justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
27 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:
If one considers this, and decides DNF is still best, then fine. One could still consider it in the text.
To me these are the two options. Posting a DNF without an actual search tells me nothing. In fact, as you noted above, that DNF not only negatively effects the CHS but it can negatively effect the cache owner as well, prompting them to unnecessarily check up on their cache. It could also cause other potential cachers to pass it by. In many of these cases a NOTE would do none of that. If you wanted to tell the world you reached the parking lot and decided to go for ice cream instead of hunting down the cache, why not say all that in a NOTE? With all the possible negative ramifications, why use a DNF in that situation when you have another, in my opinion, better option?
-
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
If you leave your DNF in place after you've gone back and subsequently found the cache, isn't your DNF still having a negative impact on the cache's CHS?
That DNF represents my experience. I reached GZ and searched. I wouldn't change that log later if I did return and FOUND it. If a cache had 5 DNFs on it and I actually searched and couldn't find it I'd post a DNF even though I know that my DNF could be the one that triggers the e-mail or reviewer action. My responsibility to everyone involved is to post an accurate log that describes my experience and let the reviewers decide if any action is necessary.
My argument is the context in which some choose to use DNFs. The CHS aside it makes no sense to me to post a DNF on a cache you never actually searched for. To me a DNF indicates a search was conducted without success. That DNF could mean many things and as much as some don't want to admit it, one of them is the cache is actually missing. I have no idea what percentage of DNFs are posted on missing caches. I do know that the people with that information decided to include that possibility into the CHS.
All that being said I feel it's my responsibility to have made an honest effort to have searched before I post one. To me that's reaching GZ and trying to find it.
-
18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
accepting that that is never going to happen because this is all an argument about opinions and preference.
I can't accept that. Those that are set in their ways may never change but those who are new to the activity may see some sense in what I'm saying and be willing to make that change or at least think about what logs they post before they post them.
-
.png)
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
If you read my comment, I'm effectively taking a centrist stance. I'm disagreeing with you on one thing, while in agreement on another. The other end of the spectrum is making CHS to be the bad guy causing people to change their logging habits to appease it. I didn't say you said it was, I was stating my position - my comment about deaf ears was directed at the thread in general.
I know. But you're effectively demanding everyone be reasonable by your definition, instead of accepting that that is never going to happen because this is all an argument about opinions and preference. You can explain why you think posting certain logs is better in certain cases because that makes sense to you, but you keep labeling people as unreasonable or just wrong when to them their actions are perfectly reasonable. That's why this argument keeps going around in circles. Accept that you have a way that you prefer, and other people have a way they prefer - and the CHS has to deal with BOTH of those, because they are all allowable.
I'm defiantly not demanding anything and if I am it's not been very effective.
Let me clear this up once and for all. I'm not advocating we change the way we use DNFs BECAUSE of the CHS. I'm suggesting we consider changing it because I believe it's a better use of the log. GS isn't asking anyone to change. I am.
The way some prefer to use DNFs can unnecessarily effect the CHS and cache owners in a negative way. The caching from your car is one example.
I prefer to think about the effects of my log before I post it to make sure it's sending the intended information. I think the log itself should convey some basic information and the words that accompany the log should expand on that. In other words I don't think you should have to read the log to understand what transpired in the posting of that DNF.
-
26 minutes ago, dprovan said:
We aren't talking about not searching. We're talking about the other end, searching and seeing the cache, and then filing a DNF.
But, yes, that's what some do. I don't, but I have zero problem with it if some want to log a non-search as a DNF because I'm going to read that they didn't get out of their car.
And, actually, there are times I'd log a DNF without getting out of my car in special cases, like if the park was unexpectedly closed.
Then we're on the same page except for the effect that DNF, regardless of what's written in the log, has on the CHS.
-
19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
The CHS is not The Bad Guy.
Have I ever said it was?
In fact I happen to think GS is the Good guy in all this. I just think we could try to make an effort to work with them and the CHS.
27 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:How about, let the DNF mean what the cacher wants it to (within reason to be understandable and relevant to the community)
The fact that you had to included "within reason" tells me you get it. I happen to think that the way some use DNFs are unreasonable.
23 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:CHS is not evil.
Have I ever said it was?
Where have you been? I'm one of the biggest supporters of the CHS and I know you know that soooooo what's this all about?
-
2 minutes ago, niraD said:
We will. It just might not match the way you do it.
Touche'.
-
4 minutes ago, niraD said:
Actually, I am not taking issue with the way he logs. Or the way he claims to log.
I am taking issue with his claim that his way is the One True Way™ for anyone to log, and that those who log any differently are logging in a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad way.
That's fine. I've explained why logging a DNF in situations where an individual didn't reach GZ and actually search can be detrimental to a cache owner and the CHS. I haven't heard any reasons how logging one without meeting those requirements are beneficial or help in any way other than ones own interests.
When I was a new cache owner I needlessly ran out to check up on caches with every DNF posted. I realized later that wasn't necessary but when your a new cache owner you want to make sure your cache is in good shape so people can enjoy finding it and your hyper sensitive to any potential issues. Now I wish I could say I've mellowed in that regard but for the most part I still over react to every NM and DNF logged on one of my caches.
For me it's all about improving Geocaching as a whole and I believe that making a few personal changes could help accomplish that. Some simply don't want to change the way they do things even if the change is as simple as something like this. I guess it's that attitude that boggles my mind and pushes me to continue this debate.
It's like I've always said. Don't do something because someone told you to. Do it because it makes sense.
-
12 minutes ago, dprovan said:
And why shouldn't I use DNF?
If I have to explain why you shouldn't use a dnf to log a cache when you never even got out of your car to look for it, it's hopeless. Yet that's what some still do.
-
3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
Really? 30 seconds and two logs?
It was just an example.
5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:Your logic is skewed a bit here. You would log the DNF, leave for 30 seconds and then log the find on your return. 2 logs for 2 searches in a span of roughly a minute. You would log the DNF, leave for 30 seconds and then NOT log the DNF. One log for 2 searches in a span of roughly a minute. If they're both 2 searches (as you're claiming), then there should be 2 logs. Where's the consistency?
I think it would be common sense to log the Find on the second encounter because that adds new information to the cache page. I wouldn't log the second DNF because it adds nothing new. It would only be re-enforcing the fact that I still couldn't' find the cache and there's no need to negatively impact the CHS by doing that.
10 minutes ago, coachstahly said:You're advocating for changing the log types because of possibly affecting the CHS of the cache
No. I'm advocating that certain conditions be met to log a DNF.
12 minutes ago, coachstahly said:It's rendering DNFs as "bad", when in fact, they're just logs stating you couldn't find it.
No. It's allowing the DNF to be judged based on an actual search and not as a place holder for caches that you'll like to attempt another day. The premise is simple. That DNF means someone reached GZ and searched. That's all. Everyone else, including the CHS, can decide exactly what that DNF means in relation to the cache and it's other logs knowing that someone actually tried to find it and didn't. That DNF would actually carry some weight knowing it meet those basic requirements.
17 minutes ago, coachstahly said:Most of us aren't taking issue in the situation you describe above. We're taking issue with you not logging a DNF when you see the cache but can't retrieve it to sign the log in order to claim the find and then claiming that you're changing the log type from DNF to note to spare the cache the hit from the CHS. This is an example of how the CHS is affecting the game, and not in a good way. Would you have logged the DNF or a note before the CHS if you had seen the cache but not been able to sign the log?
I have no idea what your trying to say here. I have basic requirements that need to be meet before I use any log. Because of that I've never changed a log in my life. This philosophy has proven itself over time and has nothing to do with the CHS. The fact that I don't arbitrarily post DNFs combined with the way the CHS handles them is in my mind conformation I'm doing something right.
-
17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
And, a discussion about the use of DNF in a thread about "Excessive owner maintenance logs" =/
I agree and I admit I'm the main reason why we've gone off into the weeds but in my mind excessive owner maintenance can be caused by an excessive (and misuse) of the DNF log.
-
17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
So I'll ask you again, if you've logged a DNF on a cache you searched thoroughly for but couldn't locate, let alone sign the log, but subsequently you learn that it's not missing (someone else found it shortly after your search, you go back the next day with fresh eyes and find it this time, or perhaps you even sent photos of GZ to the CO and he's pointed out the cache in one of them), do you go back and either delete your DNF or change it to a note?
Nope. You searched and didn't find it. A DNF is exactly the right log to post. I could post that DNF right at GZ and walk 100 feet, turn around, go back and within 30 seconds find the cache and I'd leave the DNF log in place. Lets say you did all this and didn't find the cache on the second try. Would you post another DNF? I doubt it because it simply wouldn't make sense to do that.
17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:And if you do go back and delete your DNF or change it to a note, surely that's defeating one of the reasons the Help Centre gives for saying logging DNFs is important, namely to indicate to the CO and future seekers that the cache might be extra-difficult to find. A cache can still be extra-difficult to find even if it isn't missing.
The only reason I would change that DNF to a NOTE after the fact has more to do with personal pride. If I post a DNF you can be sure I gave it the ole college try and the subsequent find just means I was not on my game that day. No shame in that.
-
19 hours ago, The Jester said:
Just because a DNF CAN represent the possibility a cache is missing (your words) doesn't - and shouldn't - mean it ONLY means it missing possibly.
And it doesn't. But to throw away the idea that it could is wrong so the possibility has to be accounted for somewhere.
19 hours ago, The Jester said:And just because you can see a container, that doesn't mean that's the cache. The only real way of knowing what you've seen is a cache is to open it and see it there is a log to sign. It could be trash, a letterbox or a red herring.
So If I find myself in that rare situation where I've found what I think is the cache but I'm either not sure or can't retrieve it, I choose to post a NOTE instead of a DNF because when in doubt I'd rather not raise the a red flag by posting a DNF on a cache I'm unsure about. In my eyes that being respectful to the cache owner as well as other people who may attempt that cache. It's also reduces the chance the CHS will unnecessarily flag that cache for no good reason.
19 hours ago, The Jester said:And what you call "common sense" doesn't seem that common to me (here in the forums and talking to other cachers), so while it's you way of doing it, it doesn't mean you can dictate to everyone else.
I've been accused of putting words in other peoples mouths but I'm not going to do that here. I'm not dictating anything to anybody because I don't possess the power to do that. I'm arguing the point and encouraging others to make up there own mind.
19 hours ago, The Jester said:If GS has taken the use of DNFs into consideration, then not changing the way one uses them isn't a big deal.
That's exactly what I said. This is more about people's unwillingness to change even when the change makes perfect sense.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, dprovan said:
Well, to begin with, it's forcing me to log caches the wrong way. Specifically, it's requiring that I forget about the community in which I'm logging the cache and, instead, worry only about the automated, centralized system that's been given control of our caching environment.
That's ridiculous. What I'm proposing is all about logging caches "the right way". Please tell me how the CHS is forcing you to "forget about the community" and how it's "taking control of our caching community?" If that's not a piece of propaganda intended to scare the average cacher, I don't know what is. When reviewers are eliminated and the CHS
is in complete control of our caching community, then I'll start to worry. As far as I can tell there are still plenty of checks and balances in place and reviewers are still in charge of making the decisions.
The real issue for some is the perception that GS is attempting to dictate how we play the game. To that I say, If what they're proposing makes sense and is designed to help make the game better, I have no problem making those changes. I'm not going to drag my heals for no other reason than stubbornness and a sense of entitlement.
What I find interesting here is I honestly believe that most players use DNFs in exactly the same way I do. Most players would come to the conclusion that posting a DNF without ever really searching just doesn't make sense. It's only a few who are unwilling to even entertain the idea based on a memory of how the game use to be played and a rabid desire to hold on to something they hade no control over in the first place.
For what it's worth that's how I see it and I haven't seen or read anything that would make me think otherwise.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, niraD said:
Fix the CHS... and the horse it rode in on.
Change the way you log your caches and leave the horse alone. What's it ever done to you?
-
On 11/9/2018 at 11:25 AM, niraD said:
Logging practices should not be dictated by them.
If logs are designed to convey basic information and people will make various decisions based on those logs, I would think the conditions in which those logs are used should be consistent.
4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:You located the cache, not "found" it
That's the rub. Why would you post one that, combined with other DNFs , can represent the possibility that a cache is missing especially when you can see the cache and know it's not missing?
There's a difference between finding a cache and completing the requirements to log it as such. If you find the container can you not assume the log is in it? Posting a NOTE that you found it and couldn't retrieve it conveys different information than posting a DNF explaining the same thing. One effects the CHS the other doesn't.
I have specific requirements for posting a Find and a DNF and anything that doesn't fit within those requirements is conveyed by a note. Regardless if you agree or disagree with with the CHS system the fact is DNFs do effect the score and for that reason alone I won't post one in some of the situations you've mentioned. To me it's just common sense.
I'm sure the fact that DNFs are used in some of these situations have been taken into consideration by GS so changing the way one uses them isn't a big deal.
The way I use them isn't going to hurt the system one way or the other.
-
On 11/9/2018 at 10:53 AM, coachstahly said:
Which is a part of the problem with DNFs being used as part (I'd argue a main part) of the CHS. I would have posted the DNF as well. See below for why.
It all comes down to whether or not multiple DNFs can indicate a problem with a cache. If you believe it can then the CHS should take it into consideration.
On 11/9/2018 at 10:53 AM, coachstahly said:Exactly how is a blue frowny face a problem?
It's only a problem when people are posting them without actually searching and those DNFs could negatively impact the Cache Health Score.
On 11/9/2018 at 10:53 AM, coachstahly said:I physically found it but I was unable to sign the log, thereby rendering the DNF as the log of choice.
I found the cache but I'm logging a Did Not Find. To me that doesn't make sense.
Before the advent of the CHS I guess it didn't matter much if you used a DNF that way. Now it dose. I've defined what I think a DNF should be and only use them in that context in an effort to eliminate the possibility of my DNF negatively impacting a cache's Health Score. All I'm asking is for others to look at the issue objectively and decide for them selves what makes sense.
On 11/9/2018 at 10:53 AM, coachstahly said:If the find is only allowable if you sign the logbook, then it stands to reason that you didn't find it if you didn't sign the logbook, even if that means that you actually saw the cache
If you can see a cache but can't retrieve it IMO you can't post a:
DNF - because you found it
NM - because unless there are visible signs of an issue with the cache container or it's surroundings, you have no idea what the condition of the inside of the cache or the log is.
Find - because you didn't sign the log
What else is there but a NOTE?
-
On 11/5/2018 at 4:17 PM, barefootjeff said:
In that particular DNF which justintim1999 is objecting to, I'd been searching around GZ for the best part of an hour and was standing on top of the ledge under which the cache was hidden. Is that near enough to being at the posted coordinates? When I finally spotted the cache under that ledge but realised I couldn't safely get down to reach it
Since I know the cache is not missing and I know how DNFs effect a caches health score, I would have posted a Note in this situation.
On 11/5/2018 at 4:17 PM, barefootjeff said:I logged my DNF, and with that blue frowny on the map to remind me of my failure, I came back a year later with a ladder and converted that DNF into a find.
This is part of the problem. DNFs are not place holders for caches you'd like to attempt again. I don't think they were designed to be used that way. Bookmarks were probably intended for that purpose. I use DNFs to indicate I failed to find the cache after a actual search.
On 11/5/2018 at 4:17 PM, barefootjeff said:Is that really so wrong?
So wrong? No. But is it right?
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, noncentric said:
If you're having to change out the log every-other-month, then you might need to check the container itself. Maybe replace the o-ring, or try using waterproof paper?
I've replaced the container once and the O-rings a dozen times. I'm not having to change the log every other month (that was an exaggeration) but it seems I have to change that particular one much more often than the others I have out. Never used waterproof paper before but there's a first time for everything. Thanks
-
Something I haven't seen before or makes me smile gets a favorite point every time.
-
On 11/2/2018 at 4:06 PM, barefootjeff said:
"Looking for a cache" doesn't just start when you reach GZ.
I think to post a DNF is dose.
On 11/2/2018 at 4:06 PM, barefootjeff said:Likewise "finding" a cache is more than just seeing it, it means opening the container and signing the logbook
IMO you have to satisfy all three of those requirements to log a FIND. If you fail to accomplish any of those three I think a NOTE should be posted.
On 11/2/2018 at 4:06 PM, barefootjeff said:the camo outwitted me
If your at GZ than this is a DNF
On 11/2/2018 at 4:06 PM, barefootjeff said:even though I could see the cache sitting smugly just out reach under that ledge so the probability of it being missing was zero.
So even though you know that a DNF can mean a cache is missing and the CHS takes that into consideration you still insist on posting a DNF in these situations.
Mind boggling.
We can go around in circle like this all day. I can't explain any further why I don't think DNFs should be posted in many of those situations other than a NOTE would serve the purpose of conveying the proper information without any possibility of negatively effecting a cache's health score.
-
1 minute ago, dprovan said:
Because GS is making a mistake. Sheesh, we've been arguing about that all this time and you don't even get that much about what we're talking about?
I get the fact that a dnf can mean a cache is missing. That's the point you refuse to admit.
I think thebruce0 summed it up well in his last post so you and I will agree to disagree. .
-
4 minutes ago, dprovan said:
"the cache is missing" is not and has never been what DNF was intended to say.
Then why dose GS incorporate that as a negative to the CHS?
-
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:
Of course. In this case there would be no need for maintenance even if there was no finds at all, because no DNF log reports about any problems from the GZ. They just didn't find the way to the GZ.
As the cache stands now I don't think any owner maintenance is needed and I'm not sure why you even received the e-mail on this.
Without the find I'd feel a little different about it. A new cache published with six DNFs in a row without a find would prompt me to check on it even though it's a D5. Too many things can go wrong out of the gate.
That's not in the guidelines. That's just me.
.png)
Excessive owner maintenence logs!
in General geocaching topics
Posted
My question is why not? The definition of a FIND is pretty cut and dry although some have found ways to circumvent that as well.
Why wouldn't we want to define DNFs? Wouldn't that make the use of them easier and the significance of them clearer?
What other factors can't be communicated through a NOTE or NM? I'm asking for your insite here because I really can't think of one.
It's this interpretation of the log that's the issue. To me it's implied that a DNF means an unsuccessful search at GZ but obviously others don't see it that way.
I get this one but I still think a NOTE would serve the same purpose. I agree a DNF would get more attention but I've been lead to believe that everyone reads information contained in the logs so if that's true a NOTE should suffice. Maybe even a NM could be used if attention is what your after. Maybe a new "Needs Reviewer Attention" log would be the perfect solution to this problem. I personally wouldn't post a DNF in this situation because I wasn't able to search GZ and there are other log options available that would work.
Regardless of what side of the fence your on this is always good advice, with any log.