The Maintenance Needed Attribute: Why do we have it?

[+Goldenwattle]

6 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

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.

Do a NA, and say it's been 8 months and all the CO is doing is posting OM logs and doing nothing. That will get to the reviewer.

[+colleda]

I'm beginning to think that cachers these days aren't even aware of the NM log function. Case in point. I was browsing some caches recently when I came across this one (which I had previously found back in 2013).

GC42J04

About 20 finds since last May. Most of these logs mention a problem with the cache, wet log and parts of container missing, found out in the open. A  few even mentioned that maintenance was needed but NO NMs logged. Why? IDK.

I've never experienced  angry responses from COs as mentioned by others here and I've logged many, many NMs. Perhaps a regional culture thing?

 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

15 hours ago, colleda said:

I'm beginning to think that cachers these days aren't even aware of the NM log function. Case in point. I was browsing some caches recently when I came across this one (which I had previously found back in 2013).

GC42J04

About 20 finds since last May. Most of these logs mention a problem with the cache, wet log and parts of container missing, found out in the open. A  few even mentioned that maintenance was needed but NO NMs logged. Why? IDK.

 

Could be, but it seems (here at least...) that most simply don't want to get involved JIC there's nonsense attached.

We act on logs, so a maintenance issue gets taken care of well-before a NM would be placed.  Many don't...

Heck, how many threads have we seen now with people asking how to keep from getting "those pesky" logs for their caches?

In the beginning the other 2/3rds would wince (she'd be the one that gets a nasty call, text, or mention at an event, not me...), but now if I place a NM, I'm the only one after numerous logs like you said, and with an aside, others whisper thanks.  Weird. 

So many are offended or afraid of the simplest of things, and I feel we're producing a generation of sheeple...

[+MNTA]

22 hours ago, NanCycle said:

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.

File a NA and get the reviewer involved. They should instruct the CO as to the proper use of the OM log.

[+barefootjeff]

20 hours ago, colleda said:

I'm beginning to think that cachers these days aren't even aware of the NM log function. Case in point. I was browsing some caches recently when I came across this one (which I had previously found back in 2013).

GC42J04

About 20 finds since last May. Most of these logs mention a problem with the cache, wet log and parts of container missing, found out in the open. A  few even mentioned that maintenance was needed but NO NMs logged. Why? IDK.

 

Part of this, maybe a big part, is that NMs aren't one of the options seen on the app when logging a cache, instead you have to go back to the initial page, scroll right to the bottom of the screen and tap on the small-print option "Report a problem with this geocache".

 

 

Even on the website, you can't directly log an NM, instead you have to click on "Report a problem" down the bottom and choose one of the predefined options.

 

Is it any wonder that a lot of players now don't even know the NM log exists?

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

but now if I place a NM, I'm the only one after numerous logs like you said, and with an aside, others whisper thanks.  Weird. 

So many are offended or afraid of the simplest of things, and I feel we're producing a generation of sheeple...

I placed a NM missing cache log after no logs on a cache for about six months. I worked out, based on frequency of previous finds, there must have been over twenty missing DNF logs. All these spineless individuals didn't want to make the first DNF. No worries here (if I was wrong, I was wrong); I logged a DNF. I might have mentioned there will likely be other DNFs too now. Yep, three days later, another DNF.

The CO checked and the cache was missing. They send me a thankyou for logging the DNF.

[+NanCycle]

On 12/17/2022 at 3:29 PM, Goldenwattle said:

Do a NA, and say it's been 8 months and all the CO is doing is posting OM logs and doing nothing. That will get to the reviewer.

I did that--another NA!-and the CO responded with another bogus OM.

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, NanCycle said:

I did that--another NA!-and the CO responded with another bogus OM.

I'm told the reviewer will still get a NA. However, if nothing happens contact the reviewer directly, or keep adding NAs. The last one though will get very negative comments from the CO. Personal experience 

[+L0ne.R]

Here's an example of maintenance irk that happened to me...being called a 'cache cop' (a term that was regularly insinuated to me in the forums):

 

 I logged an NA for a neglected cache, explaining "No response to September's NM, December's NM and April's NM". Here's what the cache looked like:

 

 

Then the next person to visit left a throwdown. (I hope they cut off the zip tie that's girdling the tree). 3 months later the owner posts an OM (probably because they got a health notice). The CO's OM log says: "Everyone seems to be finding this one, so no idea where there is a NA. Maybe the "geo-police" should relax a little... or at least actually visit the cache before logging a NA."

 

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

 

This meme was regularly posted in the forums when some advised posting NMs/NAs or contacting a reviewer:

 

 

I think it was a factor in the decline of NM/NA posts. The decrease in DNFs I attribute to the Health Score. And the way the app hides NMs and NAs in the "Report" option is another factor.  The term "report" may also give the feature a 'tattletale' feel.

[+edexter]

Yes, the process is supposed to be:  The cache has a problem and someone posts an NM log, the Co responds and fixes it and posts an OM.  Or the CO fails to respond and someone posts an NA log, and the CO responds with an OM log and fixes it.  Or The Reviewer disables the cache, gives the CO a set time to fix it and if there is no response, archives it. And yet...

(Since I have previously been rebuked for "naming names" this cache shall remain un-named but unfortunately not atypical...) 

Note/NA log posted today 12/19/22

"It's hard to tell what it takes to get a CO to repair a cache or to archive it when they no longer want to maintain it. It's also hard to tell what it takes for The Reviewer, whichever one that might be to nudge the CO but apparently this is not enough...
NM Log 4/17/22
"Found it! Sadly this one was left open and everything is totally soaked.Soaked with water. Needs maintenance"
NA log 7/8/22
"Container full of water and log is saturated. Has been reported as needs maintenance before, does not appear CO has logged in for a while. Consider archive?"
Found log 7/8/22
"...the contents are absolutely soaked - log is not writable. The cache is in desperate need of TLC but it looks like the CO is no longer caching so perhaps it should be archived to make room for someone else. TFTC"
Found log 9/18/22
"I found it open wet and moldy. I was able to sign but needs maintenance.. Lid is also cracked"
Found log: 10/3/22
"Cache is definitely in need of some TLC, but we were able to sign it!"
Found log 10/30/22
"TFTC, unable to sign log, lid is cracked"
NM Log 11/7/22
"the logbook was a solid block of gluey paper. I was able to sign the top sheet, as the whole block was nearly dry, but there's only room for one or two more signatures. This cache needs a new logbook. Posting a needs maintenance log."

Again, just saying...

[+NanCycle]

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I'm told the reviewer will still get a NA. However, if nothing happens contact the reviewer directly, or keep adding NAs. The last one though will get very negative comments from the CO. Personal experience 

Got the reviewer's attention; they disabled it and wrote "

Disabling to keep it from showing up, cache owner can enable once in place. Thank you.

[+thebruce0]

Yeah you could consider that if you really believe a reviewer should be paying attention but hasn't responded to logs, contacting the publishing reviewer would be an absolutely direct and unmissable contact, that wouldn't 'ruffle' CO/public feathers (like persistent RAR logs that goes unaddressed). If the reviewer still seems to ignore your direct contact and does nothing, HQ would be next to contact. At some point there needs to be accountability to maintain the integrity of the hobby =/ (again, this example is in the context of a legitimate issue that should be handled, not an uncertain personal opinion about a cache listing which could be misuse of the RAR log)

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I hope they cut off the zip tie that's girdling the tree

Doubtful; you jest 

 

Seriously, too tight cable ties on living trees should be reportable too. Especially on what appear a major branch above. When the branch dies because of it, it doesn't say a good thing about the game.

 

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Then the next person to visit left a throwdown.

I've seen reviewers still archive a cache, saying they can't condone throw downs.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah you could consider that if you really believe a reviewer should be paying attention but hasn't responded to logs, contacting the publishing reviewer would be an absolutely direct and unmissable contact, that wouldn't 'ruffle' CO/public feathers (like persistent RAR logs that goes unaddressed). If the reviewer still seems to ignore your direct contact and does nothing, HQ would be next to contact.

 

Would doing that brand one as a reviewer cop?

 

From what I've seen here over the last year and a half, I suspect reviewers are no longer notified of NA logs but instead pick them up when doing their occasional scans for long-term disabled caches, unanswered CHS pings, etc.

[+edexter]

Follow up:  after the note above appeared the CO archived that cache and another RW cache within a few hours. Two down, 442 to go ;-)

[+thebruce0]

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Would doing that brand one as a reviewer cop?

That's why I say if it's a legitimate issue the reviewer isn't dealing with rather than a opinion the reviewer disagrees with. HQ would make the decision as to whether the reviewer is doing their job, or give them a push to get active again. If that makes someone a reviewer cop, I'm not sure who else would hold the reviewers accountable to be doing their actual (volunteer) job if HQ isn't actually watching, and no one is... on one hand it's unpaid volunteer, on the other hand, there are responsibilities that come with the position for the sake of the community. Someone's ensure they're not just sitting there letting their community crumble

 

I think "reviewer cop" would come with someone who keeps complaining because they don't like the way the reviewer does things and keeps reporting on that angst. That's a little different. (though hq could still act on it if they agree, I think that could still get you a bad rep in the reviewer community, heh)

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:13 AM, L0ne.R said:

This meme was regularly posted in the forums when some advised posting NMs/NAs or contacting a reviewer:

 

 

I think it was a factor in the decline of NM/NA posts. The decrease in DNFs I attribute to the Health Score. And the way the app hides NMs and NAs in the "Report" option is another factor.  The term "report" may also give the feature a 'tattletale' feel.

 

America is now a society where if someone is smoking a cigarette and flying a drone, accompanied by a dog, while standing next to a sign that reads No Fires, No Drones, No Dogs the bad guy is person who says anything. "Mind your own business! You're not a cop!" If a cop actually tries to do something they're resented as a fascist.

 

Considering that attitude toward actual laws and law enforcement, we shouldn't be surprised at the similar attitude toward geocache guidelines and their enforcement.

[+hzoi]

On 12/19/2022 at 9:13 AM, L0ne.R said:

This meme was regularly posted in the forums when some advised posting NMs/NAs or contacting a reviewer:

 

 

I think it was a factor in the decline of NM/NA posts.

 

That's my meme, from my cache (in Cache, Oklahoma, out behind the police station) and for the record, I'm relatively confident it was a reaction against people posting NM/NA who had never searched for the cache in question and had no idea what was at the coordinates. Most certainly not against anyone posting NM or NA on a cache they'd searched for and found (or didn't find, if it appeared to be missing).

Edited December 20, 2022 by hzoi

[+L0ne.R]

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

 

That's my meme, from my cache (in Cache, Oklahoma, out behind the police station) and for the record, I'm relatively confident it was a reaction against people posting NM/NA who had never searched for the cache in question and had no idea what was at the coordinates. Most certainly not against anyone posting NM or NA on a cache they'd searched for and found (or didn't find, if it appeared to be missing).

 

 I think that the meme is too general and the uptake is that cachers who log NMs and NAs are offensive informers who get cache listings archived. NMs/NAs should be the prerogative of the Reviewer (the professional), not the community. And this extends to DNFs because logging a DNF can result in a low health score which can result in getting a cache archived.

 

The cache owner who abandons his cache and listing receives little or no disciplinary action, instead scorn is targeted at the person logging an NM or NA on a cache that needs reviewer attention.

 

Thankfully, based on the forum discussions lately, I think that attitude is changing.

[+hzoi]

On 12/20/2022 at 7:16 PM, L0ne.R said:

 I think that the meme is too general

 

OK. Build me a time machine, and send me back to 2013, and I'll counsel myself appropriately.

 

Once the image changes, we'll know it was a success!

[+TeamRabbitRun]

On 12/29/2022 at 1:18 PM, hzoi said:

 

OK. Build me a time machine, and send me back to 2013, and I'll counsel myself appropriately.

 

Once the image changes, we'll know it was a success!

 

How? If the image changes because you went back to 2013 and convinced yourself to change it, then for the rest of us here a decade later, it would have been the 'changed' image all along, since 2013.

 

So, since the image will be what it has *always* been, how will we know it's a success?

 

Really, sometimes you make no sense.