Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
L0ne.R

CHS score. Is it making a difference?

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, K13 said:

With the advent of the phone apps, there is no longer a way to know the last time a cacher has logged on the site. Also, some cache owners hide caches using a secondary account. They may not log in with that secondary account, except to place new caches, so it may look like that cacher had left the hobby.

 

In this particular instance your claims have zero value - the cacher is local, I know they've quit, the reviewer knows they've quit and the CO who logged into their account, adopted the cache over to himself and then posted angry refutations for the NA log knows they've quit.

There are numerous logs on the cache which support the fact that it has been in need of maintenance for months with zero response from the CO and no obvious attempt by anybody to prop it up - until now.

I'm not sure at all what you're trying to do here or what you hope to achieve but what you are doing is convincing me that I've made the right decision,

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just a quick one before I disappear.

You worry about caches rotting away littering the hillside when they have been abandoned by the CO?

An NA is a solution to that? If a cacher has abandoned a cache when its active, do you really think they will traipse up the hillside to remove the scatty mouldy box? It'll sit there forever. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Good.  I am glad that Groundspeak still is using common sense. I am guessing that your NA included a certain amount of snark.

Nope - I've showed an example here of the form my log typically takes.

I'd actually rather see caches maintained rather than archived and usually only log NA when it's clear that's not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

Just a quick one before I disappear.

You worry about caches rotting away littering the hillside when they have been abandoned by the CO?

An NA is a solution to that? If a cacher has abandoned a cache when its active, do you really think they will traipse up the hillside to remove the scatty mouldy box? It'll sit there forever. 

You're right - an NA isn't a solution for the fact that people place caches and then abandon them.

It is though a solution to people having to suffer that cache and come to the conclusion that geocaching sucks.

And it is a solution to the location being blocked from someone else placing a nice, shiny new one.

Although I'll agree that two rights don't fix a wrong - sometimes we have to make do with damage limitation.

Why disappear? Why not stay and discuss?

Edited by Team Microdot
afterthought
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

in general I am learning that it is frequently better to be careful and positive in logs.

I look forward to reading something positive that you've written.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You're right - an NA isn't a solution for the fact that people place caches and then abandon them.

It is though a solution to people having to suffer that cache and come to the conclusion that geocaching sucks.

And it is a solution to the location being blocked from someone else placing a nice, shiny new one.

Although I'll agree that two rights don't fix a wrong.

Why disappear? Why not stay and discuss?

Ok I might just do that. I fully agree with your NM and NA policy on abandoned missing caches. They waste the time of people who  don't read previous logs, especially when they rock up to GZ and start searching for a cache thats been missing for a year. That's frustrating.

on the other side of a wet abandoned cache, there is no guarantee that someone will replace it with a shiny new one if its archived. Especially on the moors where it is SSSI and no caches can ever be published again.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

Ok I might just do that. I fully agree with your NM and NA policy on abandoned missing caches. They waste the time of people who  don't read previous logs, especially when they rock up to GZ and start searching for a cache thats been missing for a year. That's frustrating.

on the other side of a wet abandoned cache, there is no guarantee that someone will replace it with a shiny new one if its archived. Especially on the moors where it is SSSI and no caches can ever be published again.

 

 

Excellent - I'll make a note of that for future reference :)

And you're right again - there is no guarantee that someone else will replace it with a nice shiny new one - I never claimed there was - but until the junk is removed and the spot opened up the chance of a new, shiny cache by an enthusiastic CO who is a keen maintainer is absolutely zero. This means of course that the second option is the better option because it has at least a chance of success.

If it's an SSSi then there shouldn't be caches there without permission anyway. As far as I can tell both Groundspeak and landowners tend not to demand immediate removal of caches which existed prior to SSSi status being conferred, instead allowing natural wastage to take its course. If the existing cache on SSSi is maintained it gets to stay - for now. If it doesn't then it should go.

I think there are some parks and other sites which previously allowed caches but no longer do BECAUSE they weren't maintained - and the landowners don't want that kind of rubbish on their property.

Edited by Team Microdot
typos

Share this post


Link to post

shocking isn't it we are in agreement :O. There is still the issue of the mouldy manky box sitting on the SSSI moors rotting away, but still being visited by cachers while it is active. Isn't there more chance of one of those cachers performing community maintenance on the manky box and bringing it up to spec due to the amount of passing foot traffic. 

If said cache is archived due to an NA, now there is a much smaller chance the manky box will be spruced up. Owner doesn't care, now no finders coming along who may care for it. Now its archived, now no-one even knows its there unless you're a veteran cacher. The box sits up there getting even more wet, more akin to a piece of litter. The owner won't come along to remove the rubbish, the reviewer won't, so doesn't this box become a problem to landowners like you mentioned and give geocaching a bad name. Is it not better to allow the cache to remain active until it goes missing or muggled then starting the archival process?

Edited by The Magna Defender
fat finger syndrome
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, K13 said:

I think that is the opposite of what we should ALL be doing. Always log the NM or NA. This will put the pressure on the CO to repair or archive the cache, or it will eventually push the Reviewer to take action. That is the way to get the crappy caches removed from the playing field.

If those cache locations aren't filled by other new caches, the hobby is better than with the old crappy cache being there for new players to experience.

I still feel that way but I'm getting discouraged. When I look at the map to see what is filling those newly emptied spots, it's mostly micros or junk caches by the same COs that are numbers-oriented. There's a short section of a trail that was cleared about a year ago of 3 caches (CO ignored broken reports, DNFs, NMs, NA and reviewer disable). Now that section is again saturated, filled with 3 caches that currently each have a row of DNFs being ignored by the new owners. I thought NMs and NAs would help make the game better, getting old crappy caches out and new better caches in. But old crappy set-em-forget-em is being replaced by new crappy set-em-forget-em caches.  The PT mentality continues to dominant.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, K13 said:

It's a vast difference referring to the prior few logs on the cache page versus researching the owner's caching history.

You don't need all the owner's history to post a valid NA log. Sometimes a list of facts about the cacher rather than the one particular cache can be perceived as an attack.

Apparently the CHS and owner history can get an owner a time out by a reviewer. If it's made clear that others are noticing the poor record of an owner, I think that would help the reviewer make the decision to suspend a CO from placing more caches.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

shocking isn't it we are in agreement :O. There is still the issue of the mouldy manky box sitting on the SSSI moors rotting away, but still being visited by cachers while it is active. Isn't there more chance of one of those cachers performing community maintenance on the manky box and bringing it up to spec due to the amount of passing foot traffic. 

If said cache is archived due to an NA, now there is a much smaller chance the manky box will be spruced up. Owner doesn't care, now no finders coming along who may care for it. Now its archived, now no-one even knows its there unless you're a veteran cacher. The box sits up there getting even more wet, more akin to a piece of litter. The owner won't come along to remove the rubbish, the reviewer won't, so doesn't this box become a problem to landowners like you mentioned and give geocaching a bad name. Is it not better to allow the cache to remain active until it goes missing or muggled then starting the archival process?

Statistically the chances of the abandoned litter being spruced up by another cacher are fairly low - with rare exceptions. Very few people in my experience will spend their resources when it's clear the CO couldn't care less about leaving litter to find rather than what a decent cash should be.

By the time an NA is filed the cache is usually already litter - or missing.

Let's pretend for a moment though that the box is assumed to be missing which - in your view - is a completely acceptable reason for an NA.

Do you reckon this means the cache has been carefully removed and responsibly and ecologically disposed of? Or is it more likely to be lying around somewhere nearby where it can still be discovered and still give caching a bad name?

Share this post


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

Apparently the CHS and owner history can get an owner a time out by a reviewer. If it's made clear that others are noticing the poor record of an owner, I think that would help the reviewer make the decision to suspend a CO from placing more caches.

No need to suspend a CO who has already given up over 5 years previous as in the case I refer to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Good.  I am glad that Groundspeak still is using common sense. I am guessing that your NA included a certain amount of snark.

Curiously my posts demonstrate why your guessing is wrong appear to have silently disappeared from the thread.

Oops - I take it back - they are still there.

Edited by Team Microdot
error

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Statistically the chances of the abandoned litter being spruced up by another cacher are fairly low - with rare exceptions. Very few people in my experience will spend their resources when it's clear the CO couldn't care less about leaving litter to find rather than what a decent cash should be.

By the time an NA is filed the cache is usually already litter - or missing.

Let's pretend for a moment though that the box is assumed to be missing which - in your view - is a completely acceptable reason for an NA.

Do you reckon this means the cache has been carefully removed and responsibly and ecologically disposed of? Or is it more likely to be lying around somewhere nearby where it can still be discovered and still give caching a bad name?

I wish I knew the answer to where all missing caches go? If muggled where do the mugglers take them? I wish I knew :)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

I wish I knew the answer to where all missing caches go? If muggled where do the mugglers take them? I wish I knew :)

Who knows? Not something I lose sleep over.

I can only imagine they stumble on it, pick it up and carry it off, not realising it 'belongs' there and then, when they get bored of it, dump it wherever.

It's a risk we all take.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Magna Defender said:

I wish I knew the answer to where all missing caches go? If muggled where do the mugglers take them? I wish I knew :)

Unknown to him, one cache maggot we caught with an ammo can on the trail also had a cacher as his landlord.  When he wanted to move with his mommy, the "landlord" had to keep his calm in the walk-through, as in the basement were numerous bookcases and storage racks of containers (ammo cans mostly),  and rows of trackables.  Christmas tube-lights on shelves, and some had candles in front and pictures of cachers from the site behind them.

This guy was a freak !  I don't believe he's in my state any longer...

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Who knows? Not something I lose sleep over.

I can only imagine they stumble on it, pick it up and carry it off, not realising it 'belongs' there and then, when they get bored of it, dump it wherever.

It's a risk we all take.

I completely agree.

As cache owners we take that risk. Sometimes I'm amazed that a cache manages to stay in its location for many years. Other times when I think the hide is a good one and won't likely be stumbled upon, the cache goes missing within weeks. One time I hid the cache and returned a couple days later to re-check before submitting it. The whole forest was gone. That was a shock. Poor forest.  :(

Share this post


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

One time I hid the cache and returned a couple days later to re-check before submitting it. The whole forest was gone. That was a shock. Poor forest.  :(

That gave me a chuckle :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I guess all politics (supervision, reviewing, etc) is local.  Despite some pushback from COs who don't want to maintain their caches, in general I've found that posting an NM and then following up with an NA when it is ignored, results in the cache being disabled and eventually archived by The Reviewer.  It would be nice if everyone followed the process and archived caches when they left the game but...One thing I've noticed in these forum discussions is the wide range of views even about something that seems so cut and dried as "the CO is responsible for maintaining their own caches".  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, edexter said:

One thing I've noticed in these forum discussions is the wide range of views even about something that seems so cut and dried as "the CO is responsible for maintaining their own caches".  

Part of the problem when people start embroidering that very, very simple rule.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Unknown to him, one cache maggot we caught with an ammo can on the trail also had a cacher as his landlord.  When he wanted to move with his mommy, the "landlord" had to keep his calm in the walk-through, as in the basement were numerous bookcases and storage racks of containers (ammo cans mostly),  and rows of trackables.  Christmas tube-lights on shelves, and some had candles in front and pictures of cachers from the site behind them.

This guy was a freak !  I don't believe he's in my state any longer...

 

A shrine to the God of muggles? :o Now I'm wondering about the kid in my area that hoards every trackable dropped in a cache. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Was running a PQ for the Buffalo / Niagara Region and noted a number of "faded Caches" with this notation on the cache page:

Temporarily Disable Listing Temporarily Disable Listing
02/23/2018

Disabling while cache owner is inactive.

 Anyone have thoughts / suggestions / answers on this??????

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, humboldt flier said:

The profile has a notation that the premium member is locked??

??? What does that really mean ???

I've seen this happen when the account holder does something that TPTB don't like for some reason.

We had a sock puppet account who logged numerous NA's on caches which richly deserved them then all of a sudden the account was locked.

I suspect someone complained. I suspect I know who.

Share this post


Link to post
Daaaaaaaannnng:  That takes out 15-18% of the caches In the area I was headed to.
 
I remember another cacher from that region getting put in the "penalty box" a few years ago ... but TPTB didn't "whack" his caches.
 
 
 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Your account won't be locked because your caches have a low Cache Health Score.  There must have been other issues afoot.  When an account is locked due to issues under the website Terms of Use, it's common for HQ to mass-disable all of the caches owned by that account.

With that clarified, we can return to the thread topic.  Thanks!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Clearly appreciate the clarifier having clarified the subject:

     Glad to see that it appears not to have been a CHS issue.  

 

Share this post


Link to post

I am not aware of the details of the CHS but I can hypothesize that involves some sequence of weighted occurrences (dnfs, NM, NA, ratio of dnfs compared to d/t rating, etc) and that any such listing would be sort-able and in quick order show which caches appear to be missing or damaged and who the CO is...

As I've posted elsewhere, there are three subsets of COs when it comes to maintaining caches:  The Hawk, the Dove and the Turkey.  I define a Turkey as someone who acts as if cache maintenance expectations do not apply to them and their distinguishing characteristics as a group are:  1,  They do not do maintenance on their caches (no OM logs) 2, They do not respond to NM logs  3,   They (usually) do not respond to NA logs  3,  The great majority only repair or replace caches after The Reviewer has disabled their cache  (and on average only 30% of the time).    I'm sure you are aware of some folks in your area who this describes.  The net result it takes 3 months to three years for these missing caches to be archived.  

I'm starting to see a difference in how dnfs and NM logs are being dealt with in my area over the past few months based not on the individual cache history exclusively but (seemingly) including  the maintenance history of the Cache Owner.  (I am suggesting this possibility as a deduction based on observation, not as a fact...) Whereas previously The Reviewer only disabled a cache after someone posted an NA log, now I have seen caches disabled based on multiple dnfs and/or an NM log.         I have only seen this happening to caches where the CO has a long history of ignoring NM and NA logs and it is a welcome change as it speeds up the archival process considerably.  This has several benefits including making the list of active caches more accurate, eliminating frustrating searches for caches that aren't there and in some cases opening up a location for a cache that will be maintained as needed.   For cachers who regularly maintain their caches this has little impact (as they routinely respond to NM logs) but for the folks who routinely ignore them it speeds up the process of keeping the list accurate by removing their abandoned caches from the list...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, edexter said:

 For cachers who regularly maintain their caches this has little impact (as they routinely respond to NM logs) but for the folks who routinely ignore them it speeds up the process of keeping the list accurate by removing their abandoned caches from the list...

I'm not convinced because in my area, at least, people are becoming less likely to log an NM or NA, so while the CHS induced action of the reviewer seems quicker, it's only because the original NM/NA procedure is gone, so we can't really see which would clear up abandoned caches quicker. Besides, I'd ask if the old NM/NA approach was so slow that it justifies the cost for reviewers taking over this process.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't thing the process has changed much if at all for a CO who responds to an NM  log.  The difference I'm seeing is what happens when someone does post an NM log and the CO ignores it.  In the past, nothing happened until an NA log was posted no matter how evident it was that the CO was not going to do anything.  Now if the CO does nothing in response to an NM log, the cache is archived within 4 to 6 weeks.  In my area, there is one CO with over 600 caches who has largely stopped maintaining his caches.  I have noticed an increase in both the frequency of NM logs and the number of different cachers posting an NM log.  I think folks who find a damaged cache may be more likely to post an NM log if they believe something will happen in the short term rather than many months later.  That seems to be what is happening anyway.  I think we'll know the system is having a positive effect when the response level to an NM log increases from the current 30% to something closer to 75%. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, edexter said:

Now if the CO does nothing in response to an NM log, the cache is archived within 4 to 6 weeks.

 

Here it's disabled first, and then if no response it may be archived.  But granted, those two steps typically take 2 months (5-6 weeks).

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, edexter said:

I don't thing the process has changed much if at all for a CO who responds to an NM  log.  The difference I'm seeing is what happens when someone does post an NM log and the CO ignores it.  In the past, nothing happened until an NA log was posted no matter how evident it was that the CO was not going to do anything.  Now if the CO does nothing in response to an NM log, the cache is archived within 4 to 6 weeks.  In my area, there is one CO with over 600 caches who has largely stopped maintaining his caches.  I have noticed an increase in both the frequency of NM logs and the number of different cachers posting an NM log.  I think folks who find a damaged cache may be more likely to post an NM log if they believe something will happen in the short term rather than many months later.  That seems to be what is happening anyway.  I think we'll know the system is having a positive effect when the response level to an NM log increases from the current 30% to something closer to 75%. 

In other areas, mine included, there seem to be fewer NM being placed on caches.  People don't want to be the one that causes a cache to be archived. (Or maybe there are just a lot of well-maintained caches in my area.)

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, edexter said:

I don't thing the process has changed much if at all for a CO who responds to an NM  log.  The difference I'm seeing is what happens when someone does post an NM log and the CO ignores it.  In the past, nothing happened until an NA log was posted no matter how evident it was that the CO was not going to do anything.  Now if the CO does nothing in response to an NM log, the cache is archived within 4 to 6 weeks.  In my area, there is one CO with over 600 caches who has largely stopped maintaining his caches.  I have noticed an increase in both the frequency of NM logs and the number of different cachers posting an NM log.  I think folks who find a damaged cache may be more likely to post an NM log if they believe something will happen in the short term rather than many months later.  That seems to be what is happening anyway.  I think we'll know the system is having a positive effect when the response level to an NM log increases from the current 30% to something closer to 75%. 

 

This sounds to me as if it's effectively made an NM log the same as an NA log. Whenever I've logged an NA, a reviewer has looked at it and, if upheld, disabled the cache and then, if the owner doesn't respond within a month, the cache is archived. From what you're saying, if someone now posts an NM the same thing happens. How is this an improvement?

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 11:47 AM, dprovan said:

 For example, I just saw a cache where action was taken with just 3 DNFs that didn't particularly suggest anything except 3 cachers had bad days, although they also didn't suggest that the DNFs were unrelated to the cache, so none of them were "my car broke down" or anything like that.

 

3 DNFs by 3 different cachers. What abut 3 DNFs by 3 cachers who were all together. Could be newbies looking for tough hide and the cache doesn't need checking. Or as you say, not related. Like you saw a snake and didn't continue. This is why it would be nice to have a DNA (Did Not Attempt) Yes I know they could use Write Note but I guess they think it doesn't apply.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, jellis said:

3 DNFs by 3 different cachers. What abut 3 DNFs by 3 cachers who were all together. Could be newbies looking for tough hide and the cache doesn't need checking. Or as you say, not related. Like you saw a snake and didn't continue. This is why it would be nice to have a DNA (Did Not Attempt) Yes I know they could use Write Note but I guess they think it doesn't apply.

 

When I can't find a cache (as in, put my signature in the logbook) I'd really like to log it as a DNF, even though it's rare that I think the cache is missing (and if I do, I'll log a "cache might be missing" canned NM - isn't that what it's there for, or is that now treated as a "cache is long gone NA"?). A DNF puts a blue frowny on the map as a prod that I really should have another go at it, but a WN doesn't do anything like that and is indistinguishable from a TB drop or whatever else I might use that log for.

 

Earlier this week I finally found a T4 cache that I'd DNFed back in January, not because there was anything wrong with it but because it was in a place I couldn't reach without some assistance. In the end it took a group effort of four of us to pull that one off! I think it's sad that the philosophy behind the CHS is encouraging everyone to shift their logs along one, so NM means NA and DNF means NM, and if we just want to say DNF without any implications for the health of the cache, we're now supposed to use a WN.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I know DNFs logged on the same date are weighted less than (if at all) those over multiple dates, precisely for the reasons of group caching and order of logs.

Share this post


Link to post

barefootjeff wrote:  "This sounds to me as if it's effectively made an NM log the same as an NA log."   Yes and no.  For any CO who responds to an NM log there is no difference.  The process is unchanged.  The difference only effects CO's who do not respond to an NM log.  Until a few months ago, logging an NM had absolutely no effect three quarters of the time because three quarters of time there is no response by the CO.  Until someone logged an NA nothing happened.  Now when someone logs an NM and the CO doesn't respond within a reasonable time, The Reviewer disables the cache, and if there is no CO response to, that archives it.  For CO's who have a long history of not responding to NM and NA logs as well as not maintaining their caches, I'm noticing The Reviewer is on occasion disabling the cache after an NM and then archiving it in a week or so.  This removes the abandoned cache much sooner than would otherwise be the case.  So no change folks who respond to an NM and a more responsive system for those who don't.  That seems like an improvement to me.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

K13 wrote"  

"In other areas, mine included, there seem to be fewer NM being placed on caches.  People don't want to be the one that causes a cache to be archived. (Or maybe there are just a lot of well-maintained caches in my area.)"

     I agree with you that many folks are reluctant to post an NM for fear that they will "cause" a cache to be archived.    Indeed, I have been "blamed" for several abandoned and  unmaintained caches being archived and on occasional suffered some verbal abuse and name calling for doing so.  It's not pleasant but it's kind of ridiculous really.  Only the The Reviewer or the CO can archive a cache.  If a CO no longer wants to maintain their caches they can either archive them or "put them up for adoption".(almost no one does the latter).    If they don't do either, the damaged cache just sits there getting worse.  The missing cache is already gone.  The CO is responsible for the cache being archived, not the person who logs an NM.  Personally, I consider the process to be basic quality control.  On occasions where I encounter a high quality cache that has fallen into disrepair and I am aware CO has dropped out of the game (so no chance to adopt it) I will maintain the cache as needed to keep it going.  (You do the work and then post a note that you have done so) .  Anyone can do this, so if there is a decent cache you want to keep going, the option to tell folks you'll do that works pretty well.  After all, they don't want to do maintenance ;-)
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, edexter said:

This removes the abandoned cache much sooner than would otherwise be the case.  So no change folks who respond to an NM and a more responsive system for those who don't.  That seems like an improvement to me.  

 

Yes, yes, yes!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, edexter said:

barefootjeff wrote:  "This sounds to me as if it's effectively made an NM log the same as an NA log."   Yes and no.  For any CO who responds to an NM log there is no difference.  The process is unchanged.  The difference only effects CO's who do not respond to an NM log.  Until a few months ago, logging an NM had absolutely no effect three quarters of the time because three quarters of time there is no response by the CO.  Until someone logged an NA nothing happened.  Now when someone logs an NM and the CO doesn't respond within a reasonable time, The Reviewer disables the cache, and if there is no CO response to, that archives it.  For CO's who have a long history of not responding to NM and NA logs as well as not maintaining their caches, I'm noticing The Reviewer is on occasion disabling the cache after an NM and then archiving it in a week or so.  This removes the abandoned cache much sooner than would otherwise be the case.  So no change folks who respond to an NM and a more responsive system for those who don't.  That seems like an improvement to me.  

 

Two things come to mind. If NMs now operate like that (and I must say I haven't seen any reviewer action on ignored NMs here), what's the point of having an NA log? The only difference seems to be a matter of timing - with the NM the CO gets a bit more time to respond before the reviewer disables the cache.

 

And secondly, what about minor maintenance issues that you'd like the CO to know about but definitely don't want to involve a reviewer or potentially have the cache archived? As an example, I'm thinking of where the cache page says there's a pencil in the cache but it's gone missing. If it was one of my caches, I'd like to know about it so I can take a replacement pencil on my next visit, but if that didn't happen for a couple of months I'd hate to see the cache disabled or archived. And remember, from the reviewer's perspective, the cache isn't being archived because of a missing pencil, it's being archived because of an unresponsive CO. So now, when logging an NM for any reason, you have to consider that the cache could be archived as a consequence, and to me, that greatly reduces the usefulness of the NM log.

 

If the reason for doing this is because people were seen to be reluctant to log NAs on caches that really needed to be archived, they're now going to be just as reluctant to log NMs. The same goes for DNFs if you just want to say you couldn't find it without inferring that the cache is missing. Distorting the meaning of logs isn't the solution to the problem of poor cache health.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Two things come to mind. If NMs now operate like that (and I must say I haven't seen any reviewer action on ignored NMs here), what's the point of having an NA log? The only difference seems to be a matter of timing - with the NM the CO gets a bit more time to respond before the reviewer disables the cache.

 

And secondly, what about minor maintenance issues that you'd like the CO to know about but definitely don't want to involve a reviewer or potentially have the cache archived? As an example, I'm thinking of where the cache page says there's a pencil in the cache but it's gone missing. If it was one of my caches, I'd like to know about it so I can take a replacement pencil on my next visit, but if that didn't happen for a couple of months I'd hate to see the cache disabled or archived. And remember, from the reviewer's perspective, the cache isn't being archived because of a missing pencil, it's being archived because of an unresponsive CO. So now, when logging an NM for any reason, you have to consider that the cache could be archived as a consequence, and to me, that greatly reduces the usefulness of the NM log.

 

If the reason for doing this is because people were seen to be reluctant to log NAs on caches that really needed to be archived, they're now going to be just as reluctant to log NMs. The same goes for DNFs if you just want to say you couldn't find it without inferring that the cache is missing. Distorting the meaning of logs isn't the solution to the problem of poor cache health.

 

Writing a note on the cache page to say you will get to it would signify you are not an unresponsive CO and then your cache wouldn't be archived over a pencil when the Reviewer looked at it. If a CO can't take the time to even write a note on the cache page saying they'll be going out there at the time they are able, then it will be archived. I don't see the issue here.

Edited by mimaef
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 16/06/2018 at 1:24 PM, mimaef said:

 

Writing a note on the cache page to say you will get to it would signify you are not an unresponsive CO and then your cache wouldn't be archived over a pencil when the Reviewer looked at it. If a CO can't take the time to even write a note on the cache page saying they'll be going out there at the time they are able, then it will be archived. I don't see the issue here.

 

A real life example from my caching today. One of the caches I found was an Eclipse tin exposed to the weather (it's within 100 metres of the ocean so the weather gets pretty salty there too) and, as expected, is starting to rust and, after the rain over the last couple of weeks, the log is pretty soggy although I was still able to make a legible mark on it with my pen. I thought I'd do the right thing and log an NM since none of the previous finders who've mentioned the damp log have done so (maybe it wasn't as wet then). But, the cache is still findable and, after a spell of dry weather, the log will probably dry out enough to be reasonably servicable for a good while yet. This cache doesn't need to be archived even if the CO doesn't respond to my NM.

 

So here's my dilemma. I want to draw the owner's attention to the problem with an NM, yet I don't want the cache archived. That used to be possible when NMs just went to the CO, not the reviewers, but apparently not anymore as it seems they're now just an NA with an extra month's grace for the CO to respond. Somehow I can't help feeling the game has lost something important from this change.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Somehow I can't help feeling the game has lost something important from this change.

 

Caches sat rotting for months or years as the NM log goes ignored?

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Team Microdot said:

 

Caches sat rotting for months or years as the NM log goes ignored?

 

So why doesn't someone log NAs on them if they're that bad? Or are NAs now taboo?

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So why doesn't someone log NAs on them if they're that bad? Or are NAs now taboo?

 

They've been taboo for a long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

They've been taboo for a long time. 

Well then that's the problem that needs fixing where you are. Making NMs the same as NAs only destroys the usefulness of NMs on caches that don't need archiving.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Well then that's the problem that needs fixing where you are. Making NMs the same as NAs only destroys the usefulness of NMs on caches that don't need archiving.

 

Head desk.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Well then that's the problem that needs fixing where you are. Making NMs the same as NAs only destroys the usefulness of NMs on caches that don't need archiving.

 

I'm still not sure how you're equating the two log types. They're both useful but still quite different from each other. The needs maintenance log gives the owner and future finders a heads up that the cache may need some attention. A reviewer is not going to mess with this cache UNLESS its owner ignores the situation. On the other hand, a needs archived log is looked at more closely and usually results in swifter reviewer action. 

 

 

Quote

A real life example from my caching today. One of the caches I found was an Eclipse tin exposed to the weather (it's within 100 metres of the ocean so the weather gets pretty salty there too) and, as expected, is starting to rust and, after the rain over the last couple of weeks, the log is pretty soggy although I was still able to make a legible mark on it with my pen. I thought I'd do the right thing and log an NM since none of the previous finders who've mentioned the damp log have done so (maybe it wasn't as wet then). But, the cache is still findable and, after a spell of dry weather, the log will probably dry out enough to be reasonably servicable for a good while yet. This cache doesn't need to be archived even if the CO doesn't respond to my NM.

 

That cache has a problem and we all know darn well it will continue to have that problem if its owner ignores it. We shouldn't depend on dry weather to bring a wet cache back to life. The cache needs help and you did the right thing by posting the NM. The owner needs to take responsibility at this point, something he or she signed up for in the first place. 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Well then that's the problem that needs fixing where you are. Making NMs the same as NAs only destroys the usefulness of NMs on caches that don't need archiving.

 

Not from an active owner’s standpoint. The NM is still the useful tool it always was. It tells me that there’s something significantly wrong with my cache that needs attention. 

Share this post


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

Not from an active owner’s standpoint. The NM is still the useful tool it always was. It tells me that there’s something significantly wrong with my cache that needs attention. 

NM logs are only useful if people keep posting them. If NA logs have become taboo, so NM logs now have the same effect, so NM logs become taboo, then no one will post NM logs and they won't be useful to anyone.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×
×
  • Create New...