Are you reluctant to post Needs Archived?

[4wheelin_fool]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

[+AutisticMajor]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

 

I only log a NM if I fail to find it twice. I've yet to post a NA, since most caches in my area are well maintained.

[+J Grouchy]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

 

I only log a NM if I fail to find it twice. I've yet to post a NA, since most caches in my area are well maintained.

 

I don't equate multiple DNFs with a need for maintenance. Heck...I found one this morning that I had looked for three other times. It was still there and in great shape after six months of nobody finding it. NM, to me, should be reserved for a container that one finds that is in poor condition.

 

Archival is trickier. I've posted a few NA logs, mostly having to do with absentee owners combined with damaged or clearly missing caches (usually based on confirmation by previous finders) and a warning from reviewers.

[+Mudfrog]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

 

I don't mind filing a NM or NA under, what i feel, are the right circumstances. In most cases, a needs archived is always the last resort because i want to give the owner a chance to check on and remedy any perceived problem first.

 

There have been a couple or three caches that i've run across where i was confronted by an irate property owner who said they didn't give permission for placement or want anyone on the property. Those types get an NA to mainly save future finders from potential problems. One newer cache (listed as traditional) that i remember, was placed with no container or logbook of any kind. The cache description stated this. I posted a NA on it because i figured the CO probably kept this info from our reviewer when submitted. Our reviewer archived that cache right away and even emailed to thank me for the heads up on it.

[+wimseyguy]

Are you reluctant to post Needs Archived? or a Needs Maintenance?

 

Nope.

[+L0ne.R]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

 

Sometimes.

 

I once posted an NA and the CO committed geocide about 5 minutes later leaving a angry note on their cache page. Interesting how they did not respond to DNFs and NMs for months, but my NA caused an instant reaction. They also left all of their caches in the wild, i.e. did not pick any of them up.

 

So now, yes I'm a little reluctant to post an NA on an active CO. If I do, I preface my log with "Needs Attention". That seems to irk active cache owners less.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Löne R

[+justintim1999]

I think people simply get frustrated when they do post a "Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived" log and nothing happens. It takes way to long to have a cache archived when it's painfully obvious the owner has abandoned it. Couldn't this process be automated? By automated I mean:

 

If a needs maintenance log is posted on a cache and an owners maintenance logs hasn't been logged in lets say two weeks the cache is flagged and an automated message is sent to the cache owner "reminding" them of the problem which starts the clock ticking. It may be a simple matter of the cache owner not knowing that they need to post an "Owners maintenance Log" to clear the needs maintenance attribute. After a predetermined amount of notifications the cache is automatically disabled. It stays that way for another predetermined amount of time at which point it's archived and the space opens up for another cacher to hide a new cache.

 

At least there will be a list of flagged caches that can be reviewed and monitored periodically. and caches that are not being attended to can be put up for adoption or eliminated to open up new areas for cachers that are still dedicated to geocaching.

 

I think its just fine replacing a log sheet or log book, as is slapping on a piece of duct tape as a quick fix. Replacing a cache is a little trickier. If a cacher notices that a cache has a needs maintenance log attached to it it's a good idea to take the time to check out the logs and see what's going on. Check the cache owners profile, see if they are still active. If not then I think it's ok to replace the cache with something similar if your so inclined. the only reason I replace caches is I can't stand the thought of a new cacher or a child finding there first cache and having it full of water and ruined.

 

as a cache owner I think you should visit your caches at least twice a year regardless of maintenance logs. If there is a problem with one of your caches you should be able to fix it within a week or two.

 

I chuckle when I hear of cachers who have 100, 200, 300 hides or more. I wonder how (or if) they are maintaining all those caches in a timely manor. I don't think people realize the commitment involved in being a cache owner.

 

Couldn't the adoption system be revamped also. Is there an easy way to list and search for caches that can be adopted?

[+ras_oscar]

Needs maintenance is a note from a cacher to a CO to alert them that their cache needs attention. You can't log a NM on a cache unless you've found it. Just because you didn't find it doesn't mean it isn't there. The only log that the reviewer gets is a NA. That is resrved for situations where you have contacted the Co and gotten no response AND there is nothing you can do yourself to keep the piece in play AND the present condition does not permit it to remain. I can and do wipe out wet containers, add or replace log sheets, remove inappropriate swag and otherwise assist the community in keeping the caching experience positive for everybody. The only thing I won't do is replace a damaged container. That's for the CO. I have posted a grand total of 1 NM logs in my caching history. The CO took it offline due to renovations in the area. I put it on my watch list and posted a NM 12 months later.

[+dprovan]

I don't hesitate to post an NM or NA if it's warranted, but I don't do it simply because I think I've detected a rules infraction when I can't see that it causes an actual problem.

[+dprovan]

You can't log a NM on a cache unless you've found it. Just because you didn't find it doesn't mean it isn't there.

There comes a time when no one will look for a cache that's clearly not there. D1/T1 called "Under the Lampskirt" with 6 DNFs by experienced cachers and one person saying, "I found it last year, and it's gone." If, for whatever reason, no one's posted an NM for a cache like that, I won't hesitate to post an NM while saying, "I haven't looked for this, and I don't plan to unless some maintenance is done."

 

The only log that the reviewer gets is a NA. That is resrved for situations where you have contacted the Co and gotten no response AND there is nothing you can do yourself to keep the piece in play AND the present condition does not permit it to remain.

No, sorry, I have to disagree here, too. I use NA as the way of contacting the CO to inform them of a serious problem. I feel no need to contact the CO privately before posting an NA. If I think there's an NA level problem, I want everyone else looking at the log to know about it right away, not after I've waited two weeks for a response from a CO I suspect isn't going to respond, anyway.

 

Now in both these cases, I've presented a clear case to show that there are obviously some situations where your absolutes don't hold up. But having established that, I find those absolutes rarely seem that absolute. Posting an NM means you think it needs maintenance, it doesn't mean this is a terrible cache and the CO is terrible for not maintaining it. Posting an NA means that, in your opinion, this cache is going to need to be archived if nothing is done, it doesn't mean that nothing can be done or that a different opinion based on facts I'm not aware of might prevail.

[+L0ne.R]

You can't log a NM on a cache unless you've found it. Just because you didn't find it doesn't mean it isn't there.

There comes a time when no one will look for a cache that's clearly not there. D1/T1 called "Under the Lampskirt" with 6 DNFs by experienced cachers and one person saying, "I found it last year, and it's gone." If, for whatever reason, no one's posted an NM for a cache like that, I won't hesitate to post an NM while saying, "I haven't looked for this, and I don't plan to unless some maintenance is done."

 

The only log that the reviewer gets is a NA. That is resrved for situations where you have contacted the Co and gotten no response AND there is nothing you can do yourself to keep the piece in play AND the present condition does not permit it to remain.

No, sorry, I have to disagree here, too. I use NA as the way of contacting the CO to inform them of a serious problem. I feel no need to contact the CO privately before posting an NA. If I think there's an NA level problem, I want everyone else looking at the log to know about it right away, not after I've waited two weeks for a response from a CO I suspect isn't going to respond, anyway.

 

Now in both these cases, I've presented a clear case to show that there are obviously some situations where your absolutes don't hold up. But having established that, I find those absolutes rarely seem that absolute. Posting an NM means you think it needs maintenance, it doesn't mean this is a terrible cache and the CO is terrible for not maintaining it. Posting an NA means that, in your opinion, this cache is going to need to be archived if nothing is done, it doesn't mean that nothing can be done or that a different opinion based on facts I'm not aware of might prevail.

 

+1.

 

And with regards to the "AND there is nothing you can do yourself to keep the piece in play", I've have seen all-too-often people keep a cache limping along when it should be put out of its misery.

[+tealeaf]

We log an NM if the cache has been damaged. We see a lot of NMs that should be DNFs. We carry minor repair stuff like log replacements and tape. Our reviewers are very good about dealing with caches with multiple NMs. We only have done NAs when we've been confronted by angry neighbors (even if the cache is not on private property, it's not worth having other cachers hassled). We did get an NA on one of ours that had no logs indicating trouble and the offending cacher has reformed.

[+J Grouchy]

I posted one just today: http://coord.info/GC2DTVF

 

Some work done at GZ, non-responsive owner hasn't logged on in almost two years (and has only logged one cache find) and several previous finds indicating a wet log. If I don't see a response or a find by the end of the month, I'll probably put in a 'Needs Archival' log. What's the point of waiting longer? The owner gets the emails. If he or she still cares he/she will respond or do something about it. If not, it'll just clear the area for others who actually still do care.

[+TriciaG]

I posted one just today: http://coord.info/GC2DTVF

 

Some work done at GZ, non-responsive owner hasn't logged on in almost two years (and has only logged one cache find) and several previous finds indicating a wet log. If I don't see a response or a find by the end of the month, I'll probably put in a 'Needs Archival' log. What's the point of waiting longer? The owner gets the emails. If he or she still cares he/she will respond or do something about it. If not, it'll just clear the area for others who actually still do care.

And, miracle of miracles, the owner just archived it!

[+wmpastor]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

I only log a NM if I fail to find it twice. I've yet to post a NA, since most caches in my area are well maintained.

What?? My toughest hide was recently found by someone on his 4th visit!

[+wmpastor]

I posted one just today: http://coord.info/GC2DTVF

 

Some work done at GZ, non-responsive owner hasn't logged on in almost two years (and has only logged one cache find) and several previous finds indicating a wet log. If I don't see a response or a find by the end of the month, I'll probably put in a 'Needs Archival' log. What's the point of waiting longer? The owner gets the emails. If he or she still cares he/she will respond or do something about it. If not, it'll just clear the area for others who actually still do care.

And, miracle of miracles, the owner just archived it!

Okay, we know you're someone who "actually still does care," so go out there and place your new cache!

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I've been wondering about a cache called Lovely Lily. A bear bit a great big hole out of the side of it, and the owner is obviously gone from the game. The container is still there, and it still has a log book, but how long does a cache get to rot, when you know the owner will never get back to it? Do we wait for the dark gray mold? Do we nudge a local non-cacher to go out and muggle it, so we can post a NA? Do we replace the Igloo, so the bear can come back and get curious again (it seems to have visited the cache twice, already)?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Reluctant? Depends on the situation. I am not the Cache Cop. Minor infractions, I will seldom report. Yeah, I suspect that you drilled that hole in the sign post. Oh, well.

Wet log, coords 95 feet off? Yeah. Needs maintenance. A year later, still the same.

2/1. Obviously missing. Needs maintenance.

6 DNFs on a 1.5/1? NM. 11 DNFs? NA. Replaced 5 months after the archival. Still archived.

Vacation cache with the coords 1.3 miles off? CO says I'm stupid and don't know how to use a GPS. Yeah, right. NM. Got archived because the CO did nothing. (Never good to irk the dolphin!)

I have 36 NMs logged. Mostly wet logs or broken containers. But I do have a few for 'container obviously missing.'

26 NAs. Cache and cache owner obviously missing for a fair while. Behind the no trespassing sign. CO insulted me, so I put NA on all her caches that had eyehooks screwed into trees. (It is not good to annoy the Dolphin!)

More often, I'll just e-mail the reviewer. Saves a lot of angst. "Screwed into the tree right next to the trail." Not good. "Listed as a traditional, but it's a multi." Surprised the reviewer archived that one so quickly. "Obviously long missing, so is the CO with her one hide." Put an NA on an event still listed six months later. Even put NA on an EarthCache where the question was "Which way does the shadow of the tree go?" Doh. That's been changed to "Dig a hole into the landfill in the park, and describe the texture." Really?!? That's the best you can do???

So: Not the cache cop. Minor problems? No problem. Major problems? Yes. I will post something.

[+J Grouchy]

I posted one just today: http://coord.info/GC2DTVF

 

Some work done at GZ, non-responsive owner hasn't logged on in almost two years (and has only logged one cache find) and several previous finds indicating a wet log. If I don't see a response or a find by the end of the month, I'll probably put in a 'Needs Archival' log. What's the point of waiting longer? The owner gets the emails. If he or she still cares he/she will respond or do something about it. If not, it'll just clear the area for others who actually still do care.

And, miracle of miracles, the owner just archived it!

 

I saw that...came through while I was on my way home. Weird. Wonder why none of the other NM and DNF and Note logs didn't get results, but this one did...

 

Hmmm

[AZcachemeister]

I have no qualms about posting either log type if the situation calls for it.

 

I do tend to not post a NM at the first sign of issues, but rather expect the CO to read my log and respond to the situation.

 

If a cache has needed maintenance for six months and the CO has not responded, I won't hesitate to post a NA.

 

In general I see the local cahers following a similar standard.

[Clan Riffster]

Stage 1 is a film can...

That's enough for an NA.

 

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances. What do you say?

Okay, enough humor. Back on topic.

 

I have no problem logging either an NA or an NM, when appropriate. For a needs maintenance, my standard is simply that. The cache is obviously in need of maintenance. For the most part, (for me), this requires that I find the cache. I suppose, if I were hunting an ammo can, and the hint put it in a stump, and there was only one stump within 50 miles, and there was an ammo can shaped depression in the stump innards, that might warrant an NM... Maybe. But I prefer to reserve NMs for caches where I've located the cache, or bits of the cache, so I can attest, with certainty, that maintenance is needed. A DNF, or even several DNFs, absent any other evidence, is not enough, for me. For an NA, presuming it's not a cache in egregious violation of the guidelines, there are three things I look for. First, the cache is in significant disarray. Something requiring more than I can fix with supplies on hand. Second, the owner is absent, or not responding to reported issues. Third, the community is unwilling or unable to keep it alive. A cache which fits all three criteria will get an NA every time.

 

Edit to add: In my opinion, neither log should be posted from the comfort of the proverbial armchair. If you are too lazy to actually visit ground zero, and make a first hand account of your personal observations, save the NAs and NMs for those who are willing to make the journey.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Clan Riffster

[Clan Riffster]

I posted one just today: http://coord.info/GC2DTVF.

Loved the archival note from the owner.

digitalsleep

Archive07/09/2013

Renovations/Landscaping in the area removed it. they probably thought it was trash due to film canister container.

I would say the landscapers were right.

[+The A-Team]

I'm not at all reluctant, but it seems most other cachers in my area are, so it tends to be just a few of us that routinely submit NAs. That reminds me, I need to refresh my GSAK database, look for possible problem caches, and see if they need a check or NA. Thanks for the reminder!

[+suchanana]

my logs present an account of what i experienced, my adventure getting to the cache, at the cache site, including any minor cache maintenance that i could do to help, or even what i could not find somedays because these old eyes let me down at times...

 

the language in my log is as tactful as possible... okay, well, except for that one time recently and that issued quickly was resolved...if it's a delicate, possibly embarrassing situation, i'll note that i'm going to email the CO, then put it on my watchlist...reluctant, naw, that's the easy way out...

most situations i find do get resolved without the NM or NA and in our area, i can count on a few other cachers to follow thru with any needed archival duties...

[+briansnat]

Yes I'm often hesitant to post NMs and NAs because I know many cache owners take it as a personal affront. It's like calling their baby ugly. I think that if they are that sensitive then perhaps cache ownership is not for them, but there are a lot of them out there.

[+Don_J]

Needs maintenance is a note from a cacher to a CO to alert them that their cache needs attention. You can't log a NM on a cache unless you've found it.

 

A NM log also starts the process of getting a cache archived if it is obviously missing and the CO is ignoring the fact. If the cache description says that the cache is under the lamp post skirt, it has 120 found logs in a row followed by 10 DNFs, it doesn't take an advanced degree to deduce that it needs maintenance. If a NM is posted and the CO also ignores that, then a NA becomes warranted.

 

To say that one can never post a NM unless they have found the cache means that the process may never get started.

[+6NoisyHikers]

We will post a NM log if we find a cache and it needs more maintenance than we can do in the field (and we can do quite a bit). Sometimes these things happen and the CO visits the cache and fixes it. Sometimes these things happen and the CO does not visit the cache and fix it. In this case, a history of valid NM logs provide some proof for a reviewer when someone eventually posts a Needs Archived log. So no, we aren't reluctant to post NM logs.

 

Needs Archived logs are a different matter. In our short time caching, we've only posted one NA - for a cache that was heavily damaged and the CO was a one-weekend-wonder who hadn't cached in over two years. The one major guideline issue we came across we were able to resolve with a friendly email to the eager new cacher.

 

But we would rather not NA. First, we would rather keep caches in play - even if it means providing fresh containers or gear. If the CO is active, let's work together to make it right. If the CO is not active but the cache has history and a good reputation, I don't want to be the one to kill it off.

 

Second, we don't want to be, or be seen as, the bad guys. We have found our fair share of caches with "minor" guideline infractions that have been logged and favourited by heavyweight cachers in our area. If the cache has been out for more than six months without report, I'll keep my mouth shut. Pick your battles, I guess.

 

***Please note that if we ever found a cache that outright violated guidelines in a way that was going to get our fellow cachers in immediate trouble, we would post an NA and send a detailed email to our reviewer right away!***

[+Don_J]

 

Edit to add: In my opinion, neither log should be posted from the comfort of the proverbial armchair. If you are too lazy to actually visit ground zero, and make a first hand account of your personal observations, save the NAs and NMs for those who are willing to make the journey.

 

Cache was hidden on the roof of an abandoned shack in the mountains. 10 DNF logs in a row over 4 months saying that the shack had been bulldozed. No response from the CO and no one wants to drop the hammer so I post a NA from the comfort of my home, <GASP>. The reviewer archives it an hour later.

 

I see four found it logs in a row saying that the adjacent property owner is upset and doesn't like people snooping around and wants the cache gone. The CO moved out of state and quit caching years ago. I post a NA from the comfort of my home. The reviewer archives it the next day and sends me an email thanking me.

 

I never visited either location but if it is so painfully obvious that the past loggers should have used an NA log but for some reason won't, I will. In each case, all I did was draw the reviewer's attention to information that was already available. We have three reviewers that oversee around 50,000 caches. They rely on information from us when there is a problem that is not being addressed by a cache owner. In many cases, I do not need to see the problem first hand to know that it exists.

 

This is one of the reasons why I think that Groundspeak should have changed the wording from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", long ago. When I post a NA log it is because I want to bring a situation to the attention of the reviewer. The reviewer can then use his/her own judgement as it if the cache actually needs to be archived.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Don_J

[+-CJ-]

From what I've seen I can conclude that NM and (especially) NA logs most probably make COs disappointed if the author of such log didn't do anything to help/solve the problem when he actually was able to do this. If I find a cache in trouble and able to do some maintenance myself I'll do it. (I'll do my best for geocaches far from civilization). If this solves the problem - no NM log. If not, I will log NM in case the cache really needs urgent assistance. No NA logs.

[+OZ2CPU]

you can as a finder offer to help, by adding more dry paper, or change a logbook, or add tape, or change a broken container

but ask the CO first, they normally get happy for help.

A CO is offcourse the one responsible for a cache and its condition, but you can be a nice player too..

 

you need to find the cache, before you know about its condition,

only then you can make a NM log and say what you think need service.

 

if you did not find the cache, you should repport it via a DNF log

say how deep you searched for how long and maybe even how many people in your group performed the search,

this dont mean the cache is gone, not at all, it just say you did not find it, it was not where you looked,

a good CO will check the cache, fix it, move it, or change D/T or hint, to make it as he like it to be.

 

if the area or position is offlimits due to rules broken, permission missing,

perform NA and say the problem, dont use personal or words easy to misunderstand, short and clear.

if you feel unsure about the NA log, or dont like to (maybe) upset the CO, inform a reviewer in silence, remember to have picture documentation if needed.

[+L0ne.R]

you can as a finder offer to help, by adding more dry paper, or change a logbook, or add tape, or change a broken container

 

If the container is a leaky container from the start (margarine tub, gladware, tin candy box, plastic take-out food container, dollar store container) there's no way I'm helping prolong the life of that cache. The CO needs to learn what works and what does not. I'm going to post an NM. However, if the container is a good quality container and it ran into a spot of trouble, e.g. an authentic Lock & Lock™ but the bubble liquid swag that someone left, leaked out - I'll clean up the mess and report it in my log.

[+humboldt flier]

I have no problem with posting a "Needs MX log"

 

I do, however, tread cautiously in the "Needs Archived Arena" ... usually fire off 2-3 NM notes before dropping the hammer.

 

If there is something flagrant going on I will drop the hammer in an instant.

 

Last week I stumbled upon a cache where property ownership had changed and the new owners were not amenable to having folks on their property.

 

Dropped the hammer and the CO archived post haste.

 

As with much of life things are situationally dependent.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Yes I'm often hesitant to post NMs and NAs because I know many cache owners take it as a personal affront. It's like calling their baby ugly. I think that if they are that sensitive then perhaps cache ownership is not for them, but there are a lot of them out there.

 

That is why I contact the reviewer with the details (and pics if necessary), and then they contact the CO. Much less angst that way.

[+Chief301]

Depends on the owner. We have a couple in my area who are notorious in their lack of maintenance, missing hides, ignoring NM logs and even emails. Their hides are usually pretty lame, too. And they have LOTS of them. I'll post a NM log if appropriate, then watch it a couple of weeks to see if there's been any response. If not, I'll post the NA....I mean, if the owner doesn't care about their own cache, why should I?

 

I did maintenance a while back on a cache that was full of water, crappy margarine tub for a container. I had a spare Lock n Lock with me so I dried out all the swag, swapped out the container and put in a new log sheet. After I got home and looked at the cache page to log it, I realized the owner had disappeared about 3 years ago after finding around 10 caches and hiding 6, most of which had already been archived. Emailed the CO to let him know what I'd done amd see if he wanted his old container and soaked logsheet back, never got a reply. That cache should have really been let die. I'm more particular now about how much effort I'll put into supporting an obvious orphan cache, and much quicker to post a NA if appropriate.

 

I look at it like this....an NA log isn't an automatic death sentence for a cache....it just gets a reviewer involved. That reviewer will give fair warning to the owner that they need to maintain their cache. The ball is in the CO's court at that point....if they don't care enough to respond, well, good riddance. Free up the spot for someone else.

[Clan Riffster]

 

Edit to add: In my opinion, neither log should be posted from the comfort of the proverbial armchair. If you are too lazy to actually visit ground zero, and make a first hand account of your personal observations, save the NAs and NMs for those who are willing to make the journey.

 

Cache was hidden on the roof of an abandoned shack in the mountains. 10 DNF logs in a row over 4 months saying that the shack had been bulldozed. No response from the CO and no one wants to drop the hammer so I post a NA from the comfort of my home, <GASP>. The reviewer archives it an hour later.

 

I see four found it logs in a row saying that the adjacent property owner is upset and doesn't like people snooping around and wants the cache gone. The CO moved out of state and quit caching years ago. I post a NA from the comfort of my home. The reviewer archives it the next day and sends me an email thanking me.

 

I never visited either location but if it is so painfully obvious that the past loggers should have used an NA log but for some reason won't, I will. In each case, all I did was draw the reviewer's attention to information that was already available. We have three reviewers that oversee around 50,000 caches. They rely on information from us when there is a problem that is not being addressed by a cache owner. In many cases, I do not need to see the problem first hand to know that it exists.

 

This is one of the reasons why I think that Groundspeak should have changed the wording from "Needs Archived" to "Needs Reviewer Attention", long ago. When I post a NA log it is because I want to bring a situation to the attention of the reviewer. The reviewer can then use his/her own judgement as it if the cache actually needs to be archived.

If that works for you, then all is good. I have also seen logs on far away caches that indicate a significant problem, which is being ignored by the owner. My typical response is to shoot an email to the local Reviewer, letting them know what I spotted. I haven't had this fail yet.

 

But for me, posting an NA requires an actual visit.

 

The mileage of others is a variable.

[+Scratch Ankle]

I recently posted an NA on a cache I had contacted the CO about directly. Based on spoiler pictures I was pretty sure what and where the cache was but since someone had posted a found it after my DNF I wasn't positive so I contacted the CO -- if I'm right it's missing, if I'm wrong please let me know. I never heard from him. My nephew had gotten some interest in the game so I used this page to show the hints evil people like me give. This was a reflector attached by magnet to a guardrail quite a ways from the road by the creek and one finder's log mentioned the reflection of the trees in the water -- a hint but you don't know it is until you find the cache. In showing him these posts I noticed one with a couple of links to UTube videos showing the finding and retrieval of the cache which removed all doubts. After 7 weeks and confirming the cache was still missing I posted the NA.

 

CO almost immediately archived with a terse note, "gone". Later looking at my map I noticed that there were a lot fewer caches showing. The CO was a very prolific hider and he apparently archived everything. I had found a couple of his caches and they were in good shape. One in particular I liked was a fishing hole I used to frequent but had not been to in several years. Several of the caches were guard rails along the highway but not all of them and I hate to have lost them all. However, under the circumstances I would do so again but hope for a better response from the CO.

[+dprovan]

That is why I contact the reviewer with the details (and pics if necessary), and then they contact the CO. Much less angst that way.

Unfortunately, while you're quietly discussing the problems with a third party behind the scenes, I'm wasting my time going to the cache and discovering the problems all over again.

 

I'd rather we help all COs see informative NMs and NAs as a useful means of communications, not as indictments. It drives me crazy that so many people think that the possibility of angst is a good reason to hush up real problems.

[+J Grouchy]

But for me, posting an NA requires an actual visit.

 

 

Which is sort of ironic since, according to you, a DNF does NOT require an actual visit.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

That is why I contact the reviewer with the details (and pics if necessary), and then they contact the CO. Much less angst that way.

Unfortunately, while you're quietly discussing the problems with a third party behind the scenes, I'm wasting my time going to the cache and discovering the problems all over again.

 

I'd rather we help all COs see informative NMs and NAs as a useful means of communications, not as indictments. It drives me crazy that so many people think that the possibility of angst is a good reason to hush up real problems.

 

Furtunately, our local review is very quick to respond to these types of emails. So, iunstead of a NA log being ignored by the CO, our reviewer will likely have the cache archived within hours.

Edited July 10, 2013 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+SwineFlew]

Nope, I dont log them anymore. Just on events that is over 3 months pasted.

 

We got to many CO that take things WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too personal. I gave up trying to be helpful to the community as a whole.

 

I believe we can make the game more enjoyable by being part of the geocaching community, but no, we got too many CO that always turn an ugly head on every little thing.

[+TriciaG]

CO almost immediately archived with a terse note, "gone". Later looking at my map I noticed that there were a lot fewer caches showing. The CO was a very prolific hider and he apparently archived everything. I had found a couple of his caches and they were in good shape. One in particular I liked was a fishing hole I used to frequent but had not been to in several years. Several of the caches were guard rails along the highway but not all of them and I hate to have lost them all. However, under the circumstances I would do so again but hope for a better response from the CO.

Well, now YOU could put a cache at the fishing hole!

 

What's the great fear (in general; not directed at the quoted poster) about riling a CO? So they get mad at you. What are the negative ramifications? I suppose they could delete your find logs on their caches, but are numbers that important that that's a big problem?

[+dprovan]

Furtunately, our local review is very quick to respond to these types of emails. So, iunstead of a NA log being ignored by the CO, our reviewer will likely have the cache archived within hours.

But that's still hours delayed simply because you aren't willing to go public with your observation. Basically, you're hiding behind the reviewer's skirt.

[+dprovan]

What's the great fear (in general; not directed at the quoted poster) about riling a CO?

While I agree that the unjustified fear of repercussions is a problem, I'm even more worried about the fact that people are thinking that a CO becoming riled up over an NM or NA is acceptable and normal.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Furtunately, our local review is very quick to respond to these types of emails. So, iunstead of a NA log being ignored by the CO, our reviewer will likely have the cache archived within hours.

But that's still hours delayed simply because you aren't willing to go public with your observation. Basically, you're hiding behind the reviewer's skirt.

 

That may be. But my reviewer is a whole lot more diplomatic than I am.

[Clan Riffster]

But for me, posting an NA requires an actual visit.

 

 

Which is sort of ironic since, according to you, a DNF does NOT require an actual visit.

[team tisri]

Some people will never log a NA or a NM, under any circumstances.

 

Stage 1 is a film can set into a hole drilled into someones roadside mailbox post without permission. Stage 2 is behind a posted sign, and you encounter a naked disheveled wild man who chases you off the property with a shotgun. The final is a piece of Velcro that people have been logging finds off of since 2004.

 

Are people generally reluctant to use these log types in your area? Do you encounter many damaged caches as a result? Is it considered bad form to not fix someone's cache with a fresh logsheet if it needs it? What do you say?

 

If it's apparently an easy cache, I can't find it and many people before me couldn't find it I may post NM just to ask the CO to check it's still there and alert other cachers to the fact it may be missing.

 

If it's obviously not there (e.g. a spoiler is provided so I can be sure it's not there) I'll log NM. If no action follows within a few weeks I may log NA.

 

If I see a lot of DNFs or NMs on a cache where the cache owner clearly isn't active any more I'll sometimes log NA. That's less common.

 

I used to be a lot more reserved about logging them but figure NM is nothing more than a note to the owner to say there may be a problem with the cache, and NA is just a way of reporting caches that aren't being maintained.

[+Scratch Ankle]

 

What's the great fear (in general; not directed at the quoted poster) about riling a CO? So they get mad at you. What are the negative ramifications? I suppose they could delete your find logs on their caches, but are numbers that important that that's a big problem?

 

Some of this may be a result of not wanting to post an NA or NM on a cache owner that you may run into at the grocery store. This may not be an issue in Chicago but where I live it is a real likelihood whether you know it or not. One cache I've looked at has been temporarily disabled by a reviewer. The CO apparently isn't active and I just found out that I know him. I actually talk to him weekly as we are ham operators but I wouldn't bring it up on the air especially since he has been notified that the cache is missing. I don't actually see him face to face very often (lives in another town) but I will mention it to him when I do.

[+CGarv]

I only post a needs maintenance if the cache is obviously not there (LPC, gaurdrail, or base of a sign) or in awful condition. I post a Needs Archive if the CO has not come online/ found a cache in over 3 months (but usually 6 months) and the cache they own has been MIA for while.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well sometimes the Needs Archived notes have no effect anyhow. On this cache the cords are intentionally 60 feet off. After the owner confirmed it, I posted a very nice Needs Archived note. Not that I think it should be archived, but rather because it needs Reviewer attention, such as disablement until the coords are fixed. There is nothing like visiting a location a few times because someone wants to make it intentionally more difficult in a stupid way. I suppose if everyone posted their DNFs, it would be more obvious.

[+6NoisyHikers]

Yes! Reviewer Attention! We've discussed this in the past. Sometimes what we're asking is for someone official to take a look and possibly take action. We don't want to archive a cache, but something more needs to be done.

 

I've just posted our second NA five minutes ago on a cache that is definitely missing (we have found and checked on this cache several times). There hasn't been any response from the CO since the first DNFs started in March - which is the last time he logged in to th site. In our NA log, we asked the reviewer to please disable it until it can be sorted out.