Cache gone and theres "NEEDS Archived" log but not disabled

[+Pond Bird]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

 

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in?

....Usually, the first step is to post an NM, then follow that up with an NA if the CO doesn't address the NM after a month or two.

 

FYI - The "Last Visit" date in a cacher's profile is the last time they logged into the website, not the last time they checked their email or the last time they used the Geocaching app.

 

There were two caches recently that had NM logs (one of them I logged). They both received NA logs from me, one of them didn't get disabled. Hoping the reviewer judged that the missing cache would be replaced by an owner who hasnt maintained their cache.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Pond Bird

[+GeoTrekker26]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

 

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in?

....Usually, the first step is to post an NM, then follow that up with an NA if the CO doesn't address the NM after a month or two.

 

FYI - The "Last Visit" date in a cacher's profile is the last time they logged into the website, not the last time they checked their email or the last time they used the Geocaching app.

 

There were two caches recently that had NM logs (one of them I logged). They both received NA logs from me, one of them didn't get disabled. Hoping the reviewer judged that the missing cache would be replaced by an owner who hasnt maintained their cache.

Or the reviewer may feel the NA is not justified yet. What are the two caches you are talking about?

[+Sherminator18]

Link for reference:

 

Needs Archived Note

 

Nothing in the above guidance suggests that a Reviewer MUST respond. It's called judgement.

 

So the reviewer may "judge" that the missing cache could still be replaced by an owner who refuses to log in?

....Usually, the first step is to post an NM, then follow that up with an NA if the CO doesn't address the NM after a month or two.

 

FYI - The "Last Visit" date in a cacher's profile is the last time they logged into the website, not the last time they checked their email or the last time they used the Geocaching app.

 

There were two caches recently that had NM logs (one of them I logged). They both received NA logs from me, one of them didn't get disabled. Hoping the reviewer judged that the missing cache would be replaced by an owner who hasnt maintained their cache.

Or the reviewer may feel the NA is not justified yet. What are the two caches you are talking about?

 

I agree with this statement. The reviewer may be remembering past experiences of Needs Arcchived logs posted by someone that weren't legitimate.

[+The A-Team]

There were two caches recently that had NM logs (one of them I logged). They both received NA logs from me, one of them didn't get disabled. Hoping the reviewer judged that the missing cache would be replaced by an owner who hasnt maintained their cache.

A critical piece of information you left out is whether the cache you NMed is the one that didn't get disabled. Some reviewers may feel that it's better to have a second opinion in this type of situation, so they might not take action for an NA that follows an NM from the same cacher. However, if the NM was logged by one cacher and the NA by a different one, that tells the reviewer that there's a good chance there really is a problem and action could be taken.

[+Harry Dolphin]

There were two caches recently that had NM logs (one of them I logged). They both received NA logs from me, one of them didn't get disabled. Hoping the reviewer judged that the missing cache would be replaced by an owner who hasnt maintained their cache.

 

I actually logged four NAs in the last month. Two in one series. CO has not logged in in two years, nor found a cache in three years. One was a bison tube with a pulpy log. It had two NMs. Now 'temporarily unavailable'. The other had fallen out of place several times, and I could not find it. Last 'finder' logged a ZipLock bag he found on the ground. No NMs logged. That one is still available. Guess I didn't prove that it needed NA.

Other series: One with the same reviewer, one with a different reviewer. One had one NM. The top is broken, it sits upside down, an a cacher put in a new log. CO has not logged in in almost four years, and has not found any caches. That one is 'temporarily unavailable'. The other (different reviewer) is a 'panut' butter jar that has been severely chewed on. Everything is soaking wet, and it has two NMs. That one is still available.

So, I can't say that I understand the process, nor how different reviewers handle such situations.

Time to put NA on a cache that I put NM on almost three months ago. First stage is missing. Second stage is nailed to a tree. Third stage is a bear chew toy. CO has not logged in in five years, nor found a cache in ten years.

All were very nice hikes in interesting forests. But the owners are long missing,and the caches need maintenance desperately.

[+Pond Bird]

There were two caches recently that had NM logs (one of them I logged). They both received NA logs from me, one of them didn't get disabled. Hoping the reviewer judged that the missing cache would be replaced by an owner who hasnt maintained their cache.

A critical piece of information you left out is whether the cache you NMed is the one that didn't get disabled. Some reviewers may feel that it's better to have a second opinion in this type of situation, so they might not take action for an NA that follows an NM from the same cacher. However, if the NM was logged by one cacher and the NA by a different one, that tells the reviewer that there's a good chance there really is a problem and action could be taken.

 

I posted an NA on a cache where the Needs Maintenance was from another cacher, and that hasn't been disabled. But as previously stated, there is judgement, and I'm hoping the reviewer judged that the cache might be replaced instead of ignoring the fact that there's a problem with the cache.

[+Pond Bird]

There were two caches recently that had NM logs (one of them I logged). They both received NA logs from me, one of them didn't get disabled. Hoping the reviewer judged that the missing cache would be replaced by an owner who hasnt maintained their cache.

 

I actually logged four NAs in the last month. Two in one series. CO has not logged in in two years, nor found a cache in three years. One was a bison tube with a pulpy log. It had two NMs. Now 'temporarily unavailable'. The other had fallen out of place several times, and I could not find it. Last 'finder' logged a ZipLock bag he found on the ground. No NMs logged. That one is still available. Guess I didn't prove that it needed NA.

Other series: One with the same reviewer, one with a different reviewer. One had one NM. The top is broken, it sits upside down, an a cacher put in a new log. CO has not logged in in almost four years, and has not found any caches. That one is 'temporarily unavailable'. The other (different reviewer) is a 'panut' butter jar that has been severely chewed on. Everything is soaking wet, and it has two NMs. That one is still available.

So, I can't say that I understand the process, nor how different reviewers handle such situations.

Time to put NA on a cache that I put NM on almost three months ago. First stage is missing. Second stage is nailed to a tree. Third stage is a bear chew toy. CO has not logged in in five years, nor found a cache in ten years.

All were very nice hikes in interesting forests. But the owners are long missing,and the caches need maintenance desperately.

 

Yeah a couple caches I hiked all the way there for and were gone, but people logged finds on a cache that isn't even there. But the Found it = Didn't Find it is another topic.

[+narcissa]

There were two caches recently that had NM logs (one of them I logged). They both received NA logs from me, one of them didn't get disabled. Hoping the reviewer judged that the missing cache would be replaced by an owner who hasnt maintained their cache.

 

I actually logged four NAs in the last month. Two in one series. CO has not logged in in two years, nor found a cache in three years. One was a bison tube with a pulpy log. It had two NMs. Now 'temporarily unavailable'. The other had fallen out of place several times, and I could not find it. Last 'finder' logged a ZipLock bag he found on the ground. No NMs logged. That one is still available. Guess I didn't prove that it needed NA.

Other series: One with the same reviewer, one with a different reviewer. One had one NM. The top is broken, it sits upside down, an a cacher put in a new log. CO has not logged in in almost four years, and has not found any caches. That one is 'temporarily unavailable'. The other (different reviewer) is a 'panut' butter jar that has been severely chewed on. Everything is soaking wet, and it has two NMs. That one is still available.

So, I can't say that I understand the process, nor how different reviewers handle such situations.

Time to put NA on a cache that I put NM on almost three months ago. First stage is missing. Second stage is nailed to a tree. Third stage is a bear chew toy. CO has not logged in in five years, nor found a cache in ten years.

All were very nice hikes in interesting forests. But the owners are long missing,and the caches need maintenance desperately.

 

Yeah a couple caches I hiked all the way there for and were gone, but people logged finds on a cache that isn't even there. But the Found it = Didn't Find it is another topic.

 

A cache isn't necessarily missing just because you didn't manage to find it.

[+niraD]

A cache isn't necessarily missing just because you didn't manage to find it.

+138 (because that's the number of DNFs I've logged so far)

[+narcissa]

A cache isn't necessarily missing just because you didn't manage to find it.

+138 (because that's the number of DNFs I've logged so far)

 

I cleared up a DNF today. Cache was there the whole time, just really well hidden. It happens!

[+Pond Bird]

There were two caches recently that had NM logs (one of them I logged). They both received NA logs from me, one of them didn't get disabled. Hoping the reviewer judged that the missing cache would be replaced by an owner who hasnt maintained their cache.

 

I actually logged four NAs in the last month. Two in one series. CO has not logged in in two years, nor found a cache in three years. One was a bison tube with a pulpy log. It had two NMs. Now 'temporarily unavailable'. The other had fallen out of place several times, and I could not find it. Last 'finder' logged a ZipLock bag he found on the ground. No NMs logged. That one is still available. Guess I didn't prove that it needed NA.

Other series: One with the same reviewer, one with a different reviewer. One had one NM. The top is broken, it sits upside down, an a cacher put in a new log. CO has not logged in in almost four years, and has not found any caches. That one is 'temporarily unavailable'. The other (different reviewer) is a 'panut' butter jar that has been severely chewed on. Everything is soaking wet, and it has two NMs. That one is still available.

So, I can't say that I understand the process, nor how different reviewers handle such situations.

Time to put NA on a cache that I put NM on almost three months ago. First stage is missing. Second stage is nailed to a tree. Third stage is a bear chew toy. CO has not logged in in five years, nor found a cache in ten years.

All were very nice hikes in interesting forests. But the owners are long missing,and the caches need maintenance desperately.

 

CO has logged in sometimes but appears to be unable to maintain many of their caches, also, the cache has been disabled as of today by the other viewer of the state. So maybe the other viewer wanted to give ST time to respond but realized he wouldn't? or maybe the NA log notification only goes to one reviewer.

[+Harry Dolphin]

A cache isn't necessarily missing just because you didn't manage to find it.

+138 (because that's the number of DNFs I've logged so far)

 

I cleared up a DNF today. Cache was there the whole time, just really well hidden. It happens!

 

I'm up to 660 DNFs! So I realize well that just because I couldn't find it does not mean that it is missing. Though a fairly high percentage have been archived.

[+L0ne.R]

A cache isn't necessarily missing just because you didn't manage to find it.

+138 (because that's the number of DNFs I've logged so far)

 

I cleared up a DNF today. Cache was there the whole time, just really well hidden. It happens!

 

I'm up to 660 DNFs! So I realize well that just because I couldn't find it does not mean that it is missing. Though a fairly high percentage have been archived.

 

And of what's left, a good number will end up being throwdowns.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

or maybe the NA log notification only goes to one reviewer.

 

That brings up a good question. When a NA log is posted, who get's notified? I wouldn't think that all reviewers would get a notification for every NA log. Does it just go to the publishing reviewer?

 

 

[+colleda]

or maybe the NA log notification only goes to one reviewer.

 

That brings up a good question. When a NA log is posted, who get's notified? I wouldn't think that all reviewers would get a notification for every NA log. Does it just go to the publishing reviewer?

I logged an NA recently. It went to a local reviewer. This reviewer refered the CO to the publishing reviewer. (A possible guideline violation that the original reviewer would not have known about just from the listing.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Harry Dolphin, on 12 July 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

I thought this needed NA:

I guess the reviewer didn't agree. CO missing for three years.

Oh, well.

 

If what you found is the only evidence of any problem, then it calls for an NM. If an NM's already been posted and ignored for 3 years (or even a little less than that, like say a month), then I'd agree with the NA. How long the CO's been "missing" is irrelevant except insofar as it supports the claim that a month is long enough to wait after the NM before deciding it's not going to get fixed.

 

I wouldn't argue with your judgement that this cache isn't going to get fixed even if there weren't a previously filed NM, but I'd support the reviewer's position that the CO has to be given time to react regardless of how convinced we all are that he will not.

 

Photo was from 2011. Log replaced a month later. But not the container. Many logs on the cache being bitten into. (But no NMs????) Wet log notes from 6/2015. Last NM was 6/2015. Five 'soggy log' logs since then. I posted my NA a month ago.

[+Pond Bird]

Harry Dolphin, on 12 July 2016 - 05:08 PM, said:

I thought this needed NA:

I guess the reviewer didn't agree. CO missing for three years.

Oh, well.

 

If what you found is the only evidence of any problem, then it calls for an NM. If an NM's already been posted and ignored for 3 years (or even a little less than that, like say a month), then I'd agree with the NA. How long the CO's been "missing" is irrelevant except insofar as it supports the claim that a month is long enough to wait after the NM before deciding it's not going to get fixed.

 

I wouldn't argue with your judgement that this cache isn't going to get fixed even if there weren't a previously filed NM, but I'd support the reviewer's position that the CO has to be given time to react regardless of how convinced we all are that he will not.

 

Photo was from 2011. Log replaced a month later. But not the container. Many logs on the cache being bitten into. (But no NMs????) Wet log notes from 6/2015. Last NM was 6/2015. Five 'soggy log' logs since then. I posted my NA a month ago.

 

Had found a cache in a similar situation, but the area itself was just as damaged as the container itself. I felt bad after I did it, but knowing theres other caches in poor condition without any owner maintaining them I feel a little better.

[+Team Microdot]

or maybe the NA log notification only goes to one reviewer.

 

That brings up a good question. When a NA log is posted, who get's notified? I wouldn't think that all reviewers would get a notification for every NA log. Does it just go to the publishing reviewer?

 

I expect the NA flags up in an 'area' queue and whoever logs in to service that queue sees them.

 

That way, so long as someone is servicing a queue for a particular area, they should get seen.

[+dprovan]

Photo was from 2011. Log replaced a month later. But not the container. Many logs on the cache being bitten into. (But no NMs????) Wet log notes from 6/2015. Last NM was 6/2015. Five 'soggy log' logs since then. I posted my NA a month ago.

Good call. I just don't want anyone else to think that finding a cache like that by itself is justification for an NA and immediate action by the reviewer.

[+Pond Bird]

I logged a NA log on a cache that hasn't been found for many years. CO is long gone and there was an NM log as well. Hopefully the reviewer put(s) it on their watchlist so they will disable it if the next log is not a Found It.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Pond Bird

[+narcissa]

I logged a NA log on a cache that hasn't been found for many years. CO is long gone and there was an NM log as well. Hopefully the reviewer put(s) in on their watchlist so they will disable it if the next log is not a Found It.

 

Did you visit it, or did you just pick it up in one of your sweeps?

[+Pond Bird]

I logged a NA log on a cache that hasn't been found for many years. CO is long gone and there was an NM log as well. Hopefully the reviewer put(s) in on their watchlist so they will disable it if the next log is not a Found It.

 

Did you visit it, or did you just pick it up in one of your sweeps?

 

Lol, "sweeps"! Good one.

 

No, it was a cache listing I found and noticed it hadn't been found in quite a while. I didn't search for it for 2 reasons, 1: its many miles away, 2: its most likely MIA.

[+narcissa]

I logged a NA log on a cache that hasn't been found for many years. CO is long gone and there was an NM log as well. Hopefully the reviewer put(s) in on their watchlist so they will disable it if the next log is not a Found It.

 

Did you visit it, or did you just pick it up in one of your sweeps?

 

Lol, "sweeps"! Good one.

 

No, it was a cache listing I found and noticed it hadn't been found in quite a while. I didn't search for it for 2 reasons, 1: its many miles away, 2: its most likely MIA.

 

Maybe, but if you didn't actually visit it, you're not really in a position to comment on the condition of the cache.

[+igator210]

I logged a NA log on a cache that hasn't been found for many years. CO is long gone and there was an NM log as well. Hopefully the reviewer put(s) in on their watchlist so they will disable it if the next log is not a Found It.

 

Did you visit it, or did you just pick it up in one of your sweeps?

 

Lol, "sweeps"! Good one.

 

No, it was a cache listing I found and noticed it hadn't been found in quite a while. I didn't search for it for 2 reasons, 1: its many miles away, 2: its most likely MIA.

 

You are going through all the cache listings to flag the ones you think should be flagged?

[+Tassie_Boy]

I logged a NA log on a cache that hasn't been found for many years. CO is long gone and there was an NM log as well. Hopefully the reviewer put(s) in on their watchlist so they will disable it if the next log is not a Found It.

 

Did you visit it, or did you just pick it up in one of your sweeps?

 

Lol, "sweeps"! Good one.

 

No, it was a cache listing I found and noticed it hadn't been found in quite a while. I didn't search for it for 2 reasons, 1: its many miles away, 2: its most likely MIA.

 

So yes, yes you did.

[+hzoi]

I logged a NA log on a cache that hasn't been found for many years. CO is long gone and there was an NM log as well. Hopefully the reviewer put(s) in on their watchlist so they will disable it if the next log is not a Found It.

 

Did you visit it, or did you just pick it up in one of your sweeps?

 

Lol, "sweeps"! Good one.

 

No, it was a cache listing I found and noticed it hadn't been found in quite a while. I didn't search for it for 2 reasons, 1: its many miles away, 2: its most likely MIA.

 

So, you have appointed yourself as the cache police. Not cool.

 

Leave the reviewing to the reviewers. Log only the caches you search for.

 

Or, to put it another way:

 

[+dprovan]

Leave the reviewing to the reviewers. Log only the caches you search for.

Sorry, I disagree. The reviewers have enough to do, so there's no reason to stick them with this job. There are often clear indications that a cache is missing, and I have no reservations about logging an NA in those cases based only on the fact that the cache listing alone made it clear to me that there was no point to go search for it. Once a cache turns that corner, there's no reason for anyone to go look for it, therefore, according to the "you must look for it to file an NA" theory, there's no longer any possibility of anyone logging the NA to get it off the books.

 

I admit, I'd rather geocachers didn't take it on themselves to sweep through cache listings for no reason other than to file NAs -- not clear that's what happened here, but let's pretend it did -- but, even so, I'd rather a geocacher did it than to force the reviewer to waste time doing it because no one in the community is alerting him to problems.

[+wmpastor]

Leave the reviewing to the reviewers. Log only the caches you search for.

Sorry, I disagree. The reviewers have enough to do, so there's no reason to stick them with this job. There are often clear indications that a cache is missing, and I have no reservations about logging an NA in those cases based only on the fact that the cache listing alone made it clear to me that there was no point to go search for it. Once a cache turns that corner, there's no reason for anyone to go look for it, therefore, according to the "you must look for it to file an NA" theory, there's no longer any possibility of anyone logging the NA to get it off the books.

 

I admit, I'd rather geocachers didn't take it on themselves to sweep through cache listings for no reason other than to file NAs -- not clear that's what happened here, but let's pretend it did -- but, even so, I'd rather a geocacher did it than to force the reviewer to waste time doing it because no one in the community is alerting him to problems.

 

I see your point - if an *experienced* cacher studies the logs, he or she might very well reach a sound decision about whether a NA post is called for. And the reviewer makes a separate determination anyway.

 

A n00b could make a bad NM/NA decision even if he or she *does* visit the site.

 

I think I've only posted two NAs. The logs told me the story of a history of neglect while I was still in my armchair - but I visited these local caches anyway before posting.

[+NanCycle]

Leave the reviewing to the reviewers. Log only the caches you search for.

Sorry, I disagree. The reviewers have enough to do, so there's no reason to stick them with this job. There are often clear indications that a cache is missing, and I have no reservations about logging an NA in those cases based only on the fact that the cache listing alone made it clear to me that there was no point to go search for it. Once a cache turns that corner, there's no reason for anyone to go look for it, therefore, according to the "you must look for it to file an NA" theory, there's no longer any possibility of anyone logging the NA to get it off the books.

 

I admit, I'd rather geocachers didn't take it on themselves to sweep through cache listings for no reason other than to file NAs -- not clear that's what happened here, but let's pretend it did -- but, even so, I'd rather a geocacher did it than to force the reviewer to waste time doing it because no one in the community is alerting him to problems.

 

I see your point - if an *experienced* cacher studies the logs, he or she might very well reach a sound decision about whether a NA post is called for. And the reviewer makes a separate determination anyway.

 

A n00b could make a bad NM/NA decision even if he or she *does* visit the site.

 

I think I've only posted two NAs. The logs told me the story of a history of neglect while I was still in my armchair - but I visited these local caches anyway before posting.

 

I've posted NA on two caches that I didn't visit. In both cases the last previous log was from the land manager saying "I have removed this cache because it doesn't have permission to be there." I suppose I could have tried to educate the land managers in how to post NA themselves, but I just went ahead and did it.

[+L0ne.R]

Leave the reviewing to the reviewers. Log only the caches you search for.

Sorry, I disagree. The reviewers have enough to do, so there's no reason to stick them with this job. There are often clear indications that a cache is missing, and I have no reservations about logging an NA in those cases based only on the fact that the cache listing alone made it clear to me that there was no point to go search for it. Once a cache turns that corner, there's no reason for anyone to go look for it, therefore, according to the "you must look for it to file an NA" theory, there's no longer any possibility of anyone logging the NA to get it off the books.

 

I admit, I'd rather geocachers didn't take it on themselves to sweep through cache listings for no reason other than to file NAs -- not clear that's what happened here, but let's pretend it did -- but, even so, I'd rather a geocacher did it than to force the reviewer to waste time doing it because no one in the community is alerting him to problems.

 

You make a good point. If it's obvious the cache is abandoned (CO not responding to logs that include issues with the cache, DNFs/NMs), CO hasn't logged in in months/years, why does someone have to waste their time and gas money when the cache needs an NA?

[+narcissa]

Leave the reviewing to the reviewers. Log only the caches you search for.

Sorry, I disagree. The reviewers have enough to do, so there's no reason to stick them with this job. There are often clear indications that a cache is missing, and I have no reservations about logging an NA in those cases based only on the fact that the cache listing alone made it clear to me that there was no point to go search for it. Once a cache turns that corner, there's no reason for anyone to go look for it, therefore, according to the "you must look for it to file an NA" theory, there's no longer any possibility of anyone logging the NA to get it off the books.

 

I admit, I'd rather geocachers didn't take it on themselves to sweep through cache listings for no reason other than to file NAs -- not clear that's what happened here, but let's pretend it did -- but, even so, I'd rather a geocacher did it than to force the reviewer to waste time doing it because no one in the community is alerting him to problems.

 

It's one thing for a knowledgeable geocacher to legitimately notice a cache issue that needs attention.

 

It's quite another thing when a geocacher gleefully hunts down any flimsy excuse to post NM or NA logs for fun. This geocacher has made a habit of using these log types to troll the geocachers in his community, and then trolls the forum by bragging about it every time. It is deliberately hurtful behaviour.

[+dprovan]

I think I've only posted two NAs. The logs told me the story of a history of neglect while I was still in my armchair - but I visited these local caches anyway before posting.

I very rarely visit GZ before posting an NA: the most common reason I post an NA is precisely because it's clear there's no reason for me or anyone else to waste time visiting NA. There's no reason to think I'd learn anything that I don't already know by visiting NA. I find myself in this position a few times a year.

[+Pond Bird]

Leave the reviewing to the reviewers. Log only the caches you search for.

Sorry, I disagree. The reviewers have enough to do, so there's no reason to stick them with this job. There are often clear indications that a cache is missing, and I have no reservations about logging an NA in those cases based only on the fact that the cache listing alone made it clear to me that there was no point to go search for it. Once a cache turns that corner, there's no reason for anyone to go look for it, therefore, according to the "you must look for it to file an NA" theory, there's no longer any possibility of anyone logging the NA to get it off the books.

 

I admit, I'd rather geocachers didn't take it on themselves to sweep through cache listings for no reason other than to file NAs -- not clear that's what happened here, but let's pretend it did -- but, even so, I'd rather a geocacher did it than to force the reviewer to waste time doing it because no one in the community is alerting him to problems.

 

You make a good point. If it's obvious the cache is abandoned (CO not responding to logs that include issues with the cache, DNFs/NMs), CO hasn't logged in in months/years, why does someone have to waste their time and gas money when the cache needs an NA?

 

Exactly, not wasting my time and gas money on a cache thats 99% likely gone. I think more people should step up and post NAs because it appears it makes others look bad when theres issues with a cache. If a cache is unfindable for many people in an extended period of time, and theres no finds. An NA should be logged if the logs indicating trouble haven't been responded to.

[+Pond Bird]

I logged a NA log on a cache that hasn't been found for many years. CO is long gone and there was an NM log as well. Hopefully the reviewer put(s) in on their watchlist so they will disable it if the next log is not a Found It.

 

Did you visit it, or did you just pick it up in one of your sweeps?

 

Lol, "sweeps"! Good one.

 

No, it was a cache listing I found and noticed it hadn't been found in quite a while. I didn't search for it for 2 reasons, 1: its many miles away, 2: its most likely MIA.

 

So yes, yes you did.

 

No, I was looking at listings near a place I want to geocache at, and saw that the cache hasn't been found in quite some time. Sometimes there are NA on caches that were still there but people can't find them for so long. If the reviewer thinks the cache is still there, and that its a coincidence that many people haven't found it (and no finds) in an extended amount of time they could've ignored it. But I'm hoping they still have it on their watchlist to see if there is any evidence of maintenance being performed on the cache. There has been times when people do not log their DNFs, which is wrong, if they can't find a cache after searching, they should log a DNF. Its upsetting that many people only log "found it" logs and don't bother with the DNF logs, etc.

[+wmpastor]

I think I've only posted two NAs. The logs told me the story of a history of neglect while I was still in my armchair - but I visited these local caches anyway before posting.

I very rarely visit GZ before posting an NA: the most common reason I post an NA is precisely because it's clear there's no reason for me or anyone else to waste time visiting NA. There's no reason to think I'd learn anything that I don't already know by visiting NA. I find myself in this position a few times a year.

I can see the point in extreme cases like long neglect or irate land owners. In my case the caches were nearby and I thought it was best to take a look.

[+Pond Bird]

I think I've only posted two NAs. The logs told me the story of a history of neglect while I was still in my armchair - but I visited these local caches anyway before posting.

I very rarely visit GZ before posting an NA: the most common reason I post an NA is precisely because it's clear there's no reason for me or anyone else to waste time visiting NA. There's no reason to think I'd learn anything that I don't already know by visiting NA. I find myself in this position a few times a year.

I can see the point in extreme cases like long neglect or irate land owners. In my case the caches were nearby and I thought it was best to take a look.

 

If you happen to be in the area and take a look, but realize that you won't be able to find it because its definately not there. Logging an NA is the best bet if there has been a string of DNFs and/or an NM and DNF and it hasn't been found for a long time.

[+narcissa]

Leave the reviewing to the reviewers. Log only the caches you search for.

Sorry, I disagree. The reviewers have enough to do, so there's no reason to stick them with this job. There are often clear indications that a cache is missing, and I have no reservations about logging an NA in those cases based only on the fact that the cache listing alone made it clear to me that there was no point to go search for it. Once a cache turns that corner, there's no reason for anyone to go look for it, therefore, according to the "you must look for it to file an NA" theory, there's no longer any possibility of anyone logging the NA to get it off the books.

 

I admit, I'd rather geocachers didn't take it on themselves to sweep through cache listings for no reason other than to file NAs -- not clear that's what happened here, but let's pretend it did -- but, even so, I'd rather a geocacher did it than to force the reviewer to waste time doing it because no one in the community is alerting him to problems.

 

You make a good point. If it's obvious the cache is abandoned (CO not responding to logs that include issues with the cache, DNFs/NMs), CO hasn't logged in in months/years, why does someone have to waste their time and gas money when the cache needs an NA?

 

Exactly, not wasting my time and gas money on a cache thats 99% likely gone. I think more people should step up and post NAs because it appears it makes others look bad when theres issues with a cache. If a cache is unfindable for many people in an extended period of time, and theres no finds. An NA should be logged if the logs indicating trouble haven't been responded to.

 

Choosing not to search for a cache because you don't think it's there is reasonable.

 

It isn't reasonable to comb through cache listings you have no interest or intention in visiting just so you can find more caches to NA for fun.

[+wimseyguy]

Here's what the Help Center says about posting NA logs:

 

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

• You found a geocache that was placed illegally on private property, without permission, and/or the property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.
  
• You found a geocache where aggressive searching activity is causing damage to the surrounding area or the cache placement damages or defaces property.
  
• You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.
  

There's more in the article, just click the link.

 

That said-if I notice that a cache has 6+ DNF logs (*with different dates) going back a year or more, I will post a NA log on it to bring it to a reviewer's attention and help start the process of archiving that listing.

 

* I discount multiple DNFs on the same date on the assumption that several people looking together all missed it as a group and quit looking at the same time.

[+hzoi]

Here's what the Help Center says about posting NA logs:

 

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

• You found a geocache that was placed illegally on private property, without permission, and/or the property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.
  
• You found a geocache where aggressive searching activity is causing damage to the surrounding area or the cache placement damages or defaces property.
  
• You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.
  

There's more in the article, just click the link.

 

That said-if I notice that a cache has 6+ DNF logs (*with different dates) going back a year or more, I will post a NA log on it to bring it to a reviewer's attention and help start the process of archiving that listing.

 

* I discount multiple DNFs on the same date on the assumption that several people looking together all missed it as a group and quit looking at the same time.

 

I note that none of those include "You came across a cache listing online that might have a missing cache, couldn't be bothered to go look for it yourself, and dumped the problem in a reviewer's lap without trying to actually help them determine whether the cache was missing or not."

[+dprovan]

I think I've only posted two NAs. The logs told me the story of a history of neglect while I was still in my armchair - but I visited these local caches anyway before posting.

I very rarely visit GZ before posting an NA: the most common reason I post an NA is precisely because it's clear there's no reason for me or anyone else to waste time visiting NA. There's no reason to think I'd learn anything that I don't already know by visiting NA. I find myself in this position a few times a year.

I can see the point in extreme cases like long neglect or irate land owners. In my case the caches were nearby and I thought it was best to take a look.

There's nothing wrong with visiting GZ before posting an NA. I've done that a few times because it wasn't a big effort. In one case, I posted an NA without visiting GZ, but then finally got a convenient opportunity to look for myself after the cache had been archived. I just claim that, in most cases, visiting GZ adds nothing to the evidence supporting the decision to file an NA.

 

Choosing not to search for a cache because you don't think it's there is reasonable.

 

It isn't reasonable to comb through cache listings you have no interest or intention in visiting just so you can find more caches to NA for fun.

Meh. As we've all heard, some areas have a problem with bad caches that won't go away. Sure, I'd rather enough NAs were posted in the course of events, too, but in an area where they aren't, someone does, in fact, have to sweep the area looking for those caches with enough evidence to call for archival. In that case, I'd rather it were a local seeker rather than what currently seems to be the more common practice of reviewers taking the job on themselves. My preference for local seekers is that reviewers are already busy and, from what we've seen, typically don't have time to actually study the listing and, instead, tend to apply simple heuristics such as N DNFs. I think a local seeker would be more likely to apply the same criteria used when looking at a cache for purposes of seeking it and finding that it's in trouble and more often reach a fully supportable conclusion about what action to take.

 

Here's what the Help Center says about posting NA logs:

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

• You found a geocache that was placed illegally on private property, without permission, and/or the property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.
  
• You found a geocache where aggressive searching activity is causing damage to the surrounding area or the cache placement damages or defaces property.
  
• You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.
  

There's more in the article, just click the link.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd forgotten (if I ever noticed) how firm that 3rd point is. But I claim the 3rd point is simply wrong. The guidelines seem excessively worried about NAs posted in error, but that last point, taken at face value, would lead to virtually no NAs ever being posted. In fact, I'm wondering if that might explain the areas where the NA is almost never used.

 

Just to begin with, the point talks about "Needs Maintenance logs", as if more than one NM needs to be posted before an NA is posted, but that's ridiculous: redundant NMs shouldn't be filed, so it makes no sense to require them before filing an NA. But, of course, the real point is that with all the other evidence listed in the point, why would anyone think that going to GZ and not finding the cache would change the situation from dubious to a lock?

[+dprovan]

I note that none of those include "You came across a cache listing online that might have a missing cache, couldn't be bothered to go look for it yourself, and dumped the problem in a reviewer's lap without trying to actually help them determine whether the cache was missing or not."

How does me going to GZ to look for the cache "help them determine whether the cache was missing or not"? Does the reviewer consider me more reliable or a better searcher than the other people that have already filed DNFs and NMs?

 

I don't file an NA to help them determine whether a cache is missing. I file an NA to alert them to a problem that's already well understood and well documented. My personal inspection of GZ adds no value.

[+L0ne.R]

It isn't reasonable to comb through cache listings you have no interest or intention in visiting just so you can find more caches to NA for fun.

 

Hopefully PondBird isn't doing that. And based on PB's responses it is for the integrity of the game, not for fun.

 

If s/he is looking at an area that they plan to visit, and notices caches with, for example, an under D2 rating, multiple continuous DNFs (including false find logs) when before that there were multiple continuous finds, then I think an NM is justified.

The owner should go out and have a look.

 

If there's an NM already posted, but no response to that NM, and it's been a few weeks, post the NA.

 

Example:

Have you cemetery cached in the Hastings, Lennox/Addington area?

It's mostly a bunch of micro containers, often where a larger cache could easily be hidden, placed by mostly one guy (still active but doesn't appear to live in Canada anymore, hasn't logged a cache in Canada since 2014) with a sack of pill bottles.

About half missing, lots of DNFs, 3/4 of his caches with NMs, very few willing to post NAs.

The few that aren't hidden by that guy are also abandoned junk (mostly micro) caches.

Wasted a lot of time and gas money there.

So his caches continue to linger on, abandoned and junk, some throwdowns that have also become junk. 3/4 (about 40 caches) of what's left (not archived by a reviewer) have red wrenches. Should they linger for years rather then have someone from their computer log the much needed NA?

Edited July 27, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+L0ne.R]

Here's what the Help Center says about posting NA logs:

 

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

• You found a geocache that was placed illegally on private property, without permission, and/or the property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.
• You found a geocache where aggressive searching activity is causing damage to the surrounding area or the cache placement damages or defaces property.
• You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.

There's more in the article, just click the link.

 

That said-if I notice that a cache has 6+ DNF logs (*with different dates) going back a year or more, I will post a NA log on it to bring it to a reviewer's attention and help start the process of archiving that listing.

 

* I discount multiple DNFs on the same date on the assumption that several people looking together all missed it as a group and quit looking at the same time.

 

I note that none of those include "You came across a cache listing online that might have a missing cache, couldn't be bothered to go look for it yourself, and dumped the problem in a reviewer's lap without trying to actually help them determine whether the cache was missing or not."

 

Does it really matter? 6 DNFs in a row. It's likely missing. The cache owner should go have a look. They won't because they left the game or never intend to maintain their cache.

 

Cache hides need an active responsible owner. Don't dump the problem on the next finder.

[+Sherminator18]

Here's what the Help Center says about posting NA logs:

 

Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location and:

• You found a geocache that was placed illegally on private property, without permission, and/or the property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.
  
• You found a geocache where aggressive searching activity is causing damage to the surrounding area or the cache placement damages or defaces property.
  
• You couldn't find the geocache and it already has MANY DNFs, Needs Maintenance logs (with no cache owner response), and is without a genuine find for a very long time.
  

There's more in the article, just click the link.

 

That said-if I notice that a cache has 6+ DNF logs (*with different dates) going back a year or more, I will post a NA log on it to bring it to a reviewer's attention and help start the process of archiving that listing.

 

* I discount multiple DNFs on the same date on the assumption that several people looking together all missed it as a group and quit looking at the same time.

 

I note that none of those include "You came across a cache listing online that might have a missing cache, couldn't be bothered to go look for it yourself, and dumped the problem in a reviewer's lap without trying to actually help them determine whether the cache was missing or not."

 

Yes!

[+narcissa]

It isn't reasonable to comb through cache listings you have no interest or intention in visiting just so you can find more caches to NA for fun.

 

Hopefully PondBird isn't doing that.

 

When someone makes a habit of cheerfully reporting NA logs to the entire forum on an ongoing and regular, I can't trust that it's in good faith.

 

Good geocachers write clear, descriptive logs of what they find at the GZ if they choose to search for a cache. Good geocachers report issues they find for the benefit of other cachers, and so there is a clear history that helps the reviewer if need be.

 

Good geocachers do not denigrate reviewers for taking a reasonable amount of time to act on a problematic cache. Good geocachers do not post volumes of frivolous NA logs on caches they have no intention of finding, for the sole purpose of pestering other geocachers.

[+L0ne.R]

It isn't reasonable to comb through cache listings you have no interest or intention in visiting just so you can find more caches to NA for fun.

 

Hopefully PondBird isn't doing that.

 

When someone makes a habit of cheerfully reporting NA logs to the entire forum on an ongoing and regular, I can't trust that it's in good faith.

 

Good geocachers write clear, descriptive logs of what they find at the GZ if they choose to search for a cache. Good geocachers report issues they find for the benefit of other cachers, and so there is a clear history that helps the reviewer if need be.

 

Good geocachers do not denigrate reviewers for taking a reasonable amount of time to act on a problematic cache. Good geocachers do not post volumes of frivolous NA logs on caches they have no intention of finding, for the sole purpose of pestering other geocachers.

 

I think I see your point. When does the armchair NAer do more harm then good to their relationship with the reviewer?

 

With regards to the pestered cache owner, meh. If they truly have a string of DNFs and maybe an NM in the mix, checking the cache is in order. If that's a hassle, maybe they can archive the cache.

[+narcissa]

It isn't reasonable to comb through cache listings you have no interest or intention in visiting just so you can find more caches to NA for fun.

 

Hopefully PondBird isn't doing that.

 

When someone makes a habit of cheerfully reporting NA logs to the entire forum on an ongoing and regular, I can't trust that it's in good faith.

 

Good geocachers write clear, descriptive logs of what they find at the GZ if they choose to search for a cache. Good geocachers report issues they find for the benefit of other cachers, and so there is a clear history that helps the reviewer if need be.

 

Good geocachers do not denigrate reviewers for taking a reasonable amount of time to act on a problematic cache. Good geocachers do not post volumes of frivolous NA logs on caches they have no intention of finding, for the sole purpose of pestering other geocachers.

 

I think I see your point. When does the armchair NAer do more harm then good to their relationship with the reviewer?

 

With regards to the pestered cache owner, meh. If they truly have a string of DNFs and maybe an NM in the mix, checking the cache is in order. If that's a hassle, maybe they can archive the cache.

 

Again, if it was a one-off NA on a neglected then sure, whatever. Maintain your cache, bro. But this appears to be some sort of side game or vendetta that isn't limited to obviously neglected caches. These posts occur with some frequency in a variety of threads. It's troubling behaviour. I don't think we should be condoning this kind of deliberate antagonism in the name of cache maintenance.

[+Sherminator18]

It isn't reasonable to comb through cache listings you have no interest or intention in visiting just so you can find more caches to NA for fun.

 

Hopefully PondBird isn't doing that.

 

When someone makes a habit of cheerfully reporting NA logs to the entire forum on an ongoing and regular, I can't trust that it's in good faith.

 

Good geocachers write clear, descriptive logs of what they find at the GZ if they choose to search for a cache. Good geocachers report issues they find for the benefit of other cachers, and so there is a clear history that helps the reviewer if need be.

 

Good geocachers do not denigrate reviewers for taking a reasonable amount of time to act on a problematic cache. Good geocachers do not post volumes of frivolous NA logs on caches they have no intention of finding, for the sole purpose of pestering other geocachers.

 

I think I see your point. When does the armchair NAer do more harm then good to their relationship with the reviewer?

 

With regards to the pestered cache owner, meh. If they truly have a string of DNFs and maybe an NM in the mix, checking the cache is in order. If that's a hassle, maybe they can archive the cache.

 

Again, if it was a one-off NA on a neglected then sure, whatever. Maintain your cache, bro. But this appears to be some sort of side game or vendetta that isn't limited to obviously neglected caches. These posts occur with some frequency in a variety of threads. It's troubling behaviour. I don't think we should be condoning this kind of deliberate antagonism in the name of cache maintenance.

 

A certain someone in my area (I'll give you 3 guesses who) has been caught red handed for creating fake accounts on geocaching.com for the exclusive purpose of putting NA logs on caches and events.

[Keystone]

When does the armchair NAer do more harm then good to their relationship with the reviewer?

A certain someone in my area (I'll give you 3 guesses who) has been caught red handed for creating fake accounts on geocaching.com for the exclusive purpose of putting NA logs on caches and events.

There is a good example of behavior that would cause the local reviewer to simply ignore all future "Needs Archived" logs from an account.

[+L0ne.R]

A certain someone in my area (I'll give you 3 guesses who) has been caught red handed for creating fake accounts on geocaching.com for the exclusive purpose of putting NA logs on caches and events.

 

Are the NAs unwarranted?