to be archived? Did you visit them?

 

The flawed logic comes from applying a low bar to caches that may not need archiving but whose location a cacher may want, while ignoring caches with a much worse situation.

 

You are assuming that any cache that receives a NA log needs to be archived, a fact not in evidence.

 

You are also assuming that a new, well-maintained cache is always preferable to an old, spottily-maintained cache. Once again, that is open to debate. I generally prefer the latter.

Edited February 29, 2016 by fizzymagic

[+Team Microdot]

Ah, the additional information does add some texture and color to the situation.

 

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived. It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA, but if they put out new caches (and maintain them), even the few they log NA for their own selfish purposes does help out the geocaching community as a whole. There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

 

All IMHO, of course.

 

I expect the sorts of cacher who exhibit the behaviours I describe also apply that same flawed logic to justify their actions.

Please explain which part is flawed logic:

 

- The caches need to be archived.

- It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA.

- There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

- IF the caches are maintained, this helps the GC community as a whole.

 

Mainly this:

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

[+justintim1999]

Please explain when you say that there is no requirement to hide and maintain caches. Isn't there requirements for both?

I thought it was pretty clear that cezanne was saying there's not requirement to be CO. I haven't seen cezanne say that CO's don't need to maintain the caches that they've already hidden, and I've read all of the posts in this long thread. As has been noted several times, cezanne is not a native English speaker. I think we all need to be sensitive to the fact that this is a global discussion and and picking apart semantics often just prolongs the agony discussion.

 

Especially when the non-native speaker wields the language with greater finesse and fewer speeling and gramatickle erors thn the naytive speeker

 

And when someone feels the need to point out others mistakes out of the blue and for no good reason. :laughing

 

Sorry - I just found it slightly unfair that you felt the need to harangue - out of the blue and for no good reason - a non-native speaker because you failed to understand the simple, perfectly good English that she'd written while she deftly negotiated your own misdemeanours

 

Ok. That at least explains the off topic post. Harangue? Is that how you interpreted that? Since English is also not my native language I wanted to clarify the statement. Having to maintain a cache that's not easily accessible could be more of a factor for archiving than a perceived notion that the cache is unwanted.

[+justintim1999]

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived.

 

I must have missed something in this thread -- how, exactly, do you know that the caches in question need to be archived? Did you visit them?

 

The flawed logic comes from applying a low bar to caches that may not need archiving but whose location a cacher may want, while ignoring caches with a much worse situation.

 

You are assuming that any cache that receives a NA log needs to be archived, a fact not in evidence.

 

You are also assuming that a new, well-maintained cache is always preferable to an old, spottily-maintained cache. Once again, that is open to debate. I generally prefer the latter.

 

I think this is what I was trying to get at. With one DNF and one N/A the cache owner is almost compelled to go out and check up on the cache to verify that it is indeed ok.

[cezanne]

I think this is what I was trying to get at. With one DNF and one N/A the cache owner is almost compelled to go out and check up on the cache to verify that it is indeed ok.

 

It depends on the cache and on the situation. For a cache that has survived well for many years and is not easy to find, a single DNF does not warrant a cache check in my opinion and even less

if single DNFs has occured previously and there never has been an issue with the cache and no dramatic changes (like flood, Tree cutting, fire etc) have taken place.

 

After a while one obtains a quite good feeling when a cache needs to be checked.

 

The issue with many newer cachers is that they expect a fast find and also expect that their GPS will lead them directly to the cache hideout. In ditches, gorges etc the reception will not be that good and spending more than 30 minutes for the search is nothing special and can easily happen.

 

There are essentially just two ways to go: Either the cache owner decides to archive such a cache after a while annoyed by the entitled DNF+NA sequence or he/she decides to make the cache much easier just because the expectations of some cachers have changed. Rushing out to check the cache might happen once after the first encounter, but certainly not more often. It does not make much sense anyway to check a cache when the probability that it is there is not smaller than for any cache (including those who received the last find log yesterday).

 

The cache check and information that the cache is still there will not change the feeling of modern cachers who expect a success if they come back without a find. What they actually really want is more or less a personal support for them and that will never going to happen without the will of the cache owner.

 

The point I was trying to make with there is no requirement to hide and maintain caches was of course not to say that there is no duty to maintain active caches, but that no one is forced to hide a cache and no one is forced to keep alive a hidden cache. I'm against the expectation that a cache check should be initiated after a single DNF regardless of the situation and I stick with this opinion regardless of whether it's a remote cache or not. Keep in mind that it's not the objective of every cache owner to make their caches easy and to let every visitor end up with a find.

Edited February 29, 2016 by cezanne

[+justintim1999]

I think this is what I was trying to get at. With one DNF and one N/A the cache owner is almost compelled to go out and check up on the cache to verify that it is indeed ok.

 

It depends on the cache and on the situation. For a cache that has survived well for many years and is not easy to find, a single DNF does not warrant a cache check in my opinion and even less

if single DNFs has occured previously and there never has been an issue with the cache and no dramatic changes (like flood, Tree cutting, fire etc) have taken place.

 

After a while one obtains a quite good feeling when a cache needs to be checked.

 

The issue with many newer cachers is that they expect a fast find and also expect that their GPS will lead them directly to the cache hideout. In ditches, gorges etc the reception will not be that good and spending more than 30 minutes for the search is nothing special and can easily happen.

 

There are essentially just two ways to go: Either the cache owner decides to archive such a cache after a while annoyed by the entitled DNF+NA sequence or he/she decides to make the cache much easier just because the expectations of some cachers have changed. Rushing out to check the cache might happen once after the first encounter, but certainly not more often. It does not make much sense anyway to check a cache when the probability that it is there is not smaller than for any cache (including those who received the last find log yesterday).

 

The cache check and information that the cache is still there will not change the feeling of modern cachers who expect a success if they come back without a find. What they actually really want is more or less a personal support for them and that will never going to happen without the will of the cache owner.

 

The point I was trying to make with there is no requirement to hide and maintain caches was of course not to say that there is no duty to maintain active caches, but that no one is forced to hide a cache and no one is forced to keep alive a hidden cache. I'm against the expectation that a cache check should be initiated after a single DNF regardless of the situation and I stick with this opinion regardless of whether it's a remote cache or not. Keep in mind that it's not the objective of every cache owner to make their caches easy and to let every visitor end up with a find.

 

I understand where your coming from and most of what you say makes sense. Would it be possible to share the cache in question. I'm curious to know more about it. This also brings up another question. When should a cache owner be required to check up on a cache? Is one DNF and one N/A enough to expect the cache owner to check on it? Is there a rule or is it pretty much arbitrary?

[+TriciaG]

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived.

 

I must have missed something in this thread -- how, exactly, do you know that the caches in question need to be archived? Did you visit them?

 

The flawed logic comes from applying a low bar to caches that may not need archiving but whose location a cacher may want, while ignoring caches with a much worse situation.

 

You are assuming that any cache that receives a NA log needs to be archived, a fact not in evidence.

 

You are also assuming that a new, well-maintained cache is always preferable to an old, spottily-maintained cache. Once again, that is open to debate. I generally prefer the latter.

My original response to microdot, a couple posts above this, was, "Depends - did it need archival? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then the fact that the cacher wanted the spot is irrelevant." (post 265) So no, I don't assume all NA logged caches need to be archived.

 

[some quoted material removed for brevity - tg]

 

Please explain which part is flawed logic:

 

- The caches need to be archived.

- It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA.

- There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

- IF the caches are maintained, this helps the GC community as a whole.

 

Mainly this:

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

Oh, okay. I think that's stinky and horrid. But how does it make the NA logs they DO post wrong? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then it needs an NA log from somebody. It just was logged by an abusive, selfish, short-fused cacher.

[+Team Microdot]

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived.

 

I must have missed something in this thread -- how, exactly, do you know that the caches in question need to be archived? Did you visit them?

 

The flawed logic comes from applying a low bar to caches that may not need archiving but whose location a cacher may want, while ignoring caches with a much worse situation.

 

You are assuming that any cache that receives a NA log needs to be archived, a fact not in evidence.

 

You are also assuming that a new, well-maintained cache is always preferable to an old, spottily-maintained cache. Once again, that is open to debate. I generally prefer the latter.

My original response to microdot, a couple posts above this, was, "Depends - did it need archival? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then the fact that the cacher wanted the spot is irrelevant." (post 265) So no, I don't assume all NA logged caches need to be archived.

 

[some quoted material removed for brevity - tg]

 

Please explain which part is flawed logic:

 

- The caches need to be archived.

- It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA.

- There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

- IF the caches are maintained, this helps the GC community as a whole.

 

Mainly this:

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

Oh, okay. I think that's stinky and horrid. But how does it make the NA logs they DO post wrong? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then it needs an NA log from somebody. It just was logged by an abusive, selfish, short-fused cacher.

 

I don't see the actions of this (type of) cacher as yielding net benefit to the geocaching community, partly because of their hypocritical and abusive attitude to others who post valid NM and NA logs.

 

The net effect of the abuse is that far more caches that should be archived aren't - because people end up subscribing to the idea that being a cache cop isn't cool or simply toe the line through apathy / the desire for a quiet life.

 

Thus the actions of this (type of) cacher actually result in a net detriment to the geocaching community EVEN IF they replace some small number of cherry-picked caches.

[+L0ne.R]

Ah, the additional information does add some texture and color to the situation.

 

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived. It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA, but if they put out new caches (and maintain them), even the few they log NA for their own selfish purposes does help out the geocaching community as a whole. There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

 

All IMHO, of course.

 

I expect the sorts of cacher who exhibit the behaviours I describe also apply that same flawed logic to justify their actions.

Please explain which part is flawed logic:

 

- The caches need to be archived.

- It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA.

- There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

- IF the caches are maintained, this helps the GC community as a whole.

 

I agree with Tricia. It occasionally gets abused but the benefits outweigh and help the GC community as a whole.

[+Team Microdot]

Ah, the additional information does add some texture and color to the situation.

 

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived. It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA, but if they put out new caches (and maintain them), even the few they log NA for their own selfish purposes does help out the geocaching community as a whole. There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

 

All IMHO, of course.

 

I expect the sorts of cacher who exhibit the behaviours I describe also apply that same flawed logic to justify their actions.

Please explain which part is flawed logic:

 

- The caches need to be archived.

- It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA.

- There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

- IF the caches are maintained, this helps the GC community as a whole.

 

I agree with Tricia. It occasionally gets abused but the benefits outweigh and help the GC community as a whole.

 

Which brings us full circle.

[+L0ne.R]

I still think that the NA's the sock account logs are not a misuse of the NA lot in and of itself - the caches need to be archived.

 

I must have missed something in this thread -- how, exactly, do you know that the caches in question need to be archived? Did you visit them?

 

The flawed logic comes from applying a low bar to caches that may not need archiving but whose location a cacher may want, while ignoring caches with a much worse situation.

 

You are assuming that any cache that receives a NA log needs to be archived, a fact not in evidence.

 

You are also assuming that a new, well-maintained cache is always preferable to an old, spottily-maintained cache. Once again, that is open to debate. I generally prefer the latter.

My original response to microdot, a couple posts above this, was, "Depends - did it need archival? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then the fact that the cacher wanted the spot is irrelevant." (post 265) So no, I don't assume all NA logged caches need to be archived.

 

[some quoted material removed for brevity - tg]

 

Please explain which part is flawed logic:

 

- The caches need to be archived.

- It's a shame and a pity the person doesn't log ALL caches that need NA.

- There are fresh, maintained caches where there was junk before.

- IF the caches are maintained, this helps the GC community as a whole.

 

Mainly this:

 

The abuse they give others about NM and NA logs is a related, but different, issue.

Oh, okay. I think that's stinky and horrid. But how does it make the NA logs they DO post wrong? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then it needs an NA log from somebody. It just was logged by an abusive, selfish, short-fused cacher.

 

I don't see the actions of this (type of) cacher as yielding net benefit to the geocaching community, partly because of their hypocritical and abusive attitude to others who post valid NM and NA logs.

 

The net effect of the abuse is that far more caches that should be archived aren't - because people end up subscribing to the idea that being a cache cop isn't cool or simply toe the line through apathy / the desire for a quiet life.

 

Thus the actions of this (type of) cacher actually result in a net detriment to the geocaching community EVEN IF they replace some small number of cherry-picked caches.

 

I agree that this is a problem, in some areas a significant issue. It needs to be addressed by Groundspeak . Cache owners like this need a reprimand.

Edited February 29, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

I saw someone post an NA log and then claim that it was an accident and they'd posted the wrong log type when in fact it was quite obvious that they wanted to get their hands on the location so they could place their own cache there. Usually they just use a sock puppet account to post their NA's.

 

Does that classify as misuse?

Depends - did it need archival? If the cache was in bad shape, the CO AWOL and not maintaining, etc., then the fact that the cacher wanted the spot is irrelevant.

 

No, it's not irrelevant.

 

When the cacher ONLY posts NA's on caches when they want the spot while at the same time merrily logging finds on other caches which are in a gross state of disrepair and saying nothing because they don't want those spots it is very relevant.

Nope, sorry. The fact that they don't do the right thing for a lot of other caches that should be flagged for archival still doesn't make it an abuse of NA to post a legitimate NA regardless of how poor their motives are.

 

I also consider it significant that they post almost all of their NA's using a sock puppet account rather than their player account and at the same time decry other cachers posting valid NM's and NA's as caching police.

I worry when someone is tracking sock puppet accounts, but assuming you're right, that's still not an abuse of NAs, just an abuse of a sock puppet account.

 

Oh - I fogot to mention that same player is openly critical of others posting valid NM's on their own caches and would probably turn white and explode if anyone dared go so far as to post an NA

I have to accept your analysis at face value, and I wouldn't be surprised if all your conjectures are correct, and so I think this is a very sad individual that makes caching unpleasant in your area. But that still doesn't mean logging an NA against caches that do, in fact, need to be archived is part of the problem. That sounds like the one thing he does that's good for the community.

[+TriciaG]

I don't see the actions of this (type of) cacher as yielding net benefit to the geocaching community, partly because of their hypocritical and abusive attitude to others who post valid NM and NA logs.

 

The net effect of the abuse is that far more caches that should be archived aren't - because people end up subscribing to the idea that being a cache cop isn't cool or simply toe the line through apathy / the desire for a quiet life.

 

Thus the actions of this (type of) cacher actually result in a net detriment to the geocaching community EVEN IF they replace some small number of cherry-picked caches.

Ah, I get where you're coming from now. The selective NAs combined with the abuse of others = fewer NAs and net community loss. It'd be better if that cacher shut up completely than post the few NA logs and put out the caches he does.

[+Team Microdot]

Nope, sorry. The fact that they don't do the right thing for a lot of other caches that should be flagged for archival still doesn't make it an abuse of NA to post a legitimate NA regardless of how poor their motives are.

 

Regardless of how poor their motives are?

 

Looks like our opinions are diametrically opposed.

 

I'm OK with that

[+dprovan]

Regardless of how poor their motives are?

Yes, that's right. In a cooperative endeavor such as geocaching, I find it works out best to focus only on effects. This is a good example: you're blaming the NAs for all his bad caches even though he could stop posting NAs today, and it would do absolutely nothing to improve his caches.

[+Team Microdot]

Regardless of how poor their motives are?

Yes, that's right. In a cooperative endeavor such as geocaching, I find it works out best to focus only on effects. This is a good example: you're blaming the NAs for all his bad caches even though he could stop posting NAs today, and it would do absolutely nothing to improve his caches.

 

I'm not sure I follow.

 

I'm also thinking I might not have been clear enough about the fact that the ritual abuse of others posting valid NM and NA logs has almost certainly contributed toward the decline in those logs being posted at all, with the net result being a greater number of junk caches remaining than would otherwise be the case.

 

You don't strike me as the sort of person who would focus only on the effects which support his argument though, although I fully expect that you would relegate motivation / intent in your deliberation, so that's probably where we differ.

 

And I don't remember saying that any of the replacement caches were inherently bad. Although in fairness I didn't say they were inherently good either.

[+jellis]

I've had issues of cachers not finding mine and putting a NA on them. After I checked them most were still there or easily replaced. No archived needed. I did archive one of mine without dnfs because of the drought the trees are dying and I just couldn't keep the cache up in the tree with the branches breaking off all the time.

[+dprovan]

I'm also thinking I might not have been clear enough about the fact that the ritual abuse of others posting valid NM and NA logs has almost certainly contributed toward the decline in those logs being posted at all, with the net result being a greater number of junk caches remaining than would otherwise be the case.

Are you talking about abuse or aren't you. When you say the NA is valid, I can't agree it becomes abuse just because he posted it for his personal gain.

 

Abusing NAs would be putting NAs on caches that don't deserve them. Naturally no one reasonable wants that, so it hardly needs to be mentioned, does it?

 

You don't strike me as the sort of person who would focus only on the effects which support his argument though, although I fully expect that you would relegate motivation / intent in your deliberation, so that's probably where we differ.

No, honestly, I specifically ignore motives. I'm the guy that would respond with a cheerful list of what I did to confirm the cache was in good shape if someone were to post a nasty, dishonest NA that was obviously motivated by getting possession of the location. I always make sure my position is sufficiently solid that I have no need to undermine an invalid opposing position by questioning motives.

 

And I don't remember saying that any of the replacement caches were inherently bad. Although in fairness I didn't say they were inherently good either.

I'm not sure why you'd want to water down you argument even more by admitting that, but you very clearly implied that all this guy's caches were bad. I got the impression you thought they were a waste of space no matter how he got the real estate for them. But it isn't really relevant how good his caches are. Indeed, I don't see his caches being relevant at all to the NA issue.

[+Team Microdot]

 

I'm not sure why you'd want to water down you argument even more by admitting that, but you very clearly implied that all this guy's caches were bad. I got the impression you thought they were a waste of space no matter how he got the real estate for them.

 

Where do you think I did that?

[+justintim1999]

We should be encouraging the proper use of Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived logs. I think the problem is not enough cachers use them.

 

It's only human nature to want to help. Replacing a full log or a damaged container isn't promoting good cache maintenance.

 

A cacher should post a Needs Archived only after they have confirmed that it is appropriate.

 

The tools are there to assist cache owners in maintaining their caaches and to weed out ones that are being neglected. We are already seeing the results of not using these tools properly.

 

A need maintenance is easy. You find a cache. It's broken or wet and you post one.

 

A needs archive takes a little more digging. I understand that some people simply don't want to be bothered but it's the fastest most effective way to clean up these caches. Besides, it's the reviewers decision whether or not to archive the cache not yours and it will be based on the cache owners response. So who's to blame if a cache gets archived?

 

I guess I just don't understand the anger and fear cachers have toward these logs even when they are used in error.

[+J Grouchy]

I found a cache this weekend that was placed in 2003. Quite a few of the logs mentioned it being wet inside. During the last year or so, several have noted that it needed "TLC" and other such phrases...yet not one single person posted a 'Needs Maintenance' log.

 

At some point the age of the cache give it this sort of revered status and I just don't understand why. My own log mentioned how bad it was...that the contents were unsalvageable and basically stating that future finders would have a negative experience with this cache if it was not fixed up. I then posted the very first NM log in all of its 13 years. Perhaps my log will end up being its downfall...but to me, if it's not getting maintenance and its literally just a box of moldy goo, how is that an enjoyable experience? How does that reflect on geocaching in general if crap like that gets by just because it happens to have been sitting out there in the woods for 13 years? Quit propping up crappy caches just so you can fill in some square in your stats.

Edited March 1, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+justintim1999]

I found a cache this weekend that was placed in 2003. Quite a few of the logs mentioned it being wet inside. During the last year or so, several have noted that it needed "TLC" and other such phrases...yet not one single person posted a 'Needs Maintenance' log.

 

At some point the age of the cache give it this sort of revered status and I just don't understand why. My own log mentioned how bad it was...that the contents were unsalvageable and basically stating that future finders would have a negative experience with this cache if it was not fixed up. I then posted the very first NM log in all of its 13 years. Perhaps my log will end up being its downfall...but to me, if it's not getting maintenance and its literally just a box of moldy goo, how is that an enjoyable experience? How does that reflect on geocaching in general if crap like that gets by just because it happens to have been sitting out there in the woods for 13 years? Quit propping up crappy caches just so you can fill in some square in your stats.

 

That sums it up pretty well. Just wanted to make one observation. I do think that some older caches should be adopted and maintained for posterity. Not every cache, but it's something that should be taken into consideration. Posting the needs maintenance was the right thing to do regardless of the cache age. I'd only hope that someone, interested in the history of geocaching would agree to take it on if possible. It's kind of like the toys I had as a kid. I wish I'd had the forethought to save some of them knowing what they would be worth today.

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Perhaps my log will end up being its downfall...but to me, if it's not getting maintenance and its literally just a box of moldy goo, how is that an enjoyable experience? How does that reflect on geocaching in general if crap like that gets by just because it happens to have been sitting out there in the woods for 13 years? Quit propping up crappy caches just so you can fill in some square in your stats.

+ 1

[+L0ne.R]

I found a cache this weekend that was placed in 2003. Quite a few of the logs mentioned it being wet inside. During the last year or so, several have noted that it needed "TLC" and other such phrases...yet not one single person posted a 'Needs Maintenance' log.

 

At some point the age of the cache give it this sort of revered status and I just don't understand why. My own log mentioned how bad it was...that the contents were unsalvageable and basically stating that future finders would have a negative experience with this cache if it was not fixed up. I then posted the very first NM log in all of its 13 years. Perhaps my log will end up being its downfall...but to me, if it's not getting maintenance and its literally just a box of moldy goo, how is that an enjoyable experience? How does that reflect on geocaching in general if crap like that gets by just because it happens to have been sitting out there in the woods for 13 years? Quit propping up crappy caches just so you can fill in some square in your stats.

 

+1!

[cezanne]

 

At some point the age of the cache give it this sort of revered status and I just don't understand why. My own log mentioned how bad it was...that the contents were unsalvageable and basically stating that future finders would have a negative experience with this cache if it was not fixed up. I then posted the very first NM log in all of its 13 years. Perhaps my log will end up being its downfall...but to me, if it's not getting maintenance and its literally just a box of moldy goo, how is that an enjoyable experience? How does that reflect on geocaching in general if crap like that gets by just because it happens to have been sitting out there in the woods for 13 years? Quit propping up crappy caches just so you can fill in some square in your stats.

 

I do not know the cache and the background. Let me just mention that there are many other reasons for not wanting that an old cache is going away than filling some squares or visiting an old cache just because it is old.

 

My favourite caches involve long hikes and lead me along a nice route and nice stages. The container at the end and the log sheet are the least important part for me.

 

If I can choose between a multi cache that fits my preferences and reflects what geocaching is about for me with a moldy log book and a new traditional at the same hideout location (close to the parking) that will not send me along a nice round walk but has a new container, I would choose the multi cache (of course the multi cache in a perfect condition would be the optimal solution, but typically is not what is an available option to choose from.) Whenever a spot becomes free, either nothing happens or a short traditional or puzzle cache (with no multi elements) is hidden instead. So I rather have one of the old multi caches kept living even if the owner is not active any longer and I prefer if someone helps out such a cache and I would not post a NM or even less a NA log on such a cache. Of course I would react if it were my own cache, but when it comes to caches hidden by others, my main interest is my own experience and what seems best to me for cachers with similar preferences than my own. I'm not a reviewer - so I have no duty to act as others with completely different preferences than myself would like me to act if it does not come to my role as cache owner. As a cache searcher, I can make my own decisions. Those who argue that they want to see more NM logs and NA logs have the same selfish motives when they talk about waste of time/the type of experience they want to avoid etc. If the result of their endeavour is that even more of the caches I like go away and even more of those I do not like at all come replace them, the outcome is not at all appreciated by me and I prefer by far if someone provides a new log book or a container for such a cache to keep it going a bit longer even if that's of course also not the ideal solution, but still better than anything else I'm aware of.

[cezanne]

I do think that some older caches should be adopted and maintained for posterity. Not every cache, but it's something that should be taken into consideration.

 

That will happen only very rarely. I never ever would adopt out any my caches. When I cannot maintain some or all of them, I'll send them to the archive.

Adopted caches disappear from one's profile and can be changed by the new owner such that there is no similarity at all with the original cache.

They would need to have something like a maintainer/owner function in addition to the hider.

It's also not a good thing that all the FPs that a cache already had at the time of adopting it out go to someone who has not done anything for the cache up to that point of time.

 

Posting the needs maintenance was the right thing to do regardless of the cache age. I'd only hope that someone, interested in the history of geocaching would agree to take it on if possible. It's kind of like the toys I had as a kid. I wish I'd had the forethought to save some of them knowing what they would be worth today.

 

It will not work due to what I wrote above.

[+dprovan]

 

I'm not sure why you'd want to water down you argument even more by admitting that, but you very clearly implied that all this guy's caches were bad. I got the impression you thought they were a waste of space no matter how he got the real estate for them.

Where do you think I did that?

OK, you're right, it's not there. I guess your pure anger at this guy boiled over into other places in my mind. When you talked about him getting angry with NM such that no one would dare post an NA, I was inferring that NMs on his caches were plentiful even though suppressed, and that many of his caches deserved NAs. But I guess you never did say anything like that.

 

Still irrelevant. The caches he posted NAs to deserved NAs and got properly archived. I don't see any reason to consider that abuse just because he placed nice caches where the broken ones used to be.

[+justintim1999]

I do think that some older caches should be adopted and maintained for posterity. Not every cache, but it's something that should be taken into consideration.

 

That will happen only very rarely. I never ever would adopt out any my caches. When I cannot maintain some or all of them, I'll send them to the archive.

Adopted caches disappear from one's profile and can be changed by the new owner such that there is no similarity at all with the original cache.

They would need to have something like a maintainer/owner function in addition to the hider.

It's also not a good thing that all the FPs that a cache already had at the time of adopting it out go to someone who has not done anything for the cache up to that point of time.

 

Posting the needs maintenance was the right thing to do regardless of the cache age. I'd only hope that someone, interested in the history of geocaching would agree to take it on if possible. It's kind of like the toys I had as a kid. I wish I'd had the forethought to save some of them knowing what they would be worth today.

 

It will not work due to what I wrote above.

 

I agree. It won't be a regular thing, but it has worked and could work. Just something to think about.

 

Not sure what FP's are but it really doesn't matter. If the new owner decides to change the original cache, great. At least it's a new cache and hopefully being maintained. The rest is just imaginary points and numbers I don't' pay much attention to anyway.

[cezanne]

Not sure what FP's are but it really doesn't matter. If the new owner decides to change the original cache, great. At least it's a new cache and hopefully being maintained. The rest is just imaginary points and numbers I don't' pay much attention to anyway.

 

FPs are favourite points.

 

It will never work without the consent of the original cache owner and my point was that there is hardly any incentive for them to adopt out caches. You are looking at the topic from the perspective of a prospective finder and not from the cache hider's perspective.

 

I do not care about numbers but it is extremely important to me to have all my cache creations in my profile.

Edited March 1, 2016 by cezanne