Throwdown Etiquette

[+HunterandSamuel]

On 3/12/2004 at 1:10 PM, Jamie Z said:

In another thread, the topic of logging a find when the cacher really didn't find the cache was mentioned. Someone suggested it would make an interesting topic on its own. I agree.

 

This thread is for all those smiley-faced logs that admit that the hunters did not really find the cache.

 

Let's not start a debate, or accuse people of cheating or any of that. No names, no links, just the log.

 

Here's my first contribution:

 

Here's something that I did. Please let me know if it's okay to do. There was a P&G in a high muggle area with a long line of DNFs logs. We searched for awhile, it sure seemed to be missing so we replaced it to keep it going after the CO didn't respond. I then logged it as found. 

 

[+cerberus1]

12 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Here's something that I did. Please let me know if it's okay to do. There was a P&G in a high muggle area with a long line of DNFs logs.

We searched for awhile, it sure seemed to be missing so we replaced it to keep it going after the CO didn't respond. I then logged it as found. 

 

This is what we'd consider (and in the guidelines...) a Throwdown.     I'd place a NM if none yet.  If a few NMs with no CO response, an NA.

You didn't find it, so how do you know where you "replaced" it  was the correct spot ?

[+HunterandSamuel]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

This is what we'd consider (and in the guidelines...) a Throwdown.     I'd place a NM if none yet.  If a few NMs with no CO response, an NA.

You didn't find it, so how do you know where you "replaced" it  was the correct spot ?

Thanks for the throwdown link. Who knew??? Will do a NM next time. Several seasoned cachers in our area did this on missing or damaged caches so we thought it was a common thing to do, helping out other geocachers. They carry geobags full of extra supplies in their car. 

[+HunterandSamuel]

PS.  Now I feel like I commited a crime. :-(  What first drew me to geocaching is the "honor system". 

Edited December 8, 2019 by HunterandSamuel
Left out a word

[+TriciaG]

You saw others do it and thought it was the thing to do. You were taught incorrectly. Don't beat yourself up. :)

 

[+HunterandSamuel]

Just now, TriciaG said:

You saw others do it and thought it was the thing to do. You were taught incorrectly. Don't beat yourself up.

 

Thanks. I just checked it on the app map. There has been 14 founds since I replaced it so logging a NM is a bit too late. Lesson learn. 

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Thanks for the throwdown link. Who knew??? Will do a NM next time.

Several seasoned cachers in our area did this on missing or damaged caches so we thought it was a common thing to do, helping out other geocachers. They carry geobags full of extra supplies in their car. 

 

We carry spare Rite in Rain strips and small pieces of duct tape, but COs are responsible for their own maintenance. .    

We might add a log to one mushy or missing, or temp-repair a corner/hinge, good until the owners can fix it themselves. 

We have replaced whole containers with swag when friends had medical/personal issues, or away on vacation,  and asked us for help while gone from the hobby.  One, what that gal went through, the last thing she needed to worry about is a damp log.

 - I don't feel that's anywhere near the same as "helping out" an unresponsive owner...

[+HunterandSamuel]

53 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

We carry spare Rite in Rain strips and small pieces of duct tape, but COs are responsible for their own maintenance. .    

We might add a log to one mushy or missing, or temp-repair a corner/hinge, good until the owners can fix it themselves. 

We have replaced whole containers with swag when friends had medical/personal issues, or away on vacation,  and asked us for help while gone from the hobby.  One, what that gal went through, the last thing she needed to worry about is a damp log.

 - I don't feel that's anywhere near the same as "helping out" an unresponsive owner...

Quote

We had several cachers replace our wet logs before asking us if it was okay. It was greatly appreciated it. We did the same with other caches we found. I'm thinking the cache we replaced, the owner is no longer around. I messaged him/her and got no response. You may not feel the same about helping out unresponsive owners as I do...but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[+HunterandSamuel]

I have a cute story. A new geocacher with only 5 finds found our light fixture magnetic nano cache but didn't realize it was a geocache. She said she found some small medal thing. lol We told her it was the cache that she found and gave her permission to log it as a found, which she did. I like helping out others, it's what's geocaching is about too.

[+HunterandSamuel]

Another cache hide we nurtured back to health was in a state forest. It was badly water logged, moldy, and had many complaints and a NM. Obviously the owner was no where to be found and after a plead from a cacher to keep it going...we decided to replace the damaged cache with a new one. I think that geocaching is also about helping others and keeping old caches alive, especially in unique places.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Another cache hide we nurtured back to health was in a state forest. It was badly water logged, moldy, and had many complaints and a NM. Obviously the owner was no where to be found and after a plead from a cacher to keep it going...we decided to replace the damaged cache with a new one. I think that geocaching is also about helping others and keeping old caches alive, especially in unique places.

 

I hope you agree that a responsible game is important. As geocachers we don't want the pastime to reflect badly. Are we contributing to a game of litter.  Are we encouraging owners to abandon caches? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Keystone]

I split the above posts out of the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread.

[+Max and 99]

I was surprised to see for the first time ever, a reviewer posting a Reviewer Note on a cache after someone placed a Throwdown. The Reviewer let that person know that Throwdowns were not encouraged and quoted the Help Center. First time I had ever seen this! 

[+Touchstone]

I think the Title of the thread is a bit misleading.  Oxford describes "etiquette" as being a, "customary code of polite behavior".  Throwdown's do not appear to me to reach the level of "polite behavior", as much as they appear to be an attempt to secure a Find at any cost.  So in essence, a throwdown is more of a selfish act and not altruistic at all.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

I think the Title of the thread is a bit misleading.  Oxford describes "etiquette" as being a, "customary code of polite behavior". 

Throwdown's do not appear to me to reach the level of "polite behavior", as much as they appear to be an attempt to secure a Find at any cost. 

So in essence, a throwdown is more of a selfish act and not altruistic at all.

Yep. 

We had a series on a bike path that had one cache getting throwdowns.  The hint was "No need to leave the trail to find it. ____, paper, scissors."

 - Yet someone would follow what "seemed" like a geotrail off the bike path,  and put their throwdown film in the brush somewhere.  

Standing on the trail, you simply had to  bend down to touch the fake rock cache.    Sheesh...

 

[+niraD]

Quote

We had several cachers replace our wet logs before asking us if it was okay. It was greatly appreciated it. We did the same with other caches we found.

I've left additional logs (printed on weatherproof paper) myself, but keep in mind that a dry log doesn't fix the problem. If the log is wet, then the container has failed to protect it. Adding a dry log is short-term first aid until the CO can address the failed container, otherwise that log will just get wet too. And logging NM is still appropriate.

[+Ragnemalm]

How about "throwdown logs" or logging in the wrong place when you don't find the log? That has happened to me and several COs that I know.

• Didn't find the log, put in a replacement.
• Didn't find the log, logged on the paper that stated that you should search some more.
• Found an irrelevant piece of paper on the ground, logged on that.

Yes, in all cases there was a log. They just didn't find it.

[+niraD]

20 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

How about "throwdown logs" or logging in the wrong place when you don't find the log? That has happened to me and several COs that I know.

• Didn't find the log, put in a replacement.
• Didn't find the log, logged on the paper that stated that you should search some more.
• Found an irrelevant piece of paper on the ground, logged on that.

Yes, in all cases there was a log. They just didn't find it.

 

I've seen examples like this, especially for caches with a decoy of some sort. Even when there was a laminated sheet that said that they had not solved the puzzle correctly, people would add a "replacement" log and others would start signing it.

 

I've become a fan of non-container decoys; no one can add a "replacement" log to something that isn't a container.

[+arisoft]

10 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Throwdown's do not appear to me to reach the level of "polite behavior", as much as they appear to be an attempt to secure a Find at any cost.

 

There is etiquette for this. The correct method it that the finder asks permission from the cache owner to put a new container at GZ.

 

Ok, it is not called a throwdown after the permission in granted.

Edited December 9, 2019 by arisoft

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

There is etiquette for this. The correct method it that the finder ask permission from the cache owner to put a new container at GZ.

 

Ok, it is not called a throwdown after the permission in granted.

 

Even when this is done, the owner is expected to check the replacement. And they will need to check when problems happen to the replacement. Community maintenance is not a maintenance plan. I’ve seen this happen over and over again. The CO does nothing but wait for a throwdown, then post an OM/enable. And the community members who know this CO know that throwdowns are welcome. Throwdowns/“replacements” that never get checked by owners are poor etiquette.  

[+arisoft]

7 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Even when this is done, the owner is expected to check the replacement

 

You are expecting, but I am not. If you ask me permission to put a replacement, with a stipulation that I must review your replacement afterward, then I will ask you to log a DNF.

[+L0ne.R]

9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

You are expecting, but I am not. If you ask me permission to put a replacement, with a stipulation that I must review your replacement afterward, then I will ask you to log a DNF.

 

Exactly how it should be done. I agree, a DNF (or NM) is appropriate, not a throwdown replacement. A replacement is a temporary measure. Same goes for throwing in a bit of paper. It's a temporary measure to tide the cache over between the NM and the owner visit. 

 

I have seen a reviewer disable a cache when an OM/enable log after a "replacement"/throwdown. That owner never went back to the location to check. The cache was eventually reviewer archived. 

[+JL_HSTRE]

What annoys me most about throwdowns is the replacing of Regular size caches with micro throwdowns. Cap-n-caps have become especially popular lately in Florida. Ditto film can throwdowns, which fortunately seem rare.

 

One instance I appreciated a throwdown was a bison tube I owed hanging on a fence. Cache page specified the container. Finder found the top half of the bison still hanging on the fence, but the bottom half missing. They replaced with a new bison. Same container, same location, was definitely missing. 

[+Isonzo Karst]

32 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

What annoys me most about throwdowns is the replacing of Regular size caches with micro throwdowns.

 

I posted a DNF and NA recently. I found the micro throwdown near the coords for ammo can.

 

Here's the NA log,   "Throwdown micro is not an ammo can. Listing needs to either match the cache, or go away."

 

Listing was disabled by reviewer to eventual archive.

 

Funny thing about the cache page, the person who dropped the throwdown edited their log. Original log mentioned the replacement, and was the first "find" after a string of DNFs. Current log does not, and is forward dated, so as not to be the first find log after the DNFs. ;-) I have the pq download with the logs as posted. 

 

[+J Grouchy]

19 hours ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Thanks for the throwdown link. Who knew??? 

 

 

This isn't intended to be rude or snarky...but anyone who reads up on the guidelines or even spends more than a few seconds thinking about it knows.  There's a "Did not find" option for any cache you do not find.  That's precisely what it's for and I really wish folks would use it instead of finding weird ways of justifying a "found it" log.

 

So, I apologize if that does sound rude...but it's honestly exhausting to see this sort of thing all the time.  

[+L0ne.R]

I like these things people have said on the forums about throwdowns:

 

Quote

The part that puzzles me, is the small number of folks that take part in the throwdown mentality rarely follow up.  In a few cases the throwdown goes missing very quickly after the throwdown action.  These folks never come back to check on the health of the container they left behind, and the CO continues to be absent in a number of these incidents.  When the Listing finally meets it's inevitable demise, these same folks have no desire to submit a new Listing page apparently.  Seems like a real disconnect between the sentiment to keep the Listing active, but no desire to follow up or follow through to maintain it properly.

 

Quote

Even this question is buying into the idea that the throwdown is being dropped for the benefit of the CO and future seekers, when we all know the real reason for the throwdown is so the thrower can claim one more find. If someone really thinks they have a good reason to drop a throwdown, they would be more honest if they filed a DNF because they didn't find the cache, and that fact isn't changed by them subsequently leaving something for the next person to find.

 

Quote

 

I suppose it could make a CO's life really easy. Just post a cache with some coordinates but don't bother actually putting a cache there. Sooner or later some kind soul with place a throwdown film pot and people can start logging it as found. If it disappears the chances are someone else will throw down another film pot, the community will maintain it rather than let a cache be archived, and you just route all the emails about it to the spam folder while putting out more and more caches that don't exist.

I sometimes wonder if some COs are most of the way towards doing this. Naming no names but some do seem to have an awful lot archived by reviewers for non-maintenance. 

 

 

Quote

 

And thus those who think (or claim) that they are helping the community by leaving their own container, all too often are actually performing a disservice by perpetuating a sub-standard cache and also locking a location such that the opportunity for another hider who would maintain the cache to place one doesn't exist.

 

This in turn increases cache saturation with the knock-on effect that new caches start popping up in other locations ranging from less than ideal to utterly pointless. This in turn leads newbies to believe that these sub-standard caches are what the game is all about - such that they either become disillusioned and give up before they've even started, or go out and place more of the same themselves.

 

A steady, downward spiral. 

 

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I have seen a reviewer disable a cache when an OM/enable log after a "replacement"/throwdown. That owner never went back to the location to check. The cache was eventually reviewer archived. 

 

This doesn't proof your theory about mandatory maintenance visit. It only proofs that the throwdown was not agreed with the (inactive) CO.

[+thebruce0]

12 minutes ago, arisoft said:

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I have seen a reviewer disable a cache when an OM/enable log after a "replacement"/throwdown. That owner never went back to the location to check. The cache was eventually reviewer archived. 

 

This doesn't proof your theory about mandatory maintenance visit. It only proofs that the throwdown was not agreed with the (inactive) CO.

 

You are demonstrating your willingness to risk the assumption that the replacement is exactly as you intend it to be. If not, then most definitely it's on your shoulders if/when there are any additional problems with the cache, because you didn't do a proper owner maintenance checkup - even on a known proxy maintenance.

 

And that's the point.

 

As the owner of the cache listing, it is solely your responsibility to make sure the cache is in good intended condition. Your OM log is your stamp of approval.  No one otherwise knows if you've been to check it. So your stamp of approval implies that it's back to expected proper condition.  If you didn't check it, it's your problem then if there comes a problem, and plenty of caches have been disabled and archived because the CO assumed the proxy maintenance was sufficient.

 

So, sure, you can allow it and condone it, and you may be fortunate enough to have caches and community that do a bang-up job of maintaining your caches for you - but that's not the norm and it's not condoned, and if reviewers learn of a geocacher not properly maintaining their own caches, they are within their rights to disable it until the owner can verify they've physically been out to verify it.

 

--

All that said, back to the OP, you really need to make a judgment on call on how much 'friendly help' is too much friendly help. It sure is a good deed to help a CO, and almost universally anyone would agree that dropping a dry or empty log into a cache can be a good thing, even if it is, there's still the chance that the CO will be one who doesn't want anyone to help them maintain at all, and would prefer you properly log a NM so they can check on it.

 

A whole lot of assumptions are made when proper procedure isn't followed. And there are good reasons why the proper procedure exists (and how it all got to that point).  So really, every time you're faced with the question, you just need to make a personal judgment call, because there are far too many factors involved

[+HunterandSamuel]

15 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

I hope you agree that a responsible game is important. As geocachers we don't want the pastime to reflect badly. Are we contributing to a game of litter.  Are we encouraging owners to abandon caches? 

 

 

 

 

 

I see it in a different light. I doubt very much the past will reflect badly nor encourage owners to abandon caches. Maybe it's a community thing.

[+HunterandSamuel]

14 hours ago, Keystone said:

I split the above posts out of the "Found It = Didn't Find It" thread.

Good idea! Thanks.

[+HunterandSamuel]

14 hours ago, Touchstone said:

 So in essence, a throwdown is more of a selfish act and not altruistic at all.

Depending on the reason why they did it.  And when being informed it was discouraged in the guidelines, never doing it again. By the way, "throwdowns" are not in the guidelines I read. It's the first time I've hear of it. But I do appreciate the link Cerberus1 gave me. My new geocache promise: "On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to Geocaching and my geocache community and to obey the Geocaching.com guidelines; To help other cachers at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake to solve those puzzles."

[+L0ne.R]

10 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

To help other cachers at all times

 

To help other cachers, post a DNF on missing caches, or NM on broken/wet/moldy caches,  then NAs on cache listings where the CO isn't responding to ongoing problems.

 

Some of us filter out caches with red wrenches (NMs/NAs). We would appreciate the help to save ourselves time and gas money. 

 

Personally, I don't want to find someone's throwdown. It makes me implicit in the litter culture that, in some areas, is the norm. I prefer finding a cache as intended by the owner. I want to connect with an active owner who cares that people are visiting their cache, who looks forward to finders' logs, monitors and maintains, and want to provide a nice experience.  It's a nice feeling. 

Edited December 9, 2019 by L0ne.R

[+HunterandSamuel]

12 hours ago, niraD said:

I've left additional logs (printed on weatherproof paper) myself, but keep in mind that a dry log doesn't fix the problem. If the log is wet, then the container has failed to protect it. Adding a dry log is short-term first aid until the CO can address the failed container, otherwise that log will just get wet too. And logging NM is still appropriate.

That's why we let the cache owners know what we did. Now it's up to them to figure out why the log was wet. I've never done a NM. I prefer messaging the owner instead, give them a chance to fix the problem. We had a capsule log replaced by a geocacher not too long ago because it was wet. We were very thankful for her sweet post and not doing a NM. Checked it out the very next day, it needed a rubber seal. Went to the hardware store to buy one and replaced it that same day. The new log was still dry so we left it there. We're blessed to have supportive and helpful geocachers in our surrounding towns and cities.  

[+CAVinoGal]

2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I've never done a NM. I prefer messaging the owner instead, give them a chance to fix the problem. We had a capsule log replaced by a geocacher not too long ago because it was wet. We were very thankful for her sweet post and not doing a NM. Checked it out the very next day, it needed a rubber seal. Went to the hardware store to buy one and replaced it that same day.

 

BUT, if she HAD logged the NM, then you did what you did and posted a follow up OM (Owner Maintenance) - the cache record would be more accurate, GS would see a responsive CO, your CHS (Cache Health Score) would potenetially be better.  And I, as a cacher, would be able to see the same sequence and have a better feel for the cache history, and you as a CO.

 

Log the DNF, then the NM if warranted - I'd rather see some DNF's and NM, followed by an OM than just a series of notes, or no indication of what actually happened.

[+J Grouchy]

2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I've never done a NM. I prefer messaging the owner instead, give them a chance to fix the problem. 

 

I don't see that as particularly helpful, honestly.  It doesn't help anyone who might be out looking for it after you visit.  They have these very specific log types FOR THIS VERY REASON.  Any CO that gets offended maybe shouldn't be a CO.  It's all a well-established part of the game and we should all understand nobody is "out to get them" or publicly shame them.  Posting an NM log is a service and ought to be appreciated rather than avoided.

[+HunterandSamuel]

4 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

 

This isn't intended to be rude or snarky...but anyone who reads up on the guidelines or even spends more than a few seconds thinking about it knows.  There's a "Did not find" option for any cache you do not find.  That's precisely what it's for and I really wish folks would use it instead of finding weird ways of justifying a "found it" log.

 

So, I apologize if that does sound rude...but it's honestly exhausting to see this sort of thing all the time.  

Not to sound rude or snarky but try having a bit more patience for people who asked on a public forum if it was wrong and after being told it was discouraged and a link given, pledged not to do it again. Also, I did read the guidelines when joining and no where is "throwdown" mentioned. Unless I've missed it somehow. You tell me. I'll find the link.  

[+HunterandSamuel]

4 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

I don't see that as particularly helpful, honestly.  It doesn't help anyone who might be out looking for it after you visit.  They have these very specific log types FOR THIS VERY REASON.  Any CO that gets offended maybe shouldn't be a CO.  It's all a well-established part of the game and we should all understand nobody is "out to get them" or publicly shame them.  Posting an NM log is a service and ought to be appreciated rather than avoided.

Different opinions I guess. I will still continue to let the owner know that I replaced the log because it was wet. Also write it in my found log that log is wet. I have seen this over and over in logs without a NM. Maybe geocaching is different in other cities/States.

[+HunterandSamuel]

Here are the guidelines I read in the past. If it's in there, then I didn't see it.    https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines

[+HunterandSamuel]

32 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

To help other cachers, post a DNF on missing caches, or NM on broken/wet/moldy caches,  then NAs on cache listings where the CO isn't responding to ongoing problems.

 

Some of us filter out caches with red wrenches (NMs/NAs). We would appreciate the help to save ourselves time and gas money. 

 

Personally, I don't want to find someone's throwdown. It makes me implicit in the litter culture that, in some areas, is the norm. I prefer finding a cache as intended by the owner. I want to connect with an active owner who cares that people are visiting their cache, who looks forward to finders' logs, monitors and maintains, and want to provide a nice experience.  It's a nice feeling. 

Well said. This is a learning experience for sure.

[+cerberus1]

34 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

By the way, "throwdowns" are not in the guidelines I read. It's the first time I've hear of it. But I do appreciate the link Cerberus1 gave me.

 

To be clear, the "link" I gave you was from the Help Center,  where our guidelines come from.  

The Help Center is prominently linked to in the first two lines of our most basic informational page,    Geocaching 101.

[+HunterandSamuel]

24 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

 

BUT, if she HAD logged the NM, then you did what you did and posted a follow up OM (Owner Maintenance) - the cache record would be more accurate, GS would see a responsive CO, your CHS (Cache Health Score) would potenetially be better.  And I, as a cacher, would be able to see the same sequence and have a better feel for the cache history, and you as a CO.

 

Log the DNF, then the NM if warranted - I'd rather see some DNF's and NM, followed by an OM than just a series of notes, or no indication of what actually happened.

True. Makes sense.

[+HunterandSamuel]

5 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

To be clear, the "link" I gave you was from the Help Center,  where our guidelines come from.  

The Help Center is prominently linked to in the first two lines of our most basic informational page,    Geocaching 101.

What topic can one find it under in the Help Center? There are a few topics.  

[+HunterandSamuel]

I can only find the Throwdown topic when doing a search on the link you just gave me. But where is it for newbies to read about?

[+MartyBartfast]

1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

We were very thankful for her sweet post and not doing a NM.

This suggests that you see an NM as some sort of black mark against you - it isn't it's just a simple statement of fact so don't take them to heart and don't feel bad about using them . Sending a personal message to the CO rather than an NM has a few  of disadvantages:

 

1. Some CO's don't even read personal messages, whereas they might act on logs on their caches, I've seen this particularly where a CO is nolonger an active cacher but they still want to maintain their caches.
2. Sending a personal message keeps it between the logger and the CO, whereas an NM is instantly visible to future searchers, I have seen NMs on caches I was intending to go and search and thought to myself "I'll take a replacement box/log" to that and fix it for the CO; alternatively if the NM reports the cache is missing then I might skip it and save myself a wasted journey.
3. How long would one wait for a personal message to be replied to/acted upon, and if nothing is forthcoming then what does one do  next? posting an NM will give the reviewers a measure of how long maintenance is outstanding so they can make an informed judgement on whether it should be archived or not.

 

28 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

What topic can one find it under in the Help Center? There are a few topics.  

Enter "Throwdowns" in the search box, or otherwise go to section 7.11

 

 

Throwdowns is one of those topics which often divides opinion, personally I think there is no place for replacing caches unless agreed with the CO.

Edited December 9, 2019 by MartyBartfast
typo

[+cerberus1]

9 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I can only find the Throwdown topic when doing a search on the link you just gave me. But where is it for newbies to read about?

 

The Help Center,  then Hide a Cache, then #7 - Ownership after publication.   

[+Michaelcycle]

13 hours ago, niraD said:

I've left additional logs (printed on weatherproof paper) myself, but keep in mind that a dry log doesn't fix the problem. If the log is wet, then the container has failed to protect it. Adding a dry log is short-term first aid until the CO can address the failed container, otherwise that log will just get wet too. And logging NM is still appropriate.

That is an inaccurate generalization. In my experience, about 20% of wet or damp logs I encounter are the result of a prior cacher not closing the container properly. People are in such a hurry to get to  the next find that they fail to make sure that the contents are not caught in the seal, the lid is not closed all the way around, the log is not rolled tight and inserted into the bison cap first and so on.

If I find a wet log caused by a container failure I make sure to state that in my log and typically add a NM

[+HunterandSamuel]

3 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

This suggests that you see an NM as some sort of black mark against you - it isn't it's just a simple statement of fact ao don't take them to heart and don't feel bad about using them

• You are right. It would make me feel like we don't take care of our caches, that we are negligent. We work hard at taking care of them and receive many compliments. After the last snow fall of 18", we went to all our cache hides and uncovered them (except for the lamp posts, snow banks are too high). We then made sure to write a note letting future finders know that they are ready to find after the snowfall. Some you just have to follow the snow prints we left behind!  Thanks for the lists. It's been an interesting discussion.

[+L0ne.R]

1 minute ago, HunterandSamuel said:

You are right. It would make me feel like we don't take care of our caches, that we are negligent

 

I'm the opposite. As a cache owner (a total of 60+ over 15+ years), I view the NM log as an important tool to keep on top of my caches and keep them looking good for the next finders. An NM means the finder thinks there's enough of a problem that I should go have a look (maybe bring some supplies with me). 

[+IceColdUK]

10 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

The Help Center,  then Hide a Cache, then #7 - Ownership after publication.   

I always struggle to find things in the Help Centre - even when I know I’ve already seen it.

 

This is a great example.  Why should a new cacher (i.e. seeker) be expected to read help on hiding a cache to find out something like this?

[+MartyBartfast]

2 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

It would make me feel like we don't take care of our caches, that we are negligent.

That might be true if you ignored multiple NMs and didn't act on them,  but if after the first NM telling you that your container has somehow been damaged and has got wet, you then go and  temp disable the cache and post a note to the effect that you will fix it when you can get there next week (or whenever) then everyone will see that as being a diligent and responsible CO, nobody would think you're in any way negligent.