Jump to content

Cache missing for 5 months, co deletes maintenance logs.


Recommended Posts

So I have a question, Where I live there is a geocache that hasn't been found in 5 months, 2 different previous finders both confirmed to me that it is in fact missing, I put a maintenance log and the co deleted it and told me not to use that feature, he also said he doubts that it's missing. Also it appears recently someone backlogged it so now it appears to have a recent find, yet the cache is gone. What can be done with it? Should I just replace it, since the CO that lives in a different state refuses to check on it? Or do we have to wait for a ton of dnfs to pop up so it alerts a reviewer? Thanks guys.

Edited by Wildguineapig530
Link to comment

If a CO is deleting Needs Maintenance (NM) logs without also posting Owner Maintenance (OM) or Write Note (WN) logs to confirm the cache is in place, then it may be time to either:

(1) Post a Needs Archived (NA) log, which will alert the local Reviewer OR

(2) Contact a local Reviewer and tell them what has been happening with the cache.

 

I'd suggest NOT replacing the cache. That cache is the CO's responsibility. If they are not willing to maintain the cache, then it should be archived.

Link to comment

So I have a question, Where I live there is a geocache that hasn't been found in 5 months, 2 different previous finders both confirmed to me that it is in fact missing, I put a maintenance log and the co deleted it and told me not to use that feature, he also said he doubts that it's missing. Also it appears recently someone backlogged it so now it appears to have a recent find, yet the cache is gone. What can be done with it? Should I just replace it, since the CO that lives in a different state refuses to check on it? Or do we have to wait for a ton of dnfs to pop up so it alerts a reviewer? Thanks guys.

 

You should contact the reviewer that published the cache to let them know what's going on and they will reinstate the deleted NM log and possibly disable the cache if they believe it isn't being maintained.

Sometimes owners will say caches are there that aren't because its a high muggle spot. I know of a couple COs who have caches in the same area that are not maintained but if an nm log is deleted or if the CO doesn't respond it will be disabled with a note saying "... I'm disabling it, to give the owner q chance to check on the cache and perform any maintenance neccessary..."

Link to comment

There are so many things going on in your example, I hardly know where to start. My basic advice is to see yourself as working with the CO to resolve the problems rather than working against him to get rid of his cache. In particular, if he thinks it's there, then assume it's there no matter how convinced you are otherwise. So, for example, you could offer to check it for him and ask for hints or an outright description so you can do that. If he won't help you find it, then you can feedback to him where you've looked in case that's enough to convince him you've looked in the right spot.

 

No, do NOT replace it unilaterally, but if once you've convinced him it's really missing, he asks you to replace it for him, you can consider doing that. But from what you're describing so far sounds like an absent CO with a chip on his shoulder, and if that remains your opinion after working on it with him, you likely won't want to help keep a cache owned by someone like that going.

 

A secondary problem is that "don't use NM" angle. I don't know how useful your NM was -- for example, whether you explained exactly what the 2 previous finders told you -- but assuming it was reasonably descriptive, this CO needs a little education about when seekers use NMs and how a CO should react to them, but I'd put off that conversation until you have established a working relation.

 

Of course, the CO may just be a jerk and react to my suggestions hostilely, and then you might have to get a reviewer involved with an NA, but it will be easier for everyone if you can resolve it by just being friendly.

Link to comment

So I have a question, Where I live there is a geocache that hasn't been found in 5 months, 2 different previous finders both confirmed to me that it is in fact missing, I put a maintenance log and the co deleted it and told me not to use that feature, he also said he doubts that it's missing. Also it appears recently someone backlogged it so now it appears to have a recent find, yet the cache is gone. What can be done with it? Should I just replace it, since the CO that lives in a different state refuses to check on it? Or do we have to wait for a ton of dnfs to pop up so it alerts a reviewer? Thanks guys.

 

1.) "Deleted" logs can be re-instated by Groundspeak or a Reviewer. The CO obviously isn't aware of this fact.

 

2.) The CO should have received an email from Groundspeak:

 

4.10. Maintenance Emails from Geocaching HQ

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=713

 

Geocaching HQ sends emails to geocache owners when it appears that a geocache needs maintenance. The emails may result from any combination of logs, including Did Not Find (DNF's), Needs Maintenance (NM), Needs Archived (NA) or caches that have not been found in a long time.

 

Perhaps he/she is ignoring that email, but it is on record as being sent to him/her.

 

3.) The NM log was the correct action.

 

3.7. I found a geocache that needs maintenance

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=551

 

If the geocache has not been found for a reasonable amount of time and the cache owner has not reacted to a "Needs Maintenance" log, it is time to post a "Needs Archived" log on the listing. A "Needs Archived" log will alert the geocache owner and local Reviewer that the cache needs Reviewer attention.

 

4.) The CO may be under the mistaken idea that deleting NM logs will remove the NM attribute (red wrench). Does the cache in question still have that attribute?

 

5.) Don't replace the cache container/log book. Follow the correct procedures set out by Groundspeak.

 

It's the CO's responsibility to take care of the physical cache, not yours. This is something they agreed to when they placed the cache.

 

B.

Link to comment
Should I just replace it, since the CO that lives in a different state refuses to check on it?

 

The CO should have either adopted the cache to someone local and willing to be a cache owner or he/she should have archived the listing and retrieved the container (if it was still there).

 

Guidelines

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

2. Geocache Maintenance

 

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing.

 

The region in which a cacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person. A cacher who has previously logged caches within a wide range of their home may be considered able to maintain a geocache 200 miles (322 km) away. However, someone whose geocaching activities have primarily been within 25 miles (40 km) of home may not be able to maintain a geocache this far from home. This factor is determined at the discretion of the cache reviewer or Groundspeak.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

Needs Archived: "Owner is deleting Needs Maintenance logs."

 

The owner can delete that, but a reviewer will still see it. The reviewer will also see the other deleted logs.

 

Don't get into a power struggle with badly behaved people. Just go right over them. The reviewer will deal with it.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Did you actually DNF the cache yourself?

 

If I felt strongly about this cache I'd go out and dnf it myself, post a needs maintenance and when my NM was deleted post a needs archived. I'd probably contact the reviewer and let them know what's going on.

 

Problem here is the cache owner could never visit the cache, post an owners maintenance log and no one would be the wiser until the dnf's started piling up again. You would have to commit to waiting for the owners maintenance log to be posted and head back out there to confirm the replacement or lack of it. More NM's and more NA's.

 

Eventually the reviewer will catch on and force the cache owner to fix the cache or archive it.

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

Needs Archived: "Owner is deleting Needs Maintenance logs."

 

Don't get into a power struggle with badly behaved people. Just go right over them. The reviewer will deal with it.

Good advice to not bother with a power struggle, but also don't start by assuming people are behaving badly. "Owner is deleting NM logs" is engaging in a power struggle even though it's one you expect to win because of how big your club is. An NA saying "For some reason the owner deleted my NM log without resolving my observation that the cache appears to be missing based on evidence X, Y, and Z" accomplishes the same thing while keeping the focus on the actual problem with the cache rather than escalating the problem to being that the CO is morally unfit to own the cache because he deletes NMs.

Link to comment

Needs Archived: "Owner is deleting Needs Maintenance logs."

 

Don't get into a power struggle with badly behaved people. Just go right over them. The reviewer will deal with it.

Good advice to not bother with a power struggle, but also don't start by assuming people are behaving badly. "Owner is deleting NM logs" is engaging in a power struggle even though it's one you expect to win because of how big your club is. An NA saying "For some reason the owner deleted my NM log without resolving my observation that the cache appears to be missing based on evidence X, Y, and Z" accomplishes the same thing while keeping the focus on the actual problem with the cache rather than escalating the problem to being that the CO is morally unfit to own the cache because he deletes NMs.

 

Deleting NM logs and scolding people for writing them is poor behaviour. All that is needed is a factual NA log with no embellishment. "Owner is deleting Needs Maintenance logs." The other information is already present in the archived logs and the reviewer can see those.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Needs Archived: "Owner is deleting Needs Maintenance logs."

 

Don't get into a power struggle with badly behaved people. Just go right over them. The reviewer will deal with it.

Good advice to not bother with a power struggle, but also don't start by assuming people are behaving badly. "Owner is deleting NM logs" is engaging in a power struggle even though it's one you expect to win because of how big your club is. An NA saying "For some reason the owner deleted my NM log without resolving my observation that the cache appears to be missing based on evidence X, Y, and Z" accomplishes the same thing while keeping the focus on the actual problem with the cache rather than escalating the problem to being that the CO is morally unfit to own the cache because he deletes NMs.

 

Deleting NM logs and scolding people for writing them is poor behaviour. All that is needed is a factual NA log with no embellishment. "Owner is deleting Needs Maintenance logs."

 

I have to agree.

 

An NA saying "For some reason the owner deleted my NM log without resolving my observation that the cache appears to be missing based on evidence X, Y, and Z"

 

Wording such as that belongs in an email to a Reviewer or Groundspeak, not in a 'Needs Archived' log.

Link to comment

Did you actually DNF the cache yourself?

 

If I felt strongly about this cache I'd go out and dnf it myself, post a needs maintenance and when my NM was deleted post a needs archived. I'd probably contact the reviewer and let them know what's going on.

 

Problem here is the cache owner could never visit the cache, post an owners maintenance log and no one would be the wiser until the dnf's started piling up again. You would have to commit to waiting for the owners maintenance log to be posted and head back out there to confirm the replacement or lack of it. More NM's and more NA's.

 

Eventually the reviewer will catch on and force the cache owner to fix the cache or archive it.

Curious about that too...

 

If the CO is deleting NMs of those actually looking, then I'd assume this problem character may need the care and proper tone from their Reviewer, instead of creating more drama by posting an NA myself. :)

Link to comment

Curious about that too...

 

If the CO is deleting NMs of those actually looking, then I'd assume this problem character may need the care and proper tone from their Reviewer, instead of creating more drama by posting an NA myself. :)

 

Please do not blame people who post NAs for causing drama. These logs are there for a reason.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Did you actually DNF the cache yourself?

 

If I felt strongly about this cache I'd go out and dnf it myself, post a needs maintenance and when my NM was deleted post a needs archived. I'd probably contact the reviewer and let them know what's going on.

 

Problem here is the cache owner could never visit the cache, post an owners maintenance log and no one would be the wiser until the dnf's started piling up again. You would have to commit to waiting for the owners maintenance log to be posted and head back out there to confirm the replacement or lack of it. More NM's and more NA's.

 

Eventually the reviewer will catch on and force the cache owner to fix the cache or archive it.

Curious about that too...

 

If the CO is deleting NMs of those actually looking, then I'd assume this problem character may need the care and proper tone from their Reviewer, instead of creating more drama by posting an NA myself. :)

 

Please do not blame people who post NAs for causing drama. These logs are there for a reason.

I don't see where I "blamed others" at all, merely that if a CO is already clashing with others (and emailing 'em no less...) over something as trivial as an NM, I would like to keep my "messaging" to a minimum. :)

Link to comment

Deleting NM logs and scolding people for writing them is poor behaviour.

I think correcting poor behavior is much easier in a friendly atmosphere.

 

But furthermore, we don't actually know what the CO's behavior was. One purpose in my response was to suggest to the OP the he, himself, avoid starting by assuming the CO's an evil jerk and, before bringing out the canons, reconsider whether the CO's actions could perhaps be interpreted as not being as vitriolic as he originally thought.

 

Approaching someone as a friend instead of an enemy doesn't always work, but it often does. Even someone acting like a jerk.

 

An NA saying "For some reason the owner deleted my NM log without resolving my observation that the cache appears to be missing based on evidence X, Y, and Z"

Wording such as that belongs in an email to a Reviewer or Groundspeak, not in a 'Needs Archived' log.

I don't know why you say that. Since the NM has been deleted, it makes as much sense -- if not more -- to repeat the information publicly in the NA for the same reasons it was posted publicly in the deleted NM.

 

And in the context of my point, your comment is even more curious. My specific point was that the NA should continue to focus on the problem that needs to be sorted out rather than engaging in a power struggle by making the NA a personal indictment against the CO. Do you really mean to argue that the latter is the better log?

Link to comment

Did you actually DNF the cache yourself?

 

If I felt strongly about this cache I'd go out and dnf it myself, post a needs maintenance and when my NM was deleted post a needs archived. I'd probably contact the reviewer and let them know what's going on.

 

Problem here is the cache owner could never visit the cache, post an owners maintenance log and no one would be the wiser until the dnf's started piling up again. You would have to commit to waiting for the owners maintenance log to be posted and head back out there to confirm the replacement or lack of it. More NM's and more NA's.

 

Eventually the reviewer will catch on and force the cache owner to fix the cache or archive it.

Curious about that too...

 

If the CO is deleting NMs of those actually looking, then I'd assume this problem character may need the care and proper tone from their Reviewer, instead of creating more drama by posting an NA myself. :)

 

Please do not blame people who post NAs for causing drama. These logs are there for a reason.

 

What? I'll I'm saying is I wouldn't post a N/M or N/A without actually looked for the cache myself. I'm curious why the second person to dnf the cache didn't post the N/M? Why is someone, whom I assume never visited the cache, doing it?

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

 

Curious about that too...

 

If the CO is deleting NMs of those actually looking, then I'd assume this problem character may need the care and proper tone from their Reviewer, instead of creating more drama by posting an NA myself. :)

 

Please do not blame people who post NAs for causing drama. These logs are there for a reason.

I don't see where I "blamed others" at all, merely that if a CO is already clashing with others (and emailing 'em no less...) over something as trivial as an NM, I would like to keep my "messaging" to a minimum. :)

 

I understand, I just cringe when good geocachers feel the onus is on them to avoid drama.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

I'm curious why the second person to dnf the cache didn't post the N/M?

I'm not sure what specific case you're thinking of, but there are many reasons why someone might not file an NM, ranging from the very legitimate such as not having enough information at that time to the purely emotional such as being worried about hurting the CO's feelings. We could, if we wanted, look at a specific log and discuss who should or should not have filed an NM after they visited the cache, but none of that's relevant to the person you're telling to visit the cache before filing an NM.

 

Why is someone, whom I assume never visited the cache, doing it?

Someone who's never visited the cache might file an NM because no one who has visited the cache did. If we had that other discussion about who should have posted an NM after visiting the cache, we would sometimes conclude from the information in the logs that there is one visitor that should have filed the NM but didn't. If we could come to that conclusion in our philosophical analysis here in the forums, I see no reason why someone in the normal course of events couldn't reach that same reasonable conclusion and, hence, file an NM in order to correct that previous seeker's mistake without feeling a need for yet another visit.

Link to comment

Why is someone, whom I assume never visited the cache, doing it?

Someone who's never visited the cache might file an NM because no one who has visited the cache did. If we had that other discussion about who should have posted an NM after visiting the cache, we would sometimes conclude from the information in the logs that there is one visitor that should have filed the NM but didn't. If we could come to that conclusion in our philosophical analysis here in the forums, I see no reason why someone in the normal course of events couldn't reach that same reasonable conclusion and, hence, file an NM in order to correct that previous seeker's mistake without feeling a need for yet another visit.

 

Indeed, I have filed at least one NM on a cache I never visited. Was looking for a cache to visit and noticed the most recent log said the cache was in a nearby homeowner's garage. (Not that anything happened after I filed the NM, mind you.) That seems NM-worthy without having to visit.

Link to comment

Just an update, the wife and I visited the cache site yet again, and spent a solid hour at ground zero this time, eventuality I turned my attention away from GZ where the magnetic was supposed to be and checked the bushes for seemingly the 100th time. This time looking, I spotted something on the ground, I found a wrinkled and soaked paper, almost completely torn to bits, I quickly realized I have found the log. We both logged it as a DNF and explained what we have found, I didn't want to post a need maintenance log since it would have probably vanished... A few hours later a reviewer posted a log to check on it and thn, the CO archived it. It's really sad to see such an old cache just go poof, I was really looking forward to finding this one. I degress, thanks for the advice friends, it was helpful.

Edited by Wildguineapig530
Link to comment

I'm curious why the second person to dnf the cache didn't post the N/M?

I'm not sure what specific case you're thinking of, but there are many reasons why someone might not file an NM, ranging from the very legitimate such as not having enough information at that time to the purely emotional such as being worried about hurting the CO's feelings. We could, if we wanted, look at a specific log and discuss who should or should not have filed an NM after they visited the cache, but none of that's relevant to the person you're telling to visit the cache before filing an NM.

 

Why is someone, whom I assume never visited the cache, doing it?

Someone who's never visited the cache might file an NM because no one who has visited the cache did. If we had that other discussion about who should have posted an NM after visiting the cache, we would sometimes conclude from the information in the logs that there is one visitor that should have filed the NM but didn't. If we could come to that conclusion in our philosophical analysis here in the forums, I see no reason why someone in the normal course of events couldn't reach that same reasonable conclusion and, hence, file an NM in order to correct that previous seeker's mistake without feeling a need for yet another visit.

 

I was referring to this case. The OP stated that "2 different previous finders both confirmed to me that it is in fact missing." Sounds like the OP posted the NM based on the information given them by others and in fact may never personally looked for the cache. Why would they log a NM based on second hand information and if the other two people that dnf'd the cache felt that strongly why didn't one of them post the NM? Seems odd to me.

 

I can only tell you I wouldn't post a NM unless I actually searched for the cache myself and felt that it was indeed missing. The cache owner living out of state could be an issue. The deletion of the NM is an issue. I don't see two dnf's on a cache reason enough to post a NM or NA. If there were 4 or 5 dnf's or a cache container that was broken and the cache owner deleted the NM then we'd have an issue.

Link to comment

Just an update, the wife and I visited the cache site yet again, and spent a solid hour at ground zero this time, eventuality I turned my attention away from GZ where the magnetic was supposed to be and checked the bushes for seemingly the 100th time. This time looking, I spotted something on the ground, I found a wrinkled and soaked paper, almost completely torn to bits, I quickly realized I have found the log. We both logged it as a DNF and explained what we have found, I didn't want to post a need maintenance log since it would have probably vanished... A few hours later a reviewer posted a log to check on it and thn, the CO archived it. It's really sad to see such an old cache just go poof, I was really looking forward to finding this one. I degress, thanks for the advice friends, it was helpful.

 

With this information I'd absolutely post a NM on the cache. If this NM is deleted I'd feel justified in posting a NA and contacting my local reviewer.

Link to comment

Just an update, the wife and I visited the cache site yet again, and spent a solid hour at ground zero this time, eventuality I turned my attention away from GZ where the magnetic was supposed to be and checked the bushes for seemingly the 100th time. This time looking, I spotted something on the ground, I found a wrinkled and soaked paper, almost completely torn to bits, I quickly realized I have found the log. We both logged it as a DNF and explained what we have found, I didn't want to post a need maintenance log since it would have probably vanished... A few hours later a reviewer posted a log to check on it and thn, the CO archived it. It's really sad to see such an old cache just go poof, I was really looking forward to finding this one. I degress, thanks for the advice friends, it was helpful.

 

With this information I'd absolutely post a NM on the cache. If this NM is deleted I'd feel justified in posting a NA and contacting my local reviewer.

 

Posting a NM or a NA for a cache that has been archived by the CO is pretty much meaningless, right?

Link to comment

Just an update, the wife and I visited the cache site yet again, and spent a solid hour at ground zero this time, eventuality I turned my attention away from GZ where the magnetic was supposed to be and checked the bushes for seemingly the 100th time. This time looking, I spotted something on the ground, I found a wrinkled and soaked paper, almost completely torn to bits, I quickly realized I have found the log. We both logged it as a DNF and explained what we have found, I didn't want to post a need maintenance log since it would have probably vanished... A few hours later a reviewer posted a log to check on it and thn, the CO archived it. It's really sad to see such an old cache just go poof, I was really looking forward to finding this one. I degress, thanks for the advice friends, it was helpful.

 

With this information I'd absolutely post a NM on the cache. If this NM is deleted I'd feel justified in posting a NA and contacting my local reviewer.

 

Posting a NM or a NA for a cache that has been archived by the CO is pretty much meaningless, right?

 

Semantics. I'll change the wording to "would have posted" to fit the caches current status. Better?

Link to comment

I was referring to this case. The OP stated that "2 different previous finders both confirmed to me that it is in fact missing." Sounds like the OP posted the NM based on the information given them by others and in fact may never personally looked for the cache. Why would they log a NM based on second hand information and if the other two people that dnf'd the cache felt that strongly why didn't one of them post the NM? Seems odd to me.

 

I can only tell you I wouldn't post a NM unless I actually searched for the cache myself and felt that it was indeed missing. The cache owner living out of state could be an issue. The deletion of the NM is an issue. I don't see two dnf's on a cache reason enough to post a NM or NA. If there were 4 or 5 dnf's or a cache container that was broken and the cache owner deleted the NM then we'd have an issue.

 

I have posted multiple (~15-20) NMs with most followed by NAs without visiting the cache over the past year. When I look in areas of interest, I find caches which appear to be gone. All have 4 or more DNFs. In most of the cases, the cache owner hasn't visited the site in quite some time.

 

Why might those who posted a DNF not post a NM... the official geocaching.com smartphone apps don't support NM/NA logs !! dry.gif

 

When I used the official iPhone app, I would then launch a bowser, go to the site, find the cache and log a NM, but that's a lot of steps to take. I'd expect if/when the geocaching.com apps are updated to allow logging of a NM/NA you would see an increase in them posted to logs caches that need them.

 

Out of the 15-20 NMs posted, at most 3 of them were addressed by the cache owner and the others were escalated to NAs followed by a reviewer temp disabling and after a month archiving the cache.

 

Link to comment

Why might those who posted a DNF not post a NM... the official geocaching.com smartphone apps don't support NM/NA logs !! dry.gif

 

Could this be why we've seen threads here on the subject of some mechanism / person generating warning emails to CO's on the basis of one/a handful of DNF's on their caches - to mitigate for a downturn in NM/NA arising from a shortcoming in the official app? :unsure:

Link to comment

When I look in areas of interest, I find caches which appear to be gone. All have 4 or more DNFs.

 

Without knowing the area and how challenging the cache is I never would conclude anything from the DNFs. I often end up with not finding a cache several times even though it is there (and I write DNF logs for each attempt, also ones that last only 30 seconds). There are caches that are almost unfindable under certain conditions (e.g. heavy leaf cover, snow cover, camouflage frozen to hideout etc) but are in perfect condition.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

When I look in areas of interest, I find caches which appear to be gone. All have 4 or more DNFs.

 

Without knowing the area and how challenging the cache is I never would conclude anything from the DNFs. I often end up with not finding a cache several times even though it is there (and I write DNF logs for each attempt, also ones that last only 30 seconds). There are caches that are almost unfindable under certain conditions (e.g. heavy leaf cover, snow cover, camouflage frozen to hideout etc) but are in perfect condition.

 

Then don't post a DNF. There's no one forcing you but it seems more fun to make up very specific scenarios on why it *might* not be accurate? mad.gif

 

My assessment is accurate and intelligent, weighing much more info beyond what an automatedl process would do. I read & interpret the contents of the logs, finds by the cachers logging the DNFs, last site visit by the cache owner in addition to all the other data. I've never had one of these where the cache was there after a NM was posted.

Edited by Team DEMP
Link to comment

When I look in areas of interest, I find caches which appear to be gone. All have 4 or more DNFs.

 

Without knowing the area and how challenging the cache is I never would conclude anything from the DNFs. I often end up with not finding a cache several times even though it is there (and I write DNF logs for each attempt, also ones that last only 30 seconds). There are caches that are almost unfindable under certain conditions (e.g. heavy leaf cover, snow cover, camouflage frozen to hideout etc) but are in perfect condition.

 

Then don't post a DNF. There's no one forcing you but it seems more fun to make up very specific scenarios on why it *might* not be accurate? mad.gif

 

My assessment is much more accurate and intelligent, weighing much more info beyond what an automate process would do. I read & interpret the contents of the logs in addition to all the other data. I'm never had one where the cache was there after a NM was posted.

 

I post DNFs when I don't find the cache. It's a record of my activity, not a comment on the presence of the cache. If I DID NOT FIND the cache, my DNF is accurate.

 

It should only be interpreted to mean that I, personally, failed to find the cache.

Link to comment

Then don't post a DNF. There's no one forcing you but it seems more fun to make up very specific scenarios on why it *might* not be accurate?

 

As narcissa I post DNFs when I did not find a cache and that can happen even four times in a row. DNF does not mean "I think the cache is missing".

 

When I mentioned leaf cover or snow I referred to cases I'm familiar with - they are not made up ones.

 

My assessment is accurate and intelligent, weighing much more info beyond what an automatedl process would do. I read & interpret the contents of the logs, finds by the cachers logging the DNFs, last site visit by the cache owner in addition to all the other data. I've never had one of these where the cache was there after a NM was posted.

 

I'm not familiar with any of your NM logs - your assessment might be perfect. I just said that the number of DNFs not necessarily means something and that I would not conclude anything just from logs, without knowing the area and the loggers. You can use your own approach and I use mine.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

It's extremely helpful that the last 2 posters have described what a DNF is. :unsure:

 

It's extremely unhelpful that there is a strong push to interpret every DNF as THE CACHE IS GONE FOREVER.

Inaccurate assumption made especially when specifics were included on there being multiple DNFs as well as the content of those DNFs, meta data about the cache, etc. But I guess there's just a group of folks that argue regardless. What's ironic is it's often the same people that argue for self policing. Ugh!

 

Adding... I've had no negative feedback from any of the reviewers that act on the NM/NA I post which always includes a description of the reason and that I didn't necessarily look for the cache. Every NM/NA was promptly and appropriately handled by the reviewer. If there was an issue or cause of concern, they'd speak up vs me hear it from some random cacher in the forum.

Edited by Team DEMP
Link to comment

It's extremely helpful that the last 2 posters have described what a DNF is. :unsure:

 

It's extremely unhelpful that there is a strong push to interpret every DNF as THE CACHE IS GONE FOREVER.

Inaccurate assumption made especially when specifics were included on there being multiple DNFs as well as the content of those DNFs, meta data about the cache, etc. But I guess there's just a group of folks that argue regardless. What's ironic is it's often the same people that argue for self policing. Ugh!

 

Some of the posters here would be well suited to draughting purposely inflamatory/overly dramatic/attention grabbing tweets for Gizmodo.

 

No wonder we can't have a rational discussion based on facts.

Link to comment

It's extremely helpful that the last 2 posters have described what a DNF is. :unsure:

 

It's extremely unhelpful that there is a strong push to interpret every DNF as THE CACHE IS GONE FOREVER.

Inaccurate assumption made especially when specifics were included on there being multiple DNFs as well as the content of those DNFs, meta data about the cache, etc. But I guess there's just a group of folks that argue regardless. What's ironic is it's often the same people that argue for self policing. Ugh!

 

Adding... I've had no negative feedback from any of the reviewers that act on the NM/NA I post which always includes a description of the reason and that I didn't necessarily look for the cache. Every NM/NA was promptly and appropriately handled by the reviewer. If there was an issue or cause of concern, they'd speak up vs me hear it from some random cacher in the forum.

 

I don't keep track of individual forum users past commenting histories or general philosophies, and I certainly don't recall any prior discussions with this particular user account, so I can't speak to the personal complaint aspect of your comment.

 

If your process works for you, that's great. It's just not reasonable to complain that everyone else should be posting NMs along with their DNFs. They may simply interpret the situation differently than you do. I don't look very closely at most cache pages, so for me, following a DNF with an NM just because there are other DNFs doesn't make sense. In most circumstances, I don't read DNFs as anything but "Did Not Find." I try to be descriptive with my DNFs to give as much information as I can, and that's the best I can offer when I haven't found the cache and don't know anything else about it.

Link to comment

It's extremely helpful that the last 2 posters have described what a DNF is. :unsure:

 

I described when I post a DNF and someone else described when they write a DNF log. Like for NM there is no definition and rule everyone has to follow. I will never describe what a DNF is, but only how I use DNF logs.

 

I did not intend to criticize the way you decide when you post NM or NA. I just commented that there can be individual reasons for not posting a NM even though

someone is neither worried about the cache owner's potential reaction nor is a smartphone user (I do not even own a smartphone) or a user not familiar with NM.

 

Moreover, as it becomes popular among certain cachers to put more value on DNF logs, I just wanted to mention that I often DNF caches that are perfectly fine (actually this happens more often

than the case that the cache is missing) but I hardly ever search at all possible places but typically break off earlier.

 

There can be quite different ways to decide when to post a NM log which all can be perfectly ok. Typically a community if it is not too small will consist of cachers with

different approaches and in the best cases their approaches smooth out and complement each other.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I was referring to this case. The OP stated that "2 different previous finders both confirmed to me that it is in fact missing." Sounds like the OP posted the NM based on the information given them by others and in fact may never personally looked for the cache. Why would they log a NM based on second hand information and if the other two people that dnf'd the cache felt that strongly why didn't one of them post the NM? Seems odd to me.

I took that to mean that the OP asked two friends that previously found the cache where it was, and when they told him, he knew he'd look there. I was imagining that those 2 previous finders hadn't been anywhere near GZ since they found the cache, so they wouldn't file any log. That would be an inappropriate time to file an NM without visiting GZ.

 

But, nevertheless, I stand by my original statement: there are any number of reasons one might not file an NM, including reasons we might not consider valid such as being worried about a negative reaction.

 

I can only tell you I wouldn't post a NM unless I actually searched for the cache myself and felt that it was indeed missing. The cache owner living out of state could be an issue. The deletion of the NM is an issue. I don't see two dnf's on a cache reason enough to post a NM or NA. If there were 4 or 5 dnf's or a cache container that was broken and the cache owner deleted the NM then we'd have an issue.

What's important is that you should only file an NM when you have enough evidence to think the cache needs maintenance. Your personal visit to GZ is just one of many sources of evidence, and there's no reason to think that it would be more important than any other source of evidence, especially not so much more important to think that a personal visit is always required.

Link to comment

I was referring to this case. The OP stated that "2 different previous finders both confirmed to me that it is in fact missing." Sounds like the OP posted the NM based on the information given them by others and in fact may never personally looked for the cache. Why would they log a NM based on second hand information and if the other two people that dnf'd the cache felt that strongly why didn't one of them post the NM? Seems odd to me.

I took that to mean that the OP asked two friends that previously found the cache where it was, and when they told him, he knew he'd look there. I was imagining that those 2 previous finders hadn't been anywhere near GZ since they found the cache, so they wouldn't file any log. That would be an inappropriate time to file an NM without visiting GZ.

 

But, nevertheless, I stand by my original statement: there are any number of reasons one might not file an NM, including reasons we might not consider valid such as being worried about a negative reaction.

 

I can only tell you I wouldn't post a NM unless I actually searched for the cache myself and felt that it was indeed missing. The cache owner living out of state could be an issue. The deletion of the NM is an issue. I don't see two dnf's on a cache reason enough to post a NM or NA. If there were 4 or 5 dnf's or a cache container that was broken and the cache owner deleted the NM then we'd have an issue.

What's important is that you should only file an NM when you have enough evidence to think the cache needs maintenance. Your personal visit to GZ is just one of many sources of evidence, and there's no reason to think that it would be more important than any other source of evidence, especially not so much more important to think that a personal visit is always required.

 

All the previous information on the cache log is important but I personally have a hard time posting a NM or NA without haven taken a look for myself.

Link to comment

When I look in areas of interest, I find caches which appear to be gone. All have 4 or more DNFs.

 

Without knowing the area and how challenging the cache is I never would conclude anything from the DNFs. I often end up with not finding a cache several times even though it is there (and I write DNF logs for each attempt, also ones that last only 30 seconds). There are caches that are almost unfindable under certain conditions (e.g. heavy leaf cover, snow cover, camouflage frozen to hideout etc) but are in perfect condition.

 

Then don't post a DNF. There's no one forcing you but it seems more fun to make up very specific scenarios on why it *might* not be accurate? mad.gif

 

My assessment is accurate and intelligent, weighing much more info beyond what an automatedl process would do. I read & interpret the contents of the logs, finds by the cachers logging the DNFs, last site visit by the cache owner in addition to all the other data. I've never had one of these where the cache was there after a NM was posted.

 

Same here. I have however seen blatant throwdowns after an NM/NA post. mad.gif

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Same here. I have however seen blatant throwdowns after an NM/NA post. mad.gif

 

I don't understand why people get so attached to a cache just because it's old.

 

I found a nano on a gate where the log was pulp. The CO hadn't logged a find since 2012 and hadn't logged into the site for around eight months so it was obviously not going to be maintained.

 

And yet, when I logged NA, there were complaints and requests to adopt it :blink:

Link to comment

I've tried to get caches archived for throwdowns with no maintenance by the flash in the pan COs but found it to be pointless. Throwdowns are not enough reason for our reviewers to archive a cache.

 

I've been told by my reviewer that outside of property owner/trespassing issues, a cache will not get the "You have 30 days to fix your cache" warning unless there are three different cachers posting NA, DNF, or NM logs.

Link to comment

I've tried to get caches archived for throwdowns with no maintenance by the flash in the pan COs but found it to be pointless. Throwdowns are not enough reason for our reviewers to archive a cache.

 

I've been told by my reviewer that outside of property owner/trespassing issues, a cache will not get the "You have 30 days to fix your cache" warning unless there are three different cachers posting NA, DNF, or NM logs.

 

How many DNF's and / or NM logs had been posted prior to the NA?

 

Help Center → Finding a Geocache → Finding a Geocache

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=434

3.8. I found a geocache that needs to be archived

 

If you think that a geocache listing needs to be archived, please use the Report a Problem feature and select the Needs Archived (NA) log. A Needs Archived log will notify the geocache owner and a local reviewer who may follow up on the NA log. Listings that have NA logs, are not automatically archived and you may not see a public response to your log.

 

When to post an NA log

 

Use this log type only if you have visited the geocache location.

 

Reasons to post an NA log:

 

You found a geocache that was placed without permission.

 

Property owners or law enforcement expressed concerns to you during your search.

 

Searching for the cache causes damage to the area.

 

The cache placement damages or defaces property.

 

You couldn't find a cache that has several DNFs or Needs Maintenance logs with no cache owner response.

 

Do not use Needs Archived if:

The geocache needs repairs (instead, use a Needs Maintenance log).

You didn't find the geocache.

The location made you uncomfortable.

 

 

B.

Link to comment

I've tried to get caches archived for throwdowns with no maintenance by the flash in the pan COs but found it to be pointless. Throwdowns are not enough reason for our reviewers to archive a cache.

That's why people who think about it, including the people that post here in the forums, try to talk people out of dropping throwdowns. It is sensible for the reviewer to stay out of it because it's just not a good idea for The Powers to get involved when a cache is demonstrably functioning even if, in your opinion, it's not the same as it was originally. It's important to recognize that the problem is the throwdown iself, not the reviewer's reaction to it.

 

I've been told by my reviewer that outside of property owner/trespassing issues, a cache will not get the "You have 30 days to fix your cache" warning unless there are three different cachers posting NA, DNF, or NM logs.

I think this is reasonable. No, I'll go further and say this is a good idea. Unless there's a black and white issue, the reviewer should only react when there's a consensus about the cache's status, not just because one person has decided there's a problem. You've noticed a problem and logged it. Move on and forget about it: the next person can confirm your analysis and push the cache along towards whatever fate it deserves.

 

This makes sense strategically even when only considering honest and fair seekers like you and me, since we can always have blind spots or make mistakes. But it becomes critical when you consider the possibility of a seeker that's unreasonably obsessed with the cache and wants it archived for reasons unrelated to its true status.

Link to comment

I've tried to get caches archived for throwdowns with no maintenance by the flash in the pan COs but found it to be pointless. Throwdowns are not enough reason for our reviewers to archive a cache.

That's why people who think about it, including the people that post here in the forums, try to talk people out of dropping throwdowns. It is sensible for the reviewer to stay out of it because it's just not a good idea for The Powers to get involved when a cache is demonstrably functioning even if, in your opinion, it's not the same as it was originally. It's important to recognize that the problem is the throwdown iself, not the reviewer's reaction to it.

 

I've been told by my reviewer that outside of property owner/trespassing issues, a cache will not get the "You have 30 days to fix your cache" warning unless there are three different cachers posting NA, DNF, or NM logs.

I think this is reasonable. No, I'll go further and say this is a good idea. Unless there's a black and white issue, the reviewer should only react when there's a consensus about the cache's status, not just because one person has decided there's a problem. You've noticed a problem and logged it. Move on and forget about it: the next person can confirm your analysis and push the cache along towards whatever fate it deserves.

 

This makes sense strategically even when only considering honest and fair seekers like you and me, since we can always have blind spots or make mistakes. But it becomes critical when you consider the possibility of a seeker that's unreasonably obsessed with the cache and wants it archived for reasons unrelated to its true status.

 

Thanks for the insight into the matter but it is important to recognize that I don't see the problem being the reviewer's reaction to it, but rather the guideline that is being followed.

 

My point is that there won't be an improved quality of caches for 2017 if a cache requires 3 people to agree on it being a waste of time for anything other than getting another smiley on the map. There should be latitude allowed for a reviewer to take into consideration the other logs that have been left, that elaborate on the cache being junk, but the user didn't leave a NM.

 

If the finder needs to reach a foot into the ground, grab a throwdown that has been left in putrid water, then I think there should be some avenue allowed to archive that doesn't require two other cachers to have the nerve to leave a NM.

 

has gotten wretched in its location. I had a spare container and log. It should be water proof now

 

It was gross!

 

If you care, I am sure you can find it in my history. I'm just a bit tired of the NM meaning nothing for hiders who ignore them. There are no repercussions for failure to respond to NM unless multiple people leave it. This cache had its first a year ago. If a hider can't take the time to clear the message then archive the cache after a few months.

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

I've tried to get caches archived for throwdowns with no maintenance by the flash in the pan COs but found it to be pointless. Throwdowns are not enough reason for our reviewers to archive a cache.

That's why people who think about it, including the people that post here in the forums, try to talk people out of dropping throwdowns. It is sensible for the reviewer to stay out of it because it's just not a good idea for The Powers to get involved when a cache is demonstrably functioning even if, in your opinion, it's not the same as it was originally. It's important to recognize that the problem is the throwdown iself, not the reviewer's reaction to it.

 

I've been told by my reviewer that outside of property owner/trespassing issues, a cache will not get the "You have 30 days to fix your cache" warning unless there are three different cachers posting NA, DNF, or NM logs.

I think this is reasonable. No, I'll go further and say this is a good idea. Unless there's a black and white issue, the reviewer should only react when there's a consensus about the cache's status, not just because one person has decided there's a problem. You've noticed a problem and logged it. Move on and forget about it: the next person can confirm your analysis and push the cache along towards whatever fate it deserves.

 

This makes sense strategically even when only considering honest and fair seekers like you and me, since we can always have blind spots or make mistakes. But it becomes critical when you consider the possibility of a seeker that's unreasonably obsessed with the cache and wants it archived for reasons unrelated to its true status.

 

Thanks for the insight into the matter but it is important to recognize that I don't see the problem being the reviewer's reaction to it, but rather the guideline that is being followed.

 

My point is that there won't be an improved quality of caches for 2017 if a cache requires 3 people to agree on it being a waste of time for anything other than getting another smiley on the map. There should be latitude allowed for a reviewer to take into consideration the other logs that have been left, that elaborate on the cache being junk, but the user didn't leave a NM.

 

If the finder needs to reach a foot into the ground, grab a throwdown that has been left in putrid water, then I think there should be some avenue allowed to archive that doesn't require two other cachers to have the nerve to leave a NM.

 

has gotten wretched in its location. I had a spare container and log. It should be water proof now

 

It was gross!

 

If you care, I am sure you can find it in my history. I'm just a bit tired of the NM meaning nothing for hiders who ignore them. There are no repercussions for failure to respond to NM unless multiple people leave it. This cache had its first a year ago. If a hider can't take the time to clear the message then archive the cache after a few months.

 

Wow. This is depressing. Reading the guidelines, it seems to mean that Groundspeak sanctions abandoned caches. They may never get archived. As long as people keep throwing down caches. Or logging finds (and no NMs/NAs) on a lid or gross swamp water filled cache, then it's viable. Thank gosh that's not how our reviewers in Ontario see it. I don't know how a database full of junk makes for a 'healthy 2017'.

Link to comment

There are indeed some cache owners who delete "Needs Archived," "Needs Maintenance," "Owner Maintenance", and "Update Coordinates" logs. Some even delete DNF's on the theory that "the cache is still there."

 

One reason why there may have been a recent uptick in this behavior is the introduction of the Geocache Health Score algorithm. (The introduction of this tool is part of Geocaching HQ's commitment to increasing cache quality.) A cache owner might conclude that hiding (deleting) negative logs might prevent one of the automated "maintenance reminder notes" from being sent.

 

If you are following a cache with maintenance issues, and you note that the owner is deleting relevant logs, point this out to the reviewer in a "Needs Archived" log (which comes to the reviewer's attention regardless of whether the CO deletes it), or in a private email to the reviewer. The reviewer can then check those deleted logs and take them into account when deciding what action to take for the cache listing. Personally, I am somewhat more likely to disable or archive a listing if I know that the owner is trying to sweep the problem under the rug.

 

In my personal opinion as a reviewer and as a geocacher, all "action" logs should be undeleteable. (Enable, Disable, Needs Maintenance, Owner Maintenance, Needs Archived, and Update Coordinates log types.)

Link to comment

I've tried to get caches archived for throwdowns with no maintenance by the flash in the pan COs but found it to be pointless. Throwdowns are not enough reason for our reviewers to archive a cache.

That's why people who think about it, including the people that post here in the forums, try to talk people out of dropping throwdowns. It is sensible for the reviewer to stay out of it because it's just not a good idea for The Powers to get involved when a cache is demonstrably functioning even if, in your opinion, it's not the same as it was originally. It's important to recognize that the problem is the throwdown iself, not the reviewer's reaction to it.

 

I've been told by my reviewer that outside of property owner/trespassing issues, a cache will not get the "You have 30 days to fix your cache" warning unless there are three different cachers posting NA, DNF, or NM logs.

I think this is reasonable. No, I'll go further and say this is a good idea. Unless there's a black and white issue, the reviewer should only react when there's a consensus about the cache's status, not just because one person has decided there's a problem. You've noticed a problem and logged it. Move on and forget about it: the next person can confirm your analysis and push the cache along towards whatever fate it deserves.

 

This makes sense strategically even when only considering honest and fair seekers like you and me, since we can always have blind spots or make mistakes. But it becomes critical when you consider the possibility of a seeker that's unreasonably obsessed with the cache and wants it archived for reasons unrelated to its true status.

 

Thanks for the insight into the matter but it is important to recognize that I don't see the problem being the reviewer's reaction to it, but rather the guideline that is being followed.

 

My point is that there won't be an improved quality of caches for 2017 if a cache requires 3 people to agree on it being a waste of time for anything other than getting another smiley on the map. There should be latitude allowed for a reviewer to take into consideration the other logs that have been left, that elaborate on the cache being junk, but the user didn't leave a NM.

 

If the finder needs to reach a foot into the ground, grab a throwdown that has been left in putrid water, then I think there should be some avenue allowed to archive that doesn't require two other cachers to have the nerve to leave a NM.

 

has gotten wretched in its location. I had a spare container and log. It should be water proof now

 

It was gross!

 

If you care, I am sure you can find it in my history. I'm just a bit tired of the NM meaning nothing for hiders who ignore them. There are no repercussions for failure to respond to NM unless multiple people leave it. This cache had its first a year ago. If a hider can't take the time to clear the message then archive the cache after a few months.

 

There's hope.

 

I found this: https://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=134

Here are some example situations that warrant a Needs Archived note.

 

1 - There is a law enforcement, trespassing or similar issue requiring immediate attention. Occasionally, a geocache is placed in a location that is inappropriate because of security concerns - schools, court houses, or airports among the most common.

2 -
You believe that the geocache is missing, and the cache owner has been unresponsive to previous DNF and Needs Maintenance logs.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...