narcissa

Because a find may be hard for you doesn't mean it is hard for everyone, and vice versa. Just because one person says it was easy to find for them, doesn't make it true. I've DNFed quite a few D1 caches in my time then slapped my forehead when I eventually found it (or had it pointed out to me) and yes, it really was a true D1 and I'd earned myself another Blind Freddy award to add to my collection. My husband gets quite annoyed with me because he'll spot an exciting D4 camo hide in his GPS, get all geared up for a good hunt after reading all the logs about how hard it is, and then we rock up to the GZ and I'm like "Here it is!" in 30 seconds. But a D 1.5 regular in a rock wall? I'll be looking for 45 minutes.

What if the first DNF is just a funny story about someone's ineptitude, and the next DNF is an aborted attempt due to muggles, and the next DNF just doesn't have any information at all? Why can't the CO have the discretion to quietly monitor the logs without acting on things that don't need action? The new "health" nonsense means that a cache like this could be flagged as a problem for no reason. It's actually taking responsibility away from cache owners. Why bother trying to be a mindful cache owner if the automated system is just going to steamroll our judgment anyway? If Geocaching.com doesn't want a cache listed anymore because a couple of newbies didn't realize it would be hard to reach, I don't think I would blame a cache owner for giving up on it.

No, no, no, no. As a CO I want those DNFs logged. I want to know what's happening. If a CO does not respond then its on him if a cacher (eventually) logs NM then NA. I want those logs too, but a CO should not have to respond to a DNF like that. A DNF is not a call for maintenance. It's a statement about someone's experience searching for the cache. Now it's been turned into this toxic thing that requires immediate attention or else the cache is deemed to be in "poor health." We'll all have to learn to live with less information and less cache history from logs, and COs will need to learn that DNF is the new NA.

If it irks you, why would you do that? You A cacher noticed there was a souvenir available so rather than go out and find a cache that day you said cacher instead just date changes a find from the day before. Is this better? Oh wait, here's some more clarification for you: in order to get the souvenir. It irks me to think that there are geocachers monitoring each other's finds closely enough to notice something like that.

Whoever was the first to find the cache not knowing its hiding location specifically, if the FTF. If a group of people try to be the FTF on a cache and one person finds it before everyone else that one person IS the FTF and can put [FTF] in their log. Sometimes people caching with their significant others who don't participate in the statistics claim FTF even though they were second to find. And cachers who don't have their own account and cache for somebody else, that somebody else can claim FTF. I know it sounds complicated but there is no such thing as a co-FTF with very few exceptions! In reality, anyone can put FTF in their log. The 2567th person to find the cache can claim FTF if they want. There are no rules, just social norms that vary widely.

If it irks you, why would you do that?

OT, but sorry, the only requirement for a letterbox is it must have a stamp, a log, and require GPS usage somewhere. - A geocache with a stamp... Some we found had a clue to a final from the posted coordinates, but not all. The way I understand it (chat at Events), some we found no longer have that stamp. The stamps disappear because people think they're swag. I wish letterbox hybrids were required to include a mix of GPS use and letterbox-style instructions.

I'm all in favour of people playing their own way and inventing side games, but I have to say that I'm having real difficulty understanding this new side game of deliberately trying to personally destroy fellow geocachers and eliminate as many caches from the game as possible. Is this just the latest evolution of that group that was stealing caches in the name of the environment? Geocaching can't work if it isn't a game of give and take. As cache owners, sometimes we need to laugh at the folly of fellow geocachers who do silly things, and forgive them while they learn to do better. As cache finders, sometimes we need to be forgiving of minor nuisances that are bound to come up when we try to put plastic containers outdoors for extended periods of time, especially in harsh climates. The game doesn't work if cache finders and cache owners are constantly trying to hurt and punish each other for every minor annoyance. I understand that it's mildly frustrating when a logbook is a bit damp or the swag wasn't exactly what you asked for on your wishlist to Santa, but some people really need to take a breath and stop trying to turn this into a brutal regime. It's a game! And I don't think the reviewers want to be the gestapo.

This is the real tragedy of the recent changes. DNF logs should be an element of interest on a cache page, not a death sentence for the cache.

There are no standard rules or etiquette. I don't purposely chase FTFs and I prefer to be friendly about it, i.e. I see no reason not to share an FTF. I also try to respect what the cache owner intends, within reason, so I don't see a need to spoil someone else's birthday FTF. There are a few people who get very competitive and try to make up FTF rules for other people to follow, but I just don't acknowledge people like that. Ultimately, if I decide to tell GSAK that I was FTF on a cache and count it in my own stats, there's nothing anyone else can do about it. It comes down to what feels right to you.

What kind of unscrupulous owner would do such a thing? Surely no cache owner with integrity. It will however get rid of 1000s of junk and missing caches of owners who no longer play. So exactly what criteria are reviewers supposed to use to give exemptions to the yearly check-up? Isn't that something that should be enshrined in your new guideline?

Percentage may be a misleading way to express the success of premium membership. Members aren't eliminated from the database when they're inactive. Additionally, when premium membership expires, the member reverts to basic. Over time, it's possible that the raw number of premium memberships could increase while the proportion of premium relative to basic could be static or even decline.

So, your suggestion is that the reviewer should have the discretion to determine how often a cache owner should make maintenance visits?

That IS weird. Do you think the CO objects to the presence of DNF logs, like it's a personal affront or might discourage cachers from looking? Maybe the presence of a DNF implies that there's SOME type of problem? Sounds like a find-entitled player; the kind that would "NM" every DNF. Personally, I like to see a healthy mix of finds and DNFs on a cache. It also seems a little rude from the individual finder perspective. Some of my favourite logs are on caches I DNFed. That's part of my caching history and I enjoy being able to look back at those logs. Also, on trickier caches, or more isolated caches, the DNF logs can give future finders an idea of what to expect.

Yeah, it's nice when a good trail fills in over time with a variety of interesting caches, but 15 identical caches hidden at identical intervals isn't particularly interesting. I don't mind power trails as much when they're along bike paths or roads. Personally I can take them or leave them, but they're in spaces that otherwise wouldn't have geocaches anyway so it doesn't feel like such a waste.

Who decides which cache owners have to physically visit or face punishment, and which cache owners just have to write a note?

You can add detail. Simply: 1. Log a note 2. Click the needs maintenance 3. Select the type (such as other) 4. Enter your note, which may just be "." if you wanted to add detail to your NA/NM note 5. Click Post 6. Scroll down and find your NM or NA note 7. Click on "Edit Log" 8. Click the pencil 9. Now put the information in the note you wanted to earlier 10. Submit it 11. Click the cache name to go back to the cache page 12. Find your "write note" message originally created 13. Click "edit log" 14. Click the red trash can 15. Click "Yes" Easy-peasy. Just a few more steps than before. No thanks. If my details were important, the interface wouldn't be set up like that. I assume from the design that details aren't of interest anymore.

Ten lashes for a damp logbook. Fifty lashes if your cache is archived by a reviewer.

Right, I understand. And I was mentioning that in this case, even hearing about it later doesn't strike me as a big deal. Oh. Good to know. If you had said either of those things, I would have thought you were doing much more than merely suggesting them. To me, those ways of putting it sound more like demands than suggestions. The key point is that my words were incorrectly interpreted as a suggestion. There was absolutely no need to redirect my comment in that fashion. Whether or not something is a "big deal" is up to the individual cache owner. If receiving complaints from fellow geocachers isn't a big deal to a particular CO, that's just dandy. I like to be able to back myself up if I'm going to take an action like that, because there is a strong likelihood that a fellow geocacher will feel antagonized if I just delete a log because I didn't like the look of it. Something to consider, not a suggestion toward one action or another.

Yes, it looks like that's what happened on a cache I found last weekend. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2RJHH_micro-sur-la-300?guid=b30ecff1-8b00-471e-8065-5aa620a7a5cf I logged it the following day, so my find log has the correct date of the find, and the NM log has a different date. I haven't cached since this was implemented so I haven't logged anything. When you selected NM and then "may be missing" did it give you any opportunity to add detail? If not, and all that happened was the canned message in the post, then I don't think that the change is as convenient - unless we know and document in the found log, what we would have posted in the NM log. The learning curve just got a bit hairier,,, No option to add detail. This was a pretty rare scenario where I felt that "may be missing" was actually an appropriate thing to log, given that the guardrail was recently obliterated in a vehicle collision. I log from field notes, so I guess from now on I'll just have to mention the maintenance issue in the found log and hope that's enough. I'm not changing my process to edit logs. On a GRC or LPC I'm ok with suggesting that it may be missing. If it's a tricky one, then I'd think twice about suggesting a GRC was missing. But they're hard to miss... on other caches, I would log a dnf and in the log mention about looking etc... I use cachly in the field and i understand that NM will remain a separate logging action. And - I don't upload in the field. I wait till I get home to turn the shorthand logs into a bit more verbose. So (I hope and believe that) my found and NM logs will go up with the same date and be sequential logs on GC. I rarely use the GC web page to make log entries as I have date time and sequence information on my cachly phone logs. But non cachly app users may have the problem. 99% of the time I think it's foolhardy to make any claims about the cache being missing. If I have never found a cache, I don't know if it's hard to miss or not. Maybe I'm just having a ditzy day and I missed it. I will happily NM where needed to point out that several people have had trouble finding a cache, and that maybe we'd all appreciate it if the owner would confirm the cache's presence, but circumstances have to be pretty dire for me to actually come out and suggest the cache is missing. This is something I've learned through experience. In this particular situation, several metres of the guardrail are now twisted wreckage down a steep incline, so I feel I can be forgiven for my hubris if it turns out that the cache is just on the ground somewhere we didn't spot it. The reviewer commenting on this thread made a comment about the dates in another post that makes sense to me.

Yes, it looks like that's what happened on a cache I found last weekend. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2RJHH_micro-sur-la-300?guid=b30ecff1-8b00-471e-8065-5aa620a7a5cf I logged it the following day, so my find log has the correct date of the find, and the NM log has a different date. Now THAT's going to cause more confusion than I though with the new change... I can't think of a scenario where the different Nm date would be good to do. Can anyone else? Cache "Status" logs (Needs Maintenance, Needs Archived, Enable, Disable, Publish and Archive) have *always* been forced to default to the current date of the log - no backdating has ever been allowed. This prevents funny business caused by manipulating the dates of those log types. Example: Finder A gets into a personal dispute with Owner B this week. A logs a "Needs Maintenance" on B's cache, but backdates their log to January. Then, A logs a "Needs Archived" the next day, saying that B has ignored the maintenance issue for months. One can easily construct other examples that would be confusing to cache owners, reviewers, and/or players. This makes sense. I am far more concerned about the lack of detail in these status logs, and the canned options that aren't as relevant or useful as they ought to be.

This is a good point, and if I deleted such a log -- as I said I would -- and the cacher contested it, I'd just say, "Oh, sorry, when you didn't change the text, I came to the wrong conclusion." Then I'd forget about it. narcissa is suggesting that unless the find is denied by the physical log, one should forget about it right off the bat. I find that equally reasonable even though it's not what I'd do. I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just musing about things to consider when making the decision. I understand the impulse to delete a log that seems questionable, and for me it would come down to calculating the odds that I would have to hear about it again later. If I was suggesting something, I would say "You should do X" or "The correct action is X."

Yes, it looks like that's what happened on a cache I found last weekend. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC2RJHH_micro-sur-la-300?guid=b30ecff1-8b00-471e-8065-5aa620a7a5cf I logged it the following day, so my find log has the correct date of the find, and the NM log has a different date. I haven't cached since this was implemented so I haven't logged anything. When you selected NM and then "may be missing" did it give you any opportunity to add detail? If not, and all that happened was the canned message in the post, then I don't think that the change is as convenient - unless we know and document in the found log, what we would have posted in the NM log. The learning curve just got a bit hairier,,, No option to add detail. This was a pretty rare scenario where I felt that "may be missing" was actually an appropriate thing to log, given that the guardrail was recently obliterated in a vehicle collision. I log from field notes, so I guess from now on I'll just have to mention the maintenance issue in the found log and hope that's enough. I'm not changing my process to edit logs.

I completely agree. The last 2 logs just before the reviewer disable: "Very very wet!" "Definitely soggy" The log just after the OM, about 20 days after the OM in February: "Looks like the cache has left it's quarters...new cache is needed" The next and most current log in April: "Found nothing but an old log book in a ziplock (see pic) under a log. It had many signatures in it so it is not from the new replacement. It was too soggy to even sign. Cannot find any sign of the new cache in the area. Checked all of the obvious places in the area and some not so obvious. Replaced the logbook back under the log." I'm floored that anyone is arguing that this cache should not have been disabled, just because the word mold referred to a tree log and not the wet unsignable logsheet. And it looks like the owner didn't actually replace their cache. If they did, where did they hide it? Why didn't they remove the old log in a baggie? Why would a seasoned cacher not find the D1.5 new cache but found a log in a baggie at ground zero? And why hasn't the owner responded to the last 2 logs after the OM. Some have no problem with the lack of maintenance, but are all up in arms because I reviewer discovered and disabled this cache. Wow. Would you be okay with this if it was Keyword: Unicorns? As long as a cache somewhere gets archived, all is right with the world? Don't get mad at the reviewer. Get mad at the cache owner that let their cache become junk then continued to act irresponsibly by not responding to a disable note, or picking up the junk and archiving it themselves. Your cache has been archived due to Keyword: Pizza.

The trouble with log deletion is that it's hard to defend if you don't have the logbook and the cacher decides to fight about it.