justintim1999

So you're satisfied that the find was legitimate?

Do you have any reason to believe that that one person didn't find it?

There has to be something that triggered the e-mail. Not even a single dnf?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this whole discussion isn't a deal breaker. I'm not suggesting a huge shift in the way people play the game. I'm asking that we look at the game as it is today and ask ourselves if how we're playing it is having a negative impact. Back before the CHS I don't think DNFs were considered by players to be that big a deal and they probably weren't. Now that we know they play a role in the health of a cache (and they can) I'm at a loss for words as to why we'd not at least consider the situations in which we'd post one. I don't think the e-mail is providing information about the condition of a cache that a good cache owner doesn't already know. I understand the concerns the CHS poses to those who own high D/T caches and those who have received a false positive. What I don't understand is why people are reluctant to see what's trying to be accomplished here and be willing to work through some of these bumps in the road.

I think there is. When I read "Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it." I see that as reaching GZ and searching for the cache. Considering people (reviewers and cachers alike) will use that information to form an opinion on the condition of that cache and whether or not they're going to attempt it, it seems relevant that they understand that I did meet those specific requirements.

This is a legit DNF regardless of how inexperienced the cacher is. New cacher problems come with the territory. Since a search was conducted a DNF, NOTE or NM would be ok here depending on what was found and how certain the cacher was that the pieces they found we're indeed from the cache. If I read this on one of my cache pages I'd probably want to take a look. This is not excuse for not posting the log that best describes the situation. The text within a log makes the reason for the log clearer but the log itself should convey certain basic information. It's this basic information that the CHS uses to give reviewers a ballpark snapshot of each cache.

No question this is a DNF. IMO this is a note or maybe a NM depending on the situation. Me also.

A cache published with three DNFs in a row. If it wasn't your cache what would you think. I'd think that maybe the cords were off or something was initially wrong with the hide. It's enough to warrant the cache owner to at least take a look. If you didn't receive the e-mail would you have checked up on it anyway? If not how many more DNF would it have taken for you to take a look? Not being critical here I'm just curious as to how another cache owner would handle this situation. Another question. Why the OML on 9/30 after a find?

It's not the DNF it self that indicates a problem it's when there are multiple DNFs in a row. Nobody here thinks an owner should be concerned about one or two DNFs. What the guidelines do say is to post a DNF when you've searched for the cache and couldn't find it. Yes the cache could just be difficult and yes the cache could be missing and yes it could be that someone was off their game that day but a DNF posted without an actual search sheds no light on which scenario the truth.

Believe me when I say I wish I was the one that received the false positive e-mail instead of you. I'm sure I'm in a better position to deal with it than you are. There were bound to be issues with rolling out something of this magnitude and you happen to be, at least for me, the poster child of the CHS's initial failures. Your one of the people who's had to suffer the growing pains and I sympathize. Believe me I do. But how you handle the situation will go a long way toward how others view the initiative. That is if you believe in the basic idea. If you don't than keep arguing your point. Who knows in the end you may be proven right.

Right it could be either or which means that both are possible.

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's where we disagree. I think we should change the way we use those logs to better represent what those logs actually signify.

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.

You must be thinking of someone else. I understand the problem and it has nothing to do with the CHS.

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.

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.

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?