Jump to content

Needs Archived


Gooniemanalpha
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Here's the situation as I see it:

As cezanne describes it in the forums (I don't know if it's accurate or not), the game/hobby of geocaching in their little corner of the world is completely different from that of the rest of the world. Further, cezanne's personal caching personality/ethics/etiquette seems to be completely different from that of other local cachers. Since most things - including the NA log - function relatively well in the majority of the world, I see no need to make changes to cater to this oddball little area or to a single member.

Link to comment

Here's the situation as I see it:

As cezanne describes it in the forums (I don't know if it's accurate or not), the game/hobby of geocaching in their little corner of the world is completely different from that of the rest of the world. Further, cezanne's personal caching personality/ethics/etiquette seems to be completely different from that of other local cachers. Since most things - including the NA log - function relatively well in the majority of the world, I see no need to make changes to cater to this oddball little area or to a single member.

 

Of course what you write is a gross oversimplification and not true. And the litte corner is a whole country which ranks among the top 10 countries with respect to the number of caches but currently has only 2 reviewers (up to last year there have been 3.5 reviewers, the 0.5 results from one shared with another country). That might of course influence the situation and might also lead to NA bot actions by sockpuppets like they recently happened (with more than 1000 NA logs posted that all got deleted by GS even though of course many of them were posted for caches which indeed need a reviewer's attention (which is not the same as the need to be archived).

 

Moreover, I know the same stories of old time cachers that get demotivated by the way how things are done right now in other countries too, one of them is Germany which is one of the top countries when it comes to geocaching. of course you will not read about their frustrations in this forum as they will not bother to come here and have never used this forum.

 

What is wrong or strange about the attitude that led me to write my note for this cache

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

 

Meanwhile already 16 cachers had fun with the cache since it got enabled again and the NA logger was wrong. It was not the only case where I feel that I managed to contribute at least a tiny bit to rescue a cache from being archived.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

[...]

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 Autrians are well known for their Weisenheimer attitude.

 

Hans

If you feel the need to insult a whole nation, you could at least try to spell it correctly.

Link to comment

[...]

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 Autrians are well known for their Weisenheimer attitude.

 

Hans

If you feel the need to insult a whole nation, you could at least try to spell it correctly.

Ist korrigiert. :lol:

Link to comment
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.

 

Wait. I'm confused. Are most cachers reluctant to post NA logs, or is the rampant posting of NA logs a problem?

 

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.geocachi...36JKE_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.

 

Without having an understanding of the entire exchange, I can only comment on a couple of items.

 

1.) The cache was disabled for 9 months. That simply does not fly here anymore. Typically, you get 1 - 2 months now to disable a cache for repairs. I can't speak to the specific comments in the log, but a NA was completely appropriate given that period of time.

 

2.) What on earth makes you think that your cheerful note motivated the CO to repair the cache, rather than the inevitable action by the reviewer?

 

Lots of caches which receive NA logs are in perfect condition and have never had any issue at all.

 

Great! If that is the case, then post an OM log after checking the cache and move on.

 

I've not noticed that problem here. Usually when a cache gets flagged with a NA log, it should be archived, unless there is intervention by the CO, because it is non-compliant. Your example above illustrates this.

 

Maybe 'Archived' doesn't translate well and you are taking exception to this because it does not come across as being polite. Agreed, we could all probably stand to be more polite, but that is difficult thing to regulate.

Link to comment

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.

 

OK. Totally does not translate.

 

9rYVxqH.jpg

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=get+off+my+lawn

Link to comment

 

1.) The cache was disabled for 9 months. That simply does not fly here anymore. Typically, you get 1 - 2 months now to disable a cache for repairs.

 

That might be true in your corner of the world. Around here there a certainly >500 such caches that are disabled for a longer period of time and which have not flagged by a reviewer log.

 

I can't speak to the specific comments in the log, but a NA was completely appropriate given that period of time.

 

The formulation was leading to nothing in my opinion and I decided to write a note instead of just sending a private encouraging mail to the cache owners to potentially make some of the cachers who write their NA log in the same style reflect a bit about what they are doing and whether that's really what they want to do.

 

It's quite unfortunate when you have an interest into a cache and then write a log saying that you are sure that the cache will not get fixed.

 

2.) What on earth makes you think that your cheerful note motivated the CO to repair the cache, rather than the inevitable action by the reviewer?

 

You make me laugh. What typically happens when cache owners are demotivated is that they archive their caches themselves right away. They are not at all threathened by the fact that the reviewer could archive their cache. It would have taken weeks until a reviewer did anything to that cache

and the cache would have been much quicker archived by the owners themselves. I have seen many other cases like that and in quite a number of examples where I decided to act (most of the times I do it by private mail and not via a public log) I know the cachers personally (was also the case in this example). I usually keep my fingers off from caches in other areas.

 

 

Lots of caches which receive NA logs are in perfect condition and have never had any issue at all.

 

Great! If that is the case, then post an OM log after checking the cache and move on.

 

How should I do that for caches that I do not own?

 

Again, my own caches are not my concern. I would easily let them go anyway and archive them myself. I just used my own feelings and how I would react as an example how cache owners with a similar mindset feel about certain types of NA logs. It's the caches of others that are a personal loss for me if they get archived by their owners caused by how the community behaves, not my own.

 

 

Maybe 'Archived' doesn't translate well and you are taking exception to this because it does not come across as being polite. Agreed, we could all probably stand to be more polite, but that is difficult thing to regulate.

 

Of course this cannot be regulated - we agree on that.

 

What I try to explain is that I do not appreciate the attitude behind cleaning cache maps. If I have an interest that a cache gets fixed, I try to tell the cache owner that I would appreciate that the cache gets fixed if it has an issue - I do not try to convey the message that I'm expecting an archival anyway and that I'm even more happy with an archival than if the cache gets fixed. Doesn't that sound quite natural?

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

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'm telling Mom" signifies a juvenile threat to pull in an authority figure instead of dealing with a conflict maturely between individuals. For that reason, I think cleandrysurface conveyed exactly what you're suggesting, although only because that reflects how you've seen other people using NA, not because you would ever react that way yourself.

 

And that illustrates why I oppose the idea: I don't want to see the bogus ways you've seen NA used to be encoded in the name. I want them eliminated. But if you're going to rename it, I think "I'm Telling Mom!" -- or at least "I'm telling the reviewer!" -- is a much more accurate name than "Needs Reviewer Attention".

 

1.) The cache was disabled for 9 months. That simply does not fly here anymore. Typically, you get 1 - 2 months now to disable a cache for repairs.

That might be true in your corner of the world. Around here there a certainly >500 such caches that are disabled for a longer period of time and which have not flagged by a reviewer log.

Is that because you haven't posted an NA? In my area, the only reason a cache that needed to be archived would go nine months without being archived is because no one bothered to post an NA.

Link to comment

"I'm telling Mom" signifies a juvenile threat to pull in an authority figure instead of dealing with a conflict maturely between individuals.

 

I understood it that way.

 

For that reason, I think cleandrysurface conveyed exactly what you're suggesting, although only because that reflects how you've seen other people using NA, not because you would ever react that way yourself.

 

Ok, I understood that he meant I'm acting like "I'm telling my mom" or would like that others do it like that.

 

And that illustrates why I oppose the idea: I don't want to see the bogus ways you've seen NA used to be encoded in the name. I want them eliminated. But if you're going to rename it, I think "I'm Telling Mom!" -- or at least "I'm telling the reviewer!" -- is a much more accurate name than "Needs Reviewer Attention".

 

I'm getting sarcastic now but often it seems to me that the name that describes best what many cachers really think is

"Get it off my cache map".

 

Caches with hideouts that are clearly against the guidelines end up with very high percentages of favourites.

I'm not a fan of those but in most cases I would not intervene as I'm not a reviewer and do not regard it as my business to have 95% of the cachers against me. I have enough real issues in my life - I do not need to create additional ones.

 

 

 

 

Is that because you haven't posted an NA? In my area, the only reason a cache that needed to be archived would go nine months without being archived is because no one bothered to post an NA.

 

No, that's not the reason. Actually I have not even noticed that the cache is disabled before I came across the NA log on a local site which I use for looking for caches in my area that might have an issue and need to be rescued. I'm not a PM and even if I were PM, I would not cache in a systematic manner with PQs and would not search out for caches that are disabled for a certain period of time.

 

I have no interest into clearing cache maps. What I do from time to time is to write a cache owner of a disabled cache I have not yet found and really would like to find and tell them about my interest. There are caches out there for which I would be willing to wait even for 2 years. Of course I know that if a reviewer intervenes, then this will never work out, but I have no reason to take any action from my side to speed things up as the only situation when I lose is when the cache gets archived into which I'm interested. Nothing worse can happen.

 

I do not have an issue if others post NA logs in such cases. However I'd like to raise the question what a cacher who posts a NA with a text like

which is directed to the cache owner of the type "Let the cache die. Be honest. The cache will never get fixed again" wants to achieve?

In my opinion, the most natural reaction of the affected cache owner would be to archive the cache and in particular if there is noone out there who tells them that it would be nice if the cache becomes available again.

 

There is clearly no requirement for NA logs to be polite or encouraging for the cache owner but then the loggers should not be surprised if cache owners react with archival if that's the message that comes across.

 

Of course 9 months is a long time for a cache being disabled, on the other hand people have a life and they can also forget about a cache. A friendly reminder or a polite question seems more appropriate in my opinion that a NA log of the type in my example if someone's interest is not just in getting an additional cache off the map - the latter however seems to be the real objective of many cachers in general.

I do understand that a reviewer after having posted a warning, will not want to wait a very long time for a reaction but in my example no reviewer has been involved. It's just a matter between cachers and I see now reason why normal cachers should act like reviewers.

Link to comment

Ok, I understood that he meant I'm acting like "I'm telling my mom" or would like that others do it like that.

Well, yeah, I think he did, too, but it's an easy mistake to make thinking that someone asking for a particular type of log wants it because they want to use it. I've been following your comments more closely, so I saw that while he recognized the log you want, he was wrong to think you wanted it for your own use.

 

No, that's not the reason. Actually I have not even noticed that the cache is disabled before I came across the NA log on a local site which I use for looking for caches in my area that might have an issue and need to be rescued. I'm not a PM and even if I were PM, I would not cache in a systematic manner with PQs and would not search out for caches that are disabled for a certain period of time.

I'm confused why you brought up the large number of disabled caches in your area if you haven't noticed them. But, anyway, no one around here goes out searching for disabled caches or caches that are otherwise ready for archival, they just run into them in the normal course of events and, when they do, they take action to get them cleaned up so fewer people after them have to waste their time evaluating them.

 

I do not have an issue if others post NA logs in such cases. However I'd like to raise the question what a cacher who posts a NA with a text like

which is directed to the cache owner of the type "Let the cache die. Be honest. The cache will never get fixed again" wants to achieve?

In my opinion, the most natural reaction of the affected cache owner would be to archive the cache and in particular if there is noone out there who tells them that it would be nice if the cache becomes available again.

You're presenting this example as if the comment would never be uncalled for, but most of the NAs I've seen are, indeed, saying precisely this quite sincerely and with good reason. If the CO voluntarily archives a cache that has gotten so bad that someone decides there's no hope for it, then I think that's mission accomplished, not some dire failure that needs to be avoided.

 

A friendly reminder or a polite question seems more appropriate in my opinion that a NA log of the type in my example if someone's interest is not just in getting an additional cache off the map - the latter however seems to be the real objective of many cachers in general.

I would expect the polite questions after a month and the friendly reminder after a few months. After nine months, I think it's reasonable for everyone to give up and suggest we get rid of it, not because it's taking up room on the map, but because people are continually bumping into it and having to rediscover that it's worthless.

 

Sure, life happens, COs get busy, sometimes a cache can be disabled for a long time. But at some point -- and I think nine months is too long, frankly -- the community is quite right to give up on the cache. If the CO later has more time to support a cache, he can ask for it to be unarchived or he can plant a new cache.

Link to comment

What is wrong or strange about the attitude that led me to write my note for this cache

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

 

Meanwhile already 16 cachers had fun with the cache since it got enabled again and the NA logger was wrong. It was not the only case where I feel that I managed to contribute at least a tiny bit to rescue a cache from being archived.

 

I have to defend the NA poster in this case - it looked like the CO lost interest in that cache (9 months disabled with no reaction!) so he correctly posted NA. Here in the Czech republic such disabled caches get usually noticed by our reviewers after a few months and get a note with 30 day ultimate before archival. I would not hesitate to post NA myself as well, but I would be aiming not for the archival but to get the CO comunicate, fix and enable the cache. :)

EDIT: the CO apparently needed such an impulse as the cache got up and running in twenty more days!

Edited by Pontiac_CZ
Link to comment

 

I'm confused why you brought up the large number of disabled caches in your area if you haven't noticed them.

 

The large number of disabled caches referred to the whole country. I mentioned it only to provide a clearer picture. To be honest, personally I would not even have noticed the recent waves of NA logs by sockpuppets - the logs were quickly deleted - by I was made aware by someone else.

 

I only encounter distabled caches when I watch out for unfound caches in a certain area I want to go to.

When I watch out for caches, I do not use maps but the I have not found search around a cache or a set of coordinates or the search for all caches in my province which displays the newest ones on top.

 

But, anyway, no one around here goes out searching for disabled caches or caches that are otherwise ready for archival, they just run into them in the normal course of events and, when they do, they take action to get them cleaned up so fewer people after them have to waste their time evaluating them.

 

Well, we seem to have completely different approaches. I never made an attempt to evaluate a cache that's disabled. I just try to find out whether or not a cache is suitable for me. I do have a job - I regard geocaching as leisure activity where I try to get as far from approaches I use in my job as possible.

 

 

You're presenting this example as if the comment would never be uncalled for, but most of the NAs I've seen are, indeed, saying precisely this quite sincerely and with good reason. If the CO voluntarily archives a cache that has gotten so bad that someone decides there's no hope for it, then I think that's mission accomplished, not some dire failure that needs to be avoided.

 

The example was not an example for a NA that is inappropriate in my eyes (like a NA after a single DNF for a lonely cache). It was an example of many I encounter where I'm wondering what the intent of the NA logger is.

 

That very example cache never got bad in the sense of how I understand the term. The container is a specially assembled one and it would have very easy for the cache owners just to place a lame film canister as a temporary replacement very quickly.

 

Putting pressure on the cache owners in such cases in my opinion pushes them into one of two directions I both do not appreciate: place a container that can be quickly placed or archive the cache. In both cases it would have a great loss.

 

I would expect the polite questions after a month and the friendly reminder after a few months. After nine months, I think it's reasonable for everyone to give up and suggest we get rid of it, not because it's taking up room on the map, but because people are continually bumping into it and having to rediscover that it's worthless.

 

First, there have been no polite questions and reminders and if someone forgot about something, it then does not help to argue with the duration of how long this took. Second, I will never understand the map argument: I'm not into caching to clear points on a map. Moreover, it's seems a strange way that humans should adapt their way to approach things due to software that lacks natural features - the map on gc.com could easily offer an option to turn off disabled caches (as e.g. the maps on a local Austrian site do). [Comment: Yes, I know that Groundspeak might not want to offer that feature anyhow as somehow it seems that they like if cachers are annoyed by disabled caches and write NA logs.]

 

Sure, life happens, COs get busy, sometimes a cache can be disabled for a long time. But at some point -- and I think nine months is too long, frankly -- the community is quite right to give up on the cache.

 

I see no reason to give up a cache before having tried to contact a cache owner.

In all what you people seem to write it seems that you always assume that the reviewer acts more quickly than the cache owner and that the text of NA logs mainly directs to the reviewers and Groundspeak.

 

All my arguments come from the setting that in case of a cache owner who still reads his emails and/or logs into gc.com from while to while (or looks at the caches in another way) a NA log first is addressed to the cache owner. He/she will read it and reflect on what to do long before a reviewer will do anything at all. That's the reason why I'm trying to point out how quite common text formulations for NA logs make the cache owners feel and I tried to put a special light on the feelings of old timers that anyhow are frustrated about the community. With a little bit of empathy it's not hard to see that their motivation to put further work in a cache for which noone stands up and shows interest into its continuation, rather the contrary, will be quite small. If noone stands up and if the NA log is formulated like in my example case, the natural reaction of a cache owner in the situation I describe would be to give up and let a cache go when that is what the community wants to have. Why waiting for a reviewer? The only reason why such cachers put out caches is for the fun of others. So when for them the cache starts to be something which annoys them on the map and they have no other interest than getting rid of it on the map, then it's not motivating to keep a cache going. That's my message but apparently I do not manage to get it across.

 

 

If the CO later has more time to support a cache, he can ask for it to be unarchived or he can plant a new cache.

 

According to the new guidelines, the unarchival is very unlikely.

Planting a new cache is in my opinion the worst solutions of all in such a situation. It has become much too frequent to reload caches at exactly the same location with the same description. That's extremly lame. The location of my example cache is not interesting at all - it fits the puzzle however and what was special is just the container. Relisting the cache in the same manner is a silly thing in my opinion - lots of people will return just to get rid of the cache on their maps and they will not leave nice logs any longer, neither will they leave favourite points (they could move it over from the old cache but hardly anyone will do as the suprise effect back then was a there and now it's something lame for them that's more like having to bring the litter to a wastebasket). In this manner newer caches who have never known the old cache, will get a wrong impression about the new one. I like the result of what happened in my example case much more. If a cache can be rescued at all, I highly value to rescue it in the original form and with the original cache listing. I'm gladly willing to wait longer for this to happen.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

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'm telling Mom" signifies a juvenile threat to pull in an authority figure instead of dealing with a conflict maturely between individuals. For that reason, I think cleandrysurface conveyed exactly what you're suggesting, although only because that reflects how you've seen other people using NA, not because you would ever react that way yourself.

 

After skimming some of the longer posts I'm telling Mom made me smile and personally I think it would be the perfect name for this log type - it's not like it's a matter of life and death and I think a bit of levity might actually be preferable to the hand wringing that seems to overshadow what is a relatively trivial issue :)

Link to comment

 

After skimming some of the longer posts I'm telling Mom made me smile and personally I think it would be the perfect name for this log type - it's not like it's a matter of life and death and I think a bit of levity might actually be preferable to the hand wringing that seems to overshadow what is a relatively trivial issue :)

 

Fine for you if it made you smile, however the name is quite far from what I tried to bring across. Of course caches are normally not a matter of life and death and I'm the last person who thinks that they are. Note that I'm not asking for more and stricter rules. My core of my posts were not about the system and the reviewers. I was looking at the level of us cachers - and without imposing any sort of hierarchy (mom and kids would suggest something different).

 

What you wrote above about the relative importance of caches is for me rather an argument to be a bit more patient - I will lose nothing if a nice cache is disabled 3 months longer and finally will get activated again. I only can win. A cache that gets archived is lost which of course is in the interest of those who do not really care about the cache (their right, but still discouraging) but only about an icon on a map.

 

The term "I'm telling my mom" is so much different from the type of atmosphere I learnt to appreciate in the caching community in my country in the first 2-3 years (and which I will never stop to miss). It was a tightly knit community and for almost everyone it was natural to contribute in some way and it did not happen that a cacher treated another one like service staff they pay for. I'm not saying that everyone needs to hide caches or organize events. However the decoupling which took place resulted in a large group that only takes and tries to impose what others have to do. It starts with very simple things. "The log book is full. Please change it." or just "The log book is full" sends along the same message than "The log book must be exchanged." - the psychlogical effect on early time cachers is however quite different.

 

Caching is not among the top priorities things in our world, but trying to treat each other with respect is in my opinion one of the top priorities in our world. I'm aware that this can sometimes be very difficult and even more so when cross cultural issues come into play, however this is rarely the case in local caching communities.

 

I'm not asking that the reviewers use more empathy in their work (which is difficult enough). I just think that we would have a better geocaching world if the cachers out there who post NA logs would first try to use other approaches if possible and if they use NA logs, would apply a bit more care about their formulation provided they have an interest into the affected cache. In the case they really just want to get rid of a cache, it does not matter of course but then it should not come as surprise to anyone if a cache owner who receives such a NA log reacts by archiving the cache him/herself before a reviewer even gets the chance to set any action.

 

The change I would like to see is nothing that can be cast in rules - it's something about the behaviour of individual cachers and the examples we all set and what will eventually become a model for all others to follow. My motivation behind my posts in this thread was neither hair-splitting nor asking for changes at the level of Groundspeak. I tried to make at least a few cachers reflect on the psychological effects of NA logs and their formulation on the cache owners.

 

I'm a professing pessimist but even I would never come to the conclusion that a cache that has been disabled for several months will never be fixed unless there is further evidence. The number of quality caches goes down and I find it worth while to fight for every of them, regardless of whether or it matches my preferences.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

[...]

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

 

I check on my caches at lease twice a year regardless of logs.

 

After 3 DNF's I check on the cache and post an owners maintenance log.

 

After a needs maintenance log I post a note acknowledging the problem and indicate a time frame to get it fixed.

 

Never had a needs archived log posted to a cache.

 

The key here is communication. If you can't respond to issues with your cache in a timely manor simply write a note explaining the problem. That, or disable the cache until you can fix it. As long as the reviewer knows that your aware of the issues and intend to fix them their should be no problems.

Link to comment

Well, we seem to have completely different approaches. I never made an attempt to evaluate a cache that's disabled. I just try to find out whether or not a cache is suitable for me.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You look at a cache and judge whether you want to seek it. If you recognize that the reason you rejected it is universally applicable -- like it being disabled for the last 9 months -- you should take action to make it less likely I'll end up wasting my time reaching the same conclusion for the same reasons.

 

The example was not an example for a NA that is inappropriate in my eyes (like a NA after a single DNF for a lonely cache). It was an example of many I encounter where I'm wondering what the intent of the NA logger is.

In my opinion, it's both pointless and counterproductive to worry about the intent of the person posting the NA. Instead, I would only focus on whether the suggestion is valid and, if it is valid and it's my cache, what action I should take. If the suggestion doesn't appear to be valid, I will always assume it was an honest mistake and explain why I think it's a mistake in the OM I post in response. As long as I'm clear and open about it, I don't see why I need to react as if there are ulterior motives, even in the unlikely case where I happen to be convinced that there are.

Link to comment

Thank you guys for all of your replies. I'm always wary of hitting that NA button because I hate stepping on people's toes.

Very good! You should definitely think twice -- or more -- before posting an NA. You should also be very worried about stepping on someone's toes, so if you do need to post an NA, work hard to focus on the specific information you want to convey to explain what led you to suggest archival. Basically, take the comments made by people like cezanne to heart and try to imagine what you should say -- or not say -- so no one has any reason to think you have some evil intent or hidden agenda behind your matter of fact presentation of your case.

 

I'm always disappointed when I have to post an NA, so I typically express some regret to show my interest in the cache, hoping to inspire a CO that had, until then, decided the cache had no value.

Link to comment

Well, we seem to have completely different approaches. I never made an attempt to evaluate a cache that's disabled. I just try to find out whether or not a cache is suitable for me.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You look at a cache and judge whether you want to seek it. If you recognize that the reason you rejected it is universally applicable -- like it being disabled for the last 9 months -- you should take action to make it less likely I'll end up wasting my time reaching the same conclusion for the same reasons.

 

My strategy is just different. If I happen to come across a cache that is interesting for me, I have no issues with waiting for it in case it is disabled. I do not reject it on that basis and my judgement will not change over time as typically it's the location and the set up of a cache and not its current condition and status that plays a role for me. I have so few unfound caches that are attractive to me that I can remember them all. I do not apply a system and I do not need one.

 

 

The example was not an example for a NA that is inappropriate in my eyes (like a NA after a single DNF for a lonely cache). It was an example of many I encounter where I'm wondering what the intent of the NA logger is.

In my opinion, it's both pointless and counterproductive to worry about the intent of the person posting the NA. Instead, I would only focus on whether the suggestion is valid and, if it is valid and it's my cache, what action I should take. If the suggestion doesn't appear to be valid, I will always assume it was an honest mistake and explain why I think it's a mistake in the OM I post in response. As long as I'm clear and open about it, I don't see why I need to react as if there are ulterior motives, even in the unlikely case where I happen to be convinced that there are.

 

What's strange is that while you reply with both pointless and counterproductive to what I wrote above, you essentially somehow mirror what I feel in your other post where you explain that you think twice about what you write in NA log and that you try to write something that shows that you have some interest into that the cache gets fixed.

 

The key point I tried to bring across is that all those who have an interest into a cache getting fixed and not sent into the archive, should take this into account when writing their NA logs and that in some cases some other prior measure might be preferable to a NA log. Of course there are many cases where cache owners lost the interest and the other prior measures will lead to nothing and also after the NA log no reaction will happen except the reviewer's archival action. That's the sort of cases where it is pretty much irrelevant how the NA log is formulated except that it still sets an example and that many cachers then tend to formulate all their NA logs in this manner and forget that NA logs are also adressed to the cache owners and not only to reviewers.

 

I'm not against NA logs in general. I just think that it makes sense to think about the text and what it brings across when a cache owner is still active.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Thank you guys for all of your replies. I'm always wary of hitting that NA button because I hate stepping on people's toes.

 

It's easier when you preface your NA log with "Needs Attention" and outline why you feel the cache needs attention. I include the number of DNFs and NMs and how far back those logs go without attention from the CO.

My experience is that cache owners are less likely to flip out when the log says "Needs Attention".

I wish it were a reportable offence to flip out on a person who posts an NA, and would get a cache owner a time-out penalty.

 

Link to comment

Seriously...don't worry about "stepping on toes". If it needs to be dealt with, just be honest. We're all adults here, right? If honesty bothers some people, then they should not be putting caches out for people to find.

 

I posted a NA log on a cache that's along an abandoned rail line in Atlanta that is to become part of a new trail system soon. As I was walking out there, I saw a "Private Property - No Trespassing" sign posted on a pole right in the middle of the only path leading to it. I posted a photo of the sign. The CO insisted it was not private property and claims there is no sign there. Whatever...I may return and if the sign is still there, I will post yet another NA log. If it's not, then I'll go to the cache and claim my smilie. Nobody is hurt, nobody should be offended. I posted the NA because I felt the CO misrepresented the area, and I will do so again if I find the same conditions as before. It's not a personal vendetta...just a reality I feel others need to be aware of.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

Nobody is hurt, nobody should be offended. I posted the NA because I felt the CO misrepresented the area, and I will do so again if I find the same conditions as before. It's not a personal vendetta...just a reality I feel others need to be aware of.

 

That's a sort of NA where if what you write is true the term "needs archived" makes sense also as message to the cache owner.

 

My main concern with certain types of NA logs is not whether it might feel like stepping on someone's toe but rather that it if someone would like to see a cache fixed, then writing a NA without being very careful is not a good idea as it will convey the wrong message to the cache owner. I think there can hardly be any debate about the fact that many NA logs are formulated in a way that would not make a single cache owner feel that their cache is appreciated and that the NA logger would like to visit the cache.

Link to comment

What's strange is that while you reply with both pointless and counterproductive to what I wrote above, you essentially somehow mirror what I feel in your other post where you explain that you think twice about what you write in NA log and that you try to write something that shows that you have some interest into that the cache gets fixed.

It's not strange at all. I do not deny it's possible for people to do mean things, and I do not deny some people can't keep themselves from imagining everyone else is doing mean things. So I say, first, don't do mean things, then second, don't assume others are doing mean things, and third, try to express yourself so that those people who refuse to take my second piece of advice have the least chance of thinking your being mean because of your NA.

 

The key point I tried to bring across is that all those who have an interest into a cache getting fixed and not sent into the archive, should take this into account when writing their NA logs and that in some cases some other prior measure might be preferable to a NA log.

Yes, of course, people should use logs correctly. I assume that goes without saying.

 

But actually I disagree with you: while I agree an NA is a last resort after an NM has failed to get the problem corrected, I also consider an NA log to be yet another attempt to get the cache fixed.

Link to comment

What's strange is that while you reply with both pointless and counterproductive to what I wrote above, you essentially somehow mirror what I feel in your other post where you explain that you think twice about what you write in NA log and that you try to write something that shows that you have some interest into that the cache gets fixed.

It's not strange at all. I do not deny it's possible for people to do mean things, and I do not deny some people can't keep themselves from imagining everyone else is doing mean things. So I say, first, don't do mean things, then second, don't assume others are doing mean things, and third, try to express yourself so that those people who refuse to take my second piece of advice have the least chance of thinking your being mean because of your NA.

 

I think the reason for our misunderstanding is that my intent when I wrote about cache owners who archive their cache caused by a lack of motitation

it was not the assumption of meanness that was behind. When I reacted with archival to a NA log for one of my caches or another type of log it would only be because it would reenforce my feeling I have from time to time anyway that the time when myself and my way of caching fitted into the community are gone. So that's why both the formulation of a NA log and also how other react plays a role for me and others in the same situation. And that was exactly the reason why I wrote my note for the cache being 9 months active after having been shocked about the formulation of the NA log.

 

 

But actually I disagree with you: while I agree an NA is a last resort after an NM has failed to get the problem corrected, I also consider an NA log to be yet another attempt to get the cache fixed.

 

Actually, in the example with the cache that has been 9 months disabled nothing had happened before the NA log - not a single reminder or mail to the cache owners, no log (a NM log would not have made sense for a disabled cache anyway).

 

Of course a NA log can be another attempt to get a cache fixed but the attempt has a better chance when the log mentions so and does not create the intention that the logger prefers that the cache gets archived anyway.

 

It's a bit like when the parents or teachers say to a child "I'm sure that you cannot achieve this." Why should the child be motivated to even try? The situation of a cache owner back from the old times is even worse. The child might want to prove something to the parents/the teachers. The old timer cache owners who have maintained their caches over years have to prove nothing.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It's a bit like when the parents or teachers say to a child "I'm sure that you cannot achieve this." Why should the child be motivated to even try?

 

Because an adult geocacher isn't a child, and another adult providing feedback on a geocache isn't a parent.

 

Yoo can use the same example also with two adults at the same maturity level. I used parents and children in my example just because of the "I'm telling mom" that came up in this thread.

Link to comment

It's a bit like when the parents or teachers say to a child "I'm sure that you cannot achieve this." Why should the child be motivated to even try?

 

Because an adult geocacher isn't a child, and another adult providing feedback on a geocache isn't a parent.

 

Yoo can use the same example also with two adults at the same maturity level. I used parents and children in my example just because of the "I'm telling mom" that came up in this thread.

 

You can use the same example if you wish, but I question the word "adult" being assigned to someone who quits playing because someone asks them to take care of a geocache.

Link to comment

You can use the same example if you wish, but I question the word "adult" being assigned to someone who quits playing because someone asks them to take care of a geocache.

 

There is a difference between someone who expresses interest into a geocache and asks that the owner fixes an issue (if there is one) and someone who sends out the message that a cache should be archived or even worse uses formulations like "I'm sure that this cache will not get fixed". In the first case, there will be still cache owners who decide to archive the concerned cache but I'm talking about the second case.

 

Most cache owners hide caches for others out there and not for themselves. If the only message that comes in is "the cache needs to be archived" why bother with maintaining it if archival is what the person asks for and noone else stands up and states that they rather want the cache to be stay alive.

Link to comment

There is a difference between someone who expresses interest into a geocache and asks that the owner fixes an issue (if there is one) and someone who sends out the message that a cache should be archived...

No, sorry, I disagree. There is no difference: someone saying that a cache should be archived is, in fact, expressing an interest in the cache whether that's actually their motivation or not.

 

...or even worse uses formulations like "I'm sure that this cache will not get fixed". In the first case, there will be still cache owners who decide to archive the concerned cache but I'm talking about the second case.

I don't see why you, as the CO, care at all about the expectation of the person filing the NA. You know whether the cache will be fixed or not. What difference does it make to you if their uninformed guess about it is wrong?

Link to comment

There is a difference between someone who expresses interest into a geocache and asks that the owner fixes an issue (if there is one) and someone who sends out the message that a cache should be archived...

No, sorry, I disagree. There is no difference: someone saying that a cache should be archived is, in fact, expressing an interest in the cache whether that's actually their motivation or not.

 

Ok, then let's agree to disagree what showing an interest and bringing this across to the cache owner means.

Of course I mean an interest into visiting the cache and not an interest that the cache just gets removed from being displayed on gc.com.

For the latter the easiest solution is archival anyway. Why then wait for a reviewer and not do exactly what the NA asks for?

Try to think how NA logs in particular feel to those cachers who still maintain their active caches but have lost the link to geocaching apart from that - they are not any longer going out for caches themselves and hide no new caches as they are terribly frustrated about how geocaching has evolved. They typically decide to keep some caches alive as long as they feel that there is a sincere interest into them. If that starts to miss too, why bother any longer?

 

I don't see why you, as the CO, care at all about the expectation of the person filing the NA. You know whether the cache will be fixed or not. What difference does it make to you if their uninformed guess about it is wrong?

 

It's not about whether their guess is true or not. Fixing a cache costs time - why invest that if there communicates that they like to visit the cache and the only feedback is "needs archived"? Caches are typically hidden for others. Of course it could be that there is one person who wants to get rid of a cache and maybe 2 others who would like to visit the cache. Then the 2 should communicate this. Silence and just a NA log that is not bringing the slightest interest into the cache across is not providing a motivation to go on with a cache. So why bother?

Archiving a cache and removing all its traces is proper cache owner ethics too.

Link to comment

You can use the same example if you wish, but I question the word "adult" being assigned to someone who quits playing because someone asks them to take care of a geocache.

 

There is a difference between someone who expresses interest into a geocache and asks that the owner fixes an issue (if there is one) and someone who sends out the message that a cache should be archived or even worse uses formulations like "I'm sure that this cache will not get fixed". In the first case, there will be still cache owners who decide to archive the concerned cache but I'm talking about the second case.

 

Most cache owners hide caches for others out there and not for themselves. If the only message that comes in is "the cache needs to be archived" why bother with maintaining it if archival is what the person asks for and noone else stands up and states that they rather want the cache to be stay alive.

 

If the only log you ever receive is "Needs Archived," it's a sign that your cache is low quality or has a serious problem.

 

If you are placing geocaches because you need constant reassurance and praise, perhaps you aren't placing them for the right reasons.

Link to comment

If the only log you ever receive is "Needs Archived," it's a sign that your cache is low quality or has a serious problem.

 

If you are placing geocaches because you need constant reassurance and praise, perhaps you aren't placing them for the right reasons.

 

Apparently you are not familiar with the experience that it can well happen that a cache was well received in the past and then at some point

all cachers with a real interest have been there. So the past logs are not important in my opinion when making decisions for the future.

That's not a question of needings constant reassurance and praise.

 

I started to geocache in a time when even for the first find it could take quite some time before a finder got any feedback at all.

None of the hiders from those times needs constant reassurance and praise apart from the fact that I did not talk about praise but something

that makes the cache owner feel that there are still cachers out there who are interested into visiting the cache.

Link to comment

If someone posts a note stating that my cache needs to be archived so be it. I'm not going to waist time arguing the merits of my cache in an attempt to offset the negative log. If they post a needs archive log (hopefully with a reason), I address the issue and post and owners maintenance log. If my cache isn't getting many finds any more I have two choices. Archive it or keep it alive for future cachers. Again, If your an active responsible cache owner than DNF, needs maintenance and archive logs don't really have any effect on your cache. You address them and move on.

 

I think you need to be realistic when you hide a cache. It's a little more work than you'd think and although most will appreciate your effort, it's not always hugs and kisses.

Link to comment

I have two choices. Archive it or keep it alive for future cachers.

 

Exactly and the kind of impression you get on whether there is anyone out who is interested into visiting your cache is an indicator that many will use in making their decision between the two options.

My message is just that if the cache who posts a need archived wants the cache to be kept alive, they should communicate this (this type of message can be completely neutral, it need not praise the cache at all). That's neither an issue of hugs and kisses nor of being a bad cache owner and also instructions what the duties of a cache owner comprise are uncalled for in this setting.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I have two choices. Archive it or keep it alive for future cachers.

 

Exactly and the kind of impression you get on whether there is anyone out who is interested into visiting your cache is an indicator that many will use in making their decision between the two options.

My message is just that if the cache who posts a need archived wants the cache to be kept alive, they should communicate this (this type of message can be completely neutral, it need not praise the cache at all). That's neither an issue of hugs and kisses nor of being a bad cache owner and also instructions what the duties of a cache owner comprise are uncalled for in this setting.

 

What is uncalled for in "this setting? Opinions? I thought this was the discussion forum?.

 

If you mean it has nothing to do with your comments than I disagree.

 

Most needs archived logs are posted on caches for a reason. If your a good cache owner you'll probably never see one and if you do you'll take care of it. In a previous post you mentioned how a cache owner feels when he or she receives a needs archived on one of their caches. If a needs archive is going to hurt your feelings than being a cache owner is not for you.

 

Put it this way. Why would a cacher mark one of my caches as needing to be archived? Is it because I don't maintain them, no. Is it because I don't have permission to place it where it's hidden, no. Is it because they want to place one nearby and mine is getting in the way, possibly. Was it a mistake, could be. Maybe they just didn't like the cache and it's their way of showing it.

 

What ever the reason, they want my cache removed. It's up to me to see that doesn't happen unless I choose to do it myself. If your not happy with the way geocaching is going than it's time to start archiving and open up some space for the ones who still care.

Link to comment
Most needs archived logs are posted on caches for a reason. If your[sic] a good cache owner you'll probably never see one and if you do you'll take care of it.

 

If one is a good cache owner, then the only Needs Archived logs they will receive will be inappropriate ones. Hence your argument fails.

 

The only NA logs I have received have been from newbie cachers who used it as a DNF.

Link to comment
Most needs archived logs are posted on caches for a reason. If your[sic] a good cache owner you'll probably never see one and if you do you'll take care of it.

 

If one is a good cache owner, then the only Needs Archived logs they will receive will be inappropriate ones. Hence your argument fails.

 

The only NA logs I have received have been from newbie cachers who used it as a DNF.

 

Isn't that what I said? The reason could very well be an error by a new cacher.

Link to comment

What is uncalled for in "this setting? Opinions? I thought this was the discussion forum?.

 

I meant it is irrelevant for making the decision whether to keep a cache or to archive it. I take it for granted that the duties of a cache owner are known.

 

If you mean it has nothing to do with your comments than I disagree.

 

Yes, I do think that indeed it has nothing to do with what I try to bring across.

 

Most needs archived logs are posted on caches for a reason. If your a good cache owner you'll probably never see one and if you do you'll take care of it.

 

While I personally indeed have not become victim of an NA log I do not think that this is due to any property of me as a cache owner. It's just a combination of luck and the special audience to which my caches are directed.

 

I've recently seen a number of NA logs for remote caches after a single DNF just because someone could not accept that it might well be to search for 45minutes in vain and that there is no duty of the cache owner to provide help or to make their cache any easier.

 

Personally, I rather feel ashamed if a cache owner rushes out to check his/her cache after a DNF by me where I clearly stated that I did not search thoroughly. In many cases it happened that newer cache owners think that it must mean that there is a problem if a cacher with an old account and a relatively high find count does not find a cache though it absolutely means nothing. I do not want a cache owner to rush out after a DNF if it was just me except in special cases where I explicitely mention it. Likewise I do not think that a cache owner should be expected to run out after a single DNF except in special cases.

 

 

In a previous post you mentioned how a cache owner feels when he or she receives a needs archived on one of their caches. If a needs archive is going to hurt your feelings than being a cache owner is not for you.

 

I went into a lot of details to explain that the way a NA log is brought across could influence the decision whether a cache is kept alive or not.

Some of my (still active) caches are longer around than the majority of cachers/finders- so please do not tell me whether cache ownership is something for me.

 

There are different manners for logging NA logs - some will increase the probability that a cache is kept alive and other will decrease it. It's up to the logger to decide what they want - I just wanted to point out something of which many NA loggers do not seem to be aware.

 

What ever the reason, they want my cache removed. It's up to me to see that doesn't happen unless I choose to do it myself.

 

No, it isn't and there are many examples.

 

If your not happy with the way geocaching is going than it's time to start archiving and open up some space for the ones who still care.

 

Typically after old time caches get archived no new caches show up and in any case none that can catch up with the old ones.

So far I have decided to continue for the small group of cachers for whom geocaching means something similar than to me. Knowing that they are cachers out there who have an interest into my caches but have not yet visited them is what makes me going. As soon as I'm missing this feeling for one of the caches or all of them, I will archive them. For that reason the kind of message that comes along with an NAA log is important to me and to all cachers with a similar mindset.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

What is uncalled for in "this setting? Opinions? I thought this was the discussion forum?.

 

I meant it is irrelevant for making the decision whether to keep a cache or to archive it. I take it for granted that the duties of a cache owner are known.

 

If you mean it has nothing to do with your comments than I disagree.

 

Yes, I do think that indeed it has nothing to do with what I try to bring across.

 

Most needs archived logs are posted on caches for a reason. If your a good cache owner you'll probably never see one and if you do you'll take care of it.

 

While I personally indeed have not become victim of an NA log I do not think that this is due to any property of me as a cache owner. It's just a combination of luck and the special audience to which my caches are directed.

 

I've recently seen a number of NA logs for remote caches after a single DNF just because someone could not accept that it might well be to search for 45minutes in vain and that there is no duty of the cache owner to provide help or to make their cache any easier.

 

In a previous post you mentioned how a cache owner feels when he or she receives a needs archived on one of their caches. If a needs archive is going to hurt your feelings than being a cache owner is not for you.

 

I went into a lot of details to explain that the way a NA log is brought across could influence the decision whether a cache is kept alive or not.

Some of my (still active) caches are longer around than the majority of cachers/finders- so please do not tell me whether cache ownership is something for me.

 

There are different manners for logging NA logs - some will increase the probability that a cache is kept alive and other will decrease it. It's up to the logger to decide what they want - I just wanted to point out something of which many NA loggers do not seem to be aware.

 

What ever the reason, they want my cache removed. It's up to me to see that doesn't happen unless I choose to do it myself.

 

No, it isn't and there are many examples.

 

If your not happy with the way geocaching is going than it's time to start archiving and open up some space for the ones who still care.

 

Typically after old time caches get archived no new caches show up and in any case none that can catch up with the old ones.

So far I have decided to continue for the small group of cachers for whom geocaching means something similar than to me. Knowing that they are cachers out there who have an interest into my caches but have not yet visited them is what makes me going. As soon as I'm missing this feeling for one of the caches or all of them, I will archive them. For that reason the kind of message that comes along with an NAA log is important to me and to all cachers with a similar mindset.

 

It's up to the cache owner to decide whether or not to keep a cache active. No one else can make that decision for them no matter how many needs archive logs are posted, or how few finds it gets. A need N/A shouldn't be perceived as a personal attack or a critique on your cache hiding abilities. It's suppose to be a tool to weed out abandoned caches. Whether or not it's used correctly is another thing.

 

avoiding most needs archived logs are not a matter of luck.

 

In the case of the remote cache. I'd discuss the N/A with my reviewer. Explain the situation and see if they agree to remove the N/A. If not, gear up for a hike because your going to need to check up on it.

 

I'm sorry that your area doesn't see many new caches. That's not the case where I live. There is a large series that is going to be archived this summer. A great series that's run it's course. Similar situation. A group of cachers who decided to do something big back 5 years ago. Now many of them have moved out of the area and are not able to maintain the caches anymore. One by one the caches have been archived as they've developed problems. Sad to see it go but in there wisdom they realized that it was time.

 

Great example of how to do it right.

Link to comment

 

It's up to the cache owner to decide whether or not to keep a cache active.

 

Agree.

 

A need N/A shouldn't be perceived as a personal attack or a critique on your cache hiding abilities. It's suppose to be a tool to weed out abandoned caches. Whether or not it's used correctly is another thing.

 

Agree.

 

In the case of the remote cache. I'd discuss the N/A with my reviewer. Explain the situation and see if they agree to remove the N/A. If not, gear up for a hike because your going to need to check up on it.

 

You again argue in the other direction. Of course there a different options a cache owners has but archiving a cache is one of them and if the only feedback is one of someone who feels entitled for a check just because only this person could not find a cache, and noone else expresses interest into the cache, then a quite natural reaction is to archive the cache and collect the container.

 

I'm sorry that your area doesn't see many new caches.

 

It sees many new caches, but hardly any caches that are comparable to the older ones that get archived.

 

A lot of newer caches are set up to stay for at most for a year, maybe at most two - most of the old caches were set up to show locations, routes etc - they stay interesting for decades - the areas usually do not change that quickly. Of course if someone moves away, or cannot maintain a cache any longer, then there is a real reason to archive a cache. Just to set up new caches, that's no valid reason for me for the type of geocaching that is attractive to me.

Link to comment

 

It's up to the cache owner to decide whether or not to keep a cache active.

 

Agree.

 

A need N/A shouldn't be perceived as a personal attack or a critique on your cache hiding abilities. It's suppose to be a tool to weed out abandoned caches. Whether or not it's used correctly is another thing.

 

Agree.

 

In the case of the remote cache. I'd discuss the N/A with my reviewer. Explain the situation and see if they agree to remove the N/A. If not, gear up for a hike because your going to need to check up on it.

 

You again argue in the other direction. Of course there a different options a cache owners has but archiving a cache is one of them and if the only feedback is one of someone who feels entitled for a check just because only this person could not find a cache, and noone else expresses interest into the cache, then a quite natural reaction is to archive the cache and collect the container.

 

I'm sorry that your area doesn't see many new caches.

 

It sees many new caches, but hardly any caches that are comparable to the older ones that get archived.

 

A lot of newer caches are set up to stay for at most for a year, maybe at most two - most of the old caches were set up to show locations, routes etc - they stay interesting for decades - the areas usually do not change that quickly. Of course if someone moves away, or cannot maintain a cache any longer, then there is a real reason to archive a cache. Just to set up new caches, that's no valid reason for me for the type of geocaching that is attractive to me.

 

Most caches fizzle out at some point. May only get 5 or 6 finds a year give or take. If your happy with that 5 or 6 than keep it going.

 

That's why I said discuss the N/A on the remote cache with your reviewer. Your reviewer may understand the situation and not require you check up on it. Then again they may and if they do your expected to check it. Unfortunately that's the pitfall of placing a cache in a remote area.

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

 

Most caches fizzle out at some point. May only get 5 or 6 finds a year give or take. If your happy with that 5 or 6 than keep it going.

 

Caches that are set up along the old style way of hiding caches, should not fizzle out unless the community changes that much that almost all new cachers have different interests and rather want to hide for some new caches than for the old ones.

 

That's why I said discuss the N/A on the remote cache with your reviewer. Your reviewer may understand the situation and not require you check up on it. Then again they may and if they do your expected to check it. Unfortunately that's the pitfall of placing a cache in a remote area.

 

What you suggest is one valid approach. Another one is archiving the cache right away if the NA log does not express any interest into visiting the cache and nor does any other log.

 

Both are valid approaches and those who write NA logs for caches with owners who are still around, should take into account that if they formulate a NA log in a way that does not bring any interest into the cache across, that the cache might get archived and then they should not be surprised and/or disappointed about the outcome they asked for. It's as simple as that. It's not about blaming anyone.

I just think that if someone has an interest that a cache stays alive, they should communicate so. If not, then there is no need of course to take into account what I write.

Link to comment

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

Closing in on 200 now.

 

Is this the new Geocaching Topics forum reality? I mean, I know I said that I missed the discussions in Off Topic, but I'm thinking this forum could lighten up a bit. Or a lot.

 

If we could block about three people these 200 post topics could be trimmed down to about 20 posts. <_<

Link to comment

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

Closing in on 200 now.

 

Is this the new Geocaching Topics forum reality? I mean, I know I said that I missed the discussions in Off Topic, but I'm thinking this forum could lighten up a bit. Or a lot.

 

If we could block about three people these 200 post topics could be trimmed down to about 20 posts. <_<

 

says the person who want's me to read and understand the constitution.

 

199. all-most-there.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...