justintim1999
-
Posts
2427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by justintim1999
-
-
16 minutes ago, arisoft said:
Many DNF:s but not a one where geocacher reports that the cache may be missing.
Do you have any reason to believe that that one person didn't find it?
-
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:
No, we don't know. We are just guessing something about the CHS. Today I got my first "Your geocache might need maintenance." message from CHS for a long time. I am not going to do anything, not even post a virtual maintenance log, because there is no problem reported from the GZ.
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.
-
1 minute ago, 31BMSG said:
There is no standard only guidelines
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.
-
.png)
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:
"I can't find it because I'm brand new at this and I don't know what to look for, DNF
This is a legit DNF regardless of how inexperienced the cacher is. New cacher problems come with the territory.
5 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:Searched ALL possible locations as I've done 10,000 times before and found the container in pieces
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.
10 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:It's the TEXT that differentiates them, based on the subtleties of language usage, so you can't even use keywords.
You seem to think that it's OK to throw imprecise input from PEOPLE into a computer algorithm and expect to get gold out of it, and that's just not reality.
If this were Google, you might have millions of dollars to spend on fuzzy-logic programmers to make random typing into TRULY meaningful and mostly accurate search criteria, but that ain't this.
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.
-
1 minute ago, 31BMSG said:
some people search for 30 minutes before logging a DNF
No question this is a DNF.
1 minute ago, 31BMSG said:some log a DNF when they can't get within 500 feet of GZ.
IMO this is a note or maybe a NM depending on the situation.
2 minutes ago, 31BMSG said:I do maintenance spring and fall for all my caches at the same time, it wouldn't matter if the last find was a day before.
Me also.
-
3 minutes ago, 31BMSG said:
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?
-
5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
What a DNF means is what the words in the body of the log say. Some can imply a strong likelihood that the cache might be missing, but some don't say anything of the sort, like those ones I quoted earlier. Without being able to read that content, the CHS can't tell one from the other.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
See this thread for some examples. Max and 99 for one seem to have gotten more than their fair share of CHS emails triggered just by a few DNFs.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
See that word OR? It doesn't say AND, is says OR. And see that word MAY? Those two things aren't an exclusive list, a DNF can say a whole lot of other things besides those two. A DNF doesn't have to imply that a cache might be missing; it can, if that's what the logger wants to say, but it doesn't have to and often doesn't. For most of my DNFs, I'm pretty sure the cache isn't missing and guess what? In over 80% of my DNFs, it wasn't. If I think the cache might be missing, I'll log a "cache might be missing" NM along with the DNF, and conversely, if I don't log an NM with the DNF, I'm pretty sure (or in some cases certain, like when I can see it but can't reach it or someone else has logged a find between when I searched and got home to write my DNF) the cache is fine and all my DNF is saying is that I tried to find it but failed.
Right it could be either or which means that both are possible.
-
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.
-
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”.
https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=534
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, niraD said:
Oh, good. I'm glad someone besides me understands the problem.
You must be thinking of someone else. I understand the problem and it has nothing to do with the CHS.
-
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.
-
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 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?
.png)
Excessive owner maintenence logs!
in General geocaching topics
Posted
So you're satisfied that the find was legitimate?