Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by justintim1999

  1. I agree most DNFs don't indicate a problem but the simple fact is they can, and the more of them in a row increases that likelihood. I'm with ya that high difficulty and terrain caches should be given more slack when it comes to DNFs but to say they have no bearing on a caches condition is not true and using them out of context just adds to the confusion. When someone posts a DNF on one my caches I take notice. If multiple people post them I check up on the cache whether or not I receive an e-mail asking me to. This is just normal cache owner stuff. I want people to find my cache and in good shape. That's why I hid it in the first place. None of my caches are extremely hard so three DNFs on any one of them is a reason for me to get involved. I don't need the CHS or the e-mail to tell me that. I don't think the CHS was designed for you or me or the million other cache owners out there who already take good care of their caches. IMO it was designed to help reviewers identify those owners who do not maintain their caches or have left the game. I also think its a way to let owners know that someone is watching and they're taking cache maintenance seriously.
  2. "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. DNF stands for “Did not find”. https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=534
  3. To me that's not an argument because it's a small sample size of one experience. How about all the situations where the e-mail prompted someone to go out and fix up a cache? How about all the caches that were rightfully disabled because the cache owner wasn't responding to the e-mail because they were long gone? You don't here about these for obvious reasons. You're telling me these situations don't exist? It's an issue for you because you received one of the false positives so your perception of the CHS is skewed and you've decided to lash out against the whole idea. I don't blame you for being upset about it. I do blame you for twisting the CHS and the e-mail into something it's not and trying to convince others likewise.
  4. If we're not talking about false positives here then no they don't. It takes multiple dnfs to trigger anything and even then you'll probably only receive an e-mail asking you to take a look which most cache owners would probably do anyway. Again this is all based on having to check up on caches that are difficult to reach. I've already dismissed the argument the e-mail is harassment or somehow annoying. The log examples you posted are exactly the reasons why I don't like DNFs used in those situations. Seems none of them actually searched at GZ so they have no idea what the condition of the cache is yet they decided to post DNFs which needlessly lowers your cache score. There's nothing in those logs that couldn't be conveyed using a note which would have no effect on your cache what-so-ever.
  5. Good luck with that. If you and others that think like you changed, that would be lucky. I'm hoping common sense will prevail here and over time people will see that simply making a small and very easy change to the way they use DNFs will help make the game better. An because of that they're now posting logs that misrepresent they're experience and could directly harm a cache. I've tried to convince myself getting to the parking area and never leaving my car could constitute a search but I just can't get there. I just can't tell a cache owner I couldn't find their cache when I never really looked for it in the first place. This is really the whole crux of your argument. False positives and high D/T caches that are being asked to look at there caches. I'm still not convinced these issues haven't been corrected. In fact this whole argument has been based on one or two examples that happened long ago. In my little caching world I don't know of one person who has received this e-mail. I'm sure some have but instead of complaining about it they've decided to work with it because they get what it's all about.
  6. No the point is a DNF says you searched for the cache and didn't find it. The CHS, like myself, sees three or four of these in a row as a sign something could be wrong and the e-mail asks us to take a look. It's as simple as that.
  7. I think most people understand the concept of what constitutes a search and most use the DNF correctly. It's only a handful of cachers that don't get it. I'd say the CHS interprets dnf's the way most people do which makes the way some use them mindboggling.
  8. That's the problem. This is where a note would be more prudent and for obvious reasons. I don't believe it is reasonable. Especially when the type of scenario you described could also be conveyed by a note which has -0- effect on the cache. But now that we have the CHS those logs you would use loosely can now have a broader effect on a cache and it's owner. Is it rigid to expect someone to actually search for a cache before posting a dnf? IMO that's ridiculous. To say the e-mail threatens extreme action is also ridiculous. I read the e-mail and thought it was helpful. Others see George Orwell's 1984. I'm not sure a cache's previous history has anything to do with receiving the e-mail. I think it's based on it's current condition. Besides when you receive the e-mail you don't HAVE to do anything. The e-mail aside, if log indicate you should check on your cache then that's what you should do, regardless of where it is. If you hate the thought of having to do that then you should archive your caches and stick to just finding them.
  9. That's where we disagree. I think we should change the way we use those logs to better represent what those logs actually signify.
  10. How exactly dose that work? The DNFs I disagree with fly in the face of simple logic. If we're going to get into what a reasonable search is again that's fine but we'll just be re-hashing the same arguments we've covered before. I'm up to it if you are. But If we're going to go down this road again with you telling me that you consider a search has started before you ever leave your house, I'd rather not.
  11. You must be thinking of someone else. I understand the problem and it has nothing to do with the CHS.
  12. As far as I can see the guidelines are straight forward and based on common sense. How can you log a dnf if you've never actually searched for the cache. To claim you didn't find something indicates you actually tried looking for it. You can waist time arguing what constitutes a reasonable search and concepts about when dose a search actually begin but the simple answer is a search has occurred when you've reached GZ and looked for the cache till you've given up. A bunch of these in a row is something a cache owner should look into.
  13. Ok 4 million. The necessity of the CHS is based on the total number of caches that require monitoring. The percentage of the total number that have issues will fluctuate based on new players, regions, climate and I'm sure a whole bunch of other factors. The fact you happen to not notice any change in cache quality doesn't necessarily mean the system isn't making a difference. As I said before the only ones that have that info is GS. The fact they continue to use the CHS tells me it's working.
  14. But now, according to your figures, GS is having to deal with 600,000 caches that have issues. With those types of numbers it was inevitable that something like the CHS would have to be implemented. There's no way anybody could know what the overall effect on cache maintenance has been since the CHS has been in effect. I'm sure it varies from location to location. I have to think the results have been positive lest why continue using it?
  15. No matter how you look at it it's 10%. I don't know when you started but 10% of 100,000 caches is a far cry from 10% of 6 million.
  16. the only other thing I can think of is durability. I'd rather drop my $200.00 gps in the stream than my smart phone.
  17. Adding to this I've been in a position of being all out of favorite points so I'll let the cache owner know I intend on awarding a favorite point as soon as ones available.
  18. Good point. I did exactly this when I hid my first cache and realized that my Garmin Nuvi wasn't quite accurate enough. After using it to hid that cache I fell in love with it and had to get one. I'm sure the accuracy of smart phones have come a long way but I'm not convinced that they are better than a stand alone.
  19. I'd guess false positive? Let's scrap the whole project. Are you still having this same problem?
  20. Because multiple DNF can indicate that a cache is missing! I'm not even sure DNF's have a major impact on the CHS. They are taken into consideration and I believe they should be. I don't either but not everyone is as attune to our caches as we may be and that's what this is all about. We being experienced cache owners should be able to see past a few false positives to the real reason why a system like this is beneficial. And since you started the number of caches out in the world has increased what? 1000 fold. Your 1 in 10 is now 100 out of 1000.
  21. I've always Geocached with a stand alone unit. To be honest I don't even own a smart phone (yes I'm that guy) so I couldn't compare caching between the two. I own a Garmin Oregon 450 which I paid $200.00 for years ago. I can tell you that it's rolled down a few hills and been dropped many times. It's still as reliable as the day I purchased it.
  22. Only if the CO believes there is an issue. That's it. Just take a look and decide if action should be taken. If that was the case the e-mail wouldn't exist. The CHS would be disabling caches as it sees fit which we all know it can't do. That's why the e-mail exists because the cache owner knows the various aspects of the cache better than anyone and can determine if those DNF's really mean anything. The e-mail is just asking you to take a look. I don't think so. I think the system is pushing better cache maintenance. No one can guarantee a find but we can increase the probability that if a cache is found it's in reasonable shape.
  23. Because multiple ones can indicate a problem. I agree that DNF's are in a grey area. They could mean absolutely nothing or they could mean that the cache is missing. What's clear is that multiple DNF's should be prompting the cache owner to take a look and take appropriate action. Multiple DNF's have always indicated a possible problem. This is nothing new. All the e-mail is asking is you take a look at it.
  24. And rightfully so. If we define a DNF as reaching GZ and searching than three or four of these could mean the cache is indeed missing. I think receiving the e-mail in this situation says "There could be something wrong here. What do you think?" The e-mail is designed to elicit a response. Something that indicates your still active.
  25. Then how can the CHS interpret a DNF from a cacher who never even reached GZ? I think the CHS takes that DNF at face value and assumes (rightfully so) that a search was preformed without finding the cache. Because of this DNF the cache has a lower health score than it should have which in turn makes it more vulnerable to be flagged. Same can be said for someone posting a found log and indicating in the log that the cache has an issue. Because a Needs Maintenance log should have been posted this cache has a higher health score than it probably should. In turn it will take longer for this cache to be flagged when there's evidence that it needs owner attention now. If there's no consistency in posting logs than it's garbage in garbage out.
  • Create New...