Jump to content

Skipping DNFs

GeekinTX

By GeekinTX
in Website

Followers 1

Recommended Posts

GeekinTX

+GeekinTX

Posted
Posted (edited)

I made this suggestion to the Groundspeak staff and was advised to put it out in the forums for discussion:

 

I'd like to suggest the addition of a status flag for use in pocket queries called "Attempted". This flag would work much like the "Found" flag, but would be set when either a "Found it" or "Didn't find It" is logged.

 

Generally when I'm searching for a geocache and am not able to find it, I'll log a DNF when I've given up.

 

With the GPS receiver feature "Find next closest", I'd usually prefer to NOT include caches that I've previously logged as DNF. Other times I might want to spend a day trying to avenge DNFs. The use of the "Ignore" list might solve this problem, but an automated method would be nice.

 

This would be to find caches that have never been attempted:

 

4112222241_fb826756cb_o.gif

 

This would be find those that had been attempted but not found (avenging DNFs):

 

4112222867_f85ffd0dae_o.gif

 

Not checking either new selection would have no effect.

 

Thanks for your consideration and comments.

Edited by GeekinTexas
Link to comment
GeekinTX

+GeekinTX

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I like the general idea but "attempted" is poor wording. It would need to be very explicit - "Include Caches I have not found Where I logged a DNF" - "Do not include caches I have not found Where I logged a DNF".

 

I'm not hung up on the word "Attempted". I was looking for something short enough to use in a PQ form, and something less confusing than "Not not found". :)

Edited by GeekinTexas
Link to comment
GeekinTX

+GeekinTX

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

But, there's the ones I'll never got back to, and they ones I'll keep going back until I find the blasted thing! Would be nice to have two categories for sorting porpoises.

 

I agree with that... But if I'm never going back, I'll mark it as "Ignore", and I always use the "Are not on my ignore list" option in my pocket queries.

 

(Or did you just write that so you could use the "sorting porpoises" phrase?) :lol:

Edited by GeekinTexas
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

But, there's the ones I'll never got back to, and they ones I'll keep going back until I find the blasted thing! Would be nice to have two categories for sorting porpoises.

 

I agree with that... But if I'm never going back, I'll mark it as "Ignore", and I always use the "Are not on my ignore list" option in my pocket queries.

 

(Or did you just write that so you could use the "sorting porpoises" phrase?) :lol:

I do the same thing. The ignore button has many uses....
Link to comment
flask

+flask

Posted
Posted

...or you could just log your DNFs.

 

Maybe you don't understand my suggestion. I *do* log my DNFs, and I think making a change like I'm suggesting would encourage others to log their DNFs more frequently/regularly, too.

 

well, if you only log them when you've given up as opposed to when you just didn't find a cache, then it's not really an accurate representation, and any data management problems resulting are therefore your own problem.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

...or you could just log your DNFs.

 

Maybe you don't understand my suggestion. I *do* log my DNFs, and I think making a change like I'm suggesting would encourage others to log their DNFs more frequently/regularly, too.

 

well, if you only log them when you've given up as opposed to when you just didn't find a cache, then it's not really an accurate representation, and any data management problems resulting are therefore your own problem.

What makes you think he doesn't log all his DNFs? He wasn't asking to filter out any cache he has DNFed....
Link to comment
AZcachemeister

AZcachemeister

Posted
Posted

This MIGHT be useful to some.

 

But, there is no way to manage the list.

If you suddenly decide you would like to give that cache you DNFed six months ago another try, you either have to delete your DNF (bad form in my opinion), or 'un-ignore' your WHOLE DNF list.

 

So, I recommend the ignore list for caches you no longer want to hunt.

Link to comment
GeekinTX

+GeekinTX

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

P.S. To add that the above is assuming your paid premium membership hasn't been removed without warning and your bookmark lists and PQs are intact.

 

I kind of figured that goes without saying, since these are all premium membership features we're discussing.

 

But to clarify what Flask was talking about:

 

I log a DNF when I've given up on that particular day and moved on.

 

If I never intend to try again for whatever reason, I'll also mark the cache Ignored.

 

Currently, I can separate caches into three groups:

1) Caches I'm ignoring (never included in my PQs)

2) Caches I've found

3) Caches I haven't found

 

What I'd like to be able to do is to add another group:

4) Caches I've tried to find (by logging Found or Not Found)

 

This group wouldn't be mutually exclusive with 2) or 3) though.

 

Logged DNF . . . . . . Not Found . . . Attempted

Logged Found . . . . .Found . . . . . . Attempted

Logged Both . . . . . .Found . . . . . . Attempted

Logged Neither . . . .Not Found . . . .Not Attempted

 

Basically, what I'm looking for is a way to create a PQ of caches for which I've never logged a Found *or* a DNF.

Edited by GeekinTexas
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
OK, I think I understand that you want a PQ for caches you didn't find on a previous attempt, but have not yet ignored.

Is that about right?

Seems like something that could easily be managed using GSAK.

The non-GSAK solution would be to create a DNF bookmark list and run a PQ on that. He could still ignore them that way too.
Link to comment
GeekinTX

+GeekinTX

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

The non-GSAK solution would be to create a DNF bookmark list and run a PQ on that. He could still ignore them that way too.

 

That's exactly what I do right now. It's a bit of a pain, which is why I'm making this suggestion. And I still can't create a PQ that only returns things that are NOT on a bookmark list.

 

I could also create a "Found It" bookmark list and put everything I find on that. But isn't it nice that geocaching.com sets that "Found" flag for you automatically, and lets you create PQs based on Found or Not Found?

Edited by GeekinTexas
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

The non-GSAK solution would be to create a DNF bookmark list and run a PQ on that. He could still ignore them that way too.

 

That's exactly what I do right now. It's a bit of a pain, which is why I'm making this suggestion. And I still can't create a PQ that only returns things that are NOT on a bookmark list.

 

I could also create a "Found It" bookmark list and put everything I find on that. But isn't it nice that geocaching.com sets that "Found" flag for you automatically, and lets you create PQs based on Found or Not Found?

In that case, you only have one non-GSAK option: You can add them to your ignore list and exclude caches you've ignored from your normal PQ. The ignore list is the only bookmark list you can do that with. Then you can also run a separate PQ for all the caches on your ignore list.
Link to comment
GeekinTX

+GeekinTX

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

The non-GSAK solution would be to create a DNF bookmark list and run a PQ on that. He could still ignore them that way too.

 

I don't know how to do that. Is it really possible? I'm not aware of a way to build a list of "Things that are on this bookmark list (DNF) but are not on this other bookmark list (Ignored)". When I create a PQ from a bookmark list, the options are pretty limited, and don't include things like ignored, owned, found, etc. You just get what's on the list.

 

Thus the reason for this suggestion.

Edited by GeekinTexas
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...