Jump to content

When is a good time to suggest an archive?


mimaef

Recommended Posts

Ok - I'm still relatively new to this - I want to piggyback off of this, because I hear conflicting things regarding CO's, maintenance and such.  I like to go back and look at prior logs, past DNF's, past "Needs Maintenance" logs that I've done, etc - out of sheer curiosity, to see if people have found them lately, if the CO has done anything to the cache to maintain it.  Most of my "Needs Maintenance" posts have gone unheeded, even though I usually submit photographic proof of a nearly-destroyed water-logged log.  In the meantime, other people are still finding and logging these caches - either trying to write on the mostly-destroyed paper, or just not physically writing their name.  What can someone do as a follow-up to these cases, to help out fellow cachers?  If it's something that has been going on for a while, a few months worth of "destroyed logs"/"logs need to be replaced" entries, and the "Needs Maintenance" post has gone unheeded, do you email your local reviewer to let them know?  If the CO isn't taking care of the cache (or doing anything, really), but it's still there, able to be found, and other people are finding it - what "next steps" can one take to help out?  Email a CO who won't email you back?  Email the local reviewer to have them make it Inactive until the CO can fix it?  Or just put a new Rite in the Rain log in the cache and move on?  :(

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

Ok - I'm still relatively new to this - I want to piggyback off of this, because I hear conflicting things regarding CO's, maintenance and such.  I like to go back and look at prior logs, past DNF's, past "Needs Maintenance" logs that I've done, etc - out of sheer curiosity, to see if people have found them lately, if the CO has done anything to the cache to maintain it.  Most of my "Needs Maintenance" posts have gone unheeded, even though I usually submit photographic proof of a nearly-destroyed water-logged log.  In the meantime, other people are still finding and logging these caches - either trying to write on the mostly-destroyed paper, or just not physically writing their name.  What can someone do as a follow-up to these cases, to help out fellow cachers?  If it's something that has been going on for a while, a few months worth of "destroyed logs"/"logs need to be replaced" entries, and the "Needs Maintenance" post has gone unheeded, do you email your local reviewer to let them know?  If the CO isn't taking care of the cache (or doing anything, really), but it's still there, able to be found, and other people are finding it - what "next steps" can one take to help out?  Email a CO who won't email you back?  Email the local reviewer to have them make it Inactive until the CO can fix it?  Or just put a new Rite in the Rain log in the cache and move on?  :(

Simple.

 

Needs Archived log.

 

Get it off the map.

 

Free up the space.

 

Job done.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

Ok - I'm still relatively new to this - I want to piggyback off of this, because I hear conflicting things regarding CO's, maintenance and such.  I like to go back and look at prior logs, past DNF's, past "Needs Maintenance" logs that I've done, etc - out of sheer curiosity, to see if people have found them lately, if the CO has done anything to the cache to maintain it.  Most of my "Needs Maintenance" posts have gone unheeded, even though I usually submit photographic proof of a nearly-destroyed water-logged log.  In the meantime, other people are still finding and logging these caches - either trying to write on the mostly-destroyed paper, or just not physically writing their name.  What can someone do as a follow-up to these cases, to help out fellow cachers?  If it's something that has been going on for a while, a few months worth of "destroyed logs"/"logs need to be replaced" entries, and the "Needs Maintenance" post has gone unheeded, do you email your local reviewer to let them know?  If the CO isn't taking care of the cache (or doing anything, really), but it's still there, able to be found, and other people are finding it - what "next steps" can one take to help out?  Email a CO who won't email you back?  Email the local reviewer to have them make it Inactive until the CO can fix it?  Or just put a new Rite in the Rain log in the cache and move on?  :(

Log a Needs Archived.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Simple.

 

Needs Archived log.

 

Get it off the map.

 

Free up the space.

 

Job done.

So to be clear:  Cache intact, still can be found, Needs Maintenance log posted, logs still wet, not being taken care of - post Needs Archived - either it gets the CO's attention and they fix it, or gets archived?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, bigjim4life said:

Ok - I'm still relatively new to this - I want to piggyback off of this, because I hear conflicting things regarding CO's, maintenance and such.  I like to go back and look at prior logs, past DNF's, past "Needs Maintenance" logs that I've done, etc - out of sheer curiosity, to see if people have found them lately, if the CO has done anything to the cache to maintain it.  Most of my "Needs Maintenance" posts have gone unheeded, even though I usually submit photographic proof of a nearly-destroyed water-logged log.  In the meantime, other people are still finding and logging these caches - either trying to write on the mostly-destroyed paper, or just not physically writing their name.  What can someone do as a follow-up to these cases, to help out fellow cachers?  If it's something that has been going on for a while, a few months worth of "destroyed logs"/"logs need to be replaced" entries, and the "Needs Maintenance" post has gone unheeded, do you email your local reviewer to let them know?  If the CO isn't taking care of the cache (or doing anything, really), but it's still there, able to be found, and other people are finding it - what "next steps" can one take to help out?  Email a CO who won't email you back?  Email the local reviewer to have them make it Inactive until the CO can fix it?  Or just put a new Rite in the Rain log in the cache and move on?  :(

"Time to start going back through logs again" got my attention...

Did you already find these caches and placed a NM?     Others are saying they find it afterwards, with no mention of the maintenance issues?

That's nothing new.  :)

 - But are you physically going back to these caches to see that others aren't signing a log?

If so, curious what would make you go back to caches you've previously found, just to scan through logs of others finding it after you.

If not, you've placed your NM.   There's no need to put a strip of paper in afterwards.  Others probably did it already...

Link to comment
On 8/19/2017 at 8:20 AM, arisoft said:

 

Seven years ago, when I was a newcomer in this hobby, I realized that a cache which a have not found yet, was damaged recently. I took a new box with me when I went to search the cache. Some animal has made holes to the box and the logbook was wet. I replaced the box and dried the logbook. The cache is still there after these seven years. In this case, I do not see this "bigger issue which will remain" as stated earlier in this thread. 

Yeah, and if you keep doing these kinds of things you'll be taking new containers out to every cache owned by a nonexistent cache owner, and then when you get tired of replacing caches, log books, dumping out containers full of water, plastic baggies and whatever else then the problems with those caches continue to remain. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

Yeah, and if you keep doing these kinds of things you'll be taking new containers out to every cache owned by a nonexistent cache owner, and then when you get tired of replacing caches, log books, dumping out containers full of water, plastic baggies and whatever else then the problems with those caches continue to remain. 

My experience turned out to be the opposite of this particular case. Could you tell me about a real case where this has happened that the repair has not worked.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

My experience turned out to be the opposite of this particular case. Could you tell me about a real case where this has happened that the repair has not worked.

One example I recall quit vividly.

The CO had never performed required maintenance on any of their caches and most of them were already archived.

The cache I found was already a throwdown and was in need of maintenance. In fact once I learned it was a throwdown I retracted my Found log.

I NA'd it on the basis that the CO was never going to maintain it and the person throwing down had left an entirely inadequate container in order to gain a smiley.

Outcry from a vocal section of the local community - an outpouring of sympathy for a junky cache with no owner. The irony of this was that certain individuals within this vocal section had posted NA on other caches owned by the same CO - so they knew that the CO was never going to maintain the cache they were now wailing about.

One of said group left another throwdown in protest.

That too turned out to be an inadequate container which leaked badly.

Cache fell into disrepair in a matter of weeks and was archived.

All that fuss, angst and wasted effort over a completely unremarkable cache  which had already clearly been abandoned by its owner. How lovely.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
16 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

"Time to start going back through logs again" got my attention...

Did you already find these caches and placed a NM?     Others are saying they find it afterwards, with no mention of the maintenance issues?

That's nothing new.  :)

 - But are you physically going back to these caches to see that others aren't signing a log?

If so, curious what would make you go back to caches you've previously found, just to scan through logs of others finding it after you.

If not, you've placed your NM.   There's no need to put a strip of paper in afterwards.  Others probably did it already...

What I like to do sometimes is go back through my past finds and see how other cachers are doing - if they find it as quickly as I do, slower, had an adventure to get there - just reminiscing in general about trips I've taken and caches I've found.  I'm not actually physically going back to the caches.  If, however, I see that I posted a NM, then other cachers after me don't report an NM - but do report in their logs that the log is wet, container is leaking or full of water, etc - that's when I start wondering if there's anything I can do to help.  I put a few "Needs Archived" logs on some yesterday, mostly because those CO's (according to their profile) haven't logged into GC.com in over a year, so I doubt they're going to do anything...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

What I like to do sometimes is go back through my past finds and see how other cachers are doing - if they find it as quickly as I do, slower, had an adventure to get there - just reminiscing in general about trips I've taken and caches I've found.  I'm not actually physically going back to the caches.  If, however, I see that I posted a NM, then other cachers after me don't report an NM - but do report in their logs that the log is wet, container is leaking or full of water, etc - that's when I start wondering if there's anything I can do to help.  I put a few "Needs Archived" logs on some yesterday, mostly because those CO's (according to their profile) haven't logged into GC.com in over a year, so I doubt they're going to do anything...

Thanks for the reply. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, arisoft said:

My experience turned out to be the opposite of this particular case. Could you tell me about a real case where this has happened that the repair has not worked.

No, I can not tell you about a real case that the repair has not worked because I do not involve myself in fixing up others' caches for them. There has been plenty of opportunities to assist but like I said. It's the CO's responsibility to ensure their cache is in working order. So far I have NA-ed 58 caches due to lengthy inactivity or severe maintenance issues and only 12 have come back into play in my area. What does that tell you.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

No, I can not tell you about a real case that the repair has not worked because I do not involve myself in fixing up others' caches for them. There has been plenty of opportunities to assist but like I said. It's the CO's responsibility to ensure their cache is in working order. So far I have NA-ed 58 caches due to lengthy inactivity or severe maintenance issues and only 12 have come back into play in my area. What does that tell you.

For me this classifies you as a whistleblower :)

Do you have any estimation how many of those 46 caches could have been saved by a simple maintenance effort like draining the container?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

For me this classifies you as a whistleblower :)

Do you have any estimation how many of those 46 caches could have been saved by a simple maintenance effort like draining the container?

I don't know. Lets ask the cache owners who haven't logged into GC.com in several months, and haven't actively found a cache in years. 

 

The issue isn't just as simple as dumping out the water, arisoft. The issue is the cache container itself needs replacing and it's the CO's job to maintain their own cache. 

Edited by SeattleWayne
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

The issue isn't just as simple as dumping out the water, arisoft. The issue is the cache container itself needs replacing and it's the CO's job to maintain their own cache. 

Everyone in this thread has their own specification for this "issue" which you are referring.

My version of this  "issue" is specified here

I know that this topic generates lots of quick statements. It can be easily misunderstood when the subject is ambiguous. Blind throwdowns are not maintenance at any level, but it happens that they are used as the argument when explaining why not to do any maintaining voluntarily.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Everyone in this thread has their own specification for this "issue" which you are referring.

My version of this  "issue" is specified here

I know that this topic generates lots of quick statements. It can be easily misunderstood when the subject is ambiguous. Blind throwdowns are not maintenance at any level, but it happens that they are used as the argument when explaining why not to do any maintaining voluntarily.

Ah - sorry - the thread, and the discussion we are all having concerns the issue in its entirety rather than conforming precisely to your version of the issue.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Everyone in this thread has their own specification for this "issue" which you are referring.

My version of this  "issue" is specified here

I know that this topic generates lots of quick statements. It can be easily misunderstood when the subject is ambiguous. Blind throwdowns are not maintenance at any level, but it happens that they are used as the argument when explaining why not to do any maintaining voluntarily.

If you want to clean out cache containers, replace logbooks, and repair containers that's on you. But you're missing the bigger picture. Its the CO's job to do that stuff, and by you doing those things for them it promotes lazy CO's who generally rely on other cachers such as yourself to maintain their cache for them. 

You may see this as preserving the cache or keeping the game alive but once the CO decides he's not going to lift a finger to maintain his/her own cache, and then totally disappears from the game, the cache containers are left out there to rot, and then when they finally come up missing, then what? Finally archive it? All those NM logs go unanswered for months on end except for the times when you come around and prop it back up only for it to get archived months later due to CO inactivity. To each their own. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

If you want to clean out cache containers, replace logbooks, and repair containers that's on you. But you're missing the bigger picture. Its the CO's job to do that stuff, and by you doing those things for them it promotes lazy CO's who generally rely on other cachers such as yourself to maintain their cache for them. 

You may see this as preserving the cache or keeping the game alive but once the CO decides he's not going to lift a finger to maintain his/her own cache, and then totally disappears from the game, the cache containers are left out there to rot, and then when they finally come up missing, then what? Finally archive it? All those NM logs go unanswered for months on end except for the times when you come around and prop it back up only for it to get archived months later due to CO inactivity. To each their own. 

I know there is the "adoption" option, if an active CO wants to let someone else "adopt" the cache and maintain it.  But what about for inactive CO's, the ones that haven't logged online in forever - is there a way to, if someone wants, instead of having the cache completely archived and then starting anew - have a Reviewer or someone at Groundspeak - transfer ownership of the cache to someone who is willing to take on that cache? 

So the original CO hasn't logged online in forever, isn't taking care of a cache local to you, and at the rate it's going, it's in danger of being archived.  However, you like the location, you want people to keep finding it, and don't want to lose that particular cache (for whatever reasons, sentimental, logistic, etc).  Instead of having it archived, have the reviewer or someone at HQ try to reach out to the original CO - if there's no response from the CO, or they're not interested anymore - then transfer the cache (instead of a mutual adoption) to someone who is interested and volunteering to maintain it.  Is this a feasible thing?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

I know there is the "adoption" option, if an active CO wants to let someone else "adopt" the cache and maintain it.  But what about for inactive CO's, the ones that haven't logged online in forever - is there a way to, if someone wants, instead of having the cache completely archived and then starting anew - have a Reviewer or someone at Groundspeak - transfer ownership of the cache to someone who is willing to take on that cache? 

So the original CO hasn't logged online in forever, isn't taking care of a cache local to you, and at the rate it's going, it's in danger of being archived.  However, you like the location, you want people to keep finding it, and don't want to lose that particular cache (for whatever reasons, sentimental, logistic, etc).  Instead of having it archived, have the reviewer or someone at HQ try to reach out to the original CO - if there's no response from the CO, or they're not interested anymore - then transfer the cache (instead of a mutual adoption) to someone who is interested and volunteering to maintain it.  Is this a feasible thing?

The short answer is no.

 

There are probably dozens of threads on these forums which explain why as it forms part of one of the cyclical debates which keep the forum from falling silent.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

I know there is the "adoption" option, if an active CO wants to let someone else "adopt" the cache and maintain it.  But what about for inactive CO's, the ones that haven't logged online in forever - is there a way to, if someone wants, instead of having the cache completely archived and then starting anew - have a Reviewer or someone at Groundspeak - transfer ownership of the cache to someone who is willing to take on that cache? 

So the original CO hasn't logged online in forever, isn't taking care of a cache local to you, and at the rate it's going, it's in danger of being archived.  However, you like the location, you want people to keep finding it, and don't want to lose that particular cache (for whatever reasons, sentimental, logistic, etc).  Instead of having it archived, have the reviewer or someone at HQ try to reach out to the original CO - if there's no response from the CO, or they're not interested anymore - then transfer the cache (instead of a mutual adoption) to someone who is interested and volunteering to maintain it.  Is this a feasible thing?

In a word, No.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

The short answer is no.

 

There are probably dozens of threads on these forums which explain why as it forms part of one of the cyclical debates which keep the forum from falling silent.

Ok - I can see why the answer would be "no" - so pretty much the "archival" way and then re-posting your own cache in that spot would be the way to go.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

I know there is the "adoption" option, if an active CO wants to let someone else "adopt" the cache and maintain it.  But what about for inactive CO's, the ones that haven't logged online in forever - is there a way to, if someone wants, instead of having the cache completely archived and then starting anew - have a Reviewer or someone at Groundspeak - transfer ownership of the cache to someone who is willing to take on that cache? 

So the original CO hasn't logged online in forever, isn't taking care of a cache local to you, and at the rate it's going, it's in danger of being archived.  However, you like the location, you want people to keep finding it, and don't want to lose that particular cache (for whatever reasons, sentimental, logistic, etc).  Instead of having it archived, have the reviewer or someone at HQ try to reach out to the original CO - if there's no response from the CO, or they're not interested anymore - then transfer the cache (instead of a mutual adoption) to someone who is interested and volunteering to maintain it.  Is this a feasible thing?

No. Mainly because no one knows why the CO has been inactive for so long. Maybe they come back in a year after something out of their control and find out their cache has been adopted to someone else by Groundspeak. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
49 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

I know there is the "adoption" option, if an active CO wants to let someone else "adopt" the cache and maintain it.  But what about for inactive CO's, the ones that haven't logged online in forever - is there a way to, if someone wants, instead of having the cache completely archived and then starting anew - have a Reviewer or someone at Groundspeak - transfer ownership of the cache to someone who is willing to take on that cache? 

So the original CO hasn't logged online in forever, isn't taking care of a cache local to you, and at the rate it's going, it's in danger of being archived.  However, you like the location, you want people to keep finding it, and don't want to lose that particular cache (for whatever reasons, sentimental, logistic, etc).  Instead of having it archived, have the reviewer or someone at HQ try to reach out to the original CO - if there's no response from the CO, or they're not interested anymore - then transfer the cache (instead of a mutual adoption) to someone who is interested and volunteering to maintain it.  Is this a feasible thing?

 The adoption process explained  in the  Help Center, says that an active CO is needed to transfer ownership.

A Reviewer explained once that years ago, when it was sorta okay to do,  A CO inactive for some time asked what the heck happened to his property when it was "transferred" to another.  I guess similar happened often enough that  policy had to be put in place.

The container belongs to the CO, their property.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

Ok - I can see why the answer would be "no" - so pretty much the "archival" way and then re-posting your own cache in that spot would be the way to go.

If a Reviewer agrees with your NA (that there is an issue), and the timeframe for the CO to fix it is over, yeah.   :)

Still kinda (but just kinda) curious why a newer person would be so actively looking  to archive caches. 

Part of me is happy that one may actually play the way the guidelines intend (rare these days),  and part is hoping it isn't done just for the cool spots not available to a newbie otherwise...

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

If a Reviewer agrees with your NA (that there is an issue), and the timeframe for the CO to fix it is over, yeah.   :)

Still kinda (but just kinda) curious why a newer person would be so actively looking  to archive caches. 

Part of me is happy that one may actually play the way the guidelines intend (rare these days),  and part is hoping it isn't done just for the cool spots not available to a newbie otherwise...

I'm not looking to archive caches to take cool spots, if that's what you're saying.  I'm not sure that I'm ready to start placing caches in general - and I sure as hell wouldn't NA a cache just to try to take a spot from someone else.  I'd be pissed if I was actively involved and someone tried to do that to me.

My intentions with all of this is only for good.  I want to try to help fix caches and keep the game going for others who may follow me in my caching footsteps - even though I may not be a leader or CO, I hate to see ones that are placed and aren't taken care of properly.  I just want to do what's right within reasonable guidelines to try to help out where I can.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

If a Reviewer agrees with your NA (that there is an issue), and the timeframe for the CO to fix it is over, yeah.   :)

Still kinda (but just kinda) curious why a newer person would be so actively looking  to archive caches. 

Part of me is happy that one may actually play the way the guidelines intend (rare these days),  and part is hoping it isn't done just for the cool spots not available to a newbie otherwise...

Why should it matter if the NA logger is a newbie or not?

If the cache is due an NA then it doesn't matter who logs it - newbie or veteran.

It's actually more disturbing and perhaps more telling that a veteran cacher would try to discourage a newbie from feeling justified in logging NA on a cache that needs it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bigjim4life said:

My intentions with all of this is only for good.  I want to try to help fix caches and keep the game going for others who may follow me in my caching footsteps - even though I may not be a leader or CO, I hate to see ones that are placed and aren't taken care of properly.  I just want to do what's right within reasonable guidelines to try to help out where I can.

This is exactly what I am trying to explain. No one complains or suffers when you take care properly. Sometimes it is just a matter of few minutes to wait until the log book is dried after the previous cacher who opened the container at rainy day or did not close it properly. The purpose of this game is not to keep the cache owner busy.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

This is exactly what I am trying to explain. No one complains or suffers when you take care properly. Sometimes it is just a matter of few minutes to wait until the log book is dried after the previous cacher who opened the container at rainy day or did not close it properly. The purpose of this game is not to keep the cache owner busy.

Those sorts of issues are not the subject of this thread.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Why should it matter if the NA logger is a newbie or not?

Well, first of all, it's rather common for a newbie to think a problem is serious that, after a year of experience, they'd realize is a fairly routine issue and not a big deal. The worst case, of course, is a newbie thinking that if they can't find a cache, it must not be there.

But more generally, I think there are a lot of issues to consider in NMs and NAs, not only in when they're really warranted but also in considering how long to let things lie. When you're just starting out, it's easy to think that it's best to crush any problems as quickly as possible, but after you cache for a while, you realize that problems crop up and get resolved all the time on an on-going basis. As long as a bad cache does get archived in the end, it's not that big a deal whether it takes a week or a month for it to reach its final destination.

I tend to suggest that newbies not worry much about posting NMs and NAs. Someone with more experience will likely come along a little later, so there's no rush to act until you've become that more experienced cacher. That's why I consider the new logging page misguided, since it tries so hard to make it trivial for the most inexperienced cacher to log NMs and NAs, which I think is the exact opposite of what you want to do.

At first glance, in this case it seems as if the OP is in a community where no one else posts NMs and NAs, so the OP might have to step up early in their career. But on the other hand, I can't rule out that the OP just hasn't been around long enough to see that the NAs will be posted soon enough, it's just not time yet. While on the one hand, I think being a newbie matters a great deal, on the other hand, that doesn't mean they can't do a good job posting an NA if they need to.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, arisoft said:

This is exactly what I am trying to explain. No one complains or suffers when you take care properly. Sometimes it is just a matter of few minutes to wait until the log book is dried after the previous cacher who opened the container at rainy day or did not close it properly. The purpose of this game is not to keep the cache owner busy.

These are the kinds of logs I'm looking at with regards to potentially doing "NA" on them.  I don't think waiting until they are dry will help much...

log1.jpg

log2.jpg

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

These are the kinds of logs I'm looking at with regards to potentially doing "NA" on them.  I don't think waiting until they are dry will help much...

I know this cache type very well indeed. It is proven to leak whatever you do, so I have changed the logsheet to a plastic paper version when using this type. Log is still wet but that's okay.

Most geocachers I know, would take that cellulose garbage out from the container and put a brand new logsheet instead. They would not even bother to record a NM in this case.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Well, first of all, it's rather common for a newbie to think a problem is serious that, after a year of experience, they'd realize is a fairly routine issue and not a big deal. The worst case, of course, is a newbie thinking that if they can't find a cache, it must not be there.

But more generally, I think there are a lot of issues to consider in NMs and NAs, not only in when they're really warranted but also in considering how long to let things lie. When you're just starting out, it's easy to think that it's best to crush any problems as quickly as possible, but after you cache for a while, you realize that problems crop up and get resolved all the time on an on-going basis. As long as a bad cache does get archived in the end, it's not that big a deal whether it takes a week or a month for it to reach its final destination.

I tend to suggest that newbies not worry much about posting NMs and NAs. Someone with more experience will likely come along a little later, so there's no rush to act until you've become that more experienced cacher. That's why I consider the new logging page misguided, since it tries so hard to make it trivial for the most inexperienced cacher to log NMs and NAs, which I think is the exact opposite of what you want to do.

At first glance, in this case it seems as if the OP is in a community where no one else posts NMs and NAs, so the OP might have to step up early in their career. But on the other hand, I can't rule out that the OP just hasn't been around long enough to see that the NAs will be posted soon enough, it's just not time yet. While on the one hand, I think being a newbie matters a great deal, on the other hand, that doesn't mean they can't do a good job posting an NA if they need to.

What a very long response.

Just to restore the original context of the question though, so that we don't forget that it was predicated on the need for NA already being established.

Quote

Why should it matter if the NA logger is a newbie or not?

If the cache is due an NA then it doesn't matter who logs it - newbie or veteran.

 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I know this cache type very well indeed. It is proven to leak whatever you do, so I have changed the logsheet to a plastic paper version when using this type. Log is still wet but that's okay.

Most geocachers I know, would take that cellulose garbage out from the container and put a brand new logsheet instead. They would not even bother to record a NM in this case.

And yet you yourself said:

"'Needs archive' is the way to report major permanent problems to the reviewer when there is no way to sign the logbook."

Plus, replacing the log was not among your initial "bullet points" of things to follow.  Half of this seems to be "fix the container where you can" and the other half is "report NM or NA" and let the (potentially) absentee CO worry about it".  If I see a CO that is active, doing stuff, I'll post a NM - assuming they'll come fix it.

You know what?  Maybe I'll just take the easy way out and not give a crap.  It's less stressful that way.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I know this cache type very well indeed. It is proven to leak whatever you do, so I have changed the logsheet to a plastic paper version when using this type. Log is still wet but that's okay.

Most geocachers I know, would take that cellulose garbage out from the container and put a brand new logsheet instead. They would not even bother to record a NM in this case.

How sad then that most cachers you know a lazy CO enablers :(

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, bigjim4life said:

These are the kinds of logs I'm looking at with regards to potentially doing "NA" on them.  I don't think waiting until they are dry will help much...

log1.jpg

log2.jpg

 

This sort of thing I would log NM, unless. . .  .   If there are already NM logs posted that the CO has not addressed in a reasonable length of time, then I'd log NA, or if the CO has quit geocaching, then I'd log NA.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

This sort of thing I would log NM, unless. . .  .   If there are already NM logs posted that the CO has not addressed in a reasonable length of time, then I'd log NA, or if the CO has quit geocaching, then I'd log NA.

This is very interesting situation and very realistic one. There are three obvious outcomes

1. Log DNF

2. Log DNF+NM and wait [forever] until CO replace the log, then start again

3. Replace the log and then log Found.

In this particular case there is no doubt that the right cache has been actually found and the container seems to be in good shape. I am pretty sure that most geocachers would naturally select option 3 or something else that options 1 or 2 just because they can.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

This is very interesting situation and very realistic one. There are three obvious outcomes

1. Log DNF

2. Log DNF+NM and wait [forever] until CO replace the log, then start again

3. Replace the log and then log Found.

In this particular case there is no doubt that the right cache has been actually found and the container seems to be in good shape. I am pretty sure that most geocachers would naturally select option 3 or something else that options 1 or 2 just because they can.

I would add enough paper to validate my found log, log the find, log NM then log NA if no maintenance happened.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

What a very long response.

Just to restore the original context of the question though, so that we don't forget that it was predicated on the need for NA already being established.

Sorry if you lost sight of the context. What I was saying is that "If the cache is due an NA then it doesn't matter who logs it - newbie or veteran" suggests that a newbie and a veteran are equally able to decide when a cache is due an NA. That's what I was contesting, and I tried to be as clear as possible about why so you couldn't miss it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

So let me get this straight.  It seems like there's no 100% right way to do this.  So we look on our smartphones, see whether or not the CO is active in the world of caching or not.  If they are, put a new logsheet in, add a NM, and hope that the CO comes out soon to put a replacement container there so the new logs don't get further destroyed.

If the CO is inactive for a very long time, there are past unheeded NM logs, a lot of past logs for months saying that the log is unsignable, needs a new container, etc, then either we replace a destroyed log with a new log - but only if it's a special paper (like Rite in the Rain), otherwise the log will end up eventually getting destroyed again (seems kinda pointless to me) - or we log a NM and wait for nothing to happen (since the CO doesn't do jack diddly anymore) - or we log an NA, after looking at all of the surrounding circumstances that we can and making our best judgment call on it, so a responsible CO can come in and put a new cache in if they want.

Or we just do nothing at all.  UGH.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Keep in mind that you have several people saying to just go ahead and log the NA, and one person posting over and over about it being better to prop up old, abandoned caches.

And we Geocachers have a talent for turning straightforward subjects into convoluted debates about the smallest details. LOL!

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

Keep in mind that you have several people saying to just go ahead and log the NA, and one person posting over and over about it being better to prop up old, abandoned caches.

And we Geocachers have a talent for turning straightforward subjects into convoluted debates about the smallest details. LOL!

Thanks!  And so far, out of the three NA's that I've marked, all three have been temporarily disabled by my local Reviewer.  Must have done something right...

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...