Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by justintim1999

  1. 1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:


    Oh for the last time this isn't about me! I've said right from the outset, right back in 2015 when the CHS was first introduced and long before my cache was pinged for one DNF, that using DNF logs as a measure of cache health was a terrible idea because MOST DNF LOGS DON'T MEAN THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE CACHE. Don't believe me? Go back to the original forum posts announcing the CHS in mid 2015 and you'll find one from me saying precisely that. We already have a mechanism for reporting cache problems, it's called the NM log, and I'd be quite happy if the CHS just looked at those and pinged COs who haven't responded to them, but no, it has to count DNF logs and infer something from them that the logger never intended. That's just plain wrong. I suspect the main reason the CHS was introduced in the first place was because all the focus was on using the app for caching and at the time you couldn't log NMs or NAs from it. That's now changed.

    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. 1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:


    Please tell me where in the Guidelines or Help Centre it says that DNFs are for reporting on the condition of the cache, because for the life of me I can't find it. All I can find is this:



    It used to be that an NM log was for reporting on the condition of a cache and a DNF just said "I tried to find it but didn't succeed." All of those DNF logs I quoted (and that's just a small sample, I've had plenty more like those and logged some myself) were from people who set out to find the cache but didn't succeed. Why aren't they valid DNFs????

    "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”.  



    • Upvote 1
  3. 2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:


    This is simply not true. There have been many instances of false positives reported in the forums, some just a few months ago, one of the more recent ones which was pinged after just two DNFs followed by a find!

    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.     

    • Upvote 2
  4. 8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

    Which is why the CHS is wrong to treat DNFs as if they were NMs.

    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. 7 hours ago, niraD said:
    8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

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

    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.  

    8 hours ago, niraD said:

    Yeah, they just think "what constitutes a search" is a little different from each other sometimes.


    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.  


    8 hours ago, niraD said:

    It doesn't always take three or four DNFs to trigger the CHS.

    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. 1 hour ago, dprovan said:

    The point is that logging a DNF doesn't say the cache is missing, yet that's what the CHS assumes it means.

    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.    

    • Upvote 1
  7. 3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

    And anyway, how do you propose changing the way everyone uses DNFs to suit the way some unknown algorithm interprets them????

    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. 

    • Upvote 1
  8. 34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

    Many people file DNFs when they can't get close to GZ for a variety of reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean that they got to "0 FEET" and looked around.

    That's the problem.   This is where a note would be more prudent and for obvious reasons.


    34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

    It's reasonable to consider the intent to search + taking SOME action such as driving there and not being able to park, or being turned away by the length of the hike, etc. as a "Did Not Find". Perhaps they'll try again!

    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. 


    34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

    To add to dprovan's point, for years we've been taught that (and HAVE taught that) within the guidelines, this hobby is loose enough to play the want you want. Doesn't hurt anybody.

    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.  

    34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

    To now impose a rigid definition on a basic concept, "DNF", especially without telling the players about it is just wrong. Through the CHS email, if in fact it's based on "DNFs", a CO will be threatened with extreme action based on evidence that may very well have been intended otherwisely. (Yes, it is.)

    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.    


    34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

    So, if a cache gets dinged, then an OM log supposedly clears it up, and MORE people 'DNF' it, is it more likely to be dinged again since it has a "CHS" history? If it's way the heck up in the woods, or even if it's on a road in the OPPOSITE direction of my job, I'd hate to have to go pay repeated visits every time I get an email message. Or worse, lie about it.

    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.    

    • Upvote 1
  9. 1 hour ago, niraD said:

    As I said...



    I'm not arguing in favor of their definition of "actually searched for the cache". I'm arguing that there are people who define "actually searched for the cache" differently, and therefore log DNF differently. The CHS system needs to accommodate that, because all the forum discussions and Help Center articles won't change the fact that different people post logs differently.

    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. 17 minutes ago, niraD said:

    I would hazard to guess that many of the people who post DNF logs that you disagree with, also agree with you.

    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.       

    • Upvote 1
  11. 28 minutes ago, dprovan said:

    Exactly. And I claim that the original intended use of the logs did not include the rigid interpretation of any log type, especially DNF, that you seem to believe in. CHS is based on some imagined yet illogical consistency in what a DNF means.

    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.



  12. 1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

    You're making the assumption that all 6 million caches are active.

    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. 

  13. 13 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    That still doesn't negate the fact that it was 10% then and it's 10% now.  Yes, the total number of caches is larger now than then, but the ratio is still the same

    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?     

  14. On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:37 PM, SaRothe said:

    I can't help with the protocol thing about whether or not to "remind" someone that they didn't give you a favorite point but from my experience and something I have done myself, they may just be waiting until they get home? I don't always write up a full log or add a favorite point until I get home and can sit down and go through the caches for the day. If I'm trying to do a bunch of caches at a time I just log a found it and maybe add something about a FP and then when I get the chance after I get home I go back and edit the logs and add the favorite point. 



    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.   

  15. 47 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

    Maybe you could borrow someone else's GPS for a while to get a feel for it and see if you like it better

    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. 

    • Upvote 1
  16. 13 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    Then why the reliance on DNFs as part of the CHS score?

    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. 


    15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    I don't need an email telling me to go take a look.

    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. 


    18 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    When I started, the ratio of caches in my area that most likely needed maintenance was 1 in 10.  It hasn't changed in the 8 years since I started.

     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.       

  17. 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. 

    • Upvote 2
  18. Just now, coachstahly said:
    30 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

    What's clear is that multiple DNF's should be prompting the cache owner to take a look and take appropriate action.  


    Only if the CO believes there is an issue.

    That's it.  Just take a look and decide if action should be taken. 


    1 minute ago, coachstahly said:

    I'm disputing the fact that an automated program knows the status of a cache better than a CO does

    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.


    5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    Since when is Groundspeak in the business of guaranteed finds, because that's basically what this system is pushing us toward.

    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.     

  19. 9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

    Why should a DNF lower the score?

    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.   

  20. 5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:


    I think the DNF log is intended to be used to indicate that one has not found the cache, and believe that is how most geocachers use it.   I don't think that geocachers use the DNF log to suggest that a cache may need maintenance, yet that is how the CHS interprets it.

    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.  

  21. 12 hours ago, dprovan said:

    I think it's the exact opposite. After all, if logs were used as intended, they wouldn't have needed to invent the CHS to begin with. To some extent -- frankly, I think to a large extent -- the whole point of the CHS is to interpret how finders do now use logs because it isn't how they were intended to be used.

    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...