Jump to content

narcissa

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    7386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by narcissa

  1. Nowhere is there a "threat" implied or otherwise of your cache being archived, at least by anyone but yourself. So no, there is no reprimand. "...looks like it might..." "...may contain..." "...could be..." "...a few options..." "...if...if...if..." Nope, still don't see any reason to feel insulted with this notification email. Can you highlight the portion that says it's totally okay to ignore the email? I am having trouble spotting that passage.
  2. The quoted versions that I've seen have offered three alternatives to the cache owner: visit the cache now, visit the cache within the timeframe allowed for temporarily disabled caches, or archive the cache. A lot of concerns would be addressed if the "nag" emails included a "read it and leave it" option for cache owners who receive the email because of a false positive. This is my concern with it. I don't think that most of my fellow geocachers would assume, given the tone of the email, that it can be safely ignored. And I really don't trust that it actually can be ignored without consequences.
  3. In case D, I would still want the record of having started an approach even if my reason for quitting was not relevant to anyone but me. At that point, for me, it becomes a cache I have started and would like to finish soon. I don't want to divide my DNF records into those I post online and those I don't. I was thinking that with field notes I can just let them accumulate as un-logged notes and delete them when I have found them. It isn't ideal but it's at least still somewhat streamlined with my activity in the field.
  4. You didn't. But I assume you can understand this progression: 1. "I would be annoyed / insulted by a nag message if it was triggered by a DNF that didn't require action" 2. I and many will continue to log DNFs that do not require CO action, for interest's sake and relevance to the other cachers, also causing you "annoyance and insult" if it happens to trigger a "nag" email. 3. I have no sympathy for such "annoyance and insult". It's negligible at absolute worst. Delete the email and move on (ideally if you know there is no issue, and if there is ideally you wouldn't ignore it, as you imply you do by saying DNFs on your caches have no value to you). * And I'll continue to let other COs who are worried by the email know of this 'way around', at least until the wording on the email is adjusted, or Groundspeak does decide to implement some automated 'hit' against any and all 'nagged' caches. I'm sorry you see it that way. Really. Posting your relevant DNFs is not sticking it to other cachers. No matter what you believe. It's using the system as it was intended to be used. The side effect is minimal at best, and completely harmless. Totally. 100%. You are sticking it to no one by continuing to log your DNFs. Nope. If you continue, you are using the system exactly as it was designed to be used, the way that works best for you, which consists of relevant information (in your case, info for you; and unbeknownst or unimportant to you, likely quite a number of other people as well, assuming you don't post empty DNF logs). Then don't. Only one person in this thread seems to really be emphasizing something along those lines, and he's getting a lot of push back. No need to play the victim. But you are playing a sort of antagonist if you withhold ALL of your DNFs from COs and cachers who may find them helpful and informational. No, this is not implying you are required to log every DNF. But your motivation for withholding is antagonistic, and not just making a point to Groundspeak, but leading to collateral damage to the community. Log your DNFs as you always have, because they have value to the CO and other cachers, even if you only create them for yourself. Don't let the system get you down, man Other users have posted lengthy manifestos about how my kind of logging is bad and wrong. But not logging my way is also bad and wrong. Awesome. Thanks for clarifying, forum!
  5. Sorry. I put bubbles in the first cache I hid. When I went back nine years later (hiding more caches in the area), I removed the bubbles because people say bubbles should not be in caches. No problem. The bubbles were still well sealed. No need to be sorry. I just take them out when I find them. I did write to this new cacher and explained that anything liquid shouldn't be left in a cache. Being that they were new I am sure they didn't know even how to check for mail arriving to their account and if they did they ignored my plea. Since then I have found where they are still leaving bubbles. I understand we have all been new at one time or another. But me....I like to help the newbies. ... by banning them from hiding caches.
  6. Yes. Which is after it starts. If it hasn't started, then it hasn't "finished". It's really just a strange discussion about arbitrary definitions of phases of the process between seeing a listing to signing the log, and at what point, under what circumstances, various people decide posting a DNF is appropriate. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for your pain. It's an email. Delete it and move on. Seriously. If you ignore DNFs anyway because they have no value to you on your own caches, then you can even ignore REAL issues where those "nags" are actually legitimate. Bluntly, get over it. Not logging your DNFs at all is definitely taking something away from the community. They are informative to followup cachers who choose to read them, if you indeed post relevant information, and may be of interest to COs, whether or not there's a legitimate concern in your log. I'll say it again - sticking it to the man in this case is sticking it to fellow cachers. I don't know where I asked for your sympathy or mentioned pain. I have very few active caches and I tend to err on the side of overly communicative when people DNF on them, so this issue likely won't affect me very much as a cache owner. It is quite clear from this thread that depending on which half of the forum mob is complaining, I am sticking it to my fellow cachers whether I log my DNFs or not. Since I am one of those dreaded "once I hit go" kind of DNFers and I write DNFs mainly for my own records and personal enjoyment, it seems quite clear that I am misusing the system if I continue. Categorizing my DNFs according to some arbitrary worthiness of search is an effort I am not willing to make. I would rather have a single record of all caches I have attempted, whether or not those attempts pass muster with others.
  7. Too drastic, narcissa. "no DNFs of any sort" - please! Let me ask you a question about your caches. Do you want us to quit logging DNFs on them? Don't you find them helpful? I want to know if people can't find my cache. And what if you got one of these nag letters? Would it annoy you? Would you trade one for the other? No nag letter for no DNFs? Why stop doing something that benefits you? Whether or not you log DNFs on my caches is a personal decision. The circumstances under which you choose to log a DNF on one of my caches is also a personal decision. I appreciate all logs on my caches but it's not my place as a cache owner to tell people how they should log. I would be annoyed / insulted by a nag message if it was triggered by a DNF that didn't require action, and I don't wish to cause this issue for fellow geocachers. I can track my own cache activity offline easily enough. The blue frowns on the map would have been a nice feature to make use of (finally), but we're apparently not supposed to use DNFs unless we think the cache is gone, so *shrug*.
  8. I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach. You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing. They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process. The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that. So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob. We really seem to be talking at cross purposes here. I fully agree with your desire to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and I understand your decision not to log any (although I feel it is a bit extreme, I can't criticise it). I also want to post DNFs when the circumstances seem appropriate and will continue to do so. But I never have, and will not, post DNFs when I haven't made what I feel to be a fair search. Other log types will fill that gap for me. I don't understand what you mean by "You people". Groundspeak have made the decision to send the health score e-mails and I am not in any way connected with Groundspeak. I have no influence over them and I have not contributed in any way to their decision. You have made the decision to stop logging DNFs because you seem to believe that the problem is sufficiently serious to warrant that action. As far as I can tell, there is little evidence regarding the number of e-mails being sent and the impact that they are actually having on Cache owners. Until such evidence comes to light, I will continue to log DNFs as I always have. You have spent a considerable amount of time denigrating other people's DNFs because you don't understand that their assessment of a fair search differs from yours.
  9. I appreciate that. Obviously, you are not one of the people who are not going to change their approach. You don't seem to understand that the entire thing is very confusing. They *just* released a site feature that suggests we can / should use DNFs personally to track aborted attempts and failures. If I have to cancel a search because of conditions I encounter in the field, I would very much like to have that show up on the map so I can easily re-attempt later. I don't see what is so very difficult for you to comprehend about that, even if it doesn't match your process. The weird nag system means I can't do this anymore without causing problems for cache owners. It doesn't negate the fact that, for me, an aborted search attempt is something worth recording as a DNF regardless of what needlessly awful things the forum has to say about that. So again, you people win, no DNFs of any sort from me. I will stop using the site features in a way that was useful to me in order to appease the mob.
  10. I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather. Because it's relevant to them. I expect that the vast majority of the time, I am going to be the main beneficiary of any information I write in any kind of log. The information I used to write in DNFs was for my own benefit as much as anybody else's. I would be descriptive in case it was helpful, but in the long run the person most likely to return to read those logs was me. If I have to abort an attempt for any reason, I would like to record that so I can track it and attempt it again. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain. I still don't get why it is important to record something as mundane as "I gave up because the weather turned bad", but I guess to some folk it is. One of the reasons I don't understand the "I've hit GO and therefore I must log something." approach is because I own an Etrex-30x. After it has woken up, I click the "Geocaches" button and get a list of caches near my current location. I get the first 16 characters of the name, the D/T, size, type and distance, but to see the description, hints, logs etc. I have to select the cache and hit GO. I frequently hit GO and decide that I'm not interested in the cache and select a different one from the list. Surely no one would log anything then? One thing I've taken away from this thread is that there are people out there with the attitude "I've always done it this way. I know that circumstances have changed and that if I continue in my approach it may have some negative impact on Cache Owners, but I'm not going to change and if the Cache Owners don't like it then maybe Cache ownership isn't for them". That is all well and good until the CO agrees with them and walks away, taking their caches with them. Cache owners are the lifeblood of this game. They spend time, money and energy putting out caches. Without cache owners, this game would not exist. I don't know how serious the problem is. Maybe a reviewer can comment on how many health score e-mails they become aware of and what proportion of them look like false positives. Maybe it is all a false alarm, I know I've not received one, but until it is shown to be a non-event, I believe we should treat it seriously and adapt accordingly. In one of my earliest comments, and numerous others, I quite clearly stated that I will no longer log DNFs of any sort now that they are used punitively against caches / cache owners.
  11. That's interesting, but to me the problem was related to a cache-specific task. He was unable or unwilling to do what was required to continue in the progress ot the cache. To me that's related enough to log a DNF. As opposed to something like "it started raining and I didn't want to get my shoes muddy on the trail, so I didn't exit my car at parking - DNF" =P Now if they'd gone down the trail, came to an intersection, noticed the trail was thick mud, and farther down it was heavily washed out with a nice big pond - I'd say that would warrant a DNF, though some may still leave it as a note depending on how close GZ was. If I felt that the washout would hinder anyone from reaching the, say, 1.5T cache, then I'd DNF it (and if it seemed a more permanent hindrance, I might contact the CO to let them know - in that case I wouldn't post a NM). There is so much subjective judgement calling based on numerous factors in these situations. And that's why it's not, and cannot be, strictly defined. Returning to read, sure, that's likely true. But for more immediate followup cachers, those logs, even once-off, express highly valuable information which they'll either have to read or ignore and skip, if they choose to check recent logs. What is your point? Should we also demonize find logs with detail?
  12. I get that. The bit I don't get is why anyone would want to log anything, yet alone a DNF, about failing to get to GZ due to something completely unrelated to the cache. A phone call, the main highway closed to a crash, the weather. Because it's relevant to them. I expect that the vast majority of the time, I am going to be the main beneficiary of any information I write in any kind of log. The information I used to write in DNFs was for my own benefit as much as anybody else's. I would be descriptive in case it was helpful, but in the long run the person most likely to return to read those logs was me. If I have to abort an attempt for any reason, I would like to record that so I can track it and attempt it again. The bit I don't get is why it is so difficult to comprehend that the relevance of a DNF log is totally subjective and dependant on the person reading / using the log. I mean, I hear the message loud and clear that DNF logs with any sort of information or context are not wanted on the voyage, but it is a bit of a loss for me to not be able to track my unsuccessful attempts in the same place I track my finds. It would have been nice to be able to do this now that the blue frowns appear on the map.
  13. We have found that placing difficult caches is a more effective tactic for weeding out low quality cachers. While I find it beneficial to pay for premium site services, I don't feel a need to push others to do so.
  14. This is a recurring topic in the forum.
  15. Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder." The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder: No stated options for reporting false positives or defending a cache that is honestly difficult to find. Removes CO agency and discretion.
  16. I imagine it just has to do with the way the site detects whether or not someone qualifies for a souvenir. I must have missed where it said: "Only available for active geocachers." I doubt that it was intentional. I am not a programmer so I am just speculating, but it might be that activity on the account is just what triggers the souvenirs to update. Or something like that. But if it brings you joy to make malicious accusations about Geocaching.com discriminating against your late friend, that's cool, I guess.
  17. No. The caches most in need of action are the ones most likely to be subject to the throw-down mentality, so this score nonsense doesn't impact them.
  18. Now that DNFs are universally bad and stripped of context, we need to consider how the automated site features treat them. Before this auto-nag thing started up, it wasn't really a big deal if people had different ways of using them and it really didn't matter if someone else understood the decision or not. What matters now is that an algorithm is only going to understand a DNF as "cache owner naughty" and that's just the reality we have to adjust to.
  19. That's pretty obvious, isn't it..... Yes the "Gave up because of muggles" is more of a did not look or too hard to find and has nothing to do with the CO being present or absent. I don't believe anybody thinks otherwise but I could be wrong. So why do you keep asserting that cache owners should treat all DNFs as problems with the cache?
  20. I imagine it just has to do with the way the site detects whether or not someone qualifies for a souvenir.
  21. Needs archived is a clumsy name for a log that is really meant to bring the cache to a reviewer's attention. When there are disputes with non-cachers like this it's the best thing you can do to get it cleared up so nobody else runs into trouble.
  22. Cache owners are not obligated to respond to private messages. When it comes to DNFs, the cache owner may choose to take a wait-and-see approach before checking. Often, the cache is still in place. It isn't an emergency if you can't find someone's cache.
  23. I love cemetery caches too, but if geocachers are being chased off the cemetery by angry staff, that's a pretty big problem. Cemeteries may be open to the public, but permission is still needed to place caches there. Needs archived and let the reviewer investigate the situation so nobody else is put into a dicey situation. Sometimes, even when permission does exist, we have to concede that a geocache isn't feasible if it is putting our fellow geocachers at risk of these run-ins. Sometimes there just isn't much you can do about a staff member, a security guard, or a neighbour who is going to be unhinged.
  24. Angry land managers and staff are a serious concern that should always be brought to a reviewer's attention, promptly.
  25. Yes, I would log a DNF, with an explanation that I lacked the tool. My mind is officially boggled. Why boggled? A person in this situation did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on the cache. Two reasons: First, I don't understand a DNF when they actually held the cache in their hand. Find is not the only alternative and they did "Find" the cache. Second, given that a DNF will be interpreted by the algorithm as "Cache might be missing" and might trigger a nastygram to the CO, It seems wrong (to me, I know maybe not to others) to log a DNF when they know for 100% certainty that the cache isn't missing. I would treat that like not having completed a challenge and would log a note. Nobody (as far as I know) logs DNF when they did not complete all the steps needed for claiming a legitimate find on a challenge cache. This seems, to me, to be an analogous situation. Prior to the new algorithm, there was nothing that made it "wrong" to use DNF for a broader range of experiences. If it wasn't for the new algorithm, the new feature on the map would have led me to believe that they were, in fact, encouraging the use of DNF for a broader range of experiences. I would expect that, with the new feature highlighting DNFs, a geocacher may be more inclined to use DNF to denote any cache that they had attempted in some fashion and hoped to return to. The fact that DNFs are triggering problematic auto-nag messages for unsuspecting cache owners is the only thing in the site design and function that suggests it is wrong to use DNFs. Up until recently, most of the official messaging around DNFs has encouraged their use for a range of scenarios.
×
×
  • Create New...