narcissa

Where did this example occur? I think we can all imagine examples of DNF logs that apparently serve little to no purpose. Before the health score turned DNFs into a strike against a cache, this log might not be useful, but it wasn't harmful so I see no need be critical of it. I can't read minds and maybe it is useful to the person who wrote it. Several people have said that they will always log either a DNF or a Find once they have hit "GO" on their GPS, even if they abort the hunt before it started. I'm at a loss to see why they find it necessary to log anything at all under those circumstances. This is a made-up example of one such situation. Please feel free to substitute any other "Hit Go on my GPS, but didn't reach the parking spot" sceario you want. It makes sense to me that some geocachers prefer to use a broader definition of a search, and would like to have their efforts easily recorded in one place. This is a game of individuals with their own priorities and perceptions. A log that serves no purpose for you may be useful for someone else. There's no need to demand an explanation or criticize fellow geocachers for benign actions. But the severe objectivists can rest easy. Now that these allegedly useless logs are being counted by the auto-nag system, they will decline in frequency and we'll all just wordlessly find caches or report them as missing with no detail at all.

Where did this example occur? I think we can all imagine examples of DNF logs that apparently serve little to no purpose. Before the health score turned DNFs into a strike against a cache, this log might not be useful, but it wasn't harmful so I see no need be critical of it. I can't read minds and maybe it is useful to the person who wrote it.

Yes, I would log a DNF, with an explanation that I lacked the tool. My mind is officially boggled. Why? Maybe the geocacher wants it to be in his/her records as an attempt, and have it appear on his/her map as a distinct blue frown. Why is the blue frown appearing on the map if we're only allowed to log DNFs in extremely specific circumstances? I don't understand this harsh criticism of other people's logging protocols. Who is most likely to even notice any log I write? I am. Logs are, first and foremost, a record of my activity for my own benefit. I try to make them as helpful for other geocachers as I can, where applicable, but I assume I will be the primary user of my logs, regardless of type.

Needs archived with full description of the encounter. The cache owner probably didn't get permission to place it there.

My GPS also has the very useful "DNF" option built in. It sits directly above the also very useful "Unattempted" option. Could you please explain what useful information is contained in a log which says "On the way to the cache it started raining so I turned round, drove home and didn't get within 5Km of the cache"? Or any other log written about an attempt which didn't even get to the parking area? If I were the CO, I wouldn't care if someone happened to be driving along a road 5Km from my cache. If I were a potential seeker of the cache, I don't really need to know that someone once drove along a road near the cache If I were the person writing the log, it doesn't give me any help in finding the cache next time. If I absolutely had to write something to remind myself that it once rained when I was on the way to the cache, a private cache note would suffice. What is the purpose of recording that information? I can't find the post with the example you're referring to. If I drove home without attempting to find a cache, there wouldn't be a field note. My threshold for what constitutes a search attempt may be different than yours but there's no need to be insulting about it. And, as mentioned, I have acknowledged that I was using DNFs wrong according to the new site parameters and the forum mob, so I won't be using them anymore. You can put the stick down.

That's pretty obvious, isn't it..... I would say so, but the forum user behind that particular thread seems to believe otherwise.

This has generally been my protocol as well, though I understand that others differ. It wasn't a problem until DNFs became a negative hit on a cache, causing problems for cache owners regardless of the DNF's context. We can see from the other logging changes they've incorporated that actually sharing details about our experience is not a priority anymore. I guess they just want to streamline things. Found good, everything else bad.

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived? Reviewer reviews it. Obviously nothing to see here. Move along..... No harm done. No cachers were injured in the sending of this email..... Reviewers get notified about single DNFs now? Since when? I'm really not ringing that bell, ever. Sheesh. The reviewer wouldn't review it until it was being considered for archiving. Thank you for saying that! I agree, if a cache is receiving DNF logs because it is missing and the CO is gone than the reviewer would review it because of an NA! A single DNF that says "gave up because of muggles" should not be taken as a sign that a cache is missing or that the CO is absent.

Bully for you. There is nothing wrong with this, but this doesn't need to be the protocol for everyone. Until the health score started dinging caches for DNFs regardless of context, it didn't matter if people varied in their decision-making. There was no reason to nitpick and criticize the way others use DNF. In fact, for years, many people have bitterly complained that nobody was using it enough! DNF is built into my GPS, which saves a field note when I have to abort an attempt and select another cache to find. That field note becomes a draft DNF log when I import it into the website. Why was it designed that way, presumably in collaboration with Geocaching.com to some extent, if I am not permitted to use it like that? Avoiding DNF field notes in my GPS takes more steps. Due to these changes, I will likely need to abandon field notes and turn to a more manual system for logging, which is inconvenient and time-consuming. I usually try to log within a couple of days of searching for a cache. I thought it was important to give timely information about what I experienced at or on the way to the GZ. Evidently not.

Micros have their place but I prefer to see a wider variety of cache sizes. In many places, the vast majority of caches are micros and that can be boring.

This is the most astonishing part of the whole thing. For years people have been asking for this feature, specifically to enhance the DNF as a tool for the finder so we can see caches on the map that we've attempted but haven't found. So they finally implement this feature in the map and then turn around and make the DNF into something totally different! It's absurd.

But how many of your DNF's have triggered nag messages? I'm still not seeing the stigma of DNF's. The main stigma is the CO's non-response to them. I have no way of knowing. I just know what I see in the forum and hear from fellow geocachers. There are several voices right here in this thread underscoring my feeling that I have been using them wrong anyway. I use them primarily to track my own attempts at caches so I know which ones I would like to attempt again. The new system and the forum mob assure me this is wrong. So if I am only allowed to use a DNF when I believe a cache is missing, they are indistinguishable from an NM and I see no need to use DNF at all.

This is dandy, but most cache owners don't read the forum and wouldn't necessarily know they can do that when they receive a terse email demanding action regardless of context. From the examples that have been raised in previous posts, the tone of the message doesn't suggest there is any flexibility or room for cache owner discretion.

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived? It seems to me that you are arguing just for argument's sake. If you're interested in real life scenarios, I went back and checked most of my caches. There are several that have DNFs logged ... one that had 2 in a row!!! All except one of these, have the next cacher logging a find. That one is still outstanding as the last log being DNF Guess what? No harassing email from HQ on ANY of them! Where are all these horrible emails that would make one want to stop lodging DNF so nasty grams won't be sent to unsuspecting cachers, as you are promoting? You haven't heard of the automated emails? There are quite a few posts about them if you go back through the forum a little ways. Sure I've heard of them. And I've seen some of the posts, but, truthfully, have you had any DNFs on your caches and how many automated emails have you gotten? I wonder what the ratio is of DNFs posted on all of geocaching to the number of automated emails actually sent. I don't have many active caches right now so my concern isn't from that angle. I am uncomfortable with the way the new system strips meaning and context from DNFs and makes them indistinguishable from NMs. Obviously, my personal system of logging is not what the Geocaching.com system is meant for, at least not anymore, so I need to adapt. Everyone has different logging habits and systems. I am only talking about changing my own.

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived? It seems to me that you are arguing just for argument's sake. If you're interested in real life scenarios, I went back and checked most of my caches. There are several that have DNFs logged ... one that had 2 in a row!!! All except one of these, have the next cacher logging a find. That one is still outstanding as the last log being DNF Guess what? No harassing email from HQ on ANY of them! Where are all these horrible emails that would make one want to stop lodging DNF so nasty grams won't be sent to unsuspecting cachers, as you are promoting? You haven't heard of the automated emails? There are quite a few posts about them if you go back through the forum a little ways.

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived? Reviewer reviews it. Obviously nothing to see here. Move along..... No harm done. No cachers were injured in the sending of this email..... Reviewers get notified about single DNFs now? Since when? I'm really not ringing that bell, ever. Sheesh.

So what if the person who wrote the DNF writes "Sudden downpour, had to stop searching, I'll come back later?" The cache owner needs to check on the cache or it should be archived?

This type of example is where I have changed my approach to logging DNF. In the past, I would log DNFs if I set out but didn't find for lots of reasons - ran out of time, whatever. It just meant I tried to find it, and I didn't. These days - whether they have tweaked the algorithm and more DNFs are needed or not - DNFs are seen as "it might be missing". If I get to GZ, have a good look, and don't find, I'll still raise a DNF. Even though I know I'm not a great finder, and it is likely to be there. But I won't log a DNF for other reasons (e.g. it took longer than I thought to get there so I had to abort before reaching GZ). As I know my DNF log might impact the health score and emails (or even reviewer action), I want to have at least reached GZ and looked for it. In that case, there is at least a chance it might be missing. I'm not saying that's a problem. Just that I think it is reasonable to consider how DNFs are viewed these days before submitting one. Exactly - if I get to GZ and there are too many muggles around for me to search, or a bunch shows up in the middle of my search, that's not a dnf. If there's a hobo sleeping on the hide (I've run into this), that's not a dnf. Those are WNs - with an explanation in the log. That's why searchers should read the logs before attempting the cache, not just look for the dnf frownies... For me, that was a DNF. It was a cache I would want to record as an attempt and visit again. Now that they finally show the frowns on the map, I would have wanted to see that cache as a frown on the map. But it isn't worth creating a strike against the cache owner.

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache? no thats not what im sayin, please read my post again. I did read it again and what you are advocating is that cache owners should check on the cache regardless of the context contained in the DNFs. When I write a DNF, I don't usually write it with the intention of forcing someone to check on a cache. Therefore, in accordance with the new system, my protocol for logging is wrong, so I am changing it and won't be using DNFs because they're redundant. Context was a crucial aspect of my DNFs. If context is being stripped away, my DNFs have no meaning. Come on... that's nowhere near what he said... what he said was "If you are not going to maintain your caches you shouldn't place them in the first place and find a different hobby." And that's a correct statement - if you're not going to maintain your caches, perhaps being a CO isn't for you. I still log dnfs regardless of the new logging / score / what have you... they'll either help cachers and COs, or they won't. But they'll know that I tried and couldn't find it... I have no concerns as a cache owner. I worry about more casual cachers who don't know the nuances of these changes. Changing my logging habits to avoid triggering the auto-nag is just a small shift I will be making in response to the change. Unlike some geocachers I still feel a sense of gratitude toward cache owners and don't wish to bring them trouble because I didn't have my thinking cap on at the GZ.

My husband noticed a glitch the other day where someone had NMed a cache, with good reason, but no wrench appeared. He noticed the log go by and made a mental note to check on things but when he went to remind himself which cache it was he had to dig a bit because no wrenches appeared in his cache list. So I don't know that using NM on your own cache is necessarily as useful as it might have been before anyway.

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache? no thats not what im sayin, please read my post again. I did read it again and what you are advocating is that cache owners should check on the cache regardless of the context contained in the DNFs. When I write a DNF, I don't usually write it with the intention of forcing someone to check on a cache. Therefore, in accordance with the new system, my protocol for logging is wrong, so I am changing it and won't be using DNFs because they're redundant. Context was a crucial aspect of my DNFs. If context is being stripped away, my DNFs have no meaning.

Good AI would probably have some ability to interpret the context of logs instead of just crudely treating DNFs as negative hits. Another thing that gets lost in all of this is that much of the data that would actually point to a cache issue is hidden in Found It logs. That's where people admit to placing throw-downs, but I guess I'm in a minority among cachers who think that's a problem for the game. Seems like most of the forum mob just wants to take down cache owners who have the audacity to place a cache that isn't found by 100% of the people who attempt it.

Just to be clear, what you are saying is that if my DNF log says "had to quit looking due to muggles," and that triggers a nag email, the cache owner should find a different hobby if she exercises her own discretion and doesn't check on the cache?

I seem to recall that at some point they fell very far behind on categorizing them and just decided to give up on it.

Swag is important to some cachers, and unimportant to others. Due to ongoing complaints and criticisms about swag, we no longer participate in swag at all and keep our caches entirely clear of trade items.