Need archived

[+Goldenwattle]

It's hard when logging a NA, following two ignored NMs, by two different people, going back to April and no word from the CO, for the reviewer to come in and say "the appropriate log is Needs Maintenance." No wonder some people don't log needed NM & NA, with negativity like that.

[+lee737]

We put a NA on a cache yesterday - for the past 12 months it has been a lid only, with a couple of NMs.... the CO immediately posted a note in response to our 'premature' NA log saying he'd fix it..... NA logs are good at smoking out sleepy COs!

[+MNTA]

Um maybe your reviewer needs a little re-training?

 

No response to a NM in a month the cache in my area would probably get disabled by the reviewer. If not the NA would be promptly acted on.

[+Goldenwattle]

18 hours ago, MNTA said:

Um maybe your reviewer needs a little re-training?

 

No response to a NM in a month the cache in my area would probably get disabled by the reviewer. If not the NA would be promptly acted on.

It's not my reviewer. I doubt my reviewer would make that comment.

I now wonder how many NMs are needed before a NA can be placed?

I was travelling. Same reviewer who said they couldn't do anything about a marked 1T wheelchair accessible cache which even I, an able bodied person, couldn't reach without a long stick. I wasn't though physically capable of returning the cache back up that high, which I shouldn't be expected to, as it was marked 1T, and didn't return it to where it was, but left it low. The latest log of that cache said they were tall but it was a 5T. I don't consider it that either; maybe a 2T or 2.5T, but it gives an indication that it's not wheelchair accessible. I was under the misapprehension that the only rating that the reviewer could correct was the 1T, when it wasn't wheelchair accessible. I was corrected here and told that's not so and that a reviewer can't do that. I have known reviewers to correct that though, changing it to 1.5T to remove the wheelchair attribute.

Edited August 14 by Goldenwattle

[+colleda]

I thought algorithyms keep track of NMs - health scoring?

[+Goldenwattle]

4 minutes ago, colleda said:

I thought algorithyms keep track of NMs - health scoring?

Not always it seems. I placed another NM on a cache in that country. The last logs are 5 DNFs and a NM (mine). The cache hasn't been found for more than a year. It's over a month now since I placed the NM, but I hesitate to place the NA because of the local reviewer's reactions.

[Keystone]

The Health Score degrades faster for low-difficulty caches and slower for higher-difficulty caches.  Also, we'd need to know more details to advise on the appropriate action for any cache.  Most important would be the reason for needing owner attention.  A "damp log" report is different than "found bear teeth marks in the shattered remains of the container."

[+Wadcutter]

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

It's not my reviewer. I doubt my reviewer would make that comment.

I now wonder how many NMs are needed before a NA can be placed?

I was travelling. Same reviewer who said they couldn't do anything about a marked 1T wheelchair accessible cache which even I, an able bodied person, couldn't reach without a long stick. I wasn't though physically capable of returning the cache back up that high, which I shouldn't be expected to, as it was marked 1T, and didn't return it to where it was, but left it low. The latest log of that cache said they were tall but it was a 5T. I don't consider it that either; maybe a 2T or 2.5T, but it gives an indication that it's not wheelchair accessible. I was under the misapprehension that the one rating that the reviewer could correct was the 1T, when it wasn't wheelchair accessible. I was corrected here and told that's not so and that a reviewer can't do that. I have known reviewers to correct that though, changing it to 1.5T to remove the wheelchair attribute.

I'm trying to follow this line here.  Am I correct in understanding that you disagreed with the D/T rating so you marked it as Needs Archived?

[+cerberus1]

Luckily our Reviewers take the NM log into consideration...   

Can't tell you how many times "No more room in log" NMs are posted to find the other side of the RiR note pad was untouched.   

Our favorites have been "NM, needs a pen"...  

 - Besides finding that at every OM none of the pens/pencils (and sharpeners too) we put in ammo cans were still there from last time, "Cache must have a pen" is not in the guidelines.

NM isn't an end all...  Reviewers usually give the CO a chance to fix things. Isn't that fair?  I'd be happy to see NMs once in a while.

A couple weeks ago I placed the second NM on a cache that's only had one since 2013, had issues since it was published, and "found" by 36 other people...

 

Edited August 13 by cerberus1
tobeclear

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, Keystone said:

The Health Score degrades faster for low-difficulty caches and slower for higher-difficulty caches.

 

I can understand that for DNF logs, but I'd have thought an NM would have the same weight regardless of D/T rating. A damaged container is still a damaged container whether it's a 1/1 or a 5/5.

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, Wadcutter said:

I'm trying to follow this line here.  Am I correct in understanding that you disagreed with the D/T rating so you marked it as Needs Archived?

No I have never marked a cache needs archived for a wrong rating.

For the NOT wheelchair accessible cache marked as wheelchair accessible I contacted the reviewer privately, after the CO ignored my comment. It was another cache I put the NA on, because there have been several DNFs and two NMs over several months ignored by the CO.

[+Goldenwattle]

6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

"Cache must have a pen" is not in the guidelines.

That's why I never put a pen in my caches, or warn people to bring their own. I expect people to bring their own. It's common sense for people to carry a pen. I brought a pen to my first ever cache find. I now carry at least two pens, in case one runs out of ink. I don't expect a pen to be provided.

Of course there was the day when both pens ran out of ink within minutes of each other, but fortunately, as it was urban caching, I was able to stop caching, go buy another pen and then back to caching.

[+Joe_L]

Years ago I posted a Needs Archived on a cache that I knew was gone. It was a magnetic key holder on a guide rail, and the highway department removed the rail as part of the bridge replacement. The reviewer changed it to a Needs Maintenance using text that was similar to the original post. A month or so later, after no action by the CO, it was archived. The text in the original post looks neutral to me.  Just keep posting NAs as needed. 

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's why I never put a pen in my caches, or warn people to bring their own. I expect people to bring their own. It's common sense for people to carry a pen. I brought a pen to my first ever cache find. I now carry at least two pens, in case one runs out of ink. I don't expect a pen to be provided.

Of course there was the day when both pens ran out of ink within minutes of each other, but fortunately, as it was urban caching, I was able to stop caching, go buy another pen and then back to caching.

 

I put at least one pencil in all my caches as, for the most part, it saves having to deal with "forgot my pen" logs. I did get one of those, though, when the forgot-my-penner didn't even bother opening the cache. It's rare that I've had to replace a pencil, perhaps three or four times in ten years across 66 physical caches, but I always carry a couple of spares with me when I'm doing cache checks. A box of fifty only costs a few dollars so it's not a big expense.

Edited August 14 by barefootjeff