justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
14 hours ago, dprovan said:
That is correct. As is often said on the forums, finding a cache requires signing the log.
So first, as someone else already pointed out, a find in geocaching has specific requirements that make finding a cache have a slightly different meaning than in normal English. I do not think it makes sense to use "find" two different ways if that leads to the nonsensical situation of having to say that I cannot say I found the cache in a geocaching log, but I nevertheless did find the cache.
But, in fact, I can respond to this example more easily without worrying about geocaching. If I decided to find my friend because I wanted to tell him I was leaving, spotting him across the room for not be sufficient. I would, in fact, say that I saw my friend, but I did not find him because I never got close enough to convey the message. One might quibble with me, but I don't think you could claim my use of the English language was flat out wrong.
The effect they have on the CHS tells me the CHS is broken.
Then doesn't it make sense to log a note and explain "I found your cache but I couldn't retrieve it to sign the log" and let the owner figure out what to do?
Even if the cacher explains the situation in a dnf log it still a conflict. The log itself says "I didn't find it" but the note inside the log says I did. That in itself is a reason for choosing a note.
Is it so hard to understand that as the activity grew, so did the need for oversight and management? The only real issue I see with the whole thing is poor owner maintenance. Everything that's been implemented points to managing that one particular aspect of the game.
-
2 hours ago, niraD said:
You want to just say it: "I understand that different people choose to post online logs differently in some situations, and I'm going to accept that." You're almost there, but not quite.
I've said exactly what I wanted to say and why. I do understand that different people choose to post online logs differently. I just don't agree with some of them.
-
23 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:
Myself, I don't think a DNF means anything negative. It means exactly what the initials DNF stand for, Did Not Find. But, I do know people personally that all but refuse to a log DNF because it somehow makes them feel bad or that they think it makes them look bad. I don't understand this but it is what it is.
You're right, I have been geocaching for a long time and am somewhat set in my ways. There were basically 3 geocaching . com guidelines in place when I started back in 2002. One of them was to sign the physical logbook/logsheet on a traditional cache. That guideline made perfect sense to me then and it makes perfect sense today. Therefore, one of my criteria for logging a find on a physical cache is to get my signature in the book. If I don't, then I did not find the cache,,, simple as that!
I don't really care if you use a write note to relay information that you didn't get the cache. That works for you and doesn't usually affect other cachers too much. I think we're covered if you do your thing and I do mine.
You want to just say it " I understand why a note is a better choice than a dnf in this situation but I'm not going to change the way I do things" You're almost there, but not quite.
I agree with the negative perception some cachers have of posting dnf's and I don't agree with it at all. It's a log that should be used freely, in the proper context. All you can do is encourage people to use it and hope the perception changes.
Problem is I do care and would like to see the game become better and stronger. I was taught when you see something that you believe is not right you don't just walk on by and expect it to fix itself.
-
4 hours ago, Bundyrumandcoke said:
Look at my recent log for GC707PJ. Write note, as I located the container, but could not access it to sign the log scroll. (It's a bison tube hanging in the open, about 5 metres up a coconut tree. It's in plain sight.) So, it's not a find, as I didn't put scribble stick to parchment, but it's not a DNF as I did locate the container. Also a Write Note does not alter the symbol on the map from a green box for a regular cache, to either a smiley or a frowny.
I think your last sentence is part of the opposition here. Some people use dnfs as a record keeping tool so they can keep track of caches they've attempted.
There should be another, easy way of doing this without having to use a dnf. -
11 hours ago, niraD said:
Thinking about it, I would treat an elevated cache pretty much the same way that I would treat a multi-stage cache.
If I plan not to complete a cache (doing only some of the stages of a multi, or checking an elevated cache to see what TOTT I should bring), then I don't consider that a DNF. I would post a Note explaining that I accomplished what I planned to do, and that I hadn't planned on completing the cache.
If I plan to complete a cache (retrieving the final of a multi, or retrieving an elevated cache), but I don't complete the cache, then that's usually a DNF. One exception would be for a Did Not Search (DNS) situation, which I would post as a Note. Another might be coming to a construction zone, with GZ clearly inside the construction zone. I've posted NM logs in such cases, with no other log besides the NM.
We're so close to actually agreeing on something. Kind of exciting. The only sticking point is in the planning to complete the cache. IMO regardless of intent if you haven't reached the point of actually searching for the final I don't think you should post a dnf unless one of the stages or the final couldn't be found.
What if the multi was 10 stages and you intended to do it in one day only to find you had return three times to complete it. dose that mean since you intended to complete the cache each of the previous two days you should post 2 dnfs?
-
16 hours ago, The A-Team said:
I think you'll find that most of the people in this discussion agree that a note is probably the best log to use in a case like that. It's just that there are some who don't agree that a DNF would be "wrong" if used.
I hope that's true.
I would think that all the people in this discussion would understand why a dnf would be wrong in this case. There are many other arguments regarding the pros and cons of the CHS and DNFs here on both sides that have merit. IMO this isn't one of them.
-
28 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:
I'll log a DNF, but I'll also state if I think it's just me, not seeing it, or if it's missing, broken, etc, and then it will also get a NM or a PM to the CO if Iknow who it is. If I can actually SEE the cache but can't get to it for whatever reason, that will be a "Write Note".
Thank you. I thought I was the only one who could see that.
It could be your suffering from the same bout of common sense I am.
-
8 minutes ago, The A-Team said:
Those are not restrictive criteria; they're simply examples of what information a DNF log could potentially convey. It doesn't say anything about avoiding its use for other purposes, like simply indicating that a cacher didn't find a cache.
The effect they have on the CHS makes the case for avoiding those other uses for me. This is why I've been advocating for a little truth in logging.
If dnfs are going to be counted against a caches health score doesn't it make sense we define when to use them a little better?
-
19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
What do you mean by "without affecting anything?" If you're referring to the CHS, that's the point - the CHS should be affected, by our regular logging habits, not the other way around. Logging a DNF, if it's a DNF, only affects the CO and followup finders understanding of the cache's potential condition. That's all. And that is one of the primary purposes of logging the DNF. Or a note. Whatever you log.
Why would you care whether someone logs a DNF or a note if they didn't "Find" the cache? Honestly, why would anyone care?
I would care if it was a Find log, which implies the cache is findable, if it's not in fact findable. Not if it's a DNF which could be caused by any number of reasons that wouldn't necessarily apply to me, still giving me the choice of whether to try to find it or not.
We know it effect the CHS but it can also effect the cache owner as well. My caches are not overly difficult so a dnf means something to me. I read my logs, so if the cacher explained the situation in the log I'd know that the dnf had nothing to do with the condition of the cache. It's doesn't matter if you agree with the CHS or not. It's here and it's being used so why post a log that you know doesn't accurately reflect the situation and could have a negative effect on the cache to boot?
-
14 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:
Whether it's a lid, a sheet of paper, a trinket, or a container rusted shut, how can a person be absolutely sure any of these is actually part of the original cache? Same thing goes if you see a container up in a tree. Yeah, it probably is the cache but until you reach it and open it up, how can you be positive?
The OP got the right answers in the first couple of replies,,, seeing a container but not reaching it to sign the log makes it a DNF. Just be sure to briefly describe in the log, the circumstances surrounding the DNF.
So my question to you is, if you know that a dnf can be seen as a negative in some instances, why post one when a note will convey the intended information without effecting anything? It's a simple change in philosophy that could make a difference.
I'll give you what I think the answer is. Because this is the way some have played the game for ever and no matter what, they're not going to change. If that's the case that's fine. Just come out and say it and stop trying to avoid the obvious. People are reading what's being written here some will take it to heart. Are we going to continue to push practices we know at not sound just because we're to stubborn to change?
-
55 minutes ago, niraD said:
In geocaching, "find" doesn't mean merely figuring out where a cache is. It generally includes retrieving the cache, signing the log inside, and replacing the cache. So...
- "when you look for a cache" - Yep. They searched for the cache.
- "but do not find it" - Yep again. They were unable to retrieve the cache, sign the log, and replace the cache, so they did not "find" it in geocaching terms.
- "may be extra difficult to find" - Yep again. Retrieving, signing, and replacing presents an extra challenge, so in geocaching terms, it is extra difficult to "find". But even if it weren't, notice the use of the word "may".
- "possibly missing" - Yep again. Until you retrieve, sign, and replace, you aren't sure whether what you see is the cache, or a decoy, or geolitter, or some other litter. But even if it really is the cache, notice the use of the word "possibly".
So, what criteria for logging a DNF were you referring to?
The criteria that's clearly written in the Geocaching help center under "Log types/didn't find it. The one thing your forgetting to mention is logging it online. To log a find online you have to sign the log. Lets assume that by doing that they have found the container, retrieved it, signed the log and replaced the container. In this case the criteria to log a find has clearly not been met. The question becomes "what do I log". The answer is clear. Since your found the cache and you know it's not missing the only other option is write a note. I've given you examples of why I don't think a dnf is appropriate in this situation. Give me your reasons why you think it is.
-
11 minutes ago, frostengel said:
By the way I know several cachers that are afraid of logging a DNF not because of the CHS but because it is a weakness not to find a cache. Everyone logs "found quickly" and you log a DNF?
When I log the first DNF at a cache often suddenly many DNFs appear - some with a date before my log!
And of course - a DNF is work for which you don't get a point or anything.
DNF is a helpful tool if used - if used correctly and in any case if used at all.
I don't know why it should be problem to be the first not finding a cache. I had it once with a D1 T1 traditional. About 250 found logs, no DNF, mine being the first. And the cache was there and I found it when I returned. Too blind... :-)
I don't know if I really had the first DNF or did I just log the first one as others didn't want to show their blindness?!
It's human nature not to want to look week or inferior in front of your peers. No shame WHAT-SO-EVER in posting a dnf.
Hey guess what? Some movies make me cry. Some things are so beautiful I can't help but ball my eyes out. I may be weak or soft..... But I'm happy
They need to add a crying emoji. We could sure use one in here.
-
8 minutes ago, niraD said:
In the grand scheme of things, the handful of people here in the forums don't matter. There are far more people posting logs who have never heard of the CHS or read the forums. They will continue posting logs the way they post logs, and the CHS must deal with that.
That's true but how dose anyone look at the OP's situation and come to any other conclusion than a note is the correct log? Especially when the regulars on this forum know the various reasons why a dnf shouldn't be used.
I hate quoting the help center but...... Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing..... How in any way can you endorse the use of a dnf in this situation when neither criteria in the above guideline fits. The only answer I can come up with is stubbornness.
-
33 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
Fundamentally, on principle, I'm not changing the way I log - note or dnfs - because of the CHS. I want it to be defined by my actions (and the global community), not the other way around - and that was its intent. Even if it's bad at it right now. ie, no, I don't care that a DNF if I post it will cause a negative score. If it's not deserved, it needs to be fixed. If it is deserved, then it's doing its job.
What can you say when people are unwilling to change even if that little change could make a difference.
Maybe the CHS isn't the real problem here.
-
10 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:
Actually, I think it's pretty clear: If I am unable to locate a cache, that means I did not find it. It's when folks try to play with the meaning of words that gets us the eleventy billion threads about whether or not to log a DNF.
Most of the time it takes eleventy billion threads to get people to admit to the obvious. Even then, sometimes, it's hopeless. We both agree a dnf shouldn't be used in this case and I believe we're right in thinking so. A note is harmless and can convey the appropriate information without any impact on the condition of the cache.
-
8 minutes ago, hzoi said:
The word "found" doesn't have the same context that it normally would in geocaching, because "find" or "found" means you get to log it online and get a yellow smiley face and a point. I suppose we could make up a word, but "found it" is pretty entrenched, so it is what it is.
For the purposes of discussion, then, I propose:
Seeing a cache up a tree that you can't reach is locating or seeing a cache. Whatever word you want to use is fine, other than "find." It is not "finding" it in the context of getting to log it and score a point in geocaching.
Actually getting to the cache container and signing the log (and let's not get off the rails with group finds an the like) is "finding" it in the context of geocaching, such that you get to log a find online and get +1 in your running total.
Considering what we've been discussing regarding the CHS don't you think that posting a dnf in this case could wind up having a negative effect on the cache? If that's true than why are we not looking to define the use of the dnf log?
-
2 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:
Just because I personally don't think it's correct doesn't make it invalid. Is that actually difficult to understand?
In this situation I don't see anything valid about it, do you? If that's so than the only thing I don't understand is why you don't stick to what you believe.
-
55 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:
Oh lordy...here we go again.
If you SEE the cache, you have actually found it...but only claim a find if you are able to hold the cache and open it to sign.
I personally don't feel DNF is appropriate in that situation, since you did have eyes on the cache. A Note is most appropriate, in my opinion. Do what you want, though. Don't get all caught up in the guidelines and the purists in here who will tell you to do exactly one thing, which is usually DNF. Heck, you could even not log anything at all until you go back and actually get the cache and open it.
So you honestly have three options that are all equally valid: DNF, Note or no log at all.
If you feel that a dnf isn't appropriate why list it as a valid option? I think we both agree it shouldn't be.
-
16 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:
Caching from Smartphones by app dates from around 2008-09. Geocaching.com's own app release was a tad later than others. But I'd guess 2009?
Thanks
-
24 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
That's not true everywhere. I started caching in 2013 and didn't even have a smartphone then, let alone a caching app. Most of the cachers here were using Garmins of varying vintages. Here are the number of new caches hidden in my area (the New South Wales Central Coast, an area of about 600 square kilometres with a muggle population of just over 300,000):
- 2013 - 124 new caches
- 2014 - 171 new caches
- 2015 - 152 new caches
- 2016 - 78 new caches
- 2017 - 61 new caches
- 2018 - 32 new caches (excluding the geoart caches for the mega in April)
The most recent new caches were in hidden in July; there've been none in August or September.
I don't see any great explosion of caches hidden by newbies with apps, quite the reverse actually, the game is in steep decline here. The last thing this region needs is new restrictions making it harder for people to hide caches, or to prune those existing caches that are still quite servicable even if they get a few DNFs or have an outstanding NM.
Newbies hiding caches that perhaps don't last as well as they might is all part of the game, and part of the learning curve. COs losing interest or moving away is also part of the game. Finding worn-out caches, or not finding missing ones, happens from time to time and can be dealt with using NMs and NAs. Expecting every cache to last twenty years with its CO visiting it every few months will just result in very few caches to find.
As for archivals, the raw numbers don't tell the whole story. I've archived four of my hides, but does that make me a bad CO? The area where I hid my first cache went from a well-cared-for reserve to something of a garbage dump over its two year life then a tree fell right on top of the hide, making it untenable. The second to go was washed away in big seas, making me think it was probably a poor location. Number three was repeatedly muggled, so I archived it and created a new one with the same theme a few hundred metres away in more secluded bushland. The fourth to go was in a sea cave and was buried under a rockfall; I archived it out of safety concerns. All part of the learning curve for me and hopefully the lessons learnt from those four have made me a better CO.
I don't think you can deny that overall the app introduced more people to geocaching than otherwise wouldn't have tried it.
All caches should archived by the owner. That's part of the deal and a sign of a good owner.
Can anyone tell me when the App was released?
-
.png)
1
-
7 hours ago, frostengel said:
And as owner I would than allow you to log a found it (if you wanted to). Meanwhile I would disable the cache and only the non-signing logs that come afterwards would be candidates for deletion...
Why would you allow me to log it as a find? It was my choice not to climb the tree and retrieve the cache so I'm not entitled to l the find. Lets say you had this cache's D/T rated too low and I had no way of knowing I'd have to climb a tree to retrieve it. In that case you as the cache owner have every right to offer me the find if you feel it's the right thing to do. The question is should I log a dnf. If you Did Not Find a cache it's because you went looking in the right spot or it's missing. In this case neither is true. This is why I think a note is the best course of action in this situation.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gabeman26 said:
I see you can buy containers online. I was thinking those soda tubes but I kind of want something a little bigger.
I was thinking peanut butter jar, would that work?
A plastic one.
I see you can buy the log sheets online or where do you guys get them from?
Plastic peanut butter jars work great if you do a little waterproofing to them. Take the cover off the peanut butter jar. find an old bicycle tire inner tube and cut it open. Lay it flat and, using the cover, trace a circle with a sharpie. Cut it to fit the inside of the cover. Take some gorilla glue or JB weld and glue the rubber circle inside the cover. Should make a nice solid seal when you put it back on the jar. For about $2.00 I drilled a hole in the center of the cover and inserted an eye bolt so I could hang it. If you decide to do that make sure you put a metal washer on the bolt first. Then a rubber washer. thread it through the top. On the back side put on the rubber washer followed by the metal washer and tighten it all up with a nut. You can put a little glue around both sides of the hole before doing this to sure everything up. I've had one hanging from a tree for over 5 years now and have never had a water issue with it.
-
12 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
The app was definitely a factor. Then there was the biggest factor, removing the Power Trail (don't hide a cache every .1 miles) guideline.
It gave tacit permission to hide more caches then a cache owner can manage and also implied that community maintenance is sanctioned.
I agree but I think having an experience/longevity requirement on placing caches would help solve this problem. I'd hope most experienced cachers would understand what they were getting into placing a power trail series. We had a series of 62 caches that you were required to find to gather the info for a puzzle cache. Those 62 were split up and hidden by 6 different people. These were placed by experienced cachers who understood that maintaining a series like this couldn't reasonably be done by one person. Sometimes it's necessary to place restrictions on things to keep good intentioned people from inadvertently going wild.
-
5 minutes ago, frostengel said:
Agreed and thumbs up!
All these "app things" seem to speed up anything... Smartphones make life easier - but not always better...
I'm sure the app has also added a bunch of great finders and hiders to the game too. I like the idea of the app because I think it should be easy for everyone to
give finding a cache a try.
.png)
if you can see a cache but can't reach it, is it a DNF?
in How do I...?
Posted
Man that sounds like a whole lot of work. I was thinking of something GS could do to make that process easier. I like your willingness to play ball though.