Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Deepdiggingmole

Needs mantenance on DNF logs

Recommended Posts

First off, no reviewer is stepping in as though they know that a geocache needs maintenance. And I'm confident no reviewer would ever claim that. In the cases I see, a reviewer steps in if there appears either to be a very pressing concern with a NM log that the CO should address, or the NM itself is keeping the listing in a maintenance mode and the CO should address it. The increase of reviewer activity on outstanding NM caches I don't see as proacivity against physical caches as much as proactivity against inattentive or shirking cache owners on their listings. If HQ is wanting to see more active good condition listings on their listing website, then I can understand reviewers being given more leeway to address outstanding NM flagged listings.

 

As we know above, the only person who can know if a cache truly needs maintenance is the owner on a first-hand check.  Indirectly, yes a cacher could infer from a visit that the cache is missing or needs maintenance, but since the owner has to deal with it, the owner has to trust that the cacher is both telling the truth, and not mistaken. So once again only CO can truly very if a cache is missing or needs maintenance, after verifying it first-hand.

 

As for this quote of mine that's been selectively pulled removing the context:

6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:
8 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.

 

Exactly. On visiting. Which is exactly what was implied by my following comment: "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."

 

Until the cache is visited in person by the CO, no one will know that it is missing - at best, everyone is trusting the accuracy of another person's report. At best. That's why the reviewer has to often step in and nudge the CO to address any possible outstanding issues.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Some of the issue could also be the difficulty rating.  A difficulty 4+ with a string of DNFs may mean little, but two DNFs on a difficulty 2 hide with a note from an experienced cacher saying he/she searched for an hour... yeah, there is something wrong.  It may just be the difficulty rating, however.  I've logged NMs on low difficulty caches that I didn't find that I'd have logged DNFs on if the cache has been rated differently.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, CachedIronSkillet said:

Some of the issue could also be the difficulty rating.  A difficulty 4+ with a string of DNFs may mean little, but two DNFs on a difficulty 2 hide with a note from an experienced cacher saying he/she searched for an hour... yeah, there is something wrong.  It may just be the difficulty rating, however.  I've logged NMs on low difficulty caches that I didn't find that I'd have logged DNFs on if the cache has been rated differently.  

 

Sometimes highly experienced cachers are the worst at finding low D caches because their preconceptions lead them astray. On my most recent hide, which I initially rated D1.5 as I thought with the hint it'd be fairly obvious, the FTF, a very experienced local cacher, spent about an hour focusing on a rock feature about 5 metres away because to him that was the obvious place, and after messaging me and finally making the find, said he'd looked there about ten times but dismissed it each time without poking his head in and looking around. If the cache had had teeth it would've bitten him on the nose. After that I bumped the D rating up to 2 and added a bit more to the hint as I really don't want people spending hours looking for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Wellllllllllll >>>>>>  here is MY CHILDISH RESPONSE TO A "NEEDS MAINTENANCE LOG" on one of my caches.  I will admit I was miffed and hangry during my MX visit and chewed on it for a while.

 

Ready for it?????

 

Dear Cache, how nice to find you where hidden, as hidden. YOU ARE NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, MISSING, NOT GONE, NOT ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE. YOU REQUIRED THE FOLLOWING MAINTENANCE >>>>>>> ZERO,  ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, NOTHING, A BIG GOOSE-EGG. The implication that the area was a veritable blackberry vine forest is a blatant misrepresentation. Perhaps I should pave a path to the you, install a burger stand with refreshments. Shuckey-darn, I could even sit at GZ and hand the container to seekers along with a participation trophy. Me upset >>> Nahhhhhhhhh, what gave you that idea. CRITICALLY READ THE HINT FOLKS!!!!!!!!! >>>>>>>> No never mind I will amend it.

 

Just my Hangry perspective 

 

But hey I checked in BEFORE  the nasty-gram from the Cache Health Police

Edited by humboldt flier
punctuation
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/11/2019 at 5:14 AM, 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.

Ohhhhhh, I am soooooooo going to be flamed for this.  I can say with 100% certainty that when I post a DNF that I did not find it.  To jump to an assertion that it is missing is, in my warped mind, potentially an incorrect statement. Similarly throwing out an **(NA along with the NM)**. is fundamentally flawed.

 

"Pulllllll-eeeeezzze" let me get my Nomex on before you start flaming me.

 

Cache on and be safe out there

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, humboldt flier said:

Ohhhhhh, I am soooooooo going to be flamed for this.  I can say with 100% certainty that when I post a DNF that I did not find it.  To jump to an assertion that it is missing is, in my warped mind, potentially an incorrect statement.

 

I concur, which is why I stated "Logically if a cache can't be found then it needs maintenance." Mind you I didn't say "if a cacher doesn't find a cache," I stated if a cache cannot be found... namely if it's not there. 

Which brings me back to my original point of it being a "catch 22." If a cache cannot be found because it's not there, then it needs maintenance. HOWEVER if you don't find a cache, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's not there. If A then B, not If B then A.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

This is the caching version of the celestial teapot, Bertrand Russell's though experiment about absence of evidence, and evidence of absence,  something philosophers have wasted decades debating. But then I suppose philosophers get paid to do that.

Personally , I'd rather be caching ...

Share this post


Link to post

Went looking for a cache at an historic old butternut tree.  The tree fell down in a storm July 2018.  It was removed, and the lawn was repaired.  Mostly 'Write Notes'.  But the CO did nothing.  So, I put NA on it!  The CO did nothing, and it was archived,  It was missing for eight months!

  • Helpful 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...