Ragnemalm

Time since last found and time since last maintenance are two different measures, both relevant. The last of the two, too. I wouldn't rule out any. I believe that the Project-GC number is about the last found. The whole concept about lonely caches is important and I really would love to see "lonely days" challenges be allowed again. That is just about the only challenge I would consider creating myself.

Seriously? A souvenir about mountaneering that doesn't even give a bonus for high T? I see the point with the all-including style, but why not a bonus for high T (which then gives a bonus for climbing mountains - as well as other high T caches but that is hard to avoid). Or a bonus for high altitudes. Nothing mandatory, just a little bonus for being on the theme.

I would never log DNF in any of these cases, on a cache that I can't search for or can't reach. These are all DNR's in my book, a "note" saying that I can't log it now for whatever reason, not that I couldn't find it. So in my area, you would get a message asking you to change the log type.

I can't say I was miseld when I see caches being deactivated after just two DNFs. It seems to be the rules we have here. Even a DNF on a D3 will cause deactivation.

I hope this isn't common because it totally ruins the FTF idea. When I place a cache together with a friend, my friend never try to FTF it, at least not without other people who are the real FTF hunters. Actually, we usually let quite some time pass before logging each other caches, if at all, especially if we are co-COs. Because it feels like cheating. However, FTF is not a formal thing. I have seen various variations on the concept. In one area, they decided that anything logged on the same day as the first find counted as FTF. And for some time, we had a series of events in our neighbor town, where each event ended with handing out GPX files to a bunch of new caches which were not yet released! This reserved all FTFs to the visitors of the event! This did cause some criticism by FTF hunters... Sometimes I wish there were rules about FTFs, but we need to make those between us.

This is the problem: It says that it means "did not find" but in practice it is interpreted as "I think it is missing". So what it says does not stop it from meaning something else for users and reviewers. In my area, it is generally accepted that DNF means that I need to check that it is still there. Some caches have been archived after just two DNFs (first deactivated, of course). As a beginner, I logged DNF on a cache that I didn't dare searching for close to traffic, and got a complaint from the CO for this very reason: I had not searched enough to claim that it was gone! However, I do know that practices can vary by area, so maybe DNF is just that in your area. Not in mine.

No, no, we upvote the 10% best and don't upvote the 90% that are quite that good... Downvoting is when we deliberately downvote obvious top caches.

Sorry, this is not true! DNF means very clearly "I have searched well and believe it is gone". That is how it is interpreted by reviewers. If I get a DNF on one of my tree climbing caches from someone who didn't dare to climb, I will ask it to be changed to a note for that reason. I call that a "DNR" log - did not reach - and it must be a "note", not a "DNF", to avoid unnecessary trouble like having it deactivated until I can assure the reviewer that it is still there, or, for that matter, having other cachers skipping it because they think it is gone, due to the same interpretation. Many log types are strange. "Needs maintenance" means "This has serious problems and will be archived if the CO doesn't fix it soon". This has caused many fine caches to be archived just because the log book was a llittle damp. "Needs archived" means "a reviewer needs to have a look at this".

Of course it is a downvote! It is a "not in the 10% top" downvote. On a cache that clearly isn't of that quality, it is expected, and rather a missing upvote. For a 5% top cache, it is clearly a downvote. You have 90% FPs on a particularly good cache. In comes the downvoters. 80%, or even 60%. Would that not be a downvote to you?

Exactly, that what GS says, and that implies that they are a recommendation. And we all decide on why. A petling in a particularly nice spot is a perfectly good reason. FPs are sometimes given for reasons we may not agree to, but that's just the freedom we have. However, when I know that an FP is just "thanks for the FTF", I try to ignore it for evaluation purposes. I had one cache which had kind of a point. It got an FP for the FTF, none more. I scrapped it pretty quickly.

The border between a gadget cache and a custom container is kind of floating. Custom containers can be fun and definitely are more fun to find than yet another petling. And you are not likely to place 100 of them at the same time, filling every possible spot.

DNF: No need to log a DNF if you don't feel sure that it is gone. DNF on a cache that is just hard to find makes more harm than good. TBs: Of course you can log "visit". When you do, the owner sees that it is active, which makes the owner happy. Don't feel bad about that. I can't understand why someone would oppose to "visit" logs. They are there for a reason. Some TBs are hard to place. Take this for instance: https://coord.info/TB679VA I had that for a while. My intention was to place it in a "large" cache that I own, but it was too large! And it isn't the largest TB I have seen.

You have a point in that even if an active cacher monitors the cache, that cacher can't delete a fake log. Everything else we can help with.

I totally agree on that - most of the time. 1.5/1.5 petlings generally don't make it, and I often skip them becacuse they are not interesting. But it has happened that we found an FP-worthy 1.5/1.5. We found a short trail, 4-5 caches in a nice area including a tree climbing cache (yes, bring them on!), but the first was 1.5/1.5 so we just walked past it to get to the tree climbing cache. But they we noticed, it had something like 20 FPs! OK, let's give it a chance! And indeed, it was very nice, just easy. The CO quickly positioned himself as the best in the area, so we need to have some FPs saved before visinging any of his caches. That is an exception, though. Usually, 1.5/1.5 and thereabout are just a petling at face height or a film canister behind a sign. No FPs unless the location justifies it. I do "squirrel" some FPs, but I have too few since I am actively looking for good ones. I got the suggesting to take a power trail to get a bunch to spend, but no, I am not power trailing! Not my style. Thus, I always have too few.

Doesn't the % FPs say more? 8 FPs on a hide with 200 finds is not as convincing as 8 FPs on a cache with 10 finds.

Not the way I see it. An FP is a recommendation, to other cachers to try the cache, and, also important, to tell the CO that the cache is good and therefore worth maintaining and keeping. No FP = downvote, uninteresting, don't bother keeping it. TFTC and copy-paste logs are also downvotes as I see it because yes, a good log counts, but not numerically. So I tend to archive caches with no or few FPs. It is the only measure I have on whether a cache is worthwhile or not.

For caches: Taking a photo of the log book, a very specific requirement for specific situations, is not the same thing as bringing back arbitrary ALRs. For events: Like I said, I see absoluetly no reason why the event log book should not be signed. Bad rule, fix it! Putting the responsability on the CO does not work. Once a CO quits, cheaters can log all the COs lost caches as much as they please. The CO won't care. There are cheaters, and one big problem they make is that they keep lost caches alive.

But the 17 you made still is a contribution.

Interesting distribution, which fits well in that you clearly prefer to make caches with a mental challenge, right? "Sweet spot" around D3T2 instead of my D2T3. Sound good, different because we have a different preference and that is a good thing.

We have talked about cheating elsewhere, but how about possible ways to prevent it? Maybe with help from Groundspeak. Logging caches that are lost. Nobody can prove you did not find it! But how about putting some burden of proof on the finder? If you log an archived cache, or a cache with three or more recent DNF, how about demanding a photo as proof? The same goes for logging an archived cache. Logging an event you did not attend. This one is easy: Demand everybody to sign the log book. And don't give that "what if the EO did not attend". If the EO was not there it is equivalent to a CO not placing a cache when publishing it. Any other cases? Other possible improvements/solutions? Let us not complain about the existence of cheaters, let us consider solutions.

Nice! It looks like we share the idea of the "sweet spot" in the middle. My first was also a 1.5/1.5. It is the natural place to start, but I left it pretty soon. My D1T5 was a tree climbing cache where you needed gear, but it was visible from 100 meters! I was kind of proud of that. That is a D1! Several of my 4.5's and one T5 are over water. 4.5's are easy enough to swim.

10% caches I most want to recommend, for whatever reason. All there is to it IMHO.

I think an interesting related question is the distribution of the placed caches, and why. I have placed 240, 79 archived. But what I find important is where my peak is: D2T3, with most caches around that, with a considerable number at T3.5 and T4. Why? Because that is what I consider the "sweet spot", caches that are not super easy but not too hard, managable for most people but a bit challenging. I don't care much for the highest D, nor T5, and it is pretty obvius that I don't make many 1.5/1.5's. This is my take on making caches. Many multis, often free climbing in trees. It is what I feel I want to do. But we are all different so how about you?

I must share a related experience. I logged a Wherigo a few years ago. At one stage, it pointed straight into someone's garden (I think it was a summerhouse)! After walking about for a bit outside, my locaction was finally identified as outside but inside the zone, but it was clearly too close to the garden. I informed the CO who got angry with me for "whining" and told me to go and log PTs instead. Not OK! I was trying to help him to avoid conflicts and he took offense instead of showing any interest in fixing the problem. The privacy of people near our caching activities must have priority.

I think gadget caches would be the perfect exception from that statement. It is much more relevant for cache bombs, filling an entire area with petlings.