Jump to content

narcissa

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    7386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by narcissa

  1. Many of my DNFs in the past have been aborted attempts or situations where my experience may have been useful for others to know about, but do not warrant the assimption that the cache needs to be checked. For a long time I have made a habit out of specifically avoiding any suggestion that the cache is gone when I DNF. I have been wrong too many times! But now it doesn't matter what the circumstances are. DNF = check on your cache. It is no different than a NM. If I don't think the cache needs to be checked, I am not going to log a DNF. If I do think the cache needs to be checked, I will use NM. So that eliminates any need for DNF. If the system is going to decide for me what my logs mean now, I need to be careful about how I use them. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next year or two as we all get used to the logging page changes and different tactics and work-arounds emerge. It is still important to me to track my DNFs and re-attempt them when possible, but I can't, in good faith, keep logging the way I did before. I am just so disappointed in these changes. Over the past three years much of our caching has been by canoe, so old DNF logs can be very valuable when we're planning a trip. Usually, on caches like that, a DNF is due to seasonal conditions or other obstacles that have nothing to do with the "health" of the cache. It's just so frustrating that a DNF log, meant to be helpful and informative, now becomes a black mark against the cache owner. And these cache owners are often casual, so they don't necessarily know that they can safely ignore the automated nastygrams.
  2. This is exactly my concern. It's all well and good for the usual suspects to make malicious comments about cache owners, and I can see from glimpsing quoted text that they're doing exactly that, but in practice, I know that many of my fellow geocachers don't know about this new feature until they receive one of these emails. I understand that everyone finds their own work-arounds to these nuisances and I am not leading a charge to get everyone to stop DNFing. I, personally, feel that the changes have erased the value and meaning of my own DNF logs, and I don't wish to write logs that are only going to cause problems for COs by lowering some score and/or triggering the nag. The other changes to the logging system only further indicate to me that Groundspeak has given up encouraging any kind of detail or context in any logs. I'm still out here using PQs on a stand-alone GPS, trying to find interesting and challenging caches, logging my caches one at a time with logs as unique as I can muster, but at a certain point it's time to just admit that my way of doing things is not what the system is built for. If detailed logging isn't important, fine, I give up.
  3. I figure that if my contribution to the community actually had value, the system would not be configured to ignore all context of those logs. Groundspeak clearly doesn't care, other geocachers apparently don't care, so why should I make the effort? Writing DNFs has two purposes for me: my own records, which I can track privately, and providing information to others that is now evidently worthless. DNFs are not worthless to me! I couldn't care less what Groundspeak thinks about them! The cache belongs to me. They just list it. A DNF will tell me that you were at the cache and didn't find it.And I can watch the cache and respond if a problem develops. If you (and others)don't log the DNF at all, I lose valuable information. Who cares about the nag messages? They in no way change how I respond to DNF messages on my caches. They can easily be ignored and treated as the trash they are. I have heard many geocachers say they are bothered by the nag messages. The new system removes cache owner agency and insinuates that a cache has a problem as soon as someone can't find it. Many cache owners don't know about this feature until they receive the message, and it can be upsetting. We see posts all the time from cache owners who are alarmed when the automated system accuses them of neglecting a cache. I don't wish to participate in treating my fellow geocachers like that if I can help it. If DNFs are valuable to you as a cache owner, you should address your concerns to TPTB who have implemented these changes, rather than criticizing individual cachers who are just trying to keep up with the moving goalposts. Give me a break! Exactly.
  4. I figure that if my contribution to the community actually had value, the system would not be configured to ignore all context of those logs. Groundspeak clearly doesn't care, other geocachers apparently don't care, so why should I make the effort? Writing DNFs has two purposes for me: my own records, which I can track privately, and providing information to others that is now evidently worthless. DNFs are not worthless to me! I couldn't care less what Groundspeak thinks about them! The cache belongs to me. They just list it. A DNF will tell me that you were at the cache and didn't find it.And I can watch the cache and respond if a problem develops. If you (and others)don't log the DNF at all, I lose valuable information. Who cares about the nag messages? They in no way change how I respond to DNF messages on my caches. They can easily be ignored and treated as the trash they are. I have heard many geocachers say they are bothered by the nag messages. The new system removes cache owner agency and insinuates that a cache has a problem as soon as someone can't find it. Many cache owners don't know about this feature until they receive the message, and it can be upsetting. We see posts all the time from cache owners who are alarmed when the automated system accuses them of neglecting a cache. I don't wish to participate in treating my fellow geocachers like that if I can help it. If DNFs are valuable to you as a cache owner, you should address your concerns to TPTB who have implemented these changes, rather than criticizing individual cachers who are just trying to keep up with the moving goalposts.
  5. I figure that if my contribution to the community actually had value, the system would not be configured to ignore all context of those logs. Groundspeak clearly doesn't care, other geocachers apparently don't care, so why should I make the effort? Writing DNFs has two purposes for me: my own records, which I can track privately, and providing information to others that is now evidently worthless.
  6. I realize this wasn't done out of malice, but splicing unrelated comments together can create the illusion of a conversation that doesn't exist and in this case it puts me in a difficult situation.
  7. That's exactly how I use DNF/NM/NA logs too. 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.
  8. I'm not especially worried that this will lead to caches being archived due to just "several DNFs", at least I hope not, rather it's the mindset behind it that's unsettling. To me it is problematic because I tend to use DNFs quite freely and I rarely intend for them to be anything more than an account of my experience. I continue to find it astonishing and a bit insulting that the system is now designed to assume context in my DNF logs that makes them no different than NM. It's also confusing. If both logs are now a negative hit against the cache, why have both? It also discourages people from using DNF in ways that are genuinely helpful. Understanding why someone else failed to reach a tricky cache can help others with their planning. Using DNF was also a nice way for me to flag caches that I mean to return to, but I can't use it like that anymore without causing problems and misunderstandings for fellow geocachers. Writing a note is fine but it doesn't indicate that an attempt was made. It's just so hamfisted and does nothing to really address quality issues. The poor quality that is really overwhelming the game is caused by throw-downs.
  9. If the two logs are now equivalent, they should just get rid of the DNF option.
  10. No one can tell you that, but thankfully, no one needs to, either.
  11. And that's not how I interpret it. I take it to mean that you, not someone else on your behalf, must sign the log in some way. You can go ahead and interpret things however you'd like, but I don't think your interpretation would stand up to appeal if the issue was taken up with TPTB.
  12. It still wasn't posed as a "what is the CO allowed to do" type of question. There's no need to force it to devolve into nonsense about deleting finds unless that is what is being asked. There is no time limit on logging, and no requirement that an account must be created prior to caching. Those are the facts.
  13. The post is about what the new cacher should do, which is go ahead and log if their presence is indicated in the logbook in some fashion. Nobody threatened to delete anything.
  14. If you didn't sign the log in some fashion, you shouldn't log the find.
  15. It's weird that they would require a log in to answer the survey, but they're likely sending the survey to a sample of their users. It's not necessary to poll every single user on the site in order to gather insights about a particular topic. Additionally, they are probably trying to be responsible about managing the volume of email that people receive. Blasting everyone with email indiscriminately causes people to unsubscribe and lowers the overall impact of their communications.
  16. Some geocachers take pride in concocting malicious stories about other geocachers simply because their caches are difficult to solve or find.
  17. It means nothing. Caches are meant to be searched for. Some caches are extremely hard to find, verging on impossible, and that's okay.
  18. On a similar note - how long should cachers keep logging finds after the container is missing? Container has been missing for a while - swag on the ground - I NMd it a month or so ago - getting finds logged for months now with just finding swag at GZ.. If the owner hasn't responded to the NM log in a month, post an NA.
  19. Except if the last five logs were OMs, that's all someone will get in their PQ. About half my hides have had more than one visit from me since the last find; one of them has a partly submerged physical waypoint that needs the slime cleaned off every couple of months but it's only had one find since last September, another nearby that I usually check on at the same time hasn't had any finds since last August. With very little caching activity around here now (the last new cache published was in February) that's only going to become more problematic. There's no harm in posting an OM log, except in some exceedingly rare scenarios that needn't be listed in exhaustive detail.
  20. There's no harm in posting an OM log.
  21. I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature. It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years. As I've said before, the auto-message I got last December was from one DNF on a brand new cache. The DNF'er was put off by the presence of muggles and was looking in the wrong place, but she went back a week later and found it. Did this cache deserve it? Was it truly needed? That would be worth analyzing. Wrong place, Muggles, is that a typical log on that particular cache? If so, it in fact could deserve it and is needed. And I kind of do appreciate The System taking care of it for me, because of... um... repercussions... if I decided to post such a message myself. But if the cacher does not find it, logging the actual DNF log is a suitable idea. This stuff about 'I don't log a "Did Not Find" if I Did Not Find It due to [rationalization goes here]' is... odd. It is no longer a suitable idea in many instances because the system treats it as a negative log, rather than a neutral fact for the CO to assess. I'm sorry narcissa, it's not a negative thing, you see it as a negative thing. Apparently the community needs a little nudge every now and then to take care of their caches. Otherwise this whole thing would not exist in the first place. I've once lived in an area with just 500 caches, of which about 50 had problems. if you htink your cache is fine based on the log then great. No action needed. Why do you get so worked up about that? I want to see the reviewer that archives every cache that has gotten this email without analysing the situation first. I haven't mentioned archiving. My concern is triggering nag emails for other people. I wouldn't want to receive those and I don't want to trigger them for others. So the implementation of this feature makes no sense to me at a time when DNF is no longer a simple indication that someone might want to make a return trip to a cache.
  22. Not if the Difficulty is very low. The example you gave is "T5". If it's also "D5", that's a cache that must not be touched by the algorithm. It's expected to cause DNFs. If it's the default difficulty of 1.5, it's expected to be found when hunted, so the algorithm is doing what cachers need. That is, the CO has selected the wrong Difficulty, or the wrong hiding place. Really? You've never not found a D1 or D1.5? I've DNF'ed quite a lot, not because there was anything wrong with the rating or the cache, but simply because I didn't spot it on the day. There've been others where I've seen the cache but wasn't game to climb out to reach it - that's a DNF, or it was until the Cache Health Score started using that as an indicator of missing caches, now I just log a note. But even an accurately rated D1 or D1.5 could just happen to have a muggle sitting on top of it at the time of searching. Does that make it incorrectly rated? Should all low-D caches be in places muggles never go? And what about other common causes of non-cache-related DNFs like failing light, approaching storms or the onset of rain? Just for the record, the difficulty rating on my cache in question is D2, partly because it's a multi. When the DNFer found it a week later she said that, without the distraction of the muggles, the hiding place was pretty obvious from the description and hint. Yeah, I've legitimately DNFed on some very easy caches over the course of my caching career. Sometimes, even experienced cachers can be temporary boneheads. A cache owner should not be pinged with an automated nag message just because I went out caching without my thinking cap. A cache owner should REALLY not be pinged with this nonsense because a new cacher doesn't understand skirt lifters, or because there was a creepy dude lurking in the general vicinity of the GZ, or whatever. These are scenarios that could generate DNFs, and cache owners should be able to make their own assessments regardless of the D rating.
  23. It is best to avoid communicating directly with unhinged cache owners. The demand was inappropriate and the best course of action is to refer to the abusive message to Groundspeak so they can take direct action to correct this little Napoleon.
  24. I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature. It works well in my area. I have not seen any DNF-created auto-message where it was not truly needed, basically being an "NA" on its way to the overdue Archive. Maybe a couple of them were triggered by my DNF (which surprised me), but they deserved it. The CO deserved to be nagged. Which he didn't notice due to not being a cacher in years. As I've said before, the auto-message I got last December was from one DNF on a brand new cache. The DNF'er was put off by the presence of muggles and was looking in the wrong place, but she went back a week later and found it. Did this cache deserve it? Was it truly needed? That would be worth analyzing. Wrong place, Muggles, is that a typical log on that particular cache? If so, it in fact could deserve it and is needed. And I kind of do appreciate The System taking care of it for me, because of... um... repercussions... if I decided to post such a message myself. But if the cacher does not find it, logging the actual DNF log is a suitable idea. This stuff about 'I don't log a "Did Not Find" if I Did Not Find It due to [rationalization goes here]' is... odd. It is no longer a suitable idea in many instances because the system treats it as a negative log, rather than a neutral fact for the CO to assess.
  25. I don't like being nagged with automated emails, and I don't want to trigger them for anybody else either. Until they fix this "algorithm" to be less ridiculous, I don't think it's safe to use the DNF feature. The way I see it, nothing will be archived until a human reviewer checks it, so I would happily delete the nag emails as quickly as I do the notification emails from this forum..... to which I get dozens..... My post did not contain any mentions of archive. Did you respond to the wrong post?
×
×
  • Create New...