Yet Another New Feature Suggestion

[+Spencersb]

This came up in another thread, but it seems like a good idea. Maybe there could be a new type of log entry, where a "Needs Archived" would be too strong. It could say "Found/Needs Attention", still counts as a find, but get the owners (and maybe the approvers) attention. It could be anything from a broken container to a wet logbook. Several "needs maintenance" logs in a row over a period of time could alert the approver the same way a "needs Archived" does.

 

I don't know about others, but I'm reluctant use a "Needs Archived" unless it is REALLY obvious that archiving is the best answer (gone with a long gone owner, etc.)

[Jeremy]

This has been a good idea that has cropped up in the forums once every so often. Unless there are any huge objections I'll send a notification to the software developers for the new log type and create it on the site in 1-2 weeks.

[+shunra]

This came up in another thread, but it seems like a good idea. Maybe there could be a new type of log entry, where a "Needs Archived" would be too strong. It could say "Found/Needs Attention", still counts as a find, but get the owners (and maybe the approvers) attention. It could be anything from a broken container to a wet logbook. Several "needs maintenance" logs in a row over a period of time could alert the approver the same way a "needs Archived" does.

 

I don't know about others, but I'm reluctant use a "Needs Archived" unless it is REALLY obvious that archiving is the best answer (gone with a long gone owner, etc.)

I think it's a bad idea.

 

If we want the owners attention and to alert other cachers, there is no need for anything new, we cn just write it in the log.

 

If we want the approvers attention, al that is needed is an SBA.- which does not necessarily lead to archival.

 

There is no in-between need that needs a special type of log, and therefore no new log type is needed.

 

However, I understand that to some people "Should Be Archived" sounds too strong. Therefore, rather than inventing a new log type, I suggest renaming the existing one as "Needs Administrative Attention".

[+Prime Suspect]

This seems redundant, if Needs Maintenance log types are also going to be implemented. There's no reason someone can't post both a Found and Needs Maintenance log.

 

But the reality is, if the owner isn't reading the content of the logs, where the majority of problems are noted, a bunch of different log types aren't going to make much difference in getting it fixed. If it's just to indicate the "health" of a cache, then a simple Needs Maintenance would handle it.

[+Hemlock]

But the reality is, if the owner isn't reading the content of the logs, where the majority of problems are noted, a bunch of different log types aren't going to make much difference in getting it fixed.

After dealing with over 50 "needs archived" logs last night, I have to agree with this. In almost all cases there were a handful or more DNF logs before the SBA and yet none of them got the owners attention. This includes owners I know are still actively caching.

 

However I do get several private emails every week alerting me to problem caches. In most of these cases its because the sender is concerned about some negative reaction or stigma related to a "needs archived" log. If we had a log type that was a little less negative and "final", I think more people would use it.

[+beejay&esskay]

I agree that we shouldn't have an entry for two purposes. Leave "found" the way it is and add "Needs attention". I'll make two logs when needed.

[+Markwell]

Personally, I think a lot of people are afraid of logging "Needs Archived" because of the fear of backlash. I've seen a few "Needs Archived" on caches where the container needs replacement. It really just needs attention, but there's no real "flag" for people looking for the cache to be able to filter it. So people log their found (or not found) and just leave it at that.

 

If someone is filtering based on the icons only in GSAK or Watcher, they'd see it as "Found" and think all was well and good. I know it's just semantics, but "needs attention" or "needs maintenance" is a lot less harsh than "needs archived".

 

I guess my thinking is that the only time someone would post a "needs archived" is when the cache is in a hazardous area where there should NOT be a cache.

[Jeremy]

In most of these cases its because the sender is concerned about some negative reaction or stigma related to a "needs archived" log. If we had a log type that was a little less negative and "final", I think more people would use it.

Some points:

 

1. Should be archive is strong, but necessary. It needs to be something that calls the cache to the attention of the reviewers. There is nothing wrong with how SBA works.

 

2. Notes don't work in many cases. It has been too weak to point out that a cache is a mess and needs maintainence.

 

3. Logs are for the owners *and* for the finders. If someone notices that a Needs Maintainence log exists they are more likely to have repair stuff when they visit it.

 

4. Logs are also for the reviewers. If a SBA note occurs it is nice to see that there were issues in the past to help decide whether the listing should be archived.

 

5. Needs Maintainence is a polite message to the owner that there are some issues with a listing. There should be no stigma with posting one of these notes.

 

I think the positives far outweigh the negatives.

[Jeremy]

Ack. I mean "Needs Attention" instead of "Needs Maintainence" - first because it is hard to spell Maintainence , and secondly the "Needs Attention" text seems to have a wider range of uses.

[+Hemlock]

Ack. I mean "Needs Attention" instead of "Needs Maintainence" - first because it is hard to spell Maintainence 

You made your point.

[Jeremy]

You're missing the suddlety of my humor.

[+shunra]

Ack. I mean "Needs Attention" instead of "Needs Maintainence"

Right.

 

But if a copy of this goes to the reviewer, than the SBA becomes redundant, so you might as well save yourself the programming work, and just rename the existing function, so as to take away the deterring factor.

 

If a copy is not going to be sent to the reviewer, then the whole issue is moot, bcause if an owner doesn't read his logs, he won't care about this one either.

 

I believe that the problem is a mentality problem, not a software problem, and you cannot fix it with a new feature, let alone fix it without creating new unforeseen issues.

 

For instance, I can imagine cache owners getting angry about what they see as negative feedback about their cache. If this negative attention is in the SBA (renamed as Needs Attention), such owners can delete it, and the reviewers will still see it - and the Find log can stand as is. If there will be a combined "Found and Needs Attention" log, however, I expect that Find logs will be retalliatorily deleted, and a great deal of acrimony over that.

 

"Needs Attention" is an urgent and important message, but it can be sent via the existing logs. The system ain't broke - don't fix it.

 

I strongly believe this is merely a psychological issue, that will be solved if you just rename the SBA. At least give it a try!

[Jeremy]

I strongly believe this is merely a psychological issue, that will be solved if you just rename the SBA. At least give it a try!

No. It is both a mind issue and a function issue.

 

SBA notes alert the reviewers. "Needs attention" messages do not. A reviewer's intervention is not necessary. Both need to stay. I think anything that helps people seek out and fine caches, and encourages people to post logs about cache issues, is a win-win situation, no matter how redundant you think it may be.

[+southdeltan]

Thank you Jeremy!

 

I think there very much is a need for "Needs Attention" and "Should Be Archived" as seperate logs.

 

I don't recall Jeremy posting that approvers WOULD be getting the "Needs Attention" logs. The OP (of this thread, but not this idea, it has indeed been a very much wanted new feature) suggested that a certain number of "Needs Attention" logs generate a notice to the approvers. I don't know if this will in fact be the case.

 

3. Logs are for the owners *and* for the finders. If someone notices that a Needs Maintainence log exists they are more likely to have repair stuff when they visit it.

 

4. Logs are also for the reviewers. If a SBA note occurs it is nice to see that there were issues in the past to help decide whether the listing should be archived.

 

5. Needs Maintainence is a polite message to the owner that there are some issues with a listing. There should be no stigma with posting one of these notes.

 

Based on these 3 points - I cannot infer that approvers will get the "N A" logs. Actually, based on number 4 - I would infer that they would not.

 

Even if they did, I wouldn't say it was an unnecessary feature. I mean - as an owner I get several different log types sent to me. It's illogical to say that since I get them all - there should only be one type.

 

Both logs will serve a purpose - whether approvers get them or not.

 

*EDIT* - What J said (he beat me to the post).

 

southdeltan

Edited January 24, 2005 by southdeltan

[+shunra]

I strongly believe this is merely a psychological issue, that will be solved if you just rename the SBA. At least give it a try!

No. It is both a mind issue and a function issue.

 

SBA notes alert the reviewers. "Needs attention" messages do not. A reviewer's intervention is not necessary. Both need to stay. I think anything that helps people seek out and fine caches, and encourages people to post logs about cache issues, is a win-win situation, no matter how redundant you think it may be.

Your last 9 words were certainly redundant

 

My objection was to the OP's idea that this NA message would cound as a Find in its own right.

If you make the NA a separate log altogether, I have no real problem with it.

 

I too think that anything that helps people seek out and find caches, and encourages people to post logs about cache issues is a good thing. That's why I'd rather NOT have shortcut logs which preempt the need to describe the situation. Shortcuts don't add information, they reduce it.

 

When (inevitably, if you go down that road) someone will ask you to program a separate TNLNSL log, so they can just click and move on without having to write anything, I don't suppose you'll agree to do that either...

[Jeremy]

My objection was to the OP's idea that this NA message would cound as a Find in its own right.

If you make the NA a separate log altogether, I have no real problem with it.

Gotcha. I missed that. No, a notification log like "Needs Attention" is just a note, not a find.

 

I too think that anything that helps people seek out and find caches, and encourages people to post logs about cache issues is a good thing. That's why I'd rather NOT have shortcut logs which preempt the need to describe the situation. Shortcuts don't add information, they reduce it.

 

I'd hope they would describe why it needs attention. That's another good justification for using "Needs Attention" instead of the other way I can never spell

 

When (inevitably, if you go down that road) someone will ask you to program a separate TNLNSL log, so they can just click and move on without having to write anything, I don't suppose you'll agree to do that either...

 

I definitely can't force people to write anything but I hope they can continue to write something on their logs.

[Jeremy]

I'll give this a few days before I lock it in and announce the additional log type to the software developers.

[+robert]

I think it's a good idea... the "Found it!" will be different than the "Needs Attention". We'll just have to ready ourselves in the Getting Started forum for the onslaught of "I found it and it needs attention, can I log it twice?" questions.

 

At least the Needs Attention log/note flags future SEEKERS of the cache that it may need some help and can give it some TLC when they get there.

[+Spencersb]

At least the Needs Attention log/note flags future SEEKERS of the cache that it may need some help and can give it some TLC when they get there. 

I think this is a good point. I've usually got a few ammo cans around, and don't mind using one to replace the container on a good cache with an MIA owner, but it would be nice if I knew ahead of time and could take the can with me instead of making two trips.

 

There's quite a few around here that the "community" has been keeping up because they are good hunts, and we hate to see them lost just because the owner quit a year ago.

 

But the suggestion of renaming "Should Be Archived" to "Needs Attention" is a pretty good one, and could, I think, accomplish both purposes of getting a reviewer involved and letting others know there's a problem, without the log writer feeling like they've personally "killed" the cache. I know if I see a "what's up" note from the reviewer on a cache and I know the owner hasn't been seen since Jimmy Hoffa's last birthday party, I'll send him a note saying, hey, I'll check on this one and let you know what I find.

 

The downside I see is that some will log "needs attention" because the log is getting full. Further, Needs Attention should count as a find IF the person logging it DID find it, they just found it in sad shape.

Edited January 24, 2005 by Spencersb

[+The Leprechauns]

But the suggestion of renaming "Should Be Archived" to "Needs Attention" is a pretty good one, and could, I think, accomplish both purposes of getting a reviewer involved and letting others know there's a problem, without the log writer feeling like they've personally "killed" the cache.  I know if I see a "what's up" note from the reviewer on a cache and I know the owner hasn't been seen since Jimmy Hoffa's last birthday party, I'll send him a note saying, hey, I'll check on this one and let you know what I find.

No, I feel rather strongly that the two separate log types are needed. There's a category of issues that don't require administrative involvement and another class that clearly do.

 

The downside I see is that some will log "needs attention" because the log is getting full. 

I've come across many a cache with a full logbook and people signing on business cards, cache printouts and scraps of paper. The worst example was a mini-size cereal box being used as a log. I complained in my log to no avail, and I've since logged an SBA. So, while a logbook that's "getting full" may not warrant a "Needs Attention" log, one that's already overflowing surely would.

 

Further, Needs Attention should count as a find IF the person logging it DID find it, they just found it in sad shape.

Umm, yeah... but in separate logs for the two separate actions.

[+Stump]

It had been discussed a while ago adding a checkbox to the log cache page that you can select if you CITO'd while finding/not finding the cache. Could the needs maintenance log be done the same way? Just add a checkbox that you can mark to show it needs maintenance rather than having to add another log.

 

But however it's done I like the idea of a Needs Attention log.

[+Jeeping Family]

It had been discussed a while ago adding a checkbox to the log cache page that you can select if you CITO'd while finding/not finding the cache. Could the needs maintenance log be done the same way? Just add a checkbox that you can mark to show it needs maintenance rather than having to add another log.

 

But however it's done I like the idea of a Needs Attention log.

This is what I was thinking, Add a checkbox, that could open a second box for them to put their description of what "Needs Attention" into, Then they would only have to submit one form and it would take away having to open the cache page back up to make a "Needs Attention" log after you logged the find. Maybe that would slow down the Getting Started Forum questions about it.

 

Does that make sense? I just worked 14 hours, so I am a little tired.

[+robert]

Stump and JeepingFamily make a valid point. This would likely stifle the impact on the gc.com servers when people are logging on the weekend. It'd be like double-logging/double-impact on the servers which can get overloaded at times.

 

Thoughts on that idea, Jeremy?

[+Colorado Cacher]

How about this one: "Oh Cra*! Why didn't I waypoint my truck before I climbed this mountain and thru the forest to find this cache"? -------

 

I hope my Brother in Utah sees this one. RFLMAO! Hi Tom.

[+Prime Suspect]

Stump and JeepingFamily make a valid point. This would likely stifle the impact on the gc.com servers when people are logging on the weekend. It'd be like double-logging/double-impact on the servers which can get overloaded at times.

 

Thoughts on that idea, Jeremy?

The number of people posting NM and SBA logs, compared to Finds and DNFs, is probably pretty insignificant. I doubt the difference would be noticeable.

[Jeremy]

Thoughts on that idea, Jeremy?

We're already at a log every 10 seconds. I doubt it would matter much. Besides, 2 logs on 1 page or 2 logs on 2 pages is pretty much the same, database-wise. If anything, 2 pages is better since it breaks up the database inserts.

[+robert]

The number of people posting NM and SBA logs, compared to Finds and DNFs, is probably pretty insignificant. I doubt the difference would be noticeable.

But you could save an extra hit by adding a check box, that way people wouldn't need to log a NM+Find or SBA+Find.... they could just log the find and click a NM box... right?

[+robert]

We're already at a log every 10 seconds. I doubt it would matter much. Besides, 2 logs on 1 page or 2 logs on 2 pages is pretty much the same, database-wise. If anything, 2 pages is better since it breaks up the database inserts.

The way it's setup, is it easier on the system if someone logs a find and clicks a "needs maintenance" box or if they log a find and then log a separate one for the Needs Maintenance? Assuming it's just one cache they're logging, wouldn't the checkbox be 1 log on the system vs 1 for the find and 1 for the NM? Just thinking of those Saturday/Sunday afternoons when the servers get stressed out

 

You obviously know a lot more about your systems than I do, just trying to understand how it works.

 

Thanks

[+Hemlock]

No. The content of each log should be different.

[+robert]

No. The content of each log should be different.

Definitely.... but a needs maintenance would just be a flag vs an actual log. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

I'll stop now, and let you guys play

[Jeremy]

Definitely.... but a needs maintenance would just be a flag vs an actual log. Maybe I'm missing something.

No. It would be a log that would flag the cache. Every log is an action. A disable log disables the cache. This would be similar.

[+robert]

Okay, thanks for explaining it. I see where you're going with it now! Took a minute or two though to get what you were saying.

[+GrizzlyJohn]

The one problem I see is with PQs.

 

So a person goes out and finds a cache with a full logbook. Ok they log the find and also a "needs attention" note. Will those entries then become two of the five logs that would be pulled for a PQ?

 

That note may be helpful if one happens to see it and brings along an extra logbook. But they may not want or be able to and would rather see "actual" logs about finds. We are already limited in the number of logs that get pulled I would rather see more "actual" logs than notes that a new logbook is needed or the cache is overflowing with McToys.

[+Markwell]

Actually, I kinda like the idea of an attribute on the log. "Found it" with a check box for "needs attention". I agree that since the PQs only deliver the last 5 logs it makes sense not to pad the logs with a "needs attention" that doesn't say anything else.

 

Example:

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

See my log below

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

Found the cache, but it's in terrible shape.  Log book is wet and there's a hole in the side of the container that you could stick a closed fist in.  Owner should check on this cache.

 

or

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

Found the cache, but it's in terrible shape.  Log book is wet and there's a hole in the side of the container that you could stick a closed fist in.  Owner should check on this cache.

 

If the "Needs attention" is a check box on the log form, it can still attribute the action to the cache to put a big on the cache page.

 

But with this suggestion, this enhancement wouldn't diminish the number of significant logs being sent via pocket query.

 

The other option is to increase the number of logs being sent with each PQ - like to 10.

[+Hemlock]

I maintain that the logs should look something like this:

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

Log book is wet and there's a hole in the side of the container that you could stick a closed fist in.  Owner should check on this cache.

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

Found the cache, and the view from here is great. Thanks for showing me this viewpoint. 

 

Don't write the maintenance issues in the found it log. Put them in the NA log where they belong.

Edited January 25, 2005 by Hemlock

[+Stunod]

Definitely.... but a needs maintenance would just be a flag vs an actual log.  Maybe I'm missing something. 

No. It would be a log that would flag the cache. Every log is an action. A disable log disables the cache. This would be similar.

OK...I really like this idea. But I have a question about REMOVING the "flag".

 

Will another finder who replaces the logbook or container be able to "unflag" the cache? This seems like a good way of helping the community maintain caches with absentee owners.

[+Markwell]

I maintain that the logs should look something like this:

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

Log book is wet and there's a hole in the side of the container that you could stick a closed fist in.  Owner should check on this cache.

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

Found the cache, and the view from here is great. Thanks for showing me this viewpoint. 

 

Don't write the maintenance issues in the found it log. Put them in the NA log where they belong.

In the ideal world, that is exactly what should happen. I have less confidence in people to do what they should do. That still does not negate the fact that now 2 logs out of the precious 5 delivered with PQs are taken up by one user's comments.

Edited January 25, 2005 by Markwell

[+ODragon]

In the ideal world, that is exactly what should happen.  I have less confidence in people to do what they should do.  That still does not negate the fact that now 2 logs out of the precious 5 delivered with PQs are taken up by one user's comments.

 

In addition, writing two logs takes twice as much computing resources unless there's a check box that opens up something where you can write up the needs attention. Sort of the way checking the "Add a waypoint to the log" opens up space to write the waypoint.

Edited January 25, 2005 by odragon

[+Renegade Knight]

I maintain that the logs should look something like this:

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

Log book is wet and there's a hole in the side of the container that you could stick a closed fist in.  Owner should check on this cache.

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

Found the cache, and the view from here is great. Thanks for showing me this viewpoint. 

 

Don't write the maintenance issues in the found it log. Put them in the NA log where they belong.

In the ideal world, that is exactly what should happen. I have less confidence in people to do what they should do. That still does not negate the fact that now 2 logs out of the precious 5 delivered with PQs are taken up by one user's comments.

If the maintanance log is only visbable to the cache owner in the same way that approver notes are only visble to approvers, the issue would go away and the main log could stand.

 

However I'd have hte maintance logo sho up wiht the smilie like you had before and have it visible to all. Cache angels do exist and then they would know.

[+Genius Loci]

I'd love to see 10, not 5 logs in the PQ's anyway, but I'd really hate to see a bunch of logs that were just maintenance requests in my PQ's. I'd prefer adding an attribute to an existing "Found It" log ala Markwell's suggestion or using a method similar to the way you can post additional waypoints now. Personally, I don't think I care for the idea of a separate "Needs Maintenance" log.

 

Also, the issue of "removing" the flag or the log is very important. If a cache receives a "needs attention" type log, will the cache placer be able to add a "cache fixed" type log so people know the problem has been fixed? And what if someone other than the cache placer fixes the problem (quite common, in my experience)? It seems there should be a way to either eliminate the "Needs Attention" logs or else we ALSO need a "Fixed Cache" type log, and that should be available to others besides just the cache placer.

 

If the "Needs Attention" is only visible to the cache placer, it doesn't allow the opportunity for someone else who reads the logs beforehand to bring what he might need to correct the problem. Yes, there are "cache angels" but they gotta know something is wrong in order to bring what they need to fix it! Also, if the logs are not visible to all, subsequent finders may overload the cache placer with "Needs Attention" notes because they don't know anyone else has already posted one. Sometimes I see that a problem with a cache I just found has already been recently reported; it doesn't seem polite to keep telling the cache placer over and over about the same problem unless he doesn't seem to be responding to the first request.

 

Also, if the "Needs Attention" type log or flag was available, I would assume that it would be used to flag caches with poor coordinates, math puzzles that don't compute correctly, caches with misleading/incorrect instructions, etc. Has anyone considered the ramifications of those issues? In my experience, they certainly indicate that a cache "Needs Attention"!!! If the new log type is implemented, perhaps the "Add a waypoint to the log" button should be moved from "Found It" to the new "Needs Attention" type log.

 

Personally, I can also see this getting a little overdone. Currently, people often log MINOR cache problems which probably don't warrant rush repair visits by any except the most conscientious cache placers. An awful lot of caches I visit could benefit from some attention, but many don't actually NEED it; I can see this getting out of hand if some really fussy people start hitting that button. Would this encourage some folks to merely flag a cache as "Needs Attention" rather than do a little maintenance themselves (replace a ziplock bag, add pencil, etc.) on somebody else's stash?

 

I'm still not convinced that the system now in place really needs additions or tweaking. In my experience, problems are currently being reported in the online logs pertty well. Here in Illinois, when a cache gets a bunch of logs indicating that it has a problem and the problem becomes critical, sooner or later someone posts a "Needs Archived" and it gets fixed or the cache gets killed. Maybe this isn't working so smoothly in other places, though... - GL

[+Hemlock]

in the same way that approver notes are only visible to approvers,

Huh? (see log on Dec. 29)

 

As far as I can tell, reviewer notes, whether written by a reviewer or the cache owner, are visible to everyone.

 

However all pre-approval reviewer notes are automatically deleted when a cache is approved. Maybe that's what you meant.

[+Renegade Knight]

...However all pre-approval reviewer notes are automatically deleted when a cache is approved. Maybe that's what you meant.

I had thought they were just invisible like deleted logs are merely archived but still there. Thanks for the clarification.

[Jeremy]

Just like I include your log in addition to the latest 5 logs, I could just make those types of logs not count as part of the 5.

 

I like the icon and the first choice. They should exist as 2 logs.

[+GrizzlyJohn]

Just like I include your log in addition to the latest 5 logs, I could just make those types of logs not count as part of the 5.

 

I like the icon and the first choice. They should exist as 2 logs.

So then how many of those logs would you include with the five latest logs?

 

Or would it be based on some kind of timeframe?

 

Or would it just include any of those types of logs that are covered within the same time as the five latest ones?

[+Markwell]

I can live with that. Include NA logs for the last 3 months as well as 5 significant logs.

 

Now...

 

What about when the cache is repaired? That needs a separate log type to remove the attribute. "Attention Given (AG)" or "Cache Repaired (CR)", and that could be placed by ANYONE, not just the cache owner, to signify that the needed attention has been given.

 

Possible icons:

 

smile and thumb

 

Just the thumb

 

"checked"

 

 

January 25 by Genius Loci (2849 found)

Replaced container with a surplus ammo box.  New log book and pencil in cache.  Cache is all set to go.

 

January 25 by Genius Loci (2849 found)

Found the cache as Markwell mentioned.  It was in really bad shape.  Signed in the new log book I provided.

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

See my log below

 

January 25 by Markwell (303 found)

Found the cache, but it's in terrible shape.  Log book is wet and there's a hole in the side of the container that you could stick a closed fist in.  Owner should check on this cache.

Edited January 26, 2005 by Markwell

[+ODragon]

Possible icons:

smile and thumb

Just the thumb

"checked"

I must say I love all your little icons. Are you finding these around or making them? If making them, what are you using to make them?

 

TIA.

[+Markwell]

http://images.google.com/

[+Genius Loci]

Jeremy, I'm not sure that leaving the "Needs Attention" logs out of Pocket Queries is such a good idea. For example, if the "Needs Attention" logs contain corrected coordinates or other information crucial to finding the cache (which it seems to me they would) then I think we would WANT them to be included in our PQs! Or, if they state what is physically wrong with the cache (ie. needs new container) but aren't in the PQ, how would a potential "cache angel" know to bring a new container along when he hunts the cache?

 

Maybe the time to include 10, instead of 5 logs in the PQ's has arrived?

[+Hemlock]

I don't think he meant he'd leave them out. Just that they wouldn't count towards the 5.

[+Stunod]

Jeremy, I'm not sure that leaving the "Needs Attention" logs out of Pocket Queries is such a good idea.  For example, if the "Needs Attention" logs contain corrected coordinates or other information crucial to finding the cache (which it seems to me they would) then I think we would WANT them to be included in our PQs!  Or, if they state what is physically wrong with the cache (ie. needs new container) but aren't in the PQ, how would a potential "cache angel" know to bring a new container along when he hunts the cache?

 

Maybe the time to include 10, instead of 5 logs in the PQ's has arrived?

No, he said they would be IN ADDITION to the 5 logs.

 

edit: Hemlock hit enter first

Edited January 26, 2005 by Stunod