Y U No log Needs Maintenance?

[+captnemo]

7 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

 

 

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. 

I also want cachers to post NM on my caches as this tells me to take a look and fix any problems that may exist.  Depending on which cache is involved I will check out the cache when a DNF is posted. 

 

I post NM on any cache I find that needs it, a full log is not one of my reasons to do so as I try and have replacement log sheets with me.  I will not replace a missing or damaged cache.  I won't normally post a NM on a cache I didn't find as I feel that how do I know if it needs maintenance if I didn't find it. I also have no problems posting a NA

 

I've had COs get upset on my posting a NM, but I always feel that the CO's problem not mine.  I think the answer to such a CO is "Then do the maintenance". 

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

If a CO objected to my NM or NA, I'd assume the text didn't explain it well enough...

^This

 

Always try to keep your NM and NA logs factual. Don't state personal opinions of the cache or owner.

 

"The cache container is badly cracked on the side and is no longer keeping the contents dry"

...is far less likely to elicit criticism than...

"The crappy container that the CO used is busted. I'm not surprised, though. This CO is known for being cheap and using crappy containers."

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

2 hours 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.

I don't post NMs for full logbooks. And I also wouldn't want a reviewer to archive a cache for something so unimportant, making it even more senseless to post a second NM because the CHS isn't bad enough to get the reviewer's attention.

 

How long do I give a CO to act on a legitimate NM? It depends, but when the time comes, I'm going to log an NA, not another NM. I was responding to the suggestion of posting a second NM because otherwise the CHS might be too high, so I was suggesting posting an NA to explicitly get the reviewer's attention instead of spamming the CHS with duplicate NMs to get the reviewer's attention indirectly.

[+Team Microdot]

 

 Write note

17/04/2017

Wet log.

 

 Found it

22/04/2017

Log dripping with water, drain water out of cache, just about managed to sign log, but it needs maintainable! TFTC

 

 Found it

09/05/2017

Easy find! Dropped a lovely trackable too... log is very soggy though!

 

 Found it

10/08/2017

Really water logged, next person please bring plastic bag or container

 

 Found it

10/08/2017

Nice one. Needs a clean up . Water got in to the box .we added sum nu paper. But more is needed

 

 Found it

10/08/2017

Found it but was wet inside ... next person to bring a bag we left fresh paper

 

 Found it

11/08/2017

Was wet but left some paper

 

 Didn't find it

16/08/2017

Could not write on the paper cus wet but left some dry paper in a bag

 

 Found it

25/02/2018

A good location but totally water logged.

 

 Found it

12/07/2018

Found quite easily. Good spot for hiding but water logged and needs replacing.

 

 Found it

24/07/2018

We found this one after a little search. As others have previously said the container is full of water and in need of a little TLC. After tipping out the water we managed to squeeze our initials onto the wet log. TFTC

 

 

 

 

[+IceColdUK]

15 minutes ago, dprovan said:

How long do I give a CO to act on a legitimate NM? It depends, but when the time comes, I'm going to log an NA, not another NM. I was responding to the suggestion of posting a second NM because otherwise the CHS might be too high, so I was suggesting posting an NA to explicitly get the reviewer's attention instead of spamming the CHS with duplicate NMs to get the reviewer's attention indirectly.

 

Makes sense. :-)

[+Team Hugs]

On 7/24/2018 at 4:10 AM, arisoft said:

 

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

 

That assumes that I know ahead of time which COs will welcome my NM logs.   I know *now* about a few them who don't.   

 

Why do I continue to find them?   Because they put out nice caches that are close to me that I enjoy finding.   One attribute doesn't exclude the other.

 

20 hours ago, dprovan said:

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.

 

Examples:

 

1) I logged NM on a cache because the log was full.   The cache is part of a geo-art series that I'm doing slowly (basically, one every now and then).  In response, the CO sent me a private message saying "don't post NMs for full logs ... meet me at my house sometime and I'll give you a set of logs to put into my caches when the logs fill up."

 

2) I logged NM on a multi-cache because the clue left in Stage 1 was misleading and inaccurate, because the environment had changed; I managed to find the final based on scouring previous logs.   In response, the CO posted an OM saying "everything is still in place, dunno what the previous log was complaining about".   CO hadn't even bothered to read what I wrote.

 

There have been others, but I don't want to scour over all my NM logs to find more.

 

19 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

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.

 

And herein lies the problem.   Groundspeak explicitly lists a full log(book) as the first reason for posting a NM from the website interface.   When I post NM for a full log, I'm doing what the Frog has asked me to do.   Except that there's a wide variety of opinions out there as to whether or not a full log is "worthy" of a NM.

 

[+L0ne.R]

58 minutes ago, Team Hugs said:

 

That assumes that I know ahead of time which COs will welcome my NM logs.   I know *now* about a few them who don't.   

 

Why do I continue to find them?   Because they put out nice caches that are close to me that I enjoy finding.   One attribute doesn't exclude the other.

 

 

Examples:

 

1) I logged NM on a cache because the log was full.   The cache is part of a geo-art series that I'm doing slowly (basically, one every now and then).  In response, the CO sent me a private message saying "don't post NMs for full logs ... meet me at my house sometime and I'll give you a set of logs to put into my caches when the logs fill up."

 

2) I logged NM on a multi-cache because the clue left in Stage 1 was misleading and inaccurate, because the environment had changed; I managed to find the final based on scouring previous logs.   In response, the CO posted an OM saying "everything is still in place, dunno what the previous log was complaining about".   CO hadn't even bothered to read what I wrote.

 

There have been others, but I don't want to scour over all my NM logs to find more.

 

 

And herein lies the problem.   Groundspeak explicitly lists a full log(book) as the first reason for posting a NM from the website interface.   When I post NM for a full log, I'm doing what the Frog has asked me to do.   Except that there's a wide variety of opinions out there as to whether or not a full log is "worthy" of a NM.

 

3

 

Someone will come along shortly to dismiss what you've said about "being yelled at' and in effect bolster the unresponsible behavior of the cache owners.

I've had similar experiences. Some COs use exclamation marks--I think !! would be considered yelling.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, Team Hugs said:

Examples:

 

1) I logged NM on a cache because the log was full.   The cache is part of a geo-art series that I'm doing slowly (basically, one every now and then).  In response, the CO sent me a private message saying "don't post NMs for full logs ... meet me at my house sometime and I'll give you a set of logs to put into my caches when the logs fill up."

 

2) I logged NM on a multi-cache because the clue left in Stage 1 was misleading and inaccurate, because the environment had changed; I managed to find the final based on scouring previous logs.   In response, the CO posted an OM saying "everything is still in place, dunno what the previous log was complaining about".   CO hadn't even bothered to read what I wrote.

 

There have been others, but I don't want to scour over all my NM logs to find more.

 

I am going to dismiss what you've said about "being yelled at". ( I didn't want to disappoint L0ne.R...) Those are both perfectly reasonable points of view that, at least as you've presented them here, don't sound at all like yelling and should give you no reason to stop posting future NMs, even for those COs. Neither rejects NMs in general, they just explain why your NM isn't going to be acted on. That's such an important point about NMs and NAs: they are input, not demands, so you should expect a CO to sometimes read the input and then reject it.

 

As we've already discussed, the first example I think many, if not most, people agree with: full logs are worthy of mentioning in a found log, but they aren't maintenance issues. After all, nothing stops anyone from finding the cache and signing the log, they just have to, worst case, obliterate a previous finder's signature. I know GS keeps acting like full logs are a maintenance issue, but it really doesn't make much sense to me, so I don't know why they're holding on to that notion. My guess is that it's just become such a standard example of a something that a cache needs that it's hard to keep from using it as an example of when a Needs Maintenance could be posted. It makes sense if you're coming up with a list of things that could be wrong with a cache for a dropdown box, but it makes no sense if you look at it as things that seekers should feel justified in demanding be fixed. For me, the deciding factor is that an unmet NM should lead eventually to archival, but do I really want a perfectly fine cache to disappear because the log's full? I'd say not. In fact, I'd say the fact that the log is full is testament to the value of that cache to the community.

 

The other one's a little muddier, but, still, the CO just didn't see the problem you described. Why does that make you think you shouldn't have described it to him in the first place? Is he right? Is it not as big a deal as you thought? Or is he wrong? If you think he's wrong, carry on the conversation privately to make sure he understands what you were saying. And, while you're at it, think about why your original log wasn't enough for him to see it to begin with. Or do you just disagree about the definition of "broken"? If so, is the CO's definition so wrong you can't accept it?

 

So I think these reactions fail miserably as examples of why NMs shouldn't be posted. In my experience, these are both great examples of the worst reaction you might get from an NM, and in both cases it's a ho-hum situation. Indeed, in both cases you have a chance to establish a relation with the CO and discuss the standards in your community. Perhaps you could convince the first CO that full logs should be NMed and dealt with if it means that much to you. Or he might help you see why it's not a big deal and why he offered to supply the logs for you, since you're going to be visiting more caches in the series. We talk about not maintaining other people's caches, but those objections tend to evaporate when you're helping a friend maintain his caches by replacing full logs with new logs he's supplied you with. You seem to be enjoying this series, so it makes sense for you to help keep it up for the next person to enjoy, too.

 

Oh, and one more thing, to address L0ne.R's point: Even if you've left out some exclamation marks and curse words that are what made you describe these reactions as yelling, that's all the more reason to see it as a reason to engage the CO with a conversation about standards of discourse and the value of NMs and NAs to the game. To me, the worse reaction possible is to accept the yelling as normal and adjust your behavior to try to avoid it in the future. Rude people need to be confronted, not left to act as shining examples of the community's standards.

[+cerberus1]

21 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

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.

Yep.

For caches we do now, I simply mention in my Found It log that I "placed a RiR strip in, as the log was full, good until the CO can do maintenance".

 - Like us, most COs on caches we do respond to found it logs, not waiting for a NM.

When we did park n grabs, cache n dashes, whatever,  I rarely even mentioned full logs, and just placed a RIR strip in.  Most times a better log.

 - We saved NM for when there was a real issue.

[+Team Hugs]

56 minutes ago, dprovan said:

 

I am going to dismiss what you've said about "being yelled at". ( I didn't want to disappoint L0ne.R...) Those are both perfectly reasonable points of view that, at least as you've presented them here, don't sound at all like yelling and should give you no reason to stop posting future NMs, even for those COs. Neither rejects NMs in general, they just explain why your NM isn't going to be acted on. That's such an important point about NMs and NAs: they are input, not demands, so you should expect a CO to sometimes read the input and then reject it.

 

With the advent of the CHS, NMs have risen to the level of "demand" --- at least in the eyes of some COs.   I've been told by COs  "don't post NM because then I have to take the time to clear it".   I've been told by other cachers not to post NMs on historic, abandoned caches that the community has decided to adopt, for fear that the NMs will trip reviewer attention and lead to archival.     NMs may be officially seen as input, but they're increasing not being treated that way by some COs.

 

I don't have a problem with a CO taking my input and judging it differently than I.   I do have a problem with being called out about it as if I was "wrong", rather than it being a difference of opinion.   Especially if that input is public.

 

Is it "yelling"?   I don't know.   I didn't save the messages, so I'm not going to characterize the tone of voice in a conversation I had years ago online.   Suffice it to say that it was made clear that the "input" was unwelcome.

 

56 minutes ago, dprovan said:

 

As we've already discussed, the first example I think many, if not most, people agree with: full logs are worthy of mentioning in a found log, but they aren't maintenance issues.

 

As I've pointed out, Groundspeak disagrees.   And that tension leads to conflict.

 

56 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Oh, and one more thing, to address L0ne.R's point: Even if you've left out some exclamation marks and curse words that are what made you describe these reactions as yelling, that's all the more reason to see it as a reason to engage the CO with a conversation about standards of discourse and the value of NMs and NAs to the game. To me, the worse reaction possible is to accept the yelling as normal and adjust your behavior to try to avoid it in the future. Rude people need to be confronted, not left to act as shining examples of the community's standards.

 

That's not going to work when addressing a cacher who has greater credibility in the community than I --- more years caching, more finds, more hides, more everything.   You can be an "old timer" and still be wrong.    And the effort to convince the old-timer that they are wrong ... I'd rather spend that time caching.

 

[+L0ne.R]

29 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Yep.

For caches we do now, I simply mention in my Found It log that I "placed a RiR strip in, as the log was full, good until the CO can do maintenance".

 - Like us, most COs on caches we do respond to found it logs, not waiting for a NM.

When we did park n grabs, cache n dashes, whatever,  I rarely even mentioned full logs, and just placed a RIR strip in.  Most times a better log.

 - We saved NM for when there was a real issue.

 

The way the 'game' has progressed there's little reason to even include a logbook in the cache anymore. 

[+Team Microdot]

16 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

The way the 'game' has progressed there's little reason to even include a logbook in the cache anymore. 

 

The mentailty that says the only bad cache is a missing cache.

 

Gotta love that wholesome community spirit.

[+L0ne.R]

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

The mentailty that says the only bad cache is a missing cache.

 

The only bad cache is an archived cache listing (especially a listing that got reviewer-archived because some cache cop posted an NM/NA). 

Edited July 25, 2018 by L0ne.R
Added NM

[+cerberus1]

40 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

The way the 'game' has progressed there's little reason to even include a logbook in the cache anymore. 

 

Curious what this  OT statement  had to do with my post.

[+L0ne.R]

3 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Curious what this  OT statement  had to do with my post.

 

My bad. I had replied that I too do not post NMs for full logbooks and added the last part about logbooks not being relevant anymore (since most of us don't bother reporting them in NM logs anymore, even though it's part of the guidelines). Then for simplicity, I removed my first sentence that mentioned the more relevant-to-this-topic NM comment. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

When we'd get NM for "log full" (after maintenance)  I'd usually have to write "ya know folks, there is another side to the paper..." in the OM. 

[+barefootjeff]

I'm rather particular about my logbooks, especially those for my story-telling caches where often the story's denouement is inside the front cover of the log. Others are custom-made, like these two for my Lost Sheriff of Middle Sea County and Middle Sea Pearler caches (those fake pearls attached to the spine took a lot of effort to make).

 

 

Granted, these style of logbooks aren't likely to become full, unless I suppose a mega is held close to GZ, but if they did, or there was any other problem with them, I'd welcome an NM rather than just have them replaced by a scrap of paper or a strip of RITR.

Edited July 25, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+Max and 99]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

When we'd get NM for "log full" (after maintenance)  I'd usually have to write "ya know folks, there is another side to the paper..." in the OM. 

That has happened to me!  Big blank other side!  Doh!

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

With the advent of the CHS, NMs have risen to the level of "demand" --- at least in the eyes of some COs.   I've been told by COs  "don't post NM because then I have to take the time to clear it".

So another way CHS has degraded the game. Anyway, even with CHS, those COs are wrong, so just ignore them or try to explain to them if you feel like it. You felt there was a problem and you reported it. They're within their rights to reject your report, but they can't blame you for making it as long as it was sincere and complete.

 

4 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

 I've been told by other cachers not to post NMs on historic, abandoned caches that the community has decided to adopt, for fear that the NMs will trip reviewer attention and lead to archival.

That's a different issue, and one admittedly more problematic. I understand both sides. When I was just starting, I posted an NA on a very popular but obviously very broken puzzle cache that depended on finding a traditional that was long gone. People complained, and I listened to their complaints and was convinced, so I changed the NA into a Note and added text to explain why. No big deal. No reason to think NAs are never appropriate, but a reason to consider whether an NM or an NA is really called for once you understand what's going on.

 

4 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

I don't have a problem with a CO taking my input and judging it differently than I.   I do have a problem with being called out about it as if I was "wrong", rather than it being a difference of opinion.   Especially if that input is public.

I understand what you're saying, but I suggest not taking it personally. People disagree, and some people don't think about how to couch their arguments so that "I disagree" doesn't come out as "you're wrong, wrong, wrong." This is advice you should take to real life because it's certainly not specific to geocaching.

 

4 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

Is it "yelling"?   I don't know.   I didn't save the messages, so I'm not going to characterize the tone of voice in a conversation I had years ago online.   Suffice it to say that it was made clear that the "input" was unwelcome.

They're missing something if they don't welcome valid and useful input. Don't punish other COs by not posting your input because some COs didn't want you to.

 

4 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

Quote

As we've already discussed, the first example I think many, if not most, people agree with: full logs are worthy of mentioning in a found log, but they aren't maintenance issues.

 

As I've pointed out, Groundspeak disagrees.   And that tension leads to conflict.

I agree that there's a conflict, but I claim the simplest and most logical solution is for GS to stop treating full logs as maintenance issues. While the superficial question is just a matter of opinion, the practical effect is that the more popular caches are punished for an unimportant failing.

 

4 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

That's not going to work when addressing a cacher who has greater credibility in the community than I --- more years caching, more finds, more hides, more everything.   You can be an "old timer" and still be wrong.    And the effort to convince the old-timer that they are wrong ... I'd rather spend that time caching.

Well, of course, it's up to you how you spend your time. And, I admit, I learned from the old timers in my area how this should be done, so I've never had to debate it with one of them. But I think you're missing the point when you assume you'll  be correcting the old timers. I was telling you to discuss it with them, a process intended to lead to understanding, not necessarily proving them wrong. If the "understanding" is you realizing that the old timer will never understand your point, then at least you'll know that much. But, in fact, what I expect is that you'll understand why their years of experience led them to the opposite conclusion from the one you started with.

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, dprovan said:

4 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

Quote

As we've already discussed, the first example I think many, if not most, people agree with: full logs are worthy of mentioning in a found log, but they aren't maintenance issues.

 

As I've pointed out, Groundspeak disagrees.   And that tension leads to conflict.

I agree that there's a conflict, but I claim the simplest and most logical solution is for GS to stop treating full logs as maintenance issues. While the superficial question is just a matter of opinion, the practical effect is that the more popular caches are punished for an unimportant failing.

 

The Help Centre makes it clear that replacing full logs is a CO's responsibility:

 

Quote

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

• Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
• Replace broken or missing containers.
• Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
• Replace full or wet logbooks.
• Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
• Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
• Delete inappropriate logs.
• Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

 

An NM used to be just between the person logging it and the CO. Perhaps part of the problem is that reviewers are now also becoming involved in that process, making NMs almost a de-facto NA, leading to an unease about logging NMs for issues that don't warrant archival if they aren't fixed by the CO, like a full logbook or a broken pencil.

[+Lorien99]

Until today, I didn't know that I could report maintenance issues directly. I have noted (as I've seen others do) in my Found log that a log was damp or that the log was full and that I've added a sheet of paper from a small notebook (or that I couldn't add paper, because I had left my notebook elsewhere). It certainly sounds reasonable to inform the CO and fellow cachers that there could be an issue with the cache. I log caches I don't find as DNF, because while I can't find it, it doesn't mean it's not there. In fact, when I look at the cache I haven't found on my app a few days later, I note that someone has indeed logged a find.

 

I found one cache last week where a previous cacher had posted the correct coordinates in their note. I used those and found the cache. Had I known about reporting issues, I think that would have warranted a report. I did mention in my note logging my find that I followed the other cacher's coordinates, so maybe the CO will change them at some point on their own?

 

I have to wonder if more people don't submit NM's because they don't know it's an option.

 

By the way, what does NA and  CHS mean? I don't find either in the glossary of terms. (I'm keeping my own glossary so I don't have to keep asking!)

[+MNTA]

6 hours ago, Team Hugs said:

 

 I've been told by other cachers not to post NMs on historic, abandoned caches that the community has decided to adopt, for fear that the NMs will trip reviewer attention and lead to archival.

 

What is the threshold for historic? More times than not I arrive at these old caches and they are super sad or missing all together. So does the community expect a throw down? Despite most folks complaining about them. Honestly, I wish abandoned would be maintained in one way or the other, but not the way it is done today. I don't have all the answers but I feel some form of formal stewardship is needed other than the next guy throwing down a replacement. If the CO should return they can resume ownership responsibilities. But to be honest for most i'd prefer they just be archived and the spot on the map opens up for someone who wishes to take on ownership can. GS can easily identify abandoned caches and should act on them. I've heard the complaint of well then my area would have no caches to find, the glass is half empty, well look at the opportunity to hide ones for the locals to revise that same area again.  

[+CAVinoGal]

2 hours ago, Lorien99 said:

I have to wonder if more people don't submit NM's because they don't know it's an option.

 

By the way, what does NA and  CHS mean? I don't find either in the glossary of terms. (I'm keeping my own glossary so I don't have to keep asking!)

 

You could very well be right - people are just not aware that they can report it or log it as "Needs Maintenance".

 

NA - Needs to be Archived

CHS - Cache Health Score

 

Both of these, to me, are reviewer tools, and not ones that are used by most of the geocaching community.

[+Team Microdot]

5 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

You could very well be right - people are just not aware that they can report it or log it as "Needs Maintenance".

 

NA - Needs to be Archived

CHS - Cache Health Score

 

Both of these, to me, are reviewer tools, and not ones that are used by most of the geocaching community.

 

NA most definintely is not a reviewer tool.

 

It sounds as if you're trying to portray NA as a log type that shouldn't be used by cachers - which is incorrect.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Team Microdot
typo

[+justintim1999]

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 10:26 PM, 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 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]

 

 

So the cache owner wins.   By allowing them to intimidate you into not posting a NM you're enabling them to continue the practice.  It's like any other bully.  They'll continue until someone punches them in the face.

 

When confronted with enough resistance people like this usually realize it's not worth the risk of doing it to someone who's not intimidated and willing to fight back.  

[+redsox_mark]

18 hours ago, dprovan said:

 

So I think these reactions fail miserably as examples of why NMs shouldn't be posted. In my experience, these are both great examples of the worst reaction you might get from an NM, and in both cases it's a ho-hum situation. Indeed, in both cases you have a chance to establish a relation with the CO and discuss the standards in your community. Perhaps you could convince the first CO that full logs should be NMed and dealt with if it means that much to you. Or he might help you see why it's not a big deal and why he offered to supply the logs for you, since you're going to be visiting more caches in the series. We talk about not maintaining other people's caches, but those objections tend to evaporate when you're helping a friend maintain his caches by replacing full logs with new logs he's supplied you with. You seem to be enjoying this series, so it makes sense for you to help keep it up for the next person to enjoy, too.

 

Oh, and one more thing, to address L0ne.R's point: Even if you've left out some exclamation marks and curse words that are what made you describe these reactions as yelling, that's all the more reason to see it as a reason to engage the CO with a conversation about standards of discourse and the value of NMs and NAs to the game. To me, the worse reaction possible is to accept the yelling as normal and adjust your behavior to try to avoid it in the future. Rude people need to be confronted, not left to act as shining examples of the community's standards.

 

Firstly totally agree on the last point; cachers should not be rude, and rude behaviour should not be tolerated.

 

On the first point (of the 2 I quoted), ideally, yes.   But from what I've seen, often this doesn't go well.   Cacher A raises a NM or NA.   Cacher A thinks it is called for.  Cache Owner B doesn't think it is appropriate and tells Cacher A that.   Generally I've seen Cacher A feels they are being "told off" (even if it is polite).     Seldom do I see a situation where they come to an understanding.

 

Recent example:  A friend of mine disabled one of her caches as it was missing, with a note saying "will replace this soon".   One month later, Cacher A logs a NA.  My friend sends a polite note to Cacher A stating her view that NA was not appropriate here.   Cacher A doesn't agree, saying a month isn't "soon", and if she can't maintain her caches then she should get rid of them.  Etc...  This type of dialog does not leave good feelings for anyone.   

 

So I can understand why anyone who is contacted following an NA/NM will feel "told off" to some extent.   And that may affect how they use these in future.   

 

As a CO, unless I feel the reason for NM/NA is really out of line with "the norm", I will not send a response.    E.g. if someone logs NM and says the log felt slightly damp.. I might think that's a bit much, but I would not say anything.  If they log NA because it has one DNF yesterday, I might.  

[+L0ne.R]

43 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

Recent example:  A friend of mine disabled one of her caches as it was missing, with a note saying "will replace this soon".   One month later, Cacher A logs a NA.  My friend sends a polite note to Cacher A stating her view that NA was not appropriate here.   Cacher A doesn't agree, saying a month isn't "soon", and if she can't maintain her caches then she should get rid of them.  Etc...  This type of dialog does not leave good feelings for anyone. 

 

What was the track record of the cache owner? Did they generally write disable notes saying they'd get back to it, then never go back? Did a reviewer have to step in before the CO would check their cache(s)? Was your friend the cache owner? 

 

Addendum to add:

Quote

So I can understand why anyone who is contacted following an NA/NM will feel "told off" to some extent.   And that may affect how they use these in future.

 

Yes. Especially when other cachers who do not own the cache step in to argue that NAs are not appropriate on someone else's neglected cache. 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+CAVinoGal]

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

12 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

NA - Needs to be Archived

CHS - Cache Health Score

 

Both of these, to me, are reviewer tools, and not ones that are used by most of the geocaching community.

 

NA most definintely is not a reviewer tool.

 

It sounds as if you're trying to portray NA as a log type that shouldn't be used by cachers - which is incorrect.

 

OK--I didn't say it well.  Let me try to clarify (and hopefully not confuse the issue further!)  

NM - Needs Maintenance - is a message to the cache owner from another cacher that the cache needs some attention.

NA is (in my thinking) more of a message from a cacher directly to a Reviewer (and the CO gets it as well) that the cache is no longer viable and needs to be removed from play.

The CHS is a Reviewer tool.

 

NM is to get a cacher's attention, NA is to get a reviewer's attention, perhaps?

 

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

OK--I didn't say it well.  Let me try to clarify (and hopefully not confuse the issue further!)  

NM - Needs Maintenance - is a message to the cache owner from another cacher that the cache needs some attention.

NA is (in my thinking) more of a message from a cacher directly to a Reviewer (and the CO gets it as well) that the cache is no longer viable and needs to be removed from play.

The CHS is a Reviewer tool.

 

NM is to get a cacher's attention, NA is to get a reviewer's attention, perhaps?

 

 

Better

[+redsox_mark]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

What was the track record of the cache owner? Did they generally write disable notes saying they'd get back to it, then never go back? Did a reviewer have to step in before the CO would check their cache(s)? Was your friend the cache owner? 

 

 

 

Yes the cache owner is my friend, but I try to be objective.   She is an active cache owner, and she does a lot of cache maintenance.   But she does own over 500 caches, and sometimes it takes a while.   So the cacher who raised the NA was correct that if my friend had less caches, she probably could address them quicker.    

 

I didn't get involved other than as a listening board for my friend.   

[+MNTA]

11 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

 

Yes the cache owner is my friend, but I try to be objective.   She is an active cache owner, and she does a lot of cache maintenance.   But she does own over 500 caches, and sometimes it takes a while.   So the cacher who raised the NA was correct that if my friend had less caches, she probably could address them quicker.    

 

I didn't get involved other than as a listening board for my friend.   

 

If the reviewers prevented newer caches from being listed till maintenance is preformed on all owned caches (some leeway for remote caches and possibly log full messages) then maybe 500 is too many to support reasonably, and the number would not have grown to that level.

[+Team Christiansen]

1 hour ago, CAVinoGal said:

NM is to get a cacher's attention, NA is to get a reviewer's attention, perhaps?

Which is one reason why many people commented in the recent cache quality threads that Needs maintenance should be changed to Needs cache owner attention and Needs archived should be changed to Needs reviewer attention.

[+dprovan]

18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The Help Centre makes it clear that replacing full logs is a CO's responsibility:

I'm not questioning who's responsible. I was pointing out that a full log isn't a big deal.

 

5 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

Recent example:  A friend of mine disabled one of her caches as it was missing, with a note saying "will replace this soon".   One month later, Cacher A logs a NA.  My friend sends a polite note to Cacher A stating her view that NA was not appropriate here.   Cacher A doesn't agree, saying a month isn't "soon", and if she can't maintain her caches then she should get rid of them.  Etc...  This type of dialog does not leave good feelings for anyone. 

There's no hope for our society if two people expressing reasonable opinions politely leaves bad feelings for both. There's every reason for Cacher A and your friend to view what you've described as a friendly conversation in which they reached an understanding even though it didn't result in them agreeing.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

If the reviewers prevented newer caches from being listed till maintenance is preformed on all owned caches (some leeway for remote caches and possibly log full messages) then maybe 500 is too many to support reasonably, and the number would not have grown to that level.

 

500 or even more is not too many if the CO is using maintenance by archiving® technology. Only caches newer than 3 months have to be maintained, then archiving is potential option.

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

4 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

NM is to get a cacher's attention, NA is to get a reviewer's attention, perhaps?

Which is one reason why many people commented in the recent cache quality threads that Needs maintenance should be changed to Needs cache owner attention and Needs archived should be changed to Needs reviewer attention.

 

That would certainly communicate more clearly the purpose of each log type

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

21 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The Help Centre makes it clear that replacing full logs is a CO's responsibility:

I'm not questioning who's responsible. I was pointing out that a full log isn't a big deal.

 

Did anybody say it was a big deal?

 

Is the fact the log is full and needs replacing a big deal?

 

Is someone pointing that out in an NM log a big deal?

 

None of it's a big deal.

 

But we did agree when we had caches published on geocaching.com that we'd attend to things like full logs - without making out that its a big deal.

 

21 hours ago, dprovan said:

While the superficial question is just a matter of opinion, the practical effect is that the more popular caches are punished for an unimportant failing.

 

Punished? Punished how? Now who's making a big deal out of a non-issue?

 

The cache owner can protect themselves from the vicious punishment arising from the popularity of their amazing cache by including a logbook of appropriate capacity. Job done. No big deal. No claim of punishment required.

[+fizzymagic]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

23 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The Help Centre makes it clear that replacing full logs is a CO's responsibility:

I'm not questioning who's responsible. I was pointing out that a full log isn't a big deal.

 

Did anybody say it was a big deal?

 

Is the fact the log is full and needs replacing a big deal?

 

Is someone pointing that out in an NM log a big deal?

 

None of it's a big deal.

 

Multiple thousands of posts by you reiterating the same points again and again would seem to indicate that, to you at least, yes, it is indeed a big deal.

[+bflentje]

On 7/24/2018 at 2:08 PM, dprovan said:

I'm wondering what you mean by "yelled at". 

 

I was thinking about this.. MANY people nowadays take being challenged or questioned as being yelled at. When in reality, they're just being challenged or questioned and the real problem is that they take offense to it. [sigh]

[+L0ne.R]

5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Did anybody say it was a big deal?

 

Is the fact the log is full and needs replacing a big deal?

 

 

 

I can vouch that it's not a big deal. I just switched out a logbook today. (And added a couple of trinkets).

 

I had a nice 20-minute drive to a scenic old town. Took a photo of the waterfall to add to the gallery. Had a nice walk in the downtown core. Checked out the new addition to the library. Ordered take-out sushi and went home. Not a big deal and it was a nice excuse to visit the area. 

[+Team Microdot]

9 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

Multiple thousands of posts by you reiterating the same points again and again would seem to indicate that, to you at least, yes, it is indeed a big deal.

 

Nah - that just shows how naturally chatty I am

[+Team Christiansen]

9 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Nah - that just shows how naturally chatty I am

And lots of others like to chat right back.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

And lots of others like to chat right back.

 

'Tis what the forums is fer 

[+Team Microdot]

DNF

We have been to find the cache but only found remains of what we think was it 

 

(The CO hasn't maintained the cache for years and relies on community maintenance and throwdowns). 

 

[+Team Microdot]

On 24/07/2018 at 10:44 PM, Team Microdot said:

 

 Write note

17/04/2017

Wet log.

 

 Found it

22/04/2017

Log dripping with water, drain water out of cache, just about managed to sign log, but it needs maintainable! TFTC

 

 Found it

09/05/2017

Easy find! Dropped a lovely trackable too... log is very soggy though!

 

 Found it

10/08/2017

Really water logged, next person please bring plastic bag or container

 

 Found it

10/08/2017

Nice one. Needs a clean up . Water got in to the box .we added sum nu paper. But more is needed

 

 Found it

10/08/2017

Found it but was wet inside ... next person to bring a bag we left fresh paper

 

 Found it

11/08/2017

Was wet but left some paper

 

 Didn't find it

16/08/2017

Could not write on the paper cus wet but left some dry paper in a bag

 

 Found it

25/02/2018

A good location but totally water logged.

 

 Found it

12/07/2018

Found quite easily. Good spot for hiding but water logged and needs replacing.

 

 Found it

24/07/2018

We found this one after a little search. As others have previously said the container is full of water and in need of a little TLC. After tipping out the water we managed to squeeze our initials onto the wet log. TFTC

 

 

 

 

 

This one continues to limp along:

 

 Didn't find it

06/08/2018

Didn't find but only had a quick look when passing through. I thought made its inside a hole on the plant container in the park area but couldn't see anything without a torch. Will try it again.

 

CO has 14 finds and 1 owned cache.

 

Hasn't logged in since Jan 2018

 

Last find logged Feb 2018.

 

Will anyone finally pull the trigger?

 

[+justintim1999]

On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 7:28 PM, bflentje said:

 

I was thinking about this.. MANY people nowadays take being challenged or questioned as being yelled at. When in reality, they're just being challenged or questioned and the real problem is that they take offense to it. [sigh]

That's it in a nutshell.   If your NM is valid it really doesn't matter what the cache owner thinks.   Sure they can ask for more details and you should provide them with that information.   If their impolite in the request,   just ignore them.  If they become a nuisance report them.   Regardless,  don't let any one or anything stop you from posting a NM you think is justified.

[+PlantAKiss]

I log NMs. Because it’s SUPPOSED to be a help to the CO, not a punishment. And usually it’s ignored. I even posted a photo of the destroyed remains of a cache...and nothing. After almost a year another Cacher replaced it (but at least he asked permission first). I’ve seen caches with 5 NMs logged plus a photo of the container in shreds...cache was still active. I thought caches were supposed to be archived after 3?? Aaanyway, it’s usually a fruitless endeavor but I do it because that’s what you should do. 

[+colleda]

2 minutes ago, PlantAKiss said:

I log NMs. Because it’s SUPPOSED to be a help to the CO, not a punishment. And usually it’s ignored. I even posted a photo of the destroyed remains of a cache...and nothing. After almost a year another Cacher replaced it (but at least he asked permission first). I’ve seen caches with 5 NMs logged plus a photo of the container in shreds...cache was still active. I thought caches were supposed to be archived after 3?? Aaanyway, it’s usually a fruitless endeavor but I do it because that’s what you should do. 

lately around here there is a great reviewer, on the ball, disabling caches like your example where there has been no response from COs.

[+TriciaG]

8 hours ago, PlantAKiss said:

. I’ve seen caches with 5 NMs logged plus a photo of the container in shreds...cache was still active. I thought caches were supposed to be archived after 3??

There's no such policy that I've heard of.

 

People need to log the NMs, yes. But then, in a case like the one you mentioned, people need to log NAs to get the reviewer's attention.

[+coachstahly]

I looked for a cache that was most likely missing.  There had been a fire at GZ and there were only two hiding spots, both of which had evidence of fire.  I filed my NM and one month later filed the NA.  As far as I know, there can be multiple NMs on a cache, but until the NA is filed, the reviewer might not get "actively" involved if other things are taking up more of their time.  I would hope that 5 NMs would trigger some sort of reviewer action but like the previous poster mentions, I don't think there's a standing policy in place to address that.

[+PlantAKiss]

I could have sworn that 3 NMs triggers a notice to a Reviewer for potential archiving. Maybe it’s an old rule that has gone away? Otherwise, couldn’t a cache rack up 5, 10, 15.... NMs and still be active?