Jump to content

Ban placements by maintenance shirkers


Followers 12

Recommended Posts

This morning I see lots of cache archivals where the CO is an active cacher but has failed, over an extended period, to respond to Needs Maintenance logs and also subsequently ignored requests from the local volunteer reviewer to address the issue.

 

I feel quite strongly that active cachers who abandon their caches in this way and ignore reviewer communication should be prevented from placing further caches and that the power to make this happen should be granted to the reviewer who has had their valuable time wasted.

 

Edit:spelling

Edited by Team Microdot
Link to comment

This morning I see lots of cache archivals where the CO is an active cacher but has failed, over an extended period, to respond to Needs Maintenance logs and also subsequently ignored requests from the local volunteer reviewer to address the issue.

 

I see it all the time. And they own hundreds of geocaches, looks like they could address maintenance issues on them. <_<

Link to comment

the most likely result of that policy would be to load all the ones that need maintenance into GSAK and with a couple of clicks log a owner maintenance log to clear it up. It they are the type of cacher that doesn't maintain their caches there is no reason to believe they will do it under the conditions described.

Link to comment

the most likely result of that policy would be to load all the ones that need maintenance into GSAK and with a couple of clicks log a owner maintenance log to clear it up. It they are the type of cacher that doesn't maintain their caches there is no reason to believe they will do it under the conditions described.

 

Well that might be one result, for some folks, but not for the folks I'm seeing who end up with their abandoned caches archived by the reviewer through lack of action of any kind.

 

If they are the type of cacher who takes no action and allows their cache to be archived, there is no reason to believe they'll invest the effort you seem to think they will.

Link to comment
the most likely result of that policy would be to load all the ones that need maintenance into GSAK and with a couple of clicks log a owner maintenance log to clear it up.
I think the most likely result of a hardline policy would be the creation of new basic accounts, and for the new caches to be listed under those accounts. At least until those accounts are locked from hiding new caches, at which point another batch of basic accounts would be created.

 

A softline policy involving actual human interaction with volunteer reviewers (or canine interaction, for those volunteer reviewers that happen to be dogs) might have more success. But that puts more work on the volunteer reviewers.

Link to comment

I don't like the word "ban" because it implies some kind of mindless, mechanical solution that's sure to get in the way of legitimate COs. But I have no problem if reviewers detect a pattern and respond to a new cache with a friendly note explaining that they won't publish it until the CO cleans up his act. The presumption should be that the CO doesn't know any better even thought the result is to keep the CO from clogging up the area and the process any more than they already have.

Link to comment

A softline policy involving actual human interaction with volunteer reviewers (or canine interaction, for those volunteer reviewers that happen to be dogs) might have more success. But that puts more work on the volunteer reviewers.

 

Not sure that it would put more work on volunteer reviewers.

 

Our local reviewer typically disables a cache with a boilerplate note explaining why and that if the CO fails to respond within X days the cache will/may be archived.

 

When the reviewer archives the cache X days later it is with a second boilerplate note which tells the CO that the cache has been archived because the reviewer saw no response from them and it also tells the CO what they need to do if they wish to seek un-archival of the cache.

 

As far as I can see all that's required is to tag on an extra sentence to the two sets of boilerplate explaining that the site will not allow further cache publications by the CO in question.

Link to comment

I do encourage some caution here. As a CO of a couple hundred caches, I do try to get to them in a timely manner, but sometimes work and other concerns outweigh maintenance. I do try to keep up with every log on every cache, so can identify which require a visit and perhaps inactivated temporarily. That said, I think in the past few years the most caches I have issues with are not by veteran cachers, but with newbs who show great enthusiasm to have some hides, but then take terrible containers and hide them - only to abandon the game within three months - their contribution lingers on until finally archival process finishes them.

 

Be a good cacher and when you see a cache which clearly is in need, give it a little assistance (i.e. it's been left out by a muggle or last finder) or post a Needs Maintenance. I'm not a fan of people who recommend the nuclear setting on first hand - "Needs to be archived" because they couldn't find it. I've seen a few of these and wonder what motivated that.

Link to comment

While I understand the "sentiment", I think is hard to do this in practice. Is one cache which got archived due to lack of maintenance enough or does it need multiple? How long to ban for? How for the CO to "prove" they have reformed?

 

I've seen generally good COs get caches archived do to lack of maintenance. Maybe they had something going on in their life which made them temporarily not able to respond.

 

The extreme case would be a CO who never maintains his/her caches, but keeps putting out new ones. It would be good to discourage this, but I don't see how without placing more work on the reviewers to make judgments and likely arguments about the judgments made.

Link to comment

While I understand the "sentiment", I think is hard to do this in practice. Is one cache which got archived due to lack of maintenance enough or does it need multiple? How long to ban for? How for the CO to "prove" they have reformed?

 

Put bluntly - who cares?

 

We're not talking something important here like parenting skills - we're talking about hiding boxes in the woods and performing basic maintenance thereof. If a person demonstrates that they can't make that scant commitment then simply tick a box to withdraw their cache submission priveleges and move on.

Link to comment

While I understand the "sentiment", I think is hard to do this in practice. Is one cache which got archived due to lack of maintenance enough or does it need multiple? How long to ban for? How for the CO to "prove" they have reformed?

 

Put bluntly - who cares?

 

We're not talking something important here like parenting skills - we're talking about hiding boxes in the woods and performing basic maintenance thereof. If a person demonstrates that they can't make that scant commitment then simply tick a box to withdraw their cache submission priveleges and move on.

 

I do. I wouldn't want to see a good CO banned to place new caches because they were ill in hospital for several months (and while there some caches were forcibly archived). Once they have recovered they may want to place new caches. I know that's an extreme case, but my point is it isn't easy to judge the shirkers from those who had some temporary life issues.

Link to comment

While I understand the "sentiment", I think is hard to do this in practice. Is one cache which got archived due to lack of maintenance enough or does it need multiple? How long to ban for? How for the CO to "prove" they have reformed?

 

Put bluntly - who cares?

 

We're not talking something important here like parenting skills - we're talking about hiding boxes in the woods and performing basic maintenance thereof. If a person demonstrates that they can't make that scant commitment then simply tick a box to withdraw their cache submission priveleges and move on.

 

I do. I wouldn't want to see a good CO banned to place new caches because they were ill in hospital for several months (and while there some caches were forcibly archived). Once they have recovered they may want to place new caches. I know that's an extreme case, but my point is it isn't easy to judge the shirkers from those who had some temporary life issues.

 

Simple - assume they are all shirkers. Those who aren't will take the trouble to get in touch and get their priveleges reinstated. Those that are shirkers won't.

Link to comment

 

Simple - assume they are all shirkers. Those who aren't will take the trouble to get in touch and get their priveleges reinstated. Those that are shirkers won't.

 

OK, that works. For a single forced archive by the reviewer due to lack of maintenance, the CO is blocked from new hides. No extra work by the reviewer at that stage if the tools can automatically set the "ban". The tools would need to know that the archive was due to maintenance, I'm assuming we don't want to ban someone if their cache is archived by the reviewer for other reasons? (e.g. a landowner issue?). Or perhaps a small amount of additional work for the reviewer to mark the CO as "banned".

 

But there is work by someone (Groundspeak lackeys?) to process the reinstatement requests (and make judgments about each case).

 

I'm still not a fan of the idea.

Link to comment

But there is work by someone (Groundspeak lackeys?) to process the reinstatement requests (and make judgments about each case).

 

I'm advocating the reviewer having the power to grant/revoke the placement privelege with a simple check-box on the back end.

 

Appeals would be escalated just as they are now to GS - but I doubt there would be many because remember we're talking about obvious shirkers who have completely ignored multiple DNF's and/or multiple NM's and a friendly reminder with a deadline from the reviewer.

 

I'm still not a fan of the idea.

 

I am. I think it's the lesser of two evils and also sympathise with reviewers who end up having to publish caches for people who've shown them and their work and time zero respect.

Link to comment

Hmm..

 

When a cache is archived for non-maintenance, I see 3 general cases:

 

1. A CO who is no longer active.

2. A CO who is active but is a maintenance shirker

3. A CO who is active and generally maintains, but let one get this far for some reason.

 

Case 1 isn't an issue as they have left the game and aren't putting out new ones.

 

Between case 2 and 3, it can either be automatic, or the reviewer needs to judge. If the reviewer needs to judge, that is work for them. It's not the ticking the box which is the work, it is deciding. If it is automatic then it's easy at that stage, but there will be more appeals to get reinstated.

 

I'm just not sure if it helps.

 

I can think of one cacher in my area who doesn't seem to do much maintenance, but hides new ones. But they archive the caches themselves. I.e. if they see a cache which seems to be missing or has problems, they just archive it. This system wouldn't catch them. I've not personally seen any COs which routinely ignore archive threats by the reviewer, but still put out more caches.

Link to comment

Hmm..

 

When a cache is archived for non-maintenance, I see 3 general cases:

 

1. A CO who is no longer active.

2. A CO who is active but is a maintenance shirker

3. A CO who is active and generally maintains, but let one get this far for some reason.

 

Case 1 isn't an issue as they have left the game and aren't putting out new ones.

 

Between case 2 and 3, it can either be automatic, or the reviewer needs to judge. If the reviewer needs to judge, that is work for them. It's not the ticking the box which is the work, it is deciding. If it is automatic then it's easy at that stage, but there will be more appeals to get reinstated.

 

I'm just not sure if it helps.

 

I can think of one cacher in my area who doesn't seem to do much maintenance, but hides new ones. But they archive the caches themselves. I.e. if they see a cache which seems to be missing or has problems, they just archive it. This system wouldn't catch them. I've not personally seen any COs which routinely ignore archive threats by the reviewer, but still put out more caches.

 

Of course no system is perfect - but I do strongly feel that it's an option that reviewers should have at their disposal which would save them work in the long run.

 

Our local reviewer seems to do 'archive sweeps' as a matter of routine so I don't see ticking an extra box as a great deal of extra effort for them to go to.

 

And, unsurprisingly, I think it does help and I have seen CO's who routinely ignore archive warnings by the reviewer and still put out more caches.

Link to comment
Simple - assume they are all shirkers. Those who aren't will take the trouble to get in touch and get their priveleges reinstated. Those that are shirkers won't.
Or maybe they'll just create another basic account and use it to hide new caches.

 

Some won't. The prolific hiders might not be happy about having to split their hides between accounts. And after a few months that account will be blocked for non-maintenance and they'll have to open up yet another account. If maintaining their caches is too much work, then maintaining several accounts may also be too much.

Link to comment

I do encourage some caution here. As a CO of a couple hundred caches, I do try to get to them in a timely manner, but sometimes work and other concerns outweigh maintenance. I do try to keep up with every log on every cache, so can identify which require a visit and perhaps inactivated temporarily. That said, I think in the past few years the most caches I have issues with are not by veteran cachers, but with newbs who show great enthusiasm to have some hides, but then take terrible containers and hide them - only to abandon the game within three months - their contribution lingers on until finally archival process finishes them.

 

Be a good cacher and when you see a cache which clearly is in need, give it a little assistance (i.e. it's been left out by a muggle or last finder) or post a Needs Maintenance. I'm not a fan of people who recommend the nuclear setting on first hand - "Needs to be archived" because they couldn't find it. I've seen a few of these and wonder what motivated that.

 

Here here fully agree with you.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Around here (SW OH) the reviewers give a 30 day notice for most NM logs which are being unattended. Then they simply archive the hide.

 

NMs?

Or do you mean NAs?

In Ontario it's NAs. Once the cache gets an NA, the reviewer responds with a 30 day disable, then there's a 99% chance that that cache will end up archived by the reviewer.

Problem is, I think I'm the only one who posts NAs.

Link to comment

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

 

I guess it would rise. If someone would set me a deadline to fix a maintenance problem within 14 days, I'd archive my cache immediately. geocaching is a hobby and not a job.

Link to comment

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

 

I guess it would rise. If someone would set me a deadline to fix a maintenance problem within 14 days, I'd archive my cache immediately. geocaching is a hobby and not a job.

For the caches being discussed, the cache owner has already received multiple DNFs and likely at least 1 NM log with a reasonable amount of time in between before a reviewer would step in. If you were responding to the earlier logs, you'd already have replaced, temp disabled or archived the cache. You aren't the representative CO targeted for this discussion.

Link to comment

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

In my area, I doubt it would have any bearing at all on the Archive rate. I've seen a very small number of Listings Archived in less than the 30 day waiting period with no response/absent owners, which usually involved someone wanting to post a nearby or nearly identical placement.

 

I'm in favor of a shorter time frame in situations like that. An active cache is always better than a dead cache IMO. Otherwise, there are too many exceptions to a less than 30 day period, and it seems a bit heavy handed to rush for the Archive button.

 

I think this is the main reason that there is no automated process for this problem. In some cases, it could be automatic, but my guess is that many situations come up that require some human interaction and judgement to determine what is reasonable.

Link to comment

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

 

I guess it would rise. If someone would set me a deadline to fix a maintenance problem within 14 days, I'd archive my cache immediately. geocaching is a hobby and not a job.

For the caches being discussed, the cache owner has already received multiple DNFs and likely at least 1 NM log with a reasonable amount of time in between before a reviewer would step in. If you were responding to the earlier logs, you'd already have replaced, temp disabled or archived the cache. You aren't the representative CO targeted for this discussion.

 

I only meant to reply to the statement of lee737 in its generality. 14d between a NM log (the first) and a NA log is too short in my opinion in most cases.

Link to comment

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

 

A neglected cache isn't an emergency and 30 days is really quite fair for everyone. For those who have legitimately just fallen behind, it's a reasonable time frame to make arrangements. It's long enough to reasonably conclude that a cache owner has no intention of acting.

 

And think about the burden on the reviewers as well. At least here, it seems that the reviewers check on the NAs about once a month. Making the standard 14 days means doubling the amount of time they spend on this task. These are volunteers who already do their best to publish caches and respond to issues in a timely manner. Any solution that begins with adding to the reviewer's work is not optimal.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

 

I guess it would rise. If someone would set me a deadline to fix a maintenance problem within 14 days, I'd archive my cache immediately. geocaching is a hobby and not a job.

It is a hobby. Still, there comes some responsibility when participating in our hobby. If a person can't handle maintenance duties on their existing caches, then they need to stop hiding more. It would be nice if they volunteered to stop themselves but since most won't, someone needs to do it for them. I myself would have no problem with a 14 day time period between reviewer actions but like Cezanne, i don't see this as being necessary.

 

There was once a time when NMs and NAs sat on cache pages forever before anything, if anything, was done. While i suspect some caches do slip between the cracks, the process is different these days. Reviewers are on the ball and are taking action on those that appear to be in need of some tlc. The temporary disable comes first and if nothing gets done, the cache gets archived 30 days later. Imo, this is a good process that gives responsible COs plenty of time to take some kind of action. At the same time, it helps to get rid of the junk that's placed by COs who shirk their duties.

 

Making excuses for why some people don't perform maintenance seems silly to me. There are things anyone in a predicament can do to help in keeping their cache from being archived. In those extreme and very rare cases where a CO can't take action, it's not the end of the world. Reviewers are easy to work with which makes reinstatement of caches fairly easy for responsible COS.

 

I would definitely go for a hold on cache placement by maintenance shirkers. As said above, things can be worked out even if a mistake a happens. ;)

Link to comment

It is a hobby. Still, there comes some responsibility when participating in our hobby. If a person can't handle maintenance duties on their existing caches, then they need to stop hiding more. It would be nice if they volunteered to stop themselves but since most won't, someone needs to do it for them. I myself would have no problem with a 14 day time period between reviewer actions but like Cezanne, i don't see this as being necessary.

 

Let's do not mix the hiding aspect with the rest. The suggestion to which I replied said that 14 days after a NM log there should come a NA log. That's too extreme in my opinion for many reasons and it does not even allow to travel for 14 days without internet access without ending up with a NA log which is definitely not ok in my opinion. I do not think that participating in geocaching includes the requirement to be online each day.

 

There is a difference between a cache that has been neglected for a longer period (which can be clearly recognized by human intelligence) and a general and rigid rule like 14 days between a NM log and a NA log.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I think this is the main reason that there is no automated process for this problem. In some cases, it could be automatic, but my guess is that many situations come up that require some human interaction and judgement to determine what is reasonable.

And as I always say, the community is best able to determine what is reasonable for a local cache, so not only should NMs and NAs not be automatic, they also shouldn't be considered the responsibility of either the reviewer or Groundspeak.

Link to comment

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

In my area, I doubt it would have any bearing at all on the Archive rate. I've seen a very small number of Listings Archived in less than the 30 day waiting period with no response/absent owners, which usually involved someone wanting to post a nearby or nearly identical placement.

 

I'm in favor of a shorter time frame in situations like that. An active cache is always better than a dead cache IMO. Otherwise, there are too many exceptions to a less than 30 day period, and it seems a bit heavy handed to rush for the Archive button.

 

I think that you talk about a differenct scenario than the one to shortcut the time to post a NA log after a NM log. Having a rule that sets 14 days as a limit to react to a NM log (!) seems quite unreasonable to me - I can imagine a few special cases where it might make sense, but in most cases it does not in my opinion. I would not like that cachers out there start to expect that cache owners are required to run out and fix every sort of minor issue within 14 days.

Link to comment

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

 

My reasoning wasn't so much to trap busy COs, but to just make a process more efficient. It is almost a 100% kill rate on these neglected caches, once a reviewer disables a cache after the NM and then an NA. Seems a waste of time waiting for 2 months to clear the spot. If the CO was active, and had an interest in maintaining the cache, then they should reply to the initial NM, or better still, the problems that sparked it, and explain the situation, fix it, or provide a reasonable timeframe when it will be fixed. Then a reviewer can decide if this is reasonable, and not drop the axe after 14d......

 

 

Link to comment

I think that you talk about a differenct scenario than the one to shortcut the time to post a NA log after a NM log. Having a rule that sets 14 days as a limit to react to a NM log (!) seems quite unreasonable to me - I can imagine a few special cases where it might make sense, but in most cases it does not in my opinion. I would not like that cachers out there start to expect that cache owners are required to run out and fix every sort of minor issue within 14 days.

 

In the real world cases I've been watching caches and reporting NM/NA, the 14 days is not the 1st time it's been reported. It's always already been reported for months without a follow-up. The NM or NA by another cacher eventually gets the attention of a review who then posts his own TA giving the CO one final shot. In the end, the CO often had months to address and has not done anything so it's absolutely not 14 days.

 

I don't care if some forum posters get their panties in a bunch that a cache is used as an example, but to illustrate the discussion point and eliminate interpretation of the topic being discussed, here's a real life example of which I have many more just like this...

 

Cache https://www.geocachi...CD14_doig-micro was DNF'ed for 1 year. It's a 1/1 D/T cache. I posted a NM, another cacher posted a NM and a reviewer picked it up and TA'ed it 2 months later. It was archived 1 month later. This last set of TA/Archive actions is what is being discussed as cutting in half. For this cache, it was over 18 months from the 1st DNF until it was archived without the CO following up and not the 14 days being discussed.

Edited by Team DEMP
Link to comment

 

In the real world cases I've been watching caches and reporting NM/NA, the 14 days is not the 1st time it's been reported. It's always already been reported for months without a follow-up. The NM or NA by another cacher eventually gets the attention of a review who then posts his own TA giving the CO one final shot. In the end, the CO often had months to address and has not done anything so it's absolutely not 14 days.

 

 

I do not have any issue if such cases are handled in the way discussed here. However such an approach requires human judgement to look at the history of a cache. However an automatic rule that 14 days after a NM log a NA log should follow would do no good in my opinion and create more harm.

Link to comment

In the real world cases I've been watching caches and reporting NM/NA, the 14 days is not the 1st time it's been reported. It's always already been reported for months without a follow-up. The NM or NA by another cacher eventually gets the attention of a review who then posts his own TA giving the CO one final shot. In the end, the CO often had months to address and has not done anything so it's absolutely not 14 days.

 

 

I do not have any issue if such cases are handled in the way discussed here. However such an approach requires human judgement to look at the history of a cache. However an automatic rule that 14 days after a NM log a NA log should follow would do no good in my opinion and create more harm.

 

The reviewer is already providing human judgement before he initiates the TA. It's 14 days after a reviewer posts a TA (not a NM) without further posts especially by the CO.

Link to comment

Given the frequency that reviewers have to archive these, maybe the time periods should be reduced - 14d for NM to NA, then 14d from NA to archive. I would be surprised if the archive frequency fell.....

 

My reasoning wasn't so much to trap busy COs, but to just make a process more efficient. It is almost a 100% kill rate on these neglected caches, once a reviewer disables a cache after the NM and then an NA. Seems a waste of time waiting for 2 months to clear the spot. If the CO was active, and had an interest in maintaining the cache, then they should reply to the initial NM, or better still, the problems that sparked it, and explain the situation, fix it, or provide a reasonable timeframe when it will be fixed. Then a reviewer can decide if this is reasonable, and not drop the axe after 14d......

 

Efficiency at the expense of humanity isn't an improvement.

Link to comment

I wouldn't want to shrink my timeline for final archival down to two weeks for "normal" maintenance issues. (Complaints from land managers, law enforcement, etc. are often on a faster timeline.) Despite the cache owner typically having several months' notice in the form of DNF and Needs Maintenance logs, if the reviewer only gives a few weeks, the odds increase that the reviewer will receive hate mail or see negative social media posts for "being a cache executioner with a hair trigger" or for "exercising your little thimble of power."

 

Yes, both of those are actual quotes, said to me in these circumstances.

 

I find that three or four weeks works much better for abuse avoidance, depending on the nature of the problem and the time of year. Given that I'm picking up the pieces from a broken gameboard, let me clean up in a way that minimizes the blowback against me.

Edited by Keystone
Link to comment

Around here (SW OH) the reviewers give a 30 day notice for most NM logs which are being unattended. Then they simply archive the hide.

 

NMs?

Or do you mean NAs?

In Ontario it's NAs. Once the cache gets an NA, the reviewer responds with a 30 day disable, then there's a 99% chance that that cache will end up archived by the reviewer.

Problem is, I think I'm the only one who posts NAs.

 

There are at least 2 of us! :rolleyes: Not many, but if warranted, I have been known to pull the trigger.

I just wish people would log NMs, even. Time and again I've seen logs that would warrant NM but not posted as such. If people would get over the idea that they're going to offend the CO if they post either log, the caching world would be a better place.

Link to comment

Cache https://www.geocachi...CD14_doig-micro was DNF'ed for 1 year. It's a 1/1 D/T cache. I posted a NM, another cacher posted a NM and a reviewer picked it up and TA'ed it 2 months later. It was archived 1 month later. This last set of TA/Archive actions is what is being discussed as cutting in half. For this cache, it was over 18 months from the 1st DNF until it was archived without the CO following up and not the 14 days being discussed.

On the one hand, of course you have a point that it's clear nothing is going to be done whether the pause at the end is 2 weeks or 2 months.

 

But on the other hand, an extra 2 weeks is a drop in the bucket compared to the 6 months it took someone to post an NM between when it was obvious there was a problem in April and when the first NM was filed in October, and no one ever posted an NA, so the 6 weeks between the second NM and the reviewer disabling it was wasted by the community regardless of any reviewer scheduling standards. I have a hard time encouraging the reviewer to rush it when the community doesn't appear to be in any hurry.

 

And although one could imagine other cases that weren't broken so conveniently for my argument, I think the general observation is valid: there's no rush. It takes a while for a missing cache to get to the point of NMs and NAs, so tacking on an extra month at the end of it doesn't strike me as an burden excessive enough to worrying about.

Link to comment

I just wish people would log NMs, even. Time and again I've seen logs that would warrant NM but not posted as such. If people would get over the idea that they're going to offend the CO if they post either log, the caching world would be a better place.

 

Until this week, you couldn't log a NM/NA with the supported official geocaching app. It was *just* added this week for anyone who updates their app. I would hope more people appropriately flag caches now that you don't need to remember when you get home or do it via the non-mobile friendly web site in your phone's browser while you are out caching.

 

The ability to do it from the official app but won't change anyone's concern about offending the CO, which baffles me, but whatever.

Link to comment

I think that you talk about a differenct scenario than the one to shortcut the time to post a NA log after a NM log. Having a rule that sets 14 days as a limit to react to a NM log (!) seems quite unreasonable to me - I can imagine a few special cases where it might make sense, but in most cases it does not in my opinion. I would not like that cachers out there start to expect that cache owners are required to run out and fix every sort of minor issue within 14 days.

 

In the real world cases I've been watching caches and reporting NM/NA, the 14 days is not the 1st time it's been reported. It's always already been reported for months without a follow-up. The NM or NA by another cacher eventually gets the attention of a review who then posts his own TA giving the CO one final shot. In the end, the CO often had months to address and has not done anything so it's absolutely not 14 days.

 

I don't care if some forum posters get their panties in a bunch that a cache is used as an example, but to illustrate the discussion point and eliminate interpretation of the topic being discussed, here's a real life example of which I have many more just like this...

 

Cache https://www.geocachi...CD14_doig-micro was DNF'ed for 1 year. It's a 1/1 D/T cache. I posted a NM, another cacher posted a NM and a reviewer picked it up and TA'ed it 2 months later. It was archived 1 month later. This last set of TA/Archive actions is what is being discussed as cutting in half. For this cache, it was over 18 months from the 1st DNF until it was archived without the CO following up and not the 14 days being discussed.

 

I bet, on average, an abandoned damaged cache takes one year before it goes through the process and eventually ends up archived by a reviewer.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Around here (SW OH) the reviewers give a 30 day notice for most NM logs which are being unattended. Then they simply archive the hide.

 

NMs?

Or do you mean NAs?

In Ontario it's NAs. Once the cache gets an NA, the reviewer responds with a 30 day disable, then there's a 99% chance that that cache will end up archived by the reviewer.

Problem is, I think I'm the only one who posts NAs.

 

There are at least 2 of us! :rolleyes: Not many, but if warranted, I have been known to pull the trigger.

I just wish people would log NMs, even. Time and again I've seen logs that would warrant NM but not posted as such. If people would get over the idea that they're going to offend the CO if they post either log, the caching world would be a better place.

 

I hear you. As a cache owner, I appreciate NMs. Sure, say something in the found log I'll see it, but don't worry about posting an NM. It tells me there's something the needs attention. It also puts a red wrench on our cache and let's finders know there may be an issue. They can skip it until I get out to fix it. It will be a much better experience after I go out to maintain it and post the OM note.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 12
×
×
  • Create New...