Cache missing for 5 months, co deletes maintenance logs.

[+Team Microdot]

In my personal opinion as a reviewer and as a geocacher, all "action" logs should be undeleteable. (Enable, Disable, Needs Maintenance, Owner Maintenance, Needs Archived, and Update Coordinates log types.)

+1 Yep, me too.

 

Agreed.

[+fbingha]

2 -

You believe that the geocache is missing, and the cache owner has been unresponsive to previous DNF and Needs Maintenance logs.

 

That doesn't help when the cache has been replaced with a throwdown. A throwdown means the cache is no longer missing. Still need two other cachers to leave NM logs before the NA will be accepted.

[+Team Microdot]

2 -

You believe that the geocache is missing, and the cache owner has been unresponsive to previous DNF and Needs Maintenance logs.

 

That doesn't help when the cache has been replaced with a throwdown. A throwdown means the cache is no longer missing. Still need two other cachers to leave NM logs before the NA will be accepted.

 

Well, strictly speaking, the cache is still missing... it's just that someone has left a proxy - which isn't the cache and so NA would be appropriate

[+L0ne.R]

2 -

You believe that the geocache is missing, and the cache owner has been unresponsive to previous DNF and Needs Maintenance logs.

 

That doesn't help when the cache has been replaced with a throwdown. A throwdown means the cache is no longer missing. Still need two other cachers to leave NM logs before the NA will be accepted.

 

Well, strictly speaking, the cache is still missing... it's just that someone has left a proxy - which isn't the cache and so NA would be appropriate

 

Yes.

 

The Help Center is unfortunately wishy washy about throwdowns.

Throwdowns are strongly discouraged

Cache owners are responsible for

maintenance

. When you are aware of throwdowns, check if your cache is still there and remove the throwdown cache.

It does not address throwdowns on abandoned caches or maintenance shirkers.

 

Another side effect of the reviewer's stance is that it might encourage removal of throwdowns as the only way to get the abandoned listing archived. Do you think this is what the reviewer is trying to do....encourage removal of throwdowns?

 

Maybe not, it's probably an 'any cache is a viable cache', 'smiley acquisition is good for the game' stance.

 

[Pup Patrol]

I've tried to get caches archived for throwdowns with no maintenance by the flash in the pan COs but found it to be pointless. Throwdowns are not enough reason for our reviewers to archive a cache.

 

I've been told by my reviewer that outside of property owner/trespassing issues, a cache will not get the "You have 30 days to fix your cache" warning unless there are three different cachers posting NA, DNF, or NM logs.

 

How many DNF's and / or NM logs had been posted prior to the NA?

 

Help Center → Finding a Geocache → Finding a Geocache

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=434

3.8. I found a geocache that needs to be archived

 

If you think that a geocache listing needs to be archived, please use the Report a Problem feature and select the Needs Archived (NA) log. A Needs Archived log will notify the geocache owner and a local reviewer who may follow up on the NA log. Listings that have NA logs, are not automatically archived and you may not see a public response to your log.

 

When to post an NA log

 

Use this log type only if you have visited the geocache location.

 

Reasons to post an NA log:

 

You found a geocache that was placed without permission.

 

Property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.

 

Searching for the cache causes damage to the area.

 

The cache placement damages or defaces property.

 

You couldn't find a cache that has several DNFs or Needs Maintenance logs with no cache owner response.

 

Do not use Needs Archived if:

The geocache needs repairs (instead, use a Needs Maintenance log).

You didn't find the geocache.

The location made you uncomfortable.

 

 

B.

 

Did my question get an answer?

 

 

B.

[+fbingha]

2 -

You believe that the geocache is missing, and the cache owner has been unresponsive to previous DNF and Needs Maintenance logs.

 

That doesn't help when the cache has been replaced with a throwdown. A throwdown means the cache is no longer missing. Still need two other cachers to leave NM logs before the NA will be accepted.

 

Well, strictly speaking, the cache is still missing... it's just that someone has left a proxy - which isn't the cache and so NA would be appropriate

 

Oh that doesn't work. An NA on a throw down is just a NM, as was made clear to me.

 

[+fbingha]

Did my question get an answer?

 

You win. I posted the only NM and I then posted an NA on a cache that just needs repairs. Obviously I was wrong to believe that was appropriate. May cachers continue to log that putrid mess. It's the type that shows up for new cachers so maybe they feel encouraged to continue playing. Maybe the CO, who played for 2 weeks back in the summer of '13 will come out some day and bring it back to its former glory.

 

On the forums, let's continue to argue semantics while the game devolves everywhere, except for dprovan's area, the utopia of geocaching.

 

 

[+dprovan]

Thanks for the insight into the matter but it is important to recognize that I don't see the problem being the reviewer's reaction to it, but rather the guideline that is being followed.

When I was saying I saw nothing wrong with the reviewer's reaction, I meant to imply that I also agree with the guideline the reviewer was following.

 

My point is that there won't be an improved quality of caches for 2017 if a cache requires 3 people to agree on it being a waste of time for anything other than getting another smiley on the map.

I'm even more against deleting caches for no reason other than that someone thinks they're a "waste of time".

 

There should be latitude allowed for a reviewer to take into consideration the other logs that have been left, that elaborate on the cache being junk, but the user didn't leave a NM.

My impression is that the reviewers have a lot of leeway to take any information they want into consideration. I don't think that's the problem here. Here, I think the problem is that the reviewer is taking all the information into account, but he simply disagrees that the container being a throwdown is justification for archiving a cache.

 

If the finder needs to reach a foot into the ground, grab a throwdown that has been left in putrid water, then I think there should be some avenue allowed to archive that doesn't require two other cachers to have the nerve to leave a NM.

In a case where the cache has an actual functional problem, the reviewer waits for a second opinion which should come in the form of an NA from someone else. That makes perfect sense because there's no reason for the reviewer to think you're infallible.

 

If you care, I am sure you can find it in my history. I'm just a bit tired of the NM meaning nothing for hiders who ignore them. There are no repercussions for failure to respond to NM unless multiple people leave it. This cache had its first a year ago. If a hider can't take the time to clear the message then archive the cache after a few months.

An NM is explicitly information for the CO. If he ignores the NM, someone should file an NA which puts the process in the hands of the reviewer and should lead to it being archived if the problem isn't addressed.

 

To be honest, I think you're taking this too personally. You filed the appropriate log clearly reporting your observations of a problem. Now forget about it. If the process or the standards lead to the cache not being archived, just accept the result. Yes, it's true, if people keep dropping throwdowns, the cache will not be archived. Why does it matter to you? It's no different than if the CO himself dropped the same throwdowns every time the cache went missing.

[+L0ne.R]

 

To be honest, I think you're taking this too personally. You filed the appropriate log clearly reporting your observations of a problem. Now forget about it. If the process or the standards lead to the cache not being archived, just accept the result. Yes, it's true, if people keep dropping throwdowns, the cache will not be archived. Why does it matter to you? It's no different than if the CO himself dropped the same throwdowns every time the cache went missing.

 

It matters to me, because the database is full of abandoned junk. Integrity also matters. Throwdowns are litter. I'm a little surprised dprovan, since you've been vocal advocate for logging NMs and NAs, yet you feel throwdowns are OK and junk is OK.

[+dprovan]

It matters to me, because the database is full of abandoned junk. Integrity also matters. Throwdowns are litter. I'm a little surprised dprovan, since you've been vocal advocate for logging NMs and NAs, yet you feel throwdowns are OK and junk is OK.

I understand why bad caches matter to people. What I'm asking is why it matters to fbingha that his NM log triggers the archival. The process is designed to encourage input from multiple people to archive a cache. He's done his part. I was suggesting he stop worrying about it and be content to let the rest of the process takes its course.

[+Team Microdot]

It matters to me, because the database is full of abandoned junk. Integrity also matters. Throwdowns are litter. I'm a little surprised dprovan, since you've been vocal advocate for logging NMs and NAs, yet you feel throwdowns are OK and junk is OK.

I understand why bad caches matter to people. What I'm asking is why it matters to fbingha that his NM log triggers the archival. The process is designed to encourage input from multiple people to archive a cache. He's done his part. I was suggesting he stop worrying about it and be content to let the rest of the process takes its course.

 

Is this the old it doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to you argument?

[+justintim1999]

Thanks for the insight into the matter but it is important to recognize that I don't see the problem being the reviewer's reaction to it, but rather the guideline that is being followed.

When I was saying I saw nothing wrong with the reviewer's reaction, I meant to imply that I also agree with the guideline the reviewer was following.

 

My point is that there won't be an improved quality of caches for 2017 if a cache requires 3 people to agree on it being a waste of time for anything other than getting another smiley on the map.

I'm even more against deleting caches for no reason other than that someone thinks they're a "waste of time".

 

There should be latitude allowed for a reviewer to take into consideration the other logs that have been left, that elaborate on the cache being junk, but the user didn't leave a NM.

My impression is that the reviewers have a lot of leeway to take any information they want into consideration. I don't think that's the problem here. Here, I think the problem is that the reviewer is taking all the information into account, but he simply disagrees that the container being a throwdown is justification for archiving a cache.

 

If the finder needs to reach a foot into the ground, grab a throwdown that has been left in putrid water, then I think there should be some avenue allowed to archive that doesn't require two other cachers to have the nerve to leave a NM.

In a case where the cache has an actual functional problem, the reviewer waits for a second opinion which should come in the form of an NA from someone else. That makes perfect sense because there's no reason for the reviewer to think you're infallible.

 

If you care, I am sure you can find it in my history. I'm just a bit tired of the NM meaning nothing for hiders who ignore them. There are no repercussions for failure to respond to NM unless multiple people leave it. This cache had its first a year ago. If a hider can't take the time to clear the message then archive the cache after a few months.

An NM is explicitly information for the CO. If he ignores the NM, someone should file an NA which puts the process in the hands of the reviewer and should lead to it being archived if the problem isn't addressed.

 

To be honest, I think you're taking this too personally. You filed the appropriate log clearly reporting your observations of a problem. Now forget about it. If the process or the standards lead to the cache not being archived, just accept the result. Yes, it's true, if people keep dropping throwdowns, the cache will not be archived. Why does it matter to you? It's no different than if the CO himself dropped the same throwdowns every time the cache went missing.

 

In my mind a throw down is an ownerless cache and should be removed. as a cache owner I'd check up on my cache, remove the throw down and post an owners maintenance log.

 

My question is if a cacher posts a NM why dose the NA have to come from someone else? If the cache owner has ignored the NM why dose someone else have to verify anything before a reviewer gets involved?

 

I also have a hard time thinking that a reviewer has no issue with a possible throw down. If there is a question of a throw down, the only one who can verify that is the cache owner. Cache owners are suppose to respond to potential cache issues. A throw down is a potential issue.

 

Part of the problem here is people are all to willing to forget about it and not get involved, to the point of being hesitant to post a simple NM. A NM isn't an issue for the responsible cache owner, in fact a good cache owner welcomes the information.

 

Stick with it and force the cache owner to fulfill their part of the deal or archive it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In my personal opinion as a reviewer and as a geocacher, all "action" logs should be undeleteable. (Enable, Disable, Needs Maintenance, Owner Maintenance, Needs Archived, and Update Coordinates log types.)

+1 Yep, me too.

 

I would tend to agree. The only issue or me would be if one of those logs was completely unjustified. For example, a newbie that can't find a cache logs a N/A because they do not yet understand the difference between a DNF, NM, or N/A log. Another, would be when someone posts a "add a coordinate" to their found log after finding a throwdown. In both cases, allowing those logs to remain might be misleading. I don't like the idea of adding an amount of work for reviewers, but even if the owner can't delete any of those logs, a reviewer should have the power to do so and honor a request to do so if the log is unjustified.

[+cerberus1]

In my personal opinion as a reviewer and as a geocacher, all "action" logs should be undeleteable. (Enable, Disable, Needs Maintenance, Owner Maintenance, Needs Archived, and Update Coordinates log types.)

+1 Yep, me too.

I would tend to agree. The only issue or me would be if one of those logs was completely unjustified. For example, a newbie that can't find a cache logs a N/A because they do not yet understand the difference between a DNF, NM, or N/A log. Another, would be when someone posts a "add a coordinate" to their found log after finding a throwdown. In both cases, allowing those logs to remain might be misleading. I don't like the idea of adding an amount of work for reviewers, but even if the owner can't delete any of those logs, a reviewer should have the power to do so and honor a request to do so if the log is unjustified.

I get where you're coming from, but at least one time it was more "satisfying" (to me) to mention someone's error on the cache page, for all to see, rather than simply delete it.

 

A new cacher wrote something like," I went to this site with an experienced cacher. It wasn't where he found it in the past. NM."

 

My OM reply was sorta, "Stopped over today and yep, it's still there. In fact, a cacher found it a day later.

Geocaching is usually done with a gpsr ON and looking for it.

If either of you did, your 'experienced cacher' would've realized the cache was moved 300' away".

- The new person's "mentor" found it two years earlier.

[+dprovan]

It matters to me, because the database is full of abandoned junk. Integrity also matters. Throwdowns are litter. I'm a little surprised dprovan, since you've been vocal advocate for logging NMs and NAs, yet you feel throwdowns are OK and junk is OK.

I understand why bad caches matter to people. What I'm asking is why it matters to fbingha that his NM log triggers the archival. The process is designed to encourage input from multiple people to archive a cache. He's done his part. I was suggesting he stop worrying about it and be content to let the rest of the process takes its course.

Is this the old it doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to you argument?

No, not in the slightest. In fact, that makes me think you've missed my point entirely. What I'm saying is, "Get over yourself." The system is designed to allow people to express their opinions while taking into account other possible points of view. What I hear here is someone complaining because they filed an NM and the cache wasn't archived. I'm trying to get across is that that's a good thing, so he should accept that it's happening even though it means his opinion isn't being treated like solid gold.

 

None of that has anything to do with what matters to who. Indeed, the second example is good precisely because we can all agree that trash should be eliminated, yet we can still acknowledge that the process that makes that take longer than it might is a good one.

[+Team Microdot]

It matters to me, because the database is full of abandoned junk. Integrity also matters. Throwdowns are litter. I'm a little surprised dprovan, since you've been vocal advocate for logging NMs and NAs, yet you feel throwdowns are OK and junk is OK.

I understand why bad caches matter to people. What I'm asking is why it matters to fbingha that his NM log triggers the archival. The process is designed to encourage input from multiple people to archive a cache. He's done his part. I was suggesting he stop worrying about it and be content to let the rest of the process takes its course.

Is this the old it doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to you argument?

No, not in the slightest. In fact, that makes me think you've missed my point entirely. What I'm saying is, "Get over yourself." The system is designed to allow people to express their opinions while taking into account other possible points of view. What I hear here is someone complaining because they filed an NM and the cache wasn't archived. I'm trying to get across is that that's a good thing, so he should accept that it's happening even though it means his opinion isn't being treated like solid gold.

 

None of that has anything to do with what matters to who. Indeed, the second example is good precisely because we can all agree that trash should be eliminated, yet we can still acknowledge that the process that makes that take longer than it might is a good one.

 

So it is the it doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to you. Thought so.

[+dprovan]

In my mind a throw down is an ownerless cache and should be removed.

I understand that position, but the rules are against it. That's because there's no clear line between an unauthorized throwdown and a cache replaced on behalf of and with the approval of the CO. Specifically, even the most obvious and egregious throwdown might be welcomed by the CO, and who are we to say that's bad?

 

While there will be many cases were most people will agree that a cache is being propped up with a throwdown, and the throwdowns might all themselves be worthless, we only want reviewers to step in in black and white cases. Hence my stressing that the problem is the throwdowns, not that the reviewer refuses to act.

 

My question is if a cacher posts a NM why dose the NA have to come from someone else? If the cache owner has ignored the NM why dose someone else have to verify anything before a reviewer gets involved?

I don't think the NA has to come from someone else, but there are two basic reasons I think it should. The first is practical: just to get a second opinion. The person filing the NM saw it one way, but perhaps there's another way to see it. If they also file the NA, we don't know if a second person might see a second possibility.

 

The second is perhaps a more strategic reason, but it goes like this: until a second person takes an interest in the situation, then there's no pressing reason to do anything about it. This might seem apathetic, but I think it works because it automatically delays any action when the cache is remote or infrequently visited. Whenever anyone brings up a 2 week limit, many people complain -- quite rightly -- that there are some caches in remote locations that it is unreasonable to expect a CO to visit within 2 weeks. The things that will make it take longer for a second party to become involved are the same things that will cause the CO himself to take longer to react.

 

I also have a hard time thinking that a reviewer has no issue with a possible throw down.

There's a difference between a reviewer having an issue with something and a reviewer feeling that the situation warrants him using his power to do something about it.

 

Just in case it's not clear, even as we all agree that throwdowns are bad, you have to keep in mind that one person in this situation thinks throwdowns are good, and that's the person that threw the replacement down. If the reviewer acts against the cache, they are specifically denying that person's opinion. This can -- and has -- been debated every way from Sunday, and the current standard is that the decision to archive be based on the condition of the cache itself without worrying about how the cache ended up in that condition.

[+dprovan]

So it is the it doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to you. Thought so.

Really? I spent all that time explaining it to you, and you can't get anything out of it?

[+justintim1999]

In my mind a throw down is an ownerless cache and should be removed.

I understand that position, but the rules are against it. That's because there's no clear line between an unauthorized throwdown and a cache replaced on behalf of and with the approval of the CO. Specifically, even the most obvious and egregious throwdown might be welcomed by the CO, and who are we to say that's bad?

 

While there will be many cases were most people will agree that a cache is being propped up with a throwdown, and the throwdowns might all themselves be worthless, we only want reviewers to step in in black and white cases. Hence my stressing that the problem is the throwdowns, not that the reviewer refuses to act.

 

My question is if a cacher posts a NM why dose the NA have to come from someone else? If the cache owner has ignored the NM why dose someone else have to verify anything before a reviewer gets involved?

I don't think the NA has to come from someone else, but there are two basic reasons I think it should. The first is practical: just to get a second opinion. The person filing the NM saw it one way, but perhaps there's another way to see it. If they also file the NA, we don't know if a second person might see a second possibility.

 

The second is perhaps a more strategic reason, but it goes like this: until a second person takes an interest in the situation, then there's no pressing reason to do anything about it. This might seem apathetic, but I think it works because it automatically delays any action when the cache is remote or infrequently visited. Whenever anyone brings up a 2 week limit, many people complain -- quite rightly -- that there are some caches in remote locations that it is unreasonable to expect a CO to visit within 2 weeks. The things that will make it take longer for a second party to become involved are the same things that will cause the CO himself to take longer to react.

 

I also have a hard time thinking that a reviewer has no issue with a possible throw down.

There's a difference between a reviewer having an issue with something and a reviewer feeling that the situation warrants him using his power to do something about it.

 

Just in case it's not clear, even as we all agree that throwdowns are bad, you have to keep in mind that one person in this situation thinks throwdowns are good, and that's the person that threw the replacement down. If the reviewer acts against the cache, they are specifically denying that person's opinion. This can -- and has -- been debated every way from Sunday, and the current standard is that the decision to archive be based on the condition of the cache itself without worrying about how the cache ended up in that condition.

 

An authorized throw down can be explained by an owners maintenance log.

 

It's the NM that goes unchecked by the cache owner that should trigger the NA. A second opinion on the condition of a cache means nothing if the owner hasn't responded to the first. I agree certain caches require special dispensations. Ones that can and should be granted by a reviewer only after information has been exchanged. My comments are geared toward the vast majority of caches that are less than a mile from a parking area.

 

Whether or not we think a throw down is good or bad is irrelevant. The cache owner should be the one that clears that up by removing it or letting it be known that they approve of the placement. An unauthorized throw down, even in good condition, should be removed because it has no clear owner.

[+Team Microdot]

So it is the it doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to you. Thought so.

Really? I spent all that time explaining it to you, and you can't get anything out of it?

 

Maybe it's the way you said it.

 

I've read back through the thread again and think I see the point you were trying to make.

 

I think you're saying that archiving based on concensus of opinion is safer than archiving based on the opinion of a single individual and I would tend to agree that's largely sound.

 

I can also see the frustration a person might feel when they see a cache that is ownerless / ownerless in terms of maintenance but continues to be perpetuated ad-infinitum for the sake of one more smiley. From that perspective the system is broken.

 

I can also see though that a system without concensus of opinion would be open to abuse and so broken in a different way.

 

Seems like a tough nut to crack.

[+L0ne.R]

Whether or not we think a throw down is good or bad is irrelevant. The cache owner should be the one that clears that up by removing it or letting it be known that they approve of the placement. An unauthorized throw down, even in good condition, should be removed because it has no clear owner.

 

This ^^^

[+BCandMsKitty]

In my personal opinion as a reviewer and as a geocacher, all "action" logs should be undeleteable. (Enable, Disable, Needs Maintenance, Owner Maintenance, Needs Archived, and Update Coordinates log types.)

 

Absolutely!

Make it happen

[+dprovan]

An authorized throw down can be explained by an owners maintenance log.

Authorization can be confirmed with an OM, but a lack of an OM proves nothing.

 

More to the point, though, if reviewers start archiving caches whenever someone says they dropped a throwdown, I doubt many more caches will be archived, but I'm sure many more loggers will stop being honest about dropping a throwdown.

 

It's the NM that goes unchecked by the cache owner that should trigger the NA.

I'm absolutely fine with that loophole. A preponderance of uncleared NMs can, indeed, lead to a reasonable NA, and assuming the case is actually good, the reviewer will archive the cache because it's not being maintained. In that case, throwndowns become a minor piece of evidence.

 

A second opinion on the condition of a cache means nothing if the owner hasn't responded to the first.

No, this is wrong. You don't understand the point of a second opinion. The second opinion confirms the first opinion. Until there's a second opinion, the first opinion is just an opinion and not grounds for taking any action.

 

You seem to think the only point of the second opinion is to outvote the CO, but that's not it at all.

 

I agree certain caches require special dispensations. Ones that can and should be granted by a reviewer only after information has been exchanged. My comments are geared toward the vast majority of caches that are less than a mile from a parking area.

Since how far a cache is from parking has nothing to do with the situation here, when you bring that up as a deciding factor, it makes me think you're more out to get that cache regardless of its status. That's a perfect example of why we get a second opinion.

 

Whether or not we think a throw down is good or bad is irrelevant. The cache owner should be the one that clears that up by removing it or letting it be known that they approve of the placement. An unauthorized throw down, even in good condition, should be removed because it has no clear owner.

As we have this conversation, I start asking myself why anyone's so concerned about this one cache not being archived. I have to remind myself that the problem in your area must be that you have many, many caches in this state. If so, that's the case you should be making to the reviewer or even to GS. If there's a epidemic of bad, often missing caches in your area that are being propped up by throwdowns, perhaps you could talk to the reviewer about what case should be made to claim a cache is of that type and should be archived. I just don't have sympathy for the argument when it's no more than "he said 'throwdown' in his log".

[+dprovan]

I can also see the frustration a person might feel when they see a cache that is ownerless / ownerless in terms of maintenance but continues to be perpetuated ad-infinitum for the sake of one more smiley. From that perspective the system is broken.

 

I can also see though that a system without concensus of opinion would be open to abuse and so broken in a different way.

 

Seems like a tough nut to crack.

A system in which one person with an agenda can get a cache archived for no good reason is utterly broken. A system is not broken that allows a cache to stay active when one person thinks should be archived but another considers it fine. So there's really no debating the second opinion concept.

 

The throwdown issue is really different, but I think they get confused because those people that think throwdowns are automatically bad are then offended when the system doesn't back them up. There are examples being brought up here where there's a really good case for a cache being declared bad, such a good case that consensus could be reached even to the point of convincing a reviewer. But instead of making that case, throwdowns are pointed to as definitive, and that argument is being rejected.

 

As much as I don't like throwdowns, in terms of a case that a cache has become bad, a throwdown doesn't mean anything more to me than that the cache has gone missing again. That's one point supporting the claim that the cache isn't being maintained, not the unquestionable proof that it's being made out to be.

[+justintim1999]

An authorized throw down can be explained by an owners maintenance log.

Authorization can be confirmed with an OM, but a lack of an OM proves nothing.

 

More to the point, though, if reviewers start archiving caches whenever someone says they dropped a throwdown, I doubt many more caches will be archived, but I'm sure many more loggers will stop being honest about dropping a throwdown.

 

It's the NM that goes unchecked by the cache owner that should trigger the NA.

I'm absolutely fine with that loophole. A preponderance of uncleared NMs can, indeed, lead to a reasonable NA, and assuming the case is actually good, the reviewer will archive the cache because it's not being maintained. In that case, throwndowns become a minor piece of evidence.

 

A second opinion on the condition of a cache means nothing if the owner hasn't responded to the first.

No, this is wrong. You don't understand the point of a second opinion. The second opinion confirms the first opinion. Until there's a second opinion, the first opinion is just an opinion and not grounds for taking any action.

 

You seem to think the only point of the second opinion is to outvote the CO, but that's not it at all.

 

I agree certain caches require special dispensations. Ones that can and should be granted by a reviewer only after information has been exchanged. My comments are geared toward the vast majority of caches that are less than a mile from a parking area.

Since how far a cache is from parking has nothing to do with the situation here, when you bring that up as a deciding factor, it makes me think you're more out to get that cache regardless of its status. That's a perfect example of why we get a second opinion.

 

Whether or not we think a throw down is good or bad is irrelevant. The cache owner should be the one that clears that up by removing it or letting it be known that they approve of the placement. An unauthorized throw down, even in good condition, should be removed because it has no clear owner.

As we have this conversation, I start asking myself why anyone's so concerned about this one cache not being archived. I have to remind myself that the problem in your area must be that you have many, many caches in this state. If so, that's the case you should be making to the reviewer or even to GS. If there's a epidemic of bad, often missing caches in your area that are being propped up by throwdowns, perhaps you could talk to the reviewer about what case should be made to claim a cache is of that type and should be archived. I just don't have sympathy for the argument when it's no more than "he said 'throwdown' in his log".

 

Lack of an OML means that the cache owner is not paying attention to their cache. If there were even a hint of a throw down on one of my caches I'd be out there checking up on it. In my opinion it's a bad cache owner who would allow a situation like this to fester.

 

If someone posts a NM on a cache the owner should clear that with an OML explaining what action was taken.

 

To be honest I don't understand the reason for a second opinion. I've never had a second NM on one of my caches. I don't put any weight behind a second opinion if the first has gone ignored.

 

distance traveled to a cache has a lot to do with what we're talking about. The longer the hike the less likely it is that a cache owner will take a NM seriously or drag their feet checking up on the cache.

 

In my area we have many caches with NM's on them. Most of them seem to be in good condition. The problem is most cache owners don't use the OML even after they have repaired the cache. Seems like solving this problem would save reviewers a lot of time.

 

The problem with the original question is three fold

 

The NM was allowed to be deleted.

 

The owner of the cache moved away, was having trouble with maintenance and should have archived it (which is what eventually happened)

 

The back log find threw everything out of whack.

Edited February 16, 2017 by justintim1999

[+Team Microdot]

 

A system in which one person with an agenda can get a cache archived for no good reason is utterly broken. A system is not broken that allows a cache to stay active when one person thinks should be archived but another considers it fine. So there's really no debating the second opinion concept.

 

Unless of course the person who considers it fine is simply overlooking the fact that the cache is a pile of junk just because they want to claim the smiley and move on. That's a broken system and it's the system that exists.

 

So yeah - despite your claim to the contrary - the second opinion concept is still very much up for debate. I'm surprised you could conclude otherwise.

[+dprovan]

Lack of an OML means that the cache owner is not paying attention to their cache.

Yes, exactly! It should be taken as questioning whether the cache is being maintained. My point is that it is not proof that the throwdown is contrary to the CO's wishes.

 

This is generally why I push back on using throwdowns as evidence against a cache: there's usually something else, something more tangible and evident, wrong with the cache, so that's what we should focus on. The problem -- as I said way back -- is that there's no clear line between a throwdown and someone legitimately helping a CO, so I say focus on the things that are demonstrably wrong instead of trying to work out which side of that unclear line this replacement cache falls on.

 

To be honest I don't understand the reason for a second opinion. I've never had a second NM on one of my caches. I don't put any weight behind a second opinion if the first has gone ignored.

The second opinion built into the process isn't a second NM, it's the NA. An NM points out to the CO the problem; the NA then provides a second opinion, confirming the legitimacy of the NM and declaring it unmet, hence bringing the cache to the attention of the reviewer.

 

distance traveled to a cache has a lot to do with what we're talking about. The longer the hike the less likely it is that a cache owner will take a NM seriously or drag their feet checking up on the cache.

What does reaction time have to do with what we're talking about?

 

In my area we have many caches with NM's on them. Most of them seem to be in good condition. The problem is most cache owners don't use the OML even after they have repaired the cache. Seems like solving this problem would save reviewers a lot of time.

The solution to the problem of obsolete NMs is CO's posting OMs, but I'm not sure why you're bringing that up in this context: do you think the solution is to archive the cache?

 

Unless of course the person who considers it fine is simply overlooking the fact that the cache is a pile of junk just because they want to claim the smiley and move on. That's a broken system and it's the system that exists.

The system is designed to work out whether one person is overlooking something.

 

So yeah - despite your claim to the contrary - the second opinion concept is still very much up for debate. I'm surprised you could conclude otherwise.

I'm afraid I have no idea why you think the example of one person making a mistake supports the idea that two opinions are not needed. I'd say it supports the idea of always getting a second opinion.

[+Team Microdot]

Unless of course the person who considers it fine is simply overlooking the fact that the cache is a pile of junk just because they want to claim the smiley and move on. That's a broken system and it's the system that exists.

The system is designed to work out whether one person is overlooking something.

 

Is it? How do you know that? Did you design the system? How does it cope with intentional overlooking by one or multiple individuals who couldn't care less that the cache is junk and should be archived?

 

So yeah - despite your claim to the contrary - the second opinion concept is still very much up for debate. I'm surprised you could conclude otherwise.

I'm afraid I have no idea why you think the example of one person making a mistake supports the idea that two opinions are not needed. I'd say it supports the idea of always getting a second opinion.

 

That'll be because that wasn't what I was thinking.

[+justintim1999]

You miss the point. There is no reason to guess, if the cache owner simply indicates the throw down was approved or posts a OML to that effect. Not responding to the NM at all raises flags.

 

I always thought the NA was not to validate the NM but used because the NM was not being addressed? I've yet to encounter a bogus NM. Typically when someone posts one there's something wrong with my cache.

 

Distance directly relates to the response of a NM by the cache owner dose it not? If a cache is a 10 mile hike I would think the CO would hesitate on checking up on every NM (although technically they should.) Simply ignoring a NM because it's too much trouble to check up on doesn't fly with me. Now if you and your reviewer agree on a time line to check or repair a cache like this than it's none of my business.

 

What's an obsolete NM? In the original post the cache should have been archived by the cache owner as it was obvious they were unable to maintain it. Unfortunately the hard route had to be taken to force the cache owner to do it. In short, the NM and the move to get the cache archived were both justified.

 

Later in this thread the subject of throw downs was introduced. You have argued that as long as the throw down was in good shape reviewers should "stay out of it". I disagree and any reasonable cache owner should too. If a cacher posts a NM due to a possible throw down and the cache owner doesn't respond for whatever reason than a reviewer should take notice.

[+Harry Dolphin]

You miss the point. There is no reason to guess, if the cache owner simply indicates the throw down was approved or posts a OML to that effect. Not responding to the NM at all raises flags.

 

I always thought the NA was not to validate the NM but used because the NM was not being addressed? I've yet to encounter a bogus NM. Typically when someone posts one there's something wrong with my cache.

Then again, I got an NA on one of my caches. It was that cacher's first find.

Needs Archived

Nothing is in the little magnetic box just paper for id and paper is filled with names so there is no room for anymore names

The cacher's only day geocaching. The log had room for forty more signatures. I mentioned that in my OML.

So, it does happen. And that cache is now PMO.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Harry Dolphin

[+justintim1999]

You miss the point. There is no reason to guess, if the cache owner simply indicates the throw down was approved or posts a OML to that effect. Not responding to the NM at all raises flags.

 

I always thought the NA was not to validate the NM but used because the NM was not being addressed? I've yet to encounter a bogus NM. Typically when someone posts one there's something wrong with my cache.

Then again, I got an NA on one of my caches. It was that cacher's first find.

Needs Archived

Nothing is in the little magnetic box just paper for id and paper is filled with names so there is no room for anymore names

The cacher's only day geocaching. The log had room for forty more signatures. I mentioned that in my OML.

So, it does happen. And that cache is now PMO.

 

Sure you going to have the occasional misguided NM or NA. Comes with the territory. You posted the OML and all is right with the world again, although I wouldn't have made it a PMO.

[+dprovan]

You miss the point. There is no reason to guess, if the cache owner simply indicates the throw down was approved or posts a OML to that effect. Not responding to the NM at all raises flags.

Yes, it raises flags. No, it's doesn't prove anything about the validity of the current container.

 

I always thought the NA was not to validate the NM but used because the NM was not being addressed?

Yes, the NA raises the cache to the attention of the reviewer because the NM wasn't address. If the NA is posted by someone else, it also provides a second opinion.

 

I've yet to encounter a bogus NM. Typically when someone posts one there's something wrong with my cache.

In my area, too, NMs are typically valid, and when unanswered, normally mean a cache is going down. But there's no reason to take it for granted. What's the rush? Why not wait for a second seeker to agree? By waiting, we lose nothing, but we provide a simple counter to various anomalies that would lead to the cache being archived when it needn't be.

 

Distance directly relates to the response of a NM by the cache owner dose it not? If a cache is a 10 mile hike I would think the CO would hesitate on checking up on every NM (although technically they should.) Simply ignoring a NM because it's too much trouble to check up on doesn't fly with me.

I agree completely. That's why I say distance -- and, hence, reaction time -- isn't relevant here. How long we wait until we decide an NM hasn't been met has no bearing on how we feel about the NM not being met. Furthermore, how we feel about an NM has nothing to do with whether a second opinion is useful or whether a throwdown should be considered the sole grounds for archival.

 

What's an obsolete NM?

You brought up NMs still active on caches that were in good condition but just hadn't had OMs posted. Thus I called them "obsolete" because the problem reported by the NM has been eliminated yet the maintenance flag still stands. I suppose it would have been clearer for me to call that an obsolete maintenance flag instead of an obsolete NM.

 

Later in this thread the subject of throw downs was introduced. You have argued that as long as the throw down was in good shape reviewers should "stay out of it". I disagree and any reasonable cache owner should too. If a cacher posts a NM due to a possible throw down and the cache owner doesn't respond for whatever reason than a reviewer should take notice.

I don't really care that much whether the reviewer stays out of it, I just think the current practice is easily defended.

[+dprovan]

The system is designed to work out whether one person is overlooking something.

Is it? How do you know that? Did you design the system?

I don't understand. We can all see the system and how it works.

 

How does it cope with intentional overlooking by one or multiple individuals who couldn't care less that the cache is junk and should be archived?

You are declaring yourself right and those other guys wrong, and then complaining that the system is broken because it doesn't agree you're right. The system copes with that case by ignoring both of you and only asking itself whether the cache is currently functioning. You consider that broken because you don't care whether the cache is currently functioning, you just want it to go away because you don't like how it's being maintained.

 

And on the other hand, I deny that you couldn't get your way. If the cache regularly disappears, if people often find the cache with a log of pulp floating in a cesspit, if NM logs haven't been answered, in my area, at least, an NA would lead to the cache being archived. Yet another throwdown wouldn't help it, but neither would a throwdown condemn it.

[+justintim1999]

You miss the point. There is no reason to guess, if the cache owner simply indicates the throw down was approved or posts a OML to that effect. Not responding to the NM at all raises flags.

Yes, it raises flags. No, it's doesn't prove anything about the validity of the current container.

 

I always thought the NA was not to validate the NM but used because the NM was not being addressed?

Yes, the NA raises the cache to the attention of the reviewer because the NM wasn't address. If the NA is posted by someone else, it also provides a second opinion.

 

I've yet to encounter a bogus NM. Typically when someone posts one there's something wrong with my cache.

In my area, too, NMs are typically valid, and when unanswered, normally mean a cache is going down. But there's no reason to take it for granted. What's the rush? Why not wait for a second seeker to agree? By waiting, we lose nothing, but we provide a simple counter to various anomalies that would lead to the cache being archived when it needn't be.

 

Distance directly relates to the response of a NM by the cache owner dose it not? If a cache is a 10 mile hike I would think the CO would hesitate on checking up on every NM (although technically they should.) Simply ignoring a NM because it's too much trouble to check up on doesn't fly with me.

I agree completely. That's why I say distance -- and, hence, reaction time -- isn't relevant here. How long we wait until we decide an NM hasn't been met has no bearing on how we feel about the NM not being met. Furthermore, how we feel about an NM has nothing to do with whether a second opinion is useful or whether a throwdown should be considered the sole grounds for archival.

 

What's an obsolete NM?

You brought up NMs still active on caches that were in good condition but just hadn't had OMs posted. Thus I called them "obsolete" because the problem reported by the NM has been eliminated yet the maintenance flag still stands. I suppose it would have been clearer for me to call that an obsolete maintenance flag instead of an obsolete NM.

 

Later in this thread the subject of throw downs was introduced. You have argued that as long as the throw down was in good shape reviewers should "stay out of it". I disagree and any reasonable cache owner should too. If a cacher posts a NM due to a possible throw down and the cache owner doesn't respond for whatever reason than a reviewer should take notice.

I don't really care that much whether the reviewer stays out of it, I just think the current practice is easily defended.

 

Lets get past the condition of the container and focus on the NM that isn't getting addressed. Typically a NM is legit but the only way to know for certain is to actually get up and get out there and take a look for yourself right?

 

One reason not to wait for a second opinion is we all know how anxious catchers are to post NM's. Could be months before someone summons the courage to post another one.

 

Then you have the "fix-r-uppers and the throw downers. Future finders (and possibly reviewers) will assume the CO fixed everything up and forgot to post a OML. Meanwhile we still have an absentee owner that won't respond to the next NM. Who knows how long this could go on?

 

I can't explain why the distance thing could effect cache maintenance (or lack of) any further.

[+dprovan]

Lets get past the condition of the container and focus on the NM that isn't getting addressed.

That's the point: as soon as decide that "not getting addressed" has nothing to do with the condition of the container, we're into opinions. We can deal with opinions, of course, but it's harder, and I think the current system and standards do a good job.

 

Typically a NM is legit but the only way to know for certain is to actually get up and get out there and take a look for yourself right?

The reviewer never goes out there, and he's the one whose decision we're discussing. (And, for the record, no, I think some NMs -- most NMs, actually -- can be confirmed without visiting GZ, but I don't think that has anything to do with this thread.)

 

One reason not to wait for a second opinion is we all know how anxious catchers are to post NM's. Could be months before someone summons the courage to post another one.

If an area has a problem with people not posting NAs when they're appropriate, then that's the problem that needs to be fixed. That problem will not be fixed by deciding that NAs aren't needed.

 

And if it takes months for an NA to be posted, then I claim that, by definition, means that "taking months" is not a problem for the people in that community. If anyone thought it was a problem, they'd post an NA.

 

Then you have the "fix-r-uppers and the throw downers. Future finders (and possibly reviewers) will assume the CO fixed everything up and forgot to post a OML. Meanwhile we still have an absentee owner that won't respond to the next NM. Who knows how long this could go on?

In my area, it might go on for a few months unless there's widespread support for keeping it. So, on the one hand, I don't find a few months to be a burden, and, on the other hand, if there's support for it, why not keep it?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I can't explain why the distance thing could effect cache maintenance (or lack of) any further.

 

Distance can mean everything. My caching partner of eleven years passed away a year-and-a-half ago. We had many caches hidden his area, about thirty miles from the Dolphinarium. I don't go there any more, except to visit the cemetry. I have archived most of them. A few still remain. Two are evil mystery caches that get few find. Not a problem. But one is our most popular cache. 767 finds. 83 favorite points. We used to be in that area a few times a month. I don't go there anymore. About a year ago, I did maintenance (replaced the log book). An hour's drive to catch the guagua into the city. About an hour walking and taking the subway to get to the cache site. (No! I would never drive there!!!) Four to six hours and ten dollars in fares to get there and back. It was my partner's favorite of our caches, but I'm thinking of making another trip to remove it, and archiving it. That part of mny life is gone.

So, distance can mean everything.

[+justintim1999]

Lets get past the condition of the container and focus on the NM that isn't getting addressed.

That's the point: as soon as decide that "not getting addressed" has nothing to do with the condition of the container, we're into opinions. We can deal with opinions, of course, but it's harder, and I think the current system and standards do a good job.

 

Typically a NM is legit but the only way to know for certain is to actually get up and get out there and take a look for yourself right?

The reviewer never goes out there, and he's the one whose decision we're discussing. (And, for the record, no, I think some NMs -- most NMs, actually -- can be confirmed without visiting GZ, but I don't think that has anything to do with this thread.)

 

One reason not to wait for a second opinion is we all know how anxious catchers are to post NM's. Could be months before someone summons the courage to post another one.

If an area has a problem with people not posting NAs when they're appropriate, then that's the problem that needs to be fixed. That problem will not be fixed by deciding that NAs aren't needed.

 

And if it takes months for an NA to be posted, then I claim that, by definition, means that "taking months" is not a problem for the people in that community. If anyone thought it was a problem, they'd post an NA.

 

Then you have the "fix-r-uppers and the throw downers. Future finders (and possibly reviewers) will assume the CO fixed everything up and forgot to post a OML. Meanwhile we still have an absentee owner that won't respond to the next NM. Who knows how long this could go on?

In my area, it might go on for a few months unless there's widespread support for keeping it. So, on the one hand, I don't find a few months to be a burden, and, on the other hand, if there's support for it, why not keep it?

 

What opinion is that? A throw down in good condition is ok? That propping up an ownerless cache is ok?

 

Half the comments in this thread have noting to do with the original post. Is that an argument?

 

Not posting NM's and NA's and OML's is what this is all about.

 

Supporting an ownerless cache in any way, shape or form is a bad practice.

Pretending that there is any good reasons to do these things is absurd.

 

If you want to keep an abandoned cache that badly stop propping it up and have someone step up and adopt it. An entire community can agree to maintain a cache as long as there is an owner that's accountable.

[+justintim1999]

I can't explain why the distance thing could effect cache maintenance (or lack of) any further.

 

Distance can mean everything. My caching partner of eleven years passed away a year-and-a-half ago. We had many caches hidden his area, about thirty miles from the Dolphinarium. I don't go there any more, except to visit the cemetry. I have archived most of them. A few still remain. Two are evil mystery caches that get few find. Not a problem. But one is our most popular cache. 767 finds. 83 favorite points. We used to be in that area a few times a month. I don't go there anymore. About a year ago, I did maintenance (replaced the log book). An hour's drive to catch the guagua into the city. About an hour walking and taking the subway to get to the cache site. (No! I would never drive there!!!) Four to six hours and ten dollars in fares to get there and back. It was my partner's favorite of our caches, but I'm thinking of making another trip to remove it, and archiving it. That part of mny life is gone.

So, distance can mean everything.

 

There are exceptions like this all the time. A cache you'd love to keep active and for a very good reason.

 

Personally I'd rather not own a cache than have one I couldn't take care of. There are a few special ones I have that some day will be tough to let go of but I know some day I'll have to.

[+L0ne.R]

Lets get past the condition of the container and focus on the NM that isn't getting addressed.

That's the point: as soon as decide that "not getting addressed" has nothing to do with the condition of the container, we're into opinions. We can deal with opinions, of course, but it's harder, and I think the current system and standards do a good job.

 

Typically a NM is legit but the only way to know for certain is to actually get up and get out there and take a look for yourself right?

The reviewer never goes out there, and he's the one whose decision we're discussing. (And, for the record, no, I think some NMs -- most NMs, actually -- can be confirmed without visiting GZ, but I don't think that has anything to do with this thread.)

 

One reason not to wait for a second opinion is we all know how anxious catchers are to post NM's. Could be months before someone summons the courage to post another one.

If an area has a problem with people not posting NAs when they're appropriate, then that's the problem that needs to be fixed. That problem will not be fixed by deciding that NAs aren't needed.

 

And if it takes months for an NA to be posted, then I claim that, by definition, means that "taking months" is not a problem for the people in that community. If anyone thought it was a problem, they'd post an NA.

 

Then you have the "fix-r-uppers and the throw downers. Future finders (and possibly reviewers) will assume the CO fixed everything up and forgot to post a OML. Meanwhile we still have an absentee owner that won't respond to the next NM. Who knows how long this could go on?

In my area, it might go on for a few months unless there's widespread support for keeping it. So, on the one hand, I don't find a few months to be a burden, and, on the other hand, if there's support for it, why not keep it?

 

What opinion is that? A throw down in good condition is ok? That propping up an ownerless cache is ok?

 

Half the comments in this thread have noting to do with the original post. Is that an argument?

 

Not posting NM's and NA's and OML's is what this is all about.

 

Supporting an ownerless cache in any way, shape or form is a bad practice.

Pretending that there is any good reasons to do these things is absurd.

 

If you want to keep an abandoned cache that badly stop propping it up and have someone step up and adopt it. An entire community can agree to maintain a cache as long as there is an owner that's accountable.

 

Kind of sad and frustrating, huh? Even people who will support the concept of NMs and NAs don't really want people using them, or at least only minimally and only in extreme cases, like when the cache has been missing for a year and no one will leave a throwdown.

[+justintim1999]

Lets get past the condition of the container and focus on the NM that isn't getting addressed.

That's the point: as soon as decide that "not getting addressed" has nothing to do with the condition of the container, we're into opinions. We can deal with opinions, of course, but it's harder, and I think the current system and standards do a good job.

 

Typically a NM is legit but the only way to know for certain is to actually get up and get out there and take a look for yourself right?

The reviewer never goes out there, and he's the one whose decision we're discussing. (And, for the record, no, I think some NMs -- most NMs, actually -- can be confirmed without visiting GZ, but I don't think that has anything to do with this thread.)

 

One reason not to wait for a second opinion is we all know how anxious catchers are to post NM's. Could be months before someone summons the courage to post another one.

If an area has a problem with people not posting NAs when they're appropriate, then that's the problem that needs to be fixed. That problem will not be fixed by deciding that NAs aren't needed.

 

And if it takes months for an NA to be posted, then I claim that, by definition, means that "taking months" is not a problem for the people in that community. If anyone thought it was a problem, they'd post an NA.

 

Then you have the "fix-r-uppers and the throw downers. Future finders (and possibly reviewers) will assume the CO fixed everything up and forgot to post a OML. Meanwhile we still have an absentee owner that won't respond to the next NM. Who knows how long this could go on?

In my area, it might go on for a few months unless there's widespread support for keeping it. So, on the one hand, I don't find a few months to be a burden, and, on the other hand, if there's support for it, why not keep it?

 

What opinion is that? A throw down in good condition is ok? That propping up an ownerless cache is ok?

 

Half the comments in this thread have noting to do with the original post. Is that an argument?

 

Not posting NM's and NA's and OML's is what this is all about.

 

Supporting an ownerless cache in any way, shape or form is a bad practice.

Pretending that there is any good reasons to do these things is absurd.

 

If you want to keep an abandoned cache that badly stop propping it up and have someone step up and adopt it. An entire community can agree to maintain a cache as long as there is an owner that's accountable.

 

Kind of sad and frustrating, huh? Even people who will support the concept of NMs and NAs don't really want people using them, or at least only minimally and only in extreme cases, like when the cache has been missing for a year and no one will leave a throwdown.

 

That's kinda what I take away from all this.

 

It's a simple process. You hide a cache, you take care of the cache, you archive the cache. NM's are friendly logs letting the responsible cache owner know that their cache is in need of attention. That's all they are. There are no bad dnf's. There are no bad NM's, even from inexperienced newbies. This is all part of the game and shouldn't be looked upon as negative.

 

NA's are reserved for owners that have forsaken this process and it's sad that they every have to be used.

 

When you play a game that basically runs on the honor system and is governed buy guidelines not rules these are some of the issues that you are forced to deal with.

Edited February 17, 2017 by justintim1999

[+dprovan]

Not posting NM's and NA's and OML's is what this is all about.

Oh, OK. I am in favor of posting NMs, NAs, and OMs.

 

Kind of sad and frustrating, huh? Even people who will support the concept of NMs and NAs don't really want people using them, or at least only minimally and only in extreme cases, like when the cache has been missing for a year and no one will leave a throwdown.

Honestly, if you're talking about me, I have never once in this conversation suggested in any way whatsoever that anyone shouldn't use NMs and NAs. That's a ridiculous misreading of the conversation. This has been about a properly filed NM that I never once questioned not resulting in reviewer action.

[+Team Microdot]

The system is designed to work out whether one person is overlooking something.

Is it? How do you know that? Did you design the system?

I don't understand. We can all see the system and how it works.

We can all see how the system fails.

 

You claimed to know that the system was designed with the specific objective of working out whether one person is overlooking something.

 

I'd like to know how you know that to be true.

 

How does it cope with intentional overlooking by one or multiple individuals who couldn't care less that the cache is junk and should be archived?

You are declaring yourself right and those other guys wrong, and then complaining that the system is broken because it doesn't agree you're right. The system copes with that case by ignoring both of you and only asking itself whether the cache is currently functioning. You consider that broken because you don't care whether the cache is currently functioning, you just want it to go away because you don't like how it's being maintained.

 

What?

 

Only if your definition of a functioning cache includes caches which are junk but survive because people are happy to log finds on junk.

[+Team Microdot]

Kind of sad and frustrating, huh? Even people who will support the concept of NMs and NAs don't really want people using them, or at least only minimally and only in extreme cases, like when the cache has been missing for a year and no one will leave a throwdown.

Honestly, if you're talking about me, I have never once in this conversation suggested in any way whatsoever that anyone shouldn't use NMs and NAs. That's a ridiculous misreading of the conversation. This has been about a properly filed NM that I never once questioned not resulting in reviewer action.

 

But you do seem to be advocating the idea that it's OK for everyone to ignore NM until a second person posts one.

 

Thinking about it, if there's a live NM on a cache - which has been ignored by the CO - why would a second person bother to post one anyway?

 

If the system complies with your view that it's OK for everyone to ignore a single NM until a second one comes in, and nobody posts that second NM despite the fact it remains true, that's another way that the system is broken

[+justintim1999]

Not posting NM's and NA's and OML's is what this is all about.

Oh, OK. I am in favor of posting NMs, NAs, and OMs.

 

Kind of sad and frustrating, huh? Even people who will support the concept of NMs and NAs don't really want people using them, or at least only minimally and only in extreme cases, like when the cache has been missing for a year and no one will leave a throwdown.

Honestly, if you're talking about me, I have never once in this conversation suggested in any way whatsoever that anyone shouldn't use NMs and NAs. That's a ridiculous misreading of the conversation. This has been about a properly filed NM that I never once questioned not resulting in reviewer action.

 

But Reviewers should ignore them on throw downs that are in good condition? That says to me your in favor of not using NM's and NA"s on these particular caches.

[+dprovan]

But Reviewers should ignore them on throw downs that are in good condition? That says to me your in favor of not using NM's and NA"s on these particular caches.

I'm defending the reviewer's decision to ignore the "it's a throwdown" NA. Yes, I suppose that means I don't think you should file an "it's a throwdown" NA for the same reasons you shouldn't file an "I don't like this cache" NA: the reviewer will ignore it for good reason. But I've also clearly explained how you would go about making a case that the cache is bad by pointing to actual problems with the cache that the reviewer would pay attention to. In this thread, there are good examples of how to prove a cache is bad that would be appropriately included in such an NA. It's just that "it's a throwdown" isn't one of them.

 

An "it's a throwdown" NM is different. It does, after all, make sense to bring the possibility of a throwdown to the CO's attention if there's some reason to think he doesn't know about it and would disapprove of it. But I wouldn't bother posting one in a log where one find says "I dropped a throwdown" and the next log is the CO saying, "Thanks!", for example.

[+justintim1999]

But Reviewers should ignore them on throw downs that are in good condition? That says to me your in favor of not using NM's and NA"s on these particular caches.

I'm defending the reviewer's decision to ignore the "it's a throwdown" NA. Yes, I suppose that means I don't think you should file an "it's a throwdown" NA for the same reasons you shouldn't file an "I don't like this cache" NA: the reviewer will ignore it for good reason. But I've also clearly explained how you would go about making a case that the cache is bad by pointing to actual problems with the cache that the reviewer would pay attention to. In this thread, there are good examples of how to prove a cache is bad that would be appropriately included in such an NA. It's just that "it's a throwdown" isn't one of them.

 

An "it's a throwdown" NM is different. It does, after all, make sense to bring the possibility of a throwdown to the CO's attention if there's some reason to think he doesn't know about it and would disapprove of it. But I wouldn't bother posting one in a log where one find says "I dropped a throwdown" and the next log is the CO saying, "Thanks!", for example.

 

That's where we disagree. I do think a throwdown is worthy of a NM and a reviewers attention. I also think the cache owner would and should want it removed. If the CO is fine with the throwdown than post an OML to that effect.

 

I must have been caching in nirvana all these years. I simply don't see cachers posting NM's and NA's out of spite or as a way to remove a cache they just don't like.

[+dprovan]

You claimed to know that the system was designed with the specific objective of working out whether one person is overlooking something.

I claim we can all see that the system is fair and what about its design makes it that way. More to the point, I've explained why that's true in this specific situation.

 

Only if your definition of a functioning cache includes caches which are junk but survive because people are happy to log finds on junk.

Pointing out that a cache is a throwdown is not the same as proving a cache is junk. If you can prove a cache is junk, then prove the cache is junk.

 

But you do seem to be advocating the idea that it's OK for everyone to ignore NM until a second person posts one.

Not at all. All logs are there for anyone to interpret however they want. The second opinion only comes into it in that a second opinion might make the case more compelling to the reviewer.

 

Thinking about it, if there's a live NM on a cache - which has been ignored by the CO - why would a second person bother to post one anyway?

Again, the second opinion is the NA that brings it to the reviewer's attention. I don't know what I said to give people the impression I was advocating a second NM. My opinion is the same as yours: a cache with an active NM should never have a second NM posted to report the same problem. If the NM isn't resolved, an NA should be posted next.

 

If the system complies with your view that it's OK for everyone to ignore a single NM until a second one comes in, and nobody posts that second NM despite the fact it remains true, that's another way that the system is broken

I am saying that a specific class of NM, one declaring the container a throwdown, is not normally going to mean much to anyone. That's not so much a matter of opinion but more an observation based on the knowledge which we've all gained here in this thread that reviewers do not consider being a throwdown, in itself, an interesting factor when determining the future of the cache. I don't care whether you post such an NM or whether you pay attention to one. That's up to you.

[+narcissa]

I'm defending the reviewer's decision to ignore the "it's a throwdown" NA. Yes, I suppose that means I don't think you should file an "it's a throwdown" NA for the same reasons you shouldn't file an "I don't like this cache" NA: the reviewer will ignore it for good reason. But I've also clearly explained how you would go about making a case that the cache is bad by pointing to actual problems with the cache that the reviewer would pay attention to. In this thread, there are good examples of how to prove a cache is bad that would be appropriately included in such an NA. It's just that "it's a throwdown" isn't one of them.

 

An "it's a throwdown" NM is different. It does, after all, make sense to bring the possibility of a throwdown to the CO's attention if there's some reason to think he doesn't know about it and would disapprove of it. But I wouldn't bother posting one in a log where one find says "I dropped a throwdown" and the next log is the CO saying, "Thanks!", for example.

 

I've started writing NM logs that say things like:

 

"After reviewing previous logs, I am a bit concerned that what we found was a throwdown. Cache owner may want to confirm that cache placement is okay."

 

"We were thinking of going to get this cache, but it looks like it was recently replaced by another cacher. Can the cache owner confirm that placement is okay? We don't want to make the trip for nothing."

 

"We found two containers, so we signed both and replaced them together to reduce confusion for the next finder. Cache owner may want to remove one of the containers."

 

If the cache owner does nothing, then at least it begins establishing an actual pattern of neglect and non-response.

 

If the cache owner is okay with the throwdowns and notes that with Owner Maintenance logs, that's a more complicated issue, but at least finders know it's okay to find and log the cache that's there. My primary concern as a finder is that I'm going to be misled by a throwdown and my log won't be legitimate.

 

Commenting on the throwdowns also sends the message to other geocachers that some of us aren't just going to look the other way when this goes on with non-PT caches.

 

I was pleased recently when my comments on a cache prompted a sort-of-absent cache owner to transfer ownership to someone who was keen to keep the cache going. It meant that I was able to clear up a DNF on a cache in a nice spot, and the cache has had its life extended because it has a new active owner.

[+L0ne.R]

But Reviewers should ignore them on throw downs that are in good condition? That says to me your in favor of not using NM's and NA"s on these particular caches.

I'm defending the reviewer's decision to ignore the "it's a throwdown" NA. Yes, I suppose that means I don't think you should file an "it's a throwdown" NA for the same reasons you shouldn't file an "I don't like this cache" NA: the reviewer will ignore it for good reason.

 

Not where I live. I've seen reviewers archive a cache after a several DNFs, NMs and an NA (no response from the CO) followed by a throwdown, with a quick OM response from the owner. The reviewer asked that owner to check the throwdown before posting their OM. The CO went silent.

Also a deliberate throwdown after an NA on a "old" abandoned 6-year-old cache was archived for non-response from the owner. (But the throwdowner and next 2 finders after the reviewer disable got their grid-filler finds.)

[+justintim1999]

I'm defending the reviewer's decision to ignore the "it's a throwdown" NA. Yes, I suppose that means I don't think you should file an "it's a throwdown" NA for the same reasons you shouldn't file an "I don't like this cache" NA: the reviewer will ignore it for good reason. But I've also clearly explained how you would go about making a case that the cache is bad by pointing to actual problems with the cache that the reviewer would pay attention to. In this thread, there are good examples of how to prove a cache is bad that would be appropriately included in such an NA. It's just that "it's a throwdown" isn't one of them.

 

An "it's a throwdown" NM is different. It does, after all, make sense to bring the possibility of a throwdown to the CO's attention if there's some reason to think he doesn't know about it and would disapprove of it. But I wouldn't bother posting one in a log where one find says "I dropped a throwdown" and the next log is the CO saying, "Thanks!", for example.

 

I've started writing NM logs that say things like:

 

"After reviewing previous logs, I am a bit concerned that what we found was a throwdown. Cache owner may want to confirm that cache placement is okay."

 

"We were thinking of going to get this cache, but it looks like it was recently replaced by another cacher. Can the cache owner confirm that placement is okay? We don't want to make the trip for nothing."

 

"We found two containers, so we signed both and replaced them together to reduce confusion for the next finder. Cache owner may want to remove one of the containers."

 

If the cache owner does nothing, then at least it begins establishing an actual pattern of neglect and non-response.

 

If the cache owner is okay with the throwdowns and notes that with Owner Maintenance logs, that's a more complicated issue, but at least finders know it's okay to find and log the cache that's there. My primary concern as a finder is that I'm going to be misled by a throwdown and my log won't be legitimate.

 

Commenting on the throwdowns also sends the message to other geocachers that some of us aren't just going to look the other way when this goes on with non-PT caches.

 

I was pleased recently when my comments on a cache prompted a sort-of-absent cache owner to transfer ownership to someone who was keen to keep the cache going. It meant that I was able to clear up a DNF on a cache in a nice spot, and the cache has had its life extended because it has a new active owner.

 

These are all good approaches. If you make the owner aware of the throwdown (possibly with an NM) and they choose to do nothing I'd say they'd have no leg to stand on in regards to the legitimacy of your find. It would be ridiculous if your find was deleted but the underlying problem for it was allowed to continue.

 

I think Groundspeak's e-mail reminders regarding possible maintenance issues, although highly intrusive to some, is a step in the right direction. Letting new cache owners know the importance of the Owners Maintenance Log and how to use it will benefit everyone.