Excessive owner maintenence logs!

[+learn2mine]

Is it possible to log to many owners maintenence logs? I have a string of 10 caches and was wondering if it's too excessive just to go along and log that they are fine and check them before winter sets in!

[+justintim1999]

2 minutes ago, learn2mine said:

Is it possible to log to many owners maintenence logs? I have a string of 10 caches and was wondering if it's too excessive just to go along and log that they are fine and check them before winter sets in!

Nope.   Log one every time you visit the cache to check up on it.    It lets finders and reviewers know the cache is being cared for.   I myself often look at owner maintenance logs on a cache before dropping a trackable.   I feel better knowing the owner is active and watching over things.    In my opinion too many is better than not enough.

[+Touchstone]

I have one very remote cache on my Watchlist that gets fairly regular OM logs.  The Finds are relatively infrequent, so it's nice that the CO does these regular checkups so people know the cache is still OK.

[+NanCycle]

26 minutes ago, learn2mine said:

Is it possible to log to many owners maintenence logs? I have a string of 10 caches and was wondering if it's too excessive just to go along and log that they are fine and check them before winter sets in!

I suppose it's possible.   When I was a new CO, I would check on my one and only cache after every find.   Posting an OM log after every visit would have been excessive .

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, learn2mine said:

Is it possible to log to many owners maintenence logs?

In theory, I think it is possible to log too many OM logs. For example, if the last 5 logs on a cache are all OM logs, then that is all some geocachers will see.

 

In practice,...

 

1 hour ago, learn2mine said:

I have a string of 10 caches and was wondering if it's too excessive just to go along and log that they are fine and check them before winter sets in!

One OM log per cache? That's fine. Even though it is 10 separate caches and 10 separate OM logs, that's still just one OM log per cache.

[+CachedIronSkillet]

When adding a new one why not delete the old ones?

[+kunarion]

20 minutes ago, CachedIronSkillet said:

When adding a new one why not delete the old ones?

 

I like to maintain a record of cache history, including which ones I've done more maintenance on.  Same as other logs, deleting logs removes information.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

The OP has an interesting question. I think that it is possible to have too many OM logs. But, it is hard for me to define just what is excessive. You mention doing them before winter sets in. Are these caches available in winter? If so, then posting an OM any time would be fine. However, if they are buried under the snow during winter, doing the check, and OM log each spring would seem to be more appropriate. As a cacher, an OM before winter on a cache that cannot be found during winter does not help me as much as an OM log in the spring. This let's me know that the cache was not carried off by an avalanche or something. If the last log was an OM, I wouldn't add another, unless maintenance was actually performed, or it has been at least a year. 

[+L0ne.R]

Has anyone ever seen an excessive amount of OMs? In 17 years I have never seen an example. I suppose daily might be excessive. Depending on why they are checking daily. 

[+kunarion]

Just now, L0ne.R said:

Has anyone ever seen an excessive amount of OMs? In 17 years I have never seen an example. I suppose daily might be excessive. Depending on why they are checking daily. 

 

My first cache was right next to the path in a nearby park, so I could check it almost daily.  Whether an online "Find" happened or not, the container tended to be somewhere else except its spot hanging on a branch.  On the ground was worst, since it had great camo, cloth "dead leaves" which I'd touch-up at times.  If it seemed to be in its place, I didn't log anything.  If I moved it a few inches to its branch, maybe, maybe not.  Lately I try to make a cache where there is a clearly defined spot for it, super easy for finders to put it back just so.

 

If someone logged a DNF, I may or may not log an OM or any log even if I go check, since I don't want to make a CO rush out to check simply because I can't find one, and I'd bet some finders feel the same.  To this day I try to get a feel for which caches tend to need maintenance.  A couple of them are wet with a missing O-ring pretty much any time I check (bison tubes, yuck).  Even in the extreme maintenance cases, I resist making a whole lot of OMs.  Some caches would be mostly that.

[+cerberus1]

22 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Has anyone ever seen an excessive amount of OMs? In 17 years I have never seen an example.

 

We see that a lot.  Usually new members, some checking every couple of cachers. 

Notice that often with questions from new folks here in the forums as well.  One has visited their cache every time a trackable is logged into it.

 - Eventually they realize "maintenance" doesn't mean your fun cache is a job, and they relax a bit.   

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, learn2mine said:

Is it possible to log to many owners maintenence logs? I have a string of 10 caches and was wondering if it's too excessive just to go along and log that they are fine and check them before winter sets in!

 

Do you mean that you will first ensure they're fine, then do the OM logs? That doesn't seem like an excessive thing, to me.  Some caches, especially Micros, may in fact need "maintenance" pretty much every time they're opened (every find), although most COs wait til a minor issue is a major disaster before beginning any "maintenance".

 

Unless you expect your caches are more suited to Winter than not, I would have supposed you'd check after the Spring thaw, rather than in advance of snow.  But, hypothetically, if they're small tubes and full of water, it's a good idea to be sure they're dry and sealed before the ice sets in.

 

Edited October 29, 2018 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

 It lets finders and reviewers know the cache is being cared for.   I myself often look at owner maintenance logs on a cache before dropping a trackable.   I feel better knowing the owner is active and watching over things.    In my opinion too many is better than not enough.

 

I don't feel quite the same...

Will look at OMs vs. cache visits, not just by OMs alone. 

 - If they're logging more OMs than they get visits,  that (to me) just means they're kinda OCD ... but it should be okay.  

We've seen enough "nothing wrong with it" armchair OMs to see some might not have even bothered to check.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, CachedIronSkillet said:

When adding a new one why not delete the old ones?

Right. If your OMs on any single cache are more frequent than seekers' logs, then you can always delete old ones that are obsolete when you file a new one. One OM among a dozen find logs is fine.

 

Although I think you're question is a little different: I think you're asking about a string of single OMs on multiple caches. I don't see any problem at all with that. Each cache was checked, and that's good information for anyone looking at the cache's log to know. The fact that you do it for a lot of your caches just means you're a good CO.

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

if the last 5 logs on a cache are all OM logs, then that is all some geocachers will see.

 

Yep.

Not OM, but we temp-disable every year for two weeks, during the very busy rifled deer season.

One, an (I think) easy 1mi walk has my TD and Enable as the last four logs, another has a log from one visitor in-between my four.

[+justintim1999]

6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I don't feel quite the same...

Will look at OMs vs. cache visits, not just by OMs alone. 

 - If they're logging more OMs than they get visits,  that (to me) just means they're kinda OCD ... but it should be okay.  

We've seen enough "nothing wrong with it" armchair OMs to see some might not have even bothered to check.

Why would you discourage anyone from posting as many OML's as they'd like to?     If they enjoy the area and are into wanting to make sure their cache is always in good shape, why not let them?   

 

We're not talking about armchair OML's here.   This cacher, after checking out a few of their hides,  looks to be a good, conscientious owner.     I say check up on your cache as much as you'd like to and post an OML every time you do If you want.   It's not going to hurt anything and sets a good example.    

 

I don't think I've ever heard anyone say.  "You know,  this cache is too well maintained."   

[+kunarion]

18 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 - If they're logging more OMs than they get visits,  that (to me) just means they're kinda OCD ... but it should be okay.  

 

One of my tenets of making online cache logs, is that I shall try to not appear to have a lotta mental disorders.  

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Has anyone ever seen an excessive amount of OMs? In 17 years I have never seen an example. I suppose daily might be excessive. Depending on why they are checking daily. 

No but wouldn't that be nice?  

[+cerberus1]

2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Why would you discourage anyone from posting as many OML's as they'd like to?     If they enjoy the area and are into wanting to make sure their cache is always in good shape, why not let them?   

 

You know, I took you off of ignore when another said you finally stopped putting words in people's mouths.

Please don't do that again.   Nowhere  did I say I was discouraging anyone...

[+kunarion]

17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

but wouldn't that be nice?  

 

Part of the work that goes into making a great cache, is designing it so that it doesn't require constant “maintenance”. If you're repairing or replacing it frequently, consider that there's a flaw in the design.

 

I had an Ammo box in a bad spot, in a small forested area between busy soccer fields. Go check on that, and yeah, it's been opened and dragged around. Sure, I can put it all back together, make OMs all the time. But it just wasn't a good placement, it was in a bad spot.

 

My first cache pretty much needed to be hooked onto a particular area of a decorative cyprus, or else it was either too easily dislodged by groundskeepers or much harder to find by cachers. I later hid such caches in a way that there's a defined hiding spot (often with velcro on magnets).

 

Some of mine are bison tubes, and they're generally the worst. But the one that's infrequently opened tends to be almost maintenance-free.

 

OTOH, if I hid a 1.5ml vial with a bottle cap glued to it, or a ziplock bag “slimjim” or whatever, I'd plan to simply swap the whole thing out on a regular basis. Either container will self-destruct in the elements, even with zero finds. I'd have log after log of “OM”. Maybe then I'd have to decide when I have “too many OMs” or if I need to delete them.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

- If they're logging more OMs than they get visits,  that (to me) just means they're kinda OCD

Isn't this intimating that you shouldn't post too many OML's even if you say  it's ok later in the sentence?    I don't understand why anyone would even hint that there's any reason why an owner shouldn't post an OML any time they want to as long as they've actually checked up on the cache.   I agree there's many reasons why you don't have to but no reason why an owner shouldn't,  except a bunch of OML's on the cache page which seems to upset some people and again I don't understand why. 

 

You can ignore me again if you like.  I'm not here to convince you of anything.  I'm here to provide a different prospective on things  and let others decide what makes sense to them. 

Edited October 29, 2018 by justintim1999
spelling

[+justintim1999]

30 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Part of the work that goes into making a great cache, is designing it so that it doesn't require constant “maintenance”. If you're repairing or replacing it frequently, consider that there's a flaw in the design.

 

I had an Ammo box in a bad spot, in a small forested area between busy soccer fields. Go check on that, and yeah, it's been opened and dragged around. Sure, I can put it all back together, make OMs all the time. But it just wasn't a good placement, it was in a bad spot.

 

My first cache pretty much needed to be hooked onto a particular area of a decorative cyprus, or else it was either too easily dislodged by groundskeepers or much harder to find by cachers. I later hid such caches in a way that there's a defined hiding spot (often with velcro on magnets).

 

Some of mine are bison tubes, and they're generally the worst. But the one that's infrequently opened tends to be almost maintenance-free.

 

OTOH, if I hid a 1.5ml vial with a bottle cap glued to it, or a ziplock bag “slimjim” or whatever, I'd plan to simply swap the whole thing out on a regular basis. Either container will self-destruct in the elements, even with zero finds. I'd have log after log of “OM”. Maybe then I'd have to decide when I have “too many OMs” or if I need to delete them.

I'm having a problem with a bison tube.  I have three other similar tubes out and for some reason this one seems to fail much more often than the others.   I must have replaced the o-ring at least three times this year and it doesn't help.   Problem is the container has to be a bison tube to work with the hide.   A match stick container with a tube inside it would work well but I think the match stick container would be too big.   Any ideas?  

[+J Grouchy]

I'm somewhat of the mind that just checking on the presence of the cache does not warrant an OM log.  There are occasion when an OM log is necessary following a run of DNFs, but that's just because of the weird rules surrounding the cache health scoring and nagging reminders on the profile page...not because of any real MAINTENANCE needed.  Normally, though, OM logs ought to be reserved for instances where the CO actually does something to repair, replace or freshen up the cache.  I'd suggest a "verified by owner" log or feature, but that just over-complicates things unnecessarily. 

[+The A-Team]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't understand why anyone would even hint that there's any reason why an owner shouldn't post an OML any time they want to as long as they've actually checked up on the cache.

Sure, they can post as many as they want, but there will definitely be a point where it becomes excessive and unhelpful. For example, what if a CO checked on the cache hidden outside their work every time they went out for a smoke break and posted an OM every time? Do you really feel that it would be helpful to have a handful of OM logs posted every day? If you saw a cache listing with a dozen finds and 300 OM logs, you wouldn't think to yourself "that's excessive"?

 

The line at which it becomes excessive will vary depending on the cache. An OM in between every find log might make sense for a cache hidden on top of a mountain that's only found once every year or two. An OM in between every find log on a suburban cache that's found a dozen times a month would be getting borderline excessive. An OM in between every find log on GC189E5 would most certainly be excessive (and almost a full-time job! ).

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm having a problem with a bison tube.  I have three other similar tubes out and for some reason this one seems to fail much more often than the others.   I must have replaced the o-ring at least three times this year and it doesn't help.   Problem is the container has to be a bison tube to work with the hide.   A match stick container with a tube inside it would work well but I think the match stick container would be too big.   Any ideas?  

 

Is the O-ring breaking?  I've wondered if the manufacturing process creates some of these knockoff "Bison Tubes" with rough edges that tend to cut the O-ring more than others.  There are higher quality O-rings, plus they must be carefully sized.  I bought that cheepie pack at Harbor Frieght, and the closest one must stretch to install it.  That's a problem.  A genuine Bison Designs capsule is made to ideal quality standards.  Nocacher buys a genuine Bison Tube.  The real ones kill you on shipping.  But did you know that Bison Designs makes "Nanos"?  I didn't.

Edited October 29, 2018 by kunarion

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, kunarion said:

Part of the work that goes into making a great cache, is designing it so that it doesn't require constant “maintenance”. If you're repairing or replacing it frequently, consider that there's a flaw in the design.

 

Indeed. I'm probably biased in that I live in an area where bushland hides are more common than urban ones, so most of the containers are small or regular size (within the default 16km radius of home, only 18% of caches are micros while 40% are T3 or higher). Most have good-sized logbooks and are robust enough to survive well in our warm relatively dry subtropical climate, so a cache with lots of OM logs is more likely to indicate a poor design rather than an attentive CO. I've found plenty of caches five years old or more, with the original container and logbook, still in pretty much mint condition without any TLC from the owner.

 

The other thing worth mentioning is that PQs only include the most recent five logs, so lots of OMs just saying "the cache is fine" can push out the more helpful finders' logs. If I'm out in the bush scratching my head, previous finders' logs can help a lot, even if just to eliminate some possibilities, for example if there's a ledge on the side of a cliff that's a bit of a dodgy climb down, those previous logs can be a big help depending on whether or not they mention such a climb, whereas an OM saying "everything's fine" is just repeating what I'd expect to be the case anyway.

 

On my own hides, I generally don't log an OM unless I've actually done something to the cache or listing, something in the environment has changed or I'm responding to something in a log.

[+CachedIronSkillet]

6 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

I like to maintain a record of cache history, including which ones I've done more maintenance on.  Same as other logs, deleting logs removes information.

Not if you note in the latest log the previous maintenance log dates....

[+learn2mine]

4 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

Part of the work that goes into making a great cache, is designing it so that it doesn't require constant “maintenance”. If you're repairing or replacing it frequently, consider that there's a flaw in the design.

 

I had an Ammo box in a bad spot, in a small forested area between busy soccer fields. Go check on that, and yeah, it's been opened and dragged around. Sure, I can put it all back together, make OMs all the time. But it just wasn't a good placement, it was in a bad spot.

 

My first cache pretty much needed to be hooked onto a particular area of a decorative cyprus, or else it was either too easily dislodged by groundskeepers or much harder to find by cachers. I later hid such caches in a way that there's a defined hiding spot (often with velcro on magnets).

 

Some of mine are bison tubes, and they're generally the worst. But the one that's infrequently opened tends to be almost maintenance-free.

 

OTOH, if I hid a 1.5ml vial with a bottle cap glued to it, or a ziplock bag “slimjim” or whatever, I'd plan to simply swap the whole thing out on a regular basis. Either container will self-destruct in the elements, even with zero finds. I'd have log after log of “OM”. Maybe then I'd have to decide when I have “too many OMs” or if I need to delete them.

Isnt it okay to place a high maintenence cache of the owner understands that he will have to do a lot more maintenence?

[+kunarion]

9 minutes ago, learn2mine said:

Isnt it okay to place a high maintenence cache of the owner understands that he will have to do a lot more maintenence?

 

Sure.  But I'd estimate that 99.9% of the time, "high maintenance" is a surprise. 

[+niraD]

8 hours ago, The A-Team said:

If you saw a cache listing with a dozen finds and 300 OM logs, you wouldn't think to yourself "that's excessive"?

Yep. And if all 300 OM logs say "all is well" and nothing else, then it seems even more questionable. Either there is something wrong with the cache itself and the CO his hiding it, or the cache is fine and the CO is a little too "high maintenance" instead.

[+kunarion]

One of my caches has 35 finds and 10 OMs. It is hard to find. I receive the most requests to go check on it, by cachers who can't find it and who also don't bother to log a DNF. I make an OM upon each request. If that's too many OM logs, too bad, so sad. I'm doing it anyway.  When I feel like it.

[+dprovan]

10 hours ago, niraD said:

Yep. And if all 300 OM logs say "all is well" and nothing else, then it seems even more questionable. Either there is something wrong with the cache itself and the CO his hiding it, or the cache is fine and the CO is a little too "high maintenance" instead.

Neither of those theories make much sense to me. I'd just assume the CO walks past GZ regularly and either thinks he has to file an OM every single time he checks it or, more likely, just finds it amusing.

 

Anyway, I think we'd all agree it's excessive, and I'd certainly drop the CO a note to ask what the deal is.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I'd just assume the CO walks past GZ regularly and either thinks he has to file an OM every single time he checks it or, more likely, just finds it amusing.

Sure, perhaps the CO walks past GZ every morning on the way to work, and every evening on the way home, but why post an order of magnitude more OM logs than their are Find logs? That sounds like a "high maintenance" CO to me.

[+dprovan]

8 minutes ago, niraD said:

Sure, perhaps the CO walks past GZ every morning on the way to work, and every evening on the way home, but why post an order of magnitude more OM logs than their are Find logs? That sounds like a "high maintenance" CO to me.

As I said, either confusion or to be funny. Not sure what you mean by "high maintenance". It doesn't make much difference to me. I'm imagining it's such a simple hide that I won't need other logs. Anyway, we still all agree that he shouldn't do it. That's why I mentioned I'd talk to him about it.

[+niraD]

29 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Not sure what you mean by "high maintenance".

I noticed that you logged a find on my geocache Daily OM Logs (GC98765) a few minutes ago. However, you signed the physical log yesterday, and backdated the online log to yesterday. What's up with that? Why did it take you almost 24 hours to log your Find online? Did you think there is something wrong with my geocache? Because there isn't. I've checked on it at least once a day since I hid it and it's always perfect. So there's nothing wrong with my geocache, and there's no reason for you to post your online log a day late. And why didn't you trade anything? Trading swag has been part of geocaching from the beginning. If you aren't trading anything, then you aren't really geocaching. And the trade items in my geocache are great. Just be sure to trade up or trade even. I check the value of everything in my geocache every time I visit it, which is at least twice a day since I hid it. And another thing,...

[+dprovan]

30 minutes ago, niraD said:

I noticed that you logged a find on my geocache Daily OM Logs (GC98765) a few minutes ago. However, you signed the physical log yesterday, and backdated the online log to yesterday. What's up with that? Why did it take you almost 24 hours to log your Find online? Did you think there is something wrong with my geocache? Because there isn't. I've checked on it at least once a day since I hid it and it's always perfect. So there's nothing wrong with my geocache, and there's no reason for you to post your online log a day late. And why didn't you trade anything? Trading swag has been part of geocaching from the beginning. If you aren't trading anything, then you aren't really geocaching. And the trade items in my geocache are great. Just be sure to trade up or trade even. I check the value of everything in my geocache every time I visit it, which is at least twice a day since I hid it. And another thing,...

Oh. No, I wouldn't think the CO was like that from lots of OMs. I can't really imagine any CO being like that, though, so that's probably my problem. Anyway, thanks for explaining.

[+J Grouchy]

One of my first hides was very close to my home and I'd often drive by it or walk my dog by it and would check as I went by (I could see it from the car if I slowed down and cocked my head at the right angle).  It made calls for maintenance easy to deal with, but I never felt the need to post OM logs just for 'check-ups'.  OM logs are for actual maintenance...or to get rid of the website nags that they've instituted even when actual maintenance isn't necessary.

 

There have been occasions when I've seen a few DNF logs on my caches and went by to check to head off any calls for maintenance...posting a NOTE when I confirmed the cache was still there, in fine shape.  In those instances, I resisted posting OM logs because I didn't actually do anything to the cache and I didn't want to give the impression that any issues might have been resolved.  If I'm checking to see if it's still there, that usually involves just a visual confirmation and not any sort of guarantee that the log is dry and the container is in perfect shape.  An OM log almost seems like some sort of guarantee for the next finder...so I don't feel comfortable posting one if all I did was walk by and set my eyes on the cache to confirm it's still in place.

[+The A-Team]

7 hours ago, kunarion said:

One of my caches has 35 finds and 10 OMs. It is hard to find. I receive the most requests to go check on it, by cachers who can't find it and who also don't bother to log a DNF. I make an OM upon each request. If that's too many OM logs, too bad, so sad. I'm doing it anyway.  When I feel like it.

In a case like that, a higher than typical number of OMs is probably to be expected. Many seekers would wonder whether the cache is actually there or not, so fairly frequent OMs are about the only way to keep people coming to look for it.

[+coachstahly]

16 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

There have been occasions when I've seen a few DNF logs on my caches and went by to check to head off any calls for maintenance...posting a NOTE when I confirmed the cache was still there, in fine shape.  In those instances, I resisted posting OM logs because I didn't actually do anything to the cache and I didn't want to give the impression that any issues might have been resolved.  If I'm checking to see if it's still there, that usually involves just a visual confirmation and not any sort of guarantee that the log is dry and the container is in perfect shape.  An OM log almost seems like some sort of guarantee for the next finder...so I don't feel comfortable posting one if all I did was walk by and set my eyes on the cache to confirm it's still in place.

 

I completely agree with you on this point but in this day and age of the CHS, I've opted to post the OM to "reset" the CHS score after DNFs more often than not.

[+J Grouchy]

56 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

I completely agree with you on this point but in this day and age of the CHS, I've opted to post the OM to "reset" the CHS score after DNFs more often than not.

 

 

Me too.  I think I made that point.  I do the Note thing when I haven't yet received a nag, but a couple DNFs pop up and I'm in a position to go check real quick.  Otherwise, yeah, I usually post an OM log.

[+CAVinoGal]

19 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

If I'm checking to see if it's still there, that usually involves just a visual confirmation and not any sort of guarantee that the log is dry and the container is in perfect shape.  An OM log almost seems like some sort of guarantee for the next finder...so I don't feel comfortable posting one if all I did was walk by and set my eyes on the cache to confirm it's still in place.

I walk by a dozen or so caches on my normal 2 mile route near home - I can do a visual confirmation that the container is where it should be.  I don't usually open containers up and check the logs, or post OM notes either.  OM says to me that you checked the complete status of the cache, OR you actually did something to "fix" it.  After wildfires last fall resulted in evacuations where a few of my caches are hidden, I went back and checked everything once the area was opened again.  I opened every container and looked at the logs and contents before logging an OM that "all is well".

 

A good example of this distinction happened to us yesterday, in fact.  A cache we had attempted on a couple of prior occasions, but never got close to GZ due to muggles, construction fencing, etc (and we didn't log any DNF's or WN's either because we took a quick peek near GZ and kept going) was finally accessible, and there were few people and very little activity when we drove by.  The CO, one week prior, had logged an OM, stating that "All is well", with no finders since then.  I will mention that the OM was a factor in our deciding to go for this particular cache; several people HAD noted the construction and obstructions so seeing the CO activity confirming "all is well" was a plus.

 

We found the container easily enough, the part that contained the log was very small, and we could see a smushed wad of paper jammed in the bottom.  We did manage to get a few tiny pieces out, nothing signable, and no way to add another log.  One previous finder had mentioned a "tough log squeeze", no other indication that the log was inaccessible.  The CO in this case had obviously just eyeballed it to see the container was in place, and it was, but didn't check the condition of the log itself.  We logged the find, sent a photo to the CO, and suggested a bigger container!

 

So, yeah, the OM indicated and implied to us that "all is well", when in fact, it was not completely well.

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I completely agree with you on this point but in this day and age of the CHS, I've opted to post the OM to "reset" the CHS score after DNFs more often than not.

While I understand the reason, I think this is exactly backwards. The CHS should be fixed to work with the way people actually post logs. People should not be expected to change the way they post logs to satisfy the CHS.

[+J Grouchy]

49 minutes ago, niraD said:

While I understand the reason, I think this is exactly backwards. The CHS should be fixed to work with the way people actually post logs. People should not be expected to change the way they post logs to satisfy the CHS.

 

Precisely.  That's kind of what they've forced us to do, though.  I don't agree with it, but that's just how it is.

[+dprovan]

21 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

There have been occasions when I've seen a few DNF logs on my caches and went by to check to head off any calls for maintenance...posting a NOTE when I confirmed the cache was still there, in fine shape.  In those instances, I resisted posting OM logs because I didn't actually do anything to the cache and I didn't want to give the impression that any issues might have been resolved.

I'm not complaining, but the way I see it, there was an issue -- the DNFs made people wonder if the cache was there -- and you did resolve it by confirming that the people logging DNFs just missed it. That amounts to owner maintenance to me, and I'd always log it as such if it were my cache.

 

I completely understand the problem with excessive OMs, and I agree that an OM isn't called for whenever you glance at your hide. But I think that logic goes too far in a case like this; problems can be resolved without physically doing anything. The question you should ask is "Is anyone interested in what I've done in my capacity of owner?" Don't get hung up on whether you think what you did should be considered "maintenance". The big difference between OM and Note isn't the word "maintenance", it's the word "owner": anyone can post a note, so it takes an OM to make me sit up and notice if I'm scanning to log for information about the cache status.

[+J Grouchy]

4 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm not complaining, but the way I see it, there was an issue -- the DNFs made people wonder if the cache was there -- and you did resolve it by confirming that the people logging DNFs just missed it. That amounts to owner maintenance to me, and I'd always log it as such if it were my cache.

 

I disagree with your interpretation of what "owner maintenance" means...but either way the situation doesn't present itself often enough for me to really spend too much time worrying about it.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

I disagree with your interpretation of what "owner maintenance" means...but either way the situation doesn't present itself often enough for me to really spend too much time worrying about it.

I already knew we didn't agree, and I agree it's not a matter of any practical concern, but I thought, nevertheless, we could come to an understanding about each other's position. When someone talks about, say, car maintenance, you're talking about doing something physical to the car, I get that. But I think geocache description, logs, and even other people's impressions should be considered part of the cache. That suggests it's maintenance when an owner needs to change any of them. It's not really that different from updating a car's firmware being considered car maintenance. That doesn't mean that a log entry of any kind needs to be filed in every case, but it does imply that if the owner does something to change one of those things and wants to tell everyone, it makes sense to do it with an OM.

 

Just to be clear, I don't care if you stick to your guns, but I do want you to be aware of why someone like me might overlook your very helpful note. I assume you'd want me to see it, so why not go ahead and call attention to it?

[+justintim1999]

On ‎10‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 5:52 PM, The A-Team said:

Sure, they can post as many as they want, but there will definitely be a point where it becomes excessive and unhelpful. For example, what if a CO checked on the cache hidden outside their work every time they went out for a smoke break and posted an OM every time? Do you really feel that it would be helpful to have a handful of OM logs posted every day? If you saw a cache listing with a dozen finds and 300 OM logs, you wouldn't think to yourself "that's excessive"?

 

The line at which it becomes excessive will vary depending on the cache. An OM in between every find log might make sense for a cache hidden on top of a mountain that's only found once every year or two. An OM in between every find log on a suburban cache that's found a dozen times a month would be getting borderline excessive. An OM in between every find log on GC189E5 would most certainly be excessive (and almost a full-time job! ).

I would think most owners wouldn't post an OML every day or every week and I wouldn't encourage that.   After looking at the OP's caches I noticed that they have one that's almost a year old without a single one.   To be honest that cache has nothing but finds on it  so there's really no need to post one other than fulfilling the guideline to "visit your cache occasionally"  which isn't a bad thing to do either.   In fact one of their caches received one dnf and they ran right out there to check up on it and post a note that all was well.   Do I think that running out to check on a cache after every dnf is a bad thing?   If they're willing and able to do it I think it's great.  Do I expect them to.  No, but I wouldn't tell them not to.        

 

IMO discouraging the use of OM:'s in any way is counter productive to what's trying to be accomplished here.    If someone is predisposed to post one every day there's nothing you or I or anyone can say that will stop them from doing it.   As usual something like that is extremely rare but it could happen so we better point out that negative in that right?     

[+justintim1999]

4 hours ago, niraD said:

While I understand the reason, I think this is exactly backwards. The CHS should be fixed to work with the way people actually post logs. People should not be expected to change the way they post logs to satisfy the CHS.

I think the CHS was designed to work with how logs were intended to be used not how people have come to use them.    

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

I completely agree with you on this point but in this day and age of the CHS, I've opted to post the OM to "reset" the CHS score after DNFs more often than not.

 

16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

5 hours ago, niraD said:

While I understand the reason, I think this is exactly backwards. The CHS should be fixed to work with the way people actually post logs. People should not be expected to change the way they post logs to satisfy the CHS.

I think the CHS was designed to work with how logs were intended to be used not how people have come to use them.  

 

The only mention of OM logs I can find in the Help Centre is this:

 

Quote

Owner Maintenance: Tell geocachers and reviewers that you have visited your geocache and performed maintenance. This will remove the needs maintenance icon.

 

Could you please point me to where it says to log an OM after DNFs, or for that matter where it says anything about a CO needing to respond to DNFs. If HQ don't document how logs are intended to be used, is it not surprising that people use them differently?

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

6 hours ago, niraD said:

While I understand the reason, I think this is exactly backwards. The CHS should be fixed to work with the way people actually post logs. People should not be expected to change the way they post logs to satisfy the CHS.

I think the CHS was designed to work with how logs were intended to be used not how people have come to use them.    

Oh, good. I'm glad someone besides me understands the problem.