+Tarahead Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 (edited) Would someone please explain this to me? I understand when caches are temporarily disabled due to a few DNFs, owner maintenance issues, etc. I am seeing several caches that I had previously found, are now temporarily disabled. Each say the standard “ your cache has been under the weather....and may need owner intervention “. The ones I looked up have all been recently found, no maintenance issues, no recent DNF. Why do these caches become disabled with no obvious issues? This one is an example: GC15GTE Edited November 19, 2017 by Tarahead Quote Link to comment
+Tungstène Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Did you read the reviewer's write note? It's pretty clear. Moreover, the linked image was replaced by advertising. 1 Quote Link to comment
+Tarahead Posted November 19, 2017 Author Share Posted November 19, 2017 Yes I read the reviewers note. It is the standard “ needs owner intervention “ note. Unless I am missing something there. My question is.... what gives the reviewer the idea that the cache needs intervention? Quote Link to comment
+Tungstène Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 Not the reviewer's deactivation note. The write note, just below. The picture shown in the listing is an advertisement. 1 Quote Link to comment
+Tarahead Posted November 19, 2017 Author Share Posted November 19, 2017 Oh yes I see that now. I have seen that write note before but didn’t realize there was a issue with an advertisement. So that is why the caches are disabled. Thank you for pointing that out ! 1 Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 (edited) I don't understand why the reviewer's Note isn't a Needs Maintenance log since it's clearly indicating a maintenance need. That would have made it easier for Tarahead to see what was going on. Edited November 19, 2017 by dprovan 1 Quote Link to comment
+Tarahead Posted November 19, 2017 Author Share Posted November 19, 2017 It is most likely because I am fairly new, but I don’t see any log indicating “ needs maintenance “. The last log was 10.01.17 with a find. Then I see the note, then the disabled Quote Link to comment
+TriciaG Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 There isn't one. But if you read the "Note" log posted just before the Temporary Disable log, you'll see the problem that was brought up. Apparently the reviewer that posted the "Note" used that instead of a Needs Maintenance log. But if you read it, you see that the listing needs maintenance. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 8 hours ago, Tarahead said: It is most likely because I am fairly new, but I don’t see any log indicating “ needs maintenance “. The last log was 10.01.17 with a find. Then I see the note, then the disabled The Note is really a Needs Maintenance log that the reviewer mislabeled. Quote Link to comment
+AnnaMoritz Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 I always thought a Reviewer Note is a clear indication that a cache needs attention from the owner. In fact around here it might have even more weight than a Needs Mainentance, because the way to archive can be quite short if you don't react. Until now I never have seen a reviewer (as reviewer, not as player) posting a Needs Maintenance on a cache around here, only Reviewer Notes, disabling and archiving. 2 Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 8 hours ago, AnnaMoritz said: I always thought a Reviewer Note is a clear indication that a cache needs attention from the owner. In fact around here it might have even more weight than a Needs Mainentance, because the way to archive can be quite short if you don't react. Until now I never have seen a reviewer (as reviewer, not as player) posting a Needs Maintenance on a cache around here, only Reviewer Notes, disabling and archiving. This wasn't a Reviewer Note, it was a plain old Note from a reviewer. I guess you're right that reviewers normally post Reviewer Notes and never post Needs Maintenance logs. I'd never thought about that, but I agree that's standard practice although now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know why. But, anyway, in this case it was just a note, and that made it easy to overlook as evidenced by the fact that the OP missed it even after someone pointed it out. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.