how would you handle this

[namiboy]

i was looking for a geocache last year and couldn't find it. i noticed the area around gz had some recent work done, so i thought maybe it was moved or gone. i knew going in it was a toughy. i emailed the co to ask if he'd checked on it recently and he replied with a basic hint, but no answer to if he had checked on it. so i just decided to keep an eye on it. since then there have been no finds and at least 6 dnf's. i say at least 6 because one dnf said they looked with two others. i don't want to bug the co, but i want to know if it's there or not. how would you handle this?

[+StarBrand]

If the difficulty is set at a 4 or 5 - let it go - don't worry about it.

 

Anything less for difficulty and I would ask the owner for a check - if I didn't get a good response within a month - file the NA (needs archived) log and then move on with life.

[+GrizzFlyer]

Couple of different choices:

 

1: Go back, look again with the CO's hint in mind, if you're still convinced the cache is gone, use the Needs Maintenance log and see what happens. If nothing in a week or so, log a Should Be Archived log. That brings it to the attention of the local reviewer.

 

2: Forget the additional look-see and the Needs Maintenance log, and just go for the SBA if you're certain the cache is gone.

 

3: LIG. That's -Let It Go-. Forgetaboutit.

[+Touchstone]

I'd probably post my DNF and move on. We had one last week that defied our best attempts, even with five people looking. It had maybe 3 DNF's before ours. Long story short, it was found 2 days ago by a couple of out of towners

 

That one was a 3 Star Difficulty (maybe adjusted to 4 recently, but I'm not sure). If it were a 1 Star D, I would have probably been tempted to post a Needs Maintenance Log on it at the least. I know I'm bad at micro's, but I don't think I'm totally blind.....yet

 

Have fun, find some easy ones. You'll get over it like I did.

[+t4e]

"getting over it" is not the point

 

if that is what everyone does than many more people will go for a non-existent cache

 

the point of this game is that we all help each other, being by replacing a broken ziploc bag, a soggy log, posting DNF's as to give potential cachers the heads up

and if worse comes to worse request the cache be archived

 

"one for all and all for one" is my motto in this game

Edited February 2, 2010 by t4e

[+gearhedd]

I just had one of my caches have 8 dnf's or so, and thought it was time to check on it. This was after an experienced cacher had trouble. When I saw a few dnf's from new cachers I gave it some time. I find once one cacher has posted a dnf, that the next cacher to look will not look as long knowing it may not be there and post a dnf as well. It sometimes is a snow ball affect. I was 95% sure my cache was still there and sure enough it was, hidden a bit better but still there and shouldn't have been that much harder.

 

I would not like it if someone posted Needs maintenance or Need Achived because they could not find it. At least before they gave me sometime to check on the cache myself.

 

On another note, it is nice for cachers to post dnf's before asking for a hint. I get this all the time. Or finally post as Found and in the post say this was their third time to GZ abd never posted a DNF..

[+DragonsWest]

i was looking for a geocache last year and couldn't find it. i noticed the area around gz had some recent work done, so i thought maybe it was moved or gone. i knew going in it was a toughy. i emailed the co to ask if he'd checked on it recently and he replied with a basic hint, but no answer to if he had checked on it. so i just decided to keep an eye on it. since then there have been no finds and at least 6 dnf's. i say at least 6 because one dnf said they looked with two others. i don't want to bug the co, but i want to know if it's there or not. how would you handle this?

 

Sometimes the really are there, you're just not looking at it right or something. If CO isn't much help you might nudge one of the more recent finders for a suggestion.

 

As Toro Cache is an oldie and a goodie I was ready to do what was necessary to keep it alive when I saw the string of DNFs. I had a new cammo can ready to go, stocked with goodies and made the trip down to the park ready to replace ... a cache which was sitting right where it should have been. Heck, I couldn't believe people hadn't tripped over it. Sometimes expanding search radius helps as original hiders sometimes haven't the best readings when they scamper back home to create the cache page (some, as other threads have mentioned, have been very far off.) It's better to not hide at all if you can't get 3 satellites.

Edited February 2, 2010 by DragonsWest

[+WRASTRO]

I would post my DNF and place a watch on the cache just so I would be aware of additional activity. It is up to the co to decide if maintenance is needed. Since you haven't found the cache you are not in a position to determine if the cache needs maintenance. That said, if it were my cache I would be checking on it.

[Andronicus]

If there are several DNFs in a row, and I have given it a good search, I will post a NM log something like: "Lookes like it is time for the CO to check on this one." If there are a few more DNFs and I have searched again, then I have (on 2 ocasions) posted a NA log. One time the CO replaced the cache, the other time the CO archived the cache. A NA log is what seems to get COs to take action. Doesn't realy matter what action is taken, as long as somehting is done (verify it is still there, replace it, or arcive it).

[namiboy]

thanks everyone for the suggestions. i think i'll just continue to keep a watch on it and see what happens.

[knowschad]

thanks everyone for the suggestions. i think i'll just continue to keep a watch on it and see what happens.

What is the difficulty on it? That you received a response from the cache owner is a good thing, but has he been actively caching and/or checking the website (you can see that on his profile page)? Unless it is a high difficulty, 7 DNFs (if in a row) would make me very suspicious, particularily with the work going on that you mentioned.

[+GrateBear]

It is frustrating when a CO does not respond. I've had two recently that were not being addressed. On had 6 months of DNFs, so I posted a NM, after which the moderator said it would be archived if not taken care of. Within a couple of days, the CO (who lived quite out of the area but had been on-line recently) found someone to adopt it. The other had been ignored for months despite many DNFs. I posted a NA and the very next day they fixed it and deleted my post. Go figure!

[+Crow-T-Robot]

If there are several DNFs in a row, and I have given it a good search, I will post a NM log something like: "Lookes like it is time for the CO to check on this one."

 

Please don't do that. Need Maintainance logs should be used when you FIND the cache and note that it's in need of attention. If you don't find the cache...log the DNF and leave it up to the owner to determine if they need to check on the cache. Of course, that is assuming the CO is active and responsive to his emails. If not, that's where the NA comes into play.

[+sbell111]

I got two things out of the OP's post:

 

1) The cache is a 'toughie'.

2) It has seven DNFs on it.

 

Tough caches collect DNFs. For all I know, those seven people all looked for it at the same time during an attempt at the new one-day caching record and didn't find it during the two minutes that they allotted for the cache.

 

If you searched for it, enter a DNF. Go back and try again, if you wish. Otherwise, ignore the cache.

[+Odie442]

On my caches that are hard I will look to see who the cacher is that posts the DNF. If they are newbies I will let it ride for a while, but if they are long termers I will check on it. Also I have found that when looking I also take into consideration how many finds the hider has. If they are new I tend to expand my search a little farther out, but if they are LT's then usually it is either hidden REALLY GOOD, or it could be missing and I will watch it.

 

I am one who does not agree with the deleting of DNF logs if the CO verifies the cache is there. I have had an experience where a CO placed a cache, there were 2 DNF's before mine, then I looked. I posted my DNF's (with pictures of the area). went back a couple days later with another cacher and looked again. We both posted DNF's. Another group of 12 looked and DNF'd. The CO finally went out and verified it was there and deleted ALL the DNF logs. I went back out again knowing they verified it was there and still DNF'd. Posted my DNF and a little while later the CO went out and was upset the container was now gone. They replaced (modified) the hide and again deleted the 3 DNF's that were posted. I have since refused to look for this cache because there is no sense bothering to look for it when the CO is delete happy.

 

Odie

[+wimseyguy]

thanks everyone for the suggestions. i think i'll just continue to keep a watch on it and see what happens.

What is the difficulty on it? That you received a response from the cache owner is a good thing, but has he been actively caching and/or checking the website (you can see that on his profile page)? Unless it is a high difficulty, 7 DNFs (if in a row) would make me very suspicious, particularily with the work going on that you mentioned.

 

I'd also look at the previous activity on the cache to determine my next move. If a cache has a streak of being found regularly and then gets 7 DNF's I would be more likely to think it might be missing than one that has a 75% find ratio with DNF's mixed in the finds.

 

I DNF'd one on Sunday that has been found continuously but started off with 5-6 DNF's. It is a toughie. I'll go back another day and look some more. I DNF'd one the previous weekend that had 50+ finds in a row before our DNF and the one the weekend before us. I'll bet that one is gone.

 

edit-typo

Edited February 3, 2010 by wimseyguy

[+DanOCan]

I'd also look at the previous activity on the cache to determine my next move. If a cache has a streak of beinf found regularly and then gets 7 DNF's I would be more likely to think it might be missing than one that has a 75% find ratio with DNF's mixed in the finds.

 

That is also my approach. I look at two factors: the past log history of the cache and the Difficulty rating. If a cache is rated as a 4 or 5 star for Difficulty and there is a series of DNFs it isn't necessarily cause for alarm. If the cache had 75 straight Finds and then I see 5 or 6 DNFs and it is supposed to be a 1-star that raises more concern.

 

Based on those considerations my approach would involve two or three steps:

 

1) Log my DNF.

 

2) OPTIONAL: Post a NM log. Many times our reviewer does sweeps for caches where the NM attribute has been set for an unacceptable amount of time and if he/she agrees that the cache appears to be MIA he/she will often Disable the cache and then Archive it if the owner doesn't respond.

 

3) Move on to the next one.

[Andronicus]

If there are several DNFs in a row, and I have given it a good search, I will post a NM log something like: "Lookes like it is time for the CO to check on this one."

 

Please don't do that. Need Maintainance logs should be used when you FIND the cache and note that it's in need of attention. If you don't find the cache...log the DNF and leave it up to the owner to determine if they need to check on the cache. Of course, that is assuming the CO is active and responsive to his emails. If not, that's where the NA comes into play.

 

I have to dissagree. A NM log is the correct thing when there is good reason to suspect the cache is gone. NA should only be used in this scenario when it appears the CO is unwilling or unable to maintian the cache.

[EJKorvette]

i was looking for a geocache last year and couldn't find it. i noticed the area around gz had some recent work done, so i thought maybe it was moved or gone. i knew going in it was a toughy. i emailed the co to ask if he'd checked on it recently and he replied with a basic hint, but no answer to if he had checked on it. so i just decided to keep an eye on it. since then there have been no finds and at least 6 dnf's. i say at least 6 because one dnf said they looked with two others. i don't want to bug the co, but i want to know if it's there or not. how would you handle this?

 

Are you an experienced geocacher? I ask this because I am just getting my feet wet. The closest cache to me (across the street on Okeechobee Blvd. from the entrance to Century Village) was a DNF for my first time, and today it would have been also if by chance the guy who was profiled last night on WPBF-TV as a member of a strange secret group called "Geocachers" hadn't out of nowhere asked me "Looking for the cache"? When he showed me where it actually was it was a head-smacker.

 

So because of my inexperience (found only my second cache today) this too would have been a DNF.

 

EJKorvette aka Evan

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I have to dissagree. A NM log is the correct thing when there is good reason to suspect the cache is gone.

 

Emphasis mine. You arrive at GZ and the place is bulldozed. Good reason. The cache hint or description tells you to look in the real big tree near the wall. Real big tree near the wall has been cut down and/or removed. Good reason. Looking really hard but not finding the cache. Not a good reason. I've seen NM logs used for the latter enough times over.

 

I still hold to the belief that a NM log is used AFTER you find the cache and not until. Most of my caches are pretty easy finds, so a NM WOULD get my attention. However, if I get a NM on my more difficult cache simply because the cacher couldn't find it (or one of the waypoints), I'd just clear the NM flag and move on. Those are the ones that smack of ego, to me.

[+Castle Mischief]

What would I do? I'd log a DNF and put the cache on my watch list and probably not look for it until I had some more information either in the form of subsequent logs by other seekers or a note from the CO. I probably wouldn't ask the CO for a hint unless I had some reason to think this was a really cool hide.

 

How would I respond to another cacher that didn't find my cache?

 

If they post a DNF- probably wait until I see a second DNF post from another cacher. If several weeks go by and no new logs of any type I'd check on it and put a note on the page stating it's condition.

 

If they post a Needs Maintenance- I'd check on the cache and go from there. Either fix it up and post an Owner Maintenance log to clear the NM or take the cache out of the game if the situation warrants it.

 

If they post a NA log- I'd check on the cache and either post a note if it's still there and in good shape or if the area has been razed and the cache is gone, probably archive it.

 

Regardless of how the cacher posted (assuming it wasn't rude) that they thought the cache was missing I wouldn't (and don't) see the need to take offense.

[Andronicus]

I have to dissagree. A NM log is the correct thing when there is good reason to suspect the cache is gone.

 

Emphasis mine. You arrive at GZ and the place is bulldozed. Good reason. The cache hint or description tells you to look in the real big tree near the wall. Real big tree near the wall has been cut down and/or removed. Good reason. Looking really hard but not finding the cache. Not a good reason. I've seen NM logs used for the latter enough times over.

 

I still hold to the belief that a NM log is used AFTER you find the cache and not until. Most of my caches are pretty easy finds, so a NM WOULD get my attention. However, if I get a NM on my more difficult cache simply because the cacher couldn't find it (or one of the waypoints), I'd just clear the NM flag and move on. Those are the ones that smack of ego, to me.

 

I have, on several occasions, used a NM log when, after a huge string of "easy find"s, there are several DNFs, then I give it a thurough look and DNF it. Every time I have followed that process, the cache has been missing, and the CO eventualy either replaced it, or archived it. That is as good of a reason as any to post a NM log.

[+Renegade Knight]

... how would you handle this?

 

From an owners perspective a DNF may or may not be cause for alarm. I have at least one cache that gets DNF's like others get finds. It's rated appropriatly. It really is that hard.

 

So the answer is "it depends" and that's specific to the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

....I have to dissagree. A NM log is the correct thing when there is good reason to suspect the cache is gone. NA should only be used in this scenario when it appears the CO is unwilling or unable to maintian the cache.

 

I also have to disagree. A NM Log is a good log for when the cache actually needs maintaince. Not when you think it may need maintenance. That would be the "I think it needs maintance log" which doesn't exist.

 

It's my job as the owner to look at the evidence and see what I think that I need to do. It's not my job to check on a cahce and make sure it's there for you to find. It can become a full time job to verify a cache after every find to make sure the next guy can find it too. Finders assume certain risks. One of them is that the cache will be gone, or that they aren't up to the job of actually finding it.