Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
dubidubno

How do I post a Needs Maintenance log on my own cache?

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

GC4797 - I was going to say that someone needs to post a note telling the cache owner that they can remove the NM with an Owner Maintenance log. Some cache owner's don't realize this, and appreciate the nudge. But the cache owner hasn't logged in since 2011.

GC2B56M HIdden July 2010 in the Joshua Tree National Park, near the park sign. First NM Dec 2010 for a broken container. Original container a throwaway ziploc container. See photo. The cache owner never responded to problems. Cache owner hasn't logged in since 2013. Several finders have replaced the container. The second one was another ziploc-style throwaway container that ended up (in 6 months) with a cracked lid and contents swimming in water. Then it became a tin candy tin. Then the tin was was run over. Someone replaced it with another candy tin. See photo. 

4 NMs. No response from the owner to any NM.

And neither of those containers pictured were what I found at Joshua Tree ... it was a tin, but shorter and larger diameter.  Hmm, I didn't look back far enough, looks like, and I did not check the CO's profile either.  Just found the last NM. I'm learning....it's interesting tome how it has remained in play with no OM, and the NM log/flag.  Maybe because of the lack of DNF's since other cachers keep it going?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, dprovan said:

"Lid is broken" was exactly the case I mentioned: yeah, it's broken, and it needs fixed, but here in California it's just not going to rain during the summer, so there's no reason for the CO to run out and fix it in June

Oh, I'M sorry, I didn't know that we are talking about California only.  How about other parts of the world where it rains every day?  May I go out there and fix the problem right away?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Oh, I'M sorry, I didn't know that we are talking about California only.  How about other parts of the world where it rains every day?  May I go out there and fix the problem right away?

Same happens in Finland. Everything is frozen during winter and in some cases it is impossible to do maintenance until spring arrives and ice melts. We do not disable caches for winter time just because they are under snow even though finding it is often impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, arisoft said:
18 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Even with a daily job you should be able to do some maintenance within a couple of days.  If you (or someone else) have that many cache that you need some kind of "maintenance system" to manage your maintenance tasks, maybe its time to think about reducing the number of cache to maintain.

This seems to be standard for most cache owners. Just "reduce" the number of caches when one needs maintenance. I see you have used this strategy. No thanks!

I agree with this.   Reducing the number of caches is also a bit of a simplistic solution.   Cacher A might have 50 park and grab caches all close to home mightand  be able to keep them all maintained, or quickly address issues if there is a problem with one of them.  Cacher B may have 10 caches, most of which require hikes of a mile or more might have to put in a lot more effort to address an issue on one of them that needs maintenance.  I wouldn't want to see Cacher B archive one of their cache simply because it requires more effort and time to visit the cache.  

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It makes a lot of sense if the CO is trying to alert people who carry supplies to bring some for the cache. When someone replaces the container and/or log the CO can then log an OM to get rid of the NM.

And Groundspeak won't want to perpetuate proxy maintenance, so that's not a reason to convince Groundspeak to let CO's post NM.

 

13 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

...but wants to let finders know there's a problem by using an NM.

See, that's where opinions differ about "problem".  If it's a problem that finders should know about - ie, it affects findability - it should be disabled. (Disabled caches can still be saught, by the way).  If it affects aesthetic only (eg loose camo, crack in the lid [ymmv]), the CO shouldn't post a NM in the hopes that someone else will perform maintenance, and generally speaking, those kinds of issues are a dime a dozen - should they all be flagged NM?  (don't answer that, some may say yes :P)

It seems "problem" is where our various opinions differ. To me, if it's a "problem", that means critical, and worth a disable. If it's not critical, it's not a problem - that issue may alter a finder's opinion about the quality of a cache (so I might post a note), but won't in any way hinder their ability to find and sign the logsheet. (and, if they feel it's important, post a NM themselves, which I can address appropriately however I wish).

I interpret NM on a cache I'm finding as "someone has reported there may be a problem with the cache" - ie, the owner has not yet addressed a concern raised by a previous finder. (And that sentiment is now echoed in the auto-log NM text).  That said, I'm not bothered if a NM is posted by a CO on their own cache when I set out to find it; it just to me seems weird, and I can understand GS limiting that ability.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Same happens in Finland. Everything is frozen during winter and in some cases it is impossible to do maintenance until spring arrives and ice melts. We do not disable caches for winter time just because they are under snow even though finding it is often impossible.

I have disabled our caches that have been frozen in.

I've disabled to save people the trip and disappointment. They should save their gas money and their time. I also make sure to set the "not available in winter" attribute.

I then post notes monthly until the cache thaws out, to let the reviewer and finders know I'm still aware of the problem and it is ongoing.

But I realize my behavior is completely unreasonable. :P

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I have disabled our caches that have been frozen in.

I've disabled to save people the trip and disappointment. They should save their gas money and their time. I also make sure to set the "not available in winter" attribute.

I then post notes monthly until the cache thaws out, to let the reviewer and finders know I'm still aware of the problem and it is ongoing.

But I realize my behavior is completely unreasonable. :P

These days it's often more reasonable to be unreasonable :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It makes a lot of sense if the CO is trying to alert people who carry supplies to bring some for the cache. When someone replaces the container and/or log the CO can then log an OM to get rid of the NM.

Seems like an odd plan unless it's standard practice in the community for people to fix up each other's caches, but, regardless, why is this bad? What business is it of yours that the CO has a hypothetical benefactor? The cache might get fixed quicker than the CO can get to it, or, with the NM on the books, someone will be able to post an NA a couple weeks later when it doesn't get fixed. Either way sounds like an acceptable outcome to me, no different than a 3rd party posting an NM.

16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

All speculation though. Hopefully the OP will come back and tell us why he would prefer to log an NM as opposed to a Disable.

I already told you why I wanted to log an NM. What would the OP explaining his specific case add to the conversation?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Oh, I'M sorry, I didn't know that we are talking about California only.  How about other parts of the world where it rains every day?

So I'm not allowed to have a feature I find advantageous because there are places in the world where it won't be useful? Sheesh. That would be silly even if it weren't easy to come up with similar examples of problems that don't require immediate attention even in rainy climates.

7 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

May I go out there and fix the problem right away?

Yes, all means, fix your problems as soon as you want. I'm sorry if I offended you by mentioning that I don't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Cacher A might have 50 park and grab caches all close to home mightand  be able to keep them all maintained, or quickly address issues if there is a problem with one of them.  Cacher B may have 10 caches, most of which require hikes of a mile or more might have to put in a lot more effort to address an issue on one of them that needs maintenance.  I wouldn't want to see Cacher B archive one of their cache simply because it requires more effort and time to visit the cache.  

I can't help but wonder if this distinction is lost on some folks. I've found caches that require a full day for the round-trip hike to the cache location and back. I know people who have found caches that require a multi-day backpacking trip to get to the cache location and back. Expecting the owners of such caches to respond the same way as the owners of front-yard caches and neighborhood-park caches is unrealistic.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And Groundspeak won't want to perpetuate proxy maintenance, so that's not a reason to convince Groundspeak to let CO's post NM.

It doesn't really perpetuate proxy maintenance any more than any other NM does.

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If it affects aesthetic only (eg loose camo, crack in the lid [ymmv]), the CO shouldn't post a NM in the hopes that someone else will perform maintenance, and generally speaking, those kinds of issues are a dime a dozen - should they all be flagged NM?

I'm not sure what you're imagining, but I'm talking about problems for which it would make sense for anyone to post an NM, the CO just happens to be the first to do so. I've never seen a CO post an NM in order to induce people to fix a minor problem, and I have a hard time believing it would work, so I can't see that being a reason to forbid them.

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I interpret NM on a cache I'm finding as "someone has reported there may be a problem with the cache" - ie, the owner has not yet addressed a concern raised by a previous finder. (And that sentiment is now echoed in the auto-log NM text).  That said, I'm not bothered if a NM is posted by a CO on their own cache when I set out to find it; it just to me seems weird, and I can understand GS limiting that ability.

The bottom line is that I don't see it as remotely weird, just unusual, and I see no grounds for claiming that COs were abusing NMs, so I don't understand why GS is not letting me post one if I think it's appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, niraD said:

I've found caches that require a full day for the round-trip

I've owned a couple of caches in the Georgian Bay area that required a day trip there and back. Had each for about 5 years until we started to feel it was a burden rather than a pleasure to make the trip.

We did get reports of full logs, and made the trip up within the month. Anytime we couldn't make it up within 4 weeks we either requested someone to leave a scrap of paper to tide the cache over for a couple of weeks or got a nearby family member to replace the logbook for us (that's when we realized that that cache was becoming a problem for us, so we picked it up and archived the cache about 6 months later).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

It doesn't really perpetuate proxy maintenance any more than any other NM does.

This was specifically in response the owner sentiment of posting a NM so that someone else might be prompted to do maintenance. That's what Groundspeak most likely will not want to condone.

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm not sure what you're imagining, but I'm talking about problems for which it would make sense for anyone to post an NM, the CO just happens to be the first to do so. I've never seen a CO post an NM in order to induce people to fix a minor problem, and I have a hard time believing it would work, so I can't see that being a reason to forbid them.

If anyone else posts a NM, it may or may not be critical, it hasn't been confirmed. That's where the CO is notified so they can do the necessary work to determine if maintenance IS needed.  So, since we're not talking about other people posting NM, but rather reasons that the CO may want to post maintenance, then that's why I'm trying to look at the reasons specifically. They're either aesthetic (not affecting findability/log signing), or critical (affecting such).  If it's a critical issue, and since the CO is taking action then it should be confirmed, then the cache should instead be disabled.  If it's aesthetic, again confirmed by the CO, then it's not relevant to findability or signing, so why alert the world that the cache needs maintenance? Mark it on your to-do list and get there when you can.

But it goes back to the subjective idea of what a "problem" is, or degree of issue worthy of owner maintenance. Some COs think that if their cache is not in pristine condition, then it "needs maintenance", and may even disable it for very 'minor' issues. I honestly don't care if that cache is active with no NM flag - it's findable, even if it's not in perfect condition (I've found a few disabled caches over the years, even). But if there's no logsheet, or the container is smashed or missing, I would expect to either see a NM from a recent finder, or a disabling by the CO (or I'll post it if I'm the finder to notice it). That's all I'd expect. It just seems odd to me that a CO would NM their own cache when they know whether the issue is critical or not (by their own judgement).

Ok, I can think of a technical reason why a CO might want to post a NM. A previous finder's log description implies there's a critical problem with the cache, but the CO isn't quite convinced. Finder didn't post a NM log with the Find. Here the CO could attempt to contact the finder to get them to post the NM, or post it themselves.  However, if I were that CO, if the potential issue described by the finder was critical, I would probably disable it until I can confirm; whether or not the NM was posted.  Actually I have done that. I can't think of a situation where I would post a NM to indicate a potential problem with the cache - if I'm posting it, I'd know if it's critical or not, and either disable or post a note.

*shrug*

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

The bottom line is that I don't see it as remotely weird, just unusual, and I see no grounds for claiming that COs were abusing NMs, so I don't understand why GS is not letting me post one if I think it's appropriate.

I still think one of the main reasons is they don't want to encourage COs prompting proxy maintenance.  Weird/unusual/meh, it's not the norm. Not allowing it may be their way to getting COs to either check their caches quicker, or focus on distinguishing major/minor maintenance concerns.  I dunno. Whatever.

It makes sense to me, but ultimately it's such a minor concern because it seems quite rare a situation and aternatives are a click or two away. It's just that given workflow and terminology and practical intent, a CO posting NM on their own cache seems abnormal.  But that, as they say, is just me.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Yes, all means, fix your problems as soon as you want. I'm sorry if I offended you by mentioning that I don't have to.

Just wait a second, I think we probably talking two different things and no, you didn't offend me, everything just fine.

This is the "Geneneral Discussion" part of the forum and as such I try to discuss the issues. Here are cachers from around the world and quite obviously the problems are not everywhere the same.  I fully understand, that if it doesn't rain in your area in summertime, you don't have to rush out and fix a minor problem like a broken lid.  But in "general" a broken lid could be a problem somewhere else.

Thanks, MB

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

This was specifically in response the owner sentiment of posting a NM so that someone else might be prompted to do maintenance. That's what Groundspeak most likely will not want to condone.

Any idea why not? Business suffers if caches are in better shape?

 

32 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

It just seems odd to me that a CO would NM their own cache when they know whether the issue is critical or not (by their own judgement).

In many cases the maintenance is needed only to check the situation after some obscure or alerting logs. I have made many "maintenance" visits just to notice that everything is in good order. I log OM also in the case that no maintenance actually happened.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

This was specifically in response the owner sentiment of posting a NM so that someone else might be prompted to do maintenance. That's what Groundspeak most likely will not want to condone.

My point was that it really doesn't matter what the owner's sentiment is, it's still no different that someone else pointing an NM, and just as likely to encourage a 3rd party to step. In addition, even if that was the owner's wicked plan, I have no idea why GS should be worried about it. Why does GS feel like it has to waste its time preventing a community from performing maintenance for each other like that?

49 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If anyone else posts a NM, it may or may not be critical, it hasn't been confirmed.

The case I'm thinking of is where the owner, looking at the situation with information available to anyone, and concludes, with or without confirmation, that maintenance is needed. Essentially, it's just a case where, by coincidence, the cache happens to be owned by me. Naturally, I'll typically have a little insider knowledge, but even that doesn't have to be any more information than a previous finder might have.

56 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Ok, I can think of a technical reason why a CO might want to post a NM. A previous finder's log description implies there's a critical problem with the cache, but the CO isn't quite convinced. Finder didn't post a NM log with the Find. Here the CO could attempt to contact the finder to get them to post the NM, or post it themselves.  However, if I were that CO, if the potential issue described by the finder was critical, I would probably disable it until I can confirm; whether or not the NM was posted.  Actually I have done that. I can't think of a situation where I would post a NM to indicate a potential problem with the cache - if I'm posting it, I'd know if it's critical or not, and either disable or post a note.

The please just stick to the technical reason and don't worry about the fact that you wouldn't do it yourself. What I've discovered from finding caches is that not every cache is in perfect condition, some have critical problems, and some are even missing altogether, and none of that spoils my day. So I wouldn't generally disable one of my caches just because it might possibly have a problem because I know full well that the cache before that or the cache after that is just as likely to have a problem whether I've disabled mine or not. I'd much rather err on the side of having my cache available if it turns out to be in good shape instead of erring on the side of taking my cache out of the picture just in case it isn't perfect. I think it's sufficient to warn people of a possible problem the same way any other seeker might warn everyone about the potential problem by posting the NM themselves.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Just wait a second, I think we probably talking two different things and no, you didn't offend me, everything just fine.

This is the "Geneneral Discussion" part of the forum and as such I try to discuss the issues. Here are cachers from around the world and quite obviously the problems are not everywhere the same.  I fully understand, that if it doesn't rain in your area in summertime, you don't have to rush out and fix a minor problem like a broken lid.  But in "general" a broken lid could be a problem somewhere else.

Thanks, MB

Oh, OK. I apologize. Although the forum is "general discussions", the topic of this thread is a CO wanting to post an NM on their own cache. I didn't understand that you'd drifted off to having a general discussion about COs fixing their caches. I think all of us on the forums agree that they should.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I didn't understand that you'd drifted off to having a general discussion about COs fixing their caches

I was asking "why do you need the capability of a NM button and a maintenance plan, why don't you just go out and fix the problem" .  In "general" a broken lid is causing a problem.  There was no general discussion about COs fixing their cache.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Why does GS feel like it has to waste its time preventing a community from performing maintenance for each other like that?

I assume they are considering a segment of their base players - the new geocachers who would like to experience cache ownership in cache dense locations. If people keep propping up caches that owners won't maintain, those caches never go away. Some locations (a scenic lookout, a pioneer cemetery, a location near a historical spot) would never become available.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

 Why does GS feel like it has to waste its time preventing a community from performing maintenance for each other like that?

 

So you feel it's okay for me to create an account and toss out caches for the community to maintain and I never have to log in again or even take part in this game?

Thanks for reminding me why I have lost interest in geocaching. I see no need to renew my PM to support something I once enjoyed enough to pay for.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I assume they are considering a segment of their base players - the new geocachers who would like to experience cache ownership in cache dense locations. If people keep propping up caches that owners won't maintain, those caches never go away. Some locations (a scenic lookout, a pioneer cemetery, a location near a historical spot) would never become available.

If this is a problem, why HQ doesn't archive those unwanted and abandoned "caches" to make room for new and better ones?

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

If this is a problem, why HQ doesn't archive those unwanted and abandoned "caches" to make room for new and better ones?

Groundspeak will, sooner or later if the CO does not perform required maintenance.

Please read article  6.3. Geocache Health Score:

Health score is based on on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

  • Did Not Find (DNF)
  • Needs Maintenance (NM)
  • Needs Archived (NA)
  • Caches that have not been found in a long time
  • Difficulty and terrain rating

If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up ...

So, leaving a cache for a longer time in a NM state, the CO might become problems with a reviewer, not only a "need archive" is triggering an alert .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Groundspeak will, sooner or later if the CO does not perform required maintenance.

Please read article  6.3. Geocache Health Score:

Health score is based on on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

  • Did Not Find (DNF)
  • Needs Maintenance (NM)
  • Needs Archived (NA)
  • Caches that have not been found in a long time
  • Difficulty and terrain rating

If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up ...

So, leaving a cache for a longer time in a NM state, the CO might become problems with a reviewer, not only a "need archive" is triggering an alert .

 

 

 

Once upon a time I believed exactly what you posted. But this makes me doubt it. 

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, arisoft said:

If this is a problem, why HQ doesn't archive those unwanted and abandoned "caches" to make room for new and better ones?

They do, via the reviewers. Lately reviewers have had to become more proactive. For example, logging NMs on caches with strings of DNFs that are being ignored by active owners, or owners who are long gone though. I imagine they don't want to do a quick cull, it will upset too many for-numbers players.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Once upon a time I believed exactly what you posted. But this makes me doubt it. 

Geez, it's worse then my area. This Note is telling about what the culture in your area has become:

 

Quote

 

DGB

Write note Write note
Sep/2017

Really? The throwdown community wants to cry foul because I only have 7 finds and alerted the geocache reviewer that this cache was missing and the owner is not taking care of it. All the trackable items in the inventory are gone.

Don't blame me, blame the cache owner for not taking care of it.

 

 

And what's with the 3 reviewer notes in 2017, yet no reviewer archive? :o Sigh.

At least in my location the reviewers are being quite proactive but can't keep up with all the geolitter, especially when there isn't enough finders willing to post an NM (never mind an NA). Thank gosh the DNFs are still being posted.

Edited by L0ne.R
Added a thought about reviewers in my area
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Once upon a time I believed exactly what you posted. But this makes me doubt it. 

Give the reviewer another 14 days or maybe until next year, it's Christmas time and we want to be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

Give the reviewer another 14 days or maybe until next year, it's Christmas time and we want to be nice.

 

Well, the CO disabled it last year and the reviewer enabled it and deleted the reviewer note. Many of us have asked to adopt it, but no responses. 

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Well, the CO disabled it last year and the reviewer enabled it and deleted the reviewer note. Many of us have asked to adopt it, but no responses. 

:huh:

I see that it's an old cache (2002). Looks like the reviewer might believe in never archiving an "old" cache listing. I don't understand why he keeps posting notes though. Maybe the reviewer felt he had to at least look like he's doing something after being contacted. But actually nothing is being done. The owners haven't logged in in a year, there's very little chance they'll respond, they've ignored multiple DNFs, NMs and reviewer notes. So it continues to limp along. New cachers are harassed for contacting the reviewer, and given the impression that their reports don't matter. Wow.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

:huh:

I see that it's an old cache (2002). Looks like the reviewer might believe in never archiving an "old" cache listing. I don't understand why he keeps posting notes though. Maybe the reviewer felt he had to at least look like he's doing something after being contacted. But actually nothing is being done. The owners haven't logged in in a year, there's very little chance they'll respond, they've ignored multiple DNFs, NMs and reviewer notes. So it continues to limp along. New cachers are harassed for contacting the reviewer, and given the impression that their reports don't matter. Wow.

 

A few of this CO's caches which are virtuals were temporary disabled because of the historic wildfire in the area. I'm sure the community complained enough that the reviewer re enabled them. I would have thought that would be up to the cache owner and not the community. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Once upon a time I believed exactly what you posted. But this makes me doubt it. 

And this one from the same CO (another throwdown) looks likely to follow suit.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

I was asking "why do you need the capability of a NM button and a maintenance plan, why don't you just go out and fix the problem" .  In "general" a broken lid is causing a problem.  There was no general discussion about COs fixing their cache.

My answer was that I wanted to file an NM because it doesn't rain here over the summer, so I don't need to fix the problem until September, but i still want to flag the problem with an NM just as I would if I wasn't the owner. You rejected my answer, but now I have no idea why.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Manville Possum said:
9 hours ago, dprovan said:

Why does GS feel like it has to waste its time preventing a community from performing maintenance for each other like that?

So you feel it's okay for me to create an account and toss out caches for the community to maintain and I never have to log in again or even take part in this game?

What are you talking about? The case we're discussing is a CO posting an NM. We're talking about communities that fix broken caches. It has nothing to do with a hit and run CO or unmaintained caches.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

My answer was that I wanted to file an NM because it doesn't rain here over the summer, so I don't need to fix the problem until September, but i still want to flag the problem with an NM just as I would if I wasn't the owner.

Sure, I understand what you want but do you really think anyone here knows for sure why this option is not available any more. 

If you really like to set a NM rather than going out and fixing the problem right away, and Groundspeak is not supporting your maintenance practice, just use one of the workarounds which were mentioned earlier.  I know, one click is fine, 5 clicks is inconvenient.

The Rolling Stones gave us this advise in 1969 already:

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mausebiber said:

Sure, I understand what you want but do you really think anyone here knows for sure why this option is not available any more. 

I do not, so please, give me any reference to the official explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Mausebiber said:
Quote

Once upon a time I believed exactly what you posted. But this makes me doubt it. 

Give the reviewer another 14 days or maybe until next year, it's Christmas time and we want to be nice.

Instead of a cache health score maybe we should have a cache owner naughty/nice list. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, arisoft said:
5 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Sure, I understand what you want but do you really think anyone here knows for sure why this option is not available any more. 

I do not, so please, give me any reference to the official explanation.

6.4 for one

Quote

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

  • Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
  • Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete inappropriate logs.
  • Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

Cache maintenance is the owner's responsibility. Groundspeak won't promote a practice that encourages community proxy maintenance. That doesn't mean they can or will deny or punish community maintenance - it will happen,k because there are good-natured cachers out there who like to help when they can. But they won't condone, let alone encourage the practice. And if they see owners posting a NM log as a method for the owner intending to prompt proxy maintenance, that will not be a good reason to convince them to allow it.  And when we publish caches, we check that box agreeing to the terms of use and ownership responsibilities. So if the powers deem that an owner is not living up to their agreement, then no other factor will influence their decision to appropriately move a cache listing towards archival (exception excepted - they can make exceptions if they wish).

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, dprovan said:

So I'm not allowed to have a feature I find advantageous because there are places in the world where it won't be useful? Sheesh.

Although I personally think that cache owners should have the ability to post a NM on their own cache, from a practical perspective, providing a feature that someone, somewhere finds useful isn't always a justifiable reason to implement (or retain) that feature.  Any feature or guideline that GS implements has to take into consideration on it's impact on the game in general as it's played globally.  I don't know what GS's rationale was for not allowing a NM log by a cache owner, but as long as it's based on it's impact on the game as a whole,  I'd prefer so see them do that than change things based on the whims of a pocket of the geocaching community.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

I do not, so please, give me any reference to the official explanation.

6.4 for one

Good point! Especially this one:

"Needs Maintenance" icon and attribute

The community will report that your geocache needs maintenance if there are minor problems with your cache. When this happens, you will see the “Needs Maintenance” icon and attribute on your cache page.

But there is no explanation why CO should not report himself that there is minor problems with the cache. So, this is not correct answer to my question although this will determine what NM really means.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

Good point! Especially this one:

"Needs Maintenance" icon and attribute

The community will report that your geocache needs maintenance if there are minor problems with your cache. When this happens, you will see the “Needs Maintenance” icon and attribute on your cache page.

But there is no explanation why CO should not report himself that there is minor problems with the cache. So, this is not correct answer to my question although this will determine what NM really means.

I think that's because if they covered every possible circumstance and every possible way someone might interpret the guidelines, it would be a huge tome. It would be too time-consuming and difficult to read through for the average geocacher looking for some quick information about how to play the game.

And there's already a tool for cache owners - the Disable feature (and Write Note for follow-ups and issues like the pebbles glued to the lid fell off).

Edited by L0ne.R
Grammar
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, arisoft said:

I do not, so please, give me any reference to the official explanation.

If I could give you any reference to the official explanation, I would know for sure why this option is not available any more, wouldn't I?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

Sure, I understand what you want but do you really think anyone here knows for sure why this option is not available any more. 

As far as I know, GS has only used streamlining or simplifying the user interface as an explanation, an explanation I don't think holds water and have said so. What made you think I had any idea why they did it? On the other hand, I've never seen any hint that they've taken into account those people that think it makes sense and want to use the feature.

10 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

If you really like to set a NM rather than going out and fixing the problem right away, and Groundspeak is not supporting your maintenance practice, just use one of the workarounds which were mentioned earlier.

I am very good at logging the state my caches no matter how sub-optimal the mechanisms provided are, and I was fully aware of all possibilities before anyone posted them here. Me and my caches have nothing to do with this. I think it's a dumb restriction, and I'd say so even if I didn't own any caches.

10 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

The Rolling Stones gave us this advise in 1969 already:

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need

I have no problem when things don't go my way as long as there's a good reason for the way they went. This restriction doesn't accomplish anything and, in fact, works against what most people are imagining it accomplishing. (For example, much of this thread has been about COs not maintaining there caches, but a CO that stands up and files an NM on his own cache is taking more interest in his cache's status than a CO that recognizes a problem but then keeps quiet about it. That's even true for these imaginary COs that come up with this hyper-crafty plan of fooling someone into fixing some random cache by posting the NM on it.) So that's why I complain about it being dumb, not because I don't get to use this one minor feature that comes up no more than once every 2 years.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Although I personally think that cache owners should have the ability to post a NM on their own cache, from a practical perspective, providing a feature that someone, somewhere finds useful isn't always a justifiable reason to implement (or retain) that feature.  Any feature or guideline that GS implements has to take into consideration on it's impact on the game in general as it's played globally.  I don't know what GS's rationale was for not allowing a NM log by a cache owner, but as long as it's based on it's impact on the game as a whole,  I'd prefer so see them do that than change things based on the whims of a pocket of the geocaching community.

Very nice. Now give me one negative effect of owners posting NMs on their own caches that's specific to anywhere in the world. I think I can come up with a good and reasonable example of using this feature in any climate or environment you care to name, but even if I couldn't, you can't really think this argument makes sense unless you can imagine a place where having it available would cause all kinds of problems. At the moment, the only terrible effect that's been suggested is that in some communities, these NMs might lead people into helping each other out more.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

Good point! Especially this one:

"Needs Maintenance" icon and attribute

The community will report that your geocache needs maintenance if there are minor problems with your cache. When this happens, you will see the “Needs Maintenance” icon and attribute on your cache page.

But there is no explanation why CO should not report himself that there is minor problems with the cache. So, this is not correct answer to my question although this will determine what NM really means.

I've been trying to figure out how to ask what in this section justifies this restriction, but you did even better by showing that, if anything, the section supports COs filing NMs.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi dprovan,

I'm not against such a NM button for COs and I really can't imagine, why it is not available any more. Further above some options were discussed, but I'm not sure if we really got the point. What I want to express is just the fact, it's not available (right now).

So, if your business process in maintaining minor problems with your cache is such a NM button, then you have to find some kind of a workaround.  It does not help you getting this function back by expressing your disappointment here in the board. My suggestion would be, to write directly to Groundspeak and if more users like this function, maybe Groundspeak is implementing it again.

Good luck, Mausebiber

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I've been trying to figure out how to ask what in this section justifies this restriction, but you did even better by showing that, if anything, the section supports COs filing NMs.

I'm guessing that the feature was restricted from cache owners due to the law of unintended consequences.  Link for reference:

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=713

Perhaps the If/Then/Else thinking that went into the decision, made it easier to turn off the functionality to cache owners, rather than making adjustments to the HS algorithm to take CO generated NM logs into account.

 

Sounds like the change had some impact on how you manage your Listings.  Sorry to hear that.

Edit: incomplete sentence/grammar

 

 

Edited by Touchstone
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

Perhaps the If/Then/Else thinking that went into the decision, made it easier to turn off the functionality to cache owners, rather than making adjustments to the HS algorithm to take CO generated NM logs into account.

I know folks are probably tired of reading this, but it is very much on-topic if this speculation is accurate.

The Cache Health Score algorithm needs to work with the way people really post logs. If people need to change the way they post logs for the CHS to work, then the CHS algorithm is broken.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, niraD said:

The Cache Health Score algorithm needs to work with the way people really post logs. If people need to change the way they post logs for the CHS to work, then the CHS algorithm is broken.

At first, it seems quite possible that CHS may be proper reason to prevent NM by CO. But ... if you think what algorithm basically is - it is a computer program, which can easily avoid this kind of "problems" - then it makes no sense any more.

Share this post


Link to post

For a short while I used NM on some of our caches as reminder or 'mental note' if you will. After a while I decided it was a waste of time and now I either, as suggested by others above, go fix it or, if warranted, disable it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, arisoft said:
49 minutes ago, niraD said:

The Cache Health Score algorithm needs to work with the way people really post logs. If people need to change the way they post logs for the CHS to work, then the CHS algorithm is broken.

At first, it seems quite possible that CHS may be proper reason to prevent NM by CO. But ... if you think what algorithm basically is - it is a computer program, which can easily avoid this kind of "problems" - then it makes no sense any more.

I don't see why it should matter to the CHS whether an NM was logged by the CO or another cacher, if it's left set for an extended period the cache deserves to be pinged regardless of who set it.

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/22/2017 at 3:36 PM, CAVinoGal said:

I've found a few where there is a NM flag; I look through recent log and see several finds, with no issues listed.  I go for them,and have found them in decent shape.

I go back through logs and find the flag set (in both my examples) a year or several ago; no OM, no owner intervention, just an NM flag set and finds and DNF's continue (one has several DNF's as it is a bit rricky to find).  So these are cases where the NM stands, for years??

It's not uncommon to see an NM flag on a cache that is in fine condition. Whether the repair was done by the CO or another cacher, there are some CO's that don't realize they need to post an OM log to remove the NM flag on their cache.

What I see more often is a CO "Disable" their cache because of an NM flag, then they "Enable" the cache after fixing the issue. But they don't also log an OM, so the NM that prompted them to Disable and fix their cache still remains. The Enable 'reversed' the Disable, but the Enable doesn't 'reverse' the NM.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 2:13 PM, L0ne.R said:

I assume they are considering a segment of their base players - the new geocachers who would like to experience cache ownership in cache dense locations. If people keep propping up caches that owners won't maintain, those caches never go away. Some locations (a scenic lookout, a pioneer cemetery, a location near a historical spot) would never become available.

And some locations (a scenic lookout, a pioneer cemetery, a location near a historical spot) would become available and never have another cache placed there. It cuts both ways.

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

×