Exclude caches with two or more DNFs

[+Kit Fox]

When I upload my PQs into GSAK, I have to delete approximately 40 to 60 caches per session. These are caches that usually have two or more DNFs. I would like the option to exclude caches with multiple DNFs from my PQ quotas. I don't care if I might exclude one or two "legendary" camo caches. These 40 to 60 caches are usually long gone caches, and if they were excluded, they would have been replaced by active caches that are actually there.

 

Thanks for your time.

[+dakboy]

Why not just create a filter in GSAK to hide/exclude them?

[jholly]

When I upload my PQs into GSAK, I have to delete approximately 40 to 60 caches per session. These are caches that usually have two or more DNFs. I would like the option to exclude caches with multiple DNFs from my PQ quotas. I don't care if I might exclude one or two "legendary" camo caches. These 40 to 60 caches are usually long gone caches, and if they were excluded, they would have been replaced by active caches that are actually there.

 

Thanks for your time.

 

Well I can see how a Difficulty 4 or 5 cache might well have several DNF's in a row and still be in place. Or a cache that originally had bad co-ordinates but got corrected later. If it was a 1/1 with several DNF's in a row I would agree with you. But I didn't think you did 1/1's so I would assume you filtered them out.

 

Jim

[+fizzymagic]

Why not just create a filter in GSAK to hide/exclude them?

Last time I looked, GSAK was not available for Macs. Did that change?

 

The universal answer of "do it in GSAK" is not very helpful here. Just because you and I use it doesn't mean everyone else has to.

[+flask]

i think what the OP is saying is that he'd like to get more useful caches in the PQ, rather than having 40-60 useless ones taking up part of his allotment of 500.

 

he is also aware that he may be excluding difficult caches that are there, but he seems clear on what he wants and i don't see where having this option available to those who want it would cause any problems, other than someone has to code for the little checkbox on the PQ form.

[+dakboy]

Why not just create a filter in GSAK to hide/exclude them?

Last time I looked, GSAK was not available for Macs. Did that change?

 

The universal answer of "do it in GSAK" is not very helpful here. Just because you and I use it doesn't mean everyone else has to.

The OP is already using GSAK, so why wouldn't it be a viable solution to his question?

 

When did you get the idea that I use GSAK? Apparently you do seem to think that "everyone else" uses it already.

[+Allanon]

Why would you want to exclude caches that that had two DNFs?

 

What if it were two people in the same group and they all DNF'd it?

 

I vote no...

[jholly]

i think what the OP is saying is that he'd like to get more useful caches in the PQ, rather than having 40-60 useless ones taking up part of his allotment of 500.

 

he is also aware that he may be excluding difficult caches that are there, but he seems clear on what he wants and i don't see where having this option available to those who want it would cause any problems, other than someone has to code for the little checkbox on the PQ form.

 

I think I've been struck by lighting I actually agree with flask.

 

Jim

[+Kit Fox]

Why not just create a filter in GSAK to hide/exclude them?

 

See Flask's response below.

 

 

Well I can see how a Difficulty 4 or 5 cache might well have several DNF's in a row and still be in place. Or a cache that originally had bad co-ordinates but got corrected later. If it was a 1/1 with several DNF's in a row I would agree with you. But I didn't think you did 1/1's so I would assume you filtered them out.

 

Jim

 

Most of them aren't "1/1s." I already filter out all unknown sized caches, but I found that many older caches aren't properly rated, so I don't filter all 1/1s. I actually combine five different queries, and one is 2.5 terrain or lower. If i'm interested in epic hikes, I simply omit that query from the five.

 

I think what the OP is saying is that he'd like to get more useful caches in the PQ, rather than having 40-60 useless ones taking up part of his allotment of 500.

he is also aware that he may be excluding difficult caches that are there, but he seems clear on what he wants and i don't see where having this option available to those who want it would cause any problems, other than someone has to code for the little checkbox on the PQ form.

 

This is exactly what I want.

 

Why would you want to exclude caches that that had two DNFs?

 

What if it were two people in the same group and they all DNF'd it?

 

I vote no...

 

My caching time is very sparse at the moment, i'm inly interested in finding caches don't have a string of DNFs (which usually a good indicator of a missing cache). We don't have many caches like the famous "Shelter series" that have 100 DNFs in a row.

 

This would merely be a check box added to the filtering requirements, you could simply leave it un-checked, and it wouldn't affect you personally.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Kit Fox

[+DanOCan]

The OP is already using GSAK, so why wouldn't it be a viable solution to his question?

 

I think he covered that when he said "...and if they were excluded, they would have been replaced by active caches that are actually there."

 

He has 40-60 caches (roughly 10% of his pocket query) being wasted on caches he is not interested in hunting. He can (and is) filtering them out after the fact with GSAK. The point is trying to remove the "bad" data before it ever gets to GSAK so there is more room in the PQ for the "good" data.

 

Since I routinely also use GSAK to filter out caches where the last three logs are all DNFs, I think this would be a useful option on the Pocket Query side of things.

Edited May 31, 2009 by DanOCan

[+tozainamboku]

I'm having a hard time understanding this given who is it coming from. I understand geocachers who plan a day "power caching" eliminate any cache that has 2 or more DNFs or sometimes even eliminate caches where the most recent log is a DNF. These people are trying to maximize the number of caches they find and wish to avoid spending time looking for a cache that might be missing or one that is so well hidden that it stumps many of those who seek it. Seeking caches that are almost always found is a good way to maximize the number of caches found in a day. Kit Fox on the other hand says he would prefer to find fewer caches so long an they are kind he likes. I know he likes to find caches that are difficult to find as well as difficult to get to. It would seem to me that he might even get some enjoyment in finding a cache that several people have DNF'd. It may be that he is seeing a large number of caches that are missing where the cache owner may have stopped doing maintenance or take too long to check up on and isn't disabling the cache till they can check on it. Rather than seeing these he would like to get other caches in his PQ to expand the number of caches he might potentially search for. Seems that he would be throwing out caches he might enjoy finding. He might even enjoy a DNF if the adventure of getting to the cache is to his liking. Lets just say that after filtering out the 1/1 urban hides he dislikes, he gets a PQ back where 10% of the caches show multiple DNFs without a more recent find. So he is still getting 450 or so caches back that are likely to be there to search. I'm not sure getting a few extra caches back is really going to make much difference as to what he finally searches for.

[+Kit Fox]

I'm having a hard time understanding this given who is it coming from. I understand geocachers who plan a day "power caching" eliminate any cache that has 2 or more DNFs or sometimes even eliminate caches where the most recent log is a DNF. These people are trying to maximize the number of caches they find and wish to avoid spending time looking for a cache that might be missing or one that is so well hidden that it stumps many of those who seek it. Seeking caches that are almost always found is a good way to maximize the number of caches found in a day. Kit Fox on the other hand says he would prefer to find fewer caches so long an they are kind he likes. I know he likes to find caches that are difficult to find as well as difficult to get to. It would seem to me that he might even get some enjoyment in finding a cache that several people have DNF'd. It may be that he is seeing a large number of caches that are missing where the cache owner may have stopped doing maintenance or take too long to check up on and isn't disabling the cache till they can check on it. Rather than seeing these he would like to get other caches in his PQ to expand the number of caches he might potentially search for. Seems that he would be throwing out caches he might enjoy finding.

 

I've studied the mulitple DNF caches for months, and with the exception of one or two caches that were supposed to be hard to find, the majority were easy hides (box under bush type hides) that are most likely missing. The owner were inactive, or didn't care. I suppose I could ignore all sixty, but that is not the method I would prefer.

 

Here is an example of a cache that had multiple DNFs, and I went for it any way and found it, and noted why it was hard to find. Cinderella's Canyon (See my April 2008 log)

 

\

[+Allanon]

I suppose if it's an option and not a requirement...

 

But I doubt I'd use it...

[+palmetto]

There are a number of PQ options I'd like. This is one of them.

 

Like many reviewers I regularly query disabled, and run through those that have been disabled for a while, asking the owner to do maintenance. But the really abandoned and dead caches aren't disabled! they're gone and so are the owners. They gradually get cleaned up via Need Archived logs.

 

If there were a PQ filter for DNF logs, or date of last find, it might be possible to locate these listings. A string of DNF on a difficulty 3 is no issue, but a string of DNF on a 1 is usually quite telling. No finds for 2 years on a long hike cache, no problem - no finds on a terrain 1 road side cache? it's gone.

[+Kit Fox]

There are a number of PQ options I'd like. This is one of them.

 

Like many reviewers I regularly query disabled, and run through those that have been disabled for a while, asking the owner to do maintenance. But the really abandoned and dead caches aren't disabled! they're gone and so are the owners. They gradually get cleaned up via Need Archived logs.

 

If there were a PQ filter for DNF logs, or date of last find, it might be possible to locate these listings. A string of DNF on a difficulty 3 is no issue, but a string of DNF on a 1 is usually quite telling. No finds for 2 years on a long hike cache, no problem - no finds on a terrain 1 road side cache? it's gone.

 

Most of the caches that I filter out have one thing in common, cachers are too polite, and they won't log a needs maintenance log on the caches that are missing.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Kit Fox

[+flask]

 

 

Most of the caches that I filter out have one thing in common, cachers are too polite, and they won't log a needs maintenance log on the caches that are missing.

 

well, one thing i've learned is that just because i can't find it doesn't necessarily mean it's gone.

 

if i find it and it's in bad shape, i can post appropriate maintenance or archival requests. if i can't find it and can't confirm its gone-ness with someone who knows where it is, i usually can't know for sure that it's gone and therefore won't ask for it to be archived.

 

we all know it's not because i'm too polite.

[+jtbrady01]

Not really sure if that option will help you out or not. What if those 2 DNF's were a year ago and the owner has since replaced the cache? The other issue as pointed out is too many cachers don't post DNF's. I have no problems saying I didn't find a cache. My issue as stated previously is when no one posts DNF's and the cache is gone and I've spent time searching for something not there. Or, cache hiders who never perform maintenance. I don't think we will ever have a good solution until we all start policing ourselves and maintaining our caches, writing good logs for the owners. This doesn't mean writing up a DNF because you drove by and it was raining and you didn't want to get wet. I get tired of reading those types of logs. If that was the case post a note. You didn't search no DNF. I'm off my rant. On to something else.

[+Kit Fox]

 

well, one thing i've learned is that just because i can't find it doesn't necessarily mean it's gone.

 

if i find it and it's in bad shape, i can post appropriate maintenance or archival requests. if i can't find it and can't confirm its gone-ness with someone who knows where it is, i usually can't know for sure that it's gone and therefore won't ask for it to be archived.

 

we all know it's not because i'm too polite.

 

Here is an example cache that appears gone. 84 finds then, 5 DNFs in a row.

[+Allanon]

And the last time that owner logged in was 2 years ago. So why no NM or NA logs?

[+tozainamboku]

And the last time that owner logged in was 2 years ago. So why no NM or NA logs?

For one, the cache was still being found until less than 1 year ago. 2nd, this is in a very rural area, so it most likely are cachers that are driving up hwy. 395 who are stopping to check on this cache. Since they are probably stopping at other caches along the way they don't think much of the DNF or that there is any need to post NM or SBA just because they didn't find the cache. Of course many people will have already filtered it out of their search just because it has so many recent DNFs. In spite of the fact that this has a 1.5 difficulty and didn't have any DNFs before it "went missing", it looks likes there is still a possibility that some of these cachers may have just missed it if they were in a hurry or the last find happened to hide it better that they found it. A cache in area where it would get more visits, especially from locals, might expect to see someone raising the issue with a NM or SBA if there were this many DNFs and the owner was absent, but here I can see why people are not really that concerned about it. Now that Kit Fox has called attention to it in the forums it might just get archived.

[+StarBrand]

Currently - you would eliminate at least 3 of my caches from your PQs - and I know for a fact all 3 are still there - intact waiting to be found. Sounds like a great way to create a bunch of Geo-trash. The number of people looking for these caches would drop dramatically and it would encourage owners to delete DNFs or file false maintenance logs in an effort to keep thier caches viable.

 

I don't think 2 DNFs in a row is all that meaningful. While I agree a substantial number of caches with 2 or more DNFs in a row likely has a problem - I just don't think this is the solution. 3 or 4 DNFs filed by the same group on the same day should NOT carry as much weight as 2 DNFs filed by separate seekers 3 months apart.

 

As a cache owner, I WANT to see a 3rd or 4th DNF on some of my caches before I run out and check it. As a seeker and member of the caching community, I want to BE the 3rd or 4th DNF so I can help an owner determine if there really is an issue that needs to be addresses. A DNF is not the end of the world, it is simply a part of the Geocaching experience. I vote NO.

[+Kit Fox]

Currently - you would eliminate at least 3 of my caches from your PQs - and I know for a fact all 3 are still there - intact waiting to be found. Sounds like a great way to create a bunch of Geo-trash. The number of people looking for these caches would drop dramatically and it would encourage owners to delete DNFs or file false maintenance logs in an effort to keep thier caches viable.

 

I got news for you, geocaches with multiple DNFS get skipped over all the time by geocachers who don't have the check box to weed out caches with multiple DNFs. It has nothing to do with geotrash. I've personally hidden caches with good camo jobs and they received multiple DNFs in a row. I made several trips to the cache, and always posted a note mentioning the cache was still there, ready to be found.

 

In the case of your geocaches, a friendly note to the cache page that the cache is still there works wonders. As gas prices creep up again, cachers become more picky about which caches they choose to hunt. I choose not to hunt for caches that appear missing (see previous example).

[+StarBrand]

....

I got news for you, geocaches with multiple DNFS get skipped over all the time by geocachers who don't have the check box to weed out caches with multiple DNFs. It has nothing to do with geotrash. I've personally hidden caches with good camo jobs and they received multiple DNFs in a row. I made several trips to the cache, and always posted a note mentioning the cache was still there, ready to be found.

....

While that may well be true - there is no need to add to the problem by making it semi-official. By making it a ready part of the PQ process, Groundspeak would be semi admitting there is high likelyhood of a missing cache. As I stated above - that logic doesn't sit very well. 2 DNFs in a row is just not very meaningful.

[+Trucker Lee]

If this were to become an option, I would have to ask that the language be written to include only those with 3 or more CONSECUTIVE dnf's. Just because someone had a problem last year I would not want it excluded.

[+StarBrand]

If this were to become an option, I would have to ask that the language be written to include only those with 3 or more CONSECUTIVE dnf's. Just because someone had a problem last year I would not want it excluded.

How about 3 or more consecutive DNFs on different dates?

[+mrbort]

If this were to become an option, I would have to ask that the language be written to include only those with 3 or more CONSECUTIVE dnf's. Just because someone had a problem last year I would not want it excluded.

How about 3 or more consecutive DNFs on different dates?

 

I figure the more agile the pocket queries are, the better served individuals are since everyone has something different they want out of the game and consequently their pocket queries. Include the DNF option.... Include a radio button for consecutive and a place to fill in the number. Then everyone gets what they want. If people are opposed because the OP might miss viable caches, I think that it's pretty clear that he knows that but would love to search for sure things and this solution would be a quick and dirty way to include more sure things in the PQ.

 

I don't worry that when someone doesn't check the Mystery Cache button on their PQ they'll be missing out on my caches. It's their choice about what to search for and if puzzles aren't their thing then more power to em.

 

I haven't looked at the actual coding built into the PQs but the logic to include those options wouldn't be very difficult to add and if coded correctly, would only increase the server load when that option is checked. If everyone checks the option however, it could possibly slow down the process of PQ generation because the database query would have to look through all the logs rather than just the most recent find. In all, this last concern might be why that option isn't there already.

[+dakboy]

If this were to become an option, I would have to ask that the language be written to include only those with 3 or more CONSECUTIVE dnf's. Just because someone had a problem last year I would not want it excluded.

How about 3 or more consecutive DNFs on different dates?

It'd have to be this way. Otherwise a group of 3 people caching together could instantly "kill" a cache for this PQ criterion.

 

I think you'd also have to set this up such that if you had 3 or more consecutive DNFs on different dates, with no Found log more recent than the most recent DNF, the cache would be included in the PQ results.

[+Kit Fox]

I figure the more agile the pocket queries are, the better served individuals are since everyone has something different they want out of the game and consequently their pocket queries. Include the DNF option.... Include a radio button for consecutive and a place to fill in the number. Then everyone gets what they want. If people are opposed because the OP might miss viable caches, I think that it's pretty clear that he knows that but would love to search for sure things and this solution would be a quick and dirty way to include more sure things in the PQ.

 

This is my issue in a nutshell. PQs and extensive reading of descriptions/ review of photo galleries, and the review of bookmarks, are the tools I use to get the most out of geocaching. All i'm asking for are tools that would make geocaching more fun for me.

[+mrbort]

I figure the more agile the pocket queries are, the better served individuals are since everyone has something different they want out of the game and consequently their pocket queries. Include the DNF option.... Include a radio button for consecutive and a place to fill in the number. Then everyone gets what they want. If people are opposed because the OP might miss viable caches, I think that it's pretty clear that he knows that but would love to search for sure things and this solution would be a quick and dirty way to include more sure things in the PQ.

 

This is my issue in a nutshell. PQs and extensive reading of descriptions/ review of photo galleries, and the review of bookmarks, are the tools I use to get the most out of geocaching. All i'm asking for are tools that would make geocaching more fun for me.

 

Like I said, I completely agree with adding as much functionality to the already considerably able PQ options but think that perhaps what we see as simple may not be. If the option to look at all DNFs ever would be added, the server query of the database would have to not only scan the date last found but also scan every single log tallying the DNFs. It depends on their code as to whether it would be easily done but consider that this would have to be done for each of the 500 initial (and subsequent expanded) queries. This would probably considerably increase the processing time. However, as a compromise I don't think that a 2consecutive, most recent DNF filter would add too much as far as processing. Already the query has to scan through and look for the most recent find. Just add a variable to increment for DNFs before that found log is found and if it goes above a threshold, it would be tossed. It would probably do a better job of filtering those "probably gone" caches than a tally of DNFs ever.

 

Sorry.... just nerding out a bit thinking about the requirements

 

But it's something to consider if you push it as an articulated suggestion (rather than in the forums) that you might present some options and also your reasoning. I'm new to these forums so I don't know how feature implementation is done/decided upon. In the forums I coded that only have around 1k members, it's a less formal thing where I just read about it via a PM and decide whether I have the time to implement it.

 

Good luck!

[robertlipe]

There are two aspects to this.

 

First, coding this is easy. I did exactly that in my tools back in '02 or '03. If you add a field that's the summation of the last five logs (I used the first character of the log type for Found and No Found and later extended it for needs maint, SBA, etc.) and pop that into a sortable column, the problem caches pop out for easy review.

 

NNNNF on a 1/1 with a ringer of a hint and 640 previous "that was easy" means that cache isn't there.

 

NNFNFN on a 4/2 means it's just plain a hard cache.

 

Second, I think that if you're reviewing caches in a hunt area and take the time to figure out cases like the NNNNF one above and do the detective work to determine that the cache owner hasn't logged in in five years, that's it's been confirmed missing by previous finders, several of the frownies were by independent (experienced) people and not caused by dead batteries, rain, etc. . you're doing your fellow cachers a disservice by NOT pressing that SBA button so it attracts the attention of a reviewer.

 

Obviously, not every frownie needs to be turned into an SBA, but with a little effort, you can spot the ones that are "clearly" missing and get them out of circulation for everyone. It's hard to automate that authoritatively, but a human at a desk can often be pretty confident when a cache really isn't there.