Needs Archived

February 12, 2016

So I think the "Needs Archived" is the last resort. There should be many dnf's there should be unresponded to "Needs Maintenance" requests from different Cachers that are not geocaching together. Also with no responce from cache owner. I am finding that when you post as an owner that you checked and its still there people there and they still cant find it they get angery. They then post needs archived. I personaly have one cache I cant find, about once a month I go and look but its tough its there owner says its there. Just because its hard to find and I cant find it I am not going to ask for it to be archived. I just cant find it.

15.3k · February 12, 2016

I've heard of newbies posting NA logs when they should have posted DNF logs, but I've never actually seen it. What I have seen is DNF logs being used appropriately.

1.5k · February 12, 2016

Once in a while you see NA posted instead of NM or DNF, but if you have checked the cache, just post a Owner Maintenance log stating that and life goes on. The cache won't get automatically archived just because someone posts a NA log.

If you notice a newbie doing this regularly, maybe a friendly email explaining the differences in the logs and when each should be used. They just might not know, and think they're posting appropriately.

After re-reading the OP, it sounds like there's a back story that we're not hearing about.

Edited February 12, 2016 by BC & MsKitty

6.1k · February 12, 2016

I pretty much agree with everything other than this:

There should be many dnf's there should be unresponded to "Needs Maintenance" requests from different Cachers that are not geocaching together. Also with no responce from cache owner.

If there's even one NM that has no response then that says to me that the CO is not maintaining the cache so posting an NA is legit.

This doesn't necessarily mean the CO has to rush out to check in the response to every NM, but a response such as "I checked it was still there after the NM last week and I'm sure it's still there but it's a sneaky hide so I don't plan to go check it again right now but I'll have a look next time I'm passing" shows that the CO is still on the case and an NA would not be appropriate.

7.5k · February 12, 2016

Once in a while you see NA posted instead of NM or DNF, but if you have checked the cache, just post a Owner Maintenance log stating that and life goes on. The cache won't get automatically archived just because someone posts a NA log.

If you notice a newbie doing this regularly, maybe a friendly email explaining the differences in the logs and when each should be used. They just might not know, and think they're posting appropriately.

After re-reading the OP, it sounds like there's a back story that we're not hearing about.

+1

My experience is that NA logs don't get misused and are not used enough.

7.5k · February 12, 2016

Once in a while you see NA posted instead of NM or DNF, but if you have checked the cache, just post a Owner Maintenance log stating that and life goes on. The cache won't get automatically archived just because someone posts a NA log.

If you notice a newbie doing this regularly, maybe a friendly email explaining the differences in the logs and when each should be used. They just might not know, and think they're posting appropriately.

After re-reading the OP, it sounds like there's a back story that we're not hearing about.

You are right BC....there's a back story. A micro. D2. Regularly found until someone pushed it too far in. OM logs, but still people can't find it. Someone posted an NM, I don't see an NA, probably deleted. Last OM explains that the micro was replaced with something different and it's there. Addendum ....and that people shouldn't be posting an NA log.

Edited February 12, 2016 by L0ne.R

5.7k · February 12, 2016

Can you even post a NA with Groundspeak's intro app? I did have newbies post NA in the past on my caches that they could not find, and that is one of the reasons I made my listings PMO. :anibad:

7.3k · February 12, 2016

So I think the "Needs Archived" is the last resort. There should be many dnf's there should be unresponded to "Needs Maintenance" requests from different Cachers that are not geocaching together. Also with no responce from cache owner. I am finding that when you post as an owner that you checked and its still there people there and they still cant find it they get angery. They then post needs archived. I personaly have one cache I cant find, about once a month I go and look but its tough its there owner says its there. Just because its hard to find and I cant find it I am not going to ask for it to be archived. I just cant find it.

An NA log still goes to the Reviewer, even if you delete it from the cache page.

http://coord.info/GC5M3Y2

So when you find a Geocache that needs action taken you message the owner. You do NOT put needs to be archived. You can do a NEEDS MAINTENANCE. I have been informed the coffee shop has been bought I will check this out.

You might want to educate yourself as to the reasons people CAN and SHOULD log NA logs:

3.8. I found a geocache that needs to be archived

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

----------------

An "owner maintenance" log is not the correct way to post updated coordinates.

http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ

4.13. How do I update coordinates for my geocache?

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=61

B.

February 12, 2016

So you want to bring up coffee shop cache o.k. It was posted needs archived yes technicaly that meets requirements but if one maintenance log or a email saying "Hey someone else bought coffee shop". I would have removed cache A.S.A.P. In fact as soon as I was made aware I archived it as keeping it there and no longer having permission is not legal or right.

7.3k · February 12, 2016

I would post a NM on http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ because the coordinates have not been corrected.

B.

February 12, 2016

I would post a NM on http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ because the coordinates have not been corrected.

B.

February 12, 2016

http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ So less of a discussion more of an attack just saying what I have seen. As far as http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ

Already taking down when I get up there Sunday. Opening up that area to a geocacher that wants to put one but too close to mine. I dont mind he asked very nicely.

7.3k · February 12, 2016

http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ So less of a discussion more of an attack just saying what I have seen. As far as http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ

Already taking down when I get up there Sunday. Opening up that area to a geocacher that wants to put one but too close to mine. I dont mind he asked very nicely.

What attack? :blink:

I'm trying to help you maintain your cache pages properly.

You need to use the correct logging function to correct the coordinates. An "owner maintenance" log does not do that.

I gave you the link to the Help Center, so that you can read how to properly post updated coordinates for your cache.

B.

February 12, 2016

I have seen "NA" many times with no need. When I first started geocaching I put needs "NA" when I thought i put Ower maintenance I quickly was contacted my geocacher who placed it with like 3,000 finds and explained the rare times you put "NA" and to give owners a chance because we all work all have jobs familes and such. I feel it becomes a tool of frustration for people.

7.5k · February 12, 2016

So you want to bring up coffee shop cache o.k. It was posted needs archived yes technicaly that meets requirements but if one maintenance log or a email saying "Hey someone else bought coffee shop". I would have removed cache A.S.A.P. In fact as soon as I was made aware I archived it as keeping it there and no longer having permission is not legal or right.

I wasn't referring to the coffee shop (not sure which one that would be), but to The Place to Return. You posted an OM stating the NA guidelines, but I don't see an NA post. I assume you may have deleted it.

I just looked at it a moment ago and someone just left another DNF. Unfortunately it looks like you may have built a bit of a poor reputation in your GC community.

I understand that sometimes negative feedback can be tough to get and we sometimes push-back rather then try to iron things out.

In the case of The Place to Return, your initial OM after a finder said "pushed it too far in" and the next person logged a DNF (March 2015), seems to suggest you looked and saw the original cache and it was there. I assume retrievable.

Today you say you had replaced it with a new container (I assume back in March 2015). If it blends in really well or you moved it from where it originally was, you might want to let folks know. Maybe up the Difficulty rating.

2.4k · February 12, 2016

Contrary to the OP's experience, I don't see enough NA logs. People seem to prop up cache listings (leaving throwdown containers, repairing containers of obviously abandoned caches, etc.) rather than use NA to get the reviewer's attention for a potential problem.

Sure, sometimes a clueless newbie may post an NA if they cannot find the cache, or for something else equally irrelevant. But that is easily rectified with a log note from the CO. No harm, no foul.

Edited February 12, 2016 by TriciaG

February 12, 2016

So you want to bring up coffee shop cache o.k. It was posted needs archived yes technicaly that meets requirements but if one maintenance log or a email saying "Hey someone else bought coffee shop". I would have removed cache A.S.A.P. In fact as soon as I was made aware I archived it as keeping it there and no longer having permission is not legal or right.

I wasn't referring to the coffee shop (not sure which one that would be), but to The Place to Return. You posted an OM stating the NA guidelines, but I don't see an NA post. I assume you may have deleted it.

I just looked at it a moment ago and someone just left another DNF. Unfortunately it looks like you may have built a bit of a poor reputation in your GC community.

I understand that sometimes negative feedback can be tough to get and we sometimes push-back rather then try to iron things out.

In the case of The Place to Return, your initial OM after a finder said "pushed it too far in" and the next person logged a DNF (March 2015), seems to suggest you looked and saw the original cache and it was there. I assume retrievable.

Today you say you had replaced it with a new container (I assume back in March 2015). If it blends in really well or you moved it from where it originally was, you might want to let folks know. Maybe up the Difficulty rating.

February 12, 2016

I am tired of hostility. I made my mistakes I applogized. I moved caches disabled caches what ever i could do to make people happy. I have gotten many happy comments from Seasoned geocachers. I am sad to see people going negative again. This is me and my daughters hobbie.

7.5k · February 12, 2016

I am tired of hostility. I made my mistakes I applogized. I moved caches disabled caches what ever i could do to make people happy. I have gotten many happy comments from Seasoned geocachers. I am sad to see people going negative again. This is me and my daughters hobbie.

If it is The Place to Return, I think you can smooth things over by providing a hint, adding a

Special Tool Required attribute, (I read further down in the logs that duct tape is required to get the micro out) and upping the D rating to 3.

21.9k · February 12, 2016

If you're "tired of hostility," then why start a hostile forum topic over a "Needs Archived" log that was a poster child for the proper use of that feature? (I've read the deleted log. It was polite, it described an interaction with the new building owner, and it properly questioned whether permission was in effect.)

Yes, there's examples of improper use of "Needs Archived." I have a form letter response that I use when I see these as a reviewer, advising that the proper log would have been "DNF" or "Needs Maintenance" (whichever is correct) and that I am not taking any further action. You can count on your Community Volunteer Reviewer to see past invalid NA logs. At the same time, you can also count on your Reviewer reading a deleted NA log and responding if appropriate. Had you not archived your listing, I would have disabled it had the cache been in my review territory.

February 12, 2016

I did not start it over that cache someone else went to my geocache page and grabbed that one. I started it because of a trend I found and the idea came because of my cache "A place to return". With the coffee shop cache which I had no issue with archiving I simply would have liked a email or a maintenance insted of "NA". None the less upon reading the log I archived same day. I will never not find someone cache or not like their cache and archive request it. Also as of recently with "A place to return" a DNF was followed with a very negative public comment. If you want to be negative email dont be public unless it is constructive.

19k · February 12, 2016

I did not start it over that cache someone else went to my geocache page and grabbed that one. I started it because of a trend I found and the idea came because of my cache "A place to return". With the coffee shop cache which I had no issue with archiving I simply would have liked a email or a maintenance insted of "NA". None the less upon reading the log I archived same day. I will never not find someone cache or not like their cache and archive request it. Also as of recently with "A place to return" a DNF was followed with a very negative public comment. If you want to be negative email dont be public unless it is constructive.

Gooniemanalpha,

Not everybody here sees that sort of drama with their geocaches. For that matter, I would say that very few do. Given that, I think you might want to take a look at why you are seeing it, and maybe consider doing something to change that. There must be some reason for the negativity you're seeing, because it sure is not commonplace.

5.7k · February 12, 2016

I did not start it over that cache someone else went to my geocache page and grabbed that one. I started it because of a trend I found and the idea came because of my cache "A place to return". With the coffee shop cache which I had no issue with archiving I simply would have liked a email or a maintenance insted of "NA". None the less upon reading the log I archived same day. I will never not find someone cache or not like their cache and archive request it. Also as of recently with "A place to return" a DNF was followed with a very negative public comment. If you want to be negative email dont be public unless it is constructive.

I looked at you listing GC476Z4. No finds in over a year with several DNF's and lots of OM's on a 2/1.5 DT rated cache that you describe as an easy find seems really odd. :unsure:

7.8k · February 12, 2016

I looked at you listing GC476Z4. No finds in over a year with several DNF's and lots of OM's on a 2/1.5 DT rated cache that you describe as an easy find seems really odd.

Agreed. The listing has several contradictions which could be throwing people off:

1. The description says "small", but the size on the listing is set to "Micro". Which is it?

2. Quite a number of cachers have had difficulty locating it, including a past finder. This seems to indicate that the cache is more difficult than "Easy find" or a two-star difficulty rating. If the rating were increased to better reflect the difficulty, cachers may approach the search using different methods (e.g. thinking outside of the box) and might have better luck.

3. You mentioned today that you changed the container, but at no point in any of your previous logs did you mention this so it isn't clear when exactly this occurred. It would be a good idea to mention when you're making changes like that, so past finders coming back (e.g. cachenscary with past finder Gearguru) know that they're now looking for something different.

Personally, I don't think cache owners should be able to delete NM or NA logs. As we can see with GC476Z4, it leads to an incomplete record of communication and can come off as whitewashing (ie. covering something up). If an NA log is invalid, it can be addressed by the CO posting a note or OM log explaining as such. Deleting the NA log leaves the public with only one side of the story, leading to assumptions and sometimes animosity.

7.3k · February 12, 2016

http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ So less of a discussion more of an attack just saying what I have seen. As far as http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ

Already taking down when I get up there Sunday. Opening up that area to a geocacher that wants to put one but too close to mine. I dont mind he asked very nicely.

If you are not going to update the coordinates properly, and intend to archive it any way, why not disable it now, so people don't waste their time searching for it using the incorrect coordinates?

I've re-read the replies in this thread, and I'm not seeing any attacks or hostility.

Are NA logs misused? Not that I've seen. Do some cache owners take NM or NA logs as personal attacks? Apparently some do.

B.

7.3k · February 12, 2016

Personally, I don't think cache owners should be able to delete NM or NA logs.

That makes an absolute ton of sense.

Is there already a thread in the Website subforum for this? If not, there should be.

B.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Pup Patrol

February 12, 2016

I looked at you listing GC476Z4. No finds in over a year with several DNF's and lots of OM's on a 2/1.5 DT rated cache that you describe as an easy find seems really odd.

Agreed. If you have that many consecutive DNFs on a 2/1.5 D/T and there are few to no comments in past Found logs concerning the rating, then something is wrong. Most people were finding it, then nobody was finding it, so something must have changed. I wouldn't post a NA log based on this alone.

But when someone who has found it before cannot find it again, that raises a flag. When the CO posts that many OM logs and notes and still there are no finds, then something is up. I would start to question whether the CO is actually checking on the cache, or just posting OM logs to stop it from being disabled.

The container has changed and it sounds like the manner in which the cache is hidden may have changed as well. It is obviously more difficult to find now, so revise the D/T rating accordingly and post a note in the listing. It is your responsibility to maintain an accurate cache listing. If you are not maintaining an accurate cache listing, then you are not maintaining your cache properly. If a cache is not being maintained properly, then a NA log may be in order.

5.7k · February 12, 2016

http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ So less of a discussion more of an attack just saying what I have seen. As far as http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ

Already taking down when I get up there Sunday. Opening up that area to a geocacher that wants to put one but too close to mine. I dont mind he asked very nicely.

If you are not going to update the coordinates properly, and intend to archive it any way, why not disable it now, so people don't waste their time searching for it using the incorrect coordinates?

I've re-read the replies in this thread, and I'm not seeing any attacks or hostility.

Are NA logs misused? Not that I've seen. Do some cache owners take NM or NA logs as personal attacks? Apparently some do.

B.

The issue I'm seeing is poor coordinates. Maybe their local reviewer needs alerted to address the issue of posting inaccurate coordinates. I'm aware some do this just to make a cache more difficult to find. I thought the idea was to hide caches to be found by geocachers and just out of site of the public.

Maybe it's just me taking pride in spot on coordinates if I list a geocache for others to find, or is it just common courtesy to other geocachers. If I suspected my coordinates were inaccurate I would temp disable the cache until I could fix the issue, or just archive it and free up the area. :anibad:

February 12, 2016

I got a NA on a cache. At the time I looked at it as receiving a letter about my dog craping on the neighbors lawn with a CC to a lawyer with no previous attempts to rectify the situation. The NA was appropriate, but it still made me mad because I just don't do business that way. I'm over it now and have grown a thicker skin. Even with my few finds I have found smalls that should have been listed as micro. I have seen over and under rated T and D. It doesn't bother me, but it looks like it obviously bothers some. It looks to me like you have a group of "clear the map" seekers that have in their mind what "they would do" or "what should" be done. It looks to me as if you are being responsive just not in a way to appease some. Maybe this thread should be titled "under use of the ignore feature". Maybe you should just contact them and see what they need to fill the T/D grid and adjust accordingly.

5.3k · February 12, 2016

The posted coordinates for GC4NKTQ are almost 300 feet from the cache. If the CO does not update those coordinates after several requests (and he has received many), then a NA is probably appropriate, as it would indicate that the CO either cannot or does not want to maintain the listing.

February 13, 2016

The posted coordinates for GC4NKTQ are almost 300 feet from the cache. If the CO does not update those coordinates after several requests (and he has received many), then a NA is probably appropriate, as it would indicate that the CO either cannot or does not want to maintain the listing.

Over 200 feet off? I would totally can this cache. How have the coordinates been this far off for over 2 years?

Gooniemanalpha - you need to fix this.

"Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

I will PM you now and politely ask you to correct your cache listing.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Rock Chalk
Removed profanity. Asterisks don't make it okay.

5.7k · February 13, 2016

The posted coordinates for GC4NKTQ are almost 300 feet from the cache. If the CO does not update those coordinates after several requests (and he has received many), then a NA is probably appropriate, as it would indicate that the CO either cannot or does not want to maintain the listing.

Over 200 feet off? I would totally can this cache. How have the coordinates been this far off for over 2 years?

Gooniemanalpha - you need to fix this.

"Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

I will PM you now and politely ask you to correct your cache listing.

I believe that a NA was in order to alert the reviewer. Coordinates that bad keep good caches from being placed by holding up space.

7.3k · February 13, 2016

The posted coordinates for GC4NKTQ are almost 300 feet from the cache. If the CO does not update those coordinates after several requests (and he has received many), then a NA is probably appropriate, as it would indicate that the CO either cannot or does not want to maintain the listing.

Over 200 feet off? I would totally can this cache. How have the coordinates been this far off for over 2 years?

Gooniemanalpha - you need to fix this.

"Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

I will PM you now and politely ask you to correct your cache listing.

I thought I was pretty clear and helpful already:

An "owner maintenance" log is not the correct way to post updated coordinates.

http://coord.info/GC4NKTQ

4.13. How do I update coordinates for my geocache?

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=61

B.

February 13, 2016

The posted coordinates for GC4NKTQ are almost 300 feet from the cache. If the CO does not update those coordinates after several requests (and he has received many), then a NA is probably appropriate, as it would indicate that the CO either cannot or does not want to maintain the listing.

Over 200 feet off? I would totally can this cache. How have the coordinates been this far off for over 2 years?

Gooniemanalpha - you need to fix this.

"Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

I will PM you now and politely ask you to correct your cache listing.

I believe that a NA was in order to alert the reviewer. Coordinates that bad keep good caches from being placed by holding up space.

Guidelines state that posting a NA log requires a visit to the cache, so will probably just contact the reviewer directly.

5.7k · February 13, 2016

The posted coordinates for GC4NKTQ are almost 300 feet from the cache. If the CO does not update those coordinates after several requests (and he has received many), then a NA is probably appropriate, as it would indicate that the CO either cannot or does not want to maintain the listing.

Over 200 feet off? I would totally can this cache. How have the coordinates been this far off for over 2 years?

Gooniemanalpha - you need to fix this.

"Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

I will PM you now and politely ask you to correct your cache listing.

I believe that a NA was in order to alert the reviewer. Coordinates that bad keep good caches from being placed by holding up space.

Guidelines state that posting a NA log requires a visit to the cache, so will probably just contact the reviewer directly.

If I did not visit the cache I would not be posting NA or contacting a reviewer. That is up to the local geocachers, and I'm not the GeoPolice.

February 13, 2016

The posted coordinates for GC4NKTQ are almost 300 feet from the cache. If the CO does not update those coordinates after several requests (and he has received many), then a NA is probably appropriate, as it would indicate that the CO either cannot or does not want to maintain the listing.

Over 200 feet off? I would totally can this cache. How have the coordinates been this far off for over 2 years?

Gooniemanalpha - you need to fix this.

"Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

I will PM you now and politely ask you to correct your cache listing.

I believe that a NA was in order to alert the reviewer. Coordinates that bad keep good caches from being placed by holding up space.

Guidelines state that posting a NA log requires a visit to the cache, so will probably just contact the reviewer directly.

If I did not visit the cache I would not be posting NA or contacting a reviewer. That is up to the local geocachers, and I'm not the GeoPolice.

I am not the GeoPolice either, but when the CO starts a forum thread whining about the 'unjust' NA logs on his caches and then has an active cache with coordinates that are THAT BAD, I can't help but call BS. This is not a recent issue, either:

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=3ef1ba9e-8aac-4f27-8b84-95dc882b33bc

Apparently, all of the local geocachers are out to get him, so he has just been ignoring them. http://coord.info/GC3YJ9K

5.7k · February 13, 2016

The posted coordinates for GC4NKTQ are almost 300 feet from the cache. If the CO does not update those coordinates after several requests (and he has received many), then a NA is probably appropriate, as it would indicate that the CO either cannot or does not want to maintain the listing.

Over 200 feet off? I would totally can this cache. How have the coordinates been this far off for over 2 years?

Gooniemanalpha - you need to fix this.

"Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

I will PM you now and politely ask you to correct your cache listing.

I believe that a NA was in order to alert the reviewer. Coordinates that bad keep good caches from being placed by holding up space.

Guidelines state that posting a NA log requires a visit to the cache, so will probably just contact the reviewer directly.

If I did not visit the cache I would not be posting NA or contacting a reviewer. That is up to the local geocachers, and I'm not the GeoPolice.

I am not the GeoPolice either, but when the CO starts a forum thread whining about the 'unjust' NA logs on his caches and then has an active cache with coordinates that are THAT BAD, I can't help but call BS.

Apparently, all of the local geocachers are out to get him, so he has just been ignoring them. http://coord.info/GC3YJ9K

Cache ownership is not for everyone. We don't have the same problems here locally as the OP, but if I were caching in their neighborhood I would be posting NA in those poorly maintained bad coordinates caches.

I'm sure they just came here to the forums to rant, but it seems to me that some NA's were placed in order on their listings and they deleted them, so all we hear is their side of the story. Reviewers here can see the deleted posts, so they get all the facts. :anibad:

February 13, 2016

I believe that the OP said that they were going to remove that cache with the bad coordinates Sunday to make room for someone who wants to hide one nearby, nonissue. They were just given a link on how to correct them today as far as anyone here knows. Something that could, maybe even should have been provided in one of the demanding NM logs. Some good advise to help smooth things over above but from what I see on "a place to return" is a bunch of seekers that need to be introduced to the ignore feature or learn they don't have to find every cache. For all I know it is a group that has a personal issue with the OP. I see many threads here that turn toward bashing the people who give of their time and resources (read that CO's and reviewers}. As far as being critical of seekers we seem to be confined to the way they log their finds. Just as there are CO's that are difficult to appease there are finders too. So out of 28 hides the only problems you all can find is bad coordinates on one that the OP may have been exposed to the information to fix the first time today and maybe an under rated difficulty level.

7.3k · February 13, 2016

I believe that the OP said that they were going to remove that cache with the bad coordinates Sunday to make room for someone who wants to hide one nearby, nonissue. They were just given a link on how to correct them today as far as anyone here knows. Something that could, maybe even should have been provided in one of the demanding NM logs. Some good advise to help smooth things over above but from what I see on "a place to return" is a bunch of seekers that need to be introduced to the ignore feature or learn they don't have to find every cache. For all I know it is a group that has a personal issue with the OP. I see many threads here that turn toward bashing the people who give of their time and resources (read that CO's and reviewers}. As far as being critical of seekers we seem to be confined to the way they log their finds. Just as there are CO's that are difficult to appease there are finders too. So out of 28 hides the only problems you all can find is bad coordinates on one that the OP may have been exposed to the information to fix the first time today and maybe an under rated difficulty level.

There's more than one of the OP's hides where the finders have provided coordinates in their logs.

NM and NA logs are not personal attacks. Posting a NA log is not the death knell of a cache. The Reviewer receives the NA log, and acts upon it as he/she sees fit. The CO can communicate on the cache page using an "owner maintenance" log, to address the NA log.

Logs that are deleted from the cache page are still visible to the Reviewers. The general public, "us", can't really know what's going on when there's been evidence of deleted logs.

If you need information, the Help Center is there. The section "Hiding a Geocache" is geared towards hiders, but provides valuable information for finders as well.

Help Center

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php

B.

February 13, 2016

Pup Patrol, I did notice that there were more than one with coordinates off. I believe one was 50' off under trees and archived due to one finders opinion on the location. Trees overhead automatically have me expanding my search area. Still as far as anyone here knows the OP was just exposed to that information today. Unless it was in a log that was deleted. I did not read every log on every hide, but I didn't see anyone offer the OP a link to fix it until you did today. Thank you by the way, the links you have posted for others have helped me out too. There is a difference between demanding something be done, and helping to get it done, one is more productive than the other. From what I have seen as far as changing the coordinates go they didn't know how to adjust them themselves. Rather than someone stepping up to help rectify the situation they pawned that responsibility off on a reviewer who is already giving up much of their valuable time to benefit the rest of us.

I could see the dog pile starting, and it seems to me that all too often seekers are held blameless unless they are new.

7.5k · February 13, 2016

I got a NA on a cache. At the time I looked at it as receiving a letter about my dog craping on the neighbors lawn with a CC to a lawyer with no previous attempts to rectify the situation. The NA was appropriate, but it still made me mad because I just don't do business that way.

Well, you should do business that way. The NA is a perfectly natural way for someone to point out to the reviewer that the cache needs to be archived. In your case, you agreed it deserved to be archived, so I can't imagine why it made you feel bad. If, in another case, you disagree that there's a problem with the cache, then you simply explain why in an OM, presenting your position in a way that shows you've seriously considered what the person posting the NA was saying.

Worse case, the NA is posted in a nasty way and perhaps is even obviously invalid or self serving, but don't waste time worrying about that. If the NA is justified, there's no reason to care how badly someone expressed it, and if the NA isn't justified, just answer politely. I've never run into any case where it helps to react to nasty by being nasty.

Guidelines state that posting a NA log requires a visit to the cache, so will probably just contact the reviewer directly.

News to me. In my area, when we post NAs, it's normally because an NM has been ignored for too long, so it is almost always in a case where everyone can see there's no point to visiting the site where the cache once was. Now an NM, on the other hand, typically requires an onsite inspection, but we don't always do that if there's a long line of DNFs such that it no longer matters whether there's a problem with the cache: even if it's in place, no one's going to go looking for it unless the CO confirms that all those people simply failed to find it. (Naturally this is only clear cut in an easy cache: if the cache is a difficult one, it's less likely that a string of DNFs alone is enough to call for an NM.)

3k · February 13, 2016

NA logs are both underused and misused.

I have seen NA instead on DNF on several caches before.

I also got a NA on a cache because some newbies apparently don't read the cache page and/or blindly followed navigation directions. The cache was along a road by the entrance to a scout camo and made it clear you didn't need to go into the camp. There was parking on the road shoulder. Someone drove into the camp anyway and got talked to by a staff member who didn't know about the cache. They were told to scram. Correct use of the NA log IF they had been at the right place, but they weren't.

6.1k · February 13, 2016

Guidelines state that posting a NA log requires a visit to the cache, so will probably just contact the reviewer directly.

News to me.

And me too. On a couple of occasions when scouting for a holiday trip I've seen caches which have had several NMs logged and no action taken, so I've posted an NA which will usually get it temp disabled by the reviewer immediately and then archived if the CO still doesn't fix it.

2.4k · February 13, 2016

I believe one was 50' off under trees and archived due to one finders opinion on the location.

I have not looked at and am not commenting on a specific cache. I want to address this.

A cache is NEVER archived due to one finder's opinion. It's archived due to one finder posting an NA, perhaps, but the reviewer's opinion also comes into play. If the reviewer thought the NA was unwarranted, the cache would not be archived.

You (and the OP) seem to post as if archives automatically follow NA logs. They don't. There's a human (and sometimes a dog) who consciously does the archiving. Thus more than one person - one being very experienced - have the opinion that the cache needed archiving.

7.5k · February 13, 2016

A cache is NEVER archived due to one finder's opinion. It's archived due to one finder posting an NA, perhaps, but the reviewer's opinion also comes into play. If the reviewer thought the NA was unwarranted, the cache would not be archived.

And don't forget that, in addition, the CO is also free to explain why the NA is not warranted.

19k · February 13, 2016

The posted coordinates for GC4NKTQ are almost 300 feet from the cache. If the CO does not update those coordinates after several requests (and he has received many), then a NA is probably appropriate, as it would indicate that the CO either cannot or does not want to maintain the listing.

If the coordinates posted in a recent log are correct, then the cache would appear to be on the river side of the bike trail, and NOT on one of the islands in the parking lot. I'm amazed that anybody has found it!

February 13, 2016

I got a NA on a cache. At the time I looked at it as receiving a letter about my dog craping on the neighbors lawn with a CC to a lawyer with no previous attempts to rectify the situation. The NA was appropriate, but it still made me mad because I just don't do business that way.

Well, you should do business that way. The NA is a perfectly natural way for someone to point out to the reviewer that the cache needs to be archived. In your case, you agreed it deserved to be archived, so I can't imagine why it made you feel bad. If, in another case, you disagree that there's a problem with the cache, then you simply explain why in an OM, presenting your position in a way that shows you've seriously considered what the person posting the NA was saying.

Worse case, the NA is posted in a nasty way and perhaps is even obviously invalid or self serving, but don't waste time worrying about that. If the NA is justified, there's no reason to care how badly someone expressed it, and if the NA isn't justified, just answer politely. I've never run into any case where it helps to react to nasty by being nasty.

It would seem that you overlooked my next sentence that stated that I was over it and have grown a thicker skin.

Here is an example where I could have logged a NA but didn't. I noticed a new cache placed near some sensitive assets for a company that I am one of the board of directors. I loaded it up and went for a search, not with the intent to actually find it but to look for potential problems with seekers going places the company would rather they didn't. The cache was not on company property but after visiting with the manager and describing where it was he had some security concerns and asked if I could do anything to get it moved or archived. I fired off an email to the CO explaining the situation. She was a little disappointed but disabled the cache immediately after receiving the email, and was willing to change up her hide to the managers satisfaction. Everyone is happy now. I was ready to log a NA had the email gone ignored but didn't need to. I understand that this is much different than a neglected cache. I would much rather try to solve problems without getting a third party involved, and will continue to do so if at all possible.

February 13, 2016

I believe one was 50' off under trees and archived due to one finders opinion on the location.

I have not looked at and am not commenting on a specific cache. I want to address this.

A cache is NEVER archived due to one finder's opinion. It's archived due to one finder posting an NA, perhaps, but the reviewer's opinion also comes into play. If the reviewer thought the NA was unwarranted, the cache would not be archived.

You (and the OP) seem to post as if archives automatically follow NA logs. They don't. There's a human (and sometimes a dog) who consciously does the archiving. Thus more than one person - one being very experienced - have the opinion that the cache needed archiving.

I understand that. In the particular cache I was referring to, the CO archived it maybe out of frustration? I don't know.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Coldnosed

February 13, 2016

It's not used at all around here. Stacks of DNFs, leads to the cage just getting ignored. It gets several of those and then nobody bothers looking anymore. Which is fine, but those who couldn't find it after several other, I feel should get the attention of the reviewer...provided no owner maintence has happened in over a year etc.

February 13, 2016

I accidentally did this for a solid two days when I first discovered the app. I would put NA when the log was wet thinking it would just notify the owner. Now I look back and shutter. I didn't know any better but I don't think that should call any reason to hate newbies.

Needs Archived

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

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

Link to comment