Release Notes (Geocaching® app: Report a problem log type names) - December 9, 2022

[+Geocaching HQ]

Release Notes (Geocaching® app: Report a problem log type names) - December 9, 2022

 

With the most recent release, we have renamed log types in the Geocaching® app that are used to report potential problems with geocaches so that they more accurately reflect the intent of the logs.

 

The Needs Maintenance / Maintenance suggested log type is now Owner attention requested.

The Needs Archived log type is now Reviewer attention requested.

 

To use these log types in the Geocaching® app, go to the bottom of a cache details screen and tap “Report a problem with this geocache.” The log choices will appear.

 

 

You may then choose one of the log types, type a message, and post the log. After the log is posted, the next steps are unchanged from what happened with the old names.

 

Owner attention requested: the cache owner is notified that there may be a problem with their cache.

Reviewer attention requested: a geocaching community volunteer reviewer is notified that the cache may have a problem.

 

We will rename the Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived logs on the Geocaching.com website in early 2023.

 

Nicole (nykkole), Product Manager, is watching this thread to answer questions whenever possible.

 

Any posts in this thread should relate to features in this release. Comments unrelated to the release may be removed. Please direct unrelated comments to other appropriate threads. Thanks!

[+TriciaG]

Woot woot! This is a change that people have requested for a long time. Thank you!

[+Vimmes]

great much needed 

 

[+Stoke Bunnies]

Nicole,

Is there a danger that new and inexperienced cachers will be using these 2 new user-friendly buttons, instead of recording a DNF?

Chris

[+jocke92]

Is there a minimum on how many caches you have to find before you can log this type of logs? To gain some experience

 

Also is there an explanation the first time you log this type of logs in the app? I know the official app is very educational.

 

It looks to be a good change

Edited December 10, 2022 by jocke92

[+Max and 99]

33 minutes ago, jocke92 said:

Also is there an explanation the first time you log this type of logs in the app? I know the official app is very educational.

I think the accompanying text is helpful.

 

[+Team Canary]

Maybe add to Owner attention requested, “This log type does not bring the cache to the attention of the Reviewer.”

[+thebruce0]

12 hours ago, Stoke Bunnies said:

Nicole,

Is there a danger that new and inexperienced cachers will be using these 2 new user-friendly buttons, instead of recording a DNF?

Chris

 

Perhaps appending a reminder on the OAR log caption not to log this type if you simply can't find the cache, but to log a DNF instead. Be very clear that the OAR is if you believe there is a problem with the cache the owner should look into, that the DNF is for recording that simply couldn't find it, and the RAR log for more serious issues per the current caption.

[+DeborahVanDerLinden]

I certainly hope that the CO can respond and prevent the cache to be archived, before the cache is removed from the game. Some problems can be solved by the CO. I would not like to have a cache removed, because somebody would just post a log like that for whatever reason.

[+capoaira]

2 hours ago, DeborahVanDerLinden said:

I certainly hope that the CO can respond and prevent the cache to be archived, before the cache is removed from the game. Some problems can be solved by the CO. I would not like to have a cache removed, because somebody would just post a log like that for whatever reason.

Of course. These logtypes not new, they are only renamed. After a OAR (aka NM) you can post a "Owner maintenance", as far the cache ist available again. Also if somebody log an RAR (aka NA) you can post a write note why the log was wrong.

Normally the Reviewer give you some time for that.

[+TuuronTour]

3 hours ago, DeborahVanDerLinden said:

I certainly hope that the CO can respond and prevent the cache to be archived, before the cache is removed from the game. Some problems can be solved by the CO. I would not like to have a cache removed, because somebody would just post a log like that for whatever reason.

I can understand it can be frustrating if you see a favorite cache disappear from the map because of a neglected minor problem such as a full logbook. The thing is that If a cache gets archived because of a lack of response, then that's the owners fault - not the logger's. But this is a subject best discussed in another thread.

[+thebruce0]

15 hours ago, TuuronTour said:

he thing is that If a cache gets archived because of a lack of response, then that's the owners fault - not the logger's. But this is a subject best discussed in another thread.

Exactly. I think people forget that caches don't exist on their own. They're not "rightfully" findable regardless of CO actions. They're listed on the site as a privilege, essentially, and if the CO doesn't maintain it or becomes inactive, then per the use agreement it can't be listed.  -- That doesn't mean the physical cache can no longer be found! If it's still there and in good condition, it can still be found, the experience is still available; it's merely no longer listed as active and doesn't give you stats

[+Hynz]

On 12/10/2022 at 9:43 PM, Max and 99 said:

I think the accompanying text is helpful.

 

 

It irks me that "might be missing" is put prominently in front of the reasons to use this logtype.

[+thebruce0]

The tough part is - that is a legitimate reason for the log. The issue is who will be making that judgment call. Newcomers may be MUCH looser in thinking it might be missing, as opposed to experienced (generally) who'd likely post a DNF unless there's a clear indication that it should be there but still can't find it.  How could they explain the distinction without being too wordy for a quick 1 para summary caption?

[+Max and 99]

Well that didn't take long. The cache has recently been found, by several people, and someone with one find logged a Reviewer Attention Requested because they could not find it. 

Edit: it's there.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2022 by Max and 99

[+thebruce0]

Reviewer attention?! It literally says "why it needs to be removed the game"... either that person can't/won't read, or they just couldn't care less. Doubt the log label would make a difference =/  

 

Maybe they should add a pre-input "Are you sure you want to post this log?", and a post-input "Please confirm you want to post this log to a reviewer" or something like that.

[+dprovan]

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The tough part is - that is a legitimate reason for the log.

I claim that "might be missing" is *not* a legitimate reason for logging an NM, and it shouldn't be encouraged. "Might be missing" is an opinion. Only facts should generate NM logs. So "many people have looked and it hasn't been found lately" is a good reason for an NM. "The hint clearly indicates it's hidden in a newsbox, but all the newsboxes have been removed from this location" might be a good reason for an NM. But "might be missing" is just an opinion, one lots of newbies have until they learn to look under lamp skirts.

 

I've always been against these suggested renames. This is an example. Saying "needs owner attention" implies that there's a valid reason to call for owner attention other than it needs maintenance. This leads to the thinking that it's OK to call the owner's attention to it just because I couldn't find it. No, logging an NM should require me to have to good reasons to think that it actually does need maintenance, reasons that I can present in an NM log. (Oh, oops, NM logs are gone, too. Now I'm literally told to file a DNF and call for the owner's attention *because I couldn't find it*.)

[+CAVinoGal]

On 12/9/2022 at 11:39 AM, Geocaching HQ said:

The Needs Maintenance / Maintenance suggested log type is now Owner attention requested.

The Needs Archived log type is now Reviewer attention requested.

Attention by owners and reviewers is REQUESTED - and the accompanying text when logging those options makes it pretty clear what you are reporting.

 

There are always going to be "erroneous" logs filed ("erroneous" being a pretty subjective description!)- and in my opinion, it's up to the cache owner  to review the logs and determine what (if any) action needs to be taken, based on THEIR knowledge of the cache hide, the longevity of geocacher reporting the problem, and the probabilty of the hide actually needing maintenance or reviewer intervention.  Changing the verbiage/log type doesn't really change much, except maybe helping to enhance a newbie's understanding of what they are actually "reporting".

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The tough part is - that is a legitimate reason for the log.

I claim that "might be missing" is *not* a legitimate reason for logging an NM, and it shouldn't be encouraged.

 

Ok you selectively chose not to quote the qualification for my statement. "unless there's a clear indication that it should be there but still can't find it."  If it's clearly under a lamp post, for example, but there is nothing there, then the listing is not accurate, and it absolutely requires owner maintenance. I could just log a DNF, but I could also feel absolutely confident that a OAR log is appropriate. That goes for any listing for which the cache location or hide can be known with certainty.  And, as I said, how would one describe the distinction between someone who thinks they know for certain, and someone who absolutely does know for certain?  So I reiterate, "it might be missing" can be a legitimate reason for the log.

Edited December 13, 2022 by thebruce0

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, CAVinoGal said:

Changing the verbiage/log type doesn't really change much, except maybe helping to enhance a newbie's understanding of what they are actually "reporting".

 

Yeah I think the push long ago to move away from "Needs Archived" was due to the practical aspect of what actions the log prompted. More commonly people were saying that the log was being used incorrectly or out of spite, that quite often the CO and reviewer determined it didn't need archival, etc. I think the sentiment was that the wording was pretty harsh - in a newer/younger/modern community - whereas in the early days it was likely all serious hobbyists who were playing the 'game' and were more likely to understand what the log implied and when to be used. These days I think the wording was adjusted to more accurately reflect what happens to the listing after the log is posted.  The question is, in time, will it be revealed that the dog is wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog? (I mean will the wording being 'lightened' itself also cause changes in user intent rather than only reflect user intent).

 

Undoubtedly there will still be misuses. I don't think anyone thinks otherwise on that

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Ok you selectively chose not to quote the qualification for my statement. "unless there's a clear indication that it should be there but still can't find it."  If it's clearly under a lamp post, for example, but there is nothing there, then the listing is not accurate, and it absolutely requires owner maintenance. I could just log a DNF, but I could also feel absolutely confident that a OAR log is appropriate. That goes for any listing for which the cache location or hide can be known with certainty.  And, as I said, how would one describe the distinction between someone who thinks they know for certain, and someone who absolutely does know for certain?  So I reiterate, "it might be missing" can be a legitimate reason for the log.

You missed my point. "It might be missing" is not the reason: the *reasons* you're so sure are the reasons. I tell the difference between someone that thinks and someone that knows by the explanation that tells us all why they're so sure. That's what turns "it might be missing" into "you need to look at it."

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah I think the push long ago to move away from "Needs Archived" was due to the practical aspect of what actions the log prompted. More commonly people were saying that the log was being used incorrectly or out of spite, that quite often the CO and reviewer determined it didn't need archival, etc. I think the sentiment was that the wording was pretty harsh - in a newer/younger/modern community - whereas in the early days it was likely all serious hobbyists who were playing the 'game' and were more likely to understand what the log implied and when to be used.

Nothing about the wording change makes it harder to use incorrectly. In fact, it allows those intent on misusing it a passive-aggressive excuse: "Oh, I only said it needed reviewer attention. I didn't think that would cause it to be archived (*snicker*)."

 

The original wording is, in fact, what the logs imply. It doesn't help amateurs to obscure that by changing the wording in order to make it seem like they imply less when they don't.

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

These days I think the wording was adjusted to more accurately reflect what happens to the listing after the log is posted.

Don't be silly. The wording was changed because people kept whining about it, not because there's any logic to it. It most definitely does *not* more accurately reflect what happens to the listing. A log asks for owner attention *because* it needs maintenance. There is nothing else a owner can do except maintain the listing. A log asks for reviewer attention *because* if nothing happens, it needs to be archived. A reviewer has no other power.

[+baer2006]

9 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Well that didn't take long. The cache has recently been found, by several people, and someone with one find logged a Reviewer Attention Requested because they could not find it.

Unwarranted NA (a.k.a. RAR) logs from newbies have always been a thing, and will always be, regardless of any changes in wording. At least in my area, when it's essentially obvious, that an NA is of this kind, it's just ignored by everyone (incl. the reviewers).

 

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Maybe they should add a pre-input "Are you sure you want to post this log?", and a post-input "Please confirm you want to post this log to a reviewer" or something like that.

I would bet that there are a lot of newbies, especially those with single-digit find counts, who have no idea what a reviewer is, let alone what they actually do.

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, dprovan said:

You missed my point. "It might be missing" is not the reason: the *reasons* you're so sure are the reasons. I tell the difference between someone that thinks and someone that knows by the explanation that tells us all why they're so sure. That's what turns "it might be missing" into "you need to look at it."

 

Again that’s exactly my point. How deep must someone answer “Why?”
"Why this log type?" "Because it might be missing." "But why might it be missing?" "Because of reasons" "But why those reasons?" - which may be good; or they may not be good. And be careful because reasons might be spoilers!  How many words are needed in the caption to explain the difference and whether a reason plus however much detail is valid or not for that log type? And that’s precisely my point; “It might be missing” can be a valid reason for using the log type (explaining reasons for that reason is one step deeper). “Include detail or context” could help. After reading, the co could easily either think no, that should be a DNF because they were searching wrong, or it could be accurate because it’s definitely not where it should be, or it could contain clear spoiler content whether or not it needs attention. How do you explain that, and explain to the user that reasoning that an experienced geocacher may intuit for log type, but in a short caption?

Maybe "it might be missing" is just bad wording and "I'm confident it's missing" is better for OAR while nudging "I think it's missing" back to DNF.

Maybe “it might be missing” should be slapped with a Wikipedia “needs context” label.

 

* If it were definitely missing like the LPC example, I would post a DNF and the OAR log, stating just that: “it might be missing” (well I'd typically say there's definitely nothing there). And the DNF (plus any prior others) would indicate enough of my search for the co to realize, yep, it’s not there and needs replacement (Ideally before someone lies a throwdown).  As opposed to a nano in a pine tree where I might just DNF saying "I searched every single branch but couldn't find it; it might be missing, but I can't be certain" - I wouldn't post an OAR because I know I could still have easily missed excellent camo.

 

 

6 hours ago, dprovan said:

11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

These days I think the wording was adjusted to more accurately reflect what happens to the listing after the log is posted.

Don't be silly. The wording was changed because people kept whining about it, not because there's any logic to it. It most definitely does *not* more accurately reflect what happens to the listing. A log asks for owner attention *because* it needs maintenance. There is nothing else a owner can do except maintain the listing. A log asks for reviewer attention *because* if nothing happens, it needs to be archived. A reviewer has no other power.

 

I'm referencing more directly to the reviewer log vs "needs archived", and memories of the discussions that preceded this thread in past years. I would argue that "Needs maintenance" and "Owner attention requested" are minimally different than each other in intent and outcome. But there's a much greater difference between the implied intent and practical outcome of "Needs archived" and "Reviewer attention requested".

 

 

7 hours ago, dprovan said:

Nothing about the wording change makes it harder to use incorrectly. In fact, it allows those intent on misusing it a passive-aggressive excuse: "Oh, I only said it needed reviewer attention. I didn't think that would cause it to be archived (*snicker*)."

11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Undoubtedly there will still be misuses. I don't think anyone thinks otherwise on that

 

If it gets archived after a reviewer attends to it, that's on the reviewer, and almost certainly called for. That is different than inter-user debates because a user keeps seeming to want caches "archived" when all they want is for a reviewer to check it out - or they don't post it because they don't actually want the cache archived, just a reviewer to check on it. Again, vaguely recalling past discussions about the matter.

 

 

5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

when it's essentially obvious, that an NA is of this kind, it's just ignored by everyone (incl. the reviewers).

 

And I think that's something HQ wants to help towards change. Reviewers shouldn't be ignoring logs like that. And I think reviewers know it too. But what can they do about it? Post a reviewer note saying, once again, "nope, doesn't need archival, but cache owner has been contacted and fixes made".

How often do reviewers see mis-logged NAs?  That could be an interesting internal poll to find out  (maybe that's part of what led to this change)

 

 

5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

I would bet that there are a lot of newbies, especially those with single-digit find counts, who have no idea what a reviewer is, let alone what they actually do.

 

True, and maybe this will be one step towards helping them learn, especially the mobile users who never visit the website.

And what are the chances that newbies never even knew the practical difference between NM and NA, and who saw what?  Perhaps they posted them thinking they were entirely innocuous, purely informational, not posting some big red flag dropping a cache health score and beckoning a hammer drop from local geocaching authorities.  The new log names and captions (even if they could be better) I think are a step in the right direction. And a step in the right direction doesn't mean the perfect solution, just to nip that in the bud. 

 

[+dprovan]

On 12/13/2022 at 6:31 AM, thebruce0 said:

But there's a much greater difference between the implied intent and practical outcome of "Needs archived" and "Reviewer attention requested".

Can you explain the difference? The only power the reviewer has is to threaten to archive the cache, so I honestly don't understand what the reviewer attention that is being requested is other than considering whether to archive the cache if nothing is done about it. I keep hearing "huge difference", and I keep asking what the difference is, but I never get an answer other than a vague claim that reviewers have explainable magic powers.

On 12/13/2022 at 6:31 AM, thebruce0 said:

If it gets archived after a reviewer attends to it, that's on the reviewer, and almost certainly called for. That is different than inter-user debates because a user keeps seeming to want caches "archived" when all they want is for a reviewer to check it out - or they don't post it because they don't actually want the cache archived, just a reviewer to check on it. Again, vaguely recalling past discussions about the matter.

No one *wants* a cache archived. But when the evidence tells us it has to be archived, anyway, the NA log points that out to the person that can archive it. You're vaguely recalling past discussions; I'm clearly recalling past vague discussions involving your kind of hand waving.

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

Can you explain the difference?

Implied intent by label vs what often happens with reviewer response. Already explained.

 

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

No one *wants* a cache archived. But when the evidence tells us it has to be archived, anyway, the NA log points that out to the person that can archive it.

"No one"? It happens. Some DO think and want it archived. Some legitimately. Some think it's the right course of action but it's not. Some post it out of spite for a CO. Ire is raised. It happens. People reported getting po'd at wrong posted NA logs.

 

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

You're vaguely recalling past discussions; I'm clearly recalling past vague discussions involving your kind of hand waving.

Vague. I don't have direct links to specific comments, that's all. I know what people discussed. It's what literally led to this change; it was requested and debated ad nauseum in the past in the forums and on social media.  Undoubtedly it was noticed, and tptb let it roll around in the noggin for some time before deciding on this solution. I'm not stating my opinion or that this is the only or best solution, I'm just pointing out past sentiments expressed that almost certainly led to this move.

People didn't like "needs archived" as the label because people didn't always use it for legitimate concerns about a cache that should actually be archived for good reasons, and often used it just to get reviewer attention. However one chooses to interpret all that. And of course people debated that because that's what it should be used for so why change it? Already touched on all that above. dog-tail, or tail-dog? Status quo arguments as usual, if it ain't broke, etc.  Appears tptb determined that changing it was the direction they wanted to go.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Implied intent by label vs what often happens with reviewer response. Already explained.

Well, no. The implied intent is that the cache be archived unless it is, at the last minute, fixed. You're just pretending that that's not the implied intent by renaming the log, you haven't explained in what way it would no longer be the implied intent just because you call it something different. As far as I know, no one's claiming the outcomes will be any different, so, logically, there can't be any difference in the implied intent. Renaming only makes it less clear to people using the log that that's what the log will lead to.

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

"No one"? It happens.

I'm not worried about hurting someone's feelings because they want a cache archived for personal reasons and they have to say "needs archived" to do it. In fact, one of my objections is that such scum can now legitimately claim that they weren't trying to get the cache archived, they only wanted the reviewer to look at it.

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Some post it out of spite for a CO. Ire is raised. It happens. People reported getting po'd at wrong posted NA logs.

How does changing the name help that? To me, it just takes an honest statement of opinion -- "this isn't being fixed, so it needs to be archived" -- and changes it into the passive-aggressive, "I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the cache, but a reviewer should look at it." That seems even more likely to be used spitefully, and even more likely to upset COs determined to get upset even when used legitimately.

 

By the way, are you saying people reported that they themselves got upset with incorrect NAs? And they said they wouldn't get upset if the logs were called "needs reviewer attention"? I remember a lot of vague assertions that COs routinely get upset, but I don't remember any COs coming forward and saying they got upset because of the name.

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I'm not stating my opinion or that this is the only or best solution, I'm just pointing out past sentiments expressed that almost certainly led to this move.

Right, that's what I said: the whining lead to this move.

[+thebruce0]

We'll have to agree to disagree. They changed the name because of the issues raised by people who didn't like the name. You can debate as to whether those are good reasons or not, I'm not. That is all.

[+dprovan]

13 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

We'll have to agree to disagree. They changed the name because of the issues raised by people who didn't like the name. You can debate as to whether those are good reasons or not, I'm not. That is all.

OK. That was my point all along. You can pretend this was a debate if you want, but you've just reiterated the same whining without actually addressing any of the objections. But that's what always wins the day with GS.

[+thebruce0]

You disagree with me / I disagree with you - who cares. I've said my bit, it's not about winning an argument. "handwaving" and "you've just reiterated the same whining" is why I'm done now and you and I have taken over the thread. I don't care if it's "whining" or not, I'm not making that call, just recalling reasons leading to this. Now moving along.

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by thebruce0