edexter

Re: Noncentric 5/4/19 Actually each time it went like this: I contacted the CO after noticing the cache was being neglected (in one case the CO posted a note asking if anyone was interested in adopting the cache) . I got a reponse along the lines of "Yes, I would like someone to take this on". I then offered to adopt the cache, said they should follow the adoption process outlined in the help center, and then never heard anything back. A follow up email was met with no response as well. The third time this happened I decided to ask about others' experience. Re: Virtual Caches and the Adoption Process Reading between the lines, it seems clear that Geocaching decided to limit the total number of Virtuals in four ways: 1, Capping the number by disallowing new ones 2, Decreasing the total number by attrition by not allowing adoption 3, allowing a "certain number" of new ones as a "reward" and 4, Waymarking. Since Geocaching is a "listing service" they can decide what to list and in what quantity and have done so. With the growth of "no maintenace power trails" and the like, one can imagine just how many virtuals there would be if they hadn't capped the number (...let's see shall I place a 5 stage multi in the woods, or a no cache, no maintenance virtual at the end of that road with a nice view of the lake....) Another solution would have been (and still could be) to allow virtuals in locations where physical caches aren't allowed (National Parks for example). An example of this approach can be seen in Terracaching where virtuals are allowed and physical caches are optional. At the virtual location, you must find a preexisting object that contains a code and enter that online. The vast majority of caches on this listing site are still physical caches as most people enjoy the hunt for the mysterious object...

I wondering if cache adoption is actually occuring and curious as to other's experience with this process. I have made several offers to adopt what I considered to be interesting caches in my area, actually gotten positive response from a couple of folks and yet, nothing actually happens. Eventually the caches are archived as the CO has dropped out of the game. I have had slightly better luck with informal arrangements (I maintain a couple of Oldies just because I want to keep them going) but my experience has been that folks "drop out, but hang on": Basically they largely stop finding caches and they completely stop placing new caches or maintaining their old ones...but they just don't want to ask for help or actually fix them. At first I thought it was odd, but now it seems to be pretty common behavoir...

I think this is a pretty good description of a certain type of old school cacher concerned with both the quality and maintenance of their caches and still applicable today, though "do the opposite" is fairly common today. There are many cachers in my local area that I "know by reputation" for the quality, quantity and maintenance charteristics of their caches. It's one of the "screens" I use: When a new cache is published some go on my "To Do" list automatically and others I just skip over based solely on who placed it. The cacher with over 600 placements who does no maintenance for instance. More recently, the folks who once placed and maintained their caches who have left the game siliently and who either ignore or get upset at NM logs rather than archive or adopt out their placements. The guard rail and LPC enthusiast. ACM continues to study geocaching but the more recent articles are, as they say, "behind a pay wall"...

Today I'm trying to do something I've done a hundred times while creating a cache page: upload an image. When I click on the "add an image" link while editing the cache it takes me to the "Upload Image For..." page, offers me a "choose file" bubble and then nothing happens when I click. Anyone else having this problem? Nevermind, the problem resolved itself apparently

Touchstone wrote: "I’m not a GSAK user, but I was wondering if there’s a GSAK macro out there that mimics the CHS?" I'm not aware of one, but I use GSAK all the time and it can easily spot caches that have issues. Once you specify an area and download the caches available it gives you a colorcoded "last four logs" view of the cache (for instance: all green means 4 consecutive finds, all red means 4 consecutive dnfs). You can easily sort by "last find" so when you see a cache hasn't been found in many months and is all red, it's clear something is up and you can easily ignore or investigate what the logs say. I tend to agree with this sentiment but the "abandoned cache" issue is something that needs to be addressed by the community and "the system", as it is only going to get worse. For instance, in my area a cacher with over 650 hides has recently "dropped out". He continues to cache on occasion but doesn't do any maintenance. Now removing his caches would certainly change "the map" but since the great majority of them are P&Gs it wouldn't matter to me at all. Here I feel "the system" is at fault for "allowing" the caches to begin with (seriously, who is going to maintain 650 caches...). No one else is likely to offer to adopt the caches, so they all will eventually go. However in this case, "the system" seems to have accepted respnsibility, in a way, and instead of the dragged out 6 month process of repeated dnfs, a reluctant NM, an even more reluctant NA, a reviewer "disable" and finally a Archival... What happens now is after a couple of dnfs, the reviewer disables the cache and then archives it shortly after when the CO once again does nothing. Clearly "the system" has noticed and flagged this CO. Now that's an extreme case (many caches, one owner) but from a "system" point of view "many caches, many owners" is the same problem: Lots of abandoned caches. The "system" view is that a CO is responsible to place, maintain and remove caches unless the cache is adopted and the adoption process requires that someone who has abandoned the cache "give it" to someone else. I don't know your experience, but emailing a CO who I don't know and offering to adopt their cache hasn't worked so far (0-7 to date). It works better if I know the CO (2-0). What has worked, and I suspect works in your area, is that "the community" maintains the cache (replacing the wet logs) which works ok until the container cracks or goes missing or someone "from away" logs an NM. Because of the "legal structure" of the game, it's clear that the cache belongs to the CO and only to the CO so "the system" is not going to "give you the cache" even if you are willing to maintain it. The workaround in this case is for "the community to adopt the cache", unofficially of course...The way we have done it in my area is that somebody decides they are going to "keep the cache going", says so in a note on the cache page and then does the maintenance and responds to questions about it. You can't log an OM but you can make it clear to the community and "the system" that you'll be responsible for fixing things. You put the cache on your watch list and deal with any problems. In order for this to work, you have to be willing to reach out and negotiate with people (you can't post an OM log, but you can contact someone who posted an NM, tell them you'll fix it and ask them to change it to a "note"). Again, this typically only works for a "quality" cache that you have some reason for maintaining as most folks aren't looking to take on more maintenance, but for old timie caches that are "worth saving" it's a solution for some. For the great majority of abandoned caches, it think they they should go. Nothing is more frustrating that searching for something that isn't there. A cracked pill bottle full of mush is no prize either. Replacing the wet logs can slow down the process but it's inevitable. "The system" seems designed to promote more caches, rather than better caches and pretty much anyone with a cell phone, a bison tube and a sidewalk can place as many as they want. Actually requiring periodic maintenance and archiving those not in compliance isn't in the cards (though it would solve the ignored needs maintenance issue) and even if it were, would not address your concern about the numbers decline. Personally, I think the most likely way for caching to grow is to pursue quality not quantity. Place what you like to find in an area you want to return to as sooner or later you'll be headed back there to repair it. Especially if you place mults, you know it's just a matter of time...

Man, my fat fingered typing...yes should be GC6Q8PQ. Nothing special about the cache I could see except for the impressive number of consecutive dnfs.

Cerebus wrote " I missed you asking about this. Not looking for any feature in particular, just noting that typically there are many notes referencing problems with a cache before anyone posts an NM and that most NM logs are ignored by the CO. This is a problem. More recently you wrote: "I don't feel it's proper to log a NM, and definitely not an NA if you didn't visit the cache. Others have opinions similar to yours." That's fair enough, I suppose. By visiting the cache, you may be able to confirm that it's there, but not that it's missing. Here's a question for you: Imagine that you were interested in finding a cache and the three of the last five "finds" described various levels of damage to the cache and two other recent logs were "dnf"s, in any order. Would you believe the cache needed to be checked by the CO? If so, would you do nothing, post an NM log or go visit the cache? Assuming you decided not to post an NM or ignore the obvious problem and went to the cache site and couldn't find it: after logging a dnf would you also log an NM? If you did find the cache but it was damaged as previously noted, would you post an NM? If you did post an NM and after two months there was no response from the CO would you then do nothing, log a NA, or go visit the cache again? Imagine instead the cacher before you logged an NM which the CO ignored and you went anyway and couldn't find the cache: after logging an dnf, would you also log an NA? This is the conundrum: if a cache is missing only the CO who placed it or someone who previously found it and remembers exactly where can determine for sure that it is missing. Visiting GZ and coming up empty only adds the information that you couldn't find it. As more folks who placed caches drop out of the game and/or stop maintaining their caches the number of broken or missing caches increases. Based on what actually happens when an NM log is posted (mostly nothing) it seems pretty reasonable to me after two months or so the cache should be archived. This stops the cache from showing up on searches and pocket queries and removes the deadwood. It takes a few seconds for the CO to respond to an NM log and if they can't spare the time to do that, well...

Well to answer the question "is CHS working?", consider another question: If a cache has 55 finds and 12 dnfs and the last 12 logs are 11 dnfs and a NM log (posted on 10/22/18) and the cache was last found 2/27/18 should CHS notice it? GC6QHPQ

Anyone who places a cache should understand that maintaining it comes with the territory, however most caches are never maintained. This means that most cachers do not maintain their caches (sad but true). Now anytime someone posts a log on any of my caches, I'm notified and can see it as soon as I open my email. From reading the log, I can generally tell if the cache needs maintenance. If the log is vague about the problem, I email the logger and ask for more detail. If the cache needs repair, I disable it until I can check on it. Now anyone can do this, and except for waiting for a replay to an email, the whole process takes about two minutes. Most cachers do not post NM logs, even when there is a problem. The most common problem is that the log is soaked which means the cache is not waterproof and either needs a new log in a ziplock or a new cache box. So if you come across a problem with a cache but no NM posted, there is no indication of a problem until you go to the cache and find a soggy pulp instead of a log. After having had this experience a hundred times or so, I decided enough of that. So now before I search for a cache I do a quick review of the last few logs and when it's clear there is an issue, I post an NM log. Ten percent of the time, the CO responds in some way and addresses the issue. 90% of the time: nothing. I wait a month or so, then post a NA log indicating the issue and that the CO has not responded. About 80% of the time, nothing happens and eventually The Reviewer archives the cache. The remaining 20% either get repaired or archived by the CO, it's about 50:50 at this point. So all in all, about 15% of caches that need maintenance get it and the rest are eventually archived. About one time in 20 I get pushback in some negative form from the CO. (About one time in a hundred I get a positive response, like "Thanks for the heads up") Typically it goes something like this: "Why are you posting NM and NA logs on my caches when you haven't even visited it, you lazy armchair critic? How dare you?" For an NM it's because there is a problem with your cache according to the logs and you have ignored it. Please respond in some fashion. For an NA: it's because you ignored an NM log, so a damaged or missing cache keeps showing up as active on the map search page. Please address it. NM 's are designed to alert a CO of a problem with the cache not as a critic of the cacher as a person. NA's are designed to get a cacher who has ignored both logs and an NM to go fix it or disable it so we don't go looking for a damaged or missing cache. CO's who complain about feedback on the condition of their cache are basically saying they don't consider maintenance to be their responsibility. On the other hand, they do feel it is your responsibility to go confirm the problem before you log an NM even though they can't be bothered to acknowledge a problem...

Like Mudfrog above, I've occasionally gone on an unnecessary maintenance run when someone couldn't find the cache. It can be frustrating, but since my goal is to visit my caches every couple of years or so whether there is a reported issue or not, I usually enjoy the trip. The best defense against an "armchair" NA is to query the poster by email asking why they think the cache is missing or damaged. When I post an armchair NA I spell out the reasons in my log so the CO doesn't need to ask. For example: "Cache has 6 consecutive dnfs and no finds in 18 months. No response to NM log two months ago. CO appears to be inactive". In the example I gave above, where I posted 48 armchair NAs, to date only 7 of the COs (15%) have responded in the more than two months since. The Reviewer disabled 46 of them: (2 repaired their cache, 4 archived them, and one promised a yet to be performed repair.) Thus far 43 of 48 have been archived (90%) while 2 (4%) have been repaired. The other three still need maintenance. The logging procedure is designed to alert the CO to problems with the cache via an NM log. If all COs responded in some way to NM logs there would be few NAs posted, armchair or otherwise. The purpose of the NA log is to get The Reviewer involved when you believe a cache is damaged or missing (AND the CO has not responded to the previous NM log), since only they can archive an abandoned cache and get it removed from the listing service. Many folks are reluctant to post an NA log which means the number of abandoned caches increases year after year . I see CHS as a recognition of the problem of numerous abandoned caches, the lack of response to NM logs by many COs, and the reluctance of folks to post an NA. If the formula for CHS can detect apparently abandoned caches even half as well as my review of open red wrenches in my area, then the number of damaged and unmaintained or missing caches should decrease over time. It is, however, easy to game the system by simply responding to The Reviewer with the same words used to respond to an NM log. Posting an OM log in response to The Reviewer's request for confirmation that a cache is in place and in good shape with: "I recently checked the cache, and it is still there". I'm skeptical of folks who only log retrospective OMs, but maybe that's just me. Even this is helpful though as it becomes possible to identify those COs who appear do "armchair maintenance".

As I understand it, when an NM log is posted, the expectation is that the CO respond in some way. When a CO makes no response for a couple of months to a couple of years and when people continue to report issues with the cache, the problem can either be ignored, or somebody can log an NA. In the 48 NAs I filed, I decided to be "that somebody". No flipping out was involved. I just decided to follow procedure in the hope that abandoned caches would be removed from the listing service. As noted above, this then resulted in 2 caches being repaired by the CO, 4 caches being archived by the CO, and, to date, 13 caches archived by the reviewer. The remaining 29 caches which were disabled by The Reviewer, are still disabled. One CO has responded but not repaired the cache and the other 28 have not responded. As I noted previously, most of these folks have dropped out of the game and are not going to respond. When a problem is obvious (no response by the CO to an NM) you can either ignore it or say something. If you say something by posting an NA (cache has been reported as damaged, no response by the CO) The Reviewer steps in, disables the cache and gives the CO a couple of months to fix it, and thus far 85% of the COs have continued to not to respond. Expecting anyone visit to an apparently missing cache prior to posting an evident NA when the CO can't (hasn't) even made the effort to respond on line to an NM log, nevermind visit their own cache to repair it.... To me this comes down to being a good sport. In geocaching, if you put out a cache and the expectable happens (it eventually needs repair) and someone takes the time to let you know via a NM log that there is a problem, then your responsibility is to respond in some way. If you don't, and you are still actively involved in the game, you aren't being a good sport. For example a note from the CO that says something like "Thanks, I'm busy right now with the rest of my life. I'll disable it until I can check it out" seems like a reasonable response to me to an NM log that says "Your cache is cracked and everything is soaked" You can complain, rationalize, or offer suggestions about what the other should do, but if you aren't going to do anything to fix your cache, then there isn't much anyone else can do except log an NA or ignore it. CHS appears to be an attempt to deal with the reality that many CO's ignore NMs and many folks won't log an NA to get The Reviewer involved. Nobody likes being told what to do and some folks consider an NA on their cache to be annoying. The easiest solution appears to me to be for the CO to respond to the NM in some way. When the cache has been abandoned or the CO is no longer interested in maintaining it, as so far appears to be the case in 45 of the 48 caches I posted an NA on, then they should be archived.

A couple of months ago, I looked at the more than 500 "open red wrenches" in my area and did a little further research on them. The great majority of them were clearly no longer current having been ignored by the CO and fixed, either by the CO (who didn't log an OM to clear the wrench) or by somebody else. It was pretty easy to tell which ones likely still needed maintenance by looking at "the last find" and the string of dnfs. A fraction of the caches still appeared to Need Maintenance (based on the logs, additional dnfs and no finds in 6 months or more). So beginning two months ago in mid May, I went ahead and logged 48 NAs and this is what happened: Within a couple of days, 46 of the caches were "temporarily disabled by The Reviewer (none by the CO) and the other two were deemed, "to need maintenance but not archival". So I switched the NAs to NMs ( to date no response from either CO and no finds for either cache). Of the 46 that were disabled, two have been repaired by the CO, 4 were archived by the CO, and one CO promised to "check on it" (two months later, cache is still disabled). So the response rate by the COs for this set of caches was 15% AFTER an NM log, and NA log and being disabled and the repair rate was 4% . One CO complained about me logging an NA on their cache and archived it (cache had 5 consecutive dnfs and no finds in a year) and another thanked me for reminding them their cache needed work and fixed it. Of the remaining 39 caches, 12 have since been archived by The Reviewer and the rest are still disabled, most for seven weeks and counting. It seems unlikely that any of the remaining 27 caches will be repaired: one hasn't been found in four years and the average time since the last find is well over a year. Most of the COs are no longer active. If I can do a review of the local caches using only GSAK to identify and sort damaged caches based on NM logs, dnfs and last finds, I have to assume the CHS can do at least that well. 100% of these caches appear to have needed repair. So far only two have been repaired and only 15% of the COs have responded. I got a thoughtful note from The Reviewer indicating that some cachers found my action in posting an NA log was annoying and asking me to consider the effect of this on the game, as it might lead some folks to stop placing caches...After thinking it over, I decided this was true: if cachers actually had to maintain their caches, they probably would place fewer of them. Instead, it looks like folks who don't wish to maintain their caches, don't. This is part of the problem that CHS may or may not address, as it is clear that "enforcement" of the "fix it if it's broken" rule, does result in there being fewer caches listed (though in reality, the same number are available in good repair to find). I think this highlights the quality vs quantity differences pretty well....Actually requiring maintenance will result in fewer caches being listed as the damaged and missing caches will be dropped from the listing service. On the other hand, the quality of the listings would improve.... edexter

The number of new caches placed on the Cape has increased rather dramatically this year with 81 caches placed so far. While this is a major uptick, it has to be acknowledged that 75% of the caches (57) were placed by one CO (Boxcar 37). The total number of active caches on the Cape (actually a 23.7 mile radius from a point just north of Barnstabie) is currently 576, so up 40 (7%) from last year's total of 536. The new caches are primarily in Nickerson State Forest and require you to hike around which is nice. A dozen of the caches are currently disabled: 2% (and most of these will be archived due to lack of timely maintenance if history is any guide. The number of tiny caches (micros, other and not chosen) continues to decline but they still make up 42% of all placements (75% of the disabled caches are micros). It's fair to say that a typical Cape Cache "is a bison tube hanging in a cedar tree within 200 feet of the parking" but that's pretty much true everywhere these days...

The Bruce's post on Tuesday at 10:08 is a pretty clear description of how the process works in practice. The only real life change is that CO are now expected to respond to an NM log. It's obvious that in the past posting an NM log had little effect since they were ignored 75% of the time. Again, I'm surprised by all the differing viewpoints about the simple expectation that a CO communicate with the community. When someone posts an NM log on one of my caches, I respond in some way. It's easy and takes 30 seconds. Folks who can't be bothered to type a response are pretty unlikely to maintain a cache in the wild. This seems completely obvious in theory and is completely evident in practice...

K13 wrote" "In other areas, mine included, there seem to be fewer NM being placed on caches. People don't want to be the one that causes a cache to be archived. (Or maybe there are just a lot of well-maintained caches in my area.)" I agree with you that many folks are reluctant to post an NM for fear that they will "cause" a cache to be archived. Indeed, I have been "blamed" for several abandoned and unmaintained caches being archived and on occasional suffered some verbal abuse and name calling for doing so. It's not pleasant but it's kind of ridiculous really. Only the The Reviewer or the CO can archive a cache. If a CO no longer wants to maintain their caches they can either archive them or "put them up for adoption".(almost no one does the latter). If they don't do either, the damaged cache just sits there getting worse. The missing cache is already gone. The CO is responsible for the cache being archived, not the person who logs an NM. Personally, I consider the process to be basic quality control. On occasions where I encounter a high quality cache that has fallen into disrepair and I am aware CO has dropped out of the game (so no chance to adopt it) I will maintain the cache as needed to keep it going. (You do the work and then post a note that you have done so) . Anyone can do this, so if there is a decent cache you want to keep going, the option to tell folks you'll do that works pretty well. After all, they don't want to do maintenance ;-)

barefootjeff wrote: "This sounds to me as if it's effectively made an NM log the same as an NA log." Yes and no. For any CO who responds to an NM log there is no difference. The process is unchanged. The difference only effects CO's who do not respond to an NM log. Until a few months ago, logging an NM had absolutely no effect three quarters of the time because three quarters of time there is no response by the CO. Until someone logged an NA nothing happened. Now when someone logs an NM and the CO doesn't respond within a reasonable time, The Reviewer disables the cache, and if there is no CO response to, that archives it. For CO's who have a long history of not responding to NM and NA logs as well as not maintaining their caches, I'm noticing The Reviewer is on occasion disabling the cache after an NM and then archiving it in a week or so. This removes the abandoned cache much sooner than would otherwise be the case. So no change folks who respond to an NM and a more responsive system for those who don't. That seems like an improvement to me.

I don't thing the process has changed much if at all for a CO who responds to an NM log. The difference I'm seeing is what happens when someone does post an NM log and the CO ignores it. In the past, nothing happened until an NA log was posted no matter how evident it was that the CO was not going to do anything. Now if the CO does nothing in response to an NM log, the cache is archived within 4 to 6 weeks. In my area, there is one CO with over 600 caches who has largely stopped maintaining his caches. I have noticed an increase in both the frequency of NM logs and the number of different cachers posting an NM log. I think folks who find a damaged cache may be more likely to post an NM log if they believe something will happen in the short term rather than many months later. That seems to be what is happening anyway. I think we'll know the system is having a positive effect when the response level to an NM log increases from the current 30% to something closer to 75%.

I am not aware of the details of the CHS but I can hypothesize that involves some sequence of weighted occurrences (dnfs, NM, NA, ratio of dnfs compared to d/t rating, etc) and that any such listing would be sort-able and in quick order show which caches appear to be missing or damaged and who the CO is... As I've posted elsewhere, there are three subsets of COs when it comes to maintaining caches: The Hawk, the Dove and the Turkey. I define a Turkey as someone who acts as if cache maintenance expectations do not apply to them and their distinguishing characteristics as a group are: 1, They do not do maintenance on their caches (no OM logs) 2, They do not respond to NM logs 3, They (usually) do not respond to NA logs 3, The great majority only repair or replace caches after The Reviewer has disabled their cache (and on average only 30% of the time). I'm sure you are aware of some folks in your area who this describes. The net result it takes 3 months to three years for these missing caches to be archived. I'm starting to see a difference in how dnfs and NM logs are being dealt with in my area over the past few months based not on the individual cache history exclusively but (seemingly) including the maintenance history of the Cache Owner. (I am suggesting this possibility as a deduction based on observation, not as a fact...) Whereas previously The Reviewer only disabled a cache after someone posted an NA log, now I have seen caches disabled based on multiple dnfs and/or an NM log. I have only seen this happening to caches where the CO has a long history of ignoring NM and NA logs and it is a welcome change as it speeds up the archival process considerably. This has several benefits including making the list of active caches more accurate, eliminating frustrating searches for caches that aren't there and in some cases opening up a location for a cache that will be maintained as needed. For cachers who regularly maintain their caches this has little impact (as they routinely respond to NM logs) but for the folks who routinely ignore them it speeds up the process of keeping the list accurate by removing their abandoned caches from the list...

The best way to locate benchmarks on the geocaching website is the "find/all nearest benchmark" link on the cache page. This links to a small subset of the benchmarks available. To locate listed NGS benchmarks, try the Android App "BenchMap" or the website "Scaredy Cat Film Benchmark Viewer" edexter

I pretty much agree with all of the above. The "quality" of the dnfs matters (so you have to read them) and the stats really only apply to d2 or less caches. Personally I find my dnf rate climbs right along with the d rating and, the higher the d rating, the more confident I am that I'm dealing with a dnf not a wnt (Was Not There). I'm also more likely to hunt for a higher d cache that is also a higher t and these tend to have more real dnfs. In other words a 1.5/1.5 with three consecutive dnfs and an overall find rate of 95% is likely missing while three consecutive dnfs on a d3.5/t3.5 with a 70% find rate suggests it is accurately rated (and likely still there). I haven't run the numbers but I think in general, except for tree climbs, the higher the t rating the less likely a cache is to "go missing". A tethered watertight cache on the ground not in a flood zone rated t3 or higher is is pretty unlikely to wander off. While a roadside bison hanging in a cedar tree tends to have a short life span and a wet log (It's always the o-ring...) dexter

Let's say you are a cache owner and have hidden a reasonably easy to find cache (d2 or less, single stage, visible if you look for it from the right angle) and someone logs a single dnf: What are the chances the cache is actually missing? Based on my own experience, I'd say the odds are roughly 40:60 (It's probably there). This is based on my own actual find rate of 94% and the subsequent results of the 6% I couldn't find (for every 10 dnfs I have, 6 of them are found subsequently and 4 of them are either never found again, archived or repaired/replaced). So for me, I generally assume if I couldn't find the cache; it was probably there. My average find is a d2 cache, so I think it applies to this group. Ok so a few weeks go by and there is a second dnf. Now the odds are tilting towards the cache may be missing: You multiply the probabilities 60% times 60% which gives you odds of 36%, by the third dnf (.6 times .6 times .6) the odds fall to 22% (one chance in five) and by the the fourth dnfs shows up it's down to less than 15% . Now you might consider some mitigating factors (team dnfs, newbies) but it's pretty clear that by the time you get to five consecutive dnfs on a d2 or less cache (10% chance it's there) it's time for you to go check on it. Add to that that some (perhaps many) dnfs are never logged and you should plan on doing a maintenance run... Evil hides aside (they are designed not to be found) one can have a pretty clear idea of the odds of the cache being find-able based on these numbers. I think this supports the use of an algorithm such as the "Cache health score" to nudge CO's to go check on the cache. It also supports "armchair" posting of NM logs in my view for CO's who ignore the obvious as the dnfs pile up. It's the number of consecutive dnfs that matter, not who dnfed. No one can find what isn't there. Arguing that "you must go look for my cache before I'll check on it" it really kind of odd, I think. To put it another way: For a cache with nothing wrong with it, s single dnf will happen roughly one log out of 20, (6% dnf rate) two consecutive dnfs roughly once every 40 logs) but three consecutive dnfs will only happen about once every 80 logs. Chances are really pretty good that a cache with a 95% find ratio that wracks up three or more consecutive dnfs is gone... If you are a CO I think this is a reasonable system to use. The easier the cache and the higher it's find ratio, the more likely this to be accurate. Very few things in life have better than 98% odds of being true... edexter

When someone posts an NM log, the CO is notified. This means the next time they check their email they are aware of the NM log. They can either post a response (takes 30 seconds tops) or ignore it. I think roughly half of all NM logs are ignored and are never acknowledged by the CO. If an NM log indicates that the cache is damaged, especially if there is a photo showing the damage, and the CO does not reply, one can assume that the CO does not intend to repair the cache. Either someone else does (typically) or eventually someone posts an NA. Once an NA is posted, the clock starts ticking:. About 25% get repaired or replaced at this point and the rest get archived, typically by the reviewer with no response from the CO. About 10% of the time the CO archives the cache. About 5% of the time the CO repairs or replaces the cache while complaining it really didn't need it. About 1% of the time the cache was actually just fine. Since an NM log is designed to alert the CO and the community that there might be (NM log based on dnfs) or is (NM based on cache damage) a problem with the cache. when a CO completely ignores a NM log, it's never a good sign. The CO has a number of ways to respond on line in the moment but a total lack of response is it's own statement...

Yes, exactly: if you are the CO of a cache with an open NM log and you know the cache is in good shape, posting an OM log noting that clears the open NM log. Even if a CO pays no attention to notices, by simply reviewing your geocache list periodically you can tell which caches have open NM logs: it's the ones with the little red wrenches next to their names... edexter

One of the "search and sorts" I do on occasion is to identify caches that have an open NM log before I go to look for the cache. Yesterday instead I did a radial search and got a list of 500 caches with open NM logs, almost all of which (98% plus) have been ignored by the CO. The only exceptions were caches that were currently disabled by the CO or repaired by the CO who had not posted an OM log. Based on NM logs I have personally logged, I know that about 75% of NM logs are ignored and of those most end up being archived after an NA log and a disablement by The Reviewer. Most of the ignored NM logs in my search are old ones and the problem reported has been fixed by someone other than the CO. If you are a CO it would be helpful to the rest of us if you would review your caches for open NM logs and deal with them: if the problem no longer exists, then post an OM log to that effect. If the problem is on going, then respond to the NM log, please. edexter

The logic that links the behavior is simply "the scoring system". If you get one "point" per cache no matter how hard or easy it is, the easy ones will get more "points". If on the other hand you consider a the favorite point/finds ratio, the more interesting caches get more "points", though far fewer finds. I don't actually think there is a dichotomy when it comes to hides though: I think some people like to create interesting hides (not a high percentage of folks) and some people like to find them, but most people like to hide easy to find and easy to get to caches which is what most people go out and find, though they don't actually like them very much according to the fav pt/find ratios. In other words the most popular caches (in terms of finds) are the least popular (in terms of favorite points per find). To give a concrete example: my most popular cache has 450 finds and three favorite points, while my least popular caches have 447 finds (36 caches in all) and 162 finds: 36% fav pt ratio To me this is the real dichotomy: the more popular a cache is, the less people like it. Only some people want to find interesting (difficult) caches. And even fewer folks want to hide (and maintain) difficult ones. Most caches are easy to hide and easy to find right by the roadside, popular and unloved...