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

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

What if the NAs are warranted?

Example: the cache owner hasn't logged in since 2014 (and no new finds on their account since 2014). There are a couple of NMs and the last 6 logs (not from one group) over 6 months are all DNFs? If the person posting the NA irritates the reviewer, will a reviewer not disable and eventually archive the cache, because of who the NAer is?

[+Sherminator18]

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?

 

Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted?

[+Sherminator18]

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.

 

Exactly. I believe this has happened with the reviewer in our area. So many bogus NA logs causes a "boy who cried wolf" scenario

[+wmpastor]

As I said, *maybe* an experienced local Cacher can read the tea leaves logs and make a well founded decision that a NA is warranted. I still think it's a bad idea, though, except maybe in extreme cases.

 

I'd consider it over-the-top to decide that for a cache halfway across the country, though.

 

What's the difference? One: leave management to the locals. Two: knowing the cache area gives someone a little better understanding of what the pattern of logs means (& I get that 75 dnfs over 2 years, and no finds, on a D1.5 cache, is crystal-clear).

 

Edit: And of course I'm talking about NA posts based solely on log-reading without visiting GZ.

Edited July 27, 2016 by wmpastor

[+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?

 

Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted?

 

I'm not in to events. Explain why this is bad? When the event is over, it's over, no? Not that I care one way or the other if an event is listed as active when it's over, since I don't do events anymore, but what's the problem here?

[+L0ne.R]

As I said, *maybe* an experienced local Cacher can read the tea leaves logs and make a well founded decision that a NA is warranted. I still think it's a bad idea, though, except maybe in extreme cases.

 

I'd consider it over-the-top to decide that for a cache halfway across the country, though.

 

What's the difference? One: leave management to the locals. Two: knowing the cache area gives someone a little better understanding of what the pattern of logs means (& I get that 75 dnfs over 2 years, and no finds, on a D1.5 cache, is crystal-clear).

 

Edit: And of course I'm talking about NA posts based solely on log-reading without visiting GZ.

 

Geez, though there are some areas that could really use a cleaning up. Some areas are carpet bombed with low quality set-em-and-forget-em junk caches. Deciding to spend the day somewhere new can be an exercise in frustration because the locals won't post NAs.

 

I wanted to cache on an island I was visiting this summer - it's carpet bombed by a couple of vacation cache owners who have abandoned their caches. Locals won't post NAs, a few have posted NMs, many will post DNFs, some will happily drop a junk throwdown to perpetuate the problem.

I went to the island but didn't bother caching. Now if those caches were armchair NA'd it would at least give the place a chance to hopefully get some better caches placed there. The way it is now, it's full of abandoned junk. Fine for the numbers crowd who could care less about responsible cache ownership, but not fine for people who hope for a more quality responsible pastime.

[+narcissa]

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?

 

Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted?

 

I'm not in to events. Explain why this is bad? When the event is over, it's over, no? Not that I care one way or the other if an event is listed as active when it's over, since I don't do events anymore, but what's the problem here?

 

Again, it's part of a long-term pattern of antagonism toward other geocachers in the community. This geocacher posts NA logs out of malice toward other geocachers, not in any good faith attempt to help the community with maintenance.

 

Even in isolation, posting an NA on a week-old event seems pretty aggressive if there's no specific reason for it. Leaving the event active for a while so attendees have time to log it without having to do a forensic search is completely reasonable.

[+narcissa]

As I said, *maybe* an experienced local Cacher can read the tea leaves logs and make a well founded decision that a NA is warranted. I still think it's a bad idea, though, except maybe in extreme cases.

 

I'd consider it over-the-top to decide that for a cache halfway across the country, though.

 

What's the difference? One: leave management to the locals. Two: knowing the cache area gives someone a little better understanding of what the pattern of logs means (& I get that 75 dnfs over 2 years, and no finds, on a D1.5 cache, is crystal-clear).

 

Edit: And of course I'm talking about NA posts based solely on log-reading without visiting GZ.

 

Geez, though there are some areas that could really use a cleaning up. Some areas are carpet bombed with low quality set-em-and-forget-em junk caches. Deciding to spend the day somewhere new can be an exercise in frustration because the locals won't post NAs.

 

I wanted to cache on an island I was visiting this summer - it's carpet bombed by a couple of vacation cache owners who have abandoned their caches. Locals won't post NAs, a few have posted NMs, many will post DNFs, some will happily drop a junk throwdown to perpetuate the problem.

I went to the island but didn't bother caching. Now if those caches were armchair NA'd it would at least give the place a chance to hopefully get some better caches placed there. The way it is now, it's full of abandoned junk. Fine for the numbers crowd who could care less about responsible cache ownership, but not fine for people who hope for a more quality responsible pastime.

 

So did you post NAs on every cache on the island then?

[+niraD]

From the Help Center article My Geocache Needs to be Archived:

 

"For event listings, owners are encouraged to archive their events 14 to 30 days after the event date."

 

Posting NA after only a week seems a bit over-eager.

[+Pond Bird]

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?

 

Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted?

 

I'm not in to events. Explain why this is bad? When the event is over, it's over, no? Not that I care one way or the other if an event is listed as active when it's over, since I don't do events anymore, but what's the problem here?

 

I don't understand the problem either. None of her event listings have an NA log and if its been a week since an event everybody has already logged, then its not a good idea to shove the information in other people's cache listings that may not've gotten the opportunity to go.

If its been a month, and still listed and interrupting the searches then that can get frustrating.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Pond Bird

[+Pond Bird]

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 am not cheerfully reporting NA logs. Its upsetting that most people do not do this in our community. I have never posted NA logs to denigrate reviewers. If I'm pestering geocachers, its because the cache isn't being maintained by its owner, and there shouldn't be any ownerless cache listing on the site.

[+Pond Bird]

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.

 

That could be why many people don't log NAs, if they take that literally. If a cache is not being maintaned and the reviewer and owner are ignoring it, an NA is a must to make sure the cache is not being ignored by the reviewer and the reviewer should archive if theres evidence of it not being maintained at all.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Pond Bird

[+igator210]

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.

 

People keep referencing the bullet points without reading the part that is actually bolded in the help center : Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location

Edited July 27, 2016 by igator210

[+Pond Bird]

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.

 

People keep referencing the bullet points without reading the part that is actually bolded in the help center : Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location

 

So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache?

[+cerberus1]

So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache

I do.

The guidelines ask us to.

[RuideAlmeida]

So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache?

 

You must be joking...

[+Pond Bird]

So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache

I do.

The guidelines ask us to.

 

Well that's probably why many people don't log NAs because the guidelines encourage you to visit the missing geocaches' location and then post an NA.

[+cerberus1]

So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache

I do.

The guidelines ask us to.

 

Well that's probably why many people don't log NAs because the guidelines encourage you to visit the missing geocaches' location and then post an NA

I don't intentionally go after caches that are carp, reading the cache pages before heading out.

 

For me, it's usually during a, "mind if we stop here ?" when caching with another.

[+narcissa]

So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache

I do.

The guidelines ask us to.

 

Well that's probably why many people don't log NAs because the guidelines encourage you to visit the missing geocaches' location and then post an NA.

 

Some geocachers are willing to take a flyer on caches that have been DNFed before. We often do (and our find rate on so-called missing caches is actually about 50%).

 

If you find a couple of DNFs discouraging, you're not under any obligation to go look for a cache. But until you visit the site, you are not in a position to comment on it.

 

Generally speaking, you should follow the directive provided by Groundspeak and avoid posting NA logs on caches if you haven't visited them. Even if you have visited and can't find the cache, the appropriate log for a cache you personally can't find, most of the time, is a DNF.

 

It's not your responsibility to conduct sweeps to search out caches that are prime for your NA logs. If you're really trying to help the community, get out of your chair and go look for yourself.

[+Sherminator18]

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?

 

Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted?

 

I'm not in to events. Explain why this is bad? When the event is over, it's over, no? Not that I care one way or the other if an event is listed as active when it's over, since I don't do events anymore, but what's the problem here?

 

I don't understand the problem either. None of her event listings have an NA log and if its been a week since an event everybody has already logged, then its not a good idea to shove the information in other people's cache listings that may not've gotten the opportunity to go.

If its been a month, and still listed and interrupting the searches then that can get frustrating.

 

The problem is this. Not everyone has a smartphone so they cannot log any cache "in the field." They have to wait until they get back home or to another place with wifi so that they can log into their computer to log all their caches, which includes events. Sometimes people take long vacations and trips where they attend such events and they don't always have wifi. I for instance just took a week long trip to get to GeoWoodstock. I attended quite a few events and the Mega itself. I also stayed at a campground which did not have wifi. If the events were archived after only a week it would take me a considerable amount of work to actually log these. Like I said, not everyone has the capability to log caches right away, or even within a day. This is why events are not archived within a week of their occurance.

[+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.

 

People keep referencing the bullet points without reading the part that is actually bolded in the help center : Please use this log only if you have visited the geocache location

 

So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache?

 

Yes! That is EXACTLY what the guidelines say.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Sherminator18

[+Pond Bird]

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?

 

Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted?

 

I'm not in to events. Explain why this is bad? When the event is over, it's over, no? Not that I care one way or the other if an event is listed as active when it's over, since I don't do events anymore, but what's the problem here?

 

I don't understand the problem either. None of her event listings have an NA log and if its been a week since an event everybody has already logged, then its not a good idea to shove the information in other people's cache listings that may not've gotten the opportunity to go.

If its been a month, and still listed and interrupting the searches then that can get frustrating.

 

The problem is this. Not everyone has a smartphone so they cannot log any cache "in the field." They have to wait until they get back home or to another place with wifi so that they can log into their computer to log all their caches, which includes events. Sometimes people take long vacations and trips where they attend such events and they don't always have wifi. I for instance just took a week long trip to get to GeoWoodstock. I attended quite a few events and the Mega itself. I also stayed at a campground which did not have wifi. If the events were archived after only a week it would take me a considerable amount of work to actually log these. Like I said, not everyone has the capability to log caches right away, or even within a day. This is why events are not archived within a week of their occurance.

 

I do not know of any events that were archived within 1 week of them occuring. Yes, people take a couple days to log the finds, especially if they found a 100 within a short time period. It took me 3 days to log the caches dad and I found in PA back in May.

[+TriciaG]

I do not know of any events that were archived within 1 week of them occuring. Yes, people take a couple days to log the finds, especially if they found a 100 within a short time period. It took me 3 days to log the caches dad and I found in PA back in May.

The guidelines say that event caches are usually archived 14-30 days after the event, so no one should post NAs on them until at least the 31st day.

 

Apparently someone WAS posting NAs a week after the event, which is why it came up in this thread.

[+Pond Bird]

So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache

I do.

The guidelines ask us to.

 

Well that's probably why many people don't log NAs because the guidelines encourage you to visit the missing geocaches' location and then post an NA.

 

Some geocachers are willing to take a flyer on caches that have been DNFed before. We often do (and our find rate on so-called missing caches is actually about 50%).

 

If you find a couple of DNFs discouraging, you're not under any obligation to go look for a cache. But until you visit the site, you are not in a position to comment on it.

 

Generally speaking, you should follow the directive provided by Groundspeak and avoid posting NA logs on caches if you haven't visited them. Even if you have visited and can't find the cache, the appropriate log for a cache you personally can't find, most of the time, is a DNF.

 

It's not your responsibility to conduct sweeps to search out caches that are prime for your NA logs. If you're really trying to help the community, get out of your chair and go look for yourself.

 

Who's responsibility is it to conduct "sweeps"? I am not conducting "sweeps" and will drive 20 miles and visit the site before I log an NA since that appears to be what people want me and others to do to help the community.

[+Pond Bird]

I do not know of any events that were archived within 1 week of them occuring. Yes, people take a couple days to log the finds, especially if they found a 100 within a short time period. It took me 3 days to log the caches dad and I found in PA back in May.

The guidelines say that event caches are usually archived 14-30 days after the event, so no one should post NAs on them until at least the 31st day.

 

Apparently someone WAS posting NAs a week after the event, which is why it came up in this thread.

 

If somebody DID post an NA on any of her events (which I doubt) - she must've deleted the logs as I do not see any.

[+Sherminator18]

I do not know of any events that were archived within 1 week of them occuring. Yes, people take a couple days to log the finds, especially if they found a 100 within a short time period. It took me 3 days to log the caches dad and I found in PA back in May.

The guidelines say that event caches are usually archived 14-30 days after the event, so no one should post NAs on them until at least the 31st day.

 

Apparently someone WAS posting NAs a week after the event, which is why it came up in this thread.

 

If somebody DID post an NA on any of her events (which I doubt) - she must've deleted the logs as I do not see any.

 

I NEVER said it was MY events that I was talking about. None of my events have ever gotten a Needs Archived log. And NO I have never deleted a Needs Archived log from any of my caches. Seems you need to read a little bit more carefully.

[+L0ne.R]

As I said, *maybe* an experienced local Cacher can read the tea leaves logs and make a well founded decision that a NA is warranted. I still think it's a bad idea, though, except maybe in extreme cases.

 

I'd consider it over-the-top to decide that for a cache halfway across the country, though.

 

What's the difference? One: leave management to the locals. Two: knowing the cache area gives someone a little better understanding of what the pattern of logs means (& I get that 75 dnfs over 2 years, and no finds, on a D1.5 cache, is crystal-clear).

 

Edit: And of course I'm talking about NA posts based solely on log-reading without visiting GZ.

 

Geez, though there are some areas that could really use a cleaning up. Some areas are carpet bombed with low quality set-em-and-forget-em junk caches. Deciding to spend the day somewhere new can be an exercise in frustration because the locals won't post NAs.

 

I wanted to cache on an island I was visiting this summer - it's carpet bombed by a couple of vacation cache owners who have abandoned their caches. Locals won't post NAs, a few have posted NMs, many will post DNFs, some will happily drop a junk throwdown to perpetuate the problem.

I went to the island but didn't bother caching. Now if those caches were armchair NA'd it would at least give the place a chance to hopefully get some better caches placed there. The way it is now, it's full of abandoned junk. Fine for the numbers crowd who could care less about responsible cache ownership, but not fine for people who hope for a more quality responsible pastime.

 

So did you post NAs on every cache on the island then?

 

No, but I also didn't want to waste my time caching there. Why? So I could "legitimately" log on NA after going out of my way to not find a cache, or to find a broken mess.

[+narcissa]

As I said, *maybe* an experienced local Cacher can read the tea leaves logs and make a well founded decision that a NA is warranted. I still think it's a bad idea, though, except maybe in extreme cases.

 

I'd consider it over-the-top to decide that for a cache halfway across the country, though.

 

What's the difference? One: leave management to the locals. Two: knowing the cache area gives someone a little better understanding of what the pattern of logs means (& I get that 75 dnfs over 2 years, and no finds, on a D1.5 cache, is crystal-clear).

 

Edit: And of course I'm talking about NA posts based solely on log-reading without visiting GZ.

 

Geez, though there are some areas that could really use a cleaning up. Some areas are carpet bombed with low quality set-em-and-forget-em junk caches. Deciding to spend the day somewhere new can be an exercise in frustration because the locals won't post NAs.

 

I wanted to cache on an island I was visiting this summer - it's carpet bombed by a couple of vacation cache owners who have abandoned their caches. Locals won't post NAs, a few have posted NMs, many will post DNFs, some will happily drop a junk throwdown to perpetuate the problem.

I went to the island but didn't bother caching. Now if those caches were armchair NA'd it would at least give the place a chance to hopefully get some better caches placed there. The way it is now, it's full of abandoned junk. Fine for the numbers crowd who could care less about responsible cache ownership, but not fine for people who hope for a more quality responsible pastime.

 

So did you post NAs on every cache on the island then?

 

No, but I also didn't want to waste my time caching there. Why? So I could "legitimately" log on NA after going out of my way to not find a cache, or to find a broken mess.

 

Okay, that's not what we're discussing here. Most of us skip caches that look iffy, at least some of the time.

 

If you had posted NAs on all of those caches from your chair, that might be equivalent behaviour (except that you would at least be doing it in good faith, which is not the situation here).

[+narcissa]

So people should visit every geocache location before any of them post an NA on that cache

I do.

The guidelines ask us to.

 

Well that's probably why many people don't log NAs because the guidelines encourage you to visit the missing geocaches' location and then post an NA.

 

Some geocachers are willing to take a flyer on caches that have been DNFed before. We often do (and our find rate on so-called missing caches is actually about 50%).

 

If you find a couple of DNFs discouraging, you're not under any obligation to go look for a cache. But until you visit the site, you are not in a position to comment on it.

 

Generally speaking, you should follow the directive provided by Groundspeak and avoid posting NA logs on caches if you haven't visited them. Even if you have visited and can't find the cache, the appropriate log for a cache you personally can't find, most of the time, is a DNF.

 

It's not your responsibility to conduct sweeps to search out caches that are prime for your NA logs. If you're really trying to help the community, get out of your chair and go look for yourself.

 

Who's responsibility is it to conduct "sweeps"? I am not conducting "sweeps" and will drive 20 miles and visit the site before I log an NA since that appears to be what people want me and others to do to help the community.

 

No, actually, that is not what anybody is saying they want you to do. What we are saying is that it is inappropriate for you to sweep the website looking for any excuse to post an NA from your chair.

 

It is totally reasonable to look at a cache listing and decide it's not for you. Then... and here's the kicker... you just don't visit it. Just don't. Leave the listing. Don't put it in your GPS, don't drive there.

 

If... and I really mean a big IF here... If you are actually interested in contributing to a better geocaching community, you could visit a "missing" cache, conduct an honest and thorough search, and write a thoughtful, detailed log about your experience at the site. You may be surprised at how often a "missing" cache is actually there.

 

Or, instead of scouring the web looking for caches to NA, you could focus your energy on finding the caches that are out there, and writing pleasant, thoughtful logs for the benefit of other geocachers and cache owners. Another option is to focus your energy on placing thoughtful, well-maintained caches. If you have the community at heart, be a respected geocacher, not a nuisance vigilante.

[+Pond Bird]

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.

 

What if the NAs are warranted?

Example: the cache owner hasn't logged in since 2014 (and no new finds on their account since 2014). There are a couple of NMs and the last 6 logs (not from one group) over 6 months are all DNFs? If the person posting the NA irritates the reviewer, will a reviewer not disable and eventually archive the cache, because of who the NAer is?

 

Apparently, there is judgement on the reviewer's end, whether or not to disable a listing.

Also, if there is many NMs an DNFs and a cache owner hasn't logged in since 2014, then yes that would warrant an NA.

[+dprovan]

If... and I really mean a big IF here... If you are actually interested in contributing to a better geocaching community, you could visit a "missing" cache, conduct an honest and thorough search, and write a thoughtful, detailed log about your experience at the site. You may be surprised at how often a "missing" cache is actually there.

If I'm considering posting an NA, it's because someone else has already visited the cache site, conducted an honest and thorough search, and written a thoughtful, detailed log about their experience. There's absolutely no reason for me to repeat the process before posting an NA based on those other reports.

 

I didn't realize some people were so insistent on the person posting the NA visiting GZ. Now I'm starting to understand the root cause of areas with lots of abandoned caches: everyone can plainly see that there's no reason to go look for the cache, so they don't, yet everyone refuses to post an NA because they haven't been there. Catch-22.

[+lumbricus]

In my opinion posting NA Logs is absolutely okay for local community members, even if the location was not visited (again). Every city (let's say with a radius about 30 km) has pretty active geocachers. Maybe about 5-10 very active members (many hides, hosting events or many finds,...) here in my area. I will give an example: A new player appeared in 2014, he hid 49 film canisters in our homezone about 8 km away. He stopped playing in mid 2015. All of his film canisters get wet and many are already gone. The local geocachers found them in the beginning, now tourists are looking for them. Example Tourists often do not post even NM logs, not to mention NA logs. So the nature around these missing film canisters is destroyed more and more. Here the local community has to react. In the beginnig (2011) I posted NAs through the country because there were many cases with 10DNFs, 4-5 NMs and no reaction of the owner. In retrospect this was not okay, because the locals should handle this (maybe I helped the nature/animals because it stopped unnecessary searches). I learned through the years.

[+narcissa]

If... and I really mean a big IF here... If you are actually interested in contributing to a better geocaching community, you could visit a "missing" cache, conduct an honest and thorough search, and write a thoughtful, detailed log about your experience at the site. You may be surprised at how often a "missing" cache is actually there.

If I'm considering posting an NA, it's because someone else has already visited the cache site, conducted an honest and thorough search, and written a thoughtful, detailed log about their experience. There's absolutely no reason for me to repeat the process before posting an NA based on those other reports.

 

I didn't realize some people were so insistent on the person posting the NA visiting GZ. Now I'm starting to understand the root cause of areas with lots of abandoned caches: everyone can plainly see that there's no reason to go look for the cache, so they don't, yet everyone refuses to post an NA because they haven't been there. Catch-22.

 

In some cases a geocacher with experience and good judgment can certainly log an NA in good faith.

 

That is not what is happening here. This individual is searching for caches specifically for the purpose of NAing them. It isn't a good faith effort to help. It is done with malice, and often on caches that really do not warrant it at all.

 

NA is a tool that we should use where needed to help keep caches maintained. It should not be used to be destructive and hurtful. Let's not conflate thoughtful, considerate cache logging with poor behaviour meant solely to pester others.

[+igator210]

Real example in my area:

 

A cacher, due to a growing family, isn't currently active in the local area. They haven't logged into the website for over a year (no idea if they are checking in via a smartphone app, since that doesn't show on the website). They still have a few active caches that are holding up well.

 

One cache, a micro in the woods, is particularly difficult to find: 44 finds and 21 DNFs over 6 years.

 

A Needs Maintenance was placed in late 2015 by a previous finder because:

"I checked on this one recently, looking in the spot where I found it a couple years ago, and it's not there. CO might want to give it a look. It might have wandered yet again

This cacher found it a year before I did.

 

Another cacher, who found the cache 3 years before I did, noticed the Needs Maintenance log and four current DNFs and place a Needs Archived log in early 2016. The cache got archived by a reviewer a month later.

 

Two months ago I was in the area with a newbie, and not realizing the cache had been archived, pretty much walked right up to it. I opened up the log and found my signature.

 

Was the cache abandoned? Probably. Did the cache deserve to be archived? Possibly.

 

The bigger point is that it was archived because a cacher, by only looking at the online logs, place a Needs Archived log on a cache that was still there.

[+L0ne.R]

The bigger point is that it was archived because a cacher, by only looking at the online logs, place a Needs Archived log on a cache that was still there.

It was archived because the cache owner stopped playing.

[+bflentje]

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?

 

Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted?

 

yes.

[+dprovan]

NA is a tool that we should use where needed to help keep caches maintained. It should not be used to be destructive and hurtful.

Then stick to an argument about the validity of the NAs. You are arguing that they are ipso facto invalid because there are many of them and because the poster didn't visit GZ. As I've explained, I don't expect someone posting an NA to visit GZ in most cases, and I can't say anything about the volume without knowing whether there's a fundamental problem of no one else ever posting NAs in that area.

 

Let's not conflate thoughtful, considerate cache logging with poor behaviour meant solely to pester others.

Exactly the point I've been making. Stick to proving he's pestering others without dragging the very act of posting NAs over the coals.

[Keystone]

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?

 

Do you consider a NA log on an event a week after it occurs unwarranted?

 

yes.

Especially so since the recent implementation of an automated tool where event caches are automatically archived by a Geocaching HQ robot with the following log:

 

Thank you for hosting this geocaching event. The date of this event has passed. In order to reduce confusion from inactive event listings, this event has been automatically archived. Event owners are encouraged to archive their events within 30 days after the event (Mega-/Giga-Events within 60 days). Attendees can still log archived events.

So, just let the system do its job to clean up past events. There's no need for local event cache cops, or even local reviewer intervention. (Yay for that! It's one less thing I need to monitor for now.)

[+narcissa]

NA is a tool that we should use where needed to help keep caches maintained. It should not be used to be destructive and hurtful.

Then stick to an argument about the validity of the NAs. You are arguing that they are ipso facto invalid because there are many of them and because the poster didn't visit GZ. As I've explained, I don't expect someone posting an NA to visit GZ in most cases, and I can't say anything about the volume without knowing whether there's a fundamental problem of no one else ever posting NAs in that area.

 

Let's not conflate thoughtful, considerate cache logging with poor behaviour meant solely to pester others.

Exactly the point I've been making. Stick to proving he's pestering others without dragging the very act of posting NAs over the coals.

 

In general, it's not likely that armchairs NAs are valid because the person posting them has not visited the site. I understand that there are exceptions to everything and that some cachers make ham-fisted mistakes while trying to do the right thing, but let's not bend over backwards trying to validate the poor behaviour of a cacher who is clearly using the NA log for the sole purpose of being a nuisance to others. Is there anybody else who comes to the forum to report every NA log as though it's some sort of achievement? Not that I've noticed.

 

I recognize that the individuals defending this behaviour are attempting to do so on the basis of principle, which is not entirely misguided. But the situation here is a local caching community that is suffering, not because of poorly maintained caches, but because of someone deliberately being hurtful. Waxing poetic about the lofty ideals of cache maintenance is just fueling this problem.

[+dprovan]

In general, it's not likely that armchairs NAs are valid because the person posting them has not visited the site.

I don't pay attention to who posts what, so I have no opinion about your comments regarding the individual and will leave that part of the discussion alone.

 

Of what you're saying, this is the claim that concerns me. The phrasing here's a little murky, but I interpret it as saying, "It is likely that an armchair NA is invalid when the person posting it has not visited GZ." If that's what you're saying, I disagree with it 100%. When a cache goes bad over time, visiting the site adds absolutely nothing to the validity of an NA.

 

This isn't just principle: it seems like about once a week someone posts an example of a bad cache as an example of what's ruining their area. I've never understood why they complain about it here instead of just posting an NA.

[+narcissa]

In general, it's not likely that armchairs NAs are valid because the person posting them has not visited the site.

I don't pay attention to who posts what, so I have no opinion about your comments regarding the individual and will leave that part of the discussion alone.

 

Of what you're saying, this is the claim that concerns me. The phrasing here's a little murky, but I interpret it as saying, "It is likely that an armchair NA is invalid when the person posting it has not visited GZ." If that's what you're saying, I disagree with it 100%. When a cache goes bad over time, visiting the site adds absolutely nothing to the validity of an NA.

 

This isn't just principle: it seems like about once a week someone posts an example of a bad cache as an example of what's ruining their area. I've never understood why they complain about it here instead of just posting an NA.

 

Yes, there are always examples of exceptions, and sometimes experienced cachers will notice something that's not on a reviewer's radar when it should be. That doesn't mean we should all take it upon ourselves to scour the cache listings looking for things to NA.

 

In general, someone who hasn't visited the site is not in a position to comment on the condition of the cache. That's why Groundspeak specifically cautions against armchair NA logs.

[+Pond Bird]

In general, it's not likely that armchairs NAs are valid because the person posting them has not visited the site.

I don't pay attention to who posts what, so I have no opinion about your comments regarding the individual and will leave that part of the discussion alone.

 

Of what you're saying, this is the claim that concerns me. The phrasing here's a little murky, but I interpret it as saying, "It is likely that an armchair NA is invalid when the person posting it has not visited GZ." If that's what you're saying, I disagree with it 100%. When a cache goes bad over time, visiting the site adds absolutely nothing to the validity of an NA.

 

This isn't just principle: it seems like about once a week someone posts an example of a bad cache as an example of what's ruining their area. I've never understood why they complain about it here instead of just posting an NA.

 

Yes, there are always examples of exceptions, and sometimes experienced cachers will notice something that's not on a reviewer's radar when it should be. That doesn't mean we should all take it upon ourselves to scour the cache listings looking for things to NA.

 

In general, someone who hasn't visited the site is not in a position to comment on the condition of the cache. That's why Groundspeak specifically cautions against armchair NA logs.

 

Most of the NA logs I've done, I HAVE visited the site. But from now on I will visit each and every site before I log an NA since apparently its causing some unpleasant confusion.

[+dprovan]

Yes, there are always examples of exceptions, and sometimes experienced cachers will notice something that's not on a reviewer's radar when it should be.

No, wrong. A reviewer should never have a cache on his radar until someone posts an NA. That's the point of the NA. (Some reviewers have recognized that they aren't being properly alerted via NAs, so they take it upon themselves to look for caches on their own to put on their own radar, and there's nothing wrong with that, but that's only because the rest of us have failed.) (And, of course, reviewers are seekers, as well, so sometimes they notice things in their non-reviewer capacity.)

 

In general, someone who hasn't visited the site is not in a position to comment on the condition of the cache. That's why Groundspeak specifically cautions against armchair NA logs.

Again, I categorically deny this. When a cache decays, the information needed for posting an NA must already be in the log. Visiting the site provides no additional information of interest. Specifically, if you're saying "Oh, I don't know, maybe this cache might need an NA," nothing -- nothing -- you learned from a site visit should sway you to post the NA. If 5 or 10 people have already posted DNFs, it's the height of arrogance to think that your one DNF will always tip the scales.

[+dprovan]

Most of the NA logs I've done, I HAVE visited the site. But from now on I will visit each and every site before I log an NA since apparently its causing some unpleasant confusion.

That's fine with me -- laudable, even -- but I have to wonder if that will allay narcissa's concerns, though, since she seems to think you're only posting NAs to annoy people, and it's not clear to me adding the visit will actually make any difference to her.

[+narcissa]

Yes, there are always examples of exceptions, and sometimes experienced cachers will notice something that's not on a reviewer's radar when it should be.

No, wrong. A reviewer should never have a cache on his radar until someone posts an NA. That's the point of the NA. (Some reviewers have recognized that they aren't being properly alerted via NAs, so they take it upon themselves to look for caches on their own to put on their own radar, and there's nothing wrong with that, but that's only because the rest of us have failed.) (And, of course, reviewers are seekers, as well, so sometimes they notice things in their non-reviewer capacity.)

 

In general, someone who hasn't visited the site is not in a position to comment on the condition of the cache. That's why Groundspeak specifically cautions against armchair NA logs.

Again, I categorically deny this. When a cache decays, the information needed for posting an NA must already be in the log. Visiting the site provides no additional information of interest. Specifically, if you're saying "Oh, I don't know, maybe this cache might need an NA," nothing -- nothing -- you learned from a site visit should sway you to post the NA. If 5 or 10 people have already posted DNFs, it's the height of arrogance to think that your one DNF will always tip the scales.

 

Weird, the reviewers around here do seem to notice when an NM or a string of DNFs goes unnoticed. NA is just a user-generated trigger that notifies a reviewer. It isn't the only way reviewers notice caches that need a nudge.

 

We can all drum up examples of terribly long-neglected caches that are in obvious need of an NA. In general, however, this log type should be used as prescribed by those who have actually visited the site and have good reason to conclude that the cache needs reviewer attention.

 

I see no reason for name calling over this. Disappointing.

[+narcissa]

In general, it's not likely that armchairs NAs are valid because the person posting them has not visited the site.

I don't pay attention to who posts what, so I have no opinion about your comments regarding the individual and will leave that part of the discussion alone.

 

Of what you're saying, this is the claim that concerns me. The phrasing here's a little murky, but I interpret it as saying, "It is likely that an armchair NA is invalid when the person posting it has not visited GZ." If that's what you're saying, I disagree with it 100%. When a cache goes bad over time, visiting the site adds absolutely nothing to the validity of an NA.

 

This isn't just principle: it seems like about once a week someone posts an example of a bad cache as an example of what's ruining their area. I've never understood why they complain about it here instead of just posting an NA.

 

Yes, there are always examples of exceptions, and sometimes experienced cachers will notice something that's not on a reviewer's radar when it should be. That doesn't mean we should all take it upon ourselves to scour the cache listings looking for things to NA.

 

In general, someone who hasn't visited the site is not in a position to comment on the condition of the cache. That's why Groundspeak specifically cautions against armchair NA logs.

 

Most of the NA logs I've done, I HAVE visited the site. But from now on I will visit each and every site before I log an NA since apparently its causing some unpleasant confusion.

 

Is there a particular reason you are interested in posting NAs with such frequency? Is it for some sort of statistic or challenge?

 

I am all in favour of personal variations on the game but I really don't understand what is so fun about posting NA logs. For most of us, it's a rare, regrettable, but necessary action to be taken under carefully considered circumstances. Cache owners are the life blood of the game, so deliberately antagonizing them seems counterproductive.

[+dprovan]

Weird, the reviewers around here do seem to notice when an NM or a string of DNFs goes unnoticed.

It's not weird, it's just unfortunate. Reviewers have better things to do. Seekers look at caches all the time and identify problems in the course of playing the game. It's just sad when they don't bother to routinely alert reviewers via NAs so the reviewers have to scan caches for themselves. In my area, we don't burden the reviewers with that task.

 

We can all drum up examples of terribly long-neglected caches that are in obvious need of an NA. In general, however, this log type should be used as prescribed by those who have actually visited the site and have good reason to conclude that the cache needs reviewer attention.

I've already explained several time why this statement doesn't make sense.

 

I see no reason for name calling over this. Disappointing.

I'm sorry. What adjective would you prefer I use to describe someone that thinks their DNF is better than anyone else's DNF?

[+narcissa]

Weird, the reviewers around here do seem to notice when an NM or a string of DNFs goes unnoticed.

It's not weird, it's just unfortunate. Reviewers have better things to do. Seekers look at caches all the time and identify problems in the course of playing the game. It's just sad when they don't bother to routinely alert reviewers via NAs so the reviewers have to scan caches for themselves. In my area, we don't burden the reviewers with that task.

 

We can all drum up examples of terribly long-neglected caches that are in obvious need of an NA. In general, however, this log type should be used as prescribed by those who have actually visited the site and have good reason to conclude that the cache needs reviewer attention.

I've already explained several time why this statement doesn't make sense.

 

I see no reason for name calling over this. Disappointing.

I'm sorry. What adjective would you prefer I use to describe someone that thinks their DNF is better than anyone else's DNF?

 

That's a rather harsh conclusion to draw about someone who simply follows the general guidance provided by Groundspeak and chooses not to log NAs on caches they haven't actually visited. A person who hasn't visited generally isn't in a position to comment on the condition of a cache. Again, I think we all recognize that we are bound to stumble on exceptions where the logs clearly indicate a problem that needs intervention.

 

And in determining whether or not a cache is worth a look yourself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with discounting the logs with no detail and logs from inexperienced cachers. Our find rate on "missing" caches is pretty high because we generally think it's worth a look if we're in the area.

 

Even then, I rarely if ever conclude a cache is gone just because I can't find it (I've been proven wrong on too many occasions to think that my DNF is anything more than a single data point). If I suspect it is, I gather the evidence and mention the evidence in my DNF or NM log. There would have to be strong evidence like signs of destruction at the site and a very long history of owner neglect for me to log an NA right off the bat. Or something urgent like an angry property owner.

 

I trust that the reviewers in my area run a tight ship and it is very rare that a cache will fall into such extreme disrepair that a reviewer isn't already aware of the issue by the time I come across it. I don't know where someone would get the impression that reviewers are only supposed to act on NA logs. That has never been the case here.

[+L0ne.R]

 

I trust that the reviewers in my area run a tight ship and it is very rare that a cache will fall into such extreme disrepair that a reviewer isn't already aware of the issue by the time I come across it. I don't know where someone would get the impression that reviewers are only supposed to act on NA logs. That has never been the case here.

 

We are quite close geographically, but maybe you have different reviewers in your area.

The reviewers in my area (Golden Horseshoe) do a great job but I'm seeing fewer sweeps. In fact I don't recall a sweep in the last couple of years.

They however will act almost immediately when an NA is logged.

And they are consistently great at following up a month later with an archival if there is no response from the owner.

They need people to post NAs.

I don't think they do sweeps anymore.

[+dprovan]

I'm sorry. What adjective would you prefer I use to describe someone that thinks their DNF is better than anyone else's DNF?

That's a rather harsh conclusion to draw about someone who simply follows the general guidance provided by Groundspeak and chooses not to log NAs on caches they haven't actually visited.

I'm not commenting on how you play the game. I'm commenting about your justification for that guidance. I don't care whether you feel compelled to make a pointless visit to GZ, but I don't want you to convince others that they aren't allowed to file an NA based on the available evidence without the meaningless visit to GZ. Requiring the visit is pointless, yet it will discourage many people from filing a clearly needed NA.

 

And this isn't a conclusion at all: it's just a fact that the only reason to visit GZ of a D1.5 cache with multiple DNFs by experience hunters is because you don't consider their DNFs good enough for your standards.

 

A person who hasn't visited generally isn't in a position to comment on the condition of a cache.

Again, an NA isn't commenting on the condition of the cache, it's commenting on the available evidence already in the log. You should never file an NA unless the condition of the cache is already reasonably obvious, and normally that's clear from the logs alone.

 

And in determining whether or not a cache is worth a look yourself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with discounting the logs with no detail and logs from inexperienced cachers.

Well, of course, if the evidence isn't in the logs, then you shouldn't file an NA. If you think you'll get more information from GZ, feel free to visit. But people complain about bad caches most often because they can see without visiting GZ that they are bad caches.

 

Our find rate on "missing" caches is pretty high because we generally think it's worth a look if we're in the area.

Good for you. Yes, a couple DNFs from a couple newbies doesn't amount to evidence. 4 DNFs by cachers with as much experience as I have, followed by an NM giving good reasons to think there's a problem, and I don't expect to strike gold.

 

Even then, I rarely if ever conclude a cache is gone just because I can't find it (I've been proven wrong on too many occasions to think that my DNF is anything more than a single data point). If I suspect it is, I gather the evidence and mention the evidence in my DNF or NM log. There would have to be strong evidence like signs of destruction at the site and a very long history of owner neglect for me to log an NA right off the bat. Or something urgent like an angry property owner.

Why are you telling me all this? Of course, all good points. Once that has all been done by someone else, I later look at the cache listing, see the evidence laid out in front of me, see the NM that the CO hasn't responded to, and I file an NA. There's absolutely no reason for me to go repeat all those steps personally.

 

I trust that the reviewers in my area run a tight ship and it is very rare that a cache will fall into such extreme disrepair that a reviewer isn't already aware of the issue by the time I come across it. I don't know where someone would get the impression that reviewers are only supposed to act on NA logs. That has never been the case here.

OK, so this is the difference. In my area, the reviewers aren't running the ship at all, tight or not: seekers are responsible for monitoring the caches since seekers are the ones looking at the descriptions and logs and visiting the caches themselves. We only get reviewers involved when there's a problem that requires reviewer power to resolve. We don't want reviewers involved in the day to day operations of the hunt. And I claim that culture is why we have no problem with bad caches.