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

[+Touchstone]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

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.

I guess "broken" in the sense that there is or was a way to accommodate such owner initiated actions (and to be honest, the number of CO generated NM's I've seen can probably be counted on one hand).  The scenario where I think the CHS would run into difficulties is with the CO's who don't clear the NM, letting it languish for months/years, even after corrective action has been taken.  At what point do you say, "hey!  you want to take care of that NM Attribute".  This is a scenario I see ALL THE TIME, although the vast majority of NM's are generated by other Users, and not typically by the CO.  I'm guessing that at some point the NM becomes irrelevant to the CHS, in the face of multiple Finds, otherwise I think we'd be hearing a lot more complaints regarding the auto-emails.

[+barefootjeff]

6 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

2 hours ago, niraD said:

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.

I guess "broken" in the sense that there is or was a way to accommodate such owner initiated actions (and to be honest, the number of CO generated NM's I've seen can probably be counted on one hand).  The scenario where I think the CHS would run into difficulties is with the CO's who don't clear the NM, letting it languish for months/years, even after corrective action has been taken.  At what point do you say, "hey!  you want to take care of that NM Attribute".  This is a scenario I see ALL THE TIME, although the vast majority of NM's are generated by other Users, and not typically by the CO.  I'm guessing that at some point the NM becomes irrelevant to the CHS, in the face of multiple Finds, otherwise I think we'd be hearing a lot more complaints regarding the auto-emails.

This makes me wonder why the CHS isn't loudly pinging all those caches with long-term outstanding NMs, I mean it's been in operation for nearly two and a half years now but hasn't made any dent in them. Instead, anecdotally at least, it seems to focus on caches with just a few DNFs and no NMs.

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, noncentric said:

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.

 

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.

Very rare in cache dense areas. Even in not so dense areas, prime locations are snapped up once a cache is archived.

[+noncentric]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

6 hours ago, noncentric said:

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.

Very rare in cache dense areas. Even in not so dense areas, prime locations are snapped up once a cache is archived.

"Very rare" seems overstated to me.  I've seen it happen several times in Seattle, which is what I'd consider a "cache dense area".  There was a traditional cache (almost 2k finds over 8 years) at a very popular spot for tourists and photo ops - it was archived after disappearing and another physical cache hasn't been placed there in 1.75 years.  There are several scenic lookouts near me that had caches and haven't been replaced after being archived 1.0, 1.75, and 1.5 years ago.

And in a less dense area, it's been almost a year since your pioneer cemetery cache was archived and another cache hasn't been placed there.  And scenic spots at high terrain areas (ie, mountaintops), even less likely to be replaced after being archived.

Maybe prime locations are snapped up right away in your area, but neither your area nor my area should be presumed to be representative of the worldwide game.