Y U No log Needs Maintenance?

[+Team Microdot]

Found logs which should clearly have been followed up by a Needs Maintenance log but weren't...

 

 Found it

23/07/2018

Sent the kids for this one too wet to sign TFTC

 

 Found it

23/07/2018

Yeah the geo kids found it. It was too soggy to log. TFTC

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

 Didn't find it

21/07/2018

Had a good look around.
Has not been found for over a year so think it needs checking on

[+L0ne.R]

Member 674  Found it 05/2018 Found but contents were soaked.

Premium Member 2980  Found it 05/2018 Nice quick find tftc very wet

Premium Member 693  Found it 05/2018 Walked up to the spot didn't see it, walked around a bit looking then came back to it from another angle and spotted it. Log is wet and should be replaced TFTC

Premium Member 18840  Found it 04/2018 Found the cache exposed, with the lid off, and full of water. Found the lid and put everything back with the cache better hidden. I left the cache out of the bag to help it dry out. Please put it back in the bag when it is dry again.

 

 

The cache was published at the beginning of April 2018. By the end of April the wet logs notes started coming in, which have been ignored by the addicted popular cache hider. 

No NMs posted. 

[+kunarion]

If it's trash-cache, I rarely bother anymore. Valium pill bottles, power drink bottles, dollar store beach safe Micro tubes (all Micro, listed as “Small”), no possible way to even slightly water seal it, with a strip of paper in a pill bag that keeps it soaking wet. The tube is half-full of water. If I choose to find that anyway, I dry the log sheet on my car windshield. Dump out the water. Now it doesn't need maintenance. Log NM, and if the CO checks on it (which he doesn't but let's say he does), he finds it clean and dry at that moment. It's like magic and therefore, as far as the CO is concerned, I fixed it. Yay!

 

In this case, I log NM only if most of the container is missing.  They complain if it's dry (a "wasted trip" if I already dried it out).  They complain if I point out it's a Micro.  They really complain if most of the container is missing.  It's been like that forever with no "NM", but now because of me they gotta go to all the work to archive it.

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by kunarion

[+jellis]

I log needs maintenance  but sometimes I just send a message directly to the CO. Hate be a skeptic but I believe sometimes cachers seek caches that need maintenance and log them as finds because it can't be prove they didn't find them.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, jellis said:

Hate be a skeptic but I believe sometimes cachers seek caches that need maintenance and log them as finds because it can't be prove they didn't find them.

 

Yep.  We knew one locally that hit "soaked log" caches, and sometimes a couple days after archived too. 

[Gabeman26]

I actually dont know how to log it as needs maintenance..

[+L0ne.R]

30 minutes ago, Gabeman26 said:

I actually dont know how to log it as needs maintenance..

 

Unfortunately the app discourages Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive logs. 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

25 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Unfortunately the app discourages Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive logs. 

 

Doesn't it still work by the  "(...)"  (iphone) or the same sideways (android) ellipsis menu  ?

Click on report a problem and select NM or NA

I'm not sure it discourages, rather than not simple for new members to hit (who may not really understand the action logs yet).

[+L0ne.R]

6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Doesn't it still work by the  "(...)"  (iphone) or the same sideways (android) ellipsis menu  ?

Click on report a problem and select NM or NA

I'm not sure it discourages, rather than not simple for new members to hit (who may not really understand the action logs yet).

 

I'm not seeing any (...) when I click Found It (or Did Not Find). If the option is there, I'm not seeing it. Maybe someone else can have a look. 
In the Cachly app Needs Maintenance is a prominent option.  Here's a Cachly screenshot for comparison:

 

 

[+arisoft]

Streamlined... removing functions which are only rarely used like coordinate conversions.

[+J Grouchy]

54 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Unfortunately the app discourages Needs Maintenance or Needs Archive logs. 

 

 

 

 

It's there...but it's not a logging option.  You have to scroll down to the bottom of the main cache 'page' in the app.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, the Geocaching app is and always has been inferior.  I know they're trying, but they just can't seem to get it right.

Edited July 23, 2018 by J Grouchy

[+Team Christiansen]

5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

In the Cachly app Needs Maintenance is a prominent option. 

Needs Maintenance is available on GCBuddy and Geooh Live. Needs Archived is available on Geooh Live.

Neither available on GCDroid which only logs fieldnotes.

[+Team Christiansen]

4 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

 

It's there...but it's not a logging option.  You have to scroll down to the bottom of the main cache 'page' in the app.

 

 

 

 

Honestly, the Geocaching app is and always has been inferior.  I know they're trying, but they just can't seem to get it right.

Good catch!

Clicking on "Report a problem with this geocache" will get you the options for:

• Maintenance suggested, or
• Needs archived.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Team Christiansen

[+Korichnovui]

Cachly seems to be fully functional in this regard

 

[+Team Microdot]

So it seems to me that Groundspeak has scored something of an own goal with regards to the visibilty of NM/NA on their own app as well as the absence of one or more of those options in apps from their API partners.

 

Taking into account the likelihood that app users have never visited the website and not actually learned about the importance of NM/NA logs it is hardly surprising that NM/NA logs aren't being posted.

 

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

So it seems to me that Groundspeak has scored something of an own goal with regards to the visibilty of NM/NA on their own app as well as the absence of one or more of those options in apps from their API partners.

 

I think that they tried to promote NM/NA with the streamlined logging feature on website, but forgot this intentional goal when developing the app. They have still possibility to return back to the original way to log separate NM/NA, but are they humble enough to understand their mistake?

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

So it seems to me that Groundspeak has scored something of an own goal with regards to the visibilty of NM/NA on their own app as well as the absence of one or more of those options in apps from their API partners.

 

Taking into account the likelihood that app users have never visited the website and not actually learned about the importance of NM/NA logs it is hardly surprising that NM/NA logs aren't being posted.

 

 

These last few weeks have been disheartening. 

First, there was a ray of hope when GCHQ asked 'What is quality', now a few things have been discussed in the forums that make me feel like maybe soliciting 'quality' feedback is lip-service.

• eDexter being asked by a reviewer to please stop annoying COs by using the tools provided by GCHQ. Specifically, stop posting NAs on caches that need NAs. 
• Finding out from a reviewer that find logs after an NM negate the NM in terms of the CHS score.
• Becoming aware that the official app obfuscates the NM and NA tools. There's no excuse for it, when in previous versions these features were prominent and intuitive, especially in the old PM app.  
• The closing post in the Geocaching Quality forum topic "Thanks to everyone for your participation! After compiling the feedback, we expect to follow up with a survey to gather more information." Which says to me they won't be doing anything. This forum topic "survey" is going to lead to another survey instead of quick action. 

Edited July 24, 2018 by L0ne.R
Added a comma

[+arisoft]

17 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

The closing post in the Geocaching Quality forum topic "Thanks to everyone for your participation! After compiling the feedback, we expect to follow up with a survey to gather more information." Which says to me they won't be doing anything. This forum topic "survey" is going to lead to another survey instead of quick action. 

 

Seems realistic for me. Participants of the forum topic represents only a small number of "special" geocachers. I have no idea what is so important that it needs a survey but if it is leading to significant changes, it is better to shoot down with a survey.

[+cerberus1]

47 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

The closing post in the Geocaching Quality forum topic "Thanks to everyone for your participation! After compiling the feedback, we expect to follow up with a survey to gather more information." Which says to me they won't be doing anything. This forum topic "survey" is going to lead to another survey instead of quick action. 

 

I see it as possibly covering the 99% of cachers that don't enter the forums.  The folks (we find) aren't as bothered by "stuff" as many here. 

Or, maybe ask more questions of those who (they feel) had good ideas.   

May be just me, but rather than be done quickly, I'd rather policies/changes were well thought out before made. 

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

• Finding out from a reviewer that find logs after an NM negate the NM in terms of the CHS score.

That's concerning to hear. I'm assuming that came up in one of the discussions that's up to multiple pages now (I generally stop reading discussions after they pass the 2-3 page mark, because the posts get redundant and/or too angsty).

 

Knowing that, I may have to look at logging multiple NMs on caches that continue to be found before the maintenance issue is resolved.

[+L0ne.R]

20 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

That's concerning to hear. I'm assuming that came up in one of the discussions that's up to multiple pages now (I generally stop reading discussions after they pass the 2-3 page mark, because the posts get redundant and/or too angsty).

 

Knowing that, I may have to look at logging multiple NMs on caches that continue to be found before the maintenance issue is resolved.

 

It came up in the CHS discussion. Have a look at this post and this post and this post.

 

 

[+Team Hugs]

Why don't I post NMs?   'Cuz everytime I do around here, I get yelled at by the CO.   The app/website specifically encourages me (as a finder) to log NMs when the log is full ... and pretty much every time I do that, I get a posting or a private note from the CO saying "don't do that", with varying degrees of politeness.   (Not just one CO, mind you ... a number of them.)

 

Doesn't matter if I'm in the right or in the wrong.   Geocaching is supposed to be a fun activity, and getting yelled at by a CO reduces the fun for me.   Sure, I could complain to a reviewer or a lackey, but that just prolongs the argument.   I don't need any additional stress in my life, thank you; I go caching to relieve stress, not add to it.   

 

(Seriously.   I'm in the middle of a 6+ year cache-a-day streak that got started one afternoon when I had a particularly bad day at work, said "screw this, I'm leaving early and grabbing a cache on the way home".   The next day wasn't any better, and neither was the day after that.   Before I knew it, I had a month-long streak, and the rest is stubbornness.)

 

So, I usually don't log NMs.   I'll include status reports in the "Found" log itself, so a good CO that reads the logs might notice and perform the needed maintenance.

 

Want more NMs?   Convince COs not to yell at folks who post them.

 

[dismounts soapbox]

 

 

[+Max and 99]

12 minutes ago, Team Hugs said:

Why don't I post NMs?   'Cuz everytime I do around here, I get yelled at by the CO.   The app/website specifically encourages me (as a finder) to log NMs when the log is full ... and pretty much every time I do that, I get a posting or a private note from the CO saying "don't do that", with varying degrees of politeness.   (Not just one CO, mind you ... a number of them.)

 

Doesn't matter if I'm in the right or in 

 

 

 

I hear you and I understand. 

Not because of your post.....

This past week I did maintenance on a bunch of caches because newbies with zero puzzle finds logged DNFs and NM. I was a little frustrated but I don't think I was rude when I asked if they had even solved the puzzle before logging a NM or DNFs. They were clueless but I still had to check them all. 

[+Team Microdot]

5 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

Why don't I post NMs?   'Cuz everytime I do around here, I get yelled at by the CO.   The app/website specifically encourages me (as a finder) to log NMs when the log is full ... and pretty much every time I do that, I get a posting or a private note from the CO saying "don't do that", with varying degrees of politeness.   (Not just one CO, mind you ... a number of them.)

 

We have a group of rather vocal people in my local area with this sort of attitude.

 

I don't think they actively yell at people - if they did I suspect most people around here would tell them where to go.

 

Rather they propagate their particular attitude in more passive aggressive manner - a strategy which seems to work for them.

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

Why don't I post NMs?   'Cuz everytime I do around here, I get yelled at by the CO.

 

In that case I would skip caches from this particular CO. Why are you participating if you are not welcome?

[+Team Microdot]

Just now, arisoft said:

5 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

Why don't I post NMs?   'Cuz everytime I do around here, I get yelled at by the CO.

 

In that case I would skip caches from this particular CO. Why are you participating if you are not welcome?

 

That's just playing into the hands of the abusive CO.

[+arisoft]

17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

That's just playing into the hands of the abusive CO.

 

In that scenario, you may assume that the CO does not want the cache to be found or someone related to the CO is competing you with the number of finds. How do you justify your interpretation about of the situation? What is the CO's motivation to play that way?

 

For a reference: If you get bad service from some restaurant, will you insist to visit that restaurant just because otherwise you are playing into the hands of the bad owner of the restaurant?

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

In that scenario, you may assume that the CO does not want the cache to be found or someone related to the CO is competing you with the number of finds. How do you justify your interpretation about of the situation? What is the CO's motivation to play that way?

 

For a reference: If you get bad service from some restaurant, will you insist to visit that restaurant just because otherwise you are playing into the hands of the bad owner of the restaurant?

 

If you're going to rely on analogies at least make them relevant

 

I'm not going to even try to justify my interpretation as you choose to frame it - you can take it or leave it as I write from experience - not some imagined notion.

[+arisoft]

4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

as I write from experience

 

This makes me to think that you are the bully, because you have the experience about this matter. Please, tell me that I am wrong.

[+Team Microdot]

11 minutes ago, arisoft said:

18 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

as I write from experience

 

This makes me to think that you are the bully, because you have the experience about this matter. Please, tell me that I am wrong.

 

So because I have experience of CO's who would rather people who log NM's on their caches stop finding them - that makes you think I'm the bully?

 

[+arisoft]

47 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

So because I have experience of CO's who would rather people who log NM's on their caches stop finding them - that makes you think I'm the bully?

 

 

How do you know what the bully really wants (by experience) if you are not the one?

 

If the suggested solution, not to find caches made by the bully, solves the problem, why this is playing on the hands of the bully?

 

My experience is opposite. Not playing with the bully makes life easier.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

How do you know what the bully really wants (by experience) if you are not the one?

 

If the suggested solution, not to find caches made by the bully, solves the problem, why this is playing on the hands of the bully?

 

My experience is opposite. Not playing with the bully makes life easier.

 

How does not finding the caches made by the bully solve ANYTHING?

 

Remember the context of this thread - it asks Y U No log Needs Maintenance.

 

We've already seen that the reason some people don't log Needs Maintenance is the negative / aggressive responses from the CO - a CO who presumably falls within your classification of bully.

 

Simply not finding this CO's caches isn't going to fix that problem and isn't going to change the CO's behaviour at all.

 

It will though allow CO's of that nature to continue to browbeat the local community into not posting Needs Maintenance logs.

 

Essentially, what you're recommending is capitulation and the effective support of the CO's mission - to continue to enjoy finds on their caches without having to deal with NM's.

[+on4bam]

Must be regional.. I never had any negative feedback from a CO on any of the NM logs I posted. Log full= NM, Log wet =NM, cache broken or missing= NM.

As for NM/NA not readily available in "the" app, it is in other apps. When away from home I use GDAK (android) which lets me chose between all types of log.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

1 minute ago, on4bam said:

As for NM/NA not readily available in "the" app, it is in other apps. When away from home I use GDAK (android) which lets me chose between all types of log.

 

OK - so we deduct one from the number of people not logging NM because it's either not easily found in the app they have or isn't there at all - check

[+arisoft]

23 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

How does not finding the caches made by the bully solve ANYTHING?

 

It stops the bullying in that case. At least it solves this problem if it is a problem at all. I see that you may have other problems in your mind.

 

23 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Simply not finding this CO's caches isn't going to fix that problem and isn't going to change the CO's behaviour at all.

 

Your problem seems to be how to change the behaviour of the bully. If everybody stops playing with the bully, the problem is solved because there is no space left for this unwanted behaviour. But let those, who like to be bullied, continue playing.

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by arisoft

[+arisoft]

6 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Must be regional.. I never had any negative feedback from a CO on any of the NM logs I posted.

 

I have got negative feedback once because I did not find the cache. The CO was upset because my DNF may frighten other players away.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, arisoft said:

26 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

How does not finding the caches made by the bully solve ANYTHING?

 

It stops the bullying in that case. At least it solves this problem if it is a problem at all. I see that you may have other problems in your mind.

 

26 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Simply not finding this CO's caches isn't going to fix that problem and isn't going to change the CO's behaviour at all.

 

Your problem seems to be how to change the behaviour of the bully. If everybody stops playing with the bully, the problem is solved because there is no space left for this unwanted behaviour. But let those, who like to be bullied, continue playing.

 

 

 

I don't know what other problems you think are 'in' my mind - nor do I particularly care and nor do I see how your imaginings are the slightest bit relevant to this thread.

 

You have demonstrated though, quite well as it turns out, precisely how CO's who actively reject valid NM's on their caches are able to continue doing so.

 

 

[+arisoft]

3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

You have demonstrated though, quite well as it turns out, precisely how CO's who actively reject valid NM's on their caches are able to continue doing so.

 

We all know that they are able to continue this behaviour whether they are bullies or not. These are two separate problems. The most negligent COs do not send you hate mail at all and some reputable COs will!

[+baer2006]

My personal threshold for logging NM vs. only mentioning some problem in my find (or DNF) is relatively high. E.g. a barely usable log (because it's wet and/or full) doesn't get an NM if logging is still somehow possible. As a consequence, if I actually post NM, then I'm quite sure the NM is really justified - which becomes relevant when I'm yelled at by the CO . But that happens very rarely, and when it does, I either ignore it, yell back or post an outright NA (reasoning that the CO is obviously unwilling to properly react to what I see as a fully justified NM).

 

Like others, I see it as a big problem, that the NM (and NA) logging options are effectively hidden to many cachers. IMHO it was a big mistake to relegate NM/NA from a regular log type (on the same level as Found, DNF, Note) to some kind of additional option for a log.

 

[+hal-an-tow]

11 hours ago, The A-Team said:

That's concerning to hear. I'm assuming that came up in one of the discussions that's up to multiple pages now (I generally stop reading discussions after they pass the 2-3 page mark, because the posts get redundant and/or too angsty).

 

Knowing that, I may have to look at logging multiple NMs on caches that continue to be found before the maintenance issue is resolved.

 

11 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

It came up in the CHS discussion. Have a look at this post and this post and this post.

 

 

 Ah, thank you for linking to those posts LOne.R, I was worried about this too, as the impression I had from a post on the CHS thread referencing that (without linking or quoting the original) gave me the impression that a single find after a needs maintenance cancelled it out . What Keystone says in the first linked post is

"Reviewers become aware of Cache Health Score issues once the score drops below a defined threshold and a notice is sent to the CO.  In the example posted by Team Microdot, the problem is that the "found it" logs affect the score positively, while the "needs maintenance" logs affect the score negatively.  On balance, that cache is just a hair above the threshold that would trigger the email notice."

 

Which does not say the subsequent find cancels out  the NM, but just that it adds a positive to the score. There is no mention of the comparative weighting of the scores given to finds / nms , but I think it would be reasonable to assume that a NM negative effect is greater than a single find positive effect.  It may still be a wise move to post another NM though, if each NM produces a negative (rather than on;y the first one) .

I  don't often add a NM on a cache I find which needs maintenance but already has an NM posted, it seems redundant to repeat it, but I may need to change that....

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, hal-an-tow said:

I  don't often add a NM on a cache I find which needs maintenance but already has an NM posted, it seems redundant to repeat it, but I may need to change that....

 

I don't think of it as redundant - I think of it as an affirmation of the opinion of the previous NM poster.

 

We see regularly people who have felt less than happy at having trailed out after a single NM log only to discover that all is well at GZ - and that's understandable.

 

If that led to anyone being reluctant to trust a single NM though - especially from a cacher with limited experience - subsequent NM's supporting that claim should help to boost confidence that the first NM was completely valid.

 

 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Team Microdot
I meant redundant - not redundanct - doh!

[+J Grouchy]

10 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

Why don't I post NMs?   'Cuz everytime I do around here, I get yelled at by the CO. 

 

I've gotten more results from posting NM logs than from mentioning problems in a 'found it' log.  I don't worry one bit whether it upsets the CO and have never gotten more than a snarky reply for my efforts. 

 

For example, I recently posted NM logs on three different caches:

Cache 1: a cache that was about 70 or 80 feet from the posted coordinates.  This was mentioned numerous times, but the CO never did anything about it.  My NM log prompted the reviewer to disable it and the CO quickly updated the coordinates the VERY NEXT DAY.  I say "you're welcome" to all the future cachers looking for it.

Cache 2: a cache container that was missing a lid.  Again, this was mentioned in numerous logs...but mine was the first NM log.  It was disabled by the reviewer and the CO fixed it the VERY NEXT DAY.  I say "you're welcome" to all the future cachers looking for it.

Cache 3: a cache that is missing.  I confirmed the hiding spot with the CO even.  Missing.  Still didn't do maintenance on it.  I posted a NM log.  It's been disabled and the CO still has not done anything.  I expect it will be archived and will no longer be wasting anyone's time since it's not there and the CO can't be bothered to do anything about it. 

 

I suggest you don't worry about offending lazy COs...perhaps they should be worrying more about wasting the time of cachers looking for well-maintained caches?

[+MNTA]

3 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Cache 3: a cache that is missing.  I confirmed the hiding spot with the CO even.  Missing.  Still didn't do maintenance on it.  I posted a NM log.  It's been disabled and the CO still has not done anything.  I expect it will be archived and will no longer be wasting anyone's time since it's not there and the CO can't be bothered to do anything about it. 

 

 

Similar experience here. Had 5 super close (1.5 miles) that were disabled for anywhere from 4 months to a year and a half. So filed a NA on them. One was fixed the next day and was found that day too, great little park. This is the best outcome. The others all got reviewer notes and I expect will eventually be archived. To me that's ok, frees up the map for other cachers if they so choose to can hide a cache nearby.

[+dprovan]

7 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

Which does not say the subsequent find cancels out  the NM, but just that it adds a positive to the score. There is no mention of the comparative weighting of the scores given to finds / nms , but I think it would be reasonable to assume that a NM negative effect is greater than a single find positive effect.  It may still be a wise move to post another NM though, if each NM produces a negative (rather than on;y the first one) .

If the NM hasn't been addressed, why wouldn't you post an NA? Then the CHS theoretically becomes irrelevant.

[+dprovan]

16 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

Why don't I post NMs?   'Cuz everytime I do around here, I get yelled at by the CO.

I'm wondering what you mean by "yelled at". If a CO objected to my NM or NA, I'd assume the text didn't explain it well enough, so I go over my justification with them. If they became abusive, I'd report them. I'm having a hard time imagining what would make me stop posting NMs altogether. The only thing I can imagine is a fundamentally abusive environment, and I assume the solution to that is to call in GS. I certainly wouldn't shrug my shoulders since any CO abusive about NMs is likely to be abusive about a wide range of topics.

[+IceColdUK]

12 minutes ago, dprovan said:

If the NM hasn't been addressed, why wouldn't you post an NA? Then the CHS theoretically becomes irrelevant.

 

How long do you give a CO to act on a NM for, say, a full logbook?  It would seem a little premature to log an NA if you came along the next day.

 

I would be more inclined to log another NM though.

[+J Grouchy]

17 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

How long do you give a CO to act on a NM for, say, a full logbook?  It would seem a little premature to log an NA if you came along the next day.

 

I would be more inclined to log another NM though.

 

Honestly, a full logbook doesn't really cross the "needs maintenance" threshold for me.  I may be more willing than most people to post a Needs Maintenance log, but I don't know if I ever have because the log sheet was full.

[+Team Microdot]

18 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

How long do you give a CO to act on a NM for, say, a full logbook?  It would seem a little premature to log an NA if you came along the next day.

 

I would be more inclined to log another NM though.

 

Depends who the CO is.

 

When our local reviewer archived another slew of caches the other day for lack of CO response at least 50% of those CO's were ones who will never maintain any of their hides - history has proven it time and time again.

 

Personally I'd have not problem seeing all their existing caches archived immediately - why delay the inevitable?

[+Mudfrog]

8 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

I  don't often add a NM on a cache I find which needs maintenance but already has an NM posted, it seems redundant to repeat it, but I may need to change that....

 

 

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I don't think of it as redundant - I think of it as an affirmation of the opinion of the previous NM poster.

 

We see regularly people who have felt less than happy at having trailed out after a single NM log only to discover that all is well at GZ - and that's understandable.

 

If that led to anyone being reluctant to trust a single NM though - especially from a cacher with limited experience - subsequent NM's supporting that claim should help to boost confidence that the first NM was completely valid.

 

 

As a cache owner, I appreciate a NM on my cache when a person thinks there may be a problem with a cache of mine they visited. Another person coming along afterwards should feel free to log a NM as well if they feel the need. I encourage people to do this, especially since I know there are forgetful COs like me out there.