Cache missing for 5 months, co deletes maintenance logs.

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

More to the point is that you're now retracting your previous claim and replacing it with a new, different claim. That's OK of course but I just wanted to mark the fact. I'm going to assume going forward that, as I originally thought, you don't have in special insight into why the system was designed the way it was.

 

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.

 

Your earlier claim was that The system is designed to work out whether one person is overlooking something. The something that people might be overlooking could be anything, not just throwdowns, and I responded in context.

 

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.

 

Your opinion isn't the same as mine. I never suggested that a cache with an active NM should never have a second NM posted to report the same problem - I merely commented on the likelihood of it happening. I think it's actually a good idea for multiple NM's to be posted if the CO fails to respond because it builds the corroboration you advocate. It seems now that you think it's a bad idea

[+dprovan]

More to the point is that you're now retracting your previous claim and replacing it with a new, different claim. That's OK of course but I just wanted to mark the fact. I'm going to assume going forward that, as I originally thought, you don't have in special insight into why the system was designed the way it was.

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was that important to you. (I'm still not sure why it's important to you.) When I said "was designed", I meant it had that characteristic, not that I had any idea what anyone was thinking when they designed the system. If, in fact, they did design it: my impression is that this system grew organically, hence I phrased it as I might say, "The human eye was designed to focus light on photoreceptors," not expecting anyone to take it as meaning I was on the human eye's design team.

 

Your opinion isn't the same as mine. I never suggested that a cache with an active NM should never have a second NM posted to report the same problem - I merely commented on the likelihood of it happening. I think it's actually a good idea for multiple NM's to be posted if the CO fails to respond because it builds the corroboration you advocate. It seems now that you think it's a bad idea

Oh, sorry. I must have misread your comment. In that case, I think you're wrong: it's pointless to post a redundant NM. If it's time for an NA, then an NA should be posted.

 

When I recommend a second opinion, it's not because anyone has any serious doubts about the first opinion. If someone says it needs fixed, the CO should react, not wait for corroboration. The second opinion is because the reviewer is using his special powers against a cache, so he has the additional worry that that one person might be trying to abuse the reviewer's trust.

 

I can't believe I've had to argue this both ways: first having to defend that one opinion wasn't enough, and now having to defend that two opinions is plenty. Not to mention first arguing that there's no hurry, so we can wait for a second opinion, now arguing that there's no reason to get opinion after opinion before calling in the reviewer.

[+dprovan]

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.

I like these examples. And I'd emphasize that "it begins to establish a pattern" as you succinctly put it, but it doesn't prove the cache is bad. So I'd say that it would take more evidence before an NA could be posted, it wouldn't be a matter of just waiting a while and then saying "Not fixed: needs archived". (I think you'd agree with that, but I'd like to hear your thoughts if you don't.)

[+dprovan]

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.)

I consider those cases as consistent with my statement: there's way more going on in them than just a throwdown.

[+justintim1999]

More to the point is that you're now retracting your previous claim and replacing it with a new, different claim. That's OK of course but I just wanted to mark the fact. I'm going to assume going forward that, as I originally thought, you don't have in special insight into why the system was designed the way it was.

I'm sorry, I didn't know it was that important to you. (I'm still not sure why it's important to you.) When I said "was designed", I meant it had that characteristic, not that I had any idea what anyone was thinking when they designed the system. If, in fact, they did design it: my impression is that this system grew organically, hence I phrased it as I might say, "The human eye was designed to focus light on photoreceptors," not expecting anyone to take it as meaning I was on the human eye's design team.

 

Your opinion isn't the same as mine. I never suggested that a cache with an active NM should never have a second NM posted to report the same problem - I merely commented on the likelihood of it happening. I think it's actually a good idea for multiple NM's to be posted if the CO fails to respond because it builds the corroboration you advocate. It seems now that you think it's a bad idea

Oh, sorry. I must have misread your comment. In that case, I think you're wrong: it's pointless to post a redundant NM. If it's time for an NA, then an NA should be posted.

 

When I recommend a second opinion, it's not because anyone has any serious doubts about the first opinion. If someone says it needs fixed, the CO should react, not wait for corroboration. The second opinion is because the reviewer is using his special powers against a cache, so he has the additional worry that that one person might be trying to abuse the reviewer's trust.

 

I can't believe I've had to argue this both ways: first having to defend that one opinion wasn't enough, and now having to defend that two opinions is plenty. Not to mention first arguing that there's no hurry, so we can wait for a second opinion, now arguing that there's no reason to get opinion after opinion before calling in the reviewer.

 

We can conjure up all kinds of scenarios from misguided NM's by newbies to backlogged finds which seem to contradict previous dnf's. In the end the cache owner has the power to rectify all of this by simply responding to the issues (real or imagined) and posting a OML. It's the lack of attention by the cache owner which allows all of these things to become issues.

[+Team Microdot]

 

Your opinion isn't the same as mine. I never suggested that a cache with an active NM should never have a second NM posted to report the same problem - I merely commented on the likelihood of it happening. I think it's actually a good idea for multiple NM's to be posted if the CO fails to respond because it builds the corroboration you advocate. It seems now that you think it's a bad idea

Oh, sorry. I must have misread your comment. In that case, I think you're wrong: it's pointless to post a redundant NM. If it's time for an NA, then an NA should be posted.

 

When I recommend a second opinion, it's not because anyone has any serious doubts about the first opinion. If someone says it needs fixed, the CO should react, not wait for corroboration. The second opinion is because the reviewer is using his special powers against a cache, so he has the additional worry that that one person might be trying to abuse the reviewer's trust.

 

First we're not supposed to rush toward and NA, then we shouldn't delay?

 

There are CO's out there who perform maintenance but don't post an Owner Maintenance log.

 

There are cachers who only care about smileys who come along after the NM and say nothing about the condition of the cache - making it look possible that maintenance has been performed when it hasn't.

 

The corroborating NM therefore serves to boost the reviewer's confidence in their use of their special powers.

 

EDIT: Typo

Edited February 20, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+dprovan]

We can conjure up all kinds of scenarios from misguided NM's by newbies to backlogged finds which seem to contradict previous dnf's. In the end the cache owner has the power to rectify all of this by simply responding to the issues (real or imagined) and posting a OML. It's the lack of attention by the cache owner which allows all of these things to become issues.

Yes, of course. What I argue against is that the reviewer should do whatever we tell him to if the CO is out of the loop. Naturally the cache's situation is more precarious if the CO is not defending it, and that's how it should be, but that doesn't mean the CO being absent is in itself a reason for archiving the cache.

[+justintim1999]

We can conjure up all kinds of scenarios from misguided NM's by newbies to backlogged finds which seem to contradict previous dnf's. In the end the cache owner has the power to rectify all of this by simply responding to the issues (real or imagined) and posting a OML. It's the lack of attention by the cache owner which allows all of these things to become issues.

Yes, of course. What I argue against is that the reviewer should do whatever we tell him to if the CO is out of the loop. Naturally the cache's situation is more precarious if the CO is not defending it, and that's how it should be, but that doesn't mean the CO being absent is in itself a reason for archiving the cache.

 

If the CO is out of the loop and absent what else can a reviewer do but rely on the information of others. The fact that the CO is not responding should be enough cause for the reviewer to dig deeper.

[+dprovan]

First we're not supposed to rush toward and NA, then we shouldn't delay?

Yes, you understand! That's great! We shouldn't rush to archive the cache without giving it the fair consideration it's due, but we also shouldn't be paralyzed to the point that we don't act when we have enough information to fairly determine the cache's fate.

 

There are CO's out there who perform maintenance but don't post an Owner Maintenance log.

 

There are cachers who only care about smileys who come along after the NM and say nothing about the condition of the cache - making it look possible that maintenance has been performed when it hasn't.

 

The corroborating NM therefore serves to boost the reviewer's confidence in their use of their special powers.

Let's start by observing that if it's time to get the reviewer involved, then an NA is required. So the question is whether an NA should be posted to bring a reviewer into it, or a redundant NM should be posted to reaffirm the problem.

 

If it's become unclear whether a previous NM still applies, and you think it would help to bring that to the CO's attention, a redundant NM might make sense. I'm having some trouble imagining it in the case you're describing, though: if an NM is posted, then some seekers come by and find the cache without reporting a problem, and then I got to the cache and saw the problem was still present, I would consider that a clear case for the NA: the intervening finds are unimportant to my determination that needed maintenance hasn't been done, so time is up for that cache.

 

But, anyway, I'm not saying it's impossible to imagine a case where a redundant NM might help out, but in most cases where it's clear the problem has not been fixed, then next step is an NA, not another NM saying, "No, really, the cache is gone, and I really mean it this time." Except for unusual cases, I consider my choice either moving the process along with an NA or leaving the situation as it is. It would be very rare for me to feel the need to reassert that the situation is what it is with an NM (although naturally I'd mention that nothing has changed if I filed either a find or DNF log).

[+dprovan]

If the CO is out of the loop and absent what else can a reviewer do but rely on the information of others. The fact that the CO is not responding should be enough cause for the reviewer to dig deeper.

Certainly the reviewer works with what information he has. I don't see that the reviewer has to dig deeper, but there's no question a lot of confusing situations could be easily clarified by the CO.

 

That's different than saying if the CO says nothing, that's grounds in itself for archival. That's the case we're talking about: one person recognizing that a cache was a throwdown which the CO did not publicly accept. As I've said a few times now, such a cache might eventually need to be archived, but the single example of a throwdown that isn't clearly approved by the CO is not sufficient.

 

(Let me be clear that this is unrelated to the OP: in that case the CO was actively involved and, by all appearances, trying to block reasonable action. I think we all agreed that that's bogus.)

[+Team Microdot]

First we're not supposed to rush toward and NA, then we shouldn't delay?

Yes, you understand! That's great! We shouldn't rush to archive the cache without giving it the fair consideration it's due, but we also shouldn't be paralyzed to the point that we don't act when we have enough information to fairly determine the cache's fate.

 

Sounds like a lot of pressure to me - I begin to understand why so many people just log the find and move on...

 

There are CO's out there who perform maintenance but don't post an Owner Maintenance log.

 

There are cachers who only care about smileys who come along after the NM and say nothing about the condition of the cache - making it look possible that maintenance has been performed when it hasn't.

 

The corroborating NM therefore serves to boost the reviewer's confidence in their use of their special powers.

Let's start by observing that if it's time to get the reviewer involved, then an NA is required. So the question is whether an NA should be posted to bring a reviewer into it, or a redundant NM should be posted to reaffirm the problem.

 

If it's become unclear whether a previous NM still applies, and you think it would help to bring that to the CO's attention, a redundant NM might make sense. I'm having some trouble imagining it in the case you're describing, though: if an NM is posted, then some seekers come by and find the cache without reporting a problem, and then I got to the cache and saw the problem was still present, I would consider that a clear case for the NA: the intervening finds are unimportant to my determination that needed maintenance hasn't been done, so time is up for that cache.

 

But, anyway, I'm not saying it's impossible to imagine a case where a redundant NM might help out, but in most cases where it's clear the problem has not been fixed, then next step is an NA, not another NM saying, "No, really, the cache is gone, and I really mean it this time." Except for unusual cases, I consider my choice either moving the process along with an NA or leaving the situation as it is. It would be very rare for me to feel the need to reassert that the situation is what it is with an NM (although naturally I'd mention that nothing has changed if I filed either a find or DNF log).

 

So, in a nutshell then - there are cases where follow-up NM's have value and there are cases where we should just go straight to NA.

 

I consider my choice either moving the process along with an NA or leaving the situation as it is.

 

Which amounts to claiming the smiley and moving on so that the next person along, possibly weeks or months later has no idea if maintenance has been carried out in the meantime and thus ends up starting from square one. Not the best strategy.

[+justintim1999]

If the CO is out of the loop and absent what else can a reviewer do but rely on the information of others. The fact that the CO is not responding should be enough cause for the reviewer to dig deeper.

Certainly the reviewer works with what information he has. I don't see that the reviewer has to dig deeper, but there's no question a lot of confusing situations could be easily clarified by the CO.

 

That's different than saying if the CO says nothing, that's grounds in itself for archival. That's the case we're talking about: one person recognizing that a cache was a throwdown which the CO did not publicly accept. As I've said a few times now, such a cache might eventually need to be archived, but the single example of a throwdown that isn't clearly approved by the CO is not sufficient.

 

(Let me be clear that this is unrelated to the OP: in that case the CO was actively involved and, by all appearances, trying to block reasonable action. I think we all agreed that that's bogus.)

 

We basically agree.

 

I think that Groundspeak's attempt to issue "reminder e-mails" on caches that may have issues is a good thing. From what I've seen it includes instructions on what the issues may be as well as the importance of posting an owners maintenance log. If we could reduce the number of caches that have unnecessary NM's on them (caches that have been maintained but no OML has been posted) Wouldn't that remove much of the guesswork for reviewers?

[+dprovan]

Sounds like a lot of pressure to me - I begin to understand why so many people just log the find and move on...

OK. I'm also not adverse to people not posting NMs and NAs if they think it's too much pressure. But I actually think it's all quite simple, merely an extension of what people should already be doing in their day-to-day lives.

 

So, in a nutshell then - there are cases where follow-up NM's have value and there are cases where we should just go straight to NA.

Well, the nutshell version would be "Try not to be redundant."

 

Your original statement was, "I think it's actually a good idea for multiple NM's to be posted if the CO fails to respond because it builds the corroboration you advocate." I've made a good case for why it is not, in general, a good idea at all. I acknowledge the possibility of exceptions: there's always the possibility of exceptions.

 

I consider my choice either moving the process along with an NA or leaving the situation as it is.

Which amounts to claiming the smiley and moving on so that the next person along, possibly weeks or months later has no idea if maintenance has been carried out in the meantime and thus ends up starting from square one. Not the best strategy.

No idea where this is coming from. I can't see any similarity to your comment and anything I've suggested. What you are responding to is quite clear: I act if it's time to act, and I don't act if it's not time to act. You can't possibly interpret that sentence as saying that I don't act even when it is time to act.

[+Team Microdot]

I consider my choice either moving the process along with an NA or leaving the situation as it is.

Which amounts to claiming the smiley and moving on so that the next person along, possibly weeks or months later has no idea if maintenance has been carried out in the meantime and thus ends up starting from square one. Not the best strategy.

No idea where this is coming from. I can't see any similarity to your comment and anything I've suggested. What you are responding to is quite clear: I act if it's time to act, and I don't act if it's not time to act. You can't possibly interpret that sentence as saying that I don't act even when it is time to act.

 

Bold added for clarification.

[+dprovan]

I think that Groundspeak's attempt to issue "reminder e-mails" on caches that may have issues is a good thing. From what I've seen it includes instructions on what the issues may be as well as the importance of posting an owners maintenance log. If we could reduce the number of caches that have unnecessary NM's on them (caches that have been maintained but no OML has been posted) Wouldn't that remove much of the guesswork for reviewers?

I'm all for encouraging OMs to report a maintenance issue being handled. But I don't think forgetting to post an OM has much to do with what we're talking about. In fact, when we're talking about throwdowns, I always think of the worst possible case: the CO is dead. Not just forgetful or inattentive, not just out of the game, but really and for sure gone forever. But then I imagine the best possible case where someone lovely maintains one of his caches by replacing it with the same container one time because it disappeared. And I ask myself what's wrong with that? Until there's a real problem, I don't think it's reasonable for "throwdown" to automatically trigger its demise.

[+dprovan]

I consider my choice either moving the process along with an NA or leaving the situation as it is.

Which amounts to claiming the smiley and moving on so that the next person along, possibly weeks or months later has no idea if maintenance has been carried out in the meantime and thus ends up starting from square one. Not the best strategy.

No idea where this is coming from. I can't see any similarity to your comment and anything I've suggested. What you are responding to is quite clear: I act if it's time to act, and I don't act if it's not time to act. You can't possibly interpret that sentence as saying that I don't act even when it is time to act.

Bold added for clarification.

Sorry, that doesn't make anything clearer. In most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react.

[+Team Microdot]

I consider my choice either moving the process along with an NA or leaving the situation as it is.

Which amounts to claiming the smiley and moving on so that the next person along, possibly weeks or months later has no idea if maintenance has been carried out in the meantime and thus ends up starting from square one. Not the best strategy.

No idea where this is coming from. I can't see any similarity to your comment and anything I've suggested. What you are responding to is quite clear: I act if it's time to act, and I don't act if it's not time to act. You can't possibly interpret that sentence as saying that I don't act even when it is time to act.

Bold added for clarification.

Sorry, that doesn't make anything clearer. In most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react.

 

In most cases? Really?

 

I guess caches must get found more regularly in your part of the world than in mine.

[+justintim1999]

I think that Groundspeak's attempt to issue "reminder e-mails" on caches that may have issues is a good thing. From what I've seen it includes instructions on what the issues may be as well as the importance of posting an owners maintenance log. If we could reduce the number of caches that have unnecessary NM's on them (caches that have been maintained but no OML has been posted) Wouldn't that remove much of the guesswork for reviewers?

I'm all for encouraging OMs to report a maintenance issue being handled. But I don't think forgetting to post an OM has much to do with what we're talking about. In fact, when we're talking about throwdowns, I always think of the worst possible case: the CO is dead. Not just forgetful or inattentive, not just out of the game, but really and for sure gone forever. But then I imagine the best possible case where someone lovely maintains one of his caches by replacing it with the same container one time because it disappeared. And I ask myself what's wrong with that? Until there's a real problem, I don't think it's reasonable for "throwdown" to automatically trigger its demise.

 

Sorry but I really believe that the non-use of owners maintenance logs has much to do with this whole conservation (although nothing to do with the original post). Forgetting to post a OML is not a huge issue, that's what the e-mail reminders are designed to help fix. As a cache owner it's all about making your presence known from time to time if only to let your local reviewer know your still active.

 

We're simply not going to be able to agree on throw downs. A throw down, not recognized by the cache owner, is a container with no owner and should be removed. If the CO won't do it than I think the cache should be archived.

[+dprovan]

In most cases? Really?

 

I guess caches must get found more regularly in your part of the world than in mine.

I've been trying to figure out what sense you're making, but with this it appears likely that you've just decided to prove me wrong without worrying about making any actual point.

[+Team Microdot]

In most cases? Really?

 

I guess caches must get found more regularly in your part of the world than in mine.

I've been trying to figure out what sense you're making, but with this it appears likely that you've just decided to prove me wrong without worrying about making any actual point.

 

I thought it was pretty self explanatory

 

Let's start by putting it in context:

 

In most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react.

 

In most cases? Really?

 

I guess caches must get found more regularly in your part of the world than in mine.

 

The idea that in most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal for subsequent 'finders' to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react struck me as a bit odd.

 

So I tried to imagine a context in which it would be true and concluded that it would have to be in an area where caches were found more frequently than is the norm in my own area.

[+justintim1999]

In most cases? Really?

 

I guess caches must get found more regularly in your part of the world than in mine.

I've been trying to figure out what sense you're making, but with this it appears likely that you've just decided to prove me wrong without worrying about making any actual point.

 

I thought it was pretty self explanatory

 

Let's start by putting it in context:

 

In most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react.

 

In most cases? Really?

 

I guess caches must get found more regularly in your part of the world than in mine.

 

The idea that in most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal for subsequent 'finders' to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react struck me as a bit odd.

 

So I tried to imagine a context in which it would be true and concluded that it would have to be in an area where caches were found more frequently than is the norm in my own area.

 

You know, if I received 8 NM's on one of my caches over a weekend I'd actually be impressed.

[+Team Microdot]

In most cases? Really?

 

I guess caches must get found more regularly in your part of the world than in mine.

I've been trying to figure out what sense you're making, but with this it appears likely that you've just decided to prove me wrong without worrying about making any actual point.

 

I thought it was pretty self explanatory

 

Let's start by putting it in context:

 

In most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react.

 

In most cases? Really?

 

I guess caches must get found more regularly in your part of the world than in mine.

 

The idea that in most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal for subsequent 'finders' to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react struck me as a bit odd.

 

So I tried to imagine a context in which it would be true and concluded that it would have to be in an area where caches were found more frequently than is the norm in my own area.

 

You know, if I received 8 NM's on one of my caches over a weekend I'd actually be impressed.

 

Precisely.

[+SeattleWayne]

So after two DNFs the cache is considered missing? Spend more time looking for it, and contact one of the previous cachers who found it for a hint. Ask for container size etc.

 

If you've actually spent some quality time looking for it and contacted someone else for hints and still DNF, contact CO and ask for hint AFTER you've logged your DNF.

[+Team Microdot]

So after two DNFs the cache is considered missing? Spend more time looking for it, and contact one of the previous cachers who found it for a hint. Ask for container size etc.

 

If you've actually spent some quality time looking for it and contacted someone else for hints and still DNF, contact CO and ask for hint AFTER you've logged your DNF.

 

Did you read the opening post?

[+SeattleWayne]

We can conjure up all kinds of scenarios from misguided NM's by newbies to backlogged finds which seem to contradict previous dnf's. In the end the cache owner has the power to rectify all of this by simply responding to the issues (real or imagined) and posting a OML. It's the lack of attention by the cache owner which allows all of these things to become issues.

Yes, of course. What I argue against is that the reviewer should do whatever we tell him to if the CO is out of the loop. Naturally the cache's situation is more precarious if the CO is not defending it, and that's how it should be, but that doesn't mean the CO being absent is in itself a reason for archiving the cache.

 

It's just a game, anyway.

[+SeattleWayne]

So after two DNFs the cache is considered missing? Spend more time looking for it, and contact one of the previous cachers who found it for a hint. Ask for container size etc.

 

If you've actually spent some quality time looking for it and contacted someone else for hints and still DNF, contact CO and ask for hint AFTER you've logged your DNF.

 

Did you read the opening post?

 

Yeah. "I couldn't find it so it has to be missing"

[+dprovan]

The idea that in most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal for subsequent 'finders' to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react struck me as a bit odd.

After an NM is posted, there's a time period when the CO is expected to react, right? During all of that period, there's nothing for me to do except file my DNF if I looked for the cache. Filing a redundant NM would just be nagging.

 

At the end of that period, after I can conclude the CO is not going to react, there's one time when I need to file an NA.

 

Hence my statement that in most cases I do nothing because there's nothing that I should do yet. That seems so obvious, I'm still having a hard time understanding how you could question it even if you ignored everything else I've said in this thread that's been focused entirely on the presumption that one should take action, it's just a question of when.

[+Team Microdot]

So after two DNFs the cache is considered missing? Spend more time looking for it, and contact one of the previous cachers who found it for a hint. Ask for container size etc.

 

If you've actually spent some quality time looking for it and contacted someone else for hints and still DNF, contact CO and ask for hint AFTER you've logged your DNF.

 

Did you read the opening post?

 

Yeah. "I couldn't find it so it has to be missing"

 

If you did read it I can't help but wonder what value you thought telling the OP to ask previous finders for a hint, when they clearly stated that they had already consulted two previous finders, added to the thread.

[+Team Microdot]

The idea that in most cases where an NM has been posted, it's normal for subsequent 'finders' to take no action because the CO hasn't had time to react struck me as a bit odd.

After an NM is posted, there's a time period when the CO is expected to react, right? During all of that period, there's nothing for me to do except file my DNF if I looked for the cache. Filing a redundant NM would just be nagging.

 

No. It would be confirming in manner that's clear and easy to identify.

[+dprovan]

You know, if I received 8 NM's on one of my caches over a weekend I'd actually be impressed.

If I got 8 NM's for a single problem, I'd just think 7 people wasted their time.

[+justintim1999]

You know, if I received 8 NM's on one of my caches over a weekend I'd actually be impressed.

If I got 8 NM's for a single problem, I'd just think 7 people wasted their time.

 

Nothing exceeds like excess. You'd have to admit, there would be no doubt in the cache owners mind that there was a problem that needs to be fixed.

[+Team Microdot]

You know, if I received 8 NM's on one of my caches over a weekend I'd actually be impressed.

If I got 8 NM's for a single problem, I'd just think 7 people wasted their time.

 

Nothing exceeds like excess. You'd have to admit, there would be no doubt in the cache owners mind that there was a problem that needs to be fixed.

 

Or the reviewer's when he comes to archive it safe in the knowledge that he/she is backed up by multiple community members

[+niraD]

You know, if I received 8 NM's on one of my caches over a weekend I'd actually be impressed.

If I got 8 NM's for a single problem, I'd just think 7 people wasted their time.

Nothing exceeds like excess. You'd have to admit, there would be no doubt in the cache owners mind that there was a problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm imagining the following situations:

 

AnyCacher logs a Find and a NM ("log is full"), followed by 7 other people logging Finds. I might assume that the log isn't really full. Perhaps AnyCacher saw that the front of the log sheet was full, and now people are using the back.

 

AnyCacher logs a Find and a NM ("log is full"), followed by 7 other people logging Finds, and a few more NM logs ("log is full"). I might take the claim that the log is full a little more seriously.

 

But that's just me.

[+dprovan]

Nothing exceeds like excess. You'd have to admit, there would be no doubt in the cache owners mind that there was a problem that needs to be fixed.

Well, I would go check, of course, but actually with that much excess, I'd start to wonder if this wasn't some kind of vendetta that might not actually have anything to do with the cache. As unlikely as such nastiness is, it still seems more likely to me than the coincidence of 7 people posting NMs without checking to see whether the problem's already been reported.

[+Team Microdot]

Nothing exceeds like excess. You'd have to admit, there would be no doubt in the cache owners mind that there was a problem that needs to be fixed.

Well, I would go check, of course, but actually with that much excess, I'd start to wonder if this wasn't some kind of vendetta that might not actually have anything to do with the cache. As unlikely as such nastiness is, it still seems more likely to me than the coincidence of 7 people posting NMs without checking to see whether the problem's already been reported.

 

Why would you assume that subsequent NM posters wouldn't be aware of existing NM's?

[+Team DEMP]

7 DNFs/NMs in a row might be obvious but I've logged a NM after a previous cacher logged one without even knowing. The app doesn't show you that info when you are logging and if it was a few logs back followed by multiple DNFs you might not know.

Up until 2 weeks ago you couldn't log a NM via the official app. Maybe now more NMs will be logged where appropriate though the user experience/steps is completely non-intuitive

[+justintim1999]

Nothing exceeds like excess. You'd have to admit, there would be no doubt in the cache owners mind that there was a problem that needs to be fixed.

Well, I would go check, of course, but actually with that much excess, I'd start to wonder if this wasn't some kind of vendetta that might not actually have anything to do with the cache. As unlikely as such nastiness is, it still seems more likely to me than the coincidence of 7 people posting NMs without checking to see whether the problem's already been reported.

 

The example was overkill to illustrate the point which was to get in the habit of issuing NM's when needed regardless of what previous finders have done.

[+justintim1999]

You know, if I received 8 NM's on one of my caches over a weekend I'd actually be impressed.

If I got 8 NM's for a single problem, I'd just think 7 people wasted their time.

Nothing exceeds like excess. You'd have to admit, there would be no doubt in the cache owners mind that there was a problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm imagining the following situations:

 

AnyCacher logs a Find and a NM ("log is full"), followed by 7 other people logging Finds. I might assume that the log isn't really full. Perhaps AnyCacher saw that the front of the log sheet was full, and now people are using the back.

 

AnyCacher logs a Find and a NM ("log is full"), followed by 7 other people logging Finds, and a few more NM logs ("log is full"). I might take the claim that the log is full a little more seriously.

 

But that's just me.

 

Yes we could come up with dozens of possible scenarios that would increase the cache owners workload but the trade off between dealing with a few mistakenly used NM's and properly logging the caches condition seems obvious.

[+Team Microdot]

You know, if I received 8 NM's on one of my caches over a weekend I'd actually be impressed.

If I got 8 NM's for a single problem, I'd just think 7 people wasted their time.

Nothing exceeds like excess. You'd have to admit, there would be no doubt in the cache owners mind that there was a problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm imagining the following situations:

 

AnyCacher logs a Find and a NM ("log is full"), followed by 7 other people logging Finds. I might assume that the log isn't really full. Perhaps AnyCacher saw that the front of the log sheet was full, and now people are using the back.

 

AnyCacher logs a Find and a NM ("log is full"), followed by 7 other people logging Finds, and a few more NM logs ("log is full"). I might take the claim that the log is full a little more seriously.

 

But that's just me.

 

Yes we could come up with dozens of possible scenarios that would increase the cache owners workload but the trade off between dealing with a few mistakenly used NM's and properly logging the caches condition seems obvious.

 

I don't think niraD is against multiple NM's - at least that's not how I read the post (admittedly on the second read-through).

 

I think niraD is actually pointing out how the lack of NM's on the finds subsequent to the first NM effectively dilutes that first NM in the eyes of the CO and thus leads to them taking that first NM as a temporary blip which doesn't actually require any action on their part.

[+justintim1999]

You know, if I received 8 NM's on one of my caches over a weekend I'd actually be impressed.

If I got 8 NM's for a single problem, I'd just think 7 people wasted their time.

Nothing exceeds like excess. You'd have to admit, there would be no doubt in the cache owners mind that there was a problem that needs to be fixed.

I'm imagining the following situations:

 

AnyCacher logs a Find and a NM ("log is full"), followed by 7 other people logging Finds. I might assume that the log isn't really full. Perhaps AnyCacher saw that the front of the log sheet was full, and now people are using the back.

 

AnyCacher logs a Find and a NM ("log is full"), followed by 7 other people logging Finds, and a few more NM logs ("log is full"). I might take the claim that the log is full a little more seriously.

 

But that's just me.

 

Yes we could come up with dozens of possible scenarios that would increase the cache owners workload but the trade off between dealing with a few mistakenly used NM's and properly logging the caches condition seems obvious.

 

I don't think niraD is against multiple NM's - at least that's not how I read the post (admittedly on the second read-through).

 

I think niraD is actually pointing out how the lack of NM's on the finds subsequent to the first NM effectively dilutes that first NM in the eyes of the CO and thus leads to them taking that first NM as a temporary blip which doesn't actually require any action on their part.

 

I see both your points after reading it again. I guess You could try to interpret the NM as a mistake(back of the log was not full), possibly someone added a new log and didn't mention it or people are just cramming in their signature without posting a NM themselves. Problem is your guessing. Only way to be sure is to respond the NM and see for yourself.

 

naraD is right, multiple NM's for the same problem would greatly help identify the problem.

[+Team Microdot]

naraD is right, multiple NM's for the same problem would greatly help identify the problem.

 

And reduce the chances of the reviewer having to suffer abuse from an angry CO who claims they must have missed that memo

[+justintim1999]

naraD is right, multiple NM's for the same problem would greatly help identify the problem.

 

And reduce the chances of the reviewer having to suffer abuse from an angry CO who claims they must have missed that memo

 

Three cheers for reviewers. I'm sure they would appreciate anything that would make there thankless job easier.

[+niraD]

Three cheers for reviewers. I'm sure they would appreciate anything that would make there thankless job easier.

Hip, hip, hooray! They must develop a really thick skin to deal with the abuse that gets directed their way.

 

And yes, my point was that multiple NM logs can reinforce the validity of the problem, where a lack of NM logs among subsequent Finds can dilute the validity of the initial report.