Does "Needs Maintenance" also register as "Found It".

[hentilagget]

As a newcomer to geocaching, I'm just finding my way round. I'm ok with logging "Found It", but the other day I had to log a "Needs Maintenance", and it didn't seem to register as a find. Do I need to then log it again as a "Found It " ?

[+cerberus1]

As a newcomer to geocaching, I'm just finding my way round. I'm ok with logging "Found It", but the other day I had to log a "Needs Maintenance", and it didn't seem to register as a find. Do I need to then log it again as a "Found It " ?

Yes.

[+Bear and Ragged]

As a newcomer to geocaching, I'm just finding my way round. I'm ok with logging "Found It", but the other day I had to log a "Needs Maintenance", and it didn't seem to register as a find. Do I need to then log it again as a "Found It " ?

 

Had you Found the cache previously, and re-visit -to drop off or retrieve a TB, or show a friend what 'caching' is about, this visit would be logged with a Note to avoid another Found It on a cache you've already Found.

If you added a Needs Maintenance on this additional visit, do you really want it to count as another Found IT on your find count?

 

Two logs, two separate actions.

[+Chief301]

Two separate logs....one for the find and one for the Needs Maintenance.

[Pup Patrol]

As a newcomer to geocaching, I'm just finding my way round. I'm ok with logging "Found It", but the other day I had to log a "Needs Maintenance", and it didn't seem to register as a find. Do I need to then log it again as a "Found It " ?

 

They are two different "actions", so you need to post each as appropriate to the situation. A "needs maintenance" does not count as a "found it" or "did not find".

 

The different log types are explained here:

 

Help Center → Finding a Geocache → Logging a Geocache

 

4.2. What log type should I use?

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=534

 

 

B.

[hentilagget]

Thanks everyone. The link from Pup Patrol was especially helpful.

[+J Grouchy]

What would you folks think about a check box or some method of flagging the log with a "needs maintenance" attribute?

Would it be more or less confusing for people that way?

Edited August 28, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+Panther&Pine]

What would you folks think about a check box or some method of flagging the log with a "needs maintenance" attribute?

Would it be more or less confusing for people that way?

People love ticky boxes too much.

[+J Grouchy]

What would you folks think about a check box or some method of flagging the log with a "needs maintenance" attribute?

Would it be more or less confusing for people that way?

People love ticky boxes too much.

 

That's a non-answer.

[+Panther&Pine]

What would you folks think about a check box or some method of flagging the log with a "needs maintenance" attribute?

Would it be more or less confusing for people that way?

People love ticky boxes too much.

 

That's a non-answer.

Translation, no because people will tick boxes just to tick boxes.

[+The Leprechauns]

What would you folks think about a check box or some method of flagging the log with a "needs maintenance" attribute?

Would it be more or less confusing for people that way?

As a cache owner, I think that would be a step backwards unless the log notification in my email somehow highlighted the fact that the box had been ticked. Today, I scan my email and I will definitely open and read any "Needs Maintenance" log on one of my caches. But if there is a long list of "found it" logs in my email, I might only glance at the preview or the subject line to see who found it. If Speedcacher420 always writes TFTC logs, I won't open the notification email announcing his find, so I could miss a maintenance comment.

 

Also, the separate log hopefully forces the writer to describe exactly what the problem is, in greater detail than they would in a "found it" log plus a maintenance checkbox.

[+NanCycle]

What would you folks think about a check box or some method of flagging the log with a "needs maintenance" attribute?

Would it be more or less confusing for people that way?

As a cache owner, I think that would be a step backwards unless the log notification in my email somehow highlighted the fact that the box had been ticked. Today, I scan my email and I will definitely open and read any "Needs Maintenance" log on one of my caches. But if there is a long list of "found it" logs in my email, I might only glance at the preview or the subject line to see who found it. If Speedcacher420 always writes TFTC logs, I won't open the notification email announcing his find, so I could miss a maintenance comment.

 

Also, the separate log hopefully forces the writer to describe exactly what the problem is, in greater detail than they would in a "found it" log plus a maintenance checkbox.

 

This reflects my opinion and my practice perfectly.

[+dprovan]

What would you folks think about a check box or some method of flagging the log with a "needs maintenance" attribute?

Would it be more or less confusing for people that way?

"Needs Maintenance" is more than a boolean state. If someone files a Needs Maintenance log, they should be forced into a position of explaining what about the cache needs maintenance independently from the experience with the cache they wrote about in the Found log. There's already too much of a tendency to mumble in the Found log something vague about a problem and then post an NM that says, "See found log."

 

In short, I'd be against it. I guess you could say it would be more confusing, in that it would fool even more people into thinking all they have to do is say that a cache needs maintenance and leave it up to the CO to figure out why.

[+briansnat]

There are instances where a cache may need maintenance and you can't log a Found It. For instance a security guard confronts you and announces that the cache was confiscated, or the cache was hidden in a tree that was recently cut down, or a flood obviously washed it away. There are many instances where a needs maintenance might be required and a Found It is not the appropriate log.

[duckmalone]

no, i have found a cache and it was only the top of the cache, so i did not find it but i posted a NM log