Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
baer2006

Please implement stand-alone NM/NA logs for the "New Logging" page

Recommended Posts

Hi,

in my view, there are several good reasons to write stand-alone NM or NA logs. I.e., an NM/NA not "attached" to a Find/DNF/Note and with more than a single-line standard text.

  • Sometimes I'm a few days behind with my logs. I write e.g. a "Found It" log, describe problems with the cache, and click the "Report a problem" button. This results in a find log describing the problem with the date of my find, and a one-line NM log with the current date. If it's a frequently visited cache, many other logs might be in-between. This might not be a big issue for the CO, because they get two e-mails in direct succession. But other cachers, who notice the NM log or flag, and want to see what's the issue, have to search for my find log buried somewhere down between all the others.
  • There are reasons to post NM/NA without a (new) visit to the cache. E.g. if I've been there many weeks ago, posted an NM, and there was no reaction from the CO whatsoever. Then I tend to log an NA. With the "new logging", I can only write a note and checking "Cache should be archived". The result (a note describing the problem, followed by an NA with a single-line boilerplate text) looks just wrong.

Currently, I can still "opt out" to the old logging, but this option will go away one day. Also, I can edit the text of an auto-generated NM or NA, and the edit functionality still uses the "old" logging screen. But I guess that might also change, and I fear that I won't be able to edit an NM/NA then. But even if I could, it's still an unnecessarily complicated workflow (write Note with NM "flag" -> Edit NM log text to something meaningful -> delete the now unnecessary note), compared to just selecting NM as log type and writing away.

You don't have to get rid of the new option to just flag a log with NM/NA and auto-generate the NM/NA log. I would just like to have the additional option to file a meaningful stand-alone NM/NA log in one step. Thank you!

Regards
baer2006

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post

Hello,

I agree with baer2006. I've attached a screen shot of the latest need maintenance request that I posted. There isn't a need for these to be separate. The one line description auto populated is fine, but my description of the problem should also be on the same entry.

Regards,

Kaleniam                     

 

NM logging.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kaleniam said:

Hello,

I agree with baer2006. I've attached a screen shot of the latest need maintenance request that I posted. There isn't a need for these to be separate. The one line description auto populated is fine, but my description of the problem should also be on the same entry.

Regards,

Kaleniam                     

 

NM logging.JPG

While we're looking at your logs, you probably should have logged a Did Not Find, not a note.  You looked for the cache and Did Not Find it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 27.7.2017 at 0:45 PM, baer2006 said:

 Also, I can edit the text of an auto-generated NM or NA, and the edit functionality still uses the "old" logging screen.

Editing logs to convey information to the CO is a bad idea since the updated log isn't emailed. I rarely visit my cache listing to check logs, but rely on the emails, since it's impossible to distinguish new logs on the website and in the app. (Logs can be backdated, and you can't sort on time submitted.)

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, please.  I am very much in favor of having the option to submit NM/NA logs as stand-alone logs, rather than having to combine an NM/NA report with a Found/DNF/WN log.

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/3/2017 at 3:33 PM, hzoi said:

While we're looking at your logs, you probably should have logged a Did Not Find, not a note.  You looked for the cache and Did Not Find it.

This was just an example of how it got posted. After I took the screen grab I copied the note text and edited the needs maintenance log and pasted that text in there. It wouldn't have done any good to post the final results as it would have only been one log entry. When all said and done and after I went back again to look I posted a DNF. I chose to keep it as one post because I'm not sure how a CO gets notified by every log or just a NM/NA. Maybe only gets notified of a NM and then won't check any previous log entry where all my details about why it needs maintenance is. This two log system just doesn't provide enough information I think.

Edited by Kaleniam

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/11/2017 at 5:27 PM, Kaleniam said:

I'm not sure how a CO gets notified by every log or just a NM/NA.

Cache owners get notified of every log on a cache (Found it, DNF, NM, NA, note) via email.  It's instant notification, so it's whatever the initial version of the log was.  Cache owners are not notified through geocaching.com when logs are edited.  (Project-gc.com members can elect to get emails when logs are edited, but geocaching.com does not notify a CO of log edits.)

 

I have not gotten any needs maintenance logs on any of our caches since the introduction of the new logging experience.  I don't know whether this triggers two emails to a CO, though I would suspect it does.

 

(And no offense, but if you don't know what information is getting passed along to the cache owner, how are you so sure that the two log system isn't providing enough information?)

 

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

I have not gotten any needs maintenance logs on any of our caches since the introduction of the new logging experience.  I don't know whether this triggers two emails to a CO, though I would suspect it does.

It sends one email saying the cache was found, and the text may or may not have hidden within it something about a problem, and then it sends a second, unrelated email saying there's a problem but providing no details.

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

(And no offense, but if you don't know what information is getting passed along to the cache owner, how are you so sure that the two log system isn't providing enough information?)

I assume he's talking about the fact that the NM email is vacuous.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I assume he's talking about the fact that the NM email is vacuous.

I suppose you could see it that way.

 

Since I usually put all of the information regarding needed maintenance or cache inssues in my found it log, I normally only wrote "See my found it log" in the old separate "needs maintenance" logs.  I prefer now having the option to skip that step.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

Since I usually put all of the information regarding needed maintenance or cache inssues in my found it log, I normally only wrote "See my found it log" in the old separate "needs maintenance" logs.  I prefer now having the option to skip that step.

Right. Now everyone is forced to hide the problem report as a side note in their find log and post a vacuous NM log just like you used to do by choice. I don't mind that you think that makes sense, but I don't, so I'm annoyed I'm longer allowed to enter clearer and more focused problem reports through the new logging page. And I'm even more annoyed that people that don't know any better are being discouraged from entering clearer more focused problem reports.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm annoyed I'm longer allowed to enter clearer and more focused problem reports through the new logging page.

What's stopping you from putting this clear, focused information in your "Found it" or "Did Not Find" log?

 

I've gotten into the habit of putting information on cache condition in our found it logs, whether it be positive or negative, so that my logs not only memorialize my visit, but also provide useful information to the CO and to the next couple finders as to what they can expect when they open the lid.

4 minutes ago, dprovan said:

And I'm even more annoyed that people that don't know any better are being discouraged from entering clearer more focused problem reports.

I don't see that the new system discourages anyone from leaving information in their logs.  And besides, if they don't know any better, then may I ask how the old system is somehow better at capturing this information?  Who's to say they would have known well enough to go back and leave a separate NM or NA log with the old system? 

 

I seldom saw newbies coming back to leave needs maintenance or needs archived logs after they posted their find or DNF.  With the new system they can flag the one log they leave, which I see as more helpful than not flagging at all.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hzoi said:

What's stopping you from putting this clear, focused information in your "Found it" or "Did Not Find" log?

It's not focused because found logs are focused on finding the cache, not on reporting a problem. It's not clear because the CO has to figure out which parts of my found log are talking about a problem.

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

I've gotten into the habit of putting information on cache condition in our found it logs, whether it be positive or negative,

Of course. I talk about the condition of the cache in my found logs, too. I consider that completely different than reporting a problem and explaining why I think it warrants attention. Again, I don't mind that you see it differently, I just object to the system forcing me to do it your way since I consider that way inferior.

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

I don't see that the new system discourages anyone from leaving information in their logs.

It discourages them from treating the information as a problem report that a human CO will need to act on. Instead, it encourages them to think that all they have to do is check a box to tell the impersonal system there's a problem.

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

And besides, if they don't know any better, then may I ask how the old system is somehow better at capturing this information?  Who's to say they would have known well enough to go back and leave a separate NM or NA log with the old system?

I would rather miss a complaint by someone because they can't figure out how to file an NM than encourage them to file complaints which are not helpful.

2 hours ago, hzoi said:

I seldom saw newbies coming back to leave needs maintenance or needs archived logs after they posted their find or DNF.  With the new system they can flag the one log they leave, which I see as more helpful than not flagging at all.

I seldom saw a newbie's DNF indicate a problem with a cache, and I don't think I've ever seen a newbie's DNF when there was a problem that wasn't soon followed by an experience cacher that could better evaluate the situation filing the accurate NM.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, dprovan said:

It's not focused because found logs are focused on finding the cache, not on reporting a problem. It's not clear because the CO has to figure out which parts of my found log are talking about a problem.

I hadn't realized reading comprehension was that much of a chore.

 

Here's your last log:

Quote

Interesting puzzle, but I guess this isn't the place to talk about it. Thanks for pointing it out, though. I thought the way you leveraged it worked out swell.

We were meeting my son for lunch today, and he was kinda mum about where he was going to take us other than it being in this area. I mentioned I'd want to walk over to find the cache after lunch, and all he could say was that it wasn't going to be much of a walk. We grabbed it while waiting for a table. My GPSr didn't even have enough time to warm up, so it was yanking us all over until I decided I should just look for what I knew the cache would be without bothering to figure out exactly where it was, and, of course, it was easy to spot. TFTC.

If the cache had needed maintenance, would adding a line break and then discussing cache problems really have transformed this into an impenetrable mystery?

 

Similarly, here's a recent log I left that used the new logging system.

Quote

#7954

Took me a second to spot this one. In the meantime, I thought I had found a new type of cache container. Until I unscrewed it and realized it was nothing inside. Oops. Hopefully I didn't knock out power or cable or whatever to the building.

Once I spotted the container, I noticed that there was no log inside. In fact, this thing is becoming unattached to its housing. I didn't have any means of reattachment on me, so I couldn't help out with repair. This one need some love.

I did have a spare business card in the car, which I put in as an emergency log sheet.

TFTC!

Christian (one third of hzoi)

The cache owner did not appear to have any issues reading my log, understanding what the problem with the cache was, and responding to it.

 

If you don't like the new system, that's fine, I'm not here to force you or cajole you into liking it.  But let's not pretend that it's fatally flawed just because it doesn't fit the way you prefer to leave a log .  If a newbie isn't going to log issues with a cache, neither system will fix that.  Similarly, if a cache owner can't be bothered to read cache logs, neither system will force them to do so.

19 hours ago, dprovan said:

It discourages them from treating the information as a problem report that a human CO will need to act on. Instead, it encourages them to think that all they have to do is check a box to tell the impersonal system there's a problem.

How so, exactly?  It would appear to do the exact opposite.  When one chooses "Report a problem" and picks any other option besides "The cache should be archived," this note appears:

Quote

Add details to your log to help the cache owner and other geocachers understand the problem.

I don't see anything in there about notifying a system.  Rather, I see a note encouraging cachers to share details with human persons.

 

Similarly, if one chooses "This cache should be archived," the following note appears, again referencing warm blooded caching-type people:

Quote

A community reviewer will be notified that this cache needs attention. Please add details to help them understand the problem.

Please explain how these "encourage[] them to think that all they have to do is check a box to tell the impersonal system there's a problem."

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I use a 3rd party app which supports via the official API posting standalone NM and NA logs.  

Like dprovan, the workflow and result is more streamlined and targeted.  My NM and NA logs are distinct from a Found or DNF with different info.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

I use a 3rd party app which supports via the official API posting standalone NM and NA logs.  

Like dprovan, the workflow and result is more streamlined and targeted.  My NM and NA logs are distinct from a Found or DNF with different info.

That begs the question, if you don't even use the logging system, why would you care how it works?

 

That aside, would you mind pointing out how the new system is less streamlined?  Just saying it is, doesn't make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, hzoi said:

I hadn't realized reading comprehension was that much of a chore.

I only worry about myself: I want my logs to be clear and focused. I do it to make the CO's job easier and so anyone reading my logs will understand me. I don't write clearly because I think the CO is incapable of reading whatever gobbledygook he gets.

But it's sure an eye opener to hear you say, essentially, that if the CO doesn't understand you, that's his problem.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, dprovan said:

I want my logs to be clear and focused.

Can't wait until you shift this philosophy to your forum posts, then.

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But it's sure an eye opener to hear you say, essentially, that if the CO doesn't understand you, that's his problem.

I'll bite.  Perhaps the example I gave above was a little unclear, as I was trying not to give the cache container away to other searchers while giving the CO information he would easily understand. So let's see if you can decode these other recent logs and spot the issue.

Quote

Came back with another set of eyes. Looked and poked everywhere we could think of. Think this one might be missing.

Quote

#7945

Whew. Didn't seem that muggy at the car but I was dripping by the time I got to this one. (Don't worry, I didn't get it on the log.)

Hint appears to be obsolete and is pretty much useless; when you get a chance, could you please update or delete it it?

Log is full. Sorry, didn't have a replacement with me.

TFTC

Christian (one third of hzoi)

Quote

#7943

Busy morning on the VCT despite the heat wave. Maybe folks wanted to get their walks and rides in before it hit a billion degrees.

Log is absolutely full on this one and needs replacing.

TFTC!

Christian (one third of hzoi)

 

Quote

#7941

First stop on the trail today. Already getting pretty muggy. Found after a short search, coords were off for me so hint came in handy.

Log is pretty shot on this one. It's not full, but it's getting manky and damp. Please replace.

TFTC

Christian (one third of hzoi)

If you're having trouble, let me know, I can highlight the parts that have to do with cache condition.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

p.s. While I enjoyed how you side-stepped all my specific questions and counter-examples and simply misinterpreted my words to make your position appear more sympathetic, perhaps you could take a look back at my post and explain how "Add details to your log to help the cache owner and other geocachers understand the problem" and "A community reviewer will be notified that this cache needs attention. Please add details to help them understand the problem." would "encourage[] [cachers] to think that all they have to do is check a box to tell the impersonal system there's a problem."  Go on, I'll wait.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

That begs the question, if you don't even use the logging system, why would you care how it works?

Why would I have an opinion about something I now need to use a 3rd party solution? I used to use the web site but now, even for a NM or NA, often launch a 3rd party app to perform the task on my phone/ipad. 

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

That aside, would you mind pointing out how the new system is less streamlined?  Just saying it is, doesn't make it so.

Just asking for someone to repeat what you've heard dozens/hundreds of times doesn't seem productive. Nothing I could write here hasn't been said by myself and others. Do a search and find the threads with this feedback.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

Do a search

OK, I did some research.  Here's a recent log of yours where you didn't bother leaving a NM log, even though you call for maintenance.

Quote

Signed, as best as I could, the wet log sheet attached to what looks like a hacked replacement where a bison tube previously was. Needs some TLC.

This seems to be a great example of a log that just needs one more thing - checking the "needs maintenance" button to flag the cache as needing maintenance.  What the CO needs to do to fix this is clear.  No separate log required.

 

Or am I missing something?

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, hzoi said:

This seems to be a great example of a log that just needs one more thing - checking the "needs maintenance" button to flag the cache as needing maintenance.

Not sure what you were searching my logs for vs searching the forums to see all the feedback on standalone NM/NA logs, but since you did...

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3E707_apu?guid=37b106b0-c0d3-4826-9b79-2d400d266294 was the new DNF + NA as the entire DNF log was the NA log. 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1HAQ3_a-whole-lot-of-tandem?guid=18e268da-a12e-43ff-85ca-cdfe6409f57b is a standalone NA log vs write note + system NA - 2 logs instead of 1. 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC15RM6_twice-as-fun-behind-closed-doors?guid=d8a033e2-854e-43a0-a22e-7e3b112acec2 was a followed NM some months later after a DNF vs write note and system NM - 2 logs instead of 1. 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC282Q5_changes?guid=4fb0b0ee-62d3-4efc-b612-42c78d76f34a is the one you referenced. I found it. There's already an open NM on it if you check the logs, which I knew when I logged it. You can go ahead and create another note/NM if you want - maybe 2 NMs are better than 1?

Edited by Team DEMP

Share this post


Link to post

hzoi, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't see any issues with the new implementation, and no amount of evidence is likely to change your opinion (especially considering your personal feelings about some of the members trying to describe the issues). That's fine; you're entitled to your opinion. However, please understand that there are lots of other people who do see issues with the new implementation, as described in this and several other forum discussions. Some of us see the new implementation as being very problematic on several fronts and we'd like to see some changes made. At worst, I expect we'd be back to a system similar to what we had previously, which shouldn't affect your processes negatively, or at all.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone is right. :)

The new system encourage to record NM without unnecessasy warning bells as the old one did. It is absolutely suitable for TFTC-cachers as it does not require any writing at all. The headquarters has seen a change in the population and acted in accordance with it.

At the same time it is stupid that you can not write NM only logs without special tool and CO can not add NM status to his own cache to flag it's situation into the correct tool. I feel this limitation as an unnecessasy promotion for this new function targeted to those TFTC-players.

I must admit that very often the same message was written both Found and NM logs entries - for good reason. CO may filter the found logs and read only NM logs. The new system does not follow this practice.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hzoi said:

p.s. While I enjoyed how you side-stepped...

I've explained myself at length, so I'm not going to bore everyone by repeating it, particularly since it's clear you're not going to get it no matter how many times I go over it. I didn't answer your questions because you're asking the wrong questions. You want to know why I can't write a good log using the inferior system. Of course, the answer is that I can. I could write an excellent and helpful log using any system. I just don't see why I should have to.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

The new system encourage to record NM without unnecessasy warning bells as the old one did. It is absolutely suitable for TFTC-cachers as it does not require any writing at all. The headquarters has seen a change in the population and acted in accordance with it.

I think you're correctly describing the situation, and, furthermore, I believe this is what GS would say they did. Well, except they'd probably talk about "less sophisticated cachers" instead of "TFTC-cachers", but we still know what they're talking about. The problem is that the underlying logic is that if more people post more NMs, then cache quality will automatically improve. I don't think that's the case. I don't think the increase in NMs generated by simplifying the process of tacking an NM onto a find log will have any impact at all. Meanwhile, the process of filing that TFTC that those TFTC-cachers are filing is twice as complicated just to try and convince them to click a button to report problems with their TFTC logs.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, arisoft said:

At the same time it is stupid that you can not write NM only logs without special tool and CO can not add NM status to his own cache to flag it's situation into the correct tool. I feel this limitation as an unnecessasy promotion for this new function targeted to those TFTC-players.

Excellent point, which I had completely forgotten.

It has happened in the past (and I expect it to happen again), that I got a find log on one of my caches, which gets only few visits (a long multi). In the log, some problem (wet logbook, barely readable info at a stage, etc.) was mentioned, but no NM was logged. Because I know that (a) the next visit on the cache may be months in the future and (b) I tend to "forget" ;) about maintenance duties when I'm not constantly reminded, I logged an NM on my own cache so that it got flagged. Currently I cannot do this at all with "New Logging", not even by writing a note with the "NM option" clicked (because that option is not available to me for my own listings).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just don't see the issue, but I am clearly way too invested in this for some reason.  I'll move on and leave y'all to discuss the merits of reverting.  (And to the extent I have gotten overly prickly on this, apologies.)

Edited by hzoi

Share this post


Link to post

Add me to the list!  Every time I need to log a NM or NA, it feels broken.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/27/2017 at 4:45 AM, baer2006 said:

Currently, I can still "opt out" to the old logging

 

Hey, I'm replying to something almost two years old!  "We're working on a new logging experience" is maybe not that accurate anymore; it's frozen until someone trips over it and realizes it might need work.

 

So for the foreseeable future, you can still opt out and write proper NM or NA logs.

 

And if "opt out" finally stops opting out, I'll just abandon the website for logging.  Thank goodness for API apps...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×