Need maintenance.

[+Turfje65]

More and more I see logs with “need maintenance” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds. 
When they cannot find the cache they log this cache as “ we cannot find it, maybe gone.”  And activate need maintenance”

Highly  irritating and absolutely wrong.

My suggestion is: Delete all message with “Need maintenace” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds.

 

[geoawareUSA9]

I just hope I don't find any "needs maintenance" logs you posted before you had 1,000 finds, because by your.own argument, they should never have been posted...

[+TriciaG]

So, if someone with less than 1000 finds encounters a cache that has been destroyed, they shouldn't be able to log a NM because they're a newbie?

Nah - false NMs due to a newbie not finding the cache is par for the course, a hazard of being a CO. Check on the cache, and if it's still in place, kindly educate the newbie and move on.

EDIT: I've been geocaching for more than 10 years and have owned several caches - and still don't have 1000 finds.

Edited April 2, 2023 by TriciaG

[+cerberus1]

40 minutes ago, Turfje65 said:

More and more I see logs with “need maintenance” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds. 
When they cannot find the cache they log this cache as “ we cannot find it, maybe gone.”  And activate need maintenance”

Highly  irritating and absolutely wrong. My suggestion is: Delete all message with “Need maintenace” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds.

 

That's odd...  We see it rare that anyone leaves action logs at all.  Nice you have people following guidelines there.  

I might add a NM to a broken piece of carp months or longer after the first mention in a log. Of course if I didn't find it, it's a DNF.

In fact, many NMs we've seen were from long-time cachers who couldn't find the cache, assuming if they couldn't find it, it's not there, but refusing to leave a DNF, maybe because it looks bad for them, their stats, whatever... to have any. 

 - But that's only if they didn't leave a throwdown...

No, I'd prefer a new member attempting to do the correct thing be instructed by the CO that it's a DNF if they didn't find it, and why.  

[+MNTA]

I've had two caches with NM logs filed on them.

 

The first was by a cacher with 0 finds and was bogus they had never seen a nano cache.

The second was by a cacher with fewer than 75 finds. Since I had moved out of the area I messaged them and gave them detailed finding instructions and unfortunately it was indeed missing and I archived the cache.

 

As for experience filing NMs. COs need to stop taking offense at NMs as they can be true. In the case of the inexperienced cacher I swung by and did a quick check and found it all good. 

 

I have filed 10 NM logs since the begging of the year.

4 are current disabled on the way to being archived.

2 have been fixed by the CO. This is the best possible outcome one had coordinates that were off by 500 feet a typo in a recent update.

3 inactive COs probably will be archived

1 Hopefully will be fixed, CO definitely did not like the NM. Logs showed problems for the past 6 months. 

 

[+Max and 99]

TEN years is how long it took me to find 1000 geocaches. I knew long before then the difference between a DNF and a NM.

[+GeoElmo6000]

I'd be more interested in geocachers needing some experience to log a NA, but a much smaller number, 100 or even less.  50 maybe.

[+JL_HSTRE]

1 hour ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

I'd be more interested in geocachers needing some experience to log a NA, but a much smaller number, 100 or even less.  50 maybe.

 

50 Finds or 1 year since the creation of the account seems sufficient. 

 

If that experience threshold is necessary for NM or NA it should also apply to hiding a cache. Certain caches should also be inaccessible to the newbies - namely, Challenges (they won't be able to qualify anyway) and Earthcaches.

 

However, I bet that no such restriction will ever happen, no matter if the threshold is 1000 Finds or 5.

[+Viajero Perdido]

More rules aren't the answer.

 

A reviewer or CO can see the find count of the person making the log, and use their own good judgement: act or ignore.  They may even know the person, maybe take their report a bit more seriously, or not.

 

This is a game full of people working together to have fun, not a computer program.

[+Hügh]

6 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

I just hope I don't find any "needs maintenance" logs you posted before you had 1,000 finds, because by your.own argument, they should never have been posted...

 

In fact, they posted their first Needs Maintenance log when they had less than 200 finds! 😱😱😱 How naughty.

 

I'd better flag it for Needs Delete.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

1 Hopefully will be fixed, CO definitely did not like the NM. Logs showed problems for the past 6 months. 

Imagine being married to such a narcissist . They are perfect and can do no wrong. It wouldn't only be with geocaching they would be like this.

 

3 hours ago, GeoElmo6000 said:

I'd be more interested in geocachers needing some experience to log a NA, but a much smaller number, 100 or even less.  50 maybe.

Agree with that. I don't mind beginners logging NM. I thanked one for doing this, because not enough people do. I might have mentioned COs like the previous example given to warn them, and said to ignore those comments.

 

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Certain caches should also be inaccessible to the newbies - namely, Challenges (they won't be able to qualify anyway)

Challenges allow a person to sign the log and write a note, and then aim to qualify, even if it takes years, as for some challenges it took me. So a beginner, as long as they write a note, should be able to find them. It's up to the CO to explain challenges to them and ask them to change their log to a note, if they log a find. Only if they don't should the log be deleted.

________________________

I wouldn't mind people without finds not being able to publish a cache. Most like this I have seen had problems and didn't last; the cache or the new CO. That is if anyone could actually find the cache. In some cases this was the outcome. Maybe at least 50 finds and they can publish a traditional cache as their first. Exceptions could be made for places with no caches, but with extra assistance from the reviewer.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

More rules aren't the answer.

 

A reviewer or CO can see the find count of the person making the log, and use their own good judgement: act or ignore.  They may even know the person, maybe take their report a bit more seriously, or not.

 

This is a game full of people working together to have fun, not a computer program.

 

This answer takes the cake. Thumbs up.

[geoawareUSA9]

9 hours ago, Hügh said:

15 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

I just hope I don't find any "needs maintenance" logs you posted before you had 1,000 finds, because by your.own argument, they should never have been posted...

 

In fact, they posted their first Needs Maintenance log when they had less than 200 finds! 😱😱😱 How naughty.

 

I'd better flag it for Needs Delete.

 

I'm not saying Groundspeak asked me to be a forum moderator because of my psychic powers, but...

[+JL_HSTRE]

12 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Challenges allow a person to sign the log and write a note, and then aim to qualify, even if it takes years, as for some challenges it took me. So a beginner, as long as they write a note, should be able to find them. It's up to the CO to explain challenges to them and ask them to change their log to a note, if they log a find. Only if they don't should the log be deleted.

 

Newbies tend not to read the cache page nor respond to the Message Center.

[+JL_HSTRE]

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

There are many parts of the world where finding even 50 caches would require a lot of travel, yet these are the sort of places where caching needs encouragement rather than discouragement. I'd rather judge each cache or cacher on their merits than their stats, because everyone is different.

 

I'm fine with the rules being more restrictive in places like the USA, Canada, and Europe than cache-sparse Australia.

 

Without knowing a cache or cacher personally, stats are the only merit we have to go on. And it's more of a threshold, an easy way to filter out.

[+JustFindingOurWay]

23 hours ago, Turfje65 said:

My suggestion is: Delete all message with “Need maintenace” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds.

 

Just a note that deleting Needs Maintenance logs, either by the original logger or by the cache owner, does not remove the Needs Maintenance / Red Wrench attribute. The only action that removes the Needs Maintenance attribute is an Owner Maintenance log. There's only one person who can log Owner Maintenance. Quit fussing about inaccurate Needs Maintenance logs and do the maintenance you agreed to do when you submitted a cache for publication. Simple solution.

[+niraD]

On 4/2/2023 at 1:23 PM, Turfje65 said:

My suggestion is: Delete all message with “Need maintenace” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds.

The last I heard, the vast majority of geocachers have fewer than 100 finds. I would expect only a tiny fraction of geocachers to have 1000 finds or more.

 

And as always, find count is a poor substitute for whatever it is that you're really trying to measure. A newbie who tagged along on a trip to the ET Highway numbers trail could have far more than 1000 finds after a single long weekend. An experienced geocacher who spends almost every weekend targeting a single remote geocache could take 20 years to reach 1000 finds.

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Newbies tend not to read the cache page nor respond to the Message Center.

Then delete the log.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 4/3/2023 at 3:23 AM, Turfje65 said:

More and more I see logs with “need maintenance” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds. 
When they cannot find the cache they log this cache as “ we cannot find it, maybe gone.”  And activate need maintenance”

Highly  irritating and absolutely wrong.

My suggestion is: Delete all message with “Need maintenace” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds.

 

Disagree. More people should make NMs. Tough, those COs who get all offended and take it as a personal attack should grow up. It's not all about them! NM is a tool to assist the CO. It's up to the CO to look after their caches. In my experience though, very few new geocachers with only a few finds log a NM. Most wouldn't know how, and maybe also because I do regular maintenance on my caches.

1,000 caches... you have to be joking!! If you had said 50, okay an argument, but NOT 1,000. That's ridiculous.

[+JL_HSTRE]

18 hours ago, niraD said:

And as always, find count is a poor substitute for whatever it is that you're really trying to measure. A newbie who tagged along on a trip to the ET Highway numbers trail could have far more than 1000 finds after a single long weekend.

 

People love to throw out this What If scenario. 

 

How many newbies are doing PTs? Very very few. It's technically possible, but realistically extremely improbable.

 

And if it does happen it likely demonstrated the newbie is going to stick around for awhile while also knowing more experienced geocachers. Most problematic newbies are coming in blind and don't stick around very long.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

How many newbies are doing PTs? Very very few. It's technically possible, but realistically extremely improbable.

I've encountered a couple people who were introduced to geocaching that way. I can't imagine why they continued geocaching if that was their introduction to it, but that's besides the point.

 

And the specifics of either example are also besides the point. Find count is a poor substitute for whatever you're trying to measure, whether that's understanding how/when to post NM logs, or understanding how to hide a good cache, or whatever else.

[+edexter]

     I find relatively few people will log an NM under any circumstances and most NM logs are not responded to by the CO.  I suspect that Turfje65 is one of the minority of cache placers who take their responsibility to maintain their caches seriously and get annoyed by the occasional "false alarm". 

    If you can't find a cache, a first step is to post a dnf, not an NM log.  It doesn't matter how many finds you have.   If you there are a string of dnfs ahead of you, then an NM log could be appropriate.  As for "false NM logs", I can sympathize, but the incidence of "log wet, container damaged" Notes is typically five to ten times more common that "log wet, container damaged" Needs Maintenance logs.  I typically deal with "questionable" logs by contacting the cacher and asking for more details.

edexter

[+Vicious Cycle]

On 4/2/2023 at 11:23 AM, Turfje65 said:

More and more I see logs with “need maintenance” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds. 
When they cannot find the cache they log this cache as “ we cannot find it, maybe gone.”  And activate need maintenance”

Highly  irritating and absolutely wrong.

My suggestion is: Delete all message with “Need maintenace” from geocachers with less then 1000 founds.

 

I have mixed feelings on this topic...

 

I agree with you that there is a resistance on the part of a lot of cachers to log a DNF. I guess some people look at DNFs as a sign of failure. I don't know. Personally, I don't have a problem with logging DNFs because I believe they are valuable feedback for the hider. There may be a need to adjust the difficulty level of the cache. Or it may be a reflection of the fact that the hider is very good at hiding things and thus be a reflection of a higher difficulty rating. Obviously a "Needs Owner Attention" notification can be resolved by a CO's visit to the site to verify that the cache is in good shape and indeed still present. Do you want to visit your cache every time someone can't find it? Probably not...that's not always sustainable.

 

I do not think a Needs Owner's Attention (or reviewer's attention) should be logged until there are a few DNFs in a row from a variety of cachers. For example...take the last 5 log entries for GC444Z6 as an example. It was DNF'd twice, then found, then the last two logs were DNFs by me. Even with 4 out of the last 5 entries being DNFs, I am relatively confident this cache is there. First of all, it's a Difficulty 3, so it's not your typical LPC. Second, I've been in contact with the cacher who was the last one to find it, and she's been giving me hints (although I'm still a bit dim-witted and haven't found it yet). But judging by the location, I believe it's possible that I'm just not seeing it as this is a unique environment where I haven't experienced this type of hide before.

 

All that being said...I don't agree with you on the topic of assigning a minimum number of finds before a person is qualified to post a "Needs Owner's Attention" log. I believe there is an element of Geocaching "maturity" that is often times reflected by a higher find count, but as @Max and 99 mentioned above, it took them 10 years to reach 1000 finds. As a side note, I just reached 1000 finds last month after 16 years of Geocaching. 

 

What I do think needs to be acknowledged here is the level of responsibility a cache owner assumes when placing a hide. When you hide a cache, you have to be prepared to maintain that cache, and that means making a visit once in a while to check on the health of the hide. The only reason I see for deleting someone's log entry is if they did not sign the logbook. Geocaching maintains very few hard and fast rules, but this is one of them. And that is something I see very few cache owners enforcing. So if you get out to check your logs to ensure the signatures match what's online, you'll accomplish a couple of things...

 

First, you'll catch those cheaters who falsely claim finds without putting ink on the log.

Second, you'll have a regular maintenance posts on your cache page, and maybe you'll see fewer "Needs Owner's Attention" logs.

[+edexter]

     So. I think this issue can reframed as "what are the odds that a cache is really missing if they can't find it?".  The idea being presented is that cachers with more finds are more likely to find a cache that folks with fewer finds.  I think that in general that might be true, but the learning curve is much steeper than 1000 caches.  Most folks know what they are doing way sooner than that, but leaving that aside here's how I view "the odds".   I think, in terms of ability to find caches, my skill level is average or a little below:  I find about 91% of caches I search for, record my dnfs, and track them to see how many were actually WNTs (Was Not There).  The average difficulty rating for my finds is 2.0  (I seldom search for caches rated d 3 or higher so my stats apply the typical hide, not the super toughies)  

      Turns out 4% of caches I've looked for were missing. (Based on:  no further finds:  cache repaired, replaced or archived by the CO or archived by The Reviewer)  This tells me two things:  1, five of nine caches I didn't find I missed:  so my find rate is 91/96 or about 95% and 2, 4% of caches are missing at any given moment.  No matter how good you are, you can't find what isn't there.  (This tells you something about folks who never record a dnf...)  So, if you assume that a single dnf means there a better than 50% chance the cache is there, posting an NM log at this point is not helpful.  (It's a false negative) Once the dnf string hits four though, there a better than 90% chance the cache is missing, so it seems reasonable to post one, to get the CO's attention.  

      Compared to the average cacher, I am highly attentive to maintenance, aware of every dnf posted (I mean you get notified about every log, so...) and apply my own discount to dnf reports:  If a very experience cacher reports a dnf, I typically check it.  A real newbie, not so much, but two or three, I go take a look.  In my experience, this issue is much less "too frequent NM logs" as "too infrequent owner maintenance".   (Two thirds of all NM get no response at all from a CO and end up being archived by The Reviewer months or years later.)  MNTA's experience is typical:  10 NM logged, 2 repairs to date.

edexter

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, edexter said:

Once the dnf string hits four though, there a better than 90% chance the cache is missing, so it seems reasonable to post one, to get the CO's attention.  

That depends a LOT on the cache though. One of my Favorites was a D4 "hidden in plain sight" cache that frequently acquired half a dozen or more DNF/NM/NA logs before someone else would find it, or the CO would do a maintenance visit and report that everything was where it was supposed to be.

[+PlantAKiss]

Wow. I have only 600+ finds but I've understood when a NM is warranted since the beginning--it's in the guidelines. I'm generally not marking an NM for what I believe is a missing cache, but because of cache damage. I'm always surprise when a "Found It" log says "container is cracked, full of mud and the log is mush."...but no NM on the listing. People seem very reluctant to put an NM but owners need to know! I appreciate it. I think how many finds you have isn't as important as understanding what the guidelines are for it. I have directly contacted owners as well if I know where a cache should be but it's not there.

[+colleda]

1 hour ago, PlantAKiss said:

Wow. I have only 600+ finds but I've understood when a NM is warranted since the beginning--it's in the guidelines. I'm generally not marking an NM for what I believe is a missing cache, but because of cache damage. I'm always surprise when a "Found It" log says "container is cracked, full of mud and the log is mush."...but no NM on the listing. People seem very reluctant to put an NM but owners need to know! I appreciate it. I think how many finds you have isn't as important as understanding what the guidelines are for it. I have directly contacted owners as well if I know where a cache should be but it's not there.

Newbies and flaws in apps? I have been doing a lot of maintenance on my caches lately and it's only because I read all logs to determine if there is a problem. Even then some problems go unnoted. Sometimes I may get a WN - if I'm lucky. 

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, colleda said:

Newbies and flaws in apps? I have been doing a lot of maintenance on my caches lately and it's only because I read all logs to determine if there is a problem. Even then some problems go unnoted. Sometimes I may get a WN - if I'm lucky. 

 

I remember another saying the app default is "Found It".  Is that still true?   People adding a message in their found it instead of anything extra...

[+albertpang]

Hi there, I am a cache owner also. I don't mind receiving a NM log in my caches. I usually will go check the condition. Recently, my GC904Y9 got one. Checked it and now relocated it in a new place with coordinates updated. 

 

Now I have a question... how can I remove the "Needs Owner's Attention" filter on my Cache Owner Dashboard? In my case, I once disabled the cache; fixed the issue and now re-enabled the cache on business again. The filter is still there. Should I delete the NM log? 

[+RCH65]

10 minutes ago, albertpang said:

Now I have a question... how can I remove the "Needs Owner's Attention" filter on my Cache Owner Dashboard? In my case, I once disabled the cache; fixed the issue and now re-enabled the cache on business again. The filter is still there. Should I delete the NM log? 

 

Deleting the NM log won't help.

Just write an additional "owner maintenance" log.

[+albertpang]

Thanks RCH65.

It works with an "Owner Maintenance" log.

[+jlevoy]

Hello fellow cachers,

This is my first post on the forms. I have been geocaching for 2 years now and have recently reached the milestone of 500 finds! I'm reading this thread and I'm a bit confused. When I see a cache with that is in need of maintenance I just write "needs maintenance" in the log. Is there a special way to do an action log? I have seen special logs like this on caches i have logged in the past. Is it a pc only option? Is it something I need to unlock with a number of finds? 

 

Thanks in advance, 

jlevoy

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, jlevoy said:

Hello fellow cachers,

This is my first post on the forms. I have been geocaching for 2 years now and have recently reached the milestone of 500 finds! I'm reading this thread and I'm a bit confused. When I see a cache with that is in need of maintenance I just write "needs maintenance" in the log. Is there a special way to do an action log? I have seen special logs like this on caches i have logged in the past. Is it a pc only option? Is it something I need to unlock with a number of finds? 

 

Thanks in advance, 

jlevoy

 

On the cache page in the app, scroll right to the bottom to where it says "Report a problem with this cache":

 

 

Tapping on this will provide two options, "Owner attention requested" (formerly called Needs Maintenance) and "Reviewer attention requested" (formerly Needs Archived).

 

On the website logging page there's also a "Report a problem" option.

[+WhiteHowler]

I know there's a lot of annoyance when someone (usually a newbie) marks a cache as NM simply because they couldn't find it, but what is the appropriate etiquette if a cache seems to have been abandoned or is no longer being maintained?

 

As an example: There's a local cache here that I recently DNFed.  The last logged find was two years ago.  Since then, the only activity has been a few DNFs.  After seeing downed trees and storm damage around where GZ should be, I suspect the cache has been destroyed or buried.  But there's no evidence that it's actually missing, so I logged another DNF and went on my way.  However... The CO didn't respond to a message I sent asking about it, and their profile is set to not show recent activity.  Judging by their more recent hides (2+ years ago), they appear to have moved to another faraway state.  Is this enough circumstantial evidence to log a NM?  Or even request reviewer attention?  I don't know the etiquette here.

 

I'm a bit hesitant after getting chewed out by a cache owner for reporting his cache as NM because it appeared to be in an actually hazardous location (as a 2.5/2).  It turned out not to be dangerous, but an observer has no way of knowing this, so I don't regret reporting it.  Still, it wasn't a pleasant experience to get yelled at for trying to help.

 

[+Max and 99]

34 minutes ago, WhiteHowler said:

Is this enough circumstantial evidence to log a NM?  Or even request reviewer attention?  I don't know the etiquette here.

I say yes. Owner attention requested. 

[+barefootjeff]

25 minutes ago, WhiteHowler said:

I know there's a lot of annoyance when someone (usually a newbie) marks a cache as NM simply because they couldn't find it, but what is the appropriate etiquette if a cache seems to have been abandoned or is no longer being maintained?

 

The question to ask yourself is, "Do I want the CO to check on this cache?" Before answering this question, consider the evidence at GZ, previous logs and the cache's ratings, but if your answer is "Yes" then log an NM. If the CO is no longer active and doesn't respond, at least you've set the wheels in motion for further action to be taken (an NA from a subsequent searcher or a CHS ping).

 

30 minutes ago, WhiteHowler said:

I'm a bit hesitant after getting chewed out by a cache owner for reporting his cache as NM because it appeared to be in an actually hazardous location (as a 2.5/2).  It turned out not to be dangerous, but an observer has no way of knowing this, so I don't regret reporting it.  Still, it wasn't a pleasant experience to get yelled at for trying to help.

 

Unless the hazard is something that appeared after the cache was placed (a washaway or rock fall, for example), I wouldn't consider being hazardous as grounds for an NM. Some cachers enjoy doing hazardous caches and it's up to each searcher to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks. I've baulked at quite a few caches where I considered the risk of injury too great, but plenty of others have got there okay and have enjoyed the challenge.

[+Max and 99]

35 minutes ago, WhiteHowler said:

Still, it wasn't a pleasant experience to get yelled at for trying to help.

I'm sorry this happened to you!

[+WhiteHowler]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Unless the hazard is something that appeared after the cache was placed (a washaway or rock fall, for example), I wouldn't consider being hazardous as grounds for an NM. Some cachers enjoy doing hazardous caches and it's up to each searcher to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks. I've baulked at quite a few caches where I considered the risk of injury too great, but plenty of others have got there okay and have enjoyed the challenge.

 

So, it's complicated.  This is a spoiler for that cache, but I won't mention which one it is.

 

The cache is a small magnet attached to an electrical meter box at an unused pavilion in a local park.  Looking at past "found" photos, the meter box used to be completely intact, and I would not categorize it as appearing dangerous.  However, when I visited a few months ago, the cover of the meter had been removed (either vandalized or blown off by recent severe storms), which exposed two large, bare wires.

 

I decided not to pursue the cache.  I marked it as DNF and logged a NM, with a note that "The location appears like it may have become hazardous.  CO may want to check on this."

 

Within hours, I got a rude and condescending message from the CO that I should have known the wires weren't live (uhhhhh... okay?) and that sometimes a cache can look dangerous but never is (agreed, but a cache that wasn't MEANT to be dangerous could become so over time, something the CO should want to know), and it's my fault he's going to potentially have to answer a reviewer's questions.  Part of being a responsible cache owner, I say, but I certainly didn't want to cause anyone any trouble either.

Edited June 5, 2023 by WhiteHowler

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, WhiteHowler said:

and it's my fault he's going to potentially have to answer a reviewer's questions.

 

It sounds like he doesn't understand what an NM log actually is. All he has to do is check on the cache and log an Owner Maintenance, which will clear the Needs Maintenance attribute and reset the cache's Health Score to perfect. A reviewer won't become involved unless he sits back and does nothing.

 

It's a real shame that COs like that end up discouraging people from ever logging NMs, resulting in a game board full of broken or missing caches.

Edited June 5, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, WhiteHowler said:

and it's my fault he's going to potentially have to answer a reviewer's questions

 

First, if there's no issue with the cache, then answering reviewer questions shouldn't be a problem or an issue. Rather it should be great if he can talk to a reviewer and confirm that the cache is good to go; that firms his stance and the cache status. 

Second, if his initial response to your OAR log is anger given what you said, that is not a nice CO and I wouldn't bat an eye if the reviewer decided to do something about the cache.

 

This is another reason why having a strong community is so important! More local events, let cachers meet each other and get a sense of who each other are and what their ethics are.  Even ideally build a good rapport with others around. hmph.