Jump to content

When is a good time to suggest an archive?


mimaef

Recommended Posts

I look at the NM as a way to tell the owner that the cache is, by my educated guess, most likely not in the condition they intend it to be and it should be looked at. If I find a cache on the ground and it's clearly not meant to be on the ground, and I don't know how it should be hidden, I may log a NM with my Find, replacing it where I found it. If the logsheet is unsignable and I have a replacement, I'll replace it and log it Found without a NM. If the logsheet is at least readable, I may well store it safely and ask if the CO wants it to check it before throwing it out (you never know, and it's technically still their property).

In short, if there's some aspect of the cache which is in a state I don't believe is the intended state by the CO, then I'll log the NM, along with a DNF or Find depending on the situation.

If there's an immediate cause for concern about the cache and it should no longer exist as an active listing (eg, unexpectedly a property owner furiously throws himself around foaming at the mouth, angry at the container placed on his property and people regularly trespassing to get it; despite a concerted effort to calm him down and explain the situation), I'll definitely log a NA along with the Find, and let the CO know.  I may also log a NA if it's clear that a cache is missing by a string of DNFs and/or multiple unaddressed NMs. If the CO is active, the priority that they deal with it is raised, and they can still put it back into good condition before the reviewer takes action.

These are just my logging ethics... I try to apply the objective meaning of log types to the reasoning behind my logging them.  But a lot of it really is personal judgement, and not everyone makes the same calls.

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

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...

Of course they have. That's the job of the Reviewer. They will now follow up with the cache owners in 30 days or so, and if the CO failed to respond with their intentions, the Reviewer will archive the cache. 

If you find a cache, and the log book is in terrible condition and you're not able to sign or you tried and your pen keeps punching through the paper or it literally falls apart in your hands, there's no reason not to claim this as a Find. Log your Find, drop a NM on the cache and move on. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Of course they have. That's the job of the Reviewer. They will now follow up with the cache owners in 30 days or so, and if the CO failed to respond with their intentions, the Reviewer will archive the cache. 

 

That's the way it works, plain & simple. I'd like to think the VOLUNTEER REVIEWERS in my area (hopefully) aren't annoyed with my NAs because I log them when common sense says they should be.

Edited by Mama514
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Of course they have. That's the job of the Reviewer. They will now follow up with the cache owners in 30 days or so, and if the CO failed to respond with their intentions, the Reviewer will archive the cache. 

If you find a cache, and the log book is in terrible condition and you're not able to sign or you tried and your pen keeps punching through the paper or it literally falls apart in your hands, there's no reason not to claim this as a Find. Log your Find, drop a NM on the cache and move on. 

And that's what I've done.  But if I notice, "hey, look", for the last six months, there are two NM posts, and almost every one of the "Find" logs indicate that the cache is not functioning properly, or the log is unwriteable or practically destroyed, and the CO is either completely inactive or simply not taking care of their own cache, then logging a third NM or whatever won't do a dadgum thing to get the cache fixed.  At that point, is it not clear that if the CO wont get involved anymore, it's time to archive it?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Mama514 said:
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

Of course they have. That's the job of the Reviewer. They will now follow up with the cache owners in 30 days or so, and if the CO failed to respond with their intentions, the Reviewer will archive the cache. 

 

That's the way it works, plain & simple. I'd like to think the VOLUNTEER REVIEWERS in my area (hopefully) aren't annoyed with my NAs because I log them when common sense says they should be.

Assuming your NAs were upheld by the reviewer and resulted in the cache being either repaired or archived, I'm sure they'd be glad that at least someone in the community is being proactive instead of leaving it to them to spend valuable time trawling for defunct caches.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

If you find a cache, and the log book is in terrible condition and you're not able to sign or you tried and your pen keeps punching through the paper or it literally falls apart in your hands, there's no reason not to claim this as a Find. Log your Find, drop a NM on the cache and move on. 

Did you know hat physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed? That is why new log sheets are added to earn the Find.

In the case that the only service needed is to remove the remains of the previous destroyed logsheet, you can do this yourself.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, dprovan said:

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.

It wasn't that I lost sight of the context - rather that you removed it in quoting me.

That was you trying to be as clear as possible? It went back and forth so many times it reminded me of the hokey cokey.

Let's pretend, just for a minute, that a newbie is incapable of deciding that a box of junk with an inactive CO is due an NA, but logs one anyway.

The next thing that would happen is that a reviewer would become involved and either agree with the newbie or disagree with and educate the newbie - a very simple process with no need for endless second guessing.

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
Link to comment
7 hours 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!

And one person who is confusing matters by documenting their long and inconclusive thought process.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, bigjim4life said:

And that's what I've done.  But if I notice, "hey, look", for the last six months, there are two NM posts, and almost every one of the "Find" logs indicate that the cache is not functioning properly, or the log is unwriteable or practically destroyed, and the CO is either completely inactive or simply not taking care of their own cache, then logging a third NM or whatever won't do a dadgum thing to get the cache fixed.  At that point, is it not clear that if the CO wont get involved anymore, it's time to archive it?

It's certainly time to log a Needs Archived.

A volunteer reviewer will make the final call.

It's a simple enough system which you appear to have grasped easily - despite the efforts by some posters here to muddy the waters - well done :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

Did you know hat physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed? That is why new log sheets are added to earn the Find.

In the case that the only service needed is to remove the remains of the previous destroyed logsheet, you can do this yourself.

Unless the CO wants to confirm the logsheet, which is their right as the CO and as the property owner. It's extremely rare that a CO will want to see a destroyed logsheet and will most likely thank you for replacing it so they don't have to, but that doesn't change the fact. If I'm not certainly the CO won't mind, I'll hold it - even if it's destroyed - (though this is rare) until I find out. I've only once been contacted a couple of times by a CO to either return a container or logsheet.

Since the only verification for valid Find logs is the name in the logsheet and it's the CO who gets to make that call, the proper thing to do is never to throw out a logsheet you replace. Ideally, it should be left for the CO to deal with and maintain, but if you do replace it then be sure the CO doesn't want to see it before you throw it out.

That principle I would say goes doubly so for the actual container if it's damaged or misplaced or whatnot.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Since the only verification for valid Find logs is the name in the logsheet and it's the CO who gets to make that call, the proper thing to do is never to throw out a logsheet you replace. Ideally, it should be left for the CO to deal with and maintain, but if you do replace it then be sure the CO doesn't want to see it before you throw it out.

Nowadays this is easy because you can take a picture of the destroyed evidence and attach it to your log entry or send it privately through the Message Center on-site. It is as easy as photologging :D

Link to comment
7 hours ago, arisoft said:

In the case that the only service needed is to remove the remains of the previous destroyed logsheet, you can do this yourself.

How often is removing a destroyed logsheet the only service needed? How did the logsheet get destroyed in the first place? It seems the container isn't doing its most basic job: protecting its contents (even if its contents are only a logsheet), and the container needs repair/replacement.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Let's pretend, just for a minute, that a newbie is incapable of deciding that a box of junk with an inactive CO is due an NA, but logs one anyway.

The next thing that would happen is that a reviewer would become involved and either agree with the newbie or disagree with and educate the newbie - a very simple process with no need for endless second guessing.

And on the other hand, if the newbie doesn't log an NA on a cache that is bad, someone with more experience will come along and log an NA a week later, so everything works out fine that way, too.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

Nowadays this is easy because you can take a picture of the destroyed evidence and attach it to your log entry or send it privately through the Message Center on-site. It is as easy as photologging :D

That isn't the same as providing an opportunity for the cache owner to get their property back.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 24.8.2017 at 11:45 PM, 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

 

7 hours ago, niraD said:

How often is removing a destroyed logsheet the only service needed? How did the logsheet get destroyed in the first place? It seems the container isn't doing its most basic job: protecting its contents (even if its contents are only a logsheet), and the container needs repair/replacement.

This kind of container without water resistant paper may need repeated log sheet replacement once or twice per year. The container itself may remain intact for a long time until it disappears. Replacing the container of the same type does not help in this case.

Usually the first NM report comes when the log sheet is still functional and fully readable but wet. At this moment the owner has good opportunity to audit log entries. Later it will be impossible because log will be readable only partially if at all, as we see on this example.

If the owner is not interested in checking the logbook whenever possible, he will not be interested anymore at the stage when it is mostly a pile of cellulose. It is time to remove the trash and put a new signed log sheet in - or log DNF and report NA whichever option then pleases the most.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, bigjim4life said:

And that's what I've done.  But if I notice, "hey, look", for the last six months, there are two NM posts, and almost every one of the "Find" logs indicate that the cache is not functioning properly, or the log is unwriteable or practically destroyed, and the CO is either completely inactive or simply not taking care of their own cache, then logging a third NM or whatever won't do a dadgum thing to get the cache fixed.  At that point, is it not clear that if the CO wont get involved anymore, it's time to archive it?

Yeah, you could do a NA log. But make sure you indicate the inactiveness of the CO, that the cache is not being repaired and there's no log book to properly sign. Other route you could take is that you've already put your NM log and move on. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

This kind of container without water resistant paper may need repeated log sheet replacement once or twice per year. The container itself may remain intact for a long time until it disappears. Replacing the container of the same type does not help in this case.

Usually the first NM report comes when the log sheet is still functional and fully readable but wet. At this moment the owner has good opportunity to audit log entries. Later it will be impossible because log will be readable only partially if at all, as we see on this example.

If the owner is not interested in checking the logbook whenever possible, he will not be interested anymore at the stage when it is mostly a pile of cellulose. It is time to remove the trash and put a new signed log sheet in - or log DNF and report NA whichever option then pleases the most.

I'm not really sure why you've gone to the trouble to explain these things but I would suggest that your target audience for this information should be the owners of caches suffering such issues, such that they can better learn how to maintain their caches or even how to place better caches which require less maintenance in the first place.

  • Upvote 2
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...