Sweeping it under the carpet?

[+Team Microdot]

Q. Does deleting a Needs Maintenance log on your cache also decrement the counter for NM logs posted to your cache over its lifetime and thus make it look as though it's never had any NM's?

 

This appears to have happened on a cache I posted NM on recently - although I'm struggling to believe it and am convinced I must be wrong

[+MartyBartfast]

If you want I'll log an NM on one of yours and you can try it.

 

I just went to try it on one of mine but it doesn't seem to allow a CO to log an NM on their own cache.

[cezanne]

You could try to do it for another cache (not one of your own) on the test site.

[+Team Microdot]

If you want I'll log an NM on one of yours and you can try it.

 

Good idea - sent you an email.

[+MartyBartfast]

If you want I'll log an NM on one of yours and you can try it.

 

Good idea - sent you an email.

 

I just replied to your mail.

 

I also deleted an old NM from one of my old caches, and the NM count on the cache page went from 1 to 0, so yes it does "sweep it under the carpet".

[+Team Microdot]

If you want I'll log an NM on one of yours and you can try it.

 

Good idea - sent you an email.

 

I just replied to your mail.

 

I also deleted an old NM from one of my old caches, and the NM count on the cache page went from 1 to 0, so yes it does "sweep it under the carpet".

 

 

The geocaching equivalent of clocking the mileage on a car to make it appear better than it actually is

[cezanne]

The geocaching equivalent of clocking the mileage on a car to make it appear better than it actually is

 

Not necessarily. There could also be the case where someone logs a NM by mistake and deletes the log him/herself and that action of course should not count towards the number of NM logs.

A more complex treatment of log deletions and their effects (also for trackables) would be useful to have.

[+Team Microdot]

The geocaching equivalent of clocking the mileage on a car to make it appear better than it actually is

 

Not necessarily. There could also be the case where someone logs a NM by mistake and deletes the log him/herself and that action of course should not count towards the number of NM logs.

A more complex treatment of log deletions and their effects (also for trackables) would be useful to have.

 

There's no reason why an NM log shouldn't be reflected in the counter.

 

The CO can legitimtely clear it with an OM log, at the same time balancing the number of NM's with the number of OM's and, if they so choose, mention that the previous NM was in error.

 

That at least would be fully transparent.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Team Microdot

[+palmetto]

Deleting any log deletes its count, both on the listing where posted, and as a log count of whatever type for the log owner.

 

Deleting any action log does NOT undo the action. Site is consistent in this regard.

[+Team Microdot]

Deleting any action log does NOT undo the action. Site is consistent in this regard.

 

Action log?

[cezanne]

 

There's no reason why an NM log shouldn't be reflected in the counter.

 

The CO can legitimtely clear it with an OM log, at the same time balancing the number of NM's with the number of OM's and, if they so choose, mention that the previous NM was in error.

 

Of course the cache owner could do that, but will not get the chance to do it if the cacher who wrote the NM by mistake wishes to immediately correct the mistake and that was the case I talked about.

Edited September 1, 2016 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

 

There's no reason why an NM log shouldn't be reflected in the counter.

 

The CO can legitimtely clear it with an OM log, at the same time balancing the number of NM's with the number of OM's and, if they so choose, mention that the previous NM was in error.

 

Of course the cache owner could do that, but will not get the chance to do it if the cacher who wrote the NM by mistake wishes to immediately correct the mistake and that was the case I talked about.

 

Correct - both cases are true.

[+palmetto]

Action log does something:

 

NM log sets the NM attribute

Temp Disable Log disables the cache

Archive log archives the cache (qcache owners archive, then change their minds, and delete the archive log. Cache remains archived)

Drop log puts a TB into listing

etc

[+narcissa]

Let's make sure that ever having had an NM logged on your cache is some sort of black mark that becomes part of a permanent record. That ought to encourage people to use it.

[+Team Microdot]

Action log does something:

 

NM log sets the NM attribute

 

OK so...

 

1. Cacher logs NM - sets red wrench flag
   
2. CO posts OM log - clears red wrench
   
3. CO deletes NM log - NM counter deceremented
   
4. CO deletes OM log - OM counter decremented
   

 

There's no record whatsoever that anyone believed the cache needed maintenance?

[+Manville Possum]

Let's make sure that ever having had an NM logged on your cache is some sort of black mark that becomes part of a permanent record. That ought to encourage people to use it.

 

Sounds like good reasoning as why the free muggle app has no NM or NA feature.

[+Team Microdot]

Let's make sure that ever having had an NM logged on your cache is some sort of black mark that becomes part of a permanent record. That ought to encourage people to use it.

 

Alternative? Let people hide the fact that their caches are in need of maintenance so that people waste their time looking for caches which are junk or simply not there - fabulous

[+fuzziebear3]

IMO, in general, it is bad practice to delete any logs on the cache. They are the history of the cache, it is what it is.

(Exceptions made for errorneous/bogus logs, or particularly profane logs).

 

Remember that when you are deleting a log, you are really archiving and hiding it, it remains in the database and can still be seen by administrators.

[+Team Microdot]

IMO, in general, it is bad practice to delete any logs on the cache. They are the history of the cache, it is what it is.

 

I tend to agree - but of course I like transparency - and I have nothing to hide

[cezanne]

IMO, in general, it is bad practice to delete any logs on the cache.

 

I do not agree in this generality.

 

I have deleted some notes for my own caches.

I have deleted both notes authored by myself (which by the way I do very regularly for trackable drop off notes which are not part of the history of a cache at all) and notes written by others.

For example I have sometimes compressed what I had written in 2 or 3 separate logs into one at a later time (the new logs were mainly written to reach the cachers that have the cache on the watch list).

This helps to avoid that too many logs among the recent logs are written by me (which is helpful for future searchers).

 

From time to time I also write a note on caches that are not visited often and ask whether someone still has interest into the cache. Some people reply by mail, some by logs. After deciding that I will keep the cache, I usually delete my question and the logs that confirm interest into the cache and condense the important information into a single new note. Again that makes the recent logs useful for future visitors - it's frustrating if none of the recent logs deals with the cache experience.

 

Remember that when you are deleting a log, you are really archiving and hiding it, it remains in the database and can still be seen by administrators.

 

Not an issue in any of the cases above. It's what is displayed to cachers that search my caches and not about what is accessible in the database. None of the logs I ever deleted was deleted to hide anything from Groundspeak.

[+J Grouchy]

In general I don't agree with deleting NM logs, but there are times when it's just obvious the person couldn't find it...or the log was damp or something like that where it doesn't really warrant a NM log. In those cases, I don't object to their deletion. In other cases, where there is a failure of the container or obvious damage, I've posted NM logs that were later deleted and I've had to hold my proverbial tongue to keep from complaining to the COs.

[+Team Microdot]

In general I don't agree with deleting NM logs, but there are times when it's just obvious the person couldn't find it...or the log was damp or something like that where it doesn't really warrant a NM log. In those cases, I don't object to their deletion.

 

In those cases I would just mention in my Owner Maintenance log that I'd checked the cache and advise its current condition, hopefully underscoring the fact that I'm a responsible cache owner and leaving behind information of some educational worth.

 

In other cases, where there is a failure of the container or obvious damage, I've posted NM logs that were later deleted and I've had to hold my proverbial tongue to keep from complaining to the COs.

 

And this - my underlined - is the sort of practice that I consider a net negative for everyone.

[+The Rat]

I'm confused about this. I've never seen a number indicating how many NM logs there have been on a cache. Where does this appear on the cache page? I've had my share of NM logs over the years and I've always performed the maintenance or archived the cache, but I haven't bothered to delete the NM log. I think it's useful to others to see that a NM log is followed promptly by an Owner Maintenance log, i.e. that the CO is responsive. I'm also unclear about the NM attribute. At one point when someone logged a NM the attribute would appear that I never put there. Is that still done? That's a really bad practice because long after the CO performs the maintenance and posts a note or owner maintenance log the attribute stays there and that may deter people from the cache needlessly. I haven't had a NM log in a long while so I'm not sure what system they use now. Groundspeak is always changing things. My view is that only the CO should be able to determine what attributes appear on the cache page. I know of some puzzle caches where the attributes and their order is part of the puzzle.

[+MartyBartfast]

I've never seen a number indicating how many NM logs there have been on a cache. Where does this appear on the cache page?

 

At one point when someone logged a NM the attribute would appear that I never put there. Is that still done? That's a really bad practice because long after the CO performs the maintenance and posts a note or owner maintenance log the attribute stays there and that may deter people from the cache needlessly.

 

 

1. There's a ribbon immediately above the first log on the cache page showing how many of each type of log the cache has.

 

2. The NM attribute is set when someone logs an NM, and it will be cleared when the CO logs an "Owner Maintenance" log. So the attribute is cleared but the ribbon mentioned above will show that the cache has historically had an NM log, unless the NM log is deleted too.

[+Team Microdot]

I think it's useful to others to see that a NM log is followed promptly by an Owner Maintenance log, i.e. that the CO is responsive.

 

Very true - and equally it's useful to see which CO's are not responsive - or even downright abusive when faced with a simple NM log - so that you can avoid wasting time hunting for caches which have been missing for months and which they can't be bothered to make a maintenance visit to.

 

Being able to erase history though is very useful to this type of CO, because it allows them to throw out hundreds of caches and maintain them rarely if ever, relying instead on users being so reluctant to invest effort for a DNF and preferring instead to do the CO's maintenance for them by leaving a throwdown.

 

If you think about it, this is a perfect strategy for such a CO.

[+rjb43nh]

While there have been no NM logs on this cache, I have deleted quite a few 'found' logs from one of my caches where cachers have complained they couldn't sign the log because the container doesn't seal and the log was totally soaked. Ever since I started getting these logs, the cache listing page has multiple prominent warnings to not sign the soggy broken letterbox that is out in the open nearby because those logs won't count. I do check the physical cache logbook to make sure whether cachers have signed or not before deleting any logs. I always send an email to the cacher explaining what I'm doing and why and tell them that if they return and sign the real cache logbook that is nice and dry they can relog. There is also a photo of the real cache container and dry logbook that I added to the cache page to see if that helps.

 

If there is a real problem with any of my caches I want to know so the problem can be corrected and I have got NM logs on some of my caches. Any that can't be corrected are archived.

Edited September 4, 2016 by rjb43nh

[+dprovan]

While there have been no NM logs on this cache, I have deleted quite a few 'found' logs from one of my caches where cachers have complained they couldn't sign the log because the container doesn't seal and the log was totally soaked. Ever since I started getting these logs, the cache listing page has multiple prominent warnings to not sign the soggy broken letterbox that is out in the open nearby because those logs won't count. I do check the physical cache logbook to make sure whether cachers have signed or not before deleting any logs. I always send an email to the cacher explaining what I'm doing and why and tell them that if they return and sign the real cache logbook that is nice and dry they can relog. There is also a photo of the real cache container and dry logbook that I added to the cache page to see if that helps.

 

If there is a real problem with any of my caches I want to know so the problem can be corrected and I have got NM logs on some of my caches. Any that can't be corrected are archived.

The problem with your cache is that it's near a letterbox. The obvious solution would be to move it instead of luring people into signing the wrong log and then complaining when they do.

[+cerberus1]

In general I don't agree with deleting NM logs, but there are times when it's just obvious the person couldn't find it...or the log was damp or something like that where it doesn't really warrant a NM log. In those cases, I don't object to their deletion.

 

In those cases I would just mention in my Owner Maintenance log that I'd checked the cache and advise its current condition, hopefully underscoring the fact that I'm a responsible cache owner and leaving behind information of some educational worth.

+1

We had one similar, where a (long-time) cacher left a NM of "Log Full".

I left my OM, saying that if someone would turn the log strip over there's another side waiting with no sigs.

It wasn't even rolled, but folded.

If they ever go back to look, a learning experience (and a "DUH") for all.