Is it alright for a newbie to log a NA?

July 14, 2015

Is it fine for me, as a newbie, to log a Needs Archive on a cache that seems to have gone walk-abouts? I just came back from hunting this one down and nope- wasn't there but also looking at other logs from recent times, it seems that I am not alone in believing this one is missing.. About 9 DNF's in a row- is this enough to warrant a Needs Archive? Another user logged a Needs Maintenance almost two months ago but still no response from the owner. Thanks for all of your help!

3.4k · July 14, 2015

Is it fine for me, as a newbie, to log a Needs Archive on a cache that seems to have gone walk-abouts? I just came back from hunting this one down and nope- wasn't there but also looking at other logs from recent times, it seems that I am not alone in believing this one is missing.. About 9 DNF's in a row- is this enough to warrant a Needs Archive? Another user logged a Needs Maintenance almost two months ago but still no response from the owner. Thanks for all of your help!

Yep, based on the string of DNFs and an ignored NM, it's time for a NA. The only "problem" with new cachers logging a NA is that too often they jump the gun and log NA just because they couldn't find the cache. This is not one of those cases. Go for it.

4.8k · July 14, 2015

I'm in general agreement with you premise, although I also take the Difficulty of the cache into account. All the same, it's the cache owners responsibility to respond to issues like this regardless of the Difficulty IMO. The scenario you've outlined appears to warrant an NA log at this time, in order to get the Reviewer involved.

15.3k · July 14, 2015

I'm in general agreement with you premise, although I also take the Difficulty of the cache into account.

Yeah, one of my Favorites is a D4 "evil" camouflaged cache that sometimes gets strings of DNF and "must be missing" logs, and then the CO confirms that it's still there and it gets a few more such logs before someone finds it again.

On the other hand, a D1 or D2 that suddenly gets a string of DNFs after months/years of uninterrupted Finds is probably in trouble.

2.6k · July 14, 2015

Is it fine for me, as a newbie, to log a Needs Archive on a cache that seems to have gone walk-abouts? I just came back from hunting this one down and nope- wasn't there but also looking at other logs from recent times, it seems that I am not alone in believing this one is missing.. About 9 DNF's in a row- is this enough to warrant a Needs Archive? Another user logged a Needs Maintenance almost two months ago but still no response from the owner. Thanks for all of your help!

Yep, based on the string of DNFs and an ignored NM, it's time for a NA. The only "problem" with new cachers logging a NA is that too often they jump the gun and log NA just because they couldn't find the cache. This is not one of those cases. Go for it.

I agree.

11.6k · July 14, 2015

one of my Favorites is a D4 "evil" camouflaged cache that sometimes gets strings of DNF and "must be missing" logs, and then the CO confirms that it's still there and it gets a few more such logs before someone finds it again.

On the other hand, a D1 or D2 that suddenly gets a string of DNFs after months/years of uninterrupted Finds is probably in trouble.

I wonder if the OP's example has that effect, a string of "DNFs" in its past, followed by a find or two. Some of the easiest can become difficult when a cacher expects that it's gone.

If one of my caches developed this phenomenon of people unable to find, depending on the Difficulty rating, I might be tempted to not respond, just to keep people guessing. I didn't say I won't respond, I'd be tempted. :anibad:

Anyway, the OP could ask a previous finder if it seemed tougher than expected. Or if it may have fallen into the drain. Or whatever. Or ask for a previous finder to drop by that cache with you, to point and laugh. That's what I sometimes ask. Well, I didn't want the pointing and laughing so much. That was embarrassing. :yikes:

July 14, 2015

Well, it seems someone who frequents the area I'm in spotted the thread and has put it up for Needs Archive themselves :laughing: Thanks for all of your input!

Edited July 14, 2015 by eth32

7.5k · July 15, 2015

Is it OK? Well, if you do it right. Should you? No. Someone with more experience will log the NA soon enough, so don't bother in case there's some little wrinkle you don't know about. It's rarely a big deal if a missing cache goes another couple of weeks before the NA is logged. On the other hand, it is a very big deal if you cause a cache to be archived that shouldn't be. So as a newbie, erring on the side of caution is the best choice.

After you turn pro in a year or two, you can make up for being cautious as a newbie by being more diligent about logging NAs when you know all the issues to consider.

7.5k · July 15, 2015

1436952060[/url]' post='5522940']
Is it OK? Well, if you do it right. Should you? No. Someone with more experience will log the NA soon enough, so don't bother in case there's some little wrinkle you don't know about. It's rarely a big deal if a missing cache goes another couple of weeks before the NA is logged. On the other hand, it is a very big deal if you cause a cache to be archived that shouldn't be. So as a newbie, erring on the side of caution is the best choice.

After you turn pro in a year or two, you can make up for being cautious as a newbie by being more diligent about logging NAs when you know all the issues to consider.

It's the cache owner that causes a cache to be archived not the person posting the NA. There are far too many abandoned caches in the database. Far too many COs who take no responsibility for there placements, many of them active cachers. Far too much geolitter out there. What you are promoting is irresponsible cache ownership.

7.3k · July 15, 2015

Is it OK? Well, if you do it right. Should you? No. Someone with more experience will log the NA soon enough, so don't bother in case there's some little wrinkle you don't know about. It's rarely a big deal if a missing cache goes another couple of weeks before the NA is logged. On the other hand, it is a very big deal if you cause a cache to be archived that shouldn't be. So as a newbie, erring on the side of caution is the best choice.

After you turn pro in a year or two, you can make up for being cautious as a newbie by being more diligent about logging NAs when you know all the issues to consider.

I disagree.

Waiting for someone with more experience to take the appropriate action is often a waste of time. This has been proven lots of times. The more experienced cacher has been known to log "found it" after placing a throwdown. Or just logging it found, no matter the circumstances.

There's no benchmark of when a person becomes "experienced". Definitely not measurable by time as a cacher.

The person posting an NA is not responsible for a cache to be archived. It is the responsibility of the Reviewer to take that action. It's the cache owner's responsibility to take action to avoid the archival, if that's what the cache owner desires.

There's no reason whatsoever that a person who is new to the game can't log an NA.

Anyone logging an NA needs to do some research before doing so. Doesn't matter how long they've been caching or how many finds they have logged.

One shouldn't tell people new to the game that they can't do this or that. And they definitely shouldn't be told that they are the reason a cache gets archived.

Posting an NA is not the reason a cache gets archived. It's a log that alerts the cache owner and the Reviewer to tell them that there is potentially a problem with the cache.

If a new person knows that the cache is on private property, and no other finders have bothered to mention it, why should the new person not post the NA? This non-reporting of such issues by previous finders happens all the time. Just because "experienced" cachers are not doing it, doesn't mean the new person should follow their example.

B.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Pup Patrol

July 15, 2015

There's no benchmark of when a person becomes "experienced". Definitely not measurable by time as a cacher.

The person posting an NA is not responsible for a cache to be archived. It is the responsibility of the Reviewer to take that action. It's the cache owner's responsibility to take action to avoid the archival, if that's what the cache owner desires.

There's no reason whatsoever that a person who is new to the game can't log an NA.

Anyone logging an NA needs to do some research before doing so. Doesn't matter how long they've been caching or how many finds they have logged.

One shouldn't tell people new to the game that they can't do this or that. And they definitely shouldn't be told that they are the reason a cache gets archived.

Posting an NA is not the reason a cache gets archived. It's a log that alerts the cache owner and the Reviewer to tell them that there is potentially a problem with the cache.

If a new person knows that the cache is on private property, and no other finders have bothered to mention it, why should the new person not post the NA? This non-reporting of such issues by previous finders happens all the time. Just because "experienced" cachers are not doing it, doesn't mean the new person should follow their example.

+2

10.1k · July 15, 2015

There's no reason whatsoever that a person who is new to the game can't log an NA.

B.

Then again, I got this NA from a new cacher. This was his first find:

Log Type: Needs Archived
Date: 7/11/2015

Location: New Jersey, United States

Type: Traditional Cache

Log:

Nothing is in the little magnetic box just paper for id and paper is filled with names so there is no room for anymore names

When I checked, there were still sixty lines for finders to sign.

7.5k · July 15, 2015

It's the cache owner that causes a cache to be archived not the person posting the NA. There are far too many abandoned caches in the database. Far too many COs who take no responsibility for there placements, many of them active cachers. Far too much geolitter out there. What you are promoting is irresponsible cache ownership.

Yes, some caches are bad. But in my experience it's rare for a newbie being the only one to notice. On the other hand, I've seen a few caches in good shape archived because a newbie posted an NA for invalid reasons.

I suppose I feel this way because in my area, almost any experienced cacher will post an NA when it's needed. I hear in other areas people are reluctant to post NAs, and I guess in that case it would be worth the risk of a newbie guessing whether to post an NA since no one else will.

14k · July 15, 2015

It's the cache owner that causes a cache to be archived not the person posting the NA. There are far too many abandoned caches in the database. Far too many COs who take no responsibility for there placements, many of them active cachers. Far too much geolitter out there. What you are promoting is irresponsible cache ownership.

Yes, some caches are bad. But in my experience it's rare for a newbie being the only one to notice. On the other hand, I've seen a few caches in good shape archived because a newbie posted an NA for invalid reasons.

Really? Despite the unfortunate name (Needs Archive) a NA log just tells the reviewer to take a look at the cache listing and determine whether or not the cache should be archived. It's the reviewer that makes the determination on whether or not their is a valid reason for archival.

1.4k · July 15, 2015

Maybe change it to NR - Notify Reviewer. That would be more descriptive and less confrontational.

1.2k · July 15, 2015

Maybe change it to NR - Notify Reviewer. That would be more descriptive and less confrontational.

I've advocated that several times over the years. But a "needs reviewer attention" suggestion has either been ignored or discounted. I can not understand why, but like everything else here I am sure there is a reason.

7.5k · July 15, 2015

Maybe change it to NR - Notify Reviewer. That would be more descriptive and less confrontational.

I've advocated that several times over the years. But a "needs reviewer attention" suggestion has either been ignored or discounted. I can not understand why, but like everything else here I am sure there is a reason.

I think they may worry that work will increase for reviewers if the name changes.

I don't like the Needs Archived name either. I preface my NA post with "Needs Attention". I sometimes I say something like "I don't think the cache needs to be archived but it really needs cache owner attention. The centrifuge tube has been missing a lid for 4 months, the log is mushy. 2 NMs in the last 2 months. The cache needs attention."

1.2k · July 16, 2015

Maybe change it to NR - Notify Reviewer. That would be more descriptive and less confrontational.

I've advocated that several times over the years. But a "needs reviewer attention" suggestion has either been ignored or discounted. I can not understand why, but like everything else here I am sure there is a reason.

I think they may worry that work will increase for reviewers if the name changes.

I don't like the Needs Archived name either. I preface my NA post with "Needs Attention". I sometimes I say something like "I don't think the cache needs to be archived but it really needs cache owner attention. The centrifuge tube has been missing a lid for 4 months, the log is mushy. 2 NMs in the last 2 months. The cache needs attention."

Yes, that is what I do as well.

7.5k · July 16, 2015

Really? Despite the unfortunate name (Needs Archive) a NA log just tells the reviewer to take a look at the cache listing and determine whether or not the cache should be archived. It's the reviewer that makes the determination on whether or not their is a valid reason for archival.

Really? The reviewer often doesn't know the reasons -- typically the newbie's reasoning is "I couldn't find it", anyway -- so, from what I've seen, the reviewer will simply go through the archival process until the CO steps up and says something. Maybe that's a difference in local culture: our reviewers normally leave control of archival in the hands of the community -- except the last step, of course -- unlike other places I've heard of where the community makes it the reviewer's responsibility to spot caches that need to be archived.

Anyway, whatever the reasons, I've seen it happen a few times. On the other hand, I never seen a bad cache that wouldn't have been archived unless a newbie posted an NA for it.

7.5k · July 16, 2015

Maybe change it to NR - Notify Reviewer. That would be more descriptive and less confrontational.

I'd rather people stop thinking NA is confrontational. After all, I see no reason to think a CO that responds poorly to an NA will be fooled by the name being changed.

Anyway, to get back to the topic, if posting NAs is a problem in some community, it's kinda mean to encourage newbies to post them because experienced caches are afraid to.

July 16, 2015

Then again, I got this NA from a new cacher. This was his first find:

Log Type: Needs Archived

Date: 7/11/2015

Location: New Jersey, United States

Type: Traditional Cache

Log:

Nothing is in the little magnetic box just paper for id and paper is filled with names so there is no room for anymore names

When I checked, there were still sixty lines for finders to sign.

For whatever reason cachers don't think log sheets have a back side.

2.4k · July 16, 2015

There's no reason whatsoever that a person who is new to the game can't log an NA.

B.

Then again, I got this NA from a new cacher. This was his first find:

Log Type: Needs Archived
Date: 7/11/2015

Location: New Jersey, United States

Type: Traditional Cache

Log:

Nothing is in the little magnetic box just paper for id and paper is filled with names so there is no room for anymore names

When I checked, there were still sixty lines for finders to sign.

So, were you kind enough to send him a message to explain what micro caches are, and that logsheets have back sides? Or did you leave him to flounder in his innocent ignorance?

1.4k · July 17, 2015

Then again, I got this NA from a new cacher. This was his first find:

Log Type: Needs Archived

Date: 7/11/2015

Location: New Jersey, United States

Type: Traditional Cache

Log:

Nothing is in the little magnetic box just paper for id and paper is filled with names so there is no room for anymore names

When I checked, there were still sixty lines for finders to sign.

For whatever reason cachers don't think log sheets have a back side.

I got that a while back as well on one of our caches. Made a special trip out there to change the log only to find the back side had tuns of room.

3.6k · July 17, 2015

Is it fine for me, as a newbie, to log a Needs Archive on a cache that seems to have gone walk-abouts? I just came back from hunting this one down and nope- wasn't there but also looking at other logs from recent times, it seems that I am not alone in believing this one is missing.. About 9 DNF's in a row- is this enough to warrant a Needs Archive? Another user logged a Needs Maintenance almost two months ago but still no response from the owner. Thanks for all of your help!

Sometimes it helps if you list the GC# so cachers here can give more helpful response. They know how to research the CO, location, logs etc. And there are a few reviewers who also watch the forums and can look even deeper.

Is it alright for a newbie to log a NA?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation