PROPOSAL: One more selection for logging

[+Captain Morgan]

Current selections:

 

 

One more should be added:

 

"Needs to be disabled temporarily."

 

I think it would be very useful in many situations.

 

[This message was edited by Captain_Morgan&Family on October 18, 2003 at 04:07 PM.]

[+Prime Suspect]

"Archive" already indicates that there's a problem with a cache. Whether or not it should be temporarily disabled or archived is the cache owner's call, not a logger.

 

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

[+Marky]

Obviously, you meant "Needs Disabled".

 

--Marky

...Be nice to your fellow geocachers, they might be Hemlock...

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Other wordage...'Needs Attention' or 'Needs Maintenance' & then if the owners do not respond, 'Owners Need Maintenance'

 

~Shirley~ of 2oldfarts

 

*******************************************************

It's hard to remember that your primary objective is to drain the swamp, when you're up to your a$$ in alligators.

[+Captain Morgan]

Well, yes, i meant "Need disabled". It's complitely different than "Needs archived". I think "Archive" indicates that something has totally changed and the cache can't be there anymore for some reason.

[+yumitori]

I agree with Captain Morgan on this. There's any number of times we've run into caches that needed attention, but didn't need to be archived. A unique type of note could be valuable.

 

Now, whether or not the owner will pay more attention to a special note rather than a standard one or a comment in a found log...

 

Ron/yumitori

 

---

 

Remember what the dormouse said...

[+The Cheeseheads]

Hopefully the cache owner reads the "Someone found your cache!" emails they get. If I come upon something like a wet logbook or cracked container, I write that into my log. If the owner doesn't respond to that, and possible several other people logging the same way, why would they respond to something like this?

 

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it might not have the usefulness you'd expect it to.

 

- - - - -

Have any finds in Wisconsin? Keep track of them here!

[+Stump]

If the owner doesn't respond to that, and possible several other people logging the same way, why would they respond to something like this?

They would if the Needs Maintenance log ends up in an approvers queue. If they don't do maintenance the cache becomes temporarily disabled. And if they still don't maintain it after a few months it could be permanently archived and a more responsible cacher could place a cache there or take over the current one.

 

I think this type of log is definitely needed.

[+Wander Lost]

I like this idea because it is a little less harsh than a Should be Archived note. I'd be hesitant to use that log type if it only needed a new log book. But a 'Needs Maintenance' is a good alternative. If the owners aren't active any longer then maybe the next person hunting the cache will take a cache rescue kit with them if they saw that kind of note.

[CoyoteRed]

Okay, so you log a find and make seperate log for needs attention? I don't think we need another log to be pushing logs off the 5 log limit in the PQ's or adding to an owner's mailbox.

 

I think putting your concerns in with your log is sufficient. The owner is going to get the log regardless.

 

If anything, a checkbox that will change the notification subject to something different which will alert the owner to it--maybe adding "NEEDS ATTENTION!!!"

[+Gavotteers]

Why not just e-mail the cache owner and tell them direct

 

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Why not just e-mail the cache owner and tell them direct

 

A simple step that gets overlooked too often

[+Divine]

Why not just e-mail the cache owner and tell them direct

 

     

A simple step that gets overlooked too often

I usually tell it already in my find log, if the cache needs maintenance, and also tell what I feel is wrong with it. That should be enough for the owner to take action. If (s)he doesn't react to that, will (s)he react to a separate email? That way also the next hunters can prepare when they come for the cache in question.

 

For example, if I tell in my find log that there's no pen(cil) in the cache, and mine didn't fit in, the next ones can bring a small one when they're coming. I've seen it happen couple of times.

[+ironman114]

I found a cache once that had been replaced because the original was missing. I also found the original cache. It was stuck to the same light pole. It was also wet.

 

I logged online that there were two caches there now and the original was wet.

 

Reading the previous logs I noticed three weeks earlier, someone found both caches also on the day after the replacement was put in. He also mentioned the original was wet. So I sent an e-mail to the owner also. That got their attention and they replied that they would go pick it up.

 

No use letting a good cache container just sit there!

[Jeremy]

I like the "needs attention" log.

 

I've been giving more thought to the attributes addition to the cache details page. One though is to add a "need attention" attribute that gets attached whenever a log like this (or "needs archived") exists for a cache. The owner can go back online and remove that flag whenever they want, but it gets raised anyway.

 

We do want to keep the number of log types low, so we don't get too log happy.

[+Mastifflover]

Instead of a seperate log could we just have a check box like the add a waypoint checkbox? If you check the "needs attention" box something could be attached to the log itself.

[Jeremy]

If you check the "needs attention" box something could be attached to the log itself.

I hesitate adding additional checkboxes to the log type, since the same log features are also used for travel bugs and other cache types that may not have use of that checkbox. Having another log that enhances the need to visit the cache seems to be the intent here. If you want a checkbox, you might as well enter it in the text of the log (since the owner receives that info anyway).

[+shunra]

I agree - the current choices are sufficient, we don't need more, and information can be added inside the logs. If the owner doesn't read the logs, 'Needs Archived' is appropriate.

 

Also, I would like to reduce, rather than encourage and increase, the number of 'temporarily disabled' caches. They're just clutter on my list of nearest caches, IMO.

[Jeremy]

Well, in defense, a "needs attention" attribute wouldn't disable the cache. It is just a notification to the cache owner that the container/contents/etc needs some tender loving care.

[AJK]

I would also vote for a Needs Attention flag - I found the First Mass cache a while back - it needed (needs?) a new stash note. I put in caps in my log it would be great if the next finders would take a note up there (shame to lose the first cache in MA), but no one has noted that they have done this.

 

IMO, the Needs Attention flag would also add a red bullet point to the top of the cache description, similar to the archive/disabled bullets. e.g:

• Note: This cache needs some attention. Please see the the logs below to see if you can help.
  

 

This flag could be cleared by admin or the cache owner.

[+Green Gables]

I recently noticed that a cache I had previously found was down for a week or so awaiting maintenance. Had I known, I could have easily gone out to fix up the cache, as it is located just a couple of blocks from my home. I suspect that there's a vast army of would-be cache maintainers that would be pleased to help out if only they were made aware of the need.

 

It would be great if there an unobtrusive way to show nearby caches that need maintenance. A solution could be as something like using a Needs Attention attribute to force the cache to be displayed in query results where Filter Finds would have otherwise eliminated it. Perhaps the use of color or a first-aid icon would serve to explain it's unexpected appearance in the query results.