WearyTraveler

20 caches that take more than an hour? Ouch... I'd think at least a D3. Consider higher? Because any cache with an hour's hike would probably have at least a D3 or a T3... likely higher. Yours would be a great long term caching goal.

Did you search for it? If you searched and Did Not Find it, how is it not "legitimate"? Where in the definition of Did Not Find does it say "only if the cache really is there?" I don't understand why anyone would ever delete a log entry. If you posted a NM and the CO visited the cache and confirmed it was there, do you delete your NM? What rationale are you considering that when you searched and Did Not Find the cache that you really didn't search? You searched and didn't find it. That's your log entry. I'd say 1/2 of my DNF logs are for cache that were missing - but I searched and DNFed and that is both part of the history of the cache and my caching chronology. The history of DNFs is probably something a reviewer will look at if an NA is subsequently logged on the cache, so from that perspective deleting them or changing them to notes is bad. I don't remove dnf logs until after it's been replaced or archived. If it's still in play, they stay. They just come off my watch list...

+1 When I read rants about PT's or other 'boring' caches that are placed in the middle of the desert, I wonder "how many non-boring caches are really being displaced?". Would anyone else have placed 'better' caches along the ET Highway or along the dusty farm roads where many PT's currently exist in the US? Very good point. It's probably true that most of these run of the mill PTs aren't really stopping anyone from placing "neat" caches. To me, the better caches are not near guardrails or stop signs. Hafta get a little further out.., I know - there are some neat PTs through trails etc... those aren't the ones I'm referring to.

Just judging from a few Archived ones in your area, I don't get the impression that it's the change in the requirements so much, as a lack of will to submit them. A lack of will? What the heck does that mean? No one's interested in them any more because there are so few options and no room for innovation. It's not a lack of will, it's just a lack of point. Anyway, to answer the OP's question, there have been a few published in my area, but certainly not enough for anyone to worry about giving them their own type or icon or anything. So the "problem" of them being confused with puzzle caches has been neatly solved by making their population insignificant. I hope you were just exaggerating for effect when you said "No one's" interested in challenges anymore, because there have been several new ones in this area since the changes. And plenty of newer cachers are still having fun working toward the old calendar, counties, Fizzy, Jasmer, DeLorme etc. challenges. Not everyone needs to have "50 shades of challenges" to enjoy this side game. TPTB just can't please everyone. You have a point when you say there is less room for innovation, but those days are gone and we have to move on. I'm hoping it won't take long before some of the more imaginative among us come up with new ides that are within the guidelines. I'm still up in the air about a separate icon - plenty of grandfathered challenges are still around and I'd like to see some differentiation on the map when I look for caches in a new area. The new requirement of having the word "Challenge" in the title almost seems like a first step towards this goal. I, too, used to filter out mystery caches. I'm more interested in going out and caching than agonizing over what a picture is and how to turn it into coords. I'm not talking down to folks that live to do mysteries. I'm just saying that's not for me. I did over 40 years in IT, having to figure out why things didn't work. The old noggin is tired of figuring that stuff out. I'd rather go for some grunt n grope in the woods. However, when I discovered challenges it added a bit more fun to caching for me. Gives me a goal. There's a challenge that requires finding a cache in the 48 CONUS states that kept me up all night thinking about the road trip from hell. Very exciting - I will never do it in one trip but I've since hit KY, TN and NC. I need a few dozen caches in both OH and PA to qualify for another one. Challenge caches expand my goals. They're only one cache, so theyre not a "add to my numbers" thing as much as it goads me into getting out there and exploring further. Don't get me wrong, I do like getting find counts... While I'd love to see challenge caches get their own icon (I want virtuals to come back too - ain't happening) I'm happy with requiring the ? And "challenge" in the name. Allows me to sort n filter.

True - that's a reason I plan to use notes. I can look back and reminisce. I have to discipline myself to add more detail. Currently I'm semi successful in detail for finds and frequently (but not enough) I give a few details about DNFs. I'll blame it on using my iPhone / cachly to log.much more convenient in the field, but typing with 2 thumbs doesn't make for novellas. It's a reason but not an excuse. Also true - I could go back and edit on my laptop. But going back and editing a log is a topic that's been beat to death in another thread!

I'd be more concerned about stepping on glass or rusty metal. I did a cache last month and found a hypodermic needle near GZ. I'm too fat n flat footed to even consider barefoot even without the worry of sharp pointy objects.

A nano on a steam train, I'd probably give that a minute or two before throwing up my arms in disgust..... (if I stopped to look at all) Here's an old train I did exactly that on ... it was on the edge of the car park for a quarry and geology museum I went to for the earthcache, so as I had to walk past I felt obliged to have a look . The hint was 'Magnetic' ... Know what's worse? Hint=magnetic - cache a hide a key under a rock. Hint is accurate. Cache is a pita!

You're being pushed back because you're taunting fisticuffs against an enemy that simply doesn't exist. I agree with all your points. I agree with his points in reply to your comment. I also don't think reviewers should just be disabling caches for things like 'wet log' per your example based on arbitrary searching/browsing. But that hasn't happened. If it does, we can address it. Until then, if a reviewer takes pro-actice action against a cache, let's see how "reasonable" the judgement call is. heh, I always thought it was mainly techies who loved getting into geocaching because of the mix of technology and 'game' type activity as a great reason to enjoy the outdoors First hand, I know many, many people who are technical in nature like me who enjoy caching. But generally speaking I guess 'techie' is a pretty broad term. Just like "I.T." When I started it was only computer techie guys and their families. It's changed since the app. Not so many techie people anymore. I'm sure that's not true. There are likely a lot more techie people, but the percentage of non-techie people is likely much higher than when you started. Keep in mind that geocaching began on Usenet, and although it was in a fairly technical newsgroup (sci.geo.satellite-nav) there was a fair amount of crossposting going on into non-technical groups. Some of the regulars in that group also posted in a group that I frequently read (rec.backcountry). By 2000, Usenet had grown a lot from a bunch of techies to hundreds of non-technical discussion groups. I was a Usenet site administrator in 1985, and even then it was more than a bunch of technical groups. By 2000, Aol, Compuserve, and Prodigy were already very well established and the World Wide Web was 10 years old. In my experience was that techies (network engineers, developers, HW installers etc...) were more interested in online and indoor gaming than outdoor gaming. I worked for AOL 98-08 and RAX 08-12. Spent a lot of time at Goog site in NoVA. Walking through the halls, you'd hear them playing the online games etc... And judging by the number of times I had to explain what caching was (and getting the response), I'm confident that I was the anomaly, at least in that environment. Granted, not scientific proof, just my observation.

Did you search for it? If you searched and Did Not Find it, how is it not "legitimate"? Where in the definition of Did Not Find does it say "only if the cache really is there?" I don't understand why anyone would ever delete a log entry. If you posted a NM and the CO visited the cache and confirmed it was there, do you delete your NM? What rationale are you considering that when you searched and Did Not Find the cache that you really didn't search? You searched and didn't find it. That's your log entry. I'd say 1/2 of my DNF logs are for cache that were missing - but I searched and DNFed and that is both part of the history of the cache and my caching chronology. Thank you for your input.

Please also consider the network variable when implementing graphics (header or other) on the page. I live in rural WV and my cell coverage is spotty as the dickens. Load time for graphics makes pages painful. And my home network is sometimes worse than my cell speed. I rarely follow links on FB as seeing half the page load and waiting on the rest isn't worth it to me... If you're going to put the larger image / header in, please allow for customization. Others may not but I would remove it on my profile,..

Well said, and your example shows that it's possible to ask/remind politely. "Fishing" for points would occur if the finder said nice things in the post but never mentioned FPs, and the CO suggested they award an FP. Here the finder said he/she was going award an FP, but didn't through oversight. I agree - good way to handle it. I've forgotten to add the fp in the past. I predominantly search w cachly on my iPhone and remembering to look for the fp selection is sometimes forgotten. I wouldn't mind a gentle nudge reminding me.

If I'm in a string of DNFs and the CO replaces it, I'm confident that it wasn't there. So it wasn't a legitimate dnf. If in a string of dnfs and the CO posts a "it's there, look harder" I leave the dnf.

No simple answer with a number of minutes I search for from me I'm afraid , I don't arrive at GZ and start a stopwatch or anything ! However, what I quite often find myself writing in DNF logs is "I searched until it stopped being fun." After all,fun is what it's all about, not some grim number chasing. I do post DNFs , and see no shame in them, please don't feel they are a badge of failure, just a step on the way. The line for me between a DNF and a write note is, did I stop at GZ and actively look for the cache at all ? If I was prevented, say by muggles, from searching, and simply walked by, then I'll post a note to that effect. Oh, and the number of 'found it' logs I've written which include something like "I was on the point of giving up, began to walk away, then came back for one last look and saw it." is pretty high too: I suspect this is something to do with changing angle, both physically and mentally. Try sneaking up on an elusive cache with 'one last look' in your mind ! Yep... I searched for a chain link post cache (based on description and hint) that had someone sleeping against the post. We waited for a few minutes hoping that he'd wake up and leave, but nope... that got a note rather than dnf. We could have waited longer in hope he'd leave, but it wasn't worth the wait. There was a cache in a grocery store parking lot, where GZ was the shopping cart stable. I looked and looked, feeling around for a nano or magnetic strip. Finally, frustrated, uploaded a dnf and drove away. Then it hit me. I drove back and logged a find. Left the dnf as I considered is a legitimate dnf.

You can, and you can delete the DNFs as well. Your logs serve you, the cache owner, and the rest of the geocaching community. Because logs serve others users, my tendency is to leave them as logged, aside from edits for errors, of course. If I were interested in cleaning up DNFs, I'd bookmark as noncentric has suggested. The new form of the public profile coming soon is going to display DNF number as well as find number. I'm hoping this becomes a point of pride, as logging DNFs is a useful thing that cache seekers can offer cache owners and other players. I log DNFs for each visit, and add them to my dnf list. If it turns out the the cache was actually gone when I looked (based on OM or NA) I'll delete my dnf log. My feeling on that is that it wasn't there when I looked, so I didn't _not_ find it. It it's subsequently found, then I'll leave the dnf log. It was there and I legitimately didn't find it. On caches where I've had multiple DNFs/attempts, I've left my log where there are subsequent finds and deleted a log when it was actually gone. In the future, rather than deleting DNFs where the cache was actually gone, I'm planning to just change from dnf to write note explaining that I looked, it really wasn't there, and thanking the CO / reviewer for rectifying...

I wouldn't consider driving time or distance as a factor for determining the terrain rating, and especially not the D rating. What's a 6*? Almost 15% of my finds are more than 1000 miles from home and I would expect that all of them to have a 5* rating. The furthest is 9415 miles away and is accurately rated a 1/1. The 6* I referred to is a cache who's name begins with 6. A name like "6th time is the charm" When I say D should be based on location I don't mean the 3 D4 caches I'm referring to. I'm referring to the region. Basically, qualifying for the alpha challenge is more difficult if the cache is placed in Maysville, WV than if placed in Inez, KY. It's much more difficult to find based on what region the challenge cache is in. Just as qualifying for the 2 countries in a day cache is easier if the cache is in San Diego or somewhere in Waashington state...

Rating them "accurately" is D5... A lot is based on location too... the alpha challenge, finding cache names from a-z is relatively simple in an area with an active caching community. But out here, I have to travel a long way to get the ones needed. I'm currently 1 cache away from qualifying for the alphanumeric challenge. The closest 6* is 3 hours drive. There are 3 6* huddled together about 2.5 hours away, but they're all above D4. So what would the challenge rating be? Logically (to me) it'd be different based on where the challenge cache is located. There's an a-z in order challenge. I was up to r when I noticed a rock and roll based string in Kentucky. We went there and got a-z in order, in about 2 hours. So, if I lived in Inez, KY, or planned a visit anyway, that challenge would have been a D1 T1.5 for me... loving in Richmond, VA, it would be a lot higher...

So did you try to contact the owner to see if they might respond? Sometimes if they are not able to maintain cache they will agree to let you adopt it. You never know. Of the few that I've NAd - I've emailed and PMd the owner before NAing. None had responded to either method of communication. It would be nice if there was a way to adopt a cache without the CO's response, but that topic has been beaten to death...

Very curious as to why you hold this opinion? While we believe this to be a good thing, sincerely interested in why you don't think so? I can't speak for hcy but I think it could make some players even more reluctant to post DNFs. I agree - some may consider a DNF as a failure and be reluctant to "air laundry." DNFs are a good thing for the CO and future seekers. The canary in the mineshaft... Anything that prevents cachers from logging them would be less than optimal.

Thank you. Is there any chance we might persuade you to get rid of the "for now" qualifier? Agree! Thank you for keeping it and please don't remove down the road.

If you have looked for a cache three or four times and get no response from the CO you could log a Needs Maintenance on the cache. What Irks me now is people aren't loggin needs maintenance on caches because of the new system and getting confused by it but there are a few caches that need the NM wrench (its helpful to filter out caches with the NM attribute people are less likely to look for them, which irks me a lot people refusing to look for caches even if the NM is just do to a "full log" but thats another story!) While it's not the purpose of your comment, I used to filter caches based on NM attribute also. However, you'd be missing some caches that are in good condition (the pedants will hopefully notice I didn't call them "good" caches!). For issues like full or damp / wet logs, leaky baggies, etc... I've corrected those type issues but not being a cache owner I can't reset the NM flag. However, I make a log entry that I did finder maintenance. However, I do read NMd caches' logs more carefully to determine whether to search... You're right its important to read the NM logs to see what the issue is. I was trying to get there but that part was that "another story" I implied at the end so thank you for that clarification.

Is the mechanized sorter you're referring to the project gc page?

Maybe it's because that for years, few of those in "the community" have bothered to use the methods already given to them to make things better? We have seen articles on cache maintenance in newsletters, the "blog", Geocaching 101, the Help Center... - And here we are, still discussing it... One additional data point to add... It was mentioned in another post that the GS developers were geeks and not cachers. If this were the case, I can see the issue the coach mentioned - they're forgetting to include the actual users... I worked for several high tech companies and I can say from experience that most of the techies wouldn't have any interest in going outside and wandering the woods... And before the flamers start, I was very technical in many different types of the It world, so I'm confident that I'm not speaking out of turn... the stereotypes aren't all that far off...

Interesting question... how many caches or how many attempts.... I know that I'll log a dnf for each attempt. Others won't log a second dnf. And others won't even log the first dnf. I'd guess that the method that would be "true" (for lack of a better term) would be the number of caches, not attempts. To me, it's not too relevant, but to others it may be.

Be prepared for low numbers of finds and for many of those who do find it to have been handed the final coordinates I agree. Many I've done, or doing now and waiting for fixes (stages missing, illegible, etc...) , we've received emails asking for "help", when I know they haven't even started them (and don't respond when I asked them a question). Higher terrain mostly and few do those anymore, preferring pill bottles at roadside. Rather than attempt it, they're simply looking for "close to", or the final. I've also asked if they'd like to do them with me, with no takers. Not a multi, but kinda recently one lengthy geoart nearby had all attending an event do the entire series without solving a single puzzle. - Just follow the leader... So yeah, that happens. These last 2 posts reminded me of a multi I placed years ago. So I'm now walking in circles trying to figure which thread to add this to - DNFs need main? What irks? Filter NMs? Oh, what shall I do!?!? But... It was a very devious hide, and noted by the finders. Stage 1 was a small magnetic strip with the coords for stage 2 written on it. Placed inside a window where you had to look just so to see it. Stage 2 was a POS film canister hanging in a bush. It had a bunch of DNFs and the watchers grew... until the first finder. Then, all of a sudden there were few DNFs and numerous finds. Stage 1 got no easier after find 1, but...

I would say no. I have a checker on all my puzzles but many COs purposely do not want them. Some of the reasons are: 1. There are sites which spoil puzzles. These sites will advertise that the answer is "geochecker confirmed". And it seems that a cache is more likely to be spoilt in this way if a checker is used. 2. A checker can be used to brute force an answer, if the solver has partially solved it. E.g I've solved all but one digit. I can use a checker 10 times to solve the last one. 3. Some are concerned about the security of the data, could it be hacked. Thank you too!