Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Doc_musketeers

How to deal with negligent CO

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, arisoft said:
52 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

The community is expected to self-patrol neglected caches, and if they don’t it falls to Reviewers

You must understand that this kind of patrol is not familiar to me. I must confess that I have never patrolled neglected caches but couple of times I have given a hint to a reviewer about some sort of problem I have seen.

It''s pretty much the way the system worked in the old days and still works pretty well here. If you come across a cache that needs maintenance, you log an NM rather than just waiting for the CHS to ping it. Then if you come across a defunct cache where there've already been NMs logged but with no response from the CO, you log an NA to bring it to the reviewer's attention instead of relying on the reviewers to scan through all the caches in their domain looking for NMs that have gone unanswered and that aren't for trivial things like a broken pencil or full logsheet. That way, the COs and community work together to look after the mainstream running of caches, using the full gammet of log types available, with the reviewers only involved at the birth of new caches and the death (archival) of abandoned ones brought to their attention by NAs or extended disablement.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

 

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

You must understand that this kind of patrol is not familiar to me. I must confess that I have never patrolled neglected caches but couple of times I have given a hint to a reviewer about some sort of problem I have seen.

Originally GS and it’s predecessors were just listing services. The rules of the game were simple enough and the community basically built and maintained the game. Over time the game grew and needed a better framework, Reviewers, etc.

I’m not sure what order it occurred, but what appears to be happening, at least in my area, is that the number of caches, and particularly problem caches, increased to the point that Reviewers started sweeping their areas searching for log types that indicated problems (And eventually the CHS). Once the Reviewers felt the need to “enforce” the guidelines there were some who felt this was too authoritative or strict. From Dprovan’s comments I gather that over time some cachers became leery of posting NAs, NMs or even DNFs in fear it might bring premature Reviewer action instead of the CO eventually getting around to it. So then you have some neglected caches “flying under the radar” longer and adding to the problem. Newer players like me come along, and rarely see an NA posted since there aren’t even that many NMs. If someone does post an NM and there’s no response, generally a Reviewer catches it and acts before another player can post an NA. New players are naturally going to play the game how we see others playing it. So it continues the cycle.

if you look through the comments on this thread you see some posters complaining that individual players need to step up and call out problem caches, others feel that you should shrug, hit ignore, and walk away. Still others want more “enforcement” or a COS to guide Reviewers. I don’t know if any of those options are a solution.

But encouraging COs to be less responsible, to argue they shouldn’t feel obligated to care for their caches until they “feel like it” is obviously going to make the situation worse.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

But encouraging COs to be less responsible, to argue they shouldn’t feel obligated to care for their caches until they “feel like it” is obviously going to make the situation worse.

I can not imagine a CO who would participate in this game forcibly. Who plays when it does not feel good? Who would feel obliged to do so? You can try to encourage people to take care for their caches. The most effective way is direct contact. Tell the owner that you are going to look for a cache. He will tell when it is possible, if ever.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I can not imagine a CO who would participate in this game forcibly. Who plays when it does not feel good? Who would feel obliged to do so? You can try to encourage people to take care for their caches. The most effective way is direct contact. Tell the owner that you are going to look for a cache. He will tell when it is possible, if ever.

I’m sorry? In your version of this game Players would contact the CO to book an appointment to search for a cache at the COs convenience? 

“Hmm, I might be able to squeeze you in next Wednesday at 10 PM ...”

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I can not imagine a CO who would participate in this game forcibly.

We’ve discussed this. No one forces you to own a cache. We’ve literally spent over 24 hours explaining and discussing the problem. TPTB expect reasonable maintenance on caches. They ask you to agree to that as a condition of cache ownership. Accepting that responsibility is a “rule” of the game. The details are left vague, but the fact is, in many areas Reviewers feel obligated to spend large amounts of their time dealing with caches and owners that are clearly not following that “rule.” As Dprovan brought out, when the Reviewers started sweeping for problem caches, it took a bit of control out of the hands of individual players. As the game grows, either players take responsibility for their caches or GS tried to find new ways to do it for them. This isn’t something I’m advocating, it’s whats already happening. Would you prefer “stricter” rules? No? Then excercize your rights as a responsible cache owner and be part of the solution. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Arisoft, the Reviewers are volunteers, right? But once they volunteer, they’ve agreed to accept certain responsibilities. If they can’t or don’t fulfill those responsibilities, like reviewing and publishing new caches, they aren’t helping the game, and can be removed. 

Its the same for a CO. Anyone can search for a cache whenever they feel like it. No one has any right to expect them to play when they don’t feel like it. But when you volunteer to be a CO you are accepting responsibilities. They are listed. The guidelines are TRYING to be flexible to allow for personal style and so as not to be forceful. But if COs take that flexibility and run for the extremes, arguing that “a few weeks” should cover “a few years” of temporary disabling, the predictable response will be for TPTB to dial back the wording or have Reviewers interpret and enforce the guidelines for you and me.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

It’s precisely a sense of community that I and others here are trying to promote. I’m sorry that the Reviewers are having to “sweep” our areas. I think COs should be responsible enough for their caches that the Reviewers can focus on more meaningful things.

Stuff happens. Sometimes COs die. Sometimes their life changes. Sometimes they lose interest. Sometimes they're just jerks that don't maintain their caches. A healthy community reacts to what happens and adapts to it without expecting all COs to behave in a way that makes life perfect for everyone else.

9 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

as for NAs, and your “thanks a lot” to me, I’ve been playing less than a year with a whopping 163 Finds so I doubt I’ve personally affected all of California, but I do see your point.

You, personally, caused Nomex's review of our shared area, so I'm sorry, but I have a perfect reason to point out your responsibility. Having said that, I didn't really mean to come down on you since, newbie or not, your attitude is completely normal among today's geocachers. I just want to point out that you getting special attention for your area from Nomex had a slightly negative impact on my area. But I understand -- and want to emphasize -- that it's not your fault, it's just the way the game is going.

Anyway, going forward, please feel free to post NAs. An NA is a dispassionate observation of the condition of a cache listing, not a personal attack on the cache's owner. Yes, you hope to post fewer NAs than NMs, but when needed, an NA is no more earthshaking than an NM.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Sometimes COs die. Sometimes their life changes. Sometimes they lose interest. Sometimes they're just jerks that don't maintain their caches. A healthy community reacts to what happens and adapts to it without expecting all COs to behave in a way that makes life perfect for everyone else.

Why do you give cache owners a pass on responsibility, and then burden the community with the responsibility?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Arisoft, the Reviewers are volunteers, right? But once they volunteer, they’ve agreed to accept certain responsibilities.

I think most reviewers accepted their position before their responsibility went beyond reviewing caches for publication, archiving caches when requested, and occasionally moderating disputes between cachers that should have known better than to bicker. This whole idea that reviewers must keep an eye on all caches in their area and make sure to identify and purge problems is a relatively recent addition, only a few years old.

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

If they can’t or don’t fulfill those responsibilities, like reviewing and publishing new caches, they aren’t helping the game, and can be removed. 

Having said what I just said about what responsibility reviewers actually accepted when they were asked to become reviewers, I'm not sure what you're commenting on, but while it upsets me personally that reviewers have to take on this responsibility, I haven't heard any reviewers complain about it or seen them shirk it. But despite your comments, reviewers aren't a dime a dozen, so if any of them did complain (which I wouldn't expect to hear about, by the way), it would be important input to GS, not reason to dismiss the reviewer.

Share this post


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

Why do you give cache owners a pass on responsibility, and then burden the community with the responsibility?

I observe that cache owners might fail to maintain a cache, and expect the community to respond. I don't care much about assigning blame because I don't think it's important whether the cache isn't being maintained because CO's a jerk or because the CO's dead. A healthy community deals with both cases, and I prefer a community that deals with them without making it a crime to fail to live up to some arbitrary notion of responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I observe that cache owners might fail to maintain a cache, and expect the community to respond. 

Yes...through adding logs to replace missing or soaked ones, to posting NM or NA logs when real maintenance is needed.  There's nothing wrong with a CO making a request of a specific person to perform needed maintenance on a cache (I've actually been on both sides of that scenario before at various times)...but generally expecting any and all other cachers to prop up a damaged cache is really not a good thing for the activity/game/pastime.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Having said what I just said about what responsibility reviewers actually accepted when they were asked to become reviewers, I'm not sure what you're commenting on, but while it upsets me personally that reviewers have to take on this responsibility, I haven't heard any reviewers complain about it or seen them shirk it. But despite your comments, reviewers aren't a dime a dozen, so if any of them did complain (which I wouldn't expect to hear about, by the way), it would be important input to GS, not reason to dismiss the reviewer.

I wasn’t critiquing Reviewers, I was holding them up as an example of players willingly accepting responsibilities that may require effort on their part, whether or not they “feel like it.”

whether you’re singling me out or not, what surprises me is that you’ve corrected my minor misunderstanding of how best to deal with an issue which you acknowledge exists, but don’t seem to address that my comments were all in response to someone who is expressing a very apathetic attitude.

You are basically shaking your finger at me for not knowing when to post an NA on a cache while ignoring that someone else is arguing there’s no real need for the owner of that cache to have done anything to address the problem with THEIR cache in the first place.

its like blaming the firefighters for a slow response while the arsonist is arguing for his right to start more fires.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

its like blaming the firefighters for a slow response while the arsonist is arguing for his right to start more fires.

I love your examples. Exactly right. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I observe that cache owners might fail to maintain a cache, and expect the community to respond. I don't care much about assigning blame because I don't think it's important whether the cache isn't being maintained because CO's a jerk or because the CO's dead. A healthy community deals with both cases, and I prefer a community that deals with them without making it a crime to fail to live up to some arbitrary notion of responsibility.

As a community we could deal with lack of maintenance in whatever way works.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I’m sorry? In your version of this game Players would contact the CO to book an appointment to search for a cache at the COs convenience? 

It happens. I have found some disabled caches from the CO's hand. :lol:  Just how you described it.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I prefer a community that deals with them without making it a crime to fail to live up to some arbitrary notion of responsibility

Weren’t the recent Virtual Caches “rewards” for responsible cache ownership? Not sure how that worked and of course “positive incentives” can be viewed as a form of COS just as much as criminalizing.

im curious. When Nomex “swept” your area, what happened that was a “bad thing?” He states that he regularly sweeps his more urban areas and just doesn’t search ours as frequently. But if his “sweep” consists of searching for NAs and NMs and perhaps DNF patterns, isn’t that exactly what should happen? If it’s the community’s responsibility to post correct log types, it still requires the Reviewer to search for them. The fact that  our discussion here inspired him to do one now rather than, say, in a few weeks doesn’t seem to have an impact.

if you have a cache with unresolved NMs or NAs and Nomex dinged it, isn’t that exactly what happened in the “old days?”  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

But if his “sweep” consists of searching for NAs and NMs and perhaps DNF patterns, isn’t that exactly what should happen? If it’s the community’s responsibility to post correct log types, it still requires the Reviewer to search for them.

Reviewers don't have to "sweep" for NAs as they're notified of them when they're posted (or some equivalent mechanism). I still don't think they should be sweeping for NMs and DNFs, since those logs are between the logger and the CO, and as far as I can tell, the reviewers here don't do that. If the logger of an NM is dissatisfied with the response from the CO, they should log an NA to bring the reviewer in.

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Reviewers don't have to "sweep" for NAs as they're notified of them when they're posted (or some equivalent mechanism). I still don't think they should be sweeping for NMs and DNFs, since those logs are between the logger and the CO, and as far as I can tell, the reviewers here don't do that. If the logger of an NM is dissatisfied with the response from the CO, they should log an NA to bring the reviewer in.

Ah! Gotcha. And if the reviewer has to resort to sweeping for NMs there is a higher chance that slightly delayed maintenance which wasn’t necessarily problematic might get swept up along with truly abandoned caches, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if clearer and more noticeable (explanatory video?) descriptions of how to use log types might be helpful? I know there’s been debates about usage before but frankly I didn’t even know NAs EXISTED until we’d been playing quite awhile.

even explaining HOW Reviewers become aware of issues?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, J Grouchy said:
6 hours ago, dprovan said:

I observe that cache owners might fail to maintain a cache, and expect the community to respond. 

Yes...through adding logs to replace missing or soaked ones, to posting NM or NA logs when real maintenance is needed.  There's nothing wrong with a CO making a request of a specific person to perform needed maintenance on a cache (I've actually been on both sides of that scenario before at various times)...but generally expecting any and all other cachers to prop up a damaged cache is really not a good thing for the activity/game/pastime.

Yes, I agree. I was actually only thinking of NMs and NAs. I didn't mean to suggest that the community is responsible for cache maintenance. This thread is about negligent COs, so I was only thinking about how a community reacts to COs online, not how it deals with their physical caches.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

You are basically shaking your finger at me for not knowing when to post an NA on a cache while ignoring that someone else is arguing there’s no real need for the owner of that cache to have done anything to address the problem with THEIR cache in the first place.

I'm sorry if you thought I was shaking my finger at you. You expressed a common attitude which I find misguided, so i was trying to explain why.

4 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

im curious. When Nomex “swept” your area, what happened that was a “bad thing?”

This is a complicated question perhaps beyond this thread beyond what I've already said, but I'll try to explain it in a nutshell. If Nomex does it, no one else does it. so it's no longer a community policing its caches to its standards, it's the central authority dictating the one single set of standards to everyone. In addition to resulting in standards suitable only to the least common denominator, it also undermines the personal connections between the cachers in the community.

The physical impact -- a bad cache gets archived -- can be similar either way, but even that result is often suboptimal when the process is driven by an impersonal authority figure.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm sorry if you thought I was shaking my finger at you. You expressed a common attitude which I find misguided, so i was trying to explain why.

This is a complicated question perhaps beyond this thread beyond what I've already said, but I'll try to explain it in a nutshell. If Nomex does it, no one else does it. so it's no longer a community policing its caches to its standards, it's the central authority dictating the one single set of standards to everyone. In addition to resulting in standards suitable only to the least common denominator, it also undermines the personal connections between the cachers in the community.

The physical impact -- a bad cache gets archived -- can be similar either way, but even that result is often suboptimal when the process is driven by an impersonal authority figure.

That makes sense. And barefootjeff’s answer to that same question clarified a lot about how Reviewers perform such “sweeps.” And as you’ve mentioned I doubt most reviewers enjoy having to play that role.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

If Nomex does it, no one else does it.

I haven’t noticed that reaction in my community. The same people who post NMs and NAs are still posting NMs and NAs. From time to time I notice different names posting NMs too. And the occassional new name posting an NA. I don’t think sweeps have changed NM NA behavior. It seems to be about the same as it always was.  Our reviewers do monthly sweeps. It would be interesting to know from reviewers if they think monthly sweeps have had an effect on NM/NA posts. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I haven’t noticed that reaction in my community. The same people who post NMs and NAs are still posting NMs and NAs. From time to time I notice different names posting NMs too. And the occassional new name posting an NA. I don’t think sweeps have changed NM NA behavior. It seems to be about the same as it always was.  Our reviewers do monthly sweeps. It would be interesting to know from reviewers if they think monthly sweeps have had an effect on NM/NA posts.

Likewise, from what I've noticed (same general region), reviewer sweeps mostly address lengthy NMs flags, and NAs. I think it's only been more recently that I've seen reviewers take proactive action against caches by disabling without a prior NM. I think our general community is still pretty proactive about raising up potentially problematic caches to the state that a reviewer will take notice if the CO does nothing about it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/11/2018 at 7:25 PM, Doc_musketeers said:

COs do, indeed need to accept some responsibility for their hides.

Yes, otherwise the game loses it's integrity and becomes distasteful game of leaving litter and finding litter.

Or in the case of caches that are missing and languish in disabled mode, the database fills with caches that are not there-- which reminds me of the letterboxing site LBNA; the acronym eventually became known as LetterBox Not Available, and has had a hard time getting people to come back even after a sweep a few years later. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Yes, otherwise the game loses it's integrity and becomes distasteful game of leaving litter and finding litter.

Or in the case of caches that are missing and languish in disabled mode, the database fills with caches that are not there-- which reminds me of the letterboxing site LBNA; the acronym eventually became known as LetterBox Not Available, and has had a hard time getting people to come back even after a sweep a few years later. 

 

Exactly how I see it as well. LBNA, Terra Caching, Navi cache, GPS games, Garmin's OpenCaching. They all failed because of management, the sites can't run themselves powered only by the players.

I used to really enjoy geocaching here when the standards were higher and we had reviewer sweeps to clean up all the junk. The game needs more reviewer intervention to enforce health scores and address the flagged NM caches in their area. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Another way to put it - status quo will lower if there is no standard enforcer. People will always find a way to push the line in the favour of 'ease'. That also applies to cheating and rule enforcement. And with more people not wanting drama and conflict, rules enforced solely by the community itself will slowly degrade.  Yep, we need GS and reviewers to keep some amount of standard.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Dprovan is right that if players were more proactive (and knew that they need to be) it might solve a lot of these cases, but I think this thread had also shown that no amount of reasoning will convince some owners that a “why should I have to?” attitude goes beyond the flexibility built into the guidelines. Ultimately SOME standard has to be established.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

The game needs more reviewer intervention to enforce health scores and address the flagged NM caches in their area. 

My opinion is that the game need more DNFs. Some players post DNF only after the cache is disabled, not before, because they were not sure whether they found the cache or not.

Share this post


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

If Nomex does it, no one else does it.

I haven’t noticed that reaction in my community. The same people who post NMs and NAs are still posting NMs and NAs. From time to time I notice different names posting NMs too. And the occassional new name posting an NA. I don’t think sweeps have changed NM NA behavior. It seems to be about the same as it always was.  Our reviewers do monthly sweeps. It would be interesting to know from reviewers if they think monthly sweeps have had an effect on NM/NA posts. 

Interesting. In my area, the end of a cache's life used to always involve a civilian posting an NA (except, of course, when the CO archived it). Over the last year or two, NAs have dropped to almost none. Admittedly, one reason is that Nomex often steps in before anyone locally had gotten to the point of thinking it was needed yet, but in several cases I felt like a cache wasn't getting an NA even though it was clearly time. Even NMs don't seem to be as common, especially for caches where the problems are so obvious that everyone expects it be caught in Nomex's next sweep.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, arisoft said:

My opinion is that the game need more DNFs. Some players post DNF only after the cache is disabled, not before, because they were not sure whether they found the cache or not.

 

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. They found it or not? 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Interesting. In my area, the end of a cache's life used to always involve a civilian posting an NA (except, of course, when the CO archived it). Over the last year or two, NAs have dropped to almost none. Admittedly, one reason is that Nomex often steps in before anyone locally had gotten to the point of thinking it was needed yet, but in several cases I felt like a cache wasn't getting an NA even though it was clearly time. Even NMs don't seem to be as common, especially for caches where the problems are so obvious that everyone expects it be caught in Nomex's next sweep.

This is pretty much why our team didn’t know how NAs were used. We really never saw them except for rare cases  (1 I can think of) where a player felt a Cache was violating placement guidelines. 

Whether or not the game is at a point where more Reviewer oversight is necessary, it does create a cycle that inevitably forces even more if the burden (and “power”) onto Reviewers. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. They found it or not? 

I actually get what he means and see it here. Cachers can’t find a cache but don’t want to admit the DNF, but once someone posts that it’s missing they suddenly are like “yep! That’s why we couldn’t find it back in October ...”

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Another way to put it - status quo will lower if there is no standard enforcer. People will always find a way to push the line in the favour of 'ease'. That also applies to cheating and rule enforcement. And with more people not wanting drama and conflict, rules enforced solely by the community itself will slowly degrade.  Yep, we need GS and reviewers to keep some amount of standard.

In my area, the standard have become lower because the global standards are lower than our local standards were.

I've never objected to reviewers and GS stepping in and enforcing minimum standards. I've always thought they did a great job of that. What annoys me is this shift over the last couple years that makes them the first line of defense instead of the last. When they were the final authority, turned to only in times of strife, they could be and always were super impartial. Now they're judge, jury, and executioner, so they're have no choice but to come out and say "This cache is bad" (although of course they always say it gently). And now, the push is on to make them come out and say "This cache owner is bad." It's entirely different than years past when they came on the scene and merely adjudicated which side had made the better case.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, dprovan said:

And now, the push is on to make them come out and say "This cache owner is bad." It's entirely different than years past when they came on the scene and merely adjudicated which side had made the better case.

 I actually hope we don’t end up with some sort of owner score. I long-ago repented at my choice of titles for this thread. At that time I was trying to interact personally with a cache owner so I personalized the phrasing.

 But when looking at the condition of a particular cache,  it does seem that patterns of ownership often tell you what to expect.  If an owner frequently allows their hides to be archived by reviewer action then when a particular cache has gone unmaintained for months it does little to reassure anyone that the situation will be resolved.

Contrast that with an owner who is usually on task but has been a little slow about a particular hide.  If I’m the one looking at it I may choose to leave a note or contact that player before posting NA. 

 But of course, that is exactly the local community judgment call that you lament we seem to be losing

Edited by Doc_musketeers
Failure of voice recognition software lol
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. They found it or not? 

You are not the only one who can not understand. DNF logs appears after the cache owner has verified that the cache is missing and disabled it. Can you explain this behaviour?

Share this post


Link to post

The other thing is that finders' standards vary greatly as well. One person might not like a certain style, or a certain cache maintenance quality that a CO seems to hold.  Another cacher may still have a blast finding them. So if there's some threshold that defines a "good" vs "bad" then that can be problematic.   Maybe an informative scale or range that each user can set would be more individually useful. But wow that's getting complicated and complex.  Good/bad CO rating really is best left to individual opinion and efforts to include or ignore. There should be a minimal standard set by HQ, but beyond that, it's up to the community (and these can vary greatly from region to region as well)

GS can really only set up the boundaries of Valid and Invalid for listing on gc.com, and leave the grey in between an arbitrary zone in which people can enjoy things their own way. But those boundaries do need to be enforced.  So the question remains - where should those enforceable lines be?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

This is pretty much why our team didn’t know how NAs were used. We really never saw them except for rare cases  (1 I can think of) where a player felt a Cache was violating placement guidelines.

The Help Centre page on NA logs isn't very helpful:

Quote

Cache archival is permanent, so this option is only used under rare circumstances. Consider contacting the cache owner directly with your concerns before selecting this option.

Select this option if:

  • Property owners, business owners, or local authorities or law enforcement expressed concern during your search for the cache.
  • Cache placement or searching for the cache damages the area or defaces property.
  • You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

It starts off saying you should never really use them, except under duress from property owners or the police, or if the cache is destroying the environment, and finishes off by saying that if you can't find it and there are several DNFs on the cache page (not consecutive ones, just several on the cache page) with no owner response, yeah, then you should log an NA.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The Help Centre page on NA logs isn't very helpful:

It starts off saying you should never really use them, except under duress from property owners or the police, or if the cache is destroying the environment, and finishes off by saying that if you can't find it and there are several DNFs on the cache page (not consecutive ones, just several on the cache page) with no owner response, yeah, then you should log an NA.

This may even be the source of my “misconception.” I’m pretty nerdy so I assume I read through this, but if it’s vague to all of us now, picture reading this before you’ve even found your first cache. I probably filed it under “you won’t be needing that anytime soon.” By the time we experienced issues that MAY have been grounds for an NA, we’d forgotten the vague minutiae.

edit to add: look at that first line! “Rare circumstances.” But then again the next line suggeste contacting the CO. As we’ve already discussed, communication seems key.

Edited by Doc_musketeers

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

You are not the only one who can not understand. DNF logs appears after the cache owner has verified that the cache is missing and disabled it. Can you explain this behaviour?

 

Oh, okay. No, I have never encountered such a thing. I'm seeing people logging found it on piles of dumped out geolitter, but no DNF's on these listings where the CO seems to have taken a break from maintaining their listings. 

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Oh, okay. No, I have never encountered such a thing. I'm seeing people logging found it on piles of dumped out geolitter, but no DNF's on these listings where the CO seems to have taken a break from maintaining their listings. 

Seems I get the best of both worlds where I’m at, lol

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 6:01 PM, barefootjeff said:

The way the email is worded, this is precisely what they hope you'll do - go out there, fix it and log an OM, disable it until you can, or archive it. Yes, communication is the key.

You hit it right on the head.   Fix the cache as soon as you can.  If you can't get that done in a reasonable amount of time disable it until you can.  Just make sure you note in the disabled log when you think you can get to it.    It's really that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Just make sure you note in the disabled log when you think you can get to it.

I do not remember a case where such information would have been true and the maintenance took place during the reported period. In many cases, when CO announced when the maintenance will happen, it never happened and cache was archived by the reviewer. Of course there are some good cases which I have forgotten but basically this kind of information is so unreliable that you can only use it to blame the CO if the maintenance is delayed as expected.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, arisoft said:

When CO announced when the maintenance will happen, it never happened and cache was archived by the reviewer. Of course there are some good cases which I have forgotten but basically this kind of information is so unreliable that you can only use it to blame the CO if the maintenance is delayed as expected.

Yep.

Don't say you're going to do maintenance in a period of time and then not do it, without following up with a reviewer thus giving the impression of a CO who has abandoned the listing. Most reviewers are reasonable. Inform them of the maintenance schedule. If something changes, inform them of the change.  No, you won't be able to disable and say "I'll get to it sometime in the next year."  If you can't get to it or have necessary maintenance performed on it to re-enable it within the reasonable time frame as per the guidelines or by reviewer exception, then archive it or adopt it out. It really is a simple process.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I do not remember a case where such information would have been true and the maintenance took place during the reported period. In many cases, when CO announced when the maintenance will happen, it never happened and cache was archived by the reviewer. Of course there are some good cases which I have forgotten but basically this kind of information is so unreliable that you can only use it to blame the CO if the maintenance is delayed as expected.

Heh... That sounds like the time I disabled one of my caches because construction was going to make it inaccessible for a couple months.

Construction delays turned a couple months into a few months, and then into several months. And then it turned out the cache site had been changed in a way that eliminated the hide location, so I had to come up with a new location and new camouflage.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

I do not remember a case where such information would have been true and the maintenance took place during the reported period. In many cases, when CO announced when the maintenance will happen, it never happened and cache was archived by the reviewer. Of course there are some good cases which I have forgotten but basically this kind of information is so unreliable that you can only use it to blame the CO if the maintenance is delayed as expected.

For example.   I have a 5 stage multi of my own.   Just last week a cacher reported that one of the waypoints was frozen in place.   I thanked them for the info and disabled the cache noting I'd take a look to see what I could do.   I may move the waypoint to avoid issues in the future or I may just have to wait till spring to enable it again.  Either way I'll make sure to post another note keeping other cachers and my reviewer updated.    I didn't give an actual timeline other than spring but I doubt I'll let it hang till then.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×