Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Deepdiggingmole

Needs mantenance on DNF logs

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I recently got an email from a cache owner, what he put later - some background, I had placed a NM log on his cache which I did not find, however there was good reason to suggest the cache had gone, and after several DNFs including mine I felt that the CO should be made aware and in my experience as I find not all COs read logs, to highlight the possibiliy that it may be missing used the 'may be missing' tab on the drop down when I selected the report cache function.

 

So there was my DNF log and the NM log

 

The COs email a week later - in part read "could you please amend your "needs maintenance" to a write note or a DNF, as you did not find the cache you cannot call for a maintenance"

 

I wrote back explaining that i thought he was wrong with the last comment and thought the request odd

He replied with a link to the guidelines (https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=434

 

though the link only took me to the main page i suspect he was referring to the section (https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=434) about logging NM and in particular the bit about NM options which there read :- OK

 

  • Logbook is full
  • Container is damaged
  • Cache should be archived
  • Other

 

OK - I can see where he is coming from - however he may not have been aware of the drop down options when your log is a DNF which are 

 

  • Cache may be missing
  • Cache should be archived
  • Other

 

So i explained this to him, still not interested and wanted me to change the NM log (note this is the auto generated log that occurs when you click on report the cache)

 

Who is right ? have things changed ? why is there no mention of this extra option available in the guidelines 

 

We did find reference to this sort of log here ....https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/351006-how-to-write-a-needs-maintenance-log/

 

but this is in the forums and not the guidelines 

 

Thanks 

Tim

 

Edited by Deepdiggingmole
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

You are right Tim, no doubt. I´d have done the exact same.

I indeed did the exact same a week ago. Couldn´t find a cache wich had some DNF before, and therefore loged NM even without a DNF log.

 

That´s what NM logs are made for. To bring a cache wich is reasonably suspected to neen owner care to the owners attention. Owners hwo are taking this as a offence are plain wrong and don´t understand the benefit of getting this information.

 

One option in the helpcentre article ist "other". A missing cache needs owner care for a other reason than Logbook is full, Container is damaged, Cache should be archived. So other clearly applies.

 

Edited by DerDiedler
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Who is right ?

 

Some cache owners just can not handle new situations. Some cache owners ask to delete or remove even DNF logs.

 

If my DNF log gets deleted because a CO do not like DNFs, will the HQ reinstate my factual DNF log if I appeal?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Thanks. I have used 'other' many times too and have given explanation in the log - but this is usually when i find a cache and there is an issue that isnt one of the options or more than one option

Edited by Deepdiggingmole
corrections

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Some cache owners just can not handle new situations. Some cache owners ask to delete or remove even DNF logs.

 

If my DNF log gets deleted because a CO do not like DNFs, will the HQ reinstate my factual DNF log if I appeal?

 

I would have understood if this was a new cacher or one that hadn't had any NM logs - this CO has been around longer than me (15 years+) many finds behind them and several caches owned so the whole thing was surprising. 
I'm not even sure I can delete an auto genetrated log on someone elses cache - though on this occasion I don't intend to 

 

However the reason why was also odd - 

25 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

as you did not find the cache you cannot call for a maintenance

 but you can - can't you ???

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

I'm not even sure I can delete an auto genetrated log on someone elses cache

 

Just checked I can :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

but you can - can't you ???

sure you can

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Aside from who is right, the NM attribute remains even if edit to Write note, or if you delete your log entirely.   It's an action log, it actions the listing by setting the NM attribute.

 

Odd, I'd never noticed , "might be missing", but I don't use New Logging. 

Sprite #11.jpg

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think the Help Centre is deficient.  The section you refer to (3.2) describes the situation where you "find a geocache in need of help".  As far as I can see, there's no corresponding section that describes those (valid) NM options if you don't find the cache.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Aside from who is right, the NM attribute remains even if edit to Write note, or if you delete your log entirely.   It's an action log, it actions the listing by setting the NM attribute.

 

Excellent point.  Tim, do you think the CO realises this?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Below is what my reviewer posts on cache pages that have gone un-found for quite a while (multiple DNFs) and which have a red wrench , regardless if the maintenance attribute was added due to a physically observed issue (cracked container) or because the cache is presumed missing.

Quote

Dear Cache Owner:

 

I'm checking up on caches that have had the "Needs Maintenance" attribute set in case you didn't see the "Needs Maintenance" log e-mail come in or you didn't notice the "Needs Maintenance" attribute that is currently displayed on your cache page. In many situations, you may have already performed maintenance and the cache is all right. If that's the case, you can clear the "Needs Maintenance" attribute (the white cross in the red square) from your cache page by clicking on "log your visit" and writing an "Owner Maintenance" log. If you haven't checked on your cache since a cacher wrote a "Needs Maintenance" log, please do so soon so new visitors have a good experience finding your cache.

 

Clearing the "Needs Maintenance" attribute when your cache is all right keeps your cache page accurate and will potentially bring more cachers to your hide since some cachers filter out caches that have that attribute set.

 

No further Reviewer action will be taken on the cache UNLESS there are additional issues such as an extended string of DNF logs or a "Needs Archived" log.

 

Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues. If the cache IS NOT found, the appropriate log is the "Didn't Find It" (DNF) log type. A cacher can't know if a cache needs maintenance if s/he hasn't actually seen the cache.

Thanks for your help!

(All added emphasis is my own)


This seems to be in line with the guidelines above which the CO was quoting to @Deepdiggingmole.

YMMV, but whether or not to use a "Needs Maintenance Log" seems to vary.

Edited by STNolan
  • Surprised 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, STNolan said:
Quote

Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues. If the cache IS NOT found, the appropriate log is the "Didn't Find It" (DNF) log type. A cacher can't know if a cache needs maintenance if s/he hasn't actually seen the cache.

Thanks for your help!

(All added emphasis is my own)


This seems to be in line with the guidelines above which the CO was quoting to @Deepdiggingmole.

YMMV, but whether or not to use a "Needs Maintenance Log" seems to vary.

 

So why is there a canned "Cache might be missing" NM that can only be logged in conjunction with a DNF? Furthermore, the reviewers here will only accept an NA if there's already an NM the owner hasn't responded to, so how do you deal with a missing cache with an absent owner if you can't log that initial NM on it? Or is the CHS the be-all and end-all now?

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So why is there a canned "Cache might be missing" NM that can only be logged in conjunction with a DNF? Furthermore, the reviewers here will only accept an NA if there's already an NM the owner hasn't responded to, so how do you deal with a missing cache with an absent owner if you can't log that initial NM on it? Or is the CHS the be-all and end-all now?

 

My best guess as someone who has no knowledge whatsoever and is taking a shot in the dark: the guideline authors and the software developers weren't on the same page. Logically if a cache can't be found then it needs maintenance; however on the flip side, if you didn't find it how can you know if it's really not there?

It's a Groundspeak Catch 22.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, STNolan said:

Logically if a cache can't be found then it needs maintenance; however on the flip side, if you didn't find it how can you know if it's really not there?

 

It depends on the cache. I've done some where the CO has provided a photo on the cache page of the hiding place, so if you definitely find the hiding place and there's no cache in it then it's a pretty fair bet it's missing. I can think of other situations, too, where the hiding place is beyond doubt, say where the hint says it's in a tree stump and there's only one stump within cooee of GZ, or if it's supposed to be in a tree but the tree's been cut down or burnt to a cinder in a forest fire. Anyway, you don't have to know it's missing, as the NM wording just says might be missing, so if there's sufficient evidence to warrant asking the CO to check on it, I don't see why that NM wouldn't be appropriate.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, STNolan said:

if you didn't find it how can you know if it's really not there?

Clearly you can't know it's not there, but the NM doesn't say "It isn't there" it says it "might be missing", and so the NM is requesting the CO to go and verify it one way or another.

 

I'm with the OP on this, and I've logged a few NMs on DNFs myself.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

I'm with the OP on this, and I've logged a few NMs on DNFs myself.

 

Oh I certainly have as well; I'm just providing what our reviewer says in context; and maybe playing a bit of Devil's Advocate as well.

 

1 hour ago, MartyBartfast said:

Clearly you can't know it's not there, but the NM doesn't say "It isn't there" it says it "might be missing", and so the NM is requesting the CO to go and verify it one way or another.

 

True the needs maintenance button doesn't say "it isn't there," but then again nor do the guidelines. The Guidelines actually state if "You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response." Then the appropriate log is not a Needs Maintenance but rather a NEEDS ARCHIVE. So by the book if you don't find the cache AND there is a long string of DNFs without any notes from the owner on the page, you should be filing a NA, not an NM.


Do I think that's overboard? Sure do. Is it what's written in the guidelines? As of now, yes.

 

59 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It depends on the cache. I've done some where the CO has provided a photo on the cache page of the hiding place, so if you definitely find the hiding place and there's no cache in it then it's a pretty fair bet it's missing. 

 

I agree that this means it's a pretty good chance the cache is missing, but it's not a guarantee. As mentioned above I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here; but I've found cache containers presumed muggled/lost to the elements that the CO had missed. Thus there were two containers at GZ: the original and the CO"s authorized replacement.

 

Should those cachers who DNF'd the cache before the CO put out an authorized replacements have logged a "needs maintenance?" The original cache was there!

Or maybe instead they should've logged a "Needs Archived" as mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post

I will acquiesce (before someone else points it out) that the guidelines are very contradictory in this section. Case in point:

 

Quote

Cache should be archived

Cache archival is permanent, so this option is only used under rare circumstances. Consider contacting the cache owner directly with your concerns before selecting this option.

Select this option if:

  • Property owners, business owners, or local authorities or law enforcement expressed concern during your search for the cache.
  • Cache placement or searching for the cache damages the area or defaces property.
  • You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

Do not select this option if:

  • You didn't find the cache — use a “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” log.
  • The cache needs repairs — select another “Needs maintenance” option.
  • The cache location seems to be inappropriate — consider contacting the cache owner with your concerns.
  • There is no pen in the cache — caches are not required to contain pens.

The cache owner and local reviewer will get notifications and may follow up. The cache will not be archived automatically and you may not see a public response to your log.

 

Within the same breath you are told to both log and don't log a Needs Archived if you don't find the cache.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, STNolan said:

True the needs maintenance button doesn't say "it isn't there," but then again nor do the guidelines. The Guidelines actually state if "You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response." Then the appropriate log is not a Needs Maintenance but rather a NEEDS ARCHIVE. So by the book if you don't find the cache AND there is a long string of DNFs without any notes from the owner on the page, you should be filing a NA, not an NM.

I did this exact thing last weekend with a rural cache. In 2017 a cacher had “Found it” and left a note stating “Also cache was broken on one side and don't latch all the way. Log was a little damp but I don't think it'll get too bad. Owner may want to check just in case

That was followed by 2 “Didnt find it” logs in 2018. Then a “Found it” log on 2/23/19 that stated - “ Thanks for placing this cache and taking me here but the cache was gone. I replaced the cache in the fashion the hint explained but higher (magnetic). If the co doesn't wish for me to do this a deletion of my log is fine. I'm only try to help me, the co and others enjoy the area more". So now there is a throwdown at the cache location where the original cache may or may not be.  

Upon checking the CO's profile I see that the CO has been inactive for 5 years and has 3 out of their 8 hides archived after not responding to NM requests. I didnt hesitate to skip the NM because it was obvious no maintenance was being performed. The local reviewer had it disabled the same day.

I agree that in most cases going directly to a NA is going overboard. I don't think that was the case here.

Edited by RocTheCacheBox
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, STNolan said:

Within the same breath you are told to both log and don't log a Needs Archived if you don't find the cache.

That just means that the fact that you DNF isn't the whole story.

 

On the one extreme would be someone who makes the newbie mistake of logging NM or NA every time they DNF. On the other extreme would be someone who never logs NM or NA when they DNF. Neither extreme is correct.

 

I've logged NM all by itself, with no Find and no DNF. GZ was firmly inside a construction zone. Obviously, I couldn't go inside the construction zone to Find the cache. But since I couldn't reach GZ and search, I couldn't log a DNF either. But NM was completely appropriate because either the construction zone had compromised the cache location, or the coordinates were extremely bad.

Edited by niraD
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, STNolan said:

Below is what my reviewer posts on cache pages that have gone un-found for quite a while (multiple DNFs) and which have a red wrench , regardless if the maintenance attribute was added due to a physically observed issue (cracked container) or because the cache is presumed missing.

Quote

Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues. If the cache IS NOT found, the appropriate log is the "Didn't Find It" (DNF) log type. A cacher can't know if a cache needs maintenance if s/he hasn't actually seen the cache.

It's a shame that reviewer is saying that. By that logic, missing caches will never get NMs posted. I guess that reviewer enjoys being the only one to examine cache logs to determine which caches are missing.

 

But I guess that explains where the CO in this case got the idea the NM was inappropriate. All the OP can really do is explain why he's calling for maintenance, which I assume he did in his logs. If the CO doesn't want the input and is so sure no maintenance is needed, he can just post an OM and move on. That's much easier than asking a seeker to modify his log even if assuming there's be no push back.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I think the Help Centre is deficient.  The section you refer to (3.2) describes the situation where you "find a geocache in need of help".  As far as I can see, there's no corresponding section that describes those (valid) NM options if you don't find the cache.

 

I think this article uses a poor choice of wording. Based on the rest of the Help Center and common sense as discussed here, I think what they were intending to say was "if you identify a geocache in need of help", not that you must find the cache. I suspect that the reviewer in STNolan's case misinterpreted the guidance based on the poor choice of wording.

 

If there are any members of TPTB reading this discussion, can you please look at modifying the wording in this article to make it clear that there are valid cases for logging NM when the cache isn't found? It seems that both members and reviewers are misinterpreting it based on the current wording.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 4

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, STNolan said:

True the needs maintenance button doesn't say "it isn't there," but then again nor do the guidelines. The Guidelines actually state if "You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response." Then the appropriate log is not a Needs Maintenance but rather a NEEDS ARCHIVE. So by the book if you don't find the cache AND there is a long string of DNFs without any notes from the owner on the page, you should be filing a NA, not an NM.

 

Yes, and it doesn't have to to be a long string of DNFs either, it just says "several DNF or NM logs on the cache page" so presumably half a dozen DNFs intermingled with hundreds of finds would be sufficient to satifsy this justification for an NA. I've been expressing my incredulity at this wording since it was added to the Help Centre but TPTB seem happy with it as is.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, and it doesn't have to to be a long string of DNFs either, it just says "several DNF or NM logs on the cache page" so presumably half a dozen DNFs intermingled with hundreds of finds would be sufficient to satifsy this justification for an NA. I've been expressing my incredulity at this wording since it was added to the Help Centre but TPTB seem happy with it as is.

 

And again, I’m not saying that this is necessarily the appropriate course of action, I’m just quoting the published guidelines.

 

I’ll be honest, if someone posted a NA on one of mine after they DNF’d it without giving me a chance to check on it, I’d be pretty miffed too. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, STNolan said:

 

And again, I’m not saying that this is necessarily the appropriate course of action, I’m just quoting the published guidelines.

 

I’ll be honest, if someone posted a NA on one of mine after they DNF’d it without giving me a chance to check on it, I’d be pretty miffed too. 

 

The other issue I have with that wording is that it implies the CO is expected to respond in some way if a cache gets several DNFs, but I've had numerous DNFs on my hides for reasons that had nothing to do with the cache, like approaching storms, failing light, swarms of mosquitoes, climb's too tough, no mobile data access, etc. None of these are things I can fix, so how am I meant to respond?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Why worry? It's just an electronic tag. If you feel there is nothing wrong with the cache, do nothing, or post a note. I am yet to see a reviewer archive a cache against the wishes of an active CO, without giving them an enormous amount of time to rectify any perceived problems. And if the DNFs state that they were muggled or sent packing by environmental factors or had to go to the toilet, I doubt you'll even hear boo from a reviewer...

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

It depends on other circumstances (difficulty, hint, photohint), but typically:

  • If I DNF the cache after string of finds, almost never log NM. It is likely that it was me who failed to find it and cache is still there.
  • If I DNF the cache after string of 3-4 other DNFs, I'm almost always posting NM log together with DNF. Because time is up for CO to visit his geocache and check it / replace it.

Everything in between depends ..

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

I went looking for a cache in a wooden guard rail in a parking lot,  It was quite obvious where it had been hidden.  Hole drilled into the rail.  Broken reflector above the hole.  It's been logged for almost two years that the camouflage is broken.  None of the bolts are fake.  It's missing.  I logged the DNF as well s the NM.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, lee737 said:

Why worry? It's just an electronic tag. If you feel there is nothing wrong with the cache, do nothing, or post a note. I am yet to see a reviewer archive a cache against the wishes of an active CO, without giving them an enormous amount of time to rectify any perceived problems. And if the DNFs state that they were muggled or sent packing by environmental factors or had to go to the toilet, I doubt you'll even hear boo from a reviewer...

 

Um, take a look at GC445DM. A few DNFs in quick succession by inexperienced cachers, one of whom added an NM. The CO posted a note in response saying it was a tricky hide and on past experience he didn't think it had gone missing but would check when next in the area, but in spite of that the reviewer stepped in 14 days later, disabling it and threatening to archive it in 28 days if it wasn't fixed. When the CO went and checked it wasn't missing at all.

 

42 minutes ago, Rikitan said:

If I DNF the cache after string of 3-4 other DNFs, I'm almost always posting NM log together with DNF.

 

Not all caches are easy finds. A D4 or D5 traditional ought to get lots of DNFs between finds without needing owner checking - it's meant to be hard. Even a D3 can get half a dozen or a dozen straight DNFs occasionally without there being anything wrong with it - the one above for example or GC13C3B that often gets long strings of DNFs before someone finally spots it again as there's some magician-style misdirection at GZ with lots of potential hidey-holes that draw the eye away from the real one.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Um, take a look at GC445DM. A few DNFs in quick succession by inexperienced cachers, one of whom added an NM. The CO posted a note in response saying it was a tricky hide and on past experience he didn't think it had gone missing but would check when next in the area, but in spite of that the reviewer stepped in 14 days later, disabling it and threatening to archive it in 28 days if it wasn't fixed. When the CO went and checked it wasn't missing at all.

 

 

The reviewer had to make a call I suppose, and felt disabling it while the CO did their check was the best course of action. Total cost - CO had to visit their cache.... I don't have a problem with that - if you want to do tricky hides of micros in the bush, prepare to visit occasionally..... :)

With the benefit of hindsight, yes, the cache was there, was it a bad call - probably not IMO..... 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, lee737 said:

The reviewer had to make a call I suppose, 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, niraD said:
1 hour ago, lee737 said:

The reviewer had to make a call I suppose, 

Why?

 

Yes indeed. Why? It was an NM, not an NA, and the CO had already indicated they were across it with their note. I don't see why the reviewer had to become involved at all.

 

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

I don't have a problem with that - if you want to do tricky hides of micros in the bush, prepare to visit occasionally..... :)

 

I have some T3 and higher caches that'd be tough for me to go and check on at the drop of a hat in the middle of summer, particularly the one just passed when it was hovering around the high 30s to low 40s for weeks on end. Okay, they're not micros and the hiding places should be fairly obvious, but people find plenty of other ways to DNF them. I do my routine checks in winter when I'm less likely to keel over from heat exhaustion or get eaten by snakes. Had a similar situation to GC445DM arisen on one of those at the time, I'd have likely just archived it then gone and collected the too-well-hidden cache when the weather cooled down.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

 

Excellent point.  Tim, do you think the CO realises this?

 

This was something I had considered and have asked why he wants the log removed in the hope that he would reply about the 'spanner' - he has not replied to that question as, to be honest, he possibly realises asking me in the first place was not appropriate

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I think the Help Centre is deficient.  The section you refer to (3.2) describes the situation where you "find a geocache in need of help".  As far as I can see, there's no corresponding section that describes those (valid) NM options if you don't find the cache.

 

 I agree - and hopefully a lackey will see this and consider updating

The lack of it was making me wonder whether I was wrong 😕

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, STNolan said:

 

My best guess as someone who has no knowledge whatsoever and is taking a shot in the dark: the guideline authors and the software developers weren't on the same page. Logically if a cache can't be found then it needs maintenance; however on the flip side, if you didn't find it how can you know if it's really not there?

It's a Groundspeak Catch 22.

 

I have submitted over 400 MN logs in my time - most due to cache condition (found) but several when I have submitted a DNF and only when i am pretty sure the cache has actually gone missing. I would be checking previous logs (newbies DNFs I take with a pinch of salt, for obvious reasons) I asses the location and also take into account the DT, if we then genuinely belief the cache is missing we will add the NM to the DNF log - we do not do it lightly. We also emphasise in the log that we are only saying we think the cache MAY be missing as is with the wording of the NM. It is a tool to highlght an issue to the CO who often does not read fully the DNF logs.

In my instance the cache is regular, DT 1.5 /1.5 so hardly a sneaky hide.
The previous comment regarding a reviewer note where he states NM is not to be used if there is a DNF may be not aware of the drop down menu for DNF 'report a cache' logs or just being cantankerous - but surely that reviewer must know COs ignore DNF logs - a DNF log does not mean "the cache maybe missing, CO go and check it" it means the cacher didn't find it  

 

Additionally I have logged nearly 900 DNF logs mostly due to my failure to find the cache which was there 😄

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

I did this exact thing last weekend with a rural cache. In 2017 a cacher had “Found it” and left a note stating “Also cache was broken on one side and don't latch all the way. Log was a little damp but I don't think it'll get too bad. Owner may want to check just in case

That was followed by 2 “Didnt find it” logs in 2018. Then a “Found it” log on 2/23/19 that stated - “ Thanks for placing this cache and taking me here but the cache was gone. I replaced the cache in the fashion the hint explained but higher (magnetic). If the co doesn't wish for me to do this a deletion of my log is fine. I'm only try to help me, the co and others enjoy the area more". So now there is a throwdown at the cache location where the original cache may or may not be.  

Upon checking the CO's profile I see that the CO has been inactive for 5 years and has 3 out of their 8 hides archived after not responding to NM requests. I didnt hesitate to skip the NM because it was obvious no maintenance was being performed. The local reviewer had it disabled the same day.

I agree that in most cases going directly to a NA is going overboard. I don't think that was the case here.

 

We too have gone straight to NA rather than NM as often the process is futile when you have an inactive cacher.
I do not log in the field - I wait until I get home, have a cuppa and then review the days caching - at this point we check our DNFs and review previous logs check CO activity etc etc and it is at that point that a decision about NM and NA are made 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, lee737 said:

Why worry? It's just an electronic tag. If you feel there is nothing wrong with the cache, do nothing, or post a note. I am yet to see a reviewer archive a cache against the wishes of an active CO, without giving them an enormous amount of time to rectify any perceived problems. And if the DNFs state that they were muggled or sent packing by environmental factors or had to go to the toilet, I doubt you'll even hear boo from a reviewer...

 

I do not understand how this refelcts the OP - " If you feel there is nothing wrong with the cache" I did feel there was something wrong, I believe it to be missing !!!
" I am yet to see a reviewer archive a cache against the wishes of an active CO" - there was no mention of a reviewer being involved in this instance or likely to be so 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for all responses

It would seem the majority have agreed with my line of thinking in that NM on a DNF log is appropriate in the right circumstances (as was with the example I used in the OP) 

The guidelines are not complete as they only refer to NM on found logs with no reference to NM on DNFs and Write Note logs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

It seems that New Logging is not such a brilliant solution as people from HQ try to convince us. I always opt out from it because Old Logging gives me more control over what I try to send.

By the way I do not like the 'Needs Maintenance' log is logged always with the date of writing, regardless of it applying a today's observation or a few days earlier one. I know it is because of an action it triggers but nevertheless it is unnerving.

 

Also, it seems the guidelines require reviewing by some IT specialist to check if the 'control flows' are logically consistent there ;)

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes indeed. Why? It was an NM, not an NA, and the CO had already indicated they were across it with their note. I don't see why the reviewer had to become involved at all.

 

 

I have some T3 and higher caches that'd be tough for me to go and check on at the drop of a hat in the middle of summer, particularly the one just passed when it was hovering around the high 30s to low 40s for weeks on end. Okay, they're not micros and the hiding places should be fairly obvious, but people find plenty of other ways to DNF them. I do my routine checks in winter when I'm less likely to keel over from heat exhaustion or get eaten by snakes. Had a similar situation to GC445DM arisen on one of those at the time, I'd have likely just archived it then gone and collected the too-well-hidden cache when the weather cooled down.

 

Presumably the system is automatically flagging caches with x number of DNFs for reviewer attention?

I can't imagine you letting a cache accrue more than a couple of DNFs without a check Jeff, and I'm sure our reviewers are aware of this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/11/2019 at 6:54 PM, Deepdiggingmole said:

 

Who is right ?

 

 

You are. Sorry, got sidetracked in the tangent discussion above.

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, lee737 said:

 

Presumably the system is automatically flagging caches with x number of DNFs for reviewer attention?

I can't imagine you letting a cache accrue more than a couple of DNFs without a check Jeff, and I'm sure our reviewers are aware of this.

 

I base any action on what the DNF actually says; often I contact the seeker privately to ask if they'd like an extra hint and sometimes my response is to try to make the cache page hint and/or description a bit more revealing. Not much I could do in response to this recent one though:

 

Quote

Didn't find itDidn't find it

I ran out of time and will have to come back

 

or for the DNFs on my EarthCache - that one goes missing twice a day when the tide comes in and even though I provided a link to the tide predictions, it still catches people occasionally.

 

That's why I keep pressing for DNFs to be kept distinct in meaning from NMs. If someone really thinks one of my caches has likely gone missing, I want them to use the "might be missing" NM to separate it from the run-of-the-mill DNFs where someone simply didn't find it for whatever reason. A DNF should just be a statement of fact ("I didn't find it today") whereas an NM is a request for CO action. It bothers me that reviewers are now telling people not to use that NM and inferring DNFs alone as a call for CO action when someone can't find a cache.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Not all caches are easy finds. A D4 or D5 traditional ought to get lots of DNFs between finds without needing owner checking - it's meant to be hard. Even a D3 can get half a dozen or a dozen straight DNFs occasionally without there being anything wrong with it - the one above for example or GC13C3B that often gets long strings of DNFs before someone finally spots it again as there's some magician-style misdirection at GZ with lots of potential hidey-holes that draw the eye away from the real one.

 

Sure, that's why I started with ..

 

Quote

It depends on other circumstances (difficulty, hint, photohint) ..

 

.. and spread the fog around my words by saying "typically" and "almost" :)

Basically, when I think that CO really have to check his cache, NM log is posted.

It does not mean that cache really needs maintenance - it just needs CO's attention. He can react by physical visit of his cache, but he can also decide to give better clues, hint, or react by raising Difficulty rating from 3 stars to 4.5, i.e. There are many options - all depending on circumstances.

 

One reaction is not acceptable for me -  deletion of DNF, or NM log .. or request for deletion. It sounds like dishonest behaviour. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, dprovan said:
On 4/11/2019 at 7:12 AM, STNolan said:

Below is what my reviewer posts on cache pages that have gone un-found for quite a while (multiple DNFs) and which have a red wrench , regardless if the maintenance attribute was added due to a physically observed issue (cracked container) or because the cache is presumed missing.

Quote

Cachers are reminded that the "Needs Maintenance" log should be used only if the cache is found and there are known maintenance issues. If the cache IS NOT found, the appropriate log is the "Didn't Find It" (DNF) log type. A cacher can't know if a cache needs maintenance if s/he hasn't actually seen the cache.

It's a shame that reviewer is saying that. By that logic, missing caches will never get NMs posted. I guess that reviewer enjoys being the only one to examine cache logs to determine which caches are missing.

 

Perhaps the reviewer is banking on the CHS catching long strings of DNFs. Technically, no one knows if the cache needs maintenance. An attentive owner would be prompted by the DNFs to check on it if they feel it shouldn't be that hard. Or eventually the CHS will catch it, and if the CO does nothing then the reviewer will step in with a note/disable/archive. To the reviewer, they may feel this is the proper process, and the NM should be left to known cache issues, not uncertain/unverified states.

And of course, that contradicts the "Cache might be missing" option when logging the NM with the new form. =P

 

17 hours ago, STNolan said:

I’ll be honest, if someone posted a NA on one of mine after they DNF’d it without giving me a chance to check on it, I’d be pretty miffed too. 

 

If that happened, if a NA was posted and it seemed dramatically out of place, I'd immediately post a note requesting nothing be done until I look at the cache. I might even disable, just to show I'm proactive and attentive. Then after analyzing the situation (and the user who posted it), respond accordingly (enabling and confirming findability, or whatever the case may be)

 

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Um, take a look at GC445DM. A few DNFs in quick succession by inexperienced cachers, one of whom added an NM. The CO posted a note in response saying it was a tricky hide and on past experience he didn't think it had gone missing but would check when next in the area, but in spite of that the reviewer stepped in 14 days later, disabling it and threatening to archive it in 28 days if it wasn't fixed. When the CO went and checked it wasn't missing at all.

 

Sounds like standard procedure. This type of situation has been debated emphatically in another thread. If there was a red wrench and the CO only posted a note, then the cache is still flagged as needing maintenance. If the reviewer's window of time given a CO to tend to a listing is 14 days to disabling and 28 days to archival, and the CO didn't connect with the reviewer or do anything about the NM flag, then that's on the CO - even if the cache is still there to be found. The listing needed the CO's attention. The CO should have posted an OM to remove the flag along with a note and explanation, or disabled it with a plan for checking on it - not merely posting a note and leaving it in a public "NM" state.  Best course of action is always to contact the local reviewer about the situation and work out a plan.

 

Of course the reviewer can grant an exception to their standard procedure if they wish after reading the logs and determining that the standard course of action is unnecessary. But it's probably more likely that they feel the standard procedure takes enough time to proceed through that a CO who doesn't do anything sufficient to bring the cache back into good standing within that time is being negligent. But all of that is up to the reviewer to judge.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

As long as this option exists

 

1932262064_Sprite11.jpg.d53331e202a4b61f

 

then I will continue to use my best judgment on whether or not the circumstances at ground zero justify my adding a "Cache might be missing" NM tag/log along with my DNF log.

 

In other words, if I'm not supposed to be able to log DNF and NM, then the option shouldn't exist.  Groundspeak has the ability to limit one's ability to log caches in particular ways, e.g., restricting COs from finding or logging NM on their own caches.  Therefore, I conclude the fact that this remains an option speaks for itself.

 

If that goes against what a cache owner or reviewer thinks I should be doing, they are welcome to discuss it with me. 

 

If a CO or reviewer opts to delete my log instead, then I'll calmly appeal the deletion, and we'll see what appeals has to say about it.

 

Now - do the circumstances usually justify leaving a "Might be missing?" log just because I can't find a cache?  I don't think so.  I have over 1,000 DNFs, and I add to that total on an all too regular basis.  So, normally I assume that if I don't find a cache, it's an issue with operator headspace and timing - that is, it's there but I'm just not finding it. 

 

But sometimes it's pretty obvious to me that it's not just me - the cache is gone, it's ceased to be, it's joined the choir invisible - and I reserve the right to use the tool Groundspeak provided to throw a flag to the CO and let them know, hey, not only could I not find this one, but I am pretty sure it's gone. 

 

For example: one cache I hunted recently referenced a stone survey marker in the hint, and had a picture of the stone survey marker, right near a tree, as a "spoiler" photo.  Found tree, check.  Found stone marker, check.  Found perfect cache-shaped space in the leaf litter behind the stone survey marker, check.  Did not find cache.  Logged DNF and added a "Cache might be missing" NM log.  Sure enough, the cache was missing, and the owner replaced it.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/12/2019 at 8:42 AM, thebruce0 said:

Technically, no one knows if the cache needs maintenance.

Technically, no one knows whether a cache is missing, but someone at the scene looking for the cache knows a whole lot more than the reviewer a hundred miles away reading that seeker's log. It's utterly mindless to suggest that it makes no sense for that seeker to post an NM but plenty of sense for a reviewer looking at an automated score to not just call for maintenance but even disable the cache.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dprovan said:
On 4/12/2019 at 11:42 AM, thebruce0 said:

Technically, no one knows if the cache needs maintenance.

Technically, no one knows whether a cache is missing

 

The CO would know.

 

If they don't check their cache after a string of DNFs it could mean they don't check their email for notifications. I've read in these forums that some COs send email coming from geocaching.com directly to their trash folder. But some set their email to receive NMs, and will respond to NMs.

 

Funny that a reviewer would step in over an NM, it's not meant as a reviewer alert. It's meant to alert an owner and give a heads-up to future finders who prefer to filter out caches with known problems. 

Edited by L0ne.R
typo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Technically, no one knows whether a cache is missing

The CO would know.

Except that it is possible for the CO to think the cache is missing when it has merely migrated. I've had to tell multiple COs where I found their caches because the containers weren't where they had been hidden originally, and I was the last person to find them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The CO would know.

Only if the CO added to his knowledge by visiting GZ. Although good point: there are at least two people that have way more information than the reviewer.

 

14 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

If they don't check their cache after a string of DNFs it could mean they don't check their email for notifications.

The question here is whether a seeker should file an NM for a cache that appears to be missing. The CO's behavior has nothing to do with that question. Whether the CO is shirking his responsibility or is carefully monitoring the situation and has made a conscientious decision to do nothing, the situation is that the seeker thinks it's missing and wants to say so, so he should.

 

15 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Funny that a reviewer would step in over an NM, it's not meant as a reviewer alert. It's meant to alert an owner and give a heads-up to future finders who prefer to filter out caches with know problems.

It's not funny at all. It's the new normal. NMs are nearly obsolete because reviewers have taken over deciding when a cache needs maintenance. As much as I think that reviewer is misguided, I have to admit he's following the logic of modern reviewer responsibilities which says that the only time the reviewer needs seeker input is if the seeker sees something physically wrong. Any logical conclusions based on a lack of evidence must be made by a reviewer. Or at least that's the way I interpret the thinking.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, niraD said:

Except that it is possible for the CO to think the cache is missing when it has merely migrated. I've had to tell multiple COs where I found their caches because the containers weren't where they had been hidden originally, and I was the last person to find them.

 

Happened to me too. People were claiming to find a very beat up, very soaked cache. I went to check and my cache was missing. So I replaced it with a brand new Lock & Lock, new logbook and trinkets. Next 2 finders say they found a very beat up, very soaked cache. I went back. My new cache was there, so I figured they must be finding another cache nearby. I searched and found my old cache in a bush about 10 feet away. Removed it. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, dprovan said:
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Funny that a reviewer would step in over an NM, it's not meant as a reviewer alert. It's meant to alert an owner and give a heads-up to future finders who prefer to filter out caches with know problems.

It's not funny at all. It's the new normal. NMs are nearly obsolete because reviewers have taken over deciding when a cache needs maintenance. As much as I think that reviewer is misguided, I have to admit he's following the logic of modern reviewer responsibilities which says that the only time the reviewer needs seeker input is if the seeker sees something physically wrong. Any logical conclusions based on a lack of evidence must be made by a reviewer. Or at least that's the way I interpret the thinking.

 

I'm not bothered by the new norm. I actually like it because when reviewers check for multiple NMs and review the logs they usually are equipped to make a reasonable decision about disabling a cache. And they have more authority where a regular finder can be fluffed-off by COs. What I don't understand is a reviewer who checks for NMs to discourage their use. 

Edited by L0ne.R
syntax
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...