'Owner Maintenance'

[+Deepdiggingmole]

A while back the old 'Needs Maintenance' (NM) log type was changed to 'Owner Attention Requested' (OAR) and 'Needs Archived' (NA) changed to 'Reviewer Attention Requested' (RAR) though I feel NM didn't necessarily need changing, the latter (RAR) was more appropriate as often an esculation from NM wasn't necessarily 'now archive it' but for reviewer intervention.  
So the point of this is to look at another log type 'Owner Maintenance' 
Can the log type 'Owner Maintenance' be reviewed and changed to something more appropriate to the action of 'maintenance has been carried out'
So often I see this log type being used by COs who are simply replying to the OAR log saying  "I will check on the cache when I can get out there" or "I'll replace this soon, but can't get out to it for a month" and invariably they forget and to any future finders they look at their apps and see the OM log icon in among the various other logs and then go and waste their time looking for a cache that is missing because in fact the CO hasn't carried out the maintenance.
I am aware many long in the tooth COs use this log simply to remove the spanner knowing full well it is not correct.
However It would seem that many new cachers are under the impression that this log is what is used by COs when they are doing any logs on caches they own, not aware that it must only be used once the maintenance (whatever form that must take) has actually been carried out - i.e it is used as a CO log 

 

So can consideration be made to change this log name to something more appropriate to the task 'Maintenance HAS been carried out'

and possibly even add a new bland 'CO log' log type (that have no effect on spanners and the like) so that COs can make comments that are not indications that they have done the required actions

 

Edited November 27 by Deepdiggingmole
spelling

[+edexter]

      I think what you want here ("so that COs can make comments that are not indications that they have done the required actions") is already available and called "a note".  As a CO, I typically use notes explain delays in repair to a cache I have disabled.  An example might be "ongoing construction:  cache not accessible".  

      In theory, the change in initials used to indicate cache issues (NM to OAR and NA to RAR) are an improvement as they more accurately describe what you would like to happen (for either the CO or the Reviewer to take a look and respond with some action).  I typically review the cache page before searching for a cache and pay attention to these notices.  However,  I have not seen much of change in practice.  A very typical sequence goes like this:  A cacher places a pill bottle or bison tube with a paper log and no pencil.  Over the course of a few months it rains, the paper gets soggy and unsignable, the o-ring dies, the plastic cracks and there are a series of "too wet to sign the log" until somebody replaces the log with a piece of paper.  The process repeats  until someone posts an OAR log which is ignored until someone posts a RAR which is ignored two thirds of the time and some months later the cache is archived after a "final notice" from the reviewer.  

    The primary issue is not the initals or their meaning but that the average CO does no maintenance and the typical cache needs it after a year or two.  Decent containers can go a long time and stay dry but the average pill bottle or bison tube has a short life span.  It's easy to tell who does actual maintenace (Is there a green wrench?) and who doesn't.  It's relatively easy to spot a non-maintenance maintenance log as well (though you do have to read them).  I can generally tell the condition of a cache from looking at the logs and I'm sure The Reviewer can easily identify cachers who do no maintenance. 

    If the goal is to have an accurate list of available caches in reasonable shape, it would be useful for the Reviewer, when asked to take a look, to notice 1, How many caches has this person placed and how many have been archived? 2, How many times have they performed maintenance?  3, How many of their caches have been archived without a response to an OAR and RAR request?.  When the answers to these questions are 10 placed, 5 archived; 0 maintenance and 5 no responses, it's clear that a "no maintenance required" cacher has been identified.  The Reviewer attention requested should then result in:  1, The cache being disabled.  2, The CO given two weeks to respond.  3, The cache being archived.  This should result in "The Deadbeat List" of non-resonders.  Just note any cache being archived, who the CO is and if they responded in anyway to their cache being disabled.  Two thirds do not.  

   A CO can respond with:  1, I'll check it out  2, I need more time than two weeks, 3, Archiving the cache.  This does not solve the problem of crappy non-waterproof caches being placed but it does speed up the process of removing them from the listing.  It takes ten seconds for a CO to respond to an OAR or to contact a Reviewer if they need more time to address a problem.  Why draw out the process for months?
edexter.

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

6 hours ago, edexter said:

  I think what you want here ("so that COs can make comments that are not indications that they have done the required actions") is already available and called "a note"

I think the OP was saying that "Owner Maintenence" log should be renamed to stop things like this and leading to countless unneccessary DNFs. (There's a disable button for a reason...)

 

[+hzoi]

I'm not sure a change is really necessary on this. "Owner maintenance" seems to be pretty self-explanatory. Maintaining a cache means more than posting a log, which is why owners have the option to post just a note.

 

I note that, in the app, there is text in the box: "After completing maintenance, use this log to describe what changed and to remove the Needs Maintenance attribute." The same language appears above the text box when using the website. If COs are ignoring this, they're likely to ignore a name change as well.

 

Certainly I'd agree that some cacher education is needed, such as a blog post or an article in the weekly newsletter, since I see the same thing y'all do: COs posting OM just to clear the red wrench, without actually doing anything.

[+edexter]

If a CO posts an OM log but doesn't actually do any maintainance, yes:  The Reviewer shall hit the "disable button" and say, "OK, now do some maintenance".  If I see a string of dnfs on a relatively easy cache (the 1.5/1.5s of the world) and then a non-maintenance OM log, I generally avoid the cache.  If I can't find a cache, I assume there is a roughly 40-60 chance it's missing based on my abilities, and post a dnf.   But if I'm the fifth to dnf, I'm going to assume it's missing, post an OAR and ask the CO to check on it.  If two months go by and they don't respond in anyway, I'll post a RAR.  Typically folks who post non-maintenance OM logs aren't actually going to do maintenance and aren't willing to disable the cache either.  Since CO's get copied on every log, and it take less than a minute to respond to a log indicating an issue with the cache, CO's who don't respond are telling you something very clearly.

edexter