Are reviewers no longer acting on NA logs?

[+barefootjeff]

Out of curiosity, I have instant notifications set up for NA and archive logs within a 40km radius of home. The last time I saw a reviewer respond to an NA log was in August and since then there have been another 21 logged. Of those, a few have been repaired or archived by their owners but the rest are still sitting there as active listings without so much as a TD or even a WN from a reviewer. At first I thought it might have been because of the COVID lockdown but that ended in mid October, with all travel restrictions within New South Wales lifted a few weeks later. Some of those caches have even had second NAs logged on them but still to no avail.

 

So I'm wondering if there's any way now for the community to help clear the board of missing or dysfunctional caches, or do we just have to sit back and wait for the CHS to do its thing?

[+Goldenwattle]

16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Out of curiosity, I have instant notifications set up for NA and archive logs within a 40km radius of home. The last time I saw a reviewer respond to an NA log was in August and since then there have been another 21 logged. Of those, a few have been repaired or archived by their owners but the rest are still sitting there as active listings without so much as a TD or even a WN from a reviewer. At first I thought it might have been because of the COVID lockdown but that ended in mid October, with all travel restrictions within New South Wales lifted a few weeks later. Some of those caches have even had second NAs logged on them but still to no avail.

 

So I'm wondering if there's any way now for the community to help clear the board of missing or dysfunctional caches, or do we just have to sit back and wait for the CHS to do its thing?

It has been very slow to get a reaction to a NA.

[+MNTA]

I filed a NA yesterday. A simple bison tube on a fence. Last find was 2018 and 3 dnfs since then. Co moved out of the area awhile ago so fiiled the NA, reviewer posted a note requesting an update from the CO by the end of the day.

My two NM within the last month still have no action on them by a reviewer or CO. They will probably eventually be archived.

[+barefootjeff]

53 minutes ago, MNTA said:

I filed a NA yesterday. A simple bison tube on a fence. Last find was 2018 and 3 dnfs since then. Co moved out of the area awhile ago so fiiled the NA, reviewer posted a note requesting an update from the CO by the end of the day.

My two NM within the last month still have no action on them by a reviewer or CO. They will probably eventually be archived.

 

One of the ones I've noticed, a 1.5/1.5 traditional, was last found in January 2020, with a WN posted in February 2020 saying the area was fenced off. Another WN accompanied by an NM was posted in November 2020 and a DNF logged in July 2021. This was followed by the NA in September 2021 but no response to any of them and the listing is still active.

Edited December 18, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+Lynx Humble]

Yeah I have this issue in my area too the reviewer doesn't action NA anymore...

[+Viajero Perdido]

Careful... You may be approached to be a volunteer.  

[+MNTA]

49 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Careful... You may be approached to be a volunteer.  

 

Filing many nm/na should be a prerequisite now if only there was a way to help new COs with placement with little or no finding experience. 

 

[+Ragnemalm]

According to reviewer comments, it seems to me that NA is only supposed to be used if there are complaints from locals or the cache is in violation to laws.

[+Calypso62]

Perhaps asking the question on the Australian Geocaching Volunteer Reviewers Facebook page might get a response.

 

I've also got my eye on some caches that I've placed a Needs Archive log on. Some were disabled by a Reviewer back in August saying they'll pass by in another 45 days. Still waiting.

[+Mausebiber]

8 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

According to reviewer comments, it seems to me that NA is only supposed to be used if there are complaints from locals or the cache is in violation to laws.

 

No, I don't think this statement was from a reviewer.  Everyone can log a NA and in the past, reviewer reacted in a reasonable time.  4-6 weeks later, when there was no reaction from the CO, the cache was archived.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=434

 

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.

Edited December 18, 2021 by Mausebiber

[+Royal Oak]

This Reviewer is not aware of any instruction, from above, to ignore NA logs or that they are only supposed to be used if there are complaints from locals or the cache is in violation to laws. Most NA logs that I see refer to missing caches or caches where some Tender Loving Care (TLC) is required.

I do give a lower priority to these logs, than for newly submitted caches, but they are usually acted on within a week.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, Royal Oak said:

I do give a lower priority to these logs, than for newly submitted caches, but they are usually acted on within a week.

 

That used to be the case here too, where within a week or two of an NA being logged the reviewer would disable the cache with the standard please respond within 30 days or the cache will be archived log, but since August that hasn't been happening at all. New caches and events are still being published within days of submission, so our reviewers haven't been abducted by aliens, but action on NAs looks to have completely stopped.

[Darwin473]

It might be that the local Reviewer is sick, busy or has some other issue going on at the moment which is taking up more of their time than normal?

 

Up here in the NT, our Reviewer (who does NT, WA and TAS) has been reasonably responsive most of the year. The most recent Archive (that I know of) up here is GC11XG1 I logged NA on 10 OCt, was disabled 18 Oct with the normal "hey CO, please action" message and then archived 18 Dec. Considering this time of year, that seems to be a pretty decent timeline, and gave the CO extra time to react in case of issues with Covid or other.

 

In this specific case, the CO was long inactive, and the cache was unrecoverable due to a new housing estate going in and the whole area being bulldozed. On the plus side, new spot opening up for a new cache, and the original had a pretty good run since it was placed in 2007.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Unit473L said:

It might be that the local Reviewer is sick, busy or has some other issue going on at the moment which is taking up more of their time than normal?

 

Possibly, although after four months I'd have thought something could have been arranged amongst the other Australian reviewers (there are six in all plus a GeoAware). Here's the logs from one of the caches (a 1/1.5 traditional) that was NAed two months ago:

 

 

It was last found in May and there've since been 7 DNFs, 2 NMs and finally the NA, yet the cache remains in play. The owner hasn't done any caching since 2015 and last visited the website in 2016 so I don't think there's much chance of them archiving it themselves.

 

I'd been thinking of doing my community duty and, once the works are done and the fences are gone, going back to that construction site cache I DNFed and NMed last month and logging an NA if it has indeed disappeared, but there's not much point now if it's just going to be ignored.

[+Team Canary]

Yes. Very slow at the moment in Sydney. 

[+Ragnemalm]

On 12/18/2021 at 3:16 PM, Mausebiber said:

No, I don't think this statement was from a reviewer.  Everyone can log a NA and in the past, reviewer reacted in a reasonable time.  4-6 weeks later, when there was no reaction from the CO, the cache was archived.

It was indeed from a reviewer. It was well documented that the cache was in a bad shape and that the CO did not respond to multiple attempts and was inactive since a long time. I was told that it was not OK, it should be NM. The cache was archived about three months later (not 4-6 weeks).

 

So the rule that the reviewer gave me was only to log NM in such a case. IMHO, NA is a strong recommendation for archiving, not just reporting of violations, but that was not the case.

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

It was indeed from a reviewer. It was well documented that the cache was in a bad shape and that the CO did not respond to multiple attempts and was inactive since a long time. I was told that it was not OK, it should be NM. The cache was archived about three months later (not 4-6 weeks).

 

So the rule that the reviewer gave me was only to log NM in such a case. IMHO, NA is a strong recommendation for archiving, not just reporting of violations, but that was not the case.

Any chance the reviewer was saying you should post an NM first instead of going straight to posting an NA? That's what it sounds like. I don't know what the "multiple attempts" were that the CO didn't respond to, but if they weren't NMs, then it would be appropriate to post an NM. The cache sounds bad enough that an NA without bothering with an NM might be reasonable, so I'm not saying I think a bare NA would be entirely wrong, it just strikes me that the reviewer might have been questioning it because typically an NM is posted first in order to give the CO a chance to react before calling in the reviewer to archive it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 12/17/2021 at 8:13 PM, MNTA said:

My two NM within the last month still have no action on them by a reviewer or CO. They will probably eventually be archived.

 

Reviewers aren't automatically notified of NM logs.

[+humboldt flier]

Maybe, just maybe ... reviewers are filtering out *(giving less weight)* to "one hit wonders" who are posting NM / NA.

 

"My Baaaadd"

 

 

[+Ragnemalm]

7 hours ago, humboldt flier said:

Maybe, just maybe ... reviewers are filtering out *(giving less weight)* to "one hit wonders" who are posting NM / NA.

 

"My Baaaadd"

You mean newbies? Of course, they will use NA, NM and DNF differently that we expect.

[+barefootjeff]

Now, one of the caches that had been missing for over a year and had an ignored NA logged on it in October has just had someone throw down a throwdown and log their find. Do TPTB see this as a good outcome?

[+niraD]

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Now, one of the caches that had been missing for over a year and had an ignored NA logged on it in October has just had someone throw down a throwdown and log their find. Do TPTB see this as a good outcome?

This forum really needs a "Sad" response.

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Now, one of the caches that had been missing for over a year and had an ignored NA logged on it in October has just had someone throw down a throwdown and log their find. Do TPTB see this as a good outcome?

Our reviewer has posted a note log on a cache page about not placing a throwdown.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

Our reviewer has posted a note log on a cache page about not placing a throwdown.

 

I'm curious under what circumstances that would be effective. Is a thrower-downer likely to see that note before they drop their throwdown? And if the cache is missing and the owner hasn't responded, how is posting such a note going to fix anything? Once upon a time, in such circumstances the reviewer would just disable the cache and put the owner on notice to fix it within 28 days or have it face archival.

[+Team Canary]

I sent an email to one of the local reviewers over a week ago. No response. I’ll try the other later this week. 

Edited December 26, 2021 by Team Canary

[+humboldt flier]

9 hours ago, Team Canary said:

I sent an email to one of the local reviewers over a week ago. No response. I’ll try the other later this week. 

Wellllllll,

 

        They are volunteers: probably (just a hunch) have a life. 

 

       They are not our servants ... buuuuttttt I may be in error.

[+JL_HSTRE]

15 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Our reviewer has posted a note log on a cache page about not placing a throwdown.

 

While Reviewers seem to be pretty good about Throwdowns I question whether the community tide is running against Groundspeak on this issue. Not only does the practice seem to be getting more common, but there is hostility from cachers who place a Throwdown then have their log deleted by the CO.

 

When I started in 2010 it seemed like throwdowns were pretty rare. Powertrails started being allowed that year and throwdowns were one of the many dubious practices employed by PT seekers. As PTs have gotten more and more widespread it shouldn't be surprising behavior related to them has been bleeding over into non-PT caches.

[+Max and 99]

To clarify, the note from the reviewer was posted after someone placed a throw down. If I remember correctly the cache was headed for possible reviewer action when this happened. 

Edited December 26, 2021 by Max and 99

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, humboldt flier said:

Wellllllll,

 

        They are volunteers: probably (just a hunch) have a life. 

 

       They are not our servants ... buuuuttttt I may be in error.

 

Of course, and no-one is expecting them to drop everything else and attend to an NA log the moment it's posted, but there are now some that have been outstanding for over four months. If this isn't a change in policy by HQ, maybe there's a volunteer workload problem that needs attention.

[+Team Canary]

6 hours ago, humboldt flier said:

Wellllllll,

 

        They are volunteers: probably (just a hunch) have a life. 

 

       They are not our servants ... buuuuttttt I may be in error.

Understood.

 

But these have been going on for months.

 

Publishing is still happening. 

 

If they need more help than there are people willing to help. 

[Rock Chalk]

This thread has run its course.

 

There are a few ways for the OP to effectively bring attention to his concerns:
 

1. Contact your local reviewer(s) directly.

2. If not satisfied with the reviewer response, contact HQ via the Help Center.