Cache Owners Who Don't Understand Cache Maintenance

[+elrojo14]

I was just reviewing my old logs and was browsing my needs maintenance posts. I found this one from my trip through Boston last July.

 

http://coord.info/GC1G499

 

The cache was DNFed on 1/18/15, needs maintenanced on 3/14/15, Found by two newbie cachers (one with a double log) on 3/26 and 3/27, then DNFed 5 times in just short of 4 months.

 

So I am driving down the road on vacation on 7/21/15, see the logs and decide to post a need maintenance while logging my caches the next day.

 

I didn't even bother to look because of all of the DNFs. Can the cache owner check on it or archive? I think I would have enjoyed the statue too, but I didn't have time if I didn't get a smiley. What a sad statement on my part.

 

Two months later two more DNFs and finally a intervention by a reviewer on 10/1/15. Then this gem of a cache owner maintenance on 10/12/15.

 

Checked on it today and indeed it was missing. Seemed like some dnfs were people not trying too hard while more recent may have been because the cache was indeed gone. How you can log a needs maintenance when you "didn't even bother to look" for the cache is beyond me. None-the-less, it has been replaced in a more secure way to keep it from moving n it own.

 

Maybe the reason I posted a needs maintenance is because of the 5 DNFs on your 2 star cache over four months without you bothering to check on it. This makes me wonder what kind of person is clueless about cache etiquette that the concept of checking on your cache is beyond their understanding.

 

Sigh.

[+Team Microdot]

I've lost count of the number of times I've been out to check our caches after one or two DNF's believing, as they are low D rated caches that they MUST be missing...

 

...only to discover that the caches are exactly where they were supposed to be.

 

The last two were a D2 and a D1.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Maybe the reason I posted a needs maintenance is because of the 5 DNFs on your 2 star cache over four months without you bothering to check on it. This makes me wonder what kind of person is clueless about cache etiquette that the concept of checking on your cache is beyond their understanding.

 

Sigh.

 

But you didn't know if it was there or not. A bit pompous to log an NM on it. (Though I may actually have done that a few times...) Better question is why the DNFs didn't think to log the NM?

[+elrojo14]

I've lost count of the number of times I've been out to check our caches after one or two DNF's believing, as they are low D rated caches that they MUST be missing...

 

...only to discover that the caches are exactly where they were supposed to be.

 

The last two were a D2 and a D1.

 

Yeah we have all been there. This was clearly different since he did find his cache missing. After waiting 7 months to check on it.

[+Team Microdot]

I've lost count of the number of times I've been out to check our caches after one or two DNF's believing, as they are low D rated caches that they MUST be missing...

 

...only to discover that the caches are exactly where they were supposed to be.

 

The last two were a D2 and a D1.

 

Yeah we have all been there. This was clearly different since he did find his cache missing. After waiting 7 months to check on it.

 

Yeah - I didn't bother to read your log because the link you provided just went to the top of the cache page rather than the log itself and scrolling down the page to find what you wrote was too much effort.

[+elrojo14]

Maybe the reason I posted a needs maintenance is because of the 5 DNFs on your 2 star cache over four months without you bothering to check on it. This makes me wonder what kind of person is clueless about cache etiquette that the concept of checking on your cache is beyond their understanding.

 

Sigh.

 

But you didn't know if it was there or not. A bit pompous to log an NM on it. (Though I may actually have done that a few times...) Better question is why the DNFs didn't think to log the NM?

 

Pompous or accurate? The cache needed maintenance. I don't think you have to DNF a cache to make a note that the CO ought to check on it. Heck, I went Geocaching in a town and after like three DNFs, I started checking old logs before I would head towards a cache. There ended up being 8 caches in a town of probably 16 caches that had years of DNFs and no CO activity. I NAed them after I got home, even if I didn't search because they were clearly gone.

 

Sometimes we can clean up the cache community without having to actually venture out. Heck I have NAed caches that clearly had issues and I never went in search. http://coord.info/GC1GBFP Sometimes you know when something isn't right.

 

Now had he gone to check on it and the original was there, then call me out. That would have been completely warranted and I would have felt like a tool.

[+The A-Team]

Pompous or accurate?

I'd say it was somewhere in between. At the time you posted the NM, you can't have known it was accurate because you hadn't actually looked for it yourself. Even if you did look for it, you can't have known exactly where it was supposed to be or determine whether it was missing; you could make a guess with relative certainty, but there's no way you could know for sure. Based on the fact that most of the DNFs were from fairly low-number cachers, I would have looked for it myself to make sure it wasn't just a style of cache that new cachers might easily miss. I do somewhat agree with the CO that logging an NM when you didn't even try to find it, especially when you admit that you were in the area, is a bit questionable. As an experienced cacher, had you looked for it and then logged the NM, that log would have carried more weight and may have spurred the CO to look at it sooner.

 

Now, as a CO, I certainly would have gone to check on it after the first NM and it would never have gotten to that point anyway. Even if the cache was still there, it's an opportunity to check on the health of the container, the surrounding environment, etc., and possibly revise the description, hint, or coordinates if people were having issues finding it.

[+diamonddolljeanette]

Mine was marked DNF twice before someone actually found it and then it went off like a rocket. I never moved it, I think it just takes sometime.

[+AustinMN]

I didn't even bother to look because of all of the DNFs. Can the cache owner check on it or archive? I think I would have enjoyed the statue too, but I didn't have time if I didn't get a smiley. What a sad statement on my part.

 

I would never post anything more than a note on a cache I had not looked for.

[+Pork King]

I didn't even bother to look because of all of the DNFs. Can the cache owner check on it or archive? I think I would have enjoyed the statue too, but I didn't have time if I didn't get a smiley. What a sad statement on my part.

 

I would never post anything more than a note on a cache I had not looked for.

 

+1. I would not post a NM or especially a NA unless I actually take the time to look for a cache. I have had several inexperienced cachers log a DNF AND a "Needs archived" on a puzzle cache of mine back to back because the cache wasn't at the posted coordinates. Being a good cache owner, I went and checked on the cache, and, !!!, it was still there.

 

Now, don't get me wrong...there are many times that I WANT to do what you did. I think any good cacher has a hint of "cache police" in them.

[+L0ne.R]

I've lost count of the number of times I've been out to check our caches after one or two DNF's believing, as they are low D rated caches that they MUST be missing...

 

...only to discover that the caches are exactly where they were supposed to be.

 

The last two were a D2 and a D1.

 

Yeah we have all been there. This was clearly different since he did find his cache missing. After waiting 7 months to check on it.

 

The CO probably wouldn't have gone out to the cache if the OP hadn't posted the NM. It's actually surprising that he did go check after the OP's NM.

 

The CO is a prolific hider. I picked a few of his recently archived caches at random to have a closer look at his history...everyone I looked at were reviewer disabled, no response from the CO, then archived by a reviewer. One was archived by a reviewer then 2 months later the CO posts an Owner Maintenance log.

He's also keen on hosting events. Might explain why few will post NMs or NAs on his caches.

 

I wish more cachers would send the message that responsible ownership is valued, and expected. Do we really want a database full of junk, abandoned and missing caches?

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

 

Now, as a CO, I certainly would have gone to check on it after the first NM and it would never have gotten to that point anyway. Even if the cache was still there, it's an opportunity to check on the health of the container, the surrounding environment, etc., and possibly revise the description, hint, or coordinates if people were having issues finding it.

 

This ^^

[+Harry Dolphin]

 

Now, as a CO, I certainly would have gone to check on it after the first NM and it would never have gotten to that point anyway. Even if the cache was still there, it's an opportunity to check on the health of the container, the surrounding environment, etc., and possibly revise the description, hint, or coordinates if people were having issues finding it.

 

This ^^

 

Naw. Most of my remaining caches are hiking caches. Half day minimum to check on them. But they don't get found very often. I take the status of the cacher posting the NM into consideration. If I think the NM to be serious, then I'll schedule a visit. But for the most part: No. "NM. Snow too deep." "NA. There's only an MKH here."

I might have left my GeoArt series in place after my partner died. But it's a thirty mile drive. And many cachers think of GeoArt as a power trail. Take the cache, move it to the next cache. So what if that's a different size? It's a Power Trail! We can do anything we want!

Bah, Humbug!

[+zoothornrollo]

We don't post NM unless we find physical evidence of a container that is cracked, missing a lid, wet & moldy, etc. Otherwise, it gets a DNF if we find nothing. When enough of those are logged, we will ignore them and hopefully the CO will check on it. From time to time, we have found caches that were purportedly missing, but are actually there.

[+TriciaG]

We don't post NM unless we find physical evidence of a container that is cracked, missing a lid, wet & moldy, etc. Otherwise, it gets a DNF if we find nothing. When enough of those are logged, we will ignore them and hopefully the CO will check on it. From time to time, we have found caches that were purportedly missing, but are actually there.

If a level 2 difficulty hide has 7+ DNFs, and those by cachers with a variety of experience, you better believe I'd post a NM. Two or three? Ok, it might still be there. More than 5, by cachers at different times? At least a NM is warranted then, IMHO.

 

But you may cache your way, and I'll cache mine. Just don't bash me as a "cache cop" in public.

[+L0ne.R]

We don't post NM unless we find physical evidence of a container that is cracked, missing a lid, wet & moldy, etc. Otherwise, it gets a DNF if we find nothing. When enough of those are logged, we will ignore them and hopefully the CO will check on it. From time to time, we have found caches that were purportedly missing, but are actually there.

If a level 2 difficulty hide has 7+ DNFs, and those by cachers with a variety of experience, you better believe I'd post a NM. Two or three? Ok, it might still be there. More than 5, by cachers at different times? At least a NM is warranted then, IMHO.

 

But you may cache your way, and I'll cache mine. Just don't bash me as a "cache cop" in public.

 

+1!

[+Mudfrog]

I was just reviewing my old logs and was browsing my needs maintenance posts. I found this one from my trip through Boston last July.

 

http://coord.info/GC1G499

 

The cache was DNFed on 1/18/15, needs maintenanced on 3/14/15, Found by two newbie cachers (one with a double log) on 3/26 and 3/27, then DNFed 5 times in just short of 4 months.

 

So I am driving down the road on vacation on 7/21/15, see the logs and decide to post a need maintenance while logging my caches the next day.

 

I didn't even bother to look because of all of the DNFs. Can the cache owner check on it or archive? I think I would have enjoyed the statue too, but I didn't have time if I didn't get a smiley. What a sad statement on my part.

 

Two months later two more DNFs and finally a intervention by a reviewer on 10/1/15. Then this gem of a cache owner maintenance on 10/12/15.

 

Checked on it today and indeed it was missing. Seemed like some dnfs were people not trying too hard while more recent may have been because the cache was indeed gone. How you can log a needs maintenance when you "didn't even bother to look" for the cache is beyond me. None-the-less, it has been replaced in a more secure way to keep it from moving n it own.

 

Maybe the reason I posted a needs maintenance is because of the 5 DNFs on your 2 star cache over four months without you bothering to check on it. This makes me wonder what kind of person is clueless about cache etiquette that the concept of checking on your cache is beyond their understanding.

 

Sigh.

This is something that bugs me, when a person takes it upon themselves to post a NM or NA on a cache they never got close to. It doesn't matter how many DNFS and what other cacher's logs may have stated, you had nothing important to add. Well, except possibly a non-warranted NM.

 

There may have been a decent chance the cache was missing but you don't know anything for sure since you never went to ground zero. Sorry, but it's not your place to post this. A note might have been ok since it did let the CO know the reason you didn't try for the cache,,, but not a NM!

[+L0ne.R]

1460295439[/url]' post='5575926']

1460147835[/url]' post='5575588']

I was just reviewing my old logs and was browsing my needs maintenance posts. I found this one from my trip through Boston last July.

 

http://coord.info/GC1G499

 

The cache was DNFed on 1/18/15, needs maintenanced on 3/14/15, Found by two newbie cachers (one with a double log) on 3/26 and 3/27, then DNFed 5 times in just short of 4 months.

 

So I am driving down the road on vacation on 7/21/15, see the logs and decide to post a need maintenance while logging my caches the next day.

 

I didn't even bother to look because of all of the DNFs. Can the cache owner check on it or archive? I think I would have enjoyed the statue too, but I didn't have time if I didn't get a smiley. What a sad statement on my part.

 

Two months later two more DNFs and finally a intervention by a reviewer on 10/1/15. Then this gem of a cache owner maintenance on 10/12/15.

 

Checked on it today and indeed it was missing. Seemed like some dnfs were people not trying too hard while more recent may have been because the cache was indeed gone. How you can log a needs maintenance when you "didn't even bother to look" for the cache is beyond me. None-the-less, it has been replaced in a more secure way to keep it from moving n it own.

 

Maybe the reason I posted a needs maintenance is because of the 5 DNFs on your 2 star cache over four months without you bothering to check on it. This makes me wonder what kind of person is clueless about cache etiquette that the concept of checking on your cache is beyond their understanding.

 

Sigh.

This is something that bugs me, when a person takes it upon themselves to post a NM or NA on a cache they never got close to. It doesn't matter how many DNFS and what other cacher's logs may have stated, you had nothing important to add. Well, except possibly a non-warranted NM.

 

There may have been a decent chance the cache was missing but you don't know anything for sure since you never went to ground zero. Sorry, but it's not your place to post this. A note might have been ok since it did let the CO know the reason you didn't try for the cache,,, but not a NM!

 

I disagree. Have a look at the cache owner's history. He likes to hide them, doesn't do much maintenance. Let's reviewers take care of archiving his caches. A note would have no effect. An NM would at least warn future finders. Some of us filter out caches with NMs. Some of us don't want to waste time on a cache that may likely be missing. Plus the NM starts the NA process. Which usually gets the cache temporarily disabled by a reviewer. A reviewer TD often gets the attention of a delinquent owner.

[+dprovan]

This is something that bugs me, when a person takes it upon themselves to post a NM or NA on a cache they never got close to. It doesn't matter how many DNFS and what other cacher's logs may have stated, you had nothing important to add. Well, except possibly a non-warranted NM.

In the case where I post an NM on a cache I've never looked for, typically the important information I'm adding is that no one is going to look for this cache. This can actually happen with just a few DNFs in the right conditions, which might include various combinations of a low difficulty, at least one of the DNFs being an experienced cacher, no DNFs filed for a couple months, or the CO having only a hide or two. I'll look for anything, so if I'm planning a caching trip through some neighborhood, and I see a cache a half a block out of the way and decide not to look for it based on the log, then I'm reasonably sure no one else is going to look for it, either. When I run into that case and make that decision, I'll post an NM explaining that it no longer matters whether the cache is there or not: it requires maintenance because no one will look for it until the CO confirms it's still in place.

 

I'll also post an NA without visiting a cache if it already has an NM that hasn't been dealt with. I'd rarely visiting a cache that has what appears to be a valid NM posted against it, and who would? It makes no sense to say an NA can't be posted without visiting GZ, since that basically ensures that NAs will never be posted.

[+bflentje]

I've been known to to do NA on caches I never visited but ONLY if there's OVERWHELMING evidence of LONG RUNNING cacher malfeasance that is not being addressed.

[+L0ne.R]

In a few weeks I'll be visiting an area for a few days vacation. I'm checking the area for potential good swag size finds. Unfortunately most have issues. Some have long standing issues. Half are planted by one owner who is a set-it-and-forget it type of cache owner (based on checking the owner's profile). I posted an NA on one of the delinquent caches. And added this history to the NA log:

 

07/15/2012 NM - Wet log

08/19/2012 No container

10/09/2012 NM No container

07/16/2013 Finder threw in some dry paper

07/22/2013 Logs are completely soaked

07/16/2014 NM - no container

08/13/2014 Throwdown (labelled OpenCaching) by xxx123

 

Four years since the first NM without any owner intervention. The cache is now temporarily disabled by the reviewer.

Edited April 11, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+Mudfrog]

This is something that bugs me, when a person takes it upon themselves to post a NM or NA on a cache they never got close to. It doesn't matter how many DNFS and what other cacher's logs may have stated, you had nothing important to add. Well, except possibly a non-warranted NM.

In the case where I post an NM on a cache I've never looked for, typically the important information I'm adding is that no one is going to look for this cache. This can actually happen with just a few DNFs in the right conditions, which might include various combinations of a low difficulty, at least one of the DNFs being an experienced cacher, no DNFs filed for a couple months, or the CO having only a hide or two. I'll look for anything, so if I'm planning a caching trip through some neighborhood, and I see a cache a half a block out of the way and decide not to look for it based on the log, then I'm reasonably sure no one else is going to look for it, either. When I run into that case and make that decision, I'll post an NM explaining that it no longer matters whether the cache is there or not: it requires maintenance because no one will look for it until the CO confirms it's still in place.

 

I'll also post an NA without visiting a cache if it already has an NM that hasn't been dealt with. I'd rarely visiting a cache that has what appears to be a valid NM posted against it, and who would? It makes no sense to say an NA can't be posted without visiting GZ, since that basically ensures that NAs will never be posted.

I guess i should change my name to "no one". I don't filter out caches with DNFs because i know there is always the possibility that the cache could be in place. No, it doesn't happen all that often but there have been a few times when we come up with the container on a DNF log riddled cache. Of course if we don't end up finding the cache, then we can add our NM or NA log.

[+hzoi]

I don't filter out caches with DNFs because i know there is always the possibility that the cache could be in place. No, it doesn't happen all that often but there have been a few times when we come up with the container on a DNF log riddled cache. Of course if we don't end up finding the cache, then we can add our NM or NA log.

Most of the time I will skip a cache like this. If it just hasn't been logged in five years or so, that's different, I love finding lonely caches. But if several other cachers before me have struck out, I will seldom go out to check their work.

[+jellis]

I've lost count of the number of times I've been out to check our caches after one or two DNF's believing, as they are low D rated caches that they MUST be missing...

 

...only to discover that the caches are exactly where they were supposed to be.

 

The last two were a D2 and a D1.

Same here

[+lee737]

We don't post NM unless we find physical evidence of a container that is cracked, missing a lid, wet & moldy, etc. Otherwise, it gets a DNF if we find nothing. When enough of those are logged, we will ignore them and hopefully the CO will check on it. From time to time, we have found caches that were purportedly missing, but are actually there.

If a level 2 difficulty hide has 7+ DNFs, and those by cachers with a variety of experience, you better believe I'd post a NM. Two or three? Ok, it might still be there. More than 5, by cachers at different times? At least a NM is warranted then, IMHO.

 

But you may cache your way, and I'll cache mine. Just don't bash me as a "cache cop" in public.

 

I'm with TriciaG - if a cache gets a few DNFs, and it isn't a D5, a good/active CO will check it out and post a note. I've posted NMs/NAs without visits, generally only when it is clear that the cache is missing/wrecked and the CO is inactive - that way the process can be commenced to have the cache archived. Occasionally the NM/NA gets a CO moving to actually do something, even if it is only to archive a crap cache.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

If a level 2 difficulty hide has 7+ DNFs, and those by cachers with a variety of experience, you better believe I'd post a NM. Two or three? Ok, it might still be there. More than 5, by cachers at different times? At least a NM is warranted then, IMHO.

But you may cache your way, and I'll cache mine. Just don't bash me as a "cache cop" in public.

Yeah, if I make an effort to search for the cache with 7+DNFs, then I may log a NM - can the owner come and check that it's still findable?

If I were comnig a great distance and really wanted to find it, I might post a note first, or preferably make contact with the owner to see if they can check on the cache before I head there, given the swath of DNFs on what's generally considered an easy hide.

 

But I'd never log a NM on a cache I didn't even look for.

 

 

I'll also post an NA without visiting a cache if it already has an NM that hasn't been dealt with. I'd rarely visiting a cache that has what appears to be a valid NM posted against it, and who would? It makes no sense to say an NA can't be posted without visiting GZ, since that basically ensures that NAs will never be posted.

Ditto, in the rare case (once or twice, iirc) I've posted a NA on a cache I haven't visited, it's been because I've been watching the listing for some time accrue DNFs and NMs from other people, and usually it's a shared sentiment among people (even if no one else says anything ). It usually means the owner is being problematic or is AWOL, not necessarily a direct reflection on my first-hand knowledge of a cache (though it would already be far beyond findable implied by its recent log history).

[+The Magna Defender]

If I'm out of area I won't bother looking for caches with a string of DNFs. Even 1 is too much a gamble. If it's local its a different story I need it off my map so will either go and attempt to find it or just stick a NA on it ?