Needs Archived

[cezanne]

Any CO who is so sensitive that they archive and remove their cache in a huff due to one inappropriate NA log are probably better off not hiding caches. Instead they should probably stick to something like Solitaire where they don't have to deal with other people.

 

I would not react with archival to an inappropriate NA that comes from a beginner or someone who does not know better or if I do feel that it is a very special case and not a general trend behind it.

I own several caches that are older than a decade (the oldest one soon starts into its 14-th year), yet I realize that I'm getting closer and closer to the point where I feel that the number of cachers who are into the sort of geocaching which is my type of geocaching gets smaller and smaller and those who are into a completely different activity with a completely different ethics and rule set applied which annoys me ever and ever increases.

 

Many of the cache hiders back from the times when I started have given up and do not respond at all. I do not defend this but I see it as another way to deal with an unwanted situation. Archiving caches (and of course removing the containers) is a cleaner way of saying no to what more and more cachers expect - regarding hints and spoilers for difficult hides, puzzles etc they are now even encouraged by Groundspeak. Before I will end up with providing every DNF-logger or even every cacher that contacts me with hints, I rather archive my caches. I have recently come across many DNF logs and/or NA logs for old caches which are not easy to find where newer cachers could not live with their failure and in all of those cases visits of more patient cachers or previous finders or the cache owners proved that the original containers were still alright as in all the years before where it never came to such problems as a different sort of people went for the caches and they came with a different set of expectations.

 

There is a point when the number of cachers for whom you feel that it's worth the effort becomes too small in comparison with respect to the remaining mass.

 

There are meanwhile too many cachers who play a virtual game on a map and are happy about every sort of procedure that gets a cache hooked off - some even prefer archival as then they do not have to get out and invest a lot of effort and time into a complex cache. There are many NA logs where one clearly feels that the loggers have not the slightest interest into the cache itself - they just want to get it off their list and as cheaply as possible (which includes getting help from whomever instead of having to come several times which is not uncommon for caches with a D rating per definition).

 

To conclude, it's not one inappropriate log - it's the general message conveyed. If NA logs come across like a plead to the cache owner to archive the cache, then it's very tempting to comply.

[cezanne]

Could you point to a large number of examples where this has happened? Because I've watched every "Needs Archived" log in my review territory for more than ten years, and I don't recall seeing this. Nor do I recall this being an issue during previous forum discussions about misuse of the "Needs Archived" log.

 

I cannot come up with large numbers of examples, at least not with respect to my understanding of large. What makes things more difficult is that another way of reaction by old timers instead of archiving their caches themselves is not reacting at all - the result for cachers is however the same, the caches get lost for the minority interested into them.

 

I tend to believe that the way the individual reviewer style will also affect how frequent NA logs are posted and when and how they typically look like. My guess is that in your review territory a lot of things that are not uncommon in my area hardly happen, including mass automated NA logs by sockpuppet accounts (I guess the last two waves totalled up to over 1000 such logs - they have been reported to Groundspeak and deleted but in a few months at the latest the next wave will be there that's for sure). To avoid misunderstandings, what I wrote before was not about automatically generated mass NA logs - I just mentioned them as they are also a part of what's going on.

Edited February 17, 2016 by cezanne

[+bflentje]

Could you point to a large number of examples where this has happened? Because I've watched every "Needs Archived" log in my review territory for more than ten years, and I don't recall seeing this. Nor do I recall this being an issue during previous forum discussions about misuse of the "Needs Archived" log.

 

I cannot come up with large numbers of examples, at least not with respect to my understanding of large. What makes things more difficult is that another way of reaction by old timers instead of archiving their caches themselves is not reacting at all - the result for cachers is however the same, the caches get lost for the minority interested into them.

 

I tend to believe that the way the individual reviewer style will also affect how frequent NA logs are posted and when and how they typically look like. My guess is that in your review territory a lot of things that are not uncommon in my area hardly happen, including mass automated NA logs by sockpuppet accounts (I guess the last two waves totalled up to over 1000 such logs - they have been reported to Groundspeak and deleted but in a few months at the latest the next wave will be there that's for sure). To avoid misunderstandings, what I wrote before was not about automatically generated mass NA logs - I just mentioned them as they are also a part of what's going on.

 

102 posts on a thread that is a non-issue.

[+Mudfrog]

Could you point to a large number of examples where this has happened? Because I've watched every "Needs Archived" log in my review territory for more than ten years, and I don't recall seeing this. Nor do I recall this being an issue during previous forum discussions about misuse of the "Needs Archived" log.

 

I cannot come up with large numbers of examples, at least not with respect to my understanding of large. What makes things more difficult is that another way of reaction by old timers instead of archiving their caches themselves is not reacting at all - the result for cachers is however the same, the caches get lost for the minority interested into them.

 

I tend to believe that the way the individual reviewer style will also affect how frequent NA logs are posted and when and how they typically look like. My guess is that in your review territory a lot of things that are not uncommon in my area hardly happen, including mass automated NA logs by sockpuppet accounts (I guess the last two waves totalled up to over 1000 such logs - they have been reported to Groundspeak and deleted but in a few months at the latest the next wave will be there that's for sure). To avoid misunderstandings, what I wrote before was not about automatically generated mass NA logs - I just mentioned them as they are also a part of what's going on.

 

102 posts on a thread that is a non-issue.

It can be an issue at times but i agree, not usually a big deal.

 

Thankfully, i haven't had very many NA logs come in. Of the few that have, i'd say that most were from people who were newer, gave it a quick search, and honestly felt in their heart that the cache had to be missing. On most of these occasions, our caches were actually still in place. There was some extra work involved making sure the cache was ok but i feel that this is inevitable and is a part of my CO responsibility. Armchair NA logs, on the other hand, really get my goat. Those are uncalled for and cause unnecessary headaches for responsible COs. I can see why some COs get bent out of shape at times but overall i don't see why they take such drastic action such as archiving their caches.

 

All caches require maintenance. If a NA log comes in, whether you think it's justified or not, go ahead and get busy with it. You don't have to run right out and do cache maintenance but you should at least acknowledge that you see the NA flag. Communicating, in a log or straight to your reviewer, is a first step that allows you plenty of time to take care of a potential problem!

[+narcissa]

Any CO who is so sensitive that they archive and remove their cache in a huff due to one inappropriate NA log are probably better off not hiding caches. Instead they should probably stick to something like Solitaire where they don't have to deal with other people.

 

+1

[Pup Patrol]

Any CO who is so sensitive that they archive and remove their cache in a huff due to one inappropriate NA log are probably better off not hiding caches. Instead they should probably stick to something like Solitaire where they don't have to deal with other people.

 

+1

 

+2

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

All caches require maintenance. If a NA log comes in, whether you think it's justified or not, go ahead and get busy with it. You don't have to run right out and do cache maintenance but you should at least acknowledge that you see the NA flag. Communicating, in a log or straight to your reviewer, is a first step that allows you plenty of time to take care of a potential problem!

 

I've tried to communicate this a couple of times.

 

Not sure that some folks don't prefer the drama, though.

 

B.

[cezanne]

All caches require maintenance. If a NA log comes in, whether you think it's justified or not, go ahead and get busy with it. You don't have to run right out and do cache maintenance but you should at least acknowledge that you see the NA flag. Communicating, in a log or straight to your reviewer, is a first step that allows you plenty of time to take care of a potential problem!

 

It appears that a lot of the replies approach the topic from a different perspective than I do. I'm fully aware that an active cache owner can avoid under normal circumstances that a cache gets archived by a reviewer (assuming that there is no issue that can't be fixed). I also know that there are other feasible reactions that running out immediately.

 

I still insist that needs archived is an inappropriate notion in many cases. Even if someone thinks that a cache is gone, why is needs archived then a reasonable first reaction? If I do have interest into a cache, I would like to visit it/finish it successfully. My interest then is not that the cache gets archived and even less do I think that such a cache needs to be archived.

 

Many needs archived logs make me feel however that the loggers really wish that the caches get archived. As the affected caches are not my own caches, it can't be about me not being suited as cache owner. If the message that is brought along is that cachers out there think that a cache of mine needs to be archived, I'm not motivated to keep it even if it has no problem which needs to be fixed. So that's not at all an issue that involves a reviewer and communicating with them. It's about the feelings of the cache owner and whether the cache owners thinks that it's worth to keep a cache that others apparently think needs to be archived.

 

As armchair NA logs are regarded, I'd say that the big majority of NA logs in my country come from cachers who have not been at the cache - many even come from cachers who have not the slightest interest to visit the cache and many of them have never cached in some of the regions where they log NA logs.

Edited February 17, 2016 by cezanne

[+bflentje]

All caches require maintenance. If a NA log comes in, whether you think it's justified or not, go ahead and get busy with it. You don't have to run right out and do cache maintenance but you should at least acknowledge that you see the NA flag. Communicating, in a log or straight to your reviewer, is a first step that allows you plenty of time to take care of a potential problem!

 

It appears that a lot of the replies approach the topic from a different perspective than I do. I'm fully aware that an active cache owner can avoid under normal circumstances that a cache gets archived by a reviewer (assuming that there is no issue that can't be fixed). I also know that there are other feasible reactions that running out immediately.

 

I still insist that needs archived is an inappropriate notion in many cases. Even if someone thinks that a cache is gone, why is needs archived then a reasonable first reaction? If I do have interest into a cache, I would like to visit it/finish it successfully. My interest then is not that the cache gets archived and even less do I think that such a cache needs to be archived.

 

Many needs archived logs make me feel however that the loggers really wish that the caches get archived. As the affected caches are not my own caches, it can't be about me not being suited as cache owner. If the message that is brought along is that cachers out there think that a cache of mine needs to be archived, I'm not motivated to keep it even if it has no problem which needs to be fixed. So that's not at all an issue that involves a reviewer and communicating with them. It's about the feelings of the cache owner and whether the cache owners thinks that it's worth to keep a cache that others apparently think needs to be archived.

 

As armchair NA logs are regarded, I'd say that the big majority of NA logs in my country come from cachers who have not been at the cache - many even come from cachers who have not the slightest interest to visit the cache and many of them have never cached in some of the regions where they log NA logs.

 

The sweet thing is, we're all entitled to our opinions. I am just trying to figure out if you're waiting for everyone to agree with yours?

[+dprovan]

A NA log is not only a message to the reviewers - at first it is a message to the cache owner. YOu seem to assume that a NA is only posted after other measures have been taken that did not send the message "archive cache" right away to the cache owner.

I suppose that's true: I'm ignoring inappropriate uses of the NA because I expect the CO to recognize them as inappropriate, in which case it really makes no difference what you call them.

 

In cases where a NA log is filed after a single DNF log, the risk that a cache owner will end up being frustrated and archives an affected cache (which is in good condition and without such a log would have been maintained for a few further years) even before a reviewer could do anything at all, is relatively high and I see immediate archival by the owner as a natural reaction to the message "needs archived".

Is the CO reacting to specifically the words "needs archived"? It strikes me that the owner is responding to the concept of someone taking action against his cache.

 

My point is that active, responsible cache owners might decide to voluntarily archive caches in perfect condition as reaction to annoying and inappropriate NA logs and expectations by some cachers.

That's a shame, but I think the problem is entirely in the reaction, not in the system or any of the terms it uses. Yes, people are sometimes wrong when they post that a cache needs to be archived, but that problem isn't solved by not allowing them to say what they think. In fact, I think the problems you're bringing up would be made somewhat worse by softening "needs archived" to, say, "needs reviewer attention". The people that are trying to get a cache archived will be just as numerous and just as annoying, but, in addition, you'd add a whole new class of people using the NRA log to get the reviewer's attention for problems that are even less important and even less worthy of reviewer attention. For example, don't you think it will be even more likely for someone to post NRA when you ignore their requests for a hint? I would think at least most people would recognizing that not getting a hint is no reason to call for archival, but for those that feel entitled to a hint, just as you've described, won't think twice about trying to bring the reviewer's attention to your failure to help them.

[cezanne]

The sweet thing is, we're all entitled to our opinions. I am just trying to figure out if you're waiting for everyone to agree with yours?

 

I do not expect a single person to agree with my opinion and I'm used to that on many topics the majority does not agree with me.

 

I tried to explain that the fact that a cache owner can avoid a cache being archived does not change the fact that the term "needs archived" is inappropriate in many cases.

That's two different topics.

[+bflentje]

The sweet thing is, we're all entitled to our opinions. I am just trying to figure out if you're waiting for everyone to agree with yours?

 

I do not expect a single person to agree with my opinion and I'm used to that on many topics the majority does not agree with me.

 

I tried to explain that the fact that a cache owner can avoid a cache being archived does not change the fact that the term "needs archived" is inappropriate in many cases.

That's two different topics.

 

And you explained well..

[cezanne]

My point is that active, responsible cache owners might decide to voluntarily archive caches in perfect condition as reaction to annoying and inappropriate NA logs and expectations by some cachers.

That's a shame, but I think the problem is entirely in the reaction, not in the system or any of the terms it uses. Yes, people are sometimes wrong when they post that a cache needs to be archived, but that problem isn't solved by not allowing them to say what they think.

 

The inherent problem with the log type NA is that in most cases it is wrong that the cache needs to be archived. That is only true if there are issues that cannot be fixed, for example legal issues.

 

In most cases there is a problem that can be fixed and so of course the cache does not need to be archived. Of course there are many cache owners out there that do not care any longer about their caches and then a reviewer action will be required in many cases and the ultimate reviewer action is archival.

 

 

In fact, I think the problems you're bringing up would be made somewhat worse by softening "needs archived" to, say, "needs reviewer attention". The people that are trying to get a cache archived will be just as numerous and just as annoying, but, in addition, you'd add a whole new class of people using the NRA log to get the reviewer's attention for problems that are even less important and even less worthy of reviewer attention. For example, don't you think it will be even more likely for someone to post NRA when you ignore their requests for a hint? I would think at least most people would recognizing that not getting a hint is no reason to call for archival, but for those that feel entitled to a hint, just as you've described, won't think twice about trying to bring the reviewer's attention to your failure to help them.

 

I partially agree with you when it comes to needs reviewer attention. If that were the only available log type, then certainly new problems were created while some old would disappear. One that would disappear is that "needs reviewer attention" is not addressed to the cache owner. If I receive a needs archived as a cache owner,

my natural reflex is to archive the cache and not even wait for a reviewer. I'm used to do everything I can do myself on my own if possible and not to rely on others.

 

Part of the problem is not caused by the name of the logs, but by the attitude of many cachers which is in my opinion reenforced by signals like the new blog post which encourages app cachers to try difficult caches and message the cache owners for hints like this would be the standard procedure and like the standard procedure would be to receive a reply.

 

There are many caches out there that have been hidden with a geek or outdoor audience and not for the typical new beginner smartphone cacher. I know many caches which require a bit of bushwacking and have recently encountered e.g. a sequence of 3 DNFs logs for a cache where one needs to deal with thorns where essentially all of them talked about not really having searched properly due to the thorns. (The cache has been found afterwards by another cache who rushed out because he was concerned about that the cache might get archived.) Of course the cache owner can react if a NA arrives in such cases but if this happens more often or on several caches, most cache owners will give up - either by archiving the cache themselves or by do not caring so that the cache gets archived by a reviewer or by adding spoiler pictures, hints etc against their own conviction. In my opinion, there is something wrong in a system that functions like this. I do not like to spend a longer time with searching myself, but I respect that such caches exist out there and it's up to the owner to decide how difficult he/she wants to have a cache (assuming that no issues are caused).

Edited February 17, 2016 by cezanne

[+dprovan]

The inherent problem with the log type NA is that in most cases it is wrong that the cache needs to be archived. That is only true if there are issues that cannot be fixed, for example legal issues.

No, I disagree. It is appropriate to suggest that the cache needs archived whenever the issues haven't been fixed. In my experience, almost every NA is posted because the problem cannot be fixed in the sense that even though the problem is known, the community cannot get the CO to fix it. It is very rare than the problem is physically impossible to fix, so it wouldn't make sense to have a special log type for that case even if I thought it was valid to draw a distinction between physically impossible and socially impossible.

 

There are many caches out there that have been hidden with a geek or outdoor audience and not for the typical new beginner smartphone cacher. I know many caches which require a bit of bushwacking and have recently encountered e.g. a sequence of 3 DNFs logs for a cache where one needs to deal with thorns where essentially all of them talked about not really having searched properly due to the thorns. (The cache has been found afterwards by another cache who rushed out because he was concerned about that the cache might get archived.) Of course the cache owner can react if a NA arrives in such cases but if this happens more often or on several caches, most cache owners will give up - either by archiving the cache themselves or by do not caring so that the cache gets archived by a reviewer or by adding spoiler pictures, hints etc against their own conviction. In my opinion, there is something wrong in a system that functions like this. I do not like to spend a longer time with searching myself, but I respect that such caches exist out there and it's up to the owner to decide how difficult he/she wants to have a cache (assuming that no issues are caused).

Once again, that's a shame. It's particularly a shame because I would hope that the older, experienced cachers that have this vision of geocaching that goes way beyond the current popular game would be willing to explain that to newbies instead of just getting annoyed at them for being unaware of the high end game. You keep pointing towards everyone else that's not educating the cellphone cachers, but you ignore that the most obvious and effective source of that education are those cachers with the greatest appreciation of this side of geocaching, i.e., the very cachers you're worried are going to quit in disgust. So complain to them, not to GS and the rest of us.

 

Let me give just one simple example. How many of those requests for hints do you get? I can't believe it's more than a handful in any month. What would happen if instead of ignoring them, you wrote a friendly note explaining that you don't give hints and why? Now they see the other point of view. Would it help? I don't really know, but, for sure, they won't get the other point of view if no one tells them about it. And if you respond, they can't legitimately conclude that you're an absent CO and file an NA on those grounds.

[cezanne]

The inherent problem with the log type NA is that in most cases it is wrong that the cache needs to be archived. That is only true if there are issues that cannot be fixed, for example legal issues.

No, I disagree. It is appropriate to suggest that the cache needs archived whenever the issues haven't been fixed.

 

To arrive at this case, a real issue must have been known for a while. A DNF log saying e.g. I did not search properly due to thorns and sandals or due to much snow and no find within a year for a cache which never got many visits is not an issue of this type which warrants a NA log.

 

In my experience, almost every NA is posted because the problem cannot be fixed in the sense that even though the problem is known, the community cannot get the CO to fix it. It is very rare than the problem is physically impossible to fix, so it wouldn't make sense to have a special log type for that case even if I thought it was valid to draw a distinction between physically impossible and socially impossible.

 

Ok, then your experience differs considerably from my experience.

 

NA logs after a single DNF for rarely found caches become common in my area. The typical problem in those cases are the cachers logging the NA because they happen to think that a cache needs a find log or an owner maintenance log at least every 6 months and that every mail sent out to a cache owner needs to get answered.

 

Once again, that's a shame. It's particularly a shame because I would hope that the older, experienced cachers that have this vision of geocaching that goes way beyond the current popular game would be willing to explain that to newbies instead of just getting annoyed at them for being unaware of the high end game.

 

It goes far beyond newbies. It's not about a lack of experience. It's a completely different philosophy and a different attitude and a different mind set involved.

 

I do not think that the issue is the usage of smartphones and it never has been in my opinion. I know some cachers with an old style caching mindset who only cache with a smartphone.

 

I intentionally wrote geek/outdoor audience - that's not a question whether someone uses a smartphone or a dedicated GPS. It's also not an issue about educating someone about certain aspects of geocaching.

 

I know several old timers who regard e.g. finding an approach to a cache (with no potential for trespassing) and finding a place to park as part of the challenge while many newer cachers in my area complain heavily and some even would go as far as posting NM logs when no parking coordinates are provided and no trail heads. The same is true with respect to hints, spoiler photos etc.

 

The same is true with respect to the debate between hiding micros in sign boards along a forest trail and hiding larger containers at larger distance from the trail that might bring the cachers in

contact with stinging nettles, thorns, ticks etc - the latter is not what people wish to encounter who are into geocaching to play a kind of outdoor computer game and who feel the most comfortable in sterile urban settings. Everyone can have their own preferences but when it comes to the request that the hideouts of all caches have to match the ideas of a certain group how a cache has to be and what can they be asked for when they want to score a find, things start to change.

 

 

Let me give just one simple example. How many of those requests for hints do you get? I can't believe it's more than a handful in any month. What would happen if instead of ignoring them, you wrote a friendly note explaining that you don't give hints and why?

 

Personally I tend to reply in this manner when I'm contacted by e-mail (not when they use the message centre).

 

I insist however that it is neither a requirement for a cache owner to reply nor is it a good idea to do what Groundspeak is doing. The implicit message they communicate is that it beginners should head out for difficult caches and have a right to receive as much help as needed to be successful.

 

 

Now they see the other point of view. Would it help? I don't really know, but, for sure, they won't get the other point of view if no one tells them about it. And if you respond, they can't legitimately conclude that you're an absent CO and file an NA on those grounds.

 

They still can as most of them feel entitled to receive help. An answer telling them that no help is offered to them for this cache, will not change anything in their behaviour and even less in times when Groundspeak makes them feel that they can expect to receive help. For years the recommendation has been to start out with easy hides and easy puzzled etc and not to head out for difficult ones and ask the owner if one gets stuck. The same is true for high terrain caches. They should not be visited just to become a well rounded cacher - that can be very dangerous. But this aspect is not connected to needs archived logs.

[+RosiesDaddyBear]

 

Personally I tend to reply in this manner when I'm contacted by e-mail (not when they use the message centre).

 

 

I've seen this a few times around these forums, as a 'noob' myself, what is the difference?

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Personally I tend to reply in this manner when I'm contacted by e-mail (not when they use the message centre).

 

I've seen this a few times around these forums, as a 'noob' myself, what is the difference?

 

The message centre was only introduced last year, a lot of people didn't/don't like it for a number of reasons (some of them valid), and many people have had a hissy fit and thrown their toys out of the pram and flatly refuse to use it

[cezanne]

Personally I tend to reply in this manner when I'm contacted by e-mail (not when they use the message centre).

 

I've seen this a few times around these forums, as a 'noob' myself, what is the difference?

 

There are many differences for me. One is that if they sent along their e-mail adress (which is what I prefer) I can answer from my e-mail account which allows me to keep my answer away from Groundspeak's servers, allows me to keep my answers sorted by cache if I wish so and allows me to use search and filter functions available on all reasonable e-mail clients.

 

When contacted via the message center even when I reply by e-mail directly (which is possible since a while), I cannot use meaningful subjects and so cannot use filter and search tools as I'm used to.

(The from address is always from Groundspeak and the subject mentions the message centre and not what the message is about.)

Using the e-mail option, one still has to go to the message center and click on the message to get rid of the display of a new message even though one already has read the message and has already replied. That's waste of time and inefficient.

 

Also keep in mind that reviewers want to be contacted only via e-mail when it concerns their review job for good reason. Communication in a company also would never be organized via a message system like the one on gc.com which is more a social media type of chat system than something even akin to modern to what modern e-mail system can offer. I see no reason why I should adapt my way to communicate that I'm used to for several decades in all of my life just because Groundspeak thought that want to introduce something new which not even comes close to what e-mail can achieve and also is much worse in terms of privacy (moreover US-laws apply) and control over what I want to keep and what I want to delete.

Edited February 17, 2016 by cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

I see no reason why I should adapt my way to communicate that I'm used to for several decades...

 

Why would you therefore want to refuse others a means of communication they prefer? If I have something to say to a CO and the option for messaging or email is there, I will send my answers/questions/requests/information whichever way I choose. I have sent my communication via acceptable (to Groundspeak) means and therefore the onus is on the receiver to address that communication. Whatever problem that person might have with the message center is irrelevant.

[cezanne]

I see no reason why I should adapt my way to communicate that I'm used to for several decades...

Why would you therefore want to refuse others a means of communication they prefer?

 

I have no duty to answer people if they ask me questions. I do not forbid them to send messages to me. I just reply to messages sent via the message centre

only in exceptional cases and if I do I usually suggest to switch over to mail if the person wants to communicate with me seriously.

Edited February 17, 2016 by cezanne

[+The A-Team]

The inherent problem with the log type NA is that in most cases it is wrong that the cache needs to be archived.

If I receive a needs archived as a cache owner, my natural reflex is to archive the cache and not even wait for a reviewer.

Am I the only one that sees a massive contradiction here?

[cezanne]

The inherent problem with the log type NA is that in most cases it is wrong that the cache needs to be archived.

If I receive a needs archived as a cache owner, my natural reflex is to archive the cache and not even wait for a reviewer.

Am I the only one that sees a massive contradiction here?

 

There is no contradiction. I have explained the background already, but let me do it again. The first statement refers to actual facts. It is indeed not very often the case that a cache cannot be fixed at all and really needs to be archived. The second statement regarding my reflex it's about emotions and that someone apparently wants to send me the message that this person thinks that the cache needs to be archived. In this setting the real situation is completely irrelevant for me as I would archive a cache with no issues and in perfect condition. If someone has a sincere interest into visiting a cache the first action should never be a NA log (assuming that there is no legal or similiar issue).

Edited February 17, 2016 by cezanne

[+HHL]

The inherent problem with the log type NA is that in most cases it is wrong that the cache needs to be archived.

If I receive a needs archived as a cache owner, my natural reflex is to archive the cache and not even wait for a reviewer.

Am I the only one that sees a massive contradiction here?

 

You're not alone.

 

Hans

[+The A-Team]

The inherent problem with the log type NA is that in most cases it is wrong that the cache needs to be archived.

I should also point out that your generalization is completely the opposite of what happens in my area. In all but a handful of cases, a Needs Archive log has been submitted because there are issues that either haven't been or can't be resolved, and the cache does need to be archived.

 

Edit to add: In addition, the end result of all but a few of these cases is that the cache is deservedly archived, almost always by a reviewer.

Edited February 17, 2016 by The A-Team

[+dprovan]

NA logs after a single DNF for rarely found caches become common in my area. The typical problem in those cases are the cachers logging the NA because they happen to think that a cache needs a find log or an owner maintenance log at least every 6 months and that every mail sent out to a cache owner needs to get answered.

OK, so the problem in your area is misuse of the NA log. How would this problem be mitigated in anyway by renaming it? I don't see how renaming it would help you, so it's a non-starter for me even before I consider the negative effects renaming it would have in areas where it's used correctly except by the occasional newbie.

[cezanne]

The inherent problem with the log type NA is that in most cases it is wrong that the cache needs to be archived.

I should also point out that your generalization is completely the opposite of what happens in my area. In all but a handful of cases, a Needs Archive log has been submitted because there are issues that either haven't been or can't be resolved, and the cache does need to be archived.

 

I rather think that "needs" means something different to me than to you. In how many cases fixing the issue is provably impossible?

It's a different question whether the cache owner is motivated to resolve the issue and this brings me closer to what's is all about for me.

Motivation is a key word.

 

Moreover, the cases where I find NA particularly annoying are those where there is nothing to be fixed because everything is alright.

And if in such a case a NA gets logged and not at least at least two cachers (better more) stand up and let the cache owner know that they appreciate the cache and that it should stay alive, it's very tempting for a cache owner who is unhappy anyway with how geocaching has evolved (= almost all old timers in my country that have not already left geocaching) to archive the affected cache him/herself (but not because it really needs to be archived).

 

Edit to add: In addition, the end result of all but a few of these cases is that the cache is deservedly archived, almost always by a reviewer.

 

If I'm interested into a cache that needs to be fixed, I certainly do not write a NA log as in my opinion it is the worst I can do if I do not want that the cache dies. Of course there are many cases where archival will be the final outcome

 

I have experienced a few cases where I managed to convince cache owners who wanted to give up after a NA log (or other frustrations caused by the modern geocacher community like TFTC power trail logs for caches not part of a power trail) to keep the cache going.

[+The A-Team]

NA logs after a single DNF for rarely found caches become common in my area. The typical problem in those cases are the cachers logging the NA because they happen to think that a cache needs a find log or an owner maintenance log at least every 6 months and that every mail sent out to a cache owner needs to get answered.

OK, so the problem in your area is misuse of the NA log. How would this problem be mitigated in anyway by renaming it? I don't see how renaming it would help you, so it's a non-starter for me even before I consider the negative effects renaming it would have in areas where it's used correctly except by the occasional newbie.

I totally agree. It sounds like there needs to be better education in cezanne's area regarding the proper usage of the NA log.

 

cezanne, since you seem to live in an area where this is prevalent and you understand when the log is being misused, I'm curious how many people you've talked to (by email, through other online means, and in person) about their misuse of the log? It seems like the locals need to work together to ensure that everyone knows how to properly use the log, and that this may not be happening.

[+MartyBartfast]

This is how NA's are supposed to work, and in the vast majority of cases I've seen they do work this way

 

1. Damaged cache/ full log/ access issues/ string of DNFs
   
2. NM logged
   
3. No action from CO
   
4. NA logged
   
5. Reviewer looks at the cache, and makes a judgement
    
   
6. Reviewer either removes the NA atribute if it's unfounded
   or
   
7. reveiwer temp disables the cache giving the CO an opportunity to resolve the issue
    
   
8. If CO fixes the issue then the cache ie re-enabled
   or
   
9. reviewer archives the cache
   

 

The cache owner has three opportunities to intervene and fix the problem, at 2, 4 & 7, if they don't use those opportunities then it's right that it should be archived.

 

On the rare occasions I've seen an NA inappropriately logged (and it's happened on my caches), the reviewers have always dealt with it correctly and preserved the cache.

 

If you're so sensitive that receiving an NA would make you archive your cache immediately then that's your perogative, but NA seems a very reasonable mechanism for removing dead/damaged/dangerous caches. Although I do think renaming the log type might remove some of the angst associated with it.

Edited February 18, 2016 by MartyBartfast

[+The A-Team]

This is how NA's are supposed to work, and in the vast majority of cases I've seen they do work this way

 

1. Damaged cache/ full log/ access issues/ string of DNFs
   
2. NM logged
   
3. No action from CO
   
4. NA logged
   
5. Reviewer looks at the cache, and makes a judgement
    
   
6. Reviewer either removes the NA atribute if it's unfounded
   or
   
7. reveiwer temp disables the cache giving the CO an opportunity to resolve the issue
    
   
8. If CO fixes the issue then the cache ie re-enabled
   or
   
9. reviewer archives the cache
   

I agree with your list, with the exception that I'd remove "full log". Personally, that doesn't seem like it warrants the NM/NA process, except in some exceptional circumstances.

 

Although I do think renaming the log type might remove some of the angst associated with it.

I'm starting to think it's fine the way it is, and that there should be an element of angst.

Assuming the NA log has been submitted in an appropriate situation, the owner has usually already been given notice of issues and failed to act. Since these more-passive notices (DNFs, NM) haven't gotten their attention, the situation needs to be escalated. Basically, the CO isn't doing their job, so they need to be called out on it.

[+noncentric]

I still insist that needs archived is an inappropriate notion in many cases. Even if someone thinks that a cache is gone, why is needs archived then a reasonable first reaction? If I do have interest into a cache, I would like to visit it/finish it successfully. My interest then is not that the cache gets archived and even less do I think that such a cache needs to be archived.

It seems that frequent use of NA logs might be a problem specific to your region. In many parts of North America, and presumably other areas, it seems the NA log is rather under-used. I'm basing that on statements in various threads about how cachers should be logging NA's and comments about how cachers don't want to use the NA log because they don't want to seem like the 'cache police'.

 

NA logs after a single DNF for rarely found caches become common in my area. The typical problem in those cases are the cachers logging the NA because they happen to think that a cache needs a find log or an owner maintenance log at least every 6 months and that every mail sent out to a cache owner needs to get answered.

In such cases, I would say to not archive the cache if there's nothing wrong with it. Why? Because then you show those cachers that they cannot 'win' by throwing an NA log on every cache that bothers them. If CO's go ahead and archive caches when NA is logged on such caches, then it will reinforce the idea that caches should be archived if they are not found often or emails are unanswered.

 

If cachers are using NA just to get difficult caches off the map, then CO's should not reinforce their behavior by going ahead and archiving the caches. It's like telling a child that if they throw a tantrum in a toy store, then they will get the toy that they want. I would say "no, my perfectly fine cache is not going to be archived just because you can't find it".

 

Personally, I enjoy finding lonely caches. My longest is almost 4 years (45 months) since the previous find. The cache was perfectly fine and dry in its hiding spot, which required a 2 mile hike on an old road. There were no NM or NA logs posted on it, but I'd like to think that if someone logged an NA on the cache before my find that the CO and/or the reviewer wouldn't have archived it without any proof that there was an actual problem.

 

If the message that is brought along is that cachers out there think that a cache of mine needs to be archived, I'm not motivated to keep it even if it has no problem which needs to be fixed. So that's not at all an issue that involves a reviewer and communicating with them. It's about the feelings of the cache owner and whether the cache owners thinks that it's worth to keep a cache that others apparently think needs to be archived.

If the cachers that think your cache needs to be archived have a different caching philosophy than you agree with, then archiving your caches is going to push the hobby more toward their philosophy. If you and other 'old timers' in your area want to still have caches that match your 'old timer' philosophy, then archiving them all is not going to help the situation. New cachers that might agree your 'old timer' philosophy won't get any exposure to it, because all of the 'old timer' caches have been archived.

 

Maybe looking at the situation from this perspective will help motivate you, and others like you, to do the necessary communications that keep your caches from being archived.

[+bflentje]

Give it a rest already. MOREOVER, everyone is allowed to their own opinions. Stop feeding..

[+Mudfrog]

All caches require maintenance. If a NA log comes in, whether you think it's justified or not, go ahead and get busy with it. You don't have to run right out and do cache maintenance but you should at least acknowledge that you see the NA flag. Communicating, in a log or straight to your reviewer, is a first step that allows you plenty of time to take care of a potential problem!

 

It appears that a lot of the replies approach the topic from a different perspective than I do. I'm fully aware that an active cache owner can avoid under normal circumstances that a cache gets archived by a reviewer (assuming that there is no issue that can't be fixed). I also know that there are other feasible reactions that running out immediately.

 

I still insist that needs archived is an inappropriate notion in many cases. Even if someone thinks that a cache is gone, why is needs archived then a reasonable first reaction? If I do have interest into a cache, I would like to visit it/finish it successfully. My interest then is not that the cache gets archived and even less do I think that such a cache needs to be archived.

 

Many needs archived logs make me feel however that the loggers really wish that the caches get archived. As the affected caches are not my own caches, it can't be about me not being suited as cache owner. If the message that is brought along is that cachers out there think that a cache of mine needs to be archived, I'm not motivated to keep it even if it has no problem which needs to be fixed. So that's not at all an issue that involves a reviewer and communicating with them. It's about the feelings of the cache owner and whether the cache owners thinks that it's worth to keep a cache that others apparently think needs to be archived.

 

As armchair NA logs are regarded, I'd say that the big majority of NA logs in my country come from cachers who have not been at the cache - many even come from cachers who have not the slightest interest to visit the cache and many of them have never cached in some of the regions where they log NA logs.

I agree with you in that NA logs are inappropriate much, if not most of the time. One thing that i think would help, would be to get away from Needs Archive and use some other wording. Needs archived, and this has been brought up a few times in the past, is not good wording for what most logs are trying to convey which i'd say, was to bring quick attention to a cache with potential problems. I believe different wording, maybe something like "Needs Attention", would help cut down on the drama.

[cezanne]

cezanne, since you seem to live in an area where this is prevalent and you understand when the log is being misused, I'm curious how many people you've talked to (by email, through other online means, and in person) about their misuse of the log? It seems like the locals need to work together to ensure that everyone knows how to properly use the log, and that this may not be happening.

 

I have thought about the topic a bit further and I do think that another difference between your areas and mine might be that it with the exception of the time when a particular reviewer has been active who decided to resign sweeps by reviewers taking care of cachs that have been disabled for a longer time (longer is subjective and means different things to different people) are not common and rarely happen. NA logs so also became the common tool to put pressure on the cache owners and reviewers alike. THis might also explain why it is much more common around here that after a NA log a cache owner reacts and fixes a problem for a disabled cache and of course will have an influence on the proportion Team-A wrote about. To avoid misunderstandings, the type of NA logs I talked about above are not of kind of putting pressure to get progress for a disabled cache. I mentioned this difference only to explain that there is a different tradition of NA logs.

 

NA logs of the type where the conditions mentioned in the help centre are met are quite rare in my country but I'd say that only a handful of those posting NA logs ever has read the texts in the help centre.

 

As to the education topic, the typical reply one gets is that a NA does not harm if there is an active cache owner as he/she can react. This neither helps with respect to caches where everything is in perfect order and the owner is not willing to react nor with respect to the involved psychological aspect that it demotivates cache owners who think along the same lines as myself. It's like living in two different worlds.

I often try to explain the differences between the mindset of cachers that started caching many years ago in my area and the newer ones but it is hardly understood. For example, around here formulations like "The log book must be exchanged" (just a translation) have become common and I do know cache owners who at that time already have only be very loosely attached to geocaching but still maintained their caches who instantly archived their caches just caused by this formulation and replied that nothing except the death is a must. They expected something like "The log book is full." Or "Please change the log book as it is full."

 

It's a lot about the way one deals with cache owners - many cachers meanwhile treat them like the service staff of a company and as a part of the community to which they belong themselves. I tried to explain this quite a number of times, but typically it is not even well understood by the minority where the chances for obtaining understanding should be much higher in particular when someone like me and my communication pattern is trying to do it (typically well educated people and at least 40 years old).

[cezanne]

If you're so sensitive that receiving an NA would make you archive your cache immediately then that's your perogative, but NA seems a very reasonable mechanism for removing dead/damaged/dangerous caches. Although I do think renaming the log type might remove some of the angst associated with it.

 

Archival does not remove the caches themselves, it just makes them invisible in certain (not all) cache searches on gc.com.

 

As the first sentence is concerned,

I have mentioned that in my own case it might depend on other conditions too. So for example if I received positive encouragement by at least two cachers outweighing the wish for archival, I might reconsider my decision. This not only holds for NA logs by the way. I need to add that many of my caches are old and for almost all of them I already considered to archive them - it typically happens when I feel that the caching scene has changed too much and my caches and myself do not fit into the scene any longer. In such a situation which is common for almost all old timers in the country which still own caches, it's often about the small things which can be the last drop which leads to a final decision.

 

Personally, I'm extremely restrictive with NA logs and I have posted less than 5 since they exist. In cases where I really have an interest into a cache, I made much better experiences with emailing the cache owner and sometimes with polite public notes. I'm more patient however than the average cacher in my area. For example, I recently obtained an answer by a cacher to a mail I sent before Christmas in which I asked him when approximately he will be able to place a new cache container for his disabled cache. On the basis of his reply, I'm optimistic that within the next 3 months there will be a new container and as the cache is in a nice area with a small number of caches where after an archival no new caches would get hidden, I have nothing to lose. I'm happy about each nice cache that waits for me to be found. Those are getting very rare anyway.

[+dprovan]

I rather think that "needs" means something different to me than to you. In how many cases fixing the issue is provably impossible?

I think the difference is that you view "needs archived" as being unconditional, while I see it as shorthand for "needs archived if nothing is done". I also see "needs archived" as implying "from what I can see". There's no claim that the problem can't be fixed, only that the cache will need to be archived if the problems aren't fixed.

[+RosiesDaddyBear]

I agree with you in that NA logs are inappropriate much, if not most of the time. One thing that i think would help, would be to get away from Needs Archive and use some other wording. Needs archived, and this has been brought up a few times in the past, is not good wording for what most logs are trying to convey which i'd say, was to bring quick attention to a cache with potential problems. I believe different wording, maybe something like "Needs Attention", would help cut down on the drama.

 

Doesn't the "Needs Maintenance" function currently fulfill this role?

[cezanne]

I agree with you in that NA logs are inappropriate much, if not most of the time. One thing that i think would help, would be to get away from Needs Archive and use some other wording. Needs archived, and this has been brought up a few times in the past, is not good wording for what most logs are trying to convey which i'd say, was to bring quick attention to a cache with potential problems. I believe different wording, maybe something like "Needs Attention", would help cut down on the drama.

 

Doesn't the "Needs Maintenance" function currently fulfill this role?

 

No as Needs maintenance logs are not sent to the reviewer and moreover needs maintenance is used for so many different purposes. Some cachers e.g. post NM if there are no parking coordinates, if the questions to be answered at virtual stages are posed only in the waypoint section, if a bicycle allowed icon is set for caches that are hard to get to with bicycle shoes etc

[+Team Microdot]

[+RosiesDaddyBear]

I agree with you in that NA logs are inappropriate much, if not most of the time. One thing that i think would help, would be to get away from Needs Archive and use some other wording. Needs archived, and this has been brought up a few times in the past, is not good wording for what most logs are trying to convey which i'd say, was to bring quick attention to a cache with potential problems. I believe different wording, maybe something like "Needs Attention", would help cut down on the drama.

 

Doesn't the "Needs Maintenance" function currently fulfill this role?

 

No as Needs maintenance logs are not sent to the reviewer and moreover needs maintenance is used for so many different purposes. Some cachers e.g. post NM if there are no parking coordinates, if the questions to be answered at virtual stages are posed only in the waypoint section, if a bicycle allowed icon is set for caches that are hard to get to with bicycle shoes etc

 

I see. So we need something that isn't as drastic as NA but still gets the reviewer's attention. Wouldn't that increase the burden on volunteer reviewers?

[cezanne]

I see. So we need something that isn't as drastic as NA but still gets the reviewer's attention. Wouldn't that increase the burden on volunteer reviewers?

 

I do not think so but it might depend on the area.

 

There also exists the option to simply rename the only log type that gets send to the reviewers.

Reviewers have to look at the logs and caches anyway and so they would notice the difference between say a cache that needs to be archived immediately, one where just the log book has been wet for a long time and one which is a lonely cache with a single DNF anyhow quickly.

 

I certainly would be more willing to write a NA log when there is an issue if the log type had a different name as most cases that I come across are not cases where "needs archived" is correct.

[+J Grouchy]

There's nothing wrong with "Needs Archived," aside from the awkward wording (I keep thinking it needs the words "to be" in the middle).

Only the CO and the reviewer can actually archive a listing, so it isn't an action...merely a notice of a problem. The ultimate judge is not the one who posts the note, yet the implication of the severity of the problem is enough to prevent many from using it off-hand.

 

If it isn't used in a serious manner or for a valid reason, that will be dealt with. If it is, the CO only has him or herself to blame for not properly placing or maintaining their cache. It truly does not matter whether the CO is "offended". It's not a "You Are a Terrible Person" log and should not be taken that way.

[+cleandrysurface]

There also exists the option to simply rename the only log type that gets send to the reviewers.

 

No. That is not an option. You are talking about a rule change which is probably not so simple.

 

Reviewers have to look at the logs and caches anyway and so they would notice the difference between say a cache that needs to be archived immediately, one where just the log book has been wet for a long time and one which is a lonely cache with a single DNF anyhow quickly.

 

Its not your call to make as to how and when the reviewer archives a cache. If you feel strongly that it should be archived immediately, then you have the opportunity to write that in your NA log.

 

I certainly would be more willing to write a NA log when there is an issue if the log type had a different name as most cases that I come across are not cases where "needs archived" is correct.

 

It sounds like you want an additional log type that is the equivalent to "I'm telling Mom".

 

I think you are splitting hairs and proposing to make this more complicated than it needs to be. Not sure if it works the same where you are, but any NA log that gets posted here prompts a reviewer note and gives the CO the opportunity to fix the problem. A NA log does not prompt the immediate archival of a cache. A NA log simply means that the CO is not maintaining their cache properly. It does not matter whether its a wet log, smashed into pieces, or missing, it's not compliant with the guidelines and should be archived because the CO is not doing what they agreed to do when they placed the cache. 'Needs Archived', while grammatically awkward, is completely appropriate.

Edited February 18, 2016 by cleandrysurface

[+Mudfrog]

I agree with you in that NA logs are inappropriate much, if not most of the time. One thing that i think would help, would be to get away from Needs Archive and use some other wording. Needs archived, and this has been brought up a few times in the past, is not good wording for what most logs are trying to convey which i'd say, was to bring quick attention to a cache with potential problems. I believe different wording, maybe something like "Needs Attention", would help cut down on the drama.

 

Doesn't the "Needs Maintenance" function currently fulfill this role?

I was just saying that many people dislike the wording as it is now because it's so negative. I don't take it so personally but i can see how the words, "needs archived", can ruffle some feathers.

 

In my reply above, i had originally typed, "needs immediate attention", but then thought that was a bit much. I do think you're right in that needs attention is too similar to our existing needs maintenance. The wording needs to attempt to nudge COs more than a needs maintenance log does and i have no doubt that better wording could be utilized for this log type. Whatever the wording, this log needs to still be sent to cache owner and reviewer.

[+cleandrysurface]

NA logs after a single DNF for rarely found caches become common in my area. The typical problem in those cases are the cachers logging the NA because they happen to think that a cache needs a find log or an owner maintenance log at least every 6 months and that every mail sent out to a cache owner needs to get answered.

 

Maybe you stop ignoring your messages and try checking on your caches every once in a while.

 

I know several old timers who regard e.g. finding an approach to a cache (with no potential for trespassing) and finding a place to park as part of the challenge while many newer cachers in my area complain heavily and some even would go as far as posting NM logs when no parking coordinates are provided and no trail heads. The same is true with respect to hints, spoiler photos etc.

 

The same is true with respect to the debate between hiding micros in sign boards along a forest trail and hiding larger containers at larger distance from the trail that might bring the cachers in contact with stinging nettles, thorns, ticks etc - the latter is not what people wish to encounter who are into geocaching to play a kind of outdoor computer game and who feel the most comfortable in sterile urban settings. Everyone can have their own preferences but when it comes to the request that the hideouts of all caches have to match the ideas of a certain group how a cache has to be and what can they be asked for when they want to score a find, things start to change.

 

That's what attributes are for.

 

So your solution is to have Geocaching restructure their reviewer notification protocol, rather than you scaling back your own attitude towards newbie cachers.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Cascade Reviewer
Removed potty language

[cezanne]

Its not your call to make as to how and when the reviewer archives a cache. If you feel strongly that it should be archived immediately, then you have the opportunity to write that in your NA log.

 

Of course that's no my call. It's however up to me whether I write a NA log at all and I hardly do and have provided some reasons and explained how I feel about the term "needs archived".

You can call it hairsplitting - I'm aware that notions and definitions are more important to me than to most people.

 

However you will not change the fact that many cachers do not feel comfortable when it comes to NA - they neither like to use the log type nor are they motivated to keep maintaining a cache when they get NA logs. A different name could help and that does not mean different rules.

 

It sounds like you want an additional log type that is the equivalent to "I'm telling Mom".

 

No, definitely not but maybe I'm not understanding what you mean with "I'm telling mom" (English is not my native language). My understanding of I'm telling mom is very different from my own logging style and from the style I would like to see applied.

 

I provide you with an example where I chose to write a note for a cache as a reaction to a NA filed on the same day.

My log is bilingual so you can read it:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC36JKE_tatu-tata

 

While I agree that the cache has been disabled for a long time, the wording of the NA log. It essentially says that the cache will not come again and that owners should be honest and let the cache go and that even a new human life needs only 9 months.

 

I have found the cache before and I knew that the construction is a involved one and I tried to write a public note that might cheer up the cache owners and motivate them to fix the cache and it really worked in this case. I wonder what would have happened if they were only confronted with the NA log. Note that I felt inclined to try to rescue this cache even though it does not in the least match my personal caching preference.

 

I tried to apply empathy. I'm not expecting this from a reviewer when performing his/her job. I would wish however that the cachers out there would understand themselves as part of a community and do not treat cache owners like they treat staff in a shop where they buy stuff for money (apart from the fact that even then I would welcome a bit more friendliness).

 

 

When it comes to how cachers feel about NAs emotions play a big role. Around here there most of the owners of old caches who have not given up have several times considered to archive their caches due to the changes in the community. Do you really think that "needs archived" logs are motivating to continue maintaining a cache? If the message sent along is not that someone would be happy if they can visit a cache, but the message is that they want to have it archived, why bother any longer? It seems paradoxical to invest further work and time and effort if people want to see a cache archived and not want that it is kept alive.

 

 

 

Not sure if it works the same where you are, but any NA log that gets posted here prompts a reviewer note and gives the CO the opportunity to fix the problem. A NA log does not prompt the immediate archival of a cache. A NA log simply means that the CO is not maintaining their cache properly.

 

Many NA logs do not mean at all that the cache is not maintained properly. Lots of caches which receive NA logs are in perfect condition and have never had any issue at all.

 

And even if a cache really has an issue, like a wet log book, a missing stage or so, I would not say that someone who needs a few weeks to fix an issue is not properly maintaining his/her caches. People have a life too and I rather wait a few months for a nice cache to be fixed than have it archived. I'm interested into a nice caching experiences and not in a clean caching map.

Edited February 18, 2016 by cezanne

[cezanne]

NA logs after a single DNF for rarely found caches become common in my area. The typical problem in those cases are the cachers logging the NA because they happen to think that a cache needs a find log or an owner maintenance log at least every 6 months and that every mail sent out to a cache owner needs to get answered.

 

Maybe you stop ignoring your messages and try checking on your caches every once in a while.

 

I did not write about my own caches. I read every log and every mail and every message I receive. I just said that I take the liberty not to reply to questions asked when sent via the message centre. I have no duty at all to reply to questions sent at all.

 

I care about what happens to caches owned by others much more than about what would happen to my own caches - I certainly have thought much more about archiving themselves as any other cacher would have wished that I archive them. I have hidden my own caches for a certain group of cachers who appreciates such caches. For my own caching fun, I'm dependent on what others hide and so I care more about what happens to other caches and I'm sad when I see how many cache owners of caches I like get discouraged. As someone who has started to cache relatively late, it appears to me that you cannot understand the emotions that are attached for me with this sort of topic. The changes that took place since 2002 are so dramatic that I can hardly recognize the activity I started back then.

[+MartyBartfast]

And even if a cache really has an issue, like a wet log book, a missing stage or so, I would not say that someone who needs a few weeks to fix an issue is not properly maintaining his/her caches. People have a life too and I rather wait a few months for a nice cache to be fixed than have it archived.

 

You're correct and if, in response to the NA log, the CO temporarily disables it and writes a note explaining that they are aware of the problem and will deal with it in X weeks then it would not be archived (in my experience), but if a NM is logged on a cache and NOTHING is done for several weeks then that CO is not doing their job, and the cache should be disabled. If the issue is something really trivial (like a full log) then it wouldn't even be necessary to temp disable.

[+cleandrysurface]

As someone who has started to cache relatively late, it appears to me that you cannot understand the emotions that are attached for me with this sort of topic. The changes that took place since 2002 are so dramatic that I can hardly recognize the activity I started back then.

 

Really. You are playing the seniority card and berating the 'youth' for their irreverence?

 

How well does 'Get off my lawn' translate in your language?

[cezanne]

As someone who has started to cache relatively late, it appears to me that you cannot understand the emotions that are attached for me with this sort of topic. The changes that took place since 2002 are so dramatic that I can hardly recognize the activity I started back then.

 

Really. You are playing the seniority card and berating the 'youth' for their irreverence?

 

How well does 'Get off my lawn' translate in your language?

 

I do understand "get off my lawn" very well without any need to translate it. It does not reflect my attitude however. If I consider to archive my caches, it's me to get off the lawn as many before have done before.

 

I would gladly leave gc.com to others and use a different caching site that brings back the kind of caching I loved so much but there is no such site.

 

I have inserted an example about a cache in one of my previous posts - maybe that example helps you to realize that it's not about playing any sort of card for me.

Edited February 18, 2016 by cezanne

[+HHL]

[...]

Really. You are playing the seniority card and berating the 'youth' for their irreverence?

 

How well does 'Get off my lawn' translate in your language?

 

Pretty well, I guess. The Austrians are well known for their Weisenheimer attitude.

 

Hans

 

Edit: typo

Edited February 18, 2016 by HHL