The Maintenance Needed Attribute: Why do we have it?

[+edexter]

I've been wondering what the purpose of the Red Wrench attribute is. 

I understand that it indicates an "open Needs Maintenance Log" but when I recently ran a pocket query for caches with that attribute, got 444 results in a 40 mile radius but  fewer than 1 in 10 appear to actually need maintenance at the present time.  They cache has either been repaired by the CO (who failed to log the OM visit) or by someone else (who can't log a repair).  This makes the attribute useless for screening purposes since it doesn't actually identify the caches needing repair.  To put it another way, the attribute has a false positive rate in excess of 90%.  Since the CO doesn't need it (they get NM logs directly), The Reviewers don't seem to use it, and it doesn't tell you anything useful, what's it for?   

[+baer2006]

36 minutes ago, edexter said:

To put it another way, the attribute has a false positive rate in excess of 90%. 

To me, that doesn't indicate a useless attribute. It indicates careless and/or clueless COs.

[+cerberus1]

I'd guess this is tongue in cheek, as the NM attribute lets everyone know there may be an issue, and simply looking at the cache page helps folks discern if it's true.  Going to many caches with NM, to find it was a noob's first "find" makes me look...

If me, I'd be happy that someone's actually placing NM on caches in the first place.  We don't see that here...

There's more than a few that if I did them, mine would be the first NM well-after six months.

At an Event two years ago almost a third forgot OM after a fix.  Most didn't know they didn't have to sign the log as well...  

Maybe it's just me, but the "repaired by someone else" of a cache bothers me more than an unknowing/long gone CO and a red wrench. 

We've heard that some Reviewers will remove the red wrench when repaired on certain older caches. Email the Reviewer.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, edexter said:

I've been wondering what the purpose of the Red Wrench attribute is. 

[+barefootjeff]

When I'm planning a caching trip and see a cache with the Needs Maintenance attribute, it's a heads-up to take a look through the recent logs to see what I'm likely to be up against. Also, if I find a cache in disrepair, it's a quick guide as to whether my log should be an NM or an NA.

[+MNTA]

If I notice the red wrench I'll open it up and if the last few logs are DNFs, usually I'll skip. Specially when planning a road trip to get a new county. After all it's impossible to find them all so why waste the time.

 

If it is close to my house and I'm in the mood for a challenge I may give it a try, if the CO is one I recognize I'll drop them a note and a DNF log,  but most often the CO has moved on and a NA log is submitted. 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, MNTA said:

If I notice the red wrench I'll open it up and if the last few logs are DNFs, usually I'll skip. Specially when planning a road trip to get a new county. After all it's impossible to find them all so why waste the time.

 

On a recent caching trip to Manly on Sydney's northern beaches, one of the two caches I was targeting had the Needs Maintenance attribute set, following an NM log in March reporting that all that was left of the cache was the container body cable-tied to a branch, with no lid or log. Since then, it'd had 4 DNFs but 11 finds, with those claiming the find just because they saw the broken container. As I'd be walking past it anyway on the way to the other cache, I thought I'd take a look myself and, sure enough, this is what I found:

 

 

Since the March NM had gone unanswered, I logged an NA. That was back in October and the cache is still active so I don't know if there's any point in logging NAs now. Because of all the false finds, the CHS isn't going to spot it so I guess it's a prime target for someone to drop a throwdown there and make it "legit" again.

 

I did find the other cache, a nice regular-sized one on a headland with good views up and down the coast, so it wasn't a wasted trip, but as there are no other caches I haven't found within walking distance of the ferry wharf, I guess in this case I have found them all.

[+JL_HSTRE]

4 hours ago, edexter said:

The Reviewers don't seem to use it

 

It affects the Cache Health Score, which Reviewers do use.

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, edexter said:

Red Wrench attribute

When I first heard red wench (heard it before this) I didn't know what that meant (?🤔). We say spanner here in Australia.

 

NM is very useful and helpful to let the CO know their cache needs fixing. If a CO gets upset about getting a NM that's their shortcomings on display, not that there is anything wrong with the NM. It shouldn't get to the stage where a NM is needed, but too many COs ignore comments such a log is wet. Helpful people log NM.

Great feature and needed. After the cache is serviced an OM log is done and this cancels out the NM. 

NM also assists reviewers.

If a NM is ignored, I am likely to then log a NA. It doesn't help the game if caches are allowed to deteriorate. How does that attract new members and keep them in the game?

 

Red spanner  is needed.

 

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, baer2006 said:

To me, that doesn't indicate a useless attribute. It indicates careless and/or clueless COs.

Correct. And more to the point, the OP shouldn't be asking what the purpose of the attribute is, since he clearly understands that: he should be asking why COs in his area don't maintain it correctly. And I mean literally asking the COs since that could actually make a difference, as opposed to complaining on the forums to people all over the world, most of whom already recognize this problem.

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

It affects the Cache Health Score, which Reviewers do use.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought the NM attribute didn't have an observable effect on the health score. The NM *log* has a little effect, but even that wasn't as big a factor people expected.

[+Goldenwattle]

20 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought the NM attribute didn't have an observable effect on the health score. The NM *log* has a little effect, but even that wasn't as big a factor people expected.

I thought that too, but I have noticed a few times a cache I have put a NM on has had a reviewer come in, after the CO has been given time to fix the cache. No other DNFs, and finds either side of me. Doesn't happen often, but it happens.

[+JL_HSTRE]

9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I thought that too, but I have noticed a few times a cache I have put a NM on has had a reviewer come in, after the CO has been given time to fix the cache. No other DNFs, and finds either side of me. Doesn't happen often, but it happens.

 

I think Reviewers might post Review Notes on caches with NM attribute if they weren't already so busy with NAs, long-disabled caches, and new cache submissions. 

[+hzoi]

20 hours ago, edexter said:

I've been wondering what the purpose of the Red Wrench attribute is. 

 

It's an easy way for me to filter out caches that are potentially problematic from a pocket query. If I'm on a cache run in an unfamiliar area - say, on a county/DeLorme run - I don't want to waste time on caches that even potentially might have issues. If'n it has a red wrench, then I'll usually avoid it.

 

It also shows up as a red flag on the cache search, like this:

 

 

(Yes, I know one of those is my adopted cache. Hopefully my uncle will fly me back down there next month so I can take care of it. But for now, it helps me illustrate my next point.)

 

For cache owners, it's a nice visible reminder on the cache page - which also, helpfully, populates in other places, like the search page above, but also the dashboard page and the cache owner dashboard - that, hey, all is not well here, please check on it.

 

 

 

20 hours ago, edexter said:

The Reviewers don't seem to use it

 

I can assure you that at least one reviewer does (me). 

 

Cachers don't typically log a DNF on earthcaches, perhaps because mountains and geysers and such are notoriously difficult to muggle. Which means the health score is not a good indicator of actual earthcache health. 

 

But cachers may leave a NM log if images are missing, or areas are closed, etc.

 

So instead of waiting for the health score to ping (or not), I regularly run a pocket query for all earthcaches in the states I cover with the needs maintenance attribute, and shazam, that's how I find out about problems.

Edited December 9, 2022 by hzoi

[+dprovan]

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I thought that too, but I have noticed a few times a cache I have put a NM on has had a reviewer come in, after the CO has been given time to fix the cache. No other DNFs, and finds either side of me. Doesn't happen often, but it happens.

Reviewers have always done that. I don't think it's driven by the CHS now any more than it was before the CHS existed. But I could be wrong.

[+edexter]

I think the most accurate answer so far is from niraD.

dprovan's comment:  "he should be asking why COs in his area don't maintain it correctly. And I mean literally asking the COs since that could actually make a difference, as opposed to complaining on the forums" makes the naive assumption that I haven't already done so.    (The most common responses when asking the CO if they are going to repair their cache is 1, No response; 2, being called a "cache cop" and 3, verbal tirades suggesting I stop bothering them as they are "too busy" to fix their caches).

I figure raising the issue with the larger community is an appropriate use of the forums.  Is there a better place to point out a problem that only the listing service has the power to correct? 

hzoi's Reviewer response, if done by all Reviewers would eliminate the problem.   Reviewers can contact the CO, be helpful if they get a response, and do something about it if they don't.  Still when used solely as a screening tool 90% of the caches screened out are actually findable...

I agree that a NM notice is useful to COs who intend to fix their caches, I certainly want to know, but there is no getting around a 90% false positive rate.  As barefootjeff and others note, seeing the Red Wrench (or Spanner) can be useful for planning purposes but it's helpful only 10% of the time since those are the only true positives.  

If we assume the purpose of the NM notice is to get a response from the CO but the listing service does little to insure a response then the net result is the present situation:  Most Red Wrenches signify that a NM log was posted and the CO did not post a clearing OM log.  In order for the Attribute to be useful there needs to be some follow up by The Reviewer to clear the attribute.  This can be done by addressing the issue with the CO,  unilaterally clearing it when a review of the logs shows no issue or archiving it when there is no response but clearly a problem.  

It should be obvious that my issue isn't with posting an NM, but clearing them.  I think a requirement that NM logs require a response from the CO would be a reasonable solution to the problem. hzoi also shows how easy this is to do:  when he got an NM log he immediately responded with a note saying he would repair it, and when this was delayed, he added another note about the delay.  Quick, easy, takes a few seconds and makes the NM attribute useful.

 

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, edexter said:

It should be obvious that my issue isn't with posting an NM, but clearing them.  I think a requirement that NM logs require a response from the CO would be a reasonable solution to the problem. hzoi also shows how easy this is to do:  when he got an NM log he immediately responded with a note saying he would repair it, and when this was delayed, he added another note about the delay.  Quick, easy, takes a few seconds and makes the NM attribute useful.

 

In my local area (the Woy Woy peninsula), there are 61 caches of which 5 have the NM attribute set. Those five all owned by cachers who have left the game, and are:

• GC2HZ2T, placed in 2010, had an NM logged in January 2021 for a full log. It's not clear whether anyone has replaced the log, but it's had 23 finds since.
• GCZMRR, placed in 2007, had an NM logged in December 2012 for a wet container and log. The log was subsequently replaced by another finder and others have tried drying out the container but there are reports on and off of dampness, depending on the weather.
• GC5M2GD, placed in 2015, has 4 outstanding NMs, the most recent in July 2022 reporting a wet log. It's had 20 finds since then, though, so it's still a popular cache in spite of the wetness.
• GC1AXPD, placed in 2008, had an NM logged in October 2010 as a heads-up to the CO that there were roadworks at GZ that might disturb the cache but in the end they didn't. The cache escaped damage and continues to be regularly found.
• GCV343, placed in 2006, had an NM logged in December 2017 after after a couple of DNFs asking for the owner to check whether it was still there. The cache has since been found six times, interspersed with more DNFs, but it's a tricky one to spot (a D3.5).

State-wide, there 1516 caches with the NM attribute set out of a total os 20038 so that's 7.6%, similar to what I'm seeing locally. Looking at it the other way, 92.4% of the caches in this state don't have outstanding NMs which I think is pretty good.

 

So what should be done with the five I mentioned and others like them, where there's a long-term outstanding NM but the cache is still being found?

• Require a response from the CO in a reasonable time and archive if it's not forthcoming. The downside of this is it would catch a lot of caches with inactive owners that only have minor issues or even no issues at all if, say, someone else replaced the full log. In a saturated region this mightn't be a problem as there are plenty of other caches and someone will likely fill the empty spot on the map, but around here most archived caches aren't replaced by anything else and just result in fewer caches for newbies and visitors to find.
• A case-by-case assessment by a reviewer to either put the cache on archival notice or clear the NM attribute if there's not an archive-worthy issue. The problem with this is the scale of the task (1516 caches in New South Wales which is the territory of just one reviewer) and the judgment calls that would have to be made on those that are borderline. That'd be a lot of work for the reviewer on top of their existing load.
• Let the status quo remain. It's not ideal but, with less than 10% of caches affected, it's not that much of a problem either. If the community thinks an abandoned cache with an outstanding NM really needs to go, they can always log an NA.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, edexter said:

dprovan's comment:  "he should be asking why COs in his area don't maintain it correctly. And I mean literally asking the COs since that could actually make a difference, as opposed to complaining on the forums" makes the naive assumption that I haven't already done so.

Not a naive assumption, but, yes, I did take for granted that you hadn't talked to the COs because if you already had reactions from the COs, I would expected you to present those in order to make that the topic. The responses you've now told us about are the real problem that we can talk about solving. It's far less productive to start with the unsupported claim that the NM attribute is useless because you don't think it's being used correctly.

 

But, I see, this way you got to call someone innocently trying to help you with your problem "naive", so that's always fun.

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

• Require a response from the CO in a reasonable time and archive if it's not forthcoming. The downside of this is it would catch a lot of caches with inactive owners that only have minor issues or even no issues at all if, say, someone else replaced the full log. In a saturated region this mightn't be a problem as there are plenty of other caches and someone will likely fill the empty spot on the map, but around here most archived caches aren't replaced by anything else and just result in fewer caches for newbies and visitors to find.
•  

 

Why is this a problem. Part of the game they are promoting is being a CO. Free up the space for a new cache. Gives folks the oppertunity to find a new cache in their area. The more I think about it they all should have expiration dates unless OM logs are performed.

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

Why is this a problem. Part of the game they are promoting is being a CO. Free up the space for a new cache. Gives folks the oppertunity to find a new cache in their area. The more I think about it they all should have expiration dates unless OM logs are performed.

 

As I said, it probably wouldn't be a problem in a region with lots of caches, but it is in places like mine, where new caches are rare and there are plenty of spots to put them without having to archive existing ones. A lot of the older bushland caches around here have inactive owners but they're still in good condition and provide a great experience for newbies and visitors even if all the long-term locals have found them. Sure, archive them when they go missing or fall into major disrepair, but as long as they're still being found and enjoyed what harm are they doing?

 

These are all the caches I've found in my local area over nearly ten years of caching and all that's left here now.

 

 

Archived caches don't get magically replaced by new ones, at least not around here. Of the 14 of my own I've archived over the years, only one has had a new cache appear within 161 metres of it and that was a new one I placed when the archival at the bottom of the waterfall opened up an interesting spot near the top, but even that one's only had 8 finds in the 7 months it's been there. In most cases, caches that are archived either by their owners or a reviewer just become another empty space on the map and one fewer for cachers to find.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In a saturated region this mightn't be a problem as there are plenty of other caches and someone will likely fill the empty spot on the map, but around here most archived caches aren't replaced by anything else and just result in fewer caches for newbies and visitors to find.

I have noticed that in more remote areas with few caches, or even any other caches, besides the cache in question, that reviewers (as they should be) are more lenient with them. I have seen a reviewer's note on them, but then someone replaces the crumbling cache with a new cache and months later the cache is still there with no more action from the reviewer. Those caches gone, will not be replaced, and this doesn't help the game if people can't find any caches. Possibly the reviewer themselves has been a traveller and knows first hand about remote caches and the need to preserve the rare ones there.

The map shows one example of few caches in a place I visited this year, but there would be even more remote areas. The cache at 155kms is new. (Yes, occasionally a new cache appears; but that doesn't happen often.) When I drove there this year the closest cache that direction to Normanton (I placed a virtual cache there) was at 281kms.

To the only cache in an area I once gave a favourite point to a ('hated') micro mintie tin, because it was there , and a long drive both directions to the next.

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by Goldenwattle

[+Goldenwattle]

45 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Free up the space for a new cache.

New caches rarely happen in many remote places, and in those places there is still plenty of room for new ones. See an example in above map. What happens near you, is not what happens everywhere in the world. You can't compare the below (and think that's how it is everywhere) to the map I supplied above. Your comment gives that impression. 'Oh a new cache will just appear.' Often it won't; it really won't, and then there are less caches, or even none.

 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

New caches rarely happen in many remote places, and in those places there is still plenty of room for new ones.

 

Yep, once you get away from the major cities, caches can be few and far between. Along the 265km Silver City Highway between Wentworth and Broken Hill there's only one solitary cache (GC25DRJ), a traditional placed in 2010 and still going strong.

 

 

In 12 years it's had 263 finds with 14 of those just this year, way more than most of my Central Coast hides including the newest ones. Maybe I need to move west.

 

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

The more I think about it they all should have expiration dates unless OM logs are performed.

 

So how would that apply to a cache like this? Would you insist on a regular owner visit and OM log? If the owner missed the expiry date between trips and it got automatically archived, what then? No caches at all along that highway, I guess.

[+Goldenwattle]

18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If the owner missed the expiry date between trips and it got automatically archived, what then? No caches at all along that highway, I guess.

Sadly, that's exactly how some, who have plenty of caches, think like, after reading some comments on here.

Edited December 11, 2022 by Goldenwattle

[+Harry Dolphin]

12 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

Why is this a problem. Part of the game they are promoting is being a CO. Free up the space for a new cache. Gives folks the oppertunity to find a new cache in their area. The more I think about it they all should have expiration dates unless OM logs are performed.

 

A brother-in-law dared me to set up a Geoart series.  I created Dolphin in the River.  

 

Mostly on the Hudson River Walkway, on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River, from Weehawken north to Cliffside Park.  They all had favorite points.  They had great views and were greatly enjoyed.  When my geocaching partner died seven years ago, I archived them because they needed frquent maintenance but I no longer visited the area.  

 

No new caches have been hidden there.  (Well, except for my Virtual cache at the Weehawken 9/11 Memorial.)

[+A J Pombo]

I think most owners don't check if the maintenance request is true or not, nor do they register the maintenance visit to remove this attribute from their cache.

 

 

[+dprovan]

27 minutes ago, A J Pombo said:

I think most owners don't check if the maintenance request is true or not, nor do they register the maintenance visit to remove this attribute from their cache.

I'm sure it varies from place to place. Your numbers of 1 in 5 strikes me as high. But in my area, last I checked it was more 1 in 10. I think most owners just assume the maintenance is required and check the cache the next time it's convenient. Furthermore, most know to log an NM. But that still leaves lots of room for caches with NM set from the handful of owners that don't get it.

[+edexter]

The reason I've asked the question "what is the purpose of the Red Wrench?" is to get the community to think about what an NM log is for and to consider if it is effective in ensuring cache maintenance.  I think it's clear that when a CO responds it is effective, and when they do not, it isn't.  There are a lot of reasons CO don't do maintenance; however the reasons aren't the issue:  the issue is what to do about the lack of response.  This is a problem which only the listing service and The Reviewer can solve.   The problem I've pointed out is that the great majority of Red Wrenches are false positives.  Reframing the issue as "it's the COs fault for not responding" misses the point.  Yes, they don't respond.  The question is what to do about it.  The current structure has no mechanism to address a CO ignoring an NM other than to disable and archive the cache (negative feedback, eventually).   One possible positive solution I have suggested is to authorize The Reviewer to remove the Red Wrench when it is clear that the cache is being "maintained by the community".  This has the advantage of addressing the actual problem.  Anyone else have any other possible positive solutions to the problem?

[+barefootjeff]

56 minutes ago, edexter said:

 The problem I've pointed out is that the great majority of Red Wrenches are false positives.

 

What you've pointed out is that a great majority of long-term red wrenches are false positives. Why? When someone logs an NM on a cache with an active and responsible CO (hopefully there are still a few of those left), the attribute is only present for a short time, days or maybe weeks, after which either the cache is repaired and an OM logged or it's archived by the owner. Then there's the other category of NMs on caches with absent owners that get followed up by an NA (or maybe the CHS will spot them if they're missing and don't get any fake finds) and are archived by a reviewer. Again those are dealt with in a relatively short time (maybe three to six months), so what's left are the ones that fall between the two, where the owner is absent or hasn't responded correctly but the problem isn't considered serious enough to warrant reviewer archival. I don't know what percentage of the total NMs logged this category would be, but given that less than 10% of caches in most regions have the NM attribute set at any one time, I suspect it's relatively small.

 

So I guess I'm not really convinced this a big enough problem to be worth solving. Yes, getting the reviewers to examine each of those caches to assess whether the issue has been fixed by the community or is minor enough to ignore and clear the attribute or, if not, start the archival process, but is that a productive use of limited reviewer resources and time? Given how hard it is to get an NA acted upon these days, I suspect not.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, edexter said:

The reason I've asked the question "what is the purpose of the Red Wrench?" is to get the community to think about what an NM log is for and to consider if it is effective in ensuring cache maintenance.  I think it's clear that when a CO responds it is effective, and when they do not, it isn't.  There are a lot of reasons CO don't do maintenance; however the reasons aren't the issue:  the issue is what to do about the lack of response.  This is a problem which only the listing service and The Reviewer can solve.   The problem I've pointed out is that the great majority of Red Wrenches are false positives.  Reframing the issue as "it's the COs fault for not responding" misses the point.  Yes, they don't respond.  The question is what to do about it.  The current structure has no mechanism to address a CO ignoring an NM other than to disable and archive the cache (negative feedback, eventually).   One possible positive solution I have suggested is to authorize The Reviewer to remove the Red Wrench when it is clear that the cache is being "maintained by the community".  This has the advantage of addressing the actual problem.  Anyone else have any other possible positive solutions to the problem?

I think in areas heavily populated with caches, if a CO is ignoring feed back such as NMs, then after time given for a NA, just archive the cache. What's done now. Free up the area, and there are plenty of other existing caches, better maintained.

 

In areas with very few caches (and with very old caches, and grandfathered types of caches, such as webcams), I think that reviewers should have the ability to use common sense and act on it. It doesn't do the game any good, if caches which the community/travellers are maintaining are archived and some areas then have no caches, and will NOT be replaced. How will this help encourage new members? Reviewers should in those cases have the option of do an OM (maybe a RM) and say it appears all is now good again; words to that effect. Also to update coordinates, ratings, etc on those caches as required. These caches are relativity low in numbers, as most caches occur in populated areas, and shouldn't add greatly to the work load.

Same example image again. Not many caches for a reviewer to have to deal with in remote areas.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Goldenwattle

[+edexter]

    I agree with Goldenwaddle's suggestion that Reviewer's use their discretion and "remove the Red Wrench" when it is evident that the cache is being maintained.  That is my suggestion as well.

     barefootjeff's review of the "types" of Red Wrenches is accurate and I can add some statistical information about "how big a problem it is", but the answer really hinges on my original question:  "what is the purpose of the Red Wrench".  It seems to me to have two possible purposes:  1, For the CO:  to let him/her know their maybe a problem so they will check on it and fix it and 2, To let the rest of us know there may be a problem.  

      I tracked a couple of hundred NM logs from when they were reported to see what happened and this is what I found:  1, A little fewer than half of the NM's got a response of any sort from the CO.  2, A little less than third of the caches were repaired or reported as ok via an OM log. 3, A sixth of the caches were archived by the CO  4, Just over half of the caches were eventually archived by The Reviewer, typically only after an NA log, then being disabled by the reviewer, and eventually archived.  This process took anywhere from a week to two and a half years. 5,  About one in ten caches was repaired by the CO who did not log an OM visit or by the community (who can't).  

    To summarize:  The Red Wrench results in about one cache in three being repaired  (a so-so result, though perhaps acceptable) .  Meanwhile the ten percent or so of caches that have the Red Wrench that never dies attribute now represent about 90% of all the caches with that attribute.  In effect, it's pretty much useless as a screening tool, though it could be.

     Perhaps I misunderstand the Role of the Reviewer, but I would think that the primary purpose is to assure the integrity of the cache list.  It takes about a minute to open a cache page, scroll down to the NM log, determine if there is an on-going problem, and then take an action.  If The Reviewer does that once, the problem is solved.  The rest of us can do it hundreds of times but nothing changes.  While I share barefootjeffs belief that it is hard to get action on a NA these days, it really shouldn't be,  and nether should this.  Just sayin'

[+MNTA]

38 minutes ago, edexter said:

   Perhaps I misunderstand the Role of the Reviewer, but I would think that the primary purpose is to assure the integrity of the cache list.  It takes about a minute to open a cache page, scroll down to the NM log, determine if there is an on-going problem, and then take an action.  If The Reviewer does that once, the problem is solved.  The rest of us can do it hundreds of times but nothing changes.  While I share barefootjeffs belief that it is hard to get action on a NA these days, it really shouldn't be,  and nether should this.  Just sayin'

Maybe specialized reviewers is what is needed.

 

- new hides focus more on  publishing scrutinizing the hide, permission, review pictures and help new COs

- Maintenance & Archival

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, edexter said:

the Red Wrench that never dies attribute now represent about 90% of all the caches with that attribute.  In effect, it's pretty much useless as a screening tool

 

In  my case, I'd still find the red wrench filter useful. If the cache has a red wrench it means that the cache is probably only hobbling along and not a good quality cache.  If it's a good quality cache owned by an owner who wants to provide a quality experience, I wouldn't expect that they would be the type of owner who would not pay attention to the red wrench that remains on their listing.  I would find the red wrench filter of no use if the wrench was removed when the community "maintained" a cache.  I prefer not to spend time looking for caches an owner has abandoned.  It's unfortunate that TPTB are not concerned about a database that is so full of cache listings with long standing red wrench attributes.

[+thebruce0]

I think L0ne.R's on the right track here. A red wrench on a cache with no active NM usually means a CO has either forgotten, doesn't know about, or doesn't care about, that constant reminder that a cache is flagged for maintenance. More generally, in my observation as well, "good" COs tend to want to have their listings "clean" and deal with NM and the attribute. Or, if for some reason they forgot about it and it's not cleared, will immediately clear it if it's in good standing.

So if I see a cache flagged for maintenance, but on scrolling I see many many finds, it says something about the cache owner's habits or ethic. Whether I still choose to find it, well I'll judge case by case  but caches with the wrench that are demonstrably in good condition - someone should step in and remind the CO to deal with it.

 

As a screening tool, for me, it's a prompt to check recent logs and decided if I want to find it; that's about it. My opinion on the CO's habits is practically irrelevant, but also TBD.

[Keystone]

3 hours ago, edexter said:

Perhaps I misunderstand the Role of the Reviewer, but I would think that the primary purpose is to assure the integrity of the cache list.  It takes about a minute to open a cache page, scroll down to the NM log, determine if there is an on-going problem, and then take an action.

 

Yes, you are misunderstanding the role of the Reviewer.  I would never take action that could be construed as a guarantee/warranty that maintenance was actually performed.  I can, however, educate Cache Owners about the proper course of action - using an Owner Maintenance log to "clear" the dreaded red wrench.  This educational component is built into several of my "form letters" I use when entering a log about a maintenance issue:

 

Quote

I see that this cache has been temporarily disabled for well in excess of the period of 'a few weeks' contemplated by the Cache Maintenance Guidelines. So that geocachers can once again enjoy visiting this location, please either fix the problem with this cache, or archive your cache page so that someone else can place a cache in the area. If your cache page is archived, please retrieve your container if you haven't already done so. If you enable your cache page, remember to enter an owner maintenance log to clear the "needs maintenance" attribute, if set.  [etc. etc.]

Quote

This geocache came to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit. The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either fix the problem or archive the listing, after picking up any geo-litter. See the maintenance section of the Geocache Listing Guidelines. In the meantime, I've temporarily disabled this cache page.

Owner, if there is a good reason for a long delay in enabling this cache, do not contact me through email or the message center. Please post an update note log here on the cache page so that everyone will know what's going on. When the maintenance is completed, you can re-enable the listing by entering an "enable listing" log. Use an "Owner Maintenance" log to clear the "Needs Maintenance" attribute, if set. [etc.etc.]

Quote

Thank you to the cache owner for the update, and for maintaining your geocache. Pro tip: use an "Owner Maintenance" log, rather than a "Write Note" log, to report on cache maintenance performed. This log type will increase your cache's "Health Score," which is used in an algorithm to send maintenance reminders to cache owners.

 

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

Maybe specialized reviewers is what is needed.

 

- new hides focus more on  publishing scrutinizing the hide, permission, review pictures and help new COs

- Maintenance & Archival

 

This has "been a thing" for many years in certain busy areas where maintenance issues can be a "full time job" for a volunteer.  The first example of this that I can recall dates back approximately 15 years. All Reviewers are empowered to ask for help from colleagues if they can't keep up with checking on caches with "Reviewer Attention" requests, caches with low Health Scores, or caches that have been Temporarily Disabled for an extended period of time.

[+edexter]

Keystone:  all of the "reminder notices" to the CO to do maintenance are useful to COs who are actually going to do maintenance and if they fail to respond have negative consequences  (the cache gets archived) and I think that system works ok.  I do appreciate getting notifications of a problem.  However these notices to not addressthe  "Red Wrench Lifetime Award" where the attribute remains for years, the cache is maintained in some fashion but the wrench is never removed.  There is no course of action to address this issue and there needs to be.  While I agree that it's possible to interpret a Reviewer unilaterally deciding based on months of evidence and repeated found logs that a cache is "warrantied" as being ok, how is that different from signaling that a cache is "not ok" by leaving the Red Wrench to persist?  The first action improves the accuracy of the list; the second "lack of action" assures that it is less accurate.  I agree with L0ne.R that it's unfortunate that GC is not more concerned about dealing with this obvious problem in some fashion.  

[+Goldenwattle]

20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I prefer not to spend time looking for caches an owner has abandoned.

Not even when it's the only cache for 200kms? And even after that there might only be a couple of caches. So you would drive all day and ignore the cache. How many geocachers can manage that?

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

In a different topic, barefootjeff had a kind of geocache lifecycle, with a starting point, and an ending point. A red wrench (NM log) is an important part of that lifecycle, along with the OM after the issue has been addressed. Because it does serve an important part of the cache life cycle, I don't think we can abandon it. Therefore, a long term red wrench can be considered a breakdown in that life cycle. But, we know that COs can become inactive at any point in time (and for a variety of reasons). If we want to get to the end, we need multiple paths. A NA log takes the reviewer path. But, what should the path be for the long term red wrench?

 

We can take an objective or subjective approach. I'm against the subjective approach of asking a reviewer to manually review and take action on the 'lifetime achievement award' wrenches. They have enough to do as it is. We do have all of the pieces to implement an objective approach by creating an automated procedure. We know how long the wrench has been on the cache, and we have a way to communicate with the cache owner.

 

Let's start with a simple routine. If the wrench has been applied for a year, send a message (e-mail and message center). If the wrench is 15 months old, archive the listing. (Or whatever time periods seem appropriate.) Yes, it will archive the community maintained caches. It could have the effect of diminishing the use of the Needs Maintenance log. On the other hand, the automated approach means that the reviewer doesn't have to put up with any hate messages because a popular community maintained cache has been archived.

 

If there are multiple wrenches in a row, with no intermediate OM, cut the time in half (or by the number of wrenches). 

 

Going further, this automated routine could be altered to remove the wrench if there are more than X number of Found It logs after the NM was posted. That may help with some of the community maintained cache, for a while.

 

I'm not advocating doing this, I don't have an opinion on whether or not this is a problem that needs to be addressed. But, if it is, this is the way I would like to see it handled.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not even when it's the only cache for 200kms? And even after that there might only be a couple of caches. So you would drive all day and ignore the cache. How many geocachers can manage that?

You'd rather have a cache listed that isn't there?

22 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It's unfortunate that TPTB are not concerned about a database that is so full of cache listings with long standing red wrench attributes.

I'm fine with TPTB leaving it up to the community. But it is unfortunate that local geocachers are not concerned about local COs not clearing the NM flag.

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

You'd rather have a cache listed that isn't there?

The whole quote:

 On 12/16/2022 at 1:22 PM, L0ne.R said:I prefer not to spend time looking for caches an owner has abandoned.

 

Not even when it's the only cache for 200kms? And even after that there might only be a couple of caches. So you would drive all day and ignore the cache. How many geocachers can manage that?

________________________________-

 

Who said it wasn't there? An abandoned cache is still there; by definition. If it's missing, it's not abandoned, as there's nothing to abandon. It might need maintenance though.

In remote places, caches a CO is no longer looking after tend to be still there. Rarely is there nothing to find, as the muggle factor is low. The cache though might be crumbs, but it can be found.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Goldenwattle

[+dprovan]

41 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Who said it wasn't there? An abandoned cache is still there; by definition.

No one knows whether an abandoned cache is still there. But the odds would be against it.

[+Goldenwattle]

21 minutes ago, dprovan said:

No one knows whether an abandoned cache is still there. But the odds would be against it.

Not in a remote area. See above map. Very few people live there to muggle a cache. Examples below.

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

No one knows whether an abandoned cache is still there. But the odds would be against it.

 

In a highly populated urban area perhaps, but more remote caches are likely to still be there whether the owner's active or not. Barring natural calamities like fires or floods, those caches don't just get up and walk away by themselves. In places with few caches, I'd much rather take my chances on them even if their owners are long gone than have no caches at all to even attempt.

[+fizzymagic]

On 12/15/2022 at 7:00 PM, Keystone said:

 

This has "been a thing" for many years in certain busy areas where maintenance issues can be a "full time job" for a volunteer.  The first example of this that I can recall dates back approximately 15 years. All Reviewers are empowered to ask for help from colleagues if they can't keep up with checking on caches with "Reviewer Attention" requests, caches with low Health Scores, or caches that have been Temporarily Disabled for an extended period of time.

 

I think it is unfortunate that the reviewer's job descriptions have to involve so much attention to maintenance.  I understand the argument that the reviewers are likely those with the best local knowledge and existing relationships to deal with maintenance issues, but it strikes me as outside the range of tasks for which the reviewer position was created in the first place.  Perhaps with better community tools, a local caching community could deal with these issues without having to turn the reviewer into some kind of "enforcer."  Sadly, with Adventure Labs, HQ seems to be moving in the direction of less community involvement, not more.  Still, there are many ways that local communities can establish lines of communication to deal with these issues.

[+edexter]

Could someone enlighten me as to what The Reviewer role is once a cache has been placed and listed if it is not to monitor the condition of the cache to maintain the accuracy of the list?  Whose task is it aside from the CO?  And when the CO abandons their responsibility who is supposed to step in aside from The Reviewer?  Everyone who feels it is the COs job is correct but as my personal experience shows "urging" other cachers to maintain their caches fails because 1, they have left the game, 2, they just don't do it, 3, they get angry with you for suggesting it.  Try communicating with a few "no maintenance" caches owners it and see how that works out for you ;-)  Upon occasion I have offered to do maintenance on a cache I particularly liked (50% take up rate) or to "adopt" the cache (2 for 7).  While this can fix the cache it doesn't fix the Red Wrench.  Ah, enough on that problem.  Thank you

edexter

[+dprovan]

9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not in a remote area. See above map. Very few people live there to muggle a cache. Examples below.

That's fine. L0ne.R was talking about a general cache, hence my comment that assumed it would be missing. If you have additional information about a specific cache that causes you to ignore the red wrench in a very unusual scenario, go ahead and look for it. But don't pretend I was wrong to imply that an abandoned cache is very often a waste of time.

 

But I think we agree on the underlying question: reviewers shouldn't archive caches just because they have the red wrench. I encourage local community responsibility precisely because your local community would likely all agree that those rare caches out in the middle of nowhere shouldn't be archived. I would say those caches aren't really abandoned so much as unwatched. To me, "abandoned" implies more than just it's uncared for: I take it as usually meaning that it's not worth caring for.

[+dprovan]

32 minutes ago, edexter said:

Could someone enlighten me as to what The Reviewer role is once a cache has been placed and listed if it is not to monitor the condition of the cache to maintain the accuracy of the list?

In the modern world, GS has made that the reviewer's job, yes. As the game originally was designed, the reviewer (generally) only archived a cache when there was a request from the community via an NA with justification. That put the reviewer in a position that was always neutral, merely arbitrating when there was a problem. Nowadays, the reviewer is judge, jury, and executioner.

36 minutes ago, edexter said:

Whose task is it aside from the CO?

It used to be everyone's task. Well, everyone *except* the reviewer.

49 minutes ago, edexter said:

And when the CO abandons their responsibility who is supposed to step in aside from The Reviewer?  Everyone who feels it is the COs job is correct but as my personal experience shows "urging" other cachers to maintain their caches fails because 1, they have left the game, 2, they just don't do it, 3, they get angry with you for suggesting it.

That's why the original official approach didn't have anything called "urging", it only has logs presenting facts: "This cache needs maintenance," and "This can hasn't been maintained, so it needs to be archived." Yes, it's true that the bogeyman of angry COs has always been around discouraging use of the system, but those angry COs are a problem in themselves, not something that can be "fixed" by failing to report maintenance issues using the appropriate logs.

56 minutes ago, edexter said:

Try communicating with a few "no maintenance" caches owners it and see how that works out for you ;-)

I don't remember ever getting a negative response to an NM or NA log except when the CO's objection was justified. I hear rumors about "no maintenance" COs. I've never run into one, but I pity people with them in their area. But, still, if I can't convince a CO to maintain his caches, the *last* thing I would want to do is allow the caches to fester waiting for someone "official" to notice the problem. I'd rather stick to the procedure and hope he either comes to his senses or leaves the game.

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I understand the argument that the reviewers are likely those with the best local knowledge and existing relationships to deal with maintenance issues...

I don't recall hearing that argument, actually. If I did, I'd point out that the reviewers' local knowledge and existing relationships would be better exercised in their roles as members of the community rather than in their capacity as reviewers looming over the community.

6 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Perhaps with better community tools, a local caching community could deal with these issues without having to turn the reviewer into some kind of "enforcer."  Sadly, with Adventure Labs, HQ seems to be moving in the direction of less community involvement, not more.  Still, there are many ways that local communities can establish lines of communication to deal with these issues.

I don't think the problem was ever a lack of tools but only that some communities sometimes don't use the available tools, and things go bad. People in those communities kept bitching about "cache quality" until GS took over and started eliminating both the tools and the standard of community involvement. Today, there's literally no way to say, "This cache needs maintenance." And the people cheer!

[+NanCycle]

A lot of talk here about COs not using the OM log.  My irk is when COs use the OM log to say. "I'm going to fix the problem."  Case in point, a location I pass frequently when traveling where the cache has been missing for 8 months and the CO is doing nothing but posting bogus OM logs.

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

That's fine. L0ne.R was talking about a general cache, hence my comment that assumed it would be missing. If you have additional information about a specific cache that causes you to ignore the red wrench in a very unusual scenario, go ahead and look for it. But don't pretend I was wrong to imply that an abandoned cache is very often a waste of time.

 

But I think we agree on the underlying question: reviewers shouldn't archive caches just because they have the red wrench. I encourage local community responsibility precisely because your local community would likely all agree that those rare caches out in the middle of nowhere shouldn't be archived. I would say those caches aren't really abandoned so much as unwatched. To me, "abandoned" implies more than just it's uncared for: I take it as usually meaning that it's not worth caring for.

I had written: "I think in areas heavily populated with caches, if a CO is ignoring feed back such as NMs, then after time given for a NA, just archive the cache. What's done now. Free up the area, and there are plenty of other existing caches, better maintained."

 

That was before my comments on remote caches, which are usually still there and should be treated differently, as it's very unlikely they will be replaced and there is plenty of room for new ones, but new caches rarely happen. The remote cache will not necessarily be in great condition, as the elements can affect them. That's why often travellers (geocachers) will maintain them. I have removed old crumbling cache containers for instance and left the log in a new container. Some people here accuse me of throwdowns though when I remove the old cache and replace it, but so be it. That's what's done in remote places.

 

You were by the way answering my comment: "Not even when it's the only cache for 200kms? And even after that there might only be a couple of caches. So you would drive all day and ignore the cache. How many geocachers can manage that?"

 

You, "You'd rather have a cache listed that isn't there?"

Edited December 17, 2022 by Goldenwattle