CO comment, "Did you go back and look again Goldenwattle, or logging the NM from home?”

[+Goldenwattle]

This after five months and several DNFs, including my own.

 

I logged a DNF and then the next person logged a DNF.

Following was a find, but the log words were “Very lost heritage. Nothing here in the middle of nowhere.“ That to me says they didn’t find the cache.

The next log was another DNF. 

Then I logged a NM. "Four DNFs in a row and not found for five months. The 'find' among the DNFs has these words, "Nothing here in the middle of nowhere.", so it appears a find was logged by mistake. Can happen. Needs a CO check.”

CO did an OM that same day, without checking, starting with the snide words. “Did you go back and look again Goldenwattle, or logging the NM from home?”

 

LOL, what do they think. I was going to do a round trip of about 3,500kms to do the CO’s job and check on it ? And we can't log from home. Gees....

 

The next person replaced the cache. “There was nothing to find at GZ.” 

 

Some COs have a strange problem with NMs.

 

(I didn't intend such a large heading. I copied and pasted and now it won't let me edit the size.)

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+BirdSearcher]

I have logged several NM from home - if I have  a cache on a watchlist after DNF and several others DNF , or the cache has needed maintenance for years , then I will log NM  if others are reluctant. I think of it as a contribution  to a better quality game. 

[+Goldenwattle]

13 hours ago, BirdSearcher said:

I have logged several NM from home - if I have  a cache on a watchlist after DNF and several others DNF , or the cache has needed maintenance for years , then I will log NM  if others are reluctant. I think of it as a contribution  to a better quality game. 

That's was I do, and did in the case I gave. It's a normal and common this to do.

[+MNTA]

File the NA and let the reviewer handle the situation.  Unless someone does community maintenance thats where this is headed.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

File the NA and let the reviewer handle the situation.  Unless someone does community maintenance thats where this is headed.

That cache is semi remote, so I hesitate to do NA on those sort of caches, as there are few caches there. (I say only semi remote, as in about, or just over 40kms each direction, there is another cache.)

However, the cache has been replaced. My word it was missing wasn't good enough it seems to the CO. They didn't believe me, and so the rude comment. The next person along replaced it when they also didn't find it, so it's been done.

The CO had written as part of their 'OM', "In meantime if a cacher wants to be helpful, they coukd contact me prior to going out there to ascertain the type of cache and exact location. Then if it is in fact not in situ, they can replace it...
God knows I pay it forward more than I receive...
Happy caching..."

Inferring they might do throwdowns, and I don't help other geocachers. I don't do throwdowns. However, for more remote caches I do do maintenance, and had maintained several caches on that trip. Taking away old crumbling caches, leaving a new replacement. That sort of thing. I also replace missing caches when asked to do so (given permission) by the CO, or in one case, have an ongoing understanding I will do this for them. Not unauthorised throwdowns, just because I couldn't find it. I was the first DNF, so maybe I just couldn't find it. I would not have presumed to log a NM in that case, then. I couldn't presume it was missing. It was only after other DNFs I made the NM.

 

I checked my messages with this person, and I see that they attacked my comments on another cache I had a DNF on, which wasn't even their cache, when I said the maths formular was wrong. A brackets problem. Or possibly it was the following comments by a geocaching friend of mine who was more forthright than me (who I couldn't convince not to log a comment - as I was worried he might be too forthright - as he said that maths must be correct), an ex Maths teacher, who explained how maths work. A couple of DNFs later and no finds for two years, promised action by the actual CO not happening, that cache now has been disabled by the reviewer.

Edited April 16, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[geoawareUSA9]

On 4/15/2023 at 8:22 AM, Goldenwattle said:

CO did an OM that same day, without checking

 

Regarding the language, clearly there is some history here that I'm not going to dig into.

 

But as a reviewer, it bothers me when someone posts an "owner maintenance" log without actually, physically determining whether their cache needs maintenance.

 

This log should not be used simply to clear a red wrench (unless it is absolutely clear that no maintenance is required) or to respond to a particular log (whether snidely or politely).

 

This log should normally only be used when the CO has actually removed their fourth point of contact from the couch and inspected their cache.

Edited April 21, 2023 by geoawareUSA9
Edited to clarify my comment on clearing red wrenches.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

This log should not be used to clear a red wrench or to respond to a particular log (whether snidely or politely).

So how should a CO clear a red wrench when a visit isn't required?

 

When a newby logs NA rather than DNF, everyone can just ignore it. But when a newby logs NM rather than DNF, the red wrench must be cleared, lest the CHS get its knickers in a twist. In situations where a visit is difficult (e.g., high terrain) and unnecessary (e.g., multiple Find logs reporting that everything is in great shape since the NM), how should a CO clear a red wrench?

[+Goldenwattle]

15 minutes ago, niraD said:

So how should a CO clear a red wrench when a visit isn't required?

 

When a newby logs NA rather than DNF, everyone can just ignore it. But when a newby logs NM rather than DNF, the red wrench must be cleared, lest the CHS get its knickers in a twist. In situations where a visit is difficult (e.g., high terrain) and unnecessary (e.g., multiple Find logs reporting that everything is in great shape since the NM), how should a CO clear a red wrench?

You are talking about a different situation to the one I mentioned. In the case I mentioned the cache was missing, but the CO did an OM that day, after the NM, without replacing the missing cache. If you have had multiple finds after the NM, and they say the cache is in good order, unlike the cache I referred to, yours isn't missing, or in need of a CO visit. I would log an OM and explain this.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

But as a reviewer, it bothers me when someone posts an "owner maintenance" log without actually, physically determining whether their cache needs maintenance.

 

This log should not be used to clear a red wrench or to respond to a particular log (whether snidely or politely).

 

This log should only be used when the CO has actually removed their fourth point of contact from the couch and inspected their cache.

There are situations, where an armchair OM is valid and justified: When one or more find logs after the NM explicitly say, that the reason for the NM no longer exists.

 

Two examples from my own recent experience:

• I own an urban micro, which gets lots of finds. One day, an NM with "Logbook full" arrived. I was a bit surprised, because the number of finds since the previous logbook change was way below the logs usual capacity. So I waited for the next find logs, and as expected, a few of them explicitly said something like "All fine, there's more than enough space on the backsides". So I posted an OM without visiting the cache.
• I was searching for a multi, where the last log was a DNF saying "The tree has been partially cut down", with an accompanying NM "Container might be missing". But at GZ, everything was fine, incl. the tree and the cache (apparently, the DNFer had made a mistake in calculating the multi's final coordinates). I said so in my find log, and the CO can (and should) clear the NM flag from home.

[+niraD]

10 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

(apparently, the DNFer had made a mistake in calculating the multi's final coordinates)

I hate it when that happens...

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

You are talking about a different situation to the one I mentioned.

I am aware of that. I was responding to a moderator and volunteer reviewer's comments about a related topic.

[geoawareUSA9]

6 hours ago, niraD said:

So how should a CO clear a red wrench when a visit isn't required?

 

5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

There are situations, where an armchair OM is valid and justified: When one or more find logs after the NM explicitly say, that the reason for the NM no longer exists.

 

I agree with you both that my initial comment was overly broad, and there are some situations in which a couch OM log would be apropos. I went back and edited it:

 

7 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

This log should not be used simply to clear a red wrench (unless it is absolutely clear that no maintenance is required)

 

I think that's a more accurate statement and addresses the situations you both brought up.

Edited April 21, 2023 by geoawareUSA9

[+NanCycle]

5 hours ago, baer2006 said:

 

• I own an urban micro, which gets lots of finds. One day, an NM with "Logbook full" arrived. I was a bit surprised, because the number of finds since the previous logbook change was way below the logs usual capacity. So I waited for the next find logs, and as expected, a few of them explicitly said something like "All fine, there's more than enough space on the backsides". So I posted an OM without visiting the cache.

Amazing how many cachers don't know that paper has two sides.

[+egroeg]

1 hour ago, NanCycle said:

Amazing how many cachers don't know that paper has two sides.

 

Hah!

I once found a math puzzle cache where, to follow the theme, the CO had twisted the log sheet into a Moebius strip.  One side!!