jbravo

Give it a reasonable search. If you don't find...log a DNF. I wouldn't log more than 2 in a row, however. You don't want to be annoying. Everyone KNOWS you can't find it after a double DNF. However, I've logged up to 3 or 4 DNFs throughout a period of time on a cache or two. It's nice to have it as part of the cache history. The reason people get mad at others for not logging DNFs are probably for several reasons: 1) it can be about the numbers, 2) if you are a cache owner, you want to see DNFs so you know if your cache is missing or if you need to change the difficulty rating, 3) you can see how much traffic the cache is getting (if it's never logged, you may think your cache is no good and no one is coming to find it), etc. etc.

Ok thx everybody. Looks like this is the common consensus. This topic is closed!

Is it ok to be "first to log" when u are not FTF? If not, how long should u wait before logging your find?

haha, dude ur the man!

YES!

exactly what I'm proposing to avoid wicki-caching.

I disagree on this point. Here's why: statistically speaking if one hundred people rate a cache 2/1 and the CO rates it a 2.5/1 than statistics tell us that MOST people think it's a 2/1. Obviously there is wiggle room, but it's a closer "true" rating that more people agree with than the original rating. To me this us "less misleading." On the fake logger issue: it seems it would be an easy thing to regulate - allowig a cacher to log his vote only once per cache find. Just my thoughts!

Now that you see how finders treat your caches, can you factor this into future hides? My pet peeve is owners who upon learning this change nothing about thier hides. I've factored this into PAST hides by moving the one cache that kept getting vandalized to another spot at the same coords and changed the difficulty. I agree with your peeve and would further add that a peeve is for people who refuse to change their caching approach when their approach is clearly against common practice.

I would have replied sooner but my wife had a baby yesterday - our second. Little "Ashley Love" was born at 4:40 AM and was 7lbs and 9.5 oz and was 20.5 inches long. Mommy and baby are both great. Another way to regulate voting would be to limit voting on the ratings to cachers with 100+ finds under their belt.

I have an idea, albeit probably not new. What do you guys think about this: Let's start allowing finders (not DNFs...finders only) to vote on cache ratings. It wouldn't be a requirement, but optional. They could rate the cache as they see fit. The results could be used as follows: 1) The CO would review the average rating and if he rated his cache a 1/3 and the common consensus was that the cache is a 1/2.5 then he could change it if he so desired. 2) Or the cache could have two possible ratings displayed, one suggested by the CO and one suggested by the caching community who found it. Thoughts? If we end up recommending this, maybe this thread will get moved. Right now I'm just curious about your responses to this idea.

Yep! Just today it is snowing, sleeting, hailing, AND raining...quite an amazing mix! Haha. And yes, for those of you who are non-weather buffs, there IS a difference among all of these categories. We even had freezing rain. But hey, I'm on a caching streak of over 20 days in a row and didn't want to break the streak! I also cached during a recent tornado. Grrr...weather here in Northern Alabama is crazy.

Thanks! You're right that this is already implemented. What about option 2 now? Certainly not as important, now that I have option 1, I guess.

I would enjoy being able to view a pocket query on a map instead of just a list. This may also affect the search results when viewing a map. Currently from the map view, Groundspeak just does a search for all caches up to 500. When you filter out finds it literally does just that - makes them invisible, but they are still in the search because if you zoom too far, you see maybe 1 or 2 caches but you still exceed the 500 limit. This means the code is just making them invisible but the memory is still being taken up with caches. My proposition is two-fold: 1) Add the ability to view a pocket query on a map 2) Update the current search settings on the maps to allow true filtering. This is probably more of a premium member feature as you will probably need to basically run a pocket query in the background with the current filter settings and then display on a map. If you have comments or need clarification of my idea please let me know. Thanks for considering this update!

http://www.ecoproducts.com/Home/home_bioba...bags_doggie.htm Perhaps? Maybe I give them too much credit. Hey that's cool. Never heard of that. Hey, next time you see a bag of crap go pick it up and check...let us know how that works. haha

Boy, I really recommend this too. I started out caching with a Dell Axim X5 with a CF card plugin for my GPS. Haha. I used a street map program and just cached with paper. It didn't go well back in 2004. We've come a long way since then...but I wouldn't recommend a Dell for caching. I later got the X50v but didn't think it was any better for caching. I'm sure it's probably fine if you put in the time to get everything configured, but it is unbelievably easy to cache with an iPhone. There are probably other GPSr's out there that would be better than an Axim as well, but hey...you may just want to use the Axim since that is what you actually own at the moment. Unless you've done a lot of caching with an iPhone, you just don't understand the ease and accuracy. Many people gripe about accuracy because they are only familiar with how it USED to be before the 3GS. It used to triangulate based on cell towers but the GPS is a real GPS now and is FANTASTIC. It's also integrated with Google maps and thus you see a picture of the exact coords so even if your GPS won't settle down to show your location accurately (which is no more of a problem on an iPhone than on any other GPS unit) then you can SEE the hide on the map and go right to it. I can't recommend this enough in conjunction with Groundspeak's iPhone app. That being said...it can't hurt to have a "real" GPS too as a backup. Good luck!

Well... He is a fish... Just sayin'... (OK, technically, he's a mammal, but bottle nose dolphins taste a lot like sea bass) Haha, nice.

The most common and likely the best advice... Leave the DNF in place and simply log your FIND. It is all part of your search for the cache and part of the overall cache history. Remember to make references to all DNFs in your Find Log. I had one cache that took me 4 formal logs to make up the Find history. And I'm still going, since I became the semi official keeper of that cache with the agreement of the owner... I keep logging Notes of the RE finds given that it wanders and dissappears frequently. You can always add to the history by commenting on the status of local caches... I simply change the date of my general status checks, so I don't clutter up the logs too much with many of them. Major items of the history (my notes, of course) I simply cut out the non significant parts. Have fun! Doug I had asked this question before in the forums (I believe) and got a lot of different answers. Here's a question regarding a potential problem with your way of logging: How do you keep track of which caches you have not found? If you change the DNF to a FOUND then it disappears off your DNF list (which makes me happy). If you leave it as DNF and then log a find...it still shows up that you haven't found it on your DNF list. So how do you differentiate between true DNFs and FINDS? I like the notion of cache history very much...I'm still searching for the best way to handle DNFs, as I log all of mine. That is not only good advice, but in the opinion of almost all of us here, the ONLY way to handle a DNF. Nobody should even consider changing a DNF to a Found It, unless the DNF was logged by mistake. In my opinion, the SEC should be in charge of watching for those things, if not the dreaded Sarbanes and Oxley! Well, I started implementing this tonight. I logged my second DNF on the same cache tonight. Haha. Usually I'd do just one and then change it later when I found it. In my defense, there was no clear method divulged when I posted this same question weeks ago. Everyone had a different opinion about it and none were as good as this idea presented here, in my opinion. It might be nice for TPTB to have more specific logging guidelines so that everyone could be on the same page.

I've heard of that, but didn't realize it did circles...thx for the tip! I'm downloading it now.

Dude, I'm so glad to hear there are cachers out there who think like I do. I do this as well. lol. Yet even more instances of imprecise people! Haha

I like it!

Bueller, anyone, anyone?

How can someone log a find on an unpublished cache? Don't only owners & reviewers have access to those caches? I'm assuming he meant after they were published. Correct

Fixed the quote tags for you. Could you take it to PMs, please? Hahaha, you guys need to join in all the fun in the Pet Peeves discussion. Plenty of us are being snarky over there. LOL! I'm so glad these quotes are finally fixed...such a peeve!

When I use the "filter out finds" option on the web site, or the "I haven't found" option in PQs, then:Caches that I DNFed and still haven't found show up. Caches that I DNFed and later found do not show up. This is a really good idea. I think I'm going to adopt your method and start leaving my DNFs as part of the cache history. I'll have to get over the fact it makes me feel like I failed...lol. What exactly is this? Do you mean, a note describing the cache and the cache name and that sort of thing? What about for micros/nanos? How do you use generic laminated stashnotes? Do you use a marker or something to write on them?

Some owners of geocoins want their coins to travel, but without the risk of someone "collecting" (stealing) their coins. So they print a photo of their coin, and release that rather than releasing the actual coin. Some go to the trouble to print a double-sided card with a photo of the front of the coin on one side, and a photo of the back of the coin on the other side. I've even seen one that attached trimmed photos to a washer, and then put the washer in a plastic coin case. Anyway, I'm one of the people who likes helping real coins travel, but doesn't bother moving coin proxies. Wow, people actually STEAL the coins? Again...wow. That's really low. I have a traveling patch at the moment and haven't had any issues yet. It's headed to Ireland.