Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
the Seagnoid

Bring back "Needs Maintenance" for COs

Recommended Posts

Definition:

Alternate Account -

Does No Evil

PS Love the Cat

Don't become a sock puppet

Lest ye suffer the Captain's wrath

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/19/2020 at 11:38 AM, NanCycle said:
On 5/19/2020 at 9:04 AM, L0ne.R said:

My guess, COs were abusing NM so Groundspeak had to remove the option. 

I find it hard to see how/why this would be subject to abuse.  

 

Maybe not. But why was the option removed? From my observation, GCHQ has removed options and types for a reason. If not abuse (or the lesser charge of using a tool as it was not intended), then why was it removed as an option for owners?

 

--------------------

 

Addendum:

 

Did some searching and found the announcement (I bolded the part that sort of explains why. It seems to suggest some misuse and confusion that affected the community):

 

Quote

 

Posted March 31, 2017

 

As you may have learned from a community volunteer reviewer or from one of our API partners, in early to mid-April, we will begin enforcing changes to the logging rules through the user interface on Geocaching.com and the Geocaching® app. The changes take effect for Authorized Developers on May 8, 2017.
 

  • Cache owners will no longer be able to log a Find, DNF, Webcam Photo Taken, Needs Archived, or Needs Maintenance on their owned caches. However, event owners can log an Attended or Will Attend on their own events.
     
  • Players will no longer be able to log more than 1 (one) Find, Attended, Webcam Photo Taken, or Will Attend per cache. Players will still be able to change a Write Note to a Find if they have not already logged a Find on the cache.

 

These changes are not retroactive. Past logs are not affected.

 

Geocaching HQ will not be making exceptions to these logging rules for any specific caches.

 

We believe these changes will streamline the core logging structure of the game, address requests for these changes from the community, and reduce confusion for our newer community members.

 

We’ll share more details in the coming weeks.

 

 

 

An example of abuse I found while searching for the answer for this one: 

 

Quote

Well this is interesting. I didn't know that this was possible but sure enough the cache mentioned by the OP indeed has a "needs no maintenance" attribute. Is this a hack or a new feature? Why in the world would anybody need an attribute like this?

 

Quote

As with others, there's no direct "Doesn't Need Maintenance" icon selection, although I could probably figure out how to submit that selection, if I tried :ph34r:. It is in fact an icon in the set, just not designed to be selectable. Once checkmarked, if you then deselect "Needs Maintenance" by clicking the "N/R" radio button, that entire icon option vanishes from the list.

Quote

 

The presence of the Needs maintenance attribute in the GPX file with a setting of inc="0" I think says that the attribute is present in the NOT state - i.e. with a red line through it.

 

This is certainly true of other attributes with NOT states i.e. wheelchair accessible.

 

If a valid Needs Maintenance flag had been raised on that cache, the attribute would appear in the GPX file set as inc="1", I think.

Quote

When you do a PQ for caches around there that Need Maintenance, those don't show up.

 

Interesting...

Quote

 

The owner of that power trail is a group, at least one member of which is rather well known for taking advantage of various loopholes on the site. I imagine that they once again exploited some loophole to toggle on the "no" version of the "Needs Maintenance" attribute, even though that form of the attribute is not supposed to be available. I have purged these bogus values from the database.

 

Quote

I am surprised that the thread has gone this far without someone pointing out that the icon doesn't mean "Needs No Maintenance" but actually means "The CO does not maintain this cache".

Quote

I do not mind that they're good enough to hack your system but what I do mind is that geocachers do not see the red wrench flag in the cache list and therefore they do not know they'd better avoid particular part of the power trail that is likely to have issues.

 

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Addendum

Share this post


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

 From my observation, GCHQ has removed options and types for a reason. If not abuse (or the lesser charge of using a tool as it was not intended), then why was it removed as an option for owners?

 

Possible that the few COS that were logging their own caches NM were distorting the Cache Health Scores on some, and the site simply decided to remove it ?

 

I'd like to think of it as maybe not noticing that COs could log their own cache NM,  and simply corrected it when they did.

That (to me) is a lot more believable than there's still more people looking to "abuse" yet-another function, that in most cases could only hurt them.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
  On 11/22/2017 at 4:00 PM, said:

If a CO needs to flag their own cache as NM, then it may just be a suggestion that someone else maintain it for them.

What a clever idea! And it is also true. Official way to ask finders to help.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
 
Quote

 

  On 11/22/2017 at 6:10 PM, arisoft said:

What I fear is that this limitation has been made just because it was not known why NM by CO was used. Or maybe it was not intentional at all. Maybe this possibility just disappeared when the NM feature was moved to the new streamlined logging experience.

I think sometimes the NM gets used by a cache owner because if they post a Disable, it's likely that a reviewer will come along and post a Reviewer Note a month later. If nothing gets done within another month, the cache may be archived by the reviewer. I see evidence of this, in the OP's case. The NM gives a cache owner much more time and may alert a finder to bring along a replacement logsheet and/or container.

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/19/2020 at 1:43 PM, hzoi said:

Unless/until Groundspeak decides this is worth dedicating a programmer to execute, consider making a basic member sock puppet account to flag your own caches. 

 

I don't believe that throngs of abusers are doing this, but curious... since LOne.R just brought this up (and added/edited to a post I replied to ...).

 

If it's shown that the "alternate" account was using it merely to get other folks to notice so they'd fix things for them (abuse of the system...),  would that now make it a "sock" account,  and possibly risk a penalty for the account creating it ? 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Maybe not. But why was the option removed? From my observation, GCHQ has removed options and types for a reason. If not abuse (or the lesser charge of using a tool as it was not intended), then why was it removed as an option for owners?

In my opinion, GS tends to add these features to avoid mistakes. So although I think it was the wrong decision, everything I see is consistent with GS thinking, "No CO would file an NM on their own cache, so we should prevent them from making that mistake." That's why I'm arguing that not only is there no reason to think a CO filing an NM on their own cache would be a mistake, it's hard to imagine the scenario where a CO would do it by mistake.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If I need to perform maintenance on my cache I will disable it until I do so.

 

Last week I visted some of my caches. On a waypoint object of one of them, the split ring attaching the label tag is starting to rust so I plan to replace it with something non-ferrous on my next visit. On another, a piece of the decoration on the outside of the novelty container has broken off, so next time I'll take some glue to repair it. These are both maintenance issues as far as I'm concerned, but they don't affect those searching for the caches and hardly warrant disabling them. Granted an owner-logged NM might be overkill too, but it would be nice if there was some integrated maintenance reminder flag that a CO could set. Personal cache notes was something that immediately came to mind, but with the recent change to accomodate the new search map, we can no longer search for caches that have PCNs.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using my wife's account to log NM at my own caches. 

It also adds extra sense of urgency, psychologically :ph34r:

 

 

I remember those days when I was testing new log flow - and this is one the issues I've addressed back then. Didn't understood this re(move) of important CO tool/option.

  • Funny 2
  • Love 1

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 5

×
×
  • Create New...