narcissa
-
Posts
7386 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by narcissa
-
-
I inadvertently posted this in a reply to Narcissa. I'm repeating it in its own post, which is where it should be.
Could someone 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 in a DNF log?
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.
-
Imagine that you are setting off on a hike, a bike ride or a kayaking trip and, somewhere along the way is a nice cache whose description includes "You will need a special tool to open the cache". You grab a selection of tools and set off on your trip. You arrive at GZ and there's the cache. It has a nice big geocache sticker on it and the GC Code is clearly marked. The type of tool is obvious, but you don't have one of them and there is no way to improvise. Given that we know that DNF logs are being regarded by the algorithm as "cache might be missing" and given that you know 100% that it isn't missing, do you really think it is a good idea to log a DNF?
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
That's pretty obvious, isn't it.....
I would say so, but the forum user behind that particular thread seems to believe otherwise.
-
Groundspeak's decision to base cache health on DNF count has done nothing to sway how i log a cache. DNF equals one thing, Did Not Find. Punching "goto" (this is a button on old timey gpsrs) and heading off to find a cache begins the search for me. Doesn't matter if i run out of fuel on the way to the cache, abandon a search because of bad weather, get run off by an irate land owner, etc, etc,,, it's a DNF if i Did Not Find the cache.
You'd think it was an easy concept to grasp. There's no gray area here, a person either finds the cache they took off for, or they don't.
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.
-
If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.
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.
-
I said, a long time ago in another thread, that I believe that DNF means Did Not Find, not Did Not Search. If I start to look for a cache, there are 7 possible outcomes:
1. I don't get close to GZ. In this case I usually log nothing. If the reason might be of interest to others, I will log a note.
2. I get close to GZ and choose not to start searching. Usually I log nothing unless the reason might be significant to others. If a local farmers market has just started and is held on the second Sunday of the Month, I'll probably log a note advising that there is a market stall just a few metres from GZ and the second Sunday of the month probably isn't the best time to search for this one. Once I posted an NA.
3. I start searching, the cache is found and the log signed. I would log a find
4. I start searching, the cache is found, but I cannot sign the log due to maintenance issues. I log a find provided I can supply evidence of my presence and of the issue. I'll also log a NM, or possibly even an NA.
5. I start searching, the cache is located but I cannot sign the log due to my failing. If I can't reach the cache, can't solve the field puzzle, have forgotten my pen and can't find any other way to sign the log, I won't log a DNF - I found the darn thing, after all. I'll log a note, if only to thank the CO for the cache.
6. I start searching can't find the cache and finally decide that I'm giving up on this one today. I'll log a DNF.
7. I start searching, can't find the cache in the time available but external factors mean I have to cut short the search. I may or may not log a DNF, depending on whether I feel I have given a good search. When I had just begun my search and a group of muggles started a Tai Chi session 5m from GZ (yes, that really happened) I didn't log anything. Other times I'll log a note or DNF, depending on whether I feel I had made a real search.
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.
-
.png)
4
-
-
With DNFs now being shown on the map, that only encourages people to log DNF whenever they have attempted a cache but not put a signature in the log for whatever reason, either as a reminder of ones they might want to go back and retry or as a warning not to go near them again.
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.
-
This is how I have always used them as well, but I am uncomfortable posting logs that trigger troublesome nag messages simply because I didn't find a cache. I haven't been caching much lately because I am gigantically pregnant but I think when I hit the trails again I will be setting up something private to track my DNFs and I won't log them on the site anymore.
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.
-
Let's see if I understood well (my English skills are not as good as they should be).
The main concern here is that DNF logs now have a great impact on the Cache Health Score (CHS) even if the context of the log is clearly not related to the cache health. This could trigger an automated email notice to the CO to take action.
In my opinion, this is not a big issue even for the CO. Let's imagine that in one of my caches I receive a couple of DNFs logging "I abort because of muggles" and "It was too cold to search for more than 1 minute". If those DNFs (and lacking of further DNFs of logs related to actual cache problems) trigger the automated email to me, asking me to take action to avoid Archive, I would take action. But this doesn't means that I have to go to a X-hours walk to my cache to check it is in its place (there is not a clue of that). I would log an OM with "Given that the DNFs reported didn't make a complete search I don't think there is any problem with this cache (unless any cacher can say other thing) and I consider it is in good health". That OM log should recover the CHS. If a reviewer check the cache and complains about logging OM without actual visiting the cache at least I can argue now with a human and not an automated system. Not a big issue here.
I think DNF logs, if providing some detailed context (not those plain "I didn't find it
"), are very useful for everybody (DNF poster, CO, future hunters and past DNF posters) and if they trigger an automated notice to owners is also good as they force CO at least to be responsive.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.
-
If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.
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.
-
If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.
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.
-
If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.
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.
-
If a cache is meant to be easy to find as in a D1 or D1.5 and has a DNF and CO is able to check on it they should. Sometimes caches go missing due to the weather, muggles, or some other reason that is unknown. If the CO doesn't log in to the site to at least confirm the cache is in place and hasn't been found in years, then a Needs Archived log is warranted since the CO is ignoring it and it isn't findable.
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?
-
The other, as I keep saying, is that most DNFs simply don't imply a problem with the cache or require any action by the CO. A month ago I had a DNF on one of my multis saying they couldn't get phone reception at the first waypoint and couldn't see the cache page (which, by the way, says that there's no phone reception there and to print everything out beforehand). What possible good would it do to dash over and check on that cache in response to a DNF like that?
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.
-
As a relatively new cache owner (i adopted alot of caches that were in trouble because the owner lost interest and was not bothered by all the DNF's and NM logs), I welcome and rely on all logs including DNF logs on my new caches, just last week i had a DNF and it was because it had been muggled, it was soon replaced as it was fairly close. But if i get an automated email about it, so what ? I'm still going to check it out because i want to keep my caches in good shape, not because some health score somewhere that none of us can see, or can we ??
If we had access to see the health score on our caches it would be more useful than just getting an eamil telling us to sort it out or else.
The bottom line is, we need DNF logs even if it does generate an email from HQ. The responsible cache owners will be the ones that benefit from this.
If you are not going to maintain your caches you shouldn't place them in the first place and find a different hobby.
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.
-
As a relatively new cache owner (i adopted alot of caches that were in trouble because the owner lost interest and was not bothered by all the DNF's and NM logs), I welcome and rely on all logs including DNF logs on my new caches, just last week i had a DNF and it was because it had been muggled, it was soon replaced as it was fairly close. But if i get an automated email about it, so what ? I'm still going to check it out because i want to keep my caches in good shape, not because some health score somewhere that none of us can see, or can we ??
If we had access to see the health score on our caches it would be more useful than just getting an eamil telling us to sort it out or else.
The bottom line is, we need DNF logs even if it does generate an email from HQ. The responsible cache owners will be the ones that benefit from this.
If you are not going to maintain your caches you shouldn't place them in the first place and find a different hobby.
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.
-
Just wait 'til AI hits the scene.
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.
-
As a relatively new cache owner (i adopted alot of caches that were in trouble because the owner lost interest and was not bothered by all the DNF's and NM logs), I welcome and rely on all logs including DNF logs on my new caches, just last week i had a DNF and it was because it had been muggled, it was soon replaced as it was fairly close. But if i get an automated email about it, so what ? I'm still going to check it out because i want to keep my caches in good shape, not because some health score somewhere that none of us can see, or can we ??
If we had access to see the health score on our caches it would be more useful than just getting an eamil telling us to sort it out or else.
The bottom line is, we need DNF logs even if it does generate an email from HQ. The responsible cache owners will be the ones that benefit from this.
If you are not going to maintain your caches you shouldn't place them in the first place and find a different hobby.
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?
-
Earthcaches are classified into 20+ subtypes (erosional feature, fold feature, igneous (plutonic) feature, sedimentary feature, ...). However, you can't find these classifications on the EC page at geocaching.com. (Unless the CO is aware of what it is and adds it to the description. But rarely you see this.)
At one time you could go to earthcache.org and could download a CSV list of ECs with their classifications. This no longer appears on the site.
Anyone know where to get it now?
I seem to recall that at some point they fell very far behind on categorizing them and just decided to give up on it.
-
JUNK!
My four year old son and I have taken up this AMAZING hobby in the last few months and i am more than excited! We have a jar in the car for our treasures and have gone so far as to order amazing treasures to leave/trade. For him, trading a bouncy ball for another bouncy ball is the best part! However, lately, it's been JUNK, mini gift bags? An ammo box with nothing but a log and no pen??!! I'm planning to hide soon, as i want a little more experience, and i will feel obligated to maintain an optimum treasure hunting experience! (For the sake of the littles out there!!)
Im sorry in advance if this has already been stated or is in bad geocaching taste.
Thanks for
Cash&(his)mom.
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.
.png)
"), are very useful for everybody (DNF poster, CO, future hunters and past DNF posters) and if they trigger an automated notice to owners is also good as they force CO at least to be responsive.
Demonising the DNF
in General geocaching topics
Posted
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.