Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
colleda

Red Wrench = Kiss of Death?

57 posts in this topic

I DNF'd a cache GC65GW4 back in June.

I logged my DNF (always do if I can't find it). I also logged a NM. I'm not at all concerned about whether the CO checks on it or not BUT, since the red wrench, there have been no subsequent attemps to find it, well, any that have logged that is.  Is it a N American thing? See a DNF and red wrench and pass it over, filter it out, put on ignore list? Searchers seemed to have been active enough before the DNF. Or, are there very few cachers in that area?

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

I normally will pass on a cache with a red wrench, or at least view the last few logs before attempting.

2

Share this post


Link to post

The cache has gone through dry spells. I see an almost 3 month wait between finds a couple of times.  The cache owner is active. They could make the cache more attractive by checking to see if it’s actually missing. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'll typically skip caches with a series of DNFs (or at least read the logs to see what's up before attempting the cache), but might not even notice the red wrench. I suspect most people who cache with the app wouldn't notice.

2

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, nextlogicalstep said:

I suspect most people who cache with the app wouldn't notice.

 

That depends. I like to store caches for offline and I filter them. If I ran a PQ, I would filter out red wrenched caches. But I'm really selective usually and read the cache page and recent logs. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, nextlogicalstep said:

lol, sounds like you're not most people!

 

It's all about the adventure. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah a red wrench alone I wouldn't skip, but it would prompt me to check recent history. Wrench after a series of DNFs, especially over a longer period of time, skip.  But say, a Find, or one or two DNFs, and then a NM, I'd still go for it (if I inferred from the NM the cache was still findable).  DNFs following a NM would more likely make me skip too.

It's all about context.

1

Share this post


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

The cache owner is active. They could make the cache more attractive by checking to see if it’s actually missing. 

 

This.  A red wrench itself is not a "kiss of death".  A CO that doesn't respond to a red wrench IS a "kiss of death" in my book.

4

Share this post


Link to post

I don't necessarily skip a cache with DNFs, but if I do visit and then see that there is a string of DNFs, I certainly tend to spend less time hunting before I move on.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Only three finds this year before you (one logged twice...),  it seems (to me) that it's simply that all the locals already found it.

Visitors  passing through (numbers folks especially)  may well have a reason (time...) to ignore any with DNFs or NMs.

Six months is a while now to do OM when they are still caching .

Edited by cerberus1
erasification
1

Share this post


Link to post

Somehow I've posted this in the wrong section. Could a mod please move this to "Geocaching Topics"? Thanks.

0

Share this post


Link to post

If a red wrench is in my area I might go for it sooner thinking it might get archived and I want to find it.  A red wrench in a area I am not in often would probably get skipped if I have others to find.

0

Share this post


Link to post

A red wrench or multiple DNFs won't deter me from taking a look if I am in the area anyway, but I probably wouldn't set that cache as a main target.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I usually don't log NM if I couldn't find the cache. How do I know? I didn't find it.

A red wrench is not a reason for me to ignore a cache. Maybe the owner did maintainance an did'nt know that a OM log is needed to clear the red wrench. In this particular case, there has been a DNF before and several finds later, so I would give it a try. I wouldn't trust the NM of a DNF logger.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rebore said:

I usually don't log NM if I couldn't find the cache. How do I know? I didn't find it.

A red wrench is not a reason for me to ignore a cache. Maybe the owner did maintainance an did'nt know that a OM log is needed to clear the red wrench. In this particular case, there has been a DNF before and several finds later, so I would give it a try. I wouldn't trust the NM of a DNF logger.

Sorry, but it's this attitude that's led to the imposition of the CHS which tries to infer the NM you wouldn't log by counting DNFs, but it doesn't have the benefit you had of being at GZ and seeing whether it should've been an obvious hide or was indeed devious enough to cause you to look everywhere but in the right place. An NM isn't an insult to the CO or a black mark against the cache, it's just a formal request from a searcher to the CO asking them to check on the cache.

Two examples. On Tuesday I DNFed a brand new cache - it was a D3 micro in bushland, the only hint was it was well hidden and it turned out to be too well hidden for this Blind Freddy. I didn't log an NM because I thought it unlikely the cache would be missing and, when I sent my photos to the CO, it's hiding place was in one of them. Sure enough, when I went back the next morning, it was there where I'd looked but hadn't looked well enough. My DNF turned into a FTF, a happy ending for everyone.

A couple of weeks back, another DNF, but this one in a spot with very few potential hiding places and a couple of DNFs prior to mine. Before that, just about every log said "easy find". I searched for about an hour, found nothing, so added a "might be missing" NM to the DNF. Note the word "might", I didn't say "is missing" and I'm certainly not casting aspersions on the CO or the cache, I just think, given the location and history, it's worth a visit to check on it. Ideally, the CO will check on it, confirm it's still there or replace it, log an OM and everything's sweet again. If not, eventually someone will log an NA and then it'll be in the hands of the reviewer. That's how the system's meant to work.

But if everyone followed your approach of never logging an NM on a cache they couldn't find, how would it ever get to the next step of the process if the CO is no longer active? Our reviewers here won't accept an NA if there's not already an outstanding NM, but if no-one will log an NM, it's a stalemate. Hence the CHS, but here's the catch...

Those two DNFs tell very different stories, but the CHS can't tell them apart, which is why it's such a poor substitute for searchers logging NMs when they think they're warranted. The "cache might be missing" NM is there for a purpose - use it please! And if you use it on one of my caches I'll be most grateful - I might even buy you a beer for alerting me to a problem I might have overlooked - and even if it isn't missing I might tweak the hint or the hide to make it easier for the next Blind Freddy.

1

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Sorry, but it's this attitude that's led to the imposition of the CHS which tries to infer the NM you wouldn't log by counting DNFs, but it doesn't have the benefit you had of being at GZ and seeing whether it should've been an obvious hide or was indeed devious enough to cause you to look everywhere but in the right place. An NM isn't an insult to the CO or a black mark against the cache, it's just a formal request from a searcher to the CO asking them to check on the cache.

I'll try to put it another way. Container broken, lid missing, all is soaking wet, that are some cases when i'll log NM. If I didn't find the cache, it's a DNF. Some people post only NM and no DNF after they phoned a friend and are sure that the cache was originally hidden at the place they looked for it. I don't, because my geocaching pals live in a different area and haven't searched for the cache in question. Also, containers may move and even owners DNF their own cache that is still in place.

I know you dislike the CHS, but as far as I know it takes _multiple_ DNFs in account, too. I have no bad feelings for not logging a NM if I didn't find the cache, quite the opposite. I stand by what I said, if you didn't find it, how can you be sure it needs maintainance? As far as I know, NM logs are just forwarded to the owner , just like DNF or any other logs. If you want to put a red wrench on it because you didn't find it and think you were looking at the correct place, that's fine. I won't do that and I think that's ok, too.

Edited by Rebore
0

Share this post


Link to post

Geez this shouldn’t be that confusing,I would have thought that you shouldn’t log a “ needs maintenance “ without out seeing a cache that required it.

That covers wet logs,full logs,open containers,broken or missing camo and the like all of which has nothing to to with a cachers inability to find it.The NM log should not be used by cachers as a reason why they didn’t find it.

I have no issue with posting a Dnf if i can’t locate the cache but will certainly not follow that up with a NM as some form of justification for not finding it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, wandillup wanderer said:

Geez this shouldn’t be that confusing,I would have thought that you shouldn’t log a “ needs maintenance “ without out seeing a cache that required it.

That covers wet logs,full logs,open containers,broken or missing camo and the like all of which has nothing to to with a cachers inability to find it.The NM log should not be used by cachers as a reason why they didn’t find it.

I have no issue with posting a Dnf if i can’t locate the cache but will certainly not follow that up with a NM as some form of justification for not finding it.

The obvious flaw with your argument is a D1 lamp-post cache...or some other cache where either the CO or a previous finder has made the hiding spot so clear and obvious that NOT finding it there would be equivalent to finding it damaged.  It's not common, but it isn't UNcommon.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes in that situation if it was so obvious that the camo was compromised then a NM is appropriate but it would accompany a found it log.

Its the logs that use a NM as an excuse to not be able to find it that annoy

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

No he meant if you didn't find the cache, but it was clear where it should be (like a D1 LPC); especially if you have confirmation from a previous finder and/or the CO themselves. Then, a NM after a DNF is reasonable.  And remember, if for some strange reason the cache IS still there and everyone was mistaken (yep even the CO), the owner can just post OM and delete the NM/OM logs to clear it up, once they've confirmed everything's good.   No harm no foul.

Edited by thebruce0
2

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is poor style to just log a NM without finding at least some remains of the container. I remember a cache where (I think several) NMs were posted because of a missing container and a wet log stripe. Well, all those guys signed on some piece of trash paper lying under a stone without a container, but the place still was fitting to the hint. The real cache was a nano 3m away from that stone, and everything was fine. The owner asked the next finder to remove the fake log after he checked the cache, because he didn't know what the heck all the "finders" and NM loggers were talking about. And yes, it was a D1.5

ETA: reference

Edited by Rebore
0

Share this post


Link to post

But it sounds in that case like there was not confirmation of the hide, at all. Just assumptions made by people who tried to find it, and assumptions based on assumptions. Tracking back, it sounds like one person thought they knew what it should be but was wrong (it can happen even on a D1), and followup finders assumed their input was correct.

Even so, this is really a personal ethic, so whatever you choose to do in a case like this should be just fine, generally speaking :)

Edited by thebruce0
1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, narcissa said:

A red wrench or multiple DNFs won't deter me from taking a look if I am in the area anyway, but I probably wouldn't set that cache as a main target.

Same here.   I'd give it a shot if only to confirm the cache's condition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
9 hours ago, narcissa said:

A red wrench or multiple DNFs won't deter me from taking a look if I am in the area anyway, but I probably wouldn't set that cache as a main target.

Same here.   I'd give it a shot if only to confirm the cache's condition.

Which also relates to another discussion about the nature of the NM. I'd do the same - my assumption is that an outstanding NM log means the CO hasn't confirmed whether maintenance is needed or not, and so if I do check on it, I can post a followup note/log with my impression of the situation so that the CO can decide whether it needs disabling for a checkup, or an immediate checkup to verify and remove the NM after the OM, or even just post the OM right away and remove the NM.  Seems like a 'good deed' to do as a finder if I wish, seeing a cache in "NM limbo" :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Which also relates to another discussion about the nature of the NM. I'd do the same - my assumption is that an outstanding NM log means the CO hasn't confirmed whether maintenance is needed or not, and so if I do check on it, I can post a followup note/log with my impression of the situation so that the CO can decide whether it needs disabling for a checkup, or an immediate checkup to verify and remove the NM after the OM, or even just post the OM right away and remove the NM.  Seems like a 'good deed' to do as a finder if I wish, seeing a cache in "NM limbo" :P

It's a good thing to do and something I think all cachers should practice if they're interested in keeping the game fun and relevant.

The only caveat here is to stress to cache owners that two NM are not required before you check up on the cache.  One should be enough to initiate some sort of action.

I wouldn't want to foster the idea that waiting for a second NM, in most cases,  is acceptable.    

Edited by justintim1999
Spelling
1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

stress to cache owners that two NM are not required before you check up on the cache.  One should be enough to initiate some sort of action.

I wouldn't want to foster the idea that waiting for a second NM, in most cases,  is acceptable.  

Right, of course not; despite it being possible to post multiple NMs. The only time I'd post any additional NM is if the previous is over a month or two old and has gone unaddressed. More likely though I'd post a NA (reviewer attention), but once or twice in my career I have posted a repeated NM, generally with the hopeful intent of catching the CO's eye this time along with community. But practically speaking in those cases it is better to nudge a reviewer with a different strategy than another NM (since ideally a reviewer should eventually give it some attention anyway with the already-outstanding NM flag).

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, wandillup wanderer said:

Geez this shouldn’t be that confusing,I would have thought that you shouldn’t log a “ needs maintenance “ without out seeing a cache that required it.

That covers wet logs,full logs,open containers,broken or missing camo and the like all of which has nothing to to with a cachers inability to find it.The NM log should not be used by cachers as a reason why they didn’t find it.

I have no issue with posting a Dnf if i can’t locate the cache but will certainly not follow that up with a NM as some form of justification for not finding it.

If Groundspeak felt that way, they would not have included the "cache might be missing" choice under "report a problem" (the new way to do Needs Maintenance". 

I only use this sparingly when I feel the cache is likely missing.   And I don't feel that way often.    

NM.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

It's a good thing to do and something I think all cachers should practice if they're interested in keeping the game fun and relevant.

Again, I don't agree. Feel free to practice the hobby the way you want, but please refrain from using phrases like "All cachers should do this". No, they shouldn't. They should enjoy this pasttime their way, as long as it's in line with the guidelines.

Edited by Rebore
1

Share this post


Link to post

I log my DNF's if I have given it a good search; sometimes I'll go for a lonely cache, or one that "seems" to be missing.  Sometimes I'll find it, sometimes not.  Hubby and I were doing some hiking yesterday, saw the history on this one - GCKR54 - and figured we'd give it a look.  Bits and pieces found over the last 2 years, no owner response (hasn't logged in since 2011), we reached GZ and searched, and found nothing even like a container anywhere nearby.  It was in the woods, and overgrown as well.  I logged the DNF, and then a NM.  Based on this cachers previous hides (only one of which may still be active - we may see if we can find that one while we are in the area) it will soon be archived.  IMO, that would be the logical step.

1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rebore said:

I think it is poor style to just log a NM without finding at least some remains of the container.

There are situations where NM is appropriate even if you weren't able to reach GZ. I've posted multiple NM logs in situations where GZ turned out to be inside a fenced-off construction zone.

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

The only caveat here is to stress to cache owners that two NM are not required before you check up on the cache.  One should be enough to initiate some sort of action.

Depending on the content of the one NM log, of course. I've seen NM logs for D4 camouflaged caches that assumed that it must be missing because they couldn't find it after searching for a few minutes. I would expect the CO of such a D4 camouflaged cache to ignore such NM logs.

1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, niraD said:

Depending on the content of the one NM log, of course. I've seen NM logs for D4 camouflaged caches that assumed that it must be missing because they couldn't find it after searching for a few minutes. I would expect the CO of such a D4 camouflaged cache to ignore such NM logs.

Well, now they can't [ignore] if it affects the CHS. Good response could now be post the OM with an explanation, then optionally (riskilly) delete the NM and OM. Best response (according to GS) would first be to visit GZ, verify the NM was unneeded, and then do the above.

Edited by thebruce0
0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rebore said:

I think it is poor style to just log a NM without finding at least some remains of the container.

Don't you think NMs should be logged against caches that are missing? No one's going to find any remains of a container that's just not there any more.

And least you think I'm only focused on DNFs, why not log an NM on a cache where a DNF log gives you enough information to know it needs maintenance even though you haven't been there? Sometimes I look at a cache log, and it's really clear to me that the last person there should have filed an NM but didn't. Why should we all wait for someone to go to GZ before someone corrects the mistake.

Yes, visiting GZ can be an important datapoint for knowing an NM is needed, but it's not the only possible datapoint and it's not always even a required datapoint to make a good decision.

And to circle around to the OP: a red wrench in itself doesn't make much difference to me, since I hardly even notice them. An NM log definitely gets my attention, though, and if the text of the NM log and other information available convinces me that there's no point to looking for the cache, I won't. But in that case, I'll log an NA because my conclusion amounts to recognizing that the jig is up for this cache and no one should be bothering to look at it anymore.

0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Right, of course not; despite it being possible to post multiple NMs. The only time I'd post any additional NM is if the previous is over a month or two old and has gone unaddressed. More likely though I'd post a NA (reviewer attention), but once or twice in my career I have posted a repeated NM, generally with the hopeful intent of catching the CO's eye this time along with community. But practically speaking in those cases it is better to nudge a reviewer with a different strategy than another NM (since ideally a reviewer should eventually give it some attention anyway with the already-outstanding NM flag).

I was thinking more along the lines of one cacher posting a NM and the cache owner thinking they'll wait for conformation from another NM before acting.   Although two different cachers posting a NM on the same cache is a good thing I don't want new cache owners thinking that they can simply ignore the first one.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rebore said:

Again, I don't agree. Feel free to practice the hobby the way you want, but please refrain from using phrases like "All cachers should do this". No, they shouldn't. They should enjoy this pasttime their way, as long as it's in line with the guidelines.

The guidelines don't indicate you have to do anything but sign the physical log so being within the guidelines has nothing to do with what's being discussed here.   The issue is how to use the proper "online"  logs to help cachers, owners and reviewers identify caches in need of maintenance.   If your intent is to log your find online than I absolutely believe cachers should use the various logs and use them correctly. 

Enjoyment of this past time is what's it's all about.   Anything we can do to increase the number of healthy caches out there will add to that enjoyment.     

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Don't you think NMs should be logged against caches that are missing? No one's going to find any remains of a container that's just not there any more.

Only if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cache, is in fact, missing.    If someone finds the remains of a container, then a NM is justified.  If someone doesn't find the remains of a container, either the cache is missing, or the cache just couldn't be found.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Don't you think NMs should be logged against caches that are missing? No one's going to find any remains of a container that's just not there any more.

If there are several DNF logs before mine, I might log a NM trying to bring it to other cachers attention. In my maybe naive ways I asuume the owner reads all of the logs on his caches, so severeal DNFs will alarm him and no NM is needed. I think a NM log is more to make other cachers aware that there might be a problem and the owner is not responsive, but if I don't find anything, it's a DNF. Maybe it's still there, maybe it isn't. I simply don't know.

1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Only if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cache, is in fact, missing.    If someone finds the remains of a container, then a NM is justified.  If someone doesn't find the remains of a container, either the cache is missing, or the cache just couldn't be found.  

Of course, it's a good idea to make sure the remains are from the actual cache container. Sometimes the remains of a container are just litter. Not that that stops geocachers from adding a "replacement log" to a discarded container and logging a find.

1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, wandillup wanderer said:

I have no issue with posting a Dnf if i can’t locate the cache but will certainly not follow that up with a NM as some form of justification for not finding it.

The NM I posted with my DNF a few weeks back had nothing to do with justifying not finding it. I'm the first to admit that most of my DNFs are Blind Freddy moments. But given the location and past history, it seemed to me, standing at GZ, that there was a good chance it'd gone missing and that the CO ought to check on it. That's all an NM is, a request for the CO to check the cache. It isn't a kiss of death, just a call for help. If the CO's still active and the cache is just well hidden, fine, they log their OM to clear my NM and no harm's done. But if the CO's no longer active and the cache is missing, I've laid the groundwork for an NA in a few months time. As I said before, the reviewers here have made it very clear that they won't accept an NA unless there's already an NM that's been outstanding for at least a month or two. No NMs -> no NAs -> map full of abandoned missing caches.

0

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The guidelines don't indicate you have to do anything but sign the physical log so being within the guidelines has nothing to do with what's being discussed here.   The issue is how to use the proper "online"  logs to help cachers, owners and reviewers identify caches in need of maintenance.   If your intent is to log your find online than I absolutely believe cachers should use the various logs and use them correctly. 

Enjoyment of this past time is what's it's all about.   Anything we can do to increase the number of healthy caches out there will add to that enjoyment.     

 

It's a good thing to do and something I think all cachers should practice if they're interested in keeping the game fun and relevant.

 

The quote you said, for reference.  Just because you believe "all cachers" should do it the way you think it should be done, doesn't mean that's the way it should be done, nor does it mean that it's the only way it should be done.  There are a variety of ways to interpret the NM logs, the found it logs, the DNF logs, as well as the other types of logs, but there's rarely a single, correct interpretation for each and every log type.  The only one close to certifiably singular in nature is the "found it" log, although even that has some people with different interpretations of what constitutes a find.  To say that all cachers should do it the way you do it is, in essence, saying that your way is the right way and everyone else is doing it incorrectly.

 

While I don't think your idea is without merit, it belittles the ideas that others have in regard to this particular situation.  Personally, I will usually only file a NM on a cache I can't find if there's really only a single spot it could be and it has a string of DNFs as well.  I've had enough DNFs on 1/1s with subsequent finds right after my DNF to make me question my eyes and caching ability.

1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, niraD said:

There are situations where NM is appropriate even if you weren't able to reach GZ. I've posted multiple NM logs in situations where GZ turned out to be inside a fenced-off construction zone.

Depending on the content of the one NM log, of course. I've seen NM logs for D4 camouflaged caches that assumed that it must be missing because they couldn't find it after searching for a few minutes. I would expect the CO of such a D4 camouflaged cache to ignore such NM logs.

I put an NM on a cache that I could not find.  Coords were in the middle of a hockey rink.  When I got home, and read some older logs (one had proper coords), the coords were 84 feet off.  Everyone that logged it said the coords were bad.  CO seems to be inactive, and has not corrected the coords.  NM

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Only if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cache, is in fact, missing.

Why set the standard so high? What's so terrible about being wrong when there are enough DNFs with enough descriptive text to make you only pretty sure it's missing? I'd much prefer some NMs be wrong than have a cache that is, in fact, missing yet gets unmarked forever after just because no one's sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's missing.

4 hours ago, Rebore said:

In my maybe naive ways I asuume the owner reads all of the logs on his caches, so severeal DNFs will alarm him and no NM is needed.

The NM only says something about the cache, so we need not have a care in the world what the CO does or doesn't read. When I post an NM, it's primarily because when I read the logs, I come to a conclusion that I think the CO should have also come to. It doesn't matter to me why the owner didn't do anything, I'm just pointing out that he hasn't done anything despite all the logs that suggest he should have.

0

Share this post


Link to post

When my family and I travel, I filter my PQs through GSAK and remove any cache with the "Needs Maintenance" (NM) attribute or a string of three or more DNFs because I simply don't want to spend my and my family's time looking for something that may not be there or needs Cache Owner attention.  I have subsequently modified my GSAK filter to eliminate caches with any combination of three or more DNFs and NM logs because of the trend to use the NM log rather than the DNF log type by a visiting Cacher who does not find the cache. 

Every cache we attempt receives at least either a "Found It" or a "Didn't Find It" log from us because we either found the cache AND signed the log, or we didn't.  The only time we use the "Needs Maintenance" log is in conjunction with a "Found It" log when we've actually put our hands on the cache and have determined maintenance is required.  If we didn't find the cache, we don't know if we simply missed the container or if the cache is missing, so we can't possibly know if maintenance is required.

Edited by Ladybug Kids
1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Ladybug Kids said:

If we didn't find the cache, we don't know if we simply missed the container or if the cache is missing, so we can't possibly know if maintenance is required.

Yes, you can, like if the hint says it's in a stump and the only stump within cooee of GZ is devoid of cache, then it's a pretty fair bet it's missing. But even so, the canned NM is "the cache might be missing", not is missing - you're allowed to be wrong, that's perfectly fine. Not logging an NM when you're reasonably sure the cache is missing is just passing responsibility onto that great Somebody Else to clean up all those abandoned missing caches cluttering up the map.

1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ladybug Kids said:

The only time we use the "Needs Maintenance" log is in conjunction with a "Found It" log when we've actually put our hands on the cache and have determined maintenance is required.  If we didn't find the cache, we don't know if we simply missed the container or if the cache is missing, so we can't possibly know if maintenance is required.

This method relies on reviewer intervention since missing caches with absent/negligent owners would bloat the database. 

Thankfully it's starting to happen in my area. One reviewer sweeps for long-standing strings of DNFs, logs an NM (funny that he would do that--post an NM on a cache he did not find ;) ), then a month later another reviewer logs a Reviewer Disable. Then a month later the cache gets archived by the second reviewer. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, niraD said:
8 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Only if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cache, is in fact, missing.    If someone finds the remains of a container, then a NM is justified.  If someone doesn't find the remains of a container, either the cache is missing, or the cache just couldn't be found.  

Of course, it's a good idea to make sure the remains are from the actual cache container. Sometimes the remains of a container are just litter. Not that that stops geocachers from adding a "replacement log" to a discarded container and logging a find.

And this is why as a responsible owner you just need to be ready for anything. You never know whether logs are legit or not, or a cache really has problems or not, or finders are good or not. All you and anyone can do is just judge the logs you see and post in context as reasonably as you individually are able to do. Some people aren't reasonable. We all need to be ready for that. But most people are, and personal ethics vary amongst even the most reasonable people, and even the most reasonable people can be wrong sometimes. No log in this game is guaranteed 100% accurate, there are basically exceptions to every ideal. Learn to live with a bit of flexibility in how you play (owning and finding) without getting all ranty...
/rant :P  (any 'you' above isn't in direct reference to you niraD, just a generalization)

 

5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Just because you believe "all cachers" should do it the way you think it should be done, doesn't mean that's the way it should be done, nor does it mean that it's the only way it should be done.  There are a variety of ways to interpret the NM logs, the found it logs, the DNF logs, as well as the other types of logs, but there's rarely a single, correct interpretation for each and every log type.  The only one close to certifiably singular in nature is the "found it" log, although even that has some people with different interpretations of what constitutes a find.

This.  Everything has an intent, but in practice can be utilized in a variety of contexts. Legitimately. Without breaking guidelines.  Don't sweat the small stuff :)

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, coachstahly said:

It's a good thing to do and something I think all cachers should practice if they're interested in keeping the game fun and relevant.

 

The quote you said, for reference.  Just because you believe "all cachers" should do it the way you think it should be done, doesn't mean that's the way it should be done, nor does it mean that it's the only way it should be done.  There are a variety of ways to interpret the NM logs, the found it logs, the DNF logs, as well as the other types of logs, but there's rarely a single, correct interpretation for each and every log type.  The only one close to certifiably singular in nature is the "found it" log, although even that has some people with different interpretations of what constitutes a find.  To say that all cachers should do it the way you do it is, in essence, saying that your way is the right way and everyone else is doing it incorrectly.

 

While I don't think your idea is without merit, it belittles the ideas that others have in regard to this particular situation.  Personally, I will usually only file a NM on a cache I can't find if there's really only a single spot it could be and it has a string of DNFs as well.  I've had enough DNFs on 1/1s with subsequent finds right after my DNF to make me question my eyes and caching ability.

If I think that the best way to handle a certain situation is "X" then of course I'd want everyone to do it that same way.   Isn't everyone on this forum convinced they have the right answers?

The whole purpose of this discussion forum is to share information.  It's up to the reader to decide if the information makes sense or is helpful.  

The only reason someone would feel belittled by the word "should"  is if they realize there is a better way but, for whatever reason, they're unwilling to give it a try.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The only reason someone would feel belittled by the word "should"  is if they realize there is a better way but, for whatever reason, they're unwilling to give it a try.  

You shold really stop stating your opinion in this thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Rebore said:

You shold really stop stating your opinion in this thread.

Why?   If you don't like what I have to say than skip over my posts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The only reason someone would feel belittled by the word "should"  is if they realize there is a better way but, for whatever reason, they're unwilling to give it a try.  

You shold really stop stating your opinion in this thread.

Why?   If you don't like what I have to say than skip over my posts.

/end quote

If you don't see the irony, I was just using the word "should" in the hope you'll get my point. It seems you didn't.

Edited by Rebore
I'm bad at multiquotes
0

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 2